Did jack kill liz stride?

[corey123]

Mike,

I pretty much accept that view of events.
Apart from the time the body was found(which I believe louis was the first to see her) it pretty much sums up what I have been saying. the knife, the blitz attack. But why leave her???

Thats the biggest question that pops into my head upon the death of liz.

Maybe the killer(if it was jack)just felt that he had done the job poor and went to look for a new victim, do to it right. Which if thats correct, form his victimology it shows the second time he did do it right.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Hunter, you must always forgive me when I come across as tetchy, it is but the passage of time, and my inability to deal with it.

[Chadwick]

Outside the box

Chad,

First of all we cant state what we dont know. We dont know that she was killed whilst on her side.

We could make many possible senerios while relying on "blood evidence".

I agree, the evidence does suggest she died while on her left side, but then a number of questions rise up.

Did he put her like that?
She couldnt have so it must have been him, but why such a shallow cut?(compared to the rest?)
Why did it give the impression of a shorter knife?
Was the killer over her or knealing behind her as he cut her throat?(the latter would help explain the impression of a shorter knife)
Why did he leave her there?

I do believe she was a ripper victims but shes very difficult to place.

My reasons for doing so is,

Shes too similar.
Too close in dates.
Same victimology of the rest of them.
If he had been knealing behind her that could explain why it seemed to be a short knife, and may have been the same knife for all the five.
Who else is a better suspect for her?

Corey, my friend,

We have it in mind that he stood behind her and cut her throat, then she dropped to the ground.

Step outside the traditional box.

He wasn't there for sex. He was there to exact revenge and to kill with mutilations. He demonstrated this later by what he did to Catherine Eddowes. It's obvious that he was interrupted in finishing the job with poor Liz Stride by the warmth of the body and still draining blood. To be honest, I am not entirely sure that she was dead when Diemshutz arrived. It takes a while to die that way. Several minutes.

In that position, he is less likely to get blood on his clothing. Not everyone had a closet full of clothes in those days. What's more, he had to walk out of there to a street apparently full of people. If he was covered in blood, someone would have taken note.

He could have ordered her down into that position, holding the knife to her.

Blackwell's testimony had the candy clutched in her hand, not her fingertips.

"The right hand was open and on the chest, and was smeared with blood. The left hand, lying on the ground, was partially closed, and contained a small packet of cachous wrapped in tissue paper."

It is no stretch to the mind to consider that her hand holding the candy would have been clenched in terror, just as it is reasonable to realize that she had reached up to her neck with her other hand and felt the gaping wound, thus it was bloody.

I assert he cut into her throat like slicing into a loaf of bread. Not tradition, but it fits what the blood flow shows.

Sobering. So sobering to think of what happened to this poor woman.

Best to you,

~Chadwick

[Hunter]

Thanks Hunter, you must always forgive me when I come across as tetchy, it is but the passage of time, and my inability to deal with it.

I know what you mean

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Harry the Hawker]

I voted yes. I would like to posit, for the sake of argument, that if yes (Stride was indeed killed by Jack), then the Broad Shouldered man seen by Schwartz is likely to be the same man seen by Lawende, and he is the Ripper.

[perrymason]

Chadwick,

One major problem with the notion that the killer in Dutfields Yard...or more precisely the pathway that led to it....was an abdominal mutilator lies within the known evidence. In the evidence there is no basis in the physical data for that assumption.

I know of 3 witnesses that told the press and police that night that they were alerted to the murder by 12:45 at the latest......Louis may not be the problem with the lack of mutilations at all.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Too close in dates.

To have any confidence in that assumption, Corey, you must first consider what the "background rate" of lethal or potentially lethal assaults was in the area at the time. Such things must be borne in mind before deciding that "too close" means "too close for coincidence" (which is what, I take it, you meant).

Same victimology of the rest of them.

Now there we have a better idea of the context - in that it's a fair bet that women of the same kind and class would have been out and about on the streets of Whitechapel at that hour. The evidence of the canonical and non-canonical murders, as well murders/manslaughters and assaults before and after 1888/89, confirms this: they were all women of broadly the same type, because that's the kind of place we're dealing with.

Against that backdrop, "victimology" is pretty useless as a distinguishing factor.

Who else is a better suspect for her?

The sort of ruffian that did for the non-canonicals, or any East End geezer who'd had a few drinks, snapped and went too far. There were plenty of those in the area, as court and newspaper records attest, and many carried knives.

[Hunter]

He wasn't there for sex. He was there to exact revenge and to kill with mutilations.

Hi Chad,

If it was JTR he wasn't there for sex but she probably was. Any other reason diminishes a Jack the Ripper killing- a predictable error, Michael.

He could have ordered her down into that position, holding the knife to her.

not likely

Blackwell's testimony had the candy clutched in her hand, not her fingertips.

I think the testimony ( and I don't remember who) stated that the cachous was between the thumb and forefinger, the hand relaxing in death.


Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Natalie Severn]

hey steady on boyo!

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;114671]To have any confidence in that assumption, Corey, you must first consider what the "background rate" of lethal or potentially lethal assaults was in the area at the time. Such things must be borne in mind before deciding that "too close" means "too close for coincidence" (which is what, I take it, you meant).Now there we have a better idea of the context - in that it's a fair bet that women of the same kind and class would have been out and about on the streets of Whitechapel at that hour. The evidence of the canonical and non-canonical murders, as well murders/manslaughters and assaults before and after 1888/89, confirms this: they were all women of broadly the same type, because that's the kind of place we're dealing with.

Oh Dear Sam!
According to the Times London History Atlas, Chapter 7 ,Victorian London ,Crime and Punishment ,London,by the 1880"s was considered "the safest capital for life and property in the world".The chapter also refers to the " "images of the dramatic outrages of the Whitechapel murders detracting from the reality that for most people for most of the time "life was getting safer" .The statistics given for violent crime per 100,000 being 378 for the year 1831 and sixty years later 216 per 100,000.
I remember seeing a figure of 146,000 "unfortunates" operating in The Tower Hamlets in 1890.So even if all 17 murders happening in the year of 1888 are all from the 146,000 women of the "unfortunate class" ---its still not a place swarming with "East End geezers" ready to murder if crossed by one of them after having too much to drink.
Best
Norma

[Cap'n Jack]

The figures float before our eyes like gin bubbles in a glass, Natalie, the reality is that Sam is absolutely right, in that a person from the 'unfortunate' class was likely to engage at least twenty more people in a day or night than your 'average' East Ender, and all of them in precarious situation.
Taking statistics from the non-criminal element of society and then applying them to the criminal element of society is dead wood.

[Natalie Severn]

The figures float before our eyes like gin bubbles in a glass, Natalie, the reality is that Sam is absolutely right, in that a person from the 'unfortunate' class was likely to engage at least twenty more people in a day or night than your 'average' East Ender, and all of them in precarious situation.
Taking statistics from the non-criminal element of society and then applying them to the criminal element of society is dead wood.

Dear Ap,
How many murders were there in total, even in 1888 in Whitechapel?How many "unfortunates" were there?----getting on for 150,000!

[perrymason]

The sort of ruffian that did for the non-canonicals, or any East End geezer who'd had a few drinks, snapped and went too far. There were plenty of those in the area, as court and newspaper records attest, and many carried knives.

Im surprised to find myself in complete agreement with the statement above.

Best regards

[Natalie Severn]

For canonical bill!

Im surprised to find myself in complete agreement with the statement above.

Best regards

Oh I"m not!

[perrymason]

Oh I"m not!

The source, not the statement.

Cheers Nats

[Sox]

I remember seeing a figure of 146,000 "unfortunates" operating in The Tower Hamlets in 1890.So even if all 17 murders happening in the year of 1888 are all from the 146,000 women of the "unfortunate class" ---its still not a place swarming with "East End geezers" ready to murder if crossed by one of them after having too much to drink.
Best
Norma

As ever, I bow to your great research skills Norma, great stuff.

Liz Stride has been a thorn in Ripperologists sides for years, I think on that point everyone, at least, can agree. But not in mine, and for one simple reason, I do not think that the night of September 30th was the first time this killer was ever disturbed at the scene.

I think he was disturbed while mutilating Polly Nichols too.

My Jack incapacitates his victim by strangulation, once on the floor he cuts her throat having turned the body to one side to avoid arterial spray. Allowing a minute or two for the blood flow to cease/slow he then proceeds to mutilate the corpse. I think he heard Charles Cross approaching before he was finished with Polly.

In Dutfields yard I think that he had reached the bleeding out point, when the cart appears in the gateway.

Now obviously this is just my opinion. And I admit that this opinion is based upon little more than the fact that Kate Eddowes died on the same night. But if I am honest, nothing I have read in years of research has even remotely sold me on the mugging/thug theory, or any other theory for that matter. Liz Stride will be a botched Ripper attack until someone, or something, leads me to suspect otherwise.

As I've said before, I tend to be highly sceptical about the Schwartz statement, and I omit it from the timeline. Other than that I think it fairly obvious that numerous witnesses were mistaken about exact times during the Stride investigation.

Even after all these years I keep an open mind on Liz Strides death, but one thing I never do is to forget, that on the night this woman was killed, the Whitechapel Killer was on the prowl.