A Modern Day BS Man/Liz Encounter

[Fisherman]

Mara writes:

"I agree with most of the points you make in your very sensibly presented old dissertation on Stride's murder, but for myself I tend to see Stride's slaying as a Ripper act and not a domestic killing"

Thank you and you´re welcome!

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

To Fisherman:
No problem.
With best regards from the roofs of Paris while it's dawning, and I haven't slept at all tonight (working), but I have to get up in about an hour. Living the healthy lifestyle again...

[caz]

Once we realize that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly must have been very different inbetween themselves, we may have anticipated that they would have met very different ends. But no - a cut deeply throat, followed by evisceration became the fate of them all!
Why - if they were all so different (which they must have been)?

Hi Fish,

Once we realise? That all women are unique? I jest - I know what you meant.

The point is, to a serial killer and mutilator they are all exactly the same once they are lying down dead at his feet. But he does have to get them there, which can be a bit of an embuggerance, as Suzi would say, given that while there is still breath in a woman she is anything but predictable to the male of the species, especially one as completely wrapped up in himself as this killer would have been. If he thought that all his prospective victims would act the same, do anything for the promise of a shilling and say anything but their prayers, he probably had another think coming. While many in that area at night on their own might have danced to his tune, he could not expect it on every occasion he got his fiddle out.

And lets go on turning tables: If we must allow for a whole set of different possible approaches on behalf of Jack when it comes to dispatching his victims...

Not too many different approaches by the one killer, surely? When the victim was willing or weak and there were no witnesses worth worrying about, bingo. Any other situation and he would have been forced to think on his feet, improvise or compromise in some way, or abort. How many times could he have pulled this off to plan (assuming he even had one, and wasn't simply going where his fantasy of the moment took him) before a woman managed to put a spanner in his works? Stride strikes me as a very likely suspect, if anyone, for a third or fourth unique victim who wasn't weak or apparently willing, like the others, to leave the relative safety of a busy club or road for a more mutilation-friendly location.

...I think it would be a very good time to point out that a "domestic" or "aquainted" killer may well need to be allowed a good deal more space than Jack when it comes to different approaches in his one-off killing...!

A one-off killer by definition has only the one approach (although I know you meant that one-off killers will each have a different approach). We are discussing here the approach we think applied in Stride's case, if the witness, Schwartz, wasn't inventing, and if the man he saw was the man who went on to cut her throat. We would have the totally wrong approach if she never saw her killer, or only when it was too late, for instance.

I would prefer to use the evidence left at the scene, rather than eye witness testimony, to decide the likelihood of Stride being killed in a one-off by someone she knew well enough to identify if he had failed to finish her off with that one sweep of his knife. As with the Hanratty case, inexperience alone doesn't quite explain why a man whose victim can identify him takes off before making absolutely sure that she is beyond pointing the finger. How long would one more shot or one more slash take? Killers that stupid invariably invite themselves to the gallows.

But one who has done it all before, knows a fatal cut when he makes one, but is not known to the victim and has no fear of being identified at a later date? Simple as falling on a boot scraper. But more satisfying in terms of what little evidence there is.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No, I presume, in a most likely case scenario, the orchestrator to be an anarchist, cooperating with some European police agency (Swiss? German? Austrian? Russian?). Would he do it himself? Unlikely. One usually hires less bright underlings to do this work. (See Kaufmann's instigation of Stallmacher and Kammerer.)

Oh blimey.

Of course, it was helpful that the yard was quite dark.

That's equally helpful to theories of every hue, because Stride was killed by someone who was helped by the yard being quite dark, or she tripped in the dark and fell on the boot scraper, no doubt nearly severing her head in the process in a Daily Mail sense.

Schwartz merely added force to the argument. And yes, they gambled that no one would contradict him. And although Brown did precisely that (tacitly, at least) it seems not to have had fatal consequences.

If the club wasn't involved, and didn't gamble with risky schemes to stay uninvolved, while the police could secretly have been in on their antics taking copious notes, that would also explain the lack of fatal consequences.

Where did he buy this flower?

No idea. But she got one from somewhere or someone. Perhaps she spent some of her last sixpence on a return ticket to the Chelsea Flower Show.

Ummm, found her? No no, she was to meet him at 12:30. It was a set up.

Oh blimey.

Try trawling the London papers for 1888. Throat cuttings abounded. And the Yorkshire ripper? He wasn't invented yet.

I don't need to, thanks to Colin Roberts, who posted the figures for female throat cut murders for the entire country that year. I'm quite satisfied that you are correct on this score. They abounded in 1888, compared with surrounding years, solely due to the murders we discuss here.

So the Yorkshire ripper was 'invented' too?

Oh blimey.

Well, the chances go up exponentially if the second bloke were thinking, "Hmmm, now let's see. How did that go again? I am to cut how? Remove what?"

So how many of these 'second bloke' cases have you found when trawling the London papers? Don't tell me, from memory they abounded too. Probably more common than 'first blokes'.

Well Caz, think about Ripperological history. Time was that the "wisdom" on McKenzie and Coles was that it was domestic and the extraneous cuts were to give a certain appearance. Did we so much as wince at that? So why wince now by moving the time line back from '89 and '91 to late September 1888?

If only this was all you gave me to wince about, there would be fewer 'oh blimeys' for me to type.

So if not the frustrated antichrist, will you the orchestrating anarchist or the domesticated piss artist?

Er, Crystal? Sorry, I can't help you here.

I didn't think you could.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I am relatively new here but I think I finally get it:

Liz Stride was an agent for the police who was was spying on the club(because of their subversive agenda) and then was discovered and killed by member/s of the club and then IS and/or LD as members/friends of the club made up their stories as part of a plan to then blame someone else for her murder to shift suspician away from the club.

Is this is what some posters are trying to say here?

[c.d.]

Hi Abby,

Just throw in Elvis, Roswell New Mexico and the grassy knoll and I think you've got it.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

paucity

Hello Caz. Well, not a good deal to answer here. I thank you.

I agree that 1888 was a year rife with throat cuttings in good old London. But this had little to do with JTR OR the WCM. I refer to a plethora of them between April and August.

I referred to Sutcliffe being invented by his mum and dad.

No, I'm not the Antichrist (although I have been deemed such by students, often in the same class where another judged me the Second Coming--I am neither); nor yet an anarchist--I thrive with law and order.

Perhaps your wincing is preconditioned? Have you read a good many stories about "Jack" doubling back to satisfy his maniacal blood lust? That's when I wince.

There now, that wasn't so bad, was it?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

imagine

Hello Abby. Well, I cannot speak for any other posters; but, speaking only for myself, your scenario bears only a faint resemblance to anything I can recognise. So I shan't comment.

Perhaps CD can help here. He seems to possess a lively imagination.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"The point is, to a serial killer and mutilator they are all exactly the same once they are lying down dead at his feet. But he does have to get them there"

Agreed, Caz! And if one wants to make a case for Jack in Dutfield´s Yard, it is a viable point you are making. One crux, however, is that Stride´s killer obviously managed to manouvre himself into a position where he managed to cut her "from ear to ear" as it was said - but in spite of this, he refrained from "doing his thing", as displayed by the other four canonicals. And if one wants to make a case for Jack NOT being around in the yard, then THAT becomes a viable point, further strengthened by our mutual agreement that a killer like Jack seemingly stuck to his ways, if given the opportunity.

"Not too many different approaches by the one killer, surely?"

Emphatically no: very few, if he could help it, I should say.

"Stride strikes me as a very likely suspect, if anyone, for a third or fourth unique victim who wasn't weak or apparently willing, like the others, to leave the relative safety of a busy club or road for a more mutilation-friendly location."

I see your point - but this would depend very much on who we envisage as the cutter! Applying my scenario, she would not only comply to a wish to go into the yard - she may well have been the initiatior!

"I would prefer to use the evidence left at the scene, rather than eye witness testimony, to decide the likelihood of Stride being killed in a one-off by someone she knew well enough to identify if he had failed to finish her off with that one sweep of his knife."

If the evidence left at the scene does not swear against the eye witness testimony, but instead strengthens it, as the testimony offered mainly by Schwartz, I see no reason to leave either part out. And that is what we have - testimony that points to Stride meeting affectionately with somebody at 11.45, someone who answers in every aspect to the description of the man who tries to pull her into the street an hour later, implicating that he was not the odd punter, and a crime scene that displays a two-second spur-of-the-moment deed, not followed up on in any way with what could be described as necro-sadism.
Very much speaks for the possibility that Stride was grabbed from behind as she was heading for the gates, and then thrown backwards in a left-hand spin, and the cachous in her hand tells us that she was caught unawares in two respects - she did not foresee the physical attack per se, and she was as unprepared for it psychologically, since she never thought that the man in the yard would kill her. She was feeling safe, that´s what the cachous emphatically tell us.

"one who has done it all before, knows a fatal cut when he makes one"

Perhaps so, Caz - but the man who cut Stride could not possibly have been sure that the cut WAS a fatal one. It did not reach that deep, and the doctors tell us that she bled to death, a process that took a minute or two, at the very least. That means that if somebody had exited the club through the side entrance seconds after the cut, then he or she would have come upon a living Stride! She would not have been able to speak, due to the cut windpipe, but how sure would the cutter be of that? Having delivered the cut in very dark conditions, he could not have seen the damage by eyesight, remember.
Are you suggesting that he was so superiorly sensitive to the exact depth his cut would produce? Are you so sure that he would casually have relied on Stride not being able to point that finger in any fashion? Would he have taken the risk, IF THERE WAS NO NEED FOR IT, given our knowledge of how the necks of the other four canonicals looked after having been subjected to Jack´s knife?
Not if he was a planning killer, he wouldn´t, if you ask me. And a VERY cool customer and calculating planner is what you seem to outline?
Furthermore, if Stride was cut during her fall in that dark yard, as implicated by the frayed scarf, then there would be no way in the world that the cutter could assess the depth and damage to any useful extent.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby. Well, I cannot speak for any other posters; but, speaking only for myself, your scenario bears only a faint resemblance to anything I can recognise. So I shan't comment.

Perhaps CD can help here. He seems to possess a lively imagination.

Cheers.
LC

Hi LC
Please let me know what your thoughts/ideas/theory are. I am honestly interested and my previous post was not meant to be any kind of slight, or sarcasm, only just trying to figure out and piece together what people think was going on at the time. it is hard sometimes to get the full picture of what people think from just the snippets of posts.

Please let me know-i am open for anything. Really.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Just throw in Elvis, Roswell New Mexico and the grassy knoll and I think you've got it.

c.d.

Hi cd
while one must look for the most logical and simplist explanation first, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction as they say. While IMHO the scenario i described is highly unlikey, ( i think stride was probably killed by a frustrated JtR who lost his cool and dragged her into the alley) it is possible and if other people really believe that "conspiracy" theory or some rendering therof, then-well OK.

Roswell and grassy knoll have some elements of truth IMHO, but thats for another forum I believe.

Elvis is definitely dead though. : (

[c.d.]

I remember reading about a Congressman that tried to gain admission to area 51. He was refused access. He started yelling that he was a congressman damnit. They told him to pack sand.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

agent provocateur

Hello Abby. The idea is that Liz was likely killed by an agent provocateur. The ironic part is that it might have worked had not

1. Kate been killed that same night.

2. There had been no Polly and Annie killings earlier.

A good discussion of this is found in clippings in my Kaufmann thread. A really great source of information can also be found in Butterworth's book.

IF Liz was a police spy, I don't think she was doing so the night she died.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Lynn,

Why would the police need a female prostitute spy who was past her prime?
(No offense to anyone past their prime... such as I)

As the club was open to anyone, why not just join and pay the piddling dues? It wasn't just Jews who were involved in the labor movement. It was British folks who saw problems with the treatment of immigrants, and other immigrants as well, non-Jewish.

Just seems easier to me to observe from the inside and partake of the alcohol and entertainment to be offered, not to mention the stimulating discourse.

Cheers,

Mike

[caz]

I agree that 1888 was a year rife with throat cuttings in good old London. But this had little to do with JTR OR the WCM. I refer to a plethora of them between April and August.

Morning Lynn,

But how does your 'plethora' of throat cuttings relate to your theory that WM1 does Polly and Annie for the love of cutting, ripping and - given the chance - removing organs (our sometimes frustrated antichrist if you will); WM2 does Liz in a set-up by your orchestrating anarchist (and presumably Kidney, our resident domestic piss artist, is off your hook); and WM3 (your 'second bloke' scenario) attempts to do Kate in the style of WM1, making it look like WM1 is still on the loose when in fact he's not?

I have yet to hear if WM3 also does MJK, or whether it's a domestic WM4 you have in mind. But we have more than enough to chew on here for now.

Your WM throat cutters are not exactly a run of the mill group are they? Or have you found comparable examples in your 'plethora' of throat cutters that year? I must say I have only ever heard of one 'second bloke' case, for instance, and that was from a tv drama scriptwriter, whose imagination gave us a banged-up serial killer with a smuggled in mobile phone, giving instructions to his sidekick on the outside to carry on the good work, so they'd think the wrong man had been caged.

Did three great minds independently think alike here - your WM1, the scriptwriter and your good self? Or is it ever so slightly more likely that it's just the two of you, and you are carrying on the scriptwriter's work and taking it to a new level?

No, I'm not the Antichrist (although I have been deemed such by students, often in the same class where another judged me the Second Coming--I am neither); nor yet an anarchist--I thrive with law and order.

Er, I trust you will have gathered by now that I was referring to your WM2, not you.

The point about your 'plethora' (given that your memory is not playing tricks) is that it is pointless - if not fatal - to your argument if it doesn't include a single case of male on female murder by cut throat outside of those on file as Whitechapel Murders. If Colin Roberts showed that there were something like 17 murders of this exact specification in the entire country in 1888, compared with something like 11 in 1887 and the same in 1889, how is your motley crew of WM cut throats a more plausible explanation for this extraordinary rise, apparently down to Whitechapel alone, than a serial killer operating in the area?

He was just a man whose intentions weren't good
Dear Lord, how can this be so misunderstood?

Love,

Caz
X