Stride..a victim?

[spyglass]

Hi all,
I'm sure this has probably been asked before, but then hasn't most things JTR related.

So why were the Police so convinced that Stride was a victim of JTR ?
Could it be they knew something that we dont know about today?
I find it strange that they seemed convinced, without it seems, any mimimal doubt, which surely would be the case if only going on what we know.
I can only conclude that maybe some of this information has been lost or even undiscovered.

Regards.

[c.d.]

Hello Spyglass,

I think we have another of those fuzzy words here. "Convinced." What exactly does that mean and how does it differ from more likely than not?

c.d.

[spyglass]

Hi cd,
first of all I've realised I've posted in wrong section.

They only thought "more likely then not " ?
I would say they name Stride as a100 percent dead cert

Regards

[Azarna]

Dr Philips thought that Stride wasn't killed by the same person who killed Nichols and Chapman.

Wynn Baxter, Abberline, Anderson, Macnaughten, Smith and Swanson all thought it was the same man weilding the knife.

I suspect that one of the biggest reasons Stride was considered to be a victim of Jack is that it seemed unlikely there would be two throat-cutting killers in Whitechapel at the same time. (Though they seemed happy to consider the killer of the Pinchin Street Torso etc as another person.)

If Stride had been killed a few months before Tabram, would she have been considered part of the "Canonical Five", or what if she had been killed after Mary Jane Kelly?

Swanson was convinced that the Pinchin Street Torso was a murdered by a different hand...

In his report of 10 September 1888, Swanson wrote "What becomes most apparent,is the absence of the attack upon the genitals as in the series of Whitechapel murders beginning at Buck's Row and ending in Miller's Court. Certainly if it be a murder there was time enough for the murderer to cut off the head and limbs there was time to mutilate as in the series mentioned..."

But Stride didn't have her genitals mutilated either. So presumably his qualification for including her is a belief that the killer would have gone on to mutilate her had time permitted, and had been disturbed.

And Tabram did have her geniatals mutilated, but is not always considered to be a victim of Jack. I don't know whether Swanson considered her as such, he investigated her death.

[erobitha]

Hi cd,
first of all I've realised I've posted in wrong section.

They only thought "more likely then not " ?
I would say they name Stride as a100 percent dead cert

Regards

Because she was. The slitting of the throat on the arteries after strangulation was not all that common, and were definite markers of Jack's work. For that to happen twice in the space of an hour is simply statistically improbable that Stride was not a victim. Lack of post-moterm mutilation due to disturbance remains the best explanation for then and for now.

[Abby Normal]

the final straw that she was a ripper victim is peaked cap man

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi all,
I'm sure this has probably been asked before, but then hasn't most things JTR related.

So why were the Police so convinced that Stride was a victim of JTR ?
Could it be they knew something that we dont know about today?
I find it strange that they seemed convinced, without it seems, any mimimal doubt, which surely would be the case if only going on what we know.
I can only conclude that maybe some of this information has been lost or even undiscovered.

Regards.

Hi Spyglass,

Stride is obviously a source of much debate, but I think the phrasing of your question is probably about right.

Did the police at the time know something we don't? I think it's more a case of us knowing more now. We have the advantage of examining the case with modern understanding of offending and profiling, backed up by first hand information from convicted killers. Also, we're not under any pressure to catch the killer.

I think it stands to reason the police viewed Liz as another victim. The press at the time certainly included Tabram and even Emma Smith. By the time Liz was killed, there was a very real concern about a maniac at large. So when a woman is found with her throat slit, an "unfortunate", with no motive, no suspect, not a domestic or a drunken argument etc, what else would they think? It would have been irresponsible to dismiss it. Or, provoke further public concern, because now there's two phantom killers.

Seeing the differences at the time and making inferences would have been part of police work, but they absolutely had a duty to treat it as possibly being the same killer, he was out there, still active. And they also had to work with the interruption aspect.

I think that the inclusion of Stride at the time is perfectly reasonable from the point of view of the police actively investigating a serial killer, which was new ground for them.

Just to reiterate, that's not saying Stride was a victim of a serial killer. I'm just responding to Spyglasses question, why was that thought at the time.

[spyglass]

Mcnaughton states categorically that there was 5, and only 5.
clearly this is his opinion, but based on a certain amount of information he had, and quite a while after the event, and with hindsight.
After all other "maybe victims" have been disregarded.
I can understand the thinking of the police during the events as it would seem likely Stride was a victim, but when a little time has passed and look back at certain aspects, I would have expected that certain doubts and questions that we raise now would have arisen back then.

Regards

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Mcnaughton states categorically that there was 5, and only 5.
clearly this is his opinion, but based on a certain amount of information he had, and quite a while after the event, and with hindsight.
After all other "maybe victims" have been disregarded.
I can understand the thinking of the police during the events as it would seem likely Stride was a victim, but when a little time has passed and look back at certain aspects, I would have expected that certain doubts and questions that we raise now would have arisen back then.

Regards

Shift the goalposts on me mate!

The C5 really originates with McNaughton, but even that's disputed. I'd love to know conclusively where his information came from. Druitt's family. Ostrog. None of it was first hand. But compare it to other after the fact accounts. They all vary, massively. The only thing that's safe to assume is that there was no consensus. It was each to their own personal theory. Dew, Abberline, Anderson, Littlechild. Certain doubts and questions probably arose and were debated. Seems likely no conclusion was reached. Or at least, not one that could be agreed on.

[spyglass]

Shift the goalposts on me mate!

The C5 really originates with McNaughton, but even that's disputed. I'd love to know conclusively where his information came from. Druitt's family. Ostrog. None of it was first hand. But compare it to other after the fact accounts. They all vary, massively. The only thing that's safe to assume is that there was no consensus. It was each to their own personal theory. Dew, Abberline, Anderson, Littlechild. Certain doubts and questions probably arose and were debated. Seems likely no conclusion was reached. Or at least, not one that could be agreed on.

Sorry about the goal posts

Valid point, I dont have any reference books to hand, but as far as I can remember, most if not all senior Police Officers seem to only write about possible suspects, rather than the victims.....but I stand to be corrected on that.
As for me, well I constantly change my mind about most things regarding this case.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

As for me, well I constantly change my mind about most things regarding this case.

Yeah, and why not? It's the best way to approach it. I've said elsewhere, I first started to really take the case with seriousness when I read Fido. That was case closed. Until it wasn't. But there was great research there. And that's been repeated, ok, maybe the final conclusions are debatable, but the contribution made by these individual case histories has benefited the whole picture. Look at what we know about Druitt, Lechmere, every mundane witness in the case.

​​​​​And, as your OP asks, we can't know, but we can piece together a bigger picture of the past. For me, that's Ripperology.

[Fisherman]

The C5 really originates with McNaughton, but even that's disputed. I'd love to know conclusively where his information came from. Druitt's family. Ostrog. None of it was first hand.

The MacNaghten (sic!) Memoranda is interesting precisely on account of how we can all see that the information behind it is so very poor. The whole approach - to try and refute the suggestion of Cutbush as being the perpetrator by throwing forward three "better" contenders in a very off-hand manner - is in stark contrast to what one would have expected from a man pursuing a career in the ranks of the Met. It is as if he wants to give us the impression that he has spades of "better" suspects to work from: "I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders".

We know today that Ostrog could not have been the Ripper. And so, we must conclude that what made him a place on the list was not a proven presence in the vicinity of any of the murders, but instead a conception of what he was about, wrongly describing him as a man with antecedentia of the very worst kind. The only other possibility why he was on the list would have been if somebody gave testimony against him and had it accepted. Regardless of what applies here, the impression I get is one of an investigation in tatters.

The one good thing about the Memoranda is that it tells us that Andersons identification of Kosminski as the killer was not accepted by MacNaghten, who seemingly favors Druitt over Kos, or at least put the two on par with each other. To believe that there was once conclusive evidence against Kosminski is to believe that Anderson kept it from MacNaghten and to me, that does not sound realistic.

Too much time has been spent trying to understand who of the bigwigs was correct. That´s not to say that the question should not have been asked, but instead to lament how hard it is for many people in leading positions to admit that they failed to deliver. If they had all had the courage to take it on the chin, like Smith and Abberline did, we would have been handed a less garbled case.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Suppose this were a horserace, with three runners:

1. Jack the Ripper
2. Michael Kidney
3. Another Murderer

So as a bookmaker, set your odds accordingly...

Now let's suppose Michael Kidney is scratched from the race (cleared of the murder), making it a match-race between JtR and Another Murderer.
As a gambler, what minimum odds would you require before putting your money on Another Murderer?
I would guess a fairly large majority would want 4/1 or better, and many of those would want at least 10/1.

[caz]

Because she was. The slitting of the throat on the arteries after strangulation was not all that common, and were definite markers of Jack's work. For that to happen twice in the space of an hour is simply statistically improbable that Stride was not a victim. Lack of post-moterm mutilation due to disturbance remains the best explanation for then and for now.

Agreed. Why would anyone expect this killer to be able to hang around and mutilate his victims on every occasion, regardless of location and potential witnesses?

When compared with fully documented and established cases of double events in more recent times, Stride/Eddowes looks pretty much like a classic earlier example of the phenomenon, whereby a killer is prevented by circumstances outside of his control from doing what he wants to do, leaving him with an overwhelming compulsion to release his pent-up frustration on another victim, so he can go home undefeated and back in control.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I meant to add, if the lack of mutilation is the only reason to doubt Stride was a ripper victim, it's not a very logical one in my view. I would prefer to see all the logical reasons to believe it was someone else.

Love,

Caz
X