How about this quick theory!

[Hunter]

Hi Phil. While I agree that all possibilities should be open for analysis since it is not known who killed any of these women, certain perspectives should remain in mind.

[B] Statistics might be interesting, but they reveal nothing. There WERE three murders that night. If one of them was by a different hand, why not two?

The third murder was not committed in the East End and as was typical with 'domestics', there was a notable struggle; Sara Brown's throat was viciously stabbed instead of cut; the perpetrator was apprehended... in fact Brown walked down to the police station and turned himself in.

We know at least one other murder impinged on "Jack's" territory because of the "torso" - unless you argue JtR was also the torso murderer.

Yes, but that was the only murder of that type during the relevant time span that fell into the same area as the other WM (several years later a torso was found in a sack in Spitafields). There were other murders of that type that revealed a more scattered area of distribution and a different method of disposal. There was no attempt at disposal with the others in the East End.

Finally on that point, it is IMHO entirely plausible that - with Stride and MJK - someone (probably two unassociated men) other than "Jack" sought deliberately to hide their work by killing in a similar manner to what they had read he did.

Certainly possible, but I don't believe as plausible as the single serial killer theory. This type of murder was - and still is- very rare, especially in such constricted confines as these indicated. I believe it extremely rare if two people of the same proclivity were operating in the same manner and in the same area at the same time.

Actually, murders such as the 'Torso Killings' had a history pre-dating and post-dating the Whitechapel murders for a number of years.

Otherwise, we have to assume that Mckenzie, Coles, tabram, Smith, or most of them could ONLY have been "Jack's" work as it would have been too much of a coincidence otherwise!!

Who's to say that they weren't? Most of these are discounted by suspect theorists - including contemporary ones- who have a problem fitting some of these other murders into a skien that fits that suspect or people who are rigidly disposed to a concrete MO. Many times when a serial murderer is apprehended, its found that his tally is greater than originally surmised.

This is a very fine quote from another thread:

The historical method lets theories emerge from the broader facts and is based on the careful work of many minds who advance broadly in step (with the odd intellectual contretemps) going no further than the evidence will allow. Thus it is consensual and to an extent unselfish (not that I'd push that word too far in academe!), in that all can build on the foundations collectively and painstakingly assembled.

But this process can be perceived as hidebound and limiting by the revolutionary or the egotistical. What stops their views, usually, being widely accepted is that the fair-minded reader/observer quickly identified the missing evidence, the distortions of facts and the frail foundations.

[Phil H]

[B]Certainly possible, but I don't believe as plausible as the single serial killer theory. This type of murder was - and still is- very rare, especially in such constricted confines as these indicated. I believe it extremely rare if two people of the same proclivity were operating in the same manner and in the same area at the same time./B]

But if there were more than one murderer, and some were by killers mimicking "Jack" (as far as they knew how to) you'll be misled.

Better I think to keep all the options open - explore their strengths and weknesses, turn them inside out - but refrain from chosing one option, when we do not have all the evidence even available to the police at the time.

I am tempted to say that one of the things that hidebound the police at the time, was that they did not take time to ask - are we looking for one man or several. Hence they could have let later suspects go without too much questioning -Kidney? Hutchinson? Barnett? - simply because they had an alibi for the earlier murders.

Thanks for citing my other post as you did.

Phil

[lynn cates]

lies, [egregious] lies, and statistics

Hello Phil.

"Statistics might be interesting, but they reveal nothing. There WERE three murders that night. If one of them was by a different hand, why not two?"

Precisely!

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

"Not tonight, some other night." That could also apply if Liz were soliciting and had a previous encounter with said gentleman. He might have been a bit too rough for her tastes or balked when it came to paying. This could be just a polite brush off to avoid any further hassles with him.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Phil and Lynn,

Apologies for ragging on you earlier for bringing up the Liz on a date question. It seems like we just go round and round on the whole Liz business (I am guilty too) and sometimes it gets tiresome. Hope we're cool.

c.d.

[jason_c]

Hello Phil.

"Statistics might be interesting, but they reveal nothing. There WERE three murders that night. If one of them was by a different hand, why not two?"

Precisely!

Cheers.
LC

Because one of these copycats fits in perfectly with the timeline of a killer murdering Stride then fleeing. Next he goes looking for and finds a second suitably drunken prostitute 10-15 minutes walk away before dispatching her too. All in a controlled 45 minute frenzy.

[Tom_Wescott]

My preference is to juggle possibilities. Thus I don't reject Stride as a Ripper victim, but at present I'm happy to play with the idea that she might NOT have been, and I find that opening up new possibilities. I'm attracted to the "there never was a "Jack" approach (he was several killers linked by media-hype) and that has opened windows into our remaining facts - what if "Jack" only killed three or so women?

Then it would appear your condescension is misplaced, as from what I can see on this thread, Malcolm’s command of the facts is far better than yours, at least as far as Berner Street goes. If you’re having fun with your present ideas, by all means have fun, but please respect the fact that some of us considered all the same possibilities YEARS ago, and through research were able to move past them, because they were not supported by the facts.

I’m probably the most anal retentive guy there is when it comes to Berner Street, but there’s nothing wrong with what Malcolm’s trying to do, which is enjoy debate and open-table theorizing. I think it’s important we keep ourselves grounded in the facts, but outside of that, this thread is a bit of a free for all.

Anyway, I’ll hop down off my soap box if Phil hops off his.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hello Phil and Lynn,

It seems like we just go round and round on the whole Liz business (I am guilty too) and sometimes it gets tiresome.
c.d.

And that's been the situation for the past 15 years that I know of, you can check all the archive disks. There never will be a final word, some have tried, and some are still trying. Peripheral issues are always expanding but the central core questions remain the same as they always have, on Casebook at least.
Prettymuch everything is open to debate, and there's nothing wrong with rehashing everything every once in a while, but yes it can get tiresome for those of us who have been around, and around, and around...
:-)

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Or maybe "Jack" was a "nutter" who just killed helpless street women on a pretty random basis, without any agenda.

Maybe he had a thing for 'gates'?
Nichols was laid across a gate, Eddowes was also found outside a gate. Chapman was laid next to a wooden fence. Stride found just inside a set of gates. If you remember a Mrs Kennedy (Sarah Lewis?) said a weird man attempted to invite her inside a gateway.

Maybe "Jack" was nowhere near Berners St that night, but to the north stalking the street and encountering Eddowes.

That is probably nearer the truth, sadly, Stride was just another victim of street violence just like Coles, unrelated to the Ripper killings, but...

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

again

Hello CD. No need to apologise. But it does get a bit wearisome--as you point out. Each Stride thread contains the same arguments by both sides.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

urine or your out

Hello Jason. How do we know Kate was soliciting? There is much more likelihood that Liz was soliciting than Kate. After all, how much urine was in Kate's bladder?

Cheers.
LC

[jason_c]

Hello Jason. How do we know Kate was soliciting? There is much more likelihood that Liz was soliciting than Kate. After all, how much urine was in Kate's bladder?

Cheers.
LC

We know Kate was soliciting as she voluntary entered Mitre Square(a well known haunt for prostitute activity) with a stranger. She then walked with this stranger to the darkest corner of the square.

She certainly acts as if she is soliciting. If not soliciting she willing flirted with a stranger then went off for drunken copulation. I'd put my money on her soliciting.

[lynn cates]

points

Hello Jason. 3 quick points.

"We know Kate was soliciting as she voluntar[il]y entered Mitre Square (a well known haunt for prostitute activity) with a stranger"

Please don't think me obtuse, but how can you be certain he was a stranger? Given that the Lawende sighting was of Kate and her assailant (or even someone colluding with her assailant), it seems to me that her body english during the conversation betrayed a familiarity with the chap not usually evinced with a stranger.

"If not soliciting she willing flirted with a stranger then went off for drunken copulation."

Petitio principii perhaps?

Did you address my concern about the pressure in Kate's bladder when she decided on "drunken copulation"?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Maybe he had a thing for 'gates'?
Nichols was laid across a gate, Eddowes was also found outside a gate. Chapman was laid next to a wooden fence. Stride found just inside a set of gates. If you remember a Mrs Kennedy (Sarah Lewis?) said a weird man attempted to invite her inside a gateway.

I think it was the women who had the preference for gates or fences. It was something wooden to lean against and had some "give" (in preference to unyielding brick).

Nichols: stable doors.

Chapman: fence.

Eddowes: fence/gates behind her body. (Probably more important than darkness to her.)

Stride (if JtR) - wooden gates.

Tom - your anal condescension is water off a duck's back. If we are playing with ideas - and note the title of the thread - then anyone can play.

Phil

[Malcolm X]

Then it would appear your condescension is misplaced, as from what I can see on this thread, Malcolm’s command of the facts is far better than yours, at least as far as Berner Street goes. If you’re having fun with your present ideas, by all means have fun, but please respect the fact that some of us considered all the same possibilities YEARS ago, and through research were able to move past them, because they were not supported by the facts.

I’m probably the most anal retentive guy there is when it comes to Berner Street, but there’s nothing wrong with what Malcolm’s trying to do, which is enjoy debate and open-table theorizing. I think it’s important we keep ourselves grounded in the facts, but outside of that, this thread is a bit of a free for all.

Anyway, I’ll hop down off my soap box if Phil hops off his.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

what Phil doesn't realise is i understand everything he sais, because i too realise that there might not be a Jewish connection, all he's doing is talking down to me just because he wants to.... unfortunately over the years, there have been many members here like him, a wee bit too cynical as well....these types have studied JTR too much and can no longer see the woods from the trees, they have confused themselves too much over the years and have ground to a halt...... dont stare at the brick wall, climb over it !!!

the difference is, i'm making a fool of myself on purpose, because years of studying JTR tells me that I could indeed be onto something.

you have to ask yourself :- what was Eddowes piece of apron doing underneath the graffito, that was maybe written by someone else, this was removed because it wasn't just highly anti-semetic, it stood out like a sore thumb too, this is because it was fresh and the only graffiti close by..... no way was that written by anyone else other than JTR.

FINALLY, what is the point of removing the piece of apron and not leaving a message, because without the apron the graffito means nothing, plus that apron could belong to someone else/ go unnoticed, now where on earth did JTR find that piece of chalk in pitch darkness after killing Eddowes and before dumping the apron...no no, he had it on him when he left home earlier that night.

the apron was removed because the street surrounding Eddowes was too damp to take chalk, plus JTR heard the police coming, so he quickly removed a piece of apron and legged it.

why was he focusing so much on this?..... because he maybe killed Stride earlier on at a jewish location and thus was blaming this murder on someone from that club too..

my guess is that JTR was disturbed AFTER killing Stride and that the graffito was indeed supposed to be placed on the gates of Dutfields.... this is because i think JTR already had the chalk in his pocket.

2 murders in one night is too much, especially so close by, it's therefore probably JTR who killed both.

1.....but i dont understand if JTR went home between the murders to get chalk, or if he already had it on him... my guess is he had it on him. simply because it aint easy to find something like chalk so late at night, plus you cant use damp chalk from the gutter to write with!

2......Stride wasn't mutilated and wouldn't have been if Eddowes wasn't killed either, so we would have had a Francis Coles style street murder and the graffito on the gates that evening and nothing else, now this doesn't look like a JTR murder does it, so why is he shifting tactics away from street mutilations only, to more of an anti-semetic theme..... no, i think he was intending to mutilate Stride and to leave the graffi there too.3..... this is such a dangerous location, how could he possibly get this so wrong, i think he planned it right, but he got a bit too drunk earlier on.... i think as the evidence might suggest that also, LIZ said to him ``not tonight love, some other time``, so he couldn't lead her away, this caused him to loose his temper.

drunk or not drunk, this implies that JTR knew a woman would be hanging around outside Dutfields, well i dont know, but maybe they did, maybe whores waited outside.

it's very strange, because we have two things that i think have to be fixed to make this theory work
1... he had chalk in his pocket
2....he knew a woman would be there.

number 2 is a bit shaky



.