Stride..a victim?

[DJA]

Wicky,

Where is the arterial spray?

[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.

[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?

[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 it´s 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. It´s 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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Which of the following is closest to the truth?

To be honest what could the police have done? Schwartz gave descriptions of the two men but the police could hardly have gone around arresting anyone that confirmed to a pretty general appearance and no one came forward.

Pipeman was found and cleared.
Prolly the corner beer shop keeper having a knock off smoke.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

So in this scenario, interruption occurs between the first cut and the commencement of the second cut.
How much time would elapse between the two actions?
Well if he first wants to roll her onto her back, to help him make an encircling cut as was done in Chapman's case, then maybe a few seconds. Ten at the most.
As interruption occurs between these two points, the number arrived at has to be halved, to find the approximate moment of interruption.
So maybe 2 seconds after the first cut is completed.
Without interruption, the second cut occurs, and mutilation proceeds for about 5 minutes.
At any moment in this ~300 second period, he could be interrupted.
Thus the chances of interruption occurring when supposed, are minimal, and therefore interruption should be regarded as a fringe theory.

It might be possible to avoid this dilemma, by supposing he were interrupted before the first cut, and thus the first cut (killing her) is only done to keep her quiet.
The problem now becomes that he has been seen at close range, he hasn't kept her particularly quiet, and he hasn't kept himself quiet.
However, the 'keep her quiet' version of interruption, would look a lot stronger if Schwartz' story were placed in the BS Bin.

[Wickerman]

So in this scenario, interruption occurs between the first cut and the commencement of the second cut.
......

Or while applying the first cut, he withdrew and left the scene.

You'll find that if you want to run the knife around the neck, the best way is not to roll the body over, but grab the head by the hair and pull her torso upright into a sitting position, then run the knife around the neck. Quicker, with less effort.

[FrankO]

There were people up and about in Bucks Row too, as well as in Hanbury Street. I think it´s more a matter of volume.

If, by ‘volume’ you mean the quantity of people the Ripper would have been able to see or hear and who, therefore, could have disturbed or interrupted him, then I agree. People in Stride’s case hadn’t gone to bed yet. In Buck’s Row and Hanbury Street, most people had gone to bed and the streets wouldn’t get any more quiet.

And there were differences in the cutting to the throats, as you will know - compare Eddowes to Nichols and Chapman, if you will.

The throats of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were all cut the same in the sense that they were cut to the vertebrae and from ear to ear. In that sense they all very clearly differed from Stride.

Did the other victims have scarves around their necks to grab them by? Were they easy enough to get at?

Chapman and Eddowes did have scarves, whether Nichols did, I don't know. The point is that there’s no evidence to suggest that they were grabbed by their scarf and that grabbing a scarf, possibly, only happened in the one murder where no mutilations took place and in which case the throat was cut clearly less severely. That, at the very least, stands out as being dissimilar to the others.

In the end, it boils down to perspective.

I wholeheartedly agree. Everyone of us has their own angle, even those without a theory, from which they see & interpret things. If, for instance, you don't believe in Jack the Ripper, this will impact your interpretation of the evidence in one way and if you think the Ripper was rather methodical and strongly driven by the mutilations, this may cause a very different interpretation of the very same evidence.

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.

I agree with the first part, but I think that we can't know it has to count for a lot as long as we don't know the truth.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Or while applying the first cut, he withdrew and left the scene.

That would mean comparing ~300 seconds, to an even smaller timespan than 2 seconds.

Interruption may be a plausible theory, but given the incredibly tight timing involved, it's not a particularly good one.

You'll find that if you want to run the knife around the neck, the best way is not to roll the body over, but grab the head by the hair and pull her torso upright into a sitting position, then run the knife around the neck. Quicker, with less effort.

As it stands, the killer has demonstrated incredible upper-body and arm strength - he raises the victim's upper-body by pulling on the scarf, and slides the knife between neck and ground, without leaning over the body for balance (the wall is in the way).
So while moving the victim into a sitting position may require somewhat less effort overall, he hardly needs to bother.

Considering Schwartz supposedly saw the man who did this, 'walking as if partially intoxicated', the strength and skill show by the killer is quite astonishing.

[Trevor Marriott]

Or while applying the first cut, he withdrew and left the scene.

You'll find that if you want to run the knife around the neck, the best way is not to roll the body over, but grab the head by the hair and pull her torso upright into a sitting position, then run the knife around the neck. Quicker, with less effort.

For what it is worth I don't believe the killer killed in this fashion. I believe he was able to get behind his victims making then unaware of what was going to happen and then he could put one hand over their mouth and cut their throats while still standing behind them, then letting their bodies fall to the ground. Thus avoiding the likelihood of arterial blood being deposited on him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

If, by ‘volume’ you mean the quantity of people the Ripper would have been able to see or hear and who, therefore, could have disturbed or interrupted him, then I agree. People in Stride’s case hadn’t gone to bed yet. In Buck’s Row and Hanbury Street, most people had gone to bed and the streets wouldn’t get any more quiet.

So people awake and present in both cases, open windows allowing for noticing things happening outside them. A case of a volume difference, therefore. And there was more volume in Berner Street than in the other venues.

The throats of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were all cut the same in the sense that they were cut to the vertebrae and from ear to ear. In that sense they all very clearly differed from Stride.

Yes, in THAT sense they were alike. In other senses, they were not. Eddowes´damage was described:
"The throat was cut across to the extent of about six or seven inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe below, and about two and a half inches behind the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear.
The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side. The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened.
The carotid artery had a fine hole opening, the internal jugular vein was opened about an inch and a half -- not divided."
... and so she differs from Nichols and Chapman and could to a degree be described as forming a bridge between Stride and Nichols/Chapman.


Chapman and Eddowes did have scarves, whether Nichols did, I don't know. The point is that there’s no evidence to suggest that they were grabbed by their scarf and that grabbing a scarf, possibly, only happened in the one murder where no mutilations took place and in which case the throat was cut clearly less severely. That, at the very least, stands out as being dissimilar to the others.

It does. But it could owe to various factors. Maybe Stride turned her back to the killer and made for the gates, making him grab the scarf from behind. We just can´t know. It is a difference, but very hard to grade in importance as long as we do not have the details.

I wholeheartedly agree. Everyone of us has their own angle, even those without a theory, from which they see & interpret things. If, for instance, you don't believe in Jack the Ripper, this will impact your interpretation of the evidence in one way and if you think the Ripper was rather methodical and strongly driven by the mutilations, this may cause a very different interpretation of the very same evidence.

Yup, exactly so.

I agree with the first part, but I think that we can't know it has to count for a lot as long as we don't know the truth.

No, we can´t know, that is true. But we CAN know that Eddowes was slain in a place that fits quite well with Strides killer having gone there, chatted up and killed Eddowes some three quarters of an hour or so later. This very much belongs to the picture, and if we did not have the Eddowes murder on the same night and in that location, I think you will have to agree that it would have graded down the viability of the suggestion that Stride was killed by the Ripper. And that is as it should be, if you ask me. The link to Eddowes is of significant importance when we weigh it all up.

[Michael W Richards]

Consider the possibility that some of the victims may have impinged on Jack, causing a violent reaction. Not the other way around.

The first 2 Canonical victims were out soliciting while physically compromised, at least they had diminished cognitive abilities. One was sick, one was hammered. They were trying to pick up strangers while out alone, not in pairs as some girls were....see Martha/Pearly....these women were assuredly chosen partially due to a perception they would be easier to overpower.

Im sorry if Ive offended anyone because of my seemingly inflexible position on the Stride case, its not the intention of my posting, its that what I just outlined above in 3 sentences is the crux of the matter. We have rather good comparatives to use. And its far easier to match Polly and Annie by a single killer than it is any other 2 murders within the entire Unsolved File....except perhaps Kate, and Alice. There is MO evident. There is Objective evident. And there is skill enough to pull this off out on the streets in near darkness conditions.

Ive always said that Annie for me is the quintessential Ripper victim, and in reality, one of 2 that Im confident enough to put under Jack. With Liz there are circumstantial differences, physical attack differences, and there is no clear Objective beyond murder. That alone doesnt make this murder unique, and Jack was unique.

[Wickerman]

For what it is worth I don't believe the killer killed in this fashion. I believe he was able to get behind his victims making then unaware of what was going to happen and then he could put one hand over their mouth and cut their throats while still standing behind them, then letting their bodies fall to the ground. Thus avoiding the likelihood of arterial blood being deposited on him.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, but arterial spray would be expected to be found down the front of her jacket if she was standing.
If it wasn't on her jacket, nor on the wall, then the expectation is she was laying down when that cut was made. Any spray would be evident on the cobbles, but covered by the subsequent blood flow from the wound.

[Michael W Richards]

Its an obstacle to any truths that might be uncovered using the interruption idea, Im actually surprised how much traction it still has despite the fact that not one single shred of evidence indicates that what was done to Liz was incomplete. I suppose its the same as people formulating theories based on a foundation given by Israel Schwartz statements, or later on, George Hutchinson's. There isnt any proof that either of their stories were actual events witnessed.

Maybe if people would start using the evidence as it exists for each case....just like real detectives would do, and refrain from starting with a conclusion of Five murders by one man, then there wouldnt be such opposition to posts that explore other possibilities...based, again, on the actual evidence..not just some unsubstantiated hearsay.

Stride is killed in a passageway owned by the Club, with club members on the premises, no-one seen on the street from 12:35 until 12:55 other than a young couple and Leon Goldstein, and her single wound indicates her killer intended to harm her mortally.

Based on that, you have a simple murder likely committed by a man at that club. No need to try and explain how he came in from the street and left before being seen by nyone, how he was interrupted despite the lack of evidence for any such conclusion, and why she isnt ripped in any sense of that word. The very word which his nickname contains. The critical differentiating detail for any comparative murders.

[DJA]

Maybe if people would start using the evidence as it exists for each case....just like real detectives would do, Stride is killed in a passageway owned by the Club.

Wanna try that again