Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[FrankO]

I can very well imagine that you didn't, Cap'n Jack! You had to be so fully focused on that precious pint that you lost sight of everything around you! Thanks for the laugh - then and now.

Pleased to have met you, by the way.

Cheers,
Frank

[Fisherman]

For Paul Emmett:

"while I can' be sure, I still don't buy it. Wouldn't, for example, the cachous be flying BEFORE she actually thought, What the . . .? Before logic? And if you are right about fending off the fall with the palms, I think the cachous are going then, too"

When you suddenly loose balance, you donīt let go of the grip, Paul; you clasp whatever it is you are holding even harder. Frank gives a good description (seconded by a slightly shameful Capīn Jack - shame on you, Capīn!) of it in his example of the drunkard with the beer glass.
As for fending of the fall, that only necessitates the use of one hand, if the other one is holding on to something. But that does not apply here if I am right and she was cut during her fall - then the hand could have cramped as the artery was severed, and then she COULD NOT let go of the cachous.

The best, Paul!
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Fishman,

"… I think that we read in what we want to read in here. On Blackwell…”

Precisely the point!
We do not have an accurate version of what Blackwell said (or maybe we do! But more on that further down). So we can’t play semantics with his sentences because they are almost certainly not his. As evidence Blackwell is almost entirely useless.


"On Phillips, his pointing out that there were great dissimilarities between the cases of Chapman and Stride amounts to nothing much more than sense."

I know I’m on a repetitious loop here but …

Precisely! That’s why I was surprised your guess was so far of the mark.


"… he at the same occasion also said ..."

Once again Phillips is simply stating the obvious. There’s no discrepancy in that.
The East End was full of experienced throat slitters. The ripper had no exclusive rights in that regard.


"I have always seen the fact that Blackwell was the one who performed the autopsy on Stride, Phillips taking notes as he went along, as a good pointer to the former not being inferior to the latter."

A keen observation and a credible guess, but once again, guessing is not necessary. In Victorian times, who actually performed the autopsy was at the desecration of the senior doctor. Procedure dictated the doctor officially
in charge delivers the report, in this case Dr Phillips. This was why Phillips was called by the police in the first place. He was the goto man.


A bit about the blithering Blackwell.

Poor Blackwell appears to have been a disaster right from the word go.
First, he gets the highest profile case of his career and he sends a non-medically qualified assistant, the only doctor in the whole sorry saga to do so. Dr Llewellyn might have been a bit to eager to dump poor Polly and get back to bed but least he managed to turn on time.
Next the two hapless gents proceed to contaminate the crime scene. Witness reports in the newspapers state that either Blackwell or Johnston were inviting people to feel the body. No wonder there were bloody prints everywhere;-)

Then Blackwell tries to ply the cachous from Elizabeth’s hand spilling them everywhere.

Lastly, or at least lastly that we know of, he fails to make a proper inspection of any possible blood splatter marking.

When Dr Phillips arrives he follows procedure, notes the time, notes the crime and blood splatter. Actually Blackwell's buffoonery has one more hurrah, he doesn’t tell Phillips that he was the one to spill the cachous, consequently the through Phillips notes them as part of the murder scenario.


Back to guessing on my part again, I find no coincidence that Dr Phillips is consistently, and therefore probably accurately, reported on key issues in every newspaper but Blackwell's testimony is a confused mess.

To my mind at least, anything purported to emanate from Blackwell must be treated with the highest suspicion.

Thanks for your time.

PS Jackie Chan and the ripper coming up after lunch.

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Dusty!

This is getting interesting. It seems you have it in for Blackwell to some extent, and that is of course a sentiment you are welcome to. I donīt share it, however, since I do not feel that there is enough involved here to allow for it.

You write:
"In Victorian times, who actually performed the autopsy was at the desecration of the senior doctor. Procedure dictated the doctor officially
in charge delivers the report, in this case Dr Phillips. "

...and that is perfectly correct. Phillips had the overall responsibility for the autopsy. But what I meant to point out, is that if Dr Phillips had any sense of Blackwell being unreliable in any way, it would be odd to let him perform the autopsy in a high-profile case like this. And it is obvious that Phillips actually asked Blackwell to do the honours here, as shown by Phillipsīwords "Dr Blackwell kindly consented to make the dissection". To me, that sounds like a man being judged as able by you pointing out a man being judged as unable by you as - being able! If you take my meaning.

Moving on, you offer:
"Back to guessing on my part again, I find no coincidence that Dr Phillips is consistently, and therefore probably accurately, reported on key issues in every newspaper but Blackwell's testimony is a confused mess."

...and the thing I find easiest to agree on here is your admittance that this is a guess on your behalf. To prosecute, try and convict Blackwell on the grounds of the newspapers being less conclusive when reporting Blackwells wordings than Phillipsī (if this is what you mean, you speak of both newspapers and testimony, and that makes me a little bit confused - are you comparing those things?) is taking it too far, if you ask me.
And even if we could be sure that Blackwell expressed himself in a more confusing manner that Phillips, there is no correlation between handling the language nicely and being right. Never has been!
I have written a piece on the dissertations page here, on Blackwells testimony about how Stride was lying in the yard. I did so much because Blackwells words in this respect have been questioned and regarded impossible to tally with the other main witnesses words on it. My conclusion was that Blackwell was actually spot on, although he admittedly expressed things less clear than the others involved. In fact, if I am right about Blackwells wordings here, his testimony is the one that actually clenches the fact that Stride WAS totally on her left side, something that has been very much debated over the years. So less exactitude and clearness of language, but more useful information once you understood it was the outcome for Blackwell in this field. Therefore I tend to be very careful to have him painted into the corner of being "confused". "Confusing", yes perhaps - but that is another thing altogether.

The last thing I will comment on (I will have to read up on a few points before delving further into some other of your bits and pieces) is when you write:

"Poor Blackwell appears to have been a disaster right from the word go.
First, he gets the highest profile case of his career and he sends a non-medically qualified assistant, the only doctor in the whole sorry saga to do so."

Come on, Dusty! You are a doctor, and there is a knock on your door in the middle of the night: "Please, doctor, we have found a woman with her throat cut, come and help us!"

You do not know if the woman is dead or alive. For some reason, you cannot jump into your shoes immediately (and we can both summon a number of credible reasons here, canīt we?), BUT you happen to have a medical trainee in the same premises.
Then what are your choices? I will tell you what they are: You etiher decide to take care of it yourself, once you are good and ready to go, and therefore disregard the possibility that she may die waiting for you. Or you send Johnston ahead of you, in order to save her if there is any possible way of doing so.
Johnston would, if my guess is correct, have been dispatched from the doctors quarters with the mission to do anything he could to save Stride if there was such a possibility. If however, he found that she was dead on arrival, he would have had the orders to take no further measures, but to wait for Blackwell.

Now, if I had been the one with the cut throat, waiting for help, yes, I would have much preferred to have a skilled medico attending to me. But if the alternative was to die, I would welcome any medical trainee as a better opportunity. My humble guess is that you would agree, given the predicament?

And IF Johhnston had managed to keep her alive, perhaps enabling her being rescued, that would have meant that we would have had a witness able to describe who attacked her. As you know by know, if that had been the case, I do not think that she would have described Jack the Ripper. But IF she had (the possibility is there, yes), then maybe you and me would not be having this nice chat over the matters. And wouldnīt that be a shame?

The best, Dusty!
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Fishman,

The socialists ran around shouting Murder! PC Lamb thought she was dead.
There is no reason to suppose the message Blackwell received was anything but
“There’s been another murder”.
Maybe that’s why he felt the need to shower and shave first.

If he did receive a message that she might be alive, even more shame on him for not just throwing on an overcoat and rushing to the scene.

But we digress.

Jackie ripper Chan.

I can’t see anyway around making my answer long and boring, so I’ll break it up into small posts and give other board members a chance to scream, “No more!”

Part 1

Your scenario:
"My" guy stretches his left hand out and grabs Liz from behind by the scarf as she is leaving, heading for the gates. He then pulls her backwards, off balance, still holding on to the scarf.

Your “guy” (Kidney?) is left-handed. That’s a problem. We’ve just taken a quantum leap into the negative possibilities. Was Kidney left handed?
How does he get a knife out of a pocket, and execute a complicated manoeuvre with his wrong hand?
And you thought cutting the throat on the ground was awkward!
Of course, you might argue that he was really right handed and was keeping it free for the knife. Unfortunately, that creates problems too but more on that later. I’m getting ahead of myself here. Let’s go back to actual facts.

The evidence we have claims (re: the scarf),
“… the bow of which was pulled was turned to the left side and pulled tightly.”
No big deal but we must note there is no consistency with Elizabeth Stride being pulled backwards.

The post mortem details we have make no mention of ligature marks around the scarf area. Again, no big deal in itself but no consistency there either.

So just to make it clear, when we talk Elizabeth Stride being pulled back by the scarf there is absolutely no evidence to support it. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened but it does mean we have to go looking for explianations why the evidence tells a completely different story.

Anyone interested in more?

Thanks for your time.

[Fisherman]

Hi Dusty!

You write:
"The socialists ran around shouting Murder! PC Lamb thought she was dead.
There is no reason to suppose the message Blackwell received was anything but
“There’s been another murder”.
Maybe that’s why he felt the need to shower and shave first.
If he did receive a message that she might be alive, even more shame on him for not just throwing on an overcoat and rushing to the scene."

Shower and shave, was it? I never knew myself what Blackwell did in them extra minutes it took him to get to Berner Street, and therefore I always gave him the benefit of a doubt. Trivial though it may sound, he could have been to the loo and wanted to avoid arriving at the Yard with his trousers round his ankles! Point is, as long as we have no reason for him not rushing off immediately, I think we should ponder the possibility that there was a good reason for it.
And though the information given would have pointed to the clear possibility of the woman in the yard being dead, no medico would take a laymans words on it for granted. If so, then Johnston could have skipped feeling for the pulse, could he not?
Incidentally, when PC Collins arrived at the doctors, it was Johnston he met and alerted. Blackwell, in his turn, was alerted by Johnston. That of course opens for a scenario where Johnston throws his own outer garments on, running through the house to find Blackwell, telling him as he does so "Thereīs been another knife attack on a woman, in Dutfieldīs yard - Iīll rush ahead! That would have left Blackwell somewhat behind, right?
Like I said, there may have been numerous reasons for Blackwells arriving after Johnston. Until we know more about them, letīs give him the benefit of a doubt, instead of discrediting him on no grounds at all, shall we?

As for part 1 of your scenario, so far I will settle for the quotations "No big deal", "Again, no big deal" and "That doesnīt mean it couldnīt have happened", add that neither you or me know whether Kidney was left-handed or not (and I am not necessarily a Kidney guy, Iīm a near-aquaintance-of-Stride-guy), point out that if you are planning to cut a womans throat by grabbing her by her scarf and slitting her throat, you will NOT use the knife in the hand that you are unaccustomed to work with - that one will have to do the scarf-gripping bit, and also point out that "Yes, me" is my answer to you question "Anyone interested in more?"

Though I much prefer to have your complete picture before commenting on it, I also think that there is ample reason to mention that your assertion that the evidence tells a story that differs completely from my scenario is an assertion that uses chosen evidence - a good lot of the pieces you avoid in fact supports that self same scenario, whereas it leaves your picture of it in the dark. But more on that in the future, letīs first see where you are headed!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Dusty!

Just took a glance at the bit we have on Blackwell here on Casebook, and this is what I found:
"Johnston relayed the news to Blackwell, who was sleeping at the time, and then immediately followed 426H back to Berner Street. Blackwell arrived at the scene shortly afterwards at precisely 1.16am."

That kind of lifts him out of the shower, if it is correct, wouldnīt you say? The original source? I donīt know. But since it is up on Casebook, it probably makes sense.

The best, Dusty!
Fisherman

[caz]

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.

Eh? I know I can be thick at the best of times, AP old sport. But how exactly does this ‘do the job’ of eliminating Jack as Liz’s killer?

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

Hi Fisherman,

I don’t dislike any ‘approaches’ used as long as they stick to the evidence in hand and don’t wander off into subjective opinions about what the killer of Polly, Annie and Kate would or would not have done if he had encountered Liz, compared with what a one-off killer would have done - especially if the conclusion reached is a dogmatic ‘No, I simply cannot believe this was the ripper’s hand at work here’.

Since I agree that there are no hard facts proving who did or didn’t kill Liz, I see no call for anyone to be dogmatic about it, whichever side of the fence they find more comfortable. And yet I see posters regularly going to greater and more uncomfortable lengths to try and make it sound as unlikely as possible for the ripper to have been capable of this particular murder. And I have to wonder how they can feel so strongly about it. I don’t particularly care either way, but I have still not seen anything in the evidence or the arguments about it that even approaches what would be needed by anyone seriously wanting us all to rule out the ripper.

Heading back to Cazīquestion... 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!

Cazīs 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...)…

...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

Well, Fisherman, all I can say is that if you agree with me that Jack has to remain a contender for Liz’s murder and that no one fact can safely rule him out, then my question wasn’t aimed at you to begin with, and therefore I wasn’t really expecting you to try and answer it, and certainly not at considerable length.

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...

Hi Perry,

You seem to have misunderstood my challenge. It was for others, who attribute this kill to someone - anyone - other than Jack, to take everything into consideration and give me just one decent explanation for their certainty that he could not have done this one. I am not trying to argue that it had to be Jack, or could not have been someone else. So I'm not the one who 'must have some decent explanations'. Is there anything about Dr Blackwell's opinion that allows you to conclude that Jack could not have killed Liz while another murderer could?

…And IF Johhnston had managed to keep her alive, perhaps enabling her being rescued, that would have meant that we would have had a witness able to describe who attacked her. As you know by know, if that had been the case, I do not think that she would have described Jack the Ripper…

But Fisherman, who would have been at greater risk of being identified in such circumstances? Jack or an acquaintance of Liz? If he had already been seen by two witnesses, would an acquaintance of the victim stupidly fail to ensure he had finished the job, considering the claims around here that her assailant easily had time to whip out an organ or two had the fancy taken him? He would not just have been looking at a charge of attempted murder. Liz would hardly have helped him out with firm alibis for August 31st or September 8th had she survived to tell the tale.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

Caz,

Fisherman DOES identify Stride's killer with someone other than Jack - Michael Kidney. Michael (Perry) seems to favor a clubman as her killer - a far, far more likely scenario than Kidney, in my opinion. Of course, Jack remains far and away the forerunner. But this mindset that it was either Jack or Kidney has got to go.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Caz, you gotta start drinking buckets of brandy like I do.
xpands the mind and all that.
Right, so Kidney kills Stride with a single sweep of his knife and runs off into the night, thinking they'll blame JtR for it, but gets up the road apiece and realises that he hasn't mutilated her at all.
'Damn!' he swears, and runs back.
Dutfields full of cops and jews, runs away again, bumps into Eddowes, hey presto, kills and mutilates her. Job done. Double event. Not Jack the Ripper but Kidney. But Jack did it. According to anyone who doesn't drink like I do.
Jees, I really shouldn't drink so much.
But hey there is some mileage there.

[perrymason]

Hello folks,

So Tom can be corroborated, I do favor a club connection with Liz, either in the guise of Broadshouldered Man, or somewhere in a link that might exist between Schwartz and the club, and/or some of the members who don't remember seeing anything or anyone in the yard...even each other.

Caz...I think the single most convincing point for me on whether or not this guy might also be Jack is in the words of Dr Blackwell, because if he was correct in his estimation, Liz had her throat cut between 12:46 and 12:56am.

As many as 14 minutes, and at least 4 minutes, before Diemshutz arrives.

If the killer had 4 minutes more, and we know of no-one that entered that yard before Diemshutz and after 12:45...only Liz and her killer apparently, and only made one cut, and not even any attempts at more...and since she could have been killed as early as 12:46 by that estimate, it leaves her still in the company of the man seen "assaulting her" feet from her death site, with possibly less than a minute before the fatal wound is inflicted.

So Jack the Ripper either played Solitaire for at least 4 minutes, maybe as many as 14...., or he didn't kill Liz Stride.

With just a single stroke by a sharp knife, who can say whether any one of a thousand men in that district could have been carrying such a weapon that same night, and been drunk enough to do some senseless violence on poor, starving women.

Just ask Martha if that ever happens. Or Emma. And we have a guy witnessed assaulting her perhaps a minute before she is cut, just feet away.

My best regards Caz, Tom.

[Fisherman]

Caz asks:
"But Fisherman, who would have been at greater risk of being identified in such circumstances? Jack or an acquaintance of Liz? If he had already been seen by two witnesses, would an acquaintance of the victim stupidly fail to ensure he had finished the job, considering the claims around here that her assailant easily had time to whip out an organ or two had the fancy taken him? He would not just have been looking at a charge of attempted murder. Liz would hardly have helped him out with firm alibis for August 31st or September 8th had she survived to tell the tale."

Hi Caz! First off; Iīm glad you realize I do not subscribe to the "Jack-could-not-have-done-it"-fraction! If you need to pin me down further for any reason, I would say that I am keeping an open mind out of sheer necessity: since it is obvious that I cannot disprove that it was Jack, and since we know that he was in the vicinity, it would be senseless to rule him out. And therefore, I wonīt. My sentiments and gut feeling, however, tells me that Jack did NOT do Stride.
On your question, why would BS man - identifiable by two witnesses, at least - make a hash out of the job of killing her, I think that just because Jack had shown how to ensure certain death, not everybody would have picked up on it. BS man may well and probably have committed his first and only murder here, and he may simply not have known how to go about it. He may have been convinced that a cut in the neck - no matter where and how deep, would ensure death. The fact that he cut the artery could have been sheer luck for all we know.
On another thread I am discussing Tabram, who I believe could be the first Ripper victim. She seems to have lived through her first 38 stabs, and I am not all that sure that it came about as a result of a wish from her killers side to keep her living up to the end. And maybe the throat-cutting that was evinced from Polly Nichols and onward, was a result of the stabbing failng to kill her. Such a guess is a logical one, I think; You try one method, it fails, it is messy, it involves risks - and you decide to go about it in another fashion next time over. Showing what? Showing that first time killers often slip up, and often fail to make an efficient kill.
And I find it much more credible that Stride would have been unsufficiently cut by a first time killer, than by Jack. So thereīs my answer, Caz!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"Fisherman DOES identify Stride's killer with someone other than Jack - Michael Kidney. Michael (Perry) seems to favor a clubman as her killer - a far, far more likely scenario than Kidney, in my opinion. Of course, Jack remains far and away the forerunner. But this mindset that it was either Jack or Kidney has got to go."

Please read up on my posts to this thread, Tom. That will show you that Fisherman does NOT necessarily identify Strides killer with Michael Kidney. My stance is that the evidence involves a number of clear pointers to Strides killer being a near aquaintance of hers.
Having said that, it stands to reason that Kidney must be one of the top contenders to the title - but if there was another guy involved, who had taken Kidneys place as her lover or who aspired to do so, then that would have made such a man a very viable suspect too.

My feeling is that BS man is Strides killer, and if he is, we could of course both be right, since BS man could of course have been Jack the Ripper.
Now, I donīt think that he was, not for a minute. But I realize that I must keep an open mind on it. Just as I must keep an open mind about who I think he really was. Could have been Kidney, and statistics say that if it was a domestic, he should be checked first. Could have been another lover. Could have been somebody she denied becoming a lover. Could have been an aquaintance with a religiously toppled-over brain, who disliked seeing her soliciting. Could have been somebody unrelated to her, who disliked seeing her soliciting. Could have been somebody who was struck by the sudden insight that she was the next Dalai Lama, and thus tried to drag her with him. There are innumerable possibilities around, and as long as we have no proof either way, we are obliged to keep an open mind on the subject.

But how can I keep an open mind if you wonīt let me, Tom?

Please donīt make any more decisions for me. You always seem to get it wrong, somehow, and I would not want to pay for your mistakes with my embarrasment.

The best, still
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Please donīt make any more decisions for me. You always seem to get it wrong, somehow, and I would not want to pay for your mistakes with my embarrasment.

Your embarrassment is your own, old man. Frankly, I don't think you're capable of humility, but that's just an observation from your behavior on here. As for Kidney, you harp constantly that he's your preferred suspect for Stride's murder, so I don't feel anything I said was out of line. You've never stated that Kidney and only Kidney could have killed Stride, because that would be outright preposterous. It's only slightly less proposterous to finger him as her probable killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Still canīt get it right, can you, Tom? I see Strides murder as a domestic. Domestics are in the habit of coming up with a spouse/lover as the guilty party. Therefore, Kidney MUST be ruled in, at least until we find enough reason to rule him out. It really could not be much simpler, could it.

I have no phot of Kidney doing the honours, I do not have a written confession on his behalf, I cannot produce any evidence of him perpetrating anything that remotely bears the likeness of killing somebody. But I have a scenario containing a number of possible pointers to it all being a domestic slaying, and I have a description that - contrary to your assertions of the wrong length of moustache - points out a middle-aged caucasian of medium height, sporting a brownish moustache, displaying bodily sturdiness, as could be expected from a waterside labourer, and I have a guy who lied about his relationship with Stride and who in all probability had a record of physically abusing her, and who had been left by her, though he felt cocky enough to state to the police that Stride probably had loved him better than no other man. All of which adding up to a picture that would alert any man of the law with the slightest experience of domestic violence, Tom, as you well know.

And though you speak of people not regarding the evidence existing with enough care, so far I cannot see what you have got, apart from a throatcut that differs markedly to the Rippers work.

But we have been over this over and over again, have we not? Apart from my suddenly having to point out to you that I have not locked onto Kidney for it, that is.

The best,
Fisherman