What's your profile for Jack?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello CD. Thanks.

Why do you conflate posters? Mike has his theories, I have mine. I presume we all do.

Please don't lump me with anyone else. I am not opposed to anyone, but it is not correct to put people under the same umbrella.

Now, if I may be permitted a Littlechild quip, "It is finished." I am off this thread and I return you to your rumination. We have long since exhausted the evidence and are now merely into the psychological.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn. Exhausted the evidence? Earlier today you didn't seem aware that Stride was an active prostitute until I posted proof. Is this you backing away? And I don't believe you're being lumped in with Mike Richards. Sam Flynn, perhaps, but not Mike.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Mrs. Brown was killed with a single cut to the throat, was she? Just like Stride and Eddowes you say?

I said just like Stride, not Eddowes. Hence the 2 of 3 comparison.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

There is no harm in believing what you want about whether Liz Stride was prostituting herself, nor is there any harm in assuming that Jack the Ripper killed in uncharacteristic ways. The only thing that matters is what can be proven using known facts, investigative findings, and crime scene evidence. I dont assume a motive for this murder...but Ripper fans do. The only motive they can see here is one that is based in the psychosis of the killer. The circumstances of the victim and the deportment of the corpses should be enough to place this murder in the only place it truly belongs, within the Unsolved Murders file. Not in the Jack the Ripper sub file.

As to suggesting I have a pet theory, or that Lynn and I agree on anything each of us might say here is nonsense. I have suggested some scenarios based on what is known about Liz Strides life at that time, on what she was wearing, and the fact that she is essentially alone on a deserted street,......(perhaps waiting for a date, perhaps a working relationship with the club, perhaps she is collecting monies owed to her from her work "among the jews"....),.... there is no evidence however which leads to an obvious conclusion she was soliciting and met her killer as a complete stranger to him. Others have countered with Liz Strides past and then just assumed the rest.

There is no clear motive for any Canonical death, but there are circumstances within the group that make an assumption of prostituting then falling into the hands of a madman less likely.

Liz Stride was killed with one cut, possibly while falling, and left untouched by her killer. She is standing outside a club at 12:35am when almost every man in attendance for the meeting that night has left the scene, she is wearing "good evening wear", as described by Fanny and a lodge mate, and she has a flower on her chest and mints in her hand.

Those are the reliable facts. If you think thats enough to assign her murder to a man who was known to pick up strangers who were prostitutes, kill them with 2 extremely deep throat cuts then disembowel them... and on occasion take internal organs with him, then by all means, go ahead and place her in that select group of murdered and mutilated women.

For me, and others, there's not enough evidence to do so, and there is far too much speculation required.

The irony of these arguments is that people accuse me and others of speculating too wildly, even if its using the evidence instead of personal opinion, when in fact the wildest assumption here is that a serial killer and mutilator just cut a woman once then left.

It must be very tiring having to come up with Jack biased excuses as to why she was cut only once, why she is found on her side, why she is dressed nicely and why she is on the Clubs property, I dont envy any who take that road. Its much easier I think to conclude only what can be concluded based on the evidence than to make a Ripper theory fit the evidence in the Stride case. And that conclusion is that we dont know why Liz was there outside the club on a deserted street, we dont know why she is dressed nicely, we dont know why she has only one cut, and we dont know the motive for her murder.

The basis for assuming Jack killed her is just the belief that is the case. There is no compelling evidence that he did.

That last line is for newer posters who get confused when some so-called experts state that Liz Stride was killed by Jack while she prostituted herself. Like thats an established fact here. Be wary of those who claim expertise but hand you arguments that have no foundation in the evidence.

Even long time students have their own biases. I still favour not assigning guilt to anyone, even the Phantom Menace, without reasonable proof myself.

Cheers

[GUT]

G'Day Michael you say

The only thing that matters is what can be proven using known facts, investigative findings, and crime scene evidence.

And I, to a large part, agree. However if the known fact [which are less now than 125 years ago] investigative findings and crime scene evidence were gong to solve this case I think it would have been solved years ago.

But then go on to say:

If you think that's enough to assign her murder to a man who was known to pick up strangers who were prostitutes,

Where are the known facts to support this. I have often wondered if he simply didn't wait till they were on their own and attack, thus making any known witness of no value, the only victim that wouldn't fit this mold would be Kelly. IE I'm suggesting that non of the known witnesses saw him, they simply saw the person the victim was with prior to Jack getting to the victim.

[Errata]

Hello Tom,

You make a very valid point. As you know, here in the U.S., the standard for determining guilt in a court of law varies depending on whether it is a criminal trial or a civil trial. A guilty verdict in a criminal case requires that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil trial only requires a determination of what is more likely so.

Now it is certainly laudable that some posters want absolute metaphysical proof of something before they will accept it. But since we are dealing with a limited amount of evidence and are unlikely to get additional evidence, I think it is much more reasonable to say well what is more likely so.

Just my take on things.

c.d.

We don't even know whether or not soliciting is even important. I mean, I think it was, but for all I know it may not have mattered in the slightest to the killer, who just wanted women alone at night. It's possible that he just happened to kill women who had a history of prostitution.

[Damaso Marte]

Ultimately the answer to every interesting question about the case is "we don't know". I appreciate the methodological purity that some posters bring to this forum, but Ripperology is the art of making up stories and then debating their plausibility.

[Boggles]

but Ripperology is the art of making up stories

Well I think Stride was killed by Jack. He was interrupted during the murder by Israel Schwartz who took one look at the situtation and legged it (as i would have done). Jacks shouts after him damn Lipski! then realises that he best get the hell away himself.

As for Schwartz's 2nd pipe smoking man, he was 1 of 3 things -
1) Genuine mate of Jack who came along with him on occasion - (Tabram,
Mylett there was possibly a 2nd man and this is not unknown for serial killers)
2) Innocent bistander who didnt come forward
3) A person made up by Schwartz as a way to take the heat off the fact that he was a big Jewish chicken

The reason I believe this is because it fits nicely into Jacks later remark in chalk regarding blame the jews - ie blame for Eddows.

[Tom_Wescott]

Mrs. Brown was killed with a single cut to the throat, was she? Just like Stride and Eddowes you say?

I said just like Stride, not Eddowes. Hence the 2 of 3 comparison.

Cheers

Okay, I'll rephrase...so Mrs. Brown was killed with a single cut to the throat?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Ultimately the answer to every interesting question about the case is "we don't know". I appreciate the methodological purity that some posters bring to this forum, but Ripperology is the art of making up stories and then debating their plausibility.

Hi Damaso. That may be your approach. It's certainly the approach of some others. But it's not everybody's approach. There will always be things we don't know but there are also many things we do know. Or at least that some of us know and some others prefer not to know... for reasons I'll probably never understand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Damaso
You hit the nail on the head. But many are uncomfortable to admit it. And the 'made up story' debates are far from confined to suspects. It is very rare for these matters to be satisfactorily resolved by the discovery of an actual fact.

[Errata]

Damaso
You hit the nail on the head. But many are uncomfortable to admit it. And the 'made up story' debates are far from confined to suspects. It is very rare for these matters to be satisfactorily resolved by the discovery of an actual fact.

Most of what we attach to this case is made up or assumed. We don't even know how these women died. We don't know how they were attacked, we don't know how they were subdued, we don't know if they were restrained, or how. We don't know how he found his victims, we don't know what he wanted in a victim. We don't know his method, we don't know his motive, we don't know what he considered important. We have no idea how these women died, why they died, or in some cases even when they died.

Much less who killed them. The theories on suspects are all well and good, but how do you even pick a suspect if you don't even know what happened to these women? And the answer is that we don't. There are men who could slash a throat but not choke a woman the size of Chapman. So if Chapman was strangled then it wouldn't be that suspect. But we don't even know if she WAS strangled. We can all make very logical arguments for a certain suspect, but since everything we think we know is in fact a guess there's really no point in finding a suspect until we know what happened. This case is a palace of "what if". And no one can cap off the case with a suspect and claim it is based on fact when the entire structure is built on assumption.

[Lechmere]

True enough Errata - apart from...
We will never truly know how these women were killed or why, but that is no reason why this aspect should not be the basis for speculation and conjecture.
As this aspect will never really be resolved should that mean that looking for a suspect is invalid? I don't thinks so, but by the same token we will never truly know if any suspect did it.
Even if Kozminski's missing medical files were found and said 'patient raved about being Jack the Ripper' with a cover note saying 'Watch this patient closely as we think he is Jack the Ripper, signed DS Swanson' then this would still be some considerable distance short of proof that Kozminski did it.
Invariably the exact method and motivation of the killer only comes to light after the culprit is caught and interrogated. So catching the culprit comes first and 'Suspectology' is about 'catching' the possible killer.
Obviously the interrogation part is impossible along with any definitive proof.
But 'facts' can buttress a speculative case.

[Errata]

True enough Errata - apart from...
We will never truly know how these women were killed or why, but that is no reason why this aspect should not be the basis for speculation and conjecture.
As this aspect will never really be resolved should that mean that looking for a suspect is invalid? I don't thinks so, but by the same token we will never truly know if any suspect did it.
Even if Kozminski's missing medical files were found and said 'patient raved about being Jack the Ripper' with a cover note saying 'Watch this patient closely as we think he is Jack the Ripper, signed DS Swanson' then this would still be some considerable distance short of proof that Kozminski did it.
Invariably the exact method and motivation of the killer only comes to light after the culprit is caught and interrogated. So catching the culprit comes first and 'Suspectology' is about 'catching' the possible killer.
Obviously the interrogation part is impossible along with any definitive proof.
But 'facts' can buttress a speculative case.

Oh I agree. I just embrace the idea of admitting that conjecture is the core of the case.

And I think catching the culprit as a first priority really has a pretty short shelf life. Once a case goes cold I think we have to use our knowledge of what happened to backtrack to a type, and then look for the killer amongst that type of man (or woman). We don't have the option of strolling around the neighborhood and seeing if anyone matches a physical description. There are about 1 million men in the suspect pool, and at this remove we don't know anything about any of them, or even who is and who isn't in that pool.

For all we know Kosminski had no thumbs, which would make being this kind of serial killer awkward at the very least. We might assume that would be in his hospital records, but actually something like that probably wouldn't be there. It requires no treatment, it requires no special care, it didn't happen on their watch and anyone who looks at him would see he had no thumbs so why write it down? I mean, he probably had thumbs. But if he didn't, which would eliminate him as a suspect, we wouldn't know about it unless we saw him. And at this far a remove, we don't have that option. Even if his brother wrote a letter to a doctor saying "Aaron's lack of thumbs is really bothering him today." that wouldn't survive 130 years. This case is so cold it's arctic. I think we need to know how to eliminate suspects before we can identify them.

[Lechmere]

Yes I largely agree.
Those who get all huffy about conjecture - on occasion - need to get a grip as conjecture is central to 'Ripperology' - although the conjecture should at least be drawn from facts and supported by facts.
I also agree that a broad type or types can sensibly be evaluated for the type of person we should be looking for - and perhaps as importantly the type we should not be looking for.
I think most contemporary 'police' suspects fall into the category of the type we should not be looking for. Study of these suspects is useful and interesting as it tells us about attitudes and prejudices at the time.
For example Tumblety is an interesting case. But more enlightenment would come from a study aimed at understanding how the police could have taken him at all seriously as a suspect, rather than trying to present him as a possible killer to an audience today.

[Bridewell]

Prostitute Or Not

I don't think it matters that much whether or not Stride was a prostitute or, if she was, whether or not she was actually soliciting at the time of the attack. The idea that these women were attacked because they were prostitutes stems from the "down on whores" reference in the 'Dear Boss' letter - which most people agree is, in all probability, a hoax.

Even if they were killed for that reason, Stride would only have to give the appearance of being a prostitute (and only in the mind of the killer) to attract the killer's attention. I'm 60/40 on the side of Stride being a JtR victim, but no more than that. Certainly (for me) decisive evidence that Stride either was, or wasn't, soliciting for the purpose of prostitution wouldn't alter the balance of probabilities, because it may not have been what drove 'JtR' to select his victims.