For what reason do we include Stride?

[harry]

I believe it may be a false assumption that it was an unprovoked attack by BS on Stride.The reality is that it is equally possible that Stride accosted BS, and that her fall was due to BS warding her off,as has been suggested by others.Schwartz is also claimed to have said he heard raised voices as he hurried away, which might suggest a vocal argument instead of a prolonged attack.If that is the case,it is probable that voicing his anger was all that BS can be accused of.

[c.d.]

Hello Jeff,

Don't you think that Kidney would have been asked for an alibi and if he failed to provide one that could be verified the police would have asked Schwartz to identify him?

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

With regard to the number of cuts and their description we know one thing for certain and that is that the cut or cuts killed her. I have to assume that that was the killer's goal as opposed to trying to duplicate the cuts made on previous victims. The data pool of victims is quite limited so it is not surprising at all to see variation.

As for Stride being a domestic it seems strange that no one heard any argument after Schwartz left. In addition, Stride was not slapped around the face area and there are no frenzied stabs to the body which you would expect with a domestic. That seems a bit strange.

That's a good point. Like everything, it's not definitive, but it is a valid observation that needs to be considered when trying to weigh the options.

Since Swanson considered the possibility in his report of Stride's killer coming onto the scene post Schwartz it is a reasonable assumption that Schwartz was closely questioned as to whether Stride was alive when Schwartz ran off.

I still find it hard to accept that the B.S. man would go on to kill her after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man. Why not simply run off if at that point all you had done was push a woman to the ground?

c.d.

Indeed, but again, if it's JtR (not saying it is for sure), then running off after having started on an attack he might follow through to the point of killing her. Even if it looked to be just pushing and pulling around, if it's JtR that's not what would be in his head with regards to what's going on, despite that being what Schwartz and Pipeman had in their head's as to what they saw. I suppose an argument could be made that because he went on to kill her despite having just been seen pushing her, that makes it more likely it's JtR. But, I think one could just as easily point out that a domestic could easily do the same, though your above observation might be suggested as a counter-point.

I think I find your last query of why to be most applicable to someone other than JtR who pushes/pulls Stride around in response to an unwanted proposition type thing. Someone who either has a personal connection to Stride (the domestic line of reasoning) or someone with murderous initial intent (the JtR inclusion line of reasoning), I think both offer explanations why that "cease and desist" failed to occur. Those seem to be the two most probable lines, placing Michael Kidney as the prime suspect for the former, and our unknown JtR as the latter.

If the case against Michael Kidney can be shown to be weak, that tends to tip the balance towards the alternative simply as these two options seem to be the best competing hypotheses (or one introduces a third option, such as the above stranger, but not JtR attack, but I think that to be improbable for reasons like you've mentioned - others may differ in that opinion).

There's a good write up here looking at the case against Michael Kidney, which I need to digest myself, so I'll just leave it for others to view at their leisure.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/exonerating-kidney.html

Anyway, from the discussions here, I'm starting to lean towards her inclusion, in part because I think the arguments for it being a random stranger other than JtR (i.e. why go on to kill her, etc) are working to convince me that line of thought is less probable than I was giving it credit for, and that it is really a choice between JtR and Michael Kidney.

I've leaned both towards and away on a number of occasions in the past, so this may not be the case tomorrow, and I reserve my right to waffle.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

With regard to the number of cuts and their description we know one thing for certain and that is that the cut or cuts killed her. I have to assume that that was the killer's goal as opposed to trying to duplicate the cuts made on previous victims. The data pool of victims is quite limited so it is not surprising at all to see variation.

As for Stride being a domestic it seems strange that no one heard any argument after Schwartz left. In addition, Stride was not slapped around the face area and there are no frenzied stabs to the body which you would expect with a domestic. That seems a bit strange.

Since Swanson considered the possibility in his report of Stride's killer coming onto the scene post Schwartz it is a reasonable assumption that Schwartz was closely questioned as to whether Stride was alive when Schwartz ran off.

I still find it hard to accept that the B.S. man would go on to kill her after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man. Why not simply run off if at that point all you had done was push a woman to the ground?

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

I don't think we can have it both ways Gareth.

To begin with Dr Brown does not say how many cuts ran across her throat, other doctors on other cases did.
That said, a superficial cut is one that only penetrates the top layers of skin, this is what he says:

"The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and 1/2 below the lobe and about 2 1/2 inches behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear."

Due to the lack of punctuation it is difficult to be sure where this sentence should end and the next one begin.
However, Dr Brown then goes on to describe the deep wounds which are clearly not superficial.
This indicates a second cut.

"The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side side - the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed - the larynx was severed below the vocal chords. All the deep structures were severed to the bone the knife marking intervertebral cartilages - the sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. the carotid artery had a fine hole opening the internal juglar vein was opened an inch and a half not divided."

That second paragraph describes deep wounds right down to the bone.
The first sentence describes a superficial slice across the neck not penetrating much below the skin.
Two cuts are described.

All Dr Brown is doing is describing the condition of the wound without suggesting how many cuts it would take to cause such contrary damage.

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 2½in. in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, ¾in. (note ½ 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

[Wickerman]

Dr Brown only describes a single cut - albeit a very deep one that extended down to the spine, leaving its mark on the intervertebral cartilage. The idea of a single, deep wound tallies with Foster's sketch of the body and the mortuary photograph taken before Eddowes' wounds were sutured up.

I don't think we can have it both ways Gareth.

To begin with Dr Brown does not say how many cuts ran across her throat, other doctors on other cases did.
That said, a superficial cut is one that only penetrates the top layers of skin, this is what he says:

"The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and 1/2 below the lobe and about 2 1/2 inches behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear."

Due to the lack of punctuation it is difficult to be sure where this sentence should end and the next one begin.
However, Dr Brown then goes on to describe the deep wounds which are clearly not superficial.
This indicates a second cut.

"The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side side - the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed - the larynx was severed below the vocal chords. All the deep structures were severed to the bone the knife marking intervertebral cartilages - the sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. the carotid artery had a fine hole opening the internal juglar vein was opened an inch and a half not divided."

That second paragraph describes deep wounds right down to the bone.
The first sentence describes a superficial slice across the neck not penetrating much below the skin.
Two cuts are described.

All Dr Brown is doing is describing the condition of the wound without suggesting how many cuts it would take to cause such contrary damage.

[JeffHamm]

If so, then he started his attack in full public view, in a very obvious and vocal manner, with at least two witnesses he'd have known about. This really doesn't look like Jack the Ripper to me.

Hi Sam,

Fair point, but then, we don't know if he started the attack knowing Schwartz and Pipeman were present. That alone could be the "mistake" that made him uncomfortable enough to continue the sequence, but their fleeing gave him enough time to kill her before he left. That would mean he left before Deimshutz shows up. Again, it's workable either way because we have too few constraints due to the minimal information. Not claiming this is it, only suggestion "because this is both possible and plausible, it's a viable hypothesis", but I agree fully, a domestic is also both "possible and plausible" and so also a viable hypothesis that needs to be considered.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Well... Phillips, who saw 4 of the Five Canonicals first hand, saw dissimilarities with Eddowes and the previous victims, let alone with Stride. Kate did have the double cut, something which is unique enough to be considered as a signature or part of his MO, but Phillips still was unconvinced the cuts matched Polly and Annies.

Hi Michael,

Not sure about a double-cut on Kate. Here's the details I've extracted from the inquest testimony (as reported in The Times). I also reproduced the descriptions for the injuries to the throats for Nichols and Chapman (in post 413 of this thread all 4 are included).

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 2½in. in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, ¾in. (note ½ 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).

Eddowes:
Testimony of Frederick Gordon Brown, 17 Finsbury Circus, Surgeon of City of London Police Force:
"The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and ½ below the lobe and about 2½ inches behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear. The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side. the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. the larynx was severed below the vocal chords. All the deep structures were severed to the bone the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. the sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. The carotid artery hand a fine hole opening. The internal jugular vein was opened an inch and a half not divided. The blood vessels contained clot." (Evans and Skinner, 2000; pg 205/206)

It is not clear if the 2nd sentence (beginning with "A superficial cut...") is describing a 2nd, injury, or is describing that the cut that went 6-7 inches started superficially, and then proceeds according to the subsequent descriptions. It sort of reads like a 2nd injury, but the subsequent details are anything but superficial, and so must refer to the first 6-7 inch cut, and that produces a haphazard presentation of details that isn't consistent with a medical expert giving testimony.

To me, the description for the injuries to Stride and Eddowes sound very similar, only that Eddowes was more severe. If JtR was spooked, or for whatever reason decided that he wasn't sticking around, prior to cutting Stride's throat, then that's a more rushed situation with a resulting less extensive injury.

The difference between Eddowes and Chapman over all was in many respects with regards to anatomical knowledge, but given the sun was coming up for Chapman and it was extremely dark for Eddowes, the difference in that seems more situational to me than anything else. The overall pattern between Chapman and Eddowes links them in my opinion.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

if it is JtR, then he kills her because the initial rough and tumble wasn't just pushing about, it was the beginnings of an attack where he intended to kill her

If so, then he started his attack in full public view, in a very obvious and vocal manner, with at least two witnesses he'd have known about. This really doesn't look like Jack the Ripper to me.

[JeffHamm]

Why not leave her alive, if all that had happened up till then was a bit of rough and tumble? Unless he knew that Stride would be able to identify him, of course, but even then it's possible that all she'd have against him was that he'd roughed her up.

Hi Sam,

If it's not JtR, then yes, a domestic fits, but if it is JtR, then he kills her because the initial rough and tumble wasn't just pushing about, it was the beginnings of an attack where he intended to kill her (he's a serial murderer and that's what he's out looking to do). Something, we don't know what but many suggestions have been put forth, causes him to abort the sequence. Interruption is the most common explanation that people hypothesize about, but it could be anything, such as the attack on Stride didn't go to plan and it wasn't satisfying to him.

Anyway, starting from either initial starting point (not JtR or is JtR) doesn't really cause major problems, just creates questions. As I say, I don't have strong views on either her inclusion or exclusion, and think rational explanations exist for both views.

- Jeff

[APerno]

So if there was no light in the passageway it would follow this would be an ideal place for Jack to strike, just let Liz lead him there. Yet if we are to believe BS man was Jack then why attack, and pull her into the street, doesn't make sense. Yet if BS was her killer and not Jack then how come Liz is found dead in the yard with no obvious signs of a struggle? It seems a bit square pegs round holes to me.
Regards Darryl

IF BS man was her pimp/bully boy she may have found herself with his knife at her throat on several previous (threatening) occasions and assumed this was just one more time she had displeased him; but this time he goes through with it. She is so taken by surprise that she clenches the small bag of treats in her hand and falls to the ground; her only physical reaction is to clench her fist, for her to do anything else it is too late.

[natalie84]

I find it a little outlandish, Natalie, just based on all the control factors that 5 separate killers would have to keep in common to pull off such outrageous crimes in a city known for an extremely low social murder rate. Reading the newspapers of the times, murders were usually some family member went on a bender and stabbed her sister or shot his father or assaulted his wife or &c. And they tended to be resolved fairly quickly by the force. But, to have 5 individuals suddenly commit a spree of social murders (ie. in the sense of murdering 'a stranger' or person not known to him or her) on unfortunate women belies a conspiracy.

As for control factors, most the crimes were committed cluelessly; other than a handprint on Polly's face, what are you truly left with? There's no bloody handprints in No. 13, no bloody footprints leading away from Mitre Square, no button torn from shabby genteel clothing in that backyard on Hanbury, &c. So, these 5 would have to share a particular criminal perfection amongst the lot. Then, I consider that 5 separate killers would mean 5 separate family, community or social groups that they returned to after committing the crime. Surely, not all 5 could have been equally meticulous that they went undetected by a wife, neighbor, cousin, minister, &c. And, 5 killers means 5 different personalities; meaning, one might have a big mouth and brag about his crime: another might be wrought with guilt that he confessed to a confidante: and so on and so on. And finally, Id like to believe that, if there had been 5 separate killers, the police would have at least been adept at catching 1 out of the lot.

I can accept that there can be shared social phenomena. Notre Dame burns, and all I've been hearing since then is attacks on churches. So, I can accept that, in 1888, reports of the The Ripper murders may have had an affect on the maniacs and lunatics "out there", but I wouldn't be willing to put 5 killers "on the table".

It's not actually my intent to argue a Multiple Killers theory. It's not one I believe. It's just a way of making my point that Stride's particularly inhibited murder isn't any more separate from the others than, say, Kelly's particularly brutal one. Also, why are you asssuming that if it WAS 3-5 separate killers that they would all be murders of strangers? One could imagine one man killing Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes, then Kidney killing Stride, and Barnett killing Kelly, for instance. And they don't get caught because the police, press, coroners and witnesses are all caught up in the Ripper Hysteria. Again, this is not my actual theory of what happened, I'm just making a point that the links between the canonical five are ALL at least a little bit up to questioning.

[Sam Flynn]

I recall someone stating there were 2 cuts, Ill find that quote.

It'd be useful if you find it, Michael. I seem to recall some ambiguity about the number of wounds, but the important thing as far as I'm concerned is that at least one of the cuts left an enormous gash in her throat, and penetrated all the way down to her vertebrę; a very similar, if not identical wound was sustained by all the other canonical victims, apart from Stride.

[Michael W Richards]

Dead wall! Thank you, Joshua I was wracking my skull trying to recall the term, but didn't feel like reading the entirety of Casebook or BNA to locate it. Add the claim that the Ripper could have been lurking on the site and gone unseen by Diemschutz, and I interpret that it was visibility "near zero" right there by the wall.
I don't remember how wide the gates were, so I can't say how far up the yard she was - 6, 7, 8,... Only remember that she was beyond the width of the open gate, just as Michael pointed out.
For me, this environmental factor comes into play when I question whether or not "everything that happened to Catherine" was meant for Elizabeth.

*And, I saw the word "gloom" used elsewhere, by a journalist who was slumming the murder sites in the wake of the attacks. In Mitre Square. This scribe was able to stand in that shadowed corner where Catherine was murdered, going completely unnoticed and unseen by people walking through the square.

The gates were 2 doors that combined to just over 10ft in width. From the street the left one had a wicket in it. Both were swung in, and Liz's feet were about 6 inches from the gate that swung into the side wall of the club. There were people in the cottages opposite the wall that were awake at the time, one was Lave, and he went in around the same time Eagle says he arrived. There were cigarette makers in those cottages, and Leon Goldstein had a black bag that was full of empty cigarette cartons...was he headed for the cottages when he looked into the open gates, and then changed his mind?

[Michael W Richards]

Dr Brown only describes a single cut - albeit a very deep one that extended down to the spine, leaving its mark on the intervertebral cartilage. The idea of a single, deep wound tallies with Foster's sketch of the body and the mortuary photograph taken before Eddowes' wounds were sutured up.

He does say that the throat was cut across, he doesn't specify one cut anywhere Ive read. I recall someone stating there were 2 cuts, Ill find that quote.