Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

[Wickerman]

... A semen trace or a successful hit and loose change would suffice.

Hi Lynn.

Have you made enquiries if semen is still traceable internally 38 hrs later?

On the other hand, if she was with the same man all night, then therein lies your answer - her plans were interrupted.


P.S. - Dusty. Alcohol absorbs through the stomach lining, 38 hrs later it is all gone.

[drstrange169]

Hello Hunter,

"... They determined that she was a prostitute likely applying her trade on the night she was killed. There is no evidence to suggest that they were wrong in that assement... None."

The problem lies not with evidence, but lack of it. No alcohol no money and no semen.

[drstrange169]

Hello Jon,

"... Swanson`s report states that Stride was standing in the gateway...."

That's right, standing in the gateway near enough to number 42 to be turned around and thrown on the footway.

[drstrange169]

"... Seriously, many a duck is led to slaughter following . . . a decoy .."

If there was a quack it must have been Tumblety.

[lynn cates]

decoy

Hello CD.

""if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a . . ."

WITCH!! Burn her!

Seriously, many a duck is led to slaughter following . . . a decoy.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

The police were interested in the actions of the victim leading up to her demise in order to determine a possible motive - and hopefully a suspect - in her murder. They would have done this even if no other women of the same class had been previously killed. It was standard procedure. They determined that she was a prostitute likely applying her trade on the night she was killed. There is no evidence to suggest that they were wrong in that assement... None.

Who killed her and why has never been determined.

And never will be.

[lynn cates]

no Ripper killing

Hello Cris. Actually, I've heard that one before. The idea was, "The Ripper killed her, but it wasn't a 'Ripper Killing'." It was just--as you say--for a different reason.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

marks

Hello CD. Thanks.

"It seems to me that God himself could declare that Liz was a prostitute and you and Michael would still not accept it."

Well, can't speak for Mike, but I need nothing so dramatic. A semen trace or a successful hit and loose change would suffice.

Oh, well.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

You would think that if the police were trying to determine whether this was a Ripper murder that the issue of whether Liz was a prostitute would have been a key part of making that determination and they would have gathered information in order to form a conclusion one way or another. Could they have been wrong in concluding that Liz was a prostitute? Sure. But it's like doctors say when making a diagnosis -- "if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Hunter,

Without going into all the possibilities of why the throat cut was different from the previous victims, I think it is reasonable to assume that when her killer (be it Jack or otherwise) finished his cutting he was pretty confident that she was dead or dying. I think that goes more to his intent as opposed to matching previous cuts centimeter for centimeter.

As for your suggestion, I would say absolutely that it is a possibility. Unfortunately we will never know for sure.

c.d.

[Hunter]

Hello Garry,
Actually I was thinking more along these lines:

1. Liz might have struggled more than the other victims making it harder for him to cut;
2. her scarf might have gotten in the way;
3. he might not have had as good an angle as he did before;
4. his hand was sweaty and he might not have had as good a grip as he did before.

Hi CD,

There wasn't much sign of a struggle and Kate Eddowes' scarf didn't seem to be a problem in cutting her throat. Your other two suggestions are possible I guess.

Here a radical idea. What if he just decided to kill her and that's all, for whatever reason known only to him? Ben made a good point earlier and it could be added that both sides of the debate seem to have predispositions about "Jack the Ripper" that may be unfounded... since we know nothing of the killer of any of these women. All we really know is that what was done to her certainly did kill her.

[Michael W Richards]

The point is the police were convinced she was a prostitute going about her business when killed. I see nothing to contradict this.
The location in which she was found was similar to the other victims - a spot suitable for the conduct of that business.

Funny,.... I see nothing in the evidence to support their "belief" that she was soliciting.

The location is dissimilar to Annies location, dissimilar to Mary Kellys location and on a street which was, contrary to lots of posters opinions, not frequented by prostitutes. Low men in the yard after meetings on Saturday nights though....plenty.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

It seems to me that God himself could declare that Liz was a prostitute and you and Michael would still not accept it.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Lots of things, CD. Dr Phillips postulated that Stride and Eddowes had been killed by different men. For his part, Walter Dew observed that ‘people's minds were so dominated by Jack the Ripper … that they sought to fasten upon him every murder no matter how, where or when it was committed.’

Sound familiar?

Hello Garry,

Actually I was thinking more along these lines:

1. Liz might have struggled more than the other victims making it harder for him to cut;

2. her scarf might have gotten in the way;

3. he might not have had as good an angle as he did before;

4. his hand was sweaty and he might not have had as good a grip as he did before.

These explanations all seem pretty reasonable to me although not as dramatic as the leap to another killer.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

the possible

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Swanson didn't just 'believe' this, his detectives investigated her acquaintances, and people who knew her, the conclusion was, she was a prostitute."

The boarding house chap who said one must do what one must? Yes, powerful indicator.

"These opinions and verifications by a host of unnamed witnesses are not available to us."

Host? Well, one or two perhaps?

And the vanishing evidence ploy? I must congratulate you on the vanishing evidence ploy. (Until we meet again and the case is solved'.)

"Swanson is also assuming he existed, but he acknowledges the possibility he was not the killer. If it was not possible, he wouldn't imply it was, yes?"

I, too, claim it was possible. Billions of things are possible which never happen.

"What Swanson is missing of course. . ."

Eh? He's missing something? Surely not?

". . . is no mention of this other intruder. But, that in itself is not unusual, he has the same problem in the other cases. The actual killer was not seen then either."

But in this case, I don't see even a hint--beyond the possible.

Cheers.
LC