The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Jeff Leahy]

Now you are being silly and stating an untruth.

It was you that insinuated that I only gave credence to the Star. Which is as you know untrue.

The quote that 'her head had been almost severed from her body' is demonstrably wrong,
.

Is It? Surely its a quest of interpretation of the word 'ALMOST'

Seems to me Dr Blackwell was describing a fairly hefty gash at the inquest. And one must presume that Dr Blackwell made this press statement before he had done a thorough examination of the corpse. So from his point of view, at that time, it might have been a logical statement and not necessarily exaggerated at all.

Pirate

[mariab]

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.

Was suspecting as much, but was not sure. Like C.D., I'm more familiar with the American way of conducting trials.
Thank you so much for the information, Mr. Evans.

[c.d.]

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.

But were they questioned with the intent of discrediting their testimony or raising doubts as to its weight like they would be in a criminal trial?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

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.)

Hi kensei
I beleive Lawende is the only witness who described the suspect with fair hair/mustache. of course there was Blotchy with his carrotty mustache but all others were described as dark or brown hair/mustache

[mariab]

But were they questioned with the intent of discrediting their testimony or raising doubts as to its weight like they would be in a criminal trial?

You're thinking too modern and too American, C.D.. A Victorian doctor would not have been “disrespected“ by being “fraimed“ with questions or discredited in court. There is the possibility that higher officials might have applied pressure on a doctor behind the scenes, though. I trust you're familiar with the casebook thread about Dr. Bond.

[Stewart P Evans]

Didn't say...

It was you that insinuated that I only gave credence to the Star. Which is as you know untrue.
Is It? Surely its a quest of interpretation of the word 'ALMOST'
Seems to me Dr Blackwell was describing a fairly hefty gash at the inquest. And one must presume that Dr Blackwell made this press statement before he had done a thorough examination of the corpse. So from his point of view, at that time, it might have been a logical statement and not necessarily exaggerated at all.
Pirate

I didn't say that, I was citing what you had actually stated here.

The description of Stride's neck wound, given at the inquest by Blackwell, is nothing like 'nearly severed'. As you say it was a 'hefty gash', but at its deepest part it only severed the windpipe which is at the front of the neck. It failed to sever the blood vessels on one side of the neck (right) and only 'nearly severed' them on the other. I have seen a few cut throats in my time and, believe me, there is a big difference.

[c.d.]

You're thinking too modern and too American, C.D.. A Victorian doctor would not have been “disrespected“ by being “fraimed“ with questions or discredited in court. There is the possibility that higher officials might have applied pressure on a doctor behind the scenes, though. I trust you're familiar with the casebook thread about Dr. Bond.

That's my point, Maria. The doctors in this case never really got pressed and so their testimony has to be taken with a grain of salt.

c.d.

[mariab]

OK C.D., so we're in agreement.