Liz Stride Re-Enactment

[DVV]

That is some truly slopping thinking. Are there not other reasons people end up with slit throats besides rage? What specifically about the Stride wound package says rage? I understand that YOUR interpretation is rage, but that is your interpretation and it far from born out in the factual evidence. Dave

Slopping thinking ?

Wait.....I'm damn sure Fish will reply ! and there will be blood on the walls !

Amitiés
David

[protohistorian]

for Fisherman

One self raged old lady, it is sooooo obvious. Dave

[mariab]

Did Victorian asylums/hospitals allow knifes at the meals administered? She might have gotten the knife (perhaps even stolen it) from her son.

[protohistorian]

Perhaps Maria. More importantly for our purposes we must acknowledge she was clearly self enraged by Fisherman standards. Because according to him, a slit throat is a clear indicator of rage. Dave

[mariab]

I agree that sometimes Fish's thought process tends to be a bit sloppy. (For which he'll probably attempt to slit my throat when he wakes up and sees this in the morning, but as I intend to get up from my 'sickbed' tomorrow and take care of errands, I won't be available so much on casebook. Which is probably a sane thing.)

[protohistorian]

Well Maria, Fisherman seems like a stand up guy. There need not be any animosity. We all have ungrounded interpretations and we should be thankful when someone points them out. Our conceptional accuracy depends on this very process, and holding any animosity against it is childish, and I believe below Fisherman's expectations of himself. If I got angry every time someone demonstrated how I was wrong I would end up in a Hitler like fury in about a week. Dave

[mariab]

I fully agree with what you're saying. Still, I fully expect Fish to have an enraged response tomorrow (until he calms back down, that is).

[protohistorian]

I hope not. I think Fisherman has been around long enough to know the boards work better sans vitriol. Dave

[mariab]

Amen to that for all Ripperologists. (Although I must admit I enjoy a good fight. If with the right person...) But the most fun is watching 2 others going at it. As once Pirate Jack put it: “I love watching you girls hit each other on the head with your handbags“.)

[protohistorian]

...and that's what Jerry Springer and professional wrestling are for. Dave

[mariab]

I have to confess I've never watched Jerry Springer. Still, certain exchanges on casebook have been known to have been kind of similar to mud-wrestling. Entertaining for the (uninvolved) reader, but probably painful for the participants.

[Fisherman]

Morning, Dave!

It´s always nice to wake up and find that you are being called "sloppy" on the boards! In this case the sloppyness would come from my connecting a slit throat to a possible rage.
And why did I do that? I did that because it was stated that there were no signs of rage in Dutfield´s yard. That, to me, is a possibly very misleading description when we have a woman lying in it with a slit throat. That emphatically means that there may well have been rage exhibited!

In my former post to you, Dave, I wrote:

"Rage, Dave, does not predispose any certain length of time to perform it, nor does it crave specific amounts of physical violence. Cutting the throat of Elizabeth Stride may well have been the most enraged thing her killer ever did."

..and if you cannot accept that the cutting may have come about as the result of rage, then your criticism is justified.
If the wound could only have been inflicted cooly and calmly, then you should call me sloppy.
But I somehow sense that such a thing would be very hard to prove. And to try and do so by posting an article about a woman who committed suicide by cutting her throat...? That is nothing but sheer stupidity and something you should avoid if you feel like being taken seriously henceforth.
People may be shot in a rage, and other people shooting themselves do not disprove that, Dave.
People may be pushed in front of a train in rage, and they may step out in front of that train by their own free will, and if you can tell which of these people were killed by rage by looking at the damages, then I once again back off and tell you that you were correct from the outset. If not, it suddenly becomes the other way around.

Things like these are what you need to get a grip on before you start calling your fellow posters sloppy, Dave. It will backfire otherwise, which you will know by now: that was the loud bang you just heard.

your sloppy friend,
Fisherman

[protohistorian]

Good Morning Fisherman, If I have this right you are saying there is no way to be certain that rage was present in the Stride event? On this we agree, the physical evidence cannot support that conclusion. I was under the impression you were claiming there is something specific in the Stride wound descriptions that merits a conclusion of rage, which is why I posted an article with similar wounds to demonstrate that any such inference is not evidentiary in nature. I apologize sir, calling you sloppy was not one of my better moments as it turns out that my dumb ass misread what your inference was. I am sorry. Dave

[Fisherman]

No hard feelings, Dave! I think most of us will sometimes read things into posts that are not there, due to our own sentiments. It´s more or less unavoidable, I guess, but long as we can sort it out afterwards to everybody´s mutual liking it may perhaps have a productive edge to it too.

That said, it should be added that keeping all the hundreds of books, thousands of articles and essays and millions of posts written on the Ripper, it would be very strange if one did not slip up now and then. I, at least, reserve myself the right to do so in the future too, as I certainly have done in the past, and I rely on you and the rest of my fellow posters to put me back on the right track when it happens!

And yes, you have me exactly right when you say that there is no proof of rage in the Stride killing, just as it cannot be disproven that there was!

All the best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

Wakey-wakey, Fish, you sloppy one you.