Draw Your Own Conclusions

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.

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.

[lynn cates]

heart and head

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

[c.d.]

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]

evidence

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

[lynn cates]

the knife

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

The best.
LC

[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.

[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 donīt have to imagine at all. Thatīs 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, weīd 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?"

Thatīs 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 donīt 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 Buckīs 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. Donīt 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, Iīm afraid. Actually, the same goes for the question as a whole. But I would strongly advice against throwing any number of victims in Jackīs 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

[caz]

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.

Eh? Where's your evidence that the knife used on Liz was either different, little or dull? She died of a single slice and her killer wasn't Superman. Soon we'll have people saying she was killed with the edge of a flaming teaspoon.

...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.

Oh blimey, Fishstix! How many more times? If Jack saw Liz as his next prospective victim, because she was a known prossie, hanging about unaccompanied outside a crowded club after midnight, he was obviously expecting her to accompany him to another 'secluded venue'. How do you imagine a dangerously volatile, knife-wielding prostitute killer might react if it all went pear-shaped and she wouldn't budge - or even came out with some loud retort or accusation which made him see red? He'd have taken care of that too, wouldn't he? Surely?

Ergo: the more credible thing to believe is that Stride never belonged to Jacks tally.

Not 'ergo' at all, Fish. It may be more credible for you to believe it, but it ain't for me and 53% of the commentators who voted.

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

No, because he didn't walk straight into any such arms - ever (unless you swallow the Hutchinson theory ). And we know he passed Goulston St after leaving City Police territory, so what's your point?

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.

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? He had already made short work of at least two unfortunates and was more than ready to try his hand again. You know that, we all know that, so why fight it? Have you run out of ammunition already?

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 just one compelling piece of circumstantial evidence, and you don't have anything remotely as strong against your own non-serial killer suspect. No other known knife-wielding suspect in the vicinity equals no identified means, motive or opportunity. Jack had all three in spades.

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.

The difference is that I'm not expecting you to get my message. I'm just telling you that I still prefer it to yours, thanks all the same. I imagine an unbiased Scottish jury might reach a verdict of 'not proven' beyond all reasonable doubt in Liz's case, but Jack would hang anyway, and there is not one jot of evidence that would ever see another man in the dock for her murder. 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. Would you shed a tear if Jack had to swing for Liz too?

Funny you should mention Bundy. He too had his own double event one night when he bungled an attempted abduction (surely not! And mid-series too - whatever next?) and found himself another victim about an hour later. (Ring any bells?) But then he and the Green River killer arguably didn't have quite the same excuse as Jack to bungle a job, if they didn't always attack in tiny windows of opportunity, and do everything there and then at the point of attack, in a small and overcrowded part of town, virtually under the authorities' noses and literally under people's windows. You're not remotely comparing like with like here. It's not a statistical rule I'm offering you here; it's just a case of looking at the extraordinarily difficult circumstances of each and every crime scene, and trying to imagine how anyone could expect to pull off one perfect mutilation murder, let alone several in quick succession, without having to make a premature dash to safety. Look at how quickly each body was found and that should give you a clue! 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.

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.

Thanks for bringing us back to the real world, c.d. Most repeat offenders here in the UK have committed previous crimes without mishap before bungling the one that finally gets them into court for the very first time. They are typically advised to ask for umpteen other offences to be taken into account to get the whole lot out of the way in one go. So I don't know why Fish refers to such cases as being exceptions to the rule. Do they have no repeat offenders in Sweden because criminals there only ever bungle their first crime and get caught?

Love,

Caz
X

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have always had notion that the actions of BS, could be the same used before the killing of Nichols.
Hearsay or not, the witness in Brady street who recalled events that night[ 31st aug] got the impresiion that a woman had been thrown to the ground and screamed and then got up and proceeded to run.
Could this have been broad shouldered?, but if so why was Polly found 100yards away in Bucks row.
Fisherman may indeed be right in believing Stride pulled away from the man, and fell over in doing so, and my opinion is that her killer may have had some walking disability, and not been intoxicated as believed, and his balance was impaired.
We have Chapman seen with a man stationary, we have Eddowes the same and if we believe Caroline Maxwell, we have kelly talking to a man standing still.
So the only visual account of the possible killer walking has , the unsteady on feet description.
Was Jack the Ripper disabled?, if so he certainly was not Astracan , who had a sharp way of walking, mind you I have never believed he killed Mjk, although I believe he existed.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

BS man was only drunk (tipsy, I believe it was said) in the Star report. In the police protocol he was, however, NOT drunk.

The inevitable conclusion is that IF he was intoxicted, he was only slightly so.

Please keep in mind that the first physical contact inbetween the two implies that BS man tried to drag Stride along with him, into the street. It was not until this failed that she fell to the ground. Chances are that she simply pulled away from him and fell.

I also think that BS man is by far the most probable killer of Stride. Pipeman and Schwartz were not standing around long enough to be witnesses to any murder - they scuttled off down the street at an earlier stage.

Please note, Harry, that what you are doing now, although we have a man that has some sort of physical brawl with Stride only minutes before she is found dead, is to reject the very obvious suggestion that this man killed her. And although there are none of the Ripper hallmarks present in Dutfields yard, you propose that the very same Ripper appeared on stage after Schwartz had left, in a very narrow time window.

The easy and convenient solution is discarded in favour of a non-evidenced, complicated, calling-for-coincidence suggestion.

Why?

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Perhaps the question to ask,in the case of Stride ,is why?Why was she a victim of anyone.Why the watches?Well they were on display,and so in a sense was Stride.As well were the other victims.In Stride's case I believe that from the first,there was a false trail.Not laid on purpose,but adopted from the supposition that it was an unprovoked attack by a passing drunk.In fact,from Schwartz testimony,it was Stride speaking to the drunk that initiated proceedings.Because of language difficulties on the part of the witness,we will never know what she said,but there is a strong possibility it was of a nature that offended the person she addressed,who reacting rather strongly,pushed her to the ground,and I venture to say that is all he did.Drunk or not,and with two witnesses present,he would surely see the folly of attacking further to the point of killing,whether inside or outside the yard.

[Fisherman]

Natalie Severn writes:

"Dr Blackwell spoke of a man "who is accustomed to use a heavy knife."
Dr Phillips also thought the injury to the left carotid artery was,
"as in some others" [he is referring here to some other ripper murders] "there seems to have been some knowledge where to cut the throat to cause a fatal result."
No hesitation on their part about whether the killer both wanted to kill her and knew how to do that quickly ."

Then letīs move to the West end, and the Brown killing, performed on the same night. I believe mrs Brown had her throat cut deeply by her husband, resulting in swift death.
Does the physician in that case speak of a killer used to wielding heavy blades, and well accustomed to the art of killing? Is it said that the killer obviously knew exactly how to cut so as to ensure a quick death?

No?

And why do you think this is? Why is not Mr Brown pointed out as a stealthy phantom of a killer, when Strides assailant was? One would think that the same kind of deed would lead to the same kind of speculations, but no.

Strange, is it not?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"I've got Warren, Anderson, Abberline, et al in my corner. You have AP Wolf in yours. There might be a message in that."

Apart from the fact that no hoards of flies can ever convince me that eating **** is good for you, I think you may have left out a few names on my behalf. But thatīs okay by me - I fight my own fights.
So did, by the way, Anderson - who got things terribly wrong in his memoirs, Abberline - who opted for Chapman, and Warren - who was weighed and found too light for his office.

In the end, Tom, itīs boils down to the evidence. Letīs not forget that.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Itīs a good thing you never added c.d to the list - I would have been hard pressed to fault him for something!

How do you mean Mike "the total absence of all ripper signature wounds"?Actually,both doctors appeared to think that the killer knew what he was doing.
This is what was said by the two main doctors:
Dr Blackwell spoke of a man "who is accustomed to use a heavy knife."
Dr Phillips also thought the injury to the left carotid artery was,
"as in some others" [he is referring here to some other ripper murders] "there seems to have been some knowledge where to cut the throat to cause a fatal result."
No hesitation on their part about whether the killer both wanted to kill her and knew how to do that quickly .

Hi Natalie,

The above suggest that a heavy knife was used by someone who knew roughly where to slice through arteries. "As in some others" is really a way of saying nothing while still saying something isnt it? He doesnt suggest they matched specific murders.

2 very deep throat wounds.. cutting the neck through to the spine, and some post mortem mutilation....thats the physical evidence that Liz Strides killer doesnt match with, what I called "signatures", and there is no evidence in existence that might lead one to conclude that Liz's killer had any more business to do with her after merely killing her, both physically and circumstantially.

The coroner summed up at the Nichols Inquest by looking at all the recent murders and arriving at the conclusion that what we see in the murder of Mary Ann is virtually the same as what we see in the murder of Annie, and they differed from the earlier Whitechapel Murderer kills....they concluded that the final act that was missing in the first was due to choice of venue or due to being interrupted...a speculative comment that does have physical evidence support. The conclusion was that the first 2 women were killed so the killer could acquire uteri....which allows for his recollection of the source validated uteri sample request by an American Doctor the year before.

Since we can say with some authority that at least one man was killing women and trimming off their extremities and leaving their trunks in public, and at least one man must have committed the attacks that occurred that Spring up to and perhaps including Martha Tabram that were not the work of Jack, and if not, ...perhaps another one or 2 for Marthas death, and then we have the 2 new deaths that Baxter was speaking about as being linked to one man...we have almost empirical evidence of at least 3 or 4 men in the area killing or attacking women with knives...... in the same areas and the same year as Jack the Ripper.

So why would Liz Strides murder look to anyone more like the work of the man that killed Mary Ann and Annie than a Whitechapel Murderer, Unfortunate stabber.....who was also said to "know where to stab",... or as a similar random violent act?

Best regards Natalie