|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
tired_cos_of_jack_the_ripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 9:16 am: |       |
Does anybody believe that liz stride was a ripper murder? im not sure after watching from hell! |
Andy Spallek
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 4:35 pm: | |
Yes, I believe with 90% certainty that Stride was a Ripper victim. Had it not been for the Eddows murder that night I would say that she was not. However, the two murders together are too much of a coincidence and the explanation that the murderer was interrupted as he began his work explains the lack of mutilation quite neatly.
FWIW -- I give Kelly a 95% rating and Tabram a 20% rating (although it is rising in my mind). Eddows, Chapman, and Nichols are 100%.
Andy
|
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 6:15 am: | |
Andy Spallek writes:
"Yes, I believe with 90% certainty that Stride was a Ripper victim. Had it not been for the Eddows murder that night I would say that she was not. However, the two murders together are too much of a coincidence and the explanation that the murderer was interrupted as he began his work explains the lack of mutilation quite neatly."
I've been thinking about this "coincidence" issue lately and it really doesn't seem quite as unlikely as might be assumed that another killer "just happened" to pick the same night to kill Stride as the genuine Ripper picked to kill another victim. (The key of course is that humans are not random billiard balls bouncing off each other, so the "odds" can't be computed in such a straight-forward manner)
Consider the general mood of the Whitechapel public during this period -- better yet, put yourself in that time frame, at the very height of the Ripper scare. The killer hasn't struck in several weeks, it's the weekend, and I'd imagine a lot of people may have felt the time was ripe for another Ripper murder at just this point in time. (A feeling which was not unjustified, I might add). And so, a copycat killer decides to take this opportunity to commit his own killing, well aware that it would likely be attributed to the Ripper. And as luck would have it, the Ripper decides to pick that day out of the 2 or 3 days which fall on that "weekend" to commit his crimes. Making the odds 1 out of 3 rather than the incredible odds it might seem to be at first glance.
Alternatively, the Ripper may have been in the process of planning to murder another victim "some time soon" and then after catching wind of the other murder, decided that this would be the perfect night to kill, thereby getting "two for the price of one" to hang on his reputation.
In any case, it can be quite tricky to compute "odds" when the terms of such odds involve volitional agents with the ability to think and make choices. |
Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 43
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 11:30 am: | |
Randy,
I agree with your analysis and perhaps I should not put so high an odds as 90% on Stride. Nevertheless I think when all factors are put together a very high degree of probability exists. Yes, a copycat killer is a plausible explanation but it is an unnecessary complication. A simpler (and therefore more likely) explanation is that a single killer was interrupted and moved on to another victim. In the end, you have the same objections to a copycat as you have to a single killer. Would't a copycat copy JTRs MO? Why didn't he mutilate Stride then? He was interrupted? Well, why isn't it more likely to take the simpler assumption that the single killer himself was interrupted? It is not necessary to introduce the complication of a second killer.
Andy
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 510
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 6:11 pm: | |
G'day,
I believe with 100% certainty that Stride was a Ripper Killing, and 100% certainty that Mary Kelly was a Ripper killing. Tabram, I'd say 50%, because I haven't really studied her case enough to raise that percentage.
It's not hard at all to believe that circumstances changed a little in the Stride case, causing Jack to use another knife to cut her throat (her knife perhaps) and then was disturbed. There was a chance for him to escape, before no one was allowed to exit the Yard. Escape would have been at the top of his mind, and he took the chance! If he was allowed the time to mutilate her, then he probably would have used his long-bladed knife.
Andy, why does Mary Kelly only get a 95% rating in your mind? If her killer really wanted to make it look like the work of the Ripper, couldn't he have waited for the chance to kill her outside in the street?
LEANNE |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 6:41 pm: | |
Oh dear,
I believe fervently Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim. I'm sure Michael Kidney is the men who should take the blame.
Cheers, Mark |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 97
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 7:20 pm: | |
Hello All
When determining whether Stride was a JTR victim or not, the subject of serial killer profiling inevitably comes into play. Profilers like to see the same M.O. in all the crimes except for the early murder attempts which can be seen as trial runs for the killer.
Stride did not have her throat cut to the bone, there was only one slash to the throat and a short knife was used on Stride while the Eddowes killing took place on the same night and a long blade was used. It should be noted that the killer could have carried more than one knife and that a copycat killing on the same night as an actual Ripper killing would be a rare coincidence indeed.
Strides killer may have ben seen by Schwatz along with an accomplice. This is not the case with any of the other victims as far as we know. Chapman was seen with a lone man before she travelled the passageway to her doom and Eddowes was seen with a lone man just before her death.
Conversely the discriptions of Chapman's, Stride's and Eddowes' killers roughly coincide and Strides' killer may likely have been interrupted which would explain the failure to mutilate as anyone can see.
It should also be noted that Stride was pushed to the ground by her potential killer, JTR would likely have walked away rather than risk being seen abusing a victim in front of witnesses.
I would have to be ambivalent about whether Stride was a victim of JTR or not.
Best Regards
Gary
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 10:16 am: | |
G'day,
Why are you so certain that Stride was pushed to the ground?
How can profilers be so sure that serial killers always use exactly the same M.O., under any circumstance. Elizabeth Stride could have shown him her own knife, as if to say: "You'd better behave, see I've got a knife!" Many prostitutes at the time carried knives.
Why on earth would any killer finish the job, after he'd been seen by two men? He would have moved on to find another victim or killed another night!
LEANNE |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 98
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Stride may have fallen in a drunken stupor. But I believe the eyewitness and I'm not so sure she was all that drunk that night even though she was seen drinking in a bar on the night of her death.
Perhaps I was unclear in my post. Profilers ARE always looking for the same m.o. and I don't buy this in all cases. S.K.s' can and often do vary their m.o.'s, their type of victims and as I said on another board all S.K.'s are not 25-35
white males with the same upbringings. There are just too many variables to paint with the broad brush that the profilers like to use. We always hear when the profilers are right about an S.K.,
failures are not mentioned. Nevertheless, they do provide a service to law enforcement and S.K.s do often, but not always, fit the profiles.
As for a killer finishing the job after being witnessed. It seems to me that JTR would have moved on and that a street gang could have been involved. These gangs acted with abandon and without fear of retribution.
These were all factors in my inability to come to a final conclusion on Stride as a JTR victim.
All the Best
Gary
P.S. One point I failed to mention in my post that I had intended to bring up was that Stride was not strangled before her throat was cut.
Further, there is a dissertation on Stride as a potential victim on the Casebook. The author states that Stride was not a victim and this can be proven by the fact that her killer was right-handed and all of the other victims were killed by a left handed man. I couldn't disagree more. The victims were all killed by a right handed man if we accept that that the killer struck from behind and slit the throats from left to right with the wound tailing off toward the bottem right. Of course we do not know about MJK, she may have had her throat slit whilst sleeping from a killer who kneeled on the bed above her. But I fear we will never know due to the degree of mutilation her body was subjected to. |
Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 44
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 12:30 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I give Kelly a 95% rating only because of the different venue (indoors) and MO (much more extensive mutilation). However, I firmly believe these to be the result of opportunity on the part of JTR.
As far as the differences in the Stride killing, I will have to pnder about this a but more. Some details have come to light in this thread that I had either missed or forgotten:
1. Smaller knife. I see no objection to the killer having more than one type of knife.
2. Lack of strangulation. I'm not sure how definitive this finding was. I don't see any mention in the post-mortem either way. At any rate, if Stride was fully conscious when her cartoid artery was severed, surely there would be large amounts of blood spattered about. The description of the scene describes only a trickle of blood running to the gutter. I suppose it's possible that the killer could have absorbed the blood slatter on his clothing (which would raise the question of his being able to accost another victim with that appearance), however a killer would have to be pretty clumsy to do that.
Andy
|
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 104
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 12:58 pm: | |
Dear Everyone,
In my opinion there is very little doubt Stride was not killed by the same killer who killed the others. Her murder has only been linked to the others because of the time it occured.
If she had been murdered the following year, I doubt very much that anyone would have linked them together.
There are so many things which point to another killer.
1. Different weapon. Of course the killer may have carried more than one knife - tha's possible, what is most unlikely is that he would use any other weapon than that which have served him well in the past and the future. Why? If you know a long bladed very sharp knife does the trick why to you suddenly try a rather blunt short bladed, round pointed knife that obviously doesn't.
2. Geographical area. All the other killings occured in an arc north of the Whitechapel road. This was his hunting ground in an area known for its prostitutes - a surfeit of victims. Why would he suddenly go out of area to a road which was not known for such women?
3. Murder site. All the other murders took place well out of sight of the general public. Tabram was found inside a building on a landing, Nicholls in a deserted street, Chapman in the backyard of a house, Eddowes in the darkest corner of Mitre Square, Kelly in her room. Not only was the initial assault on Stride witnessed, her body lay within feet of a fairly busy road. The Ripper would have dragged her right up into the darkest recesses of Dutfields yard.
and so on and so on.
You can speculate about imaginary second assailants, or switching knives while hurrying away, all the evidence shows this to be a domestic that got seriously out of hand. For that reason you are looking for someone with a history of violence towards her and who knew her well and for that reason I think Michael Kidney foots the bill.
Bob |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 100
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 1:08 pm: | |
Hi Andy
The other victims (except of course for Kelly) were mentioned as having been killed by strangling if I recall correctly. The absence of this mention in the Stride inquest would imply a lack of such a finding. If you look at the morgue photo of Liz she has a placid look on her face. As best as I can tell the others appear to suffer the trauma of strangulation with the standard protruding tongue and anquished livid expressions.
Liz also was found holding a bag of breath refreshing mints. This implies she did not clutch for her throat which she would have done to protect herself from stangulation.
All the Best
Gary |
Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 45
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 1:17 pm: | |
Bob Hinton writes:
"Her murder has only been linked to the others because of the time it occured.
If she had been murdered the following year, I doubt very much that anyone would have linked them together."
With all due respect, Bob, this is just the point! The fact that Stride's murder happened when it did IS very plausibly suggestive for its inclusion in the series. [This and, of course, its similarity to the other murders].
I'm not trying to be facetious, but can anyone tell me where the statement can be found that Stride was not strangled? Gary, I think the lack of mention either way is not conclusive as also I think her facial expression, especially to an untrained eye and in a poor-quality photograph, is also inconclusive.
Andy
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 419
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
Hi all
I'm not at all sure that Kidney killed Stride. How did he find her? It's a bit of a coincidence if he just bumped into her. So what else? She wouldn't have told him where she was going. He surely didn't trail her all that time. There are no reports of Kidney going round asking people where Stride might be. Perhaps he went round checking all her favourite haunts? But it seems she wasn't known in Berner Street.
Robert |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 2:07 pm: | |
I think people are misinformed on the killing of Stride. The killer was NOT interrupted at all and he was already gone by the time the body was discovered. All you need to do is just examine the times that are given. If it was the Ripper, I'm sure it was his plan to just slice her throat. If you think about it, the location of where he killed her was out in the open! Of course he's not going to dissect her. He would be taking a huge risk.
Phil
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 102
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 3:12 pm: | |
Hi Robert
I don't think Kidney killed Stride either. He immediately went on a bender when he found out she was dead and appeared at the police station to say that if he had been on duty as an officer at the time of Liz Strides' murder he
would have killed himself. I don't think a guilty man would make a voluntary appearance at the police station shortly after the killing.
Kidney knew Liz was a prostitute, he would have avoided tailing her for fear of appearing as a pimp and facing charges of living off the immoral earnings of a woman who so prostituted herself.
Hi Andy
The photo's are of poor quality but it is the information revealed at the inquest from the autopsy report that provided the strongest support for the lack of strangulation in Strides' case.
I'm not sure I understand your point about Stride not having been strangled. I meant that the failure to mention this is an indication that no such finding was made. To illustrate, an autopsy wouldn't mention that that a victim was dismembered but it would mention it if this was the case. I realize this is taking the argument to its' absurd conclusion, but this is often done in court.
All the Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 420
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 4:17 pm: | |
Hi all
It looks as if Stride may not have been strangled to death - Dr Blackwell talks of her bleeding to death from the throat wound. There are also the smears of blood on the inside and outside of the right hand. Since the hand was uninjured, it looks as if she may have put her hand to her throat when it was cut - assuming that no one moved the body before the doctors saw it. However she died, I don't understand how the cachous could have stayed in her hand, though.
Although she may not have been strangled to death, it's possible she was partially strangled first. I don't know whether this would account for the absence of blood spurts. I wish there was a doctor on these Boards!
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 47
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 6:11 pm: | |
Phil,
The killer was not interrupted in the sense that he was observed in the act, but he probably heard Diemschutz's cart approaching -- or perhaps he heard other sounds that frightened him. Also, the entryway to Dutfield's Yard was not "out in the open" but rather a pitch-black secluded alley between two rather tall buildings. As it would have been unlikely for someone two enter from the street (Diemschutz notwithstanding) his only real threat would have been from someone exiting the side door of the Club -- which he may have assumed was rarely used. Mitre Square with its regular police patrols and night watchman was even riskier.
Gary,
I don't want to belabor the point, but I would have thought the post mortem would mention either way whether she was strangled or not since this was an inportant point. The fact that nothing is said about it is surprising. For example (hypothetically), if all previous victims had had their left pinkeys cut off and Stride did not I would expect her post mortem to mention that hers was present, because it is an important point. As to the photograph, I have always noticed that her lower lip looks injured. Perhaps it was just chapped -- or perhaps she bit down on it while being choked. I suspect she was partially strangled, though perhaps not to the degree of some other victims.
Andy
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 422
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 6:48 pm: | |
Hi all
Re Schwartz's man, I'm not sure how much of an attack this was. The doctors found no marks on her hands to suggest that she'd grazed them upon being thrown down, nor presumably bruises on her elbows or knees. Still, I can't see her getting her cachous out till he'd cleared off.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 6:45 am: | |
Hi Bob,
You make some good points and I can see why some conclude Stride wasn't a victim of the ripper. However, you wrote:
'The Ripper would have dragged her right up into the darkest recesses of Dutfields yard.'
If the ripper killed Stride, and if his preferred MO was to pose as a customer, let his victim do the walking to her chosen spot, and kill her there unless he found the circumstances unfavourable, he would not be expecting to have to 'drag' a victim anywhere, alive or dead.
In such a case, there might be all sorts of complications for him - and us - to consider, for example: a flat refusal by Stride to offer her services to the killer; a suggestion, or a condition laid down by her, that they do the business in a spot he considered too risky; a reluctance on his part to spend a second longer with Stride while she was alive than he could help, either negotiating or arguing with her, or even trying to 'drag' her somewhere against her will; a perceived need to kill her anyway, in case she had become aware of his intentions; a need to leave her body where he killed her, because the seconds spent dragging it with him further into the yard, let alone the time spent on mutilations, could have been fatal for him too.
Love,
Caz |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 175
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 11:44 am: | |
Robert,
That Cachous point is excellent.
Taken by surprise or totally comfortable with him.
I mean, would she still be holding on to them during the attack witnessed by Schwartz ??
But she did when she was killed !!
Im just going in circles here !!
Monty
 |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 12:22 pm: | |
Dear Caz,
Good point. I was speaking metaphorically when I said 'dragged her into the darkest recesses', what I should have said was 'encouraged her to go'
I believe the Ripper was harmless looking enough that any unfortunate would have gone gladly with him.
Bob
PS See you at the conference? |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 8:06 pm: | |
Hi Robert and all;
The witness who said that Liz was attacked, described her as being grabbed and pulled about. There were indeed bruises on the shoulders of Liz, compatible with being grabbed from behind. I am including a post to Leanne from April that I also discussed the way in which the scarf was tightly knotted upwards towards the left ear. If she was not actually dragged by the scruff of the neck, then she was suspended by the scarf by a taller person until under his control. The throat was slit so quickly that she was still flopping around with her right hand and got blood on it.
As for Michael Kidney stalking Liz, don't put it past him with his drinking habits to be out looking for her, and he seems to have known just where she would be, waiting for her Jewish benefactor. He didn't tell the cops everything! He must have been so drunk that he wasn't even sure if he had done anything. Some men don't just give up on harrassing you just because you left.
Joan
{ Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 6:02pm: >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leanne: I remember reading that Liz's scarf was tightly knotted up toward her left ear, and the knife wound had actually shredded the scarf along it's lower edge. Her one side was well coated with mud. Does this sound like she was half-dragged into the passage-way by the scarf, which knotted tightly, also preventing her from yelling any more? Then her throat was slit along the lower edge, shredding the fabric. In the post-mortem it was noted that there were brown spots along her neck and cheek on that side, (known as petechia) which is a sign of strangulation with a soft fabric (as opposed to a rope-type ligature.)
Partly domestic, but also close to Jack's M.O.of partial strangulations?
Joan |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 7:06 am: | |
Andy,
"I agree with your analysis and perhaps I should not put so high an odds as 90% on Stride. Nevertheless I think when all factors are put together a very high degree of probability exists."
Well I'm not really trying to argue that Stride wasn't killed by the Ripper either. At this point, still being quite the neophyte as far as this case goes, I'm taking the approach that all 6 of the "sequential murders" from Tabram to Kelly should be treated as default Ripper victims, until such a time as a strong argument is made against any one of them. (Because all 6, in my opinion, fall well within an acceptable range of variation within a general M.O. pattern) It's just that, I think assessments of probability can be quite subjective, particularly in the case of human behavior. So I think it behooves us to be as clear as possible what we're basing our probabilities on.
>Yes, a copycat killer is a plausible explanation but it is an unnecessary complication.
On the other hand, given the context of Whitechapel, which appears to have been quite a hotbed of crime, the probability of such "unnecessary complications" would likely be higher than in other areas.
>A simpler (and therefore more likely) explanation is that a single killer was interrupted and moved on to another victim.
An even simpler explanation might be that he planned on doing a double event from the start, and he decided to do a less complicated murder first just to get it out of the way, before performing his coup de gras.
>In the end, you have the same objections to a copycat as you have to a single killer. Would't a copycat copy JTRs MO? Why didn't he mutilate Stride then?
From a purely economical stand-point, he did just enough to convince people that Stride was "just another victim of the Ripper." So in that sense, his "copycatting" was a smashing success, with a minimum of effort.
>He was interrupted? Well, why isn't it more likely to take the simpler assumption that the single killer himself was interrupted? It is not necessary to introduce the complication of a second killer.
No, it's certainly not necessary.
|
Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 50
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 2:10 pm: | |
With regard to Whitechapel being a "hotbed" of crime there needs to be some perspective. I remember reading somewhere that there was not a single murder reported in Whitechapel in all of 1887 (if it was not 1887 it was another year very near to 1888). Can someone coroborate that?
Andy
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
