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

[lynn cates]

prediscovery

Hello Velma. Thanks.

Could be. But I wonder about the time BEFORE it was discovered that Kate was killed, ie, before Tuesday evening?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

...I suggest no mutilator would choose a spot he could not mutilate in, nor would he kill anyway if it was unsuitable. The objective clearly demonstrated by the killer of Polly and Annie was the post mortem activity.....I doubt he would simply kill if a situation was likely to deny him that objective.

A thug would simply kill.

Best regards

Hi Mike,

In my Chambers, the definition of 'thug' is a violent ruffian; a cut-throat. And the definition of 'ruffian' is a brutal, violent person.

So I would certainly describe our mutilator as a thug, and a particularly brutal one at that.

Once again, you ignore the fact that the killer of Nichols and Chapman did not mutilate them at the 'spot' where he encountered them. The women were in a 'spot' of their own choosing at that point, presumably looking for customers just like him, and both agreed to accompany him to another 'spot' where he could indulge himself.

Why is it that you doubt this brutal killer could have been miffed enough to slit Stride's throat if he was out that night, armed with a lethal weapon fit for the purpose, intent on finding a willing victim to mutilate, and was offended by her unexpected refusal to budge from their point of encounter?

We don't know what she might have said to her killer, but I very much doubt (ripper or not) he was the type to be trifled with, or to take humiliation or rejection lightly. If this was the same individual who had stabbed Tabram 39 times, he was evidently a man who could lose it with a woman with very little provocation. At the spot where Stride stood, her killer had to act quickly and get away. If this was the ripper, he was becoming proficient at inflicting a fatal wound to the throat. That is arguably all he wanted to do, and all he could safely do, on this occasion.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

If you put all of the emphasis on the fact that Liz was not mutilated then you are glossing over the fact that she had her throat brutally cut. It's not like her killer simply insulted her and then walked away to look for another victim. I think that fact gets lost in the shuffle sometimes.

In a perfect world, her killer (if it were indeed Jack) would most likely have wanted to cut her open but I think he realized that the best course of action was to seek out another victim as quickly as possible. After all, Liz was not the only game in town.

c.d.

[Bridewell]

If you put all of the emphasis on the fact that Liz was not mutilated then you are glossing over the fact that she had her throat brutally cut. It's not like her killer simply insulted her and then walked away to look for another victim. I think that fact gets lost in the shuffle sometimes.

In a perfect world, her killer (if it were indeed Jack) would most likely have wanted to cut her open but I think he realized that the best course of action was to seek out another victim as quickly as possible. After all, Liz was not the only game in town.

c.d.

Indeed, and mutilation is not the only possible motive for killing, even for 'Jack'. If 'Jack' had revealed enough of his intentions for Stride to know him for what he was, he might feel compelled to kill simply in order to silence.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
....the bruises on the chest seem like pokes by a bully to me.

The fact that Chapman had similar bruises has always troubled me.

I'd forgotten, McKenzie had these bruises too.

[lynn cates]

why?

Hello CD. Then why kill her at all?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Then why kill her at all?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I assume that you are asking why kill her if he didn't go on to mutilate her. I believe that that was probably his intention but we can't be sure of that. My gut feeling is that Jack acted in haste on this one, realized that he had made a mistake and that he was in danger of being caught. Something spooked him and he took off vowing to take it out on another woman which I believe he did with Kate.

Sometimes you have to be willing to lose the battle in order to win the war. There were other available women in Whitechapel.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

I would expect cd that Lynn is actually asking if the killer found that he could not mutilate Liz, then why would he kill her? If your hypothesis is, and in a fashion, Caz's,.... that the man that killed Liz was "picking her up".... just as the women who were murdered previously met their killer,... then until he is ready to kill and cut immediately afterward into the dead or dying women he is merely a supposed client with a hidden weapon.

So....if he cannot mutilate Liz where she was found, that means his knife is still in his pocket or on his belt at that point. So....again...why would he still kill her? There is no threat from a woman who has a client both on her at the last minute.

There is ample evidence from the C1 and C2 murders that the killer of those women murdered them so he could cut into them. He didnt kill for kicks, or kill for the sake of taking a life or watching life drain from someone...he cut their throats twice so they bled out fast which kept his primary work less messy,...the cutting into and taking of materials from the abdomen.

Now we are to believe the man will just kill with a single swipe while the victim is still standing......... without any threat or potential risk if he had just left her alive instead.

The man is called The Ripper based on what he did in the C1 and C2 murders....so why in heavens name would you or Caz or anyone suggest that that man wasnt actually a Ripper at all? Just a killer......

In the herculean efforts to mystify this series that idea is one of the least tenable and most objectionable . Yeah...hes a serial killer mutilating Ripper....but also he's just a simple killer at heart....he must have been, because he also kills Liz without any fanfare or objective other than merely causing death!!

Best regards

[Michael W Richards]

Im also wondering why no-one (else) seems to have any sensible ideas on where the 6d went, considering Liz was sober, and she didnt have it on her.

Ive said earlier, and not surprising to me...since it makes so much sense.... that it will likely be ignored by many posters, is that we have missing money and 2 things Liz was not stated to have upon her person when she left the lodging house for the night.

It isnt brain surgery to imagine thats where the 6d went...and if she spent the only money that we knew she had at the time on a flower and some mints, then she wasnt concerned about her doss money. We have her meeting several men over the course of the evening and apparently not slipping off into an alley with any of them....so her "earning" some money by solicitation is a completely unsupported supposition when using the actual evidence here.

Which to me would be a relief....if we used only the evidence available in this murder there would be no debate as to whether or not a serial mutilator killed her. Then we could focus on discovering who actually killed her...not why a serial mutilator who cuts womens throats twice and guts them cuts Liz's throat once in a spot unsuitable for further "work" and then leaves to go an do what he originally intended to do somewhere else.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence of any further intentions. So, You either have someone who killed Liz, or the Phantom Menace... somehow scared off from completing his objectives, even though he has a few minutes alone with the corpse to do so. Or a Phantom Menace who decides to kill when he knows he cannot do anything else. Neither are sound ideas.

Best regards

[lynn cates]

mistake

Hello CD. Thanks.

Very well. Could you elaborate the nature of that "mistake"?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn and Michael,

The explanation for why Jack might have killed Liz but chose not to kill her is profoudly simple. Given a choice between being caught and hanged and running off to kill again, he chose the latter. You both simply refuse to accept that idea.

As for the 6d, Michael you are still insisting upon your if A then B argument. Show that Liz was not soliciting and you have shown that she could have not have been killed by the Ripper. But as it has been pointed out to you numerous times Jack would have no way of knowing that she was not soliciting unless he approached her. You now have Jack and Liz together and it is anybody's guess what happened next.

I think it makes sense that Jack took the 6d. That is as good an explanation as any.

I think that Jack acted on the spur of the moment. He realized that he had made a mistake by killing Liz in such close proximity to other people. We don't know how much time Jack had with Liz after he killed her. If she had cried out when he cut her throat, he might have been afraid that someone heard the cry and that was the impetus for him to get out of there as soon as possible. That's is why there is no indication of a further intention to mutilate.

There you go, boys. Simple, rational explanations based on self preservation.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

O K

Hello CD. Thanks.

"The explanation for why Jack might have killed Liz but chose not to kill her is profoudly simple. Given a choice between being caught and hanged and running off to kill again, he chose the latter. You both simply refuse to accept that idea."

Not at all. In fact, this goes for ALL the killings and, if carried to a logical conclusion, rules out all the WCM.

"I think that Jack acted on the spur of the moment. He realized that he had made a mistake by killing Liz in such close proximity to other people."

Actually, I can live with this. Of course, it would preclude all nonsense about planning, stalking, letters, graffiti, taunting and so on.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Im also wondering why no-one (else) seems to have any sensible ideas on where the 6d went, considering Liz was sober, and she didnt have it on her.

Stride cleaned Tanner's rooms on Sat. afternoon, and received 6d for her troubles.

When Catherine Lane saw Liz between 6-7 o'clock she did not appear to have been drinking, but had the 6d on her.

Elizabeth Tanner saw Stride in the Queens Head Pub at 6:30, possibly drinking the 6d she had paid her earlier.

.

[lynn cates]

alcohol

Hello Jon. Presumably not a malted beverage.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

What evidence do we have for Stride not having drunk anything, other than stomach contents? Did the police canvass all the possible places she could have bought it?

If you haven't eaten anything, alcohol empties from the stomach pretty rapidly, so isn't it possible she bought something shortly after 7, and it was gone from her stomach by the time she was killed?

I realize that doesn't fit any of the narratives we have very well, unless we want to presume she was an alcoholic, who needed to stave off the DTs, but it would explain where the 6d went.