Was Liz Stride a Ripper Victim?

[GBinOz]

Far too much credence is given to Melville and his "McNaughton Memoranda." When one considers the facts that Sir Melville was NOT a trained police officer, did not even work for the police at the time of the murders, included ridiculous suspects like Ostrog and Druitt while getting basic information about them wrong, etc., and one must beg the question: why is this man being taken seriously at all? Before cronyism gave Melville his job, this guy spent the day managing his family's tea estate in India and passing the port.

IMHO, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly were all slain by the Ripper.

Welcome!

Hi HIB,

I am in entire agreement with your assessment of McNaughton and his memorandum. Did you inadvertently omit Eddowes from your list? If not, I would be interested to hear your reason for doing so.

Cheers, George

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

Far too much credence is given to Melville and his "McNaughton Memoranda." When one considers the facts that Sir Melville was NOT a trained police officer, did not even work for the police at the time of the murders, included ridiculous suspects like Ostrog and Druitt while getting basic information about them wrong, etc., and one must beg the question: why is this man being taken seriously at all? Before cronyism gave Melville his job, this guy spent the day managing his family's tea estate in India and passing the port.

IMHO, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly were all slain by the Ripper. A strong argument can and has been made for excluding Stride. I have no real dog in the fight; if it's ever proven that Stride was/wasn't a Ripper victim, then that's fine by me. For me, it's plausible that the Ripper was interrupted, so I lean ever so slightly toward Stride being a victim. Emma Smith was almost certainly the victim of a gang.

As I have recently come back into the fray after a very long layoff, I was not aware of there being any doubt about Mary Kelly. To entertain the idea that two diabolical serial killers set up shop in the same limited area, with similar M.Os., is too fantastic a thing for me. We must consider that, while violence (especially domestic) was common in the East End, murders of women were not. In fact, it was pretty rare.

Welcome!

[GBinOz]

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,

Canonical victims, or C5, is simply a way to group the victims believed by McNaughton to have been killed by the Ripper.

Over the years I have sat on the fence, or waivered to one side or the other, but my latest thinking is towards the probability that Stride wasn't a ripper victim, basically for the reasons that you enumerate. I should add that I don't think that Kelly was a ripper victim either.

The problem with ripperology is that it is a conundrum without solution, a jigsaw with most of the pieces lost. Monumental debates are conducted over the vagaries of language that were not even considered by their authors, and were variously reported by the press at the time in conflicting presentations. If you plan to continue in this field of research and supposition, I can only say, welcome to the mad house.

Cheers, George

[Fiver]

Thanks for responding. If this is something that's already been discussed to death, I understand why forum regulars wouldn't want to rehash it.

On the other hand, if those discussions are deleted for some reason, it might be helpful for n00bz like me to go over it a bit—if anyone feels inclined.

Thanks again!

There's plenty of rehashing on this site, so don't sweat it.

MeNaughton's views were anything but universal.

* Reid thought there were 9 victims killed between 1888 and 1892. That appears to dismiss Kosminki and definitely dismissed Druitt. In 1912 he said nobody knew who the Ripper was, specifically dismissing all of McNaughton's suspects.
* Arnold though there were only 4 victims.
* Dew thought that Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were Ripper victims. He had no suspect.

Most other police did not say how many victims they thought there were.

My views are:
Nichols. Chapman, Eddowes - definite victims.
Tabram, Kelly - probable.
Stride - possible.
Mackenzie - unlikely, but still possible.

[Kunochan]

Hello Kunochan,

Stride as a Ripper victim has been discussed ad nauseam and then some. But for some reason (I just checked) those threads seem to have disappeared. Don't know why.

Thanks for responding. If this is something that's already been discussed to death, I understand why forum regulars wouldn't want to rehash it.

On the other hand, if those discussions are deleted for some reason, it might be helpful for n00bz like me to go over it a bit—if anyone feels inclined.

Thanks again!

[c.d.]

Hello Kunochan,

Stride as a Ripper victim has been discussed ad nauseam and then some. But for some reason (I just checked) those threads seem to have disappeared. Don't know why.

Canonical victims or C5 is simply a way to group the victims believed to have been killed by the Ripper. It is not written in stone or is it religious doctrine which has to be believed and adhered to for fear of incurring everlasting torment. It is constantly debated and yes, Stride is the most controversial.

As for the location being too dangerous (yes, that is argued too), it assumes that Jack (at that time) should have calmly and coolly assessed the pro and cons of that location. But it is also possible that Jack simply decided he wanted to kill that particular woman at that particular time and everything else be damned.

The man seen arguing with Stride and throwing her to the ground is known as the B.S. man because he was described by Schwartz as having broad shoulders. There are a lot of threads pro and con arguing if he killed Stride and if he was in fact the Ripper as well.

As for arguments that Stride was a Ripper victim, the best are that she was a lone woman out late at night, had ties to prostitution and had her throat cut. And yes, interruption could explain the lack of mutilation.

Hope this helps a little. Stride is very complicated with many arguments being made surrounding her murder.

Hopefully the missing threads will soon reappear.

c.d.

[Kunochan]

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.