Who Killed Stride?

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Herlock,

I couldn't agree more if I tried! The information we have from the witness descriptions is equivocal, and could arise just as easily if the same or different people were the murder(s) of Stride and Eddowes. As such, in terms of information for or against, it's effectively zero. As for the comparison in the one common wound, I personally don't know what to make of that because it requires expert knowledge beyond my ken, and so I don't know if it should make me lean one way or the other or not. The lack of mutilations on Stride, and her being on her side rather than her back, either reflects something specific about her murder, but whether that "specific" is "different killer" or "something about the situation spooked JtR", is unknow. Going with my "gut" is just to impart my own personal bias, and that's what we should be trying to avoid in my view.

Whenever Stride gets discussed in the bigger picture, I do tend to take the perspective that she is a victim of JtR simply because if she's not, the whole discussion becomes moot. Of course if she's not, then she need not be mentioned but if she is that leads to the more interesting talking points. But I'm never convinced her inclusion is correct, but neither am I convinced she should be omitted.

So far, however, I don't think I've seen any JtR discussion on a bigger picture that hinges solely on her inclusion or exclusion. For those who argue for "no single Jack", I don't think anyone bases that solely on Stride, rather they either argue for 5 separate killers, or maybe Nichols and Chapman, with separate killers for the rest, and so forth. I've not seen anyone suggest "Nichols-Chapman-Eddowes-Kelly" are JtR, and Stride someone else (although I suppose that's sort of what my position is when I put on my "not Stride" hat).

I suppose the one big change that arises when we consider Stride as not by JtR is that it means we no longer can assume that JtR fled west to where he meets Eddowes, and his direction of travel when he meets up with her could be from any direction. And perhaps that has greater implications than I'm giving it.

- Jeff

If Stride wasn't a JTR victim, then the Ripper's direction of travel would have indeed been from an alternative direction.

Likely from Whitehall after just having left the Torso


Some tend to forget the Whitehall Torso was almost certainly dumped within 24 hours of the murders of Stride and Eddowes respectively.


RD

[Geddy2112]

Some tend to forget the Whitehall Torso was almost certainly dumped within 24 hours of the murders of Stride and Eddowes respectively.

Was it? I'm not familiar with the Torso case but if true Charlie Boy had a busy day/night

[JeffHamm]

If Stride wasn't a JTR victim, then the Ripper's direction of travel would have indeed been from an alternative direction.

...

RD

Hi RD,

Why does different killers prohibit any particular direction of approach for Eddowes's killer? I think it just means any and all directions become equally plausible. Or is that what you are getting at and I am misreading you?

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

I don't necessarily see a "direction of approach" to Mitre Square, in that I suspect JTR would had been hanging around the area for some time, waiting for a suitable victim to turn up under suitable circumstances. Maybe he'd seen potential victims come and go all evening before he decided the time was right to strike... in which case Jack might well have been "casing the joint" at the City boundary just as Stride was being attacked further East.

[Michael W Richards]

I dont think anyone that Ive discussed the Stride case here with believes that the answers to the questions Herlock listed are "knowns", but I do believe that much can be determined to satisfactory standards using probabilities and the actual evidence in combination. Not necessarily who killed Liz Stride, but who COULD have killed Liz Stride, and who.. most likely... did not. I myself am satisfied with the position I took back in 1988 when I first read about the cases, there is nothing within the known evidence, physical and circumstantial, that would indicate a serial mutilator killed her. There is every indication by the suspected first 2 cases that the killer was a serial mutilator. That guy was Jack the Ripper. Liz may well have been killed by Herschel the Tailor, or Israel the Entertainer, or Louie the Tradesman ...none of which suggest a serial mutilator, but all believed to be at that location at the critical times.

Using only the known evidence, without any supposition or debatable rhetoric, the only men known to be with striking distance of Liz Stride around 12:46 to 12:56 are men from that club. And I dont see the actual Jack as a very social man myself.

[Lewis C]

Hi Herlock,

I couldn't agree more if I tried! The information we have from the witness descriptions is equivocal, and could arise just as easily if the same or different people were the murder(s) of Stride and Eddowes. As such, in terms of information for or against, it's effectively zero. As for the comparison in the one common wound, I personally don't know what to make of that because it requires expert knowledge beyond my ken, and so I don't know if it should make me lean one way or the other or not. The lack of mutilations on Stride, and her being on her side rather than her back, either reflects something specific about her murder, but whether that "specific" is "different killer" or "something about the situation spooked JtR", is unknow. Going with my "gut" is just to impart my own personal bias, and that's what we should be trying to avoid in my view.

Whenever Stride gets discussed in the bigger picture, I do tend to take the perspective that she is a victim of JtR simply because if she's not, the whole discussion becomes moot. Of course if she's not, then she need not be mentioned but if she is that leads to the more interesting talking points. But I'm never convinced her inclusion is correct, but neither am I convinced she should be omitted.

So far, however, I don't think I've seen any JtR discussion on a bigger picture that hinges solely on her inclusion or exclusion. For those who argue for "no single Jack", I don't think anyone bases that solely on Stride, rather they either argue for 5 separate killers, or maybe Nichols and Chapman, with separate killers for the rest, and so forth. I've not seen anyone suggest "Nichols-Chapman-Eddowes-Kelly" are JtR, and Stride someone else (although I suppose that's sort of what my position is when I put on my "not Stride" hat).

I suppose the one big change that arises when we consider Stride as not by JtR is that it means we no longer can assume that JtR fled west to where he meets Eddowes, and his direction of travel when he meets up with her could be from any direction. And perhaps that has greater implications than I'm giving it.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

One way that it could be significant if Stride wasn't a Ripper victim, that could affect how we look at Anderson's suspect. We don't know who the witness was that Anderson said was the only one who got a good look at the Ripper, and who identified a suspect as being the Ripper. Maybe this witness was Israel Schwartz. If so, then even if Schwartz correctly identified Stride's killer, that would be of no value to us if if Stride's killer wasn't the Ripper.

[Lewis C]

I dont think anyone that Ive discussed the Stride case here with believes that the answers to the questions Herlock listed are "knowns", but I do believe that much can be determined to satisfactory standards using probabilities and the actual evidence in combination. Not necessarily who killed Liz Stride, but who COULD have killed Liz Stride, and who.. most likely... did not. I myself am satisfied with the position I took back in 1988 when I first read about the cases, there is nothing within the known evidence, physical and circumstantial, that would indicate a serial mutilator killed her. There is every indication by the suspected first 2 cases that the killer was a serial mutilator. That guy was Jack the Ripper. Liz may well have been killed by Herschel the Tailor, or Israel the Entertainer, or Louie the Tradesman ...none of which suggest a serial mutilator, but all believed to be at that location at the critical times.

Using only the known evidence, without any supposition or debatable rhetoric, the only men known to be with striking distance of Liz Stride around 12:46 to 12:56 are men from that club. And I dont see the actual Jack as a very social man myself.

Hi Michael,

Stride might have been killed by someone that we don't know was within striking distance of her during that time.

[Barnaby]

To the original analysis of the various eye witness reports, it is worth noting that William Marshall observed Stride with a man wearing a peaked cap like "a sailor would wear" which dovetails nicely with Lawende, so much so I'm wondering if one or the other could have been influenced through newspaper reports.


I've never worried all that much about differences in clothing because (a) eye witness testimony is unreliable and (b) if the killer was local there was nothing stopping him from changing his jacket in between murders. He had the time, and if he thought he had been seen, or if he had gotten blood on himself, he just might change clothes to evade detection.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

One way that it could be significant if Stride wasn't a Ripper victim, that could affect how we look at Anderson's suspect. We don't know who the witness was that Anderson said was the only one who got a good look at the Ripper, and who identified a suspect as being the Ripper. Maybe this witness was Israel Schwartz. If so, then even if Schwartz correctly identified Stride's killer, that would be of no value to us if if Stride's killer wasn't the Ripper.

Hi,

That is a very good point.

- Jeff

[Filby]

Your posts are all very convincing, but the fact that JtR was out and actively on the move that night is difficult for me to look past. Not to mention the time frames between murders are reasonably believable. Eddowes case proves he was active and I'm not much of a believer in coincidences.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Stride might have been killed by someone that we don't know was within striking distance of her during that time.

Then they were somewhere not visible to any witness that saw that deserted street after 12:30. That fact is confirmed by Fanny, by Eagle returning, and by Lave..hanging about by the gates. I believe there is only 1 answer to where he came from, and that is that very location. Not sure who he was, or why he was there, or whether he was hiding out in the unused stables or office. But I am sure he was not visible to the street before killing Stride, nor just after. Well, perhaps after..as a spectator. I do believe he may have stayed there after the police arrived, been one of the hangers on after the meeting. He need not have any blood on him, and tossing a knife somewhere...like in the soapy sink water Mrs D was using, would be easy peasy.

He also might have killed Stride and just headed back upstairs.

[Fiver]

1. The risk on Berner Street exists only to someone who planned on being in the womans company after the throat cut. And this person could have just gone back indoors after cutting her. He didnt leave via the gates, at least that much is clear.

The risk existed for anyone who planned on cutting the woman's throat, just like at every other murder site. Staying to pose the body, mutilate it, and take trophies would increase that risk, not create the risk.

The gates were not under continuous observation, so obviously Stride's killer could have left by the gates. After all, Stride entered Dutfield's Yard by the gates without being observed.

Stride's killer could also have gone back indoors, but as the inquest testimony makes clear, that was not limited to going inside the club. This fact has been repeatedly pointed out to you - your ignoring the fact does not make it go away.

Going inside the club without being observed would have been nigh-impossible - there were a couple dozen people there.

[The Rookie Detective]

The risk existed for anyone who planned on cutting the woman's throat, just like at every other murder site. Staying to pose the body, mutilate it, and take trophies would increase that risk, not create the risk.

The gates were not under continuous observation, so obviously Stride's killer could have left by the gates. After all, Stride entered Dutfield's Yard by the gates without being observed.

Stride's killer could also have gone back indoors, but as the inquest testimony makes clear, that was not limited to going inside the club. This fact has been repeatedly pointed out to you - your ignoring the fact does not make it go away.

Going inside the club without being observed would have been nigh-impossible - there were a couple dozen people there.

That's an excellent point Fiver

IMO if the man who killed Stride went into the club after cutting her throat, then it rules him out as the Ripper.

It would also significantly increase the likelihood that either Lave, Eagle or Diemschitz was her killer, particularly the former who seems to have no active contribution after Stride is found.

IMO, the killer was the Ripper, who accompanied her to the club under a false pretence after gaining her trust and then he cut her throat and left the scene in under a minute.

RD

[Fiver]

But if Israels story is in fact the truth, then its almost certainly BSM as the killer. There is no other man seen by anyone within a block of those gates at that time, and the only man seen on the street before 1 is Goldstein.

This is another inaccurate summary by you. Schwartz also saw Pipe Man. Mortimer saw a man and a woman and heard someone walk by at 9:45am and saw Goldstein sometime between 12:45am and 12:55am. Eagle said he saw "numbers of persons about of both sexes, and several prostitutes" on his walk back to the Club. When Charles Letchford passed at 12:30 he said that there was nothing unusual, not that there was no one nearby. Brown saw Stride with a man about 12:45am.

And that is before we consider that the area was not under observation for the entire time.

[c.d.]

There is no other man seen by anyone within a block of those gates at that time...

I have never understood this argument as though Jack appearing on the scene post Schwartz somehow violates the laws of physics. But even if the above is true, what if Jack was simply a few blocks and a few minutes away at that time?

c.d.