Throat cutting in Victorian London.....

[John G]

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?

Although I consider Stride to be a Ripper victim, this is only on balance of probability, and I think there's a significant possibility that she wasn't. Nonetheless, the killing bares none of the characteristics of a much more common domestic murder: a victim murdered with ruthless efficiency, near to a busy club in a public area, and apparently taken completely by surprise, i e. given no opportunity to cry out or resist. And a killer who is able to disappear into the night without attracting any attention to himself. Moreover, if Dr Phillips is correct, the murderer had enough guile, or experience, to ensure that he wasn't covered in blood stains-not something you would expect from a domestic crime, where you would expect the killer to be far less controlled and much more disorganized.

That said, Stride's neck wasn't mutilated, and there were, of course, no abdominal mutilations. This raises the question of whether or not the killer was disturbed. However, as Observer correctly pointed out in another thread, JtR was clearly a risk taker: if anything Hanbury Street was even more risky, particularly as Chapman may have been killed in broad daylight-in a location where the perpetrator risked getting boxed in if suddenly disturbed- and at time when local residents were preparing to leave for work. I would therefore have thought that JtR would not easily be rattled, i.e. to the extent of deciding to flee the scene.

Of course, Louis D may have turned into Dutfield's Yard at exactly the time the murderous act took place, but that's a big coincidence. However, it is possible that the killer was disturbed by Mrs Diemshutz, who was apparently in the ground floor kitchen with the window open for a significant period.

[Michael W Richards]

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 you look at knife crimes you will find statistics show that as a weapon knives were used more frequently than other instruments. If you look at all knife crimes you will also note that many men fell victim to assailants with knives. The real issue with alleged victims of JTR is what defining knife characteristics allow us to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I suggest double cuts almost decapitating and post mortem mutilation would be defining characteristics. Both of which are absent with Stride. As is any evidence that the act taking place was aborted early.

[c.d.]

"However, as Observer correctly pointed out in another thread, JtR was clearly a risk taker: if anything Hanbury Street was even more risky, particularly as Chapman may have been killed in broad daylight-in a location where the perpetrator risked getting boxed in if suddenly disturbed- and at time when local residents were preparing to leave for work. I would therefore have thought that JtR would not easily be rattled, i.e. to the extent of deciding to flee the scene."

Hello John G,

A person's confidence level and willingness to take risks can change from day to day. As the killings continued and gained more notoriety, it must have occurred to Jack that there were more people out looking for him and that potential victims were going to be more wary. And when he read a newspaper article that contained something along the lines of "the sooner his neck is in a noose the better" it would help to ramp up the old paranoia.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"I suggest double cuts almost decapitating and post mortem mutilation would be defining characteristics. Both of which are absent with Stride. As is any evidence that the act taking place was aborted early."

Hello Michael,

I suggest that the much more important defining characteristics would be a lone woman with links to prostitution killed on the street by having her throat cut with no apparent motive. Couple that with the Eddowes killing and it would appear that Jack was out that very night and very close by around that time.

And if Jack was interrupted or scared off...well, you know how the story goes.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

"I suggest double cuts almost decapitating and post mortem mutilation would be defining characteristics. Both of which are absent with Stride. As is any evidence that the act taking place was aborted early."

Hello Michael,

I suggest that the much more important defining characteristics would be a lone woman with links to prostitution killed on the street by having her throat cut with no apparent motive. Couple that with the Eddowes killing and it would appear that Jack was out that very night and very close by around that time.

And if Jack was interrupted or scared off...well, you know how the story goes.

c.d.

I agree that in terms of Victimology that a lone woman selling herself in the middle of the night to strangers would be considered an important charateristic here, but I dont agree that "links to prostitution" has any relevance. If the killer had seen any victim actively soliciting on her own before he approached her, then the liklihood that she would go with him to earn money is high...however, if she is NOT seeking to earn money by taking strangers to dark places, then she would be reluctant to go into the dark with him. Why would she go anywhere with a stanger in the middle of the night unless she had to earn money.

To date, we have only 2 Canonical victims, that by their own admission on the night they were killed, we can say were actively soliciting to earn money. They were seeking to be taken into the dark and to get paid for it. Polly and Annie. You mentioned Kate because of some possible "links to prostitution", but even that argument fails in the face of witness testimony about her. We have no idea if, or when she prostituted herself, and we also have evidence that to earn money she often left the city in the summers to go hop picking. She chose to pick hops, rather than seek out strange men to have sex with for cash in the city. Like Liz chose to find nanny work and have herself stricken from the Prostitutes register in Goteborg, rather than just continuing to solicit to earn cash. She owned and operated a coffee shop, she was a charwoman for a family, she was earning money cleaning for "The Jews" in the weeks leading up to her murder....she chose, when it was available, legitimate work over soliciting. Since she was regularly working...including her last afternoon, there is little reason to surmise she "chose" to also solicit strangers on a "desolate" street outside a club that had almost emptied out over an hour before she arrived on the scene.

So...that suggests that of the first 4 assumed Ripper victims, only 2 are known to have actually fit the above Victimology by circumstance. Mary was home in bed, likely asleep, when she is first attacked...hardly a stranger scenario.

Which brings me to my continuing point here for the past 10 years.....if you stop assuming that so and so was doing so and so... without any evidence to support the notion....like Liz's killer was interrupted despite any evidence suggesting that happened..then you have a very weak foundation to build a Canonical Group upon.

The murders of Polly and Annie tell us quite a bit about who killed them by their actions, their circumstances and their wounds. They are the only 2 victims that are almost identical in pattern and results. And thats why after Annie was killed the police sought trained medical men, not mere butchers or slaughterhousemen. Because they were convinced that those 2 murders were done by someone who killed by pattern and with some skill. Thats also the last time either of those attributes could be used credibly in any argument for inclusion into a continuing list of victims, they dont apply in any further Ripper assumed murders.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

There's not a shred of evidence that Stride committed suicide, and any such suggestion is frankly fanciful.

I never implied that. The original question was "how frequent was throat cutting in Victorian London?"

I answered by saying that there was two throat cutting suicides (not the most effective way, you would agree) in 1888.