Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Different Killers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I read somewhere, "Another reason why Stride probably wasn't a Ripper victim is because she was killed at an earlier time than the others..."

    Hang on a second, wasn't Eddowes also killed at an earlier time than the others? Doesn't that only go to strengthen the already fairly strong link between the Stride and Eddowes murders?

    Nice example of somebody unwittingly giving their own theory a kick in the nads.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by chrismasonic View Post
      I won't be hoodwinked into accepting a cut throat as a bona fide ripper vicim...

      he was interrupted...says who?
      If we knew what constituted a Ripper murder we wouldn't be having these arguments.

      c.d.

      Comment


      • #33
        Sh, I think he's onto us.

        Comment


        • #34
          making strides

          Hello Jason. Thanks.

          "These murders were a lot more than simple knife murders."

          Ah! but was the Stride murder more?

          Cheers.
          LC

          Comment


          • #35
            quaestiones

            Hello Ausgirl. Two questions.

            1. What evidence do you have that Liz through "MJK" were soliciting at time of death?

            2. What counts as "posing"? The inquest reports have very different placements for some of these ladies.

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • #36
              agree

              Hello CD.

              "If we knew what constituted a Ripper murder we wouldn't be having these arguments."

              Guess what? I agree.

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment


              • #37
                Honestly, I do wonder how strongly Lynn & Michael W stand by their convictions. It seems to be that most so-called Ripperologists want to have their own particular niche and theirs happens to be 'there was no Ripper'. Do they actually believe what they're proposing or are they simply challenging our own perceptions? I've already asked why the discrepancy between Chapman & Eddowes can only be reasonably explained by a second killer, instead of considering the internal and external factors that might cause the Ripper to deviate in technique. What if the Ripper was drunk? What if his mental/physical state was failing him? What if he was on a buzz after being spooked with Stride? What if Eddowes' layers of clothing had frustrated him? I think these are all plausible alternatives without feeling the need to introduce another knife-wielding womb-snatcher to the stage.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                  Hello Ausgirl. Two questions.

                  1. What evidence do you have that Liz through "MJK" were soliciting at time of death?

                  2. What counts as "posing"? The inquest reports have very different placements for some of these ladies.

                  Cheers.
                  LC
                  1. I actually don't think soliciting was the most important criterion. More likely just drunk/alone/out late. And/or the mere perception of a 'loose' woman could be enough, perhaps there was some additional emotional/psychological trigger there for him.. their actual status has never struck me as important. Not like he's going to pause to do a background check.

                  2. I understand there's variations in positions. But overall, most victims are on their backs, legs open. Overall, most appear to have been killed before the mutilations. This is actually a hard thing to argue on either side of the debate, as a substantial number of killers change things up with each kill, vary things a bit. Sometimes a lot, sometimes, it's different entirely. Standing back from this set of murders, I percieve it as more likely to be by one killer. With maybe one or two who weren't in the 'set' but can't be counted out.

                  Or can't be counted in. Really, it's a matter of opinion alone, and both cases can be argued feasibly. Doesn't mean we shouldn't argue them.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    "I actually don't think soliciting was the most important criterion. More likely just drunk/alone/out late. And/or the mere perception of a 'loose' woman could be enough, perhaps there was some additional emotional/psychological trigger there for him.. their actual status has never struck me as important. Not like he's going to pause to do a background check."

                    I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head here. All this talk of how Liz was dressed earlier in the evening, her wearing a flower, or the possibility that she was out looking for domestic work is pretty much a moot point insofar as this would all be lost on Jack. He only needs to THINK that she might be soliciting and approach her. Even if Liz were in fact not soliciting that night we have absolutely no way of knowing what her response might be to a particularly attractive offer. So this idea of offering evidence to show that Liz was not soliciting that night and concluding therefore that she could not have been a Ripper victim is pretty much a nonstarter.

                    c.d.

                    P.S. Really liked "background check."

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I think the reason why these victims are found on their backs is they were attacked from behind...their throats were cut and they were lowered to the floor...or they fell and landed on their backs...or they fell and were moved onto their backs...that's about all I can think of

                      and I am exploring the reasons why people automatically assume this was the same killer...of course the murders and mutilations are similar in nature...there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume this was a lone assailant over multiple assailants...so I am examining each incident

                      woman last seen arguing with a bloke...found shortly after with throat cut...I don't want to automatically accept this was the ripper and he was interrupted...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        It's another of the old perennial questions, isn't it, were the victims first attacked from behind, or was it a sudden frontal attack? Polly Nichols, at least, had bruising on her jaw as if someone had seized it. Chapman had bruising on the top of her chest as if she'd been pushed down. (BSM?) Stride's scarf may have been tugged very tight from behind, so who knows.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          convictions

                          Hello Harry. If you are wondering about my convictions, let me say that, they are so DEEPLY held that should someone demonstrate successfully that Kate and Annie died by the same hand, I would leave the field and NEVER look back.

                          And the reasons for the divergence between the two killings is MUCH deeper than you imagine--at least, given your writings thereon.

                          Cheers.
                          LC

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            victimology and posing

                            Hello Ausgirl. Thanks.

                            I agree about solicitation. But if OUR speculation is correct, surely there is NO place to dredge up the old chestnut about victimology?

                            And regarding the fact that some were on their backs, some on the side, etc: surely, then, talk of posing is otiose?

                            But I entirely agree about discussing all the above--which I aim to do.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              dustbin

                              Hello CD.

                              "So this idea of offering evidence to show that Liz was not soliciting that night and concluding therefore that she could not have been a Ripper victim is pretty much a nonstarter."

                              Actually I agree. But it also places "victimology" firmly in the dustbin--unless, of course, one means ONLY that all were female.

                              Cheers.
                              LC

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                                Hello Harry. If you are wondering about my convictions, let me say that, they are so DEEPLY held that should someone demonstrate successfully that Kate and Annie died by the same hand, I would leave the field and NEVER look back.

                                And the reasons for the divergence between the two killings is MUCH deeper than you imagine--at least, given your writings thereon.

                                Cheers.
                                LC
                                Hello, Lynn.

                                Problem is when someone is so entrenched in a certain belief, then no amount of evidence will ever change their mind.

                                There was a sudden explosion of violence in the Autumn of 1888, women were having their throats cut and in most cases their entrails removed. This happened over a radius of one square mile. Then they stopped as suddenly as they began. If we have two or three killers on the loose, we need to account for them. Why did they all stop around the same time? And if they didn't, what evidence is there to show it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X