Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Gary,

Halitosis must have been a prett common occupational hazard for streetwalkers - both their own and their clients. We cannot say for certain this wasn't standard procedure for her.

We cannot even say for certain that she was soliciting on the night of her death.

[Scotland Yard]

Sam Flynn - we have to consider the likelihood of said random, anomalous events (e.g. the arrival of Diemschutz, the killer getting spooked by dark-adaptation, or a club member going for a pee in the yard - just at the point when "Jack" was about to do his worst

This touches on the crux of what I see as a strange double standard in the 'coincidental throat cut' argument.

Why is it easier or more attractive to argue that there was a coincidental throat cut a short walk away from the Eddowes murder than it is to argue for a coincidental interruption? And why not consider the possibility that the Ripper didn't mutilate Stride because that simply wasn't his intention? Because for whatever reason, he felt the conditions didn't favour him to linger and carry out a more extensive attack. For whatever reason, he just killed her because he could, out of sheer malice perhaps.

The notion that a serial killer is somehow completely predictable in his actions and always waits until conditions are perfect for him to murder -as evidenced by the Yorkshire Ripper case - is clearly and demonstrably unsound.

You cannot say that the Ripper would never kill without mutilating in the same way its invalid to say that he could not have been interrupted or scared off at (yes, precisely) the time he was about to carry out his mutilating on poor Stride.

You might as well argue that Mary Kelly is not a JTR victim because the degree of mutilations and the location clearly differs greatly from the killer's previous efforts.

Regards
Gary

[Scotland Yard]

Hello Gary,We cannot even say for certain that she was soliciting on the night of her death.

As I said earlier, she might have been just at ease with a stranger, an old customer or a lover.

[Sam Flynn]

This touches on the crux of what I see as a strange double standard in the 'coincidental throat cut' argument

What "double standard"? The background probability of knife assaults in the East End would apply whether or not we were talking about the "Double Event" - as a general statistic, the establishment would help us to quantify the "randomness" or otherwise of any event.

The "interruption" theory requires that we accept some entirely random happening, or at least one of an arbitrary range of possible interventions, in order to explain the absence of any abdominal mutilation (or any apparent preparation for such mutilation) in the specific case of Stride.

The thinking between those two arguments is rather different, as are the intended outcomes - one is looking for a general baseline, the other is looking for excuses in respect of a single event.

[Sam Flynn]

As I said earlier, she might have been just at ease with a stranger, an old customer or a lover.

Indeed, Gary - and the fact that Stride had once lived a short distance away from Berner Street, and for a considerable time, adds weight to the possibility that she was picking up with an old flame.

[Sam Flynn]

You might as well argue that Mary Kelly is not a JTR victim because the degree of mutilations and the location clearly differs greatly from the killer's previous efforts.

Some argue that way, although I'm not convinced. At least in the case of Kelly, there is very little doubt that the killer went further than severing a carotid artery. With Stride, we don't get beyond a cut throat - just like many other murders of that nature since time immemorial.

[Scotland Yard]

What "double standard"? The background probability of knife assaults in the East End would apply whether or not we were talking about the "Double Event" - as a general statistic, the establishment would help us to quantify the "randomness" or otherwise of any event.

The "interruption" theory requires that we accept some entirely random happening, or at least one of an arbitrary range of possible interventions, in order to explain the absence of any abdominal mutilation (or any apparent preparation for such mutilation) in the specific case of Stride.

The thinking between those two arguments is rather different, as are the intended outcomes - one is looking for a general baseline, the other is looking for excuses in respect of a single event.

I'm afraid you're going to have to clarify this for me because currently I'm finding your 'background probability' argument to be hopelessly biased.

You're saying that establishing as a general statistic the background probability of knife assaults in the East End would help us to quanitfy the "randomness" or otherwise of a similar event. Fair enough. This I have no argument with.

But it seems to me that you're also saying that you see no validity whatsoever in producing a similar statistic, a 'background probabilty' of any event that may have occured in or around Dutfield's Yard that could have changed the outcome of a Ripper attack?

Such events could be anything that occured in or around the Yard between the departure of Schwartz and up to, but not necessarily including, the arrival of Diemschutz.

For example:

1)Any sound to came from inside the club door or elsewhere that may have alarmed the killer between about 12:45 and 1:00. In other words what's the background probablity of their being any potentially startling sounds in or around Dutfield's Yard at that time of night.
2)Any light going on in any window of any of the houses at the bottom end of the yard that may have alarmed the killer in the same period. What's the background probablity of there being one or more lights switched on or off in or around Dutfield's Yard?
3)Any unrecorded person that may have passed outside the yard and that may have alarmed the killer. What's the background probability of people walking past the Yard at that time of night? If we count only Schwartz and Diemshutz I'd say it was extremely high, wouldn't you?
4)Any unrecorded calls or screams made by Elizabeth Stride herself before he killed her that may have put him in fear of capture.

What's the background probability of any event or combination of events that may have occurred in that Yard that may have prevented the mutilations.

Your dismissal of these possible factors as 'excuses' is completely unwarranted.

I think that its perfectly reasonable to conclude that while the background probability of a 'random and unrelated' throat-slitting a ten minute walk (and less than an hour away) from a Ripper attack might be very high.

But similarly the background probability of any number of 'random and unrelated' events in or around the Yard that could have sent the Ripper scurrying away is also very high.

You can't uses statistics to weigh in favour of an unconnected killing because that knife cuts both ways, Sam.

Your general thesis seems to be 'No mutilations - no Ripper'. But another factor overlooked here is that Diemschutz himself stated that he believed the killer was still in the yard when he had entered, due to the warm temperature of the body and the continuingly odd behavior of his pony.To me this indicates he arrived within minutes of the murder. Who's to say it wasn't seconds and why do you dismiss this possibility so readily?

You say that the interruption scenario requires that we believe 'any one of an arbitrary range of possible interventions,' and I say that the background probability of any one of an arbititary range of interventions is extremely high. Once again, why dismiss them as a possibility so readily?

Regards,
Gary

[Sam Flynn]

I'm afraid you're going to have to clarify this up for me because I find your 'background probability' argument to be hopelessly biased.

I've already tried to explain my thinking in succinct enough terms, I'd have thought. Besides, you seem to have "Stride was a Ripper victim" etched on the inside of your bonce, so it's pointless my continuing this rhetorical ping-pong further. If it helps, I used to think Stride was almost certainly a Ripper victim, but now - I guess I'm about 70:30 against. Even if I weren't, I'd still be interested in establishing a statistical baseline before making any premature decisions to the effect that it was "incredibly unlikely" (or whatever) that she wasn't killed by Jack. So, I'm not quite "hopelessly biased" - I just try to be pragmatic in taking an empirical approach to the case, rather than allow myself to be indulged by the wish-fulfilments and gut-feelings to which I might once have been susceptible.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

I have it 70:30 as well but the other way.

c.d.

[Scotland Yard]

So, I'm not quite "hopelessly biased" - I just try to be pragmatic in taking an empirical approach to the case

My point was that if you're going to be empirical then you have to apply the approach to all sides of the case. By not acknowledging at least a reasonably good background probabilty of an event that could have interrupted a Ripper attack in Dutfield's Yard then the method and its results will be skewed.

Sam Flynn - Besides, you seem to have "Stride was a Ripper victim" etched on the inside of your bonce, so it's pointless my continuing this rhetorical ping-pong further.

I assure you I don't have it etched inside my bonce or otherwise. Was just enjoying the table tennis. Just to clarify though, the application of the argument I felt was hopelessly biased, not you yourself. If I gave you the impression I meant you personally then I clearly dropped the ball in which case the game goes to you by default!

Kind regards,
Gary

[claire]

Hi Sam,
Yes, I'm afraid I'm not quite clear on how the 'background probability' statistics would even be constructed...What would the baseline be? You say, all knife attacks, but then a cut throat (as in Stride's case) is a purposefully lethal attack, as opposed to self-defensive jabs or drunken swings. Further, I imagine you'd want to limit analysis to cases of unknown or unidentified perpetrators. In any case, I'd guess (extrapolating from known stats) that fatal knife attacks are a tiny percentage of knife attacks per se, in which case, fatal knife attacks are already improbable. This diminishes the statistical chance of having more than one attacker in the area.

But, in any case, my God! There are so many confounding factors: availability of data; the fact that I'd imagine many people wouldn't even bother reporting minor knife wounds (although that is good if arguing against a Stride-JtR link); geographical variables; time and environmental variables... once you start thinking in those terms, the numbers become so diminishingly small that a) statistical analysis is embarrassingly pointless and b) it starts to look as if almost nothing is random.

All this aside, it does occur to me that there are so, so many things that interrupt or confound offending behaviour of all descriptions, as Gary has pointed out. When interviewed, both burglars and sex-offenders have described quite complex analyses of their situations and given examples of the reasons for bailing, at any point in the commission of the offence (and for anyone who doesn't know about this whole area of enquiry, Rational Choice Theory in criminology is the basis of it--links into situational crime prevention [if you lock your windows and doors you're less likely to get burgled]; revictimisation theory and crime mapping). Offenders are not infallible: a Ripper may well have believed he'd have enough time to do his thing on Stride (although this may well argue against his being local). Or he may have just lost it because she was delaying him from getting away to meet Kate. But I do think there were so many possibilities (Gary's listed lots) for his being disturbed (not just in this murder, clearly: he was a bit lucky, but then if he'd committed more, similar, offences, the statistical probability [ha!] of getting caught in flagrante would have increased--assuming for the sake of argument that JtR is our killer here) that it might be a little foolhardy to dismiss the possibility outright.

[Mitch Rowe]

This touches on the crux of what I see as a strange double standard in the 'coincidental throat cut' argument.

Why is it easier or more attractive to argue that there was a coincidental throat cut a short walk away from the Eddowes murder than it is to argue for a coincidental interruption? And why not consider the possibility that the Ripper didn't mutilate Stride because that simply wasn't his intention? Because for whatever reason, he felt the conditions didn't favour him to linger and carry out a more extensive attack. For whatever reason, he just killed her because he could, out of sheer malice perhaps.

The notion that a serial killer is somehow completely predictable in his actions and always waits until conditions are perfect for him to murder -as evidenced by the Yorkshire Ripper case - is clearly and demonstrably unsound.

You cannot say that the Ripper would never kill without mutilating in the same way its invalid to say that he could not have been interrupted or scared off at (yes, precisely) the time he was about to carry out his mutilating on poor Stride.

You might as well argue that Mary Kelly is not a JTR victim because the degree of mutilations and the location clearly differs greatly from the killer's previous efforts.

Regards
Gary

It seems to me that alot of People are getting caught up in the differences and the Witness Statements when trying to connect any of the Murders to one Man. To me this is a mistake. What I do is look at whatever I feel was left at the Crimescene first. This is not easy. For the most part there is nothing to look at! But in other parts there is something to look at. And those somethings seem to be powerful enough to me to say that here seems to be 5 Murders commited by the same Man. As to the ones before Polly I would say I dont know. I wish there were more Evidence to use to try to find a clue. As to the ones after MJK I would say probably not.

I would like to say that what I call are "My Homegrown Techniques" are all based on simple logic and what I know to be true about People/Criminals/Killers in general and WERE available to Police at that time. In fact they had far greater advantage as they had far far more information than I do.

Macnaghten said Five and only Five. He was more sure than I am. He was probably right. Although if Tabram or others turned out to be JTRs work I wouldnt hold it against him.

[DVV]

Hi Mitch,
Why do you trust Macnaghten that much? He was nothing at the time of the murders, while the medics themselves couldn't agree on the matter.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Claire,

Yes, I'm afraid I'm not quite clear on how the 'background probability' statistics would even be constructed...What would the baseline be? You say, all knife attacks, but then a cut throat (as in Stride's case) is a purposefully lethal attack, as opposed to self-defensive jabs or drunken swings.

I can only reiterate what I said earlier about taking assaults in general into consideration, particularly those with knives. I mentioned earlier the "heat of the moment" that could turn a spirited altercation into a potentially life-depriving act, the possibility of which may be heightened by an increased frequency of the knife-carrying habit. We're seeing this in the UK today - what was it, 26 stabbings of young people in London this year?

How prevalent was the carrying of knives amongst the "toughs" of the East End is hard to gauge, but I daresay that it was at a greater level than one might have found in many other parts of London in those days. That notwithstanding, it's enough to consider the purported "non-Ripper" murders (and almost-murders) during the years around and including 1888 to get some idea of what we're up against. It's enough to note that, even in detected crimes, the knife was seemingly favoured as the assault-weapon of choice.

What distinguishes the "safe" (ish) Ripper murders from those is the obvious intent to disembowel and eviscerate - without which any number of logical hoops have been jumped through in order to attribute them to Jack. Against these feats of imagination, we have to consider the more mundane possibility that A or B came a cropper, not at the hands of a singular Ripper, but against the plurality that was the "monster" embodied in the East End itself.

Further, I imagine you'd want to limit analysis to cases of unknown or unidentified perpetrators.

Not at all, Claire. Again, as I stated earlier, not all undetected crimes would invariably end up in the pages of the Times, and not all assaults were even reported or acted upon, therefore such reports of assaults as did end up being published could fairly be seen as the tip of an (albeit somewhat platykurtic) iceberg.

Added to that, the offence of "assault" in the 19th Century covered a multitude of sins - ranging from the merely distressing, to knife attacks which almost resulted in the loss of life (Elmsley, Crime & Society in England, 1750-1900, 3rd Ed., Longmans, 2004) - and verdicts along the same lines, if they reached the papers at all, would have had a significant amount of devilment buried in the detail.

[harry]

Schwartz says he saw the man speak to her(Stride).Improbable as he would have been behind him.Not to split hairs,it might mean that he heard him speak to her,or more probably heard one of them speak,as he could not see ,as he was behind the man, that it was him that spoke,and Stride would have been partialy,if not fully, obscured by the man.
Had there been information that Kidney was,prior to the attack,in the immediate area,he would have been a good suspect.Likewise any close male associateThen a good case could be made for a domestic incident but it was not so.'Could be',in this case,is not enough.
The incidence of domestic interupted assault, leading to murder is rare.In fact domestic assault leading to murder is rare,compared with the number of assaults of that nature that take place.In cases where it occurs,it is mainly the result of escalating rage,and usually by strangulation,bludgeoning or stabbing,plus usually at premises.Such attacks does not,in the main, include an intent to kill prior to the assault taking place.
In Stride's case there was an initial attack,for no apparent reason,with no recognised intent to kill.A cessation of activity,a period of reconciliation and trustworthiness established,and a luring of a victim into Duffield yard,a dark and dismal location.And somewhere in between,the intent to kill manifests itself.All within about 12 minutes.
Not in my book.A disturbed mind is but a mild description,and to have two abroad on the same night defies belief.