The cut in the throat

[Lechmere]

Lynn
It isn’t true that there were numerous murders in the East End – particularly motiveless, random attacks on strangers. The spate (obviously not all fatal) was unprecedented before and after. There were other isolated attacks but not with that frequency.
Also the nature of the victim, the general nature of the attack remains the same for Millwood, possibly Wilson, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, McKenzie, possibly Pinchin Street and possibly Coles.
In my opinion the chances are they were all by the same hand (with more argument over the ones listed as possible obviously)

Clerkenwell isn’t in the East End and the victim was by the sounds of it a baby, so there isn’t much of a connection there.
Having said that I've always been interested in Isenschmid.

[lynn cates]

humour

Hello Lechmere. Thanks.

It depends largely on precisely WHICH exact location one wishes to relegate the murders. Clerkenwell is not that far from Whitechapel. One can ask about how many murders were committed on Buck's Row, how many in Whitechapel/Spitalfields, how many were committed in East London, how many were committed in Greater London, how many were committed in England. (It feels like there is a bit of a shift in the geographic location over posts.)

At any rate, suffice it to say that, there were many murders in London in 1888--a quick check on the papers will settle that one. Were they all cut throats? No, but now to toss a bit of reasoning back at the perpetrators, "Did 'Jack' have to kill by cutting the throat? Was he a robot?" And, yes, this was a small child, but again, what law says "Jack" killed only full grown women?

I shall now remove my tongue from my cheek and bid one adieu.

Cheers.
LC

[claire]

I'm happy enough to accept more than one killer, but I'm not convinced that an analysis of either Eddowes' or Stride's injuries give sufficient justification for that (what looks like in and up from one angle is in and down from another--we can't presuppose the killer's position relative to the victim). To elaborate, too, the fatal injury (ie. the neck wound) would, I imagine, differ according to the immediate reaction of the victim: for example, a woman that suddenly spins around is likely to sustain a different wound to one lying prone on her bed.

Rather, what we are interested in is a general pattern: sudden, lethal attacks on unfortunates, drunk or near as damn it, involving mutilation. These are the things (or, rather, the deviation from those) that make me doubt Stride as part of the series, but even then I'm not sure that the nature of the neck wound itself is what rules her out.

I'm interested in this assertion that there was a large number of murders in Whitechapel 1888. That wasn't my understanding; I seem to recall a figure of 17 murders of women by knife in the whole of England for 1888 (compared to 11 in both 1887 and 1889 (Colin Roberts' research)--reaching out for any old domestic or street brawl and including them in the figures would be foolhardy, no? Or am I wrong? The blithe 'the figures don't really matter, take my word for it' response doesn't do it for me, I'm afraid, so if anyone has any *real* figures that dispute Colin Roberts' research, I'm going to be interested in hearing them. Til then, it's just more of the same foil hatter's spiel, with all due respect.

[curious]

Rather, what we are interested in is a general pattern: sudden, lethal attacks on unfortunates, drunk or near as damn it,

Hi, Claire,
I know we tend to think of the victims all being drunk, but if I remember correctly Annie had not been drinking the night/morning she was killed and neither had Liz.

Liz's death is the one that surprises me most because from some accounts she was a brawler and larger than the other women. I would have expected her not to be so easily overpowered.

curious

[lynn cates]

ubi

Hello Claire.

"I'm interested in this assertion that there was a large number of murders in Whitechapel 1888."

Ah, so just Whitechapel? That is what precipitated my remarks about distinguishing above. I refer mainly to London in general. And there were a good number of them.

Cheers.
LC

[The Grave Maurice]

I seem to be losing the train of this thread, but Claire seems, to me, to asking the most relevant questions. For example, how many prostitutes died in Whitechapel/Spitalfields from knife wounds in, say, 1887? From memory, the answer is zero.

[lynn cates]

relisting

Hello Maurice. This is helpful, for now, not only are we talking about Whitechapel/Spitalfields only, but also from knife wounds only and now, we even have a specific line of work, only. (Note how the question changes from post to post.)

Put that way (and not saying "by cut throat only"), it looks like 3 in 1888--Tabram, Nichols and Chapman. Of course the last of the 3 may have been only casual.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

To not admit that this was an unprecedented series of murders is not facing reality with any objective thought.

[claire]

Hello Claire.

"I'm interested in this assertion that there was a large number of murders in Whitechapel 1888."

Ah, so just Whitechapel? That is what precipitated my remarks about distinguishing above. I refer mainly to London in general. And there were a good number of them.

Cheers.
LC

You're being disingenuous here and, I feel, trading off what you appear to believe is your intellectual superiority. No one is changing the parameters of the query: the fact is that murder is a broad church (just as you suppose elsewhere, in your marginally bizarre Fleming/Fenian explosion scenario). It is nonsensical to include *all* murder variables in an analysis of the WMs; it is the sort of sloppy thinking that gives statistics (and Ripper studies) a bad name. In any case, you don't manage to even present general figures (of W/chapel and Spitalfields; of the East End; of part or all of London; or the whole of England and Wales). You just keep saying that there were lots, and the implication is that silly little us are going to have to take your word for it, because we're too stupid to define parameters for enquiry.

You refer away to 'London in general.' I do not accept your persistent assertion that 'there were a good many of them [sic]'--show us some valid figures that are different to those Colin Roberts presented, and then someone might actually listen to your bluster. You see, there was once a time here when people were interested in such facts, and would trouble to present them in a methodical manner that respected the general intelligence of the rest of the community. Here, you are just marauding through, repeating platitudes and condescensions, and it is making the place somewhat unpleasant.

Just my tuppence worth.

[Sally]

I think this is simple enough, really. The Whitechapel Murders (which, note, have their own not-so-modern label) were viewed, at the time, as unprecedented and remarkable.

Ergo, they did not float in a sea of indistinguishable crimes. This tells us that:

a) the murder of prostitutes in London was relatively uncommon

b) the murder and evisceration of prostitutes in London was unheard of, or thereabouts

In turn, this tells us that the Whitechapel murder spree of 1888 was considered unique at the time.

And what that means is that the odds (pesky, tricky little things as they are) are against the Whitechapel Murders being committed by more than one hand.

Remember this - deviation in the MO does not a copycat make

One might choose to argue for conspiracy. But that is very hard to do with any degree of plausibility.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"This tells us that:

a) the murder of prostitutes in London was relatively uncommon

b) the murder and evisceration of prostitutes in London was unheard of, or thereabouts"

As such, I don´t think that a necessarily applies, whereas b certainly does - it was the element of evisceration that told the Ripper apart from other killers. Before him, prostitutes would have been killed in London, but not in such a theatrical, if you will, manner. A woman with a cut throat, a bashed skull, a stab between the ribs would not have evoked much fascination, and would soon have been forgotten - but women who had their guts ripped open and organs taken away were another thing altogether. Tabram too caused this fascination due to the very apparent overkill in her case.
And of course, if Stride had not fallen prey to her slayer in the midst of the Ripper scare, none of us would have known her name today.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Good Morning all,
With reference to not being just one killer, lets take the opinion of Dr Forbes Winslow.
Quote.
The imitative faculty is very strong in persons of unsound mind, and that is why there has been a sort of epidemic of these crimes, we shall proberly find that a good many knives will be displayed within the next few weeks.
He then [ my words] rather contradicts himself by adding '' Up to the present moment the crimes seen to have been committed by the same hand.
We are all aware [ my words],regardless we we live that knife crime has rocketed , it is now almost common practise to carry a knife especially the young, if only for protection, and I would suggest that that many people emulate others when it comes down to using the weapon.
So the copycat idea from that autumn of 1888 is no forlorn suggestion.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

I think that, leaving murder statistics aside for an instant, the killing of Liz Stride has more things in common with the 'Ripper' murders than not, and so I
think that she was almost certainly one of his victims.

By the way, she wasn't a big girl (whoever said that). She was 5'5" and slim, the nickname 'Long Liz' being a wordplay on her name 'Stride', not because she was tall.

She was a known regular prostitute, and having been seen in the company of several different men that night, I don't have any doubts but that she was plying her trade and that Jack posed as a customer.

[Sally]

Sally:

"This tells us that:

a) the murder of prostitutes in London was relatively uncommon

b) the murder and evisceration of prostitutes in London was unheard of, or thereabouts"

As such, I don´t think that a necessarily applies, whereas b certainly does - it was the element of evisceration that told the Ripper apart from other killers. Before him, prostitutes would have been killed in London, but not in such a theatrical, if you will, manner. A woman with a cut throat, a bashed skull, a stab between the ribs would not have evoked much fascination, and would soon have been forgotten - but women who had their guts ripped open and organs taken away were another thing altogether. Tabram too caused this fascination due to the very apparent overkill in her case.
And of course, if Stride had not fallen prey to her slayer in the midst of the Ripper scare, none of us would have known her name today.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman

I agree (please don't collapse or anything). Other, less vividly gruesome murders wouldn't have evoked as much fascination. I still think that the murder of prostitutes was uncommon in London, however - although I expect that acts of violence towards prostitutes was significantly more common.

[Rubyretro]

Richard -what I can't buy about the 'copycat' idea, when discussing Liz's murder, is the amount of bravado needed to kill in such a risky spot and the self confidence to be certain of murdering quickly and cleanly enough so that the victim couldn't cry out or fight back, and the murderer wouldn't be covered in blood.

We know from the other Ripper murders, that Jack could do it -how many would be copycats would be able to ?..and get away from the scene unnoticed ?