Stride..a victim?

[caz]

I don't think it's possible to definitively explain anything NBFN. We're doomed to frustration if that's our hope. My own doubt about whether Stride was a victim is based on the location which was surely the riskiest of all locations but I'm still nowhere near to dismissing Stride as a victim. Another throat-cutting, prostitute murder close by and a short time later heavily favours Stride as a ripper murder.

Nail on the head, Herlock.

Why could the ripper not, like you, have considered it a risk too far, to attempt another of his mutilation murders in that particular location? Why would he not have assumed he could buy Stride's agreement to find somewhere they were less likely to be disturbed? Why could he not have been the manipulative type, who would not take "no" for an answer? Her killer was clearly an exceptionally nasty piece of work, who thought nothing of taking his knife to a vulnerable woman.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why borrow if you could blackmail? That meeting with whomever that left her fire engine drunk might have been preliminary negotiations.

You really don't like these women much, do you Michael?

[Michael W Richards]

You really don't like these women much, do you Michael?

I have great compassion for the way they had to live to survive Caz. I also know that desperate acts come from desperation. Funny you should say that though, Ive historically defended the womens reputations many times here, stating that Unfortunates should not be presumed to have gone out soliciting when they didnt need to, that they sometimes got that desperate though. Many people...including your fine self Ms Caz on occassion, have suggested that all these Canonicals met their killer while they were soliciting, and Ive pointed out that only 2 admitted to someone that they were doing that. No evidence exists that any of the remaining 3 were, and I believe the evidence in the Strides case relates to her work or personal life, not any particular desperation that night.

Mary and Polly did have that reputation, the working girl rep. But the others did not for the most part.

Booze is likely a factor in all their cases though.

[c.d.]

Regarding the BTK serial killer:

Shirley Vian, 24, found strangled in her home on March 17, 1977. She was partially dressed on her bed with a plastic bag over her head, and cord was wrapped around her neck, hands and feet. Vian had three children who were in the house at the time of the killing but were unharmed. BTK later wrote that a telephone call interrupted his plans to kill them.

Without his admission would there have been any evidence of this? No, and yet it did take place. Now does this in any way mean that Jack was interrupted before he could mutilate Stride? No, of course not and it would be foolish to make such an argument. However it does confirm what us "interruptionists" have always argued which is that interruption is a reasonable albeit unproven explanation for no mutilation. It really doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

What? My story hasn't changed with your numbers. You flatter yourself. I haven't been arguing for the ripper being interrupted after he made the fatal cut. There is not enough evidence to suggest that IF he killed Stride, it was ever his intention to mutilate her in that place and time, if at all.

Love,

Caz
X

Thats what makes Strides murder different from the others, no mutilations, and suggests a different killer. Also not forgetting all the other aspects of the other murders which were not evident in Strides murder and therefore, a closer look at Michael Kidney is required. Discrepancies between his testimony and other witnesses at the inquest!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

I have great compassion for the way they had to live to survive Caz. I also know that desperate acts come from desperation. Funny you should say that though, Ive historically defended the womens reputations many times here, stating that Unfortunates should not be presumed to have gone out soliciting when they didnt need to, that they sometimes got that desperate though. Many people...including your fine self Ms Caz on occassion, have suggested that all these Canonicals met their killer while they were soliciting, and Ive pointed out that only 2 admitted to someone that they were doing that. No evidence exists that any of the remaining 3 were, and I believe the evidence in the Strides case relates to her work or personal life, not any particular desperation that night.

Mary and Polly did have that reputation, the working girl rep. But the others did not for the most part.

Booze is likely a factor in all their cases though.

I meant that 'blackmail' is an ugly accusation to make against Eddowes, in order to give her killer a different motive. Worse in my opinion than if she was trying to earn money in any other way, whether or not that included soliciting on occasion. Borrowing was also fine, if the intention was to pay the lender back. A two-way transaction by mutual agreement.

Love,

Caz
X

[DJA]

Why borrow if you could blackmail? That meeting with whomever that left her fire engine drunk might have been preliminary negotiations.

Yay!!!

I'll even let the fire engine bit go ..... d'oh!

Billy Field - Bad Habits (1981) - YouTube

[Michael W Richards]

Regarding the BTK serial killer:

Shirley Vian, 24, found strangled in her home on March 17, 1977. She was partially dressed on her bed with a plastic bag over her head, and cord was wrapped around her neck, hands and feet. Vian had three children who were in the house at the time of the killing but were unharmed. BTK later wrote that a telephone call interrupted his plans to kill them.

Without his admission would there have been any evidence of this? No, and yet it did take place. Now does this in any way mean that Jack was interrupted before he could mutilate Stride? No, of course not and it would be foolish to make such an argument. However it does confirm what us "interruptionists" have always argued which is that interruption is a reasonable albeit unproven explanation for no mutilation. It really doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

c.d.

So there was evidence that there was an interuption? One that could be proven via telephone records? So...Whats the evidence you have for the Berner Street murder?

[Michael W Richards]

I meant that 'blackmail' is an ugly accusation to make against Eddowes, in order to give her killer a different motive. Worse in my opinion than if she was trying to earn money in any other way, whether or not that included soliciting on occasion. Borrowing was also fine, if the intention was to pay the lender back. A two-way transaction by mutual agreement.

Love,

Caz
X

Maybe its not such a moral dilema if you have nothing Caz. Maybe its survival. Im not suggesting that Kate would never do the right thing and turn in someone she believed was a murderer, but lets not forget most people had to be encouraged by rewards to do so in that neck of the woods. There was no huge reward offered at the time of Kates death, so maybe this was just trying to maximize her return for the info.

[Michael W Richards]

Thats what makes Strides murder different from the others, no mutilations, and suggests a different killer. Also not forgetting all the other aspects of the other murders which were not evident in Strides murder and therefore, a closer look at Michael Kidney is required. Discrepancies between his testimony and other witnesses at the inquest!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree with you Trevor, face value is face value. You get what you get. Trying to insert interruptions, changes of heart and mind, or other excuse to explain away the obvious is Trumpian for sure, ...( did I just coin a new Phrase?), but a poor investigation technique.

[DJA]

Rather like going into Wendy's and ordering a hamburger without beetroot.

[c.d.]

So there was evidence that there was an interuption? One that could be proven via telephone records? So...Whats the evidence you have for the Berner Street murder?

Good Lord, Michael. You outdid yourself with that response. You really do need to read for content. Maybe you missed this part of my post -- "Now does this in any way mean that Jack was interrupted before he could mutilate Stride? No, of course not and it would be foolish to make such an argument."

Your responses boarder on the fanatical. You have no interest in discussing this case you only want to be proven right.

c.d.

[c.d.]

And just so we are clear -- it was BTK himself who stated that a telephone call scared him off.

c.d.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

So...Whats the evidence you have for the Berner Street murder?

That's the thing though, there isn't 'evidence', because an interruption wouldn't leave physical evidence. Without the killer actually stating the fact, no one knows.

The lack of evidence cannot, or at least should not, be taken as proof that interruption couldn't have happened. It's a flawed argument.

The interruption theory rests on Louis' arrival, or that's certainly long been the accepted case. That can be argued, absolutely. Other times, witnesses, yes, we can create a different picture. But just saying 'prove it' when looking at an interruption isn't good enough. It's fundamentally unprovable without knowing the killer and his actions, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

Well, that's how I see it.

[Michael W Richards]

Good Lord, Michael. You outdid yourself with that response. You really do need to read for content. Maybe you missed this part of my post -- "Now does this in any way mean that Jack was interrupted before he could mutilate Stride? No, of course not and it would be foolish to make such an argument."

Your responses boarder on the fanatical. You have no interest in discussing this case you only want to be proven right.

c.d.

What I object to is that an interruption...without the insertion of some modern serial killer data, we are after all talking about 1 murder here at the moment,...is not argued using... "However it does confirm what us "interruptionists" have always argued which is that interruption is a reasonable albeit unproven explanation for no mutilation."

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in and of itself, but in this case when talking about whether a "serial mutilator" added Liz to his list, there are some grounds which must be met to make any kind of excuse for the lack of pm mutilation...arguably the pivotal reason that Polly and Annie were killed. Liz is cut once and abandoned by her killer. He likely knew he was using a fatal stroke. Thats where the evidence of this killer is. There is absolutely no grounds at all to surmise that the killer intended to do anything more than precisely what he did.

Categorically different events.