6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[DRoy]

Mike,

Tons? Actually it was 10.

Here are 10 going the other way...well lit location, tons of people (okay, I mean about 30) around in all directions, no mutilation, Ripper now right handed, Liz was dressed nice, not strangled, fighting with her boyfriend, legs not parted, short knife, assulted 15 minutes before found dead...tons!

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

X X

Hello Jon. Thanks.

A similarity is not an identity.

But you are right, of course. All were female.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

There is however a very simple way to review the evidence to see if this is the same killer who mutilates after killing. Are there signs that is the case here...any signs?

l

Tons. Quick kill, throat cut, prostitute, not witnessed, knife, woman on the ground, London, same vicinity, late at night, dark,...just tons.

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

I think one thing in this argument should be clarified....what is possible and what is probable. The latter relies on some kind of corroborative evidence to substantiate the claims being made, the former, does not.

Using that as the guideline then I would have to say that it is indeed possible that Liz Strides killer was interrupted and therefore unable to fulfill his objectives. In the same way that its possible the killer was a woman.

However, there is no reason within any known evidence to give either of those "possibilities" any credence, thus elevating them to "probable status".

It is however probable that Liz Strides killer intended to only kill her... in a momentary loss of self control, likely due to anger and/or alcohol. The Tabram murder suggests the same sort of anger and alcohol issue...but not Pollys murder or Annies. That killer was after innards.

The evidence such as it is suggests a sober woman with a flower on her breast and some cashous in her hand was attacked suddenly in the passageway of a private club,... likely using her scarf first, and within 1 or 2 seconds, is on the ground bleeding to death. There is no way to know if any sounds were made due to the open window and the singing upstairs, and there is no way of knowing at this point how the killer left the scene. There is however a very simple way to review the evidence to see if this is the same killer who mutilates after killing. Are there signs that is the case here...any signs?

The truthful answer must be no.

Therefore, lets just deal with the probabilities rather than the possibilities, which range from reasonable to ridiculous.

Cheers all

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Why the ahem?!?

Most people here already know these similarities but for you I`ll copy and paste the victim similarities again:

45 year old resident of a common lodging house in Flower and Dean St murdered by throat cut (left carotid) in St George in the East. Last seen standing alone with a man in a peaked cap

46 year old resident of a common lodging house in Flower and Dean St murdered by throat cut (left carotid) in Aldgate, 40 minutes later. Last seen standing alone with a man in a peaked cap.

Of course they could have been killed by different people, but please, you must be in some kind of denial (perhaps it`s your constricting theories) if you can`t see the victim similarities.

[curious4]

Leaking

Hello Curious,

I imagine somebody wanting to take a leak would go into the back yard rather than exit through the front.

c.d.

Hello CD ,

Maybe they went before they left home lol. I think though that a handy wall or the gutter would serve as well - for the men at least.

Cheers,
C4

[lynn cates]

finish line

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"When almost identical victims die from severed carotids, yes, it's a good place to start."

Identical? Ahem.

At any rate, I agree that it's a good place to start. I started there. But let's make bloody sure we don't end there."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

tambien

Hello Michael. Thanks.

Nor yet I.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Whoever died in Whitechapel must have been killed by "Jack."

When almost identical victims die from severed carotid`s, yes, it`s a good place to start.

[The Good Michael]

"It also doesn't mean one is closed off to new evidence."

Absolutely. Have we any?

I have a transcribed note from a pickle vendor mentioning a few things, but a pickled vendor isn't as reliable as I should like,

Mike

[lynn cates]

forensic analysis

Hello Michael. Thanks.

"It also doesn't mean one is closed off to new evidence."

Absolutely. Have we any?

"It is a scientific argument based on known facts."

Indeed? So if someone testified that s/he opened the side door just about 1.50, that would certainly make interruption plausible. Absent that . . .

"As more facts are gathered, the theory is subject to change and/or discarding."

Quite.

"Deciding a victim is not the work of the same man is an assumption as well and subject to the same scrutiny."

Yes, indeed. And that is why I champion more forensic analysis, and less talk of domineering mums, absent fathers, anagrams, police taunting and the usual rot.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

But the point is, this already assumes Jack.

But it isn't an assumption made in a vacuum. It is an assumption that takes into consideration local history in a specific period of time to come to a conclusion about a situation. This doesn't make the argument right, but it doesn't invalidate it either. It also doesn't mean one is closed off to new evidence. It is a scientific argument based on known facts. As more facts are gathered, the theory is subject to change and/or discarding. Deciding a victim is not the work of the same man is an assumption as well and subject to the same scrutiny.

Mike

[lynn cates]

Don't know Jack.

Hello CD. Thanks.

But the point is, this already assumes Jack.

It's bad enough that a mutilated female turns up, and everyone assumes it's by one hand--Jack. But now one shows up and she ISN'T mutilated and it's, "Ah, but he didn't get the chance to mutilate."

Whoever died in Whitechapel must have been killed by "Jack."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

different

Hello Abby. Thanks.

In that case, it would not be a prostitute playing hard to get.

OK.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

While it can't be proved, the possibility that Jack was interrupted before he had a chance to mutilate Liz is a perfectly rational and plausible explanation as to why he might have chosen to forego such proceedings. Alien abduction? Not so plausible. That would seem the point. Therefore, the if A then B argument that it can't be Jack because Jack always mutilates his victims doesn't seem to hold up if a possible and plausible reason why he didn't can be presented.

To argue that there is no evidence for it is one thing and perfectly valid but I am sure that even you put it in the plausible category. Do you not?

c.d.