Liz Stride: Why No Loud Cry?

[Celesta]

C.D,

In my humble opinion, Liz knew this character in some way. Perhaps not well, necessarily, but enough to think that she was not in mortal danger. Or perhaps, she thought she could talk or argue her way out of it. This would be especially true if he was familiar. She never got the chance. The impression I got from Schwartz's original testimony is that he expected to find her there, as if he were looking for her. When he saw her, he didn't hesitate to grab her and throw her down. There was no schmoozing to get inside her guard and close to her. She may have been with him earlier in the evening, or at least in the recent past.

Best,

Cel

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"Hence I see it as about a 70/30 probability in favor of Jack."

Arguing with Caz some time back, c.d., I gave my numbers as somewhere around 80-20 or 85-15 against Jack.
Somehow Iīm not sure that it means that it will be easier to sway you, though...

The best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"One can accept both Jack and BS Man as Stride's killer. It's not necessarily an either/or thing. "

Correct, of course. But then again, if we are to accept BS man as Jack, how does that sit with your robbery scenario? Did he first try to drag her along with him, into the street, then shove her into the yard, then employ the robbery thing, then cut her, being interrupted halfways through the cut, and the leave the stage?

I think, as you well know, that much as I enjoy complexity and ingenuity, we must try to avoid such things when looking for a solution to the Stride killing. If we have no signs of a mutilation killer on stage, why put him in the frame? If we have no signs of a robbery ploy, and no need to bring it into the picture, why do so? If we are handed down the choice between a domestic killing - which is a tediously common type of slaying - and an evisceration killing, moreover an interrupted such - which is about as ordinary as getting run over by a train in the middle of the Pacific Ocean - why go for the latter? Especially since we have signs that lend themselves very well to an interpretation of aquaintance inbetween BS man and Stride.

On the issue of the personal belongings, I think Monty is spot on; that would have happened post-mortem. A nice indicator here is that we donīt see that pile of belongings in the Nichols case, just as we donīt see any organs taken away. In that case, he was probably interrupted by Lechmere approaching, or he was simply spooked, abandoning his purpose to procure an organ or two. If he had been in the habit of extracting what was in his victimsīpocket before he killed, then we would expect to see such belongings alongside Nicholsīcorpse too, would we not? But no, her handkerchief, her comb, her broken piece of mirror, it is all found on her person since he never got around to rifle through her pockets.

All the best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

This, guys, was posted by Nicole on a thread about Australian on-line newspaper archives. The bottom part, especially, has a sort of music to it:

"From The West Australian News, 2 Oct 1888 in the foreign telegrams section (spelling mistakes and all)

THE MYSTERIOUS MURDERS IN
? ENGLAND.
TWO MORE VICTIMS.
London, Sept. 30, 6.30 p.m.
At 2.20 p.m. to-day, a woman, ap-

parently abont thirty-five years of age,

was discovered murdered at the junction

of Leadenhall and Ķ- Feuchurch- streets.
Her body was completely disembowelled
and the nose severed from the face.

About an hour earlier another woman

was found with her throat cut from> ear

to .'ear, in the backyard pf a honse in
Berner streets
'?"ĶĶ'-'? 03.0 p,m;
There is .intense excitement in . the
city concerning the fearful murders re-

ported to-day. v The horrors of the Ald-

gate innrder totally eclipse the details

of those which took place in Whitechapel.

As yet no arrests have been made. It

is doubted if the Berner street murder

belongs to the same class as the others."

All the best!

Fisherman

[c.d.]

Fisherman writes:

I think, as you well know, that much as I enjoy complexity and ingenuity, we must try to avoid such things when looking for a solution to the Stride killing. If we have no signs of a mutilation killer on stage, why put him in the frame? If we have no signs of a robbery ploy, and no need to bring it into the picture, why do so? If we are handed down the choice between a domestic killing - which is a tediously common type of slaying - and an evisceration killing, moreover an interrupted such - which is about as ordinary as getting run over by a train in the middle of the Pacific Ocean - why go for the latter? Especially since we have signs that lend themselves very well to an interpretation of aquaintance inbetween BS man and Stride.

Hi Fisherman,

That argument would carry a lot more weight if there had never been a serial killer by the name of Jack the Ripper who killed that night a mere mile and a half away.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

The wounds to Chapman's hands caused by the removal of the rings are more indicative of them having been wrenched off her while living than dead, so I'm not so much convinced by Monty's argument as you are that these items (cachous, thimble, Chapman's variety) were all removed and placed into position after death. I find that less than likely, in fact.
And yes, a number of papers expressed some doubt that Stride was a Ripper victim. Contrary to what Glenn Lauritz Andersson, Esq. espouses, the police did entertain the notion that she was not a Ripper victim. They concluded she was. This means something to most researchers, as well it should. There's so much in common with her murder and the others it's almost ridiculous. Either she was a Ripper victim or a very good copycat by a killer with impeccable timing.
I don't recall anyone named Lechmere interrupting the Ripper in Buck's Row, but it seems probable Cross did.
As for BS Man and my robber theory, the two fit perfectly together. The Ripper approaches a girl as a client, they go somewhere private, he robs them and kills them. In the case of BS Man we find a man attempting to make Stride go with him. Was he the Ripper? I don't know.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

" Either she was a Ripper victim or a very good copycat by a killer with impeccable timing. "

If that, Tom, was a very good copycat, what would a victim on her back, neck cut to the bone, eviscerated, clothing disarrayed be? A very, very good copycat?

In defense of Glenn, I would say that he holds and has given expression to the wiew that the investigation of the Stride killing quickly turned into a Ripper hunt - not that it was so from the outset. These are things you know very well, but still try to exploit in an unfair manner.

"I'm not so much convinced by Monty's argument as you are that these items (cachous, thimble, Chapman's variety) were all removed and placed into position after death."

And what about Nichols? Why do we not have her belongings at her side instead of on her person?

The best!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

If that, Tom, was a very good copycat, what would a victim on her back, neck cut to the bone, eviscerated, clothing disarrayed be? A very, very good copycat?

Since there was no copycat at work, I'll consider this a rhetorical question.

In defense of Glenn, I would say that he holds and has given expression to the wiew that the investigation of the Stride killing quickly turned into a Ripper hunt - not that it was so from the outset. These are things you know very well, but still try to exploit in an unfair manner.

You crack me up. You post a newspaper article specifically to make the point that the police gave consideration to the idea that Stride was not a Ripper victim. When I reference the same article on the same thread, you call it exploitation. Now, who would you say is behaving in an 'unfair manner'?

And what about Nichols? Why do we not have her belongings at her side instead of on her person?

Well, her hat was found by her hand, if you wanna get picky. In any event, the Ripper appears to have been interrupted by Cross, as you well know. Or Lechmere as you call him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

In any event, the Ripper appears to have been interrupted by Cross, as you well know. Or Lechmere as you call him.

I think the Ripper had left Bucks Row ten minutes before Cross entered the street as Robert Paul said her hands and face were quite cold.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

" In any event, the Ripper appears to have been interrupted by Cross, as you well know. Or Lechmere as you call him"

Yes, Tom. And if he had was interrupted, then what does it show:
a
A/ That the Ripper cut first and rifled through the pockets later
B/ That the Ripper rifled through the pockets first, and cut later
or
C/ That the Ripper rifled through the pockets first, put the things back and then cut

Take your pick, Tom!

And the rest:

"Since there was no copycat at work, I'll consider this a rhetorical question."

Gutsy, Tom!

"Now, who would you say is behaving in an 'unfair manner'?"

You, Tom.

"Well, her hat was found by her hand, if you wanna get picky"

Thatīs the good thing about you, Tom; you never get boring!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jon. It was more like 10 seconds. Robert Paul thought he heard her heart, so he was of the impression she was still alive. While I don't think that's the case, it seems Cross scared the Ripper away. Cross, according to his testimony, heard Paul coming from a pretty good distance. This tells us about how far the Ripper could have heard Cross coming. Enough time to take cover. He likely watched them the entire time they examined the body.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

"He likely watched them the entire time they examined the body."

Intriguing, Tom - but "likely"?

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

I overuse the word 'likely', as you should know. However, consider that the men were certain they saw no one else going up or down the street. Then they leave and PC Neil comes in almost instantly. From that point forward the street only became more crowded. When I realized this it was the first time I gave any consideration to the man who sauntered through the street unmolested shortly thereafter.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Possibly. But the distance from Nicholīs body to the schoolbuilding was a smallish one, and after that he was left with choices aplenty. I donīt share that feeling of yours that he was there, watching. I think he got out of there as fast as he could.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't believe he had as many escape routes open to him as you think, Fish.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott