Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[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?

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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'.

[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

[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
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]

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]

The opportunistic theory is well and oft used, because it attempts to explain why these particular women and were they strangers to him? At this juncture its impossible to state with any certainty that opportunism played a pivotal role in any of the Canonicals murders...excluding the first 2. 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. The fact that both were to some degree compromised by their health...Annie by her cold or flu, and Polly by the booze...seems to suggest that they may have been chosen, at least in part, because of that lessened state of awareness. The opportunity arose.

With Elisabeth Stride, the woman who had been working among the Jews for weeks prior to the night she is killed, is sober, nicely dressed with a flower arrangement on her jacket, and cachous clutched in her hand. Although we have several men interacting with Liz throughout that night it appears that none of them suggested she was "available" for hire, that they hired her that night, or that she was looking for customers at 12:35am outside a club that had the vast majority of attendees that night leave the premises between 11:30pm and 12:30am. The street was almost empty at the time she is seen there.

So all we can say about Liz's murderer is that he didn't seem to acquire her in the same manner as the killer acquired the first 2 Canonicals, and that the trademark Ripper signature of the double throat cut and post mortem cuts into the abdomen are not present.

Cheers

[GUT]

G'day Harry

As we can determine no golden thread that ties the victims to each other or to a particular suspect, they must have been the random targets of a killer stalking the streets for a particular class of women.

One, at least plausible, thread could be that at various times he was a client of each of them, part time prostitutes working the streets in the same geographical area, it's really not a stretch that they had clients in common.

Personally I think that they were most probably just in the wrong place at the wrong time, just that we don't KNOW that as a fact and their are other possibilities.

[Bridewell]

In all probability, what are the chances of two throat-slashings happening on the streets within that proximity of time. It's certainly conceivable but not at all likely in my unprofessional opinion.

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.

[Harry D]

Greetings, GUT.

This is circular reasoning I'm sorry.

Stride might have less injuries if Jack was an opportunistic killer.

Stride had limited injuries, thus:

Jack was an opportunistic killer.

My belief in Jack's opportunism does not rest on Stride alone.

We actually have no idea if he was an opportunistic killer or not, he MAY have been or he may have had other motivations or Stride MAY have been killed by someone else or he MAY have been disturbed, on the evidence we have persuasive argument can be made for all three scenarios.

There's plenty to suggest to that the killings were opportunistic in nature. As we can determine no golden thread that ties the victims to each other or to a particular suspect, they must have been the random targets of a killer stalking the streets for a particular class of women. I don't believe the killer planned much further ahead than that. If Stride wasn't soliciting that night, it shouldn't rule her out, because the victims weren't killed for their trade, only that it made them easy targets. I don't believe that Broad Shoulders Man was Stride's killer, or the Ripper, he wouldn't have been that conspicuous for starters, which in my view means that he must've left Stride after their little altercation, at which point the Ripper moved in while Stride was still shaken and gave her a 'helping' hand.

In all probability, what are the chances of two throat-slashings happening on the streets within that proximity of time. It's certainly conceivable but not at all likely in my unprofessional opinion.