What's the compelling feature?

[paul emmett]

What I don't accept is the frequently expressed notion that the Ripper 'settled' for killing old, drunken women and "hit the jackpot" (a disgusting phrase) when he stumbled upon "Mary Kelly." That trivializes the choices the Ripper made.


I take him seriously. Killing 'old women' in the slums was his cognitive choice, not a convenient outlet for his 'lustmord.'

I heartily agree. But how do you then account for the seemingly radical changes in his cognitive--purposive--choices?

[perrymason]

I'm with the school of thought that RJ espouses, in that there is no reason to assume that killing middle aged homeless street whores in the dark outdoors wasnt his choice, rather than an option just handed to him.

And using that premise Paul, the question you might want to ask yourself is how consistent those objectives are with the removal of only one Canon Victim from the list...and not Liz.
I would say one of the only reasons to include Liz in the first place would be that she was over 40, homeless that night, known to be a part time prostitute, and outdoors after midnight near a dark yard. None of those however are to my mind "compelling" features to use when declaring Jack the killer.

They are circumstantially similar to other alleged Ripper victims. And that hardly warrants a "Case Closed" position.

Its relatively easy to say that certain facts make it likely that all 5 of the Canon were by one hand, its another to suggest that the victims were chosen merely at random, since we know the first 4 alleged were all over 40, all assumed to be soliciting, all had no bed paid for that night, and all lived in Spitalfield at one time or another. They all were killed outside.

The 5th murder is therefore an anomaly, not just a departure in conventions. There is a very clear and consistent pattern that emerges when victims are grouped by the resulting circumstances of their death, not simply added to the list due to the lack of alternate clues.

But were talking about the 3rd here.

And what specifically about Liz Strides murder would embolden an investigative officer to conclude this particular murder had been committed by a killer they knew nothing about...but were building a list of victims for.

Best regards all....and thanks for the contributions thus far.

[perrymason]

Out of curiosity, are there any members here who feel that this was Jack the Rippers doing, and he only intended to make the single cut?

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Who are these "old women"? Are there elderly victims about whom I did not know?

[perrymason]

Who are these "old women"? Are there elderly victims about whom I did not know?

Sam, I turned 50 May 3rd, so I know what youre getting at.

Cheers.

[paul emmett]

Out of curiosity, are there any members here who feel that this was Jack the Rippers doing, and he only intended to make the single cut?

OHH...OK. That would be me. I'm inclined to see it as a plan--a double event plan. And while we agree about the choice of certian types of victims, I think that the reasons for various choices are themselves various. In short, the choice of victim type can change, or it can be conflated with other choices, like choosing a double event. I think, for example, that the "choice" of Stride and Eddowes differs from the "choice" of Chapman and Nichols.

[perrymason]

OHH...OK. That would be me. I'm inclined to see it as a plan--a double event plan. And while we agree about the choice of certian types of victims, I think that the reasons for various choices are themselves various. In short, the choice of victim type can change, or it can be conflated with other choices, like choosing a double event. I think, for example, that the "choice" of Stride and Eddowes differs from the "choice" of Chapman and Nichols.

Actually Paul, I did'nt expect anyone to say yes. Interesting.

I think its certainly possible that each murder contains its own motivations independent of the previous or forthcoming killings. In fact in Liz's case, I believe it is almost essential to the notion she is indeed a legitimate Canon candidate.

As I mentioned, its almost a certainty that Liz was cut before 1am, how much before is arguable. But using the mid-point of Blackwells time, rather than the borderline timings, she may have been killed very shortly after Schwartz leaves. The results of that murder, when factoring in the available time to the killer, indicate that he just wanted her dead and that he had no actionable thoughts beyond that. I dont think thats consistent with the killer of Polly and Annie myself, I think the post mortem activity with both of those was the driver there.....but, if as you say each might have its own rationale by the killer, maybe thats all Jack wanted from Liz. Which would raise issues about known enemies I would think.

I think you gave the only answer that has any real chance with respect to the Stride murder. I think its fairly safe to deduce Blackwell could set a 10 minute time frame for the cut considering its a murder committed within the previous 30 minutes. The mid-point of which is a 12:51am cut. And I believe Diemshutz testimony to the extent that he arrived at 1am or just after 1am.

If Jack killed Liz, he didnt pass on further mutilations due to Diemshutz pony and cart, by the evidence....so he must have just done all he wanted and left.

I think much more probable than a interruption Paul, if indeed he was JtR.

Best regards.

[Natalie Severn]

Sam, I turned 50 May 3rd, so I know what youre getting at.

Cheers.

Quite Sam!
What seems important too is that Mary Kelly was 25,ok said by McCarthy to look have looked nearer 30 but still young.Polly Nichols was 42 and she could have looked old,considering her life , but in fact looked about 30/32 according to a journalist at the mortuary and her father.She looked younger than her years-which is surprising but thats what was said about her.
Liz Stride"s age ,in either a police report or by a journalist was similarly reported by guess work just after her murder and before her age was known as being "a woman of about 28".
So it doesnt really chime with the facts if you declare he chose them all because they were old women.However if you suggest it was because they were all known drinkers or frail as in Annie Chapman"s case thats probably more like it
Norma

[richardnunweek]

Hello all,
It has always been my belief that Stride was a Ripper victim, and the simply explanation to why only the throat was cut. is he was planning a double event that night, so it would not have been clever to risk heavy bloodstains on his person after victim number one, not only could that result in possible apprehension after he left the scene, and during his quest to find victim number two, but also if one accepts Eddowes killer was standing with her at church passage, he could hardly have done so in a visual capacity to his victim, after doing to stride with what occured with Eddowes, when it appears he was in such a mess that he required part of a apron to cleanse himself.
So simply he went out that night with the intention of killing two prostitutes, the first one away from his normal patch, and he came across Stride , and despatched her with a cut throat, then on to the area of Mitre square, with no appearance of blood on his presense, when he encountered Eddowes, and this one he went to town on.
A double event folks.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

Yes, that scenario is as likely as the interruption idea, or Stride-as-diversion concept. Still, that doesn't answer the question about the one compelling feature and all scenarios include the threading together of several components to make Stride canonical.

Mike

[Jon Guy]

The Murder: It was much, much darker in Berner Street, so the killer's vision would have been severely compromised. Neither victim struggled.
[Tom Wescott

I don`t know about Chapman,Tom, as described by Kent,seeing her before everyone piled into the yard :

The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat.

[Fisherman]

Exactly so, Jon!

I do believe that mr Wescott is reading in and leaving out at will here.

Myself, I would like to turn to what he stated in those same lines: "Both women were turned to their left sides before having their throats cut."

This, we do of course NOT know; it is to a significant extent guesswork on Toms behalf. We have no way to prove that Chapman was ever on her left side, just as we have no way to prove that Stride was actually turned on that side of hers. On the contrary.

So what do we have?

Well, since we know that the left side of Strides was the one that was described as being well plastered with mud, and neither back, right side or front was afforded that self same description, we can safely assume that Stride was ON HER LEFT SIDE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE TIME SHE SPENT ON THE GROUND.
In other words, she was NOT turned over at any stage.

Moreover, she was not lying slightly on that side of hers - she was in a fetal position, her knees drawn up, her feet together. Only the left side of her head and her face was smeared with mud.

And how does all of this tally with Chapman? Very poorly, I would say. To begin with, as the blood on the fence in the backyard shows us, she would not have been in that same kind of a position when cut. It is far likelier that her killer tilted her head only, or perhaps her upper body, before he slit her throat.

Add to this the fact that she was quite close to that fence in the backyard, and thus there would probably not even have been room enough to place her in a fetal position, had the killer wanted to!

This is one of the points where Stride differs dramatically from the other victims. It is also one of the points that crave an explanation, if we are to believe that it was indeed Jacks work.
There was never any practical need for the killer to turn his victims totally on their left sides, since a tilt of their heads would have done the trick and saved him getting bloodied. And indeed, the blood on the fence in Hanbury Street seems to point clearly towards Chapmans killer using exactly this approach; a slight tilt of the head, and then he cuts, creating a jet of blood that shoots obliquely up into the air, away from him, ending up some fourteen inches over the ground on that fence.

Stride´s left carotid artery would have been way in under her, as she lay in that yard. So either someone reached in over her and shoved his knife in between the ground and her neck before cutting, or she was cut towards the end of her fall. Alternatively, the killer grabbed her by her hair as she lay on the ground, and lifted her head up, exposing the left side of her neck, before he cut.
The first and the last alternatives are the ones that may seem the more probable ones. They have a drawback in common, though; they would both have given Stride time to cry out. That is, of course, unless she was already unconscious before she was cut.
But there are no signs of suffocation involved in Stride´s case, making these two bets somewhat less attractive than they may seem at first glance.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Dan Norder]

What I don't accept is the frequently expressed notion that the Ripper 'settled' for killing old, drunken women and "hit the jackpot" (a disgusting phrase) when he stumbled upon "Mary Kelly." That trivializes the choices the Ripper made.

Someone this extreme does what he set out to do.

Unfortunately you seem to be assuming that certain characteristics were specifically what he set out to do that are not only unproven but atypical of how serial killers operate... while at the same time ignoring all sorts of other characteristics as being ones that he purposefully chose to do.

Women of various ages were killed. You and others suggest that he set out to kill middle aged women and not younger adult women, based upon a small sample size and ignoring other potential victims. Why not pick each specific age of each victim and decide that, because they had those exact ages, Jack set out to kill women of those specific ages in that specific order? And if bithdates were somehow important, each of those women were born under certain astrological signs, so why not assume he killed those specific astrological signs in that order?

If we are going by time here, there are other time considerations besides the victim's birthdate. Women were killed on various days. Why not assume he set out to kill them on those specific nights? They were each killed at varying hours of the night... so why not assume he killed them in a specific plan to kill a victim at different hours during the night? Maybe he had a fixation on biorhythms.

We don't know what time the killer woke up each day, but in every case a certain unknown amount of time happened between the time he had woken up and the time he chose to kill? Maybe it was always every ten hours... or maybe he picked five hours and then seven hours and then three hours.... I mean, those are all specific details, so they MUST be significant to the killer, right?

If time is important, how about space? Women were killed in specific locations. Why not assume he set out to kill them in those specific locations? Not just because they were convenient, or where the victims happened to take him, but because he had a map out and was up to something?

What about the geographical origin of the victims? In each case they had a specific home town. If the killer doesn't just do anything that he doesn't set out to do, then obviously he had a preferred chart of home towns of victims that he was plotting.

And you put this all together and he obviously chose ahead of time to kill a woman from Wolverhampton who had a tattoo on her arm who was standing near where a priory had stood who was dating someone named Kelly who had said her name was nothing and who had a pawn ticket for a pair of boots. Because, according to RJ Palmer's brand of wisdom anyway, Jack just didn't do anything based upon what he happened to end up with, it all had to be planned out ahead of time. If, while going through her belongings he hadn't found her tin matchbox he would have decided that she didn't fit what he needed and gone off to find someone else instead.

Some people just have no concept at all of how serial killers work. Assuming that age was a factor with such limited information available is not only foolhardy but quite a bit at odds with what we know about other serial killers who have been identified.

[Tom_Wescott]

Richard,

Yes, that scenario is as likely as the interruption idea, or Stride-as-diversion concept. Still, that doesn't answer the question about the one compelling feature and all scenarios include the threading together of several components to make Stride canonical.

He didn't need to answer that, because I already did.

Richard, I see you're subscribing to my newsletter! Goodonya!

I don`t know about Chapman,Tom, as described by Kent,seeing her before everyone piled into the yard :

The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat.

With all due respect to Mr. Kent's medical expertise, turned up hands do not suggest a struggle. They suggest Chapman was strangled, which I'm not arguing with.

Exactly so, Jon!

I do believe that mr Wescott is reading in and leaving out at will here.

Myself, I would like to turn to what he stated in those same lines: "Both women were turned to their left sides before having their throats cut."

This, we do of course NOT know; it is to a significant extent guesswork on Toms behalf. We have no way to prove that Chapman was ever on her left side, just as we have no way to prove that Stride was actually turned on that side of hers. On the contrary.

Of course we know they were turned on their left sides. I'm not going to waste too much time on you, but Stride's left side was caked in mud, her right side was not. Her blood evidence and the blood evidence at the Chapman seen also tell us the ladies were turned to their left sides, as was Nichols and probably Eddowes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Some people just have no concept at all of how serial killers work.

The FBI comes to mind in that respect. But give 'em another 100 years and they'll be up to our speed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott