Draw Your Own Conclusions

[Fisherman]

Caz asks:

"How do you imagine a dangerously volatile, knife-wielding prostitute killer might react if it all went pear-shaped and she wouldn't budge"

Well, Caz, the thing is I don´t have to imagine at all. That´s something you need to do, however. You must imagine that there was a botched Ripper attempt, you must imagine that there was an interruption, you must imagine that Jack had plans for Stride somewhere else, you must imagine that Jack was an early riser this evening, you must imagine ...

See what I mean?

Me, on the other hand, I cheerfully settle for something a lot more common. I accept that BS man killed her by cutting her throat, he never intended to mutilate, and left the scene thereafter.

And you know - that all tallies with the evidence WITHOUT any use of imagination.

"Oh don't be so ridiculous, Fish. Are you saying he had the knife on him in case anyone had a fish that needed gutting, and he happened to bump into Kate Eddowes at the time? Unless you seriously believe he had no murderous intentions when he hit the streets that night until Kate laughed at one of his jokes and said "You kill me", and he replied "All right, it would be rude not to", why make such a desperate and silly suggestion?"

Once again, I am not the one making suggestions. You are. You stated that we KNEW that Jack was out there with an intent to kill at the time Stride died, and I simply retorted that we cannot possibly know such a thing.
The killings could have been carried out by a sick man, suffering from recurring psychosis, Caz - the point is that although we may guess, we´d better not dub our guesswork "knowledge". And a knife carried in your pocket does not equal an intent to kill - there would have been thousands of Londoners who carried knifes with them.

"How can you even think that only one factor suggests to me (and most commentators, remember) that Jack was the most likely assassin in Dutfield's Yard: the fact that the Mitre Square murder scene was a mere 15 minutes' walk away and discovered less than an hour later?"

That´s because I see it that way, Caz.

"That's just one compelling piece of circumstantial evidence"

The other very compelling bits and pieces being that Stride was a prostitute at times? That she was killed in the night hours? That nobody saw the killer? Hmm?

Nope, I don´t buy into it for a second. Instead, Caz, tell me why he cut shallow this time over - and then tell me that is not a compelling piece of evidence telling us that Jack was never there.
Then tell me why he was at work during hours when the streets were still frequented by many people, instead of waiting until later - as he did in ALL other cases. And then tell me THAT is no compelling evidence for Jack being unguilty either.

When trying this hat on, Caz, you will invariably find that you have to answer by saying "Well, it deviates, but why would he not deviate once in a while - he was no robot".
Deviations. Numbers of them. And they ALL came about in Strides killing, whereas they were not about in Buck´s Row, Hanbury Street, Mitre Square and Millers Court. At these occasions, he WAS acting like a robot when cutting necks, when choosing secluded, silent venues, when picking his time ...
And you call me ridiculous?

"And I'll thank you not to patronise me with politician-speak. No I haven't 'just failed to recognise' the compelling message you are trying to get across. The message is nowhere near compelling enough, and a safe majority evidently feel much the same way."

A HUMONGUOUS majority, Caz! An OVERWHELMING, HUGE, COLOSSAL majority. Don´t forget that I represent but the tiny, nigh on microscopical fraction ascribing ourselves to the weird wiew that the evidence left in Dutfields Yards actually represents what it looks like.

"I wouldn't like to bet with an English jury. A good prosecuting lawyer could have Jack done up like a kipper (Jack the Kipper) for the Dutfield's Yard job, and the knife-happy bugger would be hard pressed to find himself an alibi or a character reference."

Holy crap, Caz - you cannot believe this yourself, can you ...? Are you really suggesting that an English court of law would convict on no evidence at all?? You need to find some faith in your legal system, methinks - to find a judge and jury that would convict on grounds like these, you need to travel to remotest Africa or some corrupt island republic!

"Would you shed a tear if Jack had to swing for Liz too?"

I fail to see how an answer on my behalf could have any bearing on the issue at hand, I´m afraid. Actually, the same goes for the question as a whole. But I would strongly advice against throwing any number of victims in Jack´s tally for good measure in an unsubstantiated manner - especially since it may leave us with the true killer unconvicted and fancy free.

On Bundy and the Green River killer: Of course it can be assumed that any killer - given that he goes on killing - will reach points where he does not succeed to do what he came for. To that extent, your argument has something going for it. But the moment you ask me to accept that Jack was not only disturbed in Dutfields Yard - he was in fact disturbed in the split second when he cut - is the moment where I tell you that this reasoning of yours seems pretty useless in Berner Street.

"If you accept that he had to leave a woman on occasion before he really wanted to, then you are half way to conceding that he would have been wise not to hang around in Dutfield's Yard, considering how soon Liz was found after the fatal cut."

Same thing, different story; in all probability, he would not have cut her there in the first place! So in that respect, I agree that Jack would have stayed away from Stride. Not after cutting away, though - before!

"Do they have no repeat offenders in Sweden because criminals there only ever bungle their first crime and get caught?"

Charming, Caz! Myself, I have nothing but good things to say about the British. And if that had not been the case, I would not have been making jokes about them in a discussion like this. It would be a shoddy thing to do.

Oh, and:

"No, because he didn't walk straight into any such arms "

Never said he did, Caz - I just pointed out that for a man who seemed to have a talent for evading capture, doubling back from Mitre Square would be an unexpected thing to do - if he had killed Stride in Berner Street prior to Eddowes.

If, on the other hand, he had NOT killed Stride prior to Eddowes, we are suddenly faced with a very logic route on his behalf. And me oh my, do I like tedious, boring, colourless logic! It beats fanciful fairytales each and every time.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

It's nice to see such impassioned arguments from the it wasn't Jack crowd. May I respectfully suggest that you devote some of that passion to trying to bolster your own arguments on behalf of a candidate other than Jack. It seems your camp can't even agree on a candidate. The BS man was seen pushing Liz to the ground SO HE JUST HAD TO HAVE KILLED HER. Kidney was in a rage SO HE JUST HAD TO HAVE KILLED HER. An unknown killed her BECAUSE PEOPLE RANDOMLY STABBED AT THE DROP OF A HAT BACK IN THE LVP. Jeez guys, please pick one candidate and provide conclusive evidence that he killed Liz before you devote your life to refuting the argument of those who believe that Jack killed Liz. All you have done so far is produce CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, speculation and a lot of bluster.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

Hello Caz. I was following page 125 of Mr. Marriott's book.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

Hello CD. You ask some to:

"please pick one candidate and provide conclusive evidence that he killed Liz"

I wonder if this isn't like asking the other camp to pick a candidate for who Jack is?

Evidence? Is there any besides the apron and the deceased women?

The best.
LC

[c.d.]

Originally Posted by lynn cates

Hello CD. You ask some to:

"please pick one candidate and provide conclusive evidence that he killed Liz"

I wonder if this isn't like asking the other camp to pick a candidate for who Jack is?

Evidence? Is there any besides the apron and the deceased women?

The best.
LC

Precisely. There is no evidence. All we can do is speculate and weigh probabilities. So to ask the other side (whatever that might be) to produce their evidence is rather silly and to then say "ahah" when they fail to do so is even sillier.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

Hello CD. We seem to agree. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about Liz. My heart says "Jack"; my head says, "Perhaps not." I have the same conflict regarding the letters.

Cheers.
LC

[perrymason]

Since this seems to be directed primarily at the Stride murder, its worth once again pointing out that to suggest that events or activities were to take place after a specific moment in time, (her death cut), without having the benefit of any indicators or intimations that said events or activities were in the commencement phase or that events leading to that specific moment were obvious pre-cursors to said events or activities to take place after the specific moment in time, you would be making little more than a guess as to what was to come after that "moment". When adding that the motives for the murder are unclear and not obviously evident in either the physical or circumstantial evidence....you are forced to concede that the evidence itself suggests little more than Liz was killed by a throat cut.

Just like 2 other women were that night in the East End.

One of the had postmortem mutilations performed on the victims abdomen, and had organs taken.

Its a fact that Liz Strides murder by appearance and resulting injuries is far more similar to the murder of Mrs Brown by her husband on that same night, than its is Kate Eddowes murder....a single throat cut. Of course he didnt do both murders....but Liz is killed in a way that more closely resembles a domestic murder than by a serial killer abdominal mutilator. So unremarkable in fact that 2 women on the same night die in that manner.

Best regards all.

[perrymason]

Originally Posted by lynn cates

Hello CD. You ask some to:

"please pick one candidate and provide conclusive evidence that he killed Liz"

I wonder if this isn't like asking the other camp to pick a candidate for who Jack is?

Evidence? Is there any besides the apron and the deceased women?

The best.
LC

There is one bit of evidence that can exonerate a supposed killer in that case cd, if you dont mind me jumping in Lynn,.....there is NO evidence at all that suggests Liz was killed by an abdominal mutilator post mortem, there is NO evidence that Liz was killed by someone seeking organs, (whose victims may comprise 80% of the Canonical Group on that basis), there is NO evidence that Liz was killed for certain while lying down...as all the others were, and the IS evidence that the killer may have subdued the woman while holding his knife.....Blackwells comments suggest that he saw it as possible that the killer grabbed her from behind by the scarf, pulled and twisted it so she lost balance, and he sliced her throat "while she fell". That means he had a knife out while choking her.

Find one remark, aside from the investigation of Mary Kellys death, that would lead to a conclusion that Mary Ann, Annie or Kate were attacked and subdued while the killer had a knife in his hand. Since all were flat on their back not resisting before any knife wounds are made on their bodies....the physicians believed that the throat cuts were the first cuts....it seems clear that a knife was not used to subdue the women, but rather both hands would certainly have been used in that attack element.....he ONLY used a knife when they were not able to resist in those 3 cases...but in Liz's case and Marys case, its not only possible but probable that a knife was in his hand at the commencement of the attack.....and in Marys case, since she didnt have a scarf tied tightly round her neck and twisted, she likely wasnt being choked when he first attacked.....which makes noise the ultimate question in that murder......there would have been some noise. That no-one else heard any while they were awake, even after "oh-murder", that seems to indicate that the murder most likely started when all the courtyard witnesses were indoors for the night, and possibly nodding off or sleeping. Mary Ann was the last one out and about until almost 3am.

Best regards all.

[lynn cates]

Hello Mike. Thanks for pointing that out.

Do I mind? Not a bit of it. Turn about is fair play.

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

Originally Posted by lynn cates

Hello Mike. Thanks for pointing that out.

Do I mind? Not a bit of it. Turn about is fair play.

The best.
LC

Youre one person that I dont mind speaking on my behalf Lynn,....youre fair and without an agenda.

My best regards my friend.