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

[lynn cates]

requirement

Hello Michael. thanks.

"Is it really that simple?"

Yes.

"Surely you could create a plausible scenario where there was an interruption, a scaring off, or just a decision not to do this particular woman."

Certainly. But why would I wish so to do?

"It is just as easy...easier to say someone else did it because...why?....it wasn't exactly the same? Either way requires some leap in logic or some additions."

What it requires is a devotion to Dr. Phillips and his thought processes.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

It is indeed, PROVIDED we already know whom the assassin was. But we use mutilation as a proof of "Jack," and--since it is missing here--we postulate "Jack," but in interrupted state.

One premise, "Jack killed Liz." One conclusion, "Jack killed Liz."

Lynn,

Is it really that simple? Surely you could create a plausible scenario where there was an interruption, a scaring off, or just a decision not to do this particular woman. It is just as easy...easier to say someone else did it because...why?....it wasn't exactly the same? Either way requires some leap in logic or some additions. And in fact, I am only slightly in favor of Stride's being a JTR victim because I can't really prove she was one.

Mike

[lynn cates]

petitio principii

Hello Michael.

"And I point at an interruption as the most likely idea."

It is indeed, PROVIDED we already know whom the assassin was. But we use mutilation as a proof of "Jack," and--since it is missing here--we postulate "Jack," but in interrupted state.

One premise, "Jack killed Liz." One conclusion, "Jack killed Liz."

They feed upon one another.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

That's true but we are not forced to hang our hat on Diemschutz and his pony cart. We are sitting in the comfort of our homes some 125 years later trying to envision some significant event that might have triggered Jack's instinct to flee. But Jack is in the dark, next to a club filled with able bodied men with adrenaline flowing throughout his body. Even the smallest thing out of the ordinary could have been magnified in his mind.

Absolutely. The cart is one possibility and I imagine the comings and goings of club members presented many other reasons to not want to stick around and to make a quick kill. Yet, others demand evidence. Evidence where there is none that is physically available amounts to likelihoods and possibilities. And I point at an interruption as the most likely idea.

Mike

[curious]

Hello Namesake,

Just off the top of my head Sir George Arthur. Arrested, dressed in a shooting jacket (presumably with game pocket), I would be willing to bet that he wasn't searched. He wasn't released because he was found innocent, but because of who he was. Not reported in the english papers - freedom of the press?, what's that? Not without influence then. For an idea of the problems faced by the police when investigating the aristocracy, I can recommend Trollope's novel "The Eustace Diamonds".

If there was one thing the ruling classes feared more than hanging, it was scandal.

Apart from him? Any number of do-gooders, clergymen, even policemen etc. Punch's cartoon gives a good idea of what was thought at the time, any one of these could have talked their way out of even being found holding a dripping knife over a mutilated body. "I appear to have frightened him off, officer, poor woman, dreadful, dreadful, shocking..." The class barriers were ironclad. I think we have to consider that things were very, very different back in the LVP.

Best wishes,
C4

Good Morning, C4,
Appreciate Sir George Arthur's name and the absolutely correct position that upper crusts would likely have been sent on their way with an apology for having been bothered.

I was personally thinking of William Henry Bury, who appeared to think he could tell the police his wife had committed suicide and get away . . . now THAT was some belief in his own storytelling power.

Tumblety is another that I suspect believed in his own powers of persuasion.

Others probably come to the minds of other readers. . .

curious

[curious4]

Suspect

Hello Namesake,

Just off the top of my head Sir George Arthur. Arrested, dressed in a shooting jacket (presumably with game pocket), I would be willing to bet that he wasn't searched. He wasn't released because he was found innocent, but because of who he was. Not reported in the english papers - freedom of the press?, what's that? Not without influence then. For an idea of the problems faced by the police when investigating the aristocracy, I can recommend Trollope's novel "The Eustace Diamonds".

If there was one thing the ruling classes feared more than hanging, it was scandal.

Apart from him? Any number of do-gooders, clergymen, even policemen etc. Punch's cartoon gives a good idea of what was thought at the time, any one of these could have talked their way out of even being found holding a dripping knife over a mutilated body. "I appear to have frightened him off, officer, poor woman, dreadful, dreadful, shocking..." The class barriers were ironclad. I think we have to consider that things were very, very different back in the LVP.

Best wishes,
C4

[lynn cates]

assumption

Hello CD. Thanks.

"We have an abundance of evidence that all types of criminal activity did not reach fruition because the perpetrator was interrupted and chose to flee rather than risk being caught. This includes attempted murder, attempted rape, attempted robbery, attempted car jackings etc. and we can also throw serial murderers into the mix as well."

But can we throw Liz's KILLER into this mix?

"I, Caz and others have provided plausible scenarios where an interruption could have occurred without leaving evidence that it did in fact take place."

And I could provide dozens more. Same with extra-terrestrials.

"So it boils down to how you want to approach the case."

Absolutely. If one has faith that Annie's killer was Liz's killer, that's fine. But my faith is weak. Help thou mine unbelief?

"If you demand actual physical evidence that's fine. For me, the possibility and the probability that he was interrupted factors into how I look at the case. I simply can't rule that out because it is fact quite common."

And I can't rule it in. You see, I don't begin by assuming that there were EXACTLY 5 murders by the same hand and then positing an interruption to save it.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Caz,

Your point about not wanting to be around when/if her date shows up is a good one. Like the interruption argument, it doesn't need to be proved to be a plausible explanation for the lack of mutilations.

c.d.

Although the idea that Liz may have been waiting for a date rather than soliciting is a good one cd,...and hard to extract agreement on when suggested by others...a mutilator that kills a woman that he knows he could not mutilate doesnt make the foundation grade for any plausible argument.

It would also be a new Victimology...killing someone he finds on private property waiting for someone who is likely just inside the club, with the kitchen door ajar.

Why would a serial killer bent on postmortem mutilation kill a woman? To mutilate their corpse, of course. There has never been a satisfactory explanation for why a killer such as that....which is in fact the type of killer that killed both Polly and Annie...would just kill as well.

Why risk it all for a kill without the defining objective? What if he just left her alone there, even if he tried to take her in the darker back yard and failed, even if he pulled his knife early and she saw it,..even if he told her he was the guy ripping up women,... what proof would she have of anything if she later told the police about this man who accosted her? He was in no real danger unless caught in the act of murder. So why put himself in danger a few feet from the street and a club with folks just inside, and cottagers awake...for a kill without the feature he desires above all.

Check the papers that Fall...there was plenty of similar "accosting" going on.

All the best

[curious]

I think he was confident in his ability to talk himself out of any tricky situation he found himself in.

Best wishes,
C4

Just wondering if, off the top of your head, you can think of a suspect(s) noted for that?

curious

[curious4]

Interruption

Hello,

I think it would have taken something major to interrupt Jack. He seemed to enjoy the risks he took. There were many much safer spots within the warrens of Whitechapel where he could have killed, but he seemed to choose places where the risk of being caught was high, as if that was part of the excitement of what he did. I think he was confident in his ability to talk himself out of any tricky situation he found himself in.

Best wishes,
C4

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

That's true but we are not forced to hang our hat on Diemschutz and his pony cart. We are sitting in the comfort of our homes some 125 years later trying to envision some significant event that might have triggered Jack's instinct to flee. But Jack is in the dark, next to a club filled with able bodied men with adrenaline flowing throughout his body. Even the smallest thing out of the ordinary could have been magnified in his mind.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

I, Caz and others have provided plausible scenarios where an interruption could have occurred without leaving evidence that it did in fact take place.

In fact C.D, an interruption would most probably leave no evidence. We do have a corpse that was still very warm, a busy club, and Diemschitz' arrival possibly seconds after the murder and at the latest, a few minutes.

Mike

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

Common things are common. Isn't that what doctors alway say? We have an abundance of evidence that all types of criminal activity did not reach fruition because the perpetrator was interrupted and chose to flee rather than risk being caught. This includes attempted murder, attempted rape, attempted robbery, attempted car jackings etc. and we can also throw serial murderers into the mix as well.

I, Caz and others have provided plausible scenarios where an interruption could have occurred without leaving evidence that it did in fact take place.

So it boils down to how you want to approach the case. If you demand actual physical evidence that's fine. For me, the possibility and the probability that he was interrupted factors into how I look at the case. I simply can't rule that out because it is fact quite common.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

missus est

Hello (again) CD.

"It's funny that a number of people who dismiss out of hand the whole idea of a paranoid Jack fleeing the scene . . ."

I don't dismiss it out of hand--merely find no reason to believe it.

Likewise, I do not dismiss her killer being an extra-terrestrial. But again, no evidence to accept.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mutilation wish

Hello CD.

"The problem here is that Jack could have been scared off and fled by something that we will never know long before Demschutz arrived."

Perhaps someone through the side door. But my point is that there is no evidence for such. And the only reason to suppose it is that one is already convinced that the one who killed her wished to mutilate her.

Cheers.
LC