Lipski

[Batman]

But he can't succeed every time - no serial killer has managed that, not even the "best" of them. To suppose that Jack arrives in the City at approximately the right time, and "scores" with practically the first woman he meets, is stretching it a bit. I suspect he was prowling the western boundary of his territory for quite some time, with potential victims evading his clutches for various reasons, long before Eddowes hove into view.

That person was called Liz Stride. He didn't succeed in mutilating her. Hence moving on the prowl. All he needed was one drunk prostitute. He met her in the form of Eddowes coming out of the drunk tank. Her bad luck.

[Pcdunn]

Um-- but wasn't Kate SOBER when she came out of the drunk tank? Per the supposed conversation between her and the copper?

Do you mean he needed to find a prostitute who would like to get drunk (again)? Because I'm confused, otherwise.

[Batman]

Whatever her condition we know she went with JtR to the corner of Mitre Sq.

[John G]

Is this the article you were thinking of Michael?

Evening News 1st Oct

"THE TWO MURDERS NOT BY THE SAME HAND

The idea has got abroad that in some way it is sought to advance medical science by human vivisection, but however likely or unlikely the theory may be, it must not too readily be assumed that the two murders of yesterday morning had the same object. Dr. Phillips who was called to Berner-street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives (so says Dr. Gordon, who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) it as his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr. Phillips is an authority. He it was who examined Annie Chapman and discovered the purpose of the murder. Since that he has been to Newcastle to investigate the brutal murder there, and he is qualified in some measure to speak of the manner of the assassin's workmanship."

Hi Joshua,

That's what I wondered. In fact, I have discussed this article before. Thus, Philip Sugden, in his book The Complete History of Jack the Ripper (2002), makes an obvious error by stating that, "Phillips saw less evidence of medical expertise in the Eddowes murder than in that of Annie Chapman and for this reason was inclined to the belief that these crimes had been done by different men." (P246).

He then cites the reference you have referred to as well as Report of Chief Inspector Swanson, 6 November 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C/8c.

However, the reference clearly indicates that Dr Phillips believed that Chapman and Stride were not killed by the same hand, and not Chapman and Eddowes.

[John G]

But he can't succeed every time - no serial killer has managed that, not even the "best" of them. To suppose that Jack arrives in the City at approximately the right time, and "scores" with practically the first woman he meets, is stretching it a bit. I suspect he was prowling the western boundary of his territory for quite some time, with potential victims evading his clutches for various reasons, long before Eddowes hove into view.

Wouldn't this explain the apparent time delay, i.e. JtR leaving Berner Street at around 1:00am but not seen with Eddowes until 1:35?

[Harry D]

But he can't succeed every time - no serial killer has managed that, not even the "best" of them. To suppose that Jack arrives in the City at approximately the right time, and "scores" with practically the first woman he meets, is stretching it a bit. I suspect he was prowling the western boundary of his territory for quite some time, with potential victims evading his clutches for various reasons, long before Eddowes hove into view.

But someone did arrive at approximately the right time to kill Eddowes. Unless you believe her murderer was stalking her and waited outside the cop shop until she was released. So whether it was Stride's murderer headed west, or another random cutthroat, it was a case of wrong place, wrong time for the victim.

Also, the Ripper arguably didn't succeed every time, because he possibly had to abandon mutilating Stride.

[Michael W Richards]

Is this the article you were thinking of Michael?

Evening News 1st Oct

"THE TWO MURDERS NOT BY THE SAME HAND

The idea has got abroad that in some way it is sought to advance medical science by human vivisection, but however likely or unlikely the theory may be, it must not too readily be assumed that the two murders of yesterday morning had the same object. Dr. Phillips who was called to Berner-street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives (so says Dr. Gordon, who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) it as his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr. Phillips is an authority. He it was who examined Annie Chapman and discovered the purpose of the murder. Since that he has been to Newcastle to investigate the brutal murder there, and he is qualified in some measure to speak of the manner of the assassin's workmanship."

Much appreciated Josh, it was. A bit on the disorganized side lately..thanks for the help.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Sam,

But what if Kate's killer had met her earlier that evening and maybe had been the one to buy her drinks? They tentatively arrange to meet later or Kate goes back into that general area hoping to find him again. You have now removed the element of chance.

c.d.

That isn't what happened in the cases of Polly and Annie cd, as Ive been saying all along. Plotting a murder isn't the same as taking a window of opportunity with essentially a random choice. What is done to Kate is a heightened version of what happened almost a month earlier, but as you suggest, we may have evidence of a possible motive and specific targeting which is a departure from the previous victims.

If Kate did in fact say, a day or 2 before her death, that she intended to name someone as the killer at large, then that person...should they hear of that threat, has a motive to silence Kate. If he has a motive to kill her, why not add mutilation so as to conceal said motive, under the cloak of the unknown phantom at large. Like the Berner Street gang said when they went out for help, "another murder".

[Michael W Richards]

This is an issue I have with some aspects of the JTR mythos, not just the Eddowes murder. It's all too easy to assume that Jack could pick a victim and make a successful strike whenever he fancied it, but this is highly unlikely to have been the case in reality.

I believe the evidence in the Nichols case shows us exactly how he was working...he was holding in check his overwhelming impulses while posing as a client, with someone he did not know obviously, as long as he was able to. Pollys murder happened in a very inappropriate spot for pm mutilations and a clean getaway, I suspect the fact that she was his first explains his eagerness. The backyard for a second choice a little over a week later shows us that he was eager to try again soon thereafter, but more thoughtful about the venue. That's a learning killer.

[Michael W Richards]

That person was called Liz Stride. He didn't succeed in mutilating her. Hence moving on the prowl. All he needed was one drunk prostitute. He met her in the form of Eddowes coming out of the drunk tank. Her bad luck.

He didn't succeed? He didn't attempt is far more accurate. There is no known evidence that supports an abbreviated attack..Liz Stride was murdered. That's all that appears to have been intended.

I suggest the man who killed a month earlier killed so he could cut into the bodies. The thing about his choice suggests that he didn't want to savour the murder itself. Otherwise, he could have done the killings indoors. Like the killer in room 13. He wanted time to punish her, slashing, defleshing....

[Batman]

He didn't succeed? He didn't attempt is far more accurate. There is no known evidence that supports an abbreviated attack..Liz Stride was murdered. That's all that appears to have been intended.
....

Didn't attempt, didn't succeed can be the same thing. We know two ways in which he was disturbed.

1 - A witness who saw him assaulting Stride.
2 - A horse drawn cart entering the site of the murder.

Not succeeding gives a reason for the double murder. He didn't succeed the first time in mutilation and so moved on to find someone else where he did succeed.

We can rule out that all he intended to do was cut her throat by the fact walking away from the scene and time of Stride's murder towards Mitre Sq, brings that walker into the same area as Eddowes would be generally at after leaving the drunk tank.

I described this timing a page back. If you want to believe in a coincidence of murders, you also have to accept this coincidence of timing. Double coincidences = double the low probability.

[Abby Normal]

That's another "could", I'm afraid, CD. Kate didn't know that she'd end up in the cells, or that she'd have been released at the appropriate time. Too many coincidences.

coincidences?

Both just happen to be unfortunates
Both just happen to be killed near each other
both just happened to be killed by cut throat
both just happened to be unsolved
both just happened to be seen last with a man wearing a peaked cap

Eddowes bloody apron just happens to be found under graffiti that disparages jews, while one witness has an insult that disparages jews hurled at him at the Stride crime scene.

you bet there are too many coincidences.

[Joshua Rogan]

Eddowes bloody apron just happens to be found under graffiti that disparages jews, while one witness has an insult that disparages jews hurled at him at the Stride crime scene.

I'm not saying it was wrong, but it was only Abberline's opinion that "Lipski" was shouted at Schwartz. In Schwartz's own accounts BS man says it to Pipeman, vice versa or was unable to say who it was directed at.

[Michael W Richards]

I guess you believe that a guess and knowledge are the same thing,...

Didn't attempt, didn't succeed can be the same thing. We know two ways in which he was disturbed.

We know that there is NO evidence whatsoever that any disturbance occurred, although you guess that there was one anyway.

1 - A witness who saw him assaulting Stride.
2 - A horse drawn cart entering the site of the murder.

The witness was not presented at the Inquest, nor was his story given in any form.
The witness who claimed he arrived just after 1am is directly contradicted on that point by 3 other witnesses. Physician at the site claimed the cut could have been as early as 12:46...which would leave the killer alone with the victim for nearly 15 minutes. If you believe a man intent on mutilation would do nothing after a single throat cut, even though he has plenty of time to repeat actions taken with Annie, then that's your call.

Not succeeding gives a reason for the double murder. He didn't succeed the first time in mutilation and so moved on to find someone else where he did succeed.

The traditional guess as to why there are 2 alledged Ripper murders in one night.

We can rule out that all he intended to do was cut her throat by the fact walking away from the scene and time of Stride's murder towards Mitre Sq, brings that walker into the same area as Eddowes would be generally at after leaving the drunk tank.

I have no idea what that means, but when you have physical evidence, you have physical evidence. That evidence says nothing more was intended.

I described this timing a page back. If you want to believe in a coincidence of murders, you also have to accept this coincidence of timing. Double coincidences = double the low probability.

Not sure again what you feel is logical, but 3 womens throats were cut that night, proving empirically that coincidences happen.

[Abby Normal]

Not sure again what you feel is logical, but 3 womens throats were cut that night, proving empirically that coincidences happen.

or mr Brown killed all three