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

[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]

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

[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]

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

Love,

Caz
X

[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.

[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,

[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

[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.

[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.

.

[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]

...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...

[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.

[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.

[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

[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