Was Stride Really a JtR Victim?

[caz]

"Jack", again in my opinion, confined his activities north of Whitechapel High St (though I note recent research that could link Aaron Kosminski to the Berner St area). Moreover, rather than the traditional adjunct of the alleged "double event" involving a frustrated serial killer rushing north to find another victim; I find it far more likely that "Jack" was already probably in search of his only victim of the night, in the Aldgate area.

Hi Phil,

But you could be quite wrong to imagine that the ripper (or Eddowes's killer, if different) would not have looked for opportunities south of Whitechapel High St, or was only looking that night in the Aldgate area. So you seem to be letting your subjective views about the second murder get in the way of a totally objective look at the first - the opposite of what you normally advise people to do - leading you to favour a suspect like Kidney over "Jack", despite the fact that he was clearly looked at closely by the police at the time and could not be connected with Stride's murder.

If (and I emphasise the if) Schwartz saw anything, and what he saw was correctly interpreted, in every sense of the word, then what he saw might well fit a vengeful Kidney encountering or finding his former lover and angrily remonstrating with her. What Schwartz appears to have said would also fit a women in Liz's relation to Kidney.

But as we are constantly told by those who exclude Stride from the ripper's tally because he apparently had no 'need' to kill her, being seen pushing a woman around a bit does not lead to the gallows. However, slitting her throat immediately after being seen by two witnesses; fleeing without making sure she won't scream out your name with her dying breath; then showing your face in public shouting the odds about shoddy policing, would be another matter entirely. Kidney would need to have hated Stride very much indeed to risk it (fine, I get that domestic murders happen all the time), but in this case he'd have been incredibly lucky to get away with it. Most don't.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

Caz, I wish you would READ what i write.

But you could be quite wrong to imagine that the ripper (or Eddowes's killer, if different) would not have looked for opportunities south of Whitechapel High St, or was only looking that night in the Aldgate area.

Of course I could be wrong!!! I never suggest I am right, because none of us can know. I play with ideas and try them for i fit.

So you seem to be letting your subjective views about the second murder get in the way of a totally objective look at the first - the opposite of what you normally advise people to do - leading you to favour a suspect like Kidney over "Jack", despite the fact that he was clearly looked at closely by the police at the time and could not be connected with Stride's murder.

Since I only consider it a possibility that Stride was not a Ripper victim (though I feel these days it is a STRONG possibility) I believe that disassociating the two murders is useful. I neither ask nor expect others to do it.

Frankly, I don't care what you or others believe the police did (or did not do) in 1888 - we spend plenty of time debating whether the assumptions made by various senior officers were correct or not. There is enough vagueness in many of the details of the Stride murder, including the handling of Packer, to make me question thoroughness. If they were looking for a man who had killed before and twice that night, to the exclusion of all else, the police might well have dismissed Kidney if he had an alibi for Eddowes or other murder nights.

Kidney as killer fits the known events of that night as well as any other and better than most.

If Kidney would need to have hated Stride very much indeed to risk it (fine, I get that domestic murders happen all the time), but in this case he'd have been incredibly lucky to get away with it. Most don't.

Maybe he did hate her very much, or was drunk and in a passionate fury - the French have always accepted that as a reason for murder. Maybe he was lucky - to commit a crime on a night the Ripper struck. I don't know - like the rest of you I can only try to fit facts a to possibilities.

One day Caz, please try to discuss something rather than simply to refute it... it makes dialogue much simpler.

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

But as we are constantly told by those who exclude Stride from the ripper's tally because he apparently had no 'need' to kill her, being seen pushing a woman around a bit does not lead to the gallows. However, slitting her throat immediately after being seen by two witnesses ...

Which clearly wasn't the case, Caz. Stride was roughed up on the street. This must have been so otherwise Schwartz could not have seen what he saw whilst approaching the stableyard gates on the same side of the street. Yet the murder took place some five feet inside the yard. Since the bloodflow from Stride's throat wound confirms that the incision was inflicted where the body was discovered, it could not have been sustained immediately after the street assault.

All of which would appear to indicate that Stride entered the yard consensually with her killer. To repeat a point I made over on the Forum some months ago: ‘Stride was fully aware that a mutilation murderer was stalking the district and presumably had no desire to become a victim herself. One would therefore assume that she would have raised the alarm at the first hint of danger, and yet she emitted no more than a mild protestation whilst under attack.

The only seemingly rational explanation is that she knew her assailant and was confident that he wasn’t Jack the Ripper. Schwartz’s belief that he had witnessed a ‘domestic’ would tend to reinforce this interpretation, as would the apparent reality that Stride entered the yard willingly with this man shortly after he had roughed her up – assuming of course that Broad Shoulders was indeed Stride’s killer. But if he wasn’t, Stride must have been one of the unluckiest murder victims in the annals of crime. At any event, Broad Shoulders’ behaviour was not commensurate with that of Jack the Ripper, and Stride’s behaviour was not in keeping with a woman who believed that she had come face to face with Jack the Ripper.’

[martin wilson]

Perhaps 'three screams not very loud' was a point of clarification in the statement.
The obvious question to me anyway was did anyone else hear it? and did anyone hear it in the club?
So it's 'She screamed three times' 'Did no one hear it in the club?' 'she didn't scream very loudly'.
Maybe.
Stride was making the best of her appearance for some reason, meeting someone or soliciting we will probably never know, it's even possible she was just trying to look her best as a matter of personal pride.
The piece of velvet left with the landlady is interesting though, I read that lodging houses would accept a piece of clothing as a 'deposit' until the lodger paid for their bed, and if that is the case with the piece of velvet,it may mean she intended to come back.
All the Best.

[caz]

Frankly, I don't care what you or others believe the police did (or did not do) in 1888 - we spend plenty of time debating whether the assumptions made by various senior officers were correct or not. There is enough vagueness in many of the details of the Stride murder, including the handling of Packer, to make me question thoroughness. If they were looking for a man who had killed before and twice that night, to the exclusion of all else, the police might well have dismissed Kidney if he had an alibi for Eddowes or other murder nights.

Hi Phil,

I can only respond to what you have written. I know you have an open mind and are not totally wedded to one theory or argument over another, but if you are going to put forward possibilities, arguments and personal observations (if... might well have... etc), you must expect me and others to debate them with you and explain when we don't find them likely for whatever reason. There's no earthly point in me posting "ooh I agree with you there" on all the occasions where I happen to agree with you on something.

Re the above, for instance, I don't believe the police were only looking for men in connection with Stride's murder who had no alibis for all the previous attacks. They concentrated, as they always had, on the victim's associates and a possible motive one may have had for killing her. That doesn't sound to me as though they would automatically have cleared any of them on the basis that they had no motive or opportunity to kill any of the others.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Stride was roughed up on the street. This must have been so otherwise Schwartz could not have seen what he saw whilst approaching the stableyard gates on the same side of the street. Yet the murder took place some five feet inside the yard. Since the bloodflow from Stride's throat wound confirms that the incision was inflicted where the body was discovered, it could not have been sustained immediately after the street assault.

Hi Garry,

How is this relevant to my argument that Kidney would have taken a big risk going on to cut Stride's throat, whether it was immediately or just as the pony and cart arrived at 1am, if he had been seen by Schwartz and Pipeman roughing her up at 12.45, then left the scene without checking that he had silenced his woman for good?

The only seemingly rational explanation is that she knew her assailant and was confident that he wasn’t Jack the Ripper. Schwartz’s belief that he had witnessed a ‘domestic’ would tend to reinforce this interpretation, as would the apparent reality that Stride entered the yard willingly with this man shortly after he had roughed her up – assuming of course that Broad Shoulders was indeed Stride’s killer. But if he wasn’t, Stride must have been one of the unluckiest murder victims in the annals of crime.

How so? She wasn't apparently injured by BS man, so if he didn't kill her it was just par for the course for women alone on the streets late on a Saturday night, or so we are told. She was merely unlucky enough to be on the same street as her killer at the same time, who either saw her being roughed up and took advantage of it or appeared on the scene in the clear interval of time you suggest there was between the roughing up and the murder.

Peter Kurten 'rescued' one woman from another man, although I'm told she managed to escape from his clutches, so luckier than Stride, but it could easily have gone the other way. Sally Anne Bowman was terribly unlucky, having just finished a long argument with her ex outside her house and about to go indoors when serial sex offender Mark Dixie appeared out of nowhere and took advantage of the situation, murdering and violating her.

Love,

Caz
X

[Garry Wroe]

How is this relevant to my argument that Kidney would have taken a big risk going on to cut Stride's throat ...

If it is irrelevant, Caz, why did you introduce it in the first place?

... whether it was immediately ...

It wasn't.

... or just as the pony and cart arrived at 1am ...

It wasn't. Medical opinion was unanimous in that Stride would have died 'relatively slowly'. So unless she was alive when Diemschutz happened on the scene her throat must have been cut several minutes earlier.

... if he had been seen by Schwartz and Pipeman roughing her up at 12.45, then left the scene without checking that he had silenced his woman for good?

How do you know that he didn't check and deemed Stride's injury to have been non-survivable? How do you know that his state of mind was such that he didn't give two hoots whether she lived or died?

And for the record I'm not supporting the notion that Kidney killed Stride. My contention is that Stride's assailant was known to her and she thus harboured no suspicion that she was about to be murdered.

[Phil H]

Am I the only one to question Schwartz's timing?

I feel it is very dangerous to make so much of five minutes. In my view, if Schwartz saw anything, he saw the attack on Stride, but either he did not comprehend what he saw or fled before seeing the culmination.

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

If Schwartz was telling the truth, Phil, he did see an attack - the one that took place in the street. But this wasn't the knife attack. The bloodflow pattern observed by the medical men renders this an absolute certainty.

[Abby Normal]

Which clearly wasn't the case, Caz. Stride was roughed up on the street. This must have been so otherwise Schwartz could not have seen what he saw whilst approaching the stableyard gates on the same side of the street. Yet the murder took place some five feet inside the yard. Since the bloodflow from Stride's throat wound confirms that the incision was inflicted where the body was discovered, it could not have been sustained immediately after the street assault.

All of which would appear to indicate that Stride entered the yard consensually with her killer. To repeat a point I made over on the Forum some months ago: ‘Stride was fully aware that a mutilation murderer was stalking the district and presumably had no desire to become a victim herself. One would therefore assume that she would have raised the alarm at the first hint of danger, and yet she emitted no more than a mild protestation whilst under attack.

The only seemingly rational explanation is that she knew her assailant and was confident that he wasn’t Jack the Ripper. Schwartz’s belief that he had witnessed a ‘domestic’ would tend to reinforce this interpretation, as would the apparent reality that Stride entered the yard willingly with this man shortly after he had roughed her up – assuming of course that Broad Shoulders was indeed Stride’s killer. But if he wasn’t, Stride must have been one of the unluckiest murder victims in the annals of crime. At any event, Broad Shoulders’ behaviour was not commensurate with that of Jack the Ripper, and Stride’s behaviour was not in keeping with a woman who believed that she had come face to face with Jack the Ripper.’

Hi Garry
Where does Schwartz ever say he witnessed a "domestic"? I have seen you say this before.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Phil,

But you could be quite wrong to imagine that the ripper (or Eddowes's killer, if different) would not have looked for opportunities south of Whitechapel High St, or was only looking that night in the Aldgate area. So you seem to be letting your subjective views about the second murder get in the way of a totally objective look at the first - the opposite of what you normally advise people to do - leading you to favour a suspect like Kidney over "Jack", despite the fact that he was clearly looked at closely by the police at the time and could not be connected with Stride's murder.



But as we are constantly told by those who exclude Stride from the ripper's tally because he apparently had no 'need' to kill her, being seen pushing a woman around a bit does not lead to the gallows. However, slitting her throat immediately after being seen by two witnesses; fleeing without making sure she won't scream out your name with her dying breath; then showing your face in public shouting the odds about shoddy policing, would be another matter entirely. Kidney would need to have hated Stride very much indeed to risk it (fine, I get that domestic murders happen all the time), but in this case he'd have been incredibly lucky to get away with it. Most don't.

Love,

Caz
X

Agree. Kidney was cleared by the police as a suspect. And does anyone really believe that a man who killed his lover would show up at a police station and emotionally complain about what a bad job they did? C'mon.
Kidney didn't do it.

[Abby Normal]

If Schwartz was telling the truth, Phil, he did see an attack - the one that took place in the street. But this wasn't the knife attack. The bloodflow pattern observed by the medical men renders this an absolute certainty.

An absolute certainty?
I envision a scenario in which stride was attacked in the street by broad shoulders and Schwartz was accurate, except that broad shoulders did actually cut her throat then but Scwartz simply did not see that much detail. BS man is spooked by IS, and takes off. Strides hand (the one not clutching the caschous) goes to her throat (blood on her hand)as she stumbles into the yard toward the singing and possible help where she shortly expires and is found by Diemshutz. And yes broad shoulders is the ripper, the peaked cap man seen with eddowes.

The blood flow the medical men described could still have taken place as she bleeds out after having collapsed in the yard.

[Garry Wroe]

Where does Schwartz ever say he witnessed a "domestic"? I have seen you say this before.

He assumed that the fracas involving Stride and Broad Shoulders was a marital dispute, the details of which were cited either in The Star or Swanson's report.

[Garry Wroe]

An absolute certainty?

Yes, Abby. An absolute certainty.

The blood flow the medical men described could still have taken place as she bleeds out after having collapsed in the yard.

Stride's body was discovered five or so feet from the spot on which the Broad Shoulders assault occurred. There was an absence of blood outside the gateway, and the bloodflow from the throat wound ran directly to the left and in line with the incision. Since the blood had not tracked towards the chest, the cut must have been inflicted whilst Stride was in the position and posture she maintained when discovered by Diemschutz.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, Abby. An absolute certainty.


Stride's body was discovered five or so feet from the spot on which the Broad Shoulders assault occurred. There was an absence of blood outside the gateway, and the bloodflow from the throat wound ran directly to the left and in line with the incision. Since the blood had not tracked towards the chest, the cut must have been inflicted whilst Stride was in the position and posture she maintained when discovered by Diemschutz.

Which would point to the MO of the ripper then right? The victim is incapacitated first, laid on the ground and then throat cut?