The Absence Of Evidence

[Wickerman]

Do I think that on balance Jack killed Liz - Yes. Do I believe BS man was Jack - No.
I know this has been done to death, but I feel that Jack killed Liz swiftly and silently by half strangling her, possibly with her scarf and then cutting her throat as he lay her to the ground. I also believe there is half a chance that it may have been Goldstein who initially disturbed Jack passing down the street. Which makes the timings from Brown seeing Liz by the board school to Goldstein even tighter for mutilation
Regards Darryl

Perfectly reasonable.

[erobitha]

I would hope the regular soldiers stationed close by at the Tower would be included among those 'familiar' with the method of taking someone out by cutting their throat. Also, it was even commented on in the press that certain foreigners (I think Spaniards & Malays were noted?), use this method of decapitation, so we shouldn't limit ourselves to the few employees at the east end slaughter houses.
Slicing the jugular vein could also be a clue to the level of education of the perpetrator, not only his possible trade.

People often overlook that this was also a military killing technique. Especially in those trained in close-combat. It must be considered as a posible source of first-hand or second-hand knowledge.

[FrankO]

Yes, and both had their throats cut while on the ground, not one grabbed from behind and cut while standing, etc. While there's the obvious lack of continuation on to post-mortem mutilation with Stride, the initial sequence seems very similar. Even the fact that there was no screams heard (barring Schwartz's "yelled three times but not loudly" statement) suggests both victims were attacked and silenced quickly (manual strangulation to unconsciousness probably), laid on the ground, then the throat cut to bleed out quickly, etc.

For once, I don’t agree with you, Jeff. The way I see it, it's unclear whether the initial sequence was very similar to the other cases. Unlike any other case, there were pressure marks under both collar bones, there was the tightly knotted scarf, which led Dr. Blackwell to believe that Stride was, in fact, pulled backwards by her killer, cutting her throat as she was falling or when she was on the ground. And she was lying on her side, which wouldn’t be the ideal position for mutilating her abdomen.

Even though I agree that both Stride and Eddowes (& the others) were attacked and silenced quickly, it’s not clear that Stride was first rendered unconscious, then laid down and then had her throat cut. With Stride it seems to have happened all in one, sort of fluent, go.

So, what's your reason for stating "not one grabbed from behind and cut while standing"?

[Kattrup]

People often overlook that this was also a military killing technique. Especially in those trained in close-combat.

Was it?

It's an often repeated theory, but I've never seen it substantiated. Personally I'd consider it unlikely that any military force anywhere in the world would have throat-cutting on their curriculum in 1888.

Seems to me to be interest in various special forces from the 20th century onwards that is colouring the perspective.

[Losmandris]

I come at this from another angle, because I don't necessarily agree that if the ripper killed Stride, he must have done so with the intention of going on to mutilate her and remove body parts, and therefore something or someone must have interrupted him before he could do more than inflict a single cut, which proved fatal.

We don't know what Stride and her killer were doing, from when they were first alone together, to the moment he slit her throat. We don't really know how long they were alone together, or whether they talked, or argued, or fought, or even canoodled. Whoever the killer was, ripper or not, he'd have been wise to assess the location and the likelihood of being seen with Stride, if he meant her serious harm. And it doesn't come much more serious than taking a knife to the woman's throat. It was not the ideal place for committing a capital crime, let alone for fannying about afterwards, raiding the corpse. So I humbly submit that if the killer's original intention had been to make Stride his next mutilation victim, he could have been stymied in two ways, by realising they were in a lousy place for the purpose, and by failing to induce her to go off with him to a less risky one. If she suspected his motives, and he decided to kill her there and then and get safely away, he needn't have been interrupted at all, but alternatively it could have been the sound of the pony and cart that made up his mind for him, and led him to cut swiftly and make a run for it. Then we wouldn't need the coincidental timing of Louis D approaching just as, or just after her throat was cut - which is one of Michael Richards's main objections.

Love,

Caz
X

This is a really good point Caz. Maybe stride cottoned on to his intentions, so he cut her throat as she could potentially id him at a later date. Never really thought of that before but could be just a viable as him being interupted.

[Losmandris]

People often overlook that this was also a military killing technique. Especially in those trained in close-combat. It must be considered as a posible source of first-hand or second-hand knowledge.

Was it in Victorian times? Just seen Kattrup beat me to it! Can imagine your standard infantry man being taught this back then?

[Trevor Marriott]

People often overlook that this was also a military killing technique. Especially in those trained in close-combat. It must be considered as a posible source of first-hand or second-hand knowledge.

We do have a suspect who was in the Prussian army and I do believe that the killer knew how to kill swiftly and silently.

and i also believe that the victims had their throats cut from behind whilst still standing, and was method used back then.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

We do have a suspect who was in the Prussian army and I do believe that the killer knew how to kill swiftly and silently.

and i also believe that the victims had their throats cut from behind whilst still standing, and was method used back then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

which is it trevor? there was no ripper, or the ripper was feigenbaum. you cant have it both ways

[erobitha]

Was it in Victorian times? Just seen Kattrup beat me to it! Can imagine your standard infantry man being taught this back then?

Was it?

It's an often repeated theory, but I've never seen it substantiated. Personally I'd consider it unlikely that any military force anywhere in the world would have throat-cutting on their curriculum in 1888.

Seems to me to be interest in various special forces from the 20th century onwards that is colouring the perspective.

How much "curriculum" kill training do you think there was prior to the 20th century? Yet, every major battle in the last thousand years will have victims of throat cutting. The impression they read instructions in "how to be an army soldier" handbook is somewhat silly. People were trained by people, before textbooks became all the rage.

A quick look at the knives used in battle during the American Civil War will give you a clue that many were not using their knives to cut wood.

"....A private in the white 29th Iowa Infantry, whose regiment supported the 2nd Kansas, wrote his family: "One of our boys seen a little n*gro pounding a wounded reb in the head with the but of his gun and asked him what he was doing. the n*gro replied he is not dead yet!" During a subsequent lull in the fighting, details from the 2nd Kansas ranged the field, cutting the throats of Confederate wounded. "We found that many of our wounded had been mutilated in many ways," reported the surgeon of the 33rd Arkansas Infantry. "Some with ears cut off, throats cut, knife stabs, etc. My brother . . . had his throat cut through the windpipe and lived several days."

[Trevor Marriott]

which is it trevor? there was no ripper, or the ripper was feigenbaum. you cant have it both ways

Well to make it easy or you to understand and because you seem confused. If I say that there was no Jack the Ripper but there was a killer who killed in ripper like fashion and his name could quite easily have been Carl Feigenbaum.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well to make it easy or you to understand and because you seem confused. If I say that there was no Jack the Ripper but there was a killer who killed in ripper like fashion and his name could quite easily have been Carl Feigenbaum.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

???

So there was a man murdering women in the same way as a man that never existed in the first place? And that person, who can’t be shown to have been in the same country as this killer that didn’t exist but who he was nevertheless imitating, is still more likely than any other imitator of a non-existent killer to be the actual imitator of a non-existent killer that we have all futilely been searching for for years?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

???

So there was a man murdering women in the same way as a man that never existed in the first place? And that person, who can’t be shown to have been in the same country as this killer that didn’t exist but who he was nevertheless imitating, is still more likely than any other imitator of a non-existent killer to be the actual imitator of a non-existent killer that we have all futilely been searching for for years?

That's just cynical Herlock. Cynical.

[Fiver]

True. It might not even have been Diemschutz that initially caused him to stop? A noise from somewhere nearby perhaps? Maybe someone opened the side door and went to the outside toilet a minute or two before Diemschutz returned? That person would have been facing away from the Club and so might not have seen the killer. He might not have come forward and admitted that he’d been in the yard because he didn’t want to be implicated.

That's an interesting line of thought. We don't even have to assume someone who kept silent, perhaps Stride's killer was spooked by Morris Eagle entering the yard about 12:40, hid till Eagle entered the club, and then fled. Maybe we should take a closer look at Leon Goldstein.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's just cynical Herlock. Cynical.

[Abby Normal]

Well to make it easy or you to understand and because you seem confused. If I say that there was no Jack the Ripper but there was a killer who killed in ripper like fashion and his name could quite easily have been Carl Feigenbaum.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

you cant make this stuff up folks.