For what reason do we include Stride?

[Michael W Richards]

If you are absolutely, inarguably correct in everything you postulate on this issue. And it really is so obvious. Would you consider it stupidity or dishonesty that causes most people to disagree with you?

I suppose my manner of responding is interpreted as some diss to anyone who believes in considering an interruption, its not, its readdress of a belief that has perpetuated the study for some time now.. by the majority of people no less. The obvious here is that Liz Stride was simply killed by knife. As was Mrs Brown. That people search for answers as to why a Ripper would kill like this isn't surprising, but I contend it appears by the evidence she died because someone wanted to kill her. He was not, apparently, preoccupied in the slightest about any additional activities...she was untouched after dropped there. In the previous 2 cases, less than 2 weeks apart, it appears by the evidence that the killer wanted a dead woman to cut into. The differing motivations suggest different types of killers. Strides killer may have killed in a quick fit of anger, the act may have taken 2 seconds by the medical testimony, Annies killer may have planned in advance what he wanted to cut.

Im at a loss to see why a fresh look at this inclusion isn't something most would consider logical, based on just the evidence, but to each his own.

[Michael W Richards]

There were two cuts to Nichols' and Chapman's throats, one less extensive than the other, so was the killer "spooked" into committing the shorter cut in either case? I don't think so, because he went on to make a longer, even deeper cut immediately afterwards... almost 100% certainly within a second or two of making the first cut.

So, being "spooked" mid-cut doesn't explain Stride's somewhat lesser injury, and being "spooked" between the first cut and a subsequent cut a second or two later would require a ridiculously fine-tuned interruption. I don't buy either explanation, I'm afraid. I think it far more likely that Stride's killer did all he intended to do with her and was out of there well before Dymshitz arrived on the scene.

I missed this at first, but nice to see some agreement for a change Sam.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, being "spooked" mid-cut doesn't explain Stride's somewhat lesser injury, and being "spooked" between the first cut and a subsequent cut a second or two later would require a ridiculously fine-tuned interruption. I don't buy either explanation, I'm afraid. I think it far more likely that Stride's killer did all he intended to do with her and was out of there well before Dymshitz arrived on the scene.

But Sam isn’t that a case of viewing events almost as if the interruption was planned? Obviously that’s not what you’re suggesting but an interruption could have occurred at any time. Whether it was just after the killer had cut her throat once or 5 seconds later or ten seconds.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suppose my manner of responding is interpreted as some diss to anyone who believes in considering an interruption, its not, its readdress of a belief that has perpetuated the study for some time now.. by the majority of people no less. The obvious here is that Liz Stride was simply killed by knife. As was Mrs Brown. That people search for answers as to why a Ripper would kill like this isn't surprising, but I contend it appears by the evidence she died because someone wanted to kill her. He was not, apparently, preoccupied in the slightest about any additional activities...she was untouched after dropped there. In the previous 2 cases, less than 2 weeks apart, it appears by the evidence that the killer wanted a dead woman to cut into. The differing motivations suggest different types of killers. Strides killer may have killed in a quick fit of anger, the act may have taken 2 seconds by the medical testimony, Annies killer may have planned in advance what he wanted to cut.

Im at a loss to see why a fresh look at this inclusion isn't something most would consider logical, based on just the evidence, but to each his own.

There’s nothing wrong with a fresh look but that’s not what you’re saying as the passage quoted below shows:

Ive become tired of being diplomatic on this most obvious point all these years,so.... Liz was very clearly notkilled by a Ripper and many of the clubs senior staffers including the nights speaker definately lied about certain aspects of what actually transpired

The is the opposite of a call for open debate I’m afraid. You’re basically saying that this issue is black and white and that Stride inarguably wasn’t a victim of the ripper (and you may be correct or incorrect)

.He was not, apparently, preoccupied in the slightest about any additional activities...she was untouched after dropped there (or he could have been interrupted). In the previous 2 cases, less than 2 weeks apart, it appears by the evidence that the killer wanted a dead woman to cut into (and he might have with Stride but he was interrupted). The differing motivations suggest different types of killers (unless he was simply interrupted.). Strides killer may have killed in a quick fit of anger (very possibly, or he could have been interrupted), the act may have taken 2 seconds by the medical testimony (as he might have been interrupted), Annies killer may have planned in advance what he wanted to cut (so might Liz’ killer but he was interrupted)

Nothing in the evidence comes anywhere near to categorically proving that Stride wasn’t a ripper victim. She may or she may not have been. We’re clearly unlikely to ever agree on this Michael but the difference between our viewpoints is that I accept the possibility of both propositions because the evidence cannot furnish us with a definitive verdict.

Im undecided. You appear to believe that it’s a ‘given’ that she wasn’t. Abby appears to be strongly of the opinion that she was. Neither of you are idiots. You are both well versed in the case. And if we asked every ripperologists their opinion I’d guess at a pretty mixed bag of verdicts. At the very least this shows that this issue isn’t a done deal.

[Sam Flynn]

But Sam isn’t that a case of viewing events almost as if the interruption was planned? Obviously that’s not what you’re suggesting but an interruption could have occurred at any time. Whether it was just after the killer had cut her throat once or 5 seconds later or ten seconds.

But how likely is it that the interruption occurred exactly before the killer could inflict any more damage? We know that the "true" Ripper was a fast worker, and I find it hugely improbable that the interruption happened, as it were, on the "b" of the "bang" (to quote Linford Christie).

[Abby Normal]

But how likely is it that the interruption occurred exactly before the killer could inflict any more damage? We know that the "true" Ripper was a fast worker, and I find it hugely improbable that the interruption happened, as it were, on the "b" of the "bang" (to quote Linford Christie).

Hi sam
but what about nichols? Seems the ripper was disturbed also before starting the mutilation/ organ extraction. And surely nichols is a ripper victim.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But how likely is it that the interruption occurred exactly before the killer could inflict any more damage? We know that the "true" Ripper was a fast worker, and I find it hugely improbable that the interruption happened, as it were, on the "b" of the "bang" (to quote Linford Christie).

I take your point Sam but I’d say that an interruption was as likely to happen at any one time as opposed to another. Couldn’t we also question the likelihood of another prostitute having her throat cut so soon after and located at a site that provides a reasonable time frame? If Eddowes had been killed say two hours later at the same spot it would have been far more problematical to attempt to connect the two. As I said, I’m undecided. Stride might very well not have been a ripper killing and it may be correct to say that, on balance, it might have been less rather than more likely. But I still say that it’s a reasonable possibility. Personally, I’d say that she was a more likely ripper victim than Tabram for example but we can’t categorically discount Tabram.

[Sam Flynn]

Couldn’t we also question the likelihood of another prostitute having her throat cut so soon after and located at a site that provides a reasonable time frame?

There's almost a full hour's gap, so it's not in the same league as "the b of the bang", which is what we must accept if we are to believe the interruption excuse - sorry - explanation of what happened, or didn't happen, to Stride.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There's almost a full hour's gap, so it's not in the same league as "the b of the bang", which is what we must accept if we are to believe the interruption excuse - sorry - explanation of what happened, or didn't happen, to Stride.

Accepted Sam. But we are still left with two throat cutting prostitute murders within an hour or so of each other and a short distance apart where one of them had a man entering the passage with a horse and cart at around the same time that the killer would have been with the victim. This must at least allow for the possibility of one killer?

[Sam Flynn]

Accepted Sam. But we are still left with two throat cutting prostitute murders within an hour or so of each other and a short distance apart where one of them had a man entering the passage with a horse and cart at around the same time that the killer would have been with the victim. This must at least allow for the possibility of one killer?

Of course it's possible, Herlock. Where I differ from most is that I don't think it's necessarily probable, just because there were two knife murders in one night. We're talking about a very deprived and depraved part of the world - albeit the sparsely-populated Mitre Square and its environs isn't quite the same as the overcrowded St George in the East.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi sam
but what about nichols? Seems the ripper was disturbed also before starting the mutilation/ organ extraction. And surely nichols is a ripper victim.

Something we agree on Herlock, I believe that there is evidence to suggest that what he likely intended took place less than 2 weeks later, in a place that was exposed, but off the street. As Sam and I have stated, I think the double throat cuts are part of that killers signature, and I would expect to see them in subsequent murders. As far as I can tell, only Kate has them...(did Alice? I cant recall). They were intended to kill swiftly, and I think they were also used to facilitate rapid blood loss so his pm work would be a little less bloody. That killer I would say killed to accomplish his ultimate goals, and as I said, I think Liz's wound reflect a spur of the moment angry act..maybe he never killed again, or before,..this may have been a knee jerk, perhaps drunken, choice.

Liz had been known to be aggressive at times, what if she lipped off to someone she shouldn't have?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Michael, you’ve responded there to a post by Abby.

As for Nichols, isn’t it possible that the resulting wounds were all that the killer intended? Many favour Tabram as a ‘first effort’ ripper killing and that he hadn’t yet reached the full extent of his desires (for want of a better way of expressing it.) If Nichols was actually his first victim might it not be the case that this was simply as far as he went at that time and that he then went further with Chapman (possibly due to a more secluded location.)

[Sam Flynn]

Liz had been known to be aggressive at times, what if she lipped off to someone she shouldn't have?

I've always been intrigued by the fact that Liz was killed not far from where she and Michael Kidney had until fairly recently lived, which might suggest that she was known to her killer; whether he was Kidney or someone else (a jealous old flame?) is another matter.

[Abby Normal]

Michael, you’ve responded there to a post by Abby.

As for Nichols, isn’t it possible that the resulting wounds were all that the killer intended? Many favour Tabram as a ‘first effort’ ripper killing and that he hadn’t yet reached the full extent of his desires (for want of a better way of expressing it.) If Nichols was actually his first victim might it not be the case that this was simply as far as he went at that time and that he then went further with Chapman (possibly due to a more secluded location.)

HI HS
eventhoughIthink more likely that the ripper was disturbed by someone with Nichols and took off before doing what he intended, you make a very valid point and it could be chalked up to escalation.

[c.d.]

I've always been intrigued by the fact that Liz was killed not far from where she and Michael Kidney had until fairly recently lived, which might suggest that she was known to her killer; whether he was Kidney or someone else (a jealous old flame?) is another matter.

Hello Sam,

Unless the police were complete idiots they would have asked Kidney for an alibi. If he could not supply one that could be verified, they would have asked Schwartz to take a look at him.

c.d.