Time of Death Analyzation

[robhouse]

I have never understood why people have such a problem with Liz being a Ripper murder victim. I do not in any way buy the idea that the scales are tipping against such a proposition. I think the thing is being over analyzed.

The interruption hypothesis is perfectly rational and explains almost all the so-called "problems" of this murder, but again (I have said this countless times) it seems much more likely that the killer was interrupted by Schwartz... NOT Diemschutz!

Schwartz basically witnessed a man (almost certainly the Ripper) in the act of committing a murder. It is very unlikely that BS man was not Stride's killer. After the killer was seen by Schwartz, he must have worried that Schwartz would run off and fetch a policeman, and he obviously would not want to stick around and wait for the police to show up. Any killer would react in such a way after being caught redhanded in the act by a bystander. At the same time he would not want to let Liz live to identify him, so he would have killed her quickly and left, unsatisfied. I dont know why this is so difficult to grasp.

RH

[lynn cates]

Victorian lady

Hello Tom. I don't wish to sound sexist, but I think a Victorian lady would be more likely to scream than a 1969 California couple. Perhaps I mistake?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

parable

Hello Rob. You say:

"I have never understood why people have such a problem with Liz being a Ripper murder victim."

Well, amongst other things, what were they doing together? Surely Liz was not soliciting in Dutfield's Yard, busy as it was?

"Schwartz basically witnessed a man (almost certainly the Ripper) in the act of committing a murder."

Possibly. But the row was OUTSIDE the gates. She was killed INSIDE the yard. Are we to suppose that, instead of trying to pull her out (as Schwartz stated) "Jack" gave up and chased her into the yard? OK, now what? She is killed EXITING the yard. Oh, yes, mustn't forget her last request: "Please don't kill me with my bad breath. I must have a go at the cachous first. Then, like the maidens at the Castle Anthrax, you may do with me what you will."

The best.
LC

[harry]

What is the evidence against BS.There is nothing of a sustainable incriminating nature.He stops and talks to a woman.There is no evidence that what he said contained a threat.He places a hand on her shoulder and she is seen to fall.What evidence is there that the pressure of that hand on the shoulder caused the fall.He is not said to have gripped her tightly.He was not seen to assault with either hand,such as punchin or slappimg.There is no evidence that BS touched her in any way while she was on the ground.There was no evidence of a knife in his possession.No evidence that he entered the yard at any time.His being there coincided with the presence of a victim a short time before she was killed,and that is all.Enough obviously for the police to seek and question him.Enough to presume opportunity,but no where near enough to label him the killer.

[celticsun]

Reasons for believing Liz Stride not to be ripper victim

I have never understood why people have such a problem with Liz being a Ripper murder victim. I do not in any way buy the idea that the scales are tipping against such a proposition. I think the thing is being over analyzed.

The interruption hypothesis is perfectly rational and explains almost all the so-called "problems" of this murder, but again (I have said this countless times) it seems much more likely that the killer was interrupted by Schwartz... NOT Diemschutz!

Schwartz basically witnessed a man (almost certainly the Ripper) in the act of committing a murder. It is very unlikely that BS man was not Stride's killer. After the killer was seen by Schwartz, he must have worried that Schwartz would run off and fetch a policeman, and he obviously would not want to stick around and wait for the police to show up. Any killer would react in such a way after being caught redhanded in the act by a bystander. At the same time he would not want to let Liz live to identify him, so he would have killed her quickly and left, unsatisfied. I dont know why this is so difficult to grasp.

RH

Personally, I don't think Stride was a Ripper victim because location of the killing departed from his usual MO in that he did not take her to a secluded place in the yard and, therefore, deprived himself of the opportunity to mutilate. Also, the yard, to the best of my knowledge, had only one way of escape not counting the club building itself and I think this departs from his MO (Kelly excepted in this case) as well as putting him at great risk of capture. I think he was too intelligent for that. Also should add that amount of people around Berner Street and also in the club and that fact that he probably (I did say PROBABLY) had an accomplice are also departures from his usual MO.

[Fisherman]

Robhouse writes:

"I have never understood why people have such a problem with Liz being a Ripper murder victim. I do not in any way buy the idea that the scales are tipping against such a proposition. I think the thing is being over analyzed.

The interruption hypothesis is perfectly rational and explains almost all the so-called "problems" of this murder, but again (I have said this countless times) it seems much more likely that the killer was interrupted by Schwartz... NOT Diemschutz!

Schwartz basically witnessed a man (almost certainly the Ripper) in the act of committing a murder. It is very unlikely that BS man was not Stride's killer. After the killer was seen by Schwartz, he must have worried that Schwartz would run off and fetch a policeman, and he obviously would not want to stick around and wait for the police to show up. Any killer would react in such a way after being caught redhanded in the act by a bystander. At the same time he would not want to let Liz live to identify him, so he would have killed her quickly and left, unsatisfied. I dont know why this is so difficult to grasp."

Well, Rob, on the surface it all sounds like a viable explanation, putting Jack on the spot and explaining some problems.
But when we delve a bit deeper into things, I think we are faced with a number of obstacles.

To begin with, and as has been discussed on this thread, we have the choice of timing and location that differs very much from Jacks other choices. The optimization to ensure as good possibilities as possible to be able to do his thing is not there - and that would have been very obvious from the outset. He would have seen the lights in the club windows, he would have heard the singing. It´s a distinctly different setting than the one he preferred on the other occasions.

Next thing: Why did BS man try to drag Stride into the street? If he wanted to take her to a secluded quiet spot, trying to drag her along against her will would not stand much of a chance of staying undetected, would it? And there is no evidence in the other cases telling us about anything but a compliance between killer and victim - they seem to have reached their destinations under cooperative forms.

Of course, Schwartz was scared. He may have misinterpreted things. There is always that possibility. But if he was correct, we have a problem here.

Next up - the cauchous! Stride was "thrown to the ground" outside the yard. Either this is correct, or she simply resisted getting dragged into the street and thus fell as BS mans grip on her came loose. Whichever way, she fell to the ground.
Now, if she had been holding her cachous in her hand at that time, reasonably she would have dropped them, fending off the fall. Reasonably, since she carried them in a small paper envelope, some of them would have fallen out on the pavement. Reasonably, if she held on to them by clinching her fist around them as she hit the ground, then she would have fended the fall off by hitting the ground with her clenched fist - but there were no abrasions found on that hand.

So everything points very much to her not having had the cachous in her hand at the moment when she was "attacked" by BS man outside the yard.

When she was found dead, though, she did have that pack of cachous in her left hand.

The inevitable conclusion is that she must have brought them out AFTER the incident outside the gates.

Now, if you are right on this, Rob, we need an explanation as to why a woman who is attacked by a violent man, presumably unknown to her, and who is very much aware of the Ripper scare, would respond to the continued violence inflicted on her by bringing out a pack of cachous!

Is it not a lot more credible to believe that IF the cachous came out after the brawl at the gates, then we have a passage of time after the brawl where Stride felt at ease, at least to such an extent that she could do as trivial a thing as to bring the sweetmeats out? I think so, at least.

And then we are faced with something different from a continued attack from BS man. And arguably it could only be one of two things:

1. BS man leaves her, and she composes herself and brings the cachous out, or
2. BS man was someone she knew, and therefore she did not feel threatened by him or fear for her life. Instead they entered the yard to discuss the disagreement they were having under as private circumstances as could be offered in the vicinity. If so, Stride had not been thrown to the ground - she had fallen, breaking loose from BS mans grip. If so, BS man had wanted to bring her along with him, probably in order to get her away from a scene where he thought she was soliciting.

And, of course, if so, it would be a very natural thing for her to bring her cachous out. You don´t do it under attack from a violent man, you don´t do it when you are expected to perform paid-for sex - but doing so while discussing things with an aquiantance would be the most natural thing in the world.

This, among other things such as cutting depth, is why at least I find it very difficult to grasp that BS man would have been Jack. It´s all in the details.

The best, Rob!
Fisherman

[c.d.]

I don't understand this notion that the BS man would have had to have killed Liz after being seen by Schwartz because Liz could identify him. Identify him as what, the man who threw her to the ground? Because that is all he is quilty of at that point. I doubt if he would even do any jail time for that. How could Liz have identified him as the Ripper unless she knew who the Ripper was? Are we to believe that he told Liz "I am Jack the Ripper. I have a sharp knife and I am going to kill you?" If the BS man didn't want anything to do with the police the best course of action would have just been to take off.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

You argue that Liz would have taken out the cachous when she felt at ease like she would have done when discussing things with an aqaintance. But if this is so,this acquaintance went on to cut her throat. Are we to believe that this action came completely out of the blue and that Liz had absolutely no notion that she was in impending danger? No one heard any argument and Liz had no marks on her face as if she had been hit. It would seem that either Liz was completely clueless or this acquaintance put on a performance deserving of an Academy Award.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

theory

Hello CD. Although I don't think the Stride killing had anything to do with BS man or Jack, I think the theory must be something like, "Jack wants to keep a low profile and his sighting with Liz might lead to something else. So let's do a routine safety precaution thing."

I may be terribly mistaken and, if so, will allow one of the theory's adherents to do a better job.

The best.
LC

[c.d.]

Going back to the original thread. If time and place are so important and we are looking for any variations, since all of the locations and all of the times differ, are we forced to conclude that it was five different killers? If not, then why single out Dutfield's Yard as being different? That seems to be picking and choosing.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Although I don't think the Stride killing had anything to do with BS man or Jack, I think the theory must be something like, "Jack wants to keep a low profile and his sighting with Liz might lead to something else. So let's do a routine safety precaution thing."

I may be terribly mistaken and, if so, will allow one of the theory's adherents to do a better job.

The best.
LC

Hi Lynn,

That theory would seem to be a bit extreme since it is reasonable to assume that Jack approached a number of women that he didn't kill and was probably seen by a number of people on the street. If he wanted to be cautious, the best course of action would have been to kill them all.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

analogy

Hello CD. I agree that time of night is not a huge factor, but place may be. Berner st. was south of both the Whitechapel high st. and Commercial road. So I ask you to consider this.

You hear of 5 deaths occurring. 4 of them occur near farms in Sussex; one occurs at a London discotheque. The 4 victims die from a gunshot wound to the face from a 30-30 hunting rifle. The latter, from a .22 caliber wound to the abdomen.

Any problems?

See my analogy?

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

in extremis

Hello CD. The theory is quite extreme. Indeed, I would liken it to the extreme measure of the proverbial drowning man grasping at straws.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

I am afraid that I missed your analogy completely. The C5 were all prostitutes who had their throats cut. All were found in a relatively close area. It is not like one had been shot or another killed with a baseball bat or one was in London and one in Paris. And if you believe that Jack killed Kate, then he was out that night a short distance away.

As for location, were there signs out on various streets sayin no serial killing allowed?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

knives

Hello CD. The reports on the other 4 included "long, sharp knife." Liz's was thought to be shorter and duller.

But I will concede this, we cannot rule out his popping round home and getting his favourite knife so he could go back out and kill Kate.

The best.
LC