The cut in the throat

[c.d.]

It seems to me that the ferocity argument cuts both ways (pun intended) and is in fact even more of a hurdle for those arguing for a non Jack killer. That camp argues for the BS man or Kidney or someone else (her date that night) being her killer, his actions being driven by sudden intense rage. Yet that rage is instantly satiated with a single cut to the throat with nothing (that we know of) preceeding it. There is no loud argument that anyone hears, no marks on Liz's face to indicate she had been hit and no other stab wounds on her body. That ferocity seems to have come and gone pretty damn fast.

c.d.

[Garza]

Caz does have a point. Knife murders against women in Whitechapel were surprisingly rare.

The odds that two different murderers murdered two different women dispatched in the same way within the same hour within a short walking distance from each other are not good, possible, but not good. And thats before we take account of the similarities.

[harry]

Well I do have a bit of a hearing problem,but I think the comparison is in the way victims were killed,not mutilated,and there does seem to be a decided skill and purpose in the approach and carrying out the actual killings.While ferocity may be a factor,I sense that it was quite controlled.

[lynn cates]

negative

Hello Caz. I take it that was a "no"?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

And now for something completely different - or is it?

http://tinyurl.com/69rtos3

This refers back to one of the double events I used to bang on about on a regular basis, for its potential parallels with Stride and Eddowes.

If the same man who killed Eddowes could have killed Stride, I do wonder why anyone would expect to see Stride with mutilations. Wouldn't such a killer more likely have toddled off satisfied (at least for a while) with one?

Love,

Caz
X

BUt where was the ferocity in the killing of Stride which was prevalant in Nicholls and Eddowes ? Surley that must ring the warning bells to even those who are stone deaf

[caz]

And now for something completely different - or is it?

http://tinyurl.com/69rtos3

This refers back to one of the double events I used to bang on about on a regular basis, for its potential parallels with Stride and Eddowes.

If the same man who killed Eddowes could have killed Stride, I do wonder why anyone would expect to see Stride with mutilations. Wouldn't such a killer more likely have toddled off satisfied (at least for a while) with one?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caz. This is a very interesting post. I'd be delighted to fall in with your suggestions, once I got entirely clear on what is being suggested.

If you would like me to pass along newspaper tales of brutal murders of females in, say, London and its environs, 1888, I should be delighted so to do. (By the way, just read a rather gruesome account of some chap who knocked his wife's head in and employed a knife as well. Shocking. This from about August 20, 1888.)

On the other hand, if you are looking for lady murders of a specific kind, tied to occupation, or something of that sort, it might be a bit more difficult as occupation is often times difficult to ascertain.

If you could please be so kind as to:

1. Send me your email address.

2. Let me know PRECISELY what is sought.

3. An exact date range.

I'd be happy to comply--time and resources permitting. I adore research projects and occasionally enjoy working in tandem. Unfortunately, you must take charge of the technological aspects of the research as this poor old neo-Luddite may be ill equipped in that regard.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I’m so sorry for the delay in responding; I got carried away elsewhere, both on and off the boards, and have only today paid a return visit to this particular thread.

I should have made my ‘suggestions’ shorter, sweeter and clearer; all I really wanted to see were more details - any details that can be found will do for starters - of the 11 murders by knife of adult women in England in 1888 that are included in Colin’s figure of 17 (the remaining 6 being the Whitechapel victims from Tabram to Kelly).

It is my belief that more details of these specific cases are needed before you or Fisherman or anyone else can usefully continue to invoke the ‘many other London murders’ argument for losing Stride in a crowd of one-offs, despite her appearance in the figures so soon after an accepted (and extraordinary) two-off, in the shape of Nichols and Chapman. Did her murder have any elements in common with Colin’s 11 cases, beyond a knife being the killer’s weapon of choice, an adult female the victim of choice and England the country of choice? If you don’t even know that much, don’t you think it might have been a good idea to find out, if only for your own information, before coming here and implying that murders like Stride’s were ten a penny?

Hi Cazzie!

…Heavens! Must I PROVE that she was not a victim of the Ripper...? That will be tough - or, to be more precise, it will be as difficult as it is to prove that she WAS a Ripper victim. You see, statistics alone do not come anywhere near enough to prove Stride a Ripper victim…

No indeed, Fishy. I’m merely asking for some kind of supporting evidence for murders like Stride’s being ten a penny in London in the late 1880s. See my comments to Lynn above for further clarification.

…Your reasoning goes along the line (and correct me if I am wrong!): She was a woman of the same general class as Nicholls and Chapman, she was killed by means of having her throat cut, and she was killed during the Ripper scare. Case closed.

No such simplistic ‘reasoning’ on my part. Again, I’m asking others to come up with details of all these other murders that supposedly have more in common with Stride’s murder than we already know the Whitechapel cases have.

But working along that line does not allow for any other verdict about MacKenzie than a Ripper killing too. Is that not true? Same general class, a cut to the throat during the Ripper scare.

So why not MacKenzie? Most people rule her out totally, for one reason or another - none of them good enough if we follow your advice. The same, by the way, goes for Coles to a great extent…

My ‘advice’? I don’t recall advising anyone to include or exclude any Whitechapel victim on the rigid basis you describe here; nor have I said ‘not McKenzie’ or Coles. I have always kept my balls in the air and my only advice would be for others to do the same until they can safely drop them.

…" ...tell me how many occasions you think one murderer could reasonably have expected to carry out mutilations before a victim or the circumstances ganged up on him and made it undesirable or impossible?"

Whew! If proving that Stride was not a Ripper victim was tricky, this is possibly worse! I have not actually pondered the subject, but I think it will be dependant on circumstances from case to case. Thatīs the best I can do.

I’m disappointed. I would have thought it essential to have pondered the subject before arguing that a lack of mutilation indicates a different killer. Using the known circumstances of the six Whitechapel cases of 1888 as a useful and relevant guide, can you not at least take a stab at how many mutilation murders you would expect the killer of Nichols and Chapman to have pulled off before something or someone queered his pitch and things didn’t go entirely his way? Two? Three? Five? Ten? I’d say that by the end of September, Stride wasn’t the only one in danger of a fall. Our mutilation murderer’s pride may have come before a fall too. If Nichols wasn't a total pushover, Chapman surely was. She had been out all night and was on her last legs. It would have been harder for her killer to knock over a blancmange.

Other killers killed women by way of knife in London, that year and others. Four of the so called canonicals had in common that they had been ripped open at their guts. Number five, Stride, did NOT have this trait. Therefore, one can of course reason that the killer was interrupted before he could rip - but in such a case, I would have wanted a neck cut all the way down to the vertebrae, putting Stride on par with the others in at least THAT respect. As this was not the case, it stands to reason to argue - on medical grounds only - that she was never a Ripper victim.

But again, you need more specific details of these other killers and the other women they killed in other parts of London using a knife if you want to claim any significant common ground with Stride. Without those details this part of your argument falls flat. And there are so many other grounds that can gang up on your medical ones and shout “Boo!” at them - grounds for arguing that the ripper would/could never have mutilated Stride safely, but could equally have encountered her there and decided, for umpteen reasons, all supported by the case evidence, not to leave her alive, but not to mutilate her body either. If that decision came before knife met flesh, it would neatly explain the nature of the cut.

If anyone should do a thorough write-up of the Berner Street murder (besides me, for the umpteenth time) it's Caz. She has a way of putting things in perspective that no one else thinks of.

That’s very kind Tom. But there are only so many ways to tell this tale with reference to the known - or presumed - facts. And how many prospective readers have not already sifted them thoroughly and baked a cake to their own tastes?

Yes, the "Double Event" was extraordinary. Yes, even if 10 women get their throats cut, in some sense, that is extraordinary. But sometimes, the extraordinary happens. (What are the odds of a "Double Event" AND another lady independently getting her throat cut?)

Yes, but it’s not quite so extraordinary in the context of one man who cuts his wife’s throat in one part of London while another part is in the grip (real or perceived) of one man who has very recently cut the throats of two women for no apparent reason. What you are suggesting is a third man (and fourth if I understand you correctly?) entering the picture on the same night as the domestic, which ignores the recently active double cut-throat entirely. Surely that is taking the extraordinary to a whole new level unless you can provide an unbreakable alibi for the killer of Nichols and Chapman on Double Event night.

And I suggest that if you could do that you wouldn't be messing around with vague and subjective associations with other violent crimes and criminals. You don't need to wrest Stride from the proverbial man who wasn't there. You need to associate that man - your man - with the previous two murders and Stride will meekly follow you off the stage.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

But my favourite line about Liz Stride comes from both Stewart Evans and Tom Wescott. I paraphrase. "Based on the evidence alone, there is not sufficient to include nor exclude her from the canon."

When did Stewart and I collaborate on something? I don’t remember saying that. And where are my royalties? I’m just in this for the Yankee Dollars, ya know.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Colin Roberts:

"That is the 'spin' of a lobbyist, Christer!"

Strictly spoken, Colin, we are all a bunch of lobbyists out here. You are speaking for the lobby that will have Stride as a Ripper victim - perhaps (I could not know) not because you endorse that view, but that is the outcome anyhow.

"It is the sort of thing that is shoved in your face"

Eh ...? I canīt remember shoving ANYTHING in your face. I only remember saying that the Ripper scare is the only resaon that we know of Liz Stride today. That is no shoving, it is the simple truth. You have listed the women that had their throats cut in the adjoining years too - and how many of them do we know the names of? Exactly - only the fewest. And these few we know of because we look at them in the Ripper context! The ones who had their throats cut in 1841 or 1920 are people about whom we donīt make any fuss at all.

And this knowledge is vital, just as it vital to remember that there WAS a man around that cut necks and eviscerated in 1888. BOTH things apply in the discussion, and if we leave one out, THEN we have a spin!

"I am not here to discuss whether Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were felled by the same hand.
I am here to insist that the extraordinary nature of the so-called 'Double Event' not be marginalized"

Well, if that happens, it wonīt be me doing the marginalizing. In my former post, I stated firmly that "Whenever a killing takes place within a short span of time and close in geography to another killing, it is reasonable to suggest that the perpetrator was one and the same. That must be a main line of inquiry. It applies in this case too."
Main lines of inquiry are not marginalized lines, Colin. You donīt have to insist that Jack is a very hot lead - I can do it for you.

"Funny, isn't it?
That we should know, today, the name of the woman that was murdered in Swallow('s) Gardens, some two-and-a-half years after the "Ripper scare" had begun to subside."

Take away the Ripper - although you donīt condonce such things, but try it anyway! - and see what happens!

The best,
Fisherman

[sleekviper]

The chance that the cut to the throat was by different hands in the case of the double event. The likely hood that two killers would preform the same type murder, in the same general area, within a short span of time, on the same night, in comparison to the general criminal acts that have been done in recent years surrounding the event.

[Wickerman]

At the risk of asking a blunt question, what did all these charts & graphs have to do with the intent of the thread? (the Cut in the Throat).
What am I missing?

thanks

[lynn cates]

salute

Hello Colin.

"And, I shall applaud your every effort, Lynn."

Thank you!

" . . . the supposed 'canon', which so many seem to believe actually exists. It doesn't!"

I halfway agree here. The "canon" is attributable to Dr. Bond, who saw ONE body. This was furthered by Sir Melville MacNaughten who proclaimed a canon of 5. Often, the notion of "canon" gets applied to a set of events, works, etc. indicating a broad consensus regarding authorship amongst those having an opinion on that set.

"I have perceived an apparent attempt to 'relegate' the fact that the murder of Elizabeth Stride occurred within one hour, and within 950 yards, of the murder of Catherine Eddowes, to a lesser degree of significance. This being, so it would seem, a means of 'lobbying' for the general acceptance of a 'Double Event', involving two perpetrators."

Just out of curiosity, how far apart must the events be in 1. space and 2. time, before they become insignificant? (Just in your view.)

"There is a handful of posters that will happily generate any amount of 'spin' that is deemed necessary . . . "

I personally want NO spin. I want the eventual explanation for the WCM to flow as naturally as water flows downhill--and the sooner the better.

"I will now excuse myself from this thread."

I daresay Richard will be delighted when BOTH of us are gone. (heh-heh)

"I look forward to further discourse . . . "

Yes, anytime. I appreciate good discourse and, looking above, I see no acrimony. We may not agree, but that, in itself, is OK.

Cheers.
LC

[Colin Roberts]

Put into proper perspective, probability and statistics are alright and, indeed, serve the actuarial calculator well.

But my favourite line about Liz Stride comes from both Stewart Evans and Tom Wescott. I paraphrase. "Based on the evidence alone, there is not sufficient to include nor exclude her from the canon." So, until it does, I shall continue to look in "out of the way places" for a resolution.

And, I shall applaud your every effort, Lynn. Provided, of course, that you do not assume a lobbyist's posture.

I must say that on occasion, you and Christer have both appeared to be 'lobbying', so to speak, for the effective removal of Elizabeth Stride from the supposed 'canon', which so many seem to believe actually exists. It doesn't! But, that of course, is neither here, nor there.

As I indicated yesterday, ...

When a human being resolves to commit murder, ... all bets are off. Probability will not stand in his way, or affect his resolution.

So, again, Lynn, I shall applaud your every effort, in those "out of the way places".

Not sure what "marginalized" means in this context.

I have perceived an apparent attempt to 'relegate' the fact that the murder of Elizabeth Stride occurred within one hour, and within 950 yards, of the murder of Catherine Eddowes, to a lesser degree of significance. This being, so it would seem, a means of 'lobbying' for the general acceptance of a 'Double Event', involving two perpetrators.

Lobbying? A professional lobbyist wishes to gain something--often of a pecuniary nature.

There is a handful of posters that will happily generate any amount of 'spin' that is deemed necessary, to 'lobby' for the universal acceptance of George Hutchinson, as 'Jack the Ripper'.

As long as it is confined to 'Hutchinson' threads; I don't care.

But, I would hope that the same thing would not occur elsewhere.

I wish to have my questions answered and an end be put to this thing.

I believe that I have fully stated my case.

I will now excuse myself from this thread.

I look forward to further discourse with both yourself, and Christer, in some other arena, in which our views are not quite as 'polarized', or potentially divisive.

[lynn cates]

questions

Hello Colin. Our posts crossed.

"I am here to insist that the extraordinary nature of the so-called 'Double Event' not be marginalized, as a means of 'lobbying' for the likelihood of two independent perpetrators."

Yes, the "Double Event" was extraordinary. Yes, even if 10 women get their throats cut, in some sense, that is extraordinary. But sometimes, the extraordinary happens. (What are the odds of a "Double Event" AND another lady independently getting her throat cut?)

Not sure what "marginalized" means in this context.

Lobbying? A professional lobbyist wishes to gain something--often of a pecuniary nature. I wish to have my questions answered and an end be put to this thing.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

statistically speaking

Hello Colin. I'm delighted that you relegated this to the ONSET of the year, hence considering the entire sequence of events, not just 1 independent one.

Let's assume, for the moment, that your calculation of probabilities is correct to even only 3 significant figures. Would this answer the question, "Was Stride killed by the same hand as Eddowes?"? I think not. This seems analogous to claiming I'm not conversing with you since the odds on the human genome's arising is X (can't recall how many zeroes go to the right of the decimal here).

Put into proper perspective, probability and statistics are alright and, indeed, serve the actuarial calculator well.

But my favourite line about Liz Stride comes from both Stewart Evans and Tom Wescott. I paraphrase. "Based on the evidence alone, there is not sufficient to include nor exclude her from the canon." So, until it does, I shall continue to look in "out of the way places" for a resolution.

Thanks again!

Cheers.
LC