Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[John G]

Hi Lynn,

Please don't tell me that you though I was being remotely serious when I suggested that Nichols and Chapman were murdered by different people?

I was being ironic. I was trying to highlight the fact that if you over think and over analyse things you end up with absurd conclusions. Okay I realize I was probably straying off topic, but there seems to be a growing trend which argues that 1888 Whitechapel was swarming with an army of throat cutters, organ collectors, mutilators...

I mean what happened to all of these people? At the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve 1888 did they all suddenly decide that serial killing wasn't for them after all? And, yes, I'm being ironic again.

And just for the record, I do accept that there is at least an arguable case for Stride not being a ripper victim. I also concede that your posts have been informative and well argued, which means that you clearly have not arrived at some of the more extreme conclusions.

For me, all the evidence suggests that serial killers are generally far more unpredictable than many people are willing to except and, therefore, I always take that fact as my starting position.

Cheers,

John

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

If we assume for the sake of argument that Jack was the one that killed Liz, are we to assume that he remembered the depth of his previous cuts or that he cared in any way that he remanin consistent?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

serials, etc

Hello John. Thanks.

"Please don't tell me that you thought I was being remotely serious when I suggested that Nichols and Chapman were murdered by different people?'

Not a bit of it.

"I was being ironic. I was trying to highlight the fact that if you over think and over analyse things you end up with absurd conclusions."

Oh, I know precisely what you were doing.

"Okay I realize I was probably straying off topic, but there seems to be a growing trend which argues that 1888 Whitechapel was swarming with an army of throat cutters, organ collectors, mutilators..."

How do we get to an army with three people? A bit of hyperbole? And, of course, Mr. Brown was one such throat cutter--and ENTIRELY unrelated to the others.

"I mean what happened to all of these people? At the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve 1888 did they all suddenly decide that serial killing wasn't for them after all? And, yes, I'm being ironic again."

Not to mention inaccurate. Surely a one off is not part of serial killing? Hyperbole again?

"And just for the record, I do accept that there is at least an arguable case for Stride not being a ripper victim. I also concede that your posts have been informative and well argued, which means that you clearly have not arrived at some of the more extreme conclusions."

Thank you.

"For me, all the evidence suggests that serial killers are generally far more unpredictable than many people are willing to accept and, therefore, I always take that fact as my starting position."

Yes. And given that there were actually a serial killer loose at that time, it's an important point.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

point

Hello CD. Thanks.

"If we assume for the sake of argument that Jack was the one who killed Liz, are we to assume that he remembered the depth of his previous cuts or that he cared in any way that he remain consistent?'

Not at all. In fact, if we DID it would destroy my WHOLE point.

Permit me to illustrate. If I engage in some behaviour voluntarily, then, in future it MIGHT be helpful to see if I repeat it. If I pour tea right handed, without thinking, it might rule me out if we know the killer were left handed. But if the wrong hand is used deliberately, all bets are off.

If a certain occupation called for deep double cuts to the neck, and I were in that occupation, I might kill in that manner without even thinking. Another, who was unused to such, might not. See the difference?

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

If a certain occupation called for deep double cuts to the neck, and I were in that occupation, I might kill in that manner without even thinking. Another, who was unused to such, might not. See the difference?

Or as with your left handed man I might use a different method deliberately!

[Bridewell]

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

Well argued post this, Tom. Thanks.

[lynn cates]

devious

Hello GUT. Thanks.

"Or as with your left handed man I might use a different method deliberately!"

Yes, if he were devious and a planner.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

If Stride was killed by Strauss's BS Man the reason for lack of mutilation might be quite straightforward. If he had intended to mutilate but been frustrated in that endeavour by the arrival of Strauss the killing might (if he was known to or could be identified by Stride) have interfered, not with the attack so much as the thought process behind it.

In this scenario there would still be a need to kill, but not for the same motive. Hence no mutilation - just a silenced witness and a frustrated serial killer. How might such an individual react?

Just to clarify my position on this (because I am conscious of my position earlier in the thread on the application of small sample statistical data to decide the issue) my position on Stride is, as it always has been, 60/40 in favour of her being a victim of the Whitechapel serial killer.

[Michael W Richards]

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

We all know Tom that she may well have been killed "while falling", but I see what youre getting at. And it is worth noting that the 2 murders that spawned the nickname "Jack the Ripper" were made by 2 very deep cuts to the throats, nicking spines in the process. Both arteries severed completely in 2 strokes...clean yes, just not single strokes.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

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

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

[Michael W Richards]

Or as with your left handed man I might use a different method deliberately!

Im glad you brought the "handedness" issue into play GUT, because it is important when you consider the statistics on truly ambidextrous people within any given population. Consider the descriptions of the initial throat attacks and the most probable positions from which to accomplish them. It was generally felt that the killer of the early victims was Right Handed, primarily due to the assumptions made about the killers position. It was also assumed that the victims were lying down when the cuts were made.

Now that you have the mechanics angle in the road, riddle me this? Based on the physical evidence, which hand did Mary Kellys killer likely use to cut her throat?

Cheers GUT

[lynn cates]

Schwartz

Hello Colin.

"If he had intended to mutilate but been frustrated in that endeavour by the arrival of Strauss . . ."

. . . then he might have waltzed right through it. (Sorry, had to.)

If BS killed Liz, then it was some time after the initial face to face encounter.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Mike. Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

Im glad you brought the "handedness" issue into play GUT, because it is important when you consider the statistics on truly ambidextrous people within any given population. Consider the descriptions of the initial throat attacks and the most probable positions from which to accomplish them. It was generally felt that the killer of the early victims was Right Handed, primarily due to the assumptions made about the killers position. It was also assumed that the victims were lying down when the cuts were made.

Now that you have the mechanics angle in the road, riddle me this? Based on the physical evidence, which hand did Mary Kellys killer likely use to cut her throat?

Cheers GUT

Probably left.

But see all of the handedness questions are based on various assumptions and MAY be wrong.

[The Good Michael]

Im glad you brought the "handedness" issue into play GUT, because it is important when you consider the statistics on truly ambidextrous people within any given population. Consider the descriptions of the initial throat attacks and the most probable positions from which to accomplish them. It was generally felt that the killer of the early victims was Right Handed, primarily due to the assumptions made about the killers position. It was also assumed that the victims were lying down when the cuts were made.

Now that you have the mechanics angle in the road, riddle me this? Based on the physical evidence, which hand did Mary Kellys killer likely use to cut her throat?

On a Stride poll? Come on.