Previous Assaults on Liz

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Mike, for clarifying the issue. And I share your wiew that we owe it to ourselves and and our fellow posters to show courtesy out here. And that should apply also when we are convinced that our counterparts actually dont know what the f* they are talking about. In the end we may all be terribly wrong or gloriously right about the different aspects here, and that should make the toughest of us a little bit more humble, I feel.
One thing cannot be discussed, though, since it is a given: getting off on the wrong foot is no good thing, just like you say. Thanks for reminding us all about that!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Certainly it is very likely but by no means the 'ridiculous and unlikely degree of "coincidence"' that Ben would have us believe.

Swanson stated that it is "not clearly proved" that the broad-shouldered man killed Stride, a position with which I'd agree entirely. There's an important distinction between "very unlikely" and "impossible", and I've never suggested that a hypothetical second attacker falls into the latter category. Swanson doesn't really comment on the "likelihood" of anyone other than the broad-shouldered man having killed Stride, but I'm pleased so see that most of us here are in agreement that he was "very likely" to have done so. I'd cheerfully leave it at that.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

I'm glad to see that people have calmed down a bit and that more rational thought and civil behavior have taken over. I know that it is easy to get carried away in these arguments which is unfortunate because it detracts from the goal of trying to discover who killed Liz. That is certainly my goal but I am not immune from falling into the trap of trying to win an argument or defending a position. Now I have to admit that the BS man certainly seems to be the most obvious candidate for being Liz's killer and there are a lot of facts to support that opinion. But as you probably know from my posts, I like to ask questions and put those facts to the test and see how those facts stand up to the harsh light of day. I guess that sometimes gets interpreted by others to mean that I am unwilling to accept facts which is certainly not my intention. So human nature being what it is we get caught up in these little pissing matches which only cause bruised feelings. For myself, I harbor no ill will to anyone here except maybe for Sam and his bad puns.

So I look forward to more spirited debates in the future and hopefully sharing a few pints together someday.

c.d.

[Observer]

Hi Mike

You can disagree with me all you like, Im hardly offended by inferior arguments....but I do not like continually snide comments.

As to who killed Liz cd, Ill stick with the man seen assaulting her minutes before she dies. You can choose Gull for all I care.

I may be wrong, you may be right, but on paper Im the one who uses only the knowns. Thats my point.

Drunk man acosts woman outside empty yard, yells at witness. Within 10 minutes she is cut inside that yard. 2 known people at the site, one showing violent tendencies towards the other. The recipient of the violence is found dead 15 minutes later. Two people scuffling, one dies.....and its more likely that a third party enters, without being seen by Fanny, or Schwartz...and he is Jack, and cuts once?

Sure.
Regards.

Using all the knowns? Liz Stride assaulted minutes before she dies? How many minutes? Liz Stride was still bleeding 18 19 minutes after she was assaulted. From the inquest, the coroner questions Spooner

[Coroner] Was any blood coming from the throat? - Yes; it was still flowing. I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, and some red and white flowers pinned on her breast. I did not feel the body, nor did I alter the position of the head. I am sure of that. Her face was turned towards the club wall.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether the blood was still moving on the ground? - It was running down the gutter. I stood by the side of the body for four or five minutes, until the last witness arrived.

If Liz Stride was cut minutes after her assault, and I'll anticipate that you mean 1 maybe 2 minutes then why was the blood still flowing from her throat, still moving down towards the gutter, at 3, 4 minutes after one o clock, a good 16, 17 minutes after her death? Isn't this "known" more consistant with Liz Stride having had her thoat cut shortly before one o clock, that is a few minutes to one o clock?

all the best

Observer

[Dan Norder]

Well that's odd because not so long ago you were arguing for the ridiculous notion that because Berner Street is south of the Whitechapel Road it was out of the Ripper's area according to the theories of geographical profiling.

Your memory must be playing tricks on you again, as I have never said any such thing. In fact I have argued against such claims when others made them in the past.

[Fisherman]

Observer writes, answering Michael:

"If Liz Stride was cut minutes after her assault, and I'll anticipate that you mean 1 maybe 2 minutes then why was the blood still flowing from her throat, still moving down towards the gutter, at 3, 4 minutes after one o clock, a good 16, 17 minutes after her death? Isn't this "known" more consistant with Liz Stride having had her thoat cut shortly before one o clock, that is a few minutes to one o clock?"

Reasonable objection, Observer. But if we can rely on Fanny Mortimer, there still seemed to be very little traffic to and fro the Yard. To me, that suggests that she may have entered the yard and spent a significant amount of time inside it, getting cut only after that.

Right! So she goes in there at about 12.45-12.47, something, and she probably does so together with the man that killed her. After that, they spend perhaps five or ten minutes together in the yard, not having sex, as per the implications. She feels comfortable and secure enough to start munching on her cachous.

Does this sound like something Jack would have participated in? No, it does not. To me, it suggests that there was some sort of discussion or argument between two people who knew each other going on inside that yard. And since we have knowledge of B S man first approaching her verbally, thereafter trying to drag her away with him, I think that a very obvious solution to the question who was there in that yard with her is offered.

The best, Observer!
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hello all,

Thanks Stewart for the post, but in all fairness the lines" its is not actually proved that the man Schwartz saw is the murderer although it is clearly the more probable of the two" infer a great deal of suspicion on the two men at the scene.

He is of course referring to Pipeman, but the inference is clear that there was a great deal of suspicion about Broadshouldered Man as the killer. As well there should have been, he is clearly by witness accounts, left alone in the compny of a woman he accosted and who will be killed within 14 minutes.

Mike, you sentiments are good, and I believe you know from my posts for almost two years that cordial conversation is by far my preference. That being said, there is a nagging tendency in these discussions to leave illogical doors open, because someones opinion at that time leaves a less than logical answer on the table....or because that when you cannot be absolute about something, any answer however improbable is still on the table.

In this case, almost all medical and investigative opinion categorized Liz as a murder victim of "Jack's". Is that unapproachable? It's hardly a definitive case, and it is still an unsolved murder. One of perhaps 10 or 11 that happenend during the "Ripper" period. And in those 10 or 11, are the Canonicals, victims assumed to be by a single killer.

For myself....when I am presented with a single wound, no evidence of any further interaction with the corpse, a setting that is essentially deserted at the key times excluding a soon to be murder victim and a witnesses testified drunk man who accosts her within minutes of her cut...without any testimony that anyone saw anyone leave, or arrive, and with the overwhelmingly non-ripperized Victim, ....I dont like assuming it was still possible for it to be Jack, by arriving unseen, and being interrupted at the very moment he would be turning the body on her back.

Yes, it is possible. No... it is not probable, and No, there is nothing in evidence which can authenticate the opinions that Jack must have done this.

Sooner or later all investigators must follow the evidence, including us, and the evidence, what little there is, leaves 2 people who had an altercation at a location which is feet from, and minutes before, 1 of them is cut. We know which one gets cut....and logic and the absolute lack of a tangible case for Jack neccesitates the assumption that if Jack killed her.....Jack was Broadshouldered Man. I cannot buy that myself, nor a magical entrance by the real one.

And in another "Ripper" assumptive, Ill just say that in many cases where a woman is found murdered in her bed in her underwear late at night, she was in the bed sleeping when the attack occurred. Just as it appears....like a woman on her side with a single wound and a known agitant with her just before.

Best regards all.

[perrymason]

Hi Mike

Using all the knowns? Liz Stride assaulted minutes before she dies? How many minutes? Liz Stride was still bleeding 18 19 minutes after she was assaulted. From the inquest, the coroner questions Spooner

[Coroner] Was any blood coming from the throat? - Yes; it was still flowing. I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, and some red and white flowers pinned on her breast. I did not feel the body, nor did I alter the position of the head. I am sure of that. Her face was turned towards the club wall.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether the blood was still moving on the ground? - It was running down the gutter. I stood by the side of the body for four or five minutes, until the last witness arrived.

If Liz Stride was cut minutes after her assault, and I'll anticipate that you mean 1 maybe 2 minutes then why was the blood still flowing from her throat, still moving down towards the gutter, at 3, 4 minutes after one o clock, a good 16, 17 minutes after her death? Isn't this "known" more consistant with Liz Stride having had her thoat cut shortly before one o clock, that is a few minutes to one o clock?

all the best
Observer

Hi Observer,

Two things.....Blackwells estimate on the timing of the cut, leaves her being cut between 12:46, and 12:56am. If that is the case, Spooner did not likely see blood flow, though he may have thought he did. Since we do have two medical men there on site, I believe the issues of when the cut occurred, and how quickly she might bleed out, say that Spooner was wrong.

If you review Spooners statements, you'll soon see its not the only incorrect statement he makes under oath.

Blackwell arrived at 1:16....Liz was cut between 1/2 hour and 20 minutes before he arrived. Which translates to Liz on the ground at no later than 12:56am....already cut, and Diemshutz, by his statements, 4 minutes away.

Interruption? Still bleeding at 1:06am? Doesnt jive with medical opinon, and Spooner is no doctor, and he is looking at a woman by matchlight that is in almost total darkness otherwise. I think you could test it yourself, find a pitch black spot with damp pavement, pour some oil on it, then light a match and see if the illumination on the oil makes it seem like it is in motion.... Ive done it.

Another point, can you say that any other Ripper victim was suggested as possibly cut "while she was falling". Now think about her "falling" at 12:45. BSM had already caused her to "fall" once.

Cheers Observer.

[Elias]

Just another point. If she was murdered by BS man, the time between Schwartz seeing her attacked and her being found dead could be explained by her being used to violence. Maybe her fear of violence had been numbed somewhat because of the area she lived in and people she met, so she could've been thrown to the ground, but despite her being attacked by him, got up and remained with him for a short time after that before it escalated into something more sinister.

[perrymason]

Just another point. If she was murdered by BS man, the time between Schwartz seeing her attacked and her being found dead could be explained by her being used to violence. Maybe her fear of violence had been numbed somewhat because of the area she lived in and people she met, so she could've been thrown to the ground, but despite her being attacked by him, got up and remained with him for a short time after that before it escalated into something more sinister.

A reasonable possibility Elias, and one that provides an escalation, allowing for a minor attack to become something more lethal.

Jack just popping in and making one cut is not very reasonable.

Best regards.

[caz]

Hi Ben,

No, I didn't quite say that he got the idea to kill from witnessing the violence. I said he may have been triggered by it.

As for the two separate attackers--why not? In the course of my previous work, the number of women I came across raped or assaulted by two different assailants on the same night or within a very short space of time (yes, admittedly not 5 minutes) was shocking...women fleeing from the home of a domestic assailant, raped by a man who saw them waiting at bus stops and so forth. Assailants sniff out victims. It would be more unusual if they didn't. And one thing we do know for certain about Jack: he picked on women who were, objectively, very much down on their luck. We know he had already killed, we know he'd crossed that barrier. I'm not saying that I believe for certain that is what happened; only that I've no reason to dismiss it on the distribution of violent assailants thesis.

Hi Claire,

Not trying to come off as sexist, but maybe this is something we women can see more readily. I can understand why it would be discomfiting to nice normal guys to think of their own sex inflicting injury upon insult in this way. Also, I read recently that notorious serial killer Peter Kurten played the good Samaritan with one victim, kindly rescuing her in the nick of time from another sexual predator’s hands before luring her somewhere he could have a deadlier crack at her himself. She was very lucky to survive both men’s violent intentions.

Jack would have been only too willing to add injury to the insult Liz had just suffered from BS. I’d be jolly surprised if he didn’t come across a single unfortunate being mistreated while he was out on the prowl that autumn.

Hi Perry,

You wrote to c.d:

An estimate on a cut that took place no later than 1/2 hour or 20 minutes prior to Blackwells arrival is hardly a stab in the dark cd. Maybe you think Doctors couldnt recognize a 1/2 hour old wound....we certainly disagree.

What Blackwell thought he recognised was a wound that was probably less than twenty minutes old, but certainly less than half an hour old when he examined it. He set half an hour as his absolute ceiling just to be on the safe side. You keep misunderstanding this basic fact. In short, his opinion was that the wound was most likely inflicted after 12.56 (ie twenty minutes before his watch told him it was 1.16), but certainly no earlier than 12.46.

You also wrote:

Maybe first you should explain why BSM, who was trying to acquire a hooker by the looks of it, suddenly changes his mind and leaves in the first place.

So now Liz doesn’t look to you like she’s dolled up to the nines in her Saturday best, waiting for her hot date to show up and treat her like the lady she is, but instead she looks for all the world like the professional hooker we know her to be, because otherwise BS would not have assumed he could acquire her services. Right, I think I see progress of sorts.

If you were right the first time and Liz wasn’t working that night, then he’d have had to acquire her services by force or give up. Might not be a good idea to try the former, considering he had witnesses to his clumsy overtures. Ditto if she was working but didn’t propose to service an oaf who wasn’t exactly showing her the colour of his money first.

An alternative is that BS disapproved of such women hanging around the club and was no more trying to acquire this one’s services than a dose of the clap. A quick shove as he passed by would have made his point without having to soil his hands on her any further.

...killed by a method that was admittedly very frequent in that society at that time...

...If Stride had been the only prostitute killed in the East End that autumn, not one of those who try to cram Jack into B S mans shoes would have come up with the notion that the evidence existing pointed to a serial killer being at large.

Hi Fisherman,

Very frequent? I would strongly submit that if you were to do the impossible and take the serial killer out of the equation, you would find unsolved outdoor throat cutting murders of women very infrequent indeed in that society, regardless of the period you choose to examine.

‘If’ is far too big a word to use because you can try to take a Whitechapel murder away from Jack but you can never take the Jack out of 1888 Whitechapel.

If the victim (let’s call her Lucky Liz) who survived a strangulation attempt in West Croydon a few years back, because two witnesses (let’s call them Brave Schwartz and Noble Pipe Man) chased off her assailant, had been the only woman attacked that night, nobody would have come up with the notion that this evidence pointed to a serial offender at large. But she wasn’t the only one.

Her attacker (let’s call him Unlucky John) was not spooked by his close call into giving up, going home and cooling off, as some argue Jack would have been if he killed Liz. Not a bit of it. High on drink and drugs (now there’s a surprise) he was soon seeking out a second victim and prowled the main road until he found a woman (let’s just call her Kate) he could really go to town on, to relieve his pent-up anger and frustration at his earlier failure to complete the job. He didn’t try to strangle this one, but battered her over the head with a lump of wood until she was beyond recognition.

Nobody would have had any reason to assume the same man was involved if he hadn’t showed up on cctv prowling that main road and been recognised by a witness to the first assault.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Geez, Caz; what you do resembles poaching or guerilla warfare at times. You pop up from nowhere in September and deliver answers to points made in August. And when I answer you, pooof! Gone again.

It would be rewarding to get an answer more directly every once in a while, if you catch my drift!

Moreover, I need some luck to stumble over your answers, when they suddenly surface. That will probably mean that you sometimes are left with no answer at all, and, well .. It´s a bit of a waste, I think.

But here goes:

To fault me on the point of using the wording "very frequent" you of course have to establish just how frequent "very frequent" is.
And that is hard.

Actually, murder is not a very frequent business at all. But comparing knife killings to other killings in the East End of 1888 will leave us with the insight that knives were used in a good deal of the slayings. And cutting throats was not all that unusual either. Many of A P Wolfs posts to the boards have made that very clear.

On your colourful example with Lucky Liz et al, I fail to see what you are trying to prove. Is it the fact that two murders by the same man can look unalike each other?
If so, Caz, I will say that this notion of yours is spot on! The Düsseldorf police thought they were hunting down three or four mad killers in the 1920:s, until they caught Peter Kürten and understood that the scissors killer, the hammer killer, the knife wielder and the strangler were actually one and the same.

But the problem, Caz, does not lie therein. For there is no rule saying that serial killers will employ different methods of despatching each victim. Instead there is ample evidence telling us that such creatures have a tendency to develop killing methods that repeat themselves inbetween the murder sites. In other words, it is a better approach to look for consistencies than it is to chance on inconsistencies if we want to identify a killer.

That, by the way, is the strong point for those who want Jack as Liz´killer - she was after all cut in the neck.
Which brings us back to the first point: knife-killings were abundant, proportionwise, in that day and venue. Slitting throats was often employed by those who killed by means of knives.
A comparison could be todays firearms killings. If two women are shot in the head and eviscerated in downtown Chicago, does that really have to mean that a third woman found in the same approxiamte area, shot in the head and killed, fell prey to the same man who committed the first murders?
Wherein lies the most significant common factor, Caz? Is it the bullet to the head? Or is it the evisceration? Which is the rarer creature? The shooter, or the eviscerator?

Checking out the Chicago police files after such an event, and going back a year, I would suggest that you would find heaps, loads and bagfuls of people killed by firearms, a good deal of the killings having been carried out by a shot to the head.
The evisceration murders, however, would probably amount to two - end of story.

A knife murder, where the wound deviates to a significant extent from the deep throatcuts produced in the other cases, is simply not enough. Not by a long way. The only logical conclusion must be that long as it MAY have been Jack, the more probable solution lies in realizing that it was not him.

The best, Caz! I´ll take a look to see if you have responded in a fortnight´s time!
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Fisherman,

All I can say in my defence is that this is not some deliberate debating tactic of mine and as far as I am aware it's not against posting rules. I simply can't be in ten places at once, and I have other things in my life besides struggling to keep abreast of all these interesting casebook discussions. I don’t see why that should be held against me or disqualify me from having my say on any topic when I’m good and ready.

It actually puts me at a disadvantage, if anyone, because I usually have to wade through so many posts in order to challenge anything, and it would obviously be more effective to do so straight away, rather than weeks after the original post appeared.

But why do you need luck to ‘stumble over’ a post of mine that happens to refer back to one of yours? All posts 'suddenly' surface with no more or less warning than any other. It's hardly my fault if, just like me, you can't always keep up immediately with every new post that appears under a particular topic that has grabbed your attention previously. I know of one poster who has installed a little bell in his underpants to alert him the instant I return, as I do most infrequently, to a certain non-ripper topic, so he can plop yet another of his billets-doux immediately beneath my name. He rarely misses.

Besides, all I did in this case was to offer a genuine example (and therefore hardly a ‘colourful’ one) of a double event from recent years, featuring aspects that would seem to overcome some of the specific objections you and others regularly raise to the possibility of Liz’s killer going on to kill Kate. There’s nothing like using real events to show that violent offenders can and do behave in certain ways, despite the most enthusiastic arguments to the contrary. It’s information that is here for anyone who wants it.

I’m glad you agree that murder is ‘not a very frequent business at all’. I’m happy to leave it there. My main objection was to your argument that if only Liz had been killed nobody would imagine a serial killer was at large. It’s circular and meaningless because it relies on Liz not being one of a series. You could say exactly the same about Mary Kelly, or any of the other victims. Using similar logic I could argue that if a serial killer had not been at large, Liz (or Mary) would not have been murdered. We’re stuck with Jack and we’d be as irrational as he was if we didn’t take him into account when assessing any of the Whitechapel crimes.

I’m also glad you agree that two murders by the same man will not necessarily look alike. But it’s hardly ‘this notion’ of mine; it’s a fact as plain as the nose on my face. While there is quite obviously no rule that says serial killers will use different methods on each victim, there is equally no rule that forces them to behave predictably or consistently enough from one crime to another to put it beyond doubt that the same man was responsible for both. It has to be a flawed approach to wilfully play down or disregard any consistencies while placing emphasis on the inevitable differences, if you have nothing that effectively rules out the offender you claim to ‘want to identify’. You will be left with two murderers to identify and fewer potential clues about your serial killer. What are you going to gain from seeking to exclude a crime that he has at least shown himself capable of committing?

Those of us who accept that the similarities could indicate the same man are losing nothing by considering the possibility while bearing in mind that nothing is set in stone. This is not about gun crime in today’s Chicago. It’s about what serial killers who prey on women are known to be capable of, and how they can and will adapt to individual victims and circumstances. You can introduce as many other potential knife-wielders or trigger-happy gunmen as you like and use them to explain individual unsolved crimes. But it helps if you have a good reason to take the known serial offender who was active at the time out of the equation first.

If you think Liz’s knife wound by itself is ‘enough’ for me, or that I have ever claimed it must have been Jack’s work, you have simply not been reading carefully enough to inspire me with great confidence in your ability to weigh up evidence.

I'll be back shortly with a bit more detail of Peter Kurten's 'rescue' mission, which has more relevance to the subject of previous assaults on Liz and how lightning can indeed strike a victim twice.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

From Infamous Crimes Macdonald & Co 1989:

'...Maria Budlick...set out to look for work and boarded a train for Dusseldorf...

On the platform at Dusseldorf station, she was accosted by a man who offered to show her the way to a girls' hostel. They followed the brightly-lit streets for a while, but when he started leading her towards the dark trees of the Volksgarten Park she suddenly remembered the stories of the Monster, and refused to go any farther. The man insisted and it was while they were arguing that a second man appeared, as if from nowhere, and inquired softly: "Is everything all right?" The man from the railway station slunk away and Maria Budlick was left alone with her rescuer.'

Briefly, what happened next was that the second man lured Maria first to his flat for something to eat and drink and then offered to take her to the hostel. But after a tram ride she realised they were walking deeper and deeper into the woods, where the man told her she could scream as much as she liked and nobody would hear her. He then seized her by the throat and tried to have sex with her. She struggled and was about to pass out when his grip relaxed and he asked if she remembered where his flat was: "in case you're ever in need and want my help". She did remember but was smart enough to say no.

'The man let her go and showed her out of the woods'.

It was Maria's testimony that signed Peter Kurten's death warrant.

I'll leave you to see how many possible parallels you can find, apart from the obvious ones I have highlighted, with the theory that Liz encountered first BS and then Jack.

Love,

Caz
X

[claire]

Thanks, Caz, for coming up with a known example of the phenomenon I was mentioning A pair of great posts there, and I think they serve well to remind us of the victimological elements of these offences. These can tell us at least as much about JtR, and violent crime of that time, as a focus on evidential or suspect based enquiries.