Draw Your Own Conclusions

[Fisherman]

Possibly so, Harry - but whereas we CAN conclude that what the smash-and-grabber was after (as much profit as possible), we cannot do the same thing in the latter case. It may have been a sudden impulse, it may have been more of a planned thing. It may have been Jack, and it may not. The resulting evidence does not tell us enough to decide in either way, although I myself am of the meaning that none of the typical hallmarks of a Ripper killing was to be found in Dutfieldīs Yard - no deep throatcutting, no evisceration, no placing of the victim on itīs back and possibly a cut to the throat that was performed while the victim was still on her feet.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Whereas the shop and it's contents might be classed as a fixture,that would remain constant over a period of time,and give a would be robber the chance to preplan his activities,Stride's killing was more likely to have been a sudden impulse one,dictated by the killer's assessment of the situation as it stood at that particular time,and the realization that any delay might not give a repeat opportunity.

[Fisherman]

Varqm wisely states:

"Of course if given the opportunity he would steal all of them."

Though there is no way that we can prove this in the isolated case, you will be 100 per cent correct on a statistical basis here, Varqm. And indeed, this is the point that c.d was making from the outset - that opportunity rules how much of a loot a robber will be able to lay his hands on in each case. We can safely assume that robbers will maximize heir takings if given the chance. "Our" robber would surely have entered the shop and taken as much as he could with him, choosing what he judged to be the most valuable objects as he went along - if he was sure that he could do so with no risk of getting caught.

My objection surfaces when we try to apply this reasoning to - for example - the Stride killing. There is no reason at all to accept that Strides killer would have - metaphorically - have "entered the shop" if he had been equally certain of staying uncaught.
Why? Because, of course, although we may assume that a robber will maximize his takings, we may not equally assume that all killers intend to annihilate their victims if they are given the opportunity. Statistically, it is by far more reasonable to assume that a killers sole intent is to make sure that the person he is after ends up dead, than it is to assume that each killer would eviscerate their victims and procure organs from them if they knew that they could do so without getting caught.

Therefore, a comparison like this is not a very useful one, if you ask me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Varqm]

We'll first of all was it clear they were rolex watches?

I think the robber knew there was a camera and it would be a hit and run job. So beforehand he had to decide which one would he grab the jewelry or the other merchandise. Also if he knew a go-to guy for stolen jewelry and or knew it would be easier to sell, or even somebody is already waiting for it, then he would go for the jewelry.
Of course if given the opportunity he would steal all of them.
Anyways my opinion.

[harry]

The third qualification(c),for some other unknown reason,might indicate that A and B were known to be the true cause.In that case (c) becomes invalid.Likewise A and B becomes invalid,if we allow (c) to be considered.

[Edward]

Fear of Being Caught

Hello All

I don't believe that any of the three options in the original post can be elimated. To do so without interviewing the robber is simply conjecture or assumption on our part. There seems to be a lot of that going on in these forums. We can only guess about motivation.

My personal conjecture would be that the robber in the original post smashed and grabbed the nearest loot, then bolted. (which would seem to speak to an aversion to being caught) Then again, that would be yet another assumption on my part.

Jack was never caught (so it seems). Because of this, I feel that Jack intended to elude capture. Another assumption! Abandoning an illegal activity in the middle of the act, if the chance of being caught is suddenly increased, is certainly logical if the criminal intends to elude capture. In those days, getting caught in the act was practically the only way of getting caught. However, in the original post, option C still stares us in the face: we don't know motivation.

I'm not an expert in this mystery, as many of you are. Anything that I post is invariably shredded by someone. My intention is not to counter or to discredit the posts of others, but only to air my thoughts.

Best Regards,
Edward

[lynn cates]

smuggling

Hello Harry. It could indeed. And that has been Mike's point (if I correctly read your metaphor) all along.

The best.
LC

[harry]

One might also ask why a smuggler would smuggle only one commodity.It could mean,the one item was stolen or smuggled to order.

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

[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

[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]

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.]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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