Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Stride Killed Because Of Eddowes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Was Stride Killed Because Of Eddowes?

    Hi All,

    Having been debating over weather Stride was a ripper victim and weather the killer may have been disturbed and unsatisfied went on to kill Eddowes, I propose that perhaps he was actually creating a diversion so he can get at Eddowes. I would even go on to suggest that perhaps Stride was on the receiving end of the ripper's anger, because he couldn't get at Eddowes because she was taken to the station.

    I have been toying with the idea that Stride was perhaps a diversion, and that she wasn't intentionally an original part of the ripper's plan.

    Now as it was getting increasingly difficult for the ripper to commit his evil deeds. If Eddowes wasn't a random kill, than the ripper was definitely out to get her. By killing Stride he created a diversion in which the police would be preoccupied with that and wouldn't suspect that another murder would take place.

    Just an idea

  • #2
    Stride was murdered in a district covered by the Metropolitan Police.
    Eddowes was murdered on City territory, a separate force.
    So his plan didn't work, if that was the idea.

    It is always possible that he may not have realized this, like he didn't realize the Aldgate Post Office was being burgled while he was mutilating Eddowes just yards away.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #3
      It is no longer in vogue to believe that the Stride killer was interrupted. Most of this comes from folks who believe that Stride was killed by a different hand: but it is also possible that the killer intended to strike twice that night, and did not mutilate the first one because he planned the killings that way - to avoid getting blood all over his person before the second killing, for example.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
        It is no longer in vogue to believe that the Stride killer was interrupted. Most of this comes from folks who believe that Stride was killed by a different hand: but it is also possible that the killer intended to strike twice that night, and did not mutilate the first one because he planned the killings that way - to avoid getting blood all over his person before the second killing, for example.
        I think you give him too much credit.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #5
          I assume that when a murder was discovered the alarm was raised and policemen rushed to the area, on high alert. They would have been looking around the nearby streets etc, hoping to find a blood-stained killer, or some clue.

          The noise and activity would also wake neighbours, as would the police themselves, of course, looking for witnesses.

          So if one was going to kill someone as a decoy to attract attention whilst one killed the intended victim then I would have thought that the decoy would have to be quite a distance away. Or otherwise one would simply be increasing the number of policemen and other folks in the area and the risk of being disturbed.

          Is there any precedence for a murderer killing a decoy before the intended victim like this? It is an intriguing concept.

          I am inclined to think that either Stride was killed by the same person as Eddowes, but he was disturbed when killing her. Or killed by a different person in a remarkable coincidence (two throat-slashers in one night).

          Comment


          • #6
            It might be no longer in vogue to think that Jack was interrupted before he could mutilate Stride, but IMHO, I think that's precisely what happened. I think that after escaping from Dutfield's Yard but with the adrenaline still pumping, he stopped for a few minutes in Church Lane.

            The Star of the 1st October reported that it had, from two sources, tales of a man sitting on a doorstep in Church Lane, wiping his hands. The man was clad in a short jacket and sailor's hat, and when stared at by a passerby, tried to conceal his face.

            At that time (October 1st) the Lawende description of the suspect wasn't in circulation. Church Lane could have been used by someone going from Berner St to Mitre Square.

            Comment


            • #7
              "From two different sources we have the story that a man when passing through Church-lane at about half-past one, saw a man sitting on a door-step and wiping his hands."

              It's already half past one and Church Lane is a long way from Mitre Square.
              Remember, Eddowes was not killed at 1:44, she was found at 1:44, after being murdered and mutilated first.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes, but sometimes people were very vague about times, unless they specifically noted church clocks striking the hour or noticed a clock in a shop window. Few had watches of their own and it would be comparitively easy to be out in your timing. And really, Church Lane isn't that far away.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I assume we are talking about Back Church Lane, one street over from Henriques Street? According to Google Maps, it would be roughly a 15 minute walk from Back Church to Mitre Square. A person familiar with the area might be able to shave a little time off that but not much. If he ran, he risked attracting unwanted attention so a nice fast walk is probably all he could get away with.

                  If he wanted to create a diversion from Eddowes, he did it badly. They were killed in two different jurisdictions, from what I have read the two forces didn't cooperate very well and didn't go into each other's territory so the police in Mitre Square wouldn't have been diverted due to murder in Dutfield's yard.

                  A man might have been able to physically get from Back Church Lane to Mitre Square between 1:30am and 1:44am but picking up a woman, getting her to a secluded area, and ripping her up in that amount of time just isn't feasible.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Rosella View Post
                    Yes, but sometimes people were very vague about times, unless they specifically noted church clocks striking the hour or noticed a clock in a shop window. Few had watches of their own and it would be comparitively easy to be out in your timing. And really, Church Lane isn't that far away.
                    Exactly Rosella.

                    I have also been intrigued by this sighting-yet another witness describing a man in a peaked cap. And as you note-its significant because it came out before any of the other reports of a suspect with a peaked cap became widespread.

                    As for timings-again you are absolutely correct. Also note that the report even says "about half past one" .

                    I swear some posters on here must think that witnesses in Victorian era England have atomic clocks hard wired into their hypothalamus!
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Penhalion View Post
                      I assume we are talking about Back Church Lane, one street over from Henriques Street?
                      Church Lane runs from Commercial Rd. up to Whitechapel High St.

                      Back Church Lane runs south from Commercial Rd.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This possible sighting has always intrigued me as well. There would not have been too many people sitting on doorsteps wearing sailor's hats at 1.30am surely. Here's an older (archived) thread on a similar topic:

                        http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6151
                        "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                          Stride was murdered in a district covered by the Metropolitan Police.
                          Eddowes was murdered on City territory, a separate force.
                          So his plan didn't work, if that was the idea.

                          It is always possible that he may not have realized this, like he didn't realize the Aldgate Post Office was being burgled while he was mutilating Eddowes just yards away.
                          If that's the case then he definitely didn't plan it and it was a decision he made without thinking about it.

                          Since you mention the post office, it occurred to me that perhaps Eddowes knew about it and that was why she went back towards that way.

                          After Chapman's murder, it was getting increasingly difficult to kill again. Now if Stride was the ripper's victim then I think it was a diversion, it would work on the basis that the ripper may have seen Stride being attacked and knowing that BS man and Pipeman had been seen decided to kill Stride (of course that is if BS & PM man were not the killers). He may have assumed that the police wouldn't suspect another murder to take place.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            All we have is a man sitting on a step wiping his hands, no talk of a weapon, no blood. How many reason's are there for someone to wipe his hands?

                            Then I thought I would take a look at the old link posted by Bridewell, and Don - bless his cotton socks, in a post, took the words right out of my mouth, I quote:


                            To begin with, the tale is -- at best -- third-hand, which does not instill confidence. Moreover, what was the man doing? He was "wiping his hands," which means he could have just had a jam tart, slice of pie, encountered some scurvy slurry or messed his hands doing any of a hundred other innocent things (he who sliced Stride's throat is not likely to have suffered much blood staining anyway). Oh, and he looked suspicious and tried to hide his face, as if most of us would not so react to a perfect stranger staring at us.

                            It's a non-starter of a story I fear.

                            Don.


                            Don nailed it I'm afraid.
                            Not to mention peaked caps were about as common as hob-nailed boots.
                            Last edited by Wickerman; 03-03-2015, 07:40 PM.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                              This possible sighting has always intrigued me as well. There would not have been too many people sitting on doorsteps wearing sailor's hats at 1.30am surely. Here's an older (archived) thread on a similar topic:

                              http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6151
                              Exactly, especially in between in time and location of two murders, where the suspect at both of those scenes is described by MULTIPLE witnesses as wearing a peaked cap.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X