Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[Harry D]

1, why would Jack not pick up someone who was looking to be picked up by strangers on that night, making the acquisition phase that much easier...

The killer was an opportunist. He sees a woman standing by herself on a street corner and assumes she's a prostitute. Sutcliffe mistook several of his victims for prostitutes, too, blinded by his misogyny and bloodlust. Perhaps he had seen her chatting to other men earlier in the night and that confirmed his suspicions? At any rate, Schwartz reports an altercation between a man and a woman outside the club, this may have resulted from the killer soliciting Stride, she rebuffs him, so he loses his cool and tries to strong-arm her into coming with him. At which point he realizes he's bungled things, but his urge to kill needs satiating (he wasn't to know he'd bump into Eddowes a little later), and he murders her.

[Rosella]

Surely Mr and Mrs Diemschutz, as club stewards, would be responsible for the cleanliness and good order of the club, even after large meetings? I have to say that I can't see that an East End club at that time would be so fanatical about cleanliness that it would insist on a cleaner coming to the premises to scrub and sweep etc in the early hours of the morning instead of later in the daylight hours. After all, there were no Health Inspectors likely to call!

Stride wouldn't have made a fortune by cleaning rooms, a sixpence here, a sixpence there. Many people did whatever they could to survive. Annie Chapman for example made antimacassars and sold flowers. At other times she prostituted herself, perhaps for extra drink or food. I think it was the same for all the C-5. If there was an opportunity to make some money cleaning, laundering,prostituting, selling things, they did it.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

But no one from the club came forward to confirm that they had made arrangements for her to clean. If she was there to date, her date, if he were not her killer, never came forward with that information. Now it is possible in both of those cases that those with relevant information chose to not get involved but still we have no actual evidence to substantiate those theories.

It has also been pointed out numerous times that whether Stride was actually soliciting is a moot point. If Jack believed her to be soliciting then all bets are off for we have no way of knowing her response to an offer of money for sex.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

You equate the Ripper murders with other murders and throat cuttings but you leave out the one thing that made these killings unique and that is the removal of internal organs. Criminals may be willing to commit murder by cutting the throat but how many instances throughout history do we have where these same criminals (that apparently existed in a great many places) cut throats AND removed internal organs? If your premise were correct, these types of murders would be commonplace and they are not.

c.d.

If you truly abide by the doctrine above cd, then you should feel compelled to see this situation as 3 murders within a larger group of Unsolved murders, not Five murders. Just the three that had organs taken. As Sam has pointed out, if we categorize Liz Strides murder as one by "Cut Throat", then she belongs in another larger number of crimes that were committed that year. Ones where throats were slit....once.

If we take the known data as plausible....the data that suggests Liz Stride was gainfully employed in the months leading up to her death, employed "among the Jews", then we have 2 very prominent factors to consider when assessing who may have killed her.....1, why would Jack not pick up someone who was looking to be picked up by strangers on that night, making the acquisition phase that much easier... and 2, what, if not solicitation, was she doing loitering around outside a club over an hour after the meetings end? Perhaps spending her last few minutes in that passageway.

I believe that's where the maidenfern and flower, the cashous, the request to brush the lint from her boot length skirt, and the handing over for safe keeping, a piece of cloth she was holding onto,... come in.

We have evidence she was single, only just...that she was working as a charwoman, and that she was doing so "among the Jews", who it just happens were also the occupants of the club left singing upstairs after the meeting. I would imagine that the clean up needs of the hall might have been considerable since around 200 people were there that night.

If you follow there is a far greater case to be made that Liz was there to either work or date than there is she was soliciting on a deserted street over an hour after the vast majority of the crowd had long since vanished.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Hey, my friend, it's a sign of the times. No-one wants to get their hands dirty these days. All the dads want their kids to grow up to be lawyers, dentists, accountants....who's gonna do the dirty work....

Good point. Compared to some of the people we have in D.C. an organ taker would be a step up.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

... Why doesn't Washington, D.C. have any organ removal killings when we have all the necessary ingredients, i.e., murderers and evil people? You would think it would be commonplace.

Hey, my friend, it's a sign of the times. No-one wants to get their hands dirty these days. All the dads want their kids to grow up to be lawyers, dentists, accountants....who's gonna do the dirty work....

[Sam Flynn]

Throat cuttings and other types of killings do not equal murders where internal organs were removed.

Oh, I agree, CD - which is why Stride belongs in that group of people who endured a cut throat (fatal or otherwise) in London at that time. This group is much larger than the tiny subset of people whose body cavities were sliced open, with evidence of attempts at organ removal (successful or otherwise).

[c.d.]

Hello Sam.

But see my post above. Why doesn't Washington, D.C. have any organ removal killings when we have all the necessary ingredients, i.e., murderers and evil people? You would think it would be commonplace.

Throat cuttings and other types of killings do not equal murders where internal organs were removed. That is the whole point.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

If we stick only to the realities..that 5 women were killed in Londons East End in the fall of 1888 which brought the unsolved attacks/murders for that district and year to over 10, then you have a true picture of what we have here.

Quite so, Michael. Context is crucial. To which we could add any knife-related crimes that might have resulted in a cut throat, had fate not intervened; and there would have been a number of those.

[c.d.]

I should have added that I live in Washington, D.C. and we have have evil people, bad men (and I am not even counting the politicians) and murderers out the wazoo. Yet, in all the time I have lived here have I ever heard of a woman having her throat cut and her abdominal organs removed. That seems to speak to the fact that it takes a very sick and very unique individual to do such a thing.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"You may believe that the chances of other killers committing these acts is slim due to the nature of the crime, that would suggest that all other violent criminals known and those unknown in the area took a 2 1/2 month break while just one ran amok. You may believe that slitting throats is uncommon, when there are many people, men and women, who were killed in just that fashion during that LVP. Knives were abundant....evil people living in a ghetto were many.....and known criminals in that area at that time prove that there were more than one man willing to commit murder."

Hello Michael,

You equate the Ripper murders with other murders and throat cuttings but you leave out the one thing that made these killings unique and that is the removal of internal organs. Criminals may be willing to commit murder by cutting the throat but how many instances throughout history do we have where these same criminals (that apparently existed in a great many places) cut throats AND removed internal organs? If your premise were correct, these types of murders would be commonplace and they are not.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Almost anyone who has studied these crimes recognizes that there is actually no evidence of any kind that links these five women by killer...


In the immortal words of tennis great John McEnroe "you cannot be serious."

c.d.

If you believe that there is hard evidence in existence that connects the Canonical Five to each other cd, then I now understand why you fight for Strides inclusion. But....amigo.... There isn't any. None. Zero. Nada. The fact a knife was used is hardly evidence all were killed by one man, and there is evidence that different knives were used. The fact all were killed within a small area isn't proof one man killed them, the East End was accessible to all of London, and therefore, many, many identified and unidentified criminals. And we are talking about the center of street crimes of that period....and the location of many criminals.

The fact that contemporary investigators believed the five were connected isn't evidence of anything but their opinions.

That's the crux cd. You may believe you see a pattern, so do many others, you may also believe that you see evidence that the same techniques were employed...but that isn't the case with all 5 is it? You may believe that the chances of other killers committing these acts is slim due to the nature of the crime, that would suggest that all other violent criminals known and those unknown in the area took a 2 1/2 month break while just one ran amok. You may believe that slitting throats is uncommon, when there are many people, men and women, who were killed in just that fashion during that LVP. Knives were abundant....evil people living in a ghetto were many.....and known criminals in that area at that time prove that there were more than one man willing to commit murder.

You may believe that the motives are consistent in each murder, that of a mad killers desires to kill strangers, but there is no evidence at all that we can use to be certain of why these women were murdered....OR whether these were murders of strangers at all.

So..to believe that the Canonical Group is a sound evidence based grouping is a fallacy...its an assumed series by an assumed unknown killer for assumed reasons. Guesses.

Maybe mere assumptions are enough for some, but they don't answer any questions definitively.

If we stick only to the realities..that 5 women were killed in Londons East End in the fall of 1888 which brought the unsolved attacks/murders for that district and year to over 10, then you have a true picture of what we have here. Unsolved murders without determined motives.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Well, it cannot be reached automatically--as you say. A killer may be experiencing a bad night and may have lost control of his hand. He might also DELIBERATELY use less skill.

But the main idea is that, IF one engages in certain behaviours habitually, then such are performed routinely and mechanically, and should hence exhibit a certain sameness.

Many of us, I suppose, have unwrapped packages since we were wee ones. I always tear into the paper and leave it in shreds. My wife, on the other hand, always cuts neatly and ends by folding up the paper into a rectangle. So, holding all other variables constant, IF one saw a package that was entered by either myself or my wife, a quick glance would ascertain which.

And it seems to be the case that this is why Brown, Baxter and perhaps Phillips thought Kate was done by someone else--she was a hack and mangle job, unlike the skillful cuts shown before. These led some to believe that perhaps a surgeon or butcher were involved.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Have those packages ever fought back and did you open them while knowing that at any time you could be caught and hanged for doing so?

I don't see how there were enough murders to make the killer's methods anywhere near habitual.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Almost anyone who has studied these crimes recognizes that there is actually no evidence of any kind that links these five women by killer...


In the immortal words of tennis great John McEnroe "you cannot be serious."

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

Regarding your first question about butcher cuts and such, I don't know. I posted this excerpt of a BMJ article kindly provided by Stewart Evans to make a point that Frederick Gordon Brown apparently believed that the murder of Catherine Eddowes was part of a series perpetrated by a single individual - since others are seemingly under the assumption that Brown thought differently.

As to your second paragraph and point, you now claim that Baxter made the assertion of skill evidenced in both the murders of Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman without any disagreement from Phillips. That is not what you had been presuming. Phillips refused to enter an opinion when asked because he was not involved in the Nichols murder investigation which had occurred in J Division territory. He would not comment on what he had not witnessed. Wynne Baxter is alone here as to this opinion concerning these two murders.

Also, when Baxter made such an assertion during his summary, the reason why Phillips offered no disagreement at the time is because he wasn't there. He had just returned from Birtley where he had been involved in the Beatmore murder investigation for a few days. He arrived at the inquest at the tail end and was not aware of anything said during the proceedings that day.

Phillips was questioned by a Press Association reporter as he arrived, but the questions centered upon any linkage to the murder at Birtley Fell and the Whitedhapel murders, and Baxter's organ specimen theory, which Phillips heard about for the first time from the reporter himself.

As far as Phillips vocalizing "his suspicions that 3 of the Canonical Five were killed by someone with those attributes,"... where did you get that from? Phillips never said how many murders he believed were committed by the same hand (at least nothing has surfaced.) That was Percy Clark in 1910. Now since Clark was Phillips' associate during the time of the murders, it could be argued that he was reflecting the views of his former boss, but Phillips still actually never said what you are crediting him with.

These are the facts. Some people need to get that straight first or it can be construed as intentionally trying to mislead people to promote an agenda. Imagine that in this field.

I double checked your statement about Phillips attendance at the time of the summation and you are correct, I had forgotten that the coroners summation was made on a day when no witnesses were called. As to Phillips alleged statement concerning his feelings about how many Canonicals were linked by killer, I have seen a statement quoted from him on that issue. Ill try to find where I saved it in my db.

As for any agenda you and/or others may have assumed I have, its just that the urban legend of Jack the Ripper must be challenged in order to have any hope of discovering what really happened to any of the women. Almost anyone who has studied these crimes recognizes that there is actually no evidence of any kind that links these five women by killer, and that there is very little evidence that suggests any murder after the murder of Annie Chapman was committed by the same individual.

Without the rhetoric, and the theorizing, and the explanations, there is no clearly defined series at all.

So Im trying to dispel the notion that by solving one crime you solve all of them, and that serial killers profiles would be of interest if only 2 Canonical murders could first be linked. Id love to see no more Cart before the Horse or Canonical Groups.

Cheers