Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And it simply doesn't make sense that a strong lad who never used a knife before (but had a very sharp one on him at 1am) would decide on the spur of the moment to commit murder. Doesn't make any sense.

Of course it makes sense simply because it happens. Sam's point, I understand, was that most people in East End DID have experience in using a knife (which is why he referred to bucther's, bootmakers, tailors etc) and most likely most men DID carry a knife on them at all time since it was an important tool for everyman in those days.

Of course a 'strong man' can come along and slit someone's throat with a knife at a spur of a moment (and not having done that before). Not that I necessarily believe that is what happened in this particular case, but are you seriously suggesting that that hasn't happened before in crime history?

But I agree, 'manifesto' is a fun word.

All the best

[Pilgrim]

Good Lads.

of course a good, strong lad could whiz a sharp knife across a woman's throat and mortally wound her with a single cut.

I would say that first of all it takes determination, to cut anyones throat that way. And I say the efficient cutting of it would depend more on determination and swiftness than on strength. Though some strength would of course be necessary. But would I be a "good lad" if I were to cut anyones throat ? to some extent the answer to that question could, possibly, depend on circumstance. But I guess some people might say I could not possibly be a "good lad" if I were to do any such thing. And a good, strong lad "whizzing a sharp knife across a woman's throat and mortally wounding her with a single cut" ? Surely, no truly good lad would do any such thing.

[Sam Flynn]

But I guess some people might say I could not possibly be a "good lad" if I were to do any such thing.

Unlike you to be so literal-minded, Pilgrim! Besides, "good, strong" was meant as a compound adjective, the "good" reinforcing the "strength", not the "lad". I mean, "a good few people" doesn't mean "a few good people", does it?

[Sam Flynn]

I know that. I just think manifesto is a funny word and wanted to use it. We have 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' so why not 'The Sam Flynn Manifesto'?

Thanks, Tom - I'll make a start on the book straight away

[Pilgrim]

I actually have stated, explicitly, that I can be very literal minded. (That thread is gone now though.) And it is merely sensible, surely, to keep our minds open to the most literal interpretations.

As for the answer to that question, I'm not so sure. In my experience some people, deliberately or not, also tend to use expressions like that to cloud the issue. "A good few people" could also be used to downplay the fact that there were in fact simply "very many people".

Still, I don't see "a good, strong lad" as being of quite the same semantic form. But I'd say it can have an ambiguous character, depending on the context, as the case would be with so many phrases. I can see that it could be used by just about anyone - in the sense of "it would take a good, strong lad" to perform certain kinds of work. I have no problem with seeing that it could have been uttered by a concentration camp guard when asking for help, as in "I need some good, strong lads to bury these corpses." But I'll say the context will tend to colour the words, perhaps differently depending on our (literal) points of view.

[c.d.]

If the BS man did in fact kill Liz, how do we explain that she managed to hold the cachous in her hand. Would an attack by him have come as a complete surprise? That hardly seems likely given what transpired earlier. Also, her clothes are not torn or in disarray. Wouldn't she have tried to fight back if not taken unawares. Also, she is laid down neatly on the ground against a wall. That seems quite deliberate.

We also have the problem of why the BS man would continue his attack after being seen by two witnesses.

If people want to hang their hat on the timeline involved, how much time did Jack need to do his thing.

Finally, I believe it was Monro who wrote that he believed there was enough time for a killer other than the BS man.

Just some random (pre-coffee) thoughts.

c.d.

[sdreid]

My suspicion is that ES went into the yard to urinate after her rough encounter. Jack was there and jumped her, cutting her the throat right before Diemschutz rode up. The whole scenario could have occurred in less than 2 minutes. As for the actual attack, that could have happened in 5 seconds.

[c.d.]

Hi Stan,

What would Jack have been doing in the yard? Are you saying that he was a member of the club?

c.d.

[sdreid]

Hi c.d.,

He might have been a member or he could have been there for a "bathroom break" himself. It's also possible that he followed her there guessing what she was doing. All just speculation. She might have invited him, who knows.

[c.d.]

Hi Stan,

I think those are all reasonable scenarios.

c.d.

[mariag]

Liz might also have gone into the yard to straighten herself up after the attack. Especially if she was hoping the the man she had been with before the attack ( the possible source of Kidney's rage) was going to come back.

As for the cashous, how anout cadaveric spasm? If she was caught unawares and her throat slashed very quickly, that would probably happen.

[c.d.]

Hi Maria,

Being caught unawares to me implies a client as opposed to Kidney or the BS man.

c.d.

[mariag]

Yes, I meant after BS ( who I think was Kidney) had left.

[Fisherman]

Stan asks:
"I'm perplexed by those who want to strike Stride off the list but then turn around and want to add Tabram. Based on what?"

Well, how about Tabram being a middle-aged prostitute, killed on a weekend, displaying a wound to her lower abdomen and stabs to the groin, having been killed silently enough not to disturb the people in George Yard, whereas Stride had her throat cut in a manner that does not display the same confidence as did the cut all the way down to Annie Chapmans spine, and who suffered no damage at all that even remotely indicated that we are dealing with a man interested in eviscerations?

Letīs face it and admit it - both these slayings are deeds that carry marked differences to the three typical murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. And if we look upon it that way, we must also take into account that Tabram was the first deed of the series (if she was a Ripper victim, that is), which means that it could, and indeed should, be argued that in her case we need not have any reason to search for all the elements involved in the more established MO displayed in Buckīs Row, Hanbury Street and Mitre Square.

That being said, the interest evinced concerning the lower abdomen and the groin area, and the fact that the ONLY cut on Tabrams body (the 38 other wounds were all stabs) was placed EXACTLY where the Rippers interest was focused speaks volumes of why she should not be disregarded.

As for Tom Wescotts statement that "In Stride's case there's most certainly evidence of experience in the way the knife was used", that is of course
a/ a very loose assumption
and
b/ something that should not surprise anybody at any rate; in a population where carrying a knife and using it frequently, it would be astonishing if no experience in using knives was achieved.

There are no false starts, Tom argues, and that is of course true. But the criminal history is crammed with victims who fell prey to single stabs and slashes of knives, heaps of them being first-time kills performed by unexperienced knife-wielders. "Geez, judge, I just took out my knife to frighten him, and next thing I know he pounces on me and the blade sinks in..."

And why would there be false starts, anyway? How common is it that someone who grabs a victim from behind and puts a knife to their throats has to cut two, three, four or more times before the cut is there? If you manage a good grip and a swift stroke with a reasonably sharp blade, it will all be a very quick affair. The third neck cutter of the night, our mr Brown, cut his wifes neck down to the bone. No hesitation there!

"Others have suggested that Stride was killed by a total stranger other than Jack the Ripper. This is not impossible, but it pales in comparison to the likelihood that Jack the Ripper was her killer. He meets the qualifications as dictated by the crime, he was in the area at that time and he was in murder mode. It's not rocket science", Tom Wescott asserts us.
But how does this hold up? What "qualifications dictated by the crime" are we talking about here, that point straight to the Ripper?
The targetted throat? That was not an "exclusive" for Jack. It was not an uncommon way of despatching people at all. It is not until we add the ferocious depth of Jacks cutting that we can speak of something that carries a deeper significance. And even then, there is still our mr Browns effort on the very same night to ponder. He did a more Ripperish job on his wifes neck than Strides killer did on hers, remember!

And there, of course, goes the main pointer; the rest of it is even thinner.
A weekend strike? Statistically they are more common than weekday kills. Her being a part-time prostitute? That made her vulnerable to every nutcase on the street, not only to Jack. Besides, Dutfields Yard would not have been prime hunting ground for punters, since the club was open to couples and not only to men. That means that we cannot say for sure that she was soliciting on the evening.

"Jack was in the area at that time". To begin with, the closest we can put him is Mitre Square. Goulston Street is a strong probability, but not a certainty. Moreover, he shared that area with innumerable people - many of whom carrying both grudges and knives.

No, Tom, just like you say, there is no rocket science involved in your proposition. That would take a lot more.
Likewise, it is no rocket science to say that BS man is the probable killer of Stride. When somebody is seen aggressively manhandling a woman in the street, throwing her to the ground and frightening bystanders away, then I say that if that very same woman is found dead minutes later it would be odd in the extreme to rule the aggressor out in favour of a serial killer who was never detected arriving at or leaving the spot, and whose prime calling cards, the very deep severing of the neck and - mainly! - the eviscerations, were nowhere to be seen on the victim.

In all fairness, I find that much, much more in want of an explanation, than I find it strange that people could be killed during the Ripper scare without being Ripper victims.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

You made good points in your post but I still think there are problems with the BS man as Liz's killer that still need to be addressed:

1. Why does he kill her after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man?
2. Why does he immediately go for a cut to her throat as opposed to slapping her around or stabbing her somewhere else on her body?
3. Why does Liz not appeal to Schwartz and the Pipe Man for help and/or give out a loud scream? Is she completely unaware of the danger she is in?
4. How does she manage to hold on to the cachous in her hand? Does that not indicate that she was taken by surprise?
5. Why were her clothes not in disarray? Wouldn't you expect that if there had been a struggle?
6. Why was her body laid neatly on the ground as opposed to being thrown down once he killed her?
7. Why did Monro say that there was enough time for her to be killed by someone other than the BS man? Apparently he was not convinced that the BS man was her killer.

The BS man is just too convenient a killer in my opinion. These questions need to be answered before we take that leap of faith.

c.d.