Did jack kill liz stride?

[Hunter]

Its a bit ironic that most on both sides of the fence seem to ascribe the same criteria for the person called Jack the Ripper. One side cites the lack of 'ripping' as an indicator of another assassin, while the other side adheres to the notion that he must have been interrupted before he could commence with upholding what would become his namesake. Maybe he didn't read that part in the Ripper playbook.

I wonder what the perception of all of these murders and who committed them would be if the name Jack the Ripper had not been invented - provided that the evidence and knowledge of such as it exist is still the same.

[Hunter]

Mr Wynne E Baxter

"but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful"

Baxter could have said the same about the killer of Catherine Eddowes, but he didn't. He was willing to accept that Stride's killer may have been the same as that of Nichols and Chapman, despite the lack of abdominal mutilations, but he considered a murder that did have mutilations and a uterus removed as the work of an imitator.

If Jack the Ripper gave birth to the twentieth century, as implied in From Hell, Wynne Baxter gave birth to Ripperology.

[Observer]

Liz Stride was apparently grabbed by her scarf and it became twisted. That scarf may well have been what he chose or had to grab onto to stop her from leaving his company, and had nothing at all to do with suppressing noise or subduing the victim into unconsciousness.

That's a possibility. Personally I believe the marks on the shoulders were an indication of the way in which the killer forced Liz Stride onto the ground. The pulling of the scarf, in my opinion, happened while she was lying on the ground.

[Observer]

You are aware that the individual above had no idea how Liz Stride got to where she was killed, why she was there, or who killed her..

What has that got to do with Mr Baxter's comments? That is, the section I quoted from his summing up. Mr Baxter was commenting on the fact that there was a corpse lying next to a club where upwards of 20 individuals were having a jolly. One of their members was in a shed working quietly, within 30 feet of the murder. No one had heard anything, the killer had quickly overpowered his victim, and cut het her throat while she was in the prone position, thus avoiding any blood soiling his person.

.that a single cut of a single artery is unlike 2 deep cuts that almost sever the head...the daring defiance of immediate detection???...yeah, it says it all....it says the quote above came from someone who despite not knowing for certain the answers to the questions he was asked chose to offer definitive responses anyway.

The final position of the body greatly hampered the ability to cut the neck deeply. However, what is this to do with the section I quoted from Coroner Baxter's summing up. Also, in the section I quoted, Coroner Baxter was not asked questions, he was summing up.

There is one cut....and there is no-one alive today who knows how Liz got into the passageway, why she was there, and who she met there...but some people like to buy into the definitive natures of statements as proof they must be logical and accurate. Like when people read internal memo support for Israel...despite knowing that he....or his story.....were never mentioned at the Inquest.

Again, what has the above got to do with the section of Coroner Baxter's summing up I quoted? I am confused to say the least

Regards

Observer

[Michael W Richards]

I can see that terminology may be tripping up the issue of garroting, choking, whathave you, as it applies to the victims here. There is evidence that Polly and Annie were choked. Not garrotted, or strangled, just choked. Accomplishing both control and silence. Liz Stride was apparently grabbed by her scarf and it became twisted. That scarf may well have been what he chose or had to grab onto to stop her from leaving his company, and had nothing at all to do with suppressing noise or subduing the victim into unconsciousness. Plus, he may have done that and caused her to fall and cut her all within a few seconds, not really choking to subdue at all.

I figure there must have been lots of men in the East End in 1888 between the ages of 28 and 35 that used sharp knives daily in their work. Butchers, slaughterhousemen, Leather workers, warehousemen, medical practitioners, clothing manufacturers...etc. Then there would be men who had knives for practical and protection purposes. Men who carried knives to intimidate and rob people. Service men who might have had sharp bayonets on Public Holidays, or pen knives. I cannot imagine that number would be an insignificant one, and perhaps it might be a large percentage of all men in that age range in that area, at that time.

Some of these men might have compromised intellect or self control issues, some might be dangerous men for a living, some might be prone to violent outbursts when intoxicated or drugged.

And only a single one of them would use a blade to cut a throat once?

Are we being asked to assume that a man that cuts necks so deeply that attempted decapitation is seriously considered, a man who slices open the abdomens of the women he kills... and is capable of, and has shown interest in, excising internal organs and leaving with them....he is the only guy who is on the streets at night with a knife and capable of making a single cut on a womans throat?

Regards

[lynn cates]

blase

Hello Tom. Thanks.

And by the time he got to Liz and Kate, he was blase about it.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Jon.

"I can understand a man carrying a garotte, and then garotting his victim. I can also understand a man carrying a gun, then shooting his victim. So what kind of man arms himself with a knife, but waste's time and effort in strangling his victim?"

Delighted that we FINALLY get to this question.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Jon and Lynn. The answer to this question is A sane man who doesn't want blood squirting everywhere.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Its nice to have a fresh voice, a seasoned one, ask why we would ever consider the killer of Polly and Annie a mere throat cutter. Nice to see you again as well Sam.

Best regards

Fresh AND seasoned? Somebody toss Sam on the grill before he starts to turn.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello CazThirdly, he disembowelled and/or eviscerated his victims; we can't just stop at throat-cutting. I put "mere" in quotation marks because one might think, by reading your previous post, that the throat-cutting was a sufficient condition by which to classify a murder as a Ripper murder. I don't think it's a sufficent condition at all.My use of "mere" was only to highlight your earlier classification of Jack as a throat-cutter. Indeed he was, but (a) he did a lot more besides; and (b) throat-cutting wasn't all that uncommon. Throat-cutting therefore doesn't strike me as a particularly useful diagnostic criterion to definitively categorise a murder as one of JTR's.

I would agree with that. Likewise, lack of abdominal mutilation is certainly not enough to cancel her out. One of the problems with such a debate is that everyone is fixated on ONE THING - the medical evidence. There's so much more to look at than that. But in the end, it still comes down to personal perception. It was the same in 1888 and roughly 95% of professional opinion fell on the side of her being a Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I think they would have frowned upon solicitation as a group, and because of their youthfulness and ideologies, would have frowned upon servants in general.

Mike

They frowned upon solicitation only in the sense that they preached 'free love'. As for frowning upon servants, there's no indication of that. Again, they had servants in the club.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

strangling

Hello Jon.

"I can understand a man carrying a garotte, and then garotting his victim. I can also understand a man carrying a gun, then shooting his victim. So what kind of man arms himself with a knife, but waste's time and effort in strangling his victim?"

Delighted that we FINALLY get to this question.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

insanus

Hello Christer.

"Killing Nichols in Bucks Row while workmen were on their way to work."

Definitely NOT what a sane man would do.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Mr Wynne E Baxter

"but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful"

Says it all really. No ordinary murder.

You are aware that the individual above had no idea how Liz Stride got to where she was killed, why she was there, or who killed her....that a single cut of a single artery is unlike 2 deep cuts that almost sever the head...the daring defiance of immediate detection???...yeah, it says it all....it says the quote above came from someone who despite not knowing for certain the answers to the questions he was asked chose to offer definitive responses anyway.

There is one cut....and there is no-one alive today who knows how Liz got into the passageway, why she was there, and who she met there...but some people like to buy into the definitive natures of statements as proof they must be logical and accurate. Like when people read internal memo support for Israel...despite knowing that he....or his story.....were never mentioned at the Inquest.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn,

Apart from his proven track record in working quickly and effectively with a knife before disappearing without trace?

There is even less to implicate anyone else on the planet at the time.

Love,

Caz
X

Are you aware Caz just how many crimes were committed with knives during that Fall,.... prior to, and after? Since you categorize Jack the Ripper as a throat cutter I suppose all the rest of the crimes with knives are just committed by Knife Wielders....but people shown knives by a possible assailant, men that cut women with knives, stabs in the throat, 39 stabs to the body, suicides with knives.....its clearly evident that by far the predominant weapons used in street assaults and domestic attacks were knives and household implements. The cheapest and easiest to obtain.

There are crimes which are obviously different than the ones above...crimes where the murder victim is mutilated after the kill.

Throat slitting isnt a category unto itself, Assaults using Knives would be with Cutting of the Throat as a sub-category...knives were used to stab and slice and do a number of nasty things...like slice noses. And to cut throats. But Murder then Mutilation would be a standalone category...rare and unusual, and having nothing in common with the murder of Elizabeth Stride.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Caz
What the evidence supports is a throat-cutting on the one hand, and a more extensive throat-cutting with extensive evisceration/mutilation on the other. Can we legitimately classify Jack as a "mere" throat-cutter?

Its nice to have a fresh voice, a seasoned one, ask why we would ever consider the killer of Polly and Annie a mere throat cutter. Nice to see you again as well Sam.

Best regards