Why is Liz Stride's Murder So Contentious?

[perrymason]

It'd be easier to make a deeper and more extensive cut if the body were upright and NOT lying on the ground, I'd have thought. The assailant would have more leverage and greater freedom for the arm/wrist to sweep around the neck.

Pulling a knife backwards, vs pushing one down through tissue. If he had Popeye forearms, Id agree Sam. He could lean on the knife when they are down, maybe thats the reason he goes deeper than required to kill...if Liz is cut while falling he is reaching across with the blade with her body in motion.....that motion on a sharp blade would have been enough to cause that cut as he drops her....a cut which is not evenly deep across her throat... and doesnt nick her spine.

Cheers Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Pulling a knife backwards, vs pushing one down through tissue. If he had Popeye forearms, Id agree Sam.

It's all about leverage, Mike - never mind about the thickness of the forearms. Much easier to penetrate more deeply by pulling through the flesh - AND it's easier to make a longer cut that way, instead of pushing down.

[Grabbit]

Hi Sam,

yes, those would definitely be the bits I would've highlighted if I wanted to point out the major difference between Liz's throat wound and the others'.

But we already know what the major difference is! I'm not disputing that in any way, by the way.

What I think is worth a second look, is the fact that even with the readily accepted victims, the wounds aren't necessarily as uniform as we often get into the habit of thinking. And yes, I'm as guilty as anyone of sometimes getting stuck in a train of thought and not shifting from it.

So, what I was really trying to say was, Polly Nichols had two throat cuts, one of which was only about four inches long. Somewhat un-Ripperish compared to the others.

Catherine Eddowes wound began according to Dr Brown, 'superficially'. I'm really not sure where that leads. Possibly no-where of course.

Sometimes it's just worth trying to look at what little evidence we do have from a different angle.

Cheers anyway.


Hi Michael,

Yes I think it was Blackwell that thought she was cut either lying down or while falling. Dr Philips seemed to think while lying because of the lack of blood on the wall or the clothing. Either scenario still 'could' fit.

At the moment I'm thinking we're getting too hung up on the whole 'canonical' thing. We're looking for the evidence we can include without any shadow of doubt that we're dealing with Jack. As a result we may be missing other useful evidence which could otherwise be cross checked where possible.

For instance, Ada Wilson's attack provides eyewitness accounts. Do these match up with any other accounts. How many and how closely. I know it may be unrelated, and this should be kept in mind at all times, but for my money, the net of possible victims and evidence should definitely be wider, including Martha Tabram.

There's no way Jack killed, or even attacked, a nice neat canonical 3..4..5..6..or whatever. There would be differences and they would be surprising. There may be ways to spot them if they match up elsewhere.

This is just my revised thinking you understand. What I really need is a big wall with descriptions in picture form, (like a sort of photofit),but this REALLY isn't a good idea with small children.

Two weeks ago I'd not have really seen BS as a contender for Jack, but you never know. Keep an open mind. And feel free to remind me to if I say something Stoopid!

Take care.

Ally.

[perrymason]

Hi back at ya Ally,

The "Crux" kind of thing for me isnt the lack of abdominal mutilations....nor the fact she may not have been soliciting when she met her killer...nor is it the fact that we have a witnessed assault on her within 5 minutes of the earliest cut estimate.....its that she is a spike.

Polly....mistakes, like venue, as a new killer.....Annie, with very strong evidence that the signature moves assumed used on Polly were in evidence in Hanbury.......SPIKE.......then back to the almost exact routine we would have expected to see with the 3rd victim, when he kills Kate...with new facets added...none omitted.

Remove Liz Stride, and put Mary on hold,... and you have a 5 week streak, with a logical, visible, consistent behavior and signature pattern, a weaker performance in the early kills, then branching out as well as still performing "the essentials" in later kills.

Those qualities...behaviours /signatures.... that are present in those three "consecutive" kills... are not visibly present in either of the other two kills.


Cheers Ally.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Ally

No I don’t think your being stooped at all. I think your reasoning on BS is sound and I very much like your idea of reconstructing the knife wounds. Seeing them side by side would tell us more in a few glances than a thousand words.

I believe Sam did something very similar on the Eddowes thread but to my knowledge no one has ever created photo-fits of the wounds inflicted on all the victims.

Of course it would be interesting to do this in 3D. It would be finding someone with the inclination and a model maker with the skill , know how and resources.

In principle however I think this is a great idea. I would be interested in knowing Sam's opinion.

Pirate

[perrymason]

Perhaps it was the case that BS man was yet another iteration of a killer who has a demonstrated sequence methodology....the last murder being the other spike...but I believe its far more likely that he was a thug, since we have that much in evidence by Schwartz's account...and its more likely the Killer in Room 13 knew his victim as can be seen in the evidence of any other "Ripper" kill.

I think perhaps there is a direct correlation of the imagination and variety of the killers personna..being proportional to the imagination of the idea proponent in these cases.

Cheers all

[Sam Flynn]

Catherine Eddowes wound began according to Dr Brown, 'superficially'.

Arguably, most wounds of this nature would, Grabbit - it's the degree to which they penetrate the flesh following the initial insertion that counts. In Eddowes' case it went on to deeply penetrate the tissues of the neck very soon after its "superficial" beginning.

[Grabbit]

Hi Michael,

you wrote,
Those qualities...behaviours /signatures.... that are present in those three "consecutive" kills... are not visibly present in either of the other two kills.

(Sorry, don't know how to do the proper quote thing.)

You're right, they're not. But that doesn't automatically mean Jack wasn't there and this is what I think we need to step back and take a longer look at.

I think we're making the same mistakes as the officers who were hunting the Yorkshire Ripper (and countless others for that matter). We're looking at the victims and too easily discounting the ones that don't fit the pattern well enough, because we think we'll contaminate our evidence if we get a wrong one in there.

Fair enough, but in doing so we're denying ourselves far more evidence to possibly work with. That doesn't mean I think we should include any and all for the hell of it. It's right to be cautious about it. I just think we're being over cautious, that's all. Like I said, maybe we can match other things up by looking at a much wider picture and looking at it in a different way, if you see what I mean.

You know my views on Liz as a victim. There's nothing conclusive either way. Until there is, I'm not tipping out such a wealth of potentially good evidence. But if we can prove beyond ALL reasonable doubt that she wasn't a Jack victim, then the evidence is useless to us and I'd happily tip her out of the thinking.

As for BS, yes, he most probably was just a thug. But most probably leaves just enough doubt for me not to close down that line of thought either.

You see! I'm still open to the possibility that he did it, whether or not he was Jack!

Take care.


Cheers Pirate for not thinking my idea was 'stoopid'. I reckon we need something similar with witness statements as well. A sort of generic face and/or body with whatever descriptions 'pasted' onto it. It might throw up some surprises. Not enough time or knowhow from me though.


And Sam,

you're probably right, but the use of the word 'superficially' gives the impression of slightly more distance and less depth than might normally be expected, even at the start of such a wound. I expect it's just the turn of phrase that he used.

Anyway, take care all!

Ally

[caz]

Hi All,

Interesting thread that I missed up until now.

I can accept a loud, burley abusive man as a killer. But a man bawling loudly, possibly aggressively and belligerently, in the presence of at least one and possible two witnesses just prior to committing a ghastly murder does not seem compatible with JtR's style. Maybe JtR needed more stealth than that to survive and prosper as he did.

Maybe so. But it can’t be assumed that Jack would have been caught had he behaved like Liz’s killer allegedly did, since Liz’s killer wasn’t caught, stealthy or otherwise.

The circular logic typically employed at this point is that Liz’s killer, who didn’t behave remotely like Jack and therefore wasn’t Jack, would have got away with it because everyone naturally assumed he was Jack.

I can’t see that Jack had much to fear either way. It could only have been to his advantage if the police had doubted it was him for any reason. Ditto if they assumed he had struck again and he hadn’t. Would the assumption that it was him have increased his chances of being caught if they were right? The extra risks on this occasion, that would supposedly have led to Jack being caught, but not if it were anyone else, were taken prior to the murder, when he was still able to assess the dangers of cutting Liz’s throat or leaving her alive. So I’m not sure how or why it would have been riskier for Jack to inflict the single fatal cut when he was alone with Liz and get the hell out than it would for anyone else.

And, yes, it might at first seem a bit too coincidental that Stride should be murdered with her throat cut right in the middle of the Ripper's reign. But, given the massive publicity, a copy-cat killing would have been the obvious option or excuse or camoflage for any would-be murderer, a fact which in my view lessens the weight of the "too coincidental" argument.

A fair point, except that circular logic kicks in again when arguing that because the killer didn’t behave like Jack it was someone else who copied him well enough to be taken for him.

Would Jack really be so brazen as to attempt to mutilate a dead prostitute outside a club where there were a lot of people coming and going?

To be fair there is no evidence that anyone ‘attempted to mutilate’ a freshly murdered woman in this risky spot. Jack’s about the only killer we know about who might have been almost, but not quite brazen enough, and he was active in the area that night. What we do know is that someone was brazen enough to cut a prostitute’s throat outside this busy club, presumably after being seen by two men manhandling her. If Jack was not brazen enough to mutilate in such risky circumstances, the next question would be whether someone with a tangible motive for killing Liz would really be so brazen as to attempt to murder for the first time in his life in those same risky circumstances?

Not so brazen if he was a complete stranger who had killed before; not so brazen if he cut her throat quickly and efficiently as soon as they were alone, because she was refusing to go with him to a quieter spot like the others had.

And for everyone who argues that it wasn’t Jack because the spot was too risky for him, there will be someone who argues it wasn’t him because there was plenty of time for him to mutilate in peace. I’m never quite sure how anyone but the killer could possibly make that judgement, but if it were true it would put paid not only to the ‘too risky for Jack’ argument, but also to the idea that someone known personally to Liz was hoping to pass off his first attempt at al fresco throat cutting as Jack’s work. With all that lovely spare time on his hands, why would he have made no attempt to rip her up a bit, or at the very least made sure the single wound would quickly prove fatal, and not give her any chance of whispering his name with her last breath?

I think we're making the same mistakes as the officers who were hunting the Yorkshire Ripper (and countless others for that matter). We're looking at the victims and too easily discounting the ones that don't fit the pattern well enough, because we think we'll contaminate our evidence if we get a wrong one in there.

Fair enough, but in doing so we're denying ourselves far more evidence to possibly work with. That doesn't mean I think we should include any and all for the hell of it. It's right to be cautious about it. I just think we're being over cautious, that's all…

…You know my views on Liz as a victim. There's nothing conclusive either way. Until there is, I'm not tipping out such a wealth of potentially good evidence. But if we can prove beyond ALL reasonable doubt that she wasn't a Jack victim, then the evidence is useless to us and I'd happily tip her out of the thinking.

Now that could have been me talking!

I have never seen the sense in narrowing down Jack’s options, especially when there are known examples of murderers (including the double-eventers) who went gaily about their business, totally unaware that they were offending in precisely the same ways that are constantly being denied to Jack on these boards as too risky (or too cautious), too inconsistent, too coincidental or too fanciful. It’s even worse when Jack is given the red card and told to proceed directly to Mitre Square for two polar opposite reasons: eg the Berner St club was too risky; the same club posed no risk at all.

Jack is not being allowed nearly as much rope as other murderers have grabbed for themselves since - certainly not enough to hang him.

Now there's a surprise.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

I reread Sugden last night and put some interesting quotes on the conspiracy thread with regard to his opinion on whether or not Liz was a Ripper murder.

He also addressed the cachous issue..."Why did she die still clutching her packet of cachous in her left hand? In the event of a struggle, is it not likely that Elizabeth would have dropped these items either to defend herself or as she flung her arms out to break her fall?" (page 209)

Another interesting point that he made and one that I was not aware of was the testimony of Morris Eagle and Mrs. Diemschutz who both testified that although it was possible that Liz's screams would have been drowned out by the singing and noise coming from the club, they were both confident that they would have heard any such screams given their proximity to an open door and window (I believe it was). (page 209)

Interesting that the lack of screams is compatible with the cachous. Both would seem to indicate that she was with a customer and therefore caught off guard. Hard to imagine her not screaming bloody murder (no pun intended) if she were being dragged into the yard by the BS man after their initial encounter.

c.d.

[Malcolm X]

the thing that connects Stride to the Ripper, is the GSG. this tells me that the Ripper was either in the crowd watching or he killed Stride..

different neck wound? yes, but did the Ripper follow up this first smaller wound, by a much deeper cut after death.

well, look at Kelly....it would be very hard to almost sever her head in one go, from his angle of attack ( from the front), he's far more likely to almost sever the head on one side only... because this very deep circular cut is very hard to achieve in one go, your wrist/forearm is turning too far, it feels very awkward and uncomfortable.

now Liz was more than likely to have been cut close to; or on the ground, now this is similar to Kelly above, i.e your wrist is turning too far (to almost sever her head)..... he has cut her neck on his blind side and pulled the blade back across the front of her neck towards him; while withdrawing it, and if he was the Ripper, this second cut would be post mortem.

the Stride initial cut isn't very efficient is it, or is it ?....look at what the killer has done, he's severed her wind pipe too, he's had too, look behind you and above you, yes the window is open and he can hear loud talking/ singing.

Liz therefore didn't scream, because before this her scarf was too tight as well, he's grabbed her scarf instantly with his left arm, (pretending to put his arm around her), dragged her towards the ground and slashed at her throat, my guess is that she was at about 45 degrees when he cut her, any further and he'd fall on top of her too.

[c.d.]

Hi Malcom,

Why didn't Liz scream as she was being pulled (presumably) into the yard?

c.d.

[Malcolm X]

Hi Malcom,

Why didn't Liz scream as she was being pulled (presumably) into the yard?

c.d.

either she was already in there, or maybe they strolled into Dutfields together..

the clue is the open window, so expect the killer to be nice first and then to suddenly launch an attack, he was therefore quietly chatting her up first.... be it the ripper or a club member!..........the breath fresheners are a clue but not a major clue, the big clue is that open window.

she didn't drop the breath fresheners, because maybe the attack was this fast, but out in the street much more likely to drop them; because then she'd have much more time to fight back, plus to scream like crazy...........but the killer wouldn't do that if he knew that the window was open and you cant miss the noise can you!

he also had a huge problem wrestling with her, with a knife in his other hand, so with this handicap; expect him to launch a sudden attack very close to the murder spot using only one arm.

he probably chatted her up with his other arm loosely behind his back, drawn up into his jacket sleeve..with his other arm fondling the back of her neck. moving ever so slowly towards her scarf.....ready to suddenly grab it, he was probably waiting to hear ``wild laughing from the upstairs window`` .this would be his cue to drag her over, the noise would mask any scream that she might make.

[c.d.]

Hi Malcom,

She would not be strolling if it were the BS man who had just thrown her to the ground would she?

c.d.

[Malcolm X]

Hi Malcom,

She would not be strolling if it were the BS man who had just thrown her to the ground would she?

c.d.

no but i dont think this was BS anyway.this killer is someone else