The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[kensei]

Just thought I'd chime in here, and mention how the witnesses in the Stride and Eddowes murders- Schwartz and Lawende- both described a man of about 30 years old with fair hair and a moustache, from five-five to five-nine in height, wearing a dark coat and a peaked cap. Slight differences, sure, such as Lawende describing the coat as "salt and pepper" rather than just "dark." But all in all, the descriptions seem awfully similar. Add to that Elizabeth Long's description of the suspect in the Chapman killing- again fairly short at no more than five and a half feet tall, with a dark coat and deerstalker cap- and I tend to think we are looking at the outfit Jack the Ripper usually wore when doing his work in all three cases and that he was not a large man. For what it's worth. (Of course though, it could be argued that any number of men out and about in Whitechapel fit that description at any given time.)

[DVV]

Hi Hunter

An even earlier example lies within two of the key figures in the investigation, Dr. Phillips and his assistant Percy Clark. They entertained doubts about even five of the murders being committed by one had and, although its not completely clear as to which ones that they considered weren't, it would be a safe bet that they were doubtful about Stride.

"Phillips saw less evidence of medical expertise in the Eddowes murder than in that of Annie Chapman and for this reason was inclined to the belief that these crimes had been done by different men." (Sugden)

All the best

[Hunter]

Thank you David, that's right... and I believe there was a contemporary press report that stated such too. Personally, I put little faith in contemporary press statements about Dr. Phillips. He was a 'company man' to the extent that he divulged little information publicly. His reluctance to describe the mutilations at the Chapman inquest and Clark's own statements, in 1910, about him suggest anything the press claimed came from Phillips was probably rumor. The Star tried to interview Phillips after the Mylett incident and Phillips pretty much slammed the door in their face. That didn't stop the Star from putting words into his mouth anyway through 'proxy'. Their credibility through the whole series has to be suspect.

Phillips is a fascinating man. It is a shame that most of his autopsy reports are missing, because when one looks at his report on the murder of Alice McKenzie he was very thorough. He even made mention of McKenzie having hemorrhoids. He viewed the medical evidence literally; noting any dissemilarities between the conditions of the victims for comparison. He's been misunderstood by many modern students because of this, but that was his job. He felt that any extenuating circumstances that may link the murders in some other way was the job of the police detectives to evaluate and ascertain. He was only to provide analysis of the forensics to help in that evaluation.

Thus, in Stride's case, he has been misunderstood concerning his testimony about the type of knife the killer may have used; compounded by the discussion in the same sequence about the knife found by Mr. Coran in Commercial Rd. He merely expressed his opinion on the difficulty involving the use of certain types of knives to impliment the cut in Stride's throat, given her position on her left side and that the cut had originated from that side of the throat; that the injury to Stride's throat was 'dissimilar' that that of Chapman is obviously true.

The same goes with the mutilations inflicted upon Kate Eddowes as compaired to those of Dark Annie. Chapman's uterus was extracted by a wedge cut (imagine cutting out a chunk of apple) which suggested some knowledge, to him, that the killer knew how to effectively and quickly perform such an extraction. Of course, the killer may have had better light to see by than was the case with Eddowes. The extraction in Eddowes case, indeed, apperared more sloppy. The labia was peeled back and the killer apparently tried to dig the uterus out with the point of the knife... and the rupture of the colon was not experienced in Chapman's case.

He was the only physician that could make a comparison and Brown was wise in consulting him. Still, despite the differences, the fact that the uterus was removed in both cases (and later with Mary Kelly) displays a connection in the series that was truely unique.

Clark explained that one of the reasons they were reluctant to make the details of the mutilations public was fear of a copy-cat and he seems to relay that one of the murders may have been so. They were all treading new ground here... really not understanding the nature of an individual who could do such a thing or the fact that copy-cat murders of this magnitude have proven to be exceedingly rare.

They were probably closer to being correct with the McKensie murder as it appeared more like a half-hearted attempt to replicate the previous ones and much more time had expired to motivate someone to try it.

[Hunter]

Perhaps you are thinking about, When London Walked in Terror, Edwin T. Woodhall, 1937.
Woodhall also included Stride as a Ripper victim, but he thought the series began with Martha Turner.

Yes, Jon, that is the book I was thinking about.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Wickerman]

... But all in all, the descriptions seem awfully similar. Add to that Elizabeth Long's description of the suspect in the Chapman killing- again fairly short at no more than five and a half feet tall, with a dark coat and deerstalker cap-...

And lets not forget, Long added, "he was a man over 40, as far as I could tell".
Lawende's suspect looked about 30 yrs old, so if you prefer to think her estimate of age is explainable and a deerstalker could be mistaken for a 'sailor's cap', and he simply had a different coat that day.

Perhaps we are relying too much on Long's identification of Chapman's body. Maybe the woman wasn't Chapman at all, afterall, it is also a fact that women dressed very similar, especially when only wearing dark clothing.
The body in the mortuary was not clothed, it was just a body in a sheet, was it not? Didn't Long make her statement & identification some four days later?

If she was correct all along about the time (5:30am, by the Brewers Clock) then it is also possible that the couple she saw were not 'Jack & Annie' at all.
It is not uncommon for witnesses to try to inject themselves into the scene to a greater extent than the truth will allow.

Long did not know Annie Chapman, yet after one fleeting glimps (no reason to pay specific attention that morning), Long claimed this face on the mortuary table is the woman she saw, I have some doubt.
Very possibly what we have here is one of those moments in time where we realize our "15 minutes of fame" if I say "yes, that was her".

regards, Jon S.

[Stewart P Evans]

Edwin T. Woodhall

Yes, Jon, that is the book I was thinking about.
Thanks for the clarification.

When London Walked in Terror is hardly a major Ripper book, nor is it a serious one. It is a pulp paper covered publication containing much fiction.

Woodhall's writings on the Ripper should not be taken seriously and he had a whole chapter espousing the R. J. Lees theory in his Crime and the Supernatural, London, John Long, 1935 (see below).

However, his Secrets of Scotland Yard, London, The Bodley Head, 1936 is a much better, and more factual, book and one of the earliest to identify Swanson as heading up the Ripper investigation.

[lynn cates]

inquest

Hello All. There still seems to be discussion about the Schwartz story and why he was not called to the inquest. A snippet from "The Star" for October 2 may help explain that.

"In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story."

If "The Star" is correct in their assessment, perhaps that is why he was not called.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Thank you, Stewart for sharing that information about Woodhall.

Hi Lynn,

The Star was not correct in their assessment.

[curious4]

Murder of Elizabeth Stride

What this means to me is that JTR was extremely sure of himself and for once miscalculated. The savagery of the attack on poor Catherine Eddowes indicates a killer who has been frustrated in his first attempt of the night. If I remember correctly her (LS`s) throat was cut in the same way as all the others which indicates that this would have been a fullblown attack if he had not been interrupted.

Best wishes,
C4

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello C4.

"her (LS`s) throat was cut in the same way as all the others"

Not quite. Polly and Annie were deep and the bone was notched. There were also 2 cuts in their cases. Kate was deep and the cartilage was cut--no vertebral notching; no second cut. Liz's cut was not as deep as the other 3.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Elixabeth Stride

Hello Lynn,
Always put that down to him being interrupted - only had time for one cut.
Best regards,
C4

[Hunter]

Hi Curious,

Its good to get your thoughts. Many folks believe in the interruption theory. The idea has been around since the day of the murders. Other plausable theories have emerged since then. Most of them hinge on how many killers one thinks was out that night.

Lynn is correct about the injuries to the victims he mentioned. He noted that Catherine Eddowes' throat was also cut once - just as Stride's was - only deeper... and certainly her murderer did quite a lot after that.

[Wickerman]

Kate was deep and the cartilage was cut--no vertebral notching; no second cut.LC

I have to take issue with that Lynn, how do we interpret a 'superficial cut' which extends across the throat yet runs deep enough to cut the bone?

I think two cuts are described...

[Hunter]

From Dr. Brown's written statement in the inquest reports:

"The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe and about 2 1/2 inches behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear. The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side - the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed - the larynx was severed below the vocal chords. All deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages - the sheath of the vessels onthe right side was just opened. The carotid artery had a fine hole opening. The internal jugular vein was opened an inch and a half not divided. The blood vessels contained clot. All of these injuries were performed by a sharp instrument like a knife and pointed..."

Brown is describing the injuries made by one cut - in detail. The 'superficial cut' was where it 'commenced'; naturally getting deeper as the blade swept across. The sentance could have been better framed.

[lynn cates]

superficial

Hello Wickerman. I trust you are not attributing "superficial" to me. If my memory serves, that was an adjective used primarily with McKenzie.

I think you will find that Kate had one cut to the throat.

Incidentally, if you like to explain oddities, you will note that Nicholls had her abdominal cuts moving downwards whereas Eddowes had her abdominal mutilation moving upwards. Hard for me to imagine such. (To catch my meaning, try stooping on, say, one knee around the right side of the waist of a lady friend/significant other. Now, with a make believe knife, etc., try making the motions drawing upwards. Very unnatural feeling, eh?)

Cheers.
LC