How about this quick theory!

[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

[Hunter]

The police (via Swanson) considered the possibility that Stride may have met her killer after the incident described by Schwartz and the reasons given were probably in light of what they knew to be common occurrences in that area at that time of night and the activities of prostitutes.

What seems unlikely to some of us apparently didn't seem so to the people who actually had better knowledge of conditions as they existed then, than any of us could proclaim.

[Ben]

But it might well be a case of 2+2=5. "screamingly obvious" doesn't necessarily mean something must be true.

Absolutely, Ruby, but we can assess that which is probable from that which should remain an outside possibility at best. While it remains a possibility that BS man was not Stride's killer, it isn't the most probable explanation.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi CD,

A prostitute soliciting was doing so at her own risk, but that doesn't mean for one moment that she could expect to be physically assaulted, or that it was an everyday occurrence. BS's behaviour assumes a special significance precisely because the woman he targeted was murdered a few minutes later, and since most murders commence with an attack of some description, it follows that BS is the most likely killer of Stride by far. Whatever happened during the moments that preceded the murders of Nichols, Chapman, we can be reasonable sure that the scene wouldn't have been that different to that depicted by Schwartz, albeit with less noise and/or resistance. The point being that no murder can occur without a prior attack, and in Schwartz's case we have compelling evidence that one of the ripper's prior attacks was indeed witnessed. It's truly baffling to me how anyone can argue that his account of the BS man's behaviour was probably unrelated to the murder.

"The BS man as her killer has a number of red flags that we have been over ad nauseum already"

We have indeed, CD, and I still don't agree that there are any red flags associated with BS-as-killer. There are reasonable arguments both for and against him being the ripper, however.

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

Hunter

Knifeman rushed towards BS Man and Stride.

Here is the relevant segment as reported in the Star Oct. 1 from the press section here on Casebook:


'A second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.'

The intruder was Schwartz in this scenerio. It makes little sense that 'Knifeman' would shout out a warning to the man with Stride and then attack him.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

What BS did to Liz Stride was indisputably an "attack", CD

I really hate to disagree with you , Ben, but I do think that these sort of attacks/hassle upon prostitutes were/are more common than we might think.

and since we know for a fact that she was killed a short time later, the screamingly obvious conclusion is that her attacker was the same person who murdered her a few minutes later.

But it might well be a case of 2+2=5. "screamingly obvious" doesn't necessarily mean something must be true. I have to remind you that we both agree on the fact that Hutch did not = Toppy. There are details which people find "screamingly obvious" to support that proposition as well, but one has to factor in other evidences, and the result is not 'cut and dried'.

To conclude otherwise would entail an extremely implausible "coincidence", and one I'm surprised people continue to buy into. There is nothing out of the ordinary about a prostitute being manhandled, but it would be out of ordinary for that prostitute to be murdered minutes later, especially someone other than the first man-handler.

But the "screamingly obvious" here, is that the JTR murders were so out of the ordinary that people/we can come up with so many...ostensibly researched different theories..to support their/our personal beliefs, and still be able to support the 'Jewish' theory or the Fenian' theory or the 'Russian Spy' theory' or the 'Rich tourist' theory ad nauseum.

There is a unique concurrance of plausible/implausible coincidences (FACT) in the JTR case which is the very thing that keeps us all guessing.

I wouldn't underestimate the potential significance of the Jewish connection either. Jewish clubs were not nearly as common as areas with Jewish associations in general, and yet both "double event" murders were committed in close proximity to such establishments

.
I'm with you here , Ben.

No less senior police officials than Charles Warren, Henry Smith

and Donald Swanson believed that the message was written was the deliberate intention of inflaming suspicions against the Jews. It wouldn't make the killer anti-semitic, necessarily, but it does imply that he took advantage of prevailing sentiment, which wouldn't be remotely unusual for a serial killer.[/

QUOTE]
I'm totally with you, again. I really can't believe that he wrote it (at least not after Eddowes' murder -possibly before). But that he "took advantage of a prevailing sentiment"...absolutely.

As for Diemschutz, I agree with Garry; there is no reason to think that the killer was still in Dutfield's Yard as pony and cart entered it. Blackwell put the time of death at between 12:46 and 12:56, which means the killer could have struck very shortly after he had seen off Schwartz.

Regards,
Ben

Yes ! -but not necessarily because the killer had 'seen off Schwartz".

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

The problem is that there are degrees of attacks with varying degrees of penalties. Let's suppose that Liz is not murdered but instead goes to the police station to report that she was attacked. She tells them that she was standing by herself soliciting late at night in a bad area. She exchanged words with a drunken potential customer. As a result, she was thrown to the ground. Are the police going to immediately call for a sketch artist and a city wide manhunt? Are the headlines in the newspaper the next day going to scream prostitute thrown to the ground!!!. Of course not. More than likely they would tell her it was her own damn fault for soliciting and even if they caught the BS man more than likely he would get a small fine or a few days in jail. That's it. It's only when you connect the two events that it takes on significance. The BS man as her killer has a number of red flags that we have been over ad nauseum already.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

"Attack" is a word of your own invention. Schwartz never used it.

It's not a word of my invention. It's a word that perfectly and factually describes what happened to Liz Stride at the hands of BS man, as defined by the dictionary (and always assuming that Schwartz told the truth). I'm afraid no amount of creative interpretation of Schwartz's actual words will nullify this. Yes, there is an extremely remote possibility that someone else arrived very shortly after BS man left (which we're merely assuming he did, despite the lack of evidence) and manhandled Stride even worse in the same location, but it falls many, many miles short of being the most likely explanation, which is that BS man killed Stride.

If BS man doesn't seem ripperish enough to you, then you'd be better off arguing that Stride wasn't a ripper victim, in my opinion.

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hello Ben,

"Attack" is a word of your own invention. Schwartz never used it. As soon as you apply it to what happened, it immediately colors it. 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.

I don't see how you get a screaminginly obvious conclusion that BS man went on to kill her. You are interpreting the second event (her death) in light of the first (the "attack"). Separate the two events and the conclusion is not so obvious especially when the time line (albeit close) allows time for a second player on the stage.

c.d.

[Ben]

There is simply nothing out of the ordinary about a prostitute being hassled by a probaly drunken man.

What BS did to Liz Stride was indisputably an "attack", CD, and since we know for a fact that she was killed a short time later, the screamingly obvious conclusion is that her attacker was the same person who murdered her a few minutes later. To conclude otherwise would entail an extremely implausible "coincidence", and one I'm surprised people continue to buy into. There is nothing out of the ordinary about a prostitute being manhandled, but it would be out of ordinary for that prostitute to be murdered minutes later, especially someone other than the first man-handler.

I wouldn't underestimate the potential significance of the Jewish connection either. Jewish clubs were not nearly as common as areas with Jewish associations in general, and yet both "double event" murders were committed in close proximity to such establishments. No less senior police officials than Charles Warren, Henry Smith and Donald Swanson believed that the message was written was the deliberate intention of inflaming suspicions against the Jews. It wouldn't make the killer anti-semitic, necessarily, but it does imply that he took advantage of prevailing sentiment, which wouldn't be remotely unusual for a serial killer.

As for Diemschutz, I agree with Garry; there is no reason to think that the killer was still in Dutfield's Yard as pony and cart entered it. Blackwell put the time of death at between 12:46 and 12:56, which means the killer could have struck very shortly after he had seen off Schwartz.

Regards,
Ben

[Garza]

i think the timeframe was 12.55 to 1am, i think she had only just stopped bleeding out, was the killer disturbed by the cart ? no, he was gone a minute earlier

How can you possibly know that?

this is totally the wrong location to mutilate and i think that you have to keep this important point fixed in your mind. this was either someone else or Jack wasn't intending to mutilate her.

This begs the question - where is a good location to mutilate? Someone's backyard (Hanbury Street)? In the middle of a street (Buck's Row)?

[c.d.]

JTR maybe killed Stride in a Jewish location ( but we're not sure), the graffito later on is aimed at the Jews as well, it's anti-semetic.

JTR also blamed the M.Kelly murder on a jew, i.e G.Hutchinson described a LA DE DA theatrical Jew and even said that he saw him in Petticoat Lane.

this is 3 murders with a Jewish connection, coincidence ? well to me it's highly suspicious, GH is highly suspicious anyway.

Hello Malcolm,

With all due respect, I think you are making a lot of assumptions here and some serious leaps of faith.

Even if it was a Jewish location, why does that automatically generate a connection? A lot of the prostitutes frequented the area around St. Botophs. If one had been killed nearby would we be looking for a Catholic connection? What about Millers Court? Is there an Irish connection with it being owned by McCarthy.

You seem to have concluded that Hutchinson was JTR. We have no proof of that.

You are also assuming that Jack wrote the graffito which we don't know for sure and assuming further that it is an anti-Jewish message. As I pointed out earlier, it is worded so that it could be a message in the defense of Jews.

c.d.

[Malcolm X]

JTR also blamed a Jew for the death of Kelly, i'm sorry guys but isn't this obvious, because it is to me.

What are you referring to here?

c.d.

JTR maybe killed Stride in a Jewish location ( but we're not sure), the graffito later on is aimed at the Jews as well, it's anti-semetic.

JTR also blamed the M.Kelly murder on a jew, i.e G.Hutchinson described a LA DE DA theatrical Jew and even said that he saw him in Petticoat Lane.

this is 3 murders with a Jewish connection, coincidence ? well to me it's highly suspicious, GH is highly suspicious anyway.

[Malcolm X]

i think the timeframe was 12.55 to 1am, i think she had only just stopped bleeding out, was the killer disturbed by the cart ? no, he was gone a minute earlier

this is totally the wrong location to mutilate and i think that you have to keep this important point fixed in your mind. this was either someone else or Jack wasn't intending to mutilate her.

Finally, BS does not behave like JTR, simply because the evidence seems to point towards him being drunk, he is fighting with her before he's even had time to say ``hallo luv fancy a quickie``.

years ago here we had a strong theory that there were 2 serial killers operating in Whitechapel and this could be true, the other guy was responsible for the torsos as well.

you can not ignore the graffito and the fact that Stride was murdered in a Jewish location, so yet again, the speculation swings back and forth, was it or wasn't it.

[mariab]

Agree completely Garza, with every single word in your post #62!
(Glad to see that at least one person has come to the same conclusions as me.)