Stride..a victim?

[Scott Nelson]

Can't the mindset of a lone serial killer change from situation to situation? You know, maybe during one encounter he's on the verge of an epileptic attack, during another he's fine???

[Damaso Marte]

In the absence of any new evidence, Ripperology is all about suggesting possible stories and then judging their plausibility, largely subjectively.

What is more plausible to you: that a serial killer might change from two throat cuts and no facial mutilations to one throat cut and facial mutilations, or that two (or three!) different people might both successfully mutilate prostitutes on the street and get away with it? To me, the first is far more plausible, so I lose no sleep over the fact that I consider Eddowes and Kelly to be killed by the same hand as Nichols and Chapman, but clearly to Michael Richards and lynn cates the latter is more plausible.

In the Stride case we get three options to evaluate: (1) three different killers out on the street at the same time, (2) an interrupted/spooked Ripper, (3) a Ripper who decided ahead of time to kill two people that night and determined that ripping the first would be implausible. I think (3) is generally undervalued, and seemed almost unconsidered at the time as well.

In the end unless something new is discovered in an archive somewhere, it will be us throwing our subjective assertions about plausibility at each other, thread after thread, year after year, until we join Abberline and company in the big Scotland Yard in the sky. The only thing that might break this cycle is some kind of big data analysis by a statistically-inclined criminologist, who might be able to actually use hard data to refute or support common assertions like "facial mutilations means the killer knew the victim". But that would take outside experts actually learning about the case enough to know which questions they should explore, and even then would likely only give us probabilistic findings.

[DJA]

Can't the mindset of a lone serial killer change from situation to situation? You know, maybe during one encounter he's on the verge of an epileptic attack, during another he's fine???

Or,if he is being pursued by the five women,perhaps he is getting more and more pissed off.

Especially if he has been treating four of them for over twenty years.
Stride being the exception.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

In the absence of any new evidence, Ripperology is all about suggesting possible stories and then judging their plausibility, largely subjectively.

What is more plausible to you: that a serial killer might change from two throat cuts and no facial mutilations to one throat cut and facial mutilations, or that two (or three!) different people might both successfully mutilate prostitutes on the street and get away with it? To me, the first is far more plausible, so I lose no sleep over the fact that I consider Eddowes and Kelly to be killed by the same hand as Nichols and Chapman, but clearly to Michael Richards and lynn cates the latter is more plausible.

In the Stride case we get three options to evaluate: (1) three different killers out on the street at the same time, (2) an interrupted/spooked Ripper, (3) a Ripper who decided ahead of time to kill two people that night and determined that ripping the first would be implausible. I think (3) is generally undervalued, and seemed almost unconsidered at the time as well.

In the end unless something new is discovered in an archive somewhere, it will be us throwing our subjective assertions about plausibility at each other, thread after thread, year after year, until we join Abberline and company in the big Scotland Yard in the sky. The only thing that might break this cycle is some kind of big data analysis by a statistically-inclined criminologist, who might be able to actually use hard data to refute or support common assertions like "facial mutilations means the killer knew the victim". But that would take outside experts actually learning about the case enough to know which questions they should explore, and even then would likely only give us probabilistic findings.

A noble post Damaso.

Stride option 3 is a good point. It's highly unlikely in my opinion, but it's not an angle I've seen anyone explore. It could be argued that it's not explored by virtue of its unlikeliness, but when has that ever been an obstacle to ripperology?

As much as many would like to see that kind of objective data analysis you mention, it's Achilles heel is the need for the experts to learn the case, as you rightly mention. And, I fear, the more they learn, the more their data analysis would devolve into **** slinging matches. Also, a project like that requires funding, by a publisher or a TV company, and that means pushing a commercial aspect. Data doesn't sell, sensation does. That's why the only stuff that ever gets backing is yet another "case closed" job.

God rest ye Phillip Sugden.

[Michael W Richards]

Can't the mindset of a lone serial killer change from situation to situation? You know, maybe during one encounter he's on the verge of an epileptic attack, during another he's fine???

Scott, Ive no qualms considering a single lone killer doing different things on different outings, ..an example might be if evidence existed to suggest Strides killer was interrupted there would be no clear evidence it wasnt the killer/mutilator. There is no such evidence, therefore what is.. is what was intended. And all that was intended.

[caz]

Can't the mindset of a lone serial killer change from situation to situation? You know, maybe during one encounter he's on the verge of an epileptic attack, during another he's fine???

I would have said so, Scotty.

My seafood restaurant analogy was flawed because the ratios should be reversed. Many hundreds of diners in my home town regularly murder meals served in a limited selection of local eateries, so I would only be one of hundreds choosing the same or different dishes from one week to the next. In 1888 Whitechapel, the number of murderers preying on defenceless females out alone at night was vanishingly small, compared with huge numbers of potential victims. But the common factor is human behaviour, which was the point I was trying to make to Michael.

If anyone does something once, in a certain way, and then does much the same thing a week later, does this amount to Michael's 'fixed repetitive series of actions', from which they can't deviate on any subsequent occasion, regardless of the situation, their own physical or mental state at the time, or how they found their first two experiences?

I'm not sure how many men Michael believes went out armed with a knife, which they used to murder a Whitechapel victim, but they all got away with it, presumably because they each had the same human ability to adapt their behaviour according to the circumstances and their own changing priorities. The man who killed Nichols and Chapman wasn't programmed to repeat a fixed series of actions. If the programme wasn't working for him in any way, he was a human being with the ability to change it.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Can't the mindset of a lone serial killer change from situation to situation? You know, maybe during one encounter he's on the verge of an epileptic attack, during another he's fine???

It is incredibly speculative to suppose that the Ripper had epilepsy, and even more so to suppose that he may have become aware of an oncoming attack, at the very moment he completed cutting Stride's throat, and yet made it safely away from the scene before the attack actually occurred.

Do you suppose the odds of that being the truth are better than 500/1?

Perhaps we could return to the actual situation with Stride?

She goes out carrying sixpence.
She supposedly does prostitute work (earns money) from at least the time she leaves the Bricklayer's Arms, if not much earlier.
Dr Phillips finds no money on her person.

Q1 - Where did the money go?

Q2 - If Throw Down Man stole it from her, was that before or after he earnt his moniker?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In the absence of any new evidence, Ripperology is all about suggesting possible stories and then judging their plausibility, largely subjectively.

What is more plausible to you: that a serial killer might change from two throat cuts and no facial mutilations to one throat cut and facial mutilations, or that two (or three!) different people might both successfully mutilate prostitutes on the street and get away with it? To me, the first is far more plausible, so I lose no sleep over the fact that I consider Eddowes and Kelly to be killed by the same hand as Nichols and Chapman, but clearly to Michael Richards and lynn cates the latter is more plausible.

The term 'more plausible', might refer to:

1. relative probabilities
2. the most believable story

Thus:

What is more probable - is objective
What is more believable to you - is subjective

Which one do you mean?

In the Stride case we get three options to evaluate: (1) three different killers out on the street at the same time, (2) an interrupted/spooked Ripper, (3) a Ripper who decided ahead of time to kill two people that night and determined that ripping the first would be implausible. I think (3) is generally undervalued, and seemed almost unconsidered at the time as well.

(3a) a Ripper who decided ahead of time to kill two people that night and determined that ripping the first would be implausible.
(3b) a Ripper who decided ahead of time to kill two people that night and determined that not ripping the first would be prudent.

[Azarna]

Well, Michael, you know by now that my opinion is that the injuries to Eddowes are neatly and simply explained if Stride's killer was taking out the frustration he felt for not having the guts [ahem] to operate in Dutfield's Yard. Having shown his hand to Stride, but not being comfortable with the location, he killed her with his usual efficiency to stop her making a fuss, then ran off to find a woman he could really go to town on. It's the classic double event behaviour we see in other series over the years...

He "really went to town on" MJK, with no known failed attack before to make him so enraged as to do so.

The ferocity of the attack on MJK is most often explained as being that the killer had time (and privacy) in which to carry out such an attack. He was making the most of the opportunity presented to him.

So I am not sure how we could tell whether the savagery of Eddowes' murder was due to the killer being frustrated by a recent "failed" attack, or that with Eddowes he felt safe enough to be more destructive than he had previously.

Having said that, I totally agree that if Jack was the person who killed both women, then he is most likely to have been disturbed whilst killing Stride, and this is very likely to have provoked an increased ferocity when he finally got the chance to do things "properly".

[Michael W Richards]

I would have said so, Scotty.

My seafood restaurant analogy was flawed because the ratios should be reversed. Many hundreds of diners in my home town regularly murder meals served in a limited selection of local eateries, so I would only be one of hundreds choosing the same or different dishes from one week to the next. In 1888 Whitechapel, the number of murderers preying on defenceless females out alone at night was vanishingly small, compared with huge numbers of potential victims. But the common factor is human behaviour, which was the point I was trying to make to Michael.

If anyone does something once, in a certain way, and then does much the same thing a week later, does this amount to Michael's 'fixed repetitive series of actions', from which they can't deviate on any subsequent occasion, regardless of the situation, their own physical or mental state at the time, or how they found their first two experiences?

I'm not sure how many men Michael believes went out armed with a knife, which they used to murder a Whitechapel victim, but they all got away with it, presumably because they each had the same human ability to adapt their behaviour according to the circumstances and their own changing priorities. The man who killed Nichols and Chapman wasn't programmed to repeat a fixed series of actions. If the programme wasn't working for him in any way, he was a human being with the ability to change it.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, I can see easily that just within the Unsolved Files alone there are multiple men who killed using knives, at least one who cut women into pieces, and lots of gang and reported attacks where a knife was present. In Liz Strides case all a man needed was a momentary lack of control and one of those knives. In Annies case the man used skills and knowledge that were not in anyway present in the Stride case evidence. he also spent time with the victim mutilating the, he didnt cut once and leave.

As I said before which youve ignored yet again, the first 2 murders match each other in every relevant way to any investigator, anywhere. So if you want to dispute my statements then show where we see evidence of that same killer in Liz Strides murder. What do we see in that evidence that suggests the same man who was skilled, knowledgeable and focused on abdominal mutilation. No offense intended, but your conviction that THIS murderer must simply have magically changed with Strides murder isnt compelling evidence.

What you seem to think is that Jack just went out to kill, what Ive been attempting to show you is that that position isnt accurate. The killing was merely to facilitate the real objective...to mutilate. Thats what we see in Polly, then Annies murders. Their death is a step, not the final act.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well, Michael, you know by now that my opinion is that the injuries to Eddowes are neatly and simply explained if Stride's killer was taking out the frustration he felt for not having the guts [ahem] to operate in Dutfield's Yard. Having shown his hand to Stride, but not being comfortable with the location, he killed her with his usual efficiency to stop her making a fuss, then ran off to find a woman he could really go to town on. It's the classic double event behaviour we see in other series over the years...

Why did he feel frustrated? Because he didn't have the courage to stay.

How do we know he didn't have the courage? Because he didn't stay.

Neat and simple explanation, or circular argument?

[Michael W Richards]

He "really went to town on" MJK, with no known failed attack before to make him so enraged as to do so.

The ferocity of the attack on MJK is most often explained as being that the killer had time (and privacy) in which to carry out such an attack. He was making the most of the opportunity presented to him.

So I am not sure how we could tell whether the savagery of Eddowes' murder was due to the killer being frustrated by a recent "failed" attack, or that with Eddowes he felt safe enough to be more destructive than he had previously.

Having said that, I totally agree that if Jack was the person who killed both women, then he is most likely to have been disturbed whilst killing Stride, and this is very likely to have provoked an increased ferocity when he finally got the chance to do things "properly".

That part in bold is what Ive argued about here since time began.....YOU CANNOT PRESUME AN INTERRUPTION WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF ONE and then use that as a means to include Strides murder with mutilated women.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That part in bold is what Ive argued about here since time began.....YOU CANNOT PRESUME AN INTERRUPTION WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF ONE and then use that as a means to include Strides murder with mutilated women.

That is correct.

The Interruptionists simply posit a mental state that explains what they've already decided must be true, or worse, that which they want to be the truth.

[c.d.]

Stride's inclusion in the C5 is not solely dependent on an interruption theory.

And are you not presuming that Jack the Ripper ALWAYS intended to mutilate his victims? How could you possibly know that?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Stride's inclusion in the C5 is not solely dependent on an interruption theory.

And are you not presuming that Jack the Ripper ALWAYS intended to mutilate his victims? How could you possibly know that?

c.d.

Based on the simple fact that in the 2 murders that preceded this night, murders presumed to be by Jack the Ripper, both DID VERY PLAINLY DEMONSTRATE INTENDED MUTILATION.

You think he just decided not to this time...since you wisely suggest that an interruption not present in the evidence cannot be considered a decent argument for inclusion.

OK....based on what evidence dos he change his mind with this kill? What external forces restrict him from mutilating again, what changed to make him less focussed on PM mutilations? And If you say because such an such a serial killer did this or that...then we wont talk directly again. You might find that preferable anyway, 1 less person disputing your personal opinion submitted as evidence.