Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[Rosella]

If you were Elizabeth I don't think you would feel there was too much difference between being strangled and being throttled by having your neckerchief pulled so tight you couldn't breathe.

I don't know about Berner Street being an ideal location but Dutfield's Yard would only be so if you could guarantee that no club members would decide to enter the club by the side door while you and your victim were in the vicinity.

[Jon Guy]

If you were Elizabeth I don't think you would feel there was too much difference between being strangled and being throttled by having your neckerchief pulled so tight you couldn't breathe.

Good point, Rosella.

In fact, we don`t if Nichols was strangled either, she definitely had a hand across her mouth and possibly nose, which could have resulted in her biting her tongue.
Chapman was said to have had her breathing interfered with, which doesn`t have to be strangled.
Tabram looks like she`s been strangled but the doctor makes no mention of it.
So, could be that Stride`s scarf was pulled forcibly in some way, either to expose the neck, or to pull Stride to the ground or choke her.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Harry,

I responded to the above because in fact only 2 victims within the Canonical Group were "sprawled" out in public areas. Polly and Kate. The other 3 were killed on private property.

Just like Mrs Brown.

Cheers

Hi Mike

What about Eddowes ?

Although I know you are one of the few who is only interested in the "Canonical 5", McKenzie was certainly found "sprawled" out in a public place too.

[lynn cates]

scarf

Hello John. Thanks.

I agree that the scarf was pulled tight and the knot to the left. Of course, that is not the same as strangulation. It likely served only to pull her off balance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a95rqNxxbiM

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

duration

Hello Rosella.

"If you were Elizabeth I don't think you would feel there was too much difference between being strangled and being throttled by having your neckerchief pulled so tight you couldn't breathe."

But there would be a vast difference in duration.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Occam's Razor. As I stated earlier, this kind of crime was practically unheard of in Whitechapel before 1888. Then we suddenly have a trend of victims (mainly working girls) having their throats slashed and being left sprawled out in public areas. What is the simplest, straightforward explanation? That Stride was murdered by a known serial killer at large in the area who, for whatever reason, refrained from his post-mortem signature? Or that a separate, second killer happened to target Stride in a similar style 45 minutes before the Ripper struck again? Again, I'm not stating that it's inconceivable that such a coincidence would occur, I'm saying that all things considered it's pretty damn unlikely.

One of two unlikely scenarios occurred -either three killers or two killers, one of whom killed twice. To apply Occam's Razor I think you would need to present a convincing argument that one possibility was much more likely than the other. I don't find myself able to say, with confidence, whether or not Eddowes was killed by the same person who killed Stride. If we knew, for certain, which was the case it would be really useful - but we don't. It's one of the great unknowns.

[John G]

Good point, Rosella.

In fact, we don`t if Nichols was strangled either, she definitely had a hand across her mouth and possibly nose, which could have resulted in her biting her tongue.
Chapman was said to have had her breathing interfered with, which doesn`t have to be strangled.
Tabram looks like she`s been strangled but the doctor makes no mention of it.
So, could be that Stride`s scarf was pulled forcibly in some way, either to expose the neck, or to pull Stride to the ground or choke her.

Hi Jon,

Yes, I believe it was Philip Sugden who argued that Nichols, Chapman and possibly Eddowes were suffocated rather than strangled. A link was therefore suggested on the basis that the victims had their throats cut whilst they were close to the ground and they had been either strangled or suffocated.

Best wishes,

John

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

I agree that the scarf was pulled tight and the knot to the left. Of course, that is not the same as strangulation. It likely served only to pull her off balance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a95rqNxxbiM

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for your very informative reply. To be honest I'm not totally convinced myself that the killer's intention was to strangle Stride. Nonetheless, what is surely the salient point is that despite the fact that Stride's windpipe had been divided, and her carotid artery partially severed, there was very little blood on Stride or the surrounding area.

Of course, considering the injuries you would have expected lots of blood from arterial spray, which didn't happen. This was probably because her throat was cut when the victim was close to the ground. This also seems to be what happened in the case of Eddowes (see Dr Brown's testimony), and possibly Chapman, although the evidence also suggests she was either strangled or suffocated. In the case of Nichols, there was no blood found on her breast, body or clothing, despite the fact that she'd been virtually decapitated. I would therefore argue that this also suggests that her throat was cut whilst she was close to the ground: see, for example, Keppel et al. (2005).

In summary, it seems to me that Stride's killer was either very lucky or had learned from previous mistakes: for some reason the name Martha Tabram springs immediately to mind!

Best wishes,

John

[Harry D]

One of two unlikely scenarios occurred -either three killers or two killers, one of whom killed twice. To apply Occam's Razor I think you would need to present a convincing argument that one possibility was much more likely than the other. I don't find myself able to say, with confidence, whether or not Eddowes was killed by the same person who killed Stride. If we knew, for certain, which was the case it would be really useful - but we don't. It's one of the great unknowns.

I've already presented a convincing argument in favour of one particular scenario over the other: the fact that these crimes were unprecedented in Whitechapel before the Autumn of Terror. There were three knife murders that day, one was a domestic where the victim was killed in her own home and the killer handed himself in, the other two were seemingly random, unsolved attacks on prostitutes in public areas which happened at the height of the Ripper attacks. Now, if we consider the criminal history of the area, and the proximity and timing of these murders, the only logical outcome is that the Ripper struck.

Incidentally, I do wonder if the Ripper believed he had been seen during the Stride murder, which might explain the lack of mutilations and why he wasted no time in attacking his next victim? It might even explain the intensity of Eddowes's injuries. The Ripper was panicking and thought he had nothing to lose, or he was still buzzing from the Stride murder. However, he managed to avoid detection but kept a low profile until he felt safe enough to find his next victim... or did she find him?

[Tom_Wescott]

The tight scarf

The scarf was probably pulled tight at the moment her neck was cut, as illustrated by the fact that the knife actually cut through part of the scarf. Therefore, the reason it was pulled tight was not to knock her off balance or to strangle her but to lift her neck/head from the rock in order to get the knife under and cut her throat. As for how she was rendered unconscious, we'll never know for sure, but either she fainted or was garrotted.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Tom.

"The scarf was probably pulled tight at the moment her neck was cut, as illustrated by the fact that the knife actually cut through part of the scarf."

Absolutely.

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

I've already presented a convincing argument in favour of one particular scenario over the other: the fact that these crimes were unprecedented in Whitechapel before the Autumn of Terror. There were three knife murders that day, one was a domestic where the victim was killed in her own home and the killer handed himself in, the other two were seemingly random, unsolved attacks on prostitutes in public areas which happened at the height of the Ripper attacks. Now, if we consider the criminal history of the area, and the proximity and timing of these murders, the only logical outcome is that the Ripper struck.

Harry D,

I don't think your argument was convincing at all. I have never thought it convincing when those before you have said the same thing. Like Colin stated, it wouldn't be easy to show "that one possibility was much more likely than the other."

Taking in consideration what you say we should (criminal history, proximity and timing) why ignore the unsolved murders before and after the C5? Were many of them not prostitutes, around the same time, and in the same area? Is Jack responsible for all of them? What about the torso murders? Have you considered how many suspects we know of that were convicted murderers and living in London at the time? Isn't that a coincidence in itself?

Sorry, I don't think its logical to believe the only logical outcome is that 'Jack' killed Stride. He may have but I'm not convinced.

Cheers
DRoy

[Tom_Wescott]

This thread is full of a lot of disinformation and misinformation. What's important to keep in mind is that the only reason Stride's candidature is so hotly debated is because a handful of modern authors made some serious errors in their research 20 or so years ago that keep getting repeated ad infinitum. Although many of these myths have been done away and proved groundless since that time the idea had already taken root, so naturally there's going to be some who continue to argue that Stride was not a Ripper victim because so many old and new Ripper books say so. Others are simply incapable of changing their minds once it's made up (that IS difficult to do). But if you do as I did and follow the argument against Stride being a Ripper victim back to its roots, you'll see that it's built on error upon error, with the only legitimate piece of evidence in favor of it being that she was not abdominally mutilated. While I agree that this must leave something of a question mark over her head, to argue that the weight of evidence points to her as having not been killed by Eddowes' slayer is not only weak, it's absolutely faulty.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Harry D]

Harry D,

I don't think your argument was convincing at all. I have never thought it convincing when those before you have said the same thing. Like Colin stated, it wouldn't be easy to show "that one possibility was much more likely than the other."

Taking in consideration what you say we should (criminal history, proximity and timing) why ignore the unsolved murders before and after the C5? Were many of them not prostitutes, around the same time, and in the same area? Is Jack responsible for all of them? What about the torso murders? Have you considered how many suspects we know of that were convicted murderers and living in London at the time? Isn't that a coincidence in itself?

Sorry, I don't think its logical to believe the only logical outcome is that 'Jack' killed Stride. He may have but I'm not convinced.

Cheers
DRoy

Hey, DRoy.

What unsolved murders are you specifically referring to?

All those convicted murderers living in London and yet the reported knife murders in the WHOLE of England for 1887, let alone London, was a paltry 11?

The Torso Murderer had a markedly different MO. He didn't accost prostitutes out in the open, he must have had his own premises in which to dismember his prey, and also some form of carriage to transport the remains. Again, quite an exceptional case, but I don't see what bearing it has on Stride's killer.

* For the record, my personal canon is the C5 + McKenzie.

[Michael W Richards]

I think the discussion about what the scarf represents is interesting...Dr Blackwell had this to say at the Inquest on October 1st:... "The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight. In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife. "

That seems to me to indicate that the scarf was twisted tightly at the moment the cut was made. Which seems to indicate that the victim was being controlled by the scarf, not strangled,....just as a tight collar and leash controls a pets movements while walking. It limited her ability to defend herself..by calling out for help, for one.

I don't believe Liz Strides evidence shows that her killer sought to incapacitate her first, via choking or strangling her...yet another variance with the previous 2 Canonicals.

A single cut made while holding the womans scarf twisted tightly, just feet from the street, sounds like someone committing a lethal assault, not preparing a victim for what lay ahead. There are so many reasons to question this murders inclusion in the Canonical Group, and just 2 to include her...the historical timing of her fatal assault, and the fact that there had been other unsolved crimes in the recent past and in the near future involving cut throats.

The problem is....is it logical to say that the man that killed Polly and Annie didn't have an uncontrollable penchant for mutilation after the kill? He does with Kate, if the same man that killed the first 2. So where does the reason he sought out prostitutes to kill and mutilate go when he meets Liz?

Interuptus isn't on the records, so you only have what you have.

Cheers