For what reason do we include Stride?

[Wickerman]

So why wasn't she mutilated then?

He didn't have time. I can't think of a good argument against an interruption. Opinions may differ on what that interruption was.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff, Dr Brown wrote: "A superficial cut commenced....", not "a cut commenced superficially....."

These are quite different statements.

Yes, but all images, photographs and the diagram show only one cut. Testimony is spoken language, which is looser than a written report. and so the meaning has to be considered in that light. A written postmortem report would be much more useful to us, but we don't have one unfortunately. Also, the testimony presentation often omitted when questions were asked, either from the coroner or from a jury member (some papers include these details, others do not; without them, the testimony often seems quite chaotic and/or clipped, in the cases where it is clear a question is being addressed, the flow of the "conversation" starts to make a bit more sense).

The way I see it is that Brown's spoken statement, as recorded by the press, could just as easily arise from him describing the 6-7 inch wound as a superficial cut that commenced... went deeper and cut the left ... and became shallower on the right side ... etc. (paraphrasing possible "intended meaning" there, not quoting). I believe that because, in part, of the order of his statements. He starts by describing a 6-7 inch cut, and what follows does not clearly indicate he's now describing a 2nd injury (he doesn't preface the superficial statement with "A second superficial cut..."). Yes, it could be a 2nd injury (given how spoken language is not always as clear as intended), which is where the ambiguity of his statement comes in. So either it's a second cut, or it it could be describing details of the 6-7 inch cut (so one injury). The very next statement, though, clearly isn't about a superficial injury, so much relate back to the first described cut (the 6-7 inch one). That order and unclear back and forth feels unnatural to me when viewed as describing two cuts, but it makes more "natural sense" to me if there's only one, and the wording is a bit non-optimal (an error either in his speech, or in the ways his speech was written down).

Given the photographic evidence, and the diagram, both showing only one injury, I think that puts the weight of the evidence on the ambiguity of his spoken statement on the singular cut interpretation. I fully agree that if all we had was the spoken testimony, it is entirely unclear. However, all of the pieces should fit, and either we end up siding with the two cut interpretation of an ambiguous spoken presentation, and then argue for 1) the photos are not clear enough to see the second injury and 2) the diagram omitted it, both of which start to fell like "add on reasoning" (meaning, they are arguments put forth only to support the conclusion initially drawn in light of disconfirming evidence; note, please don't take that as an attack or accusation aimed towards you, I'm only mentioning that as a general principal of how I engage in theory evaluation and to explain why I have come to the conclusion that I have - I find myself having to do that in order to keep the two cut interpretation "in play" so to speak, which tells me I'm on the wrong track).

Anyway, clearly we all have to go through our own evaluations of the evidence, and we all do that differently and hence, come to different opinions. That's the good thing about these boards, is that we can see things from views we may have overlooked due to how each of us view the limited data we have to constrain us.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

In all photos, I can only see one cut to the throat, as is the case in the diagram as I recall, so I'm pretty sure, despite the ambiguity of the testimony, that Kate only had one cut to her throat, and the statement about superficial is in reference to the start of that singular injury. Nichols and Chapman had two cuts to the throat, but I think they may have been failed attempts at decapitation, which JtR was unable to do, and gave up on that, which is why we don't see the 2nd to the spine encircling cut on Eddowes, or Stride (if she's included, but for Stride other explanations exist as well).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff.

The only prints I have seen of the open wound are too dark and out of focus to determine how many cuts. This detail was looked at a couple of decades ago when the subject first came up.

Not that this can be taken as 'proof', but the sketch by Foster can hardly be excused by saying it is a mistake, he was standing over the body.




The clearest photo's are after the autopsy and show one long line of stitches around the throat which is to be expected.
To demonstrate this I would ask you to visualize a pig on a butchers block.
Run a knife across the skin, as the skin is sliced it will pull back exposing the flesh beneath. The knife is then stabbed into the open wound and pulled across severing all the deep tissues.
After the autopsy only the outer skin is stitched up, which can give the erroneous impression that there was only one cut, when in fact the second deep cut just happens to lay inside the first open wound.

The question has always been, "why two cuts?"
I think there is a need the killer did this and it has to do with the theory proposed by Dr Brownfield in his examination of Rose Mylett.

[Observer]

I'm glad someone else see's this as a viable alternative.
What happened to the man seen by PC Smith?

I know that Packer's statements are not worthy due to his times being all over the place. However, just paying attention to the sequence of events that he told investigators.....
A man accompanied Stride that night, ...they stand by his shop, ...they cross the road to stand opposite the club by the Board School (this could be corroborated by PC Smith), ...and stand a while, ...then cross back over to the club.....

This to my mind is the only reason Stride would be inside the gateway, she was with someone - likely the man seen by Packer, which is the same man as seen by PC Smith with the parcel (had he just bought something from Packer?)

BS-man staggered passed and saw the couple in the gateway, he accosted Stride for what she was - maybe even swore at her, "we don't want your type around here" or words to that effect.
Schwartz walks passed and only see's BS-man accost Stride, not noticing the Smith suspect in the shadows.
Both men (BS-man & Schwartz) leave, only then does the Smith suspect slice Stride's throat.

So why wasn't she mutilated then?

[Wickerman]

Seems more likely to me that Liz was entertaining someone within the yard. She was about to freshen up with her cachous when the person suddenly pulled her by the scarf and slashed her throat. Her body went rigid in shock, leaving her still clutching the cachous in her hand. Do we seriously think this man was the same thug manhandling her moments earlier?

I'm glad someone else see's this as a viable alternative.
What happened to the man seen by PC Smith?

I know that Packer's statements are not worthy due to his times being all over the place. However, just paying attention to the sequence of events that he told investigators.....
A man accompanied Stride that night, ...they stand by his shop, ...they cross the road to stand opposite the club by the Board School (this could be corroborated by PC Smith), ...and stand a while, ...then cross back over to the club.....

This to my mind is the only reason Stride would be inside the gateway, she was with someone - likely the man seen by Packer, which is the same man as seen by PC Smith with the parcel (had he just bought something from Packer?)

BS-man staggered passed and saw the couple in the gateway, he accosted Stride for what she was - maybe even swore at her, "we don't want your type around here" or words to that effect.
Schwartz walks passed and only see's BS-man accost Stride, not noticing the Smith suspect in the shadows.
Both men (BS-man & Schwartz) leave, only then does the Smith suspect slice Stride's throat.

[Wickerman]

Jeff, Dr Brown wrote: "A superficial cut commenced....", not "a cut commenced superficially....."

These are quite different statements.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Wickerman,

Just carrying on from the above as my time to edit has expired.

I was just examining the photographs of Kate in the mortuary (found here, post #9: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...wes-photograph). Trying to track down the diagram, but haven't found a link.

In all photos, I can only see one cut to the throat, as is the case in the diagram as I recall, so I'm pretty sure, despite the ambiguity of the testimony, that Kate only had one cut to her throat, and the statement about superficial is in reference to the start of that singular injury. Nichols and Chapman had two cuts to the throat, but I think they may have been failed attempts at decapitation, which JtR was unable to do, and gave up on that, which is why we don't see the 2nd to the spine encircling cut on Eddowes, or Stride (if she's included, but for Stride other explanations exist as well).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.

I think the first noticeable difference between Brown's description of Eddowes, and Phillips's description of Stride is that Brown describes a superficial cut in totality from the left side to the right. Then begins again at the left side to describe the deeper cuts working his way again towards the right side.

Whereas Phillips describes one continuous cut shallow at first (e.g: "Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle, then becoming deeper"), deep then shallow again. At no point though does Phillips say the cut to Stride was superficial, or even began superficial.
Where he does use that term is at the end of the cut where it tapers off to the right of the cartilage:

"The cut through the tissues on the right side of the cartilages is more superficial, and tails off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw".

The start of the cut to Stride was not described as superficial, only where it ended.
I find Phillips describing one clean sweep of the knife across Stride' throat, whereas Brown is using very different terminology to describe two independent sweeps of the knife, both running left to right, but one superficial, the other much deeper.

Hi Wickerman,

From the combination of the ambiguity of Eddowes (1 or possibly 2 cuts), and the diagrams made of her injuries, it seems like Eddowes only had one cut to the throat and not two, so the superficial is a description the start of the wound, not the totality of it. I think we differ on our interpretation of that, however, which would reduce that aspect of the similarity.

But, as a single throat cut, which I think the evidence points to, the rest would just be two people both describing similar injuries, and the differences in specific words used reflect differences of language use, opinion as to which is the correct term, and the fact the wounds won't be identical. In either case, both are describing wounds that are initially shallow (so not stabbed and pulled, but sliced), of roughtly the same length, both deeper on the left than right, both leaving the right side relatively uninjured, and so forth. But that's just how I see it.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

[/I][/B]

Unless she is a prostitute and he is her pimp. Under those circumstances she follows him wherever he says go. If you believe Schwartz testimony/what he claims to have overheard (and I realize you don't) then the man dragging Stride down the sidewalk believed he had some sort of empowerment/right over Stride's behavior. To me he sounds like a pimp claiming ownership of his property (Stride).

hi AP
Stride had recently broken up with her man.. and there is no evidence that she was soliciting recently or even that night. on the contrary she had been working doing cleaning. I doubt she would have picked up a pimp so soon after breaking up with her man.

her actions that night don't really fit actively soliciting either. seems she was out for a good time and or looking for a new boyfriend.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Yes, but the description of Stride's cut, which we know was a single wound reads:

Stride:
Testimony of Mr. George Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon of police, 2, Spital-square
"There was a clean-cut incision on the neck. It was 6in. in length and commenced 2˝in. in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, žin. (note ˝ in. is stated in Begg, Fido, and Skinner, 1996; Pg 351, but in all other respects the quote is identical) over an undivided muscle, and then becoming deeper, dividing the sheath. The cut was very clean and deviated a little downwards. The artery and other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through. The cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and tailed off to about 2in. below the right angle of the jaw. The deep vessels on that side were uninjured." (Evans and Skinner, 2000; pg 158).

And so a single cut made by drawing the knife across the throat will start superficially and become deeper, just as Eddowes appears to have. Also, Stride's cut is described as 6 inches, is deeper on the left than right, etc, as it Eddowes' (though hers is deeper overall, but effectively similar). I tend to suspect, given the details he provides elsewhere, that if there were two cuts made he would have stated that specifically, but that's an assumption which I accept can be validly questioned. Given the drawing shows a single wound, though, I think the combination of sources of information point towards Eddowes' only had her throat cut once, though the description from the testimony could be seen as a bit ambiguous when viewed in isolation.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff.

I think the first noticeable difference between Brown's description of Eddowes, and Phillips's description of Stride is that Brown describes a superficial cut in totality from the left side to the right. Then begins again at the left side to describe the deeper cuts working his way again towards the right side.

Whereas Phillips describes one continuous cut shallow at first (e.g: "Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle, then becoming deeper"), deep then shallow again. At no point though does Phillips say the cut to Stride was superficial, or even began superficial.
Where he does use that term is at the end of the cut where it tapers off to the right of the cartilage:

"The cut through the tissues on the right side of the cartilages is more superficial, and tails off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw".

The start of the cut to Stride was not described as superficial, only where it ended.
I find Phillips describing one clean sweep of the knife across Stride' throat, whereas Brown is using very different terminology to describe two independent sweeps of the knife, both running left to right, but one superficial, the other much deeper.

[The Baron]

[/I][/B]

Unless she is a prostitute and he is her pimp. Under those circumstances she follows him wherever he says go. If you believe Schwartz testimony/what he claims to have overheard (and I realize you don't) then the man dragging Stride down the sidewalk believed he had some sort of empowerment/right over Stride's behavior. To me he sounds like a pimp claiming ownership of his property (Stride).

Leather Apron comes to mind..


The Baron

[APerno]

We have every reason to doubt Schwartz.

There is no evidence that Liz was dragged or forced into the yard. No defensive wounds, no abrasions, clothes undisturbed. Didn't drop a single cachou the entire time. No one else could corroborate Schwartz's narrative. No one else heard the altercation between the two. You believe that after her tussle with BS Man, Liz went willingly into the shadows with her guard down? Now that's insanity!

Unless she is a prostitute and he is her pimp. Under those circumstances she follows him wherever he says go. If you believe Schwartz testimony/what he claims to have overheard (and I realize you don't) then the man dragging Stride down the sidewalk believed he had some sort of empowerment/right over Stride's behavior. To me he sounds like a pimp claiming ownership of his property (Stride).

[The Baron]

First of all, it doesn't mesh with the murder scene. Stride clutching the cachous as she's manhandled to the floor, dragged into the yard and silenced. Unless we're supposed to believe that Stride went willingly into pitch darkness with her assailant or retreated into there, which is equally improbable. There were no signs of a struggle. No signs she was taken against her will. Hard to believe the killer swooped in mere moments after BS Man roughed her up.

We all know that the antisemitism was a powder-keg at the time. Last thing the jewish anarchists wanted was a Ripper victim on their doorstep. They had to do something to deflect any suspicion from them. Too risky to be caught moving the body. Enter Schwartz, stage right. A supposed outsider, Schwartz may have been walked past the club that night, he may have even seen Stride with a bloke, but I think the incident with BS Man was a load of...

Agree.

Two men saw BS attacking Stride, what did they do ?! They ran away!

Very brave men indeed.


The Baron

[Abby Normal]

These aren't viable theories, Abby. No physical evidence Stride was dragged into the yard, and definitely no evidence her throat was cut before she entered the yard. The medicos believed she may have been grounded when the fatal cut occurred. There was also no blood found outside the gate. Everything points to her being taken unawares by the murderer.

Seems more likely to me that Liz was entertaining someone within the yard. She was about to freshen up with her cachous when the person suddenly pulled her by the scarf and slashed her throat. Her body went rigid in shock, leaving her still clutching the cachous in her hand. Do we seriously think this man was the same thug manhandling her moments earlier?

I do. absolutely. the chances she was assaulted by one man only to be murdered by another man moments later is practally nil. ask any cop-its unheard of.

BS man fits the other witness descriptions also-hes corroborated.

"No physical evidence Stride was dragged into the yard,"
her scarf was pulled tight. he could have grabbed it as he pulled her in.

"There was also no blood found outside the gate."
theres blood on her hand. if she had her throat cut outside the gate-her hand instinctively goes to the wound, blocking it. she stumbles into the yard and expires.

added to that the stupid club conspiracy theory. cmon Harry and all this because shes found still holding onto something. Its ridiculous.

[Harry D]

perhaps but I doubt it. I think she may have been dragged in there by him. her scarf was pulled tight. its only a few fet away. or he cut her throat during the initial tussle and she stumbled into the yard towards the voices of the club and perceived help only to expire there.

These aren't viable theories, Abby. No physical evidence Stride was dragged into the yard, and definitely no evidence her throat was cut before she entered the yard. The medicos believed she may have been grounded when the fatal cut occurred. There was also no blood found outside the gate. Everything points to her being taken unawares by the murderer.

Seems more likely to me that Liz was entertaining someone within the yard. She was about to freshen up with her cachous when the person suddenly pulled her by the scarf and slashed her throat. Her body went rigid in shock, leaving her still clutching the cachous in her hand. Do we seriously think this man was the same thug manhandling her moments earlier?