Was Stride Really a JtR Victim?

[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.

[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.’

[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

[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

[The Good Michael]

But DRoy, the screams were loud, according to our only willing witness, just not very loud,

Schwartz may have meant that he heard her scream, but the sounds from the club and/or the street drowned the screams out a bit.

Mike

[caz]

Caz,

The problem with saying that it was at least a little loud is that nobody claims to have heard it. Yes there was music from the club but did it drown out the three screams?

In my opinion it's one more piece of Schwartz that nobody can verify and doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe the screams weren't loud because there was no three screams.

Cheers
DRoy

But DRoy, the screams were loud, according to our only willing witness, just not very loud, which could indeed suggest not loud enough to be heard within the walls of the club. We already know that nobody was around to see Schwartz, BS man, Pipeman or Stride, so who would have been around to hear three not very loud screams?

Love,

Caz
X

[DRoy]

Digital,

They didn't catch her killer whether it was Kidney, BSM, Pipeman, 'Jack', or anyone else. That's just this murder. They tried. They interviewed everyone they could think of yet still didn't catch him/them. No I don't think they were stupid, perhaps their killer(s) were that sneaky or lucky.

Cheers
DRoy

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

And Phil

It is not my intent to be disrespectful towards you. I have a great deal of respect for you and your take on things. So if I seem extra hard on you that's why.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

What facts are there to substantiate "Liz's situation"? I accept and respect the position you are coming from as a very likely possibility, but there is insufficient verifiable data to make it likely probable. And Schwartz, hey Israel, is this thd man you saw attacking the woman? Also, Kidney having an alibi maybe. It would be the worst police work never done.

[Phil H]

And I try to keep an open mind, Digalittledeeperwatson.

In my view, Kidney is more likely to have killed her than "Jack".

His actions after the murder seem unusual to me. The murder, for me, lacks many of the features of a JtR killing - the location seems wrong, and there is no mutilation - of course, I accept that there could be other reasons for that.

"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.

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.

End of my explanation. Please don't interpret it as a "theory" or my only thought on the subject, but it is the interpretation I favour most at the moment.

Whether you accept it is of no concern to me.

Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

I'm not saying Stride is a "JTR" victim. I'm just not willing to exclude the possibility of it because of convenience.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Kidney's guilt

Based upon what? That he was abusive towards her? This comes from Liz. Who is apparently known to be a liar and an alcoholic. I know these women were murdered horribly but that doesn't make them good honest people. Kidney gets thrown under the horse and cart if you will based on what amounts to basically diddley-squat.

[DRoy]

Welcome CTS,

Just a heads up since you're new to the boards...

It is a good idea to follow up with an explanation of evidence when providing an absolute and direct answer like the one you gave. The how, who, when, what, where questions are a good place to start.

I look forward to your response.

Cheers
DRoy

[Phil H]

Me thinks someone would enjoy counting your money.

Oh, I think it's safe, Digalittledeeperwatson.

I think time will reveal that Stride was not a JtR victim. Whether her killer was Kidney is another thing - but it's a reasonable bet, IMHO.

Since I know nothing of what the poster suggesting a "gang" has in mind, I'll reserve judgement until I hear his/her reasoning.

Phil

[lynn cates]

rep

Hello CTS. Welcome to the boards.

Do you think BSM was a representative of the gang?

Cheers.
LC