Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[c.d.]

I just reread the posts here. It seems that nobody has really addressed the question I posed in the initial thread. Can a reasonable case be made for Jack appearing on the scene before the BS man?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Agreed 100%, and isn't a dock-proximity murder a little intriguing in the context of a dockside-labouring suspect? Someone who committed murders based on a familiarity with the different areas he lived and worked in; 29, 5"7 and stout. Just speculating aloud here, and "another occasion" is a sensible proposal, but you catch my drift."

I catch your drift, Ben, and I am with you down most parts of the road, although I donīt believe that BS man and Lawendes man were one and the same. Does not matter all that much, though, for the total picture, I think.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Do you not think the BS man was Liz Stride's killer?

Hi Ben,

I'm inclined to believe that the body of Schwartz's account is true. If true, it's my belief that Mr BS was quite probably Stride's killer.

The best!
Frank

[Fisherman]

C.d. asks:
"Can a reasonable case be made for Jack appearing on the scene before the BS man?"

It all lies in what is "reasonable", c.d, does it not? Myself, I donīt find it vey credible. I think that Jacl always had to realize that he would be pressed for time when he killed out in the streets, and therefore I donīt really see him scouting about before he kills.
Does not go to prove anything, of course, but that is how I see it.
It can also be argued that if she had a customer inside, she would perhaps have called out a little bit louder to alert that customer to her help when she was attacked. Then again, she would have been aware that there were two more guys in the street, and THAT did not make her raise her voice, did it?

So yes, of course he MAY have been in the yard when B S man arrived, just as he may have been a clubsman exiting the club, stumbling over Stride. The possibilities are there. But the same applies as always: We already HAVE a man in the picture, who has shown that he is prepared to inflict violence on Liz, and we have precious little time left to the moment when she was cut. BS man remains the top contender!

Oh, one more thing: You write, about the cachous: "Liz gets them out after the BS man has left so that she can use them to service Jack."
Service how? And why? If she already had secured him as a client, and had him inside the yard, what need was there to start munching on the cachous? I remain at the belief that the cachous were not connected to sex in any form in Dutfields Yard that evening, just as I donīt think that neither Stride nor the man she entered the yard with had sex on their minds.


The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

I just reread the posts here. It seems that nobody has really addressed the question I posed in the initial thread. Can a reasonable case be made for Jack appearing on the scene before the BS man?

Hi c.d.,

Like I said before, the scenario you suggest in your opening post would account for Mr BS's aggressiveness as a client. However, it wouldn't account for the different way in which the Ripper seems to have attacked Stride.

All the best,
Frank

[caz]

Besides, it could be argued that the Ripper seemed a lot more cautious about not being seen before or after his handiwork, so in that respect, that is a serial killer compared to whom B S man seems to use quite a different approach.

Still does not mean that you are wrong, though. And technically, I feel that B S man has never enjoyed the attention as a possible Ripper that he is entitled to. The reason I donīt favour him as our man admittedly has got a lot to do with personal chemistry, but there you are ...

The best!
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

Jack apparently didn’t give two hoots about whether he was seen or not before his handiwork (and ‘after’ doesn’t apply if nobody saw him fleeing from any murder scene). If Long could have seen Jack with Annie it didn’t stop him; if Lawende and his two mates could have seen Jack with Kate it didn’t stop him; if Cox, Hutchinson or Lewis could have seen Jack with Mary, or at least loitering near her room, it didn’t stop him. He could not have been certain at the time that nobody had a good enough gawp to recognise him again. If we assume that BS went on to murder Liz, he was seen with her by Schwartz and Pipe Man (and possibly by others earlier the same night) and it certainly didn’t stop him either.

But it’s all good, because if ‘personal chemistry’ still tells you, in the face of all these potential sightings, that Jack was far too cautious to allow himself to be seen with a strange woman before cutting her throat, you have a get-out because there’s no proof that anyone did see Liz with her killer. He could have come upon the scene, just as Schwartz and Pipe Man did, but been a sight more effective in ridding the woman of the oaf who was manhandling her. Or, as c.d wondered, he could already have been hanging around, unseen in the dark.

The chances of Jack coming across a potential victim being pestered or abused were the same, and arguably greater than the chances of two ordinary witnesses doing so. They were all out on the mean streets after midnight and Jack was actually out looking for a vulnerable female that very night to butter up and spread with his knife. Coincidence? What coincidence? It would be more surprising if he didn’t encounter any unfortunates in mid-confrontation with drunken lout, aggressive punter or disapproving resident.

Jack would have had everything to gain from feigning concern for a potential victim who had just been poorly treated by another man. Liz could not have been badly hurt during the witnessed encounter with BS, or there would have been some physical evidence of it. There is certainly no evidence that BS was armed with a knife when he was supposedly assaulting her. So it’s an exaggeration to claim this was a violent assault, and then argue that two violent assaults by different men in such a short space of time would be terribly unlikely.

Again, people want it both ways. They try to claim, with insufficient evidence, that it was an everyday event in the 1880s for men to go round the East End streets slitting women’s throats with sharp knives, to make it sound more convincing that someone other than Jack did this to Liz. But the moment it is suggested that an infinitely more commonplace drunken bully could have been pestering her as Jack was prowling nearby with his sharp knife, eager to find another vulnerable female throat to slit, the same people claim it’s too much to swallow.

I can’t see anything much wrong with BS being a bad-tempered Jack, teaching Liz a short sharp lesson for rejecting his request to go somewhere quieter. The only tiny fly in the ointment would be those cachous in her hand when she dies. So it works even better with BS as a bad-tempered bully who gives up when Jack arrives asserting his authority. He soon has the woman laughing again and lulled into a false sense of security. He hands her the packet of cachous as a token of his good faith, which distracts her long enough while she looks at what they are to whip out his knife and render her helpless.

Any sight, sound, movement or feeling of danger from that point in time could have caused the killer to lie low or flee as Liz lay dying or in the first moments after death. If, as you have suggested previously, the killer may have been compelled to leave the yard before he could even be sure she was dead, then Jack or no Jack, he could hardly have done a Polly on her, much less an Annie.

Love,

Caz
X

[Elias]

I just reread the posts here. It seems that nobody has really addressed the question I posed in the initial thread. Can a reasonable case be made for Jack appearing on the scene before the BS man?

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

I'm always back and forth on who killed Stride, and the details of what went on in those 15 minutes or so, at the moment I'm thinking that Stride was killed by BS man, and that Stride remained in his company after Schwartz witnessesed her being attacked...however, on this subject, I've often wondered if there was another man, could it be that he was in the club, and happened upon Stride while he was leaving? Essentially this would mean he was there before BS man, in the sense that he was in the club. It could also possibly provide an explanation for him getting out of the yard after Stride was discovered - a familliar face is less likely to come under suspicion.

[Ben]

BS is by far the most likely killer of Liz Stride, ripper or not, if Israel Schwartz told the truth and wasn't wildly awry in his estimation of the time.

I dare someone to disagree with that. Please someone disagree with that for the record. I'd be fascinated,

Why posit the existence of another attacker if the evidence says we've already got one? If the cachous is a "fly in the ointment" to BS being the killer, why is it any less of a fly in the ointment for the "Jack arrived minutes later" theory. It just concerns me that any witnessed behaviour that even remotely hints at peaked-cap local ruffianary is apt to be rejected on spurious grounds as not Jackish enough, and here is a case in point.

[perrymason]

...which assumes for no good reason that Broad-Shoulders man couldn't be the Ripper (his actions seem perfectly compatible with those of known serial killers) and also that Israel Schwartz's testimony is trustworthy in the first place.

I would agree on Schwartz Dan, but whether BSM is compatible with known serial killers, or whether he is compatible with what we believe the style and MO of the Whitechapel Murderer was, based on Polly then Annie, is another thing.

BSM is supposedly seen entering the scene weaving as he walks, he acosts a soon to be victim in front of witnesses supposedly, and he shouts at or to someone. I would think at the very least, quiet entrances and exits and discreet conversations were more his known "style" to that point.

cd......There is always a possibility that Broadshouldered Man left before Liz was cut, and Jack the Ripper, either waiting, or arriving, stepped in to kill her. Certainly its either BSM or Jack, or BSM as Jack....hardly conceivable we need to consider some other unseen, unknown man at this point.

So your idea is within the realm of possibility. But what of probability? What of known evidence that would support your idea?,...We know both Lave and Eagle said the yard was empty at approx 12:40...so your window is 5 minutes if Schwartz was accurate. Could he enter in 5 minutes, hide, then kill? Sure...its possible. Is it probable, based on the fact that from 12:45 to 12:46 Liz is still with BSM, the man who acosts her, outside the gates, and he is not seen leaving at all, but no-one is seen in front of the gates to the yard anymore, as per Fanny?

Is is probable that Jack the Ripper would cut only the throat, and once?

Is it probable that the Ripper would attract attention to himself by scuffling, then shouting, while in the company of his victim, who is killed within the next few minutes?

Is it probable that BSM would leave quietly if innocent of any further actions,... or rather more like he entered? Why is that not seen or heard?

Is it probable, that a woman seen acosted by a man a few minutes before being found dead a few yards away;

a) Had someone she could have called to help in the yard, but didnt?
b) Would have encountered a new unknown and unseen person from 12:46 until she is cut, when we do not know that her assailant has left her company yet?
c) Was killed by a man who is known primarily for his postmortem mutilations, despite having none?
d) Was likely a victim of escalated violence due to the assailants intoxication and anger, and was taken inside the yard where its dark and killed while still fueding with the man?

I think d) is probable. I know you hesitate to stray far from the Canonical guidelines pal, but factor it all....the statements, the witness accounts, the single cut, BSM, no other people seen in the vicinity after 12:46.....
We have a victim of what today might be described as a solicitation disagreement with a drunk and apparently aggressive man, and the woman is lying dead alone in a yard within 14 minutes.

Anyone could have showed up....you dont have to suggest Jack only...its whether there is any evidence to suggest that Liz was in any other company than BSM's when she was cut. And there is not.

My best regards cd, Dan.

[The Good Michael]

I sort of toy with the idea of BS being JTR and a Club member. Suppose he was setting up a liaison for later with Stride, but she needed money for the drink now and he couldn't get rid of her. Imagine, Stride harrassing JTR. All he wants to do is set up his kill for later and go to the club, but she wants to wait outside or keeps bugging him. He throws her down, but she won't leave. She suggests something about his character. He thinks she's onto something. He kills here in fear and anger, and now 'e's all edgy like. Eddowes is the direct result of his edginess. Just a thought.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:
"Jack apparently didn’t give two hoots about whether he was seen or not before his handiwork "

Apparently, Caz? Do we KNOW that Longīs man was Jack? That Lawendes man was? BS man?
Nope, Caz, we donīt. But we DO know that after a number of strikes, killing a handful of prostitutes, we have no certain sightings of the guy. To me, that does not spell that he apparently could not care less. Just as he would have taken care getting out of them venues, there is every reason to believe that he would avoid advertising arriving in them too loudly in the same manner.

"Coincidence? What coincidence?"

The coincidence that Jack should have stumbled on Stride being harassed at that exact moment, in that exact spot, Caz. Just like Ben argues in his post, BS man is of course by far the most probable killer, and to try and sweep away the argument that Jackīs sudden appearance on that stage would have been highly coincidental is to violate logic.

"Again, people want it both ways. They try to claim, with insufficient evidence, that it was an everyday event in the 1880s for men to go round the East End streets slitting women’s throats with sharp knives, to make it sound more convincing that someone other than Jack did this to Liz."

If you mean me specifically, Caz, feel free to spell it out. And if you do, I will of course tell you that you are grossly exaggerating my stance, since murder never was an everyday event. Murder is rare, thank God, and slitting throats is even rarer. But you do not have to do all that much reading up to recognize that when it came to armed murder in 1888, knives were by far the most common weapon, and when it came to using them, slitting peopleīs throats was a method that was used at numerous occasions. It was never something the Ripper was the only man to employ.

Moreover, in a situation where that very method of killing is advertised all over the papers of East End and London, the chances of somebody else than the Ripper employng it of course rise. MacKenzie and Coles found out about that soon enough, according to what most researchers speculate.

So the evidence is there, Caz, and you are as free as I am to use it. But please donīt misquote me, exaggerate what I am saying or put words in my mouth. It does not serve any honest cause.

As for the rest of your post, you will find that I have already stated that I also believe that speaking about grave violence in connection with BS mans "attack" on Stride is probably misleading, just as I have never argued that he (B S man) can not be Jack. He can, of course - but more speaks against it than in favour of it, I think.

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I agree with Bens post, it is virtually impossible to make a better case, based on Schwartz and other known data, that BSM is most likely Liz's killer. If you still want Jack for this, as people like Caz does whenever a dubious inclusion is discussed, then you better accept BSM as Jack.

A probability that is dubious in and of itself.

Either Pipeman, or BSM, was located according to some press, before Oct 1st papers, and since Pipeman is only reffered to as having something like reddish whiskers in the article, it would seem probable that they found BSM.

Do we have any reason to suspect that Jack ever behaved as BSM did, something which may have led to his being located? Of course not. Do we have any evidence that BSM left before Liz was cut? Of course not. Do we have any evidence that suggests anyone was seen at or near that gates from 12:46 until 1am....other than Goldstein?...no. Do we have any evidence that anyone was in that yard just before the murder? No. Do we have evidence that suggests that the killer was in mid-mutilation, or even preparing to mutilate? No. Has Jack ever communicated directly with a witness prior to murdering? No. Does a single wound on Liz Stride qualify her as an obvious candidate for a Ripper victim? No. Is any other victim found lying on her side? No.

Are there plenty of other murdered women in 1888/9, killed with a knife, that were not believed to be the Rippers victims? Yes. Does that mean the Ripper and other knife killers of women in the East End were operating in the same period, and places, as Jack? Yes. Does this eliminate any argument that insists Jack was unique in the fact that he killed street whores during 1888/9? Yes.

Best regards all.

[caz]

BS is by far the most likely killer of Liz Stride, ripper or not, if Israel Schwartz told the truth and wasn't wildly awry in his estimation of the time.

I dare someone to disagree with that. Please someone disagree with that for the record. I'd be fascinated,

Why posit the existence of another attacker if the evidence says we've already got one? If the cachous is a "fly in the ointment" to BS being the killer, why is it any less of a fly in the ointment for the "Jack arrived minutes later" theory. It just concerns me that any witnessed behaviour that even remotely hints at peaked-cap local ruffianary is apt to be rejected on spurious grounds as not Jackish enough, and here is a case in point.

Hi Ben,

I hope you are not including me. I certainly don't reject BS as not Jackish enough. All I am doing is observing that BS doesn't have to be Jack, and BS doesn't have to be Liz's killer either. See the 'previous assaults' thread for proof that lightning can indeed strike the same victim twice if you still think it's too unlikely that Jack could have taken over where BS left off.

Will catch up with subsequent posts to yours asap.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Is is probable that Jack the Ripper would cut only the throat, and once?

Is it probable that the Ripper would attract attention to himself by scuffling, then shouting, while in the company of his victim, who is killed within the next few minutes?

Hi Perry,

You may as well ask if it's probable that Peter Kurten would strangle a victim until she was on the point of passing out and then decide, for no apparent reason, to let her go, even though she was helpless and they were so deep into the woods that she could have screamed blue murder because there was nobody to hear.

It was more than probable in his case. It happened and it was how he was caught. He even showed his victim the way out of the woods!

He had also appeared as if from nowhere, to rescue the girl from another sexual predator.

Pardon me for using the historical record to bust the odd myth about serial killer behaviour.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

It's like I never went away.

Is is probable that Jack the Ripper would cut only the throat, and once?

Sure, why not?

Is it probable that the Ripper would attract attention to himself by scuffling, then shouting, while in the company of his victim, who is killed within the next few minutes?

Yes, according to Albert Cadosch in Hanbury Street.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott