Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[Errata]

What's wrong with putting up pictures? Are you judging certain peoples?

A picture of a plane in a living room is one thing. A picture of a woman murdered 130 ish years ago in a living room is something else entirely. I think my fiance would object.

[Errata]

Hello Errata.

"Some of these women apparently laid down willingly."

Don't think so.

Cheers.
LC

Of course they didn't. Who would? But the key word here is apparently. If any of these women screamed, they would have been heard. They didn't scream. If any of these women had fought, they would likely have been bloodied and bruised. Broken fingernails maybe, or blood under them from trying to get this guy to let them go. CERTAINLY they would have been dirty, covered in mud torn clothes, scraped to hell. The crimes scenes would have had furrows in the dirt, or heel marks, or drag marks.

And yet nothing. We can look at Annie Chapman, and we can say that besides the fact that there is no way she lays down for her killer, that there certainly wasn't any reason for her to lay down right where she was found. I can't even imagine her murderer would want her to lay down there. It's not exactly a spacious work area. But there she was. No drag marks, no sign of a struggle, nothing.

The total lack of evidence of any struggle says that she laid down willingly. But of course she didn't. Clearly he did something. But all of the somethings I know about that can force a woman down without a fight didn't happen either. She wasn't hit on the head. She wasn't dosed. She obviously wasn't tazed. I know of a lot of things that can render people helpless. They weren't used.

Apparently, they laid down willingly. Obviously they didn't. Two true statements that so far cannot be reconciled. I swear the more I think about it the more I think it has to be two guys.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn.

Hello Errata.

"Some of these women apparently laid down willingly."

Don't think so.

Cheers.
LC

Agreed. It would simplify somethings though. It is a hell of a hard sell.

[GUT]

G'Day Errata

"Some of these women apparently laid down willingly."

Can you explain why you think that?

[lynn cates]

nyet

Hello Errata.

"Some of these women apparently laid down willingly."

Don't think so.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

I will never know who did it, and finding the culprit does not especially interest me. What I want to know is
How the hell did he get these women to participate in their own murders without fighting or screaming? Because they did. Some of these women apparently laid down willingly. Which is unusual, even for streetwalkers. Maybe especially for streetwalkers. Somehow this guy managed to get a level of compliance from his victims that can usually only be achieved by putting a gun to a child's head. Literally. Or more than one guy...........

I swear to god if I ever get to that point, I quit. If I put up pictures, I absolutely quit.

It could've been a magic trick for lack of a better term. Serial killers tend to be good manipulators. Misdirection, confusion, hypnotization, and distraction are the tools of the magician as you well know. He might have just had a knack at doing that sort of thing. Most people are very unaware and easily manipulated. There is also fear. Might have been good at picking victims. Some people fight, some yell, some just pull a stupid face and offer no resistance. Still you are right, not everything adds up all nice and neat.

What's wrong with putting up pictures? Are you judging certain peoples?

[Errata]

G'Day Errata



Probably one of the most sensible posts I've read.

I will never know who did it, and finding the culprit does not especially interest me. What I want to know is
How the hell did he get these women to participate in their own murders without fighting or screaming? Because they did. Some of these women apparently laid down willingly. Which is unusual, even for streetwalkers. Maybe especially for streetwalkers. Somehow this guy managed to get a level of compliance from his victims that can usually only be achieved by putting a gun to a child's head. Literally. Or more than one guy.

And it's true of all of these murder victims, but Liz Stride is the one that really illuminates this. Because of the cachous, and the cut in the scarf that makes no sense, and her positioning, and the mud. It's impossible, yet it's clearly not. It makes me somewhat convinced that there is something missing from all murder reports that would make these things make sense. Maybe something everyone thought was a given. I don't know.

Like my grandfather was a pilot in WWII. He's flying a two seater prop plane (experimental). Two seats up front, a bench in the back, and a closet with a bucket. He goes back to use the bucket, and when he comes back there is a random dude in the copilots seat, passed out bleeding from his head. My grandfather just left the one place he could have been hiding, and he felt confident that he would have remembered passing the guy on his way to the bathroom in a plane the size of a phonebooth. He lands, the guy goes to the hospital but he dies, and no one ever figured out how he got on the plane or went unseen (or who he was for that matter). My grandfather had blueprints of that plane framed in his house, and every so often he would stand in front of the picture, trying to figure it out. Because clearly people do not sneak on board at 30,000 feet.

I swear to god if I ever get to that point, I quit. If I put up pictures, I absolutely quit.

[GUT]

G'Day Errata

It's like these women were hypnotized. Like they welcomed the knife. And I have never been able to explain that.

Probably one of the most sensible posts I've read.

[Errata]

No it wouldn't. Not if the killer choked Stride out, and then put the tissue holding the cachous(it wasn't a bag) in her hand before cutting her throat.

I don't think she was choked out. One of the peculiarities of a choke hold is that since it puts pressure on the side of the neck, the voicebox is relatively unaffected. She definitely would have gotten out at least one good scream before losing consciousness. And even 10 seconds of fighting would have resulted in quite a bit of mud splashed up her dress. And if it was a tissue, and we know it was open, as soon as she dropped it all the cachous would have scattered.

It's like these women were hypnotized. Like they welcomed the knife. And I have never been able to explain that.

[Observer]

And if the killer had placed the bag in her hand, the bag would have been covered in blood. As the killers hands would have been covered in blood. No, somehow she held onto them.

No it wouldn't. Not if the killer choked Stride out, and then put the tissue holding the cachous(it wasn't a bag) in her hand before cutting her throat.

[Errata]

G'Day Observer



Highly possible, also possible that in reaction to the pain she clenched her fist.

So here's an interesting bit. You know Schroedinger and the whole "the act of observing disturbs the observed"? Works on people. For example, you can go chugging along reading a book, and someone asks you if you are reading word by word, or if you are absorbing big chunks at once. In truth, you are absorbing big chunks. Go to test the theory, and you will always read word by word. Reading is a conscious act. Absorbing information is not. Concentrate on reading to see how you read, you measure the wrong skill. Observing disturbs the observed.

Pain is another big one. Pain is involuntary. Reaction to pain is voluntary. In truth when we experience pain, we flex. I mean, we do a lot of things, but in terms of limb movement we flex. It's a nerve thing and an assessment thing. Clenching in pain, whether it be the fist, the teeth, whatever is not our first reaction to pain, it's our first reaction to try and NOT express pain. Where it gets weird is that it becomes an involutary reaction to voluntary pain. I am a teeth clencher if I'm expecting pain. Like a shot, or a tattoo. But it's involuntary, so when I go to the dentist it's a real problem.

Out of the blue pain causes people to involuntarily yelp, jump, jerk away, flex, a lot of things. But as soon as you assure yourself that the pain is not an ongoing threat, your teeth (or fists) clamp shut involuntarily. Just like people involuntarily contract around pain, but only after the source of pain has stopped. During the infliction of pain, they flex.

Stride's hands should have flexed, hyperflexed in fact in reaction to pain. Her fists may then have clenched if for some reason she was programmed to not express pain (people abused as kids for example tend to stay silent during attacks once they realize what is happening) but she should have flexed first. Which would have dropped the bag, and I think we can all accept that she didn't bend over to pick them up after that.

And if the killer had placed the bag in her hand, the bag would have been covered in blood. As the killers hands would have been covered in blood. No, somehow she held onto them.

I can think of a way the killer could manage the blood evidence, but I can't imagine why he would.

[GUT]

Thanks Observer

[Observer]

G'Day Observer



Highly possible, also possible that in reaction to the pain she clenched her fist.

Hi GUT, pleased to meet you.

Whatever happened, it's certainly a strange one!

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Good post, Obsy. The only significant difference between Stride's murder and the others is lack of abdominal mutilation. And all that is evidence of is that it didn't occur. It's negative evidence, in other words. Had it been a copycat I'd expect to see crude abdominal mutilation that didn't compare to that of Nichols and Chapman. So, either Stride was murdered by the Ripper OR her murder was solitary and not at all meant to appear as a copycat.

There was no motive discovered among her closest associates, who were able to provide alibis. So it wasn't a domestic murder. So, Stride was murdered by a stranger or near stranger. Or at least someone other than Michael Kidney who was able to manufacture an alibi (I wouldn't rule this out). So, was Stride murdered by the stranger we call Jack the Ripper or another stranger with the same M.O. and skill as the Ripper who happened to kill someone on the only night of the entire year that the Ripper happened to kill someone before 2am?

Hi Tom

Stride seemed very much at ease with the suspect as described by Best, Gardener, and Marshall, it's possible that Stride was familiar with this man. The thing is, would the murderer of Chapman, and Nichols, be audacious enough to openly court Stride in full view of several witnesses? Bear in mind though, It is not unknown for other serial killers to have displayed such behaviour. The sociopath's indifference to danger also comes to mind.

Accepting the likelihood that Stride was a Ripper victim means only having to accept that for some reason he chose not to mutilate her abdomen. We can't know that wasn't his intention, we just know it didn't happen.
To accept that she was likely NOT a Ripper victim means having to accept a plethora of 'coincidence' and happenstance without any real cause for doing so. After all, that single sole reason that Stride's candidacy is questioned is that she wasn't mutilated. That's the acorn that grew this mighty oak of fringe speculation.

Regarding the lack of mutilation, what amuses me, is rather than accept the simple explanation that Jack the Ripper was possibly interrupted, some posters prefer to spout a convoluted and elaborate theory.

Regards

Observer

[GUT]

G'Day Observer

Yes, there is another way, the killer placed the cachous in Stride's hand after he cut her throat. Unlikely, but quite possible. Chapman's belongings laid out in order, Eddowes pockets turned, with her thimble lying close to her finger. You get the idea.

Highly possible, also possible that in reaction to the pain she clenched her fist.