Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[Richard Dewar]

We Must Speculate. . .

The problem with trying to ascribe murders to a specific unidentified killer is that we are often forced to make assumptions.

In terms of the wounds, the Nichols and Chapman murders were very similar. Given the extreme nature of the attacks, it's difficult to believe that two different people carried out almost identifical murders.

Beyond that, we are into guess work. While we can link certain murders together based on modus operandi (location of victim and wounds), we must also remember that are instances where methodology radically changes.

Peter Kurten, the Dusseldorf Ripper, used a wide variety of methods to attack his victims. Abberline suspected George Chapman - who was a poisoner.

What some consider using "logic" to determine this question are really engaging in "probabilities." Once these are multiplied against each other ("he probably didn't have time to mutilate Stride" "he probably was unsatisfied and frustrated so his attack on Eddowes was more ferocious than the others") the possibility for error increases.

[Michael W Richards]

On a Stride poll? Come on.

But it is ok to discuss the other victims wounds when supporting Strides inclusion Mike?

The lack of similarity in the wounds of Stride with any other Canonical is only demonstrated when the comparative samples are well understood. The fact is that the physical evidence as it exists does not match Stride with any other Canonical, and the theoretical arguments about how many serial killers ran around during that period do not take into account the disparity in the physical wounds themselves.

Cheers

[Richard Dewar]

No compelling, suggestive, definitive evidence of any sort to link her murder with the same man as #1 and #2 fell prey to.

Geography isn't a valid reason,... it would follow using that same tact that anyone living in the area who had a knife and was out at night should be considered a Suspect. Timing isn't valid. Whether this murder occurred while a knife wielding killer was on the loose from previous kills, or whether one was on the loose that same night, they are still not enough reason to put her kill on anyone person. Evidence of something, does. The physical evidence, as in all these cases, can speak volumes for itself,... about the circumstances, actions taken, and overall manner of the kill. Polly and Annie were not simply killed, they were surgical play toys for a degenerate mind.

And Liz wasn't. Its not visible in any kind of real evidence anyway.

Cheers

You make very good points. Those who consider Stride's candidacy as a canonical victim authoritative are engaged in speculation. The nature of her throat wound is different than others, the location of her body near a place of a public gathering is different, and the absence of mutilations is different.

Those who insist Stride is a victim of the killer claim the murderer was interrupted as an explanation of these differences. This is an assumption.

Nonetheless, she still should be considered as a possible victim in the series due to her proximity to the other victims and how few murders of women took place in that era in that area. This also necessarily that some of the victims dismissed should also be considered.

It's my view if you switched the dates of the Stride and Coles murders, today most experts would accept Coles as a canonical victim and dismiss Stride.

[Tom_Wescott]

There were more people inside 29 Hanbury Street than were inside 40 Berner Street. And the throat wound is the same. Get with it people. Post less, research more.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

There were more people inside 29 Hanbury Street than were inside 40 Berner Street. And the throat wound is the same. Get with it people. Post less, research more.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ah facts. Those pesky little critters raising their ugly heads again. How unfair!

[The Good Michael]

There were more people inside 29 Hanbury Street than were inside 40 Berner Street. And the throat wound is the same. Get with it people. Post less, research more.

You're talking about residents of 29 Hanbury. There were more people awake at Berner St. and with the population of the cottages, I don't know that 29 Hanbury had more people. Is this in reference to seclusion? If so, I would put Hanbury as more secluded because of the time of night. Yet, I don't believe it matters one bit either way.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

You're talking about residents of 29 Hanbury. There were more people awake at Berner St. and with the population of the cottages, I don't know that 29 Hanbury had more people. Is this in reference to seclusion? If so, I would put Hanbury as more secluded because of the time of night. Yet, I don't believe it matters one bit either way.

Mike

You mean the time of morning? 17 windows overlooked the Ripper as he murdered Chapman in the new light. His only escape was a door and hallway that could easily be blocked by a strong man who could get a good view of him. In Dutfield's Yard if someone came out the side door, he could bolt and be gone before he's even seen. In short, the Hanbury Street location was the most dangerous for him and arguably Millers Court was the second most dangerous. It's fantasy to suggest Dutfield's Yard was the most dangerous. But I agree there would have been much more noise coming from the house and it's reasonable to assume that would give the killer pause, as you suggest. And perhaps it did as we know he didn't linger in the yard as he did at other sites.

But let's keep in mind that the Ripper was obviously not opposed to taking great risks nor was he a stranger to beating the odds as he did so repeatedly by escaping unseen.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

There were more people inside 29 Hanbury Street than were inside 40 Berner Street. And the throat wound is the same. Get with it people. Post less, research more.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

It is reported that there were 17 people living in 29 Hanbury's 8 rooms in 1888, and according to Woolf Wess there were "20-30" members in the club when he left, with some in the lecture room and some downstairs. And the throat wound Stride received, based on the opinion of the medical expert who examined both Chapman and Stride is this: Coroner: "Is there any similarity between this case and Annie Chapman's case? Phillips: There is very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones."

And you tell other posters to "get with it"? I sure hope for the readers sake that your book doesn't contain such easily disproven statements, nor such a pompous attitude.

[Tom_Wescott]

It is reported that there were 17 people living in 29 Hanbury's 8 rooms in 1888, and according to Woolf Wess there were "20-30" members in the club when he left, with some in the lecture room and some downstairs. And the throat wound Stride received, based on the opinion of the medical expert who examined both Chapman and Stride is this: Coroner: "Is there any similarity between this case and Annie Chapman's case? Phillips: There is very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones."

And you tell other posters to "get with it"? I sure hope for the readers sake that your book doesn't contain such easily disproven statements, nor such a pompous attitude.

I can pull up random quotes to support any argument I make as well Michael. Such as Brown's professional opinion that Eddowes wasn't a Ripper victim. Her wounds were obviously quite different from Chapman's, but why is that never brought up? The fact is that Stride like Eddowes were both subdued in some manner that's not clear to us and were put upon the ground where they were murdered with a single clean cut to the throat. This kind of murder is exceedingly rare anywhere in the world. It's simply not a common manner of murder. Here we see it happen twice in the same area (a 10 minute walk) and in the same hour. Neither appear to have been a domestic murder.

The above are the significant factors. These are the factors that can't simply be explained away, whereas the crux of the entire anti-Stride argument - the fact she was not abdominally mutilated - can easily be explained by a number of factors.

And then there are the little details, which might not be little at all. Stride and Eddowes were quite similar in so many ways, even hailing from the same street. Eddowes had a thimble near her hand (her own item) and Stride had cachous in her own hand (presumably her own item).

The entire modern argument to exclude Stride began 20 or so years ago by authors such as AP Wolf and was based on a mountain of misinformation (such as the confused notion that Michael Kidney reported the murder before her body had been discovered). For some strange reason, authors continue to use this misinformation to argue against Stride Rumbelow being the most recent. This misinformation is required in order to convincingly exclude Stride because the lack of mutilation on its own is simply not enough. So we'll keep talking about the mythical 'dull knife' and grape nonsense and keep rattling on about how her throat was cut differently without noting the obvious reason WHY it wasn't as deep as Eddowes or Chapman.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I sure hope for the readers sake that your book doesn't contain such easily disproven statements, nor such a pompous attitude.

Not to worry as it contains neither. And it appears that most of those you post with are no more concerned with educating themselves than you are.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Tom,

Your points in bold;

I can pull up random quotes to support any argument I make as well Michael. Such as Brown's professional opinion that Eddowes wasn't a Ripper victim. Her wounds were obviously quite different from Chapman's, but why is that never brought up?

I brought up documented facts that directly contradicted what you stated empirically, so lets not diminish the importance fact vs imagination has. As for the differences between Stride and Eddowes, I bring that up consistently in any comparative discussion of the 2 womens murders here, as do others.

The fact is that Stride like Eddowes were both subdued in some manner that's not clear to us and were put upon the ground where they were murdered with a single clean cut to the throat.

Again, it is not a fact that Stride was on the ground although you state it like it was, when all the time we have the senior medical expert stating it could have been done "while falling". And in Eddowes case "all deep structures were severed to the bone.... nicking cartilage". To say they were the same kind of cuts just isn't accurate.

This kind of murder is exceedingly rare anywhere in the world. It's simply not a common manner of murder. Here we see it happen twice in the same area (a 10 minute walk) and in the same hour. Neither appear to have been a domestic murder.

Stats on crimes with knives show us that one of the most common lethal weapons used at that time for assault was a knife. And What we see on Double Event night is someone murdered and abandoned, and someone murdered and mutilated, one in the city, one in the East End.

The above are the significant factors. These are the factors that can't simply be explained away, whereas the crux of the entire anti-Stride argument - the fact she was not abdominally mutilated - can easily be explained by a number of factors.

It can be explained by a number of theories, not "factors" Tom, and none of which have any contemporary evidence whatsoever to support them

And then there are the little details, which might not be little at all. Stride and Eddowes were quite similar in so many ways, even hailing from the same street. Eddowes had a thimble near her hand (her own item) and Stride had cachous in her own hand (presumably her own item).

Is the same street argument also the one to use when linking Mary and Annie? And items found near the body when linking Annie with Kate? How about the ;ittle details that suggest the killer was after women who were soliciting at the time, based on the first 2 Canonicals? Is that irrelevant? Is it relevant that we do not know that Liz, Kate and Mary were doing the same thing at the time they meet their killer? Relevance its seems is very subjective.

The entire modern argument to exclude Stride began 20 or so years ago by authors such as AP Wolf and was based on a mountain of misinformation (such as the confused notion that Michael Kidney reported the murder before her body had been discovered). For some strange reason, authors continue to use this misinformation to argue against Stride Rumbelow being the most recent. This misinformation is required in order to convincingly exclude Stride because the lack of mutilation on its own is simply not enough. So we'll keep talking about the mythical 'dull knife' and grape nonsense and keep rattling on about how her throat was cut differently without noting the obvious reason WHY it wasn't as deep as Eddowes or Chapman.

Ill just say that the lack of mutilation, in fact the lack of any evidence that the killer as much as touched the deceased after that single cut, without any viable explanation such as verified interruption, (killer seen fleeing), or any evidence that would lead one to conclude the killer of Polly and Annie would not always cut the throat twice and then mutilate the abdomen, is enough to remove her from a Group that is assumed to have been killed by someone who had the aforementioned tendencies. The place, (East End), and the timing, (the Fall of 1888) are merely historical notations of the event,..not a reason for pairing her murder up with another.

Phillips saw 4 Canonical victims in death. He saw evidence that 2 were likely linked by A killer. That seems to be a pretty good place to start...although now, it will likely be where this all leads. Back to the basics, and the real evidence.

The fact that we don't get along isn't relevant, the facts in these cases are.

Cheers Tom

[Tom_Wescott]

I brought up documented facts that directly contradicted what you stated empirically, so lets not diminish the importance fact vs imagination has.

You really think you contradicted me with documented fact? You don't want to go there, Mike.

Again, it is not a fact that Stride was on the ground although you state it like it was, when all the time we have the senior medical expert stating it could have been done "while falling". And in Eddowes case "all deep structures were severed to the bone.... nicking cartilage". To say they were the same kind of cuts just isn't accurate.

The blood evidence is quite clear where her neck was when she started to bleed.

Stats on crimes with knives show us that one of the most common lethal weapons used at that time for assault was a knife. And What we see on Double Event night is someone murdered and abandoned, and someone murdered and mutilated, one in the city, one in the East End.

Stop moving goal posts. I was not talking about knife murders. Those are a dime a dozen. I was speaking specifically about women murdered in dark corners by some unknown method of rendering them unconscious and then cleanly killing them with a single cut to the throat. Stride and Eddowes are identical in these most singular and crucial of aspects.

Is the same street argument also the one to use when linking Mary and Annie? And items found near the body when linking Annie with Kate? How about the ;ittle details that suggest the killer was after women who were soliciting at the time, based on the first 2 Canonicals? Is that irrelevant? Is it relevant that we do not know that Liz, Kate and Mary were doing the same thing at the time they meet their killer? Relevance its seems is very subjective.

I completely agree that may not be relevant in terms of who killed them, but as far as victimology you can't get much more similar than these women.

Ill just say that the lack of mutilation, in fact the lack of any evidence that the killer as much as touched the deceased after that single cut, without any viable explanation such as verified interruption, (killer seen fleeing), or any evidence that would lead one to conclude the killer of Polly and Annie would not always cut the throat twice and then mutilate the abdomen, is enough to remove her from a Group that is assumed to have been killed by someone who had the aforementioned tendencies. The place, (East End), and the timing, (the Fall of 1888) are merely historical notations of the event,..not a reason for pairing her murder up with another.

You keep referring to the absence of evidence. The knife was also absent from the scene, so why do we assume one was ever there? The knife wound. Why did the police conclude Stride and Eddowes were killed by the same hand? The weight of evidence dictates it. Still does. So, why didn't the Ripper mutilate Stride? Only he would know that. Was he interrupted? Maybe. Was he intimidated by the club noise? Maybe. Had he already intended to kill a second woman and thus wanted to remain bloodless? Maybe.

Would a logical mind conclude that Stride and Eddowes were most likely killed by the same man? Absolutely. Does that make it ascertained fact? Not at all. Just as it's not an ascertained fact that Eddowes was killed by the same man who murdered Chapman. Nor Mary Kelly.

So, am I convinced Stride was a Ripper victim? Not at all, although I know it appears that way from my posts. But has my careful study of the facts over the course of many years revealed that the vast majority of reasons used to discount her are not factually accurate? Sadly, yes. Therefore the likelihood remains now as it did in 1888. That Stride was a Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Why didn't the medical experts agree that Liz and Kate were killed by the same person, and why does the man who examined the most Canonical victims state that Strides murder is unlike the most recent kill attributed to this Jack fellow?

As to your rebuttal;

1. The number of people based on the census in Hanbury is less than the number of people hanging about the club after the meeting..the source for the second part is Wess himself. Therefore, both of your statements are refutable with facts.

2. If Stride was cut "while falling", there need be no "flow" commencement until she has hit the ground, we are talking about partially severed arteries and milliseconds in timing.

3.These are all just knife crimes, despite your desire to create a more restrictive and granulated filter. Im glad you keep mentioning the single cut....very much a key differentiator in Strides murder from the previous kills.

Ill skip to your summation.....to hold dear a premise that is based purely upon conjecture, assumptions and guesswork may seem a pragmatic approach to problem solving to you, but it holds little appeal for people who seek the actual truth about the murders, not a story about a serial killer named Jack the Ripper.

And in the case of absent evidence Tom, if there is no evidence whatsoever that the killer of Liz Stride was in any way hindered or halted from what he was doing, then why in heavens name should we assume there was an interruption? Because we want this to be the same guy who usually guts the victims after the neck cutS. Liz Strides murder is what it is, a murder, short and violent.

Unfortunately for her, and her descendants, the timing and location of it made her one of Five women whose lives, for 125 years, have been dragged through the mud by wannabe investigators.

The evidence is Liz was just killed, and the evidence is that Polly and Annie were killed so that the killer could.........

Cheers

[Tom_Wescott]

Still reeling...

Hi Mike,

I'm still reeling from your proclamations on another thread that Mary Kelly was an abandoned victim of the Thames Torso killer. I mean wow. I will give you marks for originality on that one because your whole 'Stride was killed by anyone but Jack the Ripper' routine is anything but original. So if I were you I'd haunt the Kelly threads.

But for those reading these pages and wondering if there's any real reason to suspect that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim (and you folks are the only reason I still put up with this crap), the answer is 'yes' but only for two reasons: 1) she wasn't abdominally mutilated, and 2) her killer was never caught and named. Anything else you read is either irrelevant or simply untrue. The weight of the evidence, now as it was then, is that she was a Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

Brown

Hello Tom.

". . . Brown's professional opinion that Eddowes wasn't a Ripper victim. Her wounds were obviously quite different from Chapman's, but why is that never brought up?"

Cough, cough. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC