Was Stride Really a JtR Victim?

[RavenDarkendale]

I was wondering what percentage of a chance others of you would give that there actually WAS a double event, i.e. that both Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddows were killed by JtR. I am willing to go 60% against Stride being a victim. As audacious as JtR seemed to be, I think he would have risked at least one abdomen slash regardless of the chance of being caught. After all, there is the timing of the Kate Eddows murder and mutilation between PC's walking a set beat.

God bless

Darkendale

[Phil H]

I am still of the opinion that Stride was not a JtR victim. But the concensus among Ripperologists appears to be that Tom Westcott's article in Casebook Examiner, exhonerated Kidney. Personally, I still have to formulate a view on that.

Also recent research showing a potential Kosminski connection to the Berners Street area, adds to the complexity, I think.

Phil H

[Wickerman]

You have the worlds leaving authority on Jack the Ripper in your corner Phil.

Dr. Phillips who was called to Berner-street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives (so says Dr. Gordon, who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) it as his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr. Phillips is an authority.
Evening News, 1 Oct. 1888.

I might give Dr. Phillips too much credit but I am not easily inclined to think him wrong.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

There is no direct or even indirect evidence anywhere that Stride was a victim of the same man. But it's one of those scenarios where it entirely depends on where you start as to where you end. Anyone who starts at the end and works back to the beginning is forced to conclude that Stride was a botched Ripper attempt. Anyone starting at the beginning can see it both ways, and anyone taking the crimes individually is forced to conclude that her murder was completely unrelated.

The problem is that a lot of people's understandings of the differences in the mutilations of Kate Eddowes is hinged upon the idea that her killer was frenzied because he was interrupted in a previous attempt. That it made him more savage and more uncontrollable. And the truth is, had he been interrupted at a previous attempt, that's exactly how he would have been. Presumed cause matches effect. On the other hand, had he actually been interrupted, there is nothing to say that his rage would have manifested itself that way. It's not a math equation. Just a series of probabilities, statistics, guesses.

If Liz Stride died on April 9th, 1892, or even a week before Kate Eddowes, nobody would have thought she was a Ripper victim. And the odds of multiple killers, or multiple serial killers operating in the same city at the same time seems outlandish. But it happens. We know it happens. During the Son of Sam murders, New York City murder rates kept on. People didn't stop shooting each other just because one guy out there was making headlines. And there were two or three other serial killers active, evidently perfectly content to let Berkowitz take the spotlight. Never mind California, which is infested with serial killers, with estimates of 10-30 being active at any given time. Two women died of a cut throat on the same night. I live in a city a little less than half the size of London at that time, and in the last 24 hours 14 people died of not natural causes. 4 homicides, three of which were women. I don't assume those three women died at the same hand. In a city half the size of Victorian London, if I don't assume all the women killed on a single night, or even by a single method are related, it doesn't make sense for me to assume that in a city twice as big 120 years ago.

[Cogidubnus]

Great post Errata

Thanks

Dave

[Bridewell]

An Interruption?

I was wondering what percentage of a chance others of you would give that there actually WAS a double event, i.e. that both Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddows were killed by JtR. I am willing to go 60% against Stride being a victim. As audacious as JtR seemed to be, I think he would have risked at least one abdomen slash regardless of the chance of being caught.
God bless

Darkendale

After all, there is the timing of the Kate Eddows murder and mutilation between PC's walking a set beat.

It is indeed a very narrow window of opportunity, but only if both Pc Harvey and Pc Watkins are accurate with their timings and both were where they claim to have been.

As for the topic of the thread, the Double Event, its viability depends on a number of possibilities. If the Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jack postcard were written by the killer then there is no doubt that there was indeed a Double Event, but we all know the magnitude of that if. It also depends on where one stands on the 'interruption' thing. The argument which says that "it was a Ripper killing therefore the killer was interrupted" is flawed because it is conclusion-led. Was the killer interrupted? Schwartz's evidence suggests that Stride was alive at 12.45am. Diemschutz's suggests that she was dead 15 minutes later. Blackwell's evidence - that she had died 20-30 minutes before his arrival at 1.16am - suggests a TOD between 1246 & 12.56am. If the killer was BS Man then I would argue that there was no interruption (by Diemschutz at least). If the killer was not BS Man I don't think there was time for him (BS Man) to leave and for Stride to meet, and be killed by, a second assailant and for that assailant to then get clean away before Diemschutz's arrival. The Double Event is (apologies for the analogy) a knife-edge decision in my view. I'm drawn towards the possibility that Stride was killed by BS Man who left before mutilation because he feared interruption and was so angry with himself for what he perceived as a failure that he drove himself to take the even greater risk of a second murder on the same night to compensate. Is that view tenable on the available evidence? In my view, yes. Is it a certainty? By no means, because, inevitably, it relies on supposition. In short, the so-called 'Double Event' is arguable either way. It's one of the great unknowns.

Regards, Bridewell.

[RavenDarkendale]

All well put statements. I also thought of something else: Almost all serial killers have victims whose bodies are never found, or never identified due to decomp, etc. This leaves wiggle room for a double-event without involving Elizabeth Stride at all. Perhaps a murder occurred earlier than Stride or later than Eddows in which the body was never found. People go missing every day. Plenty of them are never found. Just a possibility, and not the strongest one, admittedly.

God Bless

Darkendale

[lynn cates]

credit where due

Hello Colin.

"If the Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jack postcard were written by the killer then there is no doubt that there was indeed a Double Event."

Permit a disagreement. IF the "Dear Boss" were real, and the killer killed Kate only, why could he not write the "Saucy Jacky" merely to take credit?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all.

This question has been bandied about since I first joined the site in 2005 and throughout all the discussions the only real basis for her inclusion is an assumed interruption off Berner Street.

Its logical and reasonable to suggest that victims 1 and 2 were by the same man, as Jon pointed out, Phillips did see 4 victims dead and should have been the primary opinion when comparatives were made. However, skill and knowldege cannot be determined by that single cut.

What can be determined is this.....there is no, I repeat no, physical evidence related to Ms Stride or the location of the murder that could be used to support a less than complete event. And there is little doubt that the killer of Polly and Annie would revert to simple murder when he had accomplished considerable damage on his victims previously.

As Ive said all along, look carefully at the evidence concerning Stride that day and evening...look carefully at her dress, her accoutrements, her demeanor in death, her loitering... but likely not soliciting.

Best regards all

[ukranianphil]

You have the worlds leaving authority on Jack the Ripper in your corner Phil.

Dr. Phillips who was called to Berner-street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives (so says Dr. Gordon, who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) it as his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr. Phillips is an authority.
Evening News, 1 Oct. 1888.

I might give Dr. Phillips too much credit but I am not easily inclined to think him wrong.

Regards, Jon S.

Totally agree with you wickerman. I think phillips is the top man hear.

In the stride Inquest.
The coroner asked him:"Was there any other similarity between this and the chapman case"?

Phillips answered: " There is great dissimilarity. Chapmans neck was severed right round to the vertebral column and the vertebral bone being marked, and there had been an attempt to separate the bones".
There is nothing like that on the stride case.
EVEN IF the ripper was interrupted, The cut would have been a lot deeper, if it had been the ripper.

[Samurai X]

I am not entirely convinced she was. I'd say I am around 75% of her being a victim of the whitechapel killer.

On a side note liz stride was my distant cousin. surprisingly enough I only found that out a few years ago. I had always had a fascination with the JTR killings for a large majority of my life.

Regards,
Dan

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hey Lynn!

Hello Colin.

"If the Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jack postcard were written by the killer then there is no doubt that there was indeed a Double Event."

Permit a disagreement. IF the "Dear Boss" were real, and the killer killed Kate only, why could he not write the "Saucy Jacky" merely to take credit?

Cheers.
LC

Quite right Sir.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

so what are we looking at?

Stride scenario is: JTR, some club related something, Killer Kidney, random unconnected thing all together. I'm leaning away from the general random explanation because I think it is a way to remain safe and goes nowhere. Killer Kidney is nice and all but there is nothing to support this really. So the remaining two seem to be the better direction if only to eliminate them.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Sorry for not putting all in one post. phone is giving me trouble.

I can't help but think of the execution of the murder. Dark spot in close proximity to people without disturbing anyone. Okay there is Schwartz. I'd say he got quite disturbed into spasming his way away. One cut did the business. Not a messy murder. Whoever did it appeared to have some resolve. They meant it. Similar to anyone maybe? Thoughts, concerns, questions?

[Phil H]

The conventional wisdom was always that Stride was a Ripper victim and that 30 September was a double event. Until about 15-20 years ago, I don't think this weas really questioned. As i recall, I first became aware of the idea that Stride might have been killed by another hand through AP Wolf and Peter Turnbull's books.

At first I was a bit shocked by such innovative thinking: I saw the notion as an attack on the whole field, as undermining concensus and reducing what we knew. Then I began to look at the new interpretation more carefully.

My position today is that while we cannot rule out "Jack" as the murderer - that would be foolish given the paucity of evidence - there is considerable merit in holding in mind an alternative scenario, in parallel with the "mainstream one".

The "double event" requires us to envisage a certain time-frame; a "Jack" rushing from Berners St to Mitre Square, almost rabid with desire to mutilate, animalistic, brutal. He has to find a second victim quickly, settles on Eddowes, kills her - and then the GSG becomes enmired with the whole story and we enter realms of speculation...

BUT.... if one pauses and says, OK, let's just assume (for the purposes of argument and to open the though to new ideas) that Liz Stride was killed by Kidney or someone NOT the Ripper. Does this not allow us then to focus on Eddowes - could she have been stalked? Is there anything useful to be found in the idea that Whitechapel High Street might have formed some sort of southern boundary to "Jack's" patch? The killer of Eddowes is given more time, is perhaps less mindless and stimulated by need and frustration. Could we see some link between Eddowes' release and her meeting "Jack" (I'm assuming here that she WAS a Ripper victim) - even her being "stalked"? Could she have arranged previously to meet her killer (I'm thinking here of her remark that she might know "Jack") which is less plausible/possible if we have a "double event"?

I hope I have said enough at least to make the idea of looking again at the "double event" seem interesting and useful, whatever conclusion each of us finally draws.

We debate endlessly the question of whether Tabram, Coles, Mckenzie, Mylett etc might have been Ripper victims. There has been, in recent years, an increasing willingness to question whether MJK was murdered by the same hand as the other "canonicals". So why not test the validity of the attribution of each of MM's canonicals to the Ripper - some intriguing possibilities emerge if one does. Suspects, whether Lechmere/Cross or Barnett can be included because we can re-arrange the killings in new patterns and it forces us to look again at the similarities and differences, the sequences, the escalation, in new ways. In that context and with that openeness of thought, we might read the evidence in a fresh light, gain new inspiration and open new paths for research.

It is also something that the police at the time had to think through - exactly how many women did this man kill? Which dead women fell to his hand. MM had to construct his list, it was not a given. Someone (if not MM himself), sometime, had to say "I think the Torso killer" is separate; to exclude Tabram etc etc. We might conclude that the police were right in theit view, we migh disagree, but the JOURNEY will be worth it, I feel.

So why be rigid on Stride? There is no need to cling to only one view, or to avoid questioning old (and perhaps ingrained) thinking. We can be flexible and innovative.

Phil