Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[Wickerman]

My belief is, until solid evidence is provided that can sway me to the contrary, that Elizabeth Stride was killed by Jack the Ripper.

It's too much of a coincidence that 2 women were murdered by the same modus operandi (at least to some extent) on the same day, within 45 minutes of each other, within 12 minutes walking distance apart from each other, and both in the same geographical area.

I say provide me real proof that what I've said above are only coincidences and the Stride was murdered by someone else.

You are asking for proof of a coincidence?
Insurance companies exist today in large part due to coincidences.

There was a time when I was sure Stride was not a Ripper victim, these days I'm not so sure. Both sides of the argument interest me. Though I don't believe BS-man is the culprit, too noisy, brash, too loud, careless.
He drew attention to himself, not a trait we have seen elsewhere.

[Abby Normal]

My belief is, until solid evidence is provided that can sway me to the contrary, that Elizabeth Stride was killed by Jack the Ripper.

It's too much of a coincidence that 2 women were murdered by the same modus operandi (at least to some extent) on the same day, within 45 minutes of each other, within 12 minutes walking distance apart from each other, and both in the same geographical area.

I say provide me real proof that what I've said above are only coincidences and the Stride was murdered by someone else.

Hi Sleuth
Agree-the clincher for me is that most of the various witnesses describe a man with both stride and eddowes who was wearing a peaked cap.

Abberline also noticed it. (see sig).

[Harry D]

Just so you know I believe its at least possible that they might have considered doing just that...using Diemshitz's cart and pony. I think Louis arrived before he said he did, (primarily because a witness was at her door from around 12:56-(Goldstein), until 1 am and she saw that no-one arrived at 40 Berner at 1am), and he and some others debated how to handle the mess they found themselves in.

Now Diemschutz is getting in on the act? The plot keeps on thickening!

Michael, I have to know, do you type these posts with a straight face?

[Sleuth1888]

My belief is, until solid evidence is provided that can sway me to the contrary, that Elizabeth Stride was killed by Jack the Ripper.

It's too much of a coincidence that 2 women were murdered by the same modus operandi (at least to some extent) on the same day, within 45 minutes of each other, within 12 minutes walking distance apart from each other, and both in the same geographical area.

I say provide me real proof that what I've said above are only coincidences and the Stride was murdered by someone else.

[Abby Normal]

What? The woman had almost bled dry, do you realize what kind of volume that is? Secondly, they have to remove the body which would expose them to the risk of being caught by authorities while doing so, or at the very least being seen doing so.

Just so you know I believe its at least possible that they might have considered doing just that...using Diemshitz's cart and pony. I think Louis arrived before he said he did, (primarily because a witness was at her door from around 12:56-(Goldstein), until 1 am and she saw that no-one arrived at 40 Berner at 1am), and he and some others debated how to handle the mess they found themselves in.

ok-thanks for the non sarcastic reply. I think the risk of putting her body somewhere else would be much less than leaving there and trying to come up with conspiratorial story. all they would need to do was literally take her several yard out into the street. around the corner etc. and done. then there alley isn't even a crime scene, they can easily clean up the blood and keep there mouths shut.

[lynn cates]

quite

Hello Pat.

"I always wonder why the police were so sure Liz was murdered by Jack."

Quite. Same for me.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

series

Hello CD.

"If you focus entirely on differences in the murders then of course you will arrive at the conclusion that they were done by different killers. But that will hold true for any set of murders."

Not necessarily. In fact, I would expect differences--but NOT after a pair like Polly and Annie which were the same with respect to their throat cuts.

And after the first two, talk of "skilful" mutilation evaporated.

Cheers.
LC

[Paddy]

The double event

I always wonder why the police were so sure Liz was murdered by Jack.
If he was seen by either policeman, Schwartz or Mrs Kuer of Batty street, they would have then surely brought Lawend in to identify him. He could then have been watched and that is why he did not murder all the following month and when he did eventually it was indoors?
Pat.....

[Abby Normal]

"Uh, how about throw some water or even a mug or two of beer on it Einstein.
Besides, it wouldn't be the murder scene any more would it Sherlock."

Hello Abby,

"Einstein", "Sherlock". What's with the insults? Can't you make your point without them? That's just not cool.

c.d.

Read his insulting patronising post to me first.
I treat people how they deserve to be treated.

[Michael W Richards]

It would be an uphill struggle to try pass this killer off as perfectly sane.

Its also an uphill struggle to assume a singularly cut throat was done by an double throat cutting-abdominal mutilator, but many folks seem comfy with that premise.

Do you deny that everyday people are killed by people who are not clinically insane? There are a myriad of reasons people kill....and within the most minute fraction of a general population, the rarest of all types of murderers, some kill for personal pleasure or internal demons. Unicorn vs horse. Do you really favour an approach that assumes the least likely scenario?

Whether we talk about a lone killer largely depends on how many victims are being considered. There's nothing inherently wrong with the lone killer theory, we know today that lone killers can pause for a while, then take it up again. We also know they can change their style, weapon, M.O. and location. When we are honest, and admit to the above, what justification is there to call the lone killer theory a 'myth'?

Again, what do American serial killers in the 20th century have to do with a mile square ghetto in 19th century London? Ill be honest as you suggest, and state without hesitation that assuming these murders are connected by a single murderer without any evidence isn't a viable technique to resolution.

All that we have Jon is 5 murdered women whose killer isn't identified. 3 got mutilated outdoors, I didn't get mutilated, and 1 was dissected in her own bed while undressed. Of that group, I can see a reason to look for connections, or evidence, that the 3 women mutilated outdoors might be connected to one individual. Ive done that. And changes in the killers skill, his knowledge and his activities from Annie to Kate suggest to me other people, or person, may have been responsible. In Liz Strides case the only reason to marry her with this group is the timing , and Mary was almost certainly killed by someone close to her. All the signs are present.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

... That being said, anyone can cut a body open if so disposed, why they did it is the key. When you don't know why, simply assuming madness is very superficial and unsatisfying.

It would be an uphill struggle to try pass this killer off as perfectly sane.

But theres at least one of us that isn't satisfied by the myth nor the premise.

Whether we talk about a lone killer largely depends on how many victims are being considered.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the lone killer theory, we know today that lone killers can pause for a while, then take it up again. We also know they can change their style, weapon, M.O. and location.
When we are honest, and admit to the above, what justification is there to call the lone killer theory a 'myth'?

There is more fault associated with using the perceived differences as evidence of another killer, than accepting the same killer can change what he does, and how he does it. Sutcliffe being among the best examples of that.

That said, I wouldn't include the Torso murders, and I am not inclined to include Tabram.
As for the rest, I would not be so sure, perhaps the best way is to use Degrees of Probability.

[Wickerman]

If you focus entirely on differences in the murders then of course you will arrive at the conclusion that they were done by different killers. But that will hold true for any set of murders.

c.d.

Correct.
Back in the late 90's there was a wave of interest in treating the Kelly murder as different, we were debating Tumblety and Barnet as the most prominent suspects.
Many accepted that the descriptions of suspects reported in the cases prior to Kelly could not be Tumblety, but there was considerable focus on his potential role in the Kelly murder.
Likewise, Barnet was not an easy choice as a Whitechapel murderer due primarily to the suggested motive behind the theory. However, the question as to whether he could have killed Kelly in isolation received more interest.

A by-product of these theories was to allow for the Kelly murder to be considered on its own.

[Michael W Richards]

Harry,

I realize that many contemporary investigators did voice opinions that they believed 5 or 6 of the murders were likely connected by killer. I also realize that most of them were involved in National Security and matters of espionage before being assigned to Whitechapel to investigate some public butcherings attracting National attention. Did that mean that these men, by their records, were the most adept at solving crimes of unusual violence and murder? Or was it rather their cumulative experiences in Whitechapel managing spies, hunting Anarchists and tracking Terrorists that made them the best choice as investigators for these particular crimes?

I believe that these men were most adept at hunting criminals with plans to topple the government, not mad butchers or serial killers. And I believe they were assigned based on that experience, in that, these crimes were perceived as possible acts of Terrorism by the authorities. The brutal way the victims were killed outdoors and were left splayed open in the street seems to me something intended to terrify.

If you think me too off base then comments made by another contemporary official suggesting a prominent Fenian and Double Agent as the Ripper might convince you more. What possible reason would a senior official and investigator of the Ripper cases have for insinuating that a man who planned bombings and uprisings suddenly slashed womens abdomens in the street? Acts of Terror.

Jon, as you know the study has tangential areas of study that by necessity must be taken to have a full and honest perspective of the place, the people and the times surrounding these crimes. That's why its a never ending area of study..because the tangents get interesting too.

On this serial killer bit.....Its safe to say that the phenomenon of serial killing has only been studied for a few decades, yes? And that, in overwhelming numbers, the cases are about men convicted of serial murder in the United States in the 20th century, fair? Many "serious students", if that pleases you more, have come to a conclusion that the legend that surrounds these crimes and for decades has defined them is not really the reality, that it is far more likely that there were other factors at play here other than a solo serial madman. I believe that the sheer number of victims and variety of styles of attack within the Unsolved Murder file, not associated with Jack, is proof of that.

Cutting throats wasn't terribly unique, hell..some people slit their own throats in that area at that same time and Mr Brown slit his wifes on the night of the "Triple" Event. That being said, anyone can cut a body open if so disposed, why they did it is the key. When you don't know why, simply assuming madness is very superficial and unsatisfying.

None of us know why any of the women were killed, none of us know who killed them. But theres at least one of us that isn't satisfied by the myth nor the premise.

cd, but if you focus on a serial killer then you eliminate other possibilities, some which may explain those "differences" much more adequately.

Cheers

[c.d.]

If you focus entirely on differences in the murders then of course you will arrive at the conclusion that they were done by different killers. But that will hold true for any set of murders.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

I really don't know what the hell youre talking about Jon,.. but what I actually said and you can read again is that I found I was in agreement with the experts Ive discussed this with, not that I found my opinion once I had those discussions. If that what you alluding to. As I said, Im not sure.

Read my point again, I did not say you adopted an existing opinion. I said you used the fact that "experts" had arrived at the same conclusion to bolster your own opinion.

As for the "belief" that 2 or 3 were victims of one man, Its actually a conclusion based on 25 years plus of study and analysis, not something as amorphous as a mere "belief".

Reading through all the data on each murder wouldn't take 25 hours, never mind 25 years.
And reading the case details is all that is required to arrive at that opinion, you don't need to be an expert (what ever that is).

Jon, Its actually pretty clear from the first read of any Ripper storybook that there is nothing tangible or logical that can be used to connect at least 2 of the Canonical victims to the rest. Other than the boogyman proposition.

This is a problem in modern serial killer cases, the police not being absolutely sure which victims are attributed to the same hand. We are in the same predicament, so some have decided that seven may have been killed by him, others that five is more likely.
No-one can say for sure.
Do you know how many men were credited with some of Robert Picton's crimes?
One of them spent 27 years in jail for crimes he did not commit.

I do remember that pulling the number back to three was not a popular decision in the late 90's, and I think Christopher-Michael DiGrazzia (hope I spelled that right), was the only other person who openly agreed with me.

Like it or not, there is a small degree of doubt whether Kelly should be included, today I am more inclined to include her than not, but the differences, while easily explainable, are still differences.