Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[Ben]

Hi Frank,

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

Hi Fish,

I think you are well aware that the ONLY mentioning of his appearance has him made out as "respectably" clad!

Although its worth is severely diminished by the absence of any mention of respectability in Swanson's report. 'Ello, we've been heere before.

But I genuinely believe that the man in VChurch passage would have been regarded as a shabby ruffian in ill-fitting clothes by BS man, who, if my guess is correct, was a clerkly looking man, respectably dressed in a short, tight-fitting black (probably cutaway) jacket.

I respect your right to a guess, but I can only disagree with it for reasons already discussed. From what we know, they dressed rather similarly. But I'll heed your sensible suggestion to leave it there.

As you will have noticed, we have a joint suspect by now, a man who was a dockside worker in -89, and perhaps even in -88. Ill-clad in a loosefitting salt-and-pepper jacket and a peaked cap, perhaps? My conviction is that Lawendesīman really was the Ripper

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.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
" The worst offenders to my mind are those who want Stride to be a ripper victim, but can't bear the idea of the ripper being in any way illusion-shatteringly shabby or "thug-like" in his behaviour, so come up with weak excuses for ruling out the BS man as Stride's killer."

No need to believe he was shabby at all, Ben. I think you are well aware that the ONLY mentioning of his appearance has him made out as "respectably" clad!

More of the same:
"And, Fish me ol' mucker, it's great that we're seeing eye to eye on so many issues lately, but I really don't think you can dispute a superficial congruity between the broad-shouldered man and Lawende's suspect."

Indeed I can, Ben! It of course owes very much to what one calls "superficial congruity", but I really donīt see the twine as very much like each other. Men, yes. Same age, yes. Same height, yes. Dark clothes (well, if pepper-and-salt was dark in this case), yes. Peaked cap, yes.

If we satisfy ourselves with this, then I can see your point. But I genuinely believe that the man in VChurch passage would have been regarded as a shabby ruffian in ill-fitting clothes by BS man, who, if my guess is correct, was a clerkly looking man, respectably dressed in a short, tight-fitting black (probably cutaway) jacket.

But letīs leave it there for the moment, shall we. I think that our seing eye to eye on a number of other bits and pieces, like you mention, is much more important. As you will have noticed, we have a joint suspect by now, a man who was a dockside worker in -89, and perhaps even in -88. Ill-clad in a loosefitting salt-and-pepper jacket and a peaked cap, perhaps? My conviction is that Lawendesīman really was the Ripper, but since that carries us a long way from the intentions of this thread, that had better be left for another occasion too!

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Simon writes:

"Yes , very good , but you've got the name of the poster wrong !"

Well, Simon, on these boards everybody is allowed to hold their own convictions, so I would not be too sure about that. Proof, please?
Oh, and by the way: Sorry, mate..!

All the best, Mr Owen!
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Sorry but I don't have mystic powers. (insert smiley face which for some reason didn't work). I can only hazard a guess. I simply don't know when she would have taken out the cachous.

Hi again c.d.,

I didn't expect you to have mystic powers or whatever , I just asked (although poorly perhaps) how in your scenario you envisaged things from the point when Mr BS left the scene until she was killed and how things would have played out making her end up with the cachous in her hand.

From the crime scene evidence I envisage that Stride was either facing the wall when her assailant pulled her to her left side by scarf, but more likely, that he took hold of her scarf with his left hand from behind, while she was facing the gates and that he pulled her backwards, making her spin and end up on her left side on the ground.

To me, the fact that she was holding them in death suggests that she was taken off guard and that there was no struggle.

I completely agree with you there.

All the best,
Frank

[Ben]

Hi CD,

Fair enough, although there's really no incongruity between the attack witnesses by Schwartz and the clues evinced by the discovery of her body. All pretty consistent, or at the very least, not inconsistent.

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi CD,



How would this scenario have played out, in your view? If she wasn't strangled, how "sudden" are we envisaging here?

Ben

Hi Ben,

Yes, that was a poor choice of words on my part. I would expect some sort of struggle no matter how she was killed or by whom. So, let me amend my answer and try to put it this way. I would expect a lot less of a struggle if she had been taken off guard by Jack as opposed to being dragged into the yard by the BS man.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

To me, the fact that she was holding them in death suggests that she was taken off guard and that there was no struggle.

How would this scenario have played out, in your view? If she wasn't strangled, how "sudden" are we envisaging here?

Ben

[c.d.]

Hi c.d.,

Although Mr BS has little to do with why I am inclined to think Stride wasn't a Ripper victim, your scenario offers a reason for Mr BS's aggressive behaviour, him being just another John. Could you elaborate about the taking out of the cachous? When, in your scenario, did she take them out? While she was walking into the yard, while she was standing facing the Ripper in the yard? Where was she standing in relation to the Ripper and club wall? Why was she still holding them in death?

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Sorry but I don't have mystic powers. (insert smiley face which for some reason didn't work). I can only hazard a guess. I simply don't know when she would have taken out the cachous. To me, it says client. Now it is possible that she agreed to go off with the BS man (a profuse apology and an offer of more money) but that seems improbable. To me, the fact that she was holding them in death suggests that she was taken off guard and that there was no struggle. I suppose that it is possible that she could have kept them in her hand while struggling but if so, why didn't the bag break? I just find it hard to believe that she could be taken off guard after being thrown to the ground. Most rational people would take that as a sign of hostility and expect more hostility to come.

c.d.