Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[Harry D]

* I believe that MO links Stride and Eddowes but there definitely is a variance in the signature. Meaning, both were strangled and had their throat sliced in half, but Eddowes, body suffers grotesque mutilations.

If we assume that the post-mortem mutilations were the focus of the Ripper's fantasy or motivation, he probably had the serial killer equivalent of 'blue balls' after being interrupted with Stride. That's why he took it all out on Eddowes.

[Azarna]

Women having their throats slashed was not an everyday occurrence.

If Stride was not killed by the same person as Eddowes then there were two throat-slashing murderers out and about and killing in a very small area, on the same night.

I should imagine the odds of this are pretty poor. Obviously this could be the case, but one killer seems rather more likely than a pair of them to me, especially as there doesn't seem to be any evidence that is significantly to the contrary.

So I will go along with Stride being killed by the same person as Eddowes ("Jack the Ripper").

[wigngown]

Azarna - you wrote 'If Stride was not killed by the same person as Eddowes then there were two throat-slashing murderers out and about and killing in a very small area, on the same night'
agreed, and in my view it all but rules out the two killers theory.
Best regards.

[Harry D]

Unless Stride was murdered by Michael Kidney. As far as I know, nothing rules him out, but he was taking one hell of a risk attending the inquest if he did do it.

[wigngown]

It could have been Kidney, Harry, but for me the same man murdered both women. As you say, If it was Kidney who murdered Stride, he must have had some front to turn up at the inquest. Best regards.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Harry D.

Lol i,ve gone along with that belief before - compensating for ,,the botched murder,,. However looking at the 6 murders, i see two types of murders: the Less Savage and the Macabre. The latter being Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, whose murders had the anatomical aspect and the refined task of disection. The Less Savage murders are Tabram, Nichols and Stride, where the murders had the high risk factor but lacked the ,,imagination,, apparent in the Macabre Murders AND existed more as acts of extreme brutality. Not that I would BUT I could accomplish the Less Savage Murders bc they,re mostly just stabbing and ripping. The Macabre Murders however would be beyond me bc i wouldn,t know how to dissect a uterus. For this reason, I,ve been leaning more towards two killers working together - the strangle&ripper and the dissector.

[Michael W Richards]

It seems to be a safe bet that the object of the murders was mutilation, so if it was Jack then he must have been disturbed.

I do think it was Jack, personally, and a couple more: McKenzie and Coles.

I will always be swayed by the law of averages.

I found it funny that you would be swayed by the law of averages but yet you support an explanation for the lack of mutilations that has no foundation in any evidence. She was cut, then left untouched...and if she was cut at the time Blackwell indicates was likely...12:46-12:56, then found by Diemshitz after 1am,... then the killer may have had about the same time with Stride as Eddowes killer had with her. See any differences in those 2 murders?

[Azarna]

However looking at the 6 murders, i see two types of murders: the Less Savage and the Macabre.

Do you not think that situational circumstances might be a big factor in which of your two types of murder any given situation may have become?

The murderer may have wanted to commit the "Macabre" type of murder, but when he found a victim and started work he was disturbed, for example, resulting in a "Less Savage" slaying instead.

[Robert St Devil]

Do you not think that situational circumstances might be a big factor in which of your two types of murder any given situation may have become?

No because Jack the Ripper chooses the situational circumstances. He's chosen the locations, and we know this because Jack the Ripper escapes each and every time. Because Jack the Ripper is choosing to murder in public repeatedly, he has to know the risk that he is taking. Going further, he knows the situational circumstances because he murders in-between the constable's beat. He's the one who chose to kill beside the socialist's club; so, why would he be surprised if it didn't go as planned considering he has to know that there are all these people just yards away from him? If he was going to throw a hiss, why not just choose another corner or another yard? Or tell Liz, "Sorry luv, have to be on my way to Mitre Square." when he saw that he wouldn't be able to eviscerate her?

I think part of the answer lies in how you consider Martha Tabram. Because if you consider her to be a Ripper victim, then you could also ask yourself: why didn't Jack the Ripper feel the further-need to satiate his appetite for evisceration those nights considering that neither Tabram nor Nichols were disemboweled or facially mutilated? Other than the stab wounds to her abdomen, what other details are there that separate Nicholls from Stride? Nicholls' organs aren't removed. Noone puzzles over "how" her murder was accomplished. Considering Chapman soon follows, we have to accept that his macabre knowledge was available to him those nights too.

[Damaso Marte]

We don't know that the killer picked the murder sites. For all we know he asked his victims (who largely made their living performing a crime outdoors) to take them to a spot where they thought it was safe to perform a crime outdoors and freeloaded off the victim's knowledge of police beats and such.

And even if the killer did pick the locations, all you can do is pick based on averages and likelyhoods. You can calculate that Bucks Row is a dark and deserted place where it is unlikely you'll get caught, but if the risk (however remote) materializes that a carman begins to stroll down the row before you can remove any organs, well you have to deal with that.

[Damaso Marte]

It seems to be a safe bet that the object of the murders was mutilation, so if it was Jack then he must have been disturbed.

I don't agree - it's possible to me that the double event was planned, and that he intentionally did not mutilate victim #1 so that he would still appear presentable to victim #2.

That said, the flaw in Michael Richard's post is that he assumes that Dimshultz must be the disturber. It didn't even have to be an actual person. The killer could easily have been spooked by what he thought was the sound of the club door opening, or something else.

[Rosella]

All serial killers take risks. Jack and/or his clients chose dark locales. Sometimes it worked out for him, sometimes it didn't. He was interrupted or spooked by noise in the case of Stride and so he went on to kill and mutilate Kate Eddowes in Mitre Square. (That one cool, deep slash of Liz Stride's throat that ended her life was swift and sure and her killer knew what he was doing.)

Jack could have been interrupted in Mitre Square by Morris the watchman coming out for a breath of fresh air, but he wasn't, so he was lucky. You can't discount luck in any of this, and the Ripper had plenty of it.

[wigngown]

Perssonally, I think he was disturbed after killing victim 1, fled & then found the unfortunate 2nd victim: but who knows, your theory is just as possible.
Best regards.

[wigngown]

I believe the Killer wanted to be in control at all times, he was cunning and calculated, he left little if anything to chance. I think it's highly likely that he already knew where the best places to kill were & if he was able to, he made sure that's where the killings took place. To escape the scene after each killing, he surely must have known the area very well indeed.
Best regards.

[c.d.]

Unless Stride was murdered by Michael Kidney. As far as I know, nothing rules him out, but he was taking one hell of a risk attending the inquest if he did do it.

Hello Harry,

With respect to Kidney, I think there are three possibilities:

1. The police were complete idiots and it never occurred to them that Stride's ex-lover who she apparently left and who had a history of domestic violence towards her could have been her killer;

2. They asked him for an alibi which checked out; or

3. If he had no alibi, they asked Schwartz to identify him.

I would suspect that it was number two.

c.d.