Three cases of interruption?

[Tom_Wescott]

The reality is, we don't know that either Eddowes or Stride were Rippr victims. We just have to make the best guesses we can and see how they fit together. However, there is one and only one reason to exclude Stride as a Ripper victim, and that is because she wasn't mutilated. The probability remains that one killer was on the lose that night and he claimed two lives within the same hour and in the same manner. The alternative is far, far more remarkable.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mascara & Paranoia]

However, there is one and only one reason to exclude Stride as a Ripper victim, and that is because she wasn't mutilated.

...Not necessarily. The lack of mutilation isn't the thing that discredits Stride as a Ripper victim, it's everything else. Her not being mutilated could've been easily explained as an interruption had she actually been a Ripper victim, but the way in which she was murdered, the severity or lack thereof of her throat wound compared to the other canonical victims, her clothes not being disturbed and the venue for the crime does not add up as the work of the Ripper, among numerous other things that have already been said. I'm not being argumentative or confrontional by the way (well, I am, but not in a negative way ;p), I just really don't see how anyone could view Stride as a Ripper victim.

[Fisherman]

Tom writes, on Stride:

"there is one and only one reason to exclude Stride as a Ripper victim, and that is because she wasn't mutilated"

That, I take it, would mean that there was a restricted area and time zone in which only the Ripper was able to cut throats?

You see, Tom, once an argument like this is subjected to some scrutiny, it ends up totally useless. It is wrong, quite simply.

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Im sorry for using so much of the past few pages, obviously I am passionate about this topic....but Ill leave with this short post to wrap it up for me for a day or two...

If Liz Stride was not killed by Jack the Ripper, but Kate Eddowes was....then I suggest take a good look at Jack the Rippers real streak.....3 straight victims almost identically attacked and murdered, with injuries that escalate with each successive victim...and no actions that are taken with the first victim have been omitted during each successive murder.

The killer who murdered women in public by slitting their throats so deeply that he almost decapitates them, and opened their abdomens to take abdominal organs.. when in secluded surroundings.

Best regards all.

[Tom_Wescott]

So, you and MP are saying that her lack of mutilations have nothing to do with why she's discounted? Do you guys even know the history behind the 'disclude Stride' idealogy? Because I do. All of it. MP says 'her clothes weren't disturbed'. Well, if her killer were interrupted would that not explain that as well? You say the 'severity of her wound'. But was it not too dark for the Ripper to examine his handiwork to make sure it was up to your standards? He had a limp, quiet woman gushing blood. Was there any reason for him to have assumed he didn't sever the carotid? Come on guys, he wasn't a robot. You'll have to do better than this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I'd have expected at least the clothes to have been disturbed to indicate that he was interrupted, but it seems that whoever killed Stride only intended to do just that, and nothing more. So the interruption theory doesn't hold much weight/water/whatever that saying is. Her killer probably slashed her throat so people would think it was the Ripper, and if that was the case, then it did the trick.

As for the throat wound itself, I'm not sure whether the yard where Stride was killed was pitch black or not, but wasn't Bucks Row and (especially the corner in) Mitre Square pretty damn dark too? It's not the darkness of the environment but the method used to cut the throats. Why would Jack choose a different and haphazard way to slash Stride's and only Stride's throat? Apparently even a different type of knife was used on her, and if that's so, only her again. Everything points to a different killer who wasted Stride.

[perrymason]

So, you and MP are saying that her lack of mutilations have nothing to do with why she's discounted? Do you guys even know the history behind the 'disclude Stride' idealogy? Because I do. All of it. MP says 'her clothes weren't disturbed'. Well, if her killer were interrupted would that not explain that as well? You say the 'severity of her wound'. But was it not too dark for the Ripper to examine his handiwork to make sure it was up to your standards? He had a limp, quiet woman gushing blood. Was there any reason for him to have assumed he didn't sever the carotid? Come on guys, he wasn't a robot. You'll have to do better than this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Not everyone who discounts Stride does so without using the very obvious Ripper-style physical evidence that is missing in this case Tom. But I do agree that it is more than just that element which can be used to discern the probabilities here.

Yes...Jack may well have killed that night, but no....that he was about in the City doesnt then make him the obvious choice for Liz on Berner Street too. Particularly without evidence of interruption or any traces of postmortem mutilation attempts present.

Cheers

[Tom_Wescott]

Everything points to a different killer who wasted Stride.

Everything, ey? And yes, Buck's Row was dark, but not quite so dark as Mitre Square and Dutfield's Yard. Take a look at Nichols. She was turned to her side and her throat was cut in a VERY similar fashion to that of Stride. THEN a second cut was made - I believe to fasciliate the bleeding for further mutilation. Had the killer been interrupted (or chose to stop for some reason) between the first and second cut in Buck's Row, you would have had a circumstance identical to that of Stride.

So, we're back to the lack of mutilations being the overriding reason to discount Stride. Not 'Everything about it', as you keep saying, just this one thing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mascara & Paranoia]

that he was about in the City doesnt then make him the obvious choice for Liz on Berner Street too.

I think that's one of the main reasons why Stride is thought to be a Ripper victim too, that Jack was outside of Whitechapel that night for whatever reason, and I always found that to be one of the more interesting aspects of that night (especially given that I don't view Stride as one of his girls).

[c.d.]

Im sorry for using so much of the past few pages, obviously I am passionate about this topic....but Ill leave with this short post to wrap it up for me for a day or two...

If Liz Stride was not killed by Jack the Ripper, but Kate Eddowes was....then I suggest take a good look at Jack the Rippers real streak.....3 straight victims almost identically attacked and murdered, with injuries that escalate with each successive victim...and no actions that are taken with the first victim have been omitted during each successive murder.

The killer who murdered women in public by slitting their throats so deeply that he almost decapitates them, and opened their abdomens to take abdominal organs.. when in secluded surroundings.

Best regards all.

Hi Michael,

But is it really realistic to use just three victims as a basis for saying what the Rippper might have done or not done? I could buy into that perhaps if it was say ten for example. Also, different circumstances dictate different actions. Liz might have been a spur of the moment thing for him that he had not planned and when he realized the dangers involved he simply bailed and went looking for another victim.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

We have to exclude Mary Kelly on the grounds that her wounds were too severe and the Ripper didn't take her uterus. I think we should also exclude Polly because she was killed on an open street and not in a court or yard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mascara & Paranoia]

@ Tom:

I don't recall Nichols having had been turned on her side like Stride and her throat cut in what would've allegedly been in an 'indentical' way had the Ripper not supposedly been interrupted when killing Stride. Nichols was on her back and due to there not being any mention in the examination that she had been turned on her side prior to the mutilations, I can't buy into that. That's evidenced. And the evidence regarding Stride's murder goes against her candidacy as a Ripper victim.

[Tom_Wescott]

A minute ago you didn't know if Buck's Row was dark, but now you're an expert on her positioning? Nichols' blood flow tells the story. It flowed to her left and down towards the curb, going underneath her. This is because she was turned to her left side. The front of her clothes and her face were not bloodied. She was then returned to her back to fascilitate the intended mutilations. Take a look at the in situ diagrams of Eddowes with this in mind as well. And the bloodied fence to the left of Chapman. And the bloodied wall to the right of Kelly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Sarcasm aside, your view of the murders just proves that you don't understand the positioning of the bodies yourself. The reason the blood flowed from the left is because the throats were cut from left to right and not because they were turned on their side. Their heads may have been turned, I can't quite remember about those details specifically, but the bodies were not like that in the case of Stride. The other canonicals were lain on their back.

[Tom_Wescott]

your view of the murders just proves that you don't understand the positioning of the bodies yourself.

AND

The reason the blood flowed from the left is because the throats were cut from left to right and not because they were turned on their side.

AND

Their heads may have been turned, I can't quite remember about those details specifically, but the bodies were not like that in the case of Stride.

AND

The other canonicals were lain on their back.

I stand corrected.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott