The cut in the throat

[Colin Roberts]

Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab': 1881-1890

---

In Accordance with the Forty-Forth through Fifty-Third Annual Reports of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England:


Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab': 1881-1890 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab'
1881: 4
1882: 3
1883: 7
1884: 6
1885: 1
1886: 2
1887: 2
1888: 2
1889: 5
1890: 5

---

Range: 1 - 7
- Mid-Range (i.e. 'Range Mid-Point'): 4.00

- Median: 3.50

- Mean (i.e. 'Average'): 3.70

- Year, in which We are Most Interested (i.e. 1888): 2.00


Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab': 1881-1890 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

[Sally]

Intent

-He may have always intended to kill two victims that night, and as such was not bothered about mutilating the first victim since he had the second to look forward to.

I agree with Ruby here. I think it is impossible to determine intent; and I wouldn't personally exclude the possibility that his aim on 'Double Event' night was to achieve that very thing.

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"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.)"

What? A knife? In August ´88!!! THE RIPPER!!!! (just pulling your leg, Caz!)

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Hi Fishy!"

Hi Cazzie!

"If we can all agree that Nichols and Chapman at the very least were killed by one man, isn't it as illogical as it is pointless to seek to rip the four other potential victims of the same man from his grasp, only to lump them in instead with any old murders or attempted murders you can find in the press reports for those three years, regardless of the who, when, where or why?"

Quite possibly, yes, when it comes to Tabram, Eddowes and Kelly!

"So go on, prove my gut feeling wrong and show us where Stride rightfully belongs in the murder statistics of the late 1880s."

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. Sarcasm´s won´t do it either - if THAT had worked, I would have proven her the victim of a beau of hers long ago. I´ve tried, but universal success has illuded me so far.

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.

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.

The exchange you are commenting on, by the way, was one between me and Sally, and Sally agreed with me that A was a much weaker indicator than B - Ripperism lies in ripping!

"And while you're at it ..."

Well, I´m NOT "at it" as such, as you will have noticed. I´at something else altogether.

" ...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. That´s the best I can do.

I sometimes feel that suggesting rather uncontroversial things evokes reactions that are perhaps not fully proportionate. 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.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

proposal

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

[caz]

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

Hi Fishy!

If Colin Roberts's murder stats are not just a pile of poo, there were only 11 adult women murdered by knife in the whole of England in 1887 and 11 again in 1889, while in 1888 there were 17.

Take away the six Whitechapel Murders of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly and you are instantly back to 11 murders of adult women by knife in the whole of England in 1888.

So instead of you - or Lynn or anyone else - repeating gut-felt beliefs that fatal, or near fatal knife attacks on London prostitutes were as common as the Spitalfields muck and more easily forgotten, how about one of you providing us with just a few more memory-refreshing details about these remaining 11 women?

For example, where in England were they murdered? How many of the 11 died in London? How many were, or may have been prostitutes? How many died in the early hours and were found where they had been attacked? How many of the 11 cases were solved, and of these was a motive established and did killer and victim know one another?

If we can all agree that Nichols and Chapman at the very least were killed by one man, isn't it as illogical as it is pointless to seek to rip the four other potential victims of the same man from his grasp, only to lump them in instead with any old murders or attempted murders you can find in the press reports for those three years, regardless of the who, when, where or why? Surely that is doing, on a far grander scale, what you so disapprove of in those of us who are at least using very clearly defined similarities to keep the potentials listed under Team Nichols/Chapman (ooh, let's call 'em the Whitechapel Murders, it was good enough for those living through them) all the while there is no solid evidence to put them with Colin's remaining 11 from 1888, let alone some Team Unspecified of your own choosing.

My gut feeling is that if we had more details of the other 11, and plotted them on a map of England, our Whitechapel six would only stand out in this 'crowd' of seventeen, stretching up, down and across this green and relatively pleasant land, all the more starkly.

So go on, prove my gut feeling wrong and show us where Stride rightfully belongs in the murder statistics of the late 1880s.

And while you're at it, 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? As Lynn said there was no superman operating in the area - just 'man', taking insane risks with his male neck to take his knife to the female one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

The press report is mistaken

The following had convinced me to alter my opinion, which was that she was a victim , and infact there was a double event, to that she was not.
Evening news 1st october 1888.
Quote.. THe cut in the throat is not exactly as been described by our morning comtemporaries, it is not from ear to ear, the knife seems to have been stabbed in deeply at the left side to reach the external carotid, and to have emerged at the carotid on the right side.
It has been said that the two murders were not by the same hand ie Stride/Eddowes, Dr Philips gives it as his opinion as also Dr Gordon who did a post mortem examination on Eddowes.

Hi Richard. I'm shocked that for as long as you've been studying this case, that a single erroneous press report could change your mind so totally on something so significant. Of course, the report is utterly wrong in that Stride's neck was in no way stabbed. This is made clear in the inquest by the fact that the doctor's could not state an opinion on how sharp the tip of the knife blade was, but only that the blade itself was sharp. The cut to Stride's throat is not in any way different from most of the other victims in any relevant way.

And for the sake of accuracy, Dr. Phillips thought Stride more likely to be a Ripper victim than Eddowes, but later conceded they both were. Not sure what you're referring to regarding Dr. Gordon Brown.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[claire]

Hi Ruby,
Yes, for sure, which is why I reserve judgement, as I said--there are arguments either way, one of which is the notion that he wanted to give the impression that there was more than one killer.
It's a tangled web, that's for sure.

[Rubyretro]

Claire
-we don't know that the disturbance had anything to do with 'Jack'
and that he was seen.

-He may have had a personal reason for wanting to particularly kill Stride
(this could be nothing more than having observed her during the course of that evening), and was not so bothered by the opportunity, or not, for mutilation until he found himself 'unsatisfied' by the murder.

-He may have always intended to kill two victims that night, and as such was not bothered about mutilating the first victim since he had the second to look forward to.

[claire]

Hi Phil,
For sure; I think they are pertinent with regards to the hints that the C5 split up into three or four groups, though: the patterns and prevalence of murder during that year speak loudly against that. I um and ah about Stride's inclusion (and the exclusion of others), for the reasons I've mentioned--and, indeed, the witness descriptions you mention--there's something a little different about the dynamics of it, not least that the disturbances attested to by witnesses were so close to the time of murder itself. For me, knowing he'd been seen, knowing the club was full of people, any of whom might spill out at any point, for any number of reasons, seem to mitigate against the possibility for mutilation. In other words, why would he bother/take the risk?

[lynn cates]

modus ponens/modus tollens

Hello Velma.

"From almost the beginning, I have had a problem including Liz with the others -- except for those two things.

Your thoughts on that, Lynn, if you would please."

Thank you. I think any serious answer here must make reference to both McKenzie and Coles and others of their ilk. If one includes Liz on these 2 criteria, why not McKenzie and Coles? If one excludes them, why not exclude Stride?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

points

Hello Claire. You make many good, well thought out points here.

"I'm disinclined to address every point in your post."

As you wish.

"I've declined your invitation to go through all the papers"

Quite understandable. It is very tedious; and, one learns a good bit more about the competing varieties of cocoa than, perhaps, one wishes (heh-heh).

"I'm just going to go on the fact that I used to work on crime statistics both for the Home Office and five universities, so I feel a little qualified to speak up for myself here."

I would not question your expertise here.

"Murder clear-up rates have been consistently high since the inception of the collection of stats on the same; during the period of our enquiry, a sizeable percentage (c. 45-55%) of murders were cases of infanticide"

I daresay. My feeling is that is what the Clerkenwell murder was. Of course, it is only conjecture.

"the majority of the remainder were domestics or the perpetrator was previously known to the victim."

Could not agree more. If I were a policeman and began researching a murder of a lady, I'd chat up the husband/boy friend first and foremost.

"As a consequence, the overwhelming majority (between 90 and 98% in the reference period) were cleared up within 72 hours of their occurrence"

Sounds correct. Murder seems difficult for the average person (see dear old Alfred Hitchcock on this score). Many would be overwhelmed with guilt and sing out. And this is precisely why I do not take Michael Kidney as a serious suspect in the Stride killing.

"(and, yes, I concede, clear-up does not equal arrest or conviction, simply that the perpetrator had been reasonably identified, had been arrested or was subject to arrest: you'll know, of course, that most arrested for unlawful killing confess or are clearly responsible)."

Indeed. This is part of what drove Baxter to include Stride. He noted how different Liz and Kate's wounds were forensically compared to Polly and Annie's, but the other reasons inclined him towards inclusion.

"What distinguished the WM series was the highly unusual fact that a perpetrator was not readily identifiable in each case. Further, the MO was brutal and swift and involved mutilation in four of that C5."

Right. (Cf. supra.)

"As I said, I'm not flat out saying that there couldn't have been more than one perpetrator for the C5, and I'm inclined to feel that Stride, at least, is a case for possible exclusion."

Nor am I "flat out" disagreeing. The quotation above is largely my own view. I presume my main difference is a leaning "against" rather than a leaning "for."

"Then, of course, I couldn't possibly know or, as you have it, even construct a tenable argument."

I think we both could construct a tenable argument--pro as well as con. The problem would be, would it CONVINCE the fence sitter?

My main point was that there were many murders/attempts in London, 1888. I did NOT intend to convey that there were many mutilation killings. Of course, whatever tally one arrives at depends precisely upon the qualifications employed.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

And this, with permission from Colin Roberts--some exhaustive research, referenced, sourced, with some lovely graphs, too

http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=136784#post136784

Beats riffling through the papers

Hello Claire,

I can see Colin's point, and admire his depth of knowledge on the subject of statistics, probability and the like.
However, with all due deference and respect to Colin (a fellow Chelsea supporter), it really doesnt matter what the statistics show, as long as we have two differing identifications of the suspects at the two differing murder scenes. Surely the people seen are the first priority here, however rare the occurance of two murders in the same area within an hour by two different people. Then you have the differing cuts et al, on top of that.

best wishes

Phil

[curious]

Add to that his silent escape and you have Wynne Baxter! He noted the dissimilarity in Kate and Liz on the one hand and Polly and Annie on the other, yet he could not dismiss the boldness and escape.

Cheers.
LC

Exactly.

From almost the beginning, I have had a problem including Liz with the others -- except for those two things.

Your thoughts on that, Lynn, if you would please.

[claire]

And this, with permission from Colin Roberts--some exhaustive research, referenced, sourced, with some lovely graphs, too

http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=136784#post136784

Beats riffling through the papers