Was Liz Stride a Ripper Victim?

[Georgeb]

Thanks for starting this thread I always find this topic interesting. Like many my opinion of Stride being a victim can change from post to post never mind week by week.
My view Martha Tabram yes. Nichols and Chapman yes. Stride don't know yes/no. Eddowes and Kelly yes.
Was interested that a few posters had doubts about Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim. I have never heard the reasons for the doubt as she seems the archetypal victim?

[GBinOz]

"two independent throat-cutting murders happening within an hour, in the same small area, without being related, is effectively near zero."

Your example was a domestic incident indoors, at Regency Street, and it was almost a decapitation. Not exactly the same.

Sarah Brown and Liz Stride both had their throat cut, and maybe both were domestic incidents. That's what Schwartz thought was happening. If Brown is excluded due to her murder being indoors, where does that leave Kelly?

[Lewis C]

Thanks for starting this thread I always find this topic interesting. Like many my opinion of Stride being a victim can change from post to post never mind week by week.
My view Martha Tabram yes. Nichols and Chapman yes. Stride don't know yes/no. Eddowes and Kelly yes.
Was interested that a few posters had doubts about Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim. I have never heard the reasons for the doubt as she seems the archetypal victim?

Hi George.

I think that Kelly was a Ripper victim, but I do have some doubt about her, whereas I'm near certain that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes were Ripper victims. Reasons for doubt are that it would be the only indoor Ripper murder, and that the victim was much younger than the others. Also the gap between this murder and the previous one was much longer than any previous gaps. The attack on her was extreme too, arguably an over-the-top caricature of a Ripper murder, done by someone trying to disguise the murder as a Ripper murder.

[Lewis C]

I looked for previous discussions of this issue, and the only one I could find was from 2015.

I have an issue with the idea of "canonical" victims, since canonicity implies absolute truth. It seems very reasonable to assume Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes (and in my personal opinion Tabram) were murdered by the same killer. I also personally believe Kelly was, but good points have been made to suggest she wasn't.

I'm pretty convinced Stride was not killed by the same murderer. Here are my reasons; if I make any factual errors please let me know, I'm new to this.

1.) The location where Stride was killed was very busy at the time of the murder; none of the other murders took place in such an active, public place, or so early in the evening.
2.) Stride was not mutilated. This is usually explained by saying the murderer was interrupted; but again, it would be a very dumb place to commit the murder, since Stride was discovered very quickly after death. (Nichols was discovered just after death, but that was on an empty street.) There was a group of people singing just a few yards away!
3.) Stride was seen arguing with a man just minutes before her murder. Certainly the Ripper may have been speaking with victims before luring them to more private locations. But would he fight with her and call attention to himself? Would he then go ahead and kill her, basically on the same spot, after making a scene? Isn't it more likely that this man, NOT the Ripper, killed Stride in a fit of passion, and then fled?

Of course the killer could have been the Ripper, I can't prove otherwise. But I wouldn't be the first person to suggest that Stride was included in the Ripper murders because a "Double Event" made for a sexy story in the press. It seems the police considered her a Ripper victim, which cannot be ignored. But I've noted elsewhere I don't think much of the Met in 1888.

Anyway, am I making a decent argument? Have I missed anything? I'm curious to know what you think.

Hi Kunochan, and welcome to Casebook.

There are good reasons to doubt that Stride was a Ripper murder, but I don't have any problem with the time of the evening. Eddowes was killed 45 minutes later, and if McKenzie was a Ripper murder, she was killed at about the same time as Stride.

The location was risky, but I don't think it was significantly riskier than the Chapman murder, which almost certainly took place as people were getting ready for work after dawn, and any number of people could have seen it if they had looked out their windows. I think the Stride location would have been an easier one to escape from too.

[Kunochan]

Statistical Probability of Another Woman Being Murdered by Throat-Cutting on the Same Night

To assess the likelihood of another woman being murdered by throat-cutting in Whitechapel on the same night as Catherine Eddowes (September 30, 1888), we need to consider historical crime rates, population data, and serial killer behaviour. ...

This is a very interesting breakdown, thank you for this.

[Kunochan]

Was interested that a few posters had doubts about Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim. I have never heard the reasons for the doubt as she seems the archetypal victim?

My understanding is that the idea that Kelly (or whoever actually died there, if you believe Kelly was seen alive the next morning) is based on an outmoded idea, that serial killers do not significantly change their MO. This has been demonstrated to be false.

Unlike the others, Kelly was killed indoors, and the mutilations were far more severe than before. So the argument is the MO was different.

In my view, the Ripper lucked into targeting the rare streetwalker who had her own room, and this gave him far more time for the mutilations. I believe she WAS a Ripper victim.

[Kunochan]

Thank you to everyone who has responded so far. I'm definitely learning a lot.

[John Wheat]

I think Stride was probably a Ripper victim but of course she may not have been. I would say the same about Tabram.

[GBinOz]

My understanding is that the idea that Kelly (or whoever actually died there, if you believe Kelly was seen alive the next morning) is based on an outmoded idea, that serial killers do not significantly change their MO. This has been demonstrated to be false.

Hi Kunochan,

IMHO it was not Kelly that was found in the room that morning. The evidence does not support that contention.

Cheers, George

[FrankO]

I looked for previous discussions of this issue, and the only one I could find was from 2015.

I have an issue with the idea of "canonical" victims, since canonicity implies absolute truth. It seems very reasonable to assume Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes (and in my personal opinion Tabram) were murdered by the same killer. I also personally believe Kelly was, but good points have been made to suggest she wasn't.

I'm pretty convinced Stride was not killed by the same murderer. Here are my reasons; if I make any factual errors please let me know, I'm new to this.

1.) The location where Stride was killed was very busy at the time of the murder; none of the other murders took place in such an active, public place, or so early in the evening.
2.) Stride was not mutilated. This is usually explained by saying the murderer was interrupted; but again, it would be a very dumb place to commit the murder, since Stride was discovered very quickly after death. (Nichols was discovered just after death, but that was on an empty street.) There was a group of people singing just a few yards away!
3.) Stride was seen arguing with a man just minutes before her murder. Certainly the Ripper may have been speaking with victims before luring them to more private locations. But would he fight with her and call attention to himself? Would he then go ahead and kill her, basically on the same spot, after making a scene? Isn't it more likely that this man, NOT the Ripper, killed Stride in a fit of passion, and then fled?

Of course the killer could have been the Ripper, I can't prove otherwise. But I wouldn't be the first person to suggest that Stride was included in the Ripper murders because a "Double Event" made for a sexy story in the press. It seems the police considered her a Ripper victim, which cannot be ignored. But I've noted elsewhere I don't think much of the Met in 1888.

Anyway, am I making a decent argument? Have I missed anything? I'm curious to know what you think.

Hi Kunochan,

Although I'm not convinced, I'm inclined to think Stride wasn't a Ripper victim. I agree with the first reason you mention: there were still too many possible witnesses up & about at and around the time Stride was killed.

I also agree with your second reason, but not just that she wasn't mutilated. From the other outdoor murders we might conclude that the Ripper didn't raise any/enough suspicions in his victims until it was too late. In other words, he could have aborted his 'mission' at any time before actually striking without his intended victim being any the wiser. Which raises the question: would he kill a woman if he could count on not being able to also mutilate her?

In Stride's case we have a woman lying more or less on her side and not on her back, which would have been the way the Ripper needed her. So, if it was the Ripper who was interrupted, then we'd have to assume that he was interrupted at the latest immediately after having cut the throat. He, apparently, hadn't even time to turn her onto her back.

Or he just felt like only killing her and left before anything or anybody could interrupt him.

Because I don't find any of this very convincing, I'm inclined to think she didn't fall victim to the Ripper.

Cheers,
Frank