Did jack kill liz stride?

[lynn cates]

retreat

Hello Caroline.

". . . which in turn was a means of removing organs . . . "

Go back one step. Thank you.

Cheers.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Caz

Firstly, Jack was a man. Secondly, he was a killer who carried a lethally sharp knife and could use it effectively, in conjunction with overpowering his selected victim with apparent ease.

Thirdly, 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.

look at the murders attributed to Peter Sutcliffe and ask yourself if we can legitimately classify him as a "mere" Yorkshire Ripper, a "mere" hammer wielder, a "mere" screwdriver thruster

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.

Apropos Sutcliffe, one could think of him as a "mere" murderer... which is about as close a parallel I can think of to classifying JTR as a "throat-cutter" and leaving it at that. Neither description, of either Ripper, would get us very far.

[Observer]

The voice of wisdom

"Throat cutting was not all that uncommon"

Indeed not . However.


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.

[Sam Flynn]

Mr Wynne E Baxter

Says it all really. No ordinary Coroner But, seriously...

"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..."

I'm not so sure that any of those comments could seriously be applied to the Stride murder. I'm not convinced that her killer exhibited "the same daring defiance of immediate detection", either. According to one popular theory, he seems to have shot out of the blocks - nondum satiatus - on the "c" of a pony's "clop".

[Sam Flynn]

Hello again, Caz

If Jack only ever cut throats as a means of getting inside a woman's abdomen, which in turn was a means of removing organs, what went wrong in Buck's Row? How likely is it that Jack the Organ Finder was having a night in, while a "mere" throat-cutting abdomen slasher was abroad in Whitechapel?

Very unlikely, but at least we're on safer ground with Jack the Organ Finder and Jack the Abdomen Slasher. NB: I deliberately didn't say "Jack the Throat-Cutting Abdomen Slasher" - that'd be cheating. Besides, who's to say that Jack the Organ Finder wasn't a throat-cutter as well? Given throat-cutting's comparative popularity as a means of dispatch, I wouldn't be surprised if he was.

[Fisherman]

Great to see you out here, Sam, if I may say that.

Of course you are totally correct - a cut throat is not enough to stamp "Ripper" on a murder, not in 1888, not even in the approximately correct vicinity and of course not as a result of the victim´s background either.

Stride was always the weak link in the canonical chain. I do, however, believe she was Jack´s work, but that has other reasons than the ones mentioned.

Once again, I´m very pleased to see you on the discussion boards again!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Says it all really. No ordinary Coroner But, seriously...
I'm not so sure that any of those comments could seriously be applied to the Stride murder. I'm not convinced that her killer exhibited "the same daring defiance of immediate detection", either. According to one popular theory, he seems to have shot out of the blocks - nondum satiatus - on the "c" of a pony's "clop".

Hi Sam

Baxter was just misunderstood!

It's a matter of opinion I suppose. However, again, I can not disagree with the points Baxter made with regard to the circumstances surrounding the murder of Liz Stride. Apart from the mutilations, the method employed to dispatch Liz Stride, are very similar to those in which Nichols, and Chapman met their ends.

Lets assume the interruption theory correct. Would you not concede that the successful evasion tactics used by the murderer shows a clever

Baxter again

"defiance of immediate detection,"

Of course, our murderer was a lucky chappy throughout the series. Any one of the seventeen individuals inhabiting 29 Hanbury Street going into the backyard while he was at work. Killing Nichols in Bucks Row while workmen were on their way to work.

Speaking as a layman, going by what I've read on the subject, there's seems to have been quite large amounts of people on the streets of the East End at all hours of the night, and early morning. Interruption was out of his control surely?

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

I do, however, believe she was Jack´s work, but that has other reasons than the ones mentioned.

Don't be shy Fisherman. What are the other reasons?

Regards

Observer

[Fisherman]

Observer:

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

Or AS a workman on his way to work ...

Speaking as a layman, going by what I've read on the subject, there's seems to have been quite large amounts of people on the streets of the East End at all hours of the night, and early morning. Interruption was out of his control surely?

I think you are right and wrong here - interruption would have been out of his control. But what large amounts of people do we speak of on these streets? The police and watchmen in the vicinity of Buck´s Row all said that the streets were empty, more or less, Hutchinson admitted to seeing very few people during his Dorset Street vigil, Halse ran around in Middlesex Street and Wentworth street after the Eddowes murder, only meeting two men on his way.

I don´t think there were many people moving about at that time at all.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. The other reasons? The usual ones; the ones I am not supposed to shove down people´s throats, y´a know. Not that I care the slightest about that.

[Observer]

Hi Fisherman

As I said, speaking as a layman. Perhaps large amounts of people wandering about was going a little too far. However, coffee stalls, homeless people, who were constantly moved on by the copper's on the beat, night watchmen. Workers started work much earlier then they do today, Mr Lechmere, and Paul being examples. Market pubs had virtually a 24 hour license. You get the idea.

Regards

Observer

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

As I said, speaking as a layman. Perhaps large amounts of people wandering about was going a little too far. However, coffee stalls, homeless people, who were constantly moved on by the copper's on the beat, night watchmen. Workers started work much earlier then they do today, Mr Lechmere, and Paul being examples. Market pubs had virtually a 24 hour license. You get the idea.

Regards

Observer

I get the idea, Observer - but I find it more of just that - an idea - than an actual truth.
I suspect that there would have been marked differences inbetween Whitechapel Street and Buck´s Row, as an example. Then again, Wentworth Street and Middlesex Street were no smallish streets, but Halse found himself pretty much alone on them just the same, didn´t he?

In the end, it was of course the relative emptyness of the streets that allowed for the Ripper to do what he did. On the other hand, we don´t know whether he was looking for risks or if he actually tried his best to avoid them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon
Perhaps so, but (to extend my earlier point) I'd no more refer to JTR as a "strangler" than I'd refer to him as a "throat-cutter". He may have done both those things, but so have many others since time immemorial....

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?

There is something to be gained by holding the life of another person in your hands - literally, that sense of power and control.
And, apparently, this is what he did.
The knife was just a means towards an end - the thrill was the sensation of dominance when you have another by the throat and what happens next, and when, is entirely up to you.

[Observer]

On the other hand, we don´t know whether he was looking for risks or if he actually tried his best to avoid them.

The best,
Fisherman

That's true. I believe the urge to kill overrode any fear of being caught though.

Regards

Observer

[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

[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