Draw Your Own Conclusions

[c.d.]

Well I hope Pam enjoyed it.

c.d.

Hi Michael,

You and I in agreement on something??? Hmmm....maybe the Mayans were right...the world is coming to an end. Best to stock up on beer just in case.

c.d.

Sorry cd.....I was just huffing some Pam after realizing we agreed and no can read or write good at the moment.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

You and I in agreement on something??? Hmmm....maybe the Mayans were right...the world is coming to an end. Best to stock up on beer just in case.

c.d.

Hi Michael,

You forgot to add that there is NO EVIDENCE that the BS man killed Liz. There is NO EVIDENCE that Michael Kidney killed Liz. There is NO EVIDENCE that an unknown suspect killed Liz. The NO EVIDENCE argument covers ALL suspects no matter who they may be.

c.d.

Now we are on the same page cd...I have no preferred suspect, although if Schwartz was accurate, my number one suspect would be BS.

Ive never suggested that a known someone other than Jack should be the suspect in her murder case, only that the details of her murder do not provide enough synchronistic information with suspected Jack victims prior to her death to assume she is another victim of his.

There is no evidence to attribute Liz's death to anyone...youre right....but particularly, no evidence to add her to a killer whose focus has been post mortem mutilations.

All the best

[harry]

We have a poor witness in Schwartz,and to what extent he might have been led into making some of his claime,is of course unknown.That however may have been the case.Was she dragged?Well some women of her type have a tendency to clutch and restrain a person they see as a potential customer,so maybe it was an action of BS man in trying to disengage such an attempt by Stride,that caused her to be dragged some short distance,before she released and fell.

[c.d.]

If thousands of Londoners carried knives and used them at the drop of hat to respond to the slightest provocation (as some like to assert), you would expect people to be dropping like flies. It would make the wild, wild west in America seem downright tame by comparison.

c.d.

[caz]

The killings could have been carried out by a sick man, suffering from recurring psychosis, Caz - the point is that although we may guess, weŽd 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.

I anticipated this kind of argument from you, Fish.

It's totally irrelevant if thousands carried knives with them. Only Jack had been using his to gut prostitutes when he encountered Kate. Recurring psychosis or not, he must have had some idea of what his knife had done to the others before her. So if he set out that night with no intention of risking another 'job', why take the same deadly weapon with him that he might then be tempted to use against his better judgement, or might land him in trouble if he were stopped and questioned?

I know you don't 'buy into it for a second'. But I do wish you wouldn't act like I hadn't addressed certain points. Why do you think Jack may have 'cut shallow' this time, if he couldn't get his way with Liz and get her to the type of secluded location that would have given him a half decent chance of mutilating her - without half a dozen club members coming out for a slash?

It seems to be agreed that it would have been too risky to do much more than kill at this busy location (risky even to do that, I would venture), yet some insist that Jack would have risked mutilating in that spot if he had been there, rather than cutting Liz and his losses, and running to a more mobile and flexible dance partner.

If the deeper cuts were in any way part of his preparations to mutilate, he'd have only needed them when he judged the circumstances favourable. If you concede that the circumstances were not favourable at the spot where he would have found Liz apparently plying her trade, he could not have made them favourable without her agreement. If she objected and started to panic, I doubt he'd have hesitated to slit her throat before moving on.

You don't know that he wasn't out on the streets at exactly the same time of night, nor that it was his choice to 'wait' until a certain time of night. He could have gone out on many occasions and waited all night in vain for all you know. He only killed on a handful of nights and we know he killed Kate earlier than the others in any case, so what difference does another hour make? It was a while since he had killed Annie, and he was probably well aware of how close a shave that one was, with daylight approaching and residents paying visits to the outdoor facilities. He may have been eager to find one as soon as possible by the end of September, and to avoid the kind of risks he had taken in Hanbury Street. You make it sound like he held all the cards and could have picked up his victims at the same time each night, never needing to budge an inch from a fixed routine. Jack was nothing if not ready to adapt to the circumstances at a moment's notice, in order to keep one step ahead. He would have been caught for sure had he been stuck in a rigid groove of behaviour, oblivious to any obstacles that were beyond his control.

I would suggest that you go back and look at all the deviations in Hanbury from Buck's Row; the deviations in Mitre Square from Buck's Row and Hanbury; and the deviations in Miller's Court from all three. None of the murders was anywhere near a carbon copy of any other. So if he was any kind of robot, how do you explain that? He must have planned and wanted each deviation from Polly to Mary. Is that what you really think? Or is it slightly more likely that he felt let down after each and every encounter (except perhaps in MJK's little room) because he could never quite do all he would have liked to do, given that he was only human, his victims were female (say no more ) and round every corner lurked the very real and present danger of being caught before he could try all over again.

Don't 'Holy crap' me, Fish. You are the one trying to give Jack the Bleedin' Ripper an alibi, character reference and good conduct medal, while throwing the book at some complete unknown, without the tiniest scrap of evidence that anyone other than Jack had the means, motive or opportunity to commit such a horrific murder that night.

Once again, why do you keep assuming that Jack would have had to be disturbed in Dutfield's Yard, and disturbed 'in the split second when he cut'? That's patent nonsense. Why could he not have cut and run because he was simply uncomfortable with the situation? I would be, wouldn't you?? And why could he not have cut quickly then crept away to assess just how clear the coast was before deciding whether to go for it or quit while he was ahead - just like serial sex attacker Mark Dixie did?

I don't know how you can judge the situation so much better than Liz's killer. If he was Jack you say he wouldn't have cut the woman's throat in such a risky location no matter what the provocation, no matter what she may have suspected about him, no matter if she could have identified him, no matter what she said or did. He would have just walked meekly away. But if he was anyone else he'd have had no problem at all being provoked into committing murder there and risking his neck, especially if she knew him and wasn't quite dead when he left.

I only asked about criminals in Sweden because you seemed to think that repeat offenders who bungle a crime after many successful ones must be rare exceptions. I just wondered how that could possibly work? I wasn't trying to insult your country.

Look, we don't know where Jack was when he set out that night. So we don't know if his route home from Mitre Square via Goulston was direct or indirect. Either way he would have risked capture: short and direct and he could have been followed; longer and winding and he'd be out on the streets longer. How can you judge his route suddenly very logical if he only killed Kate, when you don't know his final destination?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caz. I was following page 125 of Mr. Marriott's book.

The best.
LC

Well I can't help that, Lynn.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=perrymason;103936]Since this seems to be directed primarily at the Stride murder, its worth once again pointing out that to suggest that events or activities were to take place after a specific moment in time, (her death cut), without having the benefit of any indicators or intimations that said events or activities were in the commencement phase or that events leading to that specific moment were obvious pre-cursors to said events or activities to take place after the specific moment in time, you would be making little more than a guess as to what was to come after that "moment".

Hi Michael,

If you consider Liz being thrown to the ground by the BS man as a pre-cursor, then your conclusion is a sound one. We would be making little more than a GUESS as to what was to come after that "moment."

c.d.

[c.d.]

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

"physical brawl"?...I think that's a bit over the top to describe what happened.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

You forgot to add that there is NO EVIDENCE that the BS man killed Liz. There is NO EVIDENCE that Michael Kidney killed Liz. There is NO EVIDENCE that an unknown suspect killed Liz. The NO EVIDENCE argument covers ALL suspects no matter who they may be.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

"why not use the Knife while she was on the ground after falling or being pushed", asks Harry.

Two things leap to mind. To begin with, there were witnesses around. And secondly, we do not know when the decision to kill came about. My own guess is that this happened in the yard.

We know that it seems that BS man tried to drag Stride along with him, since he tried to pull her into the street. That is not the action of somebody intent to kill, which is why I am very much inclined to think that this decision was a later addition, a spur-of-the-moment thing quite possibly.

"The notion that a second assault could occur within minutes may be unnacceptable to many,the available evidence does put another person in the immediate vicinity."

Pipeman, though, ran off along with Schwartz. How far he ran, we do not know, of course, and it can be reasoned that he may have turned back. The last we know of him, though, tells us that he was heading away from the yard at full speed.

Of course we can speculate that another man than BS man was the killer. Swanson certainly left the field open for such a thing. But he also made it quite clear that BS man was the probable killer, something I agree very much with.

The best, Harry!
Fisherman

[harry]

There is of course no conclusive evidence pointing to Stride's killer,and as Fisherman implies,the extent of intoxication can only be guessed.Not that the last is of a major concern,as I believe persons under the influence are still able to discern between right and wrong,and able to make a decision to disengage before a situation gets out of control.In Stride's case,if murder was the intent of BS man(the description may sound better than drunk),when did that intent occur.If it was there before reaching the entrance to the yard and meeting Stride,why not use the Knife while she was on the ground after falling or being pushed.That would appear as good a situation for him as any other.He had already been observed close up,and must have been aware there were at least two potential witnesses to his presence with Stride,so to carry on and kill,seems rather pointless.To extend his stay,untill he could coax her into the yard,seems to be more pointless still.That is if he were not the Ripper,and intended to kill only.He gained nothing by using the yard,nor did the use of the yard protect him from suspicion.
Now however the notion that a second assault could occur within minutes may be unnacceptable to many,the available evidence does put another person in the immediate vicinity.B S could have left,and with Schwartz gone,Pipeman had the opportunity to be there alone with Stride.How did he manage to coax her into the yard?How did anyone,but for those of you who believe B S man did,please apply your same reasoning to pipe man,and you have the answer.Why did he?Because he,Pipeman, was the ripper.

Hello Mike. Thanks for pointing that out.

Do I mind? Not a bit of it. Turn about is fair play.

The best.
LC

Youre one person that I dont mind speaking on my behalf Lynn,....youre fair and without an agenda.

My best regards my friend.

[lynn cates]

gratitude

Hello Mike. Thanks for pointing that out.

Do I mind? Not a bit of it. Turn about is fair play.

The best.
LC