Did Jack kill more than three?

[Barksey]

Barksey writes:
Barksey, I disagree very much with your suggestions here. To begin with, it was a wet night

actually, it had not rained since about 11pm:PC Smith states that "To the best of my recollection, it rained very little after 11 o'clock" (Evans/Skinner page 188) William Marshall confirms this. (Evans/Skinner page 185). The ground may have been muddy; I am not familiar with the weather on that day.

It is also evidenced that the left side of Strides clothing was "well plastered" with mud, and not just stained as you write.

I actually said "More stained"; I agree that the left side was wet with mud. However, I disagree with this:

The blood would not have much to do with it, as it had run away into the gutter when she was found. Her neck was lying over a rut, and thus she seemingly did not end up in a large pool of blood as did the others.

"There was a quantity of clotted blood just under the body" (Blackwell, Evans/Skinner, 167). It was running into the gutter, however that near the neck had clotted, and this included some around her body, which would have added to the wetness of the blood beneath it.

At any rate, she was NOT on her back as she was cut, as evinced by the lack of mud on her backside. That means that she was either cut during her fall, perhaps very close to the ground, or as she was on her left side completely, in a fetal position. And if the latter was the case, then the killer would have to reach over her and shove his knife in under her neck, commencing his cut on the left side of the neck; an awkward suggestion, though not impossible.

There is no mention of any mud on the right side of her lower body, the PM says: "There was mud on the left side of the face and it was matted in the head" (Phillips, page 176). He then includes the jacket, saying "I found that, while there was a small amount of mud on the right side, the left was well-plastered with mud" (177). She could not have been cut 'during her fall', as blood would have been found on the walls, and also on her clothing. Gravity prevails.

Points like "She had her throat cut" and "there were bruises" are often put forward, but if we consider that she was cut in a different position and with a different depth and ferocity than the others, and if we admit that women who have their throats cut are more often than not held in a tight grip by their attackers as they cut, resulting in bruising, then we are left with very little to point a finger at Jack, I feel.

Clearly . However, I don't find much difference in the ferocity or depth; the latter seems consistent with Eddowes'; I shall certainly concede the point about women who have their throats cut - my experience of this being nil.

If, however, we are to accept that Stride would have ended up with a neck cut to the bone, had the killer not been interrupted, then it is only fair to point out that it seems that the interruption entered the stage in the EXACT split second when he cut, halting the movement of the killers arm and easing off the power. It is way, way too convenient to my taste.

Assuming it was the cart driver and not one of the other people in Berner street that night, Goldstein for one admitted to being in the area shortly before the cart arrived.

So, hellbent on Strides killer not being Jack is something I am not. I am, though, absolutely hellbent on pointing to the fact that the evidence existing does NOT match Jacks behaviour in the Nichols-, Chapman- and Eddowes cases. Differing type of venue, differing positioning of the body, differing cut to the neck, no mutilations.

I would suggest that the venue is rather similar, having similar element of risk to Hanbury street and Mitre Squ (ie, limited exits, likelyhood of someone entering the crime scene suddenly). However, that is pure speculation on my part . And the point is surely that Stride's murder did not occur at a different period in time: it happened during a period when a killer was preying on prostitutes in ill-lit alleys and yards .
Besides, what would we all disagree about if Stride wasn't in the canon? .

Take care
Jen

[Dan Norder]

Comic books do not make your expert's right

Does that sentence make sense in your head somehow? Comic books have nothing to do with anything. I'm talking about the experts who write the textbooks and other professional references on criminology have to say. If you think those sources are no better than comic books, then you have no reason to even use the word "signature" in the first place. You can't just borrow a professional term to try to make yourself sound more intelligent while ignoring what all the professionals have to say about that term. You might as well be trying to claim that Kelly was murdered by someone other than the Ripper because the killer reversed the polarity of her neutron flow.

[Observer]

Hi Jon

Spot on Observer !!

Facial mutilation links between Kelly and Eddowes

Torso mutilation links between Kelly and Chapman.

Yes, the killer removed parts of Kelly's eyebrows. Was the killer initially trying to remove Kelly's eyelids though? He wasn't working under the best of conditions, not a great lot of light being cast upon Kelly. If you try to grasp your own eyelids, the flesh rolls up, and you find yourself grasping your eyebrows.

The reason I mention this is becasue I believe that the killer tried to remove Eddowes eyelids.Would a copycat killer go to such lengths, to such fine detail, in order to blame Kelly's murder on the individual who murdered Eddowes? I think not, I believe that the person who killed Eddowes killed Kelly, the eye seems to mean something to him, either that or he wanted to show the police that he was the perpetrator of the two murders.




Observer

[Fisherman]

Hi Doc!

My words:
"Thus, I think that what Strides killer left behind was a potentially surviving and witnessing victim."
Your words:
"No. Not given the details there."

Thing is, Doc – would the killer have as a clear picture of that? Donīt think so!

"There are differences between the victims of any serial killer, frankly. The question is whether or not the differences are significant and not explainable. "

Exactly so, Doc; spot on!

"I make it pretty clear--see me in a discussion where someone tries to claim the Earth is flat or country-western music has artistic qualities "

Steve Earle, Doc! Sounds like a half-cut throat (and HE survived, mind you!), has a lot of country-western to it, but is something that enriches my life though I am also a fervent mocker of that type of music , the way it usually sounds. If I may be as bold as to say that it all lies in the art of discerning differences and ackowledging them for what they are...?

And whatīs with you and Nicole Kidman?

The best, Doc!
Fisherman

[Doctor X]

On the "Heartbreak Ridge" issue; did you ever see "Fargo"? Peter Stormare, playing the Icelander, is actually a Swede. And what he does to Steve Buscemi should serve nicely as an indicator to how Swedes solve problems. There no Doctor title in the world that would help out there, Doc...!

So you get your asses kicked by pregnant women?



I mean . . . it is not as if it is that difficult to beat up Steve Buscemi. Mexicans even did it.

I much prefer him in The Big Lebowski



There are two points I would like to adress though:

But she no went on the double, did she? In fact, the extent to which the cutter would have known how many a millimetre he cut would be very hard to establish, and we have cases where people who have had their great vessels cut AND SURVIVED. . . .

Not if they, as she did, bleed out.

The only way you survive having the jugular cut is if you have an opposite side patent tranverse sinus. As for the carotid, you need the collaterals I will not detail. That is IF you stop the sudden drop in perfusion pressure cause by bleeding. Otherwise, you gone. Same mechanism as syncope--faint--and in cardiac arrest. You lose consciousness immediately. May explain--if you accept Tabram for example--why Jack dispensed with strangling them first.

Thus, I think that what Strides killer left behind was a potentially surviving and witnessing victim.

No. Not given the details there.

Rendering one more point to the home team; there are differences aplenty around here, if you are just willing to pick them up.

There are differences between the victims of any serial killer, frankly. The question is whether or not the differences are significant and not explainable.

I always thought that should have been obvious to anyone who has seen the pictures of her, Doc! And you are actually taking a step away from your earlier assertions by now adding that perhaps those who take an interesting in weird and cool stuff may well have found a fetish in Kellys death. There was nothing weird or cool about Stride, so thereīs your first difference.

Mary Kelly is the most memorable from a photographic and detail stand point; however, even the full Ripper case fell out of popular memory until movies and the like brought it back to the forefront as a source of stories--popular memory remember. Not the memory of those who study these things.

It does not require a "fetish" to have an interest in a "problem" that does not have a solution.

Back to Stride, you are back to an interruption. Neither of us, of course, can prove that if given time Jack would or would not have made Stride look like Eddowes.

But I realize that you have acknowledged that such a suggestion may be taking things a wee bit too far.

My arguing for or against in these cases is more to unpack the arguments. If I feel as a matter of opinion or fact otherwise, I make it pretty clear--see me in a discussion where someone tries to claim the Earth is flat or country-western music has artistic qualities . . . or that psychiatry is a sub-set of psychology [Stop that!--Ed.].

For all I know, next week, someone will dig up a confession for Stride's killer. Maybe someone finds a bit of bloody apron or what have you and finds some physical evidence. Maybe Nicole Kidman drops that restraining order. Who knows?

While I think there are a lot of "wrongs" with Ripper theory--claims that are overturned by facts--there are a lot that just comprise levels of "likely." The whole debate on the "medical skill" of Jack is such an example. There is a very broad range of "skill" possible. Whereas I or someone else may prefer a particular area on this range, neither of us can prove it based on the extant evidence.

Thus with these.

Yours truly,

--J. "But It's Not FAIR, Lebowski!" D.

[Fisherman]

So, letīs just settle for agreeing to disagree on the initial points.

On the "Heartbreak Ridge" issue; did you ever see "Fargo"? Peter Stormare, playing the Icelander, is actually a Swede. And what he does to Steve Buscemi should serve nicely as an indicator to how Swedes solve problems. Thereīs no doctor title in the world that would help out there, Doc...!

There are two points I would like to adress though:

1. "You have severed her windpipe and opened her great vessels. She gone."

She gone, yes. But she no went on the double, did she? In fact, the extent to which the cutter would have known how many a millimetre he cut would be very hard to establish, and we have cases where people who have had their great vessels cut AND SURVIVED, as shown by A P Wolf on the old boards. Thus, I think that what Strides killer left behind was a potentially surviving and witnessing victim. And that was something that could not have been said about the other ladies involved. Rendering one more point to the home team; there are differences aplenty around here, if you are just willing to pick them up.

2. "Why would any of the singular cases been remembered beyond the initial surprise, and remembered by anyone other than people with an interest in "weird" and "cool" cases? Even Mary Kelly?"

I always thought that should have been obvious to anyone who has seen the pictures of her, Doc! And you are actually taking a step away from your earlier assertions by now adding that perhaps those who take an interesting in weird and cool stuff may well have found a fetish in Kellys death. There was nothing weird or cool about Stride, so thereīs your first difference.

Now, I can understand that claiming that the Kelly murder and the Stride ditto were mirror images would do heaps of good for the away team. But I realize that you have acknowledged that such a suggestion may be taking things a wee bit too far.

The best,
Fisherman

[Doctor X]

Taking on TWO Swedes, are we? Better watch out, then!

Have you seen Heartbreak Ridge?

"I'll . . . catch you later, Swede!"

Donīt forget that she was lying very close to the wall, Doc! I will stand by my words that there was awkwardness involved, at least if you compare to having your victim on her back.

It is actually easier to cut a throat in that fashion--wall or no--given she has, like, a face and a jaw--than to do it when they are lying on their back.

[Semi-Humorous Tangent]There is a fantastic Gahan Wilson cartoon I wish I still had where a "pulp writer" is typing away. Then he pauses. He thinks.

He gets up, puts on his coat and leaves.

Time passes.

He returns and types: "It's difficult to cut the heart out of a woman with a dull knife. It takes time, it takes a good fifteen minutes."[/Semi-Humorous Tangent]

Your call, Doc; I do.

Well . . . I do not:

Does not alter the fact that we are left with a woman with a cut in her throat that did not travel as deep as in the other cases, . . .

It did--it severed the windpipe--and as you note in the other cases you have more than one cut. However, this cut was sufficient. You have severed her windpipe and opened her great vessels. She gone.

Hope you can agree with that, if disagreeing is not your main drive here?

Diaboli Advocatus to some extent since through questioning one gains great insight. However, I more interested in the pros and cons to different standpoints.

There is no way--absent someone digging up a legitimate diary with Jacks descriptions--to prove one way or the other, obviously.

See the above.

And? It does not address that point.

That pretty much would have happened if there was only any one of those cases--even Mary Kelly.

Ehrm - methinks not. Very, very not. There are some slight differences, you know. Which is why I take the kind of stance I do, by the bye...

Why would any of the singular cases been remembered beyond the initial surprise, and remembered by anyone other than people with an interest in "weird" and "cool" cases? Even Mary Kelly?

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Fisherman]

Hi Doc!

Taking on TWO Swedes, are we? Better watch out, then!

"it is not at all awkward to do that, particularly if you are right handed and she is, indeed, on her left side."

Donīt forget that she was lying very close to the wall, Doc! I will stand by my words that there was awkwardness involved, at least if you compare to having your victim on her back.

"I do not see that as a significant difference"

Your call, Doc; I do.

"Appears the scarf directed the cut, and severance of the trachea is, indeed, similarly ferocious. Had the scarf not been part of the cut, I doubt the left great vessels--which are deeper and far more fragile--relatively writing--than the trachea--would have not been fully divided. Furthermore, given the "power" part of the cut would be the upward motion--with respect to the neck, the cut makes perfect sense from someone using their right hand.
Thus, I am not certain that your objection is that significant in and of itself."

Does not alter the fact that we are left with a woman with a cut in her throat that did not travel as deep as in the other cases, and since we know from Nichols that if he did not reach deep enough at one try, he had nothing against giving it another try, I am still looking at a differing knife job here.

"Depends on the circumstances, of course."

...which was why I wrote more often than not. Hope you can agree with that, if disagreeing is not your main drive here?

"Division of the windpipe brings you basically to the bone. If the power of the cut had not been decreased by cutting the scarf as well, it is quite possible it would have scored the vertebral bodies/discs."

See the above.

"That pretty much would have happened if there was only any one of those cases--even Mary Kelly."

Ehrm - methinks not. Very, very not. There are some slight differences, you know. Which is why I take the kind of stance I do, by the bye...

The best, Doc!
Fisherman

[Doctor X]

And if the latter was the case, then the killer would have to reach over her and shove his knife in under her neck, commencing his cut on the left side of the neck; an awkward suggestion, though not impossible.

Minor Point: it is not at all awkward to do that, particularly if you are right handed and she is, indeed, on her left side.

Whichever way of the two, Stride was obviously NOT cut in the same fashion as were Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, lying flat on their backs. That, to me points very much away from Jack.

I do not see that as a significant difference even if you are correct in your criticism of Barksey.

. . . but if we consider that she was cut in a different position and with a different depth and ferocity than the others, . . .

Really? From Blackwell quoted in Sugden:

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. The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 1/2 inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, . . . (Sugden, 171).

Appears the scarf directed the cut, and severance of the trachea is, indeed, similarly ferocious. Had the scarf not been part of the cut, I doubt the left great vessels--which are deeper and far more fragile--relatively writing--than the trachea--would have not been fully divided. Furthermore, given the "power" part of the cut would be the upward motion--with respect to the neck, the cut makes perfect sense from someone using their right hand.

Thus, I am not certain that your objection is that significant in and of itself.

. . . and if we admit that women who have their throats cut are more often than not held in a tight grip by their attackers as they cut, resulting in bruising, . . .

Depends on the circumstances, of course.

If, however, we are to accept that Stride would have ended up with a neck cut to the bone, . . .

Division of the windpipe brings you basically to the bone. If the power of the cut had not been decreased by cutting the scarf as well, it is quite possible it would have scored the vertebral bodies/discs.

Thus, this does not have to have happened:

. . . it is only fair to point out that it seems that the interruption entered the stage in the EXACT split second when he cut, halting the movement of the killers arm and easing off the power.

It is way, way too convenient to my taste.

Sort of a tangent but:

And of course; if Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly never had existed, the Stride killing would have gone down as a sad, uninteresting case, . . .

That pretty much would have happened if there was only any one of those cases--even Mary Kelly.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

. . . oh yes, I could very well provide examples, but again I shouldn't have to and it would take me all day - clearly displays. . . .

Yet, you continue to fail to do so.

I could provide evidence that I am Nicole Kidman's Snuggle-Bunny, but I should not have to do so. . . .

Thus, absence evidence to the contrary, I am afraid I have to conclude you are imagining it in this thread. As always, I am willing to be shown otherwise.

Again, should such happen in this thread, I am more than happy to call the poster on it.

Why does it matter? Because you commit a Well Poisoning such that if someone should disagree with an argument against, say, Stride, then it "must" be because they are "adamantly opposed" or otherwise closed minded.

That is the same argument--if one may elevate it as such--that a Young Earth Creationist uses when confronted with . . . well . . . reality: they are closed-minded and will not listen to my theories! They have been brainwashed by Darwin, Science, and the rock and roll!

Well, I rather find myself open to either conclusion regarding Stride and Kelly. However, if I should question an argument I must become your Wicker Man and join the ranks of the "adamantly opposed?"

--J.D.

[Fisherman]

Barksey writes:

"I would suggest that ... implies that Liz Stride was on the ground when her throat was cut - the absence of blood on the walls suggests this, and the observation that "There was a small amount of mud on the right side" (page 177) implies that she was on her back. This would fit her in more completely with the other victims in the canon; the left side would later become more stained with mud as it becomes moistened by the blood. I think that this gives her a greater commonality with the other victims."

Barksey, I disagree very much with your suggestions here. To begin with, it was a wet night, and the yard would have been quite muddy. It is also evidenced that the left side of Strides clothing was "well plastered" with mud, and not just stained as you write. The blood would not have much to do with it, as it had run away into the gutter when she was found. Her neck was lying over a rut, and thus she seemingly did not end up in a large pool of blood as did the others.

There is no record whatsoever of any mud on the back of her clothing, and that is very telling. The mud on the right side was there in minor amounts, and many suggestions have been put forward as to how it ended up there. It could have come about as she was thrown to the ground by B S man, as Diemshutz (or -shitz...) prodded her with his whip, as he drove his cart past her etcetera. It could of course also have been put there by her killer, if he was muddied and leant in over her or otherwise touched her as she was lying in the yard.

At any rate, she was NOT on her back as she was cut, as evinced by the lack of mud on her backside. That means that she was either cut during her fall, perhaps very close to the ground, or as she was on her left side completely, in a fetal position. And if the latter was the case, then the killer would have to reach over her and shove his knife in under her neck, commencing his cut on the left side of the neck; an awkward suggestion, though not impossible.

Whichever way of the two, Stride was obviously NOT cut in the same fashion as were Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, lying flat on their backs. That, to me points very much away from Jack.
Points like "She had her throat cut" and "there were bruises" are often put forward, but if we consider that she was cut in a different position and with a different depth and ferocity than the others, and if we admit that women who have their throats cut are more often than not held in a tight grip by their attackers as they cut, resulting in bruising, then we are left with very little to point a finger at Jack, I feel.

Finally, since those who speak for a possibility of the Stride killing being perpetrated by someone else than Jack are often pointed out as being hellbent on the issue, I will take the opportunity to say that this does not apply in my case. I have never ruled out Jack, for the simple reason that there is not enough evidence to do so. It is of course compelling that we know that their was a throat-slashing mutilator out and about that evening, no doubt about that.
And when Michael states that it seems impossible for Diemshutz, -shitz to have disturbed the killer in Dutfields yard, anybody must of course recognize that there may have been other elements involved that could have scared the killer away.

If, however, we are to accept that Stride would have ended up with a neck cut to the bone, had the killer not been interrupted, then it is only fair to point out that it seems that the interruption entered the stage in the EXACT split second when he cut, halting the movement of the killers arm and easing off the power. It is way, way too convenient to my taste.

So, hellbent on Strides killer not being Jack is something I am not. I am, though, absolutely hellbent on pointing to the fact that the evidence existing does NOT match Jacks behaviour in the Nichols-, Chapman- and Eddowes cases. Differing type of venue, differing positioning of the body, differing cut to the neck, no mutilations. And of course; if Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly never had existed, the Stride killing would have gone down as a sad, uninteresting case, very soon forgotten, of a low-life Eastender who had the bad luck of running into an OlīNichol gang, a pissed fiancée or something along those lines. The character of the cut neck and the bruising would have led nobody to believe in a criminal mastermind and a murderous monster. And rightly so, I suspect.

The best, Jen!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

If an unkind man, I would surmise your opposition to the inclusion of Stride is an example of the dogmatic tendencies of which you conjure upon others. However, I am not.

You would not be unkind in doing so. However, I find it to be a strange interpretation, since I have never been sure of Stride's exclusion, although when I have argued for the possibility that she was no canonical victim, it has been for the mere point of studying Michael Kidney, nothing else.

I actually once was a total defender of Stride (and rather much like the defenders of the Macnaghten Five today) in the beginning, and these days I consider it a 50-50 chance that she was a Ripper victim, and I have said this numerous times. Stride is, in fact, probably the one I have most problems with when it comes to make somewhat fo a decision.
Truth is, I have actually more doubts about Kelly than Stride - but again, only for the reason of keeping an open mind to the possibility. That Kelly, Stride or any other was not a Ripper victim is never something I could argue as a definitive fact.

However, only a brief look at the posts here - oh yes, I could very well provide examples, but again I shouldn't have to and it would take me all day - clearly displays that many posters (there are exceptions) sees the Macnaghten Five as a clear shot and pretty much as a fact. This is really nothing new - it has been like this since for decades.

All the best

[Doctor X]

I shouldn't have to, since it is perfectly obvious for anyone who can read that those who argues that the Ripper killed the Macnaghten Five are extremely rigid in their position and refuses to see it any other way.

Yet, you cannot demonstrate a single example in this thread.

Curious.

Methinks, Grasshopper, when you point a finger you point one at your moon.

. . . and everytime it's challenged it's met with refusal and ridicule.

*Steps over the strawmen*

Yet, for some reason, you cannot provide an example in this thread.

Yes, it is relevant since this subject has been debated on numerous, countless threads long before you entered these Boards - and everytime displaying the same tendencies.

Yet, for some reason, you cannot provide an example in this thread.

If an unkind man, I would surmise your opposition to the inclusion of Stride is an example of the dogmatic tendencies of which you conjure upon others. However, I am not. So I will instead note that should a poster object to your argument in the fashion that you describe, rest assur'd I will dissect his fallacies with similar vigor.

Noblesse oblige.

If one merely retreats to "well, we've had that discussion before and . . . like . . . there you go" then they might as well close the boards, books, and all discussion, because, frankly, you will not find a novel subject--other than the creation of yet another Suspect-of-the-Month . . . can Conrad account for his whereabouts? "Exterminate all the brutes?"

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Kindly direct me to one of those post in this thread; perhaps I have been overwhelmed by yet another Glorious Red Sox come-from-behind triumph.

I shouldn't have to, since it is perfectly obvious for anyone who can read that those who argues that the Ripper killed the Macnaghten Five are extremely rigid in their position and refuses to see it any other way. For many people it appears to be an accepted 'fact' that the Ripper killed five (possibly more) and everytime it's challenged it's met with refusal and ridicule.

I see no need to consider other threads, other boards, or other extraneous matters.

Yes, it is relevant since this subject has been debated on numerous, countless threads long before you entered these Boards - and everytime displaying the same tendencies.

All the best

[Doctor X]

Then we obviously haven't read the same posts.

Kindly direct me to one of those post in this thread; perhaps I have been overwhelmed by yet another Glorious Red Sox come-from-behind triumph.

Or threads for that matters.

I see no need to consider other threads, other boards, or other extraneous matters.

Yours truly,

--J.D.