6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[DRoy]

c.d.

Surge of paranoia? Why put himself in that position in the first place? Why not just kill a sure thing with less people around in a safer location? Not that he did in any of the other murders before or after. I guess this particular night just wasn't his night...oh wait, it was only a short time later!

I'm not saying he had to be wreckless or daring but he did put himself in situations that wouldn't have been easy to get out of if caught. That's at least confidence. The locations weren't off the tracks in the middle of a field...they were in busy places where others were sure to pass.

Unless he blind-folded himself for a challenge and had his earphones pumping hop-hop, I don't know how he couldn't see or hear someone until they were right on him and enough to spook him.

It's not that I don't think Stride is a Ripper victim but as you can see, I have a hard time believing the interruption theory and a few of the others.

Cheers
DRoy

[c.d.]

I was under the impression that some board members recently made the trip to Mitre Square and that the alloted time was easily done.

c.d.

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Lynn,

Nor can I, but I also cannot understand why a different knife indicates a different killer.

In general, it wouldn't, but are we talking Stride vs. Eddowes? I suppose it's possible he carried more than one large knife with him, but since he didn't seem to have a bag to put the apron in, he probably was carrying the knife in a pocket, or a holster, so that really limits how many he can carry. Considering how fast he would have had to get to Mitre Square, which alone makes me question Stride as a victim, I doubt he went home for a different knife.

[c.d.]

Hello DRoy,

It wouldn't necessarily have to be an actual physical interruption just a surge of paranoia. If that were the case, I can see Jack simply stepping back into the shadows until he feels more confident. If that confidence never returned, it would make sense to get out of there ASAP and seek greener pastures.

So again, and this bears repeating, it is entirely possible that an interruption occurred and for which there would be NO EVIDENCE.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Regarding the interruption theory, we always need to keep in mind that Liz was not the only woman in Whitechapel and if Jack were caught he would be hanged as opposed to a stern lecture and a couple of weeks of community service.

In other words, get while the gettin' was good and find another victim as soon as possible which I believe was exactly what he did.

c.d.

[Bridewell]

Hello Colin. I can understand how an interruption can lead to not mutilating. But I cannot understand how an "interruption" accounts for a less deep wound?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Nor can I, but I also cannot understand why a different knife indicates a different killer.

[lynn cates]

interruption

Hello Colin. I can understand how an interruption can lead to not mutilating. But I cannot understand how an "interruption" accounts for a less deep wound?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

There is no evidence any interruption occurred,

What would constitute evidence, Michael? There was only one cut to the throat and the left carotid artery was only partially severed. That can be (and is) advanced as a different MO, but could it not also be the same MO - but interrupted? For me Stride could be a non-Ripper murder or an incomplete one. I'm completely undecided.

[DRoy]

What sort of interruption would there need to be in order for the killer to be Jack?

As per Mrs Mortimer, she heard Diemschutz go by with his pony and cart so surely Jack would have as well and most likely while it was still further away. So he couldn't be the interruption unless Jack wasn't planning on Diemschutz going into the yard he happened to be killing Stride. Mortimer also commented on hearing a policeman pass so she either had great hearing or her walls were quite thin. Regardless, Jack should have heard those same sounds.

Could the interruption have been Schwartz? Doesn't seem likely. It doesn't make sense why would he still kill her after being witnessed throwing her down when all he had to do was walk away. At that time it didn't appear that Stride was concerned for her life so Jack obviously didn't threaten her too bad. If this was Jack, what would the motive of killing her be at this point?

I agree with Michael that if Stride's killer was Jack, you'd expect there to be mutilations. Even interrupted the killer still could have acted out a portion of the ritual by at least plunging a knife in her mid-section. That would take .25 seconds and an additional one second to do a quick rip. He should have had that time if his interruption came in the form of a horse and buggy which he could probably hear a fair distance away.

What other interruptions could there be that Jack would wait until such time that he couldn't mutilate?

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

To deal with your last post Jon, Wess also said that he couldnt be sure if a dead woman was lying in the passageway when he left...just like Eagle said was the case when he arrived.

PC Smith is a reliable witness, trained in observation and detail, and Wess is one of the people on the property most responsible for the goings on there and one of the men the police referred to as an "anarchist". Wess, Eagle, and Diemshutz have the most to say about what and when, thats true, they also have the most to lose if the club is seen as housing the killer. And Eagle and Diemshutz in particular are contradicted by other members remarks within 1 hour of the murder.

The idea of an interruption is all well and good...if it helps you explain away some of the inconsistencies that nag at Jack the Ripper believers, but my point remains as valid as when it was orginally made. There is no evidence any interruption occurred, and substantial evidence that the woman was murdered and then left alone..as she fell. Which means, if you personally believe in JtR, then you have to surmise he will just kill someone without seeking any further private fun with the body...and based on the first 2 murders that are alike...Polly and Annie, thats a leap of faith rather than just an "idea".

Imagining he was scared off and decided to kill the woman anyway doesnt seem to me very much like someone who chose to mutilate his first victim on the street, and I dont see how killing the woman, unless he had told her first that he was this Jack everyone was talking about, serves any purpose for him. He could have even had her alone with a knife out...just like a bunch of similar incidents that same Fall, and just left her unharmed,... without risking a kill that doesnt have any subsequent gratification possible.

So...why kill her at all, if he is Jack, and why only kill her, if hes Jack? And as for interruptions, unless someone has some unknown proof there is reason to suspect one, lets just delegate that to the realm of "theories",.. the same category often cited by Pro-JtR folks to disparage other perspectives.

Best regards

[RivkahChaya]

I have been looking at some of the posts on this thread and thought I would address a couple of the arguments that seem to be made over and over.

Was Liz soliciting at the time of her murder? -- This is a moot point. No matter how much evidence is presented regarding her appearance, conversation before going out, flower, use of a lint brush etc., it would all be lost on Jack.

I think you are right, but there are a couple of camps that think this is a matter in need of settling. One is the "Defending Liz's Honor" group, who have taken the matter very personally, for some reason. The other is a group of people who have various theories that in one way or another depend on JTR singling out prostitutes. For some, it's a matter of proving that Stride was, in fact, a Ripper victim. If JTR targeted prostitutes, and Stride was, in fact, soliciting, then it follows that she was a Ripper victim. Yes, I realize that it does not follow at all, but you see the problem if Stride was not soliciting-- in that case she absolutely cannot be a Ripper victim. For others, it's a matter is proving a psycho-sexual motive for JTR-- prostitutes triggered something in him. I realize that for that argument to work, it does not actually matter whether Stride was soliciting, it only matter that the killer thought she was, but I suppose when you go all Freudian, men are very passive, and women have to act to trigger things like sexual homicide, so the assumption is that the women approached JTR.

I am not endorsing any of that last bit, and I'm not sure a lot of people realize they are making that leap, but the Freudian "psycho" does require the woman to initiate contact, even if it's innocent, like asking for the time, or if this bus stops on Sundays. We're so used to seeing that Freudian "psycho" in the media, that we automatically incorporate it into theories of real crimes without realizing it.

I think the important thing was that Stride was alone, and I think that was important whether she was killed by the Ripper, by a copycat, a mugger, or by Michael Kidney. I think that's what made Eddowes vulnerable as well, whether she was open to the idea of making money through prostitution or not. It does not matter whether Stride was alone because she was early for her date, he was late, or she was stood up-- or she, was, in fact, soliciting, and maybe going for a better class than usual that night; the point is that she was alone, and women in 1888 did not habitually go out in the evening alone. Even for several decades, it still wasn't quite acceptable for women to go out alone, and you see movies made in the 1930s where women talk about being "stuck" at home because no one has asked them out that evening. I remember having to explain a point of the movie Gaslight to someone, where Ingrid Bergman wants to go to a party, but can't unless her husband is willing to take her. Eddowes, we know, was alone because she'd just been released from jail. Nichols we know was soliciting. Chapman we have good reason to think was, and in any event, she had no where to go.

That's really all that matters. They were women, alone, after dark. Probably frail; all except Kelly were short, middle-aged, and either not in great health, or else very petite, and a couple were drunk, or appeared so.

[c.d.]

Hello All,

I have been looking at some of the posts on this thread and thought I would address a couple of the arguments that seem to be made over and over.

Was Liz soliciting at the time of her murder? -- This is a moot point. No matter how much evidence is presented regarding her appearance, conversation before going out, flower, use of a lint brush etc., it would all be lost on Jack. In order for this argument to be valid, we have to assume that Jack saw Liz late at night standing by herself and was in the process of approaching her when he noticed the flower and the fact that her clothes were remarkably free of lint. He concludes she is on a date and decides to look for greener pastures. Alternatively, he decided that Liz is the one he wants to kill and approaches her to see how that can be accomplished.

No evidence of interruption -- This argument is valid if it is known when the interruption actually takes place which we do not know. Jack could have started to doubt the wisdom of killing Liz as they were talking given the proximity to the club. Perhaps something she said threw him into a rage or provoked the overwhelming desire to kill her, the club and its members be damned. Perhaps Liz screamed as he was attempting to kill her. In his mind, this was so loud that surely someone heard it. He waits for a few minutes in the shadows to see if anyone is coming out of the club to investigate. He may or may not have heard the approaching pony cart but simply decides that he made a mistake and it is better to flee and find another victim. Seems simple enough but some want to see evidence for this possibility as though Jack would write a note saying that he intended to mutilate Liz but was scared off and then signed it, Jack the Ripper. Bottom line is that an interruption could have taken place and there would be no evidence for that at all.

My two cents.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

...the fact that she is seen in the company of who was very likely William Wess with editions of the fresh off the press Arbeter Fraint under his arm by PC Smith,....

When I first replied to this suggestion I couldn't find the clip I was looking for, I guess I didn't look very hard

This is what I wanted to counter with..

From William Wess at the Inquest (Echo, 1 Oct. 1888).
At 12.10 I went from the Club into the printing office to put some literature away. Upon returning, I went into the yard, and noticed that the gates were opened....

When I re-entered the Club-house yard I called to my brother, and with him and a friend I went home. We went out through the front door. I do not recollect seeing anyone in Berner-street....

I left the place at about 12.20. I can fix the time, because when I got home, at 2, William-street, where I sleep, it was 12.30....

All I have changed is to put the comments in chronological order.

PC Smith said:
I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock,...

Wess/West was not even in Berner St. at 12:30 - 12.35 am, and he was with his brother on leaving the club, and not with a woman, or delivering flyers as has been suggested by others.

Regards...

[The Good Michael]

I'm not too proud to admit I have shifted from the 'not' side of the argument to being unconvinced either way.
There are good arguments both for and against and I don't see the pendulum ever coming to rest on this issue.

.

yeah Wick, but what happens and what I hate, is that people drop her as a victim for the sole purpose of bolstering a suspect. Then everything about her murder becomes so completely different from the others when there is really nothing in it. So yeah, 50/50 sounds good to me.

Mike

[Wickerman]

You are right Good Michael that Stride is a toss up and I completely agree that neither the for or against camp has ever presented any argument that can not easily be countered with sensible thought unless of course one is absolutely wedded to one particular point of view.

Thats pretty much where it will stay, Stride is a maybe/maybe not, victim of JtR.

And as you say, why not go with JTR especially since we have no other real suspects (excluding Kidney) nor any supportable motive for her killing.

Now lets not backpeddle

I'm not too proud to admit I have shifted from the 'not' side of the argument to being unconvinced either way.
There are good arguments both for and against and I don't see the pendulum ever coming to rest on this issue.

.