What's the compelling feature?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"The fact that the man appeared to have been intoxicated"

Ben, am I misreading you here, or are you suddenly prepared to believe chosen parts of the Stars report? In the police report, there is no mentioning of BS man being affected by alcohol.

If it suddenly has become OK to use the Star, I would like to advance the thought that BS man may have made a respectable appearance, due to his clothing.

If that is OK with you, that is?

This is all very confusing, I have to say ...

The best, you Starpusher, you!
Fisherman

Hi again Ben,

I dont question that research shows us that serial killers do odd things at times, like submit themselves as witnesses, or show up at their own crime scenes, but I think that should be used here with caution. For one, the series may involve a few killers, and secondly, that assumption nullifies any notion that the Whitechapel Murderer was clever and thoughtful about what he did.

I could see an exception though....if we have an artistic or imaginative killer, who play acts his way into close proximity with a victim. Nobody gave BSM a Breathalyzer, what if he acted the part? I would think that a man capable of staggering actually drunk into a scene, interacting with a witness, then taking his prey into the yard to "merely" murder them is unlike what we must envision the Rippers MO. There must be astronomical odds against one man evading capture and leaving no traces of himself who is incapable of some self control, sheer luck is a convenient answer, not terribly plausible particularly as the hunters grew in numbers, and the chances of such luck were diminished.

He got them alone...while a spree was on...he kept them quiet...or at least we dont know if any victims made any noises while being killed, and he never left a trace, or was never seen slipping away with his pocket of guts.

We dont know that anyone saw "Jack", so to assume a man who makes a public display of his interaction with a soon to be victim is the same man who seems to appear and disappear without a trace, is risky at best I think Ben.

Dont allow yourself to be convinced that none of the killings showed us that we have a least one clever killer. I would think the second murder if by him is a much better MO match.

Cheers Ben.

[Ben]

The way I see it is that there was absolutely no need for him to cut her throat unless he specifically wanted her dead.

That's the way I see it too, Gareth.

If BS was her killer (and also Jack the Ripper) then the chances are strong that he specifically wanted her dead. However, the removal of a potential witness who could have identified him subsequently (or at the very least provided an incriminating description) way also have played a part (albeit not the most major one) in his descision to kill her. Physically attacking a prostitute during the Autum of Terror would have elicited suspicion from any police force irrespective of the severity of the assault.

Best,

Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I'd respectfully beg to differ, Gareth. Given the prevalent ripperphobia in the district courtesy of the ripper crimes, any man observed assaulting a prostitute during the Autum of Terror in "ripper" territory would have been viewed with considerable interest and suspicion, just as William Grant Grainger was after he did precisely that.

I hardly think that wrestling a woman to the floor can be equated with Grainger's knife-attack, Ben.

Where does "presumably knew" come into it, btw?

If Liz did not already know him, the chances of her identifying him thereafter would have been slim and - again - why on earth would she be particularly bothered, if all he did was throw her down? Why would he be particularly bothered at being ID'ed later, if all he'd done was dump her on the ground? The way I see it is that there was absolutely no need for him to cut her throat unless he specifically wanted her dead.

Anonymous pavement-dumpers can just walk away from the scene, knowing (a) they would be unlikely to be identified; and (b) even if they were, the "offence" they'd committed was so incredibly trivial that nothing could possibly come of it.

[Ben]

BSM wasnt discreet at all. He scuffles drunkenly with a woman who then falls, and shouts at Schwartz to mind his own business. He could easily be a killer, but hardly a Ripper

Very possibly the ripper, Mike.

Experience from other serial cases inform us immediately that serial killers aren't as robotic and uniform in their MO as popular perception would have us believe, especially if the killer is under the influence of alcohol or some other substance, and/or the victim is unexpectedly non-complient.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

Kill one witness so that his ripping days wouldn't be over, but letting two others walk away?? That doesn't really make a lot of sense at all, if you ask me.

I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand you here, Frank.

Surely two potentially incrimianting witnesses were better than three, including one that had seen him up close and personal? Especially if killing was his something he derived pleasure from anyway.

[Ben]

There was absolutely no reason to bring in other "ripper" witnesses, if all he was "in" for was throwing to the pavement a woman whom he presumably knew.

I'd respectfully beg to differ, Gareth. Given the prevalent ripperphobia in the district courtesy of the ripper crimes, any man observed assaulting a prostitute during the Autum of Terror in "ripper" territory would have been viewed with considerable interest and suspicion, just as William Grant Grainger was after he did precisely that.

Where does "presumably knew" come into it, btw?

Best,
Ben

Catching up with the other discussions here, I believe that you feel the Ripper was likely seen Ben, I know youve said as much in other debates, so your contention about BSM being seen and still potentially the Ripper stems from that conviction. You dont think he went to some lengths to decrease that possibility.

I would disagree with that.

Not only do we not have anyone we can be sure saw a killer and a victim together before their death, we have no-one who saw anyone or anything out of the ordinary after a murder that might involve a fleeing killer. The best bet is Lawende, really only due to the time left in Kate's life at the time of that sighting.

I believe the "phantom" element here is appropriate in some of these deaths. One killer was intentionally discreet, because he opened women after they were dead... in public. I think he really wanted to come and go unnoticed.

BSM wasnt discreet at all. He scuffles drunkenly with a woman who then falls, and shouts at Schwartz to mind his own business.

He could easily be a killer, but hardly a Ripper.

Best regards.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I didn't mean to imply that we should take Swanson's views as Gospel. I was only attempting to point out that Swanson wasn't convinced one way or another. And while it is possible that he had ulterior motives for his conclusions, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

c.d.

[FrankO]

Hi Ben,

At the very least, an identification from a witness (who he could easily have disposed of) would have out paid to ripping activities for the forseeable future, something he wouldn't have wished for.

If he was afraid that his ripping future was in danger, than why kill at all if this particular 'project' presented a number of difficulties from the start? Certainly in view of the fact that he hadn't done anything more seriously than roughing up a woman a bit, like Gareth says, that doesn't make much sense. Kill one witness so that his ripping days wouldn't be over, but letting two others walk away?? That doesn't really make a lot of sense at all, if you ask me.

All the best,
Frank

To address something you said cd about whose contemporary opinion we should be listening to regarding the likelihood of a"Jack" designation for any or all Canon victims, Im not sure that it was within their best interest to acknowledge that there were more than one knife wielding nuts running around even if they knew it or suspected it. And its clear there were...at that same time. At least 5 non-Canonicals say so.

They were not trusted by the locals, thanks to Warren and Bloody Sunday for one, and the more unrelated unsolved murders they have, the more they start to look like crooked Keystone Cops to the residents of the East End. Having one stealthy man that kills women at night and leaves no traces, is far better politically than perhaps 3 or more men doing it....and the police could find nothing in terms of clues for any of them.

Isnt it odd that no-one in the press back then asked what about the women who weren't Canonicals...who killed them....or how about those Torso's...who killed those ladies? How many crazies are running around the East End at the same time and killing at will...leaving Police with nothing to go on but mounting pressures for answers, and the knowledge that the right spark at that time could burn down the "Order" in East London.

People expect killers to be caught. When they arent, and people don't trust the law anyway, rumors of intentional neglect or inept handling of the cases turn into Marches on Police Stations. Review the Squibby story. Or Pizers. The Police barely could hold people at bay...but for how long. The GSG erasure decision is somewhat more understandable in this context.

So if there is any chance they all were one man, by George thats the ticket....then they dont have to appear corrupt or ineffective for the lack of results, ...the mans clearly a spectre or ghoul...and who could fault anyone for not catching a ghoul who appears and disappears like magic?

It appears they are only seeking one man for killings in the East End at that time. When we can see, we know,...there were others.

Best regards

[FrankO]

Hi Gareth,

Hi Ben,...witness to what, though? Squabbling with a woman and dumping her on the floor? Hardly enough to send him to the gallows, or even to incur a prison sentence of any duration.

Good point indeed.

If BS was her killer (and I have very little reason to doubt it), it's almost as if he wanted her dead.

It does seem that he saw to it that Schwartz and Mr PM left because he hadn't finished with Stride yet, but that unfinished business certainly needn't have been murder.

If that weren't the case, he could easily have left her alive and walked away, fearing little more than a proverbial rap on the knuckles if she later identified him.

Unless he didn't want her dead from the outset, but only killed her on the spur of the moment, shortly after the 2 men had left the scene. Then he wouldn't have cared about those 2 men as long as they left the scene and wouldn't have given them a second thought the moment he run his knife along her throat in freshy exploded anger.

All the best,
Frank

[Tom_Wescott]

I used to think that, but there's a lot of parts of England (or even London) where the people have atrocious accents.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

They stole the name 'football' from us and put it on soccer, so I wouldn't put anything past those blokes. And to make matters worse, they call it 'footie'! Tally-ho, pip-pip, and all that rot.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yes, but on the plus side, English women have extremely sexy accents.

c.d.

[Roy Corduroy]

Numpty Features

Oh, OK. Thanks, Tom. Take this dude, he would have such features?