How about this quick theory!

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I don't think Polly or Annie had any money on them when they were killed.

We don't know : there was an unaccounted for 'time lapse' between Annie leaving her Lodging House and being murdered -a smaller one, if you think that she was actually killed earlier than the Witness Statement's suggest, but still a gap: I think that she surely spent it soliciting ! At any rate, she was robbed of her rings. Polly was soliciting from pub to pub the night she died -how can we know if she had other clients ?

Polly had spent hers and was probably too drunk to earn more.

Do you think that the clients that she found in pubs weren't drunk themselves ? Or would turn down a very low priced desperate woman ?
Recent photos in the paper of a very drunk Charlotte Church, with her knickers around her ankles, against a car (oblivious to photographers)
should show you that as long as they can still (just) stand up -women can still 'engage in sexual activity'.

If Polly had already spent money in the pub, she had a motivation to earn more.

Eddowes had got money from somewhere to allow her to get drunk, but I reckon she was skint when she died.

She had worked hopping, she was pawning stuff, she probably bummed drinks -and she was soliciting : she probably had some coins on her. I think that she wanted both to get drunk in company, and not go back to her bloke empty handed.

MJK should have had money assuming accounts of her movements before her death are accurate - but I have seen no mention of it.

There was "no mention of it" because it had gone ! We know that she was soliciting the night that she died, and at least one client was Blotchy.

I'm wondering just why you think that a man capable of murder (and all these women were murdered ), wouldn't take the money off the corpse as well ??
(it was there for the asking).

It does point to a poor killer, though..

The moment when money should have changed hands, COULD have been th distraction that allowed "Jack" to strike. A sort of feint, with the woman watching his hand, while he actually grabbed them with the other.

Oh, come on ! I'm not a prostitute, but if I was ever to consider the 'oldest profession', then I would get the money whilst the customer was thinking with his 'trouser brain' and not try and negociate after 'the act' or when I was in a very vulnerable position !

I doubt any money ever actually changed hands between the killer and his victims

.

There seems to be some very sweet men on Casebook -and I think that you are one of them, Phil.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trev,

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

Ah, so we can add surly sarcasm to your array of "talents." As it is, my money is on Tom.

Don.

Have you been and had your sense of humor removed because you and others are taking all of this mystery far to seriously almost to the point of obsession.

I am sure Tom took it all in the spirit of things.

Lighten up chill out the mystery will never be solved.

[Garza]

Hi Garza,

Schwartz described the man as "partially intoxicated", not staggering or a bumbling drunk. This is surely consistent with the crime scene evidence in Stride's case, which did involve a struggle, as witness the bruising and tightly pulled scarf. Even efficient serial killers can be incautious at times, often as a result of imbibing too much beforehand. In this case, he may have been taken off guard by Stride's non-compliant attitude.

Yes, "walking partially intoxicated". How does walking partially intoxicated look different from normal walking? When I'm partially intoxicated I walk in a straight line. The only way you can notice intoxication in a person's walk is if they sway form side to side. If BS didn't walk normal, he wasn't "partially intoxicated".

I thought the brusing was pressure marks and anyway it is impossible to know if they were done right then and there. I've got a hypothesis about those pressure marks anyway, that I am working on .

If BS did exist, there was no defensive marks on the arms and hands, no grazes on the hands when she fell, no dirt on her dress except on her left side as she lay dead. No signs of defense at all and if she did....she did it all by holding a packet of mints in her hand.

The tighten scarf has other good explanations as well.

The three small screams no-one heard, except Schwartz.

No, Strides attack came swift and suddenly, not a wrestle on the street.

[Garza]

They did and almost certainly were, Garza

If you have medical reports that I am not seeing, please show me as I have just read through both of Eddowes and Kelly's reports and found no signs of strangulation.

Determining the extent of violence on the body, Garza, is the domain of the pathologist, not detectives, and in an overwhelming majority of cases strangulation is immediately apparent courtesy of the presence of bruising to the neck tissues, swollen tongue, floridity in the hands and face, and the bursting of ocular blood vessels. It is only in the rarest of cases that manual strangulation leaves no obvious sign of physical trauma.

I mean forsenic detectives, got my wording wrong.

Not as rare as you think, but I wasn't talking about manual strangulation. But then could you suggest ho Eddowes and Kelly got strangled then, coz they had none of those symtoms as far as I have read.

There were no indications of manual strangulation.

Again, did not say manual strangulation, not in Stride's case anyway.

The shallower and less vicious throat wound ...

The shallower throat wound is can be explained. The others had their throats cut on their back, easy to put pressure on the neck that way, like a cutting board. Stride had her neck cut on her side and the killer probably did cut it while holding her silk scarf, hence the cut in the scarf.

There is no evidence whatever to substantiate the contention that Stride was lying on her side as her throat was cut. Indeed, Dr Blackwell thought it likely that the wound was inflicted whilst Stride was in an upright position and being dragged backwards.

There was nothing to suggest the body was moved AFTER the wound was cut, no spray on the wall, only a pool of blood below her neck that ran to the door. The lack of blood down the front of her dress, even if being dragged back at least a tiny part of the dress will have blood on it.

And Blackwell only suggested that because he thought the only other choice was that she voluntarily laid down for the victim, he could not understand the lack of struggle or lack of blood spray on the wall.

I’d be grateful if you could present the evidence which might substantiate this contention, Garza.

Cross might have disturbed him, if not it was pretty close.
Cadosh disturbed him while cutting.
PC Watkins (I think) most likely walked into Mitre Square while JTR was still cutting.

Only difference was the above did not see the body, Mr. D did, hence he could not continue his work.

[Garza]

because JTR wasn't seen in the yard he therefore left earlier on, this is fairly obvious..... BUT HOW MUCH EARLIER ON I DONT KNOW, was he disturbed by the cart? yes maybe, but whatever happened, LIZ was not killed for the purpose of mutilation, it's a classic cut-throat street murder.

Maybe if it didn't have the hallmarks of a ripper kill (exluding mutilation) I might have agreed with you. Cut-throat street murder on women in Whitechapel was extremely rare in 1888, and two knife murders within the same mile and hour is statistical improbable - the stats have been calculated.

these other locations are crap for mutilation too, but are better than Dutfields, Dutfields is dodgy because in any second now, somebody could rush out that door from upstairs, either for a quick pee, to be sick, or simply shooting off home!

I suppose this never happened in any other site, oh wait, yes it did, Hanbury Street.

this is the worst place in the world to mutilate, it's like doing so outside a pub or a night club etc, a residential area, or even a normal street is far better, especially if it's poorly lit, dont forget that street lighting back then was dreadful, many of us are missing this important point.

Yes places were poorly lit, including Dutfields Yard.

Think of it this way. In a way JTR relies on his victims to take him to secluded spots, he assumes they know spots were they would be least possible chance of being disturbed, that is their trade after all.

Jack took a chance in Dutfields Yard, no doubt, just like the other sites.

[mariab]

What, specifically, was she wearing that made her seem to be soliciting?

Lynn, you know perfectly well that Victorian unfortunates didn't have a great choice in clothing. Don't look at this in an anachronistic fashion (pun intended)!

In any case I could never make such an assumption about a member of the opposite sex.

Being politically correct won't help much in historical research. We need to be looking at this rationally. Stride most plausibly was solliciting that night, as the evidence strongly points towards this conclusion.

I wonder why Liz had no money if she had serviced 3 or 4 blokes that evening. Perhaps the killer robbed her?

I've wondered about this too. In typical alcoholic behaviour, she might either spent all her hard earned money on drinks, or the perp might have taken it after cutting her throat. I expect him to have gone through their pockets BEFORE starting with the disemboweling, so as not to get too much blood on himself. In Stride's case due to the cachous I don't subscribe at all to Tom Wescott's theory about the perp pretending to be mugging the victims. Possibly this might have been the case with Chapman, who spotted abrasions on her fingers from her rings having been removed carelessly.

No signs of defense at all and if she did....she did it all by holding a packet of mints in her hand. {...} Strides attack came swift and suddenly, not a wrestle on the street.

Absolutely agree, and I don't buy the Wescott fake mugging theory here. This was a swift attack and kill, and the cachous held tightly in her hand prove it. Nor does it look like Stride fainted, otherwise she would have let the cachous fall to the ground. I believe she was incapacitated by a stranglehold from behind, then her throat was cut while being pushed to the ground, while she still had a pulse.

The shallower throat wound is can be explained. The others had their throats cut on their back, easy to put pressure on the neck that way, like a cutting board. Stride had her neck cut on her side and the killer probably did cut it while holding her silk scarf, hence the cut in the scarf.

Again, completely agree.

In a way JTR relies on his victims to take him to secluded spots, he assumes they know spots were they would be least possible chance of being disturbed, that is their trade after all.

Just as he might have relied on them to have been familiar with the policemen beats.
Wow! Is Garza my “soulmate“ on Berner Street or something? Kidding now, but what comes out of his mouth seem to be my own thoughts verbatim.

[Garza]

Just as he might have relied on them to have been familiar with the policemen beats.
Wow! Is Garza my “soulmate“ on Berner Street or something? Kidding now, but what comes out of his mouth seem to be my own thoughts verbatim.

Great minds think alike maria lol .

Tom Wescott earlier on in this thread said that people who dismiss the Stride murder as a non-ripper murder are influenced by certain previous books.

I stay away from suspect books as a rule, all I want are ripper books that are neutral and have facts like A-Z for example. I have actually only read 3 ripper books, i just read periodicals now.

I am a scientist too by trade so try and look at things logically .

Absolutely agree, and I don't buy the Wescott fake mugging theory here. This was a swift attack and kill, and the cachous held tightly in her hand prove it. Nor does it look like Stride fainted, otherwise she would have let the cachous fall to the ground. I believe she was incapacitated by a stranglehold from behind, then her throat was cut while being pushed to the ground, while she still had a pulse.

The cachous held in hand are (to me) evidence that she was strangled. If the windpipe is partially closed the body goes into convulsions and the hands clench. I don't think she was throttled though like Tabram, Nichols and Chapman.

I have a theory but it is partially tested, I need a female volunteer, do you think lynn cates will let me borrow his wife for strangulation techniques ?

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Garza.

"I have a theory but it is partially tested, I need a female volunteer, do you think lynn cates will let me borrow his wife for strangulation techniques?"

With all my heart! (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

In your case, I don't feel you are biased, because your theory as far as i can see it wouldn't be advanced by eliminating Stride. But I do think that, like many commentators, you long ago because influenced by the research which led you to believe Stride was not a Ripper victim, as presented by other authors, and their reasoning and facts were wrong.

I've held my view regarding Stride for at least twenty years, Tom, and was influenced by no-one, because no-one to my knowledge was questioning the validity of Stride's status as a Ripper victim twenty years ago. It really is all about the evidence. But since we seem to be poles apart on this issue, the sensible thing to do is simply agree to disagree.

[c.d.]

Hello Phil and Lynn,

I really can't believe that you are bringing up the Liz wasn't solicting argument again. Haven't we been over that like a gazillion times?

Even if she was on a date, dates can end. And even if she was not soliciting, it is not unreasonable that someone might believe a known prostitute (and please let's not go there!) was actually doing so. And a woman standing by herself late at night in a bad area could certainly have been mistaken for a prostitute and her killer acted accordingly. So it is somewhat of moot point.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Ben,

I forgot to clarify that I was talking about what happened post Schwartz. Sorry about that. The BS man argument has the big hurdle of getting Liz into the yard. Highly unlikely that she would willing go off with a man who as you say has just viciously attacked her. That is why I find it quite strange that no cries for help were heard or no argument. Again I am talking post Schwartz here. Nothing at all indicates that she was dragged or attempted to fight off her attacker. I know that you have suggested that she was made to go into the yard at knife point but I have a real problem with that. So again I have to say that it appears that Liz is in the yard willingly and at ease not sensing danger at all. Highly unlikely with the BS man as her killer.

I also think that we are very casual with the idea that in Whitechapel all residents dispatched anybody that looked at them sideways with a cut to the throat. Whatever happened to yelling, swearing and slapping someone about? Liz's killer wanted her dead. That says Jack to me.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Here is a random thought that I had the other day -- what if Jack witnessed the Liz and BS man encounter? It might have occurred to him that this was the perfect opportunity for a kill and have it blamed on the BS man courtesy of Schwartz. The thought might have occurred to him too late that this was not such a good place for a mutilation.

Just a thought.

c.d.

[Lechmere]

I would suggest that if the Ripper witnessed the BS encounter it would imply that he struck very soon after surely, and that would have give him time for mutilations.

Unless he deliberately didn't due to concern about the BS incident which meant he went into it knowing he wouldn't mutilate. And I don't think he would have done that.

It is more likely that the BS man was the Ripper and he thought he may as well 'finish her off' after it went wrong, and he was actually dragging her back into the yard and not away from it as was (if this was the case) mistakenly reported.

More likely than either in my opinion is that a separate and quite different attack took place about ten minutes later.

[Wickerman]

Here is a random thought that I had the other day -- what if Jack witnessed the Liz and BS man encounter? It might have occurred to him that this was the perfect opportunity for a kill and have it blamed on the BS man courtesy of Schwartz. The thought might have occurred to him too late that this was not such a good place for a mutilation.

Just a thought.

c.d.

Oh, it's not 'just a thought', it's a distinct possibility, the same one I had in mind. And the man in question just may have been Schwartz's 2nd man, aka Pipeman/Knifeman.

Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

I am sure Tom took it all in the spirit of things.

Hi Trevor. Yes, I knew you were having fun. And I think we’re all guilty of taking things a little too seriously some times.

Tom Wescott earlier on in this thread said that people who dismiss the Stride murder as a non-ripper murder are influenced by certain previous books.

I stay away from suspect books as a rule, all I want are ripper books that are neutral and have facts like A-Z for example. I have actually only read 3 ripper books, i just read periodicals now.

Hi Garza. If you read my ‘Exonerating Michael Kidney’ here on the Casebook, you’ll see snippets of what I’m talking about, and it’s not ALL from suspect books, but also tomes by Stewart Evans and folks of that ilk. And I do HOPE you’ll make an exception and read my suspect book when it comes out. It will be a one-of-a-kind.

I have a theory but it is partially tested, I need a female volunteer, do you think lynn cates will let me borrow his wife for strangulation techniques

I think Maria already volunteered, did she not?

Here is a random thought that I had the other day -- what if Jack witnessed the Liz and BS man encounter? It might have occurred to him that this was the perfect opportunity for a kill and have it blamed on the BS man courtesy of Schwartz. The thought might have occurred to him too late that this was not such a good place for a mutilation.

That would be Le Pipegrand…errr…Pipeman.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott