Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Fisherman]

I think, c.d., that we must realize that people who stab away in a frenzy (if that was what happened to Tabram) are set on annihilation, and thus a lot more inclined not to draw any lines ā la "enough is enough".

People who are not necessarily into annihilation, but who want to kill anyway - a less frenzied, more thoughtful approach if you like, thus perhaps not involving any more violence than necessary (or what you can stomach) - may be more inclined to opt for a swift but sure method, like severing the neck. And many more people than the Ripper used that method!

The best, c.d!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Rachel Bailey + one very angry Harry Patrick (apparently) = 1 single cut to the throat.

So was Patrick the Ripper, c.d?

The best!
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Martha Tabram + one very angry soldier (apparently) = 39 stab wounds.

Liz Stride + one very angry BS man (apparently) = 1 single cut to the throat.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

c.d.

[Howard Brown]

Thanks, Mr. Nunweek, for the reply to my question. I am aware of those two incidents, but assumed...and probably incorrectly so, that Dan meant noises on Bucks Row that occurred at the spot and during the actual murder.

Much appreciated,sor..

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Harry,

I think Schwartz's interpretation of Pipeman as 'threatening' may have derived from the fact that he followed and then ran after Schwartz when also Schwartz started to run.
A rather strange behaviour from someone who just wanted Schwartz's attention, not to mention the fact that Pipeman appears to have been inactive and merely observing when Liz was attacked by BS and not that keen to help.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank!

Thanks for offering that throatcutting! By the way, did you perhaps notice that the surgeon said: "saw some blood on her right hand, I think" ?

Talk about parallels, Frank!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

I would like to pose a question regarding 'Pipeman'.Why is he portrayed as presenting a threatening attitude to Schwartz?
Consider this.He is standing on the corner of Berner Street.On the same side of the street,at a distance from him,in order,are Stride,BS and then Schwartz.The street lighting is bad,difficult to see properly at even his short distance from the yard,and nearly impossible to observe Schwartz who would have been hidden by the other two untill Schwartz started towards the other side of the street.
Might not 'Pipeman' have been merely trying to gain Schwartz attention to find out what had occured?

Another question.From his position at the corner,is it possible to deduce from which direction 'Pipeman' came.For instance can we rule out the direction that Brown took,seeing as that witness failed to mention him?Or that he was taking the same route?
H.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Richard,

As has been said before, those are obscure newspaper stories that are unsupported by other evidence and which are not apparent in any police files.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Here's another example of that: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brows...4-89#highlight

It's the case of 24 year old Harry Patrick, who cut the throat of his 19 year old girlfriend Rachel Bailey down to the vertebrae while she was lying in bed. This was on 23 November 1885 in Poplar, not too far away from Spitalfields/Whitechapel.

Hello, Frank.

Very interesting. Another case I've missed but which perfectly illustrates the point about domestic throat cutting. Thanks for that. Which I'd known about it before my book was published.

That Old Bailey website indeed is a gem of interesting information. I must do more serious attempts to really dig into it.

All the best

[richardnunweek]

Hi Howard,
Dan is correct in mentioning noise being heard at the time of the Nichols murder, a witness in Brady street told the press, she heard the sounds of a woman who seemed to have fallen, and footsteps running away.
Also another witness claimed she was awaken by her daughter saying 'Someone is trying to get in our door' it was then the mother heard a woman drying out 'Help' the sound reflected the person being out of breath, and the impression was she was being accosted, even if no one else was heard,she then appeared to venture further up Bucks Row where she was again reported to have been heard[ the same out of breath] but a passing train stopped any further activity.
I have said many a time that in my opinion our killer was a brute, and manhandled his victims, and not 'Mr Charmer' as many interpret.
There is evidence of such a man in all the C5, and I can also see it in the case of Tabram.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

He killed her because he was Jack the Ripper

That's a teleological premise - it helps to divorce the incident itself from any preconceptions. When one does, it has all the trappings of a rather ordinary assault, and little else.

and because if she had blabbed to the police , he might have been caught.

...as the man who wrestled a woman to the pavement. He wouldn't have to have been a "Macavity" to wriggle out of that scenario. Indeed, it's doubtful whether a streetwalker would have even considered going to the police at all. As others have noted, Liz and her kind were likely to have seen far worse than a bruised bottom and a muddy skirt in their time.

if this was a domestic row why didn't the killer just beat her up ? If he intended to kill her why did he cut her throat and not stab her or strangle her ?

Glenn has answered that point rather well.

[FrankO]

Because throat-cutting was not uncommon in domestic crimes during this time period and there are several examples of this (see the most well known one, where the gardener John Browne cut his wife's throat and stabbed her in their home in Westminster the same night as the Double Event).

Hi Glenn,

Here's another example of that: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brows...4-89#highlight

It's the case of 24 year old Harry Patrick, who cut the throat of his 19 year old girlfriend Rachel Bailey down to the vertebrae while she was lying in bed. This was on 23 November 1885 in Poplar, not too far away from Spitalfields/Whitechapel.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"Still, the odds of another throat-cutter preying on a hapless prostitute in generally the same fashion (please do not bring mutilation into this as this is NOT what I'm talking about), seems to me to be somewhat small."

...which is why Stride is even discussed, I think. And it is a good point, no doubt about it.
What I think is too seldom added to this equation, however, is the fact that the papers and the talk on the streets were absolutely crammed with reports on how cutting a throat results in death. I believe that for examle MacKenzie was a victim that paid dearly for the well-spread information on Jackīs activities.
The fact that cutting a neck kills swiftly and safely if carried out extensively, is something that will have been embedded into the minds of each potential killer in the East End, not to forget that most such potential killers would have been able to understand that a slit throat would lead the police interest in the direction of the Ripper.

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Howard Brown writes:

"He left no clues that the police could detect. It doesn't necessarily mean that he left no clues."

No, Howard. But it DOES mean that he took care enough to bring his weapon with him, and that he did not drop any of his belongings on the spot, just as he did not raise the sound level in am manner that evoked peoples interest, and in all probability that he did not leave the sites covered in blood.
And since that is what we have to go by, longs as we donīt marry ourselves to the idea that it MUST point to an organized killer, it must be accepted that the evinced behaviour points in that direction to a significant extent.

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

He killed her because he was Jack the Ripper and because if she had blabbed to the police , he might have been caught. He couldn't take any chances?

So why showing himself off to witnesses during an assault (Schwartz and possibly Pipeman), who also could identify him? I can understand why he killed her, but I can't see why the Ripper would behave like BS did if he was scared of people blabbing to the police. If Liz put up a fight and people were coming to the svene, wouldn't it be more likely that the Ripper took off?

If Liz was killed by someone else , you have to ask a similar question to the one proposed : if this was a domestic row why didn't the killer just beat her up ? If he intended to kill her why did he cut her throat and not stab her or strangle her ?

Because throat-cutting was not uncommon in domestic crimes during this time period and there are several examples of this (see the most well known one, where the gardener John Browne cut his wife's throat and stabbed her in their home in Westminster the same night as the Double Event).
Just like mutilation also is common in domestic crimes.

All the best