c3 or not?

[joelhall]

ok, old idea i know, but do we all believe that stride was a part of the series (whomever you might include as being in the series), and who that she wasnt?

im sure there will be groans at this, and of course the expected dismissal out of hand of the idea, but in serial killings, knowing who is and isnt a true victim is of course of importance.

also has anyone entertained this idea enough to have found other (corroborated) evidence, no matter how small that throws her candidacy into question?

for those who dismiss the very notion, your reasons for doing so are also welcome here (though just saying 'because the original detctives did' is kind of a given - im talking about your own perspective).

lets also try not to stray to far from the path on this one

cheers

joel

[c.d.]

Yes, she was. No further discussion necessary.

c.d.

[joelhall]

Yes, she was. No further discussion necessary.

c.d.

as you see it.

[c.d.]

as you see it.

Sorry, just trying to make life easier for everybody. This is a dead horse that has died, met its maker, been reincarnated, and died again. I think we are all sort of Lizzed out at this point.

c.d.

[anna]

Not me,I'll answer you Joel!
The C3 would be Polly,Annie and Kate for obvious reasons.
Liz.....I think she was a Jack victim,but knew him well.
I think personally,she was hanging around for her man.
But I don't think he murdered her,why would he argue with her on a pavement and drag her into the shadows,when he could have:
a)arranged to meet her at a secluded spot b)get up close enough to stab her and walk on.
I feel it was the cut around the neck which was identical on all -Jack's trademark to the police-which tied them all into the series.
What I fail to understand with all of them is a)The fact that they didn't arm themselves,and b)That they let Jack get behind them...apart from for the obvious,and then,there's something strange there..If you watch women waiting around in the street for someone,they stand with their back close to a wall or fence,and if for some reason they cannot do this,they move about,making sure they have a "minds eye" view of what is behind them...what or who is in their personal space is most important to women.
This is why I feel this guy was no stranger to them,as they don't seem to be doing the above,with Jack about,time of night etc,surely the last thing they would do would let a stranger get behind them,even in their "minds eye".
So,maybe he was a regular client that they were used to having their back to!!!
If we rule out the fact that there was an identical throat cut for all,then I would go with undisclosed evidence at all of the crime scenes,that we are not aware of...maybe as I have said before,they each got a gift before dying or he left the same clue at each murder site.
I think with Liz,there's a lot we don't know,probably lost to time,in discarded police notes,maybe.
I don't think she's a "cut to the throat,another closeby in distance and time,so let's tie them in",I think there's a valued reason for her inclusion.
Just a few thoughts.

[steje73]

I remain unconvinced that she was, but not dogmatic about it. I'll be quite happy if I can be convinced either way.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I am abit puzzled by the name of this thread. Stride may or may not be a c5 victim, but she can hardly be among the c3. The c3 shold obviously be Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes and none of them could with any stretch of the imagination be replaced by either Stride or someone else.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Seconded, Glenn; whatever group Liz can be sorted into, it sure isn´t a C3 group, I would say.

Anna, you write: "... I don't think he murdered her,why would he argue with her on a pavement and drag her into the shadows,when he could have:
a)arranged to meet her at a secluded spot b)get up close enough to stab her and walk on."

There are of course other possible scenarios that you could come up with along the same lines; he could have hired a hit guy and let him do the dirty job, he could have smuggled a poisoned cachous into her packet und so weiter - there would have been an array of smoother methods to dispatch of her, and still he did not employ them.

Did you ever ask yourself why? Of course you did, but there was no good answer around, was there?

The reason for that problem lies in your presupposition that the deed was premeditated. You believe that whoever killed her set out to do so. I don´t think that is a wiew that fits the facts. If instead you change the perspective and see the murder as something that took place in a sudden fit of rage, you are suddenly provided with an answer to the question why it all looks like something NOT premeditated, why it was carried out in such a risky environment, why the cut is significantly different from the Ripper´s handiwork, why she felt enough at ease to take out her cachous, why she was not mutilated, why she ended up on her side instead of on her back and why there were no signs of suffocation about her - because it was a spur of a moment deed. No premeditation, no intent from the outset.
That is my take on it, and much as it can´tbe proven as it stands, I feel that it supplies a much more credible explanation to Liz´death than suggesting that she was killed by a very focused mutilator.

The best, all!

Fisherman

[sdreid]

Let's strike off Nichols while we're at it and make it the C2. Now I'm even more superior. I mean, isn't that the idea?

[Dan Norder]

If someone were to insist on having only a canonical three, those three, based solely upon signature analysis, would have to be Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. If you go by geography they'd be extremely closely linked as well.

The people who try to dismiss Kelly do so for reasons that would logically apply just as well for any of the other victims too, but for some reason they choose to treat Kelly differently, either because of suspect-based theories or because of the "romance" and mystery surrounding Kelly.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

If someone were to insist on having only a canonical three, those three, based solely upon signature analysis, would have to be Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. If you go by geography they'd be extremely closely linked as well.

The people who try to dismiss Kelly do so for reasons that would logically apply just as well for any of the other victims too, but for some reason they choose to treat Kelly differently, either because of suspect-based theories or because of the "romance" and mystery surrounding Kelly.

That's absolute nonsense.

All the best

[DVV]

If someone were to insist on having only a canonical three, those three, based solely upon signature analysis, would have to be Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. If you go by geography they'd be extremely closely linked as well.

The people who try to dismiss Kelly do so for reasons that would logically apply just as well for any of the other victims too, but for some reason they choose to treat Kelly differently, either because of suspect-based theories or because of the "romance" and mystery surrounding Kelly.

Hello Dan,
I guess that by "signature analysis" you mean "theft of a part of the body".
But of course, in other respects, a "C3" could also be Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
And if we go to the geography, we must not discard Martha Tabram...
As Glenn remarked, the question was puzzling! As if someone who knows the truth, let's say God, were asking us: "Now, Jack killed 3. Tell me just who."
The problem is that we can't imagine God "knowing" that Jack has killed only three...
And there serious reasons for that.

DVV (bloody Corsican)

[DVV]

If someone were to insist on having only a canonical three, those three, based solely upon signature analysis, would have to be Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. If you go by geography they'd be extremely closely linked as well.

The people who try to dismiss Kelly do so for reasons that would logically apply just as well for any of the other victims too, but for some reason they choose to treat Kelly differently, either because of suspect-based theories or because of the "romance" and mystery surrounding Kelly.

Hello Dan,
I guess that by "signature analysis" you mean "theft of a part of the body".
But of course, in other respects, a "C3" could also be Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
And if we go to the geography, we should not discard Martha Tabram...
As Glenn remarked, the question was puzzling!
Seems like someone who knows the truth, let's say God, were asking us: "Now, Jack killed 3. Tell me just who."
The problem is that we can't imagine God "knowing" that Jack has killed only three...
And there are so many reasons for that. 4 seems an obvious minimum.

DVV (bloody Corsican)

[joelhall]

have to say i wasnt quite expecting the response this thread has so far gained. some interesting points have been raised so far.

thanks guys

joel

[joelhall]

If someone were to insist on having only a canonical three, those three, based solely upon signature analysis, would have to be Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. If you go by geography they'd be extremely closely linked as well.

The people who try to dismiss Kelly do so for reasons that would logically apply just as well for any of the other victims too, but for some reason they choose to treat Kelly differently, either because of suspect-based theories or because of the "romance" and mystery surrounding Kelly.

it does appear that kelly is treated differently most of the time (on one other thread she was referred to as the 'most important victim'), and mystery and romanticism do seem to feature in this, not least from the mystery surrounding her background, or even the fact we have such a graphic reminder of the killing.

on the subject of stride, ive never been 100% in my mind. at first glance it becomes accepted, though after reading through events, it seems (and i admit only seems) that this murder doesnt fit with the whitechapel killer. of course this is only a hunch on my part, but this discussion shows her candidacy has not been taken for granted by everyone, merely because she is named as one of the c5.

im going to do some more research into the so-called 'double event' and post again to see if anything else could become apparent.

thanks again for the replies everyone.

joel