Michael Kidney

[perrymason]

Don't quite buy it, sorry, Caz. The manner and execution of Liz's death has "amateur" stamped all over it - it also suggests that the man responsible did not exert as much force on the throat as Jack invariably (yes, invariably) did.

The overkill element is obviously missing Sam, quite right. The killer in the earlier murders and the ones after Liz were almost decapitated...far more force than what was required, but for me, a sure and effective way of ending that phase of the attack. He has no need to worry about her struggles, any noise, or having excess blood in her vessels to get on him.

Cheers Gareth

[caz]

Hi Sam,

Perry almost makes my point for me.

Don't quite buy it, sorry, Caz. The manner and execution of Liz's death has "amateur" stamped all over it - it also suggests that the man responsible did not exert as much force on the throat as Jack invariably (yes, invariably) did.

'Invariably' is a strange word to use for a small handful of attacks though, Sam. And it's a classic circular argument to claim that he invariably did this or that, therefore we can exclude any attack that doesn't feature 'this or that'.

By that logic one may as well argue that only Kate was killed by this man because he invariably extracted a kidney.

Why would Jack have bothered to exert the same force on Liz if, for instance, she told him to sod off because she was expecting someone any minute? He could hardly afford to start mutilating her in an unsuitable location in such precarious circumstances. He didn't want her date showing up, just as he was getting into his stride (so to speak).

But he could have slashed her throat in a fit of temper or frustration before pushing off to find a better bet. And that wouldn't have required his 'invariably' deep throat cut, would it? He wouldn't be around to worry about any final struggles, noise or excess blood.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

It would seem Caz that you believe Jack the Ripper was essentially just a killer, someone who needed to kill and who would just kill his victims without any postmortem fanfare.

I believe what the men who examined the first 2 victims did....this killer killed so he could mutilate....killing is an essential step in the process but quite obviously not the end of the evening for a Ripper victim.

Why would a killer who demonstrates that the murder itself is only a part of a greater plan suddenly just slit a throat once.

Do you imagine he did it because she pissed him off?
Or that he was "killing" time before his big moment in Mitre and only had a moment for a simple kill?
Did he not hear the approaching cart until it was pulling into the yard.....if so, can we then assume he has hearing deficiencies...and maybe didnt hear the few dozen people onsite singing upstairs?
Was he trying a new technique out for the murder portion of his phased attacks?
Did he now imagine a single artery severing was a superior manner of killing?
Since the total length of the attack on Liz Stride that ended with her throat being slit my have only taken 2 seconds...as per a medical authority estimate, that would mean he cuts her as the cart is pulling in the yard. If that is the case, doesnt that categorically support the contention that by Liz's appearance... being untouched once on the ground and on her side,... her killer had no intention of mutilating her after the throat cut?

Is there any reason that we should look for the killer of Polly and Annie to now omit PM mutilations in his next kill? Or to use a less lethal throat cutting technique than he did before?

There are a bunch of reasons why we shouldnt consider Liz Stride a Ripper victim, both based on the physical evidence and the circumstantial, but only one reason that we should believe he was responsible....because she is placed in a probable Ripper kill Canonical Group by the investigators at the time.

That they did so without any evidence to warrant it is understandable, they had serious PR issues with these unsolved murders and nothing to show for all the investigation efforts. They couldnt very well suggests that every new kill was a new killer....there would have been riots for that .....not some chalk writing.

Many residents were beaten by these cops a year before in Trafalgar Square, they thought the Police were corrupt and were essentially keeping them subjugated in the East End to protect greater London, not that they were there to protect them from the local criminals,..... or in essence, themselves.

The cops had good PR reasons to suggest that some murders were by multiple killers....but we dont have the needs that they did. We dont need to appease a mob like mentality. We dont have to capture or stop this killer. We dont have to abide by any opinions that are not founded in hard evidence. We dont have the press suggesting we are incompetent and incapable.

We arent being humiliated for our failure to produce results.

Cheers Caz

[caz]

It would seem Caz that you believe Jack the Ripper was essentially just a killer, someone who needed to kill and who would just kill his victims without any postmortem fanfare.

Hi Perry,

Yes, Jack was a killer first and foremost. He couldn't very well have mutilated any of his victims while they were still alive, or they would have screamed at least three times at the top of their lungs. But I don't know what the 'fanfare' bit means. I thought it went without saying that he didn't 'just' kill Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary. But neither did he mutilate any of them in a yard where club members were coming and going at any minute. If he killed Liz it was at the pick-up point, not the semi-private location he would have been hoping for.

Why would a killer who demonstrates that the murder itself is only a part of a greater plan suddenly just slit a throat once.

Blimey, you've been given enough possibilities, surely? I can't help it if you choose to ignore them all. Of course Liz could have pissed off a man who was already making a habit of cutting women's throats. He didn't do that out of warmth and affection, did he? I'm not saying that's the answer, but you can't say it's not.

We know the time Liz's killer had with her was finite - the pony and cart would have cut him off in his prime if he had fannied around for too long. We just don't know why he left when he did, before he could be sure that Liz was dead.

Did he not hear the approaching cart until it was pulling into the yard.....if so, can we then assume he has hearing deficiencies...and maybe didnt hear the few dozen people onsite singing upstairs?

I give up. I wish you would read up on the Sally Anne Bowman case if you can't be bothered to read my posts about it! Mark Dixie was high on drink and drugs and didn't hear the taxi coming when he hit his first 'double event' victim over the head with a blunt instrument. It must have been like being in a trance. As soon as he had hit her he was aware of the taxi and had to run for it. When he found Sally, forty minutes later, he knifed her to death and immediately retreated into the shadows to listen for sounds of anyone coming, before returning to enjoy himself to the full with her body when he was confident the coast was clear this time. If he had heard the equivalent of the pony and cart in the distance he would obviously not have been able to stay and satisfy his fantasies. If you think how close Jack may have come in Hanbury Street to being seen in the act, it may well have made him more cautious on his next outing, just like Dixie quickly learned from the taxi experience to wait and check for danger signs next time before getting stuck in.

Since the total length of the attack on Liz Stride that ended with her throat being slit my have only taken 2 seconds...as per a medical authority estimate, that would mean he cuts her as the cart is pulling in the yard.

I thought you insisted that her killer was long gone before the pony and cart pulled in? You can't have it both ways. Why can't he have slit her throat and, like Dixie, sensibly waited in the darkness to see if the coast was clear, but unlike Dixie, found the coast was not clear enough for comfort?

You cannot use the evidence to say what the killer did or did not intend to do, either before, during or after the event. You can only say what he did do, according to the medical evidence. We don't even know for certain that anyone saw the killer himself. If this wasn't Jack, he might not have intended to kill her at all. If it was, he may not have intended to mutilate anyone in that particular location. Whoever he was, he didn't intend to stay at the scene a second longer than it was safe to do so, and only he was in a position to judge - we were not there at the time and Liz was busy dying.

There are a bunch of reasons why we shouldnt consider Liz Stride a Ripper victim, both based on the physical evidence and the circumstantial, but only one reason that we should believe he was responsible....because she is placed in a probable Ripper kill Canonical Group by the investigators at the time.

That they did so without any evidence to warrant it is understandable, they had serious PR issues with these unsolved murders and nothing to show for all the investigation efforts. They couldnt very well suggests that every new kill was a new killer....there would have been riots for that .....not some chalk writing.

Rubbish. Any murder that was a one-off, eg a domestic, would have been an absolute doddle to solve compared with the serial murder of unfortunates by a complete stranger who had no conventional motive and nothing to connect him to the victims or their deaths. The fact that an attempt was made to downgrade Catherine (aka Rose) Mylett's murder to an 'accident' involving her stiff velvet collar (the number of times you hear of people choking to death on the streets that way! ) shows you that they didn't want every new kill to be the same killer. It would have made life far simpler if they could have put each murder down to a drunk and abusive low life who knew his victim, or a freak accident, or even suicide. But they couldn't do it and had to suffer the criticism and humiliation for their failure to catch the one very slippery creature who was enjoying the power his knife had given him. lt was a nightmare for the police.

Successfully prosecuting a Michael Kidney and a Fleming (or dare I say it, a Hutch?) would have produced real 'results' and done wonders, by making the ripper much less of a big deal in everyone's minds, both then and now. With Liz out of the equation they could have put a swift and painless end to the whole 'Dear Boss' thing into the bargain. Don't you think it would have been a feather in their cap to achieve that much?

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

Caz,

There are some 13 or 14 unsolved murders, so "One Of's" are very likely within that group....and there are only 5 women in that group of 14, including 2 Torso's, that have post mortem mutilations on at least their abdomens.

All possible scenarios that I have read regarding a validation for a single slice by the Ripper on Liz Stride require a redress of all known data regarding the killer to that point, something I see as counterproductive.

Im sure that the Sally Bowman case is interesting, and just as sure that it has no bearing on the discussions regarding these murders and these killers.

I do believe the killer was gone before the pony pulled in.....just wanted to remind you and the others that if you think he cuts her throat while he hears the approaching cart and horse you have to accept that he "hides" in the yard. Diemshutz is on the cart facing the gates while approaching, no-one runs out. So you and the "Ripper killed Stride" group can figure out now how to explain his hiding in the first place, then I assume you'd speculate that he ran out the gates when Diemshutz went inside, something Fanny misses seeing....but possible if the discovery of the body was as described by the club members. I know in one press account Eagle is upstairs when a Mr Gilleman comes up to tell everyone about the dead woman in the passage...at 12:55am.

This line from your post was priceless....."You cannot use the evidence to say what the killer did or did not intend to do, either before, during or after the event. You can only say what he did do, according to the medical evidence."

Yet you argue that he may have been interrupted without any evidence that suggests that at all.

When you say that it would be far easier for them to have put some of these murders down as "by a drunk" than to have speculated that as many as 5 were by one man, you may be forgetting what kind of spot they were in.

By the time Liz is killed, they have Emma, Ada, Martha, Polly and Annie to account for, just after Liz's death they find a Torso. If they didnt speculate that some of these were by one man, then that would mean all of them were by different men and each and all of these different killers left no clues and outsmarted the entire police force.

Which would they prefer to make public...that they couldnt catch one man who killed 5 women and some 8 or 9 men who killed one each or worked in pairs or gangs.....or that they likely had 14 killers running around simultaneously and they couldnt catch any of them.

Police PR was part of the Canonical Groups creation....that much seems evident.

Cheers Caz.

[Sam Flynn]

'Invariably' is a strange word to use for a small handful of attacks though, Sam.

OK, Caz - let's use "invariably" to classify the more shallow cuts more typical of one-off manslaughters/murders involving a slit throat, then. Where does that put Liz, in the scheme of things?

Besides, small though the sample is, "four out of four" ain't bad. Whilst we still see some variation amongst those four, it didn't extend to allowing the victim to bleed "comparatively slowly". Neither did the variation extend to a partial severance of the artery on the side of the neck first cut by the blade.

[perrymason]

OK, Caz - let's use "invariably" to classify the more shallow cuts more typical of one-off manslaughters/murders involving a slit throat, then. Where does that put Liz, in the scheme of things?

Besides, small though the sample is, "four out of four" ain't bad. Whilst we still see some variation amongst those four, it didn't extend to allowing the victim to bleed "comparatively slowly". Neither did the variation extend to a partial severance of the artery on the side of the neck first cut by the blade.

Thats a key point Sam and well played....4 of the 5 were almost beheaded, showing that if anything the killer acted to ensure a quick death and the rapid flow of blood. "Jack" seems to be guilty of extreme severity when it comes to throat wounds....I dont think Liz Strides wound can be categorized that way.

The type of cut....Liz's "nice" attire....an active location with many possible "interrupters" onsite...the estimated cut time....the body laying on its side untouched after the cut....the altercation story that preceded the murder....the lack of witnesses from 12:45 until 1am...there is nothing there which can be used to suggest that these are the elements we should be seeing in a Ripper murder.

There is only a second, make that 3rd, throat cutting murder that night...(the cause of death in all 3 crimes)....that most people assume was done by Jack, and thats how we come to have Liz listed as Jacks victim....because its believed he did kill that night a 10 minute walk away 45 minutes later, so he must have started the night out at Berner Street.

And then headed to the city for another victim?

If Jack was intending on killing in the City of London, wouldnt he be there sussing out opportunities when Liz is killed? Or does he just happen to arrive there as Kate just happened to arrive there? I would assume each kill required some scouting time. And why is his reaction to an interruption in Dutfields Yard to angrily go and find a second victim? After an interruption in Bucks Row,.....something that has evidentiary support.... he went home apparently. He didnt kill again so he could get to her uterus...he found himself lucky enough to not have been caught cutting a womans throat, so why not call it a night? Since when is Jack killing "angrily"?

By the possible sequence suggested by Blackwell, It would appear her killer could be angry. He grabs her scarf, twists it, pulls back to get her off balance, slides a knife across her throat as he dropped her.

Best regards G

[caz]

OK, Caz - let's use "invariably" to classify the more shallow cuts more typical of one-off manslaughters/murders involving a slit throat, then. Where does that put Liz, in the scheme of things?

Besides, small though the sample is, "four out of four" ain't bad. Whilst we still see some variation amongst those four, it didn't extend to allowing the victim to bleed "comparatively slowly". Neither did the variation extend to a partial severance of the artery on the side of the neck first cut by the blade.

Hi Sam,

Well it puts Liz smack in the middle of a short sharp series of unfortunates found with their throats cut.

If you can find more 'typical' one-off manslaughters/murders involving a slit throat, in the same period before and after Liz got her pretty necklace, then I'll certainly have to take them into account. All the evidence I have seen still points to outdoor male-on-female knife murder being incredibly rare, even on the very worst streets of London. How many women were knifed outdoors in the Dorset Street vicinity, for instance, in the whole of the 1880s?

Liz could be allowed to bleed as slowly as she pleased, if her killer knew he couldn't afford to hang around where she lay.

By the time Liz is killed, they have Emma, Ada, Martha, Polly and Annie to account for, just after Liz's death they find a Torso. If they didnt speculate that some of these were by one man, then that would mean all of them were by different men and each and all of these different killers left no clues and outsmarted the entire police force.

I think you shot yourself in the foot there, Perry. It must have been pretty bloody obvious, without any need for speculation, that the Whitechapel Murders were not all committed by separate individuals.

If you accept that there was at least one serial killer involved, I don't get the logic that because not all the victims were attacked by the same man, you can attribute as many as you like to different offenders, leaving the serial offender(s) with a bare minimum. This is not statistically or historically valid. Why introduce even more murderers into the WM equation where the evidence does not clearly eliminate the active serial murderer? You may sincerely believe that someone else was the prime suspect for one of these crimes, but you've a long way to go to prove that Jack is not even a legitimate suspect.

....4 of the 5 were almost beheaded, showing that if anything the killer acted to ensure a quick death and the rapid flow of blood. "Jack" seems to be guilty of extreme severity when it comes to throat wounds....I dont think Liz Strides wound can be categorized that way.

So Jack is not allowed to act any differently, even if the victims don't act the same. But some totally unknown one-off assassin is allowed to act completely differently from how he has ever acted with any woman up until that night? How does that work?

And oh the irony:

....an active location with many possible "interrupters" onsite...

But of course, we are not allowed to take this into account when speculating that maybe, just maybe, Liz's killer was well aware of this danger and couldn't afford to hang around waiting for one of those potential "interrupters" to - er - interrupt. Or perhaps he left Liz on her side to listen out for any signs of an impending interruption and before he could return to her and put her in a 'typical' ripper position he heard one such sign (could be anything from anyone really, as you yourself admit above) and cut his losses.

If Jack was intending on killing in the City of London, wouldnt he be there sussing out opportunities when Liz is killed? Or does he just happen to arrive there as Kate just happened to arrive there? I would assume each kill required some scouting time. And why is his reaction to an interruption in Dutfields Yard to angrily go and find a second victim?

We don't know where he was intending to kill, we only know where he succeeded in killing. It didn't 'just happen', Perry. Jack was the one man in the area who was out looking for a woman to rip up; Kate was one of the very many women in the same area desperate for funds. Not much scouting time to lose for a man who was desperate for his fix. And we know both parties were desperate for their fixes that night, don't we? Why do you think the whole Dutfield's Yard experience would have left Jack seriously in need of his next fix, if he had to leave Liz more quickly than he had anticipated? It's not rocket science, Perry, and furthermore it happened exactly that way to Ted Bundy and at least two other serial offenders of recent years.

Polly was killed considerably later into the night than Liz or Kate, by someone who was still learning his abominable trade. The night was still young when the same man was scouting for Kate, and he was that much older in blood. He also had a huge reputation by then, which he may have regarded as a personal challenge.

If Liz looked like she was waiting to service the club members but refused to go off with the man who was about to destroy her, I'm not in the least surprised that he could have been angry enough to do it there and then and bugger off to find another woman where he could do a thorough demolition job.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

I think you shot yourself in the foot there, Perry. It must have been pretty bloody obvious, without any need for speculation, that the Whitechapel Murders were not all committed by separate individuals.

If you accept that there was at least one serial killer involved, I don't get the logic that because not all the victims were attacked by the same man, you can attribute as many as you like to different offenders, leaving the serial offender(s) with a bare minimum. This is not statistically or historically valid.


Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I just wanted to take on these two sections because they to me are essential mindset issues. You keep mentioning "serial" killers. As we know, we have 14 unsolved murders of women that the police suspected contained one "serial" group of 5 women. Thats where the "serial" comes from here,....not the evidence itself. What we have are likely multiple murderers, not "serial" ones,... each murder by some men might be for different reasons, or in different ways. I wholeheartedly accept that within the 14 unsolved murders there may well be multiple murderers. Id bet on it. Statistically though, if they were all separate killers that would not be a huge deviation from the average murder statistics for that area for the years just prior and just after the "Ripper" affair. Meaning.....one man killing 5 of those women would be abnormal, statistically. Multiple killers accounting for some 14 murders would be more probable.

Macnaugten said that "many homicidal maniacs" were looked at during the investigations....just wrote this on another thread....that in and of itself should tell you that "many" homicidal men were in the area at that time and known by the police during the course of their investigations.

Cheers Caz

[lynn cates]

serial murder

Hello Mike. It is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that there was no serial murderer among the C5. I have considered a possible scenario and it is this. (Bear with me.)

Let C3 be killed by a jealous boyfriend (very well, Kidney, if you wish). Let C5 be done in by Fleming.

Now, let's advert to the Tumblety organ harvesting theory. He sends out thug 1 (maybe Cross?) and he comes back empty handed and nearly caught by the PC. "You idiot!" storms Tumblety. "I should have know better than to send you!"

Next week, he sends T2 who does a better job of it.

But with increased vigilance in the area, he gets cold feet and refuses to go back. Enter T3.

Moreover, if the same "doctor" trained all 3, the modus operandi would be similar (except, perhaps, that T3 was frustrated from getting faecal material on his hands and so in a fit of pique mutilates her face).

Just a thought. Too much time on my hands?

Cheers.
LC

[LongLiz]

Creep!!! I Hate Him So Much!!!how Did He Dare To Hurt Her???