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

[Ben]

Correction to the above. I meant:

"...but I really wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Jew-related concerns featured in the pre-crime phase too."

Hi CD,

Addressing your points individually:

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

She cried out three times, which more than qualifies. I rather think the "help" request is implied by the screams. Their volume merely hints at the possibility that she wasn't a loud screamer generally, or that she was too preoccupied with fending off her attacker. It takes a weird individual to adjust one's scream-volume to the perceived severity of the situation.

2. No argument was heard by anybody

It was heard by Schwartz who specifically referred to signs of a quarrel.

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

True, but then there's no evidence that BS slapped Stride 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

This would have been impossible to determine. Unless Stride's dress was made of crepe paper, there was no way of ascertaining whether or not her clothes had been roughed up during the struggle.

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

Again, not inconsistent with Schwartz' evidence.

6. She was clutching the cachous in her hand.

Ah, but this is wholly consistent with preparedness for attack (clenching her fists to fend him off), and not in the slightest bit consistent with the sudden, unexpected death slash that you appear to be envisaging. Where's the arterial spray on the walls, for instance? We've discussed this in considerable depth already.

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

Yes, because it was preferable to keeping Stride alive as a witness who had acquired a very close view of this prostitute-botherer. I think Stride was another Ada Wilson - an occasion where he was compelled to hurry things up because of his over-confident or botched approach.

All the best,
Ben

[Supe]

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.

[mariab]

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.

Fully agree, Hunter. Don't see at all how Pipeman could be characterized as the “hero“ here.
Hunter, do you happen to know of a source listing an issue of The Star among Stride's possessions when she was found dead?

As it is, my money is on Tom.

As long as your money's not on Norder.
With profound apologies for the irreverent joke, and I'm going back to work (frustratingly, late at night, after a LONG day)...

[Hunter]

Hunter, do you happen to know of a source listing an issue of The Star among Stride's possessions when she was found dead?

No I don't, Maria... although I remember reading that a newspaper was found in her bonnet. Crepe is very thin and fragile when it gets wet. She probably lined it with the newspaper to help it hold its shape.

Just a quick remark to Jon's earlier post about the Star article and 'Knifeman'...
The insinuation of the article is that BS man and Knifeman are accomplices; that it was Schwartz who was in danger; thus justifying his hasty escape. I'm surprised to find anyone who is well read on this case who doesn't read that article as such.

[mariab]

Crepe is very fragile when it gets wet. She probably lined it with the newspaper to help it hold its shape.

Or to get warm, like homeless people do.

The insinuation of the article is that BS man and Knifeman are accomplices; that it was Schwartz who was in danger; thus justifying his hasty escape. I'm surprised to find anyone who is well read on this case who doesn't read that article as such.

I know, me too.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ben,

I'm inclined to agree that, given the recent publiicity received by the Berner Street club, for their anti-Jewish rallies, it's compelling to suppose that their yard was selected as a murder site for some specific reason. If this is the case, then the graffiti was written to that end as well. The question is, for what reason were they chosen? That's one question I've yet to answer to my own satisfaction.

Maria,

One of my essays contain the source for the Star being found in Stride's bonnet, as well as the particular issue that was found. I think it was the Sept. 28th edition, but can't recall off hand. I think I mention it in Ripper Notes #25.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I think I mention it in Ripper Notes #25.

I'm pretty sure that no, otherwise I'd remember it.
I'll look it up when I find a minute.

[Hunter]

Maria,
This is where I read about the newspaper. It is from the Evening Standard, Oct. 1, and can be found in the press section here on Casebook:

'...She had on a black alpaca dress, a black jacket trimmed with fur, an old velveteen bodice, once black but now brown, and a crape bonnet, some spare space in which had been filled up by a newspaper, white stockings, white stays, and side spring boots...'

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

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?

For me, Yes.

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?

Yes, she was certainly soliciting, in my opinion.

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)’.

But maybe he knew that he would "strike lucky" on club nights, because there were some prostitutes that would make a beeline for the vicinity of
jewish clubs, due to the large number of men alone, out for the evening drinking and having a good time with their mates (with the good excuse to escape their wives).

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?

But maybe he had a reason for 'roaming that vicinity', as opposed to another.
We don't know why he chose the locations of Annie and Polly's murders.
It is an assumption to think that they were totally random. We are not the Ripper and can't be inside his head to know whether he had already decided on the yard in Hanbury Street, or stalked Polly from a pub to Bucks Row.

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.

It seems a very difficult place to mutilate.

Whatever ‘Jewish influence’ there may be on the events would, in my opinion, only have been ‘after the event’.

'In your opinion' is correct. It's not my opinion.

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.

Except that he may not have had the intention to mutilate Liz....knowing that he would get a better place to mutilate later (in Mitre Square).
Apart from the fact that he might have wanted to strike near two clubs, or he might have particularly wanted to murder Liz, there is the fact that the term Double Event (surely coined by a journalist to saw the irony) refers to the Autumn Double -the Cambridgeshire Handicap and the Cesarewitch Handicap run at Newmarket- which takes place at the end of September/beginning of October. If the Ripper was a racing man, he may have planned his own Autumn Double.

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.

I certainly don't think that he wrote it after the murders -so either he chose
the building and the graffiti just was there, he knew that the graffiti was there..or he wrote it earlier, in which case the club locations were pre-planned.

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.

The whole series of murders and our various suspects can be read like '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.

Except if he knew that she would be there. Maybe she or other prostitutes often worked 'club nights' ?

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.

Liz was a gentile, and she knew about 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.

And if he didn't write it ?

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 agree with that .

[Garza]

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.

The thing is Ben, the Stride murder was a very efficient crime. Despite numerous people around, Mrs Mortimer, Mrs D, the couple around the corner, no-one seen or heard Liz stride getting murdered. There was no struggle of any kind. The throat was cut only once, while she was lying on the ground with her artery away from the killer to avoid sprayback.

A random drunk could have killed Stride lots of different ways with a knife, for some reason he chose the most ripper-esque way of killing Stride. That is what is baffling. Could a bumbling drunk (who was staggering - according to Schwartz) that pushed Stride in front of one (maybe 2) witnesses do such an efficient murder?

[Phil H]

I haven't had time to read all the recent posts in this thread. However, a couple of comments:

a) I don't believe that there is ANY evidence that Stride was soliciting on the night of her death; rather the evidence suggests she was out on a "date";

b) as to JtR deliberately targetting Jewish premises etc, there is equal evidence that he had something against Kearley and Tonge's tea business (I think AP Wolf suggested links with Cutbush) or against the education system, given the proximity to schools etc.

Phil

[lynn cates]

get up

Hello Phil.

"I don't believe that there is ANY evidence that Stride was soliciting on the night of her death; rather the evidence suggests she was out on a 'date'."

Although I agree, it is clear that the police thought she was. I'm sure you've read the article (in "The Echo" I believe) where a reporter goes to the neighbourhood and chats up the coppers. They think Liz was soliciting. Why? Because of her "get up."

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

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.

Hi Tom,

Good point regarding the club's recently attracted publicity. I hadn't thought of that.

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

"I don't believe that there is ANY evidence that Stride was soliciting on the night of her death; rather the evidence suggests she was out on a 'date'."

Although I agree, it is clear that the police thought she was. I'm sure you've read the article (in "The Echo" I believe) where a reporter goes to the neighbourhood and chats up the coppers. They think Liz was soliciting. Why? Because of her "get up."

And we cannot ignore that as evidence. But given what else we now know we should be careful in repeating that assessment.

Phil