Stride..a victim?

[Fisherman]

I don't agree. Clearly quite a few people were still up & about in and around Dutfield's Yard (which, obviously, would greatly diminish the chance of getting to mutilate Stride, as, I'm sure, the Ripper would have realized), her throat clearly wasn't cut as deeply & extensively as in the other cases and there's evidence to suggest that her murderer grabbed her by the scarf and pulled her backwards, which happened to none of the other victims.

There were people up and about in Bucks Row too, as well as in Hanbury Street. I think itīs more a matter of volume.
And there were differences in the cutting to the throats, as you will know - compare Eddowes to Nichols and Chapman, if you will.
Did the other victims have scarves around their necks to grab them by? Were they easy enough to get at?

What I meant is that if the killer was interrupted at the time of the throat-cutting, there really is nothing that is in opposition with the other canonicals, other in terms of volume. We can always say that Eddowes had a colon section cut away while the others did not, that Kelly had her heart removed while the others did not, that Nichols ... well, you get the drift. Every victim will be unique in one way or another. Itīs down to a combination of circumstances that change from victim to victim.

In the end, it boils down to perspective. Those who say the Ripper never entered Dutfields Yard will have things to point to. Those who say he was there will have other things to show for their claim. But the overall picture remains one of a woman with a history of prostitution, silenty subdued and getting her throat cut deeply enough to bleed her to death in a geographical area and time that is consistent with the killer moving on to Mitre Square afterwards. That has to count for a lot.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Could the single throat cut be subsequent to interruption?

Typically, we look at cause of death being prior to being disturbed. What if something, external or internal, put the killer out of sorts, the result being the single cut, enough to kill Stride, purely functional?

As in, theoretically, he hears a sound, thinks the games up here, and kills Liz purely to silence her? Nothing more than a cut to the throat.

What would constitute evidence for that?

[Wickerman]

Arterial spray is only evident when the artery is cut close to a surface. By that I mean if she was within close proximity to the house wall there could be arterial spray on the wall. However, if she was already down on the ground when the knife was used the spray may only hit the ground, but be then covered by the flow of blood from the wound.

Alternately, it looks like the scarf she was wearing was frayed as if cut by the knife?, so perhaps this scarf limited the spray so it didn't even cover the front of her jacket.
Another factor that will limit any spray is if her heart had stopped beating by the time the knife was applied, perhaps due to strangulation with the scarf?, then there will be no pressure in the cardiovascular system.
Though given the apparent swiftness of the attack this last possibility is in my opinion less likely.

[DJA]

Wicky,

Where is the arterial spray?

[Wickerman]

Doesn't the single slice to the throat of Stride resemble the first cut (the shorter cut) to the throat of Nichols?

I regard the shorter cut as 'the first', because the longer cut causes more damage, and would make a subsequent shorter cut redundant.
So, on that logic the shorter cut came first to rob life from the victim by severing the main artery. Followed by the more complete longer cut. I think this is also what happened to Chapman, only the second cut ran continuous from the opening cause by the first cut, to make it appear to be one continuous cut completely encircling the neck.

I think it could be argued that the killer of Stride only had time to make his first cut before being interrupted.
Dr. Blackwell did say that the cut could have been applied while the victim was either falling, or on the ground.
It sounds reasonable to me that a distinction between the two is both impossible and unnecessary.