Draw Your Own Conclusions

[c.d.]

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.

[lynn cates]

knowledge

Hello CD. Well, this would be unknown. For knowledge = df. "Justified, true , belief." (Or it was before Edmund Gettier.) Obviously, we do not know the truth here.

Of course, there are probabilities for the other two (you would need a statistician to assess them.)

We might infer that, he was not primarily a Rolex thief.

The best.
LC

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

Well let's eliminate (c) the unknown factor. If you had to choose between (a) and (b), which do you think is the most likely?

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Lynn,

Well let's eliminate (c) the unknown factor. If you had to choose between (a) and (b), which do you think is the most likely?

c.d.

The question is a hypothetical one.

The real answer was that it was his intention to steal

If you relate that to The Whitechapel murders it cannot be argued that the killer or killers motive was murder. Thats what he set out to do first and foremost The next point of comparison is where the murders were committed, then how he killed, then what he used to kill, then what did he do after that etc etc.d

One thing you should all not get carried away with is the throat cutting. Cutting someones throat was an accepted method of killing in victorian times. This does not make it unique to The Whitechapel murders. What does make a good comparison with the murders is how the throat was cut, and what type of knife.

If you take Eddowes,Chapman and Nicholls all had similar throat wounds caused by a long bladed sharp knife and all victims were subjected to a frenzied attack. So i would say same killer. However we then come back to the removal of the organs. None were removed from Nicholls and no real attempt to effcet any kind of removal. So that make her murder different or does it.

Now the old chestnut re surfaces again that being some will say the killer was disturbed. Well that can be argued but i guess it suits some people to belive that. BUt that is not fact.

What is fact is that Nicholls body was taken to the mortuary and never left alone before PM. Also her abdominal wounds were minor.

The bodies of the other two were left alone and the abdomens already laid open by the killer. My point is that the murders of all three can still be linked to same killer if you accept the organs were not removed by the killer.

If you dont then the shops are now seeling chestnuts for xmas

[lynn cates]

alternative

Hello CD. I really do not prefer either. I would assume something like the rings were very valuable, easier to store, and perhaps easier to dispose of.

Which was the correct answer, based on the news story?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

My take on it would be that the thief would have liked to have taken the watches and every damn thing in the store if he could have. It would seem to me that his fear of being caught outweighed his desire to do so. He already had taken something of value so why take a chace on being caught? Other jewelery stores beckon.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

You wouldnīt by chance be talking Stride here, would you, c.d?

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

You wouldnīt by chance be talking Stride here, would you, c.d?

The best,
Fisherman

Damn! You saw right through me, Fisherman. Yes, eventually I was going to tie it to Liz's murder.

I did see it on the news though.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

honest living

Hello CD. If this chap were a bit skitterish about being caught, perhaps he'd be better off making an honest living?

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

(d) The Rolex watches were towards the back of the display, and beyond his reach

[c.d.]

Hello CD. If this chap were a bit skitterish about being caught, perhaps he'd be better off making an honest living?

The best.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I would venture a guess that pretty much all criminals have an aversion to being caught. Tends to put a damper on things unless you enjoy being somebody's bitch.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"Damn! You saw right through me, Fisherman. Yes, eventually I was going to tie it to Liz's murder.

I did see it on the news though."

I donīt doubt that, c.d! Nor would I question that your explanation to him leaving the watches behind is the more probable one (but Sam makes a fair point - it could be a question of the display to some extent).

The trouble you will find yourself in trying to tie all of this to Stride is that we can all logically deduct that exonomic winning was the purpose of the smash-and-grab guy; the more the better.
It cannot be concluded, however, that each throat-cutting killer would have loved to go on to cut out the liver from his victim or fillet the buttocks away. If the intent was solely to kill, then a throatcutter would have accomplished his goal in a fuller manner than a thief who misses out on a large part of a potential loot!

The best,
Fishman

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

This incident was hardly an unusual event. You see it all the time in robberies. The robber or robbers leave things of value behind because they are anxious to get out of there and are afaid of being caught.

Now in terms of Liz's murder, we are most likely talking hanging as opposed to jail time unless Jack got himself one hell of a lawyer. I would venture that that was even more incentive for him to get away.

If one wants to put forth the idea that Jack might have been interrupted before he killed Liz, it would seem that the history of crime shows that quite frequently a robber/killer/rapist or other perpetrator puts his own safety ahead of his desire to complete his task.

Asking what that interruption might be and what evidence can be shown for it is a legitimate question. My disagreement is with those who won't or can't even consider that Jack might have valued his safety over the desire to rip out organs. Just as there are more jewelry stores there were other women in Whitechapel. Liz was not the only one.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

All fair points, c.d, no question about it. But we know that the cut to the neck that the Ripper delivered took about a second to deliver. And we know that he cut deep.
Alongside with the accumulated evidence pointing away from the Ripper, I think this point remains a very telling one in the Stride case.
I agree, though, that the Ripper would have been aware that there were many good potential female victims in Whitechapel and Spitalfields. 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.

She was cut differently and a fair case can be made that she was even cut standing up. She was never placed on her back, like the other victims. She was attacked and killed at an hour when the streets were still quite lively, unlike the other victims. We have a witness telling us that she was attacked in public fifteen minutes prior to her being found dead. There are absolutely no clinchers speaking of the Ripper in Dutfields Yard, c.d. Never was, never will be if Iīm correct.

Does not mean that I disrespect your wiew, though!

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

I would say that by the evidence it would seem that either the watches had no value to the thief or that he was unaware of any real value they might have had.

You do know that some thieves break into art galleries and take only 1 piece of art dont you? And that armoured truck robberies do not always mean that the criminals took all the valuable contents...or even all the cash bags?And that people pay other people to steal specific things for them? And that just because he grabbed the rings and not the watches that doesnt mean he knew the true values of either of the items.

If this guy was discovered to have done smash and grabs with watches of high value before....then youd have a real puzzle....but to me this guy probably knew nothing about any real values....and wasnt sophisticated enough to know just how expensive "upper class" watches can be.

Some car jackers would be better off taking the watches instead.

Cheers cd