The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[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

[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.

[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]

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.'

[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
__________________

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[curious4]

Elixabeth Stride

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

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

[Hunter]

Thank you, Stewart for sharing that information about Woodhall.

Hi Lynn,

The Star was not correct in their assessment.