Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[harry]

I would like to pose a question regarding 'Pipeman'.Why is he portrayed as presenting a threatening attitude to Schwartz?
Consider this.He is standing on the corner of Berner Street.On the same side of the street,at a distance from him,in order,are Stride,BS and then Schwartz.The street lighting is bad,difficult to see properly at even his short distance from the yard,and nearly impossible to observe Schwartz who would have been hidden by the other two untill Schwartz started towards the other side of the street.
Might not 'Pipeman' have been merely trying to gain Schwartz attention to find out what had occured?

Another question.From his position at the corner,is it possible to deduce from which direction 'Pipeman' came.For instance can we rule out the direction that Brown took,seeing as that witness failed to mention him?Or that he was taking the same route?
H.

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank!

Thanks for offering that throatcutting! By the way, did you perhaps notice that the surgeon said: "saw some blood on her right hand, I think" ?

Talk about parallels, Frank!

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Harry,

I think Schwartz's interpretation of Pipeman as 'threatening' may have derived from the fact that he followed and then ran after Schwartz when also Schwartz started to run.
A rather strange behaviour from someone who just wanted Schwartz's attention, not to mention the fact that Pipeman appears to have been inactive and merely observing when Liz was attacked by BS and not that keen to help.

All the best

[Howard Brown]

Thanks, Mr. Nunweek, for the reply to my question. I am aware of those two incidents, but assumed...and probably incorrectly so, that Dan meant noises on Bucks Row that occurred at the spot and during the actual murder.

Much appreciated,sor..

[c.d.]

Martha Tabram + one very angry soldier (apparently) = 39 stab wounds.

Liz Stride + one very angry BS man (apparently) = 1 single cut to the throat.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Rachel Bailey + one very angry Harry Patrick (apparently) = 1 single cut to the throat.

So was Patrick the Ripper, c.d?

The best!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I think, c.d., that we must realize that people who stab away in a frenzy (if that was what happened to Tabram) are set on annihilation, and thus a lot more inclined not to draw any lines ā la "enough is enough".

People who are not necessarily into annihilation, but who want to kill anyway - a less frenzied, more thoughtful approach if you like, thus perhaps not involving any more violence than necessary (or what you can stomach) - may be more inclined to opt for a swift but sure method, like severing the neck. And many more people than the Ripper used that method!

The best, c.d!

Fisherman

[Simon Owen]

Hi Glenn,

Here's another example of that: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brows...4-89#highlight

It's the case of 24 year old Harry Patrick, who cut the throat of his 19 year old girlfriend Rachel Bailey down to the vertebrae while she was lying in bed. This was on 23 November 1885 in Poplar, not too far away from Spitalfields/Whitechapel.

All the best,
Frank

Hi there Frank and Glen !

There is a fundamental difference between the John Browne & Harry Patrick cases and the Liz Stride case - the first two listed were crimes committed indoors. I bet throat cutting crimes committed outdoors are much less common ( though not impossible obviously ). It would be far easier however to have given Liz a couple of stabs in the guts and run away rather than trying to drag her around into a dark place and cut her throat ( also in the dark ) wouldn't it ? I think one would have to try and explain this discrepancy.

[Fisherman]

Simon Owen writes:
"I bet throat cutting crimes committed outdoors are much less common "

Not when it comes to people who actually had no homes of their own, Simon. Donīt forget that we are speaking of women who lodged in doss houses - they never stood the chance of such luxury as having their necks cut by a cosy fireside...
The only canonical victim that DID have a home, actually was despatched there too, remember.

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Smon,

Well, besides the god points made by Fisherman here, you must remember that Stride had moved out of the home she shared with Michael Kidney some time prior to the murder. She did at the time live at a lodging house and probably spent most of her time outdoors, therefore it shouldn't come as a surprise that she also was murdered outdoors.
Just because she was murdered outdoors doesn't mean that she wasn't murdered by someone she knew or someone else than the Ripper. In fact, we don't even know for sure that she was out soliciting that night (if some of the witnesses were right when they identified her, she appear to have turned down people's inites, which is an odd behaviour for any prostitute walking the street) so therefore we shouldn't even assume that she was killed by a client.

In any case it is erronous thinking to assume that the Ripper was the only one cutting throats outdoors at the time - unless you also want to ascribe McKenzie and Coles to the Ripper's tally.

All the best

[Roy Corduroy]

Just because she was murdered outdoors doesn't mean that she wasn't murdered by someone she knew...

Hi Glenn and all,

Then why wasn't Michael Kidney arrested and tried for murder, as Tom Sadler was? Surely you are naming Kidney as the killer. Why the theoretical discussion?

Roy

[Fisherman]

I donīt want to get in the way for Glenns answer here, Roy, but maybe we can allow ourselves to believe that Liz may have known more than one man. Such things happen.

The best, Roy!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Roy,

That's a rather extensive issue that's been widely discussed here on numerous threads over the years and I hesitate to go through it all again. I am sure Fisherman - who usually have well thought out theories regarding this issue - have a lot to add further to that topic.

Yes, I see Kidney as the most likely killer of Stride for several reasons, and if the Ripper didn't kill her then I view the murder as a crime of jealousy or domestic/drunken rage.
And of course, like Fisherman says, it is of course possible that Liz knew more than one man (especillay considering that there are indications of that she may not have been out soliciting that night) but on the other hand it is a fact that Liz had left Kidney prior to the murder (and not on good terms) and that his character was not the one of the most pleasant ones.

You are absolutely right - Kidney wasn't arrested and tried for murder. In fact, there is no mentioning of him at all in the police files In SPITE of his important role in the drama. And no doubt the police right from the start viewed the Stride murder as a crime performed by the Ripper and simply closed down any domestic angle in their investigation rather quickly. Why?

Because
a) the pressure from the news media, the radical papers and the general public on the police to catch the Ripper ( and the papers certainly viewed it as a Ripper murder) had at this point become immense;
b) the discovery of the Eddowes murder just 45 minutes after Stride was found, which most likely forced the police to make the Ripper connection between the two.

All Kidney had to do - which probably also is what happened to Joe Barnett - was to provide alibis for the murders of Nichols and Chapman and he was off the hook.

There is much, much more to add to this, but all those points have been argued over and over again on these Boards, so in order not to create any unnecessary repetition of debates already been made, I suggest you seek those threads (and they are numerous), unless they of course belonged to those that disappeared during the crash of the site.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

So - you may ask: do I think the police blew it?

Yes, I most certainly do.

However, like many others I hold the door open to Stride being a Ripper victim, because one can't get around the fact that there are some similarities to consider. But I don't think the 'conicidence' of the Mitre Square murder 45 minutes later should be as a valid argument for the Ripper being the perpetrator.

All the best

[Howard Brown]

All Kidney had to do - which probably also is what happened to Joe Barnett - was to provide alibis for the murders of Nichols and Chapman and he was off the hook.- G.A.

Isn't this proposing that each individual murder was investigated less for its uniqueness and on its own merits... and more how it could tie in with murders committed on different days ? There's a bit of time between the Chapman and Stride murders,as we know...21 days... and for it to be assumed that Kidney's innocence or guilt would rest squarely or at least, primarily, on the possible complicity of Kidney in the Hanbury Street murder and less on his whereabouts on the night in question seems a stretch, with all due respect. And with all due respect,I think the police undoubtedly did investigate the "domestic" angle as well as you personally think they should have despite the absence of a document which would satisfy your/our desires.

You're correct,Glenn...we don't have all the files or possible records on Kidney that were written. To consider Kidney more likely the killer without these crucial files or documents is overlooking the probability that the acceptance of what Kidney said or did to convince the police completely or at least satisfactorily did exist and we just don't have it.

If we had it, would you still hold the belief that the police "blew it" in regard to Kidney and how he was investigated or would the concept of a domestic murder override anything the police considered back in that period of time?