Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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 ?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[Michael W Richards]

I think the discussion about what the scarf represents is interesting...Dr Blackwell had this to say at the Inquest on October 1st:... "The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight. In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife. "

That seems to me to indicate that the scarf was twisted tightly at the moment the cut was made. Which seems to indicate that the victim was being controlled by the scarf, not strangled,....just as a tight collar and leash controls a pets movements while walking. It limited her ability to defend herself..by calling out for help, for one.

I don't believe Liz Strides evidence shows that her killer sought to incapacitate her first, via choking or strangling her...yet another variance with the previous 2 Canonicals.

A single cut made while holding the womans scarf twisted tightly, just feet from the street, sounds like someone committing a lethal assault, not preparing a victim for what lay ahead. There are so many reasons to question this murders inclusion in the Canonical Group, and just 2 to include her...the historical timing of her fatal assault, and the fact that there had been other unsolved crimes in the recent past and in the near future involving cut throats.

The problem is....is it logical to say that the man that killed Polly and Annie didn't have an uncontrollable penchant for mutilation after the kill? He does with Kate, if the same man that killed the first 2. So where does the reason he sought out prostitutes to kill and mutilate go when he meets Liz?

Interuptus isn't on the records, so you only have what you have.

Cheers

[Harry D]

Harry D,

I don't think your argument was convincing at all. I have never thought it convincing when those before you have said the same thing. Like Colin stated, it wouldn't be easy to show "that one possibility was much more likely than the other."

Taking in consideration what you say we should (criminal history, proximity and timing) why ignore the unsolved murders before and after the C5? Were many of them not prostitutes, around the same time, and in the same area? Is Jack responsible for all of them? What about the torso murders? Have you considered how many suspects we know of that were convicted murderers and living in London at the time? Isn't that a coincidence in itself?

Sorry, I don't think its logical to believe the only logical outcome is that 'Jack' killed Stride. He may have but I'm not convinced.

Cheers
DRoy

Hey, DRoy.

What unsolved murders are you specifically referring to?

All those convicted murderers living in London and yet the reported knife murders in the WHOLE of England for 1887, let alone London, was a paltry 11?

The Torso Murderer had a markedly different MO. He didn't accost prostitutes out in the open, he must have had his own premises in which to dismember his prey, and also some form of carriage to transport the remains. Again, quite an exceptional case, but I don't see what bearing it has on Stride's killer.

* For the record, my personal canon is the C5 + McKenzie.

[Tom_Wescott]

This thread is full of a lot of disinformation and misinformation. What's important to keep in mind is that the only reason Stride's candidature is so hotly debated is because a handful of modern authors made some serious errors in their research 20 or so years ago that keep getting repeated ad infinitum. Although many of these myths have been done away and proved groundless since that time the idea had already taken root, so naturally there's going to be some who continue to argue that Stride was not a Ripper victim because so many old and new Ripper books say so. Others are simply incapable of changing their minds once it's made up (that IS difficult to do). But if you do as I did and follow the argument against Stride being a Ripper victim back to its roots, 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. While I agree that this must leave something of a question mark over her head, to argue that the weight of evidence points to her as having not been killed by Eddowes' slayer is not only weak, it's absolutely faulty.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DRoy]

I've already presented a convincing argument in favour of one particular scenario over the other: the fact that these crimes were unprecedented in Whitechapel before the Autumn of Terror. There were three knife murders that day, one was a domestic where the victim was killed in her own home and the killer handed himself in, the other two were seemingly random, unsolved attacks on prostitutes in public areas which happened at the height of the Ripper attacks. Now, if we consider the criminal history of the area, and the proximity and timing of these murders, the only logical outcome is that the Ripper struck.

Harry D,

I don't think your argument was convincing at all. I have never thought it convincing when those before you have said the same thing. Like Colin stated, it wouldn't be easy to show "that one possibility was much more likely than the other."

Taking in consideration what you say we should (criminal history, proximity and timing) why ignore the unsolved murders before and after the C5? Were many of them not prostitutes, around the same time, and in the same area? Is Jack responsible for all of them? What about the torso murders? Have you considered how many suspects we know of that were convicted murderers and living in London at the time? Isn't that a coincidence in itself?

Sorry, I don't think its logical to believe the only logical outcome is that 'Jack' killed Stride. He may have but I'm not convinced.

Cheers
DRoy