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

[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

[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.

[lynn cates]

why?

Hello CD. Then why kill her at all?

Cheers.
LC

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[curious]

Hello Velma. Thanks.

"If you are so stuck on where they were at the time, if you believe it was somewhere else, why not share your thinking?"

OK. Surely somewhere in London, likely east end. But NOT sure where they were in relation to Cooney's.

Fred and John both made the same claim about credit. Of course, both could be lying. John did not seem to stick at a contradiction, so why not here?

And the big question is, how did John live between Sunday morning and Tuesday night? He claimed:

1. he had no money

and

2. had no success at the market

One explanation regarding doss is that Fred extended credit. But if not, whence came John's money?

Cheers.
LC

Hi, Lynn,
I see what you're getting out.

I suspect that after it was discovered that Kate had been killed in such a horrible manner, Fred and possibly other friends did "help" John out some. In horrible times, people do seem to do that.

Velma

[lynn cates]

money

Hello Velma. Thanks.

"If you are so stuck on where they were at the time, if you believe it was somewhere else, why not share your thinking?"

OK. Surely somewhere in London, likely east end. But NOT sure where they were in relation to Cooney's.

Fred and John both made the same claim about credit. Of course, both could be lying. John did not seem to stick at a contradiction, so why not here?

And the big question is, how did John live between Sunday morning and Tuesday night? He claimed:

1. he had no money

and

2. had no success at the market

One explanation regarding doss is that Fred extended credit. But if not, whence came John's money?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I think they are the 'trade mark' of a prostitute.

[curious]

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

Any thoughts on what might have caused them?

thanks,

curious

[Wickerman]

....the bruises on the chest seem like pokes by a bully to me.

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

[curious]

Hello Velma. Thanks.

"And, if good ole Wilkinson was indeed such a soft touch, why would they ever have had to walk about all night? If they couldn't stay any other place, surely they would have headed over to Wilkinson."

But again, where were they at the time?

Cheers.
LC

Hello, Lynn, Thanks.

If you are so stuck on where they were at the time, if you believe it was somewhere else, why not share your thinking?

I ask you, where do you believe they were at the time?

Velma

[Michael W Richards]

...your argument is that she was waiting there for someone special, so why would she have chosen to leave unless she had given up waiting or was trying to get away from someone else?

....What I'm saying is that no killer who valued his own neck would have risked mutilating her there,...... . .

To the first section Caz, I suggest that she was being harassed by the man she encountered in the passage, and that she turned and started to walk away from him, back out into the street....the bruises on the chest seem like pokes by a bully to me.

As to the second section, 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