A closer look at Leon Goldstein

[c.d.]

Hello NW,

But we can't rule out planning. Maybe it was just piss poor planning or planning with over confidence fueled by alcohol. Then at some point he realizes he is in over his head and makes a hasty retreat.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Example of planning albeit poor planning:

https://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/29/iowa.marker.disguise/

c.d.

[Lewis C]

I still think its a daft place for our JTR to plan a murder.

But do we know it was planned? What if the desire to kill got the better of him and clear thinking went out the window?

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

I agree with pretty much everything you've said in your recent posts in this thread, but here, I have to ask, was the time/location of the Stride murder any riskier than the time/location of the Chapman murder? Any number of people could have seen the Chapman murder or mutilation just by looking out a window, and if someone had entered the yard while Jack was there, he would have been trapped. He had a way of escaping from the Stride murder location.

[c.d.]

Hello Lewis,

You and I and others can assess the riskiness of the various murders sites but in the end it is a moot point. It was Jack who had to evaluate the risk and decide whether or not to take it. We don't know Jack's mindset or whether it varied by location or whether he was more confident in some situations as opposed to others and therefore willing to take more risk. We also don't know if he might have passed on some potential victims because the site was too risky. Alcohol consumption could be another variable.

It is kind of like the old saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder but here risk is judged by the one about to commit a murder.

c.d.

[New Waterloo]

Yes there are many variables and unknowns regarding location, state of mind, perceived risk but there are also many 'knowns' yes Hanbury Street was occupied and any occupant could disrupt/trap JTR at any time. but surely that risk is significantly less than attacking somebody in the yard of what in modern terms is a late night music venue, serving alcohol with people coming in and out at unpredictable times. Also this is the place where the week before there had almost been a riot and neighbours had complained about noise and the general behaviour of some of the people who used the club. Any person including the killer would be aware of this. It was well covered in the press.

I suppose the answer to this is look at the evidence regarding what activity takes place at the club on a Saturday night and then carry out our own 'Risk Assessment' I am sure there are users of the site that carry out risk assessment as part of there employ and there must be ways of doing this scientifically ( I wouldn't have a clue!) If the unbiased outcome remains the same, that the yard was quiet enough, dark enough etc then nothing much has changed but if the risk is very high this may indicate the type of person who would be prepared to take it. (drunk person, mad person, person trying to discredit Jews that sort of thing)

Just suggesting we use the established facts/evidence we have. I am not saying whether Stride was a victim of JTR, BSM or whoever but we only have what we have to go on.

[caz]

The more we look at Stride, the less it feels as though she was a Ripper victim.

Whoa, easy there cowboy. Please don't include me as part of the "we." I'm sure many others feel the same way.

c.d.

What c.d. said.

It doesn't need to be any more complex than the ripper targeting Stride and getting angry - and yes, thug-like - because she is an unwilling participant in her own end game and refusing to budge from a very unsuitable location from his point of view. He is a serial murderer with a lethal blade, and the behaviour of a prospective victim is thoroughly pissing him off. Why wouldn't a man like that have taught her a swift lesson before moving on to find a better bet?

And no, I have seen no reason yet to take a closer look at Goldstein as a potential murder suspect than has already been done by others on this thread.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes there are many variables and unknowns regarding location, state of mind, perceived risk but there are also many 'knowns' yes Hanbury Street was occupied and any occupant could disrupt/trap JTR at any time. but surely that risk is significantly less than attacking somebody in the yard of what in modern terms is a late night music venue, serving alcohol with people coming in and out at unpredictable times. Also this is the place where the week before there had almost been a riot and neighbours had complained about noise and the general behaviour of some of the people who used the club. Any person including the killer would be aware of this. It was well covered in the press.

I suppose the answer to this is look at the evidence regarding what activity takes place at the club on a Saturday night and then carry out our own 'Risk Assessment' I am sure there are users of the site that carry out risk assessment as part of there employ and there must be ways of doing this scientifically ( I wouldn't have a clue!) If the unbiased outcome remains the same, that the yard was quiet enough, dark enough etc then nothing much has changed but if the risk is very high this may indicate the type of person who would be prepared to take it. (drunk person, mad person, person trying to discredit Jews that sort of thing)

Just suggesting we use the established facts/evidence we have. I am not saying whether Stride was a victim of JTR, BSM or whoever but we only have what we have to go on.

The riskier the location from the ripper's point of view, the safer it might have seemed from a woman's point of view. In Stride's case, she may have considered it unlikely that the same man who had recently butchered at least two, possibly more women, would risk it on the club's premises at that time of night. Tragically for her, the killer - whoever he was - seems to have assessed the risks correctly by cutting and running before anyone could catch him in the act.

The variables and unknowns that a killer could not control included the behaviour of his prospective victims and how this would differ from one to the next. Just as the ripper was not a robot, we need to remind ourselves that his victims were not robots either, and their decisions, as the murders continued and the fear grew in the community, would have influenced the killer's own decisions and behaviour.

Stride's case is no more or less what I would have expected to see in the middle of a series, without needing to introduce a different killer. Different victim each time; different situation whether or not it's the same killer.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

The riskier the location from the ripper's point of view, the safer it might have seemed from a woman's point of view.

Good point. If Jack suggested moving away from the proximity of the club she might have said no, it's here or not at all in light of the above. And if he wanted to specifically kill Stride, as opposed to just any woman, he would have to chance that location.

c.d.

[caz]

When you factor in the GSG, it could be a gentile trying to fan the flames. And with the evidence from Mitre Square below the chalk message...it could insinuate a Double Event evening. I also see the GSG as likely being written by the killer in Mitre Square, which does suggest Jews are evading or should be blamed for something. But I dont see, myself, that the GSG author claims Liz as his victim,.. but he does claim Kates as his by virtue of the apron section. For me that is a sign that different killers killed Liz and Kate. He is willing to claim a murder, just not the one on Berner Street. The GSG author thinks the Jews killed Liz, or they should be blamed for it.

But how would the author of the GSG have known anything about this earlier murder, let alone have been in a position to speculate that 'the Jews' were responsible, if he had come from killing Eddowes and had been nowhere near the Berner Street crime scene?

I dont believe that at this stage in his evolution that Jack is planning anything. Other than finding the right mix of victim and location before he jumps in. And a few feet inside the gates of a club with active socializing going on and a half open door to the kitchen isnt a spot that suggests privacy or security for a man who kills women so he can cut into them.

I agree that anything the ripper was planning would have depended on the right circumstances coming together, in terms of victim choice, time and place. If one or more factors were not in his favour he was not compelled to go ahead with any ripping, but that wouldn't have stopped him killing out of anger or revenge, or just because he could, and what was another woman with her throat cut to this man? Knife practice - that's what. I find it strange that any other violent man with a knife could have killed Stride for no specific reason, but the ripper - who was yet to be known by that trade name - gets a free pass, uniquely, on the grounds that he would have spared the life of any woman if he was deprived - even by the woman herself - of the chance to rip her up afterwards without being interrupted.

As I mentioned earlier, if Liz was found in the yard, or the stables, or the unused office with the broken lock, I would be all aboard with her being killed by someone acting as a client. Like Jack likely did with Polly and Annie. First time out, he is a little trigger happy..not a great spot for what he wants, but he does at least initiate the mutilations. In Hanbury, yes...17 people in that house and windows from surrounding houses looking into the yard...but there are no indications that anyone is awake. And he does accomplish everything I believe he intended to do. So, second time out he exhibits learning traits.

But this takes no account of what Stride was doing in the moments before she was murdered, either to facilitate her killer's access to her body or to try and prevent it.

Does he then revert after a month to the amateur he was with Polly...or does he try to replicate some of the things that worked so well with Annie?

He can only do what the circumstances - and his victim - allow. If he encounters Stride, and things do not go entirely his way after that, he can either move on immediately or take the split second needed to take his knife to her throat.

Would you not agree that the man who worked on Chapman 'so well' arguably found what he wanted in Eddowes?

Do you not give Stride the least credit for putting a temporary spanner in the works and paying for it with her life?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Rookie Detective]

Was it Leon Goldstein who was alleged to have walked with a limp or gait?

Or was that Schwartz?


RD

[c.d.]

He can only do what the circumstances - and his victim - allow.

"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

Boxer Mike Tyson

c.d.

[Scott Nelson]

Was it Leon Goldstein who was alleged to have walked with a limp or gait? Or was that Schwartz?

I thought it was the man who walked ahead of Schwartz down Berner Street. But I don't remember.

[Lewis C]

Hello Lewis,

You and I and others can assess the riskiness of the various murders sites but in the end it is a moot point. It was Jack who had to evaluate the risk and decide whether or not to take it. We don't know Jack's mindset or whether it varied by location or whether he was more confident in some situations as opposed to others and therefore willing to take more risk. We also don't know if he might have passed on some potential victims because the site was too risky. Alcohol consumption could be another variable.

It is kind of like the old saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder but here risk is judged by the one about to commit a murder.

c.d.

Fair enough, but whether one believes that the time/location of the Stride murder was no riskier than that of the Chapman murder, or that it is Jack's unknowable assessment of the riskiness that matters, it leads to the same conclusion: we can't say that Jack wouldn't have committed the Stride murder on the grounds that it would have been too risky.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes there are many variables and unknowns regarding location, state of mind, perceived risk but there are also many 'knowns' yes Hanbury Street was occupied and any occupant could disrupt/trap JTR at any time. but surely that risk is significantly less than attacking somebody in the yard of what in modern terms is a late night music venue, serving alcohol with people coming in and out at unpredictable times. Also this is the place where the week before there had almost been a riot and neighbours had complained about noise and the general behaviour of some of the people who used the club. Any person including the killer would be aware of this. It was well covered in the press.

I suppose the answer to this is look at the evidence regarding what activity takes place at the club on a Saturday night and then carry out our own 'Risk Assessment' I am sure there are users of the site that carry out risk assessment as part of there employ and there must be ways of doing this scientifically ( I wouldn't have a clue!) If the unbiased outcome remains the same, that the yard was quiet enough, dark enough etc then nothing much has changed but if the risk is very high this may indicate the type of person who would be prepared to take it. (drunk person, mad person, person trying to discredit Jews that sort of thing)

Just suggesting we use the established facts/evidence we have. I am not saying whether Stride was a victim of JTR, BSM or whoever but we only have what we have to go on.

The perceived risk must depend on the perceived intent of the killer. Had this been a Ripper murder, we are not obliged to suppose that he was interrupted in his work. He may, for example, have wanted to create trouble for the club, perhaps owing to a perverse sense of humour. I think Stride probably was a Ripper victim, but I see no evidence for interruption.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Was it Leon Goldstein who was alleged to have walked with a limp or gait?

Or was that Schwartz?


RD

Long Liz

Dr Phillips: There is a deformity in the lower fifth of the bones of the right leg, which are not straight, but bow forward; there is a thickening above the left ankle. The bones are here straighter.