Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"Fisherman and Sam. You can say what you will about Dr. Phillips, but the man had something like 50 years experience in examining throat wounds. If he felt the man who killed Stride was experienced and knew what he was doing, then there's little for us to add."

And indeed, your comment adds nothing at all of value. It does in no way whatsoever change the fact that Phillips´ suggestion only pointed out that the cut may/may not have disclosed knowledge of the position of the carotid artery, and the effects of severing it. Is that short enough for you, Tom?

And on that topic, why write "And I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks Kidney the likely killer of Stride in spite of the dizzying evidence to the contrary could only be described as a romantic because they reached their conclusion in spite of the evidence and not because of it", when you are not in the slightest sorry? Could have saved three words there, Tom. In fact, you could have saved 44 and made better sense.


The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

I always like having Tom weigh in, I think he's a true expert on this killing in particular, but I dont agree with the opinion that there are any better suspects than Broadshouldered Man.

Thank you for the compliment, Michael. But I don't believe I said what you think I said. I wrote that there are better suspects than Michael Kidney. Very different than saying BS Man, whom we know was on Berner Street that night. Unless we've decided as a group that BS Man and Kidney were absolutely one and the same?

Fisherman and Sam,

I'm not sure why you're being so antagonistic. On the other hand, maybe I do know why.

Maria,

I'm unsatisfied as well with the scenario you described.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NOV9]

I was reading from the Stride inquest last night. I was struck by the description of the cut to her throat that killed her. I got the sense that it was meant to kill her and that it was delivered by someone who knew exactly how to do it so that she died.

If the BS man was her killer and his motivation was that he was turned down by Liz for whatever reason, why did he not just cuss her out and be on his way? Why didn't he slap her around and let it go at that? And if he did kill her in a fit of anger, why did he not stab her in the chest, abdomen or face? If that had been the case, I could then see a slash to the throat to kill her and eliminate the possibility that she could identify him but here we have him going immediately for her throat and knowing just how to do it.

Also, why does he kill her after being seen by Schwartz and the pipe man?

The impression I came away with was that the cut to her throat was deliberate and done by someone who had done it before.

Any thoughts?

c.d.

I liked the analysis, sounds good, but do you think it was the Ripper after having been seen by Schwartz and the pipe man??

Jack was a very cautious person and very organized no pun intended.

[Jon Guy]

Regarding Warren, that is not an original observation of his that should be used to support Anderson's erroneous assertion that Schwartz was at the inquest. Instead, Warren was simply quoting Anderson verbatim. He had no clue. Also, when Anderson wrote that Schwartz was at the inquest, it was almost certainly because he'd read Swanson's report and mistakenly assumed that the description, etc. that Swanson was quoting had come from an inquest statement.

No-one was quoting Warren in support of whatever Anderson claimed.

I did mention that there were internal memos between the Home Office and Warren where it is stated that Schwartz` evidence was given at the inquest.

But you may well be right that in that Schwartz` original police statment has been taken as evidence given at the inquest.

[c.d.]

Hi Nov 9,

No, I don't think the BS man was the Ripper. His actions are just too much unlike the elusive, shadowy Jack.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

No-one was quoting Warren in support of whatever Anderson claimed.

Perhaps not, but that's the impression the discussion would leave on some readers. Many times before those thinking that Schwartz actually appeared at the inquest (which I don't) have supported this conclusion by stating that both Warren and Anderson had seperately intimated as much. A study of the evidence shows that Warren was merely copying verbatim what he learned from Anderson who clearly had no clue what was going on EXCEPT from what he'd learned from Swanson - whom we know quoted only from Schwartz's police statement and never mentioned that Schwartz had appeared as an inquest witness.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Jack was a very cautious person and very organized no pun intended.

That's awesome. As many times as I've seen the words 'organized' and 'disorganized' used in conjunction with the Ripper, the inherent pun never once occurred to me. You're a regular Sam Flynn, NOV!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"Fisherman and Sam,

I'm not sure why you're being so antagonistic"

Since you ask, Tom: it´s just because you are trying to pass Phillips´words and your own assumptions off as evidence of Stride having been killed by somebody well used to cutting women´s throats and Kidney having been cleared.

And if you didn´t have that one counted out (should have been pretty obvious), it´s small wonder that Schwartz never saw that pinned flower, is it not?


The best, Tom. As always!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

it´s small wonder that Schwartz never saw that pinned flower, is it not?

You think? I see absolute no reason to expect Schwartz to have seen or remembered the flowers. Regarding your reason to being so antagonistic towards me, Phillips' words carry weight, but even more weight is lent by the evidence itself to the conclusion that Stride's killer was not a novice with a knife. By contrast, there's no evidence to support the theory that Stride's killer was a novice or fuming boyfriend. To argue that point all you have is 'It's possible', which is a phrase thrown around far to often in discussion of the Stride murder. If we'd focus on what's 'likely' these discussion would be more fruitful and less angry.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"If we'd focus on what's 'likely' these discussion would be more fruitful and less angry."

Come on, Tom; a discussion between you and me is SUPPOSED to be angry; that owes to the fact that you have spent quite some time on the old threads calling me a pompous newbie and other less flattering things, resulting in my not taking very kindly to it. And since you have started out this time around by calling one of my posts "rambling", I fail to see why we should suddenly light the peace-pipe.

Now you produce the argument that my take on Strides wound - that it could have been delivered by most anybody with a knife in his hand - is something that I can only bolster by saying that it "is possible", whereas I am supposed to accept your assertions that Kidney had presented an alibi as impeccable truth - although we have not a shred of evidence to show us that such an alibi was ever presented. And even if we did, there is of course no telling how much - if any - water that alibi would hold. So you are stuck with Kidney, Tom, like it or not. Just as you are stuck with the fact that asserting the existence of interrogations and the outcome of them that we have no mentioning, no proof, no knowledge about is no good argument to lay the onus of proof for Stride not being cut by the Ripper on me. Doesn´t work that way, Tom - never have and never will.

Returning, once more, to Strides wound, exactly what is the evidence you are witholding from us, that goes to prove that Strides killer was "not a novice with a knife"? I take it you are not only relying on Phillips´ wording here, since that is something both Sam and I have effectively shown is a very weak argument for establishing anything about the killers capability with a knife. So there would be more, would there not? The angle? The depth? The distance from the collarbone. Or what? Do enlighten us!

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Fisherman and Sam,

I'm not sure why you're being so antagonistic.

Who's being antagonistic, Tom? Not me. I simply maintain that Phillips' supposition that any great "knowledge" is necessary to inflict an "ear-to-ear" cut to the throat was ridiculous.

[Sam Flynn]

So you are stuck with Kidney, Tom, like it or not.

I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that, Fisherman!

[Cap'n Jack]

I think I could probably show you at least twenty men from Whitechapel in the years between 1887 and 1890, who had never killed anyone before by cutting their throat with a knife, who did so on their very first attempt.
It does appear from the evidence that Stride died very slowly, with perhaps even enough time to be saved, and it was only the inepitude of the doctors who were first on the scene who sealed her sad fate.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn writes:

"Originally Posted by Fisherman
So you are stuck with Kidney, Tom, like it or not.

I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that, Fisherman!"

...meaning, Sam, that neither Tom, nor anybody else, can rule Kidney out, least of all owing to that non-existant alibi, and so we are stuck with him in that respect. Anyways, didn´t you and me just agree on another thread that uterus, bladder and Kidney was an obvious choice...?

If you thought that I meant that I feel sure that Kidney was BS man and Strides killer; won´t go there, Sam! Promise!

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Cap´n Jack writes:

"I think I could probably show you at least twenty men from Whitechapel in the years between 1887 and 1890, who had never killed anyone before by cutting their throat with a knife, who did so on their very first attempt.
It does appear from the evidence that Stride died very slowly, with perhaps even enough time to be saved, and it was only the inepitude of the doctors who were first on the scene who sealed her sad fate."

...and long as you don´t stretch that criticism of Johnston to involve him smearing Strides hand, the rum is on me, Cap´n! As a matter of fact, Stride was quite dead as he arrived, and I think that he has suffered enough unfair criticism for a full 120 years, to be honest. Anyways, three cheers!

The best,
Fisherman