Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook


Join the Chat Room!

Strides' Blood... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Elizabeth Stride » Strides' Blood... « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott Morrice
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 11:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

I am new to this area and have tried to read into this site as much as possible. I have noticed the rift on here between having certain 'Women of the Night' murders in autumn 1988 attributed to "Jack the Ripper" (mind if i call him Jack?)

This has been especially the case on the 30th of September when Elizabeth Stride was attacked first then Catherine Eddowes. Stride has been on both sides of the argument (Jack or not?) whereas Eddowes, due to the slit throat and mutilation, is in no doubt in most ripperologists eyes a Jack handywork production.

I will get to my point soon but i am not taking sides in the Stride 'is / is too' fight. There is no way for certain to say that Jack did or did not commit this murder. However, there are certain small points that do sway me towards saying he did not kill her.

Firstly we will look at the cachous in Strides hand when she was found in Dutfield's Yard. This evidence would definately indicate that the victim would have no time to stuggle before death. This would mean that death would come almost instantly. The cut into the neck would come first. No strangulation or even bruising around the neck was indicated in the post mortem. This is against Jack's M.O. Jack would stangle his victim first to stop struggling ,quieten and reduce the blood flow force through the veins of his victim then, once on the ground, start work with a knife.

I am no criminologist but from reading i get this far. The serial killer of Jacks type would learn as he killed. more victims meant that he would continually try and perfect his way of stalking and killing till it became second nature. Changes to his ways would mean more chances of being caught. More time out of his safty buffer. Why change something when its not broken? Increased mutilation to the victims would occur in each case but inital subduing would not change.

Now there was a slit throat. The victim was still alive. Where is the blood splatter. Arteries were severed in the neck. The victim would be spreading blood from the cut further than 'Old Faithful' jets water. There is no word of wide blood splatter in the report but there is no word that there wasn't. The blood would have covered ground wall and murderer.

Now for this to be a Jack murder, he has to leave the scene. Without drawing attention to himself and without completing the signature body mutilation. Then find himself another victim to satisfy his lust.

There is another couple of steps that need to be added to this to give him any chance of persuading another victim. Firstly, clean up. Covered in blood would not be the way to talk a prostitute into a dark ally (or square as it were). That means additional time to go somewhere (home), get changed and then back out to find another victim (Eddowes). This again is a little farfetched, unless Jack is a little in the money and can have travel between the 2 areas that night.

Sorry for the long dissertation but what do you guys thing on these points?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 10:42 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

He strangles the victim first.

Lies her down

Kneels on one side,cuts the throat on the opposite side to that he's kneeling on.

In this way he minimises the chances of getting blood on himself.Personally I think at least one,possibly two of the victims, may have already been dead by the time he cut the throat.

Secondly, I think too much emphasis has been placed on the 'covered in blood' theory.Blood does not apppear 'red' on clothing, that is 'Hollywood', virtually the only way for our man to appear bloodstained would have been if he went about his business in chefs whites.

As long as he wiped his hands he would have been fine.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.