What's the compelling feature?

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I didn't mean to imply that we should take Swanson's views as Gospel. I was only attempting to point out that Swanson wasn't convinced one way or another. And while it is possible that he had ulterior motives for his conclusions, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Catching up with the other discussions here, I believe that you feel the Ripper was likely seen Ben, I know youve said as much in other debates, so your contention about BSM being seen and still potentially the Ripper stems from that conviction. You dont think he went to some lengths to decrease that possibility.

I would disagree with that.

Not only do we not have anyone we can be sure saw a killer and a victim together before their death, we have no-one who saw anyone or anything out of the ordinary after a murder that might involve a fleeing killer. The best bet is Lawende, really only due to the time left in Kate's life at the time of that sighting.

I believe the "phantom" element here is appropriate in some of these deaths. One killer was intentionally discreet, because he opened women after they were dead... in public. I think he really wanted to come and go unnoticed.

BSM wasnt discreet at all. He scuffles drunkenly with a woman who then falls, and shouts at Schwartz to mind his own business.

He could easily be a killer, but hardly a Ripper.

Best regards.

[Ben]

There was absolutely no reason to bring in other "ripper" witnesses, if all he was "in" for was throwing to the pavement a woman whom he presumably knew.

I'd respectfully beg to differ, Gareth. Given the prevalent ripperphobia in the district courtesy of the ripper crimes, any man observed assaulting a prostitute during the Autum of Terror in "ripper" territory would have been viewed with considerable interest and suspicion, just as William Grant Grainger was after he did precisely that.

Where does "presumably knew" come into it, btw?

Best,
Ben

[Ben]

Kill one witness so that his ripping days wouldn't be over, but letting two others walk away?? That doesn't really make a lot of sense at all, if you ask me.

I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand you here, Frank.

Surely two potentially incrimianting witnesses were better than three, including one that had seen him up close and personal? Especially if killing was his something he derived pleasure from anyway.

[Ben]

BSM wasnt discreet at all. He scuffles drunkenly with a woman who then falls, and shouts at Schwartz to mind his own business. He could easily be a killer, but hardly a Ripper

Very possibly the ripper, Mike.

Experience from other serial cases inform us immediately that serial killers aren't as robotic and uniform in their MO as popular perception would have us believe, especially if the killer is under the influence of alcohol or some other substance, and/or the victim is unexpectedly non-complient.

Cheers,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I'd respectfully beg to differ, Gareth. Given the prevalent ripperphobia in the district courtesy of the ripper crimes, any man observed assaulting a prostitute during the Autum of Terror in "ripper" territory would have been viewed with considerable interest and suspicion, just as William Grant Grainger was after he did precisely that.

I hardly think that wrestling a woman to the floor can be equated with Grainger's knife-attack, Ben.

Where does "presumably knew" come into it, btw?

If Liz did not already know him, the chances of her identifying him thereafter would have been slim and - again - why on earth would she be particularly bothered, if all he did was throw her down? Why would he be particularly bothered at being ID'ed later, if all he'd done was dump her on the ground? The way I see it is that there was absolutely no need for him to cut her throat unless he specifically wanted her dead.

Anonymous pavement-dumpers can just walk away from the scene, knowing (a) they would be unlikely to be identified; and (b) even if they were, the "offence" they'd committed was so incredibly trivial that nothing could possibly come of it.

[Ben]

The way I see it is that there was absolutely no need for him to cut her throat unless he specifically wanted her dead.

That's the way I see it too, Gareth.

If BS was her killer (and also Jack the Ripper) then the chances are strong that he specifically wanted her dead. However, the removal of a potential witness who could have identified him subsequently (or at the very least provided an incriminating description) way also have played a part (albeit not the most major one) in his descision to kill her. Physically attacking a prostitute during the Autum of Terror would have elicited suspicion from any police force irrespective of the severity of the assault.

Best,

Ben

[perrymason]

Hi again Ben,

I dont question that research shows us that serial killers do odd things at times, like submit themselves as witnesses, or show up at their own crime scenes, but I think that should be used here with caution. For one, the series may involve a few killers, and secondly, that assumption nullifies any notion that the Whitechapel Murderer was clever and thoughtful about what he did.

I could see an exception though....if we have an artistic or imaginative killer, who play acts his way into close proximity with a victim. Nobody gave BSM a Breathalyzer, what if he acted the part? I would think that a man capable of staggering actually drunk into a scene, interacting with a witness, then taking his prey into the yard to "merely" murder them is unlike what we must envision the Rippers MO. There must be astronomical odds against one man evading capture and leaving no traces of himself who is incapable of some self control, sheer luck is a convenient answer, not terribly plausible particularly as the hunters grew in numbers, and the chances of such luck were diminished.

He got them alone...while a spree was on...he kept them quiet...or at least we dont know if any victims made any noises while being killed, and he never left a trace, or was never seen slipping away with his pocket of guts.

We dont know that anyone saw "Jack", so to assume a man who makes a public display of his interaction with a soon to be victim is the same man who seems to appear and disappear without a trace, is risky at best I think Ben.

Dont allow yourself to be convinced that none of the killings showed us that we have a least one clever killer. I would think the second murder if by him is a much better MO match.

Cheers Ben.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"The fact that the man appeared to have been intoxicated"

Ben, am I misreading you here, or are you suddenly prepared to believe chosen parts of the Stars report? In the police report, there is no mentioning of BS man being affected by alcohol.

If it suddenly has become OK to use the Star, I would like to advance the thought that BS man may have made a respectable appearance, due to his clothing.

If that is OK with you, that is?

This is all very confusing, I have to say ...

The best, you Starpusher, you!
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Hi Ben,

I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand you here, Frank.

Surely two potentially incrimianting witnesses were better than three, including one that had seen him up close and personal? Especially if killing was his something he derived pleasure from anyway.

Yes, but coming back to Gareth’s question, what exactly had they been witness to? They would only have been witness to some serious crime underway if he would actually commit some serious crime against the woman. If not, it’s exactly as Gareth states: the trio might only ID him for some street brawl, which was neither an uncommon occurrence nor a serious crime, so he wouldn’t have to worry about it all that much, if at all.

So, to me anyway, the possibility that he killed her because she might ID him for assault just doesn’t make sense. The possibility that he killed her because, for whatever reason, he wanted her dead then & there makes more sense, although it seems a bit too risky that he went ahead anyway while he knew that at least one person had seen him assaulting the woman so shortly before he killed her. What would make the most sense to me is if he did have some unfinished business with Stride, that business not being murder, but that he eventually killed her anyway in a sudden fit of anger.

I hope I made myself a little clearer here.

All the best,
Frank

[Jon Guy]

Not addressed to me, but you're confusing Brown with Marshall...a much earlier sighting. Brown has essentially been overlooked since Schwartz came forward because we know that a young couple were in the area near that time, and we assume he saw them. Although Ive always thought his account....which didnt include the prayers line, was an interesting preface to a murder...a man blocking the passage of a woman by placing his arm against the wall.

No, Mike, it was Marshall, as I suggested. When reading Marshall`s account I find it interesting to note that the man in the sailors cap with Stride ensures his face is hidden from Marshall.I believe this is BS Man.

11:45 PM: William Marshall, a laborer, sees her on Berner Street. He is standing in the doorway of 64 Berner Street on the west side of the street between Fairclough and Boyd Streets. He notices her talking to a man in a short black cutaway coat and sailor's hat outside number 63. They are kissing and carrying on. He hears the man say "You would say anything but your prayers."

[Fisherman]

Frank van Oploo writes:

"So, to me anyway, the possibility that he killed her because she might ID him for assault just doesn’t make sense. The possibility that he killed her because, for whatever reason, he wanted her dead then & there makes more sense, although it seems a bit too risky that he went ahead anyway while he knew that at least one person had seen him assaulting the woman so shortly before he killed her. What would make the most sense to me is if he did have some unfinished business with Stride, that business not being murder, but that he eventually killed her anyway in a sudden fit of anger."

Way to go, Frank! This offering of yours is and remains the one that makes the most sense. Killer and victim were aquainted, thatīs what the overall picture tells us.

The best, Frank!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

We dont know that anyone saw "Jack", so to assume a man who makes a public display of his interaction with a soon to be victim is the same man who seems to appear and disappear without a trace, is risky at best I think Ben

No more risky than the assumption that no witnesses saw Jack. I'd urge caution when contemplating expressions such as "MO". Some people get in into their minds that it represents some meticulous ritual wherein every action is robot-like and systematic, and that just isn't the case with the serial killers we know about, even the most "clever" and organized ones. There really isn't anything unusual about the killer behavining differently on account of possible alcohol consumption and/or a non-compliant victim.

We just don't know what would have transpired had Cadosch investigated the thud over the dividing fence, or if George Morris did a "Pipeman" and stepped outside for a smoke. It may have led to precisely the sort of "broadshoulders" encounter witnessed by Schwartz.

If it suddenly has become OK to use the Star, I would like to advance the thought that BS man may have made a respectable appearance, due to his clothing.

I thought the intoxicated reference came from the police report, Fisherman. My mistake. Since you've chosen to delight in that error and use it as an opportunity to point score, I'll make it clear that the "intoxicated" reference must now be treated with as much caution as "respectable" given that neither appeared in the police report.

Hi Frank,

If not, it’s exactly as Gareth states: the trio might only ID him for some street brawl, which was neither an uncommon occurrence nor a serious crime, so he wouldn’t have to worry about it all that much, if at all.

Given that this was a physical attack on a prostitute at time and place where a nocturnal predator was physically attacking prostitutes in the small hours of the morning and brutally dispatching them thereafter, it was apt to be taken very seriously indeed as was any form of assault on a prostitute, especially at a time when respectable men such as Douglas Cow were being dragged in an investigated purely because he smiled at a woman in a seemingly sinister way!

If introduced to other ripper witnesses as a consequence, matters would have grown more serious still.

although it seems a bit too risky that he went ahead anyway while he knew that at least one person had seen him assaulting the woman so shortly before he killed her.

Ooh I dunno Frank, I think he'd probably passed the point of no return there, especially if he wanted to kill her, and especially if the "sudden fit of anger" played a role, as I have no doubt it did. Finish the job, and make good the escape before the witnesses come back with PC Smith.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jon Guy]

Killer and victim were aquainted, thatīs what the overall picture tells us.

Exactly so, Fisherman !!

BS Man tried to pick her up an hour earlier.

But we should be wary in applying "sense and reason" to psychopathic behaviour. Compulsive been a more appropiate word ?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I thought the intoxicated reference came from the police report, Fisherman. My mistake. Since you've chosen to delight in that error and use it as an opportunity to point score, I'll make it clear that the "intoxicated" reference must now be treated with as much caution as "respectable" given that neither appeared in the police report."

No, Ben, I am NOT trying to score points - I am trying to find relevance. And searching for relevance, I have always found you a good guide and companion. Which is why I was alarmed by something that seemed to border on intellectual corruption on your behalf, and which is also why I am relieved to note that it was due to a mistake.
The only thing I will do here, Ben, is to point to the danger that lies in preconception, and I do think that the BS man you outlined some posts back had dangerously many treats of a preconceived picture about it. Now that the "bozze-befuddled" bit must be taken away - according to you, not to me, since I feel that the paper report may well be treated as very useful - I also think that you may have to rethink your picture of the overall appearance of BS man as a ruffian.

One thing that goes to strengthen what I mean is the bit that Jon Guy has brought up here. I think that his hunch that Marshalls man was BS man in a very compelling thought. This is what we have on it, as offered by Cooram/Sironi in their dissertation:

"He (Marshall) noticed her talking to a man about 5ft 6in in height, rather stout, wearing a black cut-away coat, dark trousers and a round cap with a small peak, ‘something like what a sailor would wear.’ He seemed middle aged and had the appearance of a clerk. According to Marshall, the man was ‘decently dressed’."

Dark cutaway coat. Dark trousers. Stoutly built. Round cap with a small peak. Middle aged.

Does that ring any bells?

Now, add to this that the man had the appearance of a clerk, and was decently dressed. Showing us that a short cutaway coat and a cap could well be described as "decent" clothing. That, I think, comes very close to speak about the man as being perfectly respectable in appearance.

That, Ben, is exactly, down to the last bit, a description of the man that Schwartz describes in the Star report, wouldnīt you agree? The one thing he lacks is that intoxication - but he had a full hour to go get all the drink he needed to build up the courage it took to kill Liz. And Commercial Street offered all the pubs he could ask for.

All the best, Ben, Jon!
Fisherman

PS. Jon, the sense I am speaking about is not that of the killer, but that of Franks post!