Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Herlock Sholmes]

[c.d.]

No one had told you about the stork yet c.d?

Well of course. Biology classes, friends but I was trying to get personal, first hand confirmation of what I had been told. But I kept getting "well I like you but just as a friend."

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

20??? Why sir, I'll have you know I was still trying to figure out where babies came from back in 2008...so yeah...about 20 would be right.

c.d.

No one had told you about the stork yet c.d?

[c.d.]

2008. You were only about 20 when you started it then c.d.

20??? Why sir, I'll have you know I was still trying to figure out where babies came from back in 2008...so yeah...about 20 would be right.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wow, this is really going way back in the old time machine. I don't even remember starting this thread. Kind of cool to see some of the old posters responding.

c.d.

2008. You were only about 20 when you started it then c.d.

[c.d.]

Wow, this is really going way back in the old time machine. I don't even remember starting this thread. Kind of cool to see some of the old posters responding.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

Bump up for yet another fascinating thread.

An oldie, but a goodie.

[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

[harry]

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

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Fisherman]

Gary writes:

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

Ehrm...?

Fisherman