My own theory as to why Liz's killing is contentious is that people love a good story, and the circumstances of the killing, with witnesses, racial slurs, street fights, and a killer running away at the last moment to avoid discovery, only to stumble upon his next victim, lend themselves to storytelling and scenarios where Liz is not a ripper victim.
There is a great deal of evidence to support the idea that Liz was a ripper victim. She was in the right geographic area. Her throat was cut. She was in close proximity (temporal and geographic proximity) to the Eddowes killing. Her assailant shouted an anti-Semitic slur, which is later backed up (however enigmatically) by the graffito. The witness descriptions are consistent with at least some of the other descriptions--BS sure doesn't seem to have been Maybrick, or Tumblety, for example.. The persons with her were never identified as someone she knew. She was an indigent, homeless, alcoholic, female prostitute or part-time prostitute.
It it possible that she wasn't a Ripper victim? Of course. But the weight of the evidence certainly points that way.
-
That Eddowes had her uterus removed and taken away does not prove she was a Ripper victim. It merely proves someone removed her uterus. Yet Simon and others see this as hard proof she was a Ripper victim. Does that mean that we should exclude Mary Kelly by virtue of the fact that her uterus was not taken away?
Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it.
Yet it is this same logic that people use to dismiss Stride as a Ripper victim. Because she was not mutilated (other than her throat), she can't be a Ripper victim. This is like concluding that the Lake Berryessa couple were not Zodiac victims because they were attacked with a knife and not a gun. I don't see the logic in dismissing a mountain of evidence in order to settle on one disagreeing factor.
Yours truly,
Tom WescottLeave a comment:
-
O.K. Here's my version of the truth. If I had a pyramid people would believe I was Egyptian. It is a matter of people finding connections where there are none. P.S. I am a white guy from Kansas for any of you lazy ass homeland security types that might see this.Originally posted by Simon Wood View PostLeave a comment:
-
Hi CD,
Good.
So let's dump the idea and concentrate on discovering the truth.
Regards,
SimonLeave a comment:
-
Is there anyone out there who can sell me the double-event?
Apparently not.
c.d.Leave a comment:
-
Hi All,
Good to see you back, Tom.
Samuel E. Hudson, author of "Leather Apron or the Horrors of Whitechapel", wrote, "In fact, the assassin was disturbed at his bloody work, and made off before he had time to complete the mutilation for which he is famous."
That was written in December 1888, and since then nothing has changed. 120 years on the urban legend of the double event remains a firm fixture in the story of Jack the Ripper.
But where's the evidence? Why should I believe this particular episode of Ripper lore?
Aside from the arrival of the highly-suspicious SJ postcard there is not one single jot of evidence to support the proposition that Stride was a "Ripper" victim.
And when you carefully examine how Swanson tried to play Pick 'n' Mix with the time-scales and witness statements in an effort to explain why Stride, though a Ripper victim, wasn't mutilated, the double-event proposition becomes even less tenable.
Is there anyone out there who can sell me the double-event?
Regards,
SimonLast edited by Simon Wood; 02-12-2009, 10:35 PM.Leave a comment:
-
DarkPassenger illustrates a very good reason why the Stride case is contentious. Most people don't have their facts straight and the case is clouded with myths. For instance, there's absolutely no reason to suppose that Stride was killed with a 'different knife'. This myth arises from the dull knife found a street over the day after the murder. The doctors felt that THIS knife was different from the one that killed Stride, not that the knife that killed Stride was different from the one that killed Eddowes.
Yours truly,
Tom WescottLeave a comment:
-
Hi Dark Passenger,
Could the Ripper have had two different knives?
c.d.Leave a comment:
-
Personally, I think Liz was not a Ripper victim - she was killed with a different knife. Maybe it's best to exclude her as a victim for the purposes of truth-hunting.Leave a comment:
-
Hi CD,On the other hand, if you see those two events as being random and therefore not connected, it makes Jack the more plausible killer.
My honest take on the matter is that nobody would even conceive of ruling out a connection between a witnessed attack on Stride shortly before 1.00am and her murder which took place around the same time, unless they had the following preconceptions firmly cemented in their minds:
1) Jack killed Stride
2) Jack couldn't possibly behaved in a manner similar to the broad-shouldered man.
Best regards,
BenLeave a comment:
-
Why is Liz Stride's Murder So Contentious?
It seems that no other issue on the boards gets argued more frequently or with more passion on both sides than the question of whether Liz was or was not a Ripper victim. After giving it some thought, it's like that famous picture that some people see as a vase whereas others looking at it see it as two people kissing. Your take on Liz's murder seems to be based on whether or not you see a connection between her being thrown down by the BS man and her death shortly afterwards. If you see those events as being definitely connected it would seem that the logical and pretty much inescapable conclusion is that the BS man (whether he was Jack or not) is Liz's killer. On the other hand, if you see those two events as being random and therefore not connected, it makes Jack the more plausible killer. It also seems that once you make that determination as to whether or not the events are connected that it tends to blind you to the other sides' arguments no matter how passionately they are argued. The result being that both sides stubbornly dig in their heels.
Just my take on it.
c.d.
Leave a comment: