Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Jack Kill Liz Stride?

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    Hi Gareth,

    But the actual murder did have the hallmarks of a practised killer. It was swift, efficient and economical
    A prolonged public squabble involving a tug-of-war on the pavement followed by the antagonist stopping and yelling out "Lipski!" doesn't strike me as swift, efficient or economical.
    And then he just assumed the single slash would suffice, never having cut a throat before?
    Wouldn't anyone? Besides, the Ripper's technique entailed knife-wounds so deep and long that there could be no doubt as to the outcome, so why didn't he do the same thing here?
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen"
    (F. Nietzsche)

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
      And what is meant by, *You would say anything but your prayers?* Was she putting off that man?
      Hi Anna,

      It sounds to me like the man who said that to Stride was either familiar with her, or thought he knew her 'type', and was accusing her of giving him a load of old toffee - saying anything to get a drink and sympathy out of him perhaps? Might she have trotted out the old Princess Alice tale, or something similar, which he took to be the fairy story it was?

      Regarding BS man, whether he was the killer or not, he does appear to have been miffed about something she said, or something she was doing or refusing to do, but it's a mere snapshot, and an awful lot of unknowns can happen in the few minutes, or even seconds, when no witnesses are watching [hint to Gareth - Mark Dixie ]. The vast majority of murderers don't have an audience for the main event for obvious reasons, and before CCTV they could stage manage it to their advantage.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        A prolonged public squabble involving a tug-of-war on the pavement followed by the antagonist stopping and yelling out "Lipski!" doesn't strike me as swift, efficient or economical.
        Exactly, Gareth - in stark contrast to the actual murder, which was so swift, efficient and economical that it was over in a second or two, but not committed until the killer was safely alone with his chosen victim.

        Wouldn't anyone? Besides, the Ripper's technique entailed knife-wounds so deep and long that there could be no doubt as to the outcome, so why didn't he do the same thing here?
        I doubt it, if they were total novices with a knife, and needed their victim stone dead because there was some kind of association between them.

        The ripper's 'technique' was aimed at preparing a victim for what he planned to do with the body after death. If on this occasion he realised, before cutting Stride's throat, that there was a substantial risk of having an audience for the second act if he went ahead, he had no need to do more than cut and run, and cut his losses while he was at it.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
          Exactly, Gareth - in stark contrast to the actual murder, which was so swift, efficient and economical that it was over in a second or two, but not committed until the killer was safely alone with his chosen victim.
          Exactly Caroline. The contemporary view that this was an interrupted ripper killing is still the most persuasive by a very long way.
          .

          Comment


          • #95
            Wasn't Schwartz and Pipeman audience enough, to say nothing of the people in the club?
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen"
            (F. Nietzsche)

            Comment


            • #96
              I wonder if the police had some other reasons to believe Liz was Jackś victim, something we do not know today?

              I could see Liz as a victim of someone else for all the reasons given plus in the Double Event I see so many political angles. But whoever got Catherine Eddowes a short time later took extreme risks--location plus cutting through her many layers of clothing--to mutilate and take organs. I could accept that Liz was a domestic or something similar and the Ripper got Kate, except for the close timing and a timing that was unusual for the other Ripper murders which seemed to have happened later in the early morning.

              There are so many ways to look at it. It is time for someone to come out and say, what about the cachous? The possibility there is Liz drove off BS Man, stepped inside the gate to compose herself, took out her cachous for comfort or whatever reason and another killer, perhaps the Ripper, jumped her there. We could wonder if the Ripper saw the confrontation with BS Man who had raised a ruckus and had witnesses. Did the Ripper then attack Liz, hoping BS Man would be identified?

              I think there is a chance JtR attended the meeting in the club that night.
              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                I think there is a chance JtR attended the meeting in the club that night.
                Yes Anna, I can imagine that as well.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                  I think there is a chance JtR attended the meeting in the club that night.
                  ... or Stride's killer, at least.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen"
                  (F. Nietzsche)

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Paul Butler View Post
                    Exactly Caroline. The contemporary view that this was an interrupted ripper killing is still the most persuasive by a very long way.
                    .
                    Or we're making assumptions as to what Jack the Ripper was supposed to do on both sides of the fence when we really don't know. He could have just decided to kill her and move on for whatever reason.

                    There are really a small number of representative samples to be conclusive about anything other than this was an extremely unique series of events in a small area for some reason.
                    Best Wishes,
                    Cris Malone
                    ______________________________________________
                    "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      ... or Stride's killer, at least.
                      um....well......yes.
                      The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        Wasn't Schwartz and Pipeman audience enough, to say nothing of the people in the club?
                        Eh? You seem to be missing the point again, Gareth. The killer made sure there was no audience at all when he took out his knife and cut Stride's throat.

                        We don't even know for sure that he wasn't watching BS manhandling her and only waded in when she was alone again and still composing herself. In that event, he'd have had no audience for any of it, while someone else - BS man - would conveniently have become the natural suspect. This was precisely how Mark Dixie would have got away with murdering Sally Anne Bowman in the days before DNA evidence. Sally had been having an argument with her boyfriend in his car while Dixie watched unseen. As soon as she got out of the car and her boyfriend drove off, Dixie pounced. The boyfriend would have been charged if his DNA hadn't cleared him, and there was nothing whatsoever to link Dixie with the murder until he had to give a DNA sample the following year after a pub brawl and a match was found.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
                          Eh? You seem to be missing the point again, Gareth. The killer made sure there was no audience at all when he took out his knife and cut Stride's throat.
                          I never said anything about having an audience at the point he cut Stride's throat, Caz. My point is that he had an audience shortly beforehand, so why go through with the murder when there was a chance that either Schwartz or Pipeman might fetch the rozzers having seen a woman being ill-treated? The killer could have left her alone, walked away and sought another victim in a safer spot, ideally not outside a busy club at going-home time, or waited until another night if necessary.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen"
                          (F. Nietzsche)

                          Comment


                          • Iíve voted Ďotherí, but I am somewhat ambivalent about it.

                            On the one hand I find the location fits in with a possible Jewish theme that night, on the other Iím curious as to why Israel Goldstein, who seems to have been the clubís caretaker at the time, was never interviewed by the press (as far as I know).

                            Comment


                            • I voted yes.
                              In fact, most of the arguments against it being Jack reinforce my stance.

                              Comment


                              • The Double Event was different in many ways from the other three so we have another lovely pattern of 2 which does not help us.

                                The DE was earlier in the early morning, in somewhat different areas and there sure seems to be a political or antisemitic overtone to the activities. It is tempting to think a copycat with a political or anarchistic motive did the DE. Or JtR had those thoughts and for whatever reason he expressed this motive in the Double Event. (I voted for Jack as killer of Stride because I still cannot accept two killers in so short a space of time and one of the murders including mutilation, etc. Though there are ways to make all that fit such as, Liz was killed in a domestic, Jack knew it and did his own work shortly after. Maybe Jack thought police would be tangled up in Berner Street so when he crossed back into Whitechapel nobody would notice him. Pure speculation on my part. I still say Jack killed both victims.)

                                (To honor Trevor who fought a good battle on Twitter, I will not mention whether or not organs, kidney for instance, were taken by the killer. But a kidney does figure into the whole tale and that too is different from other cases.)
                                The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X