Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry.

BS man stopped and spoke to Stride. That does in no way have to mean that he obscured Schwartz´s possibility to see Liz. In fact, if he walked all the way up to her, it is just as reasonable, if not more, that Schwarts saw them both from their respective sides.

"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."

This inevitably calls for the question "Just how rare is an eviscerating serial killer?". And to be honest, interrupted eviscerating serialists would be even more uncommon, would they not?

"A disturbed mind is but a mild description,and to have two abroad on the same night defies belief"

But there are two TYPES of killings involved here, Harry: One that is evidently the work of an eviscerator, and one that shows no signs whatsoever of any such interests. That means that what you are basically saying here is that if any of the hundreds of thousands of Eastenders who were not Jack decided that he or she wanted to cut a throat that night, it could not be achieved. And if it was tried and succeeded, the slaying would somehow go through a metamorphosis and turn into a genuine Ripper killing anyway.
To me, Harry, THAT is quite, quite beyond belief!

If she had been killed by having her head bashed in with a poker, Harry, would you then say that she must have been a Ripper victim? Weighing in
all the usual stuff of her being a prostitute in Ripper-land and all? I think not.

And yet, she was killed by a weapon that is far more common than a poker - a knife. Plus she was killed in a fashion - a cut throat - that was everything but unknown back then. She was one out of THREE London women who had their necks cut that night, remember!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
But she didn't have her head bashed in.Can't see the relevance there.
An eviscerating killer has to start somewhere.Here it was with a cut throat.A bludgeoning person on the other hand starts with the first blow.Both could get interupted after that first stroke,so their total intention be unknown.An evisceration in both cases might be intended,but not finalised.so can't see your point there either.
Only one type of killing was in evidence,and that was a cut throat.Only two of those three killings were believed linked.Then and now,but if you want to add a third so be it.

Regards and good night,
Harry.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Murders and suicides were most often by knife in the period in question, and many people with legitimate reasons to carry them at night were about, let alone the thugs, thieves and gang members. There should be little doubt that although not all men out at night after midnight wanted to kill unfortunates, many were equipped to do so.

The issue isnt "who other than Jack goes about with a knife", its who among the other men out at night, that Liz is known to encounter that night, might have been. And who had the proximity and access to even make the attempt. So far the only man with that access is BSM, not Jack, and the singular wound is not evidence of any further intention. She was slit....and left to die in the mud, and the gutter. Thats a different scenario than the others,...Liz is left with half her face in the mud. She is treated in death like the killer saw her in life...as garbage, but there is no expressed interest in her after killing,....which is when Jack is most intent

Cheers.

[Dan Norder]

The issue isnt "who other than Jack goes about with a knife", its who among the other men out at night, that Liz is known to encounter that night, might have been. And who had the proximity and access to even make the attempt. So far the only man with that access is BSM, not Jack

This is just a pretty transparent circular argument. Worse than that, as you don't know that the Broad-Shouldered Man wasn't Jack, it's a circular argument that could just as easily prove the exact opposite of what you're trying to make it prove.

Hell, we don't even know if there was a Broad-Shouldered Man there that night, but if Schwartz's story was accurate that person could very easily have been the Ripper. The claims that it couldn't have been simply are at odds with the known facts about identified serial killers.

[perrymason]

This is just a pretty transparent circular argument. Worse than that, as you don't know that the Broad-Shouldered Man wasn't Jack, it's a circular argument that could just as easily prove the exact opposite of what you're trying to make it prove.

Hell, we don't even know if there was a Broad-Shouldered Man there that night, but if Schwartz's story was accurate that person could very easily have been the Ripper. The claims that it couldn't have been simply are at odds with the known facts about identified serial killers.

Hey Dan,

I cant speak for what is known of identified serial killers, havent really studied them, but since we are talking about a suspected case of serial murder and an unidentified man or men, that may or may not be relevant.

As for BSM being "Jack", I would think that is the only sound argument one could make for The Ripper being the culprit here, based on the statements made by Israel and others as well as the crime scene and physical evidence. For myself, the statements of Schwartz regarding BSM, as you say...if accurate, or only slightkly modified,...such as the exact location of the initial interaction between Liz and BSM...do not seem to be in keeping with what the killer has done previously, or will do in the future. Walking down the middle of the street drunk while searching for victims,....sloppily mishandling one in front of witnesses, then yelling at a witness, while in the company of the woman he is to kill...and being the only man known to be in the company of Liz from 12:46 on, already within the 10 minute estimate by Blackwell as to the time of the cut..... and only a single killing cut is found on the victim, who lies on her side.... unlike every other supposed Ripper victim...

The only thing she has in common with the other C5, in terms of her death and physical post mortem status, is that she is dead also. Added to the entrance, it makes for a less than plausible Ripper kill in my opinion anyway.

Cheers Dan.

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"Can't see the relevance there."

Now, why am I not surprised?

"An eviscerating killer has to start somewhere.Here it was with a cut throat"

Emphatically wrong, Harry. Why? Beacuse you are connecting the cut throat with evisceration urges, and there is no such connection to be made. And THAT is why I say that i a bashed in head with no eviscerations would not have led your thoughts to the Ripper, then neither should a cut throat, since they represent no more than a bashed in head and a cut throat. They do NOT evince wishes of evisceration in either case, do they?

"Only two of those three killings were believed linked"

And why was this, Harry? Well, to begin with, in the case of cut woman number three, there was a confessing husband to consider. In the case of cut woman number two, there were eviscerations to consider. In the case of cut woman number one, there was neither, leaving that murder somewhere inbetween. The two other murders had shown us that there was an eviscerator on the prowl that night, and that just anybody could cut a woman´s throat. And in the choice between Stride having been cut by the Ripper or by just anybody, we end up with odds of about some hundreds of thousands to one.
If there had been one single, tiny scratch on Strides abdomen, we would have had that vital piece of information that would allow us to sound the alarm bells and shout "Ripper!". But we don´t, do we? So all we are left with is that age-old assertion that he was disturbed and fled, leaving her with a comparatively tentative cut in the neck and no eviscerations. And the guy who would have fled is the same guy who calmly waited for Cadosh to finish his nightly toilet wanderings before cutting away at Chapman at dawn, underneath an array of windows, some of them open, with people inside them. To me, that does not seem like a guy that spooks easily. And that was BEFORE Stride, meaning that he would be even more confident and arrogant the next time over.
Stride is a no go and has always been. She may have been the Ripper´s of course, but the physical evidence has pointed away from that being the case from day one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Scotland Yard]

Harry writes:

And the guy who would have fled is the same guy who calmly waited for Cadosh to finish his nightly toilet wanderings before cutting away at Chapman at dawn, underneath an array of windows, some of them open, with people inside them. To me, that does not seem like a guy that spooks easily.

This is a strong argument. However, it doesn't acknowledge the possibility that the Ripper didn't come close to being disturbed, but was actually disturbed. Having retreated into the darkness of the Yard, was the Ripper so daring he would have taken the opportunity to do a little light mutilation while Scwartz went off to raise the alarm? Hardly.

Again, Schwartz felt strongly that the killer might have still been in the Yard when he first arrived. If this is actually what occured then no amount of theorising about liklihoods or probabilites have any relevance whatsoever. It would be a simple happen-stance of history.

[Fisherman]

Gary writes:

"Again, Schwartz felt strongly that the killer might have still been in the Yard when he first arrived."

Ehrm...?

Fisherman

[Scotland Yard]

Gary writes:

"Again, Schwartz felt strongly that the killer might have still been in the Yard when he first arrived."

Ehrm...?

Aaahh...you know who I meant!

I'll have to stay off the absinthe in future

[harry]

Fisherman.
But had the other murders started with a bashed head,the same principle would have applied.This too would have been interupted.
Perhaps you will now prove that the ripper murders did not start with a slashed throat
No! I can't see the revelence of bashed heads.

[Dan Norder]

I cant speak for what is known of identified serial killers, havent really studied them

That's obvious.

but since we are talking about a suspected case of serial murder and an unidentified man or men, that may or may not be relevant.

If you think it's only suspected serial murder, you haven't really studied the Ripper case at all either.

I would think that is the only sound argument one could make

You've demonstrated again and again that your idea of a sound argument is just ignoring what the experts say and believing any ridiculous thing that pops into your head... and then promoting it as if it were a proven fact.

[perrymason]

1. It's obvious.

2. If you think it's only suspected serial murder, you haven't really studied the Ripper case at all either.

3. You've demonstrated again and again that your idea of a sound argument is just ignoring what the experts say and believing any ridiculous thing that pops into your head... and then promoting it as if it were a proven fact.

You really are a piece of work Norder, you should try publishing your technique, "How to have no friends and influence no-one".

Since you feel that saying nothing is productive somehow, like your responses above, perhaps you could take yout hands from your mouth, ears and eyes and remember that...

1. Previously studying serial killers offers no specific insight for, and has no direct bearing on, the interpretation of the available data on "Jack the Rippers" supposed killings.

2. All of the murders referred to as "Canonical" are merely unsolved murders from 1888. Unsolved means that we dont know who killed them.....sorry, excluding you. The contemporary investigators offered opinions, which in at least the case of Liz Stride, ignored the total lack of evidence for any other viable suspect other than Broadshouldered Man at, or near, the scene of the crime near the time it occurs. Blackwells estimate says she may have been cut as early as 12:46...a minute after the witnessed altercation.

3. To continue to denounce the obvious, and insult any opinion that doesnt side with yours, shows your mettle.....you could care less about learning anything, since you believe you know it all. Well, as Ive reminded you before, and will again now, your opinion on who killed the 5 women in question does agree with the majority of the contemporary investigators, but it does not agree with the leading authority alive on The Ripper Crimes, who feels based on all he has studied over the close to 5 decades that he has studied these crimes, that only 3 murders were likely linked based on the evidence available he has seen. There is no contemporary investigator that ever had access to all the data he has had.

So I disagree with you, and as it turns out, I agree with a man whom you cannot match in terms of knowledge on these cases. Im very ok with that.

Needless to say, your insults change nothing that is in evidence, and show to you a fellow with many "Ripper" biases which cannot be proven accurate using any known data.

Regards.

[caz]

Hi All,

Just been catching up with this old thread and would like to make some observations.

I can see why posters like Perry Mason are so keen to insist that studying the behaviour of other serial killers 'offers no specific insight for, and has no direct bearing on' the interpretation of individual Whitechapel murders.

But it's really only another circular argument going on here, that first concludes that Liz Stride's murder was not one of Jack's series, in order to claim that because there was therefore no 'double event' in this case, other known double eventers in criminal history can have no possible bearing on what Jack did or didn't do that night before he went to Mitre Square and ripped Kate up like a pig in the market - untimely ripped too, compared with the considerably later hour at which he had previously struck Polly and Annie.

I have now heard of at least three repeat offenders who count among their victims women who almost certainly would never have encountered their killer had he not been left frustrated by an earlier botched job. We can add our old fiend Ted Bundy to the much more recent West Croydon and South Croydon double eventers.

A tv documentary last night, featuring Ted's survivors, reported how he was known to have been back on the prowl for another victim an hour after failing to abduct one woman in his car. He had got her in there under false pretences and she managed to escape and make a run for it before he could handcuff her.

The old adage should be modified: hell hath no fury like a serial killer scorned.

I really can't see why some people find it so hard to believe that Jack could have encountered Liz and ended up cutting her throat, but under circumstances that left him either unable or unwilling to stay there just long enough to make her 'acceptable' to allcomers as a ripper victim.

Some of the arguments are quite laughable: BS was violent towards Liz in front of witnesses (but only if we accept Schwartz's account - which few do without serious reservations - and then put the worst interpretation on what he saw BS do), therefore he wasn't Jack, but it's also not feasible for two men to have been violent towards this known prostitute within such a short time (even though the first man is meant to be one of thousands apparently roaming the East End streets equipped with knives, ready to attack any woman who annoyed them, and even though the second man would, in this specific scenario, be the serial killer who was known to have been on the prowl that very night, actively seeking another opportunity to cut a woman's throat, followed by some trademark mutilating if the fates remained kind to him).

But then, when it suits, Schwartz did not see BS being violent towards Liz at all, because she gaily took out her cachous while still in his presence, without the least warning that this man had a sharp knife on him or was the type who was more than prepared to use it if she made the tiniest wrong move. And this from people who say in the next breath, without listening to themselves, that they don't trust Schwartz not to have made the whole thing up - in which case all they really have to play with is an unfortunate found close to gates with her throat cut (through her scarf - I don't know if the material would have offered enough resistance to produce a slightly shallower cut than would otherwise have been the case?), lying in a position that Jack's victims could have been in before he turned them on their backs in readiness for further indignities.

Whoever cut Liz's throat would have had to do a disappearing act before the next person on the scene could have caught him with her or seen him making off. The usual argument (based on nothing but a very precarious assumption concerning this supposed period of continuous silence and security the killer would have enjoyed had he tarried a whil longer) is that he had plenty of time to do more had he so wished, before pony and cart finally arrived. But this in turn argues against BS opting for the relatively rare method of cutting her throat, in order to make it seem like the work of the Whitechapel Murderer. In that case he would surely have had a quick slash or three at her abdomen while he was at it, since he would have had at least as much time with her body as Jack. (And the people who believe he wasn't Jack would now believe he was Jack when he wasn't. )

If Liz's killer wasn't Jack, he took the same risks as Jack would have done by killing her in that yard, not knowing who could enter it from the club or the street at any moment, or if and when he might expect to hear approaching pony hooves - more risks, if he was known to Liz and scarpered before making absolutely sure she was dead; yet more risks, if he was seen by Schwartz and Pipeman, while Jack could have come and gone with no witnesses at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[harry]

'I can see why posters like...'
What is it you can't see Caz?

[Fisherman]

So, Caz, you write:

"Some of the arguments are quite laughable: BS was violent towards Liz in front of witnesses ... therefore he wasn't Jack"

and

"But then, when it suits, Schwartz did not see BS being violent towards Liz at all, because she gaily took out her cachous while still in his presence, without the least warning that this man had a sharp knife on him or was the type who was more than prepared to use it if she made the tiniest wrong move"

and

"If Liz's killer wasn't Jack, he took the same risks as Jack would have done by killing her in that yard, not knowing who could enter it from the club or the street at any moment"

...and that means I will order the same prescription as always. We can accept Schwartz´testimony, realize what kind violence was involved in the "attack" outside the gates and obtain a perfectly functional explanation to the cachous if we move with the suggestion that BS man was an aquaintance of Liz´s, trying to bring her away from a situation where he thought her soliciting, and engaging in a probably somewhat heated discussion in the yard with her.

Your final point, that whoever it was - if it was NOT Jack - took the same risks as he would have done, remains of marginal interest, since the strike, if it was a spur-of-the-moment deed, would reasonably have had no elements of risk calculation to it.

Hoping all is well with you,
Fisherman