Draw Your Own Conclusions

[c.d.]

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

...uh...you forgot to include me in that list. I am sure that it was just an oversight on your part.

You could also have added Phillip Sugden to the list.

c.d.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;103798]C.d writes:

"The jails are full of individuals who did a less than stellar job of planning and carrying out their various crimes"

They are, c.d. But that changes not the fact that you, not me, are the one who need an exception to the rule to make your glove fit. What we know of Jack tells another story. It is not rocket science to recognize this, exactly.

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE

Not rocket science? That must be my problem. I was an English major in college. Got nowhere near a damn rocket.

c.d.

[Natalie Severn]

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

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 .

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Siding with unsuccessful killer hunters seems like a sound move to you Tom? It would seem that the only people who might know anything about the killers of any of the women during that time are only the ones that inspected the victims with sound medical backgrounds.Which of the men that you mentioned had that kind of background?

I would trust any of them to know about Fenians in the area for sure, but clearly they could not know what physicians did know....and to them, only the first 2 women were clearly killed by the same man and for the same reasons,...the others including Liz are assumptions that have far less foundation, and are contrary to what was seen as the "goal" in the first 2 murders.

A guy kills one short blonde woman one night with hoop earrings and takes her earrings when he leaves, then a few weeks later 2 short blonde women with hoop earrings are killed in one night by what appears to be the same man for the same reasons, both have their earrings stolen....then a few weeks go by and then a tall blonde woman woman is killed in very different manner than either of the first 2 crimes, and she has nothing taken from her,..... but the crime is in the same area.

From what I can tell, based on only that scintilla of information, you would likely group the 3 nights with one man....and assume that he was interrupted before he could take the earrings from the victim on the last murder. Even though a supposed interruption is not supported by anything within the physical evidence.

Thats just sheer guesswork, not investigation based on the circumstantial and physical evidence.

I can see why a bunch of contemporary well meaning police officers who were appearing about as competent as keystone cops to the locals might want to group several unsolved murders when speaking with the public or themselves...how many criminals do they want to admit they couldnt catch?

I see no reason for the same face saving guesswork today.

Best regards

[Trevor Marriott]

Folks,

Jack killed Liz Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

But which one of the three Jacks are you referring to and as you seem to be well informed perhaps you would care to disclose the names of any one or perhaps all of the three.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

"Jack killed Liz Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott"

I entered Casebook once upon a time by pointing out where you had been asserting things that could not be asserted on the Stride case, Tom. Iīll say no more about it, since you set such a fine example of being short and to the point yourself.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"The jails are full of individuals who did a less than stellar job of planning and carrying out their various crimes"

They are, c.d. But that changes not the fact that you, not me, are the one who need an exception to the rule to make your glove fit. What we know of Jack tells another story. It is not rocket science to recognize this, exactly.

The best,
Fisherman

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

[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.

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.]

Folks,

Jack killed Liz Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

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

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Folks,

Jack killed Liz Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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

[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