What's your profile for Jack?

[Tom_Wescott]

Are you sure about that, Tom?

I'm sure of what Swanson reported. If that's wrong, then I imagine Schwartz was lying. And if he's lying then everything he said is in doubt. So, if we're operating from the premise that he's telling the truth, then yes, Schwarz saw BS Man before BS Man saw Stride. But Schwartz did not interrupt BS Man after Stride's throat had been cut.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

BS man was the tipsy man, but as Tom says Schwartz was there or there abouts before the alleged incident between the BS man and the woman, supposedly Stride.
If the Ripper was disturbed by Schwartz and Dimschitz then he hung around quite a while and didn't do much damage to his victim, compared to the other cases anyway.

[Scott Nelson]

Schwartz didn't interrupt anything. He was on the scene before BS Man and Stride even met.

I thought BS man was the tipsy man followed down Berner Street by Schwartz?

[Abby Normal]

Are you sure about that, Tom?

Good point. Ripper man may have actually been interrupted by 3 jews that night: Schwartz, diemshitz and Lawendes group.
Which may have been the impetus for the GSG.

[Garry Wroe]

Schwartz didn't interrupt anything. He was on the scene before BS Man and Stride even met.

Are you sure about that, Tom?

[Tom_Wescott]

Really? who did Schwartz interrupt then - Not Jack but someone else was knocking poor Stride to the floor at the same time (within 10 minutes) in same spot outside Dutfields yard?

Schwartz didn't interrupt anything. He was on the scene before BS Man and Stride even met. Stride's murder must have occurred after he fled the scene and possibly as much as 15 minutes later.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

There's a limited extent to which I am willing to defend the views of Lynn Cates, seeing as I don't actually agree with them. I merely happen to understand and respect them.

Hi Damaso. I didn't know that's what you were doing. Lynn's pretty good at defending his own views.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Boggles]

probability her killer was interrupted is stepping a bit over the line

Really? who did Schwartz interrupt then - Not Jack but someone else was knocking poor Stride to the floor at the same time (within 10 minutes) in same spot outside Dutfields yard?

[Damaso Marte]

It seems Damaso is ignoring my responses to him.

There's a limited extent to which I am willing to defend the views of Lynn Cates, seeing as I don't actually agree with them. I merely happen to understand and respect them.

[Tom_Wescott]

The lack of any evidence makes an interruption a remote possibility cd, not a probability.

I would agree with that except I would strike the word 'remote', since it's not more remote than any other possibility, and certainly less remote than some. But I agree that to say it's a probability her killer was interrupted is stepping a bit over the line since no one seems to have seen a man fleeing from the passageway post-murder.

It seems Damaso is ignoring my responses to him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

You keep referring to the lack of EVIDENCE to support the idea that Jack might have been interrupted before he could mutilate Stride as though we are all jurors in some court of law with the life of the accused hanging in the balance. The reality is that we are simply trying to make sense of events that took place over 125 years ago. We can't bring the victims back to life nor will our conclusion as to who might have killed Stride ultimately change what took place that night.

If we abandon the beyond a reasonable doubt approach and simply ask questions, look at possible answers and try to assign them some degree of probability, the idea that Jack might have been scared off seems to meet the possible and probable tests. We know this because criminals are constantly being scared off before their plans come to fruition. This takes place on a daily basis in all sorts of crimes, murder included.

We also know from people like serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, that in some instances he abandoned his plans for murder due to nothing more than his own paranoia. In such an instance, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that that took place, yet we know that it did. Add to the equation that it is reasonable to assume that Jack realized that he would be hanged if caught and that Stride was not the only woman in Whitechapel.

I believe that asking questions is a much better approach than simply saying Jack the Ripper mutilated women and since Stride was not mutilated she could not have been a Ripper victim. I see no harm in asking if there could be a reason why and simply continuing on with the chain of reasoning.

Let's get out of the mind set of juror mode.

c.d.

The lack of any evidence makes an interruption a remote possibility cd, not a probability. If there was any evidence he was scared off, or changed his mind about mutilating, it isnt within any known data we have to study,...and as such, it becomes just a possibility, and a remote one.

When she is found on her side without being touched after the single throat cut...another uncharacteristic element....then we can say that the probability is that the man who places victims on their backs with their legs spread in order to mutilate the abdomen was likely not her killer.

There are a dozen signs we could have seen if that were the case....and yet they are not present.

My policy is if it isnt indicated by the crime scene or the physical evidence of the victim, then why put it forward as a probable scenario....and pretty clearly, it wasnt. Add all the circumstantial evidence in now....and you have an unsolved murder, but not one that can be assigned to the same man who killed Polly and Annie almost exactly the same way.

Cheers

[Damaso Marte]

You believe Stride/Eddowes as a shift in MO? Was Jack like a precision machine who killed everyone exactly the same way? of course not he was flesh and blood just like the rest of us.

There are lots of examples where serial killers changed MO dramatically, Bundy changed between bludgeoning and strangulation, Wemmer Pan Killer killed his victims with a rock, in others he shot them. This is not an example of an MO change.

Circumstances surely point to the ritualistic aspect, the subsequent mutilations were interrupted. That is why there was a double murder that night. Jack may or may not have been 'down on whores', but on this night he was certainly down on Jews.

To be perfectly clear: I am a defender of Ripper orthodoxy. I believe that the same man killed the canonical 5, and may have killed Tabram as well.

However, there are differences between the murders, as lynn cates will be happy to tell you. No sign of strangulation in the last 3, two throat cuts in the first two victims, one throat cut in the last three victims, direction of the cut in Eddowes, etc. With Stride its an even bigger difference: no mutilation at all, body left sideways and not on back.

To me, it is plausible that the same killer did all 5 murders and changed his methodology out of innate human variance or circumstances. To me, these differences are fairly small. To somebody else, it's more likely that there were copycats than for one killer to vary this much.

[GUT]

G'Day c.d

You keep referring to the lack of EVIDENCE to support the idea that Jack might have been interrupted before he could mutilate Stride as though we are all jurors in some court of law with the life of the accused hanging in the balance. The reality is that we are simply trying to make sense of events that took place over 125 years ago. We can't bring the victims back to life nor will our conclusion as to who might have killed Stride ultimately change what took place that night.

If we abandon the beyond a reasonable doubt approach and simply ask questions, look at possible answers and try to assign them some degree of probability, the idea that Jack might have been scared off seems to meet the possible and probable tests. We know this because criminals are constantly being scared off before their plans come to fruition. This takes place on a daily basis in all sorts of crimes, murder included.

How true.

So many on these threads want beyond reasonable doubt, when it fits their argument but then abandon it when it is better for them to speculate.

Go figure.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

You keep referring to the lack of EVIDENCE to support the idea that Jack might have been interrupted before he could mutilate Stride as though we are all jurors in some court of law with the life of the accused hanging in the balance. The reality is that we are simply trying to make sense of events that took place over 125 years ago. We can't bring the victims back to life nor will our conclusion as to who might have killed Stride ultimately change what took place that night.

If we abandon the beyond a reasonable doubt approach and simply ask questions, look at possible answers and try to assign them some degree of probability, the idea that Jack might have been scared off seems to meet the possible and probable tests. We know this because criminals are constantly being scared off before their plans come to fruition. This takes place on a daily basis in all sorts of crimes, murder included.

We also know from people like serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, that in some instances he abandoned his plans for murder due to nothing more than his own paranoia. In such an instance, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that that took place, yet we know that it did. Add to the equation that it is reasonable to assume that Jack realized that he would be hanged if caught and that Stride was not the only woman in Whitechapel.

I believe that asking questions is a much better approach than simply saying Jack the Ripper mutilated women and since Stride was not mutilated she could not have been a Ripper victim. I see no harm in asking if there could be a reason why and simply continuing on with the chain of reasoning.

Let's get out of the mind set of juror mode.

c.d.

[Boggles]

either a serial killer shifted his MO, possibly dramatically so

You believe Stride/Eddowes as a shift in MO? Was Jack like a precision machine who killed everyone exactly the same way? of course not he was flesh and blood just like the rest of us.

There are lots of examples where serial killers changed MO dramatically, Bundy changed between bludgeoning and strangulation, Wemmer Pan Killer killed his victims with a rock, in others he shot them. This is not an example of an MO change.

Circumstances surely point to the ritualistic aspect, the subsequent mutilations were interrupted. That is why there was a double murder that night. Jack may or may not have been 'down on whores', but on this night he was certainly down on Jews.