The cut in the throat

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"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."

And I agree with that on the whole - I actually prefer discussing to disagreeing - murders of prostitutes would not have been an everyday thing, not then, not now. And yes, violence towards them would have been much more common, sometimes bordering on murder. But an intent to eviscerate makes for a very clear bordeline.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

And yes, violence towards them would have been much more common, sometimes bordering on murder. But an intent to eviscerate makes for a very clear bordeline.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman - I agree, but how does one determine an intent to eviscerate? I know that you don't consider Stride to be a Ripper victim. Without wanting to start a Stride Fight; in your opinion, how do we know there was no intent to eviscerate in that instance? Intent is hard to establish without the realisation of that intent, surely?

[Lechmere]

The other ‘unique’ aspect to the ripper case is that here was a spate of particularly brutal murders in a short space of time, in a confined geographical area, with a similar type of victim... that were unsolved.

Most murders then as now are perpetrated by someone known to the victim and are not 'motiveless'. Motiveless in the sense that there is no ‘normal’ motive, to which I would even include a conspiratorial Russian secret police kind-of-motive. Strictly speaking of course all serial killers have a ‘motive’ of some sorts.

I would hazard that most 'motiveless' crimes are serial killer related.
Prostitute beating (which would be an attack on someone the perpetrator doesn’t know, apart from obviously very briefly) is not the same as the brutal murder of a prostitute, and the motive may be simple robbery, lashing out in anger due to some sort of inadequacy and so on.

Murderers known to the victim are relatively easy to catch and often are and were, even by a ‘nascent’ police force (another argument against Hutchinson if indeed he did know Kelly).
So while there were other murders committed in the East End, in London and in England, most were domestics. The Whitechapel murders stand out for that reason.

All this adds up to Stride being a Jack the Ripper victim. The fact that another attack took place soon after, with almost exactly the time elapse one might expect if he wanted to conclude unfinished business, makes it all add up.

If Tabram, Mckenzie and Coles are all excluded from the Ripper’s tally then to be fair, Stride becomes part of a random attack pattern that coincided more or less with the Ripper sequence. However I think it is extremely unlikely that Tabram and McKenzie could be by anyone else.

[curious]

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.

.

Since the other victims were 5 feet or 5 feet 2 inches, Stride was taller and much closer to the height of the men at 5 feet 6 or thereabouts. The charges I've found for here were drunk and disorderly, so I don't know that she was a "brawler" as I called her. That has been my personal take on Stride.

I was simply commenting about my surprise that she went so quietly in light of her size being more that of the suspects and her history.

I do agree with whoever mentioned the fact that she was killed by someone with the confidence to pull it off in such a public place.

I have always questioned Stride as a Ripper victim, but that thought is thought-provoking.

curious

[lynn cates]

and so

Hello Claire.

"You're being disingenuous here and, I feel, trading off what you appear to believe is your intellectual superiority.'

Reading your post, it seems you are the one who feels intellectually superior. It takes no superior intellect (fortunately) to read the papers. Why not try that yourself instead of relying on what others say?

"No one is changing the parameters of the query . . . "

Indeed? Look through the posts. I daresay you won't find the same set of criteria twice?

"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."

Nearly as bad as the absurd assumptions that have been made for so many years. Now, rather than a murder cases/s we have some sort of superman.

"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)."

Which is it? This is PRECISELY what I mean by shifting parametres.

"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 . . ."

That is what I do NOT want. I don't want you taking MY word or ANYONE's word for it. I invite you to read the papers for the year 1888 yourself. Lloyd's is simplest--it is weekly. "The Echo" and "The Daily Telegraph" should work well also. When you are finished, let's compare notes.

"You refer away to 'London in general.' I do not accept your persistent assertion that 'there were a good many of them [sic]'"

I have not found a single week without a murder. If your research proves different, I'd be delighted to discuss.

"show us some valid figures that are different [from] those Colin Roberts presented, and then someone might actually listen to your bluster."

Us? Ah, so you are spokesperson? What an honour!

And what bluster? You mean like your post? Mostly personal?

"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."

Perhaps it would be pleasant again were I to stoop to insult as you do. But If I did, where would that methodical presentation be?

I look forward to your research.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hello,
I am not suggesting that Stride was a copycat to the murders of Nichols and Chapman, or even Tabram, but we all know that Eddowes was considered by the doctors to have not been the work of the Berner street killer, therefore it is entirely possible that the initial C five ceased after Chapman,...and that Eddowes was killed by mistake, she after all used the name Kelly, and lived with a Kelly, much like the name Barnett used initially [ according to McCarthy]
Stride therefore Was the work of a seperate killer, and the killer of Mary Kelly only appeared on the scene 30th sept 88.
All very speculative, well lets not break a old habit.
The Ripper case is unique in the fact, that so many theories can present themselves on Casebook, sometimes the complete opposite to what one originally believed.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Murderers known to the victim are relatively easy to catch and often are and were, even by a ‘nascent’ police force (another argument against Hutchinson if indeed he did know Kelly)

Not in the context of serial crime, they're not.

Some of the serial killers who have proved the most difficult to catch (even by modern police forces) were later discovered to have known one or more of their victims. So I'm afraid the above is not remotely an argument "against" a suspect known to Kelly.

[lynn cates]

large agreement

Hello 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.'

Still are. I certainly view some of them as such, or nearly so.

"Ergo, they did not float in a sea of indistinguishable crimes."

I think that 4 of them are distinguished from the AVERAGE murder of year 1888. In fact, Dave Gates and I plotted some of the OTHER crimes and murders from that year. It might be interesting to pop round to that ancient thread and have a go at them.

"This tells us that:

a) the murder of prostitutes in London was relatively uncommon"

I grant you that. And I would even include 1888 as part of your observation.

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

Right again. And suddenly, in 1888, we have Chapman, an eviscerated prostitute. Another woman, probably NOT a prostitute, was also eviscerated that year--Kate Eddowes. Whilst yet another, let's call her MJK until we can find out her real name, was made into mince meat. Some allege that she was a prostitute.

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

I already hold that much, but I don't know if the adjective "spree" works well here. But perhaps it does.

"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."

Not sure what all is being counted as the WCM here? Just the 5? The 6? And it would be interesting to learn how to calculate odds. I recall the old Pascalian methodology about cards and dice; not sure how to apply that here, though.

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

Duly remembered. Indeed, I'd go further and say that a claim of copycatting is always tenuous. Recall that the police initially thought the LaBianca murders a copycat of Tate.

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

Who's doing that?

Thanks for the genuine dialogue here. Nothing more refreshing that a great post with well thought out points. I also appreciate that there is no shrillness involved.

Do chat me up again.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

amen

Hello Christer.

"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."

A hearty "amen" to that my friend!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Richard.

"the copycat idea from that autumn of 1888 is no forlorn suggestion."

Thanks, completely agree. I think that ALL avenues should be considered and explored.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

let's be adjective here

Hello Ruby.

"She was a known regular prostitute"

I believe that this is the first time I have seen the adjective "regular" appended to Liz's purported trade. Often, she is referred to as a "casual" prostitute.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Without wanting to start a Stride Fight; in your opinion, how do we know there was no intent to eviscerate in that instance?"

We donīt, simple as that. But the fact remains that no evisceration was carried out on Stride, and when we combine this with the comparatively shallow cut to her throat, we have a good case for an absent Ripper. If the cut in the throat had gone all the way down, notching the vertebrae, it would have been another thing, I think. But as it stands, the interruption theory seems to rest on the Ripper being interrupted halfway through his cut to the throat, and thatīs a bit too coincidental in my view.

There are other things too, but Iīll take your advice and stop short here!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Baxter

Hello Velma.

"I do agree with whoever mentioned the fact that she was killed by someone with the confidence to pull it off in such a public place."

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

[Rubyretro]

Hello Ruby.

"

She was a known regular prostitute"

I believe that this is the first time I have seen the adjective "regular" appended to Liz's purported trade. Often, she is referred to as a "casual" prostitute.

Cheers.
LC

Neal Sheldon, when citing Stride's sentancing at Thames Magistrate's Court
for being "drunk and disorderly, and soliciting prostitution" continues with " her most familiar beats to ply her tradein London's East End was at Commercial Road East to as far afield as Stratford and Bow". This is the same woman who had already been registered as a prostitute in police files in her native Sweden. So I think that we can deduce that she was a regular prostitute.

[lynn cates]

avid reader

Hello Ruby. Is that in Neal's book or is it a thread? I'd love to read that.

By the way, there is no deduction here--only an induction.

Cheers.
LC