Did jack kill liz stride?

[Cap'n Jack]

Apart from being robbed of their spirit, I have yet to see any evidence that would indicate the simplistic and largely implausible motive of robbery as the reason for ripping women apart in the process of murdering them.
The victims had nothing, therefore the motive would have been nothing.
I think it is that 'nothing' that genuinely confuses contributers like Tom, et al, who must have 'something'.
I'll deal with nothing.

[Tom_Wescott]

I've never suggested that robbery was a motive of the murders. Obviously, it wasn't. It was a means to silence the victim, and anything obtained would be icing on the cake, but that's it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

I've never suggested that robbery was a motive of the murders. Obviously, it wasn't. It was a means to silence the victim, and anything obtained would be icing on the cake, but that's it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

But I'm off base when I remind you of the actual facts available that do not support a robbery of any victim, excluding Annie.

In point of fact Liz Strides murder looks more like an execution or a lethal mugging.

Best regards

[Tom_Wescott]

And a mugging isn't robbery? Either you just contradicted yourself again, or you're a rogue genius operating many levels above the rest of us.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

And a mugging isn't robbery? Either you just contradicted yourself again, or you're a rogue genius operating many levels above the rest of us.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You did make a valid point there, assault with the intent...not merely assault....so, you can scratch one victory on your side of the board.

I of course should have used lethal assault....so as not to appear contradictory. Since I was asserting that robbery wasnt present in any form....you might have understood the context, and saved your pounce on a mistake for one that was from ignorance, not error.

In the future, I shall be sure to not assume that things are intelligible for you unless explicitly stated....it must be too narrow between those lines for some to read . Duly noted.

Best regards

[dixon9]

if the person seen assaulting liz was not the killer,how unlucky was long liz that night?
This was not meant to sound as though i am making light of her murder,just that she went from one assault by someone,to being murdered by another in the space of some 15 minutes

[Tom_Wescott]

Don't be so defensive, my Canadian friend. I'm just playing with you. This isn't a contest. Surely you must be aware that many of your recent ideas are far-fetched.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

if the person seen assaulting liz was not the killer,how unlucky was long liz that night?
This was not meant to sound as though i am making light of her murder,just that she went from one assault by someone,to being murdered by another in the space of some 15 minutes

Hi dixon9,
I have come to doubt whether Schwartz saw what he saw at the time he said he did.But even if he did, prostitutes often had clients who treated them roughly -by all accounts they still do live in the shadow of violence,so it"s possible Schwartz saw this earlier attack.

[dixon9]

hi Natalie

if she was assaulted,do you believe liz just staggered into the arms of 'jack'.or would she have got up dusted herself down and looked for another client?

Thanks for any help


Dixon9
still learning

[perrymason]

if the person seen assaulting liz was not the killer,how unlucky was long liz that night?
This was not meant to sound as though i am making light of her murder,just that she went from one assault by someone,to being murdered by another in the space of some 15 minutes

Its a good question dixon, how often I wonder statistically would we see a murder of an individual accompanied by an assault by a different assailant, an unrelated attack, within her last 15 minutes? This month we had 2 Blue Moons.

And Tom,....my tolerance for casual dismissals of evidence with fine and dandy conjecture, like your Thief of the Hopelessly Poor theory, has waned. I know who knows what now....Ive been here a while....and studying every minute. I know whats fact, and whats opinion. I know whats proven, and what aint. I know what "everyone" thinks.....and I know how little of that is within any known evidence regarding these cases. The Jig is up.

One thing that will be countered or mocked will be spurious and unfounded rejection of evidence based theory....like some attachment of The Ripper Investigations and those of National Security. Something that is in fact documented in commentary by those who would know only too well.

Its no good to be in the mainstream if your "facts" dont swim.

And I hate to even do this much.....but.....theres things that I know that you dont that validate many of these wild ideas and concepts.....but you may someday.

My best regards

[Archaic]

Questions About the 'Robbery' Scenario

Hi, Tom, I have a few questions about the robbery scenario.
> If you believe that the victims were robbed by their killer, do you believe it was because the killer wanted additional 'trophies'
of his victims or because he wanted the money?

If the latter, he must have been incredibly broke to bother robbing women who are out soliciting because they're so indigent they don't even have
the fourpence required for a cheap bed. What could he hope to get from any of them? A few pennies at most?

Money- and small change at that- is very impersonal; it is continually passed from hand to hand. When killers want 'trophies' and 'mementos' they usually take something much more personal; for example, a body part or a personal possession(like Annie's rings).

-Is the idea that the killer was just pretending to be robbing the women in order to catch them off guard?

If that was the case and the victims had handed him a few miserable pennies, wouldn't he have just knocked the coins aside as he attacked?
I'm not sure why the killer would waste time actually pocketing a few pennies if it was merely a ploy... Wouldn't some coins have been found scattered on the ground?

> Or do you have a completely different scenario in mind?

Personally I feel that if the killer had a bit more time, not only would he have sexually mutilated Liz and ripped bloody 'trophies' from her body
but he would probably have taken her pathetic little rose as a souvenir too.

Thanks and best regards, Archaic

[Sox]

Could someone point me in the direction of this statement that Strides blood was tested for alcohol please?....because I can find nothing on this.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by perrymason
You might know the answer to this Tom....Wess is reported to have been seen standing next to Dr Phillips while the yard investigation was taking places....by PC Lamb. Since he says he went home around 12:15am,....are you aware of anyone that was sent for him after the murder was discovered?

Hello Mike,

This is Hunter. I've checked PC Lamb's statements and can't find where he said Wess was standing by Phillips in the yard. He does say Inspector West was with Phillips... But I don't have all of the records and could have missed something.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[lynn cates]

Gbp

Hello Sox.

"A Juror: Was there any trace of malt liquor in the stomach? - There was no trace. "

Answer was by George B. Phillips.

The best.
LC

[c.d.]

Hi, Tom, I have a few questions about the robbery scenario.
> If you believe that the victims were robbed by their killer, do you believe it was because the killer wanted additional 'trophies'
of his victims or because he wanted the money?

If the latter, he must have been incredibly broke to bother robbing women who are out soliciting because they're so indigent they don't even have
the fourpence required for a cheap bed. What could he hope to get from any of them? A few pennies at most?

Money- and small change at that- is very impersonal; it is continually passed from hand to hand. When killers want 'trophies' and 'mementos' they usually take something much more personal; for example, a body part or a personal possession(like Annie's rings).

-Is the idea that the killer was just pretending to be robbing the women in order to catch them off guard?

If that was the case and the victims had handed him a few miserable pennies, wouldn't he have just knocked the coins aside as he attacked?
I'm not sure why the killer would waste time actually pocketing a few pennies if it was merely a ploy... Wouldn't some coins have been found scattered on the ground?

> Or do you have a completely different scenario in mind?

Personally I feel that if the killer had a bit more time, not only would he have sexually mutilated Liz and ripped bloody 'trophies' from her body
but he would probably have taken her pathetic little rose as a souvenir too.

Thanks and best regards, Archaic

Hi Archaic,

I imagine that the policy of most of the prostitutes was money up front before the fun begins. If that was the case and Jack paid her, he might have been thinking "no filthy whore is going to keep my money." As he retrieves his money, he simply takes whatever other money she had on her person.

c.d.