Diemschutz arrival

[lynn cates]

premeditation

Hello Jim. Thanks.

I am inclined to premeditation.

Cheers.
LC

[miakaal4]

Hi Lynn, yeah or stamps? But thinking of that, it seems to me that the procedure for "business", is alway cash up front. However I don't think I have read that poor Liz had any money with her corpse. So if it were a client, then either she was prepared to move somewhere dark prior to seeing and feeling the cash, (unlikely?) or the miscreant took it back. This would throw doubt on the interruption idea. Unless the killer was another Scrooge he would not even consider taking back his tuppence before running for it.
So it may not have been a client after all?
Oh go on somebody, tell me where the holes are.

[Spring heeled Jim]

Premeditation as in I am going to kill someone tonight or I am going to kill Stride tonight?

[Spring heeled Jim]

Or Miakeel the ripper if responsible could have done what he POSSIBLY did everytime as in alright luv lets get to the spot and I will give you the cash on the way, thus negating the need to actually have or retrieve any cash, then just before getting into the court Stride says so where is my money I aint going any further without payment and turns to walk away and bang it happens. All supposition I know but not implausible. But I fear this is straying off topic

[lynn cates]

holy scenario

Hello Miakaal. Thanks.

No need--not when you already know where the holes are.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

that one

Hello Jim. Thanks.

The latter, indeed.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Theres no evidence to suggest he was interrupted

There's NO evidence, Monty? Apart from Diemschitz' testimony, the timing, and the body in situ?
Not sure what you would have considered as evidence of interruption. A man seen running away from the scene? A man caught by Diemshitz in Dutfield's Yard, blood dripping knife in hand, complaining "frickin' anarchist Jewish dudes didn't let me finish"?

[Bridewell]

Hello (again) Colin. Thanks. But how do we know it was "Jack"?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

We don't know it was Jack. The original post (not by me) said only, 'Odds are it was Jack'.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

deus ex machina

Hello Maria. Well, those would work.

Why does one even CONSIDER interruption? "Because Liz was killed by Jack, Jack mutilated, Liz was not mutilated, hence he was interrupted."

Compare Baxter: "Polly and Annie's assassin killed them to harvest their organs. Polly had all her organs. Therefore, he was interrupted."

I think the logic phrase is deus ex machina.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Colin and Colin

Hello Colin. Thanks.

Have you been chatting up your namesake? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

There's NO evidence, Monty? Apart from Diemschitz' testimony, the timing, and the body in situ?
Not sure what you would have considered as evidence of interruption. A man seen running away from the scene? A man caught by Diemshitz in Dutfield's Yard, blood dripping knife in hand, complaining "frickin' anarchist Jewish dudes didn't let me finish"?

No, just an incompletion of the throat wound, commencement of mutilation, disturbence of clothing, body position....you know, that sorta evidence.

As opposed to the assumption you list.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Hi, Bridewell,
Haven't talked with you in awhile.

I'd never thought of her cleaning the club before. It's possible, but her appearance suggests to me a social occasion instead of waiting to go to work. The clothes brush, the flower, the breath sweetners . . . more social, I think.

Plus, would she have told the doss house/or person to whom she gave the green velvet to hold that she would not be back that evening?

Unless, she expected to be busy until around breakfast time?

How would those things fit together? Do they?

curious

Hi Curious,

They probably don't fit together. Hence my comment about it being dangerous when a thought occurs to me!

Regards, Bridewell.

[mariab]

No, just an incompletion of the throat wound, commencement of mutilation, disturbence of clothing, body position....you know, that sorta evidence.

Interesting, Monty, cuz the way I see it, commencement of mutilation and disturbance of clothing (in the lower body area) would have to occur after the body was turned around. Thus, in my interpretation, the Stride evidence in situ fits with interruption. Esp. if one considers the timing and Diemshitz' testimony.

Just out of curiosity, Monty, (curiosity killed the cat ), if you're unconvinced about it having been one by the Ripper, do you see Stride as a random killing, connected to the Club, or a domestic? Somehow I'm having the feeling you'd rather not commit yourself to an interpretation? (Kinda like, not wanting to connect the GSG with the apron?)

[Spring heeled Jim]

I would like to know people opinion of whether there was some kind of subduing prior to the throat cut and if this subduing involved two hands? I know Lynn has given his opinion but I wondered what others thought? In my mind is worth questioning this scenario with regards any possible interruption.

[Hunter]

Compare Baxter: "Polly and Annie's assassin killed them to harvest their organs. Polly had all her organs. Therefore, he was interrupted."

The same could be said about the events of Sept. 30, using Baxter's criteria... which I believe is flawed because of the overall theory Baxter was promulgating at the time. And for some strange reason (actually it was because of his theory) Baxter insinuates that Stride fell victim to the same individual who killed the first two, and Eddowes--who was mutilated--didn't.

I agree that the idea of Stride's murderer being interrupted is based on an assumption that a serial mutilator wasn't able to complete his task, but it is equally an assumption that this killer would always mutilate. We have the medical evidence as to what happened in each case. We have no evidence about the mindset of the murderer in each instance. Anything could have happened and it is all conjecture. We know nothing about who killed any of these women.