Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[perrymason]

Hello again,

Tom, I did misread you and no, I dont think BS and Kidney are one and the same...

Before we dispute with malice rather than just seeking the truth here, Liz's wound cannot be conclusively said to be by the hand of an expert knifesman, but neither can most if not all of the wounds on the other C4..I personally believe Annie's uterus, and Kate's kidney showed sophistication to some degree...but that aside, if it was by an unskilled hand that is still in keeping with the medical opinion of Jacks accumen.

I would think the first place to look though is the man seen assaulting her not 15 yards, and with less than 15 minutes,.. left in her life.

If it didnt require "special skills", we have a very predictable outcome to a dispute between a street prostitute and a staggering drunk, with a knife and a mean disposition.....in London's East End, in 1888. It happens a few times perhaps within those 10 or 11 poor souls that fell victim to a killer, or killers, much like that.

My very best all.

[Tom_Wescott]

...meaning, Sam, that neither Tom, nor anybody else, can rule Kidney out, least of all owing to that non-existant alibi,

Just because his alibi isn't present in the files today has no bearing on the fact it IS a matter of known record that her close associates were investigated fully and their alibis corroborated. Top of that list would have been Kidney. Also, if you want to put Kidney in place, you can't say that he was BS Man, who in no way resembled Kidney. Then you also have to deal with the fact that there was no yelling, no struggle, no violence to indicate a domestic homicide. Kidney was an aggressive alcoholic. He did not kill Stride. He was not Jack the Ripper. Jack the Ripper remains the runaway favorite as the killer of Stride.

Michael,

No worries, I figured you just misread me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"Just because his alibi isn't present in the files today has no bearing on the fact it IS a matter of known record that her close associates were investigated fully and their alibis corroborated. Top of that list would have been Kidney. Also, if you want to put Kidney in place, you can't say that he was BS Man, who in no way resembled Kidney. Then you also have to deal with the fact that there was no yelling, no struggle, no violence to indicate a domestic homicide. Kidney was an aggressive alcoholic. He did not kill Stride. He was not Jack the Ripper. Jack the Ripper remains the runaway favorite as the killer of Stride."

So let´s go through the motions again, shall we?

1. "her close associates were investigated fully".
Well, why do it halfways? And that does not alter the fact that criminal history is riddled with cooked-up alibis and left out interrogations. When you show me the list of the investigated people, displaying Kidneys name and proving a watertight alibi on his behalf, this angle of yours will go from tedious to convincing. As it is, though - nah.

2. "Top of that list would have been Kidney".
See, Tom - you are not even sure enough to write "Top of that list WAS Kidney", you have to sensibly settle for "would have been". And that is the best and wisest thing to do, since a strong possibility of course never amounts to a certainty.

3. "if you want to put Kidney in place, you can't say that he was BS Man, who in no way resembled Kidney".
Well, Tom, like I have said before, I want to put a near aquaintance of Strides in place, and it does NOT necessarily have to be Michael Kidney. The possibility is there that it could have been some guy who had taken Kidneys place as her lover - or thought he stood a chance of doing so, for that matter.
As for BS man and Kidney resembling each other "in no way", Tom; why do you do this to us and yourself? Why do you compare a man of whom we have a newspaper drawing with another of whom we have a description made by a terrified witness, and come up with a silly assertion that they resembled each other "in no way". What happened to credibility?
I have always been under the impression that BS man was a medium length guy, middle-aged and with broad shoulders, full face, fair complexion and a moustache. Of the colour of his eyes, I know nothing, I have no idea what hairdo he sported, if there were any birthmarks of significance on him, if he had thin lips or thick ones etcetera. To me, the description Schwartz provided was an understandably meagre one, given the fact that he was upset and frightened. The only thing that gives a clue to something that could single BS man out from some other men, is that he seems to have displayed some powerfulness of body.
Now, the drawing we have of Kidney is not an enface one; we see him from an angle to the side. That means that we cannot say if his face was a full one or not. The only things we can say, using the drawing, is that people who saw Michael Kidney, saw a middle-aged man with fair complexion and a moustache. Bearing in mind that Kidney was a waterside labourer, I think it stands to reason to suspect that he was not a frail creature. He would have been accustomed to heavy burdens, and such things more often than not result in muscular development and broad shoulders.
In addition to all of this, we must of course also bear in mind that the guy Schwartz saw, was someone who was inflicting violence on another person, and that such a context may have made him exaggerate the physical side of the man; he was frightened, and so he would not have thought "that guy is probably a frail sissy under that jacket".
But really, Tom, when the only characteristics we can find in Kidneys portrait are to a large extent the exact same things that Schwarz described, moustache, fair complexion and all, I fail to see how you can use it to speak about no resemblance at all. It is beyond me, and I can´t help feeling that you are not being honest here.

4. "you also have to deal with the fact that there was no yelling, no struggle, no violence to indicate a domestic homicide"
Tom, the lack of yelling is a very clear indicator of a domestic. It is not the other way around. Domestic violence is something that happens by and large in the surroundings of a home. In secrecy. And it is something that is a shame for both the aggressor and the beaten part. Not many men would want to have a rumour of beating up on women, and not many women would want to have a rumour of having chosen a man who beats them up. So they keep it from the surrounding world, many times until it is too late and we have a domestic killing on our hands.
If BS man had been somebody Liz suspected to be the Ripper, THEN you would have seen some struggling and heard some screaming, I should think! But with a domestic aggressor on her hands, she would probably go to great lenghts to get it overwith in as silent conditions as possible. And calling out to Schwartz and/or pipeman in such circumstances would have been suicidal - that would have been punished severely afterward. Afterwards, mind you - NOT out in the street, but when they were on their own - for that is how domestic violence functions.

5. "Kidney was an aggressive alcoholic. He did not kill Stride."
I fail to see why the latter should follow as a certainty from the first. It is the other way around, Tom. Again. Aggressive alcoholics actually top the list of spouse killers.

That´s that. But whatever happened to your answers on my question about exactly what - apart from Phillips´ words - it is that makes you argue that the cutter of Strides neck was an experienced and cunning killer? I think you owe us an answer on that one, Tom.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

If the police questioned Liz's friends and neighbors, is it a reasonable assumption that at least one of them told them of Kidney's drinking and his rough treatment of Liz? If you think the answer is yes, what would be the next step for the police? Would they think "well surely someone with a bad temper while in his cups and who beats his significant other would never kill her" or is it more reasonable to think they said "this guy is the top suspect until proven otherwise" and acted accordingly? That seems to be the whole crux of the argument with regard to Kidney.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Well, c.d., though my name is not mentioned I will venture a guess that I am the target for your question. And it is an easily answered one!
If you read my last post once again, you will come upon the passage " a strong possibility of course never amounts to a certainty", and that means that I consider the possibility strong that Kidney WAS interrogated and came up either with an alibi or with a simple statement of having slept the night in question away. In the latter case, it would be very hard to prove him wrong without witnesses, whereas in the former he may well have cooked something up with his chums. Anyway you look at it, it would be throwing standard police procedure overboard NOT to take a closer look at Kidney - but that does not equal being able to clear him.
In fact, since we know not, it would border on sheer stupidity to take for granted that he was cleared beyond the shadow of a doubt, don´t you think?
Judging by his last post, Tom is the guy who seem to think an aggressive alcoholic never amounts to a killer, not me. I´m for that all the way down the road.

The best, c.d.!
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

Actually my post was just a general comment and not directed to you. Your post is right on the money in that the police would have been ten kinds of idiot not to have asked him for an alibi. But as you pointed out, if he said I was in bed asleep, they pretty much are up against a brick wall. However, it would seem to follow that they would have had Schwartz take a look at Kidney. An investigation of Kidney in no way exonerates him but I think we have to give the police some credit so I think it makes him less likely to be Liz's killer.

c.d.

[caz]

Hi All,

A question for everyone who wants two active knife-men on the street that night for the price of one:

What is the one circumstance regarding the events of that night that you feel safely rules out Jack as Liz's killer?

I don't want any of the old guff about character, personality or 'usual habits', based on just 3 crimes committed between August 31st and September 30th. I don't want what Jack would or would not do; how he would or would not behave; where he would or would not go; how he would or would not react in a certain situation with a certain victim or potential victim.

I don't want amateur opinions about domestic abusers and their victims, or how Liz's murder (the only definitely ascertained fact regarding the harm done to her - nothing about the overture can be known for sure) fits a Bill Sykes/Nancy scenario so much better than a ripper cut and run.

Just one good old fashioned fact about that night that makes it pretty much a certainty that Jack could not (as opposed to would not) have done what Liz's killer managed to do with no trouble at all.

Thank you chaps.

Have a great weekend all and I'll make a note to return here soon to see exactly why people think they know enough about an unknown killer of women to eliminate him in favour of another unknown individual about whom precisely nothing is known, not even that he actually existed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi c.d.!

Yep, there are a few annoying pieces missing, just like you say. But much as it is tempting to believe that the police were pulling all the right threads, we shall have to leave the door open for them NOT doing that.
Say that Kidney came up with a false alibi that seemed a very credible one to the police; then that may perhaps have meant that they did´nt go through all the motions that they would have if they nourished real suspicions against the guy.

Like I said before, I am not adverse to the idea of BS man being somebody else than Kidney. But it would be daft to exclude him long as we don´t have the goods to back it up.

The best!
Fisherman

[Cap'n Jack]

The 'double event' before the 'double event' should do the job, Caz.
Like the very night before it was claimed by two 'unfortunates' that they had been attacked by the same man with a knife in the East End of London.
The police and magistrates dismissed this as nonsense and set the bloke free the very next morning. The prostitutes knew each other and shared a common lodging address, and this was deemed as a 'scam'.
Talk about a green light for go.

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:
"I'll make a note to return here soon to see exactly why people think they know enough about an unknown killer of women to eliminate him in favour of another unknown individual about whom precisely nothing is known, not even that he actually existed"

What kind of a question is that, Caz? You know, I know, and most other people who have put any effort into it know, that there is no hard fact proving that Jack did not kill Stride.
Likewise, you know, I know, and most other people who have put any effort into it know, that there is no hard fact proving that he did.

That, by the way, is why the approaches you dislike so much are used on the subject.

The best, Caz
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Heading back to Caz´question: "why people think they know enough about an unknown killer of women to eliminate him in favour of another unknown individual about whom precisely nothing is known, not even that he actually existed", I think that it ought first be noted here that I am NOT "eliminating" Jack - I think that he is of course one of the contenders!

Caz´s question has annoyed me a lot these past days, and I have been trying to come up with something along the lines she wants to see. This is the best I could manage (and prepare for a lengthy post...):

I will begin with the cut in Strides neck. How was it inflicted? My suggestion is that there are not many possible ways to create a wound like that. It started out two and a half inches below the left angle of her jaw, and then carried all the way round to a spot two inches below the right angle of her jaw. It almost severed her left carotid artery and it cut through her windpipe, whereas the deep vessels on the right side were left unharmed. That means that the main pressure was applied on the left side of the neck.

This kind of injury is consistent with only one approach, as far as I can see: That of a right-handed person cutting the neck from behind her, and carrying the cut round the neck. In such a movement, it is far easier to apply power on the left hand side than on the right hand side if the knife is held with the back of the hand facing upwards.

Apart from this, we have the tightened silk scarf around Strides neck. A credible guess is that the killer grabbed the scarf with his left hand, and pulled Stride backwards, towards him. Holding the scarf in a tight grip, he then raised his right hand, applied the blade to the neck and got ready to slit it from left to right.

That puts us in a position where we have the killer standing behind Stride, pulling her backwards and making her fall. During that fall, he slits her throat. Thereare no spurts of blood indicating that she was killed standing upright, so the cut would have been inflicted as she travelled towards the ground. She then ends up lying on her left side. But how does she fall?

If she was pulled backwards, the reasonable thing to take is a backwards fall, ending up on her back. But this was not what happened. Why? Because the killer was in the way for such a fall - he was standing behind her. And therefore she had to be pulled to either his left or his right, and with a choice like that, a pull to the left is the only reasonable option if he was to cut her as she fell, something Blackwell thought may have been the case.

Right! She falls, he puts the knife to her neck, when she is approaching the ground he cuts her, and then lets go of the scarf. His pulling combined with his steering her over to his lefts gives her body a slight rotation, and she ends up on her left side. The bonnet flies of as she thuds against the muddy yard. Her jacket is plastered with mud on the left side, indicating that this is the side she lay on from the outset.

A scenario like this tallies very well with the outcome, as far as Strides position is concerned. And if we accept it, we suddenly have a small piece that may go to feed Caz´s demands. And that lies in the fact that Stride was found with her head up the court and her feet closer to the gates of the yard. Meaning what? Meaning that as Stride was grabbed from behind, she was facing the gates, and very probably walking towards them.

Now, if Jack was the perpetrator, why would he follow Stride into the yard, and then wait with his attack until she was on her way out? To grab her from behind as she led the way into the yard would be a much more credible thing to do, I think.

My scenario, as many of you will be aware, involves Stride and BS man (who I think was either Kidney or somebody aspiring to take his place) going into the yard to avoid having a row in public. I also believe that there is a strong possibility that Kidney/her lover/aquaintance tried to persuade her to follow him from the yard, something I think Stride may have rejected. She may simply have told him that their life together/affair had come to and end.

After having delivered such a message, she would have nothing more to say. And what do you do when you have nothing more to say? You leave. In this case it meant that she turned her back on him and made for the gates. Up til that moment, Kidney/her lover/aquaintance would have hoped to be able to persuade her, but as he now realized that the game was up, he grabbed her from behind and finished her off in a fit of rage. And if he did it the way I suggest he did, then that explains in full why she was lying with her head up the yard. If it had been Jack, I say that it would have been much more probable to find her with her head close to the gates and her feet up the yard.

...and that is the best I can do for now, Caz! It would be nice to hear your comments on it!

The best, Caz, all!
Fisherman

[perrymason]

What kind of a question is that, Caz? You know, I know, and most other people who have put any effort into it know, that there is no hard fact proving that Jack did not kill Stride.

Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I think Caz's challenge did not take into consideration the medical opinion of Dr Blackwell, the first Senior Medical official on the scene. For to attribute this kill to Jack the Ripper, you must have some decent explanations, factoring that her throat was cut no later than 12:56am,... for why she not only has no further cuts....something which all previous Ripper attributed victims showed, but also why that was not as a result of an interruption, if Diemshutz arrives at 1am.

Liz and her killer are off the radar by 12:46am...she is cut between 12:46am, and 12:56am....a 10 minute leeway for a killing not yet half an hour old seems rational, since Blackwell is there..estimating it.

If Broadshouldered Man is Jack the Ripper, then its a Canonical..if not, she dies like many of her kind, violently in the streets. God rest her soul, but she almost certainly was not killed by Jack the Ripper, IMHO. If there ever was such a character.

Everybody says that Lawende must have seen Jack with Kate, as it is 10 minutes before she if found dead inside the square, well....Broadshouldered Man is in Liz's company 1 minute before the earliest time she is cut, 10 minutes before the latest...and he was already seen accosting the woman, feet from where she dies not more than 11 minutes later. By a single cut, which may have been made while she fell.

Best regards all.

[Fisherman]

Hi Michael!

Those, as you know, are my sentiments as well. Bringing Jack on stage here only causes trouble and confusion, whereas a domestic scenario offers the possibility to piece things together in a very simple fashion. And pieces that have been riddles before, such as the cachous, Liz´lowered voice as she was attacked and the "Lipsky" outcry all become quite trivial and easy to explain if we allow for the domestic scenario.

The reason I opted specifically for the position of Stride to satisfy Caz´urges, was because I feel that is something that, evinced in the yard, speaks very clearly against Jack. The crammed timeline of course is something that also makes it a good idea to question the ones who favor Jack for this one, but IF we are to allow for him appearing from and disappearing into thin air, I would say that things like a cut neck, a prostitute victim, the general vicinity do not offer much to dismiss him, whereas a woman cut LEAVING the scene is something that tallies extremely poorly with blitzy Jack. And that part would seem to be there, no matter if you rule Schwartz out or not.

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi c.d.!

Yep, there are a few annoying pieces missing, just like you say. But much as it is tempting to believe that the police were pulling all the right threads, we shall have to lave the door open for them NOT doing that.
Say that Kidney came up with a false alibi that seemed a very credible one to the police; then that may perhaps have meant that they did´nt go through all the motions that they would have if they nourished real suspicions against the guy.

Like I said before, I am nod adverse to the idea of BS man being somebody else than Kidney. But it would be daft to exclude him long as we don´t have the goods to back it up.

The best!
Fisherman

Indeed, Mr Fish. Well put.

All the best

[drstrange169]

Hello Fishman,

It is always good to read new ideas but there does seem to be some discrepancies between your theories and the actual evidence we have access to.

I will begin with the cut in Strides neck … the main pressure was applied on the left side of the neck.

Based on the evidence, you can’t make an authoritative statement like that that. The wound was equally consistant with the “main pressure being applied” to centre of the neck.


… we have the tightened silk scarf around Strides neck. A credible guess is that the killer grabbed the scarf with his left hand, and pulled Stride backwards, towards him. Holding the scarf in a tight grip, he then raised his right hand, applied the blade to the neck and got ready to slit it from left to right.


This scenario has some problems:

-In strangling cases the hands go to throat as a protective reflex.

-According to Dr. Blackwell’s evidence,

“The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the ***left*** and pulled very tight…”

There is no evidence recorded that the scarf was pulled backwards.

… we have the killer standing behind Stride, pulling her backwards and making her fall. During that fall, he slits her throat. There are no spurts of blood indicating that she was killed standing upright, so the cut would have been inflicted as she travelled towards the ground. She then ends up lying on her left side. But how does she fall?


Once again, none of the evidence specifically puts the killer behind the victim.

Several bio mechanical problems occur with your scenario:

Cutting the throat whilst the victim is falling backwards gives, the would be murderer, very little purchase. They would be trying to insert the blade at the same time as the victim is falling away from the knife.

The hand reflex to the throat would prevent access to the intended cutting area further complicating any attempt to cut the throat.

Blood splatter would be concentrated on the clothing, chin and nearby wall.
All these areas were reported as being blood free.

… Stride was grabbed from behind, she was facing the gates, and very probably walking towards them.

Not according to Dr Phillips, arguably the most experienced medical man involved in the case.

[Coroner] What is your idea as to the position the body was in when the crime was committed?
[Phillips] I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut …

All the evidence we have supports Dr Phillips, and why wouldn’t it? He was there and he knew what he was talking about.

Thanks for your time.