Throat cutting in Victorian London.....

[Trevor Marriott]

But was throat cutting short of murder common? If it was, there must have been a large number of incredibly fortunate individuals, because in, say, the whole of 1887 there were only 11 female adults murdered by way of knife, which of course wouldn't just include throat cutting, in the whole country.

Moreover, the vast majority of murders would no doubt be domestic affairs with an obvious suspect, as illustrated by Rosella's post on unsolved murders. And Stride certainly doesn't fall within that category.

It's also worth pointing out that Stride was murdered with clinical efficiency, i.e. by having her carotid artery cut and given no opportunity to cry out. And to my mind, that's indicative of an experienced offender who knew exactly what they were doing.

Throat cutting had been the main method of killing for many years prior to 1888. So just because all the prostitutes had their throats cut doesn't necessarily point to the same killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

Getting back to Jack though, who presumably wasn't in Zanzibar or the Highlands or on a movie set during his career---was Jack practising his skills with a knife on humans before Polly, (or Martha Tabram)? As I'm not a fan of Jack the Torso Killer it doesn't appear so to me.

Quite possibly small animals though.

[Rosella]

Getting back to Jack though, who presumably wasn't in Zanzibar or the Highlands or on a movie set during his career---was Jack practising his skills with a knife on humans before Polly, (or Martha Tabram)? As I'm not a fan of Jack the Torso Killer it doesn't appear so to me.

[Shaggyrand]

And let's not forget The Kurgan, from Highlander...

Too bad The Kurgan was in Zanzibar fighting in the Abushiri Revolt in 1888. Just saying... It's as good as the Lewis Carroll theory otherwise.

[Joshua Rogan]

And let's not forget The Kurgan, from Highlander...

[Mayerling]

But was throat cutting short of murder common? If it was, there must have been a large number of incredibly fortunate individuals, because in, say, the whole of 1887 there were only 11 female adults murdered by way of knife, which of course wouldn't just include throat cutting, in the whole country.

Moreover, the vast majority of murders would no doubt be domestic affairs with an obvious suspect, as illustrated by Rosella's post on unsolved murders. And Stride certainly doesn't fall within that category.

It's also worth pointing out that Stride was murdered with clinical efficiency, i.e. by having her carotid artery cut and given no opportunity to cry out. And to my mind, that's indicative of an experienced offender who knew exactly what they were doing.

Any form of murder may fall short - in which case you have an attempted murder. Just because one cuts at a throat (even slices it) does not mean the victim has been fatally or mortally wounded.

In the year 1726 the "Thieftaker General" Jonathan Wild, who actually was the model for "Professor Moriarty" in part (he's mentioned in Doyle's novel, "The Valley of Fear") was attacked by one of his gang, "Blueskin" Blake, who was a close friend of Jack Sheppard. Wild had set up Sheppard to be captured and hanged, but Sheppard built up a legend of escaping repeatedly from Newgate Prison. In the end though he was recaptured a last time and eventually hanged. Blueskin, realizing Wild's involvement in all this, attacked Wild and seriously injured (but did not kill Wild) by cutting his throat. Blueskin was arrested, tried, convicted, and hanged, but revealed Wild's illegal activities - which eventually led to the fall of the "Thieftaker General" and his eventual execution.

Granted it is 160 years before Whitechapel, but it does illustrate an attempt at cutting a throat may not result in a person being actually killed.

Jeff

[John G]

I'm not sure it's realistic to say that a man who cuts another persons throat was not prepared to murder. The only outcome to such an act that can be predicted is death. And a throat cutter would have to know death was a very real possibility, and they had very little control as to whether or not someone was going to survive such an act.

But was throat cutting short of murder common? If it was, there must have been a large number of incredibly fortunate individuals, because in, say, the whole of 1887 there were only 11 female adults murdered by way of knife, which of course wouldn't just include throat cutting, in the whole country.

Moreover, the vast majority of murders would no doubt be domestic affairs with an obvious suspect, as illustrated by Rosella's post on unsolved murders. And Stride certainly doesn't fall within that category.

It's also worth pointing out that Stride was murdered with clinical efficiency, i.e. by having her carotid artery cut and given no opportunity to cry out. And to my mind, that's indicative of an experienced offender who knew exactly what they were doing.

[John G]

Found this spreadsheet of historical crime data;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116649/rec-crime-1898-2002.xls

Unfortunately it only goes back to 1898. However, another website provided this snippet;

Homicide is regarded as a most serious offence and it is probably reported more than other forms of crime.[7] Between 1857 and 1890, there were rarely more than 400 homicides reported to the police each year, and during the 1890s the average was below 350. In Victorian England, the homicide rate reached 2 per 100,000 of the population only once, in 1865. Generally, it was about 1.5 per 100,000 falling to rarely more than 1 per 100,000 at the end of the 1880s and declining even further after 1900. These figures do not take into account the significant number of infanticides that went undetected.[8] The statistics for homicide are therefore probably closer to the real level of the offence.

Homicide also included manslaughter, which significantly widens the criteria. Nonetheless, it's interesting to see that homicide rate, in the late 1880s, was less than 1 per 100000 people.

[Errata]

There were clearly a significant number of violent offenders in the late Victorian period, but even amongst this group of violent individuals only a relatively small numbrr were prepared to go as far as murder.

I'm not sure it's realistic to say that a man who cuts another persons throat was not prepared to murder. The only outcome to such an act that can be predicted is death. And a throat cutter would have to know death was a very real possibility, and they had very little control as to whether or not someone was going to survive such an act.

[John G]

Why? Any one of these attacks could have resulted in the death of the victim and therefore an increased possibility that the perpetrator escaped detection.

If you take Stride out of the C5 and drop her in amongst this lot, does she stand out in some way?

There were clearly a significant number of violent offenders in the late Victorian period, but even amongst this group of violent individuals only a relatively small numbrr were prepared to go as far as murder.

That said, the murder of Stride could have been a coincidence-I think the likelihood of her being a Ripper victim is not much more than 50-50-although there are wider considerations than the mere fact that she was murdered in Whitechapel and had her throat cut, as illustrated, for example, by Coroner Baxter in his excellent summing up at the inquest.

My main doubt is the fact that JtR was a risk taker, therefore I think it would take a significant threat to stop him from attempting to mutilate Stride. The obvious explanation his that Louis D turned into Dutfield's Yard just after he'd cut her throat, but that's a coincidence about as great as two women, in the same general locality, being murdered by having their throats cut during the same evening.

[Pierre]

I would be interested to know, whether throat cutting was a "regular" occurrence in Victorian London? Can anyone offer any evidence of other cases solved or otherwise when the victim had their throat cut?

The more I read on the Whitechapel murders, the less convinced I am that Stride was in fact a victim of Jack and that it is purely coincidental that she died on the same night as Eddowes and had had her throat cut. If we are to include her as a victim of Jack, why then is there such speculation as to whether Mckenzie & Coles are Jack's work? Are we to conclude that throat cutting equates to Jack? I don't buy the copy cat killer theory either, I suspect that however brutal this method is, it certainly occurred more regularly than is commonly excepted?

But please if you can, restore my beliefs that Stride was "done" by Jack?

Hi,

If you search throat cut in the British Newspaper archives, for 1887 for example, you will find many articles. The cutting of throats was nothing new in 1888.

For example, you will find:

"Man rushing into the road with his throat cut"

"Mr William Fallows...found lying in his bed with his throat cut"

"This morning a woman named Wilton was found at Cavendish Street, Brighton, with her throat cut..."

"The unfortunate woman, Anne Sutton, whose throat was cut by the man Joseph..."

"Frank Kinnoston... found in outhouse of yard In Back Elswick-street, Newcastle, on Saturday morning with his throat cut..."

"Thomas Thompson, 31, joiner, was sentenced to death for the murder of his son, a little boy, whose throat he cut."

"Thomas Chattell, aged about 44, clerk,of the parish, was discovered by his wife in pew with his throat cut."

"THE LIVERPOOL TRIPLE MURDER. The child Alfred Anthony, whose throat was cut by its mother..."

And there are a lot more. But there are variations as to age, gender, social groups, geographical area and motives. There are murder attempts, murders and suicides.

Stride was attacked in the time period of the murders from Nichols to Kelly, in the same area, on the same night as Eddowes. The victimology is the same.

Regards, Pierre

[MrBarnett]

Well Lucy Clarke certainly isn't. She was a milliner and reasonably well off. She died in the course of a robbery. Her nephews admitted robbing her and were lucky not to hang for her murder. (She was bludgeoned as well as having her throat cut.)

Lucretia recognised her attacker as William 'Silly Bill' Atkins, a 21 year old labourer, who appears to have had mental problems and was remanded for the assault.

The motives and the relationships between the victims and their attackers are varied. Domestics, a robbery, prostitute and disgruntled client, mental instability. What they have in common is they are all knife attacks on women where the throat was targeted.

[Rosella]

Well Lucy Clarke certainly isn't. She was a milliner and reasonably well off. She died in the course of a robbery. Her nephews admitted robbing her and were lucky not to hang for her murder. (She was bludgeoned as well as having her throat cut.)

Lucretia recognised her attacker as William 'Silly Bill' Atkins, a 21 year old labourer, who appears to have had mental problems and was remanded for the assault.

[Errata]

Or examples where the victim survived?

I'm sure this list isn't exhaustive (it excludes Annie Farmer, for instance):


Lucy Clarke, Marylebone - February, 1888.

Lucretia Pembroke, Bermondsey - December, 1888.

Amy Howarth, Islington - August, 1888. (Attempted)

Jane Haberfield, Kennington - September, 1888.

Sarah Brett, Peckham - October, 1888.

Rose Payne, Limehouse - January, 1889.

Caroline Butler, Rotherhithe - January, 1889.

I always said that cutting a throat was both harder and easier than it appears to be, but this list gives me an idea. Is the reason Jack's throat cutting was so savage and such overkill because he had a victim survive and he's overcorrecting? Is one of these women or one like them the first victim of Jack, and lived to tell the tale?

[Joshua Rogan]

Found this spreadsheet of historical crime data;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116649/rec-crime-1898-2002.xls

Unfortunately it only goes back to 1898. However, another website provided this snippet;

Homicide is regarded as a most serious offence and it is probably reported more than other forms of crime.[7] Between 1857 and 1890, there were rarely more than 400 homicides reported to the police each year, and during the 1890s the average was below 350. In Victorian England, the homicide rate reached 2 per 100,000 of the population only once, in 1865. Generally, it was about 1.5 per 100,000 falling to rarely more than 1 per 100,000 at the end of the 1880s and declining even further after 1900. These figures do not take into account the significant number of infanticides that went undetected.[8] The statistics for homicide are therefore probably closer to the real level of the offence.