Throat-slitting and Stride

[Michael W Richards]

Liz might have had her suspicions and may have felt more secure being close to the club. If Jack was intent upon killing her and she said it's here or not at all, what were his options?

I don't buy the scenario because i see not one iota of evidence that Liz was soliciting that night. All the evidence suggests she was on a "date".

Phil

I believe the first part in bold is accurate Phil...but the end of that sentence isnt...not of the known evidence anyway.

Cheers

[Phil H]

The clothes brush, the care with her appearance, the piece of velvet - the fact she seems to have been seen with a single "clerkly" man that night pretty consistently. the fact that she had left Kidney - need I go on...?

[Michael W Richards]

All I have to do is mention Liz and Michael appears. I feel drunk with power.

"His true motive was somehow tied in with the acts that were performed after the killings."

How do you know what his motive was?

c.d.

We ALL know what was done to the women cd, its not an interpretation Im making, its stating the bloody obvious. If he just desired killing, then why go beyond that and risk capture? If he desired killing...why dont we see some kind of sign he prolonged the murders to fully engorge himself? If he just desired killing, then why did he stay and open the women up?

The killer of Polly and Annie, by his actions, show us that his main preoccupation with the act he was committing was on the after kill activities...which were by timing and available light, the most risky and difficult acts to accomplish.

Look at Strides killer.....one cut, and hes gone. No sign of him. No sign he cared one iota about the dead woman after that single cut.

Its all there cd....or its all missing, depending on which argument you take. The evidence reads like Strides killer wanted to kill her and Nichols and Chapmans killer wanted to mutilate after committing that act.

If you dont see that....well,......I suppose it does explain a lot of our exchanges over the years anyway.

Cheers cd, all the best

[c.d.]

Liz might have had her suspicions and may have felt more secure being close to the club. If Jack was intent upon killing her and she said it's here or not at all, what were his options?

I don't buy the scenario because i see not one iota of evidence that Liz was soliciting that night. All the evidence suggests she was on a "date".

Phil

All the evidence?????????????

c.d.

[Phil H]

Liz might have had her suspicions and may have felt more secure being close to the club. If Jack was intent upon killing her and she said it's here or not at all, what were his options?

I don't buy the scenario because i see not one iota of evidence that Liz was soliciting that night. All the evidence suggests she was on a "date".

Phil

[c.d.]

All I have to do is mention Liz and Michael appears. I feel drunk with power.

"His true motive was somehow tied in with the acts that were performed after the killings."

How do you know what his motive was?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

The "Serial Killer" assumptive in the case of Jack the Ripper doesnt address some of the key components of some of the Canonical murders. Its apparent that the killing of some of the Canonicals was not sufficient to satisfy the urges or desires, or needs, of the killer(s) involved. One cannot assume then that this man, one that mutilated the women postmortem, was motivated to act by a compulsion,urge or desire to commit murder. His true motive was somehow tied in with the acts that were performed after the killings.

It would therefore be misleading to suggest that all serial killers kill because they cant stop themselves,.. the real answers can be quite individual, and often far more complex.

Its about what we can see within the known and accepted evidence that might tell us something about WHY the killer killed this specific person. With Polly and Annie, its likely being in the wrong place at wrong time...they were probably randomly chosen that night,...because there is no real evidence which suggests anything else. We can also say that their killer, assuming we are dealing with a single individual, was not satisfied with merely committing murder. Again...the evidence dictates that position. Not someones gut instincts or some sheer speculation.

In some cases, like the case of Liz Stride, there is no evidence that suggests her killer was not satisfied with the single act he performed....and so for categorization purposes, that murder does not match the first 2.....by motive. There is speculation that he wasnt able to show us the true nature of his intent due to some murder-interruptus, however, there is again, no evidence at all, to support that belief.

We have what we have. A woman cut once, not nearly as severely as the 2 preceding victims both were, with no evidence that anything other than murder was contemplated or intended. She lay just as she fell, and was undisturbed after the cut was made.

Just because a second woman is killed soon after Liz....... (and in a much more similar fashion to the first 2 women with clear evidence that the killer sought more than merely killing Kate),...doesnt mean we have to create a fantasy interruption or some explanation for Liz Stride out of thin air...without any supporting evidence at all, to address the obvious differences.

Obvious differences.

WHY the killings took place is the question one should ask themselves when assessing this evidence, is there potentially a MOTIVE...because WHY anyone kills anyone is the key factor in the investigatory process.

Best regards

[c.d.]

Surely he would seek a MORE secure spot if possible, not a less?

I think Eddowes led him to the fence in the corner of the square. Exits didn't seem to worry him - No 29 had none.

Phil

Hello Phil,

Liz might have had her suspicions and may have felt more secure being close to the club. If Jack was intent upon killing her and she said it's here or not at all, what were his options?

c.d.

[Phil H]

Surely he would seek a MORE secure spot if possible, not a less?

I think Eddowes led him to the fence in the corner of the square. Exits didn't seem to worry him - No 29 had none.

Phil

[c.d.]

But I see no sign that any over-powering urge, lessened his self-control.

Phil

Hello Phil,

But that is a possible explanation for why he might pick a location that was not particularly good as to avoid interruption as in the Stride killing or made him more vulnerable to capture (being indoors) as in the Kelly killing.

c.d.

[Phil H]

But I see no sign that any over-powering urge, lessened his self-control.

Phil

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

Agreed. But if we accept the idea that Jack was a serial killer, is it really a leap to assume that his need to kill could be overpowering at times?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

self-control--or not

Hello CD. Thanks.

And so there is no way of knowing about his self-control--or lack thereof.

(Actually, Kate interests me a good deal more than Liz.)

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

There is also little to suggest that Stride was a victim of "Jack" - apart from the blinkered view that there could only be one killer on the prowl that night.

On the other hand, keeping Stride out of the reckoning (for argument's sake) and discounting the "double event", opens up new possibilities for the murder of Eddowes. It gives "Jack" more time, for instance -and despite kates facial mutilations, I see no signs of haste or "frenzy", or desperate to find a second victim, in that murder. On the contrary, I perceive a "Jack" very much in control.

Phil

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

I have only to mention Stride and you appear as if by magic. Amazing.

Ah but in my scenario Jack is out that night (the double event) with the intent to kill. Who knows what may have set him off and made him select Stride as a victim. There is also know way of knowing how or why he was able to go weeks without a kill.

c.d.