Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Fisherman]

Yep, Joel, she did take her cachous out, and she had her neck cut - but what this suggests to me is that she did not see it coming. She did not expect to be attacked by whomever she spent time with, cachous in hand.

The best!
Fisherman

[joelhall]

The cachous, Gary, may well prove to be a very decisive clue to understanding the proceedings inside the yard. She would not have produced them in a situation were she felt threatened or was subjected to violence. She must have felt at ease as she did so.

but.... she did and she was. someone tussled with her. someone sliced her neck open.

[Fisherman]

The time he would have to make the distance from Berner Street to Mitre Square and strike up a conversation with Eddowes would have been about five minutes if we are to believe in Lawendes sighting. That took place at about 1.35. And even if Jack was quick, I donīt see that he could have been THAT quick. Of course there is a moment of give and take here, but it could equally work in the other direction.

And no, the way I see things, the cachous is not a reason to look away from BS man as the killer - it is the exact opposite, as I showed in my former post.
With "your" guy on stage, why did she bring the cachous out at all?

And you still have to deal with our keen-eyed mrs Mortimer, Gary! How did "your" man enter and leave - and when?

The best!
Fisherman

[Scotland Yard]

The cachous, Gary, may well prove to be a very decisive clue to understanding the proceedings inside the yard. She would not have produced them in a situation were she felt threatened or was subjected to violence. She must have felt at ease as she did so.

Agreed. All the more reason to believe it was not the BS man she went into the yard with. There's still any number of possibilities why she looked at this guy and didn't correlate him with JTR.

Short jacket and a sailors hat, Gary; does that sound familiar? The story has not always been given credit, much because it does not fit in with Eddowesīdemise - there would not have been time enough to reach Mitre Square, sweet-talk Eddowes and get the job done.

But who was wearing a watch in these reports? All it takes is for an imprecision of ten/fifteen minutes and its not necessarily impossible (assuming that the reports are both reliable and the man in question was indeed Stride's murderer.) What is the distance between Chruch Lane and Mire Square? And even if the distance is too far to make it possible for the man in question to have walked in the time available, who's to say for sure he's connected to the Dutfield Yard murder anyway. Could just be coincidence.

Sauce for the goose, eh?

Regards
Gary

[Scotland Yard]

It is still eminently valid to consider the background probability of encountering a violent, possibly drunken, man in that area who happened to have on him a knife - before we leap to the conclusion that two "single events" are somehow beyond coincidence.

I agree that its most valid to consider the possibility and I'm certainly not saying that its beyond coincidence.

In some ways, I think, the situation with Stride's death resembles that of the Wallace murder case of 1931. Just about every piece of evidence will support entirely opposing views.

For my money though I just find it odd reasoning that insists that random coincidence is part and parcel of any given night in the East End of 1888 but then gives much less credence to random, anomalous and by their nature, 'coincidental' events that might have affected the outcome of a Ripper attack.

As I mentioned earlier, The Yorkshire Ripper's first two attacks proved non-fatal because of such random factors. A neighbour (as in that case) 'coincidentally' being in position to interrupt a murder can hardly be considered beyond coincidence either, can it?

Regards,
Gary

[Fisherman]

Gary asks:

"Could it be that in his account of this detail, Schwartz was trying to downplay the woman's distress in order to minimise the apprearance of his own cowardliness -even callousness- of not lingering at the scene?"

I donīt think so, Gary; I think he came clean at the time he gave his testimony to the police, only realizing afterwards what kind of role he had awarded himself.
And what happens in the Star interwiew? He suddenly puts a knife in Pipemans hand, and thus gives himself a good reason to run away. THAT is when I think he tried to polish on his smudged reputation.

Your suggestion of an old customer, well known to Stride, is not a bad one, although it has itīs drawbacks. Why was the newcomer not seen by Fanny Mortimer, coming or leaving? Did he surface the minute after Schwartz had run off, kill Stride in the next minute, allowing himself time to get away clean? It makes for a very pressed schedule, Gary! And IF he was an old customer, then his scam would have been to take Stride into the yard for paid-for-sex. And if so, what in the world did she take her cachous out for? She had already secured him as a customer, and if she was to perform oral sex on him and needed the cachous for that purpose, surely she would not take them out in advance?
The cachous, Gary, may well prove to be a very decisive clue to understanding the proceedings inside the yard. She would not have produced them in a situation were she felt threatened or was subjected to violence. She must have felt at ease as she did so.

All of this is why I put the jigsaw puzzle together the way I do: She knew BS man, he tried to drag her away but lost his grip on her, which is why she fell. She cried out in a lowered voice as it was never any true violence involved in his approach, just a failed attempt to drag her with him. They went into the yard together to secure privacy. She had the upper hand there, since he was repentful and wanted her to stay with him. She took her cachous out because she felt at ease and on top of things. It all went well until she told him that she wanted him out of her life. He pulls her of balance and cuts her, but panicks afterwards, realizing what he has done. In the darkness he cannot see the extents of his attack to the full. He may have fallen alongside her; the yard was muddy and slippery. He tries her right hand, palpating for a pulse, using his thumb on the wrist and setting off numerous dots with his fingers on the back of her hand, the way inexperienced people do - it should be the other way around, with the fingers on the inside of the wrist and the thumb on the back of the hand. He leaves.
About 1.30, in nearby Church Lane, a man is reported to have been spotted wiping his hands, sitting on a doorstep in Church Lane. It was said that he turned his face away as the witness looked at him.
The text of the Star in full:
"From two different sources we have the story that a man, when passing through Church Lane at about half past one, saw a man sitting on a doorstep and wiping his hands. As everyone is on the lookout for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, where upon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor's hat."

Short jacket and a sailors hat, Gary; does that sound familiar? The story has not always been given credit, much because it does not fit in with Eddowesīdemise - there would not have been time enough to reach Mitre Square, sweet-talk Eddowes and get the job done.
But if we speculate that the man in Church Lane was not Eddowesīkiller - but Strides! - then it all becomes another matter, does it not? And suddenly we donīt need to bring another man on the stage, we can explain why Fanny Mortimer saw nobody, we get an explanation to the lowered voice as Stride cried out, we realize why BS man tried to pull her into the street and - and! - we can explain them frigginīcachous.

No serial killer. Simple domestic violence. The second domestic brawl in London that night that ended with a man cutting his womans neck to the bone.

The best, Gary!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Thinking this over, what's the 'background probability' of someone having their throat cut by a serial killer who not only favoured the cutting of throats but also was known to be at large in the area that night.?

The probabiliy approaches unity in the case of Eddowes, Gary - because she had her throat deeply cut, her abdomen opened, the viscera displaced and abdominal organs taken away, all of which happened in a handful of minutes.

So much for the "serial killer who favoured deep throat cutting followed by rapid disembowelment". We don't have this with Stride and, "interruption" theories notwithstanding, the fact remains that she was killed by someone who inflicted a single, comparatively simple, cut to her throat, and nothing else.

It is still eminently valid to consider the background probability of encountering a violent, possibly drunken, man in that area who happened to have on him a knife - before we leap to the conclusion that two "single events" are somehow beyond coincidence.

[Scotland Yard]

But why, Gary, would a woman in the Jack the Ripper scare keep her voice down, and let her self be hushed as she is backed into a dark yard? And why would she settle for taking her cachous out as her assailant gets ready to cut her?
Fisherman

Hmmm.

Because she knew him already perhaps. Maybe an old customer that she consciously or otherwise discounted as being the killer despite his rough ways, though I admit this doesn't sound very likely. All the more reason to go with the idea that the BS man left the scene moments after Schwartz did and was replaced a few minutes later by Stride's actual assailant who was unseen by anyone but her. A customer she perhaps felt no reason to be afraid of as he may have been an old regular and someone, again, she discounted as being a danger. Possibly (as has been suggested before) the newcomer had played the knight in shining armour and seen off BS man thus putting Stride at her ease with him.

It's certainly an interesting part of Schwartz's account that he describes the woman screaming three times 'but not loudly'. I mean a scream by its very nature is a loud piercing sound.

Could it be that in his account of this detail, Schwartz was trying to downplay the woman's distress in order to minimise the apprearance of his own cowardliness -even callousness- of not lingering at the scene?

Regards
Gary

[Fisherman]

But why, Gary, would a woman in the Jack the Ripper scare keep her voice down, and let her self be hushed as she is backed into a dark yard? And why would she settle for taking her cachous out as her assailant gets ready to cut her? Makes no sense to me.

The best!
Fisherman

[Scotland Yard]

Harry writes:
I think what Harrry means is that the same man scenario involves BS man first manhandling Stride, then calming down, and only thereafter killing her.

Oh, upon re-reading this I suspect you're right...I got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Still see no reason for any pacification though. The argument might well have escalated from there on in - perhaps in deliberately hushed tones for whatever reason. Scwartz's opinion of the woman's crying out even when thrown down was that she did so in a somewhat muted manner.
Gary

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:
"Aw, Fisherman! It's a generous theory, but I think it's probably a gross over-romanticisation of the situation...for one, I doubt that the inhabitants of fair Whitechapel gave a hoot if they were observed having a bit of a ding-dong. Secondly, I'm sorry. I might be a very shallow person. But I'm pretty dubious that some casual acquaintance of Ms Stride would have been that enamoured of a toothless, befouled and boozed up old woman to the extent that he would have to kill her if he thought anyone else might have her."

You are using generalizations here, Claire! "The inhabitants of fair Whitechapel" were not a homogenous mass - they were bold people, shy people, careless people, nervous people, stupid people, witty people, street-wise people and asocial people, just like everywhere else in the world. Generalizations often help to build a simple case, but they really should be avoided since they are extremely unscientific. Remember the scene with Best and Gardner, jeering at Stride and her companion? One of them decided to tease Liz with the remark, “Watch out, that’s Leather Apron getting round you!” And the last Best and Gardner saw of Stride was as she and her amorous gentleman friend made a dash through the rain in the direction of Commercial Road.
So in that case it seems that the couple preferred to leave, since they did not like the comments made about them. In other words, they took their private life matters somewhere where they were on their own, Claire.

As for Strideīs looks, she was described as a girl in her twenties by Diemschitz, and it was said that "traces of prettyness were still about her" as she lie in the morgue. And little would she need to be beautiful to have somebody infatuated with her. Eighty year old men have killed their spouses out of jealousy.

It is not the first time my scenario has been called over-romanticisation, Claire. But it is useless to do so, since domestic brawls is by far the most common reason for a man killing a woman. No romantics involved, just grey, dreary everyday possesiveness.
If you are looking for romanticisation, you ought to bring a colourful serial killer or something like that on the stage - THAT would make for a very colourful scene indeed!

The best, Claire!

Fisherman

[claire]

If BS man was her aquiantance, then that would provide exactly the type of background that could result in that chain of events. He throws her to the ground, and sje gets mad at him. She takes him into the yard (since domestic quarrels are usually not something you do in public) to tell him off, and at that stage he is repentful. He hopes she will forgive him, and take him back, but she does not. She tells him it is over, and that she does not want to see him again. Bingo, thatīs it - a red haze draws over his eyes and he kills her for the oldest of motives; nobody else can have her if he canīt.
That takes care of your problem, Harry, plus it provides us with a neat explanation to why she felt enough at ease to take her cachous out.

Aw, Fisherman! It's a generous theory, but I think it's probably a gross over-romanticisation of the situation...for one, I doubt that the inhabitants of fair Whitechapel gave a hoot if they were observed having a bit of a ding-dong. Secondly, I'm sorry. I might be a very shallow person. But I'm pretty dubious that some casual acquaintance of Ms Stride would have been that enamoured of a toothless, befouled and boozed up old woman to the extent that he would have to kill her if he thought anyone else might have her.

Of course, if she thought he'd already cleared off and headed into the yard for a previously arranged assignation--even if that was as casual as having done a punter from the club in that yard before and wondering if there might be a bit of trade if she went there again--then that's another matter. Maybe BS man had approached her for a bit of business and she'd knocked him back, thinking there'd be richer pickings in the yard. Heads in there, goes to freshen her nasty breath for an anticipated punter, BSM (no, not the British School of Motoring) follows her in, grabs her scarf from behind and does away with her in a fit of pique.

Then again, the anticipated richer pickings, from the club or otherwise, may well have been J. Ripper, Esq. (And I'm not ruling out the admittedly outside chance that he exits the club on his way to Mitre Sq for his pre-arranged with Kate, gets stridently propositioned by Stride, all of a tizz given her recent altercation, loses his temper because he's afraid of being delayed, and quickly dispatches her.)

[Fisherman]

Monty writes:

"Throat cuts are rarer than we have been told by some authors. Thus to have 2 in one night is unique."

Three, actually, Monty - but then you know that already! Like I have said before, I think that the press may have played a role, filling the pages with cut throats - it would be firmly placed in the back of the brain of each East End villain that a cut neck was a swift way to despatch of people. The method may actually have been somewhat popularized by the journalists of the day.
Then again, the statistic fact that stabbings are more common than throat-cuttings still stands. But there are many things that have to be weighed in when analyzing how much that actually tells us. One of them being that many knife wound victims receive their wounds in a brawl, where they may have a knife in their hand themselves. In such cases it is far more probable that the opponents will receive stabs than cut necks. Just to take one example.

The best, Monty!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:
"So if the same man scenario is to be accepted,there would have to be a period of his diminishing rage,then a time of pacification with a victim that would surely have viewed any approach with extreme caution.I simply can't accept it.Timing wouldn't allow it."

...and Gary questions it, thinking that Harry is speaking of the Mitre Square murder. But I donīt think he is, Gary! (Correct me if Iīm wrong, Harry)

I think what Harrry means is that the same man scenario involves BS man first manhandling Stride, then calming down, and only thereafter killing her.
And, Harry, I think that is wrong. If BS man was her aquiantance, then that would provide exactly the type of background that could result in that chain of events. He throws her to the ground, and sje gets mad at him. She takes him into the yard (since domestic quarrels are usually not something you do in public) to tell him off, and at that stage he is repentful. He hopes she will forgive him, and take him back, but she does not. She tells him it is over, and that she does not want to see him again. Bingo, thatīs it - a red haze draws over his eyes and he kills her for the oldest of motives; nobody else can have her if he canīt.
That takes care of your problem, Harry, plus it provides us with a neat explanation to why she felt enough at ease to take her cachous out.

The best, Harry!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"Because the circumstances are somewhat anomalous, doesn't make the Ripper NOT the killer"

Great argument, Mike. Iīve no idea how to manouvre around it. Then again, is this not something that could be said of every unsolved murder in that particular period? Just-because-she-was-poisoned,-that-does-not-prove-that-the-Ripper-did-not-do-it sort of thing?

The best,
Fisherman