Draw Your Own Conclusions

[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

[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. I´ll say no more about it, since you set such a fine example of being short and to the point yourself.

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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.

[perrymason]

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

[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 .

[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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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

[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 that´s 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, it´s boils down to the evidence. Let´s not forget that.

The best,
Fisherman

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

[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 let´s 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

[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]

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

[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.

[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, I´m 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