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

[c.d.]

An excellent post, Good Michael.

An interruption is quite plausible. Not only do we see it in other serial killers but in other types of crime as well. And depending on when the interruption (even if it was only his own paranoia) took place there would be no physical evidence of it.

The interruption theory also goes hand in hand with the assumption that given a choice, Jack would have preferred not to be caught and hanged.

The idea that Stride was not desperate for funds has nothing to back it up unless she was planning on dying that day and had no need to consider tomorrow or the next day. No one can say what she would do if offered money by Jack for her services.

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.

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.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

Michael,

But...the idea of an interruption, which is absolutely plausible and even (dare I say) likely, makes many of your comparisons invalid after the fact. As far as Stride being less desperate, what about her begging for alms earlier in the year with the Swedish alms-giver calling her very poor. Lodging at Flower and Dean with so many other desperate women indicates abject poverty. So there's nothing in this argument unless you want there to be. At best, Stride is a toss up and with a dearth of throat-cuttings for women in that specific time period, why not go with JTR? There are no arguments against her that cannot be easily countered with sensible thought. Of course, it's the other way around as well, as you have done some countering yourself.

Cheers,

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

Since there seems to be a regular habit of misrepresentation and occassional slips in haste.., what Ive been saying is that;

-Liz Strides' murder, as seen individually, is unremarkable. There is no requirement that her killer was either skillful or knowledgeable, about knife usage or anatomy. Neither Pollys nor Annies can reasonably be categorized as unremarkable.
-When I said that Liz Stride wasnt "mutilated" by someone who primarily sought to mutilate women, I obviously intended to say "killed".
- If we examine the serial killers goals by the first 2 murders then he doesnt acquire or kill Liz in the same way...(she is off the street on private property at the time she meets him), ...he kills with one slice, perhaps while the victim is falling....(different from ALL other Canonicals), and he shows no interest in mutilating the woman after the throat cut...so, "less than 100 % successful" is hardly an appropriate term for the lacking secondary wounds. A more appropriate phrasing would be that she is killed in a manner inconsistent with the first 2 Canonical murders.
-Liz Stride was not desperate for funds at all, she claimed to have been working regularly for the months leading up to her murder, she worked the afternoon before she left the lodging house, she left the lodging house with intentions of not returning that night,( implied by the leaving of valuables for safety, as she would have no space allotted to her to leave private items safely while away),... and with 6d in her hand,... despite the incredulity at the idea that she may have had other plans and spent the 6d on herself in accoutrements, it is an idea that actually has evidence to support it. Unlike many serial killer comparison posts
-There is no reason to assume that the killer of Liz Stride was less bold than the killer of Polly or Annie.. if you believe they all were killed by the same person, yet there are arguments presented that portray the man that had killed a woman on the street previously as emotional and prone to panic. Neither traits are evident in any evidence in any of those 2 murders, nor in Strides. Liz Stride is only manhandled in Israel Schwartz's story. Her physical state in death and the state of her clothing dispute any attack or struggle.
-To provide an argument that Liz Strides killer is the same as the killer of the first 2 women, some physical evidence is required to corroborate the position.
An interruption, ...pure speculation, or a decision not to mutilate by the killer, are not supported by any physical evidence. What is supported is that her killer chose not to do anything to the body after it was on the ground, unless thats when the throat was cut.
-There is no evidence in the murder of Polly and Annie that indicates that the killer sought their death as the primary goal, there is in the case of Liz Stride

The arguments for the same killer as Polly or Annie are based on premises and assumptions, they seem to rest upon assumptions of interruptions, assumptions that we are dealing with someone who isnt always interested in mutilating his victims...(he was 2 for 2 before Liz, so thats 100% of the time until Stride), a premise that he couldnt manipulate Liz into a better location for the murder mutilations,.. (something not within any physical evidence but merely the mind of the person making the argument),...an assumption that if the Ripper did kill Kate later then her extra injuries were due to his frustration messing up the Stride murder....(there is no indication within the evidence that the same one man killed both or that the additional injuries missing from Stride were actually intended prior to her murder, or that the killer of Polly and Annie would kill again and not leave evidence of his overt desire to mutilate the corpse),... ....and one of the most pervasive and least factually based premises, that because Liz Stride was killed in the middle of some unsolved murders in the Fall of 1888 and on the same night as a woman who is assumed to have been killed by a man who mutilates his victims, just like the first 2 unsolved Canonical unsolved murders,... that her murder is most probably linked with the same killer.

One who it would seem has flexible motives and flexible skill sets.

Best regards,

[curious4]

Sickbag

Good idea.

Sure there would be many occasions these would come in handy.

"Love"
C4

P.S. Just to be clear, I am way past the age of flattering anyone. If a poster makes what I think is a particularly good point, I "like" it.

[caz]

Can we have a "thoroughly dislike" too? Or a "pass me the sick bag"?

Love,

Caz
X

[curious4]

"Like"

As far as prostitution, not wanting to accept that Stride was most probably soliciting is a bit too charitable for my thinking.

And should we not be charitable?

These were once living women, who faced the challenges of life in a world without a welfare state and in which women, if they fell, were treated differently to men.

Is your thinking to treat them as theoretical chess-pieces, categorised by a single word - prostitute? If it is shame on you.

For myself, I don't doubt that all these women had, or were capable of, soliciting to earn a crust and a bed. They had problems of character - drink mainly, and of health (Annie), but as researchers have shown us, they all had real lives, most with a period when the future was full of hope and promise.

So Stride was a liar, probably a swindler and a con artist, but all the indications - for me - are that on the night of her death she was enjoying herself, and that she was with someone she liked, NOT a client. She had put the awful Kidney behind her -but to you she is a just an object to be scorned and dismissed.

Thank you.

Every so often I have noted, we descend to this - the victims are dehumanised and made into cardboard cut-outs that we can play games with. Only the other day I noted, and commented on - another poster referring to the victims as c1, C2 etc. instead of by the names. We know them all, they are not long, they do not take much time or effort to type. In common humanity we should refer to them by their names and regard them charitably (to use your word). Respect is so easy to entertain.

On Dutfields Yard as a ripper location, one has the problem of the attacks Schwartz allegedly saw, which were in the public gaze. I don't see "Jack" as ever taking such a risk of being seen, perhaps someone (or several someones) intervening and him perhaps being questioned by police.

I don't dismiss Stride as a Ripper victim - certainly not after the potential Kosminski connection was made - but as the evidence stands at the moment I tend to a not-his-work verdict.

Phil

Hello Phil,

I would have "Liked" this, had there been a way to do it. As there's not, this is an unofficial "Like"!

Best wishes,
C4

[caz]

The question applies to both parties....if she was soliciting why such a semi public venue, and if the killer was Jack, a man who mutilates women after he kills them, why kill her where his chances of completing any mutilations are at best sketchy. We know people were awake on the property....so did Liz and her killer.

Hi Mike,

Well women tend to solicit in semi public venues because they wouldn't find many customers in empty back yards.

If Stride's killer knew that people were awake on the property, that would have been good enough reason to kill her quickly if she was giving him grief and get the hell away.

And she must have given her killer grief one way or another, whoever he was, if she was there for other reasons and wasn't pleased to see him.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I wonder why, if this scenario includes a actual undocumented interruption that scares off the killer, ..would he risk that happening if an empty yard is a few yards further down the pathway? Why would he attempt to mutilate her at that less than private location when more suitable surroundings are within his reach? Does this guy have no personal charm to lure her further in? He does after all seem to keep getting women to go to dark places with him while the killing spree was on.....or does he attempt to do so, and she rebuffs him....so he kills her anyway...because...hes frustrated?

Hi Mike,

Firstly, nobody did 'attempt to mutilate' Stride anywhere on the club's premises, so I'm not sure why you are asking that question. How would her killer necessarily have known that there was an empty yard further down the pathway, or that it would have remained empty for the duration?

Secondly, your own argument is that Stride was waiting for a date to show up, so yes of course she could have rebuffed her killer, whether he had tried to persuade her further back into the yard or right away from the premises.

And thirdly, why couldn't a serial mutilator with a sharp knife become frustrated enough to use it on a woman who had effectively caused him to start the risky process all over again with another woman in another location?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Who initiated the walk to a place where they could have sex?

There is a more than implicit assumption there that Stride was soliciting/working the streets at the time of her death.

Hi Phil,

Yes, but if Stride's killer presumed that she could be manhandled and 'persuaded' to go off with him somewhere, apparently for sex but actually for murder and mutilation, she was evidently NOT soliciting, or was at least refusing to budge from the club to go off anywhere else with this man. That may well have been what sealed her fate but left her unmutilated. "Lucky Liz" indeed.

The location of the Stride killing also IS crucial.

Unlike any of the other crime scenes it was practically in public view, on a fairly busy street, near a Club full of people who were very much awake.

But there would have been similar problems with any of Jack's points of encounter, assuming he approached, or was approached by women who appeared to be looking for paying customers. He may never have intended to mutilate Stride in such a location, any more than he would have tried mutilating Nichols along the Whitechapel Rd, Eddowes along Houndsditch or by St. Botolph's, or Kelly along Commercial St. Those victims presumably went willingly with their killer to the place where he was able to mutilate them immediately after killing them. Stride would have been killed at or very close to the point of encounter, which makes sense if she put up enough resistance and seriously pissed off the nasty man with the knife.

We know Nichols was looking for money, probably Chapman, and Kelly (if a victim of "Jack"). But i would question whether Stride was soliciting at the time of her death, and eddowes may not have been.

True enough, but did Stride or Eddowes have a farthing between them when they were found dead? It seems not, and Eddowes had claimed she would be in for a damn fine hiding when she got home (presumably for getting drunk and coming back penniless). So unless you buy into the notion that Stride treated herself to the flower and cachous and didn't need any more money because she had a bed lined up, followed no doubt by a champagne breakfast with quails' eggs, courtesy of her new beau, both women were desperate for funds when they died, or their killer took what little they had on them.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think the premise is fine as well Caz, the only codicil I have is that the man who misread her availability does not have to be categorized as a Ripper at all. This is the crux of the matter with our disagreements, I believe that there is no way in hell that the very next murder committed by the same man that killed Mary Ann and Polly would not have mutilations or early or attempted ones.

Hi Mike,

But we don't even know that the man referred to as Jack the Ripper would have categorised himself as a 'ripper', so why do you? Peter Sutcliffe certainly wouldn't have done. If he hadn't been identified would you now be tossing out all his victims who lived to tell the tale or the murdered ones whose injuries don't fit the definition of a ripping?

If Jack's aim went beyond mutilation to taking away body parts, would he still have hung around for a quick slash or two regardless of how risky the circumstances may have become for him? He may have thought a location like Dutfield's Yard safe enough to begin with, reached the point of no return with Stride then realised he'd never have sufficient time and privacy to do a repeat Hanbury St job.

Liz was killed just like many people were killed during that period, knife, club......whathave you....a mundane, everyday type of murder.

Yeah, well until you can produce a single case of another woman killed the same way during the same period, 'club......whathaveyou', I suggest you forget about her murder being of a 'mundane, everyday type'. It simply wasn't. If a Stride/Eddowes double event happened today, the murders would be linked for sure, without being sandwiched between a Nichols, Chapman and Kelly.

The hard evidence is clear...Liz Stride was absolutely NOT mutilated by someone who primarily sought to mutilate women he kills.

You are right there, Mike. Stride was NOT mutilated at all. But I don't think you meant to write that.

Take it back a step and imagine that your 'someone' had approached Stride, found her hostile and refusing to go off with him, and simply walked away, content to look elsewhere. That man would still have been Jack; would still have selected Stride as his next prospective victim; and would still have left her unmutilated, the only difference being that he would have let her escape with her life, despite her having thwarted his plans and, for all he knew, alerting the cops about his attempt to lure her away.

Take it back another step and imagine your 'someone' in Buck's Row or Hanbury, had Lechmere approached a little earlier before he could mutilate the dead body of Nichols, or had Cadoche peered over the fence before he could start gutting Chapman's corpse. You'd have the same killer, but without the 'ripper' trade name you are so fixated on. His first chance need not have come along until November with the indoor murder of Kelly, and you'd have no clue that her killer had been seeking chances to mutilate since the summer.

Liz dies without the turbulence and weirdness of the first 2 Canonicals...but she seems to be forever doomed to travel in that killers circle anyway.

As I have suggested, it was pure happenstance that allowed the killer of Nichols and Chapman to achieve what he did at each crime scene. Why would anyone expect a 100% success rate in such locations?

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Did 'Jack' have any control over where he killed the women, though, other than a no/no-go decision? Most models of the killer posit that the victims picked their own death site - after all they are the ones who avoid police detection for a living. Jack merely avoids it for a hobby.

If thats your opinion Damaso, fine...then explain why a prostitute would bring someone within feet of the street, with lights on in the cottages to the left and a kitchen door ajar a little further down the right hand wall...to perform sexual acts?

A working prostitute and Jack the Ripper have one goal in common...finding a dark, private place to do business. There was a place like that in Dutfields Yard, where the passageway that she dies in leads.

The question applies to both parties....if she was soliciting why such a semi public venue, and if the killer was Jack, a man who mutilates women after he kills them, why kill her where his chances of completing any mutilations are at best sketchy. We know people were awake on the property....so did Liz and her killer.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

haha! You really don't believe this do you? The others were thrown down like sacks of rubbish? You know this? You make so much up. It's hard to argue against.

Mike

Hi Mike,

If had said they were thrown down like sacks of rubbish Id agree with your opinion...but I didnt. There is a very obvious difference in the death pose of Liz Stride when compared with any other Canonical. Is that clearer? Had she been flipped onto her back and her legs splayed...even without any additional cuts to the single throat cut...an argument could be made regarding interruption, this killers intentions and whether or not we have the same guy as the one that killed Polly and Annie.

Since we do not have any of those markers I dont see why people would assume the killer is the same person anyway.

But thats based on my interpretation of logic...it may differ from some others.

Cheers Mike

[Damaso Marte]

Precisely so, though I do not recall anyone raising this point.
Deeper into Dutfields Yard would have been on parallel with the backyard of Hanbury st., and also with the darkest corner of Mitre Sq.
Did he learn nothing from Bucks Row?

It could be posed that, whoever killed Liz did not share the same concerns for solitude as 'Jack'.

Did 'Jack' have any control over where he killed the women, though, other than a no/no-go decision? Most models of the killer posit that the victims picked their own death site - after all they are the ones who avoid police detection for a living. Jack merely avoids it for a hobby.

[The Good Michael]

Liz Stride appeared as if "lain gently down". Curled up, knees toward her chin, on her side. Then look, or read about, the last body position of the other Canonicals...anyone appear gently lain down? Or on their side?

haha! You really don't believe this do you? The others were thrown down like sacks of rubbish? You know this? You make so much up. It's hard to argue against.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

These were once living women, who faced the challenges of life in a world without a welfare state and in which women, if they fell, were treated differently to men.

Is your thinking to treat them as theoretical chess-pieces, categorised by a single word - prostitute? If it is shame on you.

For myself, I don't doubt that all these women had, or were capable of, soliciting to earn a crust and a bed. They had problems of character - drink mainly, and of health (Annie), but as researchers have shown us, they all had real lives, most with a period when the future was full of hope and promise.

So Stride was a liar, probably a swindler and a con artist, but all the indications - for me - are that on the night of her death she was enjoying herself, and that she was with someone she liked, NOT a client. She had put the awful Kidney behind her -but to you she is a just an object to be scorned and dismissed.

Thank you.

Every so often I have noted, we descend to this - the victims are dehumanised and made into cardboard cut-outs that we can play games with. Only the other day I noted, and commented on - another poster referring to the victims as c1, C2 etc. instead of by the names. We know them all, they are not long, they do not take much time or effort to type. In common humanity we should refer to them by their names and regard them charitably (to use your word). Respect is so easy to entertain.

l

Phil,

There seems to be something in the way you write that is typically uncharitable to others. I think it's wonderful that you can have utter respect, love and pity for people that are long gone and you know absolutely nothing about, but you are the opposite for people on the boards. Try not to be so thick if possible. It will be better for you.

Cheers,

Mike