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

[DRoy]

Jon,

True enough however there was much discussion about the knife that was used due to the knife that was found. They couldn't say what type of knife used since the wounds were not like the others where they could say with more certainty. It is speculation on my part and on others that since the wound itself is different (sliced with a sharp knife) that it most likely meant a different knife was used. Perhaps Jack had more than one knife and chose to slice this time instead of rip. Perhaps.

Cheers
DRoy

[caz]

There is more evidence for Stride's killer being interrupted than there is for a different knife being used in her case. At least we can say that if he had hung around to check she was dead, then mutilated her on that spot and removed organs to take away with him, a certain jewellery salesman arriving back with his pony and cart around 1am might well have come upon him still there. Had Diemschutz not stopped at the Grove Tavern for a pint on his return journey, Stride's killer might not even have got as far as inflicting the fatal wound.

This is pretty much the same situation as in Buck's Row. No actual evidence of an interruption, but we can say that if the killer wanted to remove organs, something or someone made him leave the scene before he could do so. In this case, Lechmere might well have caught him at the scene if he had stayed there any longer. And had Lechmere left home just a minute or two sooner, we might have seen Nichols with just a cut throat.

Both these outdoor murders were discovered too quickly after the event to conclude that the killer was not interrupted and only left the scene when he had done all he wanted to do there. Moreover, in Stride's case, an inexperienced cut-throat who knew her personally would have been crazy to leave immediately after the single slice, while she was still alive, not knowing if it would prove fatal. Why would he have done that unless he couldn't risk staying another second just to make sure?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

-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.

Some would vehemently disagree with this, Mike.

The actual murder seems to have been carried out swiftly, silently and with the utmost efficiency, leaving Stride dying with a single wound to her throat, and her killer able to escape into the night, free as a bird. If you see an inexperienced hand at work here, I'd like to know what evidence you have for it.

- 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.

But there is not the slightest reason to think that Stride's killer would have had the time or the privacy needed to mutilate her (and remove an organ, since you have argued that this was the goal, and everything else only the means to this end). So it's hardly surprising that 'he shows no interest' in doing so in the circumstances. It doesn't follow that this was not the same man who showed a very great deal of interest when there was enough time and privacy (eg Hanbury, Mitre and Miller's).

-Liz Stride was not desperate for funds at all...

That's simply not true. She had only sixpence in cash to her name that evening and nothing at all by the time her body was found. It's only your speculation that she fondly imagined her immediate needs would soon be taken care of by some man who never turned up at the club for her, and never came forward to express his regrets that she died waiting. When she exploited the terrible Princess Alice tragedy a decade previously, by lying to get her hands on some compensation, was she completely out of funds at the time and desperate, or was she someone who simply saw money-making opportunities and took them?

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.

But that would merely suggest that any manhandling that could have been witnessed was very mild. And no physical signs of 'any attack or struggle' are meant to make her less like other victims?

-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.

And that's exactly what we would expect from an experienced killer who knew he had inflicted a fatal wound and therefore had no need to inflict a second or make sure she was dead before leaving the scene; and one who had little chance of removing an organ before he would have been interrupted. We might have expected that an inexperienced killer, on the other hand, would have chosen to check he had actually killed her instead of leaving it to chance - unless of course he was interrupted.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi c.d.,

That's pretty much what Mark Dixie does immediately after brutally murdering Sally Anne Bowman in South Croydon. There is no reason to suppose in this case that she is given the chance to scream, but someone in the nearby houses could have looked out of a window and seen something. So Dixie moves away from the body and waits for a few minutes in the shadows to see if anyone is coming out to investigate. When nothing untoward happens, he returns to violate his victim and take trophies.

There is no reason why something similar could not have happened in Dutfield's Yard, except that Stride's killer may have been unable to go back to her body or chose not to risk it. He did have the whole night ahead of him to go hunting elsewhere. Dixie had already been interrupted during an earlier attack when a taxi passed by, so Bowman was his second victim that night, a genuine double event. Yet he was patient enough to make sure of no interruptions this time before getting stuck in.

Bottom line is that an interruption could have taken place and there would be no evidence for that at all.

The strange thing is, there is no evidence for an interruption in Buck's Row either, yet people accept this as a very real possibility almost without thinking, because Nichols was mutilated but had no organs removed or taken from the scene, unlike Chapman the following weekend.

Had the killer heard approaching footsteps between cutting Nichols's throat and preparing her for mutilation, he'd have legged it without slashing her abdomen. I don't get the argument that the ripper (who was given his trade name in late September by the author of Dear Boss) would have felt compelled to give a little rip here or a little rip there before leaving, even if he couldn't have gone to town on a victim without risking interruption.

Love,

Caz
X

[DRoy]

Caz,

There is more evidence for Stride's killer being interrupted than there is for a different knife being used in her case. At least we can say that if he had hung around to check she was dead, then mutilated her on that spot and removed organs to take away with him, a certain jewellery salesman arriving back with his pony and cart around 1am might well have come upon him still there. Had Diemschutz not stopped at the Grove Tavern for a pint on his return journey, Stride's killer might not even have got as far as inflicting the fatal wound.

This is pretty much the same situation as in Buck's Row. No actual evidence of an interruption, but we can say that if the killer wanted to remove organs, something or someone made him leave the scene before he could do so. In this case, Lechmere might well have caught him at the scene if he had stayed there any longer. And had Lechmere left home just a minute or two sooner, we might have seen Nichols with just a cut throat.

Both these outdoor murders were discovered too quickly after the event to conclude that the killer was not interrupted and only left the scene when he had done all he wanted to do there. Moreover, in Stride's case, an inexperienced cut-throat who knew her personally would have been crazy to leave immediately after the single slice, while she was still alive, not knowing if it would prove fatal. Why would he have done that unless he couldn't risk staying another second just to make sure?

More evidence? Please share!

How would he be interrupted? A horse and cart's sound would be heard from blocks away. So either he hears the horse and cart approaching and he decides to slit Stride's throat anyway and then wait to see where the horse and cart are going, or he doesn't hear the horse and cart at all and it somehow creeps up on him. In the alternative he was interrupted in another way...who a/o what could that be? There is no evidence of interruption Caz, only suggestion.

In regards to the "single slice", that's all it was. It wasn't cut to the neck bones leaving marks. No, in Stride's case it was a clean slice only and even tapered off leaving a superficial cut. Does that sound like The Ripper?

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

There is more evidence for Stride's killer being interrupted than there is for a different knife being used in her case.

Im not going to re-dress the comments you made regarding my last post Caz, (your ability to tip toe around the obvious answers in favor of the unprovable ones is seemingly a quality forged in granite)....but the above is simply incorrect. There is NO evidence that an interruption occurred, NONE.......assuming Diemshutz interrupted him is not evidence, its someones guess,......and assuming that someone else interrupted him...(and in both of these cases this is being done to try and explain away the major differences in Liz's murder to the previous 2 Canonicals, and also Kates additional "rage" wounds)....is all well and good if there is evidence to warrant it....which there ISNT.

I can see now why you would disagree with many of the posted points regarding Stride......you are using an erroneous premise in yours Caz. One that makes an interruption out of thin air more probable than the opinion of the medical experts, who described a "different" knife than the one that killed Polly and Annie.

Best regards

[DRoy]

Michael,

It doesn't happen often but I agree with you this time! Well said.

DRoy

[c.d.]

Let's try a hypothetical here -- Jack cuts Liz's throat and lays her on the ground with the intention of mutilating her. Suddenly six or seven able bodied club members come rushing out the door and see Jack bending over the body. Do you think Jack would attempt to run or would he say "excuse me gentlemen, you are blocking my light. Could you stand back for a few minutes?" Is the latter a bit preposterous? Not if Jack the Ripper ALWAYS mutilates his victim because absolutely nothing will stop him from doing so.

Now if you picked the former option and think that Jack would run then ask yourself if it is because he would be afraid he would be caught and hanged. Now with the whole idea of hanging firmly entrenched in your mind, ask yourself if there is really a huge difference between actually seeing the men rush out of the club and thinking that they might do so at any moment.

DRoy - Just because there is no evidence for an interruption does not mean that it couldn't happen. And we know for a fact that it happened multiple times to the Yorkshire Ripper. On some occasions there was actually NO interruption at all, just his own mind generated paranoia.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I think we have lost track of the basic argument here. There is no way that we can prove that an interruption took place. The basic question is, and always has been, if Jack was her killer, is an interruption a possible reason that he did not mutilate her body? If you say no that is the end of the argument. But if you say yes, then a series of questions follow: what might have caused the interruption, would there be evidence for it or could it have happened without leaving evidence behind, are there any examples of criminals being interrupted, are there any examples of serial killers being interrupted, does the fact that her killer (if it was Jack) would most likely be hanged if caught carry any weight and so on. It seems to me that the best way to approach the case is to look at the interruption theory and ask questions about its plausibility rather than simply dismiss it out of hand.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

..... who described a "different" knife than the one that killed Polly and Annie.

I don't recall any medical opinion which suggested the knife 'was' different.
One slicing wound is much the same as any other regardless of the length or width of the blade.

.

[caz]

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.

A very good post, Rivkah.

Actually, it took all my courage as late as 1978 to go to a movie on my own, and I only ever did it the once, so you make a good point about women out on their own. I believe the Yorkshire Ripper tried to justify his later attacks on non-prostitutes that way, by saying the women were asking for trouble if they went out alone, wore short skirts, and so on.

A killer who was determined to judge women in this way would have seen Stride as "no better" than a Nichols or a Chapman, regardless of any differences we might perceive today.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The reason I said there was more evidence for Stride's killer being interrupted than there was for a different knife being used was that there is no evidence at all in the latter case. I was being flippant because we see this canard trotted out time after time to argue for a different killer.

I'm not wedded to the interruption theory, as reading my numerous posts on Stride would show; it's just one of the many plausible options before we start introducing a second cut-throat with some unknown motive for wanting the poor woman dead. Isn't the one nasty piece of work enough to be going on with, unless some evidence turns up to eliminate him from the Berner St enquiry or put someone else in the frame?

When, as c.d. has explained, there can be no physical evidence of something, eg a sight or sound that would have sent a criminal running rather than be caught at the scene, we can only look at the time constraints we do know about, the limitations of the location, and the narrow window of opportunity that the killer would have had to do much more than cut and run.

It doesn't really matter whether Stride's killer was the ripper or not; we know he did nothing to her after the single slice which left her dying but not instantly dead. That suggests he could not risk staying with the body a second longer to make sure he had done the job. In either case that warrants an explanation, and there has to be one. Furthermore, if as some people have strenuously argued, Stride was on a hot date and was waiting for her new beau to turn up any second (or at least gave the impression that she was expecting company), that would have been a pretty good reason for her killer not to hang around to find out if he was a seven stone weakling or built like a brick shi* house. Maybe she told her killer to get lost because he was queering her pitch.

I think the term 'superficial' is overused too, in an attempt to play down the severity (and therefore any similarity with other victims) when describing what was after all a fatal cut to the throat. (It's like someone dies and their family is asked "was it serious?" ) The surgical term 'superficial' is from the Latin, as we might expect, and refers to a cut on or across the surface of the skin. No matter how shallow we might like to think such a cut was, if it proved fatal it would suggest a killer who knew what he was doing and had cut throats before, rather than one who was killing for the first time, knew his victim and therefore needed her stone dead so she couldn't identify him, but then just left her there, presuming that his single slash would finish her off. Only the ripper, or a total stranger, could have been confident about doing that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I dont think Stride was on a date (or waiting for her date) nor do I think she was prostituting herself that night. i take the middle ground-i think she was out looking for a new boyfriend. I think she found one, but unfortunately for her it was the ripper. And since she was not prostituting herself is why she ended up with only a cut throat and not mutilated.

i beleive she may have spent her 6d on some cachous and a flower to make herself attractive to a new potential mate.

[lynn cates]

anticipated interruption?

Hello CD.

"Now if you picked the former option and think that Jack would run then ask yourself if it is because he would be afraid he would be caught and hanged. Now with the whole idea of hanging firmly entrenched in your mind, ask yourself if there is really a huge difference between actually seeing the men rush out of the club and thinking that they might do so at any moment."

So then, he did not wish to be hanged so he skipped strangulation and a cut like Polly and Annie? Just one relatively shallow cut--as an appetiser?

OK.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

Well for being a "relatively shallow cut" it sure accomplished a lot did it not?

c.d.