Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[lynn cates]

parallel

Hello Tom.

"Actually, Nichols and Chapman had two. But Stride and Eddowes had only one."

Yes, indeed! And the two cuts were parallel.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

superficial

Hello Errata. Maybe two. The wording is ambiguous.

But IF there were a second superficial cut, it would have been as the adjective implies.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Maybe two. The wording is ambiguous.

But IF there were a second superficial cut, it would have been as the adjective implies.

Cheers.
LC

I consider a paper cut superficial. On the other hand, the cut on my index finger that required 20 stitches and severed the nerves costing me the sensation on the right side of my finger was labeled "superficial". Because it was not life threatening, nor was it an amputation. The doctor who stitched said it was a "nasty" cut, but the bill said "superficial". So thats why I ask. I had to pry a bread knife out of bone. I did not consider that superficial. Medical coding evidently did.

[Errata]

One of the things you sort of have to stand back and admire is how WELL Stride was killed. Single expert cut, no sawing about, no mess, throat wound positioned perfectly over a drain, nerve severance causing reactive paralysis...

I mean, if this happened today (or maybe 30 years ago) there would be no question that this was a mob hit. Even back then this was not a super common way to kill someone, and it takes a certain amount of skill. Pressure enough to sever the carotid and divide the trachea, super sharp knife...

And then we have this weird conflict. I know the evidence says she was not killed standing up. But she HAD to be. First of all, no one has ever come up with a reasonable explanation for her to lie down in the mud. Secondly, the "damned cachous". She would not hold onto them and lie down. She'd put them in a pocket or something. I'm not sure she could have had them in her hand and lie down. Getting from standing to prone is kind of a process and it uses both hands. Especially in mud. There is no injury that causes unconsciousness where she would not have let them go. Yes, ischemic problems would cause her to tighten her grip. For a few seconds. But once actually unconscious she would have dropped them. Or at least opened her hand.

So if she could not have been knocked out or incapacitated without letting them go, and she could not have laid down with them in her hand, then the conclusion has to be that the ischemic attack that caused her to clench her hand killed her. And killed her so quickly that she neither fought nor dropped the damn bag. And thats not choking. If she had been choked she would have dropped the bag. And to be perfectly honest, it could only barely be the throat cut. It would require not just the severance of the Vagus nerve, but for there to be a total overload sent down to the heart. And that's just luck.

This is one of the things about this case that drives me batty. Blood spatter says one thing, behavior another. In order to do what Jack did, he had to do what no one could do. Not alone. The whole thing is impossible.

[Observer]

Hi Errata

Let's suppose the killer is positioned behind Stride. He places the crook of his stronger arm around her neck and begins to choke her. She forms a fist around the cachous and fights back. The killer grasps her hand to avoid being struck; the cachous are now encased. He is now holding her hand and choking her. She becomes unconscious and he lowers her to the ground, still holding onto her neck and hand. She is now lying on her left side. The killer then releases his hold on her hand and her hand relaxes. He cuts her throat

[Observer]

One of the things you sort of have to stand back and admire is how WELL Stride was killed. Single expert cut, no sawing about, no mess, throat wound positioned perfectly over a drain, nerve severance causing reactive paralysis...

I mean, if this happened today (or maybe 30 years ago) there would be no question that this was a mob hit.

I'd agree. Also, this is what Coroner Baxter alluded to in his summing up,

The ordinary motives of murder - revenge, jealousy, theft, and passion - appeared, therefore, to be absent from this case; In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood, there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection.

[DRoy]

Actually, Nichols and Chapman had two. But Stride and Eddowes had only one.

• And MJK had many and went all around her neck. You almost have to wonder if the Whitehall torso influenced 'Jack' enough that he tried to cut MJK's head off.

• McKenzie had two small ones

• Coles had either two or three

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

equivocation

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I daresay your doctor was using the word in the 21st C sense; Phillips, in the 19th C Latinate sense (at the surface).

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Eileen Dover

Hello (again) Errata.

I know the evidence says she was not killed standing up. But she HAD to be."

If she were bolt upright, she'd have sprayed the building. What about in process of falling--leaning over?

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Some things I agree with and some I don't. Your first paragraph is spot on and I think that those points get swept under the rug and forgotten often. Possibly for convience sake.

The possibility that Stride's murderer went on to murder Eddowes, is incredibly high. Probability not so high. Without actually doing any Math, as my sanity would probably completely crumble, I would estimate the probability between 15-35% in favour. Regardless, your points are very valid. The guy who's been running around slitting womens' throat isn't the last place I'm gonna start looking for a guy who slit some woman's throat. Unless there is something conclusive to remove the possibility. Which so far there just isn't.

I'd hold off on the math until your data is a little less flawed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day Errata



I've wondered the same thing what did they mean.

But I guess we'll never know.

Why won't we? Read the report and then look at the various photos and drawings.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'd agree. Also, this is what Coroner Baxter alluded to in his summing up,

The ordinary motives of murder - revenge, jealousy, theft, and passion - appeared, therefore, to be absent from this case; In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood, there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection.

Good post, Obsy. The only significant difference between Stride's murder and the others is lack of abdominal mutilation. And all that is evidence of is that it didn't occur. It's negative evidence, in other words. Had it been a copycat I'd expect to see crude abdominal mutilation that didn't compare to that of Nichols and Chapman. So, either Stride was murdered by the Ripper OR her murder was solitary and not at all meant to appear as a copycat.

There was no motive discovered among her closest associates, who were able to provide alibis. So it wasn't a domestic murder. So, Stride was murdered by a stranger or near stranger. Or at least someone other than Michael Kidney who was able to manufacture an alibi (I wouldn't rule this out). So, was Stride murdered by the stranger we call Jack the Ripper or another stranger with the same M.O. and skill as the Ripper who happened to kill someone on the only night of the entire year that the Ripper happened to kill someone before 2am?

Accepting the likelihood that Stride was a Ripper victim means only having to accept that for some reason he chose not to mutilate her abdomen. We can't know that wasn't his intention, we just know it didn't happen.

To accept that she was likely NOT a Ripper victim means having to accept a plethora of 'coincidence' and happenstance without any real cause for doing so. After all, that single sole reason that Stride's candidacy is questioned is that she wasn't mutilated. That's the acorn that grew this mighty oak of fringe speculation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

I consider a paper cut superficial. On the other hand, the cut on my index finger that required 20 stitches and severed the nerves costing me the sensation on the right side of my finger was labeled "superficial". Because it was not life threatening, nor was it an amputation. The doctor who stitched said it was a "nasty" cut, but the bill said "superficial". So thats why I ask. I had to pry a bread knife out of bone. I did not consider that superficial. Medical coding evidently did.

Er, because in medical speak, 'superficial' almost certainly relates back to the Latin and just means 'across the surface' of the skin. The clues are right there in your own example, Errata. Likewise, the cut, or cuts, to Eddowes's throat could formally have been described as 'superficial' while still serious enough to cause death. I suggest it relates to the fact that the throat was sliced/slashed (ie across the surface) with the blade's edge, rather than stabbed/penetrated by the point of a knife. Similarly I assume your bread knife didn't go into your finger point first, but thought it was slicing through a fresh loaf.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

G'Day all

I've seen it asked before but never answered, figures for 87 88 89 quoted but can anyone tell me just how many of those knife killings involved slashed throats?

I Can't find it anywhere, but don't have access to many of the records those of you "on the ground" do.

Thanks all

GUT

Hi GUT,

The figures (11 in 87 and 89, 17 in 88) are from the research of Colin Roberts. If I recall correctly, they refer specifically to the unsolved murders by knife only (so not just slashed throats) of adult women only in the whole of England.

While there is a possibility that not every such murder was reported or recorded faithfully, it does give us a rough idea of how rare these crimes were, and we know about 6 in that category (Tabram through Kelly) which all took place within easy walking distance of each other in just three months of 1888 (early August to early November).

What we don't know is how many of the 11 remaining cases from 88, the 11 cases from 87 and the 11 from 89 were outdoor murders of impoverished women, committed at night, how they were distributed geographically across the entire country (eg how many others in London, never mind Whitechapel) and datewise, and what the individual circumstances were. I think it might be a revelation for some of the sceptics and the geographically challenged to see an enlarged map of England, showing all 39 murders in this category with the relevant dates, and the Whitechapel six all clumped together as one small splodge (not very scientific language, but I hope I make my point ).

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

To accept that she was likely NOT a Ripper victim means having to accept a plethora of 'coincidence' and happenstance without any real cause for doing so. After all, that single sole reason that Stride's candidacy is questioned is that she wasn't mutilated. That's the acorn that grew this mighty oak of fringe speculation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Unfortunately, to accept ANY theory on what happened to her we have to accept a plethora happenstance and unsubstantiated theories.

If she WAS a Ripper victim, then we have to accept that for some reason he didn't even try to mutilate her. Which we have to assume was for some reason or another. Then we have to accept that a non psychotic serial killer chose to not behave like any other non psychotic serial killer for some reason, and went out after someone else presumably because he was interrupted with Stride (which there is no evidence of) and had a reasonable fear of having been spotted. And we have to assume that unlike 80% of murder victims, Stride was killed by a total stranger. We also have to assume that for some reason Jack's knife skill were suddenly on the level of a professional killer, but never evidenced that skill again.

If she was NOT a Ripper victim, then someone else killed her for some reason we don't know. The only things in her background that could even approach a reason for being murdered was that
a: at some point she had been a prostitute
b: she was an alcoholic, which generally does mean you piss people off on a somewhat regular basis
c: she was running a scam on a church
And as far as we know she wasn't even doing anything shady that evening. So either she was killed for absolutely no reason by some crazy guy (and her wounds do not bear that out), she was killed for a bad reason because of her petty offenses, or she was killed by mistake. Like, she matched the description given to some enforcer, but it was some other blonde Swede. And we are forced to conclude that there existed the 1 in 365 chance that some other guy decided to cut the throat of a woman in Whitechapel on the same night Jack cut the throat of another woman in Whitechapel. Which happens, but sure the timing can confuse things.

Personally I assumed that Stride WAS a victim of the Ripper until I read more on her throat wound. Which is the quality of a professional hit. Something not seen in his other victims. And try as I might, I couldn't think of a single reason for him to display that skill on his third victim, and not the fourth or fifth or possibly sixth, etc. It was like a serial killer blasting out the heads of his victims with a .44, and then there's one victim killed by a CIA style double tap to the back of the head. It doesn't make sense at all. Everything else I could explain away. That I couldn't.