Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[lynn cates]

sed contra

Hello John. Thanks.

"However. Dr Philips was of the opinion that she had been partially strangled, i.e by her handkerchief"

Handkerchief? Why that?

"Regarding whether "all that is required is to have the wound close to the ground". . ."

Should have added, "with wound pointed TOWARDS ground." I think THAT is the key factor.

"Well, Stride was a registered prostitute in Sweden . . ."

Indeed. But that was long before?

"However, I'm not sure that she was soliciting that night, and the evidence of James Brown seems to suggest that she wasn't."

Very well.

"What I think is more to the point is that, like Nichols and Chapman, she was killed outdoors with no obvious suspects."

Ah, so we default to, "Can't figure this out SO let's dump it with the others"? Not unexpected.

"Have you considered the significant differences between the Nichols and Chapman murder?"

Significant? Surgical skills? He seemed adept at cutting with a knife. But that was remarked by the medicos.

"There also seems to have changed his signature, in relation to posing the bodies. . ."

That one even SEES posing says a good deal about--the observer. Personally, I see NO posing. Of course, if one has decided that a 90's style sexual serial killer were involved in the WCM, one will see posing. This is like one trained ONLY in English (Latin) script looking at Greek or Cyrillic script and proclaiming a spelling error.

"And then there were changes to MO."

MO would apply to intentional acts. Don't think these were such.

"Chapman was strangled or suffocated- there is no clear evidence that Nichols was."

Well, a lacerated tongue might count.

"And, of course, Chapman's killer harvested body organs as part of his MO, whereas Nichols' didn't."

Well, he did take her uterus. But MO involves a lot.

"So if they were killed by the same person, then he dramatically improved his anatomical skills, changed his signature and significantly altered his MO in the space of just 9 days! Surely they were killed by different people?"

Or, perhaps, you should jettison your social science text book and try a different approach? Possible the lens is out of adjustment. But just a thought.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

One of the problems with this case is that we have an enormous amount of data but so many unknown variables that lead to different interpretations. The Stride murder is one of the best examples.

The similiarities between this killing and those of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes is apparent. The killer apparently slayed the woman with one pull of a knife across the throat in a manner similiar to the other killings. The woman was a prostitute and the event took place in a public thoroughfare.

There are differences, though, beyond the esoteric. Based on the post mortem report, it doesn't appear that the knife wound to the neck was as deep as the others. There were no abdominal mutilations.

Some of the more controversial differences have been noted - specifically the locale of the murder in the proximity of a public gathering, a possible witness to the attack.

Those who are adamant that Stride was a victim of the Whitechapel murderer cite explanations for the differences between this killing and the others. But these are speculative - the most common being that the killer was interrupted and did not have time to mutilate the victim.

Those who discount Stride as a victim seem to easily discount the similiarities in the killings - the area where the murder occurred, the similarity in the fatal wound.

My own feelings are that Stride was probably a victim of the serial killer but possibly was not.

Hi Richard,

Excellent post, which I fully agree with.

Best wishes,

John

[John G]

Hi Lynn,

Yes, I was being a little mischievous with my last post; of course there's no conclusive evidence that Stride was killed by JtR, it's just that I simply cannot accept that, as some have argued, the chances are only 50-50. I'm at least 80% sure myself.

I accept there may have been some evidence of arterial spray in relation to Chapman- there were smears of blood on the wooden fence, after all. However. Dr Philips was of the opinion that she had been partially strangled, i.e by her handkerchief, so I think it reasonable to hypothesize that the killer made some effort to control any arterial spray.

Regarding whether "all that is required is to have the wound close to the ground", I think that was my original argument! However, you pointed out that Kelly was killed in a prone position and there was significant evidence of arterial spray, so I reflected on the matter and decided that something more was required. This is surely even more likely if it is the case that a partially severed artery would have lead to more powerful jets of arterial spray.

Nonetheless, If I'm wrong, I think I shall restate my original argument: that the killer cut stride's throat whilst she was on the ground to avoid arterial spray.

"A prostitute killed on the street." Well, Stride was a registered prostitute in Sweden and, if the evidence of James Brown is accepted she had been walking the streets for a significant period prior to her death.

However, I'm not sure that she was soliciting that night, and the evidence of James Brown seems to suggest that she wasn't. What I think is more to the point is that, like Nichols and Chapman, she was killed outdoors with no obvious suspects. To my mind, that fact alone makes this killing very different from a more ordinary domestic murder, such as that of Sarah Brown, who was killed in her own home by a husband who confessed to the crime 10 minutes later.

And, of course, we can't assume that JtR would only target prostitutes. Sutcliffe certainly didn't. In fact, one of his early victims may have been a school girl, who was attacked in a remote rural location.

Anyway, returning to certainties. Have you considered the significant differences between the Nichols and Chapman murder? I mean, within 9 days JtR seemed to have upgraded his anatomical skills for "rudimentary" to that of a surgical expert! This is all the more extraordinary when you consider he was probably under a lot less time pressure at the Nichols murder.

There also seems to have changed his signature, in relation to posing the bodies: in the case of Nichols, her killer seemed to have made a particular effort to cover up her abdominal injuries. So much so that Dr Llewellyn failed to notice that she'd been mutilated, even after he'd examined the body!

And then there were changes to MO. Chapman was strangled or suffocated- there is no clear evidence that Nichols was. And, of course, Chapman's killer harvested body organs as part of his MO, whereas Nichols' didn't.

So if they were killed by the same person, then he dramatically improved his anatomical skills, changed his signature and significantly altered his MO in the space of just 9 days! Surely that can't be right? They must have been killed by different people? Or perhaps not! Nonetheless, maybe I should start a novel thread on the subject?

Finally, as regards the arterial spray at the Kelly crime scene. Well, obviously he wasn't worried because he could have covered up any blood with his large and impressive astrakhan coat! Now that's a really controversial point!

Best wishes,

John

[lynn cates]

vulnera non profundus

Hello Sir John.

"I tend to agree with the "interruption hypothesis", except that I go for earlier in the process: He was interrupted before he had time to slice her throat a second time."

OK. Any idea why the cut was not so deep as the others?

Cheers.
LC

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Those who are adamant that Stride was a victim of the Whitechapel murderer cite explanations for the differences between this killing and the others. But these are speculative - the most common being that the killer was interrupted and did not have time to mutilate the victim.

I tend to agree with the "interruption hypothesis", except that I go for earlier in the process: He was interrupted before he had time to slice her throat a second time.

With this hypothesis, I'm saying that Stride was attacked few seconds before Diemschutz entered Dutfield's Yard.

[lynn cates]

But then, again . . .

Hello Richard.

"The killer apparently slayed the woman with one pull of a knife across the throat in a manner similar to the other killings."

No. Polly and Annie had twin, parallel cuts. They were deep. Liz's less deep.

"The woman was a prostitute. . ."

Indeed? And the evidence for this?

". . . and the event took place in a public thoroughfare."

Unlike Annie who died in a private yard.

"Those who discount Stride as a victim seem to easily discount the similarities in the killings - the area where the murder occurred. . ."

St. George-in-the-East? Well, I suppose it had some affinities to both Whitechapel and Spitalfields--maybe even Aldgate. They were ALL in Greater London--rather like Westminster where Mrs. Brown died.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

punctus contra punctum

Hello John. Thanks.

Yes, I'm intimately familiar with both Phillips and Blackwell's comments. And I agree that Liz was NOT bolt upright when cut.

Besides "MJK," Chapman DID have some arterial spray.

"Thus, when an artery is cut or severed blood pressure will cause the blood to spray out rapidly, in the form of a spray or jet, in contrast to the more steady flow of a venous bleed."

Yes. I consulted a phlebotomist on this once. He inadvertently had inserted a needle into the brachial artery instead of vein. Needle blew out of the arm.

"It is therefore submitted that the only way this could have been avoided is if the killer quickly applied significant pressure to the wound, i.e by using the scarf as a ligature."

Respectfully disagree. All that is required is to have the wound close to the ground.

". . . a prostitute killed on the street. . ."

Why are you assuming this?

"Case closed."

Umm, no.

Cheers.
LC

[Richard Dewar]

Insignificant Differences?

One of the problems with this case is that we have an enormous amount of data but so many unknown variables that lead to different interpretations. The Stride murder is one of the best examples.

The similiarities between this killing and those of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes is apparent. The killer apparently slayed the woman with one pull of a knife across the throat in a manner similiar to the other killings. The woman was a prostitute and the event took place in a public thoroughfare.

There are differences, though, beyond the esoteric. Based on the post mortem report, it doesn't appear that the knife wound to the neck was as deep as the others. There were no abdominal mutilations.

Some of the more controversial differences have been noted - specifically the locale of the murder in the proximity of a public gathering, a possible witness to the attack.

Those who are adamant that Stride was a victim of the Whitechapel murderer cite explanations for the differences between this killing and the others. But these are speculative - the most common being that the killer was interrupted and did not have time to mutilate the victim.

Those who discount Stride as a victim seem to easily discount the similiarities in the killings - the area where the murder occurred, the similarity in the fatal wound.

My own feelings are that Stride was probably a victim of the serial killer but possibly was not.

[John G]

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,

I must confess that I am no expert on this subject, however, I am currently studying biology as part of a degree course so I understand some of the basics. I will therefore attempt to answer the question with reference to source material.

Dr Philips was of the opinion that Stride's throat was cut whilst she was on the ground. And at the inquest Dr Blackwell opined:

"The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up."

Now the clear implication of Dr Blackwell's evidence is that there was no blood splatter and, of course, very few spots of blood were found at the crime scene: see, for example, Begg (2004)

This is clearly remarkable considering that Stride's carotid artery was severed. Your comments, however, concerning the MJK crime scene, are clearly relevant, especially as it seems clear that her throat was cut whilst she was lying down. In fact, of all of the C5 murders, Kelly's is the only one where there is clear evidence of arterial spray.

It is therefore self- evident that it requires more than a victim being in a prone position to avoid arterial spray following the severing of a major artery.

Thus, when an artery is cut or severed blood pressure will cause the blood to spray out rapidly, in the form of a spray or jet, in contrast to the more steady flow of a venous bleed.

You might also find this website useful: http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2012/0...arotid_08.html The site contains a list of legal cases involving severed carotid arteries. You will note, for example, Edmonds v Commonwealth, where the severance of the carotid artery resulted in bleeding that was both "rapid and massive".

Of course, it could be argued that Stride's artery was only partially severed. However, somewhat ironically this would probably have increased the likelihood of massive arterial spray. For instance, if the carotid artery is completely severed you wouldn't expect blood to spurt much higher than the head. However, if just nicked the blood will actually come out under greater pressure and spray much further: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...earch.science1

Of course, this is not what we observe at Stride's crime scene-quite the reverse, in fact. There is also no evidence of arterial spray at any of the C5 crime scenes, excepting that of MJK.

It is therefore submitted that the only way this could have been avoided is if the killer quickly applied significant pressure to the wound, i.e by using the scarf as a ligature.

That suggests that the crime was premeditated, carried out by an experienced killer, who was able to respond rapidly to the inherent danger of being covered in arterial spray. It is no way consistent with a more common domestic murder carried out impulsively in a disorganized fashion.

The fact, that the person responsible for the murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes seemed to have adopted an identical strategy suggests a clear link between all four murders.

This fact, coupled with the rarity of the crime, i.e a prostitute killed on the street with no obvious suspects, in a district where murder itself was extremely rare, suggest to me one thing: that Elizabeth Stride was killed by JtR.

And I haven't even mentioned the fact that there was another rare murder by a killer who apparently used the same strategy to avoid arterial spray, just over a mile a way, 45 minutes later!

Case closed. Or is it?

Best wishes,

John

[lynn cates]

efficiency

Hello (again) Tom. Then am I to understand you make efficiency the criterion for ripper inclusion?

I never know quite how to handle this argument. I suppose my difficulty is to understand why a rank amateur, being sufficiently angry, etc, cannot draw a knife across the throat and kill instantly.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Let us spray.

Hello Tom. Thanks.

But, given your reply, arterial spray would not be a factor? For WHEREVER she were cut--standing, kneeling, lying--the cut was insufficient to produce such spray.

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

[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

[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.

[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