Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[GUT]

G'day Michael

The one part of the above that am really not sure of is:

There is witness evidence that suggests both of these 2 women were actively seeking money for their bed that same night by prostituting themselves, which would mean that their killer most probably met them while posing as a client.

To me there is no evidence that a "client" killed any of the c5 or even more victims.

I have long wondered if it wasn't rather a peeping tom, type who watched and after the "client" left struck. Yes I accept that this would then fall into the opportunistic category. am far from persuaded that any of the men reported by witnesses was actually the killer.

[Michael W Richards]

G'day Michael
The one part of the above that am really not sure of is:

To me there is no evidence that a "client" killed any of the c5 or even more victims.

I have long wondered if it wasn't rather a peeping tom, type who watched and after the "client" left struck. Yes I accept that this would then fall into the opportunistic category. am far from persuaded that any of the men reported by witnesses was actually the killer.

If this wasn't someone that the victims had engaged in conversation or seen on the streets, then you would need to have a swift attack from a hidden spot that stops them from making any appreciable sounds in response. I suppose there is such a place in the backyard at Hanbury, but what would Annie be doing in that yard by herself? She would only be there if she is "earning".

I agree that its not a given that they were attacked by someone posing as a client, but it would explain how he got to them quickly and almost silently, and why they would be in a dark place alone with someone.

Cheers

[GUT]

If this wasn't someone that the victims had engaged in conversation or seen on the streets, then you would need to have a swift attack from a hidden spot that stops them from making any appreciable sounds in response. I suppose there is such a place in the backyard at Hanbury, but what would Annie be doing in that yard by herself? She would only be there if she is "earning".

I agree that its not a given that they were attacked by someone posing as a client, but it would explain how he got to them quickly and almost silently, and why they would be in a dark place alone with someone.

Cheers

G'day Michael

As you may have noticed enjoy taking a contrary view.

But I have speculated before that possibly he followed the ladies and their clients and then struck after the client left. It could be that the transaction broke down, for whatever reason, and being denied his opportunity to observe it triggered an anger in him that was taken out on the girls.

Do I actually believe it? Well that's another issue.

[Michael W Richards]

G'day Michael

As you may have noticed enjoy taking a contrary view.

But I have speculated before that possibly he followed the ladies and their clients and then struck after the client left. It could be that the transaction broke down, for whatever reason, and being denied his opportunity to observe it triggered an anger in him that was taken out on the girls.

Do I actually believe it? Well that's another issue.

I have no issue with a "contrary" view GUT, you may have noticed that suggesting abolishing the Canonical Group isn't a mainstream philosophy.

We can say this though, 2 witnesses who spoke with the women that night said they were told the women were out earning for their bed that night. That, for me, solidifies a notion that they were soliciting when they met their killer. Did he attack after a client left...who knows? But I doubt that Polly was engaging in any acts in Bucks Row, and the only place for him to hide in Hanbury was the privy with the broken lock. Too many steps to sneak up behind her, if she is standing there alone. We also have Cadosche, who for my money, hears the initial attack on Annie. If she was turned away from the man and he slid a scarf or garrotte of some kind around her neck to subdue her, that thud and a soft "no" likely signals the start of the action.

Cheers

[Harry D]

I know what you're saying but I'm not sure that it works. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Stride murder occurred at 12.50am. The odds of another throat-cut murder (by a second killer) occurring in Mitre Square are not increased or reduced by the occurrence of an earlier murder in Berner Street.

With two different killers, the two events would be entirely unconnected and so the chances of a Mitre Square murder at (again for the sake of argument) 1.38am the same night are as great/small as at any other time. A lot of murders happen in the small hours of the morning. Coincidences are sometimes just that.

Hello, Bridewell.

Coincidences indeed happen. Before the Double Event, Sarah Brown had her throat slit by her husband during a domestic. That means we now have THREE similar murders occurring on the same evening. Now what are the chances of that? Ask yourself, which murder does Stride bear the most similarity to: Brown or Eddowes? Since this kind of murder was uncommon in the area prior to 1888, it is only reasonable to attribute it to the hand of the local serial killer rather than waving it away as mere 'coincidence'.

[Bridewell]

Hello, Bridewell.

Coincidences indeed happen. Before the Double Event, Sarah Brown had her throat slit by her husband during a domestic. That means we now have THREE similar murders occurring on the same evening. Now what are the chances of that? Ask yourself, which murder does Stride bear the most similarity to: Brown or Eddowes? Since this kind of murder was uncommon in the area prior to 1888, it is only reasonable to attribute it to the hand of the local serial killer rather than waving it away as mere 'coincidence'.

I'm not 'waving it away', just pointing out that statistical probability doesn't apply here. The fact is that three women were killed by having their throats cut on the same evening. There is no point in debating how probable that was - it happened.
We know that there was more than one killer involved in the three murders - either two or three. Whether or not Stride and Eddowes were victims of the same killer is an unknown. The possibilities are:

Three murderers killed women by throat cutting on the same night.

Two murderers killed women by throat cutting on the same night, but one of them did so twice.

There just isn't a statistical argument here that I can see. Both scenarios are highly unlikely yet, however you view it, one of them took place.

I'm undecided on the issue, I simply think that a perceived lack of statistical probability cannot be used to settle the matter.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not 'waving it away', just pointing out that statistical probability doesn't apply here. The fact is that three women were killed by having their throats cut on the same evening. There is no point in debating how probable that was - it happened.
We know that there was more than one killer involved in the three murders - either two or three. Whether or not Stride and Eddowes were victims of the same killer is an unknown. The possibilities are:

Three murderers killed women by throat cutting on the same night.

Two murderers killed women by throat cutting on the same night, but one of them did so twice.

There just isn't a statistical argument here that I can see. Both scenarios are highly unlikely yet, however you view it, one of them took place.

I'm undecided on the issue, I simply think that a perceived lack of statistical probability cannot be used to settle the matter.

You should be a politician or a defense attorney.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

probable

Hello Colin.

"There just isn't a statistical argument here that I can see. Both scenarios are highly unlikely yet, however you view it, one of them took place.

I'm undecided on the issue, I simply think that a perceived lack of statistical probability cannot be used to settle the matter."

Finally! Just may kiss you when next I see you--or not. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

Occam's Razor. As I stated earlier, this kind of crime was practically unheard of in Whitechapel before 1888. Then we suddenly have a trend of victims (mainly working girls) having their throats slashed and being left sprawled out in public areas. What is the simplest, straightforward explanation? That Stride was murdered by a known serial killer at large in the area who, for whatever reason, refrained from his post-mortem signature? Or that a separate, second killer happened to target Stride in a similar style 45 minutes before the Ripper struck again? Again, I'm not stating that it's inconceivable that such a coincidence would occur, I'm saying that all things considered it's pretty damn unlikely.

[RockySullivan]

G'day Michael

The one part of the above that am really not sure of is:



To me there is no evidence that a "client" killed any of the c5 or even more victims.

I have long wondered if it wasn't rather a peeping tom, type who watched and after the "client" left struck. Yes I accept that this would then fall into the opportunistic category. am far from persuaded that any of the men reported by witnesses was actually the killer.

Well that's essentially exactly what hutch was doing according to his claim. Waiting and watching for the john to leave...so if that was the rippers method hutch certainly fits the bill

[Harry D]

Wasn't there ten minutes between Eddowes being spotted with Salt n' Pepper man, and the discovery of her body? If the client wasn't her killer, was there sufficient time for the Ripper to do his business between these two events?

[Michael W Richards]

Occam's Razor. As I stated earlier, this kind of crime was practically unheard of in Whitechapel before 1888. Then we suddenly have a trend of victims (mainly working girls) having their throats slashed and being left sprawled out in public areas. What is the simplest, straightforward explanation? That Stride was murdered by a known serial killer at large in the area who, for whatever reason, refrained from his post-mortem signature? Or that a separate, second killer happened to target Stride in a similar style 45 minutes before the Ripper struck again? Again, I'm not stating that it's inconceivable that such a coincidence would occur, I'm saying that all things considered it's pretty damn unlikely.

Hi Harry,

I responded to the above because in fact only 2 victims within the Canonical Group were "sprawled" out in public areas. Polly and Kate. The other 3 were killed on private property.

Just like Mrs Brown.

Cheers

[John G]

Hello,

I find statistical evidence, such as the excellent data provided by Colin Roberts, highlighting the extreme rarity of these types of crimes, very useful. However, once you start expanding your criteria then obviously more coincidences are likely to appear.

Thus, the murder of Sarah Brown was a far more common domestic murder. She wasn't killed in the street or at the back of someone else's property. She was murdered in her own home and her husband quickly confessed to the crime.

She was not a street prostitute and she had not been walking the streets on the night of her murder. She was killed in Westminster, not Whitechapel, at around 10:50 pm on the 29th September. Her husband confessed at a police station about 10 minutes later. She was not killed around a mile from another murder, nor within about 45 minutes.

And there is clearly more than time, place and the status of the victim that links Stride to the C5. I consider it highly relevant that there was virtually no blood on Stride or the surrounding area. Why? Because, as the medical testimony reveals, she was probably killed whilst close to the ground whilst being strangled, thus preventing arterial spray: important for her killer because it means that he would not be covered in blood.

Moreover, this was exactly the same strategy that a killer applied in two earlier murders: the murders of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, providing a clear link.

In my opinion this fact alone clearly indicates pre-planning by an experienced, relatively organized killer. It does not suggest a much more common domestic murder by someone who is likely to confess at a police station 10 minutes later.

Cheers,

John

[lynn cates]

strangled

Hello John. What makes you think Liz was strangled?

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John. What makes you think Liz was strangled?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Oh dear, I thought I was going to get away with that! Dr Blackwell, of course, concluded that her killer had pulled tightly on her scarf. And I believe some authors, Philip Sugden, for example, have interpreted that as evidence of strangulation.

Nonetheless, I accept that, technically, it is not proof of strangulation. However, I think the point is largely incidental as the effect would surely be the same. i.e it would have prevented arterial spray by stemming the blood supply.

By the way, I forgot to mention what an ideal location Berner Street was for a murder- probably afraid of stirring up a hornet's nest! In fact, the more I think of Stride's murder the more I am drawn to the possibility that her killer had drawn up a full scale risk assessment!

Maybe he was just far too organized to be JtR. Now there's a controversial thought!

Best wishes,

John