Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[perrymason]

Hello all,

It seems there is a misconception that the two murders Double Event night bore great similarity to each other,...Ive noticed the words "identical" being used. That statement is far from accurate. Things were done in Mitre Square that demonstrated a knowledge of anatomy at least equal to that of a butcher, and Liz Strides single artery severance could have been done by me, or any able bodied man here with a predisposition to using a knife to fight and/or kill.

With Liz Stride, the case for inclusion is extremely weak,....suggesting that a killer who slits throats must be Jack the Ripper, and because he was apparently working later that night in the city, well he just must have started down near Goodman's Fields, been interrupted,.. thats why no abdominal cuts or even disheveled skirt ...then taken a stroll to work off his frustration.

There were lots of slit throats to go round, in fact 3 not 2 that very night.... and just half attributed to The Ripper.

And in the case of Liz Stride, we have a witness account that almost places her in the arms of a man who semi-assaulted her...enough to startle her into calling out, and just feet from the shadowed area where her throat was cut between 1, and 10 minutes after Pipeman chased Schwartz off..or they both left. And for those who still dont seem to get it yet.....there is at the very least 4 minutes that Liz's killer had alone with her after cutting her throat.

Why no more cuts? C'mon....the guy probably skidaddled it outta there as soon as he sees her throat gushing. Sound much like Jacky?

My best regards all.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Man, you are absolutely wedded to that position. But as I pointed out, the BS man is far from a slam dunk. There is the question of motive. What was it? A slight from Liz? Ok, why not slap her around and let it go at that? Why not a stab to another part of the body rather than one meant to kill? Why kill her after being seen by Schwartz and the BS man? Why doesn't Liz scream her head off? Why does she go off with a man who assaulted her? How does she manage to hold on to the cachous? These are all questions that need to be answered.

And finally for the hundreth time....it is an ASSUMPTION that Jack had the time to kill her. He might have been disturbed and/or scared. We just don't know.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Whoa! Things are really developing here! Didn´t I tell you, Tom, that your theory would evoke interest?
For natural reasons, I will not buy into it; to me Stride is not a Ripper victim as you well know. And there are a number of things that I feel are weak in your reasoning.
For example, what you speak of here is a somewhat vain Ripper, a man who to some extent craves recognition for his deeds, right? To such a man, it would be careless not to take measures to ensure that there could be no doubt as to who was the killer - at each occasion. He would not take a victim to the Thames to drown her, since that would not make people believe it was a Ripper deed.

Why, then, would he settle for such a comparatively shallow cut to Strides throat? Why not cut to the bone, to produce a more apt “calling card”? Moreover, even if he wanted to avoid getting bloodied, once she was down and bled off, he could have ripped her open with no risk at all of getting bloodied, could he not? And combining the two, the deep cut to the neck and the opening of the abdomen, would have clinched it.
Of course one can argue that he did enough, and for some he obviously did. But then again, there´s you and me having different opinions over the matter, and that could not have been his meaning, could it?

Moving on, we can safely assume that he did not vanish into thin air after Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. We can leave out Nichols, for there is no reason to believe that he sank his hands into her, and he may well have left Bucks Row without a single bloodstain on him. That, however, does not apply to the other three – he must have walked the streets of the East end with significant amounts of blood on him, unless he had come up with some magical trick to avoid it. And if so, then there would have been no need to refrain from mutilating Liz, would there?
So, he obviously has no second thoughts about strolling on the nocturnal London streets with his hands covered in blood. Then why would he have hesitated to do so after Stride? The one logical answer to that, is that he would probably have major problems picking up lady number two with bloodied hands. But there was always the possibility to use a sink or a puddle of rain to take care of that issue, so I am not so sure that it holds any water.

And there is of course always BS man to consider; if Liz was Jacks doing, and if she was the kind of victim you imply, then he would have been cautiuos not to be seen at Dutfields Yard. He most certainly would not have had a public brawl with his intended kill. And that leaves us with a scenario where we have to accept that BS man was not Strides killer. Not impossible by any means – but slightly awkward, to say the least.

A quote from your posts: “he certainly read the papers”. This, of course, is no certainty at all. We do not even know if he COULD read in the first place.
That, however, does not mean that I disagree with you. I have always thought that the murders could well have been committed in cooperation with the press, to put it very drastically.
The guess I throw forward here – for it is of course no more than that – is that as he killed Nichols, he did so in defiance of society, but with no clearly expressed urge to communicate with it. But I believe that as the articles on the case were written, proclaiming him a killing genius getting back at society, he perhaps took the bait and became anxious to deliver at each occasion.
If so, I see no need to believe that he was possessed by the idea of taking organs – he may just have responded to the demands from the media to produce increasingly ghastly kills. And that would go some way to explain the sudden change in interest from uterus to kidney and to heart. It could also offer an explanation to the added facial mutilation in Mitre Square, and, of course, it could be the answer to why he propped up Kellys head with her own organs on that bed in 13 Millers Court.

So I do believe that Jack read the papers, just like you do. But I have nothing to substantiate the assumption with, but for my gut feeling. What about you, Tom; why are you so certain that he read the papers?

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

the BS man is far from a slam dunk. does she go off with
He might have been disturbed and/or scared. We just don't know.

Hello, c.d., Michael.

I think that yet another reason that BS isn't a slam dunk is that Scwartz-- pipe/knife, no inquest Scwartz-- isn't a slam dunk either. And I too realize all this has been discussed some. The reason it came around again is at least in part because Tom had a new idea about Stride, which I thought might take us out of the if he wasn't scared off, he wasn't JTR binary.

[paul emmett]

Why, then, would he settle for such a comparatively shallow cut to Strides throat? Why not cut to the bone, to produce a more apt “calling card”? Moreover, even if he wanted to avoid getting bloodied, once she was down and bled off, he could have ripped her open with no risk at all of getting bloodied, could he not? And combining the two, the deep cut to the neck and the opening of the abdomen, would have clinched it.
Of course one can argue that he did enough, and for some he obviously did. Fisherman

Hello, Fisherman.

When I said above that Stride might be seen as foreplay, I put foreplay in quotes so as not to be offensive, not because I was being metaphoric. Since I do see the killings as sexual, I think that Jack used Strde to make the Eddowes kill even more "climactic." Like Mr Blonde in RESERVOIR DOGS looking at blood before he tortures the cop.

Also, as you suggest, for some--more like "many" back then--, Jack did enough.

One last thought. If we are considering a vain/performative/calculating JTR, then I think that he takes us more convincingly to the letters. What if he realized what you just said, that some would remain unconvinced, and that is why he only talked about Stride in "Saucey Jacky." God knows the question of why he focused on Stride has been asked often enough.

Good evening.

[Fisherman]

Hi Paul!

Reservoir Dogs - Jesus, I hated that film! It was a really bad start on my relationship with Tarantino, and it has not improved a bit since...

Once again, Paul, even if you claim that "Jack did enough" in Dutfields Yard, I will tell you what I told Tom: I am discussing it with you right now, and I am refuting the idea that Jack was her killer. He did NOT do enough, I believe, and he did certainly not do all he could do, without getting bloodied. I mean, if the guy who did Stride had chosen three quick stabs in the stomach, that would have made most people scream about Jack the Ripper. I would say that most any way you could kill a person by knife would have arguably been enough for many people. But the fact that Ripperologist around the worls are divided into pro-Stride and a no-Stride camps effectively shows that if it was Jack, he left unnecessary room for serious doubt.

The letters? Nah, I don´t think he wrote them, not a single one of them.

The best, Paul!
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

Once again, Paul, even if you claim that "Jack did enough" in Dutfields Yard, I will tell you what I told Tom: I am discussing it with you right now, and I am refuting the idea that Jack was her killer. He did NOT do enough, I believe, and he did certainly not do all he could do, without getting bloodied.
Fisherman

Hi, Fisherman.

I was just repeating YOUR Jack did enough for some people claim. I think Jack was so into himself that he never really doubted where the "credit" would go. I don't think that he wanted to do all he could for the credit, or all he could do without getting bloody; I think he wanted to do all he could and still "enjoy" #2. And I think THAT was minimal--a "taste" of blood, if you will.

I also think that both the letters and RESERVOIR DOGS are still at issue. And if you start where my last post started, namely with a performative JTR, it is much more likely that some of the letters are the real deal.

[Howard Brown]

Tommy:

Post 159 (which you posted) was very well laid out and perhaps the most likely scenario of the events on the night of the Double Event.

I am in agreement 100 percent that this "domestic killing" theory is little more than either an excuse or alternative explanation to explain away the concomitant Ripper style- mutilations people in "our time" expected each victim to have...or that Jack The Ripper couldn't have made what amounted to no more than 3 seconds of "planning" as you have provided.

Needless to say, Kidney,as you are obviously aware...went to the Inquest with the same prominent moustache that he had on the night of the D.E... ostensibly indifferent as to whether or if Schwartz would appear and identify him....in this domestic killing theory. In other words, the killer shows up in a court room....completely oblivious to whether a witness could or would be able to identify him.

Take a gander,Tom, at those theories which Stride-as-non-Ripper-victim affect. That should tell you and me everything we need to know.

How

[Fisherman]

Howard Brown writes:

"Post 159 (which you posted) was very well laid out and perhaps the most likely scenario"

Yes, Howard! Perhaps. There is no denying that. Unless, perhaps, it is unlikely.

Next, "this "domestic killing" theory is little more than either an excuse or alternative explanation to explain away the concomitant Ripper style- mutilations people in "our time" expected each victim to have"

An "excuse", Howard? "Explain away?" Do you for some reason think that those who see the Stride killing as a domestic need excuses or to explain away? Why would that be?

As for myself, I interpret the evidence in another way than you do, and I reach the conclusion that this murder probably does not belong to the so called canon. To me, it is the most logical explanation to the combination of having an abusive man inflicting violence on Stride a few minutes before she is found dead, and the fact that she suffered very different damages than the other victims. She is left alone with a violent man, and some ten minutes or so later she suffers a cut to the throat - that means that BS man is and remains the prime suspect in this case. No excuses there, Howard!
And if Toms theory is to be applied, I think that it would be utterly strange if BS was Jack, taking the risk of beating up on a woman in public. Therefore, if Stride was a Ripper kill, we need to accept that BS man left the scene after his brawl with Stride, only to be replaced by Jack, unseen at arrival and departure by mrs Mortimer - or anybody else, for that matter.

Now, one advantage that follows with Toms suggestion - that the Ripper never intended to do more that cut her throat swiftly - is that the venue chosen suddenly becomes easier to accept. With club members coming and going, and the singing going on upstairs, and with the kitchen door ajar (if I remember correctly), the yard would have been a lousy spot to pick for mutilation. Far too risky, I would say!
On the other hand, if he only intended to do the one cut, and then be on his way, that alters the situation radically. In such a case, the yard would lend itself a lot better to his intentions.
That, though, does not explain why he only made a cut so shallow that the victim could have survived it, does it? It would take him no time at all to cut to the bone, ensuring both certain death and an unmistakeable calling card. If Tom is right, he was sending a message with the Stride killing, and when you send important messages you make sure that you get the spelling right. Or else, it may be misread. And clearly, the spelling was somewhat off if this was a Ripper deed.

As for the point of comparing a newspaper drawing to a verbal description, stated in Hungarian by a very frightened bypasser who saw a man in a dimly lit East end street, later interpreted into English by another man with all the possibilities THAT involves of getting it all wrong, I will be as gentle as I possibly can be: It-does-not-hold-a-drop-of-water. IT-IS-AND-REMAINS-COMPLETELY,-TOTALLY-AND-UTTERLY-USELESS!

What is the matter with you guys? How on earth can you take the liberty of speaking about excuses and explaining away on behalf of those who favour the domestic scenario, and then resort to something like this? It is laughable, and surely you must see that? I mean, imagine trying to push a point like this in a courtroom:
-Your honour, we have here a drawing of the accused, and mr Wasooma has in Swahili, interpreted by mr Uzumlu, stated that there may have been a considerable likeness in moustache length between man in the drawing and the man he saw!
-Oh right, thats what I call damning! Take him to the gallows!
-Who? Mr Wazooma?
-No, you twat, the drawing!

Be for real, please! The comparison between the drawing and the Schwartz description is not a weak point. It is no point at all.

The best, Howard!
Fisherman

[Howard Brown]

Hi Fisherman...

Perhaps the most contentious issue of all in the WM is the Stride murder...I think you may agree.

My view on this...and its no more or less valid than yours...is that the Stride murder is not your usual "domestic" murder, since it was performed outdoors. Most murders of this type, by virtue of this fact, are done indoors.

Kidney, as theoretical domestic killer, must have been awfully lucky to commit this murder outdoors, with no absolute guarantee he was not seen....and then awfully lucky as well as brazen to show up at the Inquest and at the police station on his own volition without any alteration to that facial feature which is pretty obvious and identifying. For someone who would have had to expect he would be questioned and perhaps seen by someone he may not have seen on the night in question, he is one cool customer....

Because of the possibility/reality that two different knives were used on the two victims on that night, we somehow forget...not just you,my man, but all of us at times seem to forget that men like Charles Ludwig carried more than one knife on their person. Carrying two knives isn't necessarily something you and I would do, but for people such as Ludwig and perhaps the Ripper, fairly reasonable.

How long would it take to come up with a "plan" ( not that he did...but only in support of Tom's idea which has seldom been proposed...) to pull off a double murder...where he doesn't "have" to mutilate a victim and then mutilate the second ?

Part of the "problem' with Stride-as-Ripper-victim is that I think WE make a sort of demand that mutilation had to occur.

Tom's ideas are imaginative on this theme and seem to be overlooked...at least to me.

Perhaps " an excuse" was a poor choice of words, Fisherman. Maybe "an explaining away" would have been more appropriate and sufficient.

Carry on old bean...I much rather enjoy counterarguments to listening to those I am in accord with.

[Fisherman]

Howard!

To begin with, I am not one to overlook Toms idea - I find it challenging and interesting, and, like I said, it offers a better explanation to why Dutfields Yard was chosen than the ordinary he-wanted-to-disembowel-but-something-came-up stuff. So well done, Tom, I´d say; but not well enough if you ask me.

Domestic killings more often than not take place at home, just like you say, Howard. But if you have no home...? Kidney and Stride had parted ways, and that pretty much left him with the only option to kill her wherever he found her, if that was his chosen path.
Moreover, the reason that so much domestic violence is confined to the homes, is of course that the guys who inflict the violence are seldom proud of it. They prefer to keep it a secret. And the violence is NOT meant to kill in most cases - it is something that belongs to a pattern formed to last. The man is a sad failure, and he takes that out on his wife, by beating up on her.
If he goes too far and kills her, he has to find a substitute who he can torment, unless he is caught and brought to justice.
If a pair has broken up, however, and the man decides to get back at the woman, I think that the risk of her loosing her life is dramatically increased. For that is when "I-will-give-her-a-damn-fine-hiding-for-not-pleasing-me" turns into "If-I-cant-have-the-bitch-I-will-see-to-it-that-nobody-else-can". A violent, vindictive bully, faced with defeat in the form of being abandoned, and who has realized that he can´t have his woman back by threatening or beating up on her, is a very dangerous man.

But it need not have been Kidney; I have at numerous occasions pointed to the possibility that she may have been killed by somebody else, somebody who was closely aquainted to her. A man who had taken Kidneys place or who aspired to do so, would be an obvious choice here. But long as we can´t rule Kidney out, he must remain at the very top of the list of contenders. It is simple and obvious logic. Statistics tell us that the most expected killer of a woman with a lovelife is a lover or ex-lover or wanna-be lover. To swop such an obvious alternative for the sake of a very rare serial killer, who suddenly changes his ways and methods, is not necessarily a wise thing to do.

If you journey back through this thread, I have explained why there may have been a possibility that Kidney - IF it was him that did the killing, mind you - did not need to be brazen at all; if he had been serviced with an alibi by some of his friends that the police were not in the position to break, then that was pretty much it. No matter how many witnesses that pointed their fingers to Kidney, he could just sit comfortably back and say: "Must have been a lost twin brother of mine - I´ve got an alibi, see?"

Two knives? Welcome to the club, Howard! I am all for the idea. I think that all the Ripper victims, from Tabram (yep!) and forward may have been cut with two knives (Nichols perhaps being an exception). And I believe that there may have been a very compelling likeness between the blade that Killeen spoke of as resembling a pen-knife (though one that travelled VERY deep through the flesh of Tabram) and the weapon used on Chapman, and described by Phillips as "long, thin and narrow" ; kind of pen-knifeish, if you like...
I have always seen some trouble in accepting that throats could be cut to the bone with a thin, narrowbladed knife. It is much a question of balance, and of course it may have been done. But a heavy, broadbladed weapon would have taken care of such a task VERY much easier.

As for "Part of the "problem' with Stride-as-Ripper-victim is that I think WE make a sort of demand that mutilation had to occur.", I think that is as hard to defend as it is interesting. You may of course be right. But if you are, you must also accept that if the mutilations need not have been there, then by the same right of reasoning, nor need the cut throat. And if THAT holds any water, then we must ask ourselves "Was it the Ripper?", no matter if the victims were clubbered, strangled, burnt to death in a bread-toaster or strung up by their tongues and left to die. The good thing about such a prerogative is that it widens the field of suspects. The bad thing about it is that it does so in the absurd.

Finally, I would like to congratulate you on being very much spot on: Yes, "explaining away" would have been a better choice of wording than "an excuse". But "offering an alternative explanation, based on the existing witness testimony" would have been the real clincher!

All the best!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Domestic killings more often than not take place at home, just like you say, Howard. But if you have no home...?

I was about to make that point, Fisherman, but you beat me to it. It poses interesting questions about such matters when viewed in the context of doss-house dwellers, whose "domestic" arrangements were shared with scores of others at a time.

Another illustration of why projecting our "conventional" constructs of social (and anti-social!) behaviour onto the inhabitants of 19th Century London slums should be done with a great deal of caution.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

Cd and Paul, .....you are both partially correct when you say that my comments were based on the validity of Schwartz's statement and Dr Blackwells estimate of the time of that single cut.

What you may not realize is that I have also a slightly different actual nights events in mind other than what Schwartz stated for the records, and to me anyway, its much more reasonable than the appearance of Jack the Ripper in a witness stated empty yard from 12:40am until 1, or on a street well lit, and therefore could have been seen by one of Fanny's trips to the doorway before 1am.

Schwartz is a Hungarian Jew. He is stating that he is outside the gates, approaching a known Socialist Jew's Mens Club at around 12:45am, on the night of a Socialist Meeting, after which neighbors testified they often heard noise and saw people of "low" character there in Dutfields Yard until after 1am....to see if his wife had finished moving from Berner St. Since her move would likely have been clothes and maybe a chair or trunk, and he has been gone all afternoon, that seems odd.

I personally believe that Schwartz, Eagle, Diemshutz, Kozebrodski, Mrs D, and perhaps one or two others were, or saw, others in that yard and did not report that to police. I believe its far more likely that Schwartz attended that meeting....being an immigrant Jew in an immigrant Jew neighborhood, and while leaving saw the scuffle he alleged was on the street...but was actually in the yard. I think BS Man attended that meeting too...was having a smoke and chatting in the yard, Liz either enters or is called in through the gates....that leaves the streets empty maybe at 12:40ish?....Broadshouldered man wants some sugar, Kate demurs...perhaps dressed to meet a new beau in the club...and when turning away to walk out the gates, the now embarrassed and rejected Broadshouldered man grabs her scarf, twists is so she faced the wall, pulled her back so she looses her footing, and with one hand clutching at the scarf choking her, the other holding some mints she had just that moment taken from her pocket, he slides his knife across her throat as he lets her drop.

I believe the weakest parts of the empty yard story are when Eagle says he returned and walked through the yard at 12:40 and it was empty, and Lave stated that he walked through the yard, and as far as looking into the street, between 12:30 and 12:40, and neither saw each other in the same yard at the same time...and using interviews of neighbors, a "low" men crowd in a dark yard after a meeting and a known part time prostitute nearby for sometime seems like reasonable synchronicity to me.

I think Schwartz told his street location story to avoid having to admit he saw anything, and perhaps get out of trouble at home, if he had gone to this meeting instead of helping her move...and to place the potential assailant off International Club property.

I also believe Wess played some organizational role here..as translator, or with some power he may have held there beyond the paper...he does speak 1st at the inquest...after the man who finds her, or had been dating her.

Blackwell wore a watch...he was on-site at 1:16am, and in his opinion, of which none here could question in terms of hands on knowledge, thought she was cut as recently as 20 minutes, but no more than 30 minutes, prior to his arrival.

With this comment we have our TOD range...its is ridiculous to think a man of his capabilities and skill would go on record with any less an estimate than one he felt covered his butt, and reflected the injuries. And remember...the latest time is still just 20 minutes after the cut....you think he could gauge a 20 minute old wound properly?

So...Diemshutz did not interrupt anything, and Club members ran running out into the street yelling "another" woman has been murdered to avoid having to turn against a thug that they likely hire for event crowd control, and admitting that the murder was committed on the grounds on a club known for anarchist leanings. In just a few short months Diemshutz, Kozebrodski and others fight police with sticks and clubs in that same yard.

Club cover up..thug killer....

To me anyway that makes more sense than a wisp of smoke then Jack appears, yes...Ive seen films on period magicians....but I think we've had enough drama to chew on for 120 years.....

My best regards all.

[FrankO]

Hi Tom & Dusty,

Hi Frank. My argument took for granted that Schwartz was telling the truth (I'm not entirely convinced either, but for the sake of argument...). The reason we might think the drawing is accurate is because the same artist made very accurate renditions of other people at the inquest. He was there and drew from life. The description Schwart gave is so drastically different from Kidney (in appearance and age) that you'd have to really go out on a limb to argue that BS Man and Kidney were one in the same. Especially given the fact that ALL the evidence in the case points AWAY from Kidney being the killer. I'm well aware that witness descriptions aren't the most reliable, but it's yet another weak link in the paper chain of argument supporting Kidney as Stride's killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I do know, however, that the drawing of Kidney is likely to be an exceptionally good likeness. This particular artist always signed his/her work, T.R., so we can trace their ability to capture an accurate likeness of a sitter from some of their more famous subjects, like President Harrison. Their observations of hairline, nose, ears, eyes etc are demonstrated to be uncannily accurate. There is no reason to doubt the depiction of Kidney is not as extraordinarily correct as their other depictions.

As to how accurate Schwartz’s description was, I have no idea but we can positively say the description does not match the drawing.

No matter how accurate the drawing of Kidney’s head & shoulders was, the simple fact of the matter is that we have no way of knowing how accurate, if any, Schwartz’s description was. The man was scared, he very likely didn’t actually look at Mr BS for more than a handful of seconds, we might even wonder how good the look was that he did get and lighting conditions were simply bad. What we do know, however, is that witness descriptions are generally unreliable. Reality is that different people may describe the same person differently – and inaccurately. Therefore, conclusions based on a comparison between drawing and description are unconvincing.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi again Tom,

If I had previously killed two women on separate nights and now intended to kill two women on the same night, I would make preparations. For starters, I'd plan to leave earlier in the night to give myself ample time to kill the first woman, escape to a different area, find another woman, and then escape to where I wouldn't be caught while the whole city errupts around me.

For starters, I'd plan to leave earlier in the night as well, but not before 1 am, when there was a fat chance that people were still up and about in the streets and hadn't settled down for the night yet. Like Dutfield's Yard and surroundings show. I would have gone out during the nightly hours of lull, which may have been roughly between 2 and 5 am. First of all, the chance of being seen by people would then be as little as could be, and secondly, the women you would come accross would probably be more down and out, and therefore easier, than those before the hours of lull.

To allow this to happen, I would consider it in my best interests to make quick work of the first woman so that I save time and limit exposure,...

Why would this be necessary? He probably didn't have more than 5 minutes with Eddowes, so what would an extra 5 minutes with Stride mean on a whole night? Certainly looked at this from the viewpoint that the abdominal mutilations were what actually somehow satisfied whatever dark needs the Ripper had.

...but most importantly, I CANNOT GET ANY BLOOD ON MYSELF since I'm not going straight home but must treverse the city and meet with another woman, with no time to clean myself. I can then have all the 'fun' I want with my second victim.

Like the general medical opinion of the day was that Jack the Ripper probably didn't get much blood on him in the certain Ripper cases, why would he worry too much about that in Stride's case? He would cut her throat in such a way that the stream or spray of blood was directed away from him, let her bleed out and then mutilate her abdomen without getting all that bloody. Afterwards he could have put his hands in his pockets without a problem. Furthermore, if he did actually plan to do kill 2 women like you suggest, he could simply have planned to take a piece of cloth with him to clean himself up after his first victim. That would all have been very simple really.

Your suggestion is an interesting one, it shows your capability of thinking outside the box, but as far as I'm concerned it seems a little too 'constructed'. But my guess is that you wont be bothered by that - and, of course, you shouldn't.

All the best,
Frank