Liz Stride: Why No Loud Cry?

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[Monty]

Tom,

I cant see her sowing at that time either.

Im trying to wrack my brains to remember if Eddowes belongings were placed or on her persons. Im flitting between things at the moment.

Im in agreement with you essentially. I think he did pay attention to personal belongings if he could, certainly Chapman. Just that I think it was after he committed murder, not prior.

Monty


Night Fisherman, dont let the bed bugs bite.

[Tom_Wescott]

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. One can accept both Jack and BS Man as Stride's killer. It's not necessarily an either/or thing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;40915]C.d writes:

"But why is bringing violent man #2 (Jack) on stage such an insurmountable problem when it is generally agreed that he killed that night a mere mile and a half away?"

It is not! It is a viable scenario, no question about it. But the thing is, c.d, that since we already HAVE a violent man on stage, there is no call for another, is there? It is a simpler scenario to believe in BS man as her killer, and since we KNOW that he was there whereas we DONT KNOW that Jack was, why opt for the more complex choice?
And, as you well know, if we do opt for Jack, we are faced with all them other difficulties - why the shallower cut, why the position on her left, why no disarranged clothing, why no mutilation. It is not as if accepting that Jack chimed in buys us a full package of explanations, is it?

Hi Fisherman,

But this all goes back to the act of throwing Liz to the ground and how much weight we want to assign to that act. If we believe that that was an absolutely unique event in the history of prostitution and the BS man is already on the scene then there really would appear to be no reason to introduce Jack. But since it is generally acknowledged that Liz (as well as the other victims) had probably suffered much worse assaults without those assaults resulting in their deaths, it would seem quite possible that the BS man simply walked off after giving Liz a good cussing. Enter Jack stage right.

But you are right that the Jack scenario presents its own difficulties as does the BS man scenario. Hence I see it as about a 70/30 probability in favor of Jack.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Monty,

I'm sorry but I don't believe thimble tapping was alive and well in 1888 London. I can't imagine Eddowes was indiscrimately tapping on windows to try and drum up business when men were leaving nearby clubs. I'm not suggesting there was no blitz style attack. When it came time to attack, that might be what Jack did. I'm just trying to make sense of the fact that three sequential victims had their personal belongings near them when found.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Monty writes:

"I just dont feel he would have wasted his time with a stand and deliver routine. It just smacks of a classic blitz attack"

My sentiments too, Monty - as few and silent preludes as possible, thank you very much! And the rifling through the pockets may well be post-mortem.

Off to bed now - and back to business tomorrow. Sleep well, sweet princes and princesses. You too, Monty!

The best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"But why is bringing violent man #2 (Jack) on stage such an insurmountable problem when it is generally agreed that he killed that night a mere mile and a half away?"

It is not! It is a viable scenario, no question about it. But the thing is, c.d, that since we already HAVE a violent man on stage, there is no call for another, is there? It is a simpler scenario to believe in BS man as her killer, and since we KNOW that he was there whereas we DONT KNOW that Jack was, why opt for the more complex choice?
And, as you well know, if we do opt for Jack, we are faced with all them other difficulties - why the shallower cut, why the position on her left, why no disarranged clothing, why no mutilation. It is not as if accepting that Jack chimed in buys us a full package of explanations, is it?

The best,

Fisherman

[Monty]

Monty,

Hello old friend. Did I not say Eddowes' thimble was next to her hand? Makes more sense to me that she was holding it than wearing it. Chapman's belongings MAY have been arranged, but they first must have been laid on the ground or they fell there. From the evidence, it seems to me more likely that her rings were wrenched from her fingers while she was alive and conscious as opposed to after. Not only were her rings missing, but also her medicine and lotion, which may have been taken away by her killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

You certianly did say Eddowes thimble was next to her hand, which is the most likely place it would be after her pocket. Indicates to me she was thimble tapping.

I agree about Chapman, there would seem to be a degree of rifling, though we are no sure he did take the lotion and medicine.

I just dont feel he would have wasted his time with a stand and deliver routine. It just smacks of a classic blitz attack.

Cheers
Monty


PS Good to see you back

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

But why is bringing violent man #2 (Jack) on stage such an insurmountable problem when it is generally agreed that he killed that night a mere mile and a half away?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Tom wescott writes:

"You completely misunderstand me"

I can see that now, Tom! Still, much as I now realize what you are speaking of, I think that what you leave us with is not the most credible scenario.
To begin with, such a method would have left him with the risk that the victims were either too drunk to follow his wishes, instead crying out, or simply loosing their nerve, rendering the same result. And I think that the number one priority for the Ripper as he set about his business was to ensure silence. It was absolutely vital to him! Without it, he would probably not get to the evisceration stage, and that was magic to him, as I think you will agree. And there was no need to use the robbery ploy with Nichols, was there? She was staggering drunkenly about, and she would have been the easiest of prey. The sick Chapman, the frail Eddowes: much the same thing. He was physically powerful, as evinced in the cuts, and they would have been sitting ducks in his hands.

Besides, I guess that Jack is the guy you throw forward as employing the robbery thing with Stride? Not B S man, I take it, since it would seem strange to first try and drag her into the street, only afterwards swopping methods and masquerading as a robber.
If I am correct here, you are still faced with that age-old problem: You need to bring violent man number two on the stage! Meaning that you need to have Jack in the shape of Ditto-in-the-box appearing in them few minutes after BS mans meeting with Liz, plus you need a couple of sweaty fingers adhering to that cachous packet, so that it is fished up from her pocket at that exact time - and not thrown away.

Much as I realize that you donīt share my wiews, you may perhaps admit that I have a simpler case to defend - much, much simpler!

The best, Tom!

Fisherman