Stride..a victim?

[Observer]

Or perhaps trickled.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well it had been raining earlier....

So why didn't Phillips realize that the liquid in the gutter was a mixture of rain water and blood?

Phillips: The blood near to the neck and a few inches to the left side was well clotted, and it had run down the waterway to within a few inches of the side entrance to the club-house.
Baxter: Were there any spots of blood anywhere else?
Phillips: I could trace none except that which I considered had been transplanted - if I may use the term - from the original flow from the neck. Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body.

You may use the term, George, that's fine by me.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I very much doubt it was still flowing from her neck, I believe that was an exaggeration. Perhaps seeped would have been a better description.

What about the young woman Spooner had been standing with, outside the Beehive? Was she also an exaggeration?

[Observer]

What about the young woman Spooner had been standing with, outside the Beehive? Was she also an exaggeration?

I don't get your drift here, explain.

[caz]

If disturbance remains the best explanation, I would presume that supporters of the theory have carefully thought through these points:

• multiple witnesses report observing that the blood had already reached the side door, when they first saw the body, which was very shortly after Diemschitz arrived home. Therefore, the sound of the pony and cart cannot have been the cause of the interruption.
• no one reported hearing any screams - soft or otherwise - even the people quite close by in the kitchen, who were near an open window and half-open door. So her 'squealing' does not seem to have been the cause of the interruption.
• perhaps the killer had a mishap with the knife, and ended up a bit 'saucy' himself? The were no drops of blood leading away from the murder location, so he must have stemmed the flow very quickly. Furthermore, this cannot have been a serious cut, else he would not head off to Aldgate nursing a wound, but the interruption theory says he did go there next. A non-serious cut would not be enough to make him quit, or even notice he had injured himself.
• Stride left the lodging house with sixpence on her. No money was found on her by Phillips. A street prostitute goes out to make money, not spend it. Where did the money go? Did the killer take it before or after he killed her?
• multiple club members and a PC stated that Berner St was not a prostitute area. So why would Stride and JtR be on Berner St that night? If she were not prostituting, what is she doing there, and did the killer come out of the club? Is that person (in this scenario) also JtR?
• if she is considered to have been prostituting, why was Stride dressed as if she were going out? Who gave her the man's scarf? Who bought her the flower? Who paid for her dinner? If she paid for the meal herself, who did she have it with? If someone else, did the jealous boyfriend discover her with another man and end up throwing her onto the pavement. An incident of that nature was reported to the police (no, not that one). What happened to this dinner companion? Was he the man who bought the grapes at Packer's shop? Why did he leave alone, outside the club?

For me, this is rather like the question about the timing of the Schwartz incident - when exactly did that occur?
In this case, the big question is; what exactly did the interruption consist of?
What is the point of believing in interruption, if you cannot answer that question?

No actual interruption necessary, just the risk of interruption would have been enough, if the killer had a narrow escape from 29 Hanbury Street, where it was much later into the night and the residents were either still sleeping or just waking.

Here was another yard, but this time it was earlier and the building was being used by club members who could be leaving at any point to go to their homes.

Stride may not have considered her killer as a potential meal ticket, but he could have assumed that to be the case. We don't know if he saw her standing there and took advantage of the opportunity he thought was on offer, or if they had met somewhere else, and he had followed her to the club.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Can

I agree totally that if the killer´s only aim was to put an end to the lives of his victims, strangling them first and then cutting their throats afterwards would have been illogical.

But I think that there is another, very logical alternative possible explanation to what he did.

To take a knife to the throat of a person means that - even if you are quick - there is a risk that the victim will cry out.

But if you get your hands around the neck of the victim and squeeze it, you decompress it to a degree where no much crying can be done.

The latter method is a much more safe one, accoustically speaking. And I believe that this was exactly what the killer wanted - silence. If he was afterwards going to spend five or ten minutes cutting the victim up and taking her womb out, he did not want anybody to overhear when he took the victim down. It would risk to ruin his plan.

So why is it that he cut the throats after having strangled or partially strangled his victims? Because he was going to cut them up and evicerate them afterwards, and allowing for the blood to flow out for some little time before he set about the cutting would give him a simpler and less bloody task. If he did not take that precaution, his abdominal explorations would become much harder and he would get blood up to his elbows.

So he cuts the throat in an angle that allows for him to direct the splash away from himself, as we can see on the fence in Hanbury Street and on the wall behind Kelly.

That is my explanation.

Cant agree with you on that sorry

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't get your drift here, explain.

Apologies, I assumed too much.
Go back to https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...171#post743171
... and the next few posts

[Michael W Richards]

No actual interruption necessary, just the risk of interruption would have been enough, if the killer had a narrow escape from 29 Hanbury Street, where it was much later into the night and the residents were either still sleeping or just waking.

Here was another yard, but this time it was earlier and the building was being used by club members who could be leaving at any point to go to their homes.

Stride may not have considered her killer as a potential meal ticket, but he could have assumed that to be the case. We don't know if he saw her standing there and took advantage of the opportunity he thought was on offer, or if they had met somewhere else, and he had followed her to the club.

Love,

Caz
X

...or she was there to meet someone or "work among the jews" doing what she did for a living and someone got pissed off and in 2 seconds killed her. No-one knows if the killer actually intended to cut her fatally. Cutting across the entire throat and as deep as the spine twice shows that intent.

Instead of arguing with the more practical answers Caz, maybe stop reading some dramatic storyline into it and then seeking evidence to support it. Men following her around and all. mentioning interruptions without any physical evidence to support that contention.

You have a dying woman, with jews standing around, while she bleeds out.

The need to suggest something more dramatic and sinister is Im sure due to your belief that this was a serial mutilators kill like the one in the city later on that night,....its unclear to me why people choose to make up their mind first and then try and find evidence for it later.

[erobitha]

I dont accept that these victims were strangled before their throats were cut it doesn't seem logical for the killer to be armed with a long-bladed knife to go to the trouble of strangling them and then cut their throats after they are already dead.

The cutting of the throats was a swift method of killing them by a killer who knew how to kill swiftly and silently, and those actions were a prelude to the mutilations that followed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Strangulation was used first to subdue them. The knife was to kill them and make sure. All victims had bruising on their necks that collaborate that.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No actual interruption necessary, just the risk of interruption would have been enough, if the killer had a narrow escape from 29 Hanbury Street, where it was much later into the night and the residents were either still sleeping or just waking.

Off-topic but I'm not sure if you're correct about the residents at 29 Hanbury

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/742673-cadosch-dismissed-for-being-cautious?p=744036#post744036

Here was another yard, but this time it was earlier and the building was being used by club members who could be leaving at any point to go to their homes.

That risk hasn't changed from the point he enters the yard, so why flee, or indeed, commence?
Also worth pointing out that Ripper Confidential regards Dutfield's Yard as one of the safest locations, for the Ripper.
I only mention that because quite a few of people here seem to have been very persuaded by that work.

Stride may not have considered her killer as a potential meal ticket, but he could have assumed that to be the case. We don't know if he saw her standing there and took advantage of the opportunity he thought was on offer, or if they had met somewhere else, and he had followed her to the club.

Stride's evening does not commence with her 'standing there', of course, and yes he may have followed her to the club ... from Settles St, perhaps?

[erobitha]

Can

Cant agree with you on that sorry

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think he is absolutely correct. The medical evidence on all victims decribe bruising on and around the neck, which is akin to strangulation. You cannot scream if you are being strangled. When unconscious he finishes them off by efficently slitting either one or two arteries in the neck. This would be the cleanest way for him to remain as blood free as possible whilst ruthlessly ensuring they were dead. All traits akin to an organised killer. He killed with ultra efficiency because that was the basic admin before the main event, the mutilation. If you break it down, the attacks had 3 key phases:

1) LURE - This was the ruse he used to get their trust and lead him to their preferred location
2) KILL - This the act of killing them as quickly and noise free as possible. Then slitting their arteries in their neck to ensure death but also for a little showmanship
3) MUTILATE - This was why he did what he did. The extreme mutilation is what excited him and drove him to do what he did - culminating with Kelly which to him was his masterpiece.

He just about completed phase 2 with Stride.

[Trevor Marriott]

Strangulation was used first to subdue them. The knife was to kill them and make sure. All victims had bruising on their necks that collaborate that.

He didn't need to do strangle them first he was a killer who knew how to kill a victim swiftly and silently using a knife

As to the bruising, this is what a modern-day forensic pathologist says on the topic when asked

Q. It has been suggested by modern-day researchers that some of the victims could have been strangled first before their throats were cut. In the case of Annie Chapman, the doctor uses the term ecchymosis. Is this consistent with strangulation or suffocation?

A. Ecchymosis is just another word for a bruise and as such; it is quite non-specific.

Q. The Doctors do report that in some cases bruises were found around the victim’s throats and in the case of Annie Chapman her tongue was found to be protruding. Does this point to her being strangled first before her throat was cut?

A. Strangulation can (and usually does) leave a bruise or bruises, but this is not always the case. Suffocation is perhaps less likely to result in bruising, but it would, of course, be possible. So the presence or absence of bruising around the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation/suffocation.
A swollen tongue and / or face are non-specific findings. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causations, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

re the blood flow and it already trickling across the ground: it supports my idea that BS man cut her throat in the street either during or right after the initial struggle that IS saw. the ripper thinks better of going any further and bolts. Stride puts her hand instinctively to the wound and stumbles into the yard toward the voices and percieved help but expires in the yard. diemshitz then fiends her and the blood has had some time to flow toward the gutter. simps.

[erobitha]

He didn't need to do strangle them first he was a killer who knew how to kill a victim swiftly and silently using a knife

As to the bruising, this is what a modern-day forensic pathologist says on the topic when asked

Q. It has been suggested by modern-day researchers that some of the victims could have been strangled first before their throats were cut. In the case of Annie Chapman, the doctor uses the term ecchymosis. Is this consistent with strangulation or suffocation?

A. Ecchymosis is just another word for a bruise and as such; it is quite non-specific.

Q. The Doctors do report that in some cases bruises were found around the victim’s throats and in the case of Annie Chapman her tongue was found to be protruding. Does this point to her being strangled first before her throat was cut?

A. Strangulation can (and usually does) leave a bruise or bruises, but this is not always the case. Suffocation is perhaps less likely to result in bruising, but it would, of course, be possible. So the presence or absence of bruising around the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation/suffocation.
A swollen tongue and / or face are non-specific findings. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causations, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sorry, is this an argument against strangulation? Tounge protruding doesn't mean anything, but the fact ALL victims had Ecchymosis, despite the fact he didn't always slit the throat in the same way, suggests by high probability that strangulation was used first.

[Michael W Richards]

Trevor, there is physical evidence of strangulation on the first 2 victims, what you feel wasnt required was still done regardless. The silence factor would be one reason to do it, the making the victim unable to struggle upon unconsciousness would be another. And there is evidence that it was done.