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

[curious4]

Hello Curious,

I will look into Bury in a bit more detail - still think we shall have to agree to disagree though.

All good wishes,
C4

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

I would like to point out that the club wasn't quite as full of able-bodied men at the time of Liz' attack. Most members had gone home - I believe about 20 remained behind, of which at least one, probably more than one, was female. I think Jack would have felt fairly safe as long as the singing was going on, it was not likely people would leave then, and it makes more sense that those who did would leave by the front door. Why go out into a dark passage in the back yard when there was a perfectly good door at the front?

If anyone had left by the back entrance he had only to retreat into the shadows until they had gone. What he would find more of a nuisance would be a shying pony which smelled fresh blood and an owner investigating.

Although it has crossed my mind that Jack did intend to take two victims that night and sacrificed his mutilation of Liz in order to reach his target.

Best wishes,
C4

Hi Curious,

A couple of points, ....there were around 30 people still in attendance upstairs singing and at least Mrs Diemshutz and a cleaning woman were downstairs in the kitchen. Some Cottagers stated that they were awake at the approximate time of the murder. The kitchen door was ajar. As per Morris Eagle, the front door was locked by 12:40am.

In the yard there was the office of the Arbeter Fraint and some unused stables with an office above.

That means when Liz is killed there are any number of access points for someone to stumble in while the attack is ongoing...from the street, from the cottages, from the side door to the club, and from the office of the paper. It was a very poor choice of a spot to kill someone based on those risks.

And the Police did check the yard and the stable and the cottages....there is only one place a killer could have hid on that property once the police arrived....he could have been one of the men from the club down for a smoke, and simply re-entered it after the cut. Dropped his knife in the soapy dishwater on the way upstairs to re-join the singers.

Best regards

[curious4]

Interruptions

Hello Michael,

Ingenious idea with the soapy water, I must admit. Not so likely though. The front door was locked, yes, to anyone coming in, but no problem for anyone wanting to leave from the inside.

It was very, very dark in the passageway, Diemschutz had to strike a match to see anything and I don't think he would have been able to see much more than what was just in front of him. Anyone standing just a short distance away would be invisible. And what did everyone who found one of the bodies do? Run for help. Cue for Jack to leg it round the corner, perhaps into one of the loos, and then mingle with the crowd, all of them looking at the body, not at whoever was standing next to him/her.

Best wishes,
C4

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby.

"she playing hard to get"

A lady of easy virtue playing hard to get? Might be an oxymoron on the order of "free-spending Scotsman."

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
Yes. Perhaps she was looking for a new man after breaking up with kidney. Perhaps that's why she spent her money on caschous and a flower. According to the witnesses stride was seen with possibly the same man over the course of the evening (peaked cap man). Going straight into the prostitute/client act would probably ruin any chance for a relationship in her mind.

She was also the only victim where there is no evidence that she was drunk off her ass. She could have been relatively sober, liked this person she just met, and had hopes of something more long term than a "trick".

[Abby Normal]

I'm not sure if you just said what I think you just said..

If you did, why have you been quiet for so long...

What do you mean?

[Abby Normal]

Actually, I suspect that the way a "lady of easy virtue" acted when conducting business might be very different from what she would do when considering a potential "real" relationship.

Anyone else have ideas in this area?


curious

Exactly. Thanks!

[c.d.]

Hello Curious,

I imagine somebody wanting to take a leak would go into the back yard rather than exit through the front.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

You seem to be envisioning a coldy calculating unemotional killer more akin to somebody planning a bank robbery and weighing all the risks. If it were Jack, the desire to kill might have outweighed common sense and made him take too much risk that he only realized after the kill. At that point, perhaps it was buyer's remorse and he realized the best course of action was to flee and find another victim.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

While it can't be proved, the possibility that Jack was interrupted before he had a chance to mutilate Liz is a perfectly rational and plausible explanation as to why he might have chosen to forego such proceedings. Alien abduction? Not so plausible. That would seem the point. Therefore, the if A then B argument that it can't be Jack because Jack always mutilates his victims doesn't seem to hold up if a possible and plausible reason why he didn't can be presented.

To argue that there is no evidence for it is one thing and perfectly valid but I am sure that even you put it in the plausible category. Do you not?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

different

Hello Abby. Thanks.

In that case, it would not be a prostitute playing hard to get.

OK.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Don't know Jack.

Hello CD. Thanks.

But the point is, this already assumes Jack.

It's bad enough that a mutilated female turns up, and everyone assumes it's by one hand--Jack. But now one shows up and she ISN'T mutilated and it's, "Ah, but he didn't get the chance to mutilate."

Whoever died in Whitechapel must have been killed by "Jack."

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

But the point is, this already assumes Jack.

But it isn't an assumption made in a vacuum. It is an assumption that takes into consideration local history in a specific period of time to come to a conclusion about a situation. This doesn't make the argument right, but it doesn't invalidate it either. It also doesn't mean one is closed off to new evidence. It is a scientific argument based on known facts. As more facts are gathered, the theory is subject to change and/or discarding. Deciding a victim is not the work of the same man is an assumption as well and subject to the same scrutiny.

Mike

[lynn cates]

forensic analysis

Hello Michael. Thanks.

"It also doesn't mean one is closed off to new evidence."

Absolutely. Have we any?

"It is a scientific argument based on known facts."

Indeed? So if someone testified that s/he opened the side door just about 1.50, that would certainly make interruption plausible. Absent that . . .

"As more facts are gathered, the theory is subject to change and/or discarding."

Quite.

"Deciding a victim is not the work of the same man is an assumption as well and subject to the same scrutiny."

Yes, indeed. And that is why I champion more forensic analysis, and less talk of domineering mums, absent fathers, anagrams, police taunting and the usual rot.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

"It also doesn't mean one is closed off to new evidence."

Absolutely. Have we any?

I have a transcribed note from a pickle vendor mentioning a few things, but a pickled vendor isn't as reliable as I should like,

Mike

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Whoever died in Whitechapel must have been killed by "Jack."

When almost identical victims die from severed carotid`s, yes, it`s a good place to start.