Throat-slitting and Stride

[lynn cates]

running away

Hello CD.

"If a man is trying to grab a young girl on her way home from school and an adult appears and he runs off, did his motive somehow change?"

Not at all.

Of course, if there were a serial paedophile out and about, and he grabbed girls and cut their throats twice--deeply--but a third one was cut shallowly, once, it might cause one to think a bit.

And then, too, there would be some evidence of running away, not just an ad hoc assumption to make a fit?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

If a man is trying to grab a young girl on her way home from school and an adult appears and he runs off, did his motive somehow change?

A) Does this happen after a few incidents of successful abductions, (with specific injuries inflicted upon both of the previous victims), had recently occurred?

B) Does the 3rd abduction attempt have the same characteristics as the previous 2 in as much as can be determined? Were all 3 victims similar in any respects, were they engaged in certain activities at the time,... was the environment similar, the time of day, the approach?

C) Can we say, based solely on an abduction attempt, that we are likely looking at the same person who abducted and injured 2 victims in a very specific manner?

The killer I alluded to earlier cd did specific things, and did those things after the cuts that killed were made. In other words, he killed so he could continue. It was not merely death he sought.

In Liz Strides case, can you say the same?... again....based on evidence, not your beliefs or hunches or arguments that include interruptions that are not indicated in any physical evidence.

To Phil, I happen to believe that Liz Strides attendance in the passageway was more likely something social or employment oriented, based on her maid, nanny and housecleaning history. I believe as you stated that some physical evidence suggests those possibilities strongly. My point earlier was that it is still an unknown why she was there,.. despite our own beliefs.

Cheers

[crberger]

Errata-could you please tell me more about "disengage" as in, "On of the things Jack had to have was the ability to disengage from a potential victim if the location didn't suit his needs."
Thanks

[Starbuck27]

Evening Phil, this is my first post on Casebook so you'l have to forgive me at my lack of authority on the subject. I've always been interested in this question. I'd be genuinely interested to know how much of an anomaly the Ripper's spree constitutes in the pattern or serious crime of the time period in question within London.

From what I do know about the case there are a number of murders that look as if they were perpetrated by a serial killer. Certainly they would almost surely represent that today if transplanted to our period. I'm just not informed enough to onow if such a definitive case can be made in the 1890's.

Given the discrepancies in eye witness statements [to an extent an entirely natural lack of clarity as i've discovered from experience] is it not possible that these were simply a number of seperate murders? Or the work of a loose collection of pimps keeping their prostitutes in particuarly brutal check?

As i've said already I appreciate that I may not know enough to realise that these are questions that have already been comprehensively answered and if so... I apologise in advance.

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

Hello Phil.

"I don't buy the scenario because I see not one iota of evidence that Liz was soliciting that night."

Well, the argument is:

1. She was female.

2. She may have talked to men.

3. She was out late.

4. Jack killed her, and he killed ONLY prostitutes.

Cheers.
LC

Does this include the three different men she was seen with in the space of 90 minutes?

[Phil H]

Welcome to Casebook, Starbuck27. I hope you enjoy the site and get as much out of it as I do.

There is a book about London murder s in 1888 (fairly recent in paperback) which I don't have to hand - it sets the Ripper murders in that year's context. (I think there is a digest of some of those murders in a current thread here - not sure which one.)

I'd be genuinely interested to know how much of an anomaly the Ripper's spree constitutes in the pattern or serious crime of the time period in question within London.

Certainly the press latched on to the JtR-related crimes. I believe tht at least some of them are connected.

From what I do know about the case there are a number of murders that look as if they were perpetrated by a serial killer. Certainly they would almost surely represent that today if transplanted to our period. I'm just not informed enough to onow if such a definitive case can be made in the 1890's.

AP Wolf - I think the book is available as a download on Casebook - deconstructed the murders - especially Stride's. I found it a very stimulating read. Peter Turnbull also wrote a book that argued that all the murders were separate and only linked by the press.

Simon Wood argues in articles in the last two issues of Ripperologist that Chapman was a murder by a separate hand to Nichols and Eddowes. I don't agree with him, but there you go.

I believe that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were almost certainly by the same hand. These days I personally question Stride and Kelly - though many others would strongly disagree. I would increasingly add Mckenzie.

But I do think the atmosphere, the soubriquet (JtR) and the tension were created by the press for their own ends. (Simon makes some good points about this, IMHO.) I think there is a good case for the killer being the first "serial killer" - but I think the myth (stronger than the facts) is largely hype. Again, make your own mind up on the point, don't just accept what I or others say.

Given the discrepancies in eye witness statements [to an extent an entirely natural lack of clarity as i've discovered from experience] is it not possible that these were simply a number of seperate murders?

See what I have said above. To me the similarities between Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes are sufficient, and the possible learning curve clear enough, to say they may well be linked.

Or the work of a loose collection of pimps keeping their prostitutes in particuarly brutal check?

I started a thread - not well responded to by many - about the Controllers of Spitalfields, suggesting just such a thing.

As I've said already I appreciate that I may not know enough to realise that these are questions that have already been comprehensively answered and if so... I apologise in advance.

No need to apologise, I'm pleased to help so far as i can. I am largely in a minority here, so you may find others will give you a very different slant and answers.

If anything I have said doesn't make sense, please come back to me.

Again, a warm welcome.

Phil

[Phil H]

I've given you my view Wickerman - if you don't agree fine. I disagree with most of what you think.

My view is she was not seen with three men - but one. The descriptions are pretty consistent.

Phil

[Starbuck27]

Cheers for the informative and understanding reply Phil, much appreciated. I'm only rarely impressed with conspiracy theories [though I do enjoy indulging them!] but I sometimes feel that there was the ability and motivation [and given the possible provenance of the letters maybe even action] to largely invent Jack The Ripper. Both as a means to increase media sales and as a cause to effect social change.

I've no doubt that it's entirely possible that there was a serial killer responsible for these women's deaths. A quick perusal of the suspect list demonstrates that there were a number of killers operating at or around the time...i've just always felt that the murders in this case arent neccessarily conclusively linked. At least in my own mind.

Thanks for reccomended reading I shall endeavour to get at least one of those books by the end of the week.

[Wickerman]

I've given you my view Wickerman - if you don't agree fine. I disagree with most of what you think.

My view is she was not seen with three men - but one. The descriptions are pretty consistent.

Phil

It is clear that you disagree, not only with myself on this issue, but with Stewart, and with the conclusions of Swanson, as written at the time after he enquired "into her history", and interviewing her "friends, associates and anyone who knew her".

Deciding on the social status of Liz Stride based soley on what has survived today may be convenient for some, but the police at the time had considerably more background information on the habits of Stride and were in much better position to know her true role that night.
Disagree all you like, we can only show the horse to water, but we cannot make him drink.

[Phil H]

I have written what I have written (as someone famous once said).

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

It is clear that you disagree, not only with myself on this issue, but with Stewart,

Oh dear! Is it now forbidden to disagree with Stewart? I hadn't heard (Frankly doesn't worry me.) I admire Stewart greately for his academic work on the files - his conclusions (as with Sugden) are his own.

and with the conclusions of Swanson,

No one could admire DSS as much as i do - but yes, i do question many aspects of the contemporary police investigation. Do you agree with EVERYTHING Anderson and macnaghten wrote?

as written at the time after he enquired "into her history", and interviewing her "friends, associates and anyone who knew her".

So entirely subjective. My reasoning is also - please note - based on contemporary testimony given by those who knew liz.

Phil

[lynn cates]

men

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Does this include the three different men she was seen with in the space of 90 minutes?"

That would be number two. Notice I say "men" and "may," for we have no idea whether it was one or many. Indeed, I am not sure it was Liz at all.

But in for a penny, in for a pound.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

when?

Hello (again) Jon.

"Deciding on the social status of Liz Stride based solely on what has survived today may be convenient for some, but the police at the time had considerably more background information on the habits of Stride and were in much better position to know her true role that night."

Are you seriously suggesting that Stride was a prostitute whilst she cohabited with Kidney?

If not, were the police that well informed about Liz based on less than a week's movements as supposed by her "friends"?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

So Jack would have had to disengage. Since she was killed anyway, it's likely not Jack.

Why would he not kill her if that was the quickest way to disengage?

[Bridewell]

Exits didn't seem to worry him - No 29 had none.

Hi Phil,

I agree. Why was that? What was his exit strategy, I wonder?

[Phil H]

To me easy - he may have known the house... perhaps he had slept on the stairs before, as we know men did.

But also, Chapman was killed in darkness, much earlier than is usually thought - before the house was astir.

Phil