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

[lynn cates]

Ur-Nammu

Hello Colin.

"It would be wonderful, though, to see these authors have to put what they call evidence before a court of law."

Indeed. Interesting would be something like the Law code of Ur-Nammu. If you bring suit and you fail to prove your case, YOU get the penalty.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

theatre

Hello CD. Thanks.

Permit a simple analogy?

If I wish to know about Shakespeare and his motivation for producing a certain play, I might well look to Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, or Aristophanes. But it would be iffy at best.

However, I doubt reading Tennessee Williams would be helpful.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

How about something a little more specific? Take Liz Stride for example. Some on here argue that there is no evidence for the interruption theory so therefore it could not have happened. But yet we know that Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, was interrupted I believe it was seven times if I am not mistaken causing him to abandon his attempt at securing a victim. Some of those attempts were called off not by any actual physical interruption but by paranoia generated by his own mind. Therefore, no evidence for an interruption. So here we have a known serial killer behaving in a certain manner. Now that does not mean Jack acted in the same way but we have concrete evidence that such things do happen.

I don't want to speak for Caz but I believe that was the point she was making.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

back Berner

Hello CD. Thanks.

"For example. Some on here argue that there is no evidence for the interruption theory so therefore it could not have happened."

Not seen that one. Personally, I would say: "There is no evidence for an interruption." Then, I'd stop.

It's like the "Dear Boss." It COULD have been sent by the killer. But I see no evidence for it. Hence, I place it firmly on the back burner (Berner? heh-heh).

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

If you ain't seen that one Lynn you ain't been lookin'. But by stopping aren't you implying that that argument carries no weight?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

invalid

Hello CD. Thanks.

"If you ain't seen that one Lynn you ain't been lookin'."

Very well. Can you direct me to the post/s in question?

"But by stopping aren't you implying that that argument carries no weight?"

You mean the leap from "no evidence" to "can't happen"? That's an "ab no esse, ad no posse." It is invalid.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Caz,

You cannot retrofit the behaviourial patterns of subsequent serial killers onto an alleged prototype.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

In that case, Lynn cannot say that if Stride's killer made a mistake he can be ruled out as one who plans, stalks his victims, sends letters, writes messages or taunts. How does he get to define the behavioural patterns of an unknown killer who had the same flaws that all human flesh is heir to?

I was merely pointing out that even the most meticulous planner will not avoid human error on every occasion. Did the Challenger not blow up before it got into space? I don't think that was the plan, do you? Or perhaps you do, considering your penchant for conspiracy theories.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I wish everybody would start with the presumtption that they are studying 5 unsolved murders that occurred in a small section of London in 1888 over approx 2 months and to ONLY consider the most rare of all killers if it is warranted based on the evidence.

Er, Mike, that's the presumption that everybody does start with - because it's a fact that 5 women had their throats cut by unknown hands in a tiny area of London in 1888 between the last day of August and November 9. Most of us end up considering that based on the evidence alone, by far the likeliest scenario is that a serial killer was active there during this period. Rare as they may be, it would seem to be a darn sight rarer to have had four killers all suddenly motivated to do in an unfortunate and risk the gallows.

Love,

Caz
X

[curious4]

Liz

Phillips seemed inclined along those lines, if we are not taking his observation out of context.
The Coroner asked him:

[Coroner] Is there any similarity between this case and Annie Chapman's case?

Phillips: - There is very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones.

Phillips adds that a short blade would have sufficed, unlike the 6-8 inch blade referred to in the Chapman case.

Does Phillips think Stride was not killed by the same hand as Chapman?

We already know he had doubts about Eddowes being by the same hand as Chapman.

Does Phillips think this short blade could have been used to mutilate Eddowes? - probably not.

What is the implication of Phillips's words concerning Chapman, Stride & Eddowes, are there three hands at work, in his mind?

.

Hello Wickerman,

It seems to me that there is a tendency to misinterpret Phillips' comments. He was speaking from a medical point of view, not as a crime scene officer, and from a medical point of view there was a great difference between Chapman's body and that of Liz Stride.

I sometimes think that if Liz were to jump out of her grave and yell "Jack dunnit!", a number of people would immediately say "Prove it!"

Best wishes,

C4

[caz]

To Colin.....for myself mate I need nothing other than the existing evidence to know that Liz Stride wasnt killed by the same man that killed Annie Chapman before her, but that Polly was likely killed by the man that kills Annie next...

...Why I continue to argue points here....why Liz was there, what she was doing there, where did her money go....is because I respect some of the members enough to assume that many others could also share my opinion of Liz if they used only the evidence itself and stayed away from the guesswork and supposition needed to include a Ripper in this murder.

Hi Mike,

I suppose you know just how patronising and condescending that comes across? It comes across as: "I respect some members enough to assume they will eventually see the light if I keep flashing my torch in their eyes".

Do you also know just how much guesswork and supposition you needed to fill the gaps in the evidence and to presume to 'know' that Stride was killed by someone else?

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

I suppose you know just how patronising and condescending that comes across? It comes across as: "I respect some members enough to assume they will eventually see the light if I keep flashing my torch in their eyes".

Do you also know just how much guesswork and supposition you needed to fill the gaps in the evidence and to presume to 'know' that Stride was killed by someone else?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

My intention wasnt to insult but rather extend credit based on the many thoughtful and insightful posts Ive seen by members here over the years. My belief is that some people are smart enough to at times see beyond their own limitations and preconceptions and with open minds embrace new philosophies when they are reasonable and supported by facts. An example might be the assumptions made about David Crocketts last moments at the Alamo, which for more than 150 years was that he was killed in battle while defending the mission. A few years back a comprehensive review was done of all the known existing first hand accounts...Mexican, Texian, American, combatants and non-combatants, and guess what....it appears that weve all be wrong about what really happened. He was captured and executed...a simple end rather than the heroism myth. When we just trust the myth we accept all the truth and lies....I dont want to do that personally.

I think in the case of Liz Stride a suggestion that she was simply killed by some criminal is what the evidence itself suggests Caz...the "gaps" are only present if you insist of pinning this murder to the previous victims killer. Missing mutilation intention, missing second throat cut, different knife, lack of interruption evidence,...those are the gaps. Her dead body is about all we have to go by here and by that data it seems clear that she was not killed by the man that killed Annie.

To cd, I didnt say that people shouldnt review old murders while utilizing data collected in modern times, I said that serial killer data should only be useful when you KNOW that the older crimes were committed by one serial murderer. In the case of the Canonical Five, we do not KNOW that...its is assumed.

All the best

[caz]

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

Hi Mike,

I find this kind of reasoning bizarre in the extreme. It is based on all sorts of dubious supposition and guesswork about the motivations and human foibles of a serial mutilator you don't even believe existed! You believe that one man mutilated Nichols and Chapman; another mutilated only Eddowes; another mutilated only Kelly; and another felt the need to murder Stride with the knife in his possession for reasons that would be completely unknowable. So did all your mutilators only commit murder for the sole purpose of performing their mutilations? Or could there have been more to it than that in one or more of the cases?

You seem to be suggesting that your mutilator would have been equally keen to cut into the corpse of someone who had just died from natural causes, or met with a fatal accident, because you are saying that murdering the intended victim was merely a necessary means of obtaining his raw materials. I cannot begin to fathom how you can claim to know this, or to speak for such a man. What informs your view that overpowering and killing a woman played no psychological part in this individual's overall experience, but only a practical one? Because if the man who mutilates when given half a chance gets anything at all out of the act of controlling - possibly manhandling - his victim and slicing into her neck, there would be ample motivation right there for killing Stride, even while appreciating that the club was no place to be fannying around inside one of his fresh corpses. He could have figured that the thrill of the kill was better than no thrill at all.

Would you ask why a dirty old man would still grope young girls in a crowd when there is no chance of him completing a sex act with any of them?

Would you ask why a teenage boy would still lust after women he can never have? You'd be asking the same question of him when he's eighty-six.

If you believe a thwarted serial mutilator would have all the patience and forbearing of a saint and simply walk away from an intended victim if she resisted his charms or the circumstances were too risky, I can only wonder who you think did kill Stride and what she could have done to provoke your unknown quantity into putting the knife in.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

An example might be the assumptions made about David Crocketts last moments at the Alamo, which for more than 150 years was that he was killed in battle while defending the mission. A few years back a comprehensive review was done of all the known existing first hand accounts...Mexican, Texian, American, combatants and non-combatants, and guess what....it appears that weve all be wrong about what really happened. He was captured and executed...a simple end rather than the heroism myth. When we just trust the myth we accept all the truth and lies....

Just to point out that the current academic concensus appears to be that the "myth" was correct. De La Pena's account (involving Crockett's execution by firing squad) is not supported by other evidence. Thus, it is now widely accepted that crockett died in the fighting as was originally believed - and as is consistent with his character.

I have just been researching the subject, so my comments confidently reflect the most recent writing on the subject.

Phil

[caz]

Hi Caz,

My intention wasnt to insult but rather extend credit based on the many thoughtful and insightful posts Ive seen by members here over the years. My belief is that some people are smart enough to at times see beyond their own limitations and preconceptions and with open minds embrace new philosophies when they are reasonable and supported by facts.

Again you imply that others are not 'smart enough' to have your open mind and to embrace your new philosophies, which you claim to be reasonable and supported by the facts. What 'facts' support your opinion that the act of killing means nothing to someone who cuts into corpses apart from allowing him to do so?

I think in the case of Liz Stride a suggestion that she was simply killed by some criminal is what the evidence itself suggests Caz...the "gaps" are only present if you insist of pinning this murder to the previous victims killer. Missing mutilation intention, missing second throat cut, different knife, lack of interruption evidence,...those are the gaps. Her dead body is about all we have to go by here and by that data it seems clear that she was not killed by the man that killed Annie.

Well at least 'it seems clear' is an improvement on 'I know', but where does this 'different knife' come from? You can't infer as much from the medical evidence, which doesn't rule out the same knife, but merely suggests it may have been a different one.

To cd, I didnt say that people shouldnt review old murders while utilizing data collected in modern times, I said that serial killer data should only be useful when you KNOW that the older crimes were committed by one serial murderer. In the case of the Canonical Five, we do not KNOW that...its is assumed.

I really don't get this argument about knowledge versus assumption. How the devil is anyone meant to test or argue for either theory: a serial killer or multiple killers, without reference to and comparison with murderers from both categories? If you can't come up with any examples of cases that are comparable to the WM, which feature several unconnected killers, to support your own theory, you are in no position to complain when others are able to support theirs with copious examples of serial killers behaving badly in all too familiar sounding ways.

Comparison with known examples is the only way to test either theory and try to disprove it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Why is it that anyone who strays from a strict belief in the mainstream version of the Whitechapel murders is invariably branded a conspiracy theorist?

Regards,

Simon