|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
The murder of Elizabeth Stride
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Ripper Victims:
The murder of Elizabeth Stride
Author: jose luis carril miguens
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 09:06 am |        | Differences between the murder of E. Stride and the murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes are basically three:
1.- Murder execution (Stride’s corpse had no signs of strangulation)
2.- Wounds nature (Stride’s corpse had no abdominal mutilations)
3.- Murder weapon (different knife in Stride’s murder)
The principal argument of those who favor Stride being murdered by JTR to explain the lack of mutilations (item 2) is generally the same: killer was disturbed and had no time to complete his work. Nevertheless, they have not explained, in my opinion, differences concerning items 1&3. But now I only want to discuss item 2.
September the 30th, at 12:45 a.m. Israel Schwartz saw a man attacking a woman at the gateway where later, at 1:00 a.m., a murder was discovered by Louis Diemschutz. Later, at the mortuary, Schwartz identified the victim as the same woman whom he had previously seen. Therefore, we have good reasons to assume the Schwartz’s man killed Elizabeth Stride. But, at what time?. Probably between 12:45 and 12:50. Now, if Schwartz’s man also was JTR, then he had more than enough time to mutilate Stride. In this case, the Stride murderer couldn’t be JTR, according to the argument of the Stride’s supporters being that she was killed by JTR.
What about this matter?
Best regards
Jose Luis |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 11:54 am | | Hi Jose,
Stride, out of the canonical five, is the "least canonical" for sure. Apart from the eye witness testimony, including or excluding Stride has few consequences. In fact, even if we discard Stride, we still have a description of a Ripper suspect from Eddowe's murder of the same night.
Now, that aside, I'm not sure I would agree with your three points.
1) No signs of strangulation
Not entirely true. Stride was found clutching a packet of cachous (breath mints basically). Clentched hands are one sign of strangulation. There was also no reports of her yelling out (apart from Schwart I believe). Both are consistent with her being throttled, at least to unconsciousness, more than her being wrestled to the ground and having her throat cut. Also, the descriptions of the flow of blood from the throat wound do not desribe arterial "spurting", which would suggest the heart was not pumping strongly, again suggesting she might have been strangled.
On the other hand, there is no report of brusing around the neck, or of the face being "livid" (red), which one would also expect from strangulation. Dr. Phillips (Evans & Skinner, pg 158) describes the brain as "fairly normal", and it's my understanding that strangulation results in excess blood in the arteries/veins in the membranes around the brain. Not sure what would happen from partial strangulation though.
So, there are some signs that are consistent with partial strangulation, if not conclusive proof. (This, unfortunately, is usually the verdict on most topics in this case: sorry).
2) The throat wound to Stride is desribed as by Dr. Phillips as follows:
"There was a clean-cut incision on the neck. It was 6in. in length and commenced 2.5 in. in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, 3/4 in. over an undivided muscle, and then, becoming deeper, dividing the sheath. the cut was very clean, and deviated a little downwards. The artery and other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through. The cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and tailed off to about 2 in. below the right angle of the jaw. The deep vessels on that side were uninjured. From this it was evident that the haemorrhage wass causssed through the partial severance of the left carotoid artery. ..."
as reported in Evans & Skinner (pg 158).
This, as you know, is the only knife wound on Stride.
Now, compare the above with the throat wound to Eddowes, as described by Dr. Brown (Evans & Skinner, pg. 205):
"The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and 1/2 below the lobe and about 2 1/2 inches behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear. The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side - the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed - the larynx was severed below the vocal chords. All the deep structures were severed to the bone the knife marking intervertebral cartilages - the sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. the carotid artery had a fine hole opening. the internal jugular vein was opened an inch and a half not divided. ..."
Note that in both cases, the cut is deeper on the left side, and about the same length (6 in. Stride, 6-7 in. Eddowes). In Stride the cut "deviates a little downwards" and with Eddowes, it starts 2.5 in. below the left ear and ends 3 in. below the right (a little downwards). For Stride, the deep vessels on the right side were uninjuered, while with Eddowes "the sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened."
In other words, the throat wounds have a lot in common. Since Stride and Eddowes were murdered the same night, this similarity in the only wound they had in common, suggests a common killer. Not definate proof by any means, but nothing to pass over.
3) Given that Stride had one wound, it's hard to dtermine what size the knife had to be. A minimum might be possible, but without more information, as long as the knife used on Eddowes is at least that big, then we're left with nothing that rules out Stride as a victim of the same killer.
In other words, yes, Stride is questionable. But Stride also cannot be dismissed that easily. Her murder is not so unlike the other Ripper murders that she couldn't be one herself. The lack of abdominal mutilations needs to be explained of course. And, the idea that the killer was interupted is one explanation.
For what it's worth, I think that it's also possible that after being spotted by Schwartz, the Ripper killed Stride quickly because she could identify him. Then he fled. But, being so aroused by killing Stride, and then bumping into Eddowes, he just had to do it again. Mind you, that's just another theory.
- Jeff |
Author: jose luis carril miguens
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 04:04 pm | | Hi Jeff,
Thank you very much.
Well, you say: “Stride was found clutching a packet of cachous ….. Clentched hands are one sign of strangulation”. Now, with all due respect, I cannot accept your argument. If, actually, Stride was throttled, then why didn’t she use her hand to defend herself instead of clutching a packet of cachous?.
I agree with you about the throat wound, but I said nothing about it. I only said that the Stride’s corpse had no abdominal mutilations and I tried to explain that assuming the man Schwartz saw attacking Stride was JTR, he had enough time to mutilate her.
About murder weapon, Dr. Phillips thought “ a short knife (therefore different of the previous murders), like a shoemaker’s well ground down, could have made the cut”. (Philip Sugden’s The Complete History of Jack The Ripper).
Best regards,
Jose Luis |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 08:41 pm | | Hi,
Indeed, the holding the cachous is odd, but it is no matter how she was killed. It's odd enough to suggest that JTR put them there after she dropped them. Or, that she was somehow rendered unconcious or killed fast enough that she didn't have time to defend. The clenched hands could be a result of being strangled, and the packet was placed there by JTR. This is pure speculation, but I can't figure out why she's still holding them at all!
I realised you weren't discussing the throat wound but rather the lack of abdominal mutilations. I went on a tangent there, mostly because if Stride is a victim of JTR, then the lack of mutilations must be explained. I think the similarities of that wound with that of Eddowes is good evidence of the same killer, which then means the lack of mutilations indicates the ripper left for some reason. Either because he was spotted by Schwartz (and kills Stride quickly to avoid being identified since he's going to try and kill again) or because he was interrupted later.
As for the knife, Dr. Phillip's only says that such a knife "could" have done it, not that it had to be such a knife. Also, the knife used on Nicholls was described as "not an exceptionally long knife" (sorry, I'm at work without my references for these).
For these reasons, I think Stride cannot be discarded easily. The discriptions of the suspect seen by Schwartz and the one later seen by Lawende (sp?) are similar enough that they could be describing the same individual. Again, no evidence to suggest two separate murderers, but not conclusive enough to assert they were definately the same individual.
- Jeff |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 07:25 am | | Hi Jose and Jeff,
If Stride's killer knew that Schwartz had seen them together, he had no way of knowing what this witness was going to do next. He could have sent the first policeman he encountered straight back to the scene.
So if the killer was JtR and had been planning to mutilate Stride, wouldn't it make sense to abort this plan once Schwartz had poked his nose in? Kill her quickly and move straight on to pastures new while the hue and cry following the discovery of her body is still in progress?
Love,
Caz |
Author: jose luis carril miguens
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 04:22 pm | | Hi Jeff,
Generally speaking I agree with you. Normally, clenched hands are one sign of strangulation and Dr. Phillips only said “could”. But, on the one hand we have to find an explanation for the hand clutching the packet of cachous. I think unlikely the packet were placed by the murderer. I’d like to know the reason why. On the other hand the man killed Eddowes made it with another knife that that used in Stride’s murder. Why?.
Another question. According to Chief Inspector Swanson “Schwartz saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times …..”. Do you think that is the way to strangle anybody? Do you think that was the habitual way that Jack the Ripper used to kill?
Hi Caz
“So if the killer was JtR and had been planning to mutilate Stride, wouldn’t it make sense to abort this plan one Schwartz had poked his nose in?”. My answer is YES.
I can believe JtR killed Stride but another matter is to think that the man saw Schwartz were actually JtR.
Best regards,
Jose Luis |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 04:41 pm | | Clenched hands and fingers are called cadaveric spasms and are discussed on the Martha Tabram Board. For those intrested, the Nicole Simpson autopsy report and crime scene photos show her right hand in the same condition.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 04:47 pm | | The reason for no arterial sprut from Stride is due to the vagus nerve being severed at the same time the left carotid artery is cut. The vagus nerve lies on top of the artery. It would be the first of the two that are severed. Once the Vagus is severed the heart stops.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 09:49 pm | | Caz,
If Stride's killer was JTR then killing Stride and taking off in case Schwartz calls the cops is certainly valid. I suppose I have to say that, though, since that's what I've suggested as an alternative to his being interrupted. The "interupted" idea would have to mean the interuption occured between the time he cut the throat but before he could perform any other cut.
Jose,
I agree that placing the cachous in Strides hands feels "wrong"; it's an odd thing to do. Still, since Schwartz sees Stride being "turned around and thrown to the ground", this is just one more opertunity for her to drop them. She could, of course, pick them back up at that point. I just think that on the subsequent attack where she's actually murdered, she would have dropped them again. I can't figure out how she could be holding them throughout her murder. That's what leads me to think that they must have been placed there. I admit, my lack of imagination is not very good proof!
As an aside, Schwartz describes the fellow who attacks Stride as someone who "happens upon her". She's standing there, this fellow comes along, then attacks her. This seems to negate all the testimony about suspects seen talking with her for the previous hour or so. (Of course, they could have been chatting away, then separate, then he comes back and attacks her).
And the initial attack, turning her around, throwing her down, etc. doesn't sound much like strangulation, but then, it doesn't sound like throat cutting either, which we know happened. Chapman was heard to say "no" by the fellow in the yard next door. Apart from Stride, and possibly Chapman, no other murder has a witness of an assault. In both, however, there is the suggestion of a brief vocalization, and then no more. We have no idea what assault may have occured prior to the actual killing in any of the other cases. In other words, the assault on Stride may, or may not, be atypical for the Ripper killings.
Scott,
Thanks alot for the medical info. I'll check out the Tabram board.
- Jeff |
Author: jose luis carril miguens
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 03:31 am | | Hi Scott,
Thanks, that’s very kind of you.
Hi Jeff,
First of all, in this post I’m assuming the Schwartz’s suspect is the Stride’s murderer. I don’t know for sure. But let’s assume I’m right. Now, it’s necessary to prove, if possible, this man was JtR or in other words the same man that previously killed Nichols and Chapman and immediately after he killed Eddowes.
I think that, after being accosted by JtR, victims conducted him themselves to the secludes spots for intercourse. This conjecture presupposes mutual consent. And here we have the first discrepancy in the Stride’s case.
Philip Sugden’s The Complete History of Jack the Ripper: “ Alone with her client in a dark and sheltered spot, the woman stood with her back to the wall and raised her skirts. In such a place and such a position she was completely vulnerable to attack. And before she could utter a cry, the Ripper seized her by the throat. He strangler her, at least into insensibility, and lowered her to the ground with her head towards his left”. This reasonable conjecture also means the killer was a calculating, astute and cool head. Well, here is the second discrepancy in Stride’s case.
No mutilations, different weapon, all this together makes unlikely the Schwartz’s suspect be JtR, although it’s possible this man were the Stride’s murderer.
Now I’m going to spend a day at the beach.
Happy week end and best regards,
Jose Luis |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 01:29 am | | | I can imagine mindlessly clutching whatever happened to be already in my hand if I was frightened. Also if the first witnesses to find Stride stated that blood was still flowing from her neck when they found her then very little time had elapsed since the incision, certainly not enough to mutilate. |
Author: Vila
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 08:39 am | | OK, then just how long would blood flow from such a wound? What sort of timeframe? A minute? Several? Less than five minutes?
I think we need an expert here. Sorry, I just think of questions. This small timeslice may be trivial or meaningful.
Vila |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 07:59 pm | | Hi Jose,
I think that Schwartz's suspect is Stride's killer as well. The lack of mutilations is probably the biggest discrepency, at least in my view. I figure, after being spotted by Schwartz (which the killer yelling out Lipski indicates he knew he was spotted), then the attacker decided to deal with her quickly. He's already assaulted her and wants to avoid her recognising him later.
So, after cutting her throat, he then leaves. The time, if everyone has reported them correctly, is only about 15 min between Schwartz's sighting and the body being found. Allow for some "error of estimatation", and the differnece may be much shorter.
Given that Stride only had one wound, I would be surprised if anything more than a minimum could really be determined. But, I'm not a medical expert and I could be way off. Even if I am, I'm not entirely convinced the knife used on Stride is much different from the "strong-backed pointed knife, not exceptionally long" that was used on Nicholls. (above quoted text is paraphasing a few quotes, and not direct quotes). The similarity of the throat wound between Stride and Eddowes seems to link those two killings as well.
Now, the similarities aside, you've pointed out some important differences. Stride doesn't appear to have taken her assailant to a secluded place as part of a transaction, but rather he just seems to attack her as he walks by her. Tosses her about for a bit, then yells at Schwartz, and the rest can only be assumed from the later finding of the body.
Mind you, given the amount of yelling that was going on (Stride 3 times, the killer yelling "lipski"), it's strange that nobody else reports hearing any of this. Nobody else reports "I heard someone yell out Lipski", etc. One would think that the club members, being Jewish, would be a bit put out to hear someone yell out a term that was used as an insult towards them. Mind you, this is a bit of a red-herring since all we know is that no-one reported it not that it didn't happen. If nobody heard it, even if it happened, nobody would report (it apart from Schwartz obviously).
Anyway, as I've said before, Stride is one of those could be yes, could be no, in terms of her being a Ripper victim. My tendency is towards yes, but not to the point I would say definately.
Evidence in favour, I think, is the similarity of the wound in the throat with Eddowes, similarity in the description of the knife with that used to kill Nicholls, discriptions of suspects seen for Stride and Eddowes are similar enough to be describing the same person.
Evidence against, as you've pointed out, is lack of mutilations and use of a different knife (so, the knife evidence is ambiguous), differences in assault (doesn't look like Stride had "picked up" her killer and lead him to the alley).
Basically, I think we're more in agreement than not, we just lean opposite ways. If it is eventually shown that Stride definately wasn't a Ripper victim, I won't be hugely surprised. But, neither would I be hugely surprised if it could be shown she definately was. I suspect you're much the same.
Anyway, the same/different knife issue might be the one for us to focus on. Maybe we should try and gather together the descriptions offered by the doctors for at least, Stride, Eddowes, and Nicholls. Might as well include Chapman and Kelly as well. This way, we can make a global comparison, based upon the assumption that JtR used the same knife all the time. I'm suggesting this since we both are using the knife evidence as for and against.
- Jeff |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 01 July 2002 - 12:05 pm | | Jeff,
A little helpful information.....
To determine if the wounds in the body(s) were made by the same knife, the wounds would have to have been measured by the physican conducting the autopsy. Each wound should have been measured in depth and length. I doubt this was done. Forensic science was unheard of in 1888, and prior to the introduction of fingerprints, most evidence used in British, European and American courts were that of eye witness testimony. My experience in dealing with "eye witnesses" tells me that more than likely many innocent people went to the gallows. The only way to know for sure is to view the original autopsy reports, not the news paper accounts of the Coroner's inquest. I have been told these reports do not exist with the exception of Eddowes, which I have not read yet.
You would probably have more success in studying a comparison of wound placement on all of the victims.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: jose luis carril miguens
Tuesday, 02 July 2002 - 09:10 am | | Hi Jeff,
From Philip Sugden’s The Complete History of Jack The Ripper:
*NICHOLS.- Inspector John Spratling 31-8-1888 summarized Llewellyn’s findings thus: “….[all] (wounds) apparently done with a strong bladed knife …”.
“They must have been inflicted, thought the doctor, with a strong-bladed knife, moderately sharp ..”
“ …. Her throat had been cut from left to right, two distinct cuts being on left side, the windpipe, gullet and spinal cord being cut through …”.
*CHAPMAN.- Dr Phillips: Injuries to the throat and abdomen had probably been inflicted with se same knife. It must have been a very sharp weapon, probably with a thin, narrow blade at least six to eight inches long.
Swanson credited the doctor with substantially the same views: “The Dr gives it as his opinion…. That the knife used was not an ordinary knife, but such as a small amputating knife, or a well ground slaughterman’s knife, narrow & thin, sharp & blade of six to eight inches length”.
“The muscular structures between the side processes of bone of the vertebrae had an appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck”.
*STRIDE.- In his opinion (Dr Phillips) a short knife, like a shoemaker’s well ground down, could have made the cut.
“ … Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle then becoming deeper, about an inch dividing sheath and the vessels, ascending a little, and then grazing the muscle outside the cartilages on the left side of the neck, the cut being very clean, but indicating a slight direction downwards through resistance of the denser tissue and cartilages…”.
*EDDOWES.- Dr Brown’s inquest : “ … All these injuries were performed by a sharp instrument like a knife and pointed”.
From the abdominal injuries the doctor judged that the blade of this weapon must have been at least six inches long.
“… The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side. The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages…”.
*KELLY.- (Dr Bond) The mutilations of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were “all the same character”. They were inflicted with a strong knife, very sharp, pointed at the top, about an inch in width and at least six inches long. “It may have been a clasp knife, a butcher’s knife or a surgeon’s knife” he speculated, “[but] I think it was no doubt a straight knife”.
Best regards,
Jose Luis |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 08:57 am | | "At least, about, probably, like, may have been ...." These are not the exact measurements that are needed. In today's court proceedings statements like that would not be good for the prosecution.
In a slashing wound the width of the wound would be needed more that any thing else. The length of the knife's blade cannot be determined with any credible accuracy in slash. Trying to determine the length of a blade in a slash is like trying to determine which shotgun was used in a shooting.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 09:45 pm | | Scott.
I'm intrigued as to why you would think the doctors would not measure the depth of a wound. I take it as part of a normal autopsy proceedure in order to help determine the length and shape of the weapon used, even in 1888.
Intrigued, Jon |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 07:46 pm | | Jose,
Nice summary! I think there's a quote of Llewellyn's, possibly further on in the 2nd one you've listed from the Nicholl's case, where he says "not an exceptionally long knife", or words to that affect. I think he was correcting some previous mis-prints of his statements where he was quoted as saying a "long bladed knife" rather than "strong bladed knife".
Strides throat sounds like it was cut by pulling the knife across it - a slashing wound if you will. Scott points out that the length of the knife can't be determined in this sort of wound, which makes sense to me. Length, at least minimum length, would be determined by measuring depth of a stab, taking into account how much compression of the flesh might occur due to the force of the blow, etc. So, if there was a wound that went 8 inches in depth between two ribs, for example, the knife would have to be at least 8 inches in length. If there was a bruise consistent with the "hilt" at the entry point of this wound, then that would indicate the complete blade length was reached, so now one could conclude the knife was 8inches. If this same wound was over the belly, then one would have to allow for the fact that the bruise indicates a certain amount of force was applied and that the flesh would give inwards, allowing a shorter knife to inflict the same depth of the wound, hence the 6 to 8 inches (I'm assuming this is how the range was determined; based on wounds of the second sort described above).
Given the position of Strides body, a knife blade of 6-8 inches might have been "usable". A longer knife was found that night, and the doctors were of the opionion it was too dull, too long (10 inches I beleive), and wrong sort (rounded tip, not pointed).
The knife used on Eddowes was thought to be at least 6 inches long. I'm not sure if this would be considered a "short knife", or how long a shoe-makers knife would be. Again, however, given that Stride's only wound appears to be a slash (it starts shallow, it doesn't start with a stab, then a pull across), the minimum knife length may be much smaller than the actual knife used. Because of the multiple wounds on Eddowes, there would be more information for the doctors to use to get a more accurate idea as to what dimentions the knife had.
Again, it seems to me that with Stride there is not a lot of information that we can really use to either rule her out or to include her decisively. I lean towards her inclusion because of the similarities between the throat wounds of Stride and Eddowes (which I discuss in my post of the 27th June above, so I won't repeat it here). It's not enough for me to assert she had to be killed by the same person, though, as this kind of throat wound could be very typical - meaning a lot of murders that are performed by throat cutting may produce this kind of wound, so the similarity is not surprising.
Scott,
There's a coroner's report for Kelly as well. This is where we found out that Kelly's heart was taken and that her womb was found, and no indications of pregnancy are listed. The doctors appear to have made a fair number of measurements of the wounds, but not as many as are now required. As for eye-witness testimony, it's well known for being unreliable. But, it's still used a lot today despite this.
I have a question for your expert knowledge. On Strides hand, that's on her chest, there's a description of an oval shaped blood spot. This sounds to me like a "low/medium velocity splatter" (I think that's the term?). I figure this comes from when the knife was taken back over her body, blood dripped from the knife and landed on her hand. Since the knife is being moved back over her, the blood doesn't form a round spot, but shows the direction of the movement and results in an oval spot. If that's correct, it would indicate that when her throat was cut, Stride was laying down on the ground, her hand was on her chest, and her hand was not moving - this would imply she's unconscious which again suggests she was strangled first.
Does that sound like a reasonable inference?
- Jeff |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 08 July 2002 - 10:20 am | | Jeff, Jose and John
My problem with the wound measurements, if any were made at all, is that they were not accurately reported. This can be for several reasons.
The autopsy and post mortem details are taken from the news media. At times the reporters were merely paraphrasing the witness’ testimony. Or maybe the doctor’s were just not good at testifying. Today proper phrasing would be “ The wounds on the deceased are consistent with being caused by a knife with a blade length of 8 inches in length and 1/4 of an inch wide.” Not “It must have been a very sharp weapon, probably with a thin, narrow blade at least six to eight inches long.”
In short, as with any cold case involving an edged weapon, if the measurements are not included and are not exact then the wound patterns must be used.
In all probability the doctors did measure the wounds. But if the measurements were made and made accurately then they should have been made known. In this case, the coroner’s just did not have the good sense to draw these details out in their line of questioning. In fact, I have a pretty big problem with the questions asked by the coroners, Wynne Baxter in particular.
Answers were not pressed for more detail, a witness begins to back themselves into a corner and the coroner lets go. A good case in point was the testimony of Tompkins the horse slaughter. I am in no way referring that he is or ever was a suspect, but he stated he had a dislike for women and Baxter, presiding over a fact finding judicial hearing, does not bother to question Tompkins in detail in regards to his dislike for women. Neither does he push the issue of Thain’s cape and he completely misses Neil stating at 3:15 he was on Buck’s Row and Winthorpe Street. Taking into account that all times are approximate and Neil’s beat was a short one the fact remains the same, Baxter should have pressed for more accurate times. If Neil could have covered that much ground in a minute or less then I have to ask just how detailed was his perception? What exactly could he see and detect in that amount of time. It is always interesting watching veteran police officers trying to account for their time and whereabouts.
One of my duties as a police officer was that of Field Training Officer. Once a rookie officer finished the academy they were assigned to one of the FTOs for 6 months. My biggest pet peeve was officers driving through residential areas. I told them it not only presented the police department in a bad light and gave the public ammunition to begin firing complaints but just what are you noticing? Especially at night? Did you notice the broken window on the house? Was it there on your last patrol? Did you notice the car parked on the street between two houses? Did you notice the man standing in the alley next to the apartment? Did you notice what he was wearing? Did you notice the old beat up Yugo car with the brand new personalized vehicle plate? Chances are, moving at a high rate of speed and taking a quiet night for granted the officer missed a lot. One of the brightest stars in the whole investigation was PC Barrett and his confronting the lone soldier at George Yard. He could have easily walked on past thinking “He’s a soldier phhhht so what.”
In reference to Jeff’s question about the blood. The spot of blood on Stride’s hand is a spatter. And as you have stated the shape is indicative that the drop was formed by motion. In blood spatter, the tail end of the drop not the fat end, tells the direction the blood was moving. In Stride’s case, this motion could have been formed by one of 2 ways.
The knife was in motion
Stride’s Body was in motion.
If Stride’s body was in motion then
Her body as a whole was falling or her moving hand made contact with the falling blood drop.
The measurement of the blood drop tells the angle of strike of the blood. The drop is measured at its widest point and measured in length. Once this is known, the following equation is used: Arcsine (W/L). Try doing this at a murder involving a person who was beaten to death with a baseball bat. Once the angle of strike is known then a string is attached to the place where the blood drop is found and is then stretched out along the given angle. When this is done on several hundred drops an eerie picture is formed. Spatter source of origin can be determined from points where the strings intersect. In the case of multiple stab wounds or beatings, two main source points can be determined. The first is the withdrawing of the weapon from the wound and the other is the impact spatter. Usually, in edged weapon stab wounds, if the throat is not cut, the first point of origin will be the withdrawal spatter. This is due to the blood not leaving the body because the knife is still firmly planted inside. Once the knife is withdrawn the blood is thrown off the weapon.
Keep in mind that as the weapon is withdrawn the tail of drops will be in direction of travel of the weapon. As the weapon slows or stops the blood may fall straight down and form a circular drop. Once the weapon travels forward again, the blood would be thrown from the weapon again. Once again following the direction of the weapon, this blood spatter would be in a different direction from the first.
As far as witness testimony goes, as I stated, before forensic science the courts relied mainly on eye witness testimony. Today eye witness testimony is still used BUT it is always backed up by hard and sound evidence. Because eyewitness testimony is, at the best of times, sketchy , it is always attacked by the defense. One of the first things attacked is the credibility of the witness. So if the Whitechapel killer was caught and brought to trial, it would be in the betting man’s favor that the first thing attacked by the defense would be the credibility of the witnesses. So, prostitutes, drunks, criminals and the general East End dregs would not be deemed the world’s best witnesses. But as I once told the Assistant District Attorney, I’ll be sure to schedule the next New Orleans homicide during the middle of the offertory procession at St. Louis Cathedral so that way our witnesses would be nuns, priest and alter boys.
In my book, I am including huge sections on eye witness credibility, interviewing vs. interrogation, blood spatter analysis and edge weapon wound patterns and measurements.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 08:44 pm | | Scott,
Thanks for your very informative post. I've not studied forensics, and my understanding was limited to general categorization of "round drops", "oval drops", and "lines" in terms of spatter evidence. The additional information on what can be inferred, and how, is interesting. The degree of error that would be introduced by balistic flight paths is obviously small enough that the time consuming procedure of stringing lines is worth the effort.
Unfortunately, since techniques like this weren't developed in 1888, the information we need to make those calculations was never collected. One can't really point fingers at the police for not recording this information because at the time there was no such thing as spatter analysis.
All we can do is try and figure out what scenerios could produce evidence that gets described in the way it does. Each bit, by itself, will have many possible solutions.
For example, an oval blood mark on Strides hand could indicate
1) she was strangled, and the blood dripped from the knife as it was drawn away.
2) she was not strangled, and her hand was in motion when it intercepted a drop of blood
3) it's not a blood "drop" at all, but a smear from a finger/thumb as the killer placed her hand on her chest after her death (posing the body)
And, I'm sure there are other possibilities.
Unlike a blood spatter, which allows for one string to be placed from each spatter, from this evidence we have at least three possible "strings" (speaking methaphorically here). Similar to the strings placed for blood spatter, however, there is a reduction in the possibilities. If we take all the bits of incomplete evidence, and try and place our "theoretical strings", then hopefully we will find that we get a cluster pointing to one interpretation. And, just as not every blood spatter will point to the same location, we can't expect every bit of incomplete evidence to point to the same solution. Especially since some of our evidence will be misrecorded by the press, some will be singular oddities to the specific crime, etc. This will just add more "mis-directed strings", more noise within which to find the signal.
This case, with so much of the official information lost or missing, is about as far from ideal as one can get in terms of what one wants for a modern investigation. All we can do is try and keep putting constraints on what "could have happened", ruling out some possibilities, and limiting what's left. The hope is that there is enough evidence that those limits leave us with only one likely solution. It probably won't be definitive or accepted by everyone.
Anyway, I'm rambling now. Thanks again for your input. Very informative and useful.
- Jeff |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 05:26 am | | Hi all
With regards to 2 - I don't think that JTR was as quick with his mutilations as some suppose, because I believe he felt compelled to recover the money paid to the victim before starting.
The similarity of the wound seems to me to tip the balance, although I'm not 100% convinced.
Regards
Pete |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 03:41 am | | Let's ignore the three differences mentioned at the start of the thread and move to the largest one that for some reason few people take notice of:
4) Nature of the killing (public outburst versus private)
While all other murders were initiated away from the public, catching the victim completely off guard, with no witnesses of anything that could be construed as violent, Liz's killer was most likely spotted by at least two witnesses (Schwartz and the other person) being obviously violent toward Liz in broad view of anyone who happened to be around.
So, in the other killings presumably Jack was led to the scene of the crime by the soon to be victim and gets ahold of her and offs her without much a sound, if any. In this one there's a brawl beforehand. It doesn't make sense.
Some people above have suggested that it was Jack and he killed Stride to get rid of a witness. Witness to what? Brawls were quite commonplace, nothing had happened that could have linked him to the rippings yet.
The only way I can see Jack being involved would be if: 1) the witnesses were wrong about the events prior to the murder, 2) something, who knows what, suddenly enraged (or frightened) Jack so much that he had to kill this person no matter what, regardless of witnesses, location, etc. and caused him to be extremely sloppy and so incredibly different in his normally stealthy attacks, or 3) Liz, disoriented after the assault seen by others, wanders off to the dark court while the other two men disappear and then Jack, who had been hiding in the court all along, knows she'll be in no position to put up another fight and offs her.
Option 1 doesn't seem likely, as the witnesses would have botched the facts quite remarkably for some unknown reason for the incident to really have been more like a typical ripper killing. Option 2 is possible I suppose but doesn't sound like our man. Option 3 would mean that, even though he had just heard someone yell Lipski (assuming that's what was really said) in front of a crowded building full of Jews who could rush out and riot at any moment, he still thought that he'd be uninterrupted but then was anyway.
The whole nature of this killing betrays an entirely different psychological state than the other murders. That, more than the other three still highly significant differences, makes it most likely that we are talking about a completely unrelated crime of passion.
Dan |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 04:40 am | | Hi Dan
I could be on shaky ground here, but (as an alternative to my suggestion above) was there not a suggestion that Stride might have been meeting a beau that night (A Kidney replacement - ha Ha).
If she was not 'on duty' as a prostitute that may have caused the argument, and then Jacky, especially if known to her, might have felt in danger - she could easily have threatened to call the police, for example, just the sort of thing an outraged and spreeish lady of the night who for once is not in the wrong might do - and hence a quick kill, get the body out of sight, and away.
I'm assuming, in all cases (even possibly including MJK) that the killer got his victims as a normal street pickup, not leapt on them from the dark as the classic scenario has it.
And if the killer was someone like Hutchinson (I'm reading the book right now) then he could well be known, at least by sight, to the victims.
As I said, I'm not 100% convinced she's a victim myself. But I think its more likely than not. Jack never seems to have done two exactly alike anyway, but there are numerous serial killers who don't adhere to an exact pattern for whatever reason. He seems to have been very reactive to surroundings and circumstances, rather than controlling them. What we don't know is what part of the killing and mutilation was important to him - if we did, it might be easier to work out what was the key action - the actual killing, one or more of the mutilations, the organ removal, or something else less obvious like creating patterns with the bodies.
Regards
Pete |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 05:34 am | | I have raised this subject before,but I'll give it another go here.Where is the evidence of an assualt on Stride by the drunk that Schwartz followed along Berner Street.
He saw the man place a hand on her shoulder,and saw her twist and fall.Then as he was moving away he heard the sound of voices behind him.
Does that constitute a violent assault that ended in murder.Not in my opinion.Such encounters were probably commonplace,then and in later years,and even today.
So she resented the hand on the shoulder and twisted away,losing the balance and falling.Because she was afterwards found dead the conclusion is that she was killed by the person accosting her.Sure it is possible,but what of the other man there.Did he just stand and watch.Well we do not know as Schwartz was away out of it.
A murderous attack was made,but by whom.One thing is certain,Schwartz didn't see the person commit the fatal attack.That's my opinion. |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 08:25 am | | Harry,
Decent point.
Schwartz witnessed this assault 15 minutes before Stride was found murdered.
Time enough for someone else to commit the act ?
But why would Liz hang around after she has been attacked ? What kept her there ?
Monty
 |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 05:14 am | | Monty,
Perhaps when she picked herself up,and there was only arguement instead of further contact,and being as there was also one other male present,she would feel safe to remain in that location.She had been there or thereabouts for some considerable time,it was patroled by police and there were persons in the club adjacent to where she was.
There was also one other male in the vicinity,if the times given are correct,the person she had bee with in Fairclough St.She might feel reasonably safe in those circumstances.
Harry. |
Author: Monty
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 12:17 pm | | Hi Harry,
Im assuming this other person you are referring to is the Pipe man, am I correct ?
Is so then I would have thought she knew this 'Pipe' man. If he was a stranger I cannot understand why she would stay just after being assaulted. Why wasnt she wary because of the murders or because of her recent attack?
Then again, he could have been a stranger consoling her and she, because she was confused, a confident person (or looking for some trade) she went with him.....and another opportunity arises for Jack......man Im confused now.
But hey, this is just me thinking out loud.
She was attacked violently enough for Schwartz to cross over and disappear sharpish.
I do take your other point about the club and police though. I guess it was the way of the times.
Take care,
Monty
|
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 05:18 am | | Monty,
Perhaps the person in Fairclough Street and the pipe man were one and the same person.If so she might feel safe as he had shown no violence toward her.
There are many possibilities,but in my dealings with such women,in an official capacity,I have known them to say that they could take care of themselves,and seemed unconcerned that one customer might turn violent.Would Stride be any different?.
I do not think Schwartz neccessarily crossed over because of some atack.Most persons take to the other side of the road when passing drunks,or did when walking was a favoured method of mobility,self included.Drunks were and are known to be irrational,so it is wise to give them as wide a berth as possible.They can also be of a playful mood,and a little fun with Stride might have been all that was intended,hence a hand on the shoulder instead of a fist and boots approach.
It is only opinion of course,but experience helps form that opinion.
Harry. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 02:14 pm | | Hi Harry,
I think the same as you in relation to the above. Why do I get the feeling that you and Monty make a very good pair ? I like reading both of your posts with a great deal of interest. Two experienced and sensible guys if I may say so who compliment each other. |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 05:13 am | | Greetings Ivor,
Thanks for your comment,and I find Monty,as you do,an interesting and likeable poster.
As for yourself I like your style.Not one to get hot under the collar when abuse is thrown your way,but give it back the way it came.Nothing wrong with that.
I await your book,and whether I agree with your suspect or not,I can go along with the ritual aspect.
It was not so long ago when religeous faith,both of the white and black variety,was all powerful.Sundays without sport or entertainment.Shops closed,but the church open for three services a day,and the vicar paying a visit if the family failed to attend.Sunday school a must,and religeous instruction at day school a normal activity.
Sure there was ritual aplenty,and one growing up in such circumstances well aware of it,and if some turned to alternate beliefs and practices,and many did,I find it quite understandable.
The Stride murder has its fair share of complexities,and it can rightly be argued whether it was Ripper related,whether there was a first and sustained attack by the drunk,or what part did the pipe man play.In the end one forms their own opinion.
On a lighter note.A man won a large sum of money and decided he would take a cruise.First he visited his tailor and ordered clothes for every occasion.When collecting them the tailor asked him to call and describe his journey after returning.
This the fellow did,and on being asked how the trip went he said," Wonderful.Sailed on a ship called the North Wind,and the first evening met a tall,red haired,green eyed stewardess called Louise.Had a wonderful time".
"Thats funny ",said the tailor,"I have a tall,red haired,green eyed daughter who is a stewardess on a ship called the North wind.Her name is Louise.Is it possible it could be the same person"
." If it is ", said the man,"it's the only thing you made that fitted". |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 07:01 am | | Hi Harry, 9 out of 10 for that one it certainly had me laughing. My sense of humour can sometimes get me into trouble like yesterday for example when I was with the wife in a book store buying a marine modelling mag. Some people leave themselves wide open for a laugh. The girl who served me made the mistake of asking, "Would you like a bag sir? I replied, "Only if she has a good figure and is as pretty as you are".
This is my wifes joke of the week which she was told at work: A brain and a car battery went into a pub and asked for a drink and the barman said to the brain, "I am not serving you because you are out of your head and he is here to start something".
I have had that in the ear as least 6 times so far this week I should have sent her to bed without any tea for that one. |
Author: Monty
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 12:34 pm | | Harry, Ivor,
Quit it, you embarrass me. Thank you.
Harry,
Again, another plausible explanation.
cheers
Monty
|
Author: jose luis carril miguens
Sunday, 29 September 2002 - 06:29 pm | | HI ALL
Consequences of the Israel Schwartz’s testimony.-
a)The first conclusion of Schwartz’s testimony is the assailant of Stride “tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway”. That is, not inside the double door that guarded the entrance of the yard, but outside.
b)If this assailant was the Stride’s murderer then we must explain where he killed her.
c)Dr Blackwell and Dr Phillips stated the victim was murdered there where the body was found. That is, inside the gateway: “The deceased was lying on her left side obliquely across the passage… Her feet were three yards from the gateway”. (Dr Blackwell’s testimony).
d)The assailant only had two options about where killing Stride:
- First option.- After throwing her down he murdered her and then moved the corpse inside the gateway, or
- Second option.- After throwing her down he obliged to Stride, in some way, to go inside the gateway killing her there.
e)The first option doesn’t fit with the Dr Phillips and Dr Blackwell’s testimonies. In any case, “I could trace none (blood spots) except that which I considered had been transplanted – if I may use the term – from the original flow from the neck”. (Dr Phillips).
f)The second option doesn’t fit with the state and conditions in which the victim was found. “The left hand, lying on the ground, was partially closed, and contained a small packet of cachous…. The appearance of the face was quite placid”. (Dr Blackwell). That is, no signs of struggle. After being attacked I cannot imagine Stride accompanied her assailant voluntarily inside the gateway.
g)Well, in my humble opinion, according to the available information, that is the question: How did the Schwartz’s suspect kill Elizabeth Stride?
Best regards,
Jose Luis |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 30 September 2002 - 12:03 am | | In order to get Liz to willingly accompany him inside the gateway, the murderer must have said something extremely strange to her. Extremely strange is just too hard for most Ripperologists; they would have to go out of their way and believe something, but no way are they going to do that, what with all that's been done to them in the name of belief!
A point to ponder on a dark night in Connecticut.
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 30 September 2002 - 12:14 am | | I always got the feeling that Liz was hanging out with someone she knew and not just a stranger trying to be a customer. Lots of women head off to private locations immediately after being slapped around by, say, abusive boyfriends. Fewer head off to a dark area after being attacked by strangers, potential clients or no.
I tend to believe that Stride was not a Ripper victim, but think that if she was killed by the same hand as the other victims that the person (or persons) the witnesses describe as being with her earlier is not (or are not) the Ripper.
Dan |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 30 September 2002 - 07:59 am | | Dear David,
But think of all the humour!
Rosey (Faery Fay):-) |
Author: Jon Van Skiver
Monday, 30 September 2002 - 07:51 pm | | Liz,
In life and in death, you deserved better.
RIP
JVS |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 01 October 2002 - 11:50 am | | David,
Why must he have said something strange ??
Could have been someone she knew and trusted.
Could have been business.
Other reasons do exist....and they a far more plausible than saying something strange.
Extremely simple doesnt work I suppose. You are more likely to get someone to accompany you to a dark yard if you spoke in tongues. I stand corrected.
I believe in reality, not fantasy.
Its pointless to ponder in Connecticut.
Monty
 |
|
|
|
|
