The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[curious4]

Thanks for those clarifications Mariab and I don't disagree with any of them..........some don't buy the chokehold and slice theory for Stride although I think the gentlemen you mentioned offered convincing arguments........I'm confused about the whole Stride affair quite frankly...

I'm not sure about street fights for the chokehold but army absolutely........and I wonder how many of the top suspects had some military training........?

I know Chapman had neck bruises that indicated a chokehold of some sort.....not sure about Stride......and chokeholds don't necessarily leave
marks as a full scale stranguation certainly would....

Greg

"There were two distinct bruises, each of the size of the top of a man´s thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest" -Dr Philips at the inquest on Annie Chapman. Not talking about bruises caused by chokehold necessarily, just that both women had bruising on the chest by the collar-bone.

C4

[GregBaron]

yes Kidney indeed....

Thanks Pirate Jack, yes I did mean Kidney.....

I did read Tom Westcott's article some time ago and found it very compelling.....

I think C4 has a good point about the bruising if in fact a chokehold
might leave such marks........

Semantics can be a quagmire certainly...


Greg

[GregBaron]

Good points........

Thanks for those clarifications Mariab and I don't disagree with any of them..........some don't buy the chokehold and slice theory for Stride although I think the gentlemen you mentioned offered convincing arguments........I'm confused about the whole Stride affair quite frankly...

I'm not sure about street fights for the chokehold but army absolutely........and I wonder how many of the top suspects had some military training........?

I know Chapman had neck bruises that indicated a chokehold of some sort.....not sure about Stride......and chokeholds don't necessarily leave
marks as a full scale stranguation certainly would....

Greg

[Jeff Leahy]

C4,

It seems to me that Liz’s throat wounds would be counter to a chokehold and then slicing scenario. I think others also in the past have suggested Liz had previous bruising perhaps from Kelly giving her a beating………?

Greg

I think you mean Kidney? You should check out Tom Wescotts examiner feature on that.

Pirate

[curious4]

I would say that Phillips just meant he had looked at the discolouration again twice after he first saw it.

We-ell, why? Did he think it might go away? I feel very sure that he used the word "since" meaning previously and was referring to the two previous murders.
But to (miss)quote Browning, at the time Phillips and God knew what he meant - now God only knows!

But if he did mean previously it adds strength to the case that Liz was a Ripper victim.
Cheers,
C4

[mariab]

I would say that Phillips just meant he had looked at the discolouration again twice after he first saw it.

Do you mean that Dr. Phillips' comment refers to the fact that Stride's bruises on both shoulders possibly materialized postmortem?

As for linguistics, the one that surprised me is Victorian officials using the word “kudos“.

With apologies for contributing to the highjacking of the thread.

[mariab]

I too have often wondered about what Curious is quoting about Dr. Phillips having noticed bruising similar to the ones on Stride's both shoulders on two previous occasions, and if this pertains to the other Ripper murders.

The chokehold was discussed in detail in past forums. I found it fascinating and wondered where one would learn such a thing?, especially, for example, a low class Polish Jew.

I don't endorse the theory of the Polish Jew, but my answer to your question would be obvious: street fights and the army.

It seems to me that Liz’s throat wounds would be counter to a chokehold and then slicing scenario.

Not at all. Tom Wescott in The Berner Street mystery Part 2 in Ripper Notes #27 presents a very plausible scenario for chokehold and slicing, and Don Souden in Suede and the Ripper (unfortunately I don't have the reference to which Ripperologist issue this article appeared) makes a case of how the cuts to the throat of all the Ripper slayings are essentially not dissimilar.

I think others also in the past have suggested Liz had previous bruising perhaps from Kelly giving her a beating………?

Bruising of the shoulders would not have come from a beating. A beating would have left bruises on the face too. Stride was not exactly living a sedentary life, so this bruising might have come from any number of encounters with a john, on the evening of September 30 or a day or two earlier. (Bruises take about 48 hours to form, depending on how deep the heamatoma goes and how much body fat the person in question carries.)

[Chris]

No linguists out there? I was SO looking forward to arguing this point!

I would say that Phillips just meant he had looked at the discolouration again twice after he first saw it.

[curious4]

C4,

The chokehold was discussed in detail in past forums. I found it fascinating and wondered where one would learn such a thing?, especially, for example, a low class Polish Jew.

Also, in the past some very detailed discussions have ensued on how Stride was off-ed. I believe a grabbing of the scarf while garroting and slicing across the neck from left to right as she fell to the ground was the general idea. It seems different than the chokehold, lying down and then savagely slicing the throat completely threw either once or twice as appeared to happen to Chapman and others.

Your point about language change is well taken. When I think of stout today I think of a polite way of saying fat…I agree that since probably means previously as well.

It seems to me that Liz’s throat wounds would be counter to a chokehold and then slicing scenario. I think others also in the past have suggested Liz had previous bruising perhaps from Kelly giving her a beating………?

Greg

Hello Greg,

Perhaps by reading the book lol? I believe I`ve read somewhere that the throat wound would disguise any strangulation marks? If she passed out, (and she wouldn´t have been able to cry out) she could be lowered to the ground and he could get on with his "work". Do we assume that the man who threw her to the ground was her killer? Would she then get up and follow him through the passage in the house and out to the backyard? Or was she rendered unconscious and dragged through (difficult to do silently).

She was reported to have had healing sores on her body, can´t remember anything about old bruises, but perhaps I`m wrong.

Regards,
C4

[GregBaron]

Chokehold......nah

C4,

The chokehold was discussed in detail in past forums. I found it fascinating and wondered where one would learn such a thing?, especially, for example, a low class Polish Jew.

Also, in the past some very detailed discussions have ensued on how Stride was off-ed. I believe a grabbing of the scarf while garroting and slicing across the neck from left to right as she fell to the ground was the general idea. It seems different than the chokehold, lying down and then savagely slicing the throat completely threw either once or twice as appeared to happen to Chapman and others.

Your point about language change is well taken. When I think of stout today I think of a polite way of saying fat…I agree that since probably means previously as well.

It seems to me that Liz’s throat wounds would be counter to a chokehold and then slicing scenario. I think others also in the past have suggested Liz had previous bruising perhaps from Kelly giving her a beating………?

Greg

[curious4]

Hallo all,

Dr Phillips states at the inquest on Liz Stride: "Over both shoulders, especially the right and under the collar bone and in front of the chest there was a blueish discolouration, which I have watched and seen on two occasions since".

I have always believed Dr Phillips used the word "since" in the sense of "previously" - that is, he noticed bruising on the chest of Liz Stride and had seen this on two previous occasions. There is evidence that the word since was used in this way in The Lancet, Vol 2, Nov 16 1844, I quote;"first perceived palpitation..... about eight years since".

If this bruising was found on previous JTR victims (it is also mentioned in his statement at the inquest of Annie Chapman) it follows, I believe, that Liz was one of his victims.

Just stirring things up a little,
C4

Hallo again,

No linguists out there? I was SO looking forward to arguing this point! I think perhaps we pay too little attention to how the meanings of words have changed in the last 150 years or so. If we are to rely on newspaper reports, doctors´ reports, witness statements etc, shouldn´t we be aware of this?
"Stout", by the way, originally meant healthy, able-bodied.

If we are to confine ourselves to cutting of throats, strangulation and so on, could Jack have used what Henry Mayhew calls in his book "garotting"? That is an arm round the throat, with a hand across the back of the neck, more pressure being applied if the victim struggled and resulting in loss of consciousness. Quick, quiet and effective.

Greetings,
C4

[Jeff Leahy]

Mr. Leahy, you (as we all) don't KNOW at all what Dr. Blackwell exactly said to the Star reporter. The only people to have known this with accuracy is Dr. Blackwell and the journalist in question, and they're both dead. I assume. ;-).

Yes I think it safe to assume at least that?

The casebook starts the Star article with this statement:

The next say the Star published a statement Dr. Blackwell had made to the press:

When where or how that Statement was made I assume is unknown.

"At about ten minutes past one I was called to 40, Berner-street by a policeman, where I found a woman who had been murdered. Her head had been almost severed from her body. She could not have been dead more than twenty minutes, the body being perfectly warm. The woman did not appear to be a Jewess, but more like an Irishwoman. I roughly examined her, and found no other injuries, but this I cannot definitely state until I have made a further investigation of the body. She had on a black velvet jacket and black dress of different material. In her hand she held a box of cachous, whilst pinned in her dress was a flower. I should say that as the woman had held sweets in her left hand that her head was dragged back by means of a silk handkerchief she wore round her neck, and her throat was then cut. One of her hands, too, was smeared with blood, so she may have used this in her rapid struggle. I have no doubt that, the woman's windpipe being completely cut through, she was unable to make any sound. I might say it does not follow that the murderer would be bespattered with blood, for as he is sufficiently cunning in other things he could contrive to avoid coming in contact with the blood by reaching well forward."

Personally I cant see any particular evidence that the story contains glaring inaccuracies, not compared with some of the stuff in the Irish Times.

If Blackwell made it before making a thorough examination of the body it could just be a figure of speech depending on your view of the term 'Almost'.

Personally I have no problem in taking into account people speaking and phrazing things differently in a court room environment.

Precisely. As usual, Hunter comes forward with an informed and accurate post. As for the Rose Mylett controversy, there is an old casebook thread, as well as a thread about a similar controversy with Dr. Bond, where things got also pretty heated in the discussion.

And the “black vessels being severed“ explanation by Chris Phillips could explain the Dr. Blackwell quote having been augmented by the Star for sheer sensationalism, which is nothing new in journalism.

Possibly?

personally I think we should be careful of drawing to many speculative conclusions. Just because you find one factual error or exaggerated piece of reporting its dangerous to conclude everything in the press is so. To many variables.

Everything should be judged on individual merit.

Pirate

PS Stewart your free to report me. What your going to complain about however, considering you were in error? I have no idea.

[Stewart P Evans]

Idiot

Are you just being deliberately dense this morning?
...
Pirate

Can't anyone do anything about this idiot?

[mariab]

Thats probably because I am not.

Oh, OK. Good to know. And good about the blue skies vs. blackened by vulcano smoke in the UK. :-)

I've simply pointed out that he gave a statement to the press and thats what he said..... (...) But thats what he said. As apposed to: He never said that. Why he choose to use those words is a matter of debate which I'm welcome to speculate on with you. However all I'm saying is that's what the Star report says. Which it does.

Mr. Leahy, you (as we all) don't KNOW at all what Dr. Blackwell exactly said to the Star reporter. The only people to have known this with accuracy is Dr. Blackwell and the journalist in question, and they're both dead. I assume. ;-)

We don't know if Blackwell said that to a Star reporter or not. It could have been embellished by the reporter. During the Mylett case, The Star approached Dr. Phillips about his opinion on her death. Even though they virtually had the door slammed in their face, they still went on and published what they proclaimed as Dr. Phillips' opinion on the matter by inferring that they had a secondary source. In other words, the Star put words in Phillips' mouth anyway.

Precisely. As usual, Hunter comes forward with an informed and accurate post. As for the Rose Mylett controversy, there is an old casebook thread, as well as a thread about a similar controversy with Dr. Bond, where things got also pretty heated in the discussion.

And the “black vessels being severed“ explanation by Chris Phillips could explain the Dr. Blackwell quote having been augmented by the Star for sheer sensationalism, which is nothing new in journalism.

[Chris]

We don't know if Blackwell said that to a Star reporter or not. It could have been embellished by the reporter.

Surely if Blackwell said to the reporter that anything had been "almost severed," it would have been the blood vessels, not her head - considering that the blood vessels (on one side) had been almost severed, and the head hadn't been anything like severed.

If only we could assume "a newspaper said it, so it must be true," how easy Ripper research would be!