How about this quick theory!

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

“What is the suggestion? That the Ripper deliberately wanted to murder someone near the Berner Street club to lay a false anti-Jewish trail?”

It’s “a” suggestion, and an irrefutably reasonable one to my mind. The annuls of serial crime is littered with examples of serial killers taking advantage of an individual or generic scapegoat, and by late September of 1888, there was widespread suspicion against the Jewish community. I can easily envisage a gentile killer taking steps to fuel these suspicions wherever an opportunity presented itself. I should point out that the suggestion doesn’t originate with me. It has been around for some time, is endorsed by historians Philip Sugden and Martin Friedland, and it originated with some of the most senior officers in the ripper investigation.

He wouldn’t have struck it particularly “lucky” to encounter a suitable victim in Berner Street, since prostitution could have been found pretty much anywhere within easy walking distance of the murder region’s epicentre. The same was true of Mitre Square, which, incidentally, was very much “near” a Jewish club – literally a stone’s throw away, with a synagogue nearby to boot.

Jewish clubs, unlike other Jewish establishments, hardly proliferated the area. They were few and far between. If the killer sought to implicate the Jewish community, clubs made considerable sense as a target location because of the number of Jews milling about there in the small hours when the ripper was known to be active. A murder committed near one such establishment would more easily incriminate a Jew than a murder committed near a Jewish shop, which would have been closed at that time. Hence, I consider it more than coincidence that the “double event” was committed in close proximity to two Jewish clubs.

“Why is it an impossible location for mutilation? If he had been BS man then he would have had plenty of time to do it without being disturbed by the horse and cart.”

Yes, but he would have been fearful that Schwartz was hurrying off to fetch a policeman on beat. Smith had passed the location just ten minutes earlier, and may have been seen by Broad-shoulders. A very good reason to forgo the mutilations but still eliminate the victim/witness.

“The notion that he then quickly found another victim and murdered her at a location that was deliberately nearish to another Jewish club is just too far fetched for me.”

But you don’t outline the nature of the problem you have with the proposal, which amounts basically to a serial killer doing what many of his ilk have done since and take steps to implicate a vulnerable party. That’s true crime, not “pulp fiction”. I agree perfectly with the suggestion that his fury at being disturbed may have influenced the chalked message content, but I really wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Jew-related concerned featured in the pre-crime phase too.

“I would suggest the BS man, being drunk, possibly dragging Stride away and not towards the yard, making a public spectacle of himself, doesn’t fit what we know of how the Ripper operated.”

Well then perhaps you ought to revise your opinion that Stride was a ripper victim, because unless Schwartz lied, “BS” is the most likely killer of Stride by many long sea miles. Your notion of “how the Ripper operated” may also be a little inflexible, especially when you consider other serial offenders and the extent to which they varied their approach. A lot of serial killers drink before they commit murder, which can often hamper their ability to pull off an efficient crime.

All the best,
Ben

[Trevor Marriott]

No offense, Garry, but your lack of experience in the manual strangulation of women shows in this post (wink). You are suggesting that because no evidence of strangulation was found on Stride, then that is proof that she was not strangled, but this is not so. Stride was subdued one way or the other and was in fact unconscious when she was laid to the ground. And she WAS laid to the ground in the same manner as the earlier victims (and Eddowes). If you strangle a woman to unconscioiusness while standing, as you lower her body you will be bending your knees, so you will lower into a kneeling position with your knees at her back, still holding on to her. She will will therefore fall to her left side. Any argument that Stride was 'done in' differently to the other girls is a matter of invention or, at best, unsupported speculation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom
I hear that they are making a re make of The Boston Strangler are you involved in re creating the murders with all your expertise on strangling

[Lechmere]

Me
"Wickerman I've seen many drunks grab unknown women."

Sally
"Really?"

Me
"Yes"

[Tom_Wescott]

The problem, Jon, is that all of the known Ripper victims were subjected to manual strangulation before being laid in a supine position. There is no evidence that either of them ‘fell to the ground’ – no lateral mud stains or scalp injuries, for example. It would seem overwhelmingly probable, therefore, that the outdoor victims were immobilized by partial strangulation and then lowered to the ground. And yet Stride was found lying on her side and with no indication of strangulation.

No offense, Garry, but your lack of experience in the manual strangulation of women shows in this post (wink). You are suggesting that because no evidence of strangulation was found on Stride, then that is proof that she was not strangled, but this is not so. Stride was subdued one way or the other and was in fact unconscious when she was laid to the ground. And she WAS laid to the ground in the same manner as the earlier victims (and Eddowes). If you strangle a woman to unconscioiusness while standing, as you lower her body you will be bending your knees, so you will lower into a kneeling position with your knees at her back, still holding on to her. She will will therefore fall to her left side. Any argument that Stride was 'done in' differently to the other girls is a matter of invention or, at best, unsupported speculation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garza]

Lack of strangulation

Eddowes or Kelly showed no signs of strangulation. Doesn't mean they were not strangled though. Signs of strangulation are not always visible and even today sometimes detectives have to use radiography to detect it.

not lying on her back

She could have be strangled while she was facing the wall, when she went unconcious, he could have laid her on her back perpendicular to the wall, but she would have more easily seen by a passer by.

If he wanted to hide her as best as he could, he could lay her perpendicular to the wall, which from a facing the wall position he would have to lay her on her side...then disturbance.

shallower and less vicious throat wound

can be explained by her throat being cut on her side, the murderer would not be able to get the same kind of pressure if she was laying on her side.

no attempted mutilation

true, can be explained by disturbance

no disturbance of her clothing.

true, can be explained by disturbance

This was not the first or last time JTR was disturbed with his kill btw, you should note that fact.

That's precisely the point, Garza. Liz Stride was supposedly the victim of an evisceration murderer. But she was not eviscerated. The challenge is thus to provide an evidentially robust explanation as to why.

OK since you laid the differences out, I'll lay out the similarities.

same type of victim
same type of profession
same type of locale
all seen solicting before murder
throat slashed from left to right (bare in mind that knife crime against women in Whitechapel was rare as well)
no one saw anything or heard anything
no motive
no struggle
happened within the same hour within the same mile as the Eddowes murder
murdered by a client
throat was cut while on ground or near ground
artery was cut away from the killer to prevent spray back
no murder weapon
no physical evidence at all
had item in hand or/ and items on the ground around them

[Garry Wroe]

Really? What exactly? Other than mutilations, there are not too many differences at all.

Lack of strangulation; not lying on her back; shallower and less vicious throat wound; no attempted mutilation; no disturbance of her clothing.

In fact if Stride had a few cuts in her stomach, I bet you we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That's precisely the point, Garza. Liz Stride was supposedly the victim of an evisceration murderer. But she was not eviscerated. The challenge is thus to provide an evidentially robust explanation as to why.

[Sally]

Wickerman I've seen many drunks grab unknown women.

Really?

[Wickerman]

The intruder was Schwartz in this scenerio.

That was an unfortunate choice of words in the article, both BS & Schwartz were intruders, they both approached Dutfields Yard.

It makes little sense that 'Knifeman' would shout out a warning to the man with Stride and then attack him.

Only if you assume they knew each other. Did Knifeman see the assault and attempt to chase BS away....?

What we don't know is why Pipeman (in one version) appeared to stop following Schwartz. Could he then have returned and approached BS to chase him away?
Did he kill Stride?

Regards, Jon S.

[Garza]

If we come at this from a different angle, Jon, and set aside Broad Shoulders momentarily, there is a great deal about the Stride killing that does not sit easily with her being a Ripper victim. If we then consider the Broad Shoulders altercation, the whole thing begins to look decidedly shaky.

Really? What exactly? Other than mutilations, there are not too many differences at all.

In fact if Stride had a few cuts in her stomach, I bet you we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Lechmere]

It were the cachous wot dunnit (proved BS didn't do it).

Wickerman I've seen many drunks grab unknown women.

[Garry Wroe]

Even if we can rule out Jack being disturbed by Diemschutz, we can't rule out Jack possibly falling victim to plain old paranoia and deciding this is not a good place to be and deciding the best course of action is to seek greener pastures.

True, CD. But then we also have inconsistencies in the mode of Stride’s attack. Such differences have to be addressed and explained, otherwise we end up accepting evidence only when it accords with our theories – the phenomenon of ‘confirmation bias’.

We cannot use the medical evidence to rule out interruption. Let's not get caught up in that as it's a circular argument.

The medical evidence, Tom, is pivotal in reconstructing the sequence of events that surrounded Stride’s death. Whilst I would agree that it should not be viewed in isolation, it must be accorded due consideration in any responsible evaluation of events.

Yes, I do not disagree with you, Stride's murder is out of context with the rest of the known Ripper killings. And the actions of BS-man being too careless about the presence of witnesses. Conducting an assault like a common street-bully, and seen to attempt to pull Stride into the street, which must be regarded as inconsistent with the killer who appears to operate in the shadows.

If we come at this from a different angle, Jon, and set aside Broad Shoulders momentarily, there is a great deal about the Stride killing that does not sit easily with her being a Ripper victim. If we then consider the Broad Shoulders altercation, the whole thing begins to look decidedly shaky.

I would class the murder of Stride in the same class as that of Coles.

Me too, Jon.

A time of death at 00.51 is a mere supposition …

It was an estimation provided by an experienced medical practitioner, Maria.

… and we can't rule the interruption by Diemschitz AT ALL, as it's the most logical explanation.

I don’t rule it out, Maria. I simply believe that there is a far more persuasive explanation. And if you believe that disregarding the medical evidence in order to preserve a theory is logical, I have to say that I cannot agree.

My suspicion is that Dr. Blackwell might have estimated Stride's time of death at half an hour before he personally arrived at the scene, at 1.16 a.m.. In my opinion, had he arrived at the scene 10'min. later, he might have conveniently estimated Stride's time of death from 00:56 to 01:06.

I’m guessing that you have no evidence to support such a contention.

[Wickerman]

.....We can't even be sure that it was an attack of any kind let alone a vicious one. It was dark and Schwartz was across the street. What he might have seen was a strong and drunk BS man pulling one way and Liz the other. As a result, Liz falls. A mere accident.

You can argue it was an attack if you only follow the Star's version, but the summary Swanson wrote tends to suggest BS was trying to take her with him...

"The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway..."

Such an action, "pulling her into the street", is consistent with there being some kind of relationship between the two. It's like a "you are coming with me" type action. She resisted, and BS pushed her to the ground, and the wording (footway) indicates the footpath/sidewalk was meant, that is, outside the gate.

Regards, Jon S.

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

With regards to red flags associated with the BS man as Liz's killer, consider the following points:

1. No cry for help was heard from Liz (other than the 3 small screams when thrown to the ground);

2. No argument was heard by anybody;

3. Liz had no marks on her face which would indicate she had been slapped about;

4. Her clothes were not torn or disheveled which you would expect had she had been dragged or attempted to fight off her attacker;

5. She was killed with a single stab wound to the throat. There were no other cuts;

6. She was clutching the cachous in her hand.

7. The B.S. man chose to kill her even after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man.

To me, the overwhelming conclusion is that she was at ease when killed and that she was caught completely off guard. I can't see any way that that would be possible with the B.S. man as her killer. Tne much more likely scenario is that she was with a client.

c.d.

[Lechmere]

On the issue of the Jewish club(s):
What is the suggestion? That the Ripper deliberately wanted to murder someone near the Berner Street club to lay a false anti-Jewish trail? And did the same at Mitre Square, which wasn’t ‘that’ near a Jewish club anyway?

We know that Stride had been hanging around Berner Street for a while before she was killed. She was a known prostitute, so if she wasn’t soliciting then what was she doing?

So what is the suggestion? That the Ripper struck lucky in finding a prostitute just by his favoured murder scene, and thought to himself ‘almost perfect, yet this isn’t suitable for mutilation, but I know a place that is (Mitre Square)’.

Or is it more plausible that he was roaming that vicinity for whatever reason, saw her, she took him to the yard, he killed her and was disturbed.
Isn’t that almost certainly what happened every time?
Why is it an impossible location for mutilation? If he had been BS man then he would have had plenty of time to do it without being disturbed by the horse and cart.

Whatever ‘Jewish influence’ there may be on the events would, in my opinion, only have been ‘after the event’.
In other words as he was hot footing it in a Mitre Square direction, he may well have been mulling over in his head his fury at being disturbed.
If he was aware it was a Jewish club, even though the location wasn’t chosen because it was a Jewish club, then this may have influenced his graffiti writing – presuming he did the graffiti.

The notion that he then quickly found another victim and murdered her at a location that was deliberately nearish to another Jewish club is just too far fetched for me.
It is pulp fiction.

To recap:
He may well have know that the Berner Street club was Jewish, but he can hardly have chosen it as his murder scene given that Stride was there already.
Being disturbed may have incited a sense of grievance against the Jews which was given expression by the graffiti.
This implies he must have known it was a Jewish club and so must have had reasonable local knowledge. Gentiles living any sort of distance from there would almost certainly not have been aware of it.
There is also the slight question of where he could have got the chalk from. I would suggest the most likely source would be someone with a school age child. This also implies a local connection.

Could Stride have been ‘attacked’ twice in 15 minutes? It is perhaps an over exaggeration to characterise the first incident as an attack. If BS man did it then he deliberately didn’t mutilate unless he was disturbed by something else other than the cart. That is a possibility.
I would suggest the BS man, being drunk, possibly dragging Stride away and not towards the yard, making a public spectacle of himself, doesn’t fit what we know of how the Ripper operated.

I don’t buy the ‘multiple knife murders selecting the same type of victim in the same area and killing in a similar manner scenario’ for a second.

This strongly implies that BS man wasn’t the Ripper – so however ‘unlikely’ some may think that Stride could be ‘attacked’ twice in 15 minutes, it seems the most likely explanation.

[Ben]

Swanson may have "considered the possibility", Hunter, but he certainly never suggested that it was likely that Stride's killer was someone who arrived after the presumed departure of the broad-shouldered man. He only said that his culpability is "not clearly proved", which of course it isn't, as I've never disputed. When something is "not clearly proved", it doesn't mean that the alternatives must be reasonable. If anything, his comments on Schwartz' evidence were in favour of BS being responsible:

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they (PC Smith and Schwartz) are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body was found murdered"

I'm afraid there's no evidence that the activities of prostitutes and supposed common occurrences had anything to with Swanson's "not clearly proved" observation.

All the best,
Ben