The cut in the throat

[Rubyretro]

It is in his book -page 24

[Sally]

LC

"One might choose to argue for conspiracy. But that is very hard to do with any degree of plausibility."

Who's doing that?

I was making general obsevations Lynn; not directing accusations at anybody in particular. As for conspiracy theories - there are plenty about... aren't there?

[lynn cates]

vielen dank

Hello Ruby. Thanks!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

internal inconsistencies

Hello Sally.

"As for conspiracy theories - there are plenty about... aren't there?"

Well, it seems to me that there are. Of course, the problem with EACH of them is, not that they are conspiracy theories (for conspiracies sometimes happen), but that they all fall apart due to their internal inconsistencies.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

conspiratorial chaos?

Hello Sally.

"As for conspiracy theories - there are plenty about... aren't there?"

Well, it seems to me that there are. Of course, the problem with EACH of them is, not that they are conspiracy theories (for conspiracies sometimes happen), but that they all fall apart due to their internal inconsistencies.

Cheers.
LC

Conspiracies do sometimes happen, apparently. Although often not, in all probability. The problem with a conspiracy is that is may be so much more than the sum of its parts.

And of course, the opportunities for successful conspiracy diminish in direct proportion to the number of conspirators.

As conspiracy is by its nature a super-high-risk affair; it requires the very strongest of motives to exist in the first place. This, I feel, is where it so often lets itself down.

[lynn cates]

on conspiracy

Hello Sally.

"And of course, the opportunities for successful conspiracy diminish in direct proportion to the number of conspirators. "

Agreed. I believe that, ultimately, this was Richard Nixon's problem.

Cheers.
LC

[SarahLee]

Back to the Opening post . . .

Oh how I wish that I could accept that newspaper report as accurate.

While it's not impossible that Stride was an interrupted "Ripper killing", there's nothing there beyond the circumstantial to persuade me that she was. If that report could be accepted as fact it would finally and firmly put the matter to rest for me . . . but it just doesn't tally with the post-mortem reports which would indicate a case of mistaken reporting. I do wonder where that story originated though

As for the others: There is little doubt in my mind that Nichols and Chapman were killed by the same hand. I also strongly believe that Eddowes and Kelly shared the same murderer . . . and on the balance of probability I'm more inclined to link the two pairs than not.

[Roy Corduroy]

Lynn, can you direct me to the source material of Isenschmid being picked up at a vacant house in Clerkenwell in Aug 88? What house, where? Who picked him up?

Roy

Now back to regularly scheduled programming.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sarah Lee,
When I started this thread, although being well aware that the report I released was against the grain, I considered it of intrest , as it was from a evening edition of the 1st october, and it clearly states that the early edition reports of ear to ear were incorrect, and not only that described the injury to the throat of Stride which differs markedly.
Added to that.. Dr Philips, and Dr Gordons professional opinions that the wounds to the throat on both victims differed , making it two two different killers, was amble reason to start this thread.
As to the [ excluding Stride] pairing of the remaining victims, I still would not discount the letter of the 24th, just because it proceeded the 'Dear Boss', although I am fully aware, that it contained nothing that was not known in the media, it is because of that, in addition to other factors that I am swaying towards Eddowes and MJK, as being paired together.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

Evans & Skinner

Hello Roy. I found that in "The Ultimate Companion" p. 59. The report was dated September 19 but unsigned. He was found on Caledonian road and sent to the Clerkenwell Police Station. He was later released.

Cheers.
LC

[claire]

Lynn,
I'm disinclined to address every point in your post. Still, let's say this. I've declined your invitation to go through all the papers; I'm just going to go on the fact that I used to work on crime statistics both for the Home Office and five universities, so I feel a little qualified to speak up for myself here. Murder clear-up rates have been consistently high since the inception of the collection of stats on the same; during the period of our enquiry, a sizeable percentage (c. 45-55%) of murders were cases of infanticide; similarly, the majority of the remainder were domestics or the perpetrator was previously known to the victim. As a consequence, the overwhelming majority (between 90 and 98% in the reference period) were cleared up within 72 hours of their occurrence (and, yes, I concede, clear-up does not equal arrest or conviction, simply that the perpetrator had been reasonably identified, had been arrested or was subject to arrest: you'll know, of course, that most arrested for unlawful killing confess or are clearly responsible).

What distinguished the WM series was the highly unusual fact that a perpetrator was not readily identifiable in each case. Further, the MO was brutal and swift and involved mutilation in four of that C5. As I said, I'm not flat out saying that there couldn't have been more than one perpetrator for the C5, and I'm inclined to feel that Stride, at least, is a case for possible exclusion.

Then, of course, I couldn't possibly know or, as you have it, even construct a tenable argument.

[claire]

And this, with permission from Colin Roberts--some exhaustive research, referenced, sourced, with some lovely graphs, too

http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=136784#post136784

Beats riffling through the papers

[curious]

Add to that his silent escape and you have Wynne Baxter! He noted the dissimilarity in Kate and Liz on the one hand and Polly and Annie on the other, yet he could not dismiss the boldness and escape.

Cheers.
LC

Exactly.

From almost the beginning, I have had a problem including Liz with the others -- except for those two things.

Your thoughts on that, Lynn, if you would please.

[Phil Carter]

And this, with permission from Colin Roberts--some exhaustive research, referenced, sourced, with some lovely graphs, too

http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=136784#post136784

Beats riffling through the papers

Hello Claire,

I can see Colin's point, and admire his depth of knowledge on the subject of statistics, probability and the like.
However, with all due deference and respect to Colin (a fellow Chelsea supporter), it really doesnt matter what the statistics show, as long as we have two differing identifications of the suspects at the two differing murder scenes. Surely the people seen are the first priority here, however rare the occurance of two murders in the same area within an hour by two different people. Then you have the differing cuts et al, on top of that.

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

points

Hello Claire. You make many good, well thought out points here.

"I'm disinclined to address every point in your post."

As you wish.

"I've declined your invitation to go through all the papers"

Quite understandable. It is very tedious; and, one learns a good bit more about the competing varieties of cocoa than, perhaps, one wishes (heh-heh).

"I'm just going to go on the fact that I used to work on crime statistics both for the Home Office and five universities, so I feel a little qualified to speak up for myself here."

I would not question your expertise here.

"Murder clear-up rates have been consistently high since the inception of the collection of stats on the same; during the period of our enquiry, a sizeable percentage (c. 45-55%) of murders were cases of infanticide"

I daresay. My feeling is that is what the Clerkenwell murder was. Of course, it is only conjecture.

"the majority of the remainder were domestics or the perpetrator was previously known to the victim."

Could not agree more. If I were a policeman and began researching a murder of a lady, I'd chat up the husband/boy friend first and foremost.

"As a consequence, the overwhelming majority (between 90 and 98% in the reference period) were cleared up within 72 hours of their occurrence"

Sounds correct. Murder seems difficult for the average person (see dear old Alfred Hitchcock on this score). Many would be overwhelmed with guilt and sing out. And this is precisely why I do not take Michael Kidney as a serious suspect in the Stride killing.

"(and, yes, I concede, clear-up does not equal arrest or conviction, simply that the perpetrator had been reasonably identified, had been arrested or was subject to arrest: you'll know, of course, that most arrested for unlawful killing confess or are clearly responsible)."

Indeed. This is part of what drove Baxter to include Stride. He noted how different Liz and Kate's wounds were forensically compared to Polly and Annie's, but the other reasons inclined him towards inclusion.

"What distinguished the WM series was the highly unusual fact that a perpetrator was not readily identifiable in each case. Further, the MO was brutal and swift and involved mutilation in four of that C5."

Right. (Cf. supra.)

"As I said, I'm not flat out saying that there couldn't have been more than one perpetrator for the C5, and I'm inclined to feel that Stride, at least, is a case for possible exclusion."

Nor am I "flat out" disagreeing. The quotation above is largely my own view. I presume my main difference is a leaning "against" rather than a leaning "for."

"Then, of course, I couldn't possibly know or, as you have it, even construct a tenable argument."

I think we both could construct a tenable argument--pro as well as con. The problem would be, would it CONVINCE the fence sitter?

My main point was that there were many murders/attempts in London, 1888. I did NOT intend to convey that there were many mutilation killings. Of course, whatever tally one arrives at depends precisely upon the qualifications employed.

Cheers.
LC