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

[c.d.]

Let's try a hypothetical here -- Jack cuts Liz's throat and lays her on the ground with the intention of mutilating her. Suddenly six or seven able bodied club members come rushing out the door and see Jack bending over the body. Do you think Jack would attempt to run or would he say "excuse me gentlemen, you are blocking my light. Could you stand back for a few minutes?" Is the latter a bit preposterous? Not if Jack the Ripper ALWAYS mutilates his victim because absolutely nothing will stop him from doing so.

Now if you picked the former option and think that Jack would run then ask yourself if it is because he would be afraid he would be caught and hanged. Now with the whole idea of hanging firmly entrenched in your mind, ask yourself if there is really a huge difference between actually seeing the men rush out of the club and thinking that they might do so at any moment.

DRoy - Just because there is no evidence for an interruption does not mean that it couldn't happen. And we know for a fact that it happened multiple times to the Yorkshire Ripper. On some occasions there was actually NO interruption at all, just his own mind generated paranoia.

c.d.

[DRoy]

Michael,

It doesn't happen often but I agree with you this time! Well said.

DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

There is more evidence for Stride's killer being interrupted than there is for a different knife being used in her case.

Im not going to re-dress the comments you made regarding my last post Caz, (your ability to tip toe around the obvious answers in favor of the unprovable ones is seemingly a quality forged in granite)....but the above is simply incorrect. There is NO evidence that an interruption occurred, NONE.......assuming Diemshutz interrupted him is not evidence, its someones guess,......and assuming that someone else interrupted him...(and in both of these cases this is being done to try and explain away the major differences in Liz's murder to the previous 2 Canonicals, and also Kates additional "rage" wounds)....is all well and good if there is evidence to warrant it....which there ISNT.

I can see now why you would disagree with many of the posted points regarding Stride......you are using an erroneous premise in yours Caz. One that makes an interruption out of thin air more probable than the opinion of the medical experts, who described a "different" knife than the one that killed Polly and Annie.

Best regards

[DRoy]

Caz,

There is more evidence for Stride's killer being interrupted than there is for a different knife being used in her case. At least we can say that if he had hung around to check she was dead, then mutilated her on that spot and removed organs to take away with him, a certain jewellery salesman arriving back with his pony and cart around 1am might well have come upon him still there. Had Diemschutz not stopped at the Grove Tavern for a pint on his return journey, Stride's killer might not even have got as far as inflicting the fatal wound.

This is pretty much the same situation as in Buck's Row. No actual evidence of an interruption, but we can say that if the killer wanted to remove organs, something or someone made him leave the scene before he could do so. In this case, Lechmere might well have caught him at the scene if he had stayed there any longer. And had Lechmere left home just a minute or two sooner, we might have seen Nichols with just a cut throat.

Both these outdoor murders were discovered too quickly after the event to conclude that the killer was not interrupted and only left the scene when he had done all he wanted to do there. Moreover, in Stride's case, an inexperienced cut-throat who knew her personally would have been crazy to leave immediately after the single slice, while she was still alive, not knowing if it would prove fatal. Why would he have done that unless he couldn't risk staying another second just to make sure?

More evidence? Please share!

How would he be interrupted? A horse and cart's sound would be heard from blocks away. So either he hears the horse and cart approaching and he decides to slit Stride's throat anyway and then wait to see where the horse and cart are going, or he doesn't hear the horse and cart at all and it somehow creeps up on him. In the alternative he was interrupted in another way...who a/o what could that be? There is no evidence of interruption Caz, only suggestion.

In regards to the "single slice", that's all it was. It wasn't cut to the neck bones leaving marks. No, in Stride's case it was a clean slice only and even tapered off leaving a superficial cut. Does that sound like The Ripper?

Cheers
DRoy

[caz]

No evidence of interruption -- This argument is valid if it is known when the interruption actually takes place which we do not know. Jack could have started to doubt the wisdom of killing Liz as they were talking given the proximity to the club. Perhaps something she said threw him into a rage or provoked the overwhelming desire to kill her, the club and its members be damned. Perhaps Liz screamed as he was attempting to kill her. In his mind, this was so loud that surely someone heard it. He waits for a few minutes in the shadows to see if anyone is coming out of the club to investigate. He may or may not have heard the approaching pony cart but simply decides that he made a mistake and it is better to flee and find another victim. Seems simple enough but some want to see evidence for this possibility as though Jack would write a note saying that he intended to mutilate Liz but was scared off and then signed it, Jack the Ripper.

Hi c.d.,

That's pretty much what Mark Dixie does immediately after brutally murdering Sally Anne Bowman in South Croydon. There is no reason to suppose in this case that she is given the chance to scream, but someone in the nearby houses could have looked out of a window and seen something. So Dixie moves away from the body and waits for a few minutes in the shadows to see if anyone is coming out to investigate. When nothing untoward happens, he returns to violate his victim and take trophies.

There is no reason why something similar could not have happened in Dutfield's Yard, except that Stride's killer may have been unable to go back to her body or chose not to risk it. He did have the whole night ahead of him to go hunting elsewhere. Dixie had already been interrupted during an earlier attack when a taxi passed by, so Bowman was his second victim that night, a genuine double event. Yet he was patient enough to make sure of no interruptions this time before getting stuck in.

Bottom line is that an interruption could have taken place and there would be no evidence for that at all.

The strange thing is, there is no evidence for an interruption in Buck's Row either, yet people accept this as a very real possibility almost without thinking, because Nichols was mutilated but had no organs removed or taken from the scene, unlike Chapman the following weekend.

Had the killer heard approaching footsteps between cutting Nichols's throat and preparing her for mutilation, he'd have legged it without slashing her abdomen. I don't get the argument that the ripper (who was given his trade name in late September by the author of Dear Boss) would have felt compelled to give a little rip here or a little rip there before leaving, even if he couldn't have gone to town on a victim without risking interruption.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

-Liz Strides' murder, as seen individually, is unremarkable. There is no requirement that her killer was either skillful or knowledgeable, about knife usage or anatomy.

Some would vehemently disagree with this, Mike.

The actual murder seems to have been carried out swiftly, silently and with the utmost efficiency, leaving Stride dying with a single wound to her throat, and her killer able to escape into the night, free as a bird. If you see an inexperienced hand at work here, I'd like to know what evidence you have for it.

- If we examine the serial killers goals by the first 2 murders then he doesnt acquire or kill Liz in the same way...(she is off the street on private property at the time she meets him), ...he kills with one slice, perhaps while the victim is falling....(different from ALL other Canonicals), and he shows no interest in mutilating the woman after the throat cut...so, "less than 100 % successful" is hardly an appropriate term for the lacking secondary wounds. A more appropriate phrasing would be that she is killed in a manner inconsistent with the first 2 Canonical murders.

But there is not the slightest reason to think that Stride's killer would have had the time or the privacy needed to mutilate her (and remove an organ, since you have argued that this was the goal, and everything else only the means to this end). So it's hardly surprising that 'he shows no interest' in doing so in the circumstances. It doesn't follow that this was not the same man who showed a very great deal of interest when there was enough time and privacy (eg Hanbury, Mitre and Miller's).

-Liz Stride was not desperate for funds at all...

That's simply not true. She had only sixpence in cash to her name that evening and nothing at all by the time her body was found. It's only your speculation that she fondly imagined her immediate needs would soon be taken care of by some man who never turned up at the club for her, and never came forward to express his regrets that she died waiting. When she exploited the terrible Princess Alice tragedy a decade previously, by lying to get her hands on some compensation, was she completely out of funds at the time and desperate, or was she someone who simply saw money-making opportunities and took them?

Liz Stride is only manhandled in Israel Schwartz's story. Her physical state in death and the state of her clothing dispute any attack or struggle.

But that would merely suggest that any manhandling that could have been witnessed was very mild. And no physical signs of 'any attack or struggle' are meant to make her less like other victims?

-To provide an argument that Liz Strides killer is the same as the killer of the first 2 women, some physical evidence is required to corroborate the position.
An interruption, ...pure speculation, or a decision not to mutilate by the killer, are not supported by any physical evidence. What is supported is that her killer chose not to do anything to the body after it was on the ground, unless thats when the throat was cut.

And that's exactly what we would expect from an experienced killer who knew he had inflicted a fatal wound and therefore had no need to inflict a second or make sure she was dead before leaving the scene; and one who had little chance of removing an organ before he would have been interrupted. We might have expected that an inexperienced killer, on the other hand, would have chosen to check he had actually killed her instead of leaving it to chance - unless of course he was interrupted.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There is more evidence for Stride's killer being interrupted than there is for a different knife being used in her case. At least we can say that if he had hung around to check she was dead, then mutilated her on that spot and removed organs to take away with him, a certain jewellery salesman arriving back with his pony and cart around 1am might well have come upon him still there. Had Diemschutz not stopped at the Grove Tavern for a pint on his return journey, Stride's killer might not even have got as far as inflicting the fatal wound.

This is pretty much the same situation as in Buck's Row. No actual evidence of an interruption, but we can say that if the killer wanted to remove organs, something or someone made him leave the scene before he could do so. In this case, Lechmere might well have caught him at the scene if he had stayed there any longer. And had Lechmere left home just a minute or two sooner, we might have seen Nichols with just a cut throat.

Both these outdoor murders were discovered too quickly after the event to conclude that the killer was not interrupted and only left the scene when he had done all he wanted to do there. Moreover, in Stride's case, an inexperienced cut-throat who knew her personally would have been crazy to leave immediately after the single slice, while she was still alive, not knowing if it would prove fatal. Why would he have done that unless he couldn't risk staying another second just to make sure?

Love,

Caz
X

[DRoy]

Jon,

True enough however there was much discussion about the knife that was used due to the knife that was found. They couldn't say what type of knife used since the wounds were not like the others where they could say with more certainty. It is speculation on my part and on others that since the wound itself is different (sliced with a sharp knife) that it most likely meant a different knife was used. Perhaps Jack had more than one knife and chose to slice this time instead of rip. Perhaps.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

twise as nise

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"Nor can I, but I also cannot understand why a different knife indicates a different killer."

Fair enough. It need not. But is the question about two knives the same night?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Weapon? Different.

The wound to Stride's throat was a slicing wound so the weapon could have been any length, any width, the type of knife could not be established.

.

[c.d.]

Most likely. But that would slow their pace down rather than increase it would it not? Unless they were looking for the nearest bathroom.

c.d.

[c.d.]

DRoy,

There are discrepancies in all of the C5 murders. The question is can they be explained in a simple and plausible way.

Look at the prevalence of smash and grab robberies. The thief sees a store front window containing valuable merchandise. Jewelry, electronics, cashmere sweaters, whatever. He picks up a rock, smashes the window, grabs what he can carry and runs off. Now, more often than not he leaves behind valuable merchandise. Are we to believe that he didn't want those things? Possibly, but a more likely explanation is that he felt taking the time to grab additional items would increase the likelihood of being caught.

Jack might have used a different weapon than he used in the previous murders. Viciousness? Well it was a wound that was sufficient enough to kill his victim. Mutilation? Like our smash and grab thief, he had the thrill of the kill so he didn't go away empty handed. Would he have like to have mutilated Liz? Most likely. But again, smash and grab, take what you can, avoid being caught, and continue the war another day.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

I was under the impression that some board members recently made the trip to Mitre Square and that the alloted time was easily done.

c.d.

Hmm, but were they drunk when they did it?

[DRoy]

c.d.

Yes i guess anything is possible hence people are torn whether Stride is a victim or not.

But taking the anything is possible scenario out for a bit and just pay attention to the evidence and what we know of serial killers. It's been said time and time again that this killing doesn't match the others. Again, not saying she wasn't a Ripper victim, just saying it doesn't match what happened before or after her murder. Weapon? Different. Mutilations? No. Viciousness? No. Etc etc. Regarding serial killing, it would be rare for mutilations in two murders then not then mutilations in two more.

So in my opinion, yes it's possible she's a Ripper victim. I just believe there are too many discrepancies with this murder to make me sure of it.

Cheers
DRoy

[c.d.]

Hi DRoy,

I don't think that we want to equate a serial killer with a bank robber cooling casing the bank and evaluating all of his options. It might be that the desire to kill took precedence over common sense. He might have realized when initially talking to Liz that he was taking a big chance with a building full of men right nearby. Now let's theorize that the desire to kill Liz is overwhelming and he goes ahead despite just close proximity to the club. Let's also theorize that Liz cries out or that there is a surge in the singing coming from the club. Anything can generate paranoia. Just because he was confident in previous killings doesn't necessarily mean he was fearless this time unless he was actually a robot rather than a human being. Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, bailed on a kill I believe seven times, on some occasions based on nothing more than paranoia from his own mind.

He already had the thrill of the kill. There were other women in Whitechapel. Why risk being caught and hanged?

c.d.