How about this quick theory!

[Phil H]

JTR was learning from his crimes and later on trying to manipulate the media, but why there is no evidence of ANTi-SEMETISM in his earlier murders can either be due to this evolving prosess, or he targeted Dutfields due to something political/social unrest etc, going on in the Whitechapel area that he didn't like, thus he was getting fed up with the Jews..

Or maybe "Jack" was a "nutter" who just killed helpless street women on a pretty random basis, without any agenda.

There is no proof, no unarguable link between killer and graffito, and thus no established link betwee "Jack" and Jews - so to start hypothesising about it in the detail you are, seems to me a waste of time and rather pointless. This is daydreaming at best.

maybe the chalk was intended for the gates of Dutfields, but without there ever being a mutilation, maybe JTR was disturbed when he was about to write on the gates after killing Stride.

Maybe "Jack" was nowhere near Berners St that night, but to the north stalking the street and encountering Eddowes.

L.STRIDE was also noted to have said ``no not tonight, some other time``, this was overheard as someone walked by

An entirely plausible thing for a woman on a date (i.e. NOT street-walking) to say to a previous punter who asked. It's polite, friendly, doesn't deter future approaches....

Phil

[Malcolm X]

what i'm saying is:-

JTR maybe noticed E.Stride whilst walking by, but not targetting Dutfields
and NOT AS BROADSHOULDERS either ok.

I....he walked by, suddenly he detected movement in there, he spoke to her and asked her to go with him somewhere much quieter, she said ``no not tonight, some other time, i'm waiting here for a man inside``

2.... he thought ``she's waiting for a Jew``, he then quickly killed her out of spite and anger.

3.... he then killed Eddowes later on and blamed this murder on the Jews, the Jews that were inside Dutfields

you cant easily explain away 2 murders that night with a Jewish connection, you can have a different theory to me yes, but mine is hard to dismiss for sure and hasn't been over the last 6 years

[Phil H]

I can very readily "explain away 2 murders that night with a Jewish connection":

1) there is no ESTABLISHED Jewish connection (it is supposition);

2) even if one concedes that Stride was killed outside a Jewish club, Mitre Square has no immediate Jewish connection;

3) Eddowes is far more easily explained if we don't have to imagine "Jack" rushing across the East End;

4) there is no obvious link between the two killings bar a slit throat;

5) there was at least one more murder - a domestic - elsewhere in London that night. Why could not Stride be a domestic too - killed by her ex-lover, whom she had recently left?

6) there is no evidence from the other JtR related murders that the killer had an agenda - other than perhaps being "down on whores".

Enough for you?

Phil

[lynn cates]

things salty

Hello Malcolm.

"he'd be scanning all around looking for a suitable victim."

Of course, IF the killer of Stride were the killer of Chapman, he had gone 3 weeks--either without scanning or without success. Now he succeeds (according to the traditional story) twice in one night.

Perhaps he had tried to quit, but the sight of a vulnerable female was too much for him. But, just like with salty chips, you can't eat just one.

At least, so I've been given to understand.

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

JTR was learning from his crimes and later on trying to manipulate the media, but why there is no evidence of ANTi-SEMETISM in his earlier murders can either be due to this evolving prosess, or he targeted Dutfields due to something political/social unrest etc, going on in the Whitechapel area that he didn't like, thus he was getting fed up with the Jews..

Or maybe "Jack" was a "nutter" who just killed helpless street women on a pretty random basis, without any agenda.

There is no proof, no unarguable link between killer and graffito, and thus no established link betwee "Jack" and Jews - so to start hypothesising about it in the detail you are, seems to me a waste of time and rather pointless. This is daydreaming at best.

maybe the chalk was intended for the gates of Dutfields, but without there ever being a mutilation, maybe JTR was disturbed when he was about to write on the gates after killing Stride.

Maybe "Jack" was nowhere near Berners St that night, but to the north stalking the street and encountering Eddowes.

L.STRIDE was also noted to have said ``no not tonight, some other time``, this was overheard as someone walked by

An entirely plausible thing for a woman on a date (i.e. NOT street-walking) to say to a previous punter who asked. It's polite, friendly, doesn't deter future approaches....

Phil

yes you maybe right, i can not argue against this and i can not make you believe me, but i'm definitely not daydreaming, i've been studying this far too long.

this is the trouble with JTR, your ``Doubting Thomas`` posts are exactly the same as the ones here years ago.

as i said back then, it's very easy to sit on a high horse and contradict someone without putting up a theory yourself, it's very easy to quote from books and sit on the fence and pull someone apart, but at some time you're going to have to jump down and say what you think happened, then i'll get my turn !

i'm not having a go at you personally, because what you say applies to many members here over the last ten years.

[Malcolm X]

Hello Malcolm.

"he'd be scanning all around looking for a suitable victim."

Of course, IF the killer of Stride were the killer of Chapman, he had gone 3 weeks--either without scanning or without success. Now he succeeds (according to the traditional story) twice in one night.

Perhaps he had tried to quit, but the sight of a vulnerable female was too much for him. But, just like with salty chips, you can't eat just one.

At least, so I've been given to understand.

Cheers.
LC

well it's like waithing for a bus, sometimes you cant be bothered to wait any longer, when all of a sudden you'll see 3 come along

[Phil H]

Malcolm

as i said back then, it's very easy to sit on a high horse and contradict someone without putting up a theory yourself, it's very easy to quote from books and sit on the fence and pull someone apart, but at some time you're going to have to jump down and say what you think happened, then i'll get my turn !

I don't think I'm on a high horse and I don't think I'll ever be foolish enough to propose any particular theory. I outgrew that after Knight when I was much younger - I was a convinced Druittist for several years before and after that.

My preference is to juggle possibilities. Thus I don't reject Stride as a Ripper victim, but at present I'm happy to play with the idea that she might NOT have been, and I find that opening up new possibilities. I'm attracted to the "there never was a "Jack" approach (he was several killers linked by media-hype) and that has opened windows into our remaining facts - what if "Jack" only killed three or so women?

Above all - as you'll know if you have dipped into any of the current discussions of the historical method - I try (in my amateur way) to adhere to what I learned in my student days about evaluation of evidence, sifting material, being critical (in the proper sense of the word - scrutinising rigorously) of the available material. Thus I cannot adhere to the - anything goes school - that wants to disparage anything that doesn't fit, that puts theory first and then tries to fit the evidence to the theory.

As for the opposite, I know of no convincing theory that emerges from the available material.

To show that I am sometimes tempted, I did raise the issue a while back that put Lechmere/Cross - the 1888 carter, not the 2011 poster - under the miscroscope. He was found standing over the body, several murders were on his way to work or in areas he knew well....Might he have been the Ripper? But it's not a theory - just playing with the evidence as far as we can.

Phil

[Garza]

1) there is no ESTABLISHED Jewish connection (it is supposition);

true there is no concrete evidence

2) even if one concedes that Stride was killed outside a Jewish club, Mitre Square has no immediate Jewish connection;

Em, Mitre Square was just round the corner from a Jewish club, the one that Lawende came from. If Jack wanted to frame the Jews, he just needed somewhere near in the vicinity, not necessarily at its gates. Remember the victims chose the crime scene, not Jack.

3) Eddowes is far more easily explained if we don't have to imagine "Jack" rushing across the East End;

I didn't know the Eddowes murder needed explantion.

4) there is no obvious link between the two killings bar a slit throat;

Well both women were cut with one slash from left to ride while on the ground, near each other with little or no struggle with other people around that heard nothing in a dark place while preparing to do a business transaction. Yeah completely different.

5) there was at least one more murder - a domestic - elsewhere in London that night. Why could not Stride be a domestic too - killed by her ex-lover, whom she had recently left?

The situation of that murder was completely different and is a strawman. Even if 50 domestic women had their throats cut in London that night, does not mean Jack did not kill two of them.

Domestic knife crime or any knife crime on women was rare, very very rare. Colin Roberts did an excellent post regarding the statistical likelyhood of Stride and Eddowes being killed by two different killers factoring in the crime statistics of England and Whitechapel of the surrounding years...it wasn't very likely.

6) there is no evidence from the other JtR related murders that the killer had an agenda - other than perhaps being "down on whores".

true

[Garza]

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.

Might do Tom if I get a signed copy lol . And yes I read that article, was a good read, was always baffled of the claim that Stride couldn't have been a JTR victim because she was murdered south of the Whitechapel road as if it was some sort of Rubicon the ripper dare not cross.

[Phil H]

Em, Mitre Square was just round the corner from a Jewish club, the one that Lawende came from. If Jack wanted to frame the Jews, he just needed somewhere near in the vicinity, not necessarily at its gates. Remember the victims chose the crime scene, not Jack.

Lots of things are "just round the corner" from murder sites - were Nichols and eddowes evidence that Cutbush was the killer (Kearley and Tonges wharehouses were immediately adjacent.

I didn't know the Eddowes murder needed explantion.

"Jack's" movements and timings might benefit from the different approach.

Domestic knife crime or any knife crime on women was rare, very very rare. Colin Roberts did an excellent post regarding the statistical likelyhood of Stride and Eddowes being killed by two different killers factoring in the crime statistics of England and Whitechapel of the surrounding years...it wasn't very likely.

Statistics might be interesting, but they reveal nothing. There WERE three murders that night. If one of them was by a different hand, why not two?

We know at least one other murder impinged on "Jack's" territory because of the "torso" - unless you argue JtR was also the torso murderer.

Finally on that point, it is IMHO entirely plausible that - with Stride and MJK - someone (probably two unassociated men) other than "Jack" sought deliberately to hide their work by killing in a similar manner to what they had read he did.

Otherwise, we have to assume that Mckenzie, Coles, tabram, Smith, or most of them could ONLY have been "Jack's" work as it would have been too much of a coincidence otherwise!!

Sorry to disagree.

Phil

[Garza]

Stride's face doesn't look like strangled. I see the cachous as evidence for a very quick assault, with restraining her airway by a stranglehold from behind (instead of really strangling her) while simultaneously pushing her to the ground and cutting her throat from behind, perhaps lifting her head by her scarf.

I've been reading some medical journals (in between writing my masters thesis which is due friday ) and its not quite as clear cut as looking strangled.

[mariab]

I've been reading some medical journals (in between writing my masters thesis which is due friday ) and its not quite as clear cut as looking strangled.

Yes, I've read about this too (I did a bit of reading about strangulation pertaining to the Ramsey case in the US), but I think Stride's scarf was cut by the knife? Don't have the source on this, and no time to look it up for a good while.
By the by, thanks so much to Hunter for having located the source about Stride keeping a few foglii of The Star inside of her bonnet.

Good luck with your Master's thesis then, Garza.
I've done both my conference papers and am all chilled now (though I got some tricky emails to write and I gotta pack, but this is a piece of cake.)

[Rubyretro]

Lots of things are "just round the corner" from murder sites - were Nichols and eddowes evidence that Cutbush was the killer (Kearley and Tonges wharehouses were immediately adjacent.

I'm interested in the 'Jewish' link -but also in the Kearley and Tonge link:

I don't see why thinking it a possibility that JTR worked for Kearley and Tonge (and thus knew the area, pubs, policemen's beats, watchmen, whores
etc near the warehouses) should mean that the suspect was necessarily
Cutbush.

Wouldn't Kearley and Tonge hire and fire according to their work load, when it came down to unskilled labour ? (surely that's what factories do today using short term contracts and temp agencies).

Why should someone who had 'casually' worked for Kearley and Tonge not possibly be anti-semite as well ? (especially if they felt in competition with
immigrant workers whom they felt were forcing their wages down).

Why should one theory exclude another ?


Domestic knife crime or any knife crime on women was rare, very very rare. Colin Roberts did an excellent post regarding the statistical likelyhood of Stride and Eddowes being killed by two different killers factoring in the crime statistics of England and Whitechapel of the surrounding years...it wasn't very likely.

Statistics might be interesting, but they reveal nothing. There WERE three murders that night. If one of them was by a different hand, why not two?

Because two might have some pertinent details in common, but the third nothing in common.

[Abby Normal]

Kidney did not kill his ex girlfriend-Liz Stride IMHO.

It does not seem consistant that a guilty ex lover murderer would show up soon after at the police station drunk, distraught, indignant at the police in their dealiing with the murder.

To me this seems the actions of an innocent greiving and upset man who just lost his (ex) girlfriend for good to an unknown murderer.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;192493]Wickerman

That would tend to suggest that he knew her or at least had been stalking her for a while.
Why would he do this in this instance?
It is pretty clear that Eddowes wasn’t stalked

–

Why would that suggest that JTR was stalking Liz ?

I think that JTR may very well have known that Liz Stride would be soliciting in Berner Street for clients from the Jewish club night, and he might also have particularly targetted her.....it doesn't mean that he stalked her at all.

Just suppose that he drank in the same pubs as her, near her lodging house, but not near Berner Street. He might well have known that she was a prostitute who charred for Jewish families/ had sex with Jewish men. It is possible that he knew her, or was on the periphery of her social life -but she never suspected him of being JTR.

He might just have 'heard' in his pub that she was going to be soliciting on the night of her death, at Dutfield's Yard, and made it his business to know where that was; That doesn't appear as stalking (as we know it, Jim).

Stride wasn’t that near where she lived or had lived so it is unlikely to have been a chance recognition.

Effectively, if she knew her killer. We don't know that she didn't -and it would explain her complacence in putting herself in a vulnerable position so soon after being attacked by BSM -she felt at ease because she knew the bloke.

These alternative theories just become more and more improbable when the most likely and obvious explanation is that it was a random exploitative attack along with the others.

You absolutely don't know how random those attacks were...it is quite possible that the women were at ease because they knew the 'friendly face'
of an acquaintance (if not intimately known to them).

You must think that if 'Jack' only made 'random exploitative' attacks, then he was just incredibly 'lucky' to get away with his crimes : I go along with Bob Hinton's observation (one of his 'good ideas', Jon), who drew the analagy with a golfer hitting a fab shot and being congratulated on his 'luck', and replying 'Yes, and the more that I practise the luckier I get !'.

I think that it is sure that he increasingly planned in advance of his crimes.

By the way with reference to those who think that press reports about the Berner Street club would make it a known venue – that presupposes the Ripper read those reports and took in the detail and knew where Berner Street was in the first place.

Well, why not ? If he was also increasingly interested in his Press ?

When I go there now I get mixed up as to which turning it is off Commercial Road as it is all pretty non descript. I lived within a mile of it for quite a few years and then wouldn’t have been able to take you straight there (to Henriques Street anyway) without checking a map.

How can you know where he had had jobs ? Or whether he made it his business to know where the club was ? It's hardly far away from the epicentre.

[QUOTE]There are lots of streets in that area and in 1888 there were a lot more.
I would contend that an obscure Jewish club in Berner Street would be a known venue to people living locally and Jewish people living slightly further afield.[/QUOTE

But maybe better known than we might imagine, known to those that wanted to find out where it was, or known to people who had had jobs nearby...