Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

Tell that to Ted Bundy - and Mark Dixie - and Leigh Thornhill - to name but three examples of repeat offenders in recent years who had genuine, fully documented double events, as a result of highly frustrating initial attacks that left them wanting more and doing far more damage to their next victim. So the theory regarding the ripper's frustration after Stride may be old, but it was rather astute considering what we know today about violent opportunists - or should know. If the theory was wrong in the ripper's case, it was certainly no fallacy and was perfectly logical.

Caz
X

Pardon me for shortening it, but I agree with everything you say. But it's all about the odds, and which ones we choose to pay attention to. Of course there are exceptions to any rule. Not knowing anything about Jack as a person, it makes sense to me to put him with the majority. Which makes me disinclined to count Stride as one of his. If she was not one of his then she was one of the others that would be killed by knife in England. Which puts her in the minority, Jack in the majority, and given that most people are killed by someone they know, her "real" killer in the majority as well. Can it be switched around? Absolutely.

One of the irritating things about logical fallacies is they do not preclude the truth. A person can set up, say, a slippery slope argument (a logical fallacy) and then have everything he said come to pass. He was right, but he was not logical. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the worst. As it happens, any number of things that follow an event are in fact caused by that event. But not always. It's not some cosmic rule that things work out that way. Which is why that argument is considered a logical fallacy.

I read something once that said that Dr. John Dee came to the conclusion that the plague was caused by rats. Which in a real sense is true. But he said it was because plague came under the aspect of the moon, and so did rats, so avoiding creatures that came under the aspect of the moon would prevent plague. I swear to god I don't even know what that means. Right conclusion, wrong... everything else.

Some day, it may prove to be true that the officers and others who came up with this theory were right. But they certainly didn't get there based on any evidence or logic. So without evidence and logic, it seems only fair to question the conclusion.

[Errata]

But you didn't intend to cut your finger, did you, let alone that badly? Surely that was a slip of the knife?

Love,

Caz
X

No it was intentional, merely intended for the avocado. The knife did not slip. The avocado did. Little green bastards.

I don't know if he was trying to make a second cut, or if he just drew the knife across the skin pulling the blade out of the wound. There is something compulsive about the way Jack treats the throat. Not present in Stride. But a purposeful second cut, even if shallow, would be more in line with say, Chapman, where a single purposeful cut and a little split skin would be more consistent with Stride. So it's trying to see if there is a link between the murders with knife skill.

[Errata]

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

This is what I mean by it not making sense. In fact none of the murders make sense.

As human beings, we don't have instincts like animals do. But our reflexes are hard wired. There are things we do in certain circumstances, and only a ton of training (like say, in the army or over years of exposure) allows us to act in some other way. Some things are slightly optional. Fight or flight for example. For physical threat there are three options, for emotional there are five. Since we are dealing with the physical, we have fight, flight, or freeze. Somebody leaps out a you scaring the pants off of you, you do one of those three things. But it will always be one of those three. You will never react by say, bursting into song. Not unless your neurochemistry is just completely whacked out.

None of these women reacted in any known fashion to what happened to them. They didn't react at all. That DOES NOT happen. Something blocks your airway, an arm, a scarf, an anaconda, whatever, every single human being reacts the same way. They try to free their throat. Maybe just for a few seconds, but homo sapiens brings their hands up to pull the constriction away. Hard wired reaction. Stride certainly didn't do this. She still had her bag of candy in her hand. Constriction of the throat = hands open, hands to constrictor. Every time. Every human.

And here's what really doesn't make sense. ANY blockage of the airway causes this reaction. Choking on a hot dog, allergic reaction, choking on your own blood because your throat had been cut. Her hands should have been covered in blood, cachous on the ground at her feet. So she didn't put her hands to her throat because she couldn't. She was dead. Unconscious means she drops the the candy. Ischemia means she clutches it for a few seconds, but then drops it once blood pressure settles, which happens very quickly.

So how the hell did she end up on the ground still clutching her candy? No one. Not no one lies down in the mud on a sidewalk on a public street in front of buildings with awake people in them for anything. I mean, maybe if there was a gun involved, but she certainly didn't do it willingly. IF she was soliciting, she would have taken him at least behind the gate. If she wasn't, the reasons for her to lie in the mud just dropped to zero. She was not hit on the head while standing, there's no bruise and she would have dropped the cachous. She could have been choked out, but the hard wired reflexes would have caused her to drop the cachous. She wasn't tripped, she wasn't forced down.

The only way she ends up on the ground clutching the cachous is some vasovagal response that ended in death. But one that was so quick she didn't even register what happened to her. And of all the things that we know happened to her, the only thing that could cause that was the severance of the vagus nerve. Stopping her heart cold. She could not end up on the ground WITH her cachous any other way. The only thing that makes sense medically, physiologically, neurologically is that he cut her throat while she was still standing. Probably still standing and unaware of him.

I've asked neurologists, I've asked physical therapists, I even asked the Chair of emergency medicine at the NIH to explain this death. They all agree she had to be dead before she hit the ground. And the only explanation for her still clutching the cachous is either a major neurological event like a stroke, nervous overload (like hitting the vagus nerve, which acts like the funny bone except on the spine and the heart), or cadaveric spasm (tightening of all muscles due to death. Usually sudden death).

And she didn't have a stroke. Vagus overload causes death. Cadaveric spasm is caused BY death. She was clutching the candy because she was dead. There was no fight, no struggle, or she would drop the candy. She has the candy, therefore she is dead before hitting the ground, therefore she was upright when he killed her.

And the only thing that would kill her quickly enough to cause either condition was the cut throat.

AND WE KNOW THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!!!

I mean, I cant even remotely explain it. It's all wrong. The blood evidence, the scene evidence, the trace from the bodies HAS to be wrong, but there's no reason for me to think it is. And there is nothing in their systems that indicates they were either drugged or poisoned, which could alter the chemistry enough to cause someone to behave like some kind of sheep. There is literally no reason for the victims to behave the way they did, and every reason for them to have behaved differently. But nothing accounts for it. I mean, unless there was some other guy holding a gun on them. A knife does not pose a significant enough threat to command cooperation.

It's so frustrating I could choke somebody.

[caz]

It was an avocado. Don't use a bread knife on an avocado.

And this is what I mean. Superficial doesn't tell me how deep the wound was. So when they say the second cut was superficial, I don't know if I'm supposed to picture a paper cut or my finger. A cut like my finger would show an intent of making a second cut. A paper cut like thing could just be a slip of the knife.

But you didn't intend to cut your finger, did you, let alone that badly? Surely that was a slip of the knife?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because the theory is old doesn't mean in is logical. It is in fact fallacy. Serial killers retreat after failure far more often than they escalate.

Hi Errata,

Tell that to Ted Bundy - and Mark Dixie - and Leigh Thornhill - to name but three examples of repeat offenders in recent years who had genuine, fully documented double events, as a result of highly frustrating initial attacks that left them wanting more and doing far more damage to their next victim. So the theory regarding the ripper's frustration after Stride may be old, but it was rather astute considering what we know today about violent opportunists - or should know. If the theory was wrong in the ripper's case, it was certainly no fallacy and was perfectly logical.

My mom's friend was shot in the head with a .44 coming home from work the same night as a Son of Sam murder. They were very excited because she lived and they thought she would identify the serial killer. She identified the man who shot her, but it wasn't Berkowitz. It was a dumb kid. Murders continue with or without a serial killer in the news.

Yes, but we have a limited count of 39 recorded unsolved murders of adult women by knife in the whole of England between 1887 and 1889. So it might be an idea to find out more about these cases individually before assuming that Stride's murder was in any way the kind of commonplace event that can be filed with 'murders that continued' regardless.

Sure, but lets say four of the murders were the work of a serial killer, and one was due to a failed blackmailing attempt. That's four extras because of the serial killer, and one that was in the 11 knife murders that statistically was already accounted for.

But where is the evidence that any of these women were into blackmail? It sounds like something out of a spy novel. Even so, your figures don't add up because if you only allow the serial killer 4 victims, you have another 13 to account for, including your blackmailer, not just the 11 recorded in the previous and subsequent years. It's a small sample for nit-picking, I'll grant you, but that's the point: very few unsolvable murders, and even fewer of the nature we see in the fall of 88 in that very tiny spot of England.

If there was stuff in these women's personal lives that put them at added risk for assault or murder, and there was... not even counting being prostitutes, then it's far more likely that someone much closer to home was the killer.

But not when you take all the individual circumstances and the above murder statistics into account. Nobody thought any of the Suffolk Strangler's victims was killed and dumped by a one-off killer in a domestic incident. Same goes for the Yorkshire Ripper's victims.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

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

It was an avocado. Don't use a bread knife on an avocado.

And this is what I mean. Superficial doesn't tell me how deep the wound was. So when they say the second cut was superficial, I don't know if I'm supposed to picture a paper cut or my finger. A cut like my finger would show an intent of making a second cut. A paper cut like thing could just be a slip of the knife.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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