Crime Waves

[caz]

Actually Caz I am on the fence about Kate, have been for some time, and made no effort to disguise it. But lets not claim that her murder and Liz Strides murder resemble each other in any meaningful way.... as suggested by your "a similar act of violence".

Hi Mike,

I see I did not make myself clear. By "a similar act of violence" I was still referring to Stride's murder, by a single fatal cut to the throat. I was comparing your one-off killer doing this from momentary rage, with the one who had already cut at least two throats (in Buck's Row and Hanbury) doing the same thing. I wasn't talking about Eddowes here, but asking what evidence you had for the killer of Nichols and Chapman being less capable of momentary anger and a swift efficient kill in Stride's case than whoever it is you see as her killer.

The evidence in the Stride case does not point to her having been killed by a serial mutilator Caz.

But equally it does not exclude a serial mutilator, Mike, nor does it point to a first-time killer, nor to anyone she could have identified had she lived long enough. Whoever did this felt able to slip away while she was still dying from that single confident slice, without worrying if it would be enough to silence her for good. That suggests a killer who knew how to inflict a wound that would prove fatal without the need for a second or third. That, in my view, appears significant - particularly if whoever killed her would have had the time, had he chosen to use it, to inflict a second, deeper cut and make sure she was stone dead before taking his leave. If you don't think he had the time, that would apply equally to an enraged mutilator, who, judging it unsafe to stay and mutilate, didn't need her to bleed out any more quickly but merely took his revenge and his leave.

The evidence suggests that she had her scarf pulled tight and twisted and she then had a knife run across her throat as she fell or lay on the ground. That could well be the result of a momentary reaction by someone inclined towards violent behavior.

You are telling me whoever killed Nichols and Chapman (and Smith, Tabram, Eddowes and Kelly) wasn't someone inclined towards violent behaviour? Stop it Mike, before I do myself a mischief laughing.

If the Stride evidence can be interpreted as a momentary loss of self control by a killer, why then inject someone else into the story with an established agenda that apparently wasnt completed... or even attempted?

Eh? Someone else? You are the one trying to inject someone else - some complete unknown - into the story to make it work for you. Until I see evidence that the killer we already know about was any less capable of a momentary loss of self control than the next man (which would feature the words: freezing, hell and over) I will not be eliminating him from the Berner St investigation, while remaining open to any new suspects you care to inject, who can be shown to have the necessary means, motive and opportunity.

You see, I haven't closed my mind, Mike, while you seem to have ruled out a man known for exceptional violence on grounds you cannot possibly have established - that he was actually a pussycat who never lost control for a second or allowed anger to get the better of him.

It's amazing what one can grow to believe about this unknown mutilator when there's an agenda or theory that so badly needs him out of the picture.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

The only theory or agenda I have Caz is to ensure that there is equal time given to those of us who do not see a Ripper of 5 in the Canonical Group evidence. When you review my quotes you often twist my words or throw in words of your own, like referring to Polly and Annies murderer as a "pussycat", something which I have never said or supported. But those 2 murders were clinical in many respects is a matter of evidence, not opinion, if you believe that contemporary medical officials could recognize a trained hand. I dont see the skill or the knowledge in either of the Double Event murders myself, that to me is a differentiator.

Here is a perfectly plausible example of what may have happened to Liz Stride, without any imagined interruptions or altered objectives....Liz Stride is inside the passage waiting for someone or something, she is accosted by a man also in the passage, who, as I believe you and others would...assumes Liz is there to solicit sex. She demurs, he gets rougher, poking her in the chest while her back is at the wall,...she decides to head out into the street for safety, she slips by him, he grabs her scarf, and in a moment of rage, perhaps rejection or something she said to him, he pulls her back twists the scarf, and slides a knife across her throat.

Momentary madness, not a decided plan,.... or an urge to kill just anyone. Just a violent reaction to a rejection from a specific person. And that fits the known evidence, the physical evidence. Its the added circumstantial evidence that will help uncover what actually happened, but suffice to say, without any evidence of an interruption or a killer bent on mutilating abdomens after he cuts throats, I see no reason to entertain that as a viable probability. If anything its within the realm of whats possible.....but probable, it aint.


Cheers

[caz]

The only theory or agenda I have Caz is to ensure that there is equal time given to those of us who do not see a Ripper of 5 in the Canonical Group evidence.

Fine. You can post your own ideas all day long to make sure of that. Nobody is trying to stop you. You may not 'see' a ripper in the Stride evidence and that's fine as far as it goes. But one has to know a ripper in order to see or not see him, surely. And what I don't understand is how you think you know that the ripper of Nichols and Chapman (or the ripper of Eddowes, or the ripper of Kelly) was the type to keep his cool in all situations, and would not have reacted violently towards anyone for any reason, outside of the very specific task of harvesting organs.

When you review my quotes you often twist my words or throw in words of your own, like referring to Polly and Annies murderer as a "pussycat", something which I have never said or supported.

I know how that feels - you do it to me all the time. If it results in us clarifying our views so we understand each other a bit better, it's not such a big deal.

Here is a perfectly plausible example of what may have happened to Liz Stride, without any imagined interruptions or altered objectives....Liz Stride is inside the passage waiting for someone or something, she is accosted by a man also in the passage, who, as I believe you and others would...assumes Liz is there to solicit sex. She demurs, he gets rougher, poking her in the chest while her back is at the wall,...she decides to head out into the street for safety, she slips by him, he grabs her scarf, and in a moment of rage, perhaps rejection or something she said to him, he pulls her back twists the scarf, and slides a knife across her throat.

Momentary madness, not a decided plan,.... or an urge to kill just anyone. Just a violent reaction to a rejection from a specific person. And that fits the known evidence, the physical evidence.

Fine, but once again, how can you judge that the man who mutilated one or more women that year was not the 'type' to react just like Stride's killer reacted, in those exact circumstances? How are you ruling him out in favour of a complete unknown?

Love,

Caz
X