Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[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.

[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.

[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.]

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]

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).

[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....

[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.

[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.]

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.

[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.

[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.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I also believe the killer of these women was infuriated by watching women solicit.
It is highly likely, that in the case of Tabram,the murderer saw her and a soldier enter George yard, the latter leaving, with Tabram left on the first floor landing..and the killer ventured in..
In the case of Nichols, we know she was after custom, so who knows what happened during the time she left Holland, and the time her body was discovered, it seems likely that the time frame enabled her to meet someone [ not the killer] , and was accosted after..
In the case of Chapman, we have a witness Mrs Long, who witnessed a pick up outside number 29, it is again possible this was witnessed by the killer, and he entered the passage, after the man Long saw came out. and came across Chapman in the yard..
Stride was obviously soliciting, she was seen in Berner Street, and again the killer could have moved in after Stride had ''done a trick'' hence the cashews
Eddowes was seen talking to a man near the entrance to Mitre Square, if this was just a sailor attempting a pick up, and the killer saw this, he could have made his move, after she most likely rejected the sailors advances..[ hand on chest]
Mary Kelly was seen entering her room by both Mrs Cox, and Hutchinson at different times with a man. and the killer could have seen this , and waited, for his chance to move in..
A killer enticed by soliciting, could well fit his M.O.
Regards Richard,

[Wickerman]

One of the smaller details I find to be odd by its consistency across all the five? or more victims is, no money being found on their bodies.
And this, after soliciting?

[c.d.]

One of the smaller details I find to be odd by its consistency across all the five? or more victims is, no money being found on their bodies.
And this, after soliciting?

Hello Jon,

A simple explanation would be that their killer took it either because he needed it or because he didn't want them to have anything of his or a combination of the two.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

A simple explanation would be that their killer took it either because he needed it or because he didn't want them to have anything of his or a combination of the two.

c.d.

Hi c.d.
Indeed, it would seem to be the case.
Interestingly, when we look at incomplete murders, like Stride, or even Nichols where mutilations began but were not completed, the killer must have considered locating any money somewhere on the body as more important that the mutilation.
Which raises another complication for those who think he was pressed for time.