Draw Your Own Conclusions

[harry]

One might also ask why a smuggler would smuggle only one commodity.It could mean,the one item was stolen or smuggled to order.

[lynn cates]

smuggling

Hello Harry. It could indeed. And that has been Mike's point (if I correctly read your metaphor) all along.

The best.
LC

[Edward]

Fear of Being Caught

Hello All

I don't believe that any of the three options in the original post can be elimated. To do so without interviewing the robber is simply conjecture or assumption on our part. There seems to be a lot of that going on in these forums. We can only guess about motivation.

My personal conjecture would be that the robber in the original post smashed and grabbed the nearest loot, then bolted. (which would seem to speak to an aversion to being caught) Then again, that would be yet another assumption on my part.

Jack was never caught (so it seems). Because of this, I feel that Jack intended to elude capture. Another assumption! Abandoning an illegal activity in the middle of the act, if the chance of being caught is suddenly increased, is certainly logical if the criminal intends to elude capture. In those days, getting caught in the act was practically the only way of getting caught. However, in the original post, option C still stares us in the face: we don't know motivation.

I'm not an expert in this mystery, as many of you are. Anything that I post is invariably shredded by someone. My intention is not to counter or to discredit the posts of others, but only to air my thoughts.

Best Regards,
Edward

[harry]

The third qualification(c),for some other unknown reason,might indicate that A and B were known to be the true cause.In that case (c) becomes invalid.Likewise A and B becomes invalid,if we allow (c) to be considered.

[Varqm]

We'll first of all was it clear they were rolex watches?

I think the robber knew there was a camera and it would be a hit and run job. So beforehand he had to decide which one would he grab the jewelry or the other merchandise. Also if he knew a go-to guy for stolen jewelry and or knew it would be easier to sell, or even somebody is already waiting for it, then he would go for the jewelry.
Of course if given the opportunity he would steal all of them.
Anyways my opinion.

[Fisherman]

Varqm wisely states:

"Of course if given the opportunity he would steal all of them."

Though there is no way that we can prove this in the isolated case, you will be 100 per cent correct on a statistical basis here, Varqm. And indeed, this is the point that c.d was making from the outset - that opportunity rules how much of a loot a robber will be able to lay his hands on in each case. We can safely assume that robbers will maximize heir takings if given the chance. "Our" robber would surely have entered the shop and taken as much as he could with him, choosing what he judged to be the most valuable objects as he went along - if he was sure that he could do so with no risk of getting caught.

My objection surfaces when we try to apply this reasoning to - for example - the Stride killing. There is no reason at all to accept that Strides killer would have - metaphorically - have "entered the shop" if he had been equally certain of staying uncaught.
Why? Because, of course, although we may assume that a robber will maximize his takings, we may not equally assume that all killers intend to annihilate their victims if they are given the opportunity. Statistically, it is by far more reasonable to assume that a killers sole intent is to make sure that the person he is after ends up dead, than it is to assume that each killer would eviscerate their victims and procure organs from them if they knew that they could do so without getting caught.

Therefore, a comparison like this is not a very useful one, if you ask me.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Whereas the shop and it's contents might be classed as a fixture,that would remain constant over a period of time,and give a would be robber the chance to preplan his activities,Stride's killing was more likely to have been a sudden impulse one,dictated by the killer's assessment of the situation as it stood at that particular time,and the realization that any delay might not give a repeat opportunity.

[Fisherman]

Possibly so, Harry - but whereas we CAN conclude that what the smash-and-grabber was after (as much profit as possible), we cannot do the same thing in the latter case. It may have been a sudden impulse, it may have been more of a planned thing. It may have been Jack, and it may not. The resulting evidence does not tell us enough to decide in either way, although I myself am of the meaning that none of the typical hallmarks of a Ripper killing was to be found in Dutfieldīs Yard - no deep throatcutting, no evisceration, no placing of the victim on itīs back and possibly a cut to the throat that was performed while the victim was still on her feet.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Good one, Harry.

I do not agree, however, that he would have considered a woman standing in the entrance to a crowded club full of singing people and with the kitchen door ajar a good potential victim.

Here we go again. If the ripper ever picked up a victim (or was picked up by her) on a main road, this stale old argument about a poor choice of mutilating location makes no sense whatsoever. He could hardly have expected to find prospective victims waiting meekly in dark, deserted spots in case a man with money happened by. Seeing Liz standing in the entrance to a crowded club full of potential customers would have given a serial prostitute killer the distinct impression that for the promise of a few pennies he could get this woman to take him somewhere quieter - just as Jack most likely did with other victims.

If this was Jack, the one thing that changed may have been her stubborn refusal to go anywhere with him. Any artificial charm he may have used to his advantage would surely have been quick to evaporate if he didn't get his way. And if anything about his manner made her suspect he was the murderer, he would arguably have cut her throat there and then without a second thought (it was a method he was getting used to, after all, and he did have a nice sharp knife on him that night for that very purpose) and run straight off to find a safer bet. Why would he have needed to place her on her back if he never intended to mutilate anyone in this precarious spot?? It would effectively have been his pick-up point, not where he planned to kill and plunder his prey.

We could say that when he cut the throat of the other victims, hoping to go on and enjoy the spoils, it was the equivalent of breaking into different shops with exactly the same stock (ie the human female body). After that it was a case of what kind of booty he could access and enjoy as time and circumstances allowed. With the earlier victims, the lights were out and all the 'stock' was covered in layers of sheeting (their clothing), whereas Mary's wares were all out on show - all too easy for the thief to help himself and make a thorough pig of himself right there at the scene.

Perhaps it should have been a bakery instead of a jewellers.

It was too busy near Liz's muffin shop and she wouldn't move it. So he stopped her warning anyone about his penchant for pastry and found himself a nice secluded outlet where he could tuck into Kate and kidney pie.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

I dont think the placing of Stride on her back is a valid issue. She could have fallen on her back just as equally as she could have fallen on her stomach when the killer let go of her.

The answer could be in the fact that it is very difficult to cut someones throat from the front and facing them.

The other victims Eddowes,Chapman and Nicholls were in my opinion cut from behind with the killer deeply inserting the knife into the throat and drawing it across.

So the throat cutting of Stride in very important to those who like me suggest she was not killed by the same killer as the other three.

The knife was not the same had it have been she would have had the same deep injuries the other 3. No sign of a frenzied act on her. No mutilations.

To suggest Stride was selected by the killer because she was plying her trade is speculation and is not in line with the killers MO of previous victims. Had those victims been last seen in Berner St then yes that would be right. But it seems the killer of the other three was trawling the streets at a much later hour looking for victims.

Staying with Stride I previoulsy mentioned in another post that if her killer was the same and was looking to find a quiet location why did he not take her much further down the yard to the stables are where it was much more dark and secluded.

What does keep annoying me is the fact that people keep raising the issue that the killer was disturbed. We had the same with Nichols murder.

I fully accept that could be the case however there is a 50% chance he wasnt. So in view of that people should take this into account and not be so quick to dismiss outright the other plausible explanations.

All in all more negatives than positives to link Stride to the murders of the other victims.

To many on here have been sitting here for far to long with blinkers on its time they took them off and took a more realistic approach to the murders.

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"Here we go again."

Not if I can help it.

"If the ripper ever picked up a victim (or was picked up by her) on a main road, this stale old argument about a poor choice of mutilating location makes no sense whatsoever."

Not when we consider that irrespective of he picked his victims up at the entrance of Buckingham palace, THEY STILL WERE KILLED AT SECLUDED, QUIET LOCATIONS AT AN HOUR OF NIGHT WHEN HE STOOD A GOOD CHANCE OF BEING LEFT ALONE! Alternative explanations are of course all good and well, but the evidence is perfectly clear on this point.
We also know that Berner Street was not a regular point of prostitution - or so weīre told by those who frequented the street or lived in it - whereas all the other murder spots were red light districts.
Of course, one may argue that "Here we go again with them stale old arguments - the Ripper would have walked on all sorts of streets, and when he saw a lady he fancied, well ..."

...but to do so would be but to add another speculation along the same line as the one about the Ripper having had an original intent of moving Stride into safer territory; nada knowledge, zilch substantiation.

"if anything about his manner made her suspect he was the murderer, he would arguably have cut her throat"

The tatto on the forehead saying "Iīm Jack"? The list of victims carried in his vest pocket? The still not discarded uterus taken from Chapman?
Arguably - since you use the expression - the absolutely safest way of steering clear of trouble would have been to take advantage of the fact that there were more ladies, darker streets and later hours to come. To cut Strideīs neck would be the unsafest thing he could possibly do, realizing that somebody may emerge in the yard at any given moment.
And please - PLEASE! - letīs not forget that the man that cut Stride cut differently to the man that cut the other victims!

Does it not bother you in the least, Caz, that the "It-would-have-been-Jack"-followers (like yourself) always have to invent explanations to all the deviations that tell Stride apart from the other victims? "He never meant to kill her at that spot from the outset". "You cannot cut in the same fashion at every occasion". "Maybe he made an early start just this one evening". "He must have been interrupted". "He would have passed through non-prostitute areas too". "Maybe he used another blade on Stride, explaining the shallow cut".
Has it never dawned on you that these deviances, taken together, all point AWAY from a Ripper killing?

Have you never reflected on the respective weight differences inbetween factual evidence and suggested explanations telling us that the evidence would have looked totally different if it had not been for a number of strange coincindences? In other words; why not settle for what we can see instead of going for what you think we would have seen if your guesswork is correct?

Because there could never have been two killers about on the same night and in the approximate same area?
Although we know that this area was the roughest and most crime-infested area in the whole of London?
And although we know that it was inhabited by many, many, many thousands of people? And although we know that a THIRD woman had her neck savagely cut - much more savagely than Liz - THAT VERY SAME NIGHT?

Itīs textbook or fairytale - and itīs anybodys choice.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

small problem

Hello Caz. I like many of the things you are saying about Liz's killing. (I presume that her killing is the real purpose of this thread and that I am not posting off topic. If I am, I humbly beg pardon.) Indeed, it accords with many of the facts.

Try this:

1. Jack has been without a slaying for roughly 3 weeks.
2. His old stomping grounds are being watched night and day.
3. He decides to expand his base of operations.
4. He accosts Liz and meets rebuff (perhaps the "not tonight, perhaps some other night" business.)
5. He tries other persuasion to get her to a dark area instead of the yard (here begins the Schwartz story), but fails.
6. He gives up and slashes quickly to dispose of a possible witness.
7. Moves to yet another base of operations--London proper.

All quite logical, but with a small problem. And that is that Liz died IN the yard. Had she died by the gates, everything would be neat and tidy.

What's worse, she seems to have died EXITING the yard, given her body placement. (It won't do to suppose a spinning round of the body ante mortem--that would cause a cachous spill. That is why the hypothesis--that she was taken down with a hand to her neckerchief, then placed on her side--was formulated.)

If the body placement could be explained with a consistent scenario, I could perhaps buy into the rest.

Thanks for any possible help here.

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Since examples to the contrary are sometimes brought forward, I thought that I may post this case, more or less contemporary with the Ripper murders:

Ten years after the Ripper murders, two prostitutes in Vienna, Franziska Hofer and Anna Spilka, were murdered and mutilated (!) on the 26:th and the 31:st of December 1898, respectively – but by different killers. Simon Sosztarich killed Anna Spilka and was caught and brought to justice for it. The killer of Franziska Hofer was never caught, but witnesses saw her killer and it was obvious that he was not Sosztarich. The details of it all were published in Ripper Notes number 27.

In these cases, we have the similarity of murder and mutilation, something that is not present in any way at all in the Eddowes/Stride combination. The latter two killings are instead very much unalike. But if Stride and Eddowes had in fact both been mutilation killings, there can be no doubt that it would have been considered a proven fact that they must both have fallen prey to the Ripper.

The Spilka/Hofer cases show emphatically that it is always healthy to nurture a measure of scepticism in errands like these. If two mutilation murders could be carried out in the same city, only five days apart by two different killers – then why would anybody consider it very strange that two completely different kinds of murders committed in the roughest part of London could also be the work of two different killers?

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

Given Liz's position when found then, what scenario involving anyone but Jack do you think can make so much more sense of her utterly senseless murder?

What type of man killed her and why? Did she have reason to fear for her safety at his hands, and if so what did she do about it?

Help me to make some sense of excluding the active serial killer from any involvement and introducing some other unknown man with a knife, and the will and ability to use it on an easily overpowered female?

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

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

I have to say that I am somewhat surprised and somewhat amused by the responses that I have gotten to my original question. I just assumed that the obvious answer would be that the robber would have preferred to have taken as much jewelry as he could have. It is a fairly safe assumption that everything in a jewelry store is valuable even if some items are more valuable than others. I naturally assumed that he simply didn't want to get caught and therefore contented himself with what he had. To my amazement, other people saw it differently. So I guess I learned something.

In the last few days there have been a couple of attempted rapes on the news. In each case, the would be attacker was scared off by the woman yelling or attempting to get away. This is probably a better scenario for discussion than the jewelry store example because it constitutes a more violent and passionate crime. But in each instance, the desire to escape being caught trumped the desire to rape. Again, that seems to be a fairly common occurrence. 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.

c.d.