Throat cutting in Victorian London.....

[Joshua Rogan]

The arguments get sillier. The fact is no knife was found anywhere near Liz Stride. Also can you seriously believe Liz Stride gets out a packet of cachous , and then thinks 'no think I'll cut my throat instead' ? Come on.

Well, the cachous were wrapped in paper, and everyone knows how nasty paper-cuts can be...

[curious4]

Perhaps she hadn't practised enough. Forgot the knife.

C4

[John G]

Who's arguing that?

The point is that, according to Baxter, the wounds were such that they could have been self-inflicted. Did he say ' These wounds were inflicted by a determined and practiced killer, they are of a severity that I have only seen in the recent series of murders'?

No, he said, 'Both Dr Phillips and Dr Blackwell have seen self-inflicted wounds more extensive and severe, but those have not usually involved the carotid artery'

What he actually said, in an extremely well-balanced summary, was this:

"There had been no skilful mutilation as in the case of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case if Mitre Square-possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful."

It's also interesting that you refer to Dr Phillips, as he seemed to believe that even Rose Mylett was a Ripper victim: see http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

[The Station Cat]

Surely the point we are considering is whether throat-cutting alone is sufficient reason to place Stride in the C5.

Bearing in mind that her murder was geographically slightly out of kilter with the the others and the timing was very much so, is the fact that her throat was cut sufficiently distinctive? Dismissing other throat-cutting incidents because they were 'domestics' only works if you are sure that Stride's wasn't.

As for Baxter's summing up, he was of the opinion that the injuries to Stride's throat were not inconsistent with their being self-inflicted. How many of the suicides he had seen who had cut their own throats would have perfected their technique by experience?

This is my concern with including her. But having said that what are the odds of two women both being murdered in the same district on the same night. Which takes me back to my original question. How common was throat cutting in Victorian Whitechapel?

Another issue is who where the possible "two" men she was seen with minutes before. Who was the man that threw her to the floor, was this "Jack" or someone else if someone else what are the odds of her getting into to altercations so soon after each other, not impossible but unlikely? Then there's the nuts. Years of debate has concluded that she is one of the 5............. I guess like pretty much most of the case, I guess we'll never know......

Such a shame that some much of the documentation relating to the case has been lost over time.

[The Station Cat]

Victorian prisons were no holiday camp.You lost your identity, became a number. Penal servitude was hard labour, which could mean on the treadmill, hours everyday, breaking rocks, monotonous food. Prisoners were isolated from each other, not allowed to frantinise. Cells were on average 13 by 7 feet, or less in convict prisons and had spy holes. They were given old repaired boots to wear which were very heavy.
So the sentences may have been 5 or 7 years but probably felt a lot longer. In the earier Victorian period, a sentence of seven years would have meant transportation.
I wonder how many 'self inficted' throat cuttings were murder?
Liz Stride's killing is only a domestic if she knew her killer, but I cant see a 'date' randomly slitting her throat for no reason, no row, no drunkeness.

Miss Marple

Fair point. Just out of interest then what was the longest sentence that someone could expect to get?

[Trevor Marriott]

What he actually said, in an extremely well-balanced summary, was this:

"There had been no skilful mutilation as in the case of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case if Mitre Square-possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful."

It's also interesting that you refer to Dr Phillips, as he seemed to believe that even Rose Mylett was a Ripper victim: see http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

Of course we dont know who the killer was, he was never caught so we dont know if he got blood on him or not

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Of course we dont know who the killer was, he was never caught so we dont know if he got blood on him or not

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor

Fair point. However, I think it's a reasonable inference that the killer was purposely trying to avoid getting blood stained:

Coroner: "From the position you assume the perpetrator to have been in, would he have been likely to be bloodstained?"

Dr Phillips: "Not necessarily, for the commencement of the wound and the injury to the vessels would be away from him, and the stream of blood-for stream it was- would be directed away from him, and towards the gutter in the yard."

This might indicate an experienced killer, such as one who has learned from past mistakes. This is also supported by another comment of Dr Phillips at the inquest:

"In this case, as in some others, there seems to have been some knowledge where to cut the throat to cause a fatal result."

[Robert St Devil]

Hello john g and all.
Does anyone put any interest in the ,,white overall,, report (s)?

I would think that Jack the Ripper would have had the presupposition (?) of possibly becoming blood-stained prior to the murder, and may have taken preventative measures.

[Errata]

Hello john g and all.
Does anyone put any interest in the ,,white overall,, report (s)?

I would think that Jack the Ripper would have had the presupposition (?) of possibly becoming blood-stained prior to the murder, and may have taken preventative measures.

A dark wool coat is an excellent choice.

[Dr. John Watson]

Ripper's thoughts on the matter?

Describing a knife as the source of immense mischief, this Ripper suspect claimed to have a horror of cutting another human being - "except as a last resource."

Dr. John Watson

[Observer]

Who's arguing that?

Did he say ' These wounds were inflicted by a determined and practiced killer, they are of a severity that I have only seen in the recent series of murders'?

Baxter did indeed say as much in his summing up. As John G has pointed out

""There had been no skilful mutilation as in the case of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case if Mitre Square-possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful."

Face it Mr Barnett, no-one at the time, (nor since for that matter) believed Liz Stride to be a suicide. It's anyone's guess as to why Baxter brought up the subject in the first place. One of the purposes of an inquest is to determine cause of death, and I suppose he was exploring all possible avenues. However I don't believe for one moment he believed Stride to have been a suicide.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

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?

If I recall correctly, there were at least two suicides by throat cutting in London in 1888.
- One by a husband after stabbing his wife to death, can't remember the name, sorry.
- The other one, Edward Buchen, killed himself in front of his family, on his birthday, same day as MJK's funeral.

[John G]

There's not a shred of evidence that Stride committed suicide, and any such suggestion is frankly fanciful. At the inquest Dr Blackwell gave this opinion:

"I don't think that I made it quite clear as to whether it was possible for this to have been a case of suicide. What I meant to say was that, taking all the facts into consideration, more especially the absence of any instrument in the hand, it was impossible to have been a suicide...with respect to the knife, which was found, I should like to concur with Dr Phillips in his opinion that, although it might possibly have inflicted the injury, it is an extremely unlikely instrument to have been used."

Moreover, Stride was seen wandering the neighbourhood, on the evening of her death, in the company of possibly several different men, which hardly conveys the impression of someone contemplating taking their own life.

And the fact that it isn't unprecedented for an individual to commit suicide in such a way does not represent evidence to the contrary.

[MrBarnett]

Baxter did indeed say as much in his summing up. As John G has pointed out

""There had been no skilful mutilation as in the case of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case if Mitre Square-possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful."

Face it Mr Barnett, no-one at the time, (nor since for that matter) believed Liz Stride to be a suicide. It's anyone's guess as to why Baxter brought up the subject in the first place. One of the purposes of an inquest is to determine cause of death, and I suppose he was exploring all possible avenues. However I don't believe for one moment he believed Stride to have been a suicide.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that Stride committed suicide, I'm saying that Baxter's opinion was that her wounds were not inconsistent with her having done so.

[MrBarnett]

There's not a shred of evidence that Stride committed suicide, and any such suggestion is frankly fanciful. At the inquest Dr Blackwell gave this opinion:

"I don't think that I made it quite clear as to whether it was possible for this to have been a case of suicide. What I meant to say was that, taking all the facts into consideration, more especially the absence of any instrument in the hand, it was impossible to have been a suicide...with respect to the knife, which was found, I should like to concur with Dr Phillips in his opinion that, although it might possibly have inflicted the injury, it is an extremely unlikely instrument to have been used."

Moreover, Stride was seen wandering the neighbourhood, on the evening of her death, in the company of possibly several different men, which hardly conveys the impression of someone contemplating taking their own life.

And the fact that it isn't unprecedented for an individual to commit suicide in such a way does not represent evidence to the contrary.

Let me ask you a question. Why you would include Stride in the C5 group as opposed to the larger group of women who survived throat-cutting attacks (or attempts at such) in London in 1888/9?

Baxter points out the differences between Stride's injuries and those of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. His only point of comparison is the killers 'skill' in causing instant death and avoiding blood-soiling. But he also makes the point that there is nothing about the injuries that precludes the possibity of suicide.

If you look at the non-C5 list, you'll see there is a wide range of injuries, from a bungled attempt at throat-cutting where the only injury was to the woman's hand, to one where the throat was cut and the attacker tried to tear the wound further with his bare hands.

Wouldn't Stride fit into that list just as comfortably as she would the C5?