The Statements of Morris Eagle and Mrs. Diemschutz

[perrymason]

Hi Perry,

I'm having difficulty with your logic here. We know of one man in the area that night who was more than capable of working himself up to cut a woman's throat - for whatever reason. Yet you seem to be arguing that the only man in the East End who would not have simply lost his temper with a woman, slit her throat and moved on, was the individual who cut the throats of Polly, Annie and Kate.

Why do you think this man, uniquely, would only have been willing or able to use his knife in very specific circumstances and for one reason only? Once he had taken human life the first time, it would have become that much cheaper and easier to take it again, if and when a different excuse arose. If you accept that this man would have cut a copper's throat if he had to (and not to harvest his organs ), why not Liz's if he felt sufficiently provoked?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

From my perspective, Jack is the only killer running around at that time whose acts stand apart from the rest.

If you take only the women that were murdered outdoors in similar fashion and who had post mortem mutilations, we are talking about what,...4 women total? Out of the 14 or so unsolved murders of women that are committed during the relevant period, 1888-89.

Killers are a minority in any population, killers that kill strangers are in a smaller segment, killers that kill strangers then cut them open and take organs....I would think thats a minuscule percentage of any given population.

So why look for the unicorn acting like a regular horse?

Cheers Caz

[caz]

So why look for the unicorn acting like a regular horse?

But Perry, we are not talking different species here, and Jack wasn't some mythical beast. He was a human being, just like 'regular' murderers were.

You may as well say that Jack didn't drink tea, he mutilated women. He didn't argue or get into fights like other men, he mutilated women.

Why can't you see that Jack could do everything that any other violent man in history could do - and more, rather than less. We have him in our hands on that very night, symbolically laying into every Liz Stride in Whitechapel as he attacks Kate. You don't know anyone who just wanted rid of Liz and nobody else. It just seems perverse to me to want Jack to be innocent of this one, and to make some mythical suspect as guilty as he was.

You are the one looking for a unicorn when you already have a very naughty horse.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hi Caz,

As I stated on another thread, Liz was not the only woman in Whitechapel nor was she the only woman with internal organs that could be ripped out and taken.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"It just seems perverse to me to want Jack to be innocent of this one, and to make some mythical suspect as guilty as he was."

Right; I´m not Michael, and I don´t know what he wants or does not want. But I think it is a bit unfair to firmly state that those who speak of the Stride killing as very probably being the work of another man than Jack, simply "want" to pin the guilt on somebody else.
To me, at least, it has got nothing to do with "wanting" such a thing, Instead, the evidence speaks firmly and loudly of a perpetrator that did not choose the same kind of hunting grounds that Jack chose, did not choose the same hour of night that Jack did, did not cut the way Jack did, did not eviscerate at all, and did not leave his victim the way Jack did.

Now, to display an obvious "want" for another killer than Jack would - as far as I understand - include an illogical need to look away from obvious signs that Jack was in Dutfields Yard. In such a case, I would accept somebody calling it a "want" for another killer.

As it stands, though, what we are looking at is instead - as far as I can see - Caz wanting to place Jack at a stage where there was never any real sign of him ever having been there! Now, THAT is looking away from the obvious signs in favour of a deeply rooted desire to see something that may or may not have been there.

I will not even comment on the suggestion that it would be "perverse" to accept the bald facts about the total lack of any clear sign of Jack´s presence, save to say that the same logic applies in this case as in the one I just described...

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Thanks Fisherman for that....it would seem that us folks who do not see any reason to pin this on a killer others believe to be completely unpredictable....(something very few killers actually are)......and one that might only kill on his 3rd murder when the first 2 have shown increased activity each kill and a penchant for killing his women while they lay flat on their backs so he could move to the finals steps.....the ones that doubt Jack killed Liz, are the ones that are creating a "mythical" killer by suggesting that someone else killed her.

I think debate is great....I think completely ignoring the physical evidence and "supposing" anyway isnt so great. Many wonder why we bother since most threads end up unresolved......I doubt that would happen so often if we debated the evidence that actually exists....not the stuff that doesnt. Like the intended mutilation of Liz Stride.

Best regards FM

[caz]

Many wonder why we bother since most threads end up unresolved......I doubt that would happen so often if we debated the evidence that actually exists....not the stuff that doesnt. Like the intended mutilation of Liz Stride.

Hi Perry,

Blimey, how many times? We don't know that Jack would ever have intended to mutilate anyone at that particular location. If he saw Liz there and thought it would be a piece of cake to pick her up and take her off somewhere suitable, it was because she had made the choice to stand at that spot, for all the world as if she was offering her services to the club goers.

Do you seriously imagine Jack would have thought to himself: "Hmmm, this one's not on a main road where I would normally try to pick one up, so she's out of the question"? That's daft, isn't it?

Maybe you and Fisherman would like to suggest an alibi for Jack when Liz was being dispatched so cleanly and dispassionately with a knife that was perfectly fit for the purpose. How far from Berner St are you able to put him at the critical time? We know he was just fifteen minutes' walk away around 1.30. It's not bad for starters, is it? Who do you know who was closer and more in need of a violent fix from a local unfortunate?

Mark Dixie (yes, him again) struck twice within forty minutes and 400 yards, firstly just with a blunt instrument (even though he had a knife on him) before being disturbed, and secondly with just the knife - a sickeningly thorough job of it this time. It was his 35th birthday and he was obviously determined to make a total pig of himself. If he hadn't been caught you'd be smugly concluding that the two attacks had too little in common to have been committed by the same man.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

happy birthday

Hello Caz. I just had a thought (rare, in my case). Perhaps Jack's having a birthday could explain the double event.

Now, all we have to do is search insane asylum records for inmates with birthdays on September 30.

Cheer.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hi Caz!

I have to hand it to you - you really make a lot of nothing!

Here goes:

"Maybe you and Fisherman would like to suggest an alibi for Jack when Liz was being dispatched so cleanly and dispassionately with a knife that was perfectly fit for the purpose."

An alibi? Absoulutely - he would have been at home waiting for the later hours, which were the hours he consistently used when killing. How´s that for an alibi? Or do you crave an identification of the man, together with conclusive proof that he was not in Dutfields yard at the minutes closing up to one a clock in the night? If that is the case, I fear I must disappoint you; there is only evidence pointing away from him, and no proof. But if we are to speak of proof and such, just ask yourself, Caz, how your case would stand up in a court of law!
"T´was Jack, it must have been!"
"...the proof being?"
"Why he had a knife, didn´t he? And he cut her neck, did he not?"

Laughed out of court - that is the general description of what happens to the barrister who charges along those lines, I´m afraid!

And "a knife perfectly fit for the purpose"??? What would you or me or anybody know about that? If it was "perfectly fit" for the purpose, then we must conclude that the inflicted damage was the perfect result too - that is what "perfectly fit" knives achieve!
What say you about a minor change to "suitable" or "sufficient"? No, wait a minute, we can of course not even speak of a suitable knife for the purpose - since we do not know what the exact purpose was, do we?

"How far from Berner St are you able to put him at the critical time?"

How close to Berner Street are you able to put him at the critical time? What is this, Caz? We both know that there is nothing linking Jack to Dutfields yard, other than the misconception that he was the only potential knife-wielder around back in the East end of 1888!

"We know he was just fifteen minutes' walk away around 1.30. It's not bad for starters, is it?"

But, Caz, the evidence left behind in the yard suggests that Jack might just as well have been in Ulan Bator at the time. The only spot we can link him to decisively is Mitre Square, and then there is good reason - but no proof! - to believe that Goulston Street should be added to the list.

"Who do you know who was closer and more in need of a violent fix from a local unfortunate?"

Who can you discount?

"Mark Dixie (yes, him again) struck twice within forty minutes and 400 yards."

Yes, Caz. And Vlad Tepes had people impaled on sharpened poles by the dozens, Barack Obama won the Nobel peace prize and Josephine Baker dressed up in bananas and danced the night away. The common factor among these occurences is that they all relate to the persons that performed these acts and nobody else.

For every killer that dispatched two people with different methods within a narrow area and restricted space of time, I can show you a hundred that did not do so.

What proof do you have that Jack was not dancing around in bananas when Stride was killed, by the way? It happens, you know, so let´s not throw the child out with the bathwater!

The best,
Fisherman
slightly baffled

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman et al,

You are absolutely right when you say that there is no proof that Jack killed Liz. If there was, these threads and the thousands of posts that they contain would not be necessary. But it seems to me that the anti-Jack crowd is so caught up in trying to show that Jack wasn't even on the scene that they forget that there is no proof that the BS man killed Liz. No proof that Kidney killed Liz. No proof that that it was a domestic. No proof for any other killer. In conclusion, there ain't no proof. Zip. Nada. Nothing. So to criticize someone's position because they can't produce the proof seems a little foolish.

And please don't respond by saying "well yes, but my position is supported by the facts etc. etc." People on both sides have made good arguments and which people on both sides just tend to ignore because they don't fit with their position. This is now just a dead horse that has been resurrected, beaten and killed again and again. We are all just smashing are heads into a brick wall and get nothing but headaches. Keep Liz in the C5 if you want or remove her if you want because there is just no proof either way.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi CD,

it seems to me that the anti-Jack crowd is so caught up in trying to show that Jack wasn't even on the scene that they forget that there is no proof that the BS man killed Liz.

But, on balance, isn't it more likely that he did?

No proof that that it was a domestic. No proof for any other killer. In conclusion, there ain't no proof. Zip. Nada. Nothing.

But there's no proof the other way, either, as you acknowledge. We're stuck with dealing with the balance of probabilities, informed as much as possible by the evidence, which really doesn't possess any distinctly "Jack-like" qualities at all.

Keep Liz in the C5 if you want or remove her if you want because there is just no proof either way.

The problem with including Liz in the C5 - even notionally - tends to infect our thinking about what happened later, e.g. the interpretation of Eddowes' facial wounds and the Goulston Street graffito. At times, it feels as if Liz "must" be included in the Canon, at all costs, if only to preserve the sanctity of the Double Event. That's not too far removed from those who would include a non-canonical in Jack's tally to bolster an inane "symbols on the map", or "significant date" theories.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

It looks like you read my post but didn't really take it to heart. Now you want to argue probabilities which is actually what we have been doing all along since there is no proof. If I thought it was more probable that the BS man killed Liz, I would be in that camp. Lacking proof either way, I simply think it is more probable than not that Jack killed Liz.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Lacking proof either way, I simply think it is more probable than not that Jack killed Liz.

I argue completely the opposite, CD. Unless there are distinctive attributes about Liz's murder that would indicate Jack was involved, I'd strongly advocate leaving Liz out of the Canon. Leaving her in tends to cloud people's thinking on the whole affair - not just in respect of Liz Stride's murder, which is bad enough in itself, but those of Eddowes and others in her wake*. It's this "contamination" that I find the most damaging to progress, not so much the "hokey-kokey" arguments as to whether Liz should be in or out.



* Edit: Come to think of it, I can even recall instances where Stride's "canonisation" infected theories about the murders that went before!

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

How did the C5 become the equivalent of Holy Doctrine? Is there some Ripper Supreme Court that Ripperologists can go to to plead their case? And if we remove her from the C5 then arguments will start that she should be put back in. Maybe we should just give her an asterisk like poor Roger Maris. Better yet, we should probably let everyody make up their own mind and let's face it, this is what everybody on these boards does regardless of the subject.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

How did the C5 become the equivalent of Holy Doctrine?

I might ask the same of the "Double Event"

Seriously, though, I use the word "canon" only as a short-hand way of saying "the East End evisceration murders of 1888". I subscribe to no doctrines, Holy or otherwise.

Better yet, we should probably let everyody make up their own mind.

As I said, I'm not saying that they shouldn't, only that (a) each case should be taken on merit; (b) that the evidence must be fully respected; and (c) we should avoid speculative, ultimately circular, arguments that presuppose that Jack was responsible for both halves of the Double Event, because it's by no means certain that he was. By no means.

[Fisherman]

Well, c.d, it will probably not come as a surprise that I second Sam´s wiews on this. And as I have gleaned before, I am of the meaning that - much as I recognize that there is no proof about to close the book on Strides death - the evidence at hand points clearly and unambiguously away from Jack being Strides killer.

I think Sam´s pointing out that many people cling on to the so called double event for what seems to be sentimental reasons is a very valid point. For all these years, it has been said "Wow, what an audacious fellow he must be! To think that he actually DOUBLED BACK in spite of his knowledge that the streets he was heading towards would be swarming with cops! Only the fewest would do such a thing!", and now that the suggestion that Stride was killed by somebody else has become a more and more common one, those who said these things seem to have forgotten that what they actually said was "Statistically, next to nobody would do such a thing as to double back". For that is the implication, is it not!? Statistics, logic and rationality tell us that the Goulston Street apron is a good indicator that Jack did NOT kill Stride, c.d - it´s not the other way around, because then we have to start relying in a strictly illogical behaviour on behalf of what otherwise seemed to be a rational man in many a respect.

A killer that was careful enough to prowl the streets at the latest hours of night and who chose empty streets and who managed to stay away from detection, must be awarded our recognition of having acted rationally, c.d. It would seem that he wanted to stay free and that he maximized his chances of reaching this goal. Now, why would such a man head straight into the hornets´nest after having killed? Does not all his actions and apparent precautions speak to us of something else?
Of course it does - but adding the double event paints our man out like a fearless phantom, dead set on taunting the police and outsmarting them, and that is of course a prey that is a lot juicier than the much less colourful story of a coincidence of three throats being cut by three different killers in London that night.
Let´s, theoretically, assume that Mr Brown had succeeded to escape the scene of his killing undetected and without a clue, and let´s assume that the Brown killing chronologically allowed for - even if only very narrowly - Jack being the killer in that case too: Who will tell me that such speculation would not have arisen to shape an even firmer picture of a ghoulish, omnipotent killer?
I think these factors are extremely important to keep in mind when discussing the Stride murder.

The best, c.d!
Fisherman