What's your profile for Jack?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[lynn cates]

conflation

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

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

I agree. And it's unfortunate we have to make the concessions we have to make. But all the more reason for there not to be debate where there is so little cause for it. We don't have "conclusive evidence" that Stride was even murdered. Suicide by throat cutting was all too common and one of the club men could have concealed the knife for fear it would lead the police to them, versus a killer who fled. Do I think this happened? Absolutely not. But I don't have conclusive evidence to prove it didn't. And neither does Michael Richards. But we both agree - based on inconclusive evidence - that she was murdered. And maybe that's only because we've only been TOLD she was murdered.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Boggles]

those who are supporting the weaker argument and KNOW that their argument is weak will inevitably tell the other side "you don't have conclusive evidence."

This happened in my town in Leicester - we all pretty convinced Richard III was a hunchback. Then suddenly a bunch of richard III society people came along and challenged the current belief. No evidence they said, all Tudor propaganda. People debated for hours on internet forums about the scraps of contemporary evidence was not sufficient to prove it either way.

It was fashionable for a while, so in the end they dug him up and sure enough hunchback he was - may have not been Quasimodo but certainly structural scoliosis he did have. It is rare when this happens but very pleasurable to see their faces when they see that all that time they were wrong.

[c.d.]

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.

[c.d.]

Hello Observer,

Maybe we should just call them women who were available for whatever reason.
And we could also point out that they do not appear to have been married women who were dragged out of their homes in order to be killed on the street.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Words like "conclusive evidence" are often thrown around. But what do they mean? We'd all like to have evidence that is conclusive on something, and oft times we do, but sometimes we simply can't. But that doesn't mean we don't have enough evidence to reach a logical conclusion. However, those who are supporting the weaker argument and KNOW that their argument is weak will inevitably tell the other side "you don't have conclusive evidence." You see it on the Lechmere threads and from others who for reasons beyond my understanding have married themselves to the most unlikely of hypotheses.

Having said that, it works both ways. I've seen plenty of people who are so married to old school Ripper dogma that getting a new perspective across to them is like trying to push a feather through a brick wall. I don't get that either. One sides really no different from the other. It all equals to an unwillingness to change one's mind once its settled.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Observer]

The anti-Jack crowd believes that the pro-Jack crowd believes that Jack only killed prostitutes. Therefore, if they can show that Liz was not a prostitute or that she was not soliciting that night, then she could not have been killed by Jack.

c.d.

Hi cd

Quite incorrectly. They can not get it into their heads that it's entirely possible that even though Stride may not have been soliciting, she could still have been a victim of JTR. Whether this is through ignorance, or the desire to preserve a personal theory, I don't know. I know which option my money is on though.

Regards

Observer