Stride..a victim?

[c.d.]

You really do need to calm down, Michael. Stride's inclusion in the C5 is not a question of religious dogma and no one's soul and eternal destiny hangs in the balance. Perhaps when you have grasped that fact then you can calmly and rationally engage with others on the board. Until then, discussing this with you is pointless.

c.d.

[Scott Nelson]

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...

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Just as easily? Okay 250/1 it is for interruption.

[DJA]

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.

Yep.

Have long held the belief he was an Aspie.

[DJA]

Just as easily? Okay 250/1 it is for interruption.

I'll have $40 on that.

Where do I get on?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

With me, but not until I fix the flux capacitor

[Damaso Marte]

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?

The latter is the only thing we engage in here. Very few people here make assertions that they can prove in some way. We simply don't have access to data to establish probabilities.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The latter is the only thing we engage in here. Very few people here make assertions that they can prove in some way. We simply don't have access to data to establish probabilities.

Right. So when you said...

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.

...you weren't implying there was a right or wrong answer to your question, just that people choose their preferred story. Which we knew anyway.

However, I would argue that choosing the most plausible story is a bad approach.
That would seem a counter-intuitive thing to say, but look at what is going on in this thread - many people supporting the notion that Stride's killer was interrupted, yet no evidence is being provided in support.
So why do so many people believe in interruption? Because it's plausible.
Plausibility is a trap.

[DJA]

The latter is the only thing we engage in here. Very few people here make assertions that they can prove in some way. We simply don't have access to data to establish probabilities.

Speak for yourself.

We have a mountain of data.

[c.d.]

Plausibility is a trap.

I'm not sure how it is a trap. I guess it would be if someone says well it is plausible so it must have happened. That is very sloppy thinking. And certainly plausible is much better than not really plausible when trying to assess the likelihood of a given scenario is it not?

c.d.

[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???

number one gave me real fits couldn't finish
straight off for a short lie-down

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Plausibility is a trap.

I'm not sure how it is a trap.

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

[Michael W Richards]

Without drifting off into tangential threads, for me this comes down to the simple facts.

What compelling piece or pieces of evidence suggest that Liz Stride was killed by a man proven to have interest in the mutilation of the victim post mortem?
Are the circumstances and physical evidence indicative and/or similar to the 2 previous murders attributed to JtR?
Without any validated witness statements suggesting any individual males present on Berner Street on that night at that time, where is the most probable location of the killer just before the murder?
Is there evidence that the killer intended to do anything more than the single cut to Liz but was hampered or hindered?
How long did the attack last...from initial assault to throat cut? What is the total amount of time needed for this kill to have taken place?
Do we have evidence Liz was soliciting?
Do we have evidence how Liz had spent her money earned from that afternoons work?
Since Liz was unsure if she would return that night, or when precisely she would return, is it likely she had arranged something that she could not precisely predict the length of time for? Would that marry well with either her being there to clean the club, or to meet someone, as the foundation for that hesitance?

There are tons of questions that you can come up with that you will find do not lead to a conclusion that Liz Stride was killed in the same way, or for the same reasons, as the previous 2 presumed victims of Jack.

Anyone who starts this investigation by pondering why Jack didnt mutilate Liz is doing this assbackwards.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Let me give you a possible example of plausible explanations getting in the way of better ones.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the killer of Stride did indeed have a little seizure or some sort of 'moment', just after the throat cutting.
Consequently he's 'straight off' - to quote our saucy friend.
However - as the interruption theory goes - jacky is not satiated, and cannot face going to bed that night without performing an evisceration.

In that case, where should he go to minimize the chance of being caught? Across police jurisdictions?
Sounds like a good idea, but is there a better option for our insatiated eviscerator?

How about Dutfield's Yard, where there is already a dead body?
Why take the chance involved in starting all over again when he can simply return to the yard, and commence work on the existing victim?

It's simple; straight off got calm and collected straight back

All he needs is a few minutes to 'pull himself together', and as it's only just after 12:45, he could be back by 12:50.
Still 10 minutes before Louis arrives, and he's already off to a good start!

Tell me why jacky's best option is not to simply return to Dutfield's Yard, after a quick break, and continue where he left off...

[Damaso Marte]

Right. So when you said...



...you weren't implying there was a right or wrong answer to your question, just that people choose their preferred story. Which we knew anyway.

However, I would argue that choosing the most plausible story is a bad approach.
That would seem a counter-intuitive thing to say, but look at what is going on in this thread - many people supporting the notion that Stride's killer was interrupted, yet no evidence is being provided in support.
So why do so many people believe in interruption? Because it's plausible.
Plausibility is a trap.

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. There is very little that we can prove from the available evidence.

I'm comfortable with the idea that I don't really know who killed Stride or who else (if anyone) that person killed. I also feel comfortable with arguing that we can't exclude an interruption or an intentional non-mutilation, just like we can't exclude a domestic murder.

In the absence of either new evidence or insights from rigorous analysis of similar crimes (neither of which we have), that's all you can do. You can either tell stories and debate their plausibility, or be a minimalist.