A Case of Misattribution?

[robhouse]

Not according to the medical evidence, Rob.


According to Dr Brown, all of the left-sided vessels in Eddowes’ neck were completely severed, with the result that death was ‘immediate’ and occurred as a consequence of ‘haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery’. Both Phillips and Blackwell, by comparison, stated that Stride had died ‘comparatively slowly’ as a result of ‘partial severance’ of the left carotid artery. (My emphasis.)

Again with reference to Eddowes’ neck wound, Dr Brown stated that the tissues had been divided back to the bone and that the knife had scored the intervertebral cartilages. This did not occur in the case of Stride, but it did with Nichols, Chapman and Kelly.


Some are under the assumption that Stride’s killer was interrupted, Rob, though this is a position that is not consistent with the evidence. But then, even in the event that Stride’s killer had been interrupted by the arrival of Diemschutz, I fail to understand how this would have affected the way in which he inflicted the throat wound. Similarly, if the killer was interrupted after he cut the throat and before he commenced the abdominal mutilation, I fail to understand why Stride was positioned on her side rather than on her back.


No it shouldn’t. The strangulation was undertaken to immobilize a victim, and the throat cutting to kill her. These two acts were no more than facilitators for the factor that really motivated these crimes – the abdominal mutilation.

Stride suffered no abdominal mutilation, and neither was she strangled. The wound inflicted to her neck was also of a totally different character to those sustained by Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Thus there is no justification for the claim that ‘Stride's throat is entirely consistent with the throat cuts to the other victims.’ The difference between Stride and the known victims is that of night and day.

Hello Gary,

I dont have a lot of time so this will be a brief reply. I am sorry but I still disagree with you. Yes, the cut was less deep, but in general character it was similar. I have explained other reasons for the difference above. Incidentally, I am of the opinion that Stride was interrupted by Schwartz, not Diemshitz. To my way of thinking, this should be obvious... but others do not seem to agree with me. We know that a man was seen attacking Stride. I would call this "interruption." If this man was the killer, as I believe, then he would obviously worry that Schwartz would go get a policeman. But he couldn't let Stride live to identify him. So he drags her into the alley, cuts her throat quickly, and bolts. To me this is common sense, and is "consistent with the evidence."

In the case of Chapman's murder, Dr. Phillips reported the "appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck." Also, the cut to the throat went all the way around the neck. To me this goes beyond simply a means of effecting murder, and suggests the killer wanted to decapitate the victim. Hence it is in the category of post-death mutilation.

RH

[lynn cates]

oops, sorry!

Hello Rob. Thanks. Almost missed your post. Sorry.

"I would guess that the killer dispatched Stride rather quickly . . ."

Completely agree.

" . . . then ran out of there. I assume that he was afraid of being caught, so he would have been more hasty than in other murders."

I see. Then you postulate that he cut her throat AFTER the interruption?

"Some of the other murders, most notably the Chapman murder, indicate an attempt to behead the victim, and so obviously the throat cut will be deeper."

Absolutely.

"And in comparison to Eddowes, Stride's throat was only slightly less deeply cut."

Tend to agree. Polly and Annie, very deep--nicked the bone. Kate, quite deep--nicked the cartilage. Liz, deep.

"In Stride's case:
"The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 inch below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.""

Quite. I appreciate your noting carotid was not severed.

"In Eddowes case:

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 [on the right side] had a fine hole opening, the internal jugular vein was opened about an inch and a half -- not divided.'

Yes. And that opening of the carotid (fine hole) I find intriguing.

"So clearly in both cases, the cut commences on the left side, cuts through the vessels on the left side, and partially cuts through the vessels on the right side."

Yes. If fact, there are only two cases: starting on left, commencing right; and, starting right commencing left (eg, "MJK")

"Yes, Stride's cut was less deep, but the similarities between the two, and indeed with the other victims, is obvious, and easily explained by the fact that the killer was scared of being caught, and hence in a hurry.'

Not a bad hypothesis. If, however, I were the attacker, i would be even more frightened at #29 Hanbury.

"Incidentally, this would also explain why the position of the body in this case is different. In the other cases, the victim is clearly posed by the killer, with the legs drawn up at the knees and spread apart."

But this is NOT clearly a pose, anymore than a woman giving birth, having he feet in stirrups, is being posed. It is a mere case of the demand for access.

"In Stride's case, I suggest he just killed her and left."

Indubitably.

"She apparently did not die immediately, and I imagine she may have curled up in a sort of fetal position on her side."

Yes, the medical examiner thought as much. But all this leaves the question of number of hands untouched.

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

This is interesting of itself because it means that a Jewish witness, who supposedly got a good enough view to be able to make a positive identification, didn't recognise a fellow-Jew. Therefore, if there's anything to this story at all, the suspect was a Jew who was not easily recognisable as such.

Absolutely, Colin. One can only assume that Kosminski didn't appear Jewish.

[lynn cates]

common

Hello Neil. Thanks for posting this.

Just to be clear, is the claim:

1. Throat cutting was not common?

or

2. Throat cutting was not a common form of killing?

According to Colin's statistics, murder was not that common a thing. So in that sense, I can live with claim #1.

On the other hand, given Colin's target population, "adult females in all England in 1888" it seems that, out of 56 deaths, 16 were by cut throat. Unless my math skills have completely deserted me, that means that between 1/4 and 1/3 of murdered adult women in England were sent out of this world with a cut throat.

Did I get something wrong?

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

Personally, I think neither Lawende nor Schwartz identified the suspect.

There really wasn't anyone else, though, SB. More to the point, if police adhered to standard procedure, both would have been taken to view Kosminski.

My first choice: George Hutchinson´s suspect. Astrakhan- Man is my witness.

He was otherwise engaged appearing in pantomime.

[Garry Wroe]

The cut to Stride's throat is entirely consistent with the throat cuts to the other victims.

Not according to the medical evidence, Rob.

The cut to Eddowes throat likewise severed the vessels on the left side of the throat, but only partly cut the vessels on the right... just like Stride.

According to Dr Brown, all of the left-sided vessels in Eddowes’ neck were completely severed, with the result that death was ‘immediate’ and occurred as a consequence of ‘haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery’. Both Phillips and Blackwell, by comparison, stated that Stride had died ‘comparatively slowly’ as a result of ‘partial severance’ of the left carotid artery. (My emphasis.)

Again with reference to Eddowes’ neck wound, Dr Brown stated that the tissues had been divided back to the bone and that the knife had scored the intervertebral cartilages. This did not occur in the case of Stride, but it did with Nichols, Chapman and Kelly.

Granted, in some of the other cases, the vessels on both sides were severed, but in the Stride case, we are under the assumption that the killer was interrupted, so did not perform any mutilations.

Some are under the assumption that Stride’s killer was interrupted, Rob, though this is a position that is not consistent with the evidence. But then, even in the event that Stride’s killer had been interrupted by the arrival of Diemschutz, I fail to understand how this would have affected the way in which he inflicted the throat wound. Similarly, if the killer was interrupted after he cut the throat and before he commenced the abdominal mutilation, I fail to understand why Stride was positioned on her side rather than on her back.

And the attempt to sever the head, which is evident in the Chapman murder for example, should fall under the category of mutilation.

No it shouldn’t. The strangulation was undertaken to immobilize a victim, and the throat cutting to kill her. These two acts were no more than facilitators for the factor that really motivated these crimes – the abdominal mutilation.

Stride suffered no abdominal mutilation, and neither was she strangled. The wound inflicted to her neck was also of a totally different character to those sustained by Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Thus there is no justification for the claim that ‘Stride's throat is entirely consistent with the throat cuts to the other victims.’ The difference between Stride and the known victims is that of night and day.

[Monty]

Ah, statistics!

Kill me now.

Regards,

Simon

How's that queue forming?

Monty

[Monty]

The figures are there. Refer to them before making misleading statements.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Present, on JtR forums site by that great Statistic colllator Colin Roberts on 22 July 2010.

"In Accordance with the Fifty First Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England, 1888:

England

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 55
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 2
Ages 15 - 19: 2
Ages 20 - 24: 5
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 2
Ages 45 - 54: 7
Ages 55 - 64: 2
Ages 65 - 74: 3
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 84

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 48
Ages 5 - 9: 3
Ages 10 - 14: 2
Ages 15 - 19: 2
Ages 20 - 24: 8
Ages 25 - 34: 12
Ages 35 - 44: 17
Ages 45 - 54: 11
Ages 55 - 64: 1
Ages 65 - 74: 6
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 111

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Manslaughter', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 10
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 5
Ages 15 - 19: 4
Ages 20 - 24: 4
Ages 25 - 34: 18
Ages 35 - 44: 8
Ages 45 - 54: 9
Ages 55 - 64: 5
Ages 65 - 74: 5
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 71

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Manslaughter', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 12
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 1
Ages 15 - 19: 1
Ages 20 - 24: 1
Ages 25 - 34: 4
Ages 35 - 44: 6
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 2
Ages 65 - 74: 2
Ages 75 - 84: 2
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 35

---

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 65
Ages 5 - 9: 4
Ages 10 - 14: 7
Ages 15 - 19: 6
Ages 20 - 24: 9
Ages 25 - 34: 21
Ages 35 - 44: 10
Ages 45 - 54: 16
Ages 55 - 64: 7
Ages 65 - 74: 8
Ages 75 - 84: 2
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 155

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 60
Ages 5 - 9: 4
Ages 10 - 14: 3
Ages 15 - 19: 3
Ages 20 - 24: 9
Ages 25 - 34: 16
Ages 35 - 44: 23
Ages 45 - 54: 14
Ages 55 - 64: 3
Ages 65 - 74: 8
Ages 75 - 84: 3
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 146

---------

London

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 21
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 2
Ages 35 - 44: 3
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 30

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 17
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 2
Ages 35 - 44: 7
Ages 45 - 54: 7
Ages 55 - 64: 1
Ages 65 - 74: 3
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 39

The available data for London is unfortunately not expressed in any finer detail; i.e. in terms of 'Murder' and 'Manslaughter' being subsets of 'Homicide'.

It should be noted, however, that the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'murder' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout England, i.e. 56, represents 73.68% of the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout the same. It is reasonable, therefore, to estimate that 73.68% of the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout London, in 1888, i.e. 22, involved specifically 'murder'.

In other words: It is reasonable to estimate that approximately 16 of the registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout London, in 1888, were classified as 'murder'.

Put more simply: Approximately 16 women were murdered in London's metropolis, in 1888.

---------

England

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Weapons and Implements', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 5
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 1
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 13

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Weapons and Implements', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 4
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 6
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 5
Ages 45 - 54: 8
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 28

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Gun-Shot', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 0
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 7

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Gun-Shot', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 0
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 3
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 6

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 1
Ages 35 - 44: 0
Ages 45 - 54: 0
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 3

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 4

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 3
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 0
Ages 45 - 54: 0
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 3

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 3
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 3
Ages 45 - 54: 6
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 18

---

So, a grand total of 15 of the registered deaths, involving the 'murder' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout England, in 1888, involved specifically 'murder' by way of 'cut throat'.

Fifteen; throughout the whole of England!

---

In accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891 ...

Total Population, England: 27,482,104

Total Population, London*: 4,231,431

*As Defined by the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, i.e. the Administrative County of London

---

I will provide similar data, in accordance with the Annual Reports of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England; 1886, 1887, 1889, and 1890, upon my return from vacation, in early August.

But, for now ...

1886 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 3

1887 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 9

1888 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 15

1889 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 6

1890 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 7 "


Now, with that in mind, was throat cutting THAT common?

Monty

An average of 10 females a year I would say thats a high figure but then again you want to argue just for the sake of arguing.

If you read my post I didnt specify women only so perhaps next time before you rush to score brownie points you should engage your brain before accessing the keyboard.

[Simon Wood]

Ah, statistics!

Kill me now.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

If there was indeed any evidence of strangulation, or suffocation, with Stride then I'd be inclined to have reservations, but as it stands with what we know about the Stride murder, it is in the same class as those of McKenzie & Coles.
And McKenzie even had the same collarbone bruises, but so did Chapman so that only levels the playing field.
Maybe those bruises were a result of being a prostitute rather than a victim of JtR.

Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

I think that one should not forget that in Victorian times the most accepted method of despatching someone to the afterlife was to cut their throats.

So therefore linking all the murders together on the basis of the throat cutting is unsafe.

As far as Stride is concerned in addittion to the different knife wound to the throat you have to consider as has been mentioned there were no other wounds.

If the killer had time to cut her throat he had time to carry out wounds to other parts of the body, how much time does it take to wield a knife several times into someones abdomen.

As has also been pointed out the time and the locations are totally different from the other murders. In reality everything abut her murder points to another killer.

For those who suggest it was to much of a coincidence well coincidences do happen.

Present, on JtR forums site by that great Statistic colllator Colin Roberts on 22 July 2010.

"In Accordance with the Fifty First Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England, 1888:

England

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 55
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 2
Ages 15 - 19: 2
Ages 20 - 24: 5
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 2
Ages 45 - 54: 7
Ages 55 - 64: 2
Ages 65 - 74: 3
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 84

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 48
Ages 5 - 9: 3
Ages 10 - 14: 2
Ages 15 - 19: 2
Ages 20 - 24: 8
Ages 25 - 34: 12
Ages 35 - 44: 17
Ages 45 - 54: 11
Ages 55 - 64: 1
Ages 65 - 74: 6
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 111

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Manslaughter', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 10
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 5
Ages 15 - 19: 4
Ages 20 - 24: 4
Ages 25 - 34: 18
Ages 35 - 44: 8
Ages 45 - 54: 9
Ages 55 - 64: 5
Ages 65 - 74: 5
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 71

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Manslaughter', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 12
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 1
Ages 15 - 19: 1
Ages 20 - 24: 1
Ages 25 - 34: 4
Ages 35 - 44: 6
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 2
Ages 65 - 74: 2
Ages 75 - 84: 2
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 35

---

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 65
Ages 5 - 9: 4
Ages 10 - 14: 7
Ages 15 - 19: 6
Ages 20 - 24: 9
Ages 25 - 34: 21
Ages 35 - 44: 10
Ages 45 - 54: 16
Ages 55 - 64: 7
Ages 65 - 74: 8
Ages 75 - 84: 2
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 155

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 60
Ages 5 - 9: 4
Ages 10 - 14: 3
Ages 15 - 19: 3
Ages 20 - 24: 9
Ages 25 - 34: 16
Ages 35 - 44: 23
Ages 45 - 54: 14
Ages 55 - 64: 3
Ages 65 - 74: 8
Ages 75 - 84: 3
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 146

---------

London

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 21
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 2
Ages 35 - 44: 3
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 30

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 17
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 2
Ages 35 - 44: 7
Ages 45 - 54: 7
Ages 55 - 64: 1
Ages 65 - 74: 3
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 39

The available data for London is unfortunately not expressed in any finer detail; i.e. in terms of 'Murder' and 'Manslaughter' being subsets of 'Homicide'.

It should be noted, however, that the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'murder' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout England, i.e. 56, represents 73.68% of the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout the same. It is reasonable, therefore, to estimate that 73.68% of the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout London, in 1888, i.e. 22, involved specifically 'murder'.

In other words: It is reasonable to estimate that approximately 16 of the registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout London, in 1888, were classified as 'murder'.

Put more simply: Approximately 16 women were murdered in London's metropolis, in 1888.

---------

England

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Weapons and Implements', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 5
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 1
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 13

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Weapons and Implements', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 4
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 6
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 5
Ages 45 - 54: 8
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 28

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Gun-Shot', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 0
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 7

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Gun-Shot', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 0
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 3
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 6

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 1
Ages 35 - 44: 0
Ages 45 - 54: 0
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 3

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 4

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 3
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 0
Ages 45 - 54: 0
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 3

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 3
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 3
Ages 45 - 54: 6
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 18

---

So, a grand total of 15 of the registered deaths, involving the 'murder' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout England, in 1888, involved specifically 'murder' by way of 'cut throat'.

Fifteen; throughout the whole of England!

---

In accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891 ...

Total Population, England: 27,482,104

Total Population, London*: 4,231,431

*As Defined by the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, i.e. the Administrative County of London

---

I will provide similar data, in accordance with the Annual Reports of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England; 1886, 1887, 1889, and 1890, upon my return from vacation, in early August.

But, for now ...

1886 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 3

1887 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 9

1888 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 15

1889 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 6

1890 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 7 "


Now, with that in mind, was throat cutting THAT common?

Monty

[robhouse]

Hello Rob. I appreciate your recognising that Eddowes cut throat was not as deep as Nichols and Chapman's and that Liz's was less deep still.

It is frequently urged that Stride's killer was interrupted. Whether one believes that or not, it COULD account for the lack of mutilations. But I'm not sure how that would account for the less deep throat cutting?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I would guess that the killer dispatched Stride rather quickly, then ran out of there. I assume that he was afraid of being caught, so he would have been more hasty than in other murders.

Some of the other murders, most notably the Chapman murder, indicate an attempt to behead the victim, and so obviously the throat cut will be deeper. And in comparison to Eddowes, Stride's throat was only slightly less deeply cut.

In Stride's case:
"The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 inch below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side."

In Eddowes case:

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 [on the right side] had a fine hole opening, the internal jugular vein was opened about an inch and a half -- not divided.

So clearly in both cases, the cut commences on the left side, cuts through the vessels on the left side, and partially cuts through the vessels on the right side. Yes, Stride's cut was less deep, but the similarities between the two, and indeed with the other victims, is obvious, and easily explained by the fact that the killer was scared of being caught, and hence in a hurry.

Incidentally, this would also explain why the position of the body in this case is different. In the other cases, the victim is clearly posed by the killer, with the legs drawn up at the knees and spread apart. In Stride's case, I suggest he just killed her and left. She apparently did not die immediately, and I imagine she may have curled up in a sort of fetal position on her side.

RH

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

I am trying to imagine a thug, hand grasping knife, ready to strike. He hears a noise. He is interrupted. No cutting happens.

Similarly with a cut throat but no mutilations.

But I can't understand how interruption causes a cut to be more shallow.

Cheers.
LC

It doesnt !

[Bridewell]

A Fellow-Jew

Originally Posted by Garry Wroe

We know that the witness was male, Jewish, had no prior knowledge that the suspect was a fellow Jew.

This is interesting of itself because it means that a Jewish witness, who supposedly got a good enough view to be able to make a positive identification, didn't recognise a fellow-Jew. Therefore, if there's anything to this story at all, the suspect was a Jew who was not easily recognisable as such.

Regards, Bridewell.