Timing between Eddowes and Stride is bang on

[Wickerman]

But how did the ripper know that one of the tenants wouldn't come out into the yard or that he wouldn't encounter someone in the hall on the way out?

I think the ripper must have watched the murder sites to time the police beats I don't think he would risk his neck on the estimates of a possibly drunken prostitute since he seemed to despise them

So you think the killer chose the site before he chose the victim?

[RockySullivan]

So you think the killer chose the site before he chose the victim?

Possibly but I also don't think the victims were random they were likely stalked. While I'm sure you don't view it as connected...take a look at the whitehall torso dump site. Obviously not an easy place to dump...damn near impossible. Shows a lot of preplanning and premeditation

[Bridewell]

For me, the big problem is the knife. I still believe that Stride was a Ripper victim, but the small-bladed knife seems manifestly unsuited to the purpose of mutilations, let alone organ removal.

That is why I have postulated that Stride was an impulsive kill, rather than pre-planned.

On balance, I too think that Stride was killed by the same hand as Eddowes, though I concede that it is by no means a certainty. The favoured argument (then and now) (for those who subscribe to the same killer view) seems to be that there was no mutilation because the killer was interrupted. Might it be that the killer chose not to mutilate because he realised that Stride was not an active prostitute? That he felt that to do so would be cheating in some way? Just a thought which has come to me as I read John's post so I'm open to the customary ridicule.

[Rosella]

Isn't it possible that Mitre Square was possibly Jack's choice too? Considering that Stride was killed adjacent to a Jewish working mens' club earlier that evening, perhaps killing near to a social club where Jews congregated might have been an extra satisfaction.

[RockySullivan]

Isn't it possible that Mitre Square was possibly Jack's choice too? Considering that Stride was killed adjacent to a Jewish working mens' club earlier that evening, perhaps killing near to a social club where Jews congregated might have been an extra satisfaction.

Yea that right on point not a coincidence plus the graffiti

[harry]

Mutual choice might be a better word,as it had to suit the preference of two dissimilar acts,and that maybe only in some of the murders.George yard a place where Tabram might have been seeking a place to sleep,also where a killer might expect to find a sleeping victim.Millers court,(my opinion),something similar.Stride and Eddowes murders strongly suggest mutual choice,both were killed where found,and Nicholls and killer ditto Tabram's killing.Rethink Stride as killed by BS,and substitute Pipeman,and the cachous become less of a problem.All ripper murders.No need for the latest exercises in logic and words and phreses that I'm sure a lot of us do not understand,and neither did the police of 1888.

[lynn cates]

explanation

Hello Colin

"The favoured argument (then and now) (for those who subscribe to the same killer view) seems to be that there was no mutilation because the killer was interrupted. Might it be that the killer chose not to mutilate because he realised that Stride was not an active prostitute?"

Yes, indeed. However, not sure it explains the shallower initial, single cut?

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Is shallow the new deep or something?

Hello Colin

Yes, indeed. However, not sure it explains the shallower initial, single cut?

Cheers.
LC

Deceased had a silk handkerchief round her neck, and it appeared to be slightly torn. I have since ascertained it was cut. This corresponded with the right angle of the jaw. The throat was deeply gashed ...

[John G]

On balance, I too think that Stride was killed by the same hand as Eddowes, though I concede that it is by no means a certainty. The favoured argument (then and now) (for those who subscribe to the same killer view) seems to be that there was no mutilation because the killer was interrupted. Might it be that the killer chose not to mutilate because he realised that Stride was not an active prostitute? That he felt that to do so would be cheating in some way? Just a thought which has come to me as I read John's post so I'm open to the customary ridicule.

But isn't this the big problem? That sometimes the logic of a serial killer is so perverted they act and think in ways that seem irrational to a well-balanced person, but to them it all seems perfectly logical.

Take Sutcliffe, for example. I think there can be little doubt that his primary motivation was a deep hatred of prostitutes, so why was one of his earlier victims a 14 year old schoolgirl that he attacked on a quiet country lane in a remote rural area?

Or Richard Chase, who I've referred to before. He selected his victims by walking down the street and trying doors at random until he found one that was unlocked. Why? Because if the door was locked it meant that he wasn't welcome! Considering what a depraved killer he was such logic clearly seems perverted, but to him it obviously meant perfect sense.

I think therefore we cannot begin to understand how the mind of a killer like JtR works and what exactly motivated him to do what he did. From that perspective, I believe just about anything's possible.

[Abby Normal]

On balance, I too think that Stride was killed by the same hand as Eddowes, though I concede that it is by no means a certainty. The favoured argument (then and now) (for those who subscribe to the same killer view) seems to be that there was no mutilation because the killer was interrupted. Might it be that the killer chose not to mutilate because he realised that Stride was not an active prostitute? That he felt that to do so would be cheating in some way? Just a thought which has come to me as I read John's post so I'm open to the customary ridicule.

Hi Bridewell
I too believe also that stride was not actively prostituting herself that night. But I believe he chose not to mutilate her because she wouldn't go with him into a secluded place and he lost his temper and attacked her in the open and Noticing he had been spotted by Scwartz, and then perhaps interrupted by Diemshitz, he decided he didn't have the time to mutilate and fled.

[Scott Nelson]

The throat was deeply gashed ...

There was another shallow cut

[Batman]

There was another shallow cut

Reference please. Quote it here in context.

[IchabodCrane]

Yea that right on point not a coincidence plus the graffiti

...and please lets not forget the location of the big synagogue right next to Mitre Square. It is highly probable the killer set out that night with a well prepared plan to make sure his next crime had a strong Jewish connotation and yes the Graffiti then makes sense as a final statement.

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

"Is it your argument that the parallel cuts were part of the killer's signature?"

In a manner of speaking (understanding, of course, that her poor lunatic killer may have killed without realising he had a human before him).

Whatever else those very deep cuts were, they were certainly NOT accidental.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I've been giving some consideration to your argument concerning parallel cuts, which are apparently evident in the case of Nichols and Chapman but not apparent in any of the other murders, i.e Tabram or the other C5.

I suppose the first question is whether they were accidental. You obviously believe not, although I'm fairly open minded on the issue.

However, if we suppose they were intentional then I would concede that might cause a problem for a single killer theory. That is to say, they could be regarded as part of the killer's signature, which orthodoxy suggests shouldn't change.

Nonetheless, although unique behaviour which is demonstrated in just two victims in a series would be unusual it wouldn't be unique. In a study of 38 sexual homicide offenders it was determined that 26 perpetrators behaved in one crime scene in a way that they hadn't behaved with any of their other victims; in two cases the perpetrator experimented in very different ways with two victims in a series; in one case the perpetrator experimented in different ways with three of his victims.http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.full.pdf

Therefore, it appears that whilst such differences in behaviour would be unusual, they would be far from unique.

[Bridewell]

Lynn,

How do the double throat cuts sit vis-á-vis Issenschmidt mistaking the victims for pigs? Was it usual for a pork butcher to inflict two throat cuts rather than one?

(I'm not trying to be clever here because I genuinely don't know the answer, but if it wasn't usual for a pork butcher to inflict the second cut I would struggle to subscribe to the argument that Issenschmidt suffered from this delusion.)