Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Howard Brown]

Same here,Mike ( Perry Mason). Same team,too.

I understand fully the argument against assuming Stride was a Ripper victim based on several elements within the murder.

However, what IS the most significant element in the Stride murder is that unlike the preceding and following murders,there was a man seen within a few minutes of her murder assaulting her.

Let me just mention this, so as to not rehash any already masticated material.

Take the case of Jeff Dahmer. Every murder is conducted with the same sort of pattern: He picks up a guy in a bar; takes him home; kills him and eats him. With one exception.

That exception was when Dahmer went up to not one,but two policemen, and took his next victim from their grasp. He took him home and strangled him 10 minutes later.

Of course, Dahmer wrested the Laotian youth from the police in order to avoid having the police wait for an interpreter who could tell him about Dahmer's assault on him back at the shack.

Yet, who on earth would think that Dahmer would be so brazen, even in retrospect? That took extreme balls to do that even with a good reason to do it. Most of us would have packed our bags and split town.

Same as with the Stride murder,Mike...at least to me.

I really think we all buy the "elusive,stealthy,shadowy,phantom" murderer concept without considering that on one occasion....he let it all hang out.

Take care

HB

[Fisherman]

Howard Brown writes:

"Personally,I don't think he cared"

...meaning that Hwoard does not think that the Ripper cared whether he was seen or not.

This is an interesting question! To some extent, saying that he would not have cared, points in the direction of a disorganized killer. I do not think that he was, though. He left no clues at the murder sites, and he appeared and disappeared without anybody recognizing him for what he was. Perhaps he was not even seen at the murder sites at all, we simply don´t know. Longs and lawendes men may not have been the Ripper for all we know.

The fact that he stayed undetected is something that I mean urges us to accept the wiew that the Ripper took precautions to stay out of sight. We cannot be sure, but the only reasonable interpretation of the fact that he was never recognized MUST be that he most probably cared, Howard.

That said, we shoul of course not step into the ordinary victorian trap of believeing that he was some sort of phantom. He was not, as Simon Owen points out. And I think that it´s reasonable to accept that he WAS seen, both on the way to the murder sites, and on his way from them. In all probability, though, he was able to make a totally harmless and unsuspicious impression on those who saw him. A pretty cool customer, thus, if my guess is correct, a guy who did not run away from the murder sites, but who instead walked at a normal pace, staying out of peoples way whenever he could, and not being intimidated when meetings in the streets could not be avoided.
Of course, a character like this, is NOT very lightly to behave the way BS man did. Such things were bound to evoke interest, and may even attract police to the venue, and I feel that he would avoid that if possible!

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Absolutely spot on. Liz Stride could have been the first of Jack the Rippers victims to show a bit of vim, a bit of resistance, the previous victims going to their deaths willingly, hence the lack of noise, the lack of evidence which would point to signs of a struggle. Whose to know what actions the Ripper would adopt should he find resistance from one of his victims.

That's absolute nonsense, Observer.
In the other murders we have a man who manages to escape unseen from the murder scenes and - most importantly - who carries out his murders and mutilations with very efficient speed and with a minimum of noise. Not to mention that Chapman very likely may have put up some kind of resistance but the murder was still quick, efficient and quite silent.

And you want to make me believe that this is the same man who wastes time and energy by throwing a woman losely on the pavement on the open street, dragging her out on the street in front of spectators, and calling out offensive remarks?
You're all mad!

Mr BS - if Schwartz didn't make the story up and this man ever existed in the first place - was most likely Stride's killer, but there is no way in Tipperary that he was Jack the Ripper.

All the best

[Observer]

Hi Fish

You are falling in to the same trap as Glenn, nobody can get into the mindset of the Ripper. As I said it was evidently plain sailing with Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, you, I, or anyone else for that matter can not predict what the Ripper would have behaved like should he have encountered resistance.

Just because the evidence points to a carefull studious Ripper prior to the Stride murder, it does not follow that Stride is not a victim, on the grounds that a rowdy obnoxious thug who was not worried about drawing attention to himself murdered her. This could have been the Ripper, I'm not saying it is, but to dismiss this individual for the reasons above is folly.

all the best

Observer



on the grounds that because the BSM was not concerned with drawing attention to himself

[Observer]

Hi Glenn

See above post, also Chapman had nowhere to go her resistance was useless. Stride was out in the open, with every chance of escape, and it appears she took that chance. And are you saying Stride was not killed efficiently?

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Glenn

That's absolute nonsense, Observer.
In the other murders we have a man who manages to escape unseen from the murder scenes and - most importantly - who carries out his murders and mutilations with very efficient speed and with a minimum of noise.

All the best

Only because the victims offered no resistance, and by the time Chapman realised who her punter was it was too late, she had nowhere to run to.

all the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Observer.

It's all speculations and constructions that have no bearing whatsover. Where did you get the idea that Stride "took the chance to escape"?

No, I don't think Stride was killed efficiently in the "Ripper meaning" of the word. Although excessive enough to severe her windpipe, the throat cut was more insecure than in the other murders and not as deep on one side.
To me the behaviour of mr BS reminds me more of a drunken, violent brute rather than an efficient serial killer with a need to mutilate.
The Ripper may have had some disorganized traits, but he sure as hell wasn't THAT disorganized.
True, it is difficult to speculate about the intentions and behaviour of an unidentifed killer, but we have at least a behaviour pattern from at least three murders to give us an indication of how he operated. And although BS - if he was the killer - did get away with murder, he was hardly efficient or cautious.

Again - that is, of course, if BS really existed at all. The more I study all the other witness testimonies and the tight time frames I more and more seem to come to the conclusion that Schwartz's story may have been load of bollocks. If so, this whole discussion is purely intellectual.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Only because the victims offered no resistance, and by the time Chapman realised who her punter was it was too late, she had nowhere to run to.

Again, total speculation.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Observer writes:

"Just because the evidence points to a carefull studious Ripper prior to the Stride murder, it does not follow that Stride is not a victim"

No it does not. The only thing that follows is that the most reasonable and logical and statistically grounded wiew is that she wasn´t. No more than that.

The best, Observer!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

As I said it was evidently plain sailing with Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes

Hi Observer,

How do you know it was 'plain sailing' with Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes?
Were you there?

I am also wondering: how do you come to the conclusion that the Ripper would 'stay and fight' and do so in front of people on an open street (with even more witnesses than just the victim to worry about) if the victim resisted, and not just simply take of instead beofre too many people saw him - or worse - managed to get hold of him?

All the best

[Howard Brown]

This is an interesting question! have cared, points in the direction of a disorganized killer. I do not think that he was, though. He left no clues at the murder sites, and he appeared and disappeared without anybody recognizing him for what he was. Perhaps he was not even seen at the murder sites at all, we simply don´t know. Longs and Lawendes men may not have been the Ripper for all we know.--Fisherman
____________________________

This also bring up another issue within these murder scenes...that of "left clues".

He left no clues that the police could detect. It doesn't necessarily mean that he left no clues. If police science & the forensics of 1888 were at the level as they are 120 years later in 2008, we'd be discussing the fingerprints he left at the scene at Millers Court, maybe on the fence at Hanbury Street and so forth. These murders weren't committed with finesse,obviously,although there are one or two elements in one or two murders some feel display a modicum of finesse. I'm sure you are well aware that they would almost have to catch him in the act without something identifiable to prosecute him.

For the sake of arguing a theory,Fisherman, I am assuming that Mrs.Long did see Chapman's killer and so did Lawende...and yes,its possible that I am incorrect.

Yet I still feel its worth keeping in mind that we're possibly dealing with someone who is a little outside of the normal "stealth and slither" set. For all we know, he may have walked up to Goulston Street after the Eddowes Murder and not scurried away like some guy whose pants are on fire.

For some folks, the Ripper had to be engaged in a "pattern" of behavior and therefore a murder that might fall outside the "pattern" ( Stride/Tabram) doesn't fit according to our preconcieved notions of what that pattern was.

The Hillside Stranglers,as an example, used a telephone to procure at least one victim and also physical force to swipe one woman off the street. Yet,the end result was the same.

[Simon Owen]

For some folks, the Ripper had to be engaged in a "pattern" of behavior and therefore a murder that might fall outside the "pattern" ( Stride/Tabram) doesn't fit according to our preconcieved notions of what that pattern was.

Yes , this is what I feel. We must be careful not to assume the Ripper was some sort of superhuman evil genius because he was not caught.

If Liz's killer was the Ripper , I feel sure that it was not Jack's intention to murder her in Dutfield's Yard : he wanted to get her to go with him somewhere quieter with less likelyhood of being caught. For some reason this did not happen. He killed Liz quickly and then he went away to find another more pliant victim who he could mutilate - hence the ' Double Event '.

The Ripper would have had time to mutilate Liz , but I believe he feared getting caught in the act , so he didn't. I believe the fact that the Eddowes murder ( which I think we can safely attribute to Jack ) was in the City and not the East End is a more important discrepancy to explain , above the possible discrepancies surrounding Liz's death.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

The Ripper would have had time to mutilate Liz , but I believe he feared getting caught in the act , so he didn't.

That's nonsense. He certainly didn't worry about that in Buck's Row (where he most certainly was close to capture) or Mitre Square (regularly patrolled every 15 minutes by a PC).

No one has said that the Ripper was a superhuman. But fact remains that he managed to perform a number of murders, mutilate their bodies and escape from the scene unseen in the short time frame between the police beats - which in turn tells us something about his approach, personality and efficiency. It was most definitely not the type of person similar to the rowdy, careless and clumsy Broadshoulders.

As for the rather irrelevant and misleading terms 'organized' and 'disorganized', it is quite likely that he was a mixture between the two, as has been suggested by for example John Douglas (which is why the terms pretty much cancel each other out and becomes useless).
His ability to escape and to not leave the murder weapon on the scene is undoubtedly what is often referred to as 'organized' traits but he may also display traits of the opposite. So take your pick.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Simon,

Why didn't he simply stop and hotfoot it out of there after roughing Liz up, leaving her alive, if the venue was so unsuitable to his purpose? Surely he'd have known that from the outset, not only by the Schwartz and Pipeman "intervention", but also by the activity in the club-house itself? OK, so Liz might have blabbed - but there was no guarantee she'd recognise him. Even if she had, and he'd been subsequently caught, the worst he might have faced was a slap on the wrist or a fine - he may even have escaped punishment altogether. As we've seen, the Old Bailey didn't come down all that hard on rapists, and I very much doubt that comparatively minor "ill-use" cases would have progressed much beyond the local judiciary.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

He left no clues that the police could detect. It doesn't necessarily mean that he left no clues. If police science & the forensics of 1888 were at the level as they are 120 years later in 2008, we'd be discussing the fingerprints he left at the scene at Millers Court, maybe on the fence at Hanbury Street and so forth.

Now, that I most certainly agree with.

All the best