Tweet
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
"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
Comment