The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[mariab]

I keep an open mind on all the victims and I am unable to say positively which ones fell to a common hand. I have stated in the past that purely on MO my opinion was that I feel that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes almost certainly fell to the same hand, whereas alternative arguments could be more strongly made in the cases of Stride and Kelly.

Yes, that's pretty much what I was expecting of you to say, and I understand your reservations pertaining to Stride and Kelly.
In all humility, might I say that I consider even Tabram, Annie Millwood, and possibly Emma Smith as early attempts? This killer learned somewhere, he didn't go from being a law-abiding citizen to an assailant experienced in quick silencing and effective throat-cutting.

[Stewart P Evans]

Evidence

...
Quote C.D.:
I think that we need to keep in mind that these doctors were giving their evidence at inquests not at trials. Questions were asked of them but they were not cross examined. We don't know what their opinion would have been had they been asked "did you take into account x when you reached your conclusion" or "were you aware of x" when you formed your opinion.
I think C.D. has a point here, though I must admit that (as expected) my knowledge of inquest vs. trial rules in Victorian England is limited at best.

Evidence given at inquests was of the same quality, given under oath, as that given at trials, other than the fact that the coroner could allow hearsay at an inquest which would be inadmissable in a criminal trial. Inquest witnesses were questioned under oath the same as they would be in a criminal trial.

[Stewart P Evans]

Open mind

...
...
Absolutely NOT, though I've been wondering where you stand on Stride today (in the possibility that you have a different opinion today?).
...

I keep an open mind on all the victims and I am unable to say positively which ones fell to a common hand. I have stated in the past that purely on MO my opinion was that I feel that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes almost certainly fell to the same hand, whereas alternative arguments could be more strongly made in the cases of Stride and Kelly.

[Stewart P Evans]

Silly

Its not a question of not recognising evidence.
But of taking all the evidence into account.
I fail to understand your insistance of ignoring anything but the official reports and statements. Especially in view of the fact that so many of them have been lost or destroyed
Pirate

Now you are being silly and stating an untruth.

The quote that 'her head had been almost severed from her body' is demonstrably wrong, as is proved by the detailed evidence of the neck wound given under oath at the inquest. Ergo you can immediately reject the Star version that her head was nearly severed (having, of course, first read and considered it).

I object to the untruth in your above post about my 'insistance [sic] of ignoring anything but the official reports and statements'. Please apologise and retract that statement.

[mariab]

I apologize for the delayed response, I posted a quick response to Mr. Evans' post from the Copenhagen airport before boarding my plane, but somehow the post got lost in the ether. I'm at home in Berlin now and have continuous internet access.

'...those not willing to consider Stride as a canonical.'
I do hope that description is not being applied to me.

Absolutely NOT, though I've been wondering where you stand on Stride today (in the possibility that you have a different opinion today?).

The use of a description such as 'a canonical' is really bad and should be avoided. The description of 'canonical' victim is of relatively recent invention and should be avoided. It is a lazy way of referring to the generally accepted five victims, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly.

The term “canonical“ has always bothered me (and not just in Ripperology), hence I've been using it in ““.

Once you accept categorically that five murders were committed by one hand you are assuming too much and donning the blinkers. You do not have an open mind. It is fine to state what you may opine to be common victims, and to give reasons. But to claim the offender to be 'Jack the Ripper' without proof is another thing altogether. Let's, please, retain our objectivity.

I very seldom am willing to pronounce things “categorically“. Still, it's a fact that the SOLE discrepancy in the Stride MO is the lack of mutilations, which most plausibly occurred due to the fact that Stride's killer got disturbed/interrupted by Diemshitz and PARTICULARLY by Diemshitz' pony.
(And yes, I know that certain Ripperologists see a reason to suspect that Diemshitz' story was not entirely factual, and that Stride was found by the IWEC members earlier than 1.00 a.m..)

No one is questioning that Chapman's mutilations were quite different from Stride's. Chapman's mutilations were also quite different from Nichols, Eddowes, and Kelly. And Maria, it was Dr. Phillips himself who said that BASED ON MEDICAL EVIDENCE ALONE, he could only say with something approaching certainty that Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly were victims of the same man. At the time of the 'double event' he seems to have honestly felt that Eddowes was the victim of a copy cat, but he would eventually concede that factors surrounding the murders not of a medical nature made it a virtual certainty that all five victims were felled by the same hand.
Dr. Blackwell never stated that Stride's head was almost severed from the body. He noted that her left carotid artery was cut but not severed. Indeed, there is no reason to suppose that Stride and Eddowes were killed with different knives, but likewise no evidentiary reason for us to assume that any two of the women were killed with the same knife.

Agree with every single word, plus the Stride case offers even less evidence, simply due to the fact that she was cut only at the throat, with no further mutilations to compare with the other victims.
And thank you so much, Tom, for reminding me it was Dr. Phillips who considered Eddowes a non Ripper do. In my exhausted/hectic state earlier today I was not sure if it was indeed him. In the coming days I intend to re-read Sugden and the inquests, expecting (actually: knowing from experience) that the different details will register better on every additional run-through.

Quote C.D.:
I think that we need to keep in mind that these doctors were giving their evidence at inquests not at trials. Questions were asked of them but they were not cross examined. We don't know what their opinion would have been had they been asked "did you take into account x when you reached your conclusion" or "were you aware of x" when you formed your opinion.
I think C.D. has a point here, though I must admit that (as expected) my knowledge of inquest vs. trial rules in Victorian England is limited at best.

[Jeff Leahy]

Its not a question of not recognising evidence.

But of taking all the evidence into account.

I fail to understand your insistance of ignoring anything but the official reports and statements. Especially in view of the fact that so many of them have been lost or destroyed

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

All...

Those Pesky Star reports
Taken from a statement given by Dr Blackwell and clearly stating 'her head was almost severed from her body...'
A lagitimate source I believe...and again I don't see it as particularly sensational just in different vocab to the official inquest statement.
Of which I'm also aware.
Pirate

All your response shows is that you would not recognise good evidence if it hit you between the eyes.

[Jeff Leahy]

Those Pesky Star reports

Taken from a statement given by Dr Blackwell and clearly stating 'her head had been almost severed from her body...'

A lagitimate source I believe...and again I don't see it as particularly sensational just in different vocab to the official inquest statement.

Of which I'm also aware.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

There you go...

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

There you go again, quoting those sensational old Star reports.

In sworn testimony at the inquest on 2 October 1888 Blackwell stated, 'There was a check scarf round the neck, the bow of which was turned to the left side and pulled tightly. There was a long incision in the neck, which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The lower edge of the scarf was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife. The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, two and a half inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it. It nearly severed the vessels on the left side, cut the windpipe completely in two, and terminated on the right side one an a half inches below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.'

[c.d.]

I think that we need to keep in mind that these doctors were giving their evidence at inquests not at trials. Questions were asked of them but they were not cross examined. We don't know what their opinion would have been had they been asked "did you take into account x when you reached your conclusion" or "were you aware of x" when you formed your opinion. We also don't really know their qualifications (other than on the surface) to give a qualified opinion.

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

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

"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."

Pirate

[curious4]

Liz Stride: since - later or previously?

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

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

No one is questioning that Chapman's mutilations were quite different from Stride's. Chapman's mutilations were also quite different from Nichols, Eddowes, and Kelly. And Maria, it was Dr. Phillips himself who said that BASED ON MEDICAL EVIDENCE ALONE, he could only say with something approaching certainty that Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly were victims of the same man. At the time of the 'double event' he seems to have honestly felt that Eddowes was the victim of a copy cat, but he would eventually concede that factors surrounding the murders not of a medical nature made it a virtual certainty that all five victims were felled by the same hand.

Dr. Blackwell never stated that Stride's head was almost severed from the body. He noted that her left carotid artery was cut but not severed. Indeed, there is no reason to suppose that Stride and Eddowes were killed with different knives, but likewise no evidentiary reason for us to assume that any two of the women were killed with the same knife.

We don't know that Stride was 'attacked' or 'subdued' in any manner different from the other women. Unfortunately, the doctors could not discover if or how her killer silenced her.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

Ich moechte etwas vorstellen:

In looking at illustrations of the thickness of the human trachea and keeping in mind two things, no arteries were severed, and the trachea was completely severed, I come to the following conclusion: Stride's murderer held onto her scarf because she was trying to get away. His cutting angle from left to right wasn't good because she wasn't in tight proximity. As he began the draw, it was deep enough to damage her, but not deep enough to severe the artery, because he had to reach around while holding her at perhaps forearm's length away. As he pulled across the front, his leverage was better and the blade went deeper, severing the trachea completely.As the blade came to the right side, she wasn't pulling away as much, presumably in shock or reaching up for her throat, and so she was in too close of proximity making the end of the cut too tight for him to do much damage. In short, the only good angle he had was when he got to the front of her throat.

If I am right (and I may be wrong), this looks like a killing that was never concerned with anything more than silencing the woman because she was making a run for it. This means nothing with regards to the murderer being the ripper or not, for any argumend might be (and has been) made for why he would kill this woman. These are the differences I see between Stride's death and others. There was no obvious savagery as if to totally destroy the woman. By cutting completely through the trachea, from an awkward angle, I don't see how someone in a fit of anger or rage, could have failed to cut into the vertebrae.

In conclusion: This was a kill done out of fear and not out of anger, and the immediate termination of a life and the fleeing of the scene were of paramount importance.

Argue please.

Mike

[lynn cates]

enough said

Hell Mr. Evans.

"It is fine to state what you may opine to be common victims, and to give reasons. But to claim the offender to be 'Jack the Ripper' without proof is another thing altogether. Let's, please, retain our objectivity."

Enough said.

Cheers.
LC