Did jack kill liz stride?

[steverino1975]

Liz Stride

yes give me a reason why?
no give me a reason why?

I believe that JTR killed Liz Stride. He was interupted even though many people now want to say he did not kill her. Some are making generalized statements that this kind of violent killing was common in London at the time and done by spouses. I find it to coincidental that two killings in a similar vein happened on the same night not to far apart from each distance or time wise to not have been commited by the same person.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I believe that JTR killed Liz Stride. He was interupted even though many people now want to say he did not kill her. Some are making generalized statements that this kind of violent killing was common in London at the time and done by spouses. I find it to coincidental that two killings in a similar vein happened on the same night not to far apart from each distance or time wise to not have been commited by the same person.

Yes...using logic and probabilities alone it is more likely than not that she was a ripper victim. And it is more likely than not that Schwartz saw the killer assuming we accept Schwartz's testimony.

Then which one is more likely.....

Pipe Man chased Schwartz off versus Pipe Man attacked the assailant.

If Pipe Man was a lone killer would he risk a brawl - a load of commotion - and the chance of someone hearing this and coming round the corner while he murdered Stride? And would he be complacent enough to think Schwartz would not come back with some back up and catch him in the act? If he was the killer then he could just move on down the road and find someone else with less risk attached.

So that suggests that PipeMan was warning Schwartz off and Jack had an accomplice. If Schwartz's testimony is to be believed.

[Tom_Wescott]

So that suggests that PipeMan was warning Schwartz off and Jack had an accomplice. If Schwartz's testimony is to be believed.

That's a possibility, but I'm surprised you were so dismissive of Le Grand given this view.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

That's a possibility, but I'm surprised you were so dismissive of Le Grand given this view.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom - I don't know anything about Le Grand - but wouldn't dismiss anyone where there was a modicum of supporting evidence.

To illustrate my thinking: Blotchy face was in the room - could have left/could have stayed - 50/50 - but he was in the room - whereas the man loitering outside has been seen as doing no more than looking up at the window (and the claim "as if waiting for someone to come out" is no more than a judgement call). I'd conclude that while Blotchy could very well not be the killer - he's better placed than the alternative bloke loitering in the area.

[Tom_Wescott]

Fair enough. I sent you a PM.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Fleetwood Mac!

I'm afraid, that the Blotchy was a bit too strikingly-looking to be the killer!

Meaning, that he was a bit too recognisable!

All the best
Jukka

[Jeff Leahy]

OK. Let me start by saying that broadly, given opinion on this thread, I’m mostly in agreement with what Tom Wescott has to say…

There are still however a few nagging questions that rise and nag away at the back of my head?

“ The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her around and threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.”

OK. We have two accounts of the incident Schwartz claimed to have witnessed. NOT the original police report but only the police report of that report sent to the home office and the press report in the Star.

The two reports are different.

Either one is wrong and the other correct?

Both are wrong?

Or elements of both are correct and wrong?

The third seems the most likely scenario given that Schwartz spoke no English and gave both accounts via an interpreter. This opens up all sorts of possibility why the accounts might differ. Although I except it is impossible to say which elements are right or wrong.

”since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a Jewess in 1887 the name has frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the Jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has strong Jewish appearance I am of the opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the diseased woman.”

SPE has pointed out that the most logical scenario is that the insult was directed from BSM to Schwartz. And this appears the most probable conclusion. However in the Star report it is the man with the pipe who shouts Lipski (admittedly he holds a knife) but if the pipeman actually witnessed Strides murder does not that claim make perfect sense? ‘Lipski!’ murder!

Anderson's remarks appear to support this.

The Star version had the broad shouldered man GRAB THE WOMAN BY THE SHOULDERS AND push HER into yard.

“When the body was undressed it was noted that there was a bluish discoloration over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in the front of the chest. These marks were produced by pressure from two hands.”

This statement appears to confirm Schwartz sighting of the attack as given by the Star?

“The wound was inflicted by drawing the knife along the throat. A short knife, such as a shoemaker’s well-ground knife would do the same thing”.

The cut to Strides throat appears different to the cut on Eddows. Although both Stride and Eddows had a single cut unlike Nichols and Chapman.

“Dr Blackwell was of the opinion that she had been pulled back by her scarf, which displayed cuts, and her throat cut from behind.”

Blackwell’s observations appear to confirm that Stride was pulled back by her scarf and her throat cut from behind? Thus suggesting why the knife did not cut so deeply. However if we accept this surely we must also accept that JtR MO was different on each occasion. Nichols and Chapman attacked from the front, Stride from behind and possibly Eddows from the side?

So I still have nagging questions even though I accept broadly what Tom has claimed on this thread. Because we must be prepared to accept that the killer changed MO across the murders.

My biggest worry is that any theory on Le Grande assumes that the BSM and Pipeman were together? And there seems little if any evidence to support this given the territory of the suspects.

BSM stopped to talk to the a women/victim/Liz. The Star report suggests that Schwartz followed BSM down the street? If BSM and Pipeman were linked then BSM is coming from the wrong direction?

Surely everything points to a lone assailant, BSM, heading down Berner Street. Meeting his victim. Attacking and killing her and the two witnesses ie Schwartz and Pipeman running away scared in a southernly derection?

Admittedly one has to draw from the two sources to make that conclusion but does it not make the simplest and most plausible thinking?

I simply see no reason to connect BSM and Pipeman. And that is what Tom appears to be suggesting?

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pirate, thanks for the kind words. I must say you have an impressive grasp on the facts surrounding Stride's murder. I wasn't aware it was such a keen interest of yours.

“The wound was inflicted by drawing the knife along the throat. A short knife, such as a shoemaker’s well-ground knife would do the same thing”.

Which is not to say that the doctors thought Liz was killed with a short knife, as is often erroneously stated. Because Stride was not stabbed, they had no idea of the length of the blade, so they're correct in stating it's possible a short knife was used, but it might just as well have been a long knife as used on Eddowes.

Blackwell’s observations appear to confirm that Stride was pulled back by her scarf and her throat cut from behind? Thus suggesting why the knife did not cut so deeply. However if we accept this surely we must also accept that JtR MO was different on each occasion. Nichols and Chapman attacked from the front, Stride from behind and possibly Eddows from the side?

Not neccessarily. Stride was almost certainly on the ground and unconscious when her scarf was pulled tight to stabilize her head for the throat-cutting. How she was rendered unconscious we simply do not know. I see no reason to think that different MO's were used with each murder. There are differences, for sure, but that's to be expected.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Le Grand

My biggest worry is that any theory on Le Grande assumes that the BSM and Pipeman were together? And there seems little if any evidence to support this given the territory of the suspects.

Whoa, steady on! If I've given anyone the impression that I think Le Grand had to have had an accomplice, I certainly didn't mean to do so. However, the evaluation of any new suspect demands the re-evaluation of the known evidence. In the case of a Kozminski or Tumblety, where there's no indication of an accomplice, it wouldn't make sense. However, in Le Grand's case, he had a history prior to 1888 of employing his thugs to stalk and abuse prostitutes on the open street. I cannot ignore this when evaluating Schwartz's evidence as it might pertain to Le Grand's complicity.

Surely everything points to a lone assailant, BSM, heading down Berner Street. Meeting his victim. Attacking and killing her and the two witnesses ie Schwartz and Pipeman running away scared in a southernly derection?

I would generally agree with this, but again, if we're considering the evidence as it might pertain to Le Grand's complicity, we have to take certain factors into consideration. We know that he was out that night as head of patrol for the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. These men patroled in pairs, so although Le Grand was in charge and did not have to have someone with him, he may have done so, and would no doubt have personally selected his partner. When we consider that BS Man was pulling Stride away from the gateway, we must consider that he may have been trying to lead her to Le Grand aka Pipeman. It's not to be forgotten that Schwartz could not be certain if the two men were working together or strangers, so it cannot be empirically stated that they were strangers.

Having said all this, it's of course possible that Le Grand, if he was the Ripper or the killer of Stride, worked completely alone and merely took advantage of the situation after BS Man threw Stride down and departed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Tom

Yes I have very specific reasons for getting these facts correct, in a very short space of time. And have long followed your argument’s, which will be accredited.

My puzzle about the MO is not so much my point of view, but comments raised by people I very much appreciate about the MO. Not least Rumblow and Sam Flynn.

The MO seems far from fixed?

If the account described by Schwartz was the act of the Ripper, and I’m not saying it was. Then it appears to have been a different MO to the attacks on Chapman, Eddows and Kelly (probably Nichols?) I’m not talking about the cuts but the event described by Schwartz.

I am indeed interested in detail on Stride's death and in what you have to say about the subject?

If she was grabbed by the shoulders, pushed down, pulled back by her scarf and throat cut this is a unique killing if Jacks?

Pirate

[Jon Guy]

Hi Tom

Because Stride was not stabbed, they had no idea of the length of the blade,

so they're correct in stating it's possible a short knife was used, but it might just as well have been a long knife as used on Eddowes.

Phillips stated at the inquest that judging by the position of the body close up to the wall, that he didn`t think a long bladed knife, like the one presented at the inquest, was used.

[Tom_Wescott]

The Knife & The Scarf

Hi Jon,

When considering Drs. Phillips and Blackwell's first appearance at the inquest, it's important to keep a few things in mind, starting with the fact that they had not yet performed an autopsy; in fact, they had not so much as removed Stride's clothes or washed her face, so they were not altogether as well-informed as you might expect doctors to be at an inquest. Also, Dr. Phillips had not been made aware that Dr. Blackwell had dislodged some of the cachous from Stride's hand, so Dr. Phillips assumed that some struggle had taken place. This misinformation would have informed whatever opinions he gave. Dr. Phillips also stated he was assuming that the body had not been moved at all, when in fact Edward Johnston almost certainly did move the body. Dr. Blackwell would have been aware of this, but would not have stated as much.

Regarding the knife, it wasn't the wall that would have made Dr. Phillips think a long-bladed knife wasn't used, but the jagged gutter stones over which her neck was lying. He didn't feel a long-bladed knife would have comfortably fit under there, and about this he was undoubtedly correct, which is why the killer needed to utilize her scarf to lift her somewhat off the stones in order to position his knife under her accordingly. Because the killer had to shift his own weight in this manner also explains why her cut was not as deep as seen on Eddowes when he did not have such obstructions to work around. I hope this was of interest.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes I have very specific reasons for getting these facts correct, in a very short space of time.

For the Jack the Ripper A-Z? Feel free to PM me if you don't wish to talk publicly about what you're working on.

My puzzle about the MO is not so much my point of view, but comments raised by people I very much appreciate about the MO. Not least Rumblow and Sam Flynn.

I honestly don't remember what Rumbelow thinks on the matter and I haven't been impressed with anything Sam Flynn has had to say regarding the Berner Street murder, but once you clear away the myths and the red herrings, there's absolutely nothing about her murder that makes it stand out from the others, other than her lack of mutilation, for which there are endless explanations far more simple and easier to comprehend than the notion that two knife-wielding, whore-killing nutjobs happened to be murdering in the same square mile within the same hour, completely unaware of the other.

Regarding Stride's bruises, it shouldn't be taken for granted that they were left by her killer, as she had been with numerous men that evening, although the probability is that they were inflicted upon her at the time of death, shortly before, or shortly after. But Nichols had bruising on her face, so some sort of handling of the victim that might cause bruising does not at all make Stride stand out.

Regarding what Schwartz saw, as I've pointed out in the past, it's basically an eyewitness version of what Albert Cadosch heard in Hanbury Street, which was two people talking quietly, then one says 'no', followed by a thud against the fence as though someone fell. Think about it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

... once you clear away the myths and the red herrings, there's absolutely nothing about her murder that makes it stand out from the others, other than her lack of mutilation, for which there are endless explanations far more simple and easier to comprehend than the notion that two knife-wielding, whore-killing nutjobs happened to be murdering in the same square mile within the same hour, completely unaware of the other.

Its/ it's no surprise that we agree on that I guess but I may add that a lot/alot of people try to find logical answers to these murders when we are likely dealing with an illogical person ( the killer... not some of the posters... oh hell, maybe a little of both.)

I've said before, Jack needed a copy of 'Serial killing for Dummies' and he could have saved us a lot/alot of controversy.

P.S.- Yeah, I read/red/redd/wed (Elmer Fudd spelling) Victoria's thread.

[Trevor Marriott]

A question has been raised regarding two separate killers committing two murders in the same loaction within short space of time.

I would say that is not beyond the realms of possibilty. Especially if the killing of Stride was a domestic murder. (Kidney).

Everything about Strides murder is wrong. time.location.weapon etc. That in itself is enough to cast a major doubt about her being a victim of the same killer that killed Eddowes a short time later.

For a start if it were the same killer he would have had to have two knives. If in killing stride he had used the same knife that he used to kill Eddowes the neck wound would have been much more severe. The Ripper knew exactly how to handle a long sharp knife and knew how to cut a persons throat.

Secondly all of the other murders were commited with ferocity and a high level of violence followed by abdominal mutilations. In Stride there was none of that. If he had time to cut her throat he had time to stick his knife in her stomach as he did with all the other victims.

I fail to see why some posters cant or wont accept these facts. Its like those who wont consider the fact that Kelly may not have been the last victim, or that Jack didnt move away continue to kill in other countries.

Take the blinkers off. Just because the police of the day beleived all the killings were linked we dont have to accept that in the light of modern day investigative methods and persons who have become involved in the case now who are far more experineced and qualifeid to give expert views, than the police in 1888.