The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[Chris]

"Agree to differ"?

What an outrageous suggestion. Doesn't Standing Order no 432 prescribe at least three days' increasingly acrimonious argument over a point like this? Let's not forget what Casebook is all about ...

[Phil H]

We all may be right!

Hopefully we will someday find out who is right!

We all may yet be right!

If "Jack" only killed 3 (maybe more if we include Mckenzie); Kidney 1; Barnett or Fleming 1; another name or names for the torsos and Pinchen St...

Phil

[curious4]

Agree to differ

Hello Phil and Chris,

Well, I must accept that we interpret things differently. I will stick to my interpretation and you to yours. Part of the fun (if I can use that word) of discussions on the Casebook is many people thinking about the case and coming up with their own take on it. The more people who think about it, the more chance of coming nearer the truth.

Hopefully we will someday find out who is right!

Best wishes,
C4

[Phil H]

...but if the box/paper came apart when the doctor removed them from her hand, wouldn´t it have been damaged (and wet) if she dropped it on being thrown to the ground? It seems to me that she got (or was given) the cachous later.

VERY flimsy grounds for any conclusion to be built on, in my opinion.

One of the difficulties here is timing. For my own musings I always try to avoid anything that builds on a stated time - I simply doubt that at that period, in that police, anyone (even church clocks and police pocket-watches) would have been very accurate. Again, just my personal view.

So in a sentence such as:

What I was trying to say was that there are approximately 20 minutes to account for between Liz being thrown to the ground and being found with her throat newly cut (and only half done if she is a Ripper victim).

That 20 minutes could/should probably be narrowed considerably, and thus I question whether any structure of speculation should be built upon it.

Phil

[Chris]

I did give an example of "since" being used in this way from The Lancet in the 1800´s if you look back a few pages. It really was.

That was the "eight years since" that I referred to in my post.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think that is equivalent to the interpretation you're suggesting. Using "eight years since" to mean "eight years ago" isn't the same thing as using "since" some occasion in the past to mean "before" that occasion.

[curious4]

Jack worked fast if we are to believe the reports at the time, so plenty of time for him to approach her after she was attacked by pipeman´s friend, it would seem, so are we looking at the wrong suspects? Jack appears to have taken his victims completely by surprise, so beginning by throwing her to the ground doesn´t fit.

Or this is an indication that we are looking at the evidence/testimony in the wrong way. For instance, if "Jack" was NOT the killer, "beginning by throwing her to the ground" wouldn't fit, would it?

Phil

Hello Phil,
Yes, but if you accept that there was enough time for Liz to get up from the street and meet someone else, whoever she met may well have been JTR. By saying that beginning by throwing her to the ground I meant that it was possible that pipeman and friend had no connection with Jack.

And the cachous - where were they when she was thrown to the ground? If she had them then wouldn´t they have been dropped then? But she had them clutched in her hand when she was killed. I believe one of the signs of strangulation is the hands clenching, which would explain why they were still in her hand, but if the box/paper came apart when the doctor removed them from her hand, wouldn´t it have been damaged (and wet) if she dropped it on being thrown to the ground? It seems to me that she got (or was given) the cachous later.

Best wishes,
C4

[curious4]

I can only guess that he thought the markings might develop post mortem. The use of the word "watch" might suggest he was looking for such a development.

I'm not convinced the word "since" has ever had the meaning of "before." That would be very strange, as it's the opposite of its usual meaning. I think "it happened eight years since" is really a kind of shorthand for "it is eight years since it happened."

In any case, had Phillips examined two previous victims? I can't see any reference to him in connection with Nichols or the earlier murders.

Hello Chris,
I did give an example of "since" being used in this way from The Lancet in the 1800´s if you look back a few pages (page 5). It really was.
Best wishes,
C4

[Phil H]

Jack worked fast if we are to believe the reports at the time, so plenty of time for him to approach her after she was attacked by pipeman´s friend, it would seem, so are we looking at the wrong suspects? Jack appears to have taken his victims completely by surprise, so beginning by throwing her to the ground doesn´t fit.

Or this is an indication that we are looking at the evidence/testimony in the wrong way. For instance, if "Jack" was NOT the killer, "beginning by throwing her to the ground" wouldn't fit, would it?

Phil

[curious4]

Good stuff again Mariab...thanks...

Makes me wonder if JTR stumbled upon the chokehold by noticing it incapacitated victims when in his exploratory period......maybe with Tabram or somebody?

Also, let me make sure I have this straight, if someone is put in a chokehold to unconsciousness their extremities might tighten up and remain that way....? So there would be no relaxing once consciousness was lost? A tight fist remains a tight fist?

Finally, thanks C4 for clarifying also...I was completely baffled by your response....for a minute I was thinking Stride went into the Jewish club with BS man...........wow what a story that might make......!


Greg

Yes,Greg, brain meltdown! Would have made a great story, I agree! What I was trying to say was that there are approximately 20 minutes to account for between Liz being thrown to the ground and being found with her throat newly cut (and only half done if she is a Ripper victim). Jack worked fast if we are to believe the reports at the time, so plenty of time for him to approach her after she was attacked by pipeman´s friend, it would seem, so are we looking at the wrong suspects? Jack appears to have taken his victims completely by surprise, so beginning by throwing her to the ground doesn´t fit.

Yes, Chris and Maria, Phillips performed the autopsy on Chapman. Llewellyn did the autopsy on Mary Ann Nichols but as Phillips was the police surgeon it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he was involved.

Cheers,
C4

[mariab]

In any case, had Phillips examined two previous victims? I can't see any reference to him in connection with Nichols or the earlier murders.

That's precisely one of the questions I've been wondering about since first acquainted with Ripperology!

[mariab]

Makes me wonder if JTR stumbled upon the chokehold by noticing it incapacitated victims when in his exploratory period......maybe with Tabram or somebody?

Yes, in my opinion and according to the evidence I have a feeling that Tabram (and Kelly) put up a fight. And we know that Millwood escaped. (IF Millwood was indeed an early attempt.) Tabram was pretty “stout“ (again, that word), which would make her a bit harder to subdue.

Also, let me make sure I have this straight, if someone is put in a chokehold to unconsciousness their extremities might tighten up and remain that way....? So there would be no relaxing once consciousness was lost? A tight fist remains a tight fist?

That's why I'm not going into the “unconsciousness“ scenario, as in that case her hand would have relaxed and let the cachous drop. I picture it, according to the evidence left in situ, as Stride having convulsions from her airway being cut through a chokehold, then death convulsions by asphyxiation when her throat got cut.

[Chris]

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.

I can only guess that he thought the markings might develop post mortem. The use of the word "watch" might suggest he was looking for such a development.

I'm not convinced the word "since" has ever had the meaning of "before." That would be very strange, as it's the opposite of its usual meaning. I think "it happened eight years since" is really a kind of shorthand for "it is eight years since it happened."

In any case, had Phillips examined two previous victims? I can't see any reference to him in connection with Nichols or the earlier murders.

[GregBaron]

Tight fisted!

Good stuff again Mariab...thanks...

Makes me wonder if JTR stumbled upon the chokehold by noticing it incapacitated victims when in his exploratory period......maybe with Tabram or somebody?

Also, let me make sure I have this straight, if someone is put in a chokehold to unconsciousness their extremities might tighten up and remain that way....? So there would be no relaxing once consciousness was lost? A tight fist remains a tight fist?

Finally, thanks C4 for clarifying also...I was completely baffled by your response....for a minute I was thinking Stride went into the Jewish club with BS man...........wow what a story that might make......!


Greg

[mariab]

I'm not sure about street fights for the chokehold

A chokehold is effective, easy to do, and a classic in school yard fights.

and I wonder how many of the top suspects had some military training........?

Hardly any of the suspects (as listed on casebook) qualify anymore, apart from Tumblety, Kozminski, perhaps Jacob Levy, and Barnett (the latter being a personal pet of mine, but pretty much un-researchable, in the criminal sense). We can add Le Grand to these, and that's pretty much it, in addition to the classic (and possibly more probable) “unknown local“. Tumblety had military training and was tall, Kozminski and Levy I personally don't endorse, Barnett was pretty strong from having carried heavy barrells with fish around all day when employed and possibly experienced in gutting fish, and Le Grand was tall and experienced in street fights and combat weapons/knives.

chokeholds don't necessarily leave marks as a full scale stranguation certainly would....

Precisely. That's why I'm going for the incapacitating through chokehold/bringing to the ground/then cutting her neck using her scarf to elevate her head scenario, which fits with the evidence left in situ, including the fact that she kept her left hand tight with a postmortem hold of the cachous. By the by, if I recall it correctly, I think that one (of several) scenario(s) proposed by Tom Wescott in his Ripper Notes 27 article doesn't think of a chokehold, but hypothesizes that Stride might have fainted from her scarf having been tightened. This was clearly not the fact, as we know that she kept her tight hold of the cachous, which points to peri-mortem convulsions of some kind, possibly due to her airway being restructed through the chokehold.

PS.: The Wescott Examiner 1 article is an absolute must read, as it corrects a host of misconceptions and misinterpretations pertaining to the Stride inquest, stubbornly and resistently surviving in Ripperology for decades.

[curious4]

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

Just realised what I said here - getting my murders mixed up - perhaps I should stop trying to do three things at a time!!