Different Killers

[lynn cates]

indication

Hello CD. Thanks.

"The point I was making (and apparently not too well) was that one cut was sufficient to kill her which was the whole point of the cut as opposed to cutting her twice simply to match the previous murders."

Agreed about the one cut. Probably Kate had only one as well.

But does this not, perhaps, indicate something about the first two killings?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Lynn,

The point I was making (and apparently not too well) was that one cut was sufficient to kill her which was the whole point of the cut as opposed to cutting her twice simply to match the previous murders.

c.d.

What you are obviously skipping over is that by making 2 severe cuts he cut BOTH major arteries in the neck completely, ensuring both a quicker death and less blood in the organs and tissues when he makes the PM cuts.

Seems like the killer of Polly and Annie wanted more than just to murder... by the evidence...and it seems in the Stride case..by the evidence... that death was the only goal.

cheers

[Michael W Richards]

How's cutting up a dead body "cruel"? It's not like the victim's going to feel it. Unless they weren't dead, and there's ways to discern that. Or evidence of torture and the like. Otherwise, the likelihood is it's a purely functional act.

.

Its defacing a corpse which is of course cruel, it means that the victim if they had any religious or spiritual beliefs could not go into the afterlife intact, and in Roman Catholic religion at that time bodies could not be buried in Catholic cemeteries incomplete, without the church's permission.

It denigrates humanity and creates fear and horror among the witnesses of it....and that's cruel to my standards,...it would seem we differ based on our perceptions of what being human entitles one to. Dignity for one. Even in death.

[c.d.]

What you are obviously skipping over is that by making 2 severe cuts he cut BOTH major arteries in the neck completely, ensuring both a quicker death and less blood in the organs and tissues when he makes the PM cuts.

Seems like the killer of Polly and Annie wanted more than just to murder... by the evidence...and it seems in the Stride case..by the evidence... that death was the only goal.

cheers

Hello Michael,

You seem to be forgetting that the victims were not stationary, inanimate objects and that the killer would be hanged if caught. That would seem to be some serious adrenaline rush going on but you want to envision him as calm and calculating as somebody carving their Thanksgiving turkey. Just because he might have wanted to cut in a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that he could do so. There are just too many factors that could account for any differences.

c.d.

[Ausgirl]

Its defacing a corpse which is of course cruel, it means that the victim if they had any religious or spiritual beliefs could not go into the afterlife intact, and in Roman Catholic religion at that time bodies could not be buried in Catholic cemeteries incomplete, without the church's permission.

It denigrates humanity and creates fear and horror among the witnesses of it....and that's cruel to my standards,...it would seem we differ based on our perceptions of what being human entitles one to. Dignity for one. Even in death.

Well, Michael it would appear that you are a far better human being than I. Don't mean to deflate you there, but I was referring more to the immediate moments of the murders rather than the broader post-discovery consequences, which perhaps a killer in the middle of dismembering somebody might not be too concerned with, you know?

Not counting out broader concerns like that as a part of any 'effect' (if any) that might be sought. It happens. Hardly ever as a primary motive in dismemberments, though. Those are generally concerned with practicality. Not always. I believe this was not the case with Elizabeth Short, for example.

However, I was in this particular instance talking specifically about "cruelty" to the victims. Who were probably all stone dead before they were hacked up. One would hope.

[John G]

To my mind trying to link victims on the basis of whether the killer had anatomical knowledge, or whether he was goal-orientated, is a seriously flawed approach, which fails to take into account the various scenarios that could have impacted on the killer's MO.

Consider Liz Stride, for example. Assuming she was killed by JtR, isn't it possible a failure to mutilate could simply be explained by the fact that he chose to act impulsively on this occasion? Thus, maybe he hadn't intended to kill that night but when he accidentally encounters the victim the impulse to murder overwhelms him. However, maybe unlike the other victims Liz fails to cooperate, i.e. unaware of the dangers agreeing to go with the killer to a secluded location and then turning her back on him.

This might be because she wasn't soliciting that night, as the evidence of James Brown might suggest. Frustrated, the killer launches into a risky full-frontal assault, as witnessed by Schwartz. He then drags the victim into Dutfield's Yard, which might, to a killer who was improvising, have seemed initially to be an ideal location for a murder, i.e. because it was cloaked in near-darkness. However, he is now faced with a victim who is struggling for her life, rather than passively awaiting her fate and, what's more, he is forced to operate in the confines of a narrow passageway using a knife that was probably unfit for purpose. In these circumstances is it hardly surprising that he went in search of another victim?

Of course, another simpler explanation is that Stride was killed by someone else. However, that explanation not only fails to take into account the coincidence of Eddowes' murder shortly afterwards, it also ignores the extreme rarity of this type of crime. For instance, if we just focus on the basic facts that link Stride's murder to Eddowes', two prostitutes killed out in the open, i.e. away from a domestic setting, with their throats cut by a knife, can anyone give any examples of this type of crime occurring within Whitechapel prior to 1888?

Turning specifically to the issue of linking victims by the anatomical knowledge displayed by the killer. Firstly, this is something that even the medical professionals at the time couldn't agree on. Secondly, as noted, it fails to take into the possible circumstances in which each victim might have been killed. Thirdly, it's an argument partially predicated on the skill exhibited by the killer when removing organs (and, of course, the removal of organs is what underpins a goal-orientated linkage). However, in the case of Chapman and Eddowes it is by no means certain that the killer was even responsible for the removal of the organs, as Trevor Marriott, for example, has persuasively argued.

In my opinion, therefore, the rarity of this type of crime is sufficient to prove, on balance of probability, that the C5 victims plus Tabram were murdered by a single killer.

[c.d.]

Hello John,

"Full-frontal assault" would seem to be a gross exaggeration of what Schwartz described which was simply a woman being thrown to the ground.

You would also have to wonder why the B.S. man would go on to kill Liz after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man. A reasonable assumption on the part of the B.S. man would be that Schwartz ran off to find the nearest policeman.

If Liz was struggling for her life, how did she manage to hold on to the cachous?

Also, no one at the club heard any argument or noise which seems a bit strange.

c.d.

[Batman]

Hello John,

"Full-frontal assault" would seem to be a gross exaggeration of what Schwartz described which was simply a woman being thrown to the ground.

You would also have to wonder why the B.S. man would go on to kill Liz after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man. A reasonable assumption on the part of the B.S. man would be that Schwartz ran off to find the nearest policeman.

If Liz was struggling for her life, how did she manage to hold on to the cachous?

Also, no one at the club heard any argument or noise which seems a bit strange.

c.d.

The fencing response to a blitz attack would explain why. People involuntary hold onto stuff too during an attack.

She was blitzed. JtR's MO.

[Bridewell]

Seems like the killer of Polly and Annie wanted more than just to murder... by the evidence...and it seems in the Stride case..by the evidence... that death was the only goal.

cheers

That might, indeed, mean a different killer - or it might mean the same killer but a different motive.

A witness at the Chapman inquest was Liz Long; the next victim was Long Liz. That may or may not be coincidence.

[John G]

Hi C.d.,

Of course, there are conflicting accounts of what Schwartz actually saw. According to the Star "The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage...." That is what I was referring to when I mentioned a full-frontal assault. in any event Stride would have been alerted to her assailants violent intentions, and the possible danger she was in.

However, I will concede that I exercised a degree of dramatic licence when I suggested that she was fighting for her life! Nonetheless, according to the Star report Schwartz subsequently heard the sound of a quarrel, so it's possible that Stride subsequently made some sort of attempt to defend herself.

As to why nobody heard anything, well there were still around 30 people inside of the club so maybe there was just to much noise for any club member to hear anything. As for outside the club, no one admitted to hearing an altercation but, then as Dr Philips pointed out at the inquest, in answer to the question "But why did she not cry out while she was being put on the ground?": " she [Stride] was in a yard, in a locality where she might cry out very loudly and no notice taken of her."

And, of course, if she did cry out, which would have been the natural thing to do, her killer would have had another good reason not to hang around, i.e. whilst attempting mutilations.

Regarding whether the killer believed that Schwartz or Pipeman might report the incident to the police, isn't this another reason why JtR, assuming he was the perpetrator, might not want to remain at the scene of crime too long, i.e whilst attempting to carry out mutilations?

[c.d.]

Hello John,

We have Abberline's report which states that Schwartz simply saw a woman being thrown to the ground. I think it is a safe assumption that the newspapers were going to attempt to embellish that.

After Schwartz left no one in the club heard the sound of an argument. You are right that there was probably still a fair amount of noise in the crowd but Eagle and Mrs. Diemschitz told the police that they had the door open and believed that they would have heard something.

As far as Schwartz running off, he could have been looking for a policeman who would soon arrive on the scene. Yes, criminals and people in general do stupid things. But according to Schwartz, Stride was still alive when he left the scene. Had the B.S. man fled as well after being seen all he could be charged with was pushing a woman to the ground hardly a hanging offense. Why go on and kill her after being seen? I think the simplest conclusion is that the B.S. man was not her killer.

c.d.

[John G]

Hello C.d.,

Of course normally I would more readily accept the official police report over a newspaper article. However, in this case I'm not so sure. Firstly, we know that Schwartz's English was imperfect and that the Star, at least, engaged the services of an interpreter. Is there any evidence that the police used an interpreter when taking his evidence? Moreover, according to Begg and Bennett (2012) the police report that's survived is not a verbatim account, but a summary of Schwartz's statement made by Chief Inspector Swanson.

Regarding the fact that no one admitted to hearing an argument. Well, upon discovery of Stride's body Diemshitz and Kozebrodsky ran up the street shouting "murder" and "police". However, their alarm calls seem to have attracted the attention of just one member of the public: Edward Spooner! That seems to support Dr Philips' view of the likely response of the local neighborhood to cries for help.

Regarding the club itself, according to Eagle's the club members were still singing when first informed by a club member, Gilleman, that Stride's body had been found: see Evans and Rumbelow (2006). I therefore can't see how Eagle's could be in any way certain that they would have heard an altercation. Maybe someone did, but failed to admit it in case they were thought of as cowardly for not responding? Perhaps Eagle's felt compelled to defend the honour of the club?

Regarding BS man. If he was her killer, and assuming he was JtR, which I accept is far from conclusive, perhaps he felt compelled/driven to kill Stride once he'd commenced the assault; brute instinct took over. Moreover, there was also the possibility that she could subsequently identify him. However, maybe once he started to consider things from a more rational perspective, i.e. the possibility of Scwartz/ Pipeman returning with help, the risk of discovery from someone leaving the club, the inadequacy of the murder weapon, he decided that attempting to mutilate Stride would have been a far too risky proposition and, therefore, unsatisfied he went in search of another victim and a more suitable knife!

[c.d.]

Hello John,

The fact that Eagle and Mrs. Diemschitz stated that they felt certain they would have heard an argument implies they would have done so despite the noise from the club.

You say that there was the possibility that Liz could identify the B.S. man but the question is identify him as what, the man who pushed her? Does it make sense that the B.S. man would rather kill her which is a hanging offense rather than be identified as the man who pushed her for which I doubt he would get more than just a don't do that again lecture.

c.d.

[John G]

Hello John,

The fact that Eagle and Mrs. Diemschitz stated that they felt certain they would have heard an argument implies they would have done so despite the noise from the club.

You say that there was the possibility that Liz could identify the B.S. man but the question is identify him as what, the man who pushed her? Does it make sense that the B.S. man would rather kill her which is a hanging offense rather than be identified as the man who pushed her for which I doubt he would get more than just a don't do that again lecture.

c.d.

Hello C.d.,

I remain unconvinced by Eagle and Mrs Diemschitz. As Sugden (2002) pointed out: "In the Tabram, Nichols and Chapman cases clear signs of strangulation indicated a likely explanation for the absence of cries but these do not seem to have be present in Elizabeth's case." And Baxter pointed out "there were no marks of gagging, no bruises on the face." Of course, Blackwell argued that Stride could have been strangled with the scarf but ,as Sugden points out, this could have happened when Stride was on the ground; it therefore doesn't fully explain the absence of cries.

As I noted earlier I cannot see, taking into consideration the possibility of the singing drowning out Stride's call for help, how anyone could be certain that an altercation would have been heard.

Of course, as to Stride identifying BS man, if he was JtR he might have felt he had no other alternative but to silence her. Or, as I noted earlier, having commenced the assault he may have been driven to murder by brute instinct regardless of the consequences.

[c.d.]

Hello John,

We have no way of knowing if Eagle and Diemschitz could have heard anything over the noise from the club but since they are telling the police that they felt they could have, take that for what you think it's worth.

As for Liz identifying the B.S. man, how could she have identified him as the Ripper if he only pushed her?

c.d.