Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

It is quite possible that the intention to mutilate took a back seat to not getting caught and hanged if he felt somehow threatened.

...and yes, yes, there is no physical evidence to support the interruption theory. Do I really need to repeat that it is quite possible for an interruption or a perceived threat to occur without physical evidence that it did take place? I get so tired of repeating that when it simply gets ignored by those who refuse to take it into consideration.

c.d.

[Cogidubnus]

Tom/Michael/CD

So many interpretations are possible...the victim's own actions earlier in the day, may or may not be relevant...they may certainly be viewed as suggestive... but with so much else missing, for me it's the Schwartz evidence which is either convincing or not...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

considerable

Hello CD. But why take it into consideration--unless you are already convinced that she was a ripper victim?

Or did you not take it into consideration that she may not have been?

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom/Michael/CD

So many interpretations are possible...the victim's own actions earlier in the day, may or may not be relevant...they may certainly be viewed as suggestive... but with so much else missing, for me it's the Schwartz evidence which is either convincing or not...

All the best

Dave

It's not enough to say 'there are so many interpretations'. Many of these interpretations do not past muster and should be disregarded. I'm not sure about your point regarding Schwartz. Either it happened or it didn't. Either way, it does not argue for or against the Ripper having killed Stride.

Regarding the scarf. Stride's throat was cut while she was on the ground. There was no sign of struggle, so she was already unconscious. The scarf was pulled tight at the moment of her throat having been cut. So, she was already unconscious and on the ground before the scarf was pulled tight. Erego, it was not used to 'control' her, but to facilitate the use of his knife, made necessary by the jagged stone over which her head and neck were resting. These unusual circumstances easily explain not only the scarf but also why her throat wound was not as deep as in the other murders, but it certainly sufficed in meeting the objective, which was a clean kill. Forget about 1888 and look around at murders by cut throats. A minority are achieved with a single, clean cut.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John G]

Stride's murder bears all the hallmarks of a well executed killing, effected by an experienced killer. It does not suggest a common domestic murder, such as that of Sarah Brown, who was killed indoors by her a husband who confessed at a police station 10 minutes later.

Thus, Stride's killer successfully avoided the tricky problem of arterial spray by cutting her throat whilst she was on the ground. This same MO is also present in the following two murders, Eddowes and Kelly, although technically Kelly's throat seems to have been cut whilst she was lying down in bed.

The murder location was pretty much ideal for the killer's purpose. Much of Dutfield's yard was cloaked in almost total darkness, as evidenced by the fact that when Joseph Lave returned to the club, after left leaving for a smoke, he struggled to even see the door. And Dr Blackwell required the aid of a policeman's lantern in order to examine the wall for blood splatter.

Stride was, of course, killed at the front of the yard, which would have probably afforded the killer more light, but even here it was very dark: Louis D originally though Stride's body was a heap of dirt, although on closer inspection he decided she was hos own wife!

The club wasn't particularly busy at the time Stride was killed- about 20 people were present, and there had been very little traffic to or from the club after the talk had ended.

Nor did the general locality present much of a risk. When Louis D ran down the street shouting "murder" and "police" he attracted the attention of just one person: Edward Spooner. As Dr Philips pointed out at the inquest: "She {Stride} was in a yard, and in a locality where she might cry out very loudly and no notice taken of her." And, of course, Fanny Mortimer saw only one person during the significant period of time that she was outside.

Should the killer be interrupted by someone leaving the club he would have been given plenty of advanced warning as the door was opened and more light shone onto the yard: he then need just step into Berner Street and make his escape. If, as seems likely, he was interrupted by someone entering the Yard, he only needed to take a step back into the darkness, knowing that whoever found the body, i.e. Louis D, was likely to go into the club and summon help. What he would not be likely to do is to plunge further into the pitch black darkness where a knife-wielding maniac might be lying in wait.

Of course, Stride wasn't mutilated, but it can be strongly inferred that her killer was interrupted, i.e when Edward Spooner arrived at the yard some minutes later there was still blood flowing from her neck, and most probably by the arrival of Louis D.

Cheers,

John

[The Good Michael]

you'll see that it's built on error upon error, with the only legitimate piece of evidence in favor of it being that she was not abdominally mutilated.

This is absolutely true. Such things as her prostitution habits, place of murder, time of murder, Swedishness, and so many things, are just padding for an argument against that have no bearing on things regarding the killing itself. The mutilation yes, and that is pretty fairly answered by either side.

Mike

[Jon Guy]

Hi John

Yes, I believe it was Philip Sugden who argued that Nichols, Chapman and possibly Eddowes were suffocated rather than strangled. A link was therefore suggested on the basis that the victims had their throats cut whilst they were close to the ground and they had been either strangled or suffocated.

Yes, and both Stride and Eddowes lived on Flower and Dean Street, and as you state, both had their throats cut (both left carotid whilst lying down) within an hour of each other. Another coincidence ?

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello John. One thing troubles me. "MJK" had her throat cut whilst prone and the spray literally splashed the walls. IF Liz had her throat on the ground, surely it would be no different?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello John. One thing troubles me. "MJK" had her throat cut whilst prone and the spray literally splashed the walls. IF Liz had her throat on the ground, surely it would be no different?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
As Strides scarf was frayed by the knife?, is it possible the scarf limited the arterial spray?
Alternately, there would be no spray if her heart had stopped beating before the throat was cut.

[c.d.]

Hello CD. But why take it into consideration--unless you are already convinced that she was a ripper victim?

Or did you not take it into consideration that she may not have been?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I was responding to Michael's post. He is adamant that there was no interruption because there is no evidence for it. Hence, Liz was not a Ripper victim. Seeing that interruptions occur literally every day in all types of crimes, the interruption theory seems quite reasonable and people can determine its probability for themselves.

And yes, I do take into consideration that Liz was not a Ripper victim. But it seems to me that the non-Ripper camp spends all their ammunition on a non-Jack argument thereby implying a non-Jack conclusion by default as opposed to simply putting forth arguments in favor of someone besides Jack.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello John. One thing troubles me. "MJK" had her throat cut whilst prone and the spray literally splashed the walls. IF Liz had her throat on the ground, surely it would be no different?

Cheers.
LC

What's different is that Stride's left carotid was cut but not cut through and took her a bit longer to bleed out. The injury was positioned over a stone and gutter, thus no blood got on the wall. The doctor thought there was actually too much blood at her crime scene, but I've speculated this is because the blood mingled with the rain water in the gutter to make it appear that there was more than there was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

This is absolutely true. Such things as her prostitution habits, place of murder, time of murder, Swedishness, and so many things, are just padding for an argument against that have no bearing on things regarding the killing itself. The mutilation yes, and that is pretty fairly answered by either side.

Mike

The lack of mutilation can be explained many ways, most of them quite logical. Those wishing to discount Stride cannot explain how the murder was done so efficiently by someone who was supposedly an inexperienced killer. The way Stride was murdered is extremely rare. A woman found outdoors with a single fatal cut to the throat and few if any signs of struggle. In place of explaining this, we're offered straw men in the form of a domestic murder that occurred elsewhere and which was solved in no time. What is rarely commented on is how this actually argues against them, because this woman - in keeping with most violent throat slashings - was hacked about and cut numerous times. Therefore, if any relevance can be found between this murder and the two Whitechapel murders, it's that in comparison it strengthens the argument that Stride and Eddowes were felled by the same hand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Tom,

Good arguments as usual. Had it been a domestic I would expect that somebody would have heard an argument post B.S. man. I would also expect that Liz would have been slapped around as the argument escalated culminating in a multitude of stabbings.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

going to ground

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Could be, but given it's frayed, surely that means some of the wound has a free path to spray blood? Of course, if her neck were cut directly over the ground, the spray would have gone onto the ground.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

on set theory and such

Hello CD. Thanks.

". . . the interruption theory seems quite reasonable. . ."

It is. It is also quite reasonable that, if I pass, say one hundred people in a day, that at least one of them is a felon. However, I have no reason to suspect of any particular one that he is such. The reason that the interruption theory came about in the first place is that:

1. Liz was thought to be a ripper victim. (Why? Because her slayer was not found.)

2. A mechanism was required to explain the absence of mutilations.

"And yes, I do take into consideration that Liz was not a Ripper victim. But it seems to me that the non-Ripper camp spends all their ammunition on a non-Jack argument thereby implying a non-Jack conclusion by default as opposed to simply putting forth arguments in favor of someone besides Jack."

I may even agree with you here--up to a point. My best reason for not including Liz in the canon is that there is no particular reason so to do.

Could she have been a ripper victim? Of course (given there WERE a ripper). But then, so could ANY dead woman, or man, be thus accounted.

Frankly, I do not make assumptions so that one can be included in a set. In fact, according to the tenets of set theory, classes must be built up by abstraction: one must check for the class defining characteristic. In Liz's case, there is none--unless non-detection and a cut throat are the ones. But IF they are, the whole ripper business becomes otiose.

Cheers.
LC