The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[Wickerman]

Hunter.
I am well aware of the traditional interpretation, but all cuts begin by 'just breaking the skin' (superficial). So what I am suggesting is that we may have assumed wrongly that there was only one cut.

That Dr Brown was actually describing a superficial cut from end to end, and then subsequent deeper wounds.

Dr Brown's original observations (C. L. R. O. No. 135) on the wounds to the throat are not given in one continuous sentence, but comprise of individual statements broken by hyphens.

The press reports, and subsequently most authors, tend to leave out the hyphens, as a result Brown's observations are merged together as if in one continuous sentence.

Foster's drawing also shows two diagonal cuts.



I don't think we can so readily dismiss the possibility of two cuts being described.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

Now, with a make believe knife, etc., try making the motions drawing upwards. Very unnatural feeling, eh?)

No, not at all... that's the way game is field dressed... with a real knife.

In that manner, the blade is turned up to keep from cutting the intestines.

[Tom_Wescott]

'There is not a shred of evidence to support the belief that Elizabeth Stride was murdered by the Ripper...The murder of Stride was a coincidence and, merely because her body was found in a yard, both Press and public jumped to the conclusion that both this murder and that of Eddows...was the work of the Ripper.' (William Stewart, 1939).

I opened my essay 'Exonerating Michael Kidney' with this quote and pointed out that William Stewart discounted Stride as a Ripper victim based on the mistaken notion that her killer was left-handed, whereas the other victims were slain by a right-handed man. The tradition of discounting Stride based on a string of misunderstanding, sloppy research, and poor sourcing is continued by modern writers. Of particular nuisance is the idea that Michael Kidney killed Stride. These were the reasons I wrote 'Exonerating', which is the only essay I've written that I consider a 'must read'. I was told it was added to the Dissertation section here for everyone to read, but I don't see it on there.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
__________________

[Stewart P Evans]

Similarity

The Coroner - 'Was there any other similarity between this and Chapman's case?'

Dr. Phillips - 'There is a great dissimilarity. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertical bone being marked, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones.'

[mariab]

The Coroner - 'Was there any other similarity between this and Chapman's case?'
Dr. Phillips - 'There is a great dissimilarity. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertical bone being marked, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones.'

This is quoted a lot by those not willing to consider Stride as a canonical.
And yet, it was Eddowes who was not considered a Ripper victim by another doctor (can't check right now who it was, as I'm at the Copenhagen airport, waiting for a connecting flight).

[Stewart P Evans]

'Canonical'

This is quoted a lot by those not willing to consider Stride as a canonical.
...

'...those not willing to consider Stride as a canonical.'

I do hope that description is not being applied to me. No one should be unwilling to consider any sensible or viable option with regard to the identity of a possible murderer. 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.

But we are studying a series of unsolved murders here, and unsolved means we have no identified offender(s). Thus each should be looked at individually and as committed by an unknown offender. 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.

[Jeff Leahy]

With that in mind then I'll add this:

Blackwell stated (from memory) that Strides head had been 'almost severed from her body'. I don't think there's any reason to believe that a different knife was used to that used on Eddows. My personal belief is that Nichols and Chapman were cut twice across the throat and Stride and Eddows once. (although I am aware that its possible Stride and Eddows were cut twice also, Bill Beadle making an excellent case for two cuts on Eddows)

However from my research I'd say all the Ripper victims were attacked and strangled from the front. while Stride, alone, appears to have been attacked from behind?

Whether that tells us something about Jack or discounts Stride as a ripper victim, I'm uncertain.

But if it was jack then we are dealing with a killer who changes his MO.

Yours Pirate

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.'

[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