Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride..a victim?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If we restrict ourselves to that just which we can prove conclusively or persuasively, we've got:

    * some women were murdered
    * there was some variance as to the mutilations found on those women
    * the individuals who discovered the bodies are known to have been at the murder scene

    That's really about it. We don't know cause of death conclusively. We don't know if any of the witnesses are credible, in part because we don't have time of death nailed down. And we also don't know the extent to which the variance matters, because we don't have real insight into how much variation we should expect from a single killer. The latter is where some kind of big data analysis could change the game, but it hasn't yet.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      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.
      I have not seen this argument about Stride's killer becoming 'aware of an oncoming attack', at the very moment he 'completed' cutting her throat.

      If he decided the location was not private enough for his purposes [could be mutilation if this was the ripper; could have been sex if not] but Stride refused to budge from the club's premises, could he not have killed her quickly, with a single cut, to stop her reporting him as a suspicious character? If he mistook her for the sort of woman who would go with him for money, he could have reacted badly to her refusal and been unable to keep his cool and simply walk away. I don't see that as particularly outlandish behaviour, either on the part of an opportunistic serial killer or a punter who lost his temper and committed a one-off murder. Anyone considered 'suspicious' at the time would have risked becoming a suspect for the recent murders if a witness talked.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        Caz...

        ...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.
        Michael,

        No offence intended, but I have no 'conviction' that the killer of Nichols and Chapman 'must simply have magically changed with Stride's murder'.

        Nor do I 'seem to think' that Jack 'just went out to kill'. It's bleedin' obvious he was hoping to mutilate his victims wherever and whenever opportunity knocked.

        I really don't know where you get such impressions from.

        You seem to think that after Chapman, two new killers came along who also wanted to mutilate their female victims after cutting their throats, one being Eddowes, the other Kelly. It's hardly a crime to say I find that highly unlikely.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          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?
          Both I guess.

          It's a circular argument, but I'm not insisting there is evidence to prove anything one way or the other. There is, however, no evidence that it didn't happen that way.

          It remains a possible and IMHO a perfectly plausible explanation for the night's events, given what is known about the behaviour of violent repeat offenders, whose crimes have included double events with features that are eerily similar to the attacks on Stride and Eddowes.

          What those club members could not have foreseen was yet "another" murder within an hour of Stride's, which would be connected by its nature to those of Nichols and Chapman.

          Had Stride been extensively mutilated, and Eddowes not mutilated at all, I could see the justification for doubting a connection.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Anyone considered 'suspicious' at the time would have risked becoming a suspect for the recent murders if a witness talked.

            How are you defining "suspicious" here, Caz? Unless a knife was shown or a physical threat was implied I don't see Stride bothering to report the incident.

            And even if she did, most likely the police would only have a physical description to go by. And since the police were stretched so thin at the time I don't see her killer so fearful that he would risk being hanged for murder to avoid being labeled "suspicious."

            c.d.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              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.
              I can't see where Azarna presumed an interruption and then used this as a means to include Stride as a ripper victim.

              These are Azarna's actual words:

              ...if Jack was the person who killed both women, then he is most likely to have been disturbed whilst killing Stride...
              Clearly, if Jack killed both women, there would have been a reason why he didn't stay to mutilate the first, and being disturbed would have been one possibility.

              Azarna is entitled to consider the question, even if you believe there was absolutely no possibility of one man killing both women.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Well if the sole criterion for inclusion in the C5 is strictly mutilation then Stride can not be included. No question about it.

                If the sole criterion for inclusion in the C5 is being killed in the street then Kelly has to be excluded.

                If the sole criterion for inclusion in the C5 is that the victim had to have been previously hops picking then only Eddowes can be included.

                I think you can see a trend here. Simply change the criterion and you change the results.

                c.d.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                  That was just an example of a behavioral change.

                  Just as easily, his victims could have impinged on him, setting off a sudden fury by what they did or said.
                  Oh no, Scotty. Jack the Robot's victims are not allowed to be individuals, who could say or do anything to influence his behaviour in any way. Nichols and Chapman show us this.

                  The other victims, including Tabram, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, are only allowed that luxury in order to piss off men who knew them 'intimately', so badly that in each case the man changed his behaviour one night and took a knife to the baggage.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    Because as soon as the brain grasps a plausible explanation, its tendency is to:
                    1. stop looking for better ones
                    2. fail to consider the flaws, inconsistencies and holes in the seemingly adequate explanation
                    3. start using the plausible explanation to explain other stuff
                    Is that objective or subjective?

                    Whose brain tends to do this? Yours, or everyone's?

                    If most brains would consider a) more plausible than b); or c) highly plausible and d) not remotely plausible, would that make someone think again if their brain was telling them the opposite?

                    Don't most brains explore all possible explanations, before judging them in order of plausibility?

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • If we eliminate the use of plausible explanations how should we proceed when there are gaps in the evidence?

                      c.d.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                        Anyone considered 'suspicious' at the time would have risked becoming a suspect for the recent murders if a witness talked.

                        How are you defining "suspicious" here, Caz? Unless a knife was shown or a physical threat was implied I don't see Stride bothering to report the incident.

                        And even if she did, most likely the police would only have a physical description to go by. And since the police were stretched so thin at the time I don't see her killer so fearful that he would risk being hanged for murder to avoid being labeled "suspicious."

                        c.d.
                        Well it was obviously speculative, c.d, but we simply don't know what Stride may have said or done to make her killer take his knife to her. Assuming she didn't just stand there, silently inviting him to turn nasty, something must have triggered the attack on her, regardless of who did it. It would have been his perception of whether he had behaved suspiciously while engaging with her. Not good if she knew him; not good if he was the ripper and she could have been giving a good description while he was looking for another victim.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
                          If posters on this forum were restricted to only posting that which they could prove from the available evidence, this forum would have been shut down in 2010 because very little further discussion would be possible.
                          Try 1997. Things haven't changed very much at all.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            I have not seen this argument about Stride's killer becoming 'aware of an oncoming attack', at the very moment he 'completed' cutting her throat.
                            #151 seems to be implying just that, and in #156, you seem to be agreeing with that sort of possibility.

                            If he decided the location was not private enough for his purposes [could be mutilation if this was the ripper; could have been sex if not] but Stride refused to budge from the club's premises, could he not have killed her quickly, with a single cut, to stop her reporting him as a suspicious character?
                            So the Ripper supposedly did not have some sort of temporary mental issue, rather he suddenly had concerns with privacy.
                            Well that would explain why he didn't just go for a short walk, get himself composed, and walk straight back into Dutfield's Yard and keep going.
                            On the other hand, it would seem to clash with the Ripper of 29 Hanbury St, who eviscerates in a backyard after sunrise, just metres from people sleeping, and not much further to people who were awake. Why no privacy concerns on that occasion? Echo, Oct 1:

                            The steward of the International and Educational Club reached the gate just as the clock struck one. "It was very dark," he said. "There is no light near here, and the darkness is consequently much more intense between these two walls" - pointing to the walls of the Club and a house on the other side of the yard- "than out in the street. The gate was pushed back, and the wheel of my cart bumped against something. I struck a match to see what it was, but the wind blew it out. However, the flash was enough to show me that the person was on the ground either asleep or dead.

                            An intensely dark space would seem to rank fairly well on privacy. In fact, might it actually rank #1 of the lot.

                            By the way, note how in this early version of Diemschitz' story, the 'prod' consists of the RHS wheel of the cart, bumping into 'something'. The shying pony and prodding with the whip came later.

                            If he mistook her for the sort of woman who would go with him for money, he could have reacted badly to her refusal and been unable to keep his cool and simply walk away. I don't see that as particularly outlandish behaviour, either on the part of an opportunistic serial killer or a punter who lost his temper and committed a one-off murder. Anyone considered 'suspicious' at the time would have risked becoming a suspect for the recent murders if a witness talked.
                            The sort of woman who would go with him for money, is usually referred to as a prostitute.
                            If Stride were not prostituting, who or what lured her to the entrance of Dutfield's Yard?
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                              That was just an example of a behavioral change.

                              Just as easily, his victims could have impinged on him, setting off a sudden fury by what they did or said.
                              Why would this sudden fury cause him to suddenly leave after killing her?

                              If anything, it would have made him more determined to commence evisceration.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                                If we eliminate the use of plausible explanations how should we proceed when there are gaps in the evidence?

                                c.d.
                                Don't mind me keeping the trade secrets back
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X