Draw Your Own Conclusions

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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