How Many Victims Were There?

[caz]

Oh, I don't think for one minute that Stride's killer warned her in so many words that he was going to kill her, whether this was BS man or someone who took over when he buggered off. As you say, she would surely have screamed much more loudly. Too many people about to risk that.

There was that case from 2003, when a former soldier called Leigh Thornhill told a prostitute that he was going to kill her while trying to strangle her. She passed out, but managed a scream when she came to, which caused Thornhill to run off, chased by a group of passing youths. Within 2 hours he had brutally battered a second victim to death.

The thing is, in Stride's case there was a possible 15 minute window between BS man pushing her, causing her to cry out, and Louis D discovering her body, during which the killer - BS man or otherwise - could have worked on her, perhaps trying to console and cajole at first, but becoming more persistent until a line was crossed, and he felt it was safer to just kill her and get away while the going was good.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hi Caz,

Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

We don't know what might have transpired between the B.S. man and Stride prior to Schwartz's arrival on the scene. It is possible that he told her he was the Ripper and was going to kill her and brandished a knife. The problem is that her reaction (three small screams) doesn't seem in keeping with that idea. It seems more in line with her being surprised that she was pushed and fell. If it had been the former you would think she would have screamed bloody murder (no pun intended) in an attempt to have Schwartz help her. This makes me believe that all the B.S. man was guilty of prior to Schwartz's arrival was pushing her.

c.d.

[caz]

I have to disagree here, Caz. Of course he would have preferred not to have been stopped and questioned but unless he had a bloody knife in his pocket or organs or was a complete idiot I doubt he had anything to fear. How many men were questioned in this case and how many of those had charges brought against them? Killing so that you won't be questioned about killing seems a poor choice. Just my opinion.

c.d.

Not sure I was arguing that he killed Stride so he wouldn't be questioned about the previous murders. I keep an open mind on whether BS man was the killer. If not, the real killer had it lucky because BS man was the obvious person of interest for the police to track down and eliminate or charge.

If Stride had not been murdered, we simply don't know what she'd have made of being roughed up by BS man, and the fact that two men saw it happen but chose not to get involved. She probably would have brushed off the incident as an occupational hazard, and Schwartz would almost certainly have forgotten all about it. But what if BS man was the ripper, and had given her cause to suspect as much, by something he said or did when no witnesses were around?

Even the thought could have spooked him into killing her quickly and getting away from there sharpish. If she was resisting his advances, might he have been so self-absorbed that he took this as a sure sign that she had rumbled him, because why else would a woman he perceived to be a prostitute play this hard to get?

The worst argument I have heard for ruling out Stride as a potential ripper victim has to be the one that says the man who killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly would not have taken his knife to anyone he couldn't safely go on to mutilate. He'd have walked meekly away, taking his knife with him, this vicious cut throat, who went out that night with murder in mind and the right weapon for the purpose. Nobody ever explains why such a man would definitely have spared Stride's life, regardless of what negative emotions might have been stirring within him.

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

Taken from the thread "Absence Of Evidence" (post #52):

I agree that he would have to be a bit thick not to see the location as particularly risky, especially after his experiences with Nichols and Chapman. But it was Stride who dictated that location, which could have frustrated and angered him enough to take his knife to her before going off to greener pastures.

We shouldn't forget that the victims were not obliged to accompany their killer to where he could safely mutilate them. It was their choice to be where they were when their killer turned nasty. If that location was all wrong for what he wanted to do, he could have backed off and let the woman live, but he was not obliged to do so. He was a killer with a knife and no conscience, not a charity worker.

Or the same killer who wasn't quite insane enough to attempt mutilation in that location, with all the comings and goings?

Other women were willing to go off with a stranger to a suitable location for whatever they both had in mind. What if Stride wasn't willing to do this small thing? If she wasn't up for a quickie, and wanted this man to go away, he'd have had no choice - whoever he was and whatever his intentions towards her were - but to push off. The fact that he cut her throat before doing just that, merely gives us a violent individual, armed that night with a lethal blade, who had the will and the skill to use it on a vulnerable, defenceless woman.

Now who in the world do we know, who would be a likely person of interest? And why would the killer of Eddowes have spared Stride his knife? Was he too much of a gentleman to attack a woman unless she gave him permission to rip her to shreds?

Don’t be silly, Caz, we both know he was neither a gentle man nor a charity worker.

If Stride did fall victim to the Ripper, then we can safely assume, as you suggest, that there was something different about the circumstances in this case with regards to the others.

You suggest that Stride in one way or another wasn’t as compliant as the others, which may very well have been a factor. But even though it’s a good suggestion, it doesn’t explain how/why he would end up alone with Stride in Dutfield’s Yard. Because after all, as you also say, he would have to be a bit thick not to see the location as particularly risky. You say Stride dictated the choice of location, but what could the Ripper expect in Berner Street & direct surroundings at that hour?

So, he would either have to have gone there with Stride just to have an actual knee trembler and things went south from there (she insulted, belittled, elbowed him or whatever), or he may have drunk more than in the other cases. Or a combination of both. In an inebriated state, he may have been (much) less inclined to care about the higher risks and more easily angered/offended/felt belittled than in the other cases. And it’s quite feasible that the others were more desperate than Stride, still wandering the streets (much) later in the night in search of money for a bed.

All the best,
Frank

[c.d.]

Sorry, have to bow out of the discussion. On my way to get my second shot of the Covid vaccine.

c.d.

[c.d.]

But I don't see anger coming from the B.S. man as a motive for killing. If he were so angry that he would kill I would expect those in the club to have heard an argument. They didn't. I would expect Stride to have been slapped around. She wasn't. I would expect that anger would have resulted in multiple body wounds but there was only a single cut to the throat. If Stride were dragged I would expect her clothes to be torn. They were not. I just don't see anger as a motive.

Schwartz and the Pipe Man might not have known the B.S. man by name but they could have given the police a description resulting in posters with his likeness.

Went on to kill after being seen with the victim? I am assuming you are talking about Lawende. But we have no way of knowing whether the Ripper was aware that he was being looked at. And there is a big difference in just talking to someone and being seen roughing them up.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Could be. But what about Schwartz and the Pipe Man? Wouldn't he have been concerned that they could identify him?

c.d.

apparently not. hee hee.

seriously though-in a fit of anger people do things regardless. and besides if they dont know ho he is its not much is it? and the ripper went on to kill other victims after being seen with them. again if these witnesses dont know who he is then hes probably not too worried about it. which is why hutch probably came forward because he might have thought lewis knew who he was (i know sorry).

[c.d.]

how about just out of anger, frustration or spite because shes not going easily with him into that dark alley way?

Could be. But what about Schwartz and the Pipe Man? Wouldn't he have been concerned that they could identify him?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

I have to disagree here, Caz. Of course he would have preferred not to have been stopped and questioned but unless he had a bloody knife in his pocket or organs or was a complete idiot I doubt he had anything to fear. How many men were questioned in this case and how many of those had charges brought against them? Killing so that you won't be questioned about killing seems a poor choice. Just my opinion.

c.d.

how about just out of anger, frustration or spite because shes not going easily with him into that dark alley way?

[c.d.]

The killer would know, c.d. We have to get inside his head. The last thing he needed was to be stopped and questioned about previous murders - assuming he was the one who committed them - because he had been seen behaving badly towards a woman on the street at that point in time. I doubt it improved his mood when Schwartz and Pipeman joined the party uninvited.

Love,

Caz
X

I have to disagree here, Caz. Of course he would have preferred not to have been stopped and questioned but unless he had a bloody knife in his pocket or organs or was a complete idiot I doubt he had anything to fear. How many men were questioned in this case and how many of those had charges brought against them? Killing so that you won't be questioned about killing seems a poor choice. Just my opinion.

c.d.

[caz]

I was thinking more along the lines of BS man being the same man who had recently murdered Nichols and Chapman, and having more to fear than a small fine or a warning if he was caught assaulting another woman, or identified later.

I am not sure I get you, Caz. How would anyone know B.S. man was the same man who had murdered Nichols and Chapman?

c.d.

The killer would know, c.d. We have to get inside his head. The last thing he needed was to be stopped and questioned about previous murders - assuming he was the one who committed them - because he had been seen behaving badly towards a woman on the street at that point in time. I doubt it improved his mood when Schwartz and Pipeman joined the party uninvited.

Love,

Caz
X

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

If the Yorkshire Ripper had not been caught, I wonder if we would now have a whole assortment of different offenders in the frame for his crimes, considering the many differences between them? Women who were attacked but survived; women killed by one or more different weapons and methods; some mutilated, others not; prostitutes and non-prostitutes. Did he follow a strict timetable for his attacks, or stick to a 'killing zone' dictated by others?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Indeed, and at the time they were suggesting that a bunch of victims must have been attacked by other people. One of the major problems in that case was that early on the police decided he was only targeting prostitutes. They dismissed other cases, despite similarities, simply because the victim wasn't a prostitute. The one case they couldn't dismiss, they even went so far as to say that it was the Y.R. who made the mistake and he must have thought she was a prostitute rather than recognize they were the ones who made a mistake. Tunnel vision, where one discards evidence because it doesn't fit the theory, was a major problem in that investigation. The belief the letters and tapes had to be genuine is another example, despite surviving victims telling them their attacker had a local accent. Offenders learn and adapt, and situations influence what they do as well, so to expect carbon copies each time is just unrealistic. Some offenders do have behaviours that they repeat (signature behaviours), and they have behaviours that are "pragmatic" (M.O.). For example, if we had a case where a victim was disembowled, but rather than have her throat cut she had been struck down by blunt force trauma, there would be no reason to dismiss that case from the JtR series. It would tell us that how JtR renders his victim available for mutilations (M.O.) is not so important to him as getting the victim silent and available to him to mutilate (signature). The rarity of that sort of behaviour strongly links Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly. Stride, due to the similarity of the throat wound with that of Eddowes, makes her worth considering, while the lack of mutilations gives pause for thought. There are explanations as to why the latter may have occurred with Stride, but proving those explanations is difficult because it's hard to know how to prove "something made JtR stop". Hence my fence sitting on her inclusion, I don't want to dismiss her in case she's part of the series, but don't want an explanation that relies upon her inclusion in case she's not. I think any solution based theory should be capable of working regardless of Stride's inclusion. But, if a solution requires Stride (or her exclusion), it would have to be otherwise very convincing in order to use that to make the call. But I'm digressing.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps you missed post #336, where someone using your account said.

Surreal isn’t it?

I pointed this out in post #364.

[Fiver]

I never said Stride and Eddowes were killed with different knives I said that Stride was killed using a smaller knife than the previous victims.

Perhaps you missed post #336, where someone using your account said.

Both killed using different knives

[c.d.]

I was thinking more along the lines of BS man being the same man who had recently murdered Nichols and Chapman, and having more to fear than a small fine or a warning if he was caught assaulting another woman, or identified later.

I am not sure I get you, Caz. How would anyone know B.S. man was the same man who had murdered Nichols and Chapman?

c.d.