Stride..a victim?

[DJA]

Running a distant third to three types of cancer and heart disease.

Actually never intended a dissertation.

Had hoped to get the movie started though.

[Michael W Richards]

Since the Stride murder has no physical evidence of anything her killer desired beyond a single throat cut, or any desire demonstrated to flip her onto her back as done in both prior "Jack" murders, and no attempts to mutilate any part of her, any argument to include her in the Canonical Group must rely on only circumstantial evidence. A serial mutilator interrupted, scared off....a serial mutilator who chooses the degree of injuries he inflicts based on the immediate circumstances, one who is out to kill primarily. Thats not what makes Jack, Jack. Killing isnt an endgame. Mutilating is the goal, killing just gets him to that goal line.

Without any supporting physical evidence...no knife match, no wound match, no additional wounds or actions after a single throat cut, an attack that in its entirety may have been a short as 2 seconds long,...Strides inclusion is purely speculative. Not likely, not probable, not possibly. By presumption alone.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Stride's murderer was interrupted ... is what we're meant to think

[caz]

I think too that we have been given part of a jigsaw puzzle and are asked to complete it with our imagination. But thats the eternal hope here isnt it? That one day information previously unknown will appear, spelling out exactly what we need to know to complete the puzzle to the satisfaction of all.

Does that really sound likely to you?

So Michael has the same part of the jigsaw puzzle as everyone else, but others use their imagination to complete it, while he uses - what exactly?

He insists it's the evidence which guides him and provides the rest of the puzzle. So it's not his imagination that has the club members instantly recognising Stride's murder as different from the others, but calling it 'another' murder because they feared for their future.

By anyone's definition, this was another murder, and as such it was a perfectly innocent and reasonable thing for anyone to say at that time, regardless of any other consideration.

You can only read more into it if you have already decided - on shaky grounds - that it wasn't 'another' murder by the same knifeman. Your imagination can then run wild, and with no evidence to back it up, you suspect the club members, being psychic, of realising this was the case and quickly limiting the damage by falsely accusing the man who had, by a sheer stroke of luck, been running round town in recent weeks cutting female throats. How convenient. He was obviously just asking for the blame.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

Had hoped to get the movie started though.

You too? I have a screenplay written for Cohen, but I can't seem to find any backers.

[DJA]

Been stalled for lack of a suitable screenwriter.

Have the tale in my head.

Production firm will not be a problem.

Interested in a cool million?

PM your 'phone number. and a time. It is now 9.44 am in Oz.

[caz]

Or a bag with a knife and some other bollocks that passed for evidence in that "Uncle Jack" book.

(And if anyone's wondering what book I mean, trust me, ignorance is bliss)

Oh I'm sure Jack was only interested in ripping out female parts, not bollocks.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Im curious.....IF Liz Stride is not the first of 2 "Jack" victims that night, then the often used excuse for seeing greater injury to Kate than Annie seems flattened. If he wasnt frustrated by some interruption in Berner Street, ...something that there is no evidence for, then why do we see escalated injuries anyway?

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, but I can see why you continue to resist this explanation, because you are stuck with your specific mutilating killer for Nichols and Chapman, who could not have gone on to commit subsequent murders. Consequently, Stride has to be a one-off by someone with a grudge against her, which would be a reasonable alternative to the ripper if you didn't then have to explain away the murders of Eddowes and Kelly by imagining a killer with very different motives, despite the fact that both women were mutilated and had organs removed, as in Chapman's case.

How in the world is that any more likely than a serial mutilator of the female form - a very rare bird indeed - who attacked and murdered at least three women, and probably several more, over a relatively small period of time, in a relatively small area of East London, and was never caught because once he was away on his toes there was nothing to connect him back to the scene or the victim?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As has been explained SO MANY TIMES before, an interruption could have taken place for which there is no evidence. The sound of a door opening or a cessation of singing as examples. Or simply paranoia knowing that he was in a dangerous location. None of these things would leave behind evidence. You somehow want the killer to leave behind a note saying "I intended to mutilate her but I was interrupted and I ran off."

As for the escalated injuries, frustration is simply one possible explanation and has never been put forth as the only possible explanation.

c.d.

Well, c.d, the author of the Saucy Jacky postcard kind of did that for him, didn't he? Whoever wrote it knew a thing or two about double eventers back in 1888, that many people, including our Michael, still don't appear to appreciate in the 21st century. I wonder where that kind of insight came from? It really should be bottled.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Sorry, we are talking about someone who killed and mutilated a woman in an open ended street on the sidewalk, and the same one who kills a woman then spends time over her extracting organs despite the growing daylight, 17 people living in the house he is outside, and numerous windows overlooking the site?

When did he get stage fright I wonder? Where was his paranoia on his very first murder in Bucks Row, or in the backyard of Hanbury?

Now you have reasons to suspect he would not be easily frightened, maybe unaware how risky his situation was, and that there is no evidence AT ALL that any kind of interruption took place to hinder or end his assault? Is that enough...or do you propose that he lost his nerve between Early Sept and the end of Sept?

Oh dear, oh dear, we are back to Jack the Robot.

If the killer was glued to the newspaper reports following his exploits in Buck's Row and Hanbury St, he'd have read all about the potential witnesses he narrowly managed to avoid at both locations, and been that much more aware of his surroundings when his next opportunity presented itself at the end of September.

But this is pointless, Michael, because you concluded years ago that the man who killed in Buck's Row and Hanbury St was not the same man who killed in Berner St, Mitre Square or Miller's Court, so you have no real interest in exploring how a killer might adapt after two previous close shaves. You can only see your preferred suspect, who killed just twice, and imagine what he would have done if he had carried on killing. What a waste of time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Oh dear, oh dear, we are back to Jack the Robot.

If the killer was glued to the newspaper reports following his exploits in Buck's Row and Hanbury St, he'd have read all about the potential witnesses he narrowly managed to avoid at both locations, and been that much more aware of his surroundings when his next opportunity presented itself at the end of September.

But this is pointless, Michael, because you concluded years ago that the man who killed in Buck's Row and Hanbury St was not the same man who killed in Berner St, Mitre Square or Miller's Court, so you have no real interest in exploring how a killer might adapt after two previous close shaves. You can only see your preferred suspect, who killed just twice, and imagine what he would have done if he had carried on killing. What a waste of time.

Love,

Caz
X

Again with the unwarranted and mislabelled summary of my "conclusion" Caz,... I am getting used to that though.

Im unsure why people object so vehemently about statements that actually arent conclusions at all, but observations coupled with support within known evidence. Like my statement that the first 2 murders are almost identical in every aspect...followed by the summary of those common characteristics. And when I say that Liz Stride has none of them which certainly suggests a different killer than of the first 2 alledeged,... (presumed to be part of some greater "series",....based almost entirely on imagination), victims.

You want me to see what you think happened, Like Fish wants people to see something he thinks he sees happened, the problem with each of those premises is that neither of them is supported by the physical evidence. Its supported by whatever serial killer study youve choosen to overlay on these murders, (Ive seen em all), or whatever your personal spin is on why the changes are there, and in some instances, why they are so dramatically different than the first 2 kills, (like an imagined Stride murder interruption)....but the first 2 murders,...when studied alone, give you ample evidence of a fixed repetitive series of actions. And MO. A killer profile.

Which youd like to toss out anytime another murder is committed...because you think its the same guy anyway. Just like some serial killer did in the 60 and 70's in Western United states. And despite the variances in almost every aspect of what preceded it.

Stop presuming dramatic change from unsolved Murder to Unsolved Murder and use whats there. This morphing serial killing madman you folks imagine is a great character for fictional literature, but without any proven substance for use as historical truth.

[caz]

Since the Stride murder has no physical evidence of anything her killer desired beyond a single throat cut, or any desire demonstrated to flip her onto her back as done in both prior "Jack" murders, and no attempts to mutilate any part of her, any argument to include her in the Canonical Group must rely on only circumstantial evidence. A serial mutilator interrupted, scared off....a serial mutilator who chooses the degree of injuries he inflicts based on the immediate circumstances, one who is out to kill primarily. Thats not what makes Jack, Jack. Killing isnt an endgame. Mutilating is the goal, killing just gets him to that goal line.

Without any supporting physical evidence...no knife match, no wound match, no additional wounds or actions after a single throat cut, an attack that in its entirety may have been a short as 2 seconds long,...Strides inclusion is purely speculative. Not likely, not probable, not possibly. By presumption alone.

Circumstantial evidence is pretty much all that anyone has, dear Michael, and Stride's exclusion is purely speculative too.

That's probably why opinions are so polarised and most people will never change their mind on this one.

I have to wonder why you are quite so determined to try and convert them to your way of thinking.

Are you able to imagine a theoretical scenario, in which your suspect was free to kill again after Nichols and Chapman, picking on similar victims in similarly risky locations each time? Would you at least admit that the chances would be high that a time would come, sooner or later, when he encountered a victim, but was not sure - for whatever reason - that his luck would hold for long enough to do what he wanted to do, and still get away safely? Would your suspect have been incapable of erring on the side of caution? Would he have carried out his desired mutilations with no thought of being caught in the act?

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Circumstantial evidence is pretty much all that anyone has, dear Michael, and Stride's exclusion is purely speculative too.

Are you able to imagine a theoretical scenario, in which your suspect was free to kill again after Nichols and Chapman, picking on similar victims in similarly risky locations each time? Would you at least admit that the chances would be high that a time would come, sooner or later, when he encountered a victim, but was not sure - for whatever reason - that his luck would hold for long enough to do what he wanted to do, and still get away safely? Would your suspect have been incapable of erring on the side of caution? Would he have carried out his desired mutilations with no thought of being caught in the act?

Love,

Caz
X

On that first bit, your comment is very revealing Caz. Because there absolutely is other evidence, the physical evidence,... and to address the second part with that in hand...its physical evidence alone that can be used to conclude that Strides murder in no way mirrors either of the first 2 murders in the infamous Canonical Group. The man that killed Polly was specific, that same specificity shows up in Annies murder. Not only in actions taken by also by choices made. The murders are conducted almost identically. But in Liz Strides killing none of those specifics are present, perhaps some are in Kates...maybe thats not like the first 2 due to some circumstantial factors, like available light for example,....but that same specificity is also absent in the Kelly murder.

2 of the Five Canonical Group, the 2 women who were killed by a double throat cut while they solicited on the street, alone and physically diminished, and attacked by someone unknown to them, can almost certainly be grouped under a single killer. Physical and Circumstantial evidence supports that conclusion.

Now lets add Liz Stride to that same small group...but based on what? That she is killed with a knife? Hardly unique or specific. That she solicited on occasion? Was that what she was doing at the time she meets her killer? That she is mutilated after the killing cut? Well, she isnt. She isnt even moved slightly from where she fell. Because someone else is killed that night was mutilated pm? How does that make a non mutilation a natural match with it? Based on the fact that an unknown man was killing women during that period of time? Well, there are 12 Unsolved Murders in the file...why not stretch the premise and include them all under 1 guy then? Like someone else here thinks is reasonable.

[caz]

Again with the unwarranted and mislabelled summary of my "conclusion" Caz,... I am getting used to that though.

Im unsure why people object so vehemently about statements that actually arent conclusions at all, but observations coupled with support within known evidence. Like my statement that the first 2 murders are almost identical in every aspect...followed by the summary of those common characteristics. And when I say that Liz Stride has none of them which certainly suggests a different killer than of the first 2 alledeged,... (presumed to be part of some greater "series",....based almost entirely on imagination), victims.

You want me to see what you think happened, Like Fish wants people to see something he thinks he sees happened, the problem with each of those premises is that neither of them is supported by the physical evidence. Its supported by whatever serial killer study youve choosen to overlay on these murders, (Ive seen em all), or whatever your personal spin is on why the changes are there, and in some instances, why they are so dramatically different than the first 2 kills, (like an imagined Stride murder interruption)....but the first 2 murders,...when studied alone, give you ample evidence of a fixed repetitive series of actions. And MO. A killer profile.

Which youd like to toss out anytime another murder is committed...because you think its the same guy anyway. Just like some serial killer did in the 60 and 70's in Western United states. And despite the variances in almost every aspect of what preceded it.

Stop presuming dramatic change from unsolved Murder to Unsolved Murder and use whats there. This morphing serial killing madman you folks imagine is a great character for fictional literature, but without any proven substance for use as historical truth.

Yeah, I think the problem is, Michael, that from just two murders, a week apart, which were similar - though far from identical - you have managed to limit yourself to 'a fixed repetitive series of actions, which the killer either wouldn't or couldn't have deviated from if his very life had depended on it.

If I go to our fancy fish restaurant in town and order a seafood dish I've never tried before, then decide the following week to try a similar dish at another local seafood restaurant, that would be a fixed repetitive series of actions, would it? So three weeks later, when someone checks out the menus for the new Indian and Chinese, and goes for the Chinese, that can't be me, because I've already established a fixed repetitive series of dining experiences?

The only logical reason for concluding it couldn't be me ordering the Chinese would be if I was out of the picture, for example, with seafood poisoning.

Which brings us back to the real reason for excluding your killer from every murder which happened after Hanbury St. Your suspect was out of the picture.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Lets try using an analogy thats a fair comparative, shall we? If you go out 2 evenings within 2 weeks, pick the same restaurant or restaurant type, sit in the same location inside the restaurant, order the same identical dishes from both restaurants, then sneak out the back door of both restaurants without paying, is that a repetitive series of actions or behaviours?

Your claim that the first 2 are "similar" is remarkable, I suppose they would only be nearly identical if they had the same surnames, shoes, ..the same spot on the same street? Your not dumb Caz, so dont resort to dumb answers just so you dont lose an argument. Polly and Annies murders, for all intent and purpose, and in almost every pertinent relevant category, are almost identical.

As far as the killings after Hanbury, precisely which ones do you see before Alice Mackenzie that had the same pertinent relevant categories in common? I dont see any. I see other murders after that, just as I see murders before then, and Torsos going back a decade.

Anyone claiming to see any appreciable difference other than the location and the degree of mutilation in the murders from Polly to Annie is deluding themselves. Likewise anyone seeing any appreciable similarities in Annies murder to Liz Strides are.

You, and may others, claim that you can apply serial killer habits and logic to killings that arent even linked with 1 killer by any evidence,..they are by opinion only. I only link the ones that clearly were done by the same person based on all the relevant known data.
This is where it always becomes bizzaro world here.... people who stick with the physical evidence and vetted known statements and evidence are somehow misguided , and people who use opinions, imaginations, information about serial killer interviews in modern times, and their own belief systems are more reliable.

How about connecting 2 murders first Caz. Just 2. By a single killer. Then we can talk about your serial killer fetishes.