Draw Your Own Conclusions

[c.d.]

Hi Trevor,

You mention the availabilty of nearby stables with regard to Liz's murder site. I can only ask who the hell would want to have sex in a stable? (note to Sam Flynn -- don't even think about responding to that one!) Maybe it is just me, but it doesn't strike me as the most romantic venue one could find.

On a more practical note, the site where she was killed contained a privy. A very hand place for a prostitute to clean up afterwards.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Caz:
"At the moment all the work to be done is on the 'not Jack' front. I can't see anyone moving forward an inch."

Thatīs because you have not read my posts, Caz!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

C.d:

" I would imagine that both of these rapists will try again and hope for better results from their point of view. I don't see why Jack would act any differently."

The rapists may even come up with the idea of taking their activities someplace where yelling would do the women little good. A parallel action on Jackīs behalf would have been to avoid Dutfields Yard and stick with his earlier and later scheme of using late night hours and secluded venues.

So in a sense you are completely correct on this, c.d. And in another - of course - you are completely wrong, if you ask me ...

The best, my friend!
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

I think that you inadvertantly made my point for me. Why didn't those rapists due a better job of planning in the first place? Like Jack, it could have been that the desire to rape overcame their better judgment.

c.d.

[johns]

The local news showed a video the other night. A closed circuit camera captured a robber in a jewelry store. He smashed a glass case containing diamond rings, swept a number of rings into a bag and fled leaving behind a case of Rolex watches and other valuable merchandise. What conclusion can we draw from this?:

a. He only wanted the rings and had no interest in the Rolex watches or other merchandise; or

b. He would have liked to have taken the watches and other things but was afraid of being caught; or

c. There is an unkown reason for his actions.

Which of the above do you think is the most likely?

c.d.

I would draw a number of conclusions and all have equal weight.

a) He's new to the game and thinks that stashing/moving/fencing rings would be easier than Rolex watches. Watches which would attract more attention maybe than rings.
b) Maybe he had a shadowy mentor who told him to just swipe rings and nothing else.
c) He's a moron.

[caz]

...it is always healthy to nurture a measure of scepticism...

Hi Fishykins,

Nobody finds a 'measure of scepticism' unhealthy. It's when you flat out reject the very plausible scenario whereby Jack attacks one unfortunate in circumstances that are far from ideal, and is therefore left with a burning need to go straight on to attack another. We know he was absolutely in the mood to attack unfortunates at the time and we also know that other serial offenders have attacked two of their victims in quick succession when everything didn't go like clockwork on the first occasion and they couldn't bear the feeling of defeat.

I'm always happy to consider arguments against Jack experiencing his own double event - that's why I'm here. I just haven't read a compelling one yet. Things couldn't have gone like clockwork for him each time, every time. He was not superhuman and every situation, every victim, gave him a different set of potential problems to deal with. By rights, he should have had at least one Stride for every two or three successful mutilation murders, all things considered.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

By rights, he should have had at least one Stride for every two or three successful mutilation murders, all things considered.

Excellent point Caz. As I always say, even Tiger Woods has a bad day.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

satori

Hello Caz. Aha! Now I see where you are coming from (to employ a garish turn of phrase). You are rightly concerned that:

"At the moment all the work to be done is on the 'not Jack' front. I can't see anyone moving forward an inch."

We agree. My concern is similar. I read a book and it says, "Of course, X cannot be Jack because we know Jack killed Y, and X was out of town when Y was killed." We are trying to force square pegs into round holes.

I think we both want truth. So, I cannot say definitively that "Jack" did not kill Liz. Could he have been having a bad day? Sure. By using a different knife on Liz he may have learned how NOT to mutilate. (Incidentally, this would explain why there was a 30-35 minute gap between Liz's slaying and the sighting of "Jack" with Kate--he went home and got his usual long, sharp knife. His experiment with the little dull bugger was a failure.

Finally, if not Jack, then who killed Liz? I haven't the foggiest but, like everyone else here, I await the answer.

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"I think that you inadvertantly made my point for me. Why didn't those rapists due a better job of planning in the first place? Like Jack, it could have been that the desire to rape overcame their better judgment."

Nice try, c.d! But we are dealing with rapists of whom we know that they made a mistake at what may have been their first efforts to rape, whereas we KNOW that Jack had chosen secluded venues BEFORE the attack on Stride took place. He had that bit taken care of, so to speak.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"It's when you flat out reject ..."

But I am not flat out reject anything, Caz, am I? What I say is that it COULD have been Jack, but evidence speaks for the opposite. If I am rejecting anything flat out at all, then it is the suggestion that it would be a better guess to say Jack did it, than it would be to point to the fact that none of his hallmarks were about. Ergo: the more credible thing to believe is that Stride never belonged to Jacks tally.
Not the only credible thing, thus - the MORE credible thing. No flat rejecting. Just common, evidence-based sense.

"Jack attacks one unfortunate in circumstances that are far from ideal, and is therefore left with a burning need to go straight on to attack another"

Yeah, right - plus a burning need to walk straight into the arms of the Met, by doubling back afterwards. Supremely credible, hmmm?

"We know he was absolutely in the mood to attack unfortunates at the time "

What you "know" Caz, is nothing that extends to me, Iīm afraid. I only know that he seemed intent on killing at around 1.35 that night. What Jack was thinking, doing or wishing for fifty minutes earlier is something I suggest we cannot possibly know.

"we also know that other serial offenders have attacked two of their victims in quick succession "

...just as we know about that Viennese couple of prostitutes.

"I'm always happy to consider arguments against Jack experiencing his own double event - that's why I'm here. I just haven't read a compelling one yet."

Oh, yes you have - you just failed to recognize it. Different cut, different time, different surroundings, different position - this is all compelling evidence, Caz. But where is the compelling evidence that tells us that it WAS Jack? Have you pondered the fact that the only thing you use to place him in the yard is that you believe that he was reasonably close to the area at the given time?
How compelling is that? How compelling do you think a judge and a jury would think it in a court of law? "He was in the vicinity (together with a round 100 000 other men) and he has been known to kill people, your Honour - albeit in a totally different fashion - so trust me: it MUST have been him!"

"By rights, he should have had at least one Stride for every two or three successful mutilation murders"

Is this one more of those things that you "know" and I donīt? How many victims was it the Green River killer had? Bundy? Canīt remember them guys getting things all bungled up every third time over, but if there is a statistical rule stating this, I will bow to it - when I see it ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Folks,

Jack killed Liz Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Folks,

Jack killed Liz Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Short but pithy. I couldn't have said it better myself.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Folks,

Jack killed Liz Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well that depends on what story you feel like weaving about this Jack fellow doesnt it Tom? Thats not a position that is supported by the physical evidence alone....if by Jack you mean the same man that killed Polly and Annie almost identically and likely for the same reasons.

To add Liz, you need a good story...you could use the going one regarding "mutilatus interruptus", or do you have a new tale of Ripper adventure that explains the total absence of all Ripper signature wounds with Liz?

Best regards Tom

[c.d.]

C.d writes:

"I think that you inadvertantly made my point for me. Why didn't those rapists due a better job of planning in the first place? Like Jack, it could have been that the desire to rape overcame their better judgment."

Nice try, c.d! But we are dealing with rapists of whom we know that they made a mistake at what may have been their first efforts to rape, whereas we KNOW that Jack had chosen secluded venues BEFORE the attack on Stride took place. He had that bit taken care of, so to speak.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

The jails are full of individuals who did a less than stellar job of planning and carrying out their various crimes. I would imagine that some of them had some degree of success in previous crimes before they were caught. Making bad decisions from time to time is simply being human. I tend to go with the theory that Jack was human as opposed to a being a robot.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Im going to try an experiment and go over the details of these murders with a few friends who have no knowledge about the specific cases, and see what outsider logical analysis without a Ripper spin looks like.

To try and tie up these 5 murders under one mans knife has always been a matter of guessing.....so gaining support for saying that Jack killed Liz means that others must be guessing that same way.

But to say that this unknown killer killed anyone so finitely while all the while knowing the statement has absolutely no basis in the physical evidence..is to me, irrational.

Course Im just a student and have no allegiance to the Ripper machine that has ground this tripe out over the years....so you get what you pay for.

Cheers