The Juwes Graffiti

[caz]

Eddowes's killer could have popped home with her organs before emerging to place her apron piece and write the message, in which case he could have picked up the chalk while stashing the body parts and murder weapon.

My current theory is that he considered the Jews in Berner Street deserved the blame for making him kill a second victim over in Mitre Square. This would make even more sense if he wrote the Dear Boss letter and was prevented from ripping the first victim and living up to his chosen trade name, which would have reached Central News by then, but was not yet in the public domain. Assuming he would have wanted that letter published, the mutilation of Eddowes, combined with the apron and the GSG, swiftly followed up with the double event postcard, would have made that far more likely than if he'd given up and gone home after a less than ripping murder, possibly thwarted by Schwartz.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Eddowes's killer could have popped home with her organs before emerging to place her apron piece and write the message, in which case he could have picked up the chalk while stashing the body parts and murder weapon.

My current theory is that he considered the Jews in Berner Street deserved the blame for making him kill a second victim over in Mitre Square. This would make even more sense if he wrote the Dear Boss letter and was prevented from ripping the first victim and living up to his chosen trade name, which would have reached Central News by then, but was not yet in the public domain. Assuming he would have wanted that letter published, the mutilation of Eddowes, combined with the apron and the GSG, swiftly followed up with the double event postcard, would have made that far more likely than if he'd given up and gone home after a less than ripping murder, possibly thwarted by Schwartz.

Love,

Caz
X

as ive mentioned before-interesting idea caz. makes sense to me-especially since he said to hold the Dear boss letter back until he did a bit more work and also thanked them for doing that in saucy jack. with an explanation of why stride wasnt "finished".

[NotBlamedForNothing]

My current theory is that he considered the Jews in Berner Street deserved the blame for making him kill a second victim over in Mitre Square.

This supposes he thought he could get away with mutilation, in the laneway. Other than the possibility of the knife being left behind, there was no evidence for interruption. It is more likely than not that we would see evidence for interruption, if it had been intended.

So if the murderer of Stride was JtR, then perhaps a better theory is that he killed her with the intention of drawing a crowd. The crowd draws, and he slips away towards Aldgate...

[caz]

This supposes he thought he could get away with mutilation, in the laneway.

No it doesn't. If Stride was refusing to leave with her killer, and there were too many Jews around, coming and going outside, singing and dancing inside, for him to contemplate a mutilation murder there, he would have been under pressure to find another victim somewhere else.

Other than the possibility of the knife being left behind, there was no evidence for interruption. It is more likely than not that we would see evidence for interruption, if it had been intended.

My theory doesn't 'suppose' mutilation was intended, in that place or time. It supposes that Stride put the kibosh on his intentions for her, by being in the wrong place, and he chose to cut and run.

So if the murderer of Stride was JtR, then perhaps a better theory is that he killed her with the intention of drawing a crowd. The crowd draws, and he slips away towards Aldgate...

Possible, but my theory supposes the GSG was his work, and that he hadn't planned on a double killing until events in Berner Street made it necessary, if he wanted to commit his next ripping murder that night and live to rip another day.

I'm not sure why he'd have wanted or needed to draw a crowd by cutting Stride's throat. But if he knew there was a crowd to be drawn, to a dying or freshly killed woman, that would only support my argument that he'd have known the risks of staying to rip in that location.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'm not sure why he'd have wanted or needed to draw a crowd by cutting Stride's throat.

For the reason I gave in #59

[Trevor Marriott]

No it doesn't. If Stride was refusing to leave with her killer, and there were too many Jews around, coming and going outside, singing and dancing inside, for him to contemplate a mutilation murder there, he would have been under pressure to find another victim somewhere else.

Then he could have just left to find that other victim why risk being seen?

It is highly unlikley that these murders were committed by the same man. The Stride murder scene is totally different from the other murder sites, as is the time of the murder.

When a criminal is disturbed, discovered or thinks he has been seen the normal reaction is to leave the scene as quickly as possible, or go to ground nearby and stay hidden. If you suggest the same killer you have to ask why no mutilations. How long would it have taken to stab Stride several times in the abdomen through her clothing, which is what the killer of Eddowes did?

I cannot see the killer of Stride wandering around the streets carrying a long bladed knife with perhaps traces of blood on it, knowing that he might have been seen leaving the crime scene or risk being stopped and searched and arrested on suspicion. There is clear documentary evidence that the police regularaly took suspicious persons to a police station to check their credentials

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

This supposes he thought he could get away with mutilation, in the laneway. Other than the possibility of the knife being left behind, there was no evidence for interruption. It is more likely than not that we would see evidence for interruption, if it had been intended.

So if the murderer of Stride was JtR, then perhaps a better theory is that he killed her with the intention of drawing a crowd. The crowd draws, and he slips away towards Aldgate...

Are you really trying to perpetuate this one? It would depend entirely on the point at which interruption occurred. If he was interrupted just as he’d cut her throat then there would have been zero evidence of interruption. Interruption can’t be confirmed or ruled out so I don’t see why you attempt to make it sound unlikely. We don’t know. It’s 50-50.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How long would it have taken to stab Stride several times in the abdomen through her clothing, which is what the killer of Eddowes did?

Much less time than what the killer of Eddowes did, all up. So as a matter of probability, we would expect to see evidence for interruption, if indeed he was interrupted.

[DJA]

This supposes he thought he could get away with mutilation, in the laneway. Other than the possibility of the knife being left behind, there was no evidence for interruption. It is more likely than not that we would see evidence for interruption, if it had been intended.

Given that Stride was carefully placed on her side with her throat draining into the gutter,there is little evidence that Jack intended to continue.

Sutton was aware of her Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia - Wikipedia

[Herlock Sholmes]

Much less time than what the killer of Eddowes did, all up. So as a matter of probability, we would expect to see evidence for interruption, if indeed he was interrupted.

[caz]

For the reason I gave in #59

Which you described as 'perhaps a better theory'.

I am allowed to disagree with your reasoning, I suppose?

I didn't want a debate. I merely explained and expanded on my current theory on the GSG - which could change if I am given a good enough reason for doing so.

[caz]

Then he could have just left to find that other victim why risk being seen?

We don't know for sure he was seen, Trev. If he was BS man, he may have begun to manhandle Stride before he saw either of the two witnesses, and then it was too late to avoid being seen doing it. Yes, he could have left Stride alive to find another victim, but no rule says he had to, or would have done. Her killer was basically a violent thug with a sharp knife - BS man or not, the ripper or not. If he had his dander up, because Stride was being obstructive and he felt he was losing control of the situation, he took it back by killing her swiftly and moving on.

It is highly unlikley that these murders were committed by the same man. The Stride murder scene is totally different from the other murder sites, as is the time of the murder.

Yes, I know your views, Trev. I'm just not as sure as you are that the murders were unconnected, and therefore the postcard writer was wrong to recognise it as a double event, decades before other killers, including Ted Bundy, had one of their own.

When a criminal is disturbed, discovered or thinks he has been seen the normal reaction is to leave the scene as quickly as possible, or go to ground nearby and stay hidden. If you suggest the same killer you have to ask why no mutilations. How long would it have taken to stab Stride several times in the abdomen through her clothing, which is what the killer of Eddowes did?

Did you not read my post, explaining why the ripper - IF it was he - would have left the scene as quickly as possible, just as you suggest, rather than hanging around and very possibly being caught in the act? Every second would have counted in that yard, especially if he was BS man, and a witness to his assault on Stride might have been fetching a copper. Was it worth the risk of staying a second longer, for the sake of a few stabs?

I cannot see the killer of Stride wandering around the streets carrying a long bladed knife with perhaps traces of blood on it, knowing that he might have been seen leaving the crime scene or risk being stopped and searched and arrested on suspicion. There is clear documentary evidence that the police regularaly took suspicious persons to a police station to check their credentials

Stride's killer had no choice unless he did it virtually on his own doorstep. By the time the body was discovered and the police arrived, he'd have been far enough away from the scene to be relatively safe, whether he went straight to his home address or straight to Aldgate. When the police began looking for him, they wouldn't know where to start or which direction he may have taken. If he crossed the border into City Police territory he made their task even harder.

Love,

Caz
X

[JeffHamm]

Much less time than what the killer of Eddowes did, all up. So as a matter of probability, we would expect to see evidence for interruption, if indeed he was interrupted.

Interruption in this case means something happened that resulted in Stride's killer not performing actions they intended. What evidence to you suppose is created by a killer having an intention to do something, but not actually performing the action? What trace does a non-performed action leave at the crime scene? By definition, an interruption implies an action intended wasn't performed, so the best you could do is suggest that the lack of mutilations is evidence of interruption. Problem with that, is that lack of mutilations do not lead solely to the inference that mutilations were intended (i.e. Stride not JtR victim). But if other evidence leads to the conclusion that Stride was a victim of the same killer as Eddowes, then the lack of mutilations on Stride require explanation. The police of the day believed the cases were so connected, hence the hypothesis that JtR must have been interrupted and discontinued his normal progressing in Stride's case. That connection was not universally held even in 1888, nor is it universally held today. Clearly, if Stride was not a victim of JtR, there is no need for anything else to explain her lack of mutilations (mutilations are very very rare, so it's unlikely a different killer would have held such an intention in the first place, etc).

Regardless, there is no such thing as "evidence showing interruption" if the interruption occurs prior to the starting of the action. There might be evidence that leads to the conclusion that the interruption occurred during an action, as this would produced something like that looks like "discontinuation of an action in progress." I've seen some suggest that the arrival of Cross/Lechmere may have scared off JtR from Nichols, and that had he a minute or two more then she too would have been as mutilated as other cases. Can't prove that, of course, and there certainly are other viable interpretations of why her mutilations were less extensive than Chapman's, Eddowes', and Kelly's.

Interruption is just a good word to use, a sort of jargon in the JtR case if you will, to describe the idea that if JtR did kill Stride, something seems to have led to him to leave the scene without mutilating her. It could have been a noise from the club, it could have been his own agitation and worry given there were two people in the area when he roughed her up, and so forth. If you think JtR was hearing voices, etc, maybe the voices told him to leave? One can speculate anything, but those speculations are just a way of demonstrating the very large number of things that all fall under the term "interruption". None of them, though, leave any trace behind at the crime scene. Some, however, are hinted at (we know the club members were singing and making noise; we know people were coming and going inside the club to the kitchen, some exiting the front door; etc - noise of that activity, or even it's sudden cessation for a moment, could easily spook someone who has just murdered someone outside the building). Was that the source of the interruption? I don't know, I just know those types of events were going on, and that they potentially could serve as such. Again, interruption doesn't leave direct traces, so if you expect to see evidence for interruption, then the only evidence you can expect to see is the lack of things being done - and that is horrible evidence because you're looking for the absence of something. I could say Strides's killer intended to apply make up to her face and pose her sitting up, but he was interrupted prior to doing that and point to the fact those things didn't happen as proof he was interrupted! The thing is, interruption as an explanation for why there isn't any mutilations isn't saying the lack of mutilations is evidence for interruption, rather, one looks to see if there are actual events (noise in the club; potential witnessess; approaching pony and cart; etc) that might result in JtR discontinuing his normal sequence of events. Given that there are such candidate events, then the "JtR interruptus" hypothesis cannot be refuted - but it's an explanation within the larger unproven hypothesis that "JtR murdered Stride". That's not saying any of those are proven, nothing is proven in this case, but it remains an open possibility.

- Jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

We'll put Jeff,

"Again, interruption doesn't leave direct traces, so if you expect to see evidence for interruption, then the only evidence you can expect to see is the lack of things being done -"

A sound observation, as usual.

[Trevor Marriott]

Interruption in this case means something happened that resulted in Stride's killer not performing actions they intended. What evidence to you suppose is created by a killer having an intention to do something, but not actually performing the action? What trace does a non-performed action leave at the crime scene? By definition, an interruption implies an action intended wasn't performed, so the best you could do is suggest that the lack of mutilations is evidence of interruption. Problem with that, is that lack of mutilations do not lead solely to the inference that mutilations were intended (i.e. Stride not JtR victim). But if other evidence leads to the conclusion that Stride was a victim of the same killer as Eddowes, then the lack of mutilations on Stride require explanation. The police of the day believed the cases were so connected, hence the hypothesis that JtR must have been interrupted and discontinued his normal progressing in Stride's case. That connection was not universally held even in 1888, nor is it universally held today. Clearly, if Stride was not a victim of JtR, there is no need for anything else to explain her lack of mutilations (mutilations are very very rare, so it's unlikely a different killer would have held such an intention in the first place, etc).

Regardless, there is no such thing as "evidence showing interruption" if the interruption occurs prior to the starting of the action. There might be evidence that leads to the conclusion that the interruption occurred during an action, as this would produced something like that looks like "discontinuation of an action in progress." I've seen some suggest that the arrival of Cross/Lechmere may have scared off JtR from Nichols, and that had he a minute or two more then she too would have been as mutilated as other cases. Can't prove that, of course, and there certainly are other viable interpretations of why her mutilations were less extensive than Chapman's, Eddowes', and Kelly's.

Interruption is just a good word to use, a sort of jargon in the JtR case if you will, to describe the idea that if JtR did kill Stride, something seems to have led to him to leave the scene without mutilating her. It could have been a noise from the club, it could have been his own agitation and worry given there were two people in the area when he roughed her up, and so forth. If you think JtR was hearing voices, etc, maybe the voices told him to leave? One can speculate anything, but those speculations are just a way of demonstrating the very large number of things that all fall under the term "interruption". None of them, though, leave any trace behind at the crime scene. Some, however, are hinted at (we know the club members were singing and making noise; we know people were coming and going inside the club to the kitchen, some exiting the front door; etc - noise of that activity, or even it's sudden cessation for a moment, could easily spook someone who has just murdered someone outside the building). Was that the source of the interruption? I don't know, I just know those types of events were going on, and that they potentially could serve as such. Again, interruption doesn't leave direct traces, so if you expect to see evidence for interruption, then the only evidence you can expect to see is the lack of things being done - and that is horrible evidence because you're looking for the absence of something. I could say Strides's killer intended to apply make up to her face and pose her sitting up, but he was interrupted prior to doing that and point to the fact those things didn't happen as proof he was interrupted! The thing is, interruption as an explanation for why there isn't any mutilations isn't saying the lack of mutilations is evidence for interruption, rather, one looks to see if there are actual events (noise in the club; potential witnessess; approaching pony and cart; etc) that might result in JtR discontinuing his normal sequence of events. Given that there are such candidate events, then the "JtR interruptus" hypothesis cannot be refuted - but it's an explanation within the larger unproven hypothesis that "JtR murdered Stride". That's not saying any of those are proven, nothing is proven in this case, but it remains an open possibility.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

There is a very minute time window between him cutting her throat and him being able to stab her several times in the abdomen as he had done with Eddowes.

There is no evidence that he was seen or disturbed. so interruption is conjecture, and is what some want to believe to prop up the old accpted theory of five and five only

But lets not keep trying to pin the tail on the donkey, several aspects of this murder point away from her killer being JTR, if that be the case who was her killer, someone from the club, her ex Michael Kidney or somebody she turned a trick with and it went wrong?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk