Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[Fisherman]

CD writes:

"that is what Diemschutz said so take it for what it is worth. Would it be any more believable if he had said "I feel certain that the killer had left the yard?" It was simply his gut feeling."

I realize that, CD - I just point out that most people faced with the situation would probably have felt the same - the scary situation vouches for that. I do not, however, believe that the feeling was correct, since the bird had left the nest some time before Diemschutz´entrance on the stage - at least that is my contention.

The best!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"It has been proved as far as the evidence will allow"

Interesting way of putting it! I am in no way adversed to it, as long as we agree that the evidence allows for nothing much at all...

My way of putting things would be that you are trying to stretch too little evidence far too long - a glimpse of a moustache, caught by a frightened man in a fleeting second in a dark street - in your version - goes to prove that BS man could not possibly have looked like Kidney...? That points to more of a political talent than a detective ditto, Tom!

"The irony, of course, is that you claim not to even believe Kidney was her killer. Yet you won't tell us why."

Just did, in my post to Frank - I genuinely believe that the detail from the Star, pointing BS man out as a "respectable" appearing man, tallies quite well with what Marshall said about the man he saw earlier, in company with Stride. He called him clerk-like, and that is something I don´t think a dock-labourer like Kidney would have related to in his appearance.

Furthermore, there is the sketch of Kidney that does not seem to depict a heavy-set man, and the description of Marshalls man/BS man goes a bit in that direction. You see, Tom, I see the relevance in thinking Kidney MAY have been of another anatomical disposition than Marshalls man/BS man - but I don´t think the drawing is ENOUGH - by any stretch - to close the book on it. If Kidney had been depicted en face we may have thought differently about things. And when we add the fact that Kidney was Strides man, we need to ponder all that statistic telling us that spouses are killers far too often for me to feel comfortable about clearing Kidney.

I may need to add that I am not in this game to press any agenda; although I am of the meaning that Strides killer remains to be named, I am trying to steer clear of any tendency to play down all other suspects - even if I do it ever so eloquently, it does not change what went down that evening. History is always right, while many a ripperologist - me included - get things totally wrong at times. Such things call for a humble attitude, and a will to defend against too frivolous theorizing on to thin grounds. And - without the slightest trace of any sarcasm - you know way, way too much about Stride and her death to need to do such a thing, Tom.

The best!
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

If Kidney killed Liz as a result of a domestic dispute, wouldn't you expect that it would have been preceded by an argument that would have been overhead and that he would have slapped her around first? Something to indicate escalating anger?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Yep, CD - if we were to move with statistics, it would. Then again, one sole case maketh no statistic viability at all - and this is just the one case.

If we are to move with the suggestion that she was killed by an aquaintance - let´s call him X - we are faced with a host of possibilities. We could be dealing with a couple where physical abuse was common - but there were nothing on Strides body to indicate that she was living under such conditions in her everyday life.
We could also be dealing with a relationship where verbal abuse was the norm - and that may suddenly have changed in Dutfields yard.
As you know, my suggestion is that she was killed by somebody she knew, but not by Kidney. If so, reasonably that aquaintance would be rather a fresh one, since she had been staying with her dock labourer up till a very recent time before the murder. And new, fresh love relationships do not often involve violence - that usually creeps in as time passes. Many women who have lived with the same violent man, speak of how affectionate he was from the outset - only to grow violent as he felt he had formed strong enough bonds with the women to be able to hold on to them in spite of beating them up. A loving woman is a forgiving woman in far too many relationships.

Assuming we are dealing with a potentially violent man here, he may have erupted as he was - perhaps - given the slip by Stride. Just as an example. I find it intriguing to ponder that Marshalls man and BS man were one and the same. If so, Stride first small-taked affectionately with him, then wandered off in his company, only to later have him - perhaps slightly drunken (drenching his sorrows?) - approach her in what may be interpreted as a jealous manner, trying to force her to come along with him.
Just my five cents, of course - but a scenario I feel may answer a couple of your questions, CD!

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Late reply to Jon,

If you're looking to instill a belief that Elizabeth had any intention of returning that night you'll get no taker here Im afraid. She conveyed she was not returning to Tanner and Preston refused her request for a lint brush to freshen up, and Catherine lane saw the sixpence she was paid for cleaning in her hand before she left. She didnt pay for her 4d bed even with six on her,...and entrusted some fabric to a lodge friend for safe keeping in her absence.

I think the question isnt whether she intended to return there....its clear that she didnt...the question is how long did she envision she would be gone? 1 night,..2 maybe? Was a man on the side the cause for her rift with Kidney? We know Liz likes men, she has personal relationships. Had she been seeing someone on the side.....maybe waiting for him outside the Club that night, and maybe Kidney is the man seen by Brown with his hand on the wall?

As I said, its my opinion that the absence of Israel Schwartz at the Inquest can only have two possible meanings, they didnt believe him...or they suppressed him and his evidence because it was so vital.

When you consider that a senior official suggested that the only real 'Ripper" sighting was by someone at Mitre Square, and that he did so while he had full knowledge of the earlier murder and the opinions that linked the two deaths to one killer, Schwartzs absence once again is I believe the verification.

He was not just withheld, he was unused completely.

Best regards

[Bridewell]

A high proportion of women who are murdered are indeed killed by current, or former, partners (currently around 120 per annum in the UK). These so-called "domestic" murders are, in my experience, seldom committed in the street, however, for exactly the reasons that we see in Stride's case - too great a risk of being seen. If Kidney had wanted to kill Liz, he could have bided his time and done so, at far less risk, on another, more private, occasion.

[Bridewell]

Absolutely Right

Have you ever read a Ripper book or Stride thread? Eddowes and Stride were killed within a 10 minute walk of each other and within 45 minutes of each other. Modern revisionism has them as unrelated. It's hip to think that, but not entirely logical, in my opinion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I think you're entirely right, Tom. The detectives involved at the time were convinced that Stride was a Ripper murder and never wavered in that opinion. As Donald Rumbelow points out, such murders were much less common than we suppose - about 1 per year prior to the Ripper's involvement. To argue for two in the space of an hour by two different individuals is stretching coincidence rather too far in my opinion.

[Bridewell]

His Regular Beat

Hi Tom,
I can see your point.Thats certainly another possibility .The newspaper parcel was described by PC Smith as being 18 in.in length and 6 to 8 in. in width.I wonder at how precise PC Smith was being when he said "parcel"? Because parcel implies the newspapers were being used as a " wrap" round something, might not a "newspaper bundle" or "sheaf" of newspapers have better described a collection of papers from Arbeter frient?

Best

My understanding is that Pc Smith hade been serving for 5 years, and on 'H' Division (ie local) since 1886. If he knew his beat even half-well, he would have known of the Club, its nature, and the practise of handing out copies of the Arbeter Frient to passers-by. I don't, therefore, see this as a point on which he is likely to have been mistaken. He described a parcel wrapped in newspaper and measuring 18" by 6", so, as far as I'm concerned, that is what he saw until the contrary is proven.

[lynn cates]

third time's a charm

Hello Bridewell.

"To argue for two in the space of an hour by two different individuals is stretching coincidence rather too far in my opinion."

I know what you mean. Of course, as I am sure you are aware, there were no fewer than 3 knife murders that night.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

I know what you mean. Of course, as I am sure you are aware, there were no fewer than 3 knife murders that night.

Cheers.
LC

One of which was cleared up very vey quickly, as most domestic murders are.

[Tom_Wescott]

I've always regretted that this little bit of author bias slipped into the otherwise objective 'Ultimate'. Whatever Stride's murder was, it was certainly not domestic.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

Hello Bridewell.

"To argue for two in the space of an hour by two different individuals is stretching coincidence rather too far in my opinion."

I know what you mean. Of course, as I am sure you are aware, there were no fewer than 3 knife murders that night.

Cheers.
LC

Which makes it, as Colin Roberts and I have tried several times to explain, even less likely that the two Whitechapel murders that night were by two independent murderers - especially knowing that a very recently active killer (of Nichols and Chapman) was almost certainly responsible for Eddowes.

If an average night featured no active murderers, and a very unusual night featured one, it would already have been a very, very unusual night to feature two (the domestic and the repeat offender - the latter doing it twice in one night). So when you argue for three separate murderers (the domestic plus two others of uncertain nature and motive), you argue for a very, very, very unusual night indeed.

And that requires stronger evidence than has been put forward to date.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

probability

Hello Caz. Tried to explain? Well, you HAVE explained. After all, to say that event X has a probability of occurrence of .01, means that event X has a probability of occurrence of .01.

Case closed. (Heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[spyglass]

I think you're entirely right, Tom. The detectives involved at the time were convinced that Stride was a Ripper murder and never wavered in that opinion. As Donald Rumbelow points out, such murders were much less common than we suppose - about 1 per year prior to the Ripper's involvement. To argue for two in the space of an hour by two different individuals is stretching coincidence rather too far in my opinion.

Hello,
If one Knife murder a year is correct, Then the murder of Tabram must be considered more highly as a Ripper victim in that case. And does'nt the list of possible Ripper victims AFTER Kelly become more valid, or does it just suggest that murder was on the increase.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi spyglass. You make a good point, and let me say that I wouldn't be surprised at all if at least one of the murders from 1888-1891 was a copycat murder, or otherwise influenced by the Ripper. Stride was not one of them, of course, but perhaps a later one, such as Coles. Hell, perhaps 5 of them. The irony is that the Ripper himself may have been a copycat killer to some extent, his inhibitions let loose from reading of the Smith and Tabram murders.

Caz,

Excellent point you made. Once again you take something many of us feel and find a way to put it into words.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott