The Absence Of Evidence

[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.

[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.

[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"?

[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.

[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.

[Wickerman]

... I too think that "bleed out" cut suggests someone familiar with animal slaughter techniques. With Nichols and Chapman there was then a second cut almost decapitating them...

- Jeff

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

[harry]

Do we know the initial sequence to her killing Jeff?Can we be sure the incident involving BS continued on to her death?One can build a theory on the possibiliies,but can the theory be proven? I believe one of the doctors states Stride's throat was possibly cut while she was standing.An interruption by Diemshutz is a theory based on a possibility,but evidence is lacking in the information given by Diemschultz to prove that theory,and there is nothing,and no other witness that provides an answer.

[JeffHamm]

I believe you to be right on this Jeff. The pace and style of both murders (e.g. to enact death promptly using the same technique of slitting the same carotid artery on both), is a unique style to kill even now, let alone then. There was murder by strangulation, general throat slitting, garrotting, suffocation etc - but most were very crudely done. This was a fairly precise and efficent way to bleed someone out. This focus on detail is absolutely uncommon in murder at the time. Let alone in the space of an hour!

It was very common in the slaughtering trade, but the carotid artery position varies greatly in each species. I also believe it is something you can teach.

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. I too think that "bleed out" cut suggests someone familiar with animal slaughter techniques. With Nichols and Chapman there was then a second cut almost decapitating them. There looked like there might have been an attempt to disarticulate the bones in Chapman's case. His failure to remove Chapman's head may be why he didn't bother with doing that second cut with Eddowes (there is a superficial 2nd cut, but nothing like what was done to Nichols and Chapman on the second pass). There's also nothing about Schwartz's and Lawende's descriptions of the man seen that indicates they couldn't be the same person (accepting both descriptions are pretty generic, and also the issues as to whether the men seen were the murderer).

- Jeff

[Darryl Kenyon]

Interruption would have had a plausible explanation had Diemschutz observed someone departing, or heard sounds of presence/departure of someone,but then,that would not be lack of evidence.

If Jack had been in the club that night. Is it possible that if he heard or saw Diemschutz coming he went back into the club through the side door and made his getaway in all the confusion afterwards. Seems unlikely, but not impossible. He probably had little or no blood on him and for all he knew Diemschutz could have been a resident of one of the cottages or just tying up his pony in the stables. It was that dark Jack may have hoped that Diemschutz didn't see the body.
regards Darryl

[erobitha]

Hi erobitha,

Yes, the descriptions of the way the throats were cut between Stride and Eddowes read almost like carbon copies of each other, with Eddowes's a bit deeper, but even then, the vessels on the right side were still barely touched in her case, and not at all in Stride's. That similarity, in the one action that can be compared between the two victims has always been the link that makes me think Stride cannot be readily dismissed. The thing I don't know, though, is how common is it for that sort of wound to be produced in throat cutting murders? If the position, angles, and so forth, are simply the way such wounds commonly occur, the similarity is less compelling. But, if there is a large variation between how different murderers end up cutting a throat, then the similarity becomes more compelling.

- Jeff

I believe you to be right on this Jeff. The pace and style of both murders (e.g. to enact death promptly using the same technique of slitting the same carotid artery on both), is a unique style to kill even now, let alone then. There was murder by strangulation, general throat slitting, garrotting, suffocation etc - but most were very crudely done. This was a fairly precise and efficent way to bleed someone out. This focus on detail is absolutely uncommon in murder at the time. Let alone in the space of an hour!

It was very common in the slaughtering trade, but the carotid artery position varies greatly in each species. I also believe it is something you can teach.

[harry]

Interruption would have had a plausible explanation had Diemschutz observed someone departing, or heard sounds of presence/departure of someone,but then,that would not be lack of evidence.

[JeffHamm]

But if you reverse engineer from Eddowes to Stride you would definitely say based on the cutting of the throat in the exact same place, it was the same murderer. Especially with only an hour difference. I do not see anyone debating that Eddowes was not a JtR victim. Ergo....

C.D's explanation is a good one. It clearly explains that just because there is no evidence of any previous signatures that the intent to do so was absent. If they were interrupted the opportunity simply passed.

Hi erobitha,

Yes, the descriptions of the way the throats were cut between Stride and Eddowes read almost like carbon copies of each other, with Eddowes's a bit deeper, but even then, the vessels on the right side were still barely touched in her case, and not at all in Stride's. That similarity, in the one action that can be compared between the two victims has always been the link that makes me think Stride cannot be readily dismissed. The thing I don't know, though, is how common is it for that sort of wound to be produced in throat cutting murders? If the position, angles, and so forth, are simply the way such wounds commonly occur, the similarity is less compelling. But, if there is a large variation between how different murderers end up cutting a throat, then the similarity becomes more compelling.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Heck it could've even been Morris Eagle who caused the disturbance rather than Diemschutz.

Also just pondering could one interpretation of the Goulston Street Graffito be a reference to the interruption of Stride. The working men's club was known to be predominantly Jewish and maybe Jack assumed it was a Jewish person had disturbed him, hence his anger towards them in the graffito.

bingo. but it dosnt even have to be assumed. the shout of lipski and that schwartz was said to have a strong jewish appearance.

[erobitha]

Heck it could've even been Morris Eagle who caused the disturbance rather than Diemschutz.

Also just pondering could one interpretation of the Goulston Street Graffito be a reference to the interruption of Stride. The working men's club was known to be predominantly Jewish and maybe Jack assumed it was a Jewish person had disturbed him, hence his anger towards them in the graffito.

I always felt there was a connection alright. Prior to Stride's murder there was a palpable sense after Chapman that it must have been a Jew due to the whole leather apron debacle. I think Jack was worried with all the attention on the Jews that perhaps he would not get the credit for Stride.Especially as she was murdered right next door to the Jewish working mans club. I have always seen the GSG as his claim on Stride. I also believe the text was deliberately mis-transcribed. I believe the City of London's version of the graffiti is closer to the true wording. "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing". To me this reads as actual context "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for anything".

Stride was Jack's.