Stride - no strangulation.small knife ?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I disagree, Observer.

You base that opinion on that the attacker was a stranger to her, but if she knew Broadshoulders and maybe was used to fight with him, she may have underestimated the situation and thus may have calmed down and relaxed. I agree on that she must have been in a state of calm in order to pick up the cachous, but it's quite possible that she at that point may have felt comfortable enough.

After all, the attack witnessed by Schwartz do not really indicate any serious, lethal danger. It loks more like another incident between spouses or a street brawl.

All in all, I am inclined to buy most of Fisherman's scenario here and to me it makes perfect sense if Stride and the attacker knew each other. And I can't rule out that they did.

All the best

[Observer]

Hi Fisherman

At what point in the nights procedings did Stride and her new found acqaintance part company? What compelled him to return to Berner Street at such a late hour? If Stride was involved in a fracas with him, and initially he merley threw her to the ground, she would nevertherless be upset, would she then go into her pocket and take out a packet of cachous? It dosent make sense to me fisherman. The only way I can see Elizabeth Stride taking out those cachous would be if she was in a state of calm, relaxed in no immediate danger. The scene as witnessed by Schwartz does not provide for this scenario.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

Nor do I, Observer. They would surely empty all the possibilites at hand, although I really think that the Ripper trace would be the one they preferred to follow, urged on by the press and the general public.

That, however, need not amount to anything at all, since there is no need whatsoever to believe that Michael Kidney must have been the man responsible. Though it cannot be ruled out that it WAS him, there is every possibility that it was somebody else, perhaps a newfound lover. And such an affair need not have been old - it could have been completely fresh.

Moreover, if the police wanted to nail an aquaintance of Strides as the killer, they would be left with the burden of proof: Anybody who simply stated that they had been home sleeping in their bed would be very hard to convict if there was no evidence and no admittance on behalf of the guy. That would have applied on behalf of Kidney too, for that matter, if you want him as BS man.

All of this, however, does not touch on the issue of explaining the cachous itself. And I really feel that the explanation with an aquaintance/lover is the ONLY explanation that covers all them small things that are left uncovered with Jack on stage:

The guy tries to drag Stride along, out into the street - a clear pointer that he wanted her to leave the spot for some reason.

She cried out three times, BUT NOT VERY LOUD. So she kept her voice down - to a degree that made Schwartz notice it! During the Ripper scare? How credible is that - unless we allow for a man aquainted to her. Keeping it "in the family" is so typical for domestic violence.

The Lipski outcry craves some explaining - but if we open up for the possibility that "Lizzie" was what he shouted, no further explaining is needed, is it?
And the cachous, Observer, the cachous - if we reach a conclusion of it being a domestic affair, we finally have a solution to that nagging cachous problem!!
She would NOT have had them in her hand outside the gates - then she would most probably have dropped them as he abused her. So we have to accept that she took them out in the yard. But if she went in that yard to have sex with a punter/Jack, then why would she take them out before the act? The customer was already aquired, and if oral sex was involved, AFTER would be the appropriate time to bring them out.
It all becomes very, very strange, just like you yourself has pointed out, seemingly inexplicable - until you accept the scenario with an aquaintance. Then the problem dissolves into thin air all of a sudden, and it all becomes almost embarrasingly simple, does it not?

Add to this that we have Marshalls sighting of Stride with a man in a dark jacket and dark trousers, wearing a dark cap with a peak, and displaying a stout bodily constitution, a man who she affectionately kisses and smalltalks with before they head towards Helen street, his arm around her shoulder and telling her "You would say anything but your prayers". And lo and behold, when BS man enters the stage HE TOO carries a dark jacket, dark trousers, a dark cap with a peak, plus he displays a stout bodily constitution. Talk about coincidences! And just as Schwartz has the clothing of that man down as "respectable" in the Star, Marshall gave that exact same description of his man - respectably clad.

Theorize, if you will, Observer, that this man was one and the same, and a lover of Strides. Let a flight of fancy talk you into the possibility that when the man said "You will say anything but your prayers", it was in response to a promise on Strides behalf that she would give up prostitution, and then imagine what he would feel and do when he returns unexpectedly to Berner Street, only to find her soliciting outside the club..?

There is a lack of proof here, obviously - but there is also a chain of logic that will NOT break at any point - cachous or not. And as long as nobody comes up with a more credible explanation covering all them little details in as logic a manner or better, I remain convinced that Elizabeth Stride was killed by BS man. And BS man was not the Ripper, as clearly evinced by the crime scene.

The best, Observer!

Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Fisherman

To put it simply:
1. BS man is an aquaintance of Strides.

Then why was he not caught? As Anderson quoted, unsolved murders are rare in London. 99.9 % of domestics are caught. Are you working on the supposition that the police were 100% sure that Stride was a Ripper victim? I don't believe they would be as naive.

all the best

Observer

[Justin]

Hi Justin!

You are - I expect - aware of the fact that there were THREE women found murdered in London that night, and that two of them (not Stride, though) had had their necks severed to the bone with knives?

This is what I get for disappearing for a few years!

You're quite right there.


Cheers,

Justin

[Fisherman]

Observer writes:

"The inference followed that Stride got out the cachous in between assaults. Can you see her doing that? I can't. I'd have thought the last thing on her mind after being asaulted was to calmly remove a packet of cachous from her pocket. Getting the hell out of there, or seeking some safe haven would have been more appropriate."

Yes, Observer, I can see her getting the cachous out between the attacks. I actually think that there is a scenario where it makes perfect sense to do so, as shown in my dissertation "Piecing it together" on the boards.

To put it simply:
1. BS man is an aquaintance of Strides.
2. His initial attack comes about as a result of him finding her in a situation where it seems she is soliciting.
3. Stride is pissed off by his approach, but - just as is often the case in domestic rows - she does not scream out loud. Best keep it "in the family".
4. ...and if you want to keep it in the family, what better and closer private room was there at hand than the yard? So they go in there, where it would be perfectly natural to take the cachous out, perhaps to clear her throat. And with that cleared throat, perhaps she says that she has had all she can take of him, and he decides that if he cannot have her ... Itīs the oldest motive in the world, and quite trivial. Plus it explains the cachous, mind you ...!

The best, Observer!
Fisherman

[Observer]

PS

I wonder if Stride was attacked twice? Thrown to the pavement only to get up, and then as she tried to escape into the direction of the singing occupants of the club she was caught in the alley and hauled back by the scarf. This scenario also fails to explain the cachous though.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Bailey

I would also think it possible (if Stride was killed by the same person as some or all of the others) that the cachous may have been placed in her hand. We've seen at the other scenes that our killer liked to arrange his victims and / or their possessions, so maybe Stride dropped her cachous and the killer put them back in her hand once he hand her on the ground? Of course this is somewhat in conflict with the idea that he was interrupted and had no time to mutilate.

B.

That's possible, although Stride seems to have nipped the cachous in her hand Dr Blackwell stating,

"the package had lodged between the thumb and fourth finger"

most importantly he further stated

"and had become almost hidden"

Also, some of the cachous had spilled out of the packet, implying that jarring of the hand as it hit the ground spilled some of them.

So it seems that Liz Stride had gripped the cachous in death.

However, everyone seems to have neglected Schwartz's statement, and how the cachous in Stride's hand is rendered all the more mystifying by his testimony.

Remember Schwartz said her assailant threw Stride to the ground, if she held the cachous at this time then why did they not spill to the ground? Surely it is a natural reaction to splay the palms prior to hitting the deck. Even if she hung on to the cachous after being flung to the ground, I can not see them remaining in her hand as she was dragged accross the pavement into the yard

It has been mooted in the past that Schwartz's assailant might have administered a double assault, namely

a. An initial throwing to the ground, followed by Stride getting up and some minutes later

b. The assailant grabbed her again, pulled her into the yard and slit her throat.

The inference followed that Stride got out the cachous in between assaults. Can you see her doing that? I can't. I'd have thought the last thing on her mind after being asaulted was to calmly remove a packet of cachous from her pocket. Getting the hell out of there, or seeking some safe haven would have been more appropriate.

Sorry for the long post

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

Hi Justin!

You are - I expect - aware of the fact that there were THREE women found murdered in London that night, and that two of them (not Stride, though) had had their necks severed to the bone with knives?

I always thought that a helpful thing to keep in mind when discussing the subject of Stride.

As for the sense of cutting with the body down, may I remind you that doctor Blackwell stated that Strides throat to his belief was cut either when she was on the ground, OR DURING HER FALL.

It has often been pointed out that it would be odd if there were two potential killers on the East end streets in so restricted an area. But that can never be ruled out, and as there are so many and major differences between Stride and her fellow victims, both in physical evidence and in behavioural such in the time leading up to the murder it is not a matter to be taken down anybodys garden path. Moreover, if you need to talk about strange coincidences, to stumble over two physically violent men attacking you in the space of a couple of minutes spells coincidence just as well ...

The best,

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Justin,

Two throat-cutting murderers striking on the same night, within about fifteen minutes, in an area otherwise having about one murder per year?

...within about an hour, actually. Whilst we don't know the precise figures on murders in the East End, it was certainly more than one per year. In short, the odds wouldn't be insurmountable.

[Justin]

Due respect to the Fisherman, but I thought this had long ago been taken as the garden path.

Two throat-cutting murderers striking on the same night, within about fifteen minutes, in an area otherwise having about one murder per year?

Both having the sense to (at least) compress the neck and cut with the body down, so the blood ran underneath?

We're dealing with a reasonably calculating killer, not a robot. He'd been seen, he let himself get angry, so he decided to give up and hunt elsewhere.

Cf. Peter Sutcliffe.

Liz'd out indeed.

[Fisherman]

Just as I always feel, Caz, I feel this time too that one has to come up with a number of strange suppositions if one wants to bring Jack on the stage.

You write:
" if he thought Liz had sussed out who he was, the outcome was pretty much as one would expect it to be"

...but that holds no water at all, does it? If Liz "made him" as the Ripper, and if he subsequently slashed her throat, he would be left with a dead/dying woman on the ground by his feet, prone to whatever games he could think up. To say that the outcome was the expected one is simply wrong, since the expected outcome when encountering the Ripper was evisceration!

Just like Michael (Perry Mason) states on an adjacent Stride thread, the fact that Stride seemed to have been laid down gently and that her clothing was obviously not tangled with, seems to imply that no attempt whatsoever was made to cut her up.
And that means one out of two things if you really need to believe that she was a Ripper victim:

1. He was spooked or disturbed by something inbetween the cutting of the neck and the following evisceration. But if he WAS, he was seemingly spooked in the exact second when he was cutting her neck, leaving her with a considerably more shallow cut than the rest of his victims. And if THAT holds any water, he was actually cutting her as she lay totally on her left side, meaning that he would have to reach in over her and get the knife in under her neck, towards an area he did not even see, which sounds pretty awkward. The alternative is of course that she was cut in the very last stage of her fall, but that is something that does not seem to tally at all with the rest of the cut necks.
I find this ongoing speculation of an interrupted killer more of the lets-think-something-up-to-bring-Jack-on-the-stage stuff, as I really see no need to believe that he was actually interrupted at any of the murder sites, save perhaps that of Nichols, where it is reasonable to suggest that he was displeased with the outcome, since he could not procure an organ. That may well have been brought on by the approaching footsteps of Cross, who found her.

2. He never set out to do anything else than killing her by cutting her neck. That scenario, though, leaves us with exactly the same awkward cutting scenario. If he was in the habit of placing the women on thier bak before cutting, as believed by the medicos, then why did he not do so with Stride? The mud on her clothes shows conclusively that as she fell/was lain down, she ended up on her left side from the outset.

The best,

Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Again,

I should also point out that with both Croydon killers, nobody on the two nights concerned had the least awareness that a homicidal maniac was on the loose and might be out on the streets looking for victims. So the offenders would not have had to cope, as Jack would by the end of September 1888, with the public's fear and vigilance, or worry about potential victims and witnesses being automatically on their guard against a strangler-cum-head basher or knife man.

In fact there was very little reason for anyone to connect each murder with its respective interrupted attack earlier the same night, and nobody would have been anticipating any of the crimes to begin with. But connected they were, and both killers showed a very clear determination to go on and finish what they started with their first victims, with a spectacularly brutal display second time round.

Arguably, by the time Liz was killed, Jack would have felt he could not afford to leave any prospective victim alive if he messed anything up and was forced to go after a safer bet.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What if he killed Stride with one of his knives, then selected a clean knife for his next victim, Eddowes?

Clean and newly sharpened, perhaps.

It's a reasonable point, Mike, except that there is really nothing to rule out the one weapon being used on both victims.

I think many people miss an obvious reason why Jack might have thought better of mutilating Liz where he would have encountered her if he was her killer: he realised the place was just too lively, with clubbers coming and going. If he presumed he could coax her into going somewhere better from his point of view, he may have taken a refusal (and perhaps the manner of a refusal and the accompanying body language) as a sign that he had aroused the woman's suspicions to the point of no return. The average punter might merely have shrugged at a “Not tonight, maybe some other night” type of remark. He wouldn't immediately imagine that she had him down as the Whitechapel Murderer.

But Jack would have been all too conscious of the fact. And he was no average punter that night, and certainly not by the time he encountered Kate. He was more likely than the ordinary customer to take a refusal personally and react badly, and if he thought Liz had sussed out who he was, the outcome was pretty much as one would expect it to be. His previous victims had presumably gone all too easily with him to the slaughter, so we have no way of judging to what extent a refusal would have offended. At the very least it could have put him right off his stride (literally ). If he was determined to seek out another victim, who would let him do the business in a more suitable location, he would not enjoy the image of Liz describing him and her “narrow escape” to the nearest copper as he was busy trying his luck elsewhere, within easy walking distance.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bailey]

But when exactly does JTR begin to mutilate? None of Annie Chapmans possesions were said to have had blood on them. If this is true then we can suppose that JTR was doing something after Annie was at least unconsious but before the mutilations began. If that is true then JTR could have done anything before the mutilations. We dont even know how much time JTR would have felt safe to conduct such activities.
JTR may have felt he was in a safe place and he didnt need to hurry.

So there is no confliction with your idea.

Mitch,

Absolutely, although I guess I would want to consider the mindset - which is tricky from the point of view of someone who is not inclined towards mutilation and murder I would think you would attack, kill, mutilate and then arrange your scene? Obviously there would have to be a step in there of clean-up, which does seems somewhat dubious.

I suppose another way to look at it would be arrangement of the scene as a way to prolong anticipation of the mutilation. Playing devil's advocate here, arguing both sides of the coin...

Cheers,
B.