Draw Your Own Conclusions

[c.d.]

You wouldn´t by chance be talking Stride here, would you, c.d?

The best,
Fisherman

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.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

You wouldn´t by chance be talking Stride here, would you, c.d?

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

My take on it would be that the thief would have liked to have taken the watches and every damn thing in the store if he could have. It would seem to me that his fear of being caught outweighed his desire to do so. He already had taken something of value so why take a chace on being caught? Other jewelery stores beckon.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

alternative

Hello CD. I really do not prefer either. I would assume something like the rings were very valuable, easier to store, and perhaps easier to dispose of.

Which was the correct answer, based on the news story?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Lynn,

Well let's eliminate (c) the unknown factor. If you had to choose between (a) and (b), which do you think is the most likely?

c.d.

The question is a hypothetical one.

The real answer was that it was his intention to steal

If you relate that to The Whitechapel murders it cannot be argued that the killer or killers motive was murder. Thats what he set out to do first and foremost The next point of comparison is where the murders were committed, then how he killed, then what he used to kill, then what did he do after that etc etc.d

One thing you should all not get carried away with is the throat cutting. Cutting someones throat was an accepted method of killing in victorian times. This does not make it unique to The Whitechapel murders. What does make a good comparison with the murders is how the throat was cut, and what type of knife.

If you take Eddowes,Chapman and Nicholls all had similar throat wounds caused by a long bladed sharp knife and all victims were subjected to a frenzied attack. So i would say same killer. However we then come back to the removal of the organs. None were removed from Nicholls and no real attempt to effcet any kind of removal. So that make her murder different or does it.

Now the old chestnut re surfaces again that being some will say the killer was disturbed. Well that can be argued but i guess it suits some people to belive that. BUt that is not fact.

What is fact is that Nicholls body was taken to the mortuary and never left alone before PM. Also her abdominal wounds were minor.

The bodies of the other two were left alone and the abdomens already laid open by the killer. My point is that the murders of all three can still be linked to same killer if you accept the organs were not removed by the killer.

If you dont then the shops are now seeling chestnuts for xmas

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

Well let's eliminate (c) the unknown factor. If you had to choose between (a) and (b), which do you think is the most likely?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

knowledge

Hello CD. Well, this would be unknown. For knowledge = df. "Justified, true , belief." (Or it was before Edmund Gettier.) Obviously, we do not know the truth here.

Of course, there are probabilities for the other two (you would need a statistician to assess them.)

We might infer that, he was not primarily a Rolex thief.

The best.
LC

[c.d.]

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.