Did jack kill liz stride?

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Trevor!

I find it likely, that Liz was killed by the Ripper. If this really is the case, it could have been Liz's own knife!

Since the LVP prostitutes had a knife for their protection!

But thanks to people like you, I have filled Liz's being a JtR victim with maybes and possiblies!

All the best
Jukka

[Diddles]

Can't vote...

But, I believe Liz was killed by the attacker Schwartz saw (the pimp, gangmember etc.) while his buddy the Pipesmoker was standing guard.
Unless Liz was attacked twice by different guys during a short period of time, which is as big a coincidence as two murderers striking twice in Whitechapel on a Saturday night.

[Celesta]

Actually, the idea that Liz was killed by someone other than the man who killed Eddowes, is not all that new and goes all the way back to 1888. Evans and Skinner discuss this in their The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion/Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia.
It's in Chapter 25.

A problem I have with Liz being killed by JtR is that this killing was very daring in that the club was full of people, and the killer could have been interrupted at any moment. The site seems a bit more public than the others, incldg # 29 Hanbury. It doesn't seem quite like the place that JtR would choose. I'm not saying he wasn't daring nor denying the possibility that he could have been Liz's killer. Just that it doesn't seem quite the same as the others. This seems more like a killer who wanted to get the deed done rapidly and then get out.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Celesta!

Since there were loads of people in the East End, all the murders of Jack the Ripper were daring!

All the best
Jukka

[Celesta]

Hi Jukka,

Very true, but some murders were more than others.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

Except that she wasn't murdered by Kidney and her killing is quite obviously not domestic.

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.

The location is virtually identical to the Hanbury Street location - the yard of an occupied house. The time was much earlier than most of the murders, but then so was Eddowes. As I've already illustrated, there is absolutely zero reason to assume a knife different from that used on Eddowes was used to kill Stride. This is one of the biggest and most oft-repeated myths surrounding the Stride case.

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.

And if he had time to cut Nichols stomach, he had time to take her uterus, and yet...

I fail to see why some posters cant or wont accept these facts.

Because they're not facts and some posters have done more homework than you, although you admittedly have better hair and teeth than most Ripperologists, myself not included.

Actually, the idea that Liz was killed by someone other than the man who killed Eddowes, is not all that new and goes all the way back to 1888.

Correct, and the idea that she was killed by Kidney goes back only to 1993.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Celesta]

Correct, and the idea that she was killed by Kidney goes back only to 1993.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

True, Tom. I was just pointing out that the notion of more than one killer out that night goes back a ways.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, Celesta, and you're right to do so. After all, it was thought by at least two medical men and one superintendent that Eddowes was not a true Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

Hi Tom

Many thanks for your thoughtful reply.

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.

Phillips made the said comments at the resumed inquest on the 5th Oct, after he was asked to re-examine the body, doing so in the company of Doctors Brown and Blackwell. Phillips had seen the body in situ, and several other times since when he made his comments.

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.

I agree that Johnson certainly moved the body slightly when he examined Stride, an examination that Phillips would have been more than aware of, even when Johnson stated that he didn`t move the body, when he was asked at the inquest.

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.

Good point about the stones, but still, the position of her neck was described by Blackwell as Her head was resting beyond the carriage-wheel rut, the neck lying over the rut., and as far as I can find, does not specify anything other than the position of the body.

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.

These are good points, Tom, and I agree that the scarf was pulled tight solely to access the throat, the cut following, and fraying the edge of the scarf.

We will have to agree to disagree regarding the size of the knife, and Phillips comments. You may be correct, the majority agree with you, but it nags me too much to be comfortable with it.

Cheers
Jon

[Tom_Wescott]

Phillips made the said comments at the resumed inquest on the 5th Oct, after he was asked to re-examine the body, doing so in the company of Doctors Brown and Blackwell. Phillips had seen the body in situ, and several other times since when he made his comments.

My caution wasn't to a particular comment, or necessarily directed to you, but to those who read this thread.

I agree that Johnson certainly moved the body slightly when he examined Stride, an examination that Phillips would have been more than aware of, even when Johnson stated that he didn`t move the body, when he was asked at the inquest.

It was more than slightly. According to Diemshitz he turned her on her back and opened her hands. It was probably Johnston and not Blackwell who spilled the cachous. Phillips was aware of none of this.

Good point about the stones, but still, the position of her neck was described by Blackwell as Her head was resting beyond the carriage-wheel rut, the neck lying over the rut., and as far as I can find, does not specify anything other than the position of the body.

Her neck was not lying over a carriage wheel rut, but over a large stone where much of the blood collected. The rest of the blood could be seen in the gutter. The carriage wheel ruts would be at least a foot from the gutter.

We will have to agree to disagree regarding the size of the knife, and Phillips comments. You may be correct, the majority agree with you, but it nags me too much to be comfortable with it.

Of course, Jon, but there's no medical evidence at all to tell us the size of the knife. Zero. All we can infer from the wound is that the knife was sharp. The rest was conjecture on Dr. Phillips' part. Had he and Blackwell thought to link the scarf to the knife wound, I'm certain they would have reached the same conclusion as myself.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

Actually, the idea that Liz was killed by someone other than the man who killed Eddowes, is not all that new and goes all the way back to 1888. Evans and Skinner discuss this in their The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion/Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia.
It's in Chapter 25.

A problem I have with Liz being killed by JtR is that this killing was very daring in that the club was full of people, and the killer could have been interrupted at any moment. The site seems a bit more public than the others, incldg # 29 Hanbury. It doesn't seem quite like the place that JtR would choose. I'm not saying he wasn't daring nor denying the possibility that he could have been Liz's killer. Just that it doesn't seem quite the same as the others. This seems more like a killer who wanted to get the deed done rapidly and then get out.

Hi Celesta.

As Hunter pointed out.....we're using our reason....but it's fair to say that human beings act of instinct and habit as well as reason....which is why enlightenment thinkers were suprised when revolutions led to terror....they were misled (by themselves) into thinking that human beings were rational and would grab liberty by its bootlaces and it follows thus everything would fall neatly into place.....which of course it didn't.

So there's always the chance that Jack wasn't particularly reasonable and was a spur of the moment opportunist type of bloke.

And then there's the chance that he had an accomplice who watched one way and he watched the other....which may explain other murders and his supposed daring.

It seems a big risk to kill in an area where he knew lots of people were nearby...but we don't know the way his mind worked.

[Tom_Wescott]

This seems more like a killer who wanted to get the deed done rapidly and then get out.

Of course he did. He had a second woman to kill that night and couldn't very well solicit her with blood on his person. The first one had to be cleaner.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Tom
It is obvious that you are obsessed in the belief that JTR killed Stride. This obsession is clouding your judgement and your ability to assess and evaluate the true facts.

Except that she wasn't murdered by Kidney and her killing is quite obviously not domestic.

Can you prove or disprove this ?

The location is virtually identical to the Hanbury Street location - the yard of an occupied house. The time was much earlier than most of the murders, but then so was Eddowes. As I've already illustrated, there is absolutely zero reason to assume a knife different from that used on Eddowes was used to kill Stride. This is one of the biggest and most oft-repeated myths surrounding the Stride case.

The two murder locations are as different as chalk and cheese.

The knife used and method are very relevant

You mention the time. The Eddowes murder was not to far off the times of the others where Strides was way off.

And if he had time to cut Nichols stomach, he had time to take her uterus, and yet...

Perhaps he was not after any organs. In any event we know from the other murders the time scale required to remove a uterus in almost total darkness. It would have needed 15-20 mins minimum and you know where I stand on the organ removal issue

Because they're not facts and some posters have done more homework than you, although you admittedly have better hair and teeth than most Ripperologists, myself not included.

Its not a matter as to who has done the most homework it boils down to what has come out of the homework.

As to Kidney not being mentioned until 1993 i am sure the police of the day would have considered him as a likely suspect, however they were probably blinkered in their subsequent approach to Strides killing. They probabaly took the view that many of here have taken that the killer was disturbed Killing stride and went onto vent his anger and fury at Eddowes.
Tom Wescott

Tom
You really do need to get a grip of yourself or perhaps you already have if that be the case I would desist wouldnt risk the eyes anymore

[Jeff Leahy]

A problem I have with Liz being killed by JtR is that this killing was very daring in that the club was full of people, and the killer could have been interrupted at any moment. The site seems a bit more public than the others, incldg # 29 Hanbury. It doesn't seem quite like the place that JtR would choose. I'm not saying he wasn't daring nor denying the possibility that he could have been Liz's killer. Just that it doesn't seem quite the same as the others. This seems more like a killer who wanted to get the deed done rapidly and then get out.

Hi Celesta, trusting you are well.

Just a quick point. While I agree that Dutfield yard was a busier location. I don't agree that JtR choose any of the murder locations. I believe that these were all chosen by his victims. Which might explain Jack making a quick exit from Berner Street.

Broadly as I said I agree with what Tom is saying about the knife.

However Blackwell does suggest that he believed Liz struggled and mentions blood on the back of her right hand. And we have Schwartz statement that: she screamed three times, but not very loudly.

Again I will stick to my claim that if Liz was a ripper victim then Jack varied his MO.

Many thanks for some interesting posts

Pirate

[Celesta]

Hi Jeff,

I'm well and hope you are, too. Yes, of course the women determined the sites. I can't argue with most of this, but I wonder why he didn't take note of the singing or the activities in the club. I see Hunter's and Fleet's points, obviously, but surely he was not oblivious to the chance of being caught in the act. Afterall, it is true that if something can go wrong it very often does so. I don't know if he would get the satisfaction he needed from killing in this situation, if one thinks the mutilation is the point. So, maybe he didn't and he had to find another victim.

I suppose if he was Jack, then he was planning more than one killing or he did realize that the risk would be greater than he first expected at the Club, so after he killed her, he got out.

On the other hand, if he was BS man and BS man was the Ripper, he was certainly acting pretty crazy. I'm not ready to accept the idea of an accomplice. I'm not ruling it out either.

I'm not 100% satisfied either way, which is why I withheld my vote to prevent skewing the results. I just sometimes have this sense that Liz's death was more in the category of Frances Coles than of Polly and the rest of the women.


Hi Tom, Do you think he went out that night intending to kill more than one woman? Or do you think it was circumstances?