A Possible Reason Why Jack Didn't Mutilate Liz

[Sam Flynn]

Isn't this sort of a forest for the trees thing?

It might well be, CD - but from my perspective perhaps only from the point of view of the "forest" of the Double Event. For a better exposition of what I mean, please refer to my post about extrasolar planets and the glare of the parent star.

I think the far more important factor is that her throat was cut

... but so were many other people before, during, and after the Whitechapel Murder series. Even within that series, at least four victims had their throats more deeply penetrated than Liz.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Sam. Have you taken in consideration that Liz was lying at an awkward angle with her neck over jagged rocks? This might have impeded he killer's reach and dexterity.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

Isn't this sort of a forest for the trees thing? I think the far more important factor is that her throat was cut as opposed to being shot or beaten by a baseball bat.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

But Sam, isn't that assuming that all other factors were exactly the same as before?

It is in a way, CD - although I'm being as fair as I can. Incidentally, why should factors be radically different with the Stride case? We already have concessions that involve Jack being interrupted, Liz falling awkwardly so that her throat wasn't cut as efficiently as the others, Schwartz being wrong (or lying) about the BS Man episode... and so forth.

For how many more wounds must we find sticking-plasters before conceding that, actually, Stride is only part of the "canon" because she was one half of the infamous "Double Event"?

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps...and I'm going out on a limb here...the Ripper was human and not a robot who could perform the same task repeatedly with exact precision.

It's not so much precision as natural force, Tom. Assuming the same sort of blade was used, and the same set of muscles had wielded the knife, I'd expect the degree of penetration of tissues to be comparable, at least at some point along the wound.

[Tom_Wescott]

Therefore it's pertinent to wonder why he failed to penetrate Liz's neck to the same degree as he had the necks of previous and subsequent victims.

Perhaps...and I'm going out on a limb here...the Ripper was human and not a robot who could perform the same task repeatedly with exact precision.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

If he were the Ripper, CD, he'd have had the same build (and biceps!) at the time of Stride's death as he would an hour or so later - and presumably would have exerted as much force as he would have on other occasions, and deployed a similar technique.

But Sam, isn't that assuming that all other factors were exactly the same as before?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't see him with a ruler measuring the cut in order to keep a sense of consistency.

If he were the Ripper, CD, he'd have had the same build (and biceps!) at the time of Stride's death as he would an hour or so later - and presumably would have exerted as much force as he would have on other occasions, and deployed a similar technique. Therefore it's pertinent to wonder why he failed to penetrate Liz's neck to the same degree as he had the necks of previous and subsequent victims. Not even the initial thrust of the blade seems to have penetrated as far - one would have thought that at least part of the blade's trajectory would have divided the tissues to the same degree as was seen elsewhere.

Also, it's not so much the way that the throat was cut that acts as my "deal-breaker", rather the fact that many others before and since have been killed by having their throats cut. Some, indeed, were dispatched in that manner around the time of the Whitechapel Murders but are nonetheless not believed to have been proper "Ripper" crimes.

Like I say - the only thing that distinguishes Liz's death in that regard is that she died on the same night as an indisputable Ripper victim. Were it not for this "Double Event", I'm certain that most people wouldn't consider Stride as a "probable" Ripper victim at all.

[Roy Corduroy]

Quartz Schwartz

I thinks Liz Stride was a Ripper victim.

But I give folks with the opposite view credit for consistency. They uniformly believe Israel Schwartz had perfect track of time, like some people have perfect pitch.

Or a fine watch.

Roy

[Grabbit]

I know the post isn't directed at me c d, but I think you're point about the different angle of attack is well worth noting. Much is made of the depth of the cut, (which given the ferocity of the other attacks is a fair point), and the fact that Liz was lying on her side instead of her back.

Yet the depth, or lack of it, of the throat cut could be as a direct result of her lying on her side. It would make the angle of the first point of attack on the throat much more difficult to get at as the left side of her neck was now next to the ground. Even using a short knife, this would be a trickier manouvre than any of the others.

Ally

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

In going back through the postings, I see that you repeatedly state that the difference in the way that Liz's throat was cut is a deal breaker for you. I have to say that that goes by me completely. In the first place, how many throat cuttings are we including in the norm? It's not like there are 10 or so that are absolutely consistent which would make one that is not really stand out. Secondly, aren't there numerous factors that could account for the difference? A different angle of attack perhaps? Liz fighting back? The knife getting slippery with sweat and blood? It seems to me that the purpose of cutting her thoat was to kill her which he accomplished. I don't see him with a ruler measuring the cut in order to keep a sense of consistency.

c.d.

[Grabbit]

"The kills...the act of murder is a facilitator, not the objective."

But we don't know for sure if that was the case. With Sutcliffe we'd expect the reason for the initial attack to be to silence the women in order to carry out his version of mutilations. Yet we have a clear case where he didn't follow through with the attack for no apparent reason.

I know it's long odds on this happening at the Liz attack, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be given full consideration, even as an outside possibility.

Keep an open mind.

Ally

Actually Aelric's point should be given some serious consideration. There's at least one victim of Sutcliffe who didn't receive his 'trademark' slash or stab wounds after the initial attack despite NOT being disturbed. There seems no apparent reason for this, yet it happened and after he had already killed several victims which followed his more usual pattern. Presumably only he knows the reason, but it does illustrate just how unpredictable the serial killer signature can be.

Ally

Hi Ally,

I think not including the acts that are obviously the overall objectives and focus of the attack...as shown in the murder of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, is more likely to mean a different man killed her than it is he opted not to mutilate her...but did decide to kill her anyway.

The kills...the act of murder is a facilitator, not the objective. He doesnt dawdle over killing, nor does he prolong it or do it while they are still aware....he kills 3 of the 5 when they are at best semi conscious. And all that Fall men scared women by pulling knives out....an attack not ending in a kill. Jack has absolutely no reason to kill her if he doesnt want to mutilate, because even if she sees him pull a knife...or says hes Jack the Ripper, if he just walks away the most that can happen to him is that he gets identified by the witness that escapes and is charged with assault with a weapon...possibly attempted murder. But if she is not cut at all....they wouldnt be able to prove intent to kill.

As illustrated, if the Ripper was there....he has a woman alone in an empty yard from as early as 12:46-47. No-one is recorded to be in the yard from then until Diemshutz pulls in. He has almost twice the amount of time available alone with a potential victim than in Mitre Street....and add up the damage he did in maybe 5 minutes there.

He doesnt need to silence her and he has ample opportunity to mutilate kill her after cutting her throat.

There is an argument that goes like this......what if he just arrives there a few minutes before Diemshutz? Well, that would be a very fortuitous event for the pro-Ripper clan, but it would also mean he never heard the cart wheels and hoof sounds on cobblestones that would have been audible for a minute or two before Diemshutz pulls in.

So it can work like that, but like any other Ripper insertion into this crime scene... its not likely.

He comes in with 2 minutes to the cart...he hears the cart approach. He comes in with 3 minutes to the cart...he could have done half of what is done to Kate.

Cheers Ally.

[Grabbit]

Not quite right.

Actually Aelric's point should be given some serious consideration. There's at least one victim of Sutcliffe who didn't receive his 'trademark' slash or stab wounds after the initial attack despite NOT being disturbed. There seems no apparent reason for this, yet it happened and after he had already killed several victims which followed his more usual pattern. Presumably only he knows the reason, but it does illustrate just how unpredictable the serial killer signature can be.

Ally

No apology needed from you, either! I often get struck with thoughts like that, too, which is exactly what happened regarding the "triple event" Nae worries.

As far as what you said goes, I did read it, so I'm sorry if it seemed like I was dismissing what you said out of hand. Now I've given it some proper thought the whole "not seeming right" idea is a bit half-baked. If there's more in mind than just plain murder, why stop at the first hurdle?

Hmmm...note to self. Think things through more before posting in future.

Not at all Aelric, I kind of like the way you broached the topic, and god knows Im no expert....so lets say you didnt make a half bad suggestion, and Im looking forward to more posts. As long as your within knowns and unknowns you should feel you have the freedom to express any ideas you want, and by the way,...... your suggestion is indeed one of the possible answers here. So a fine beginning.

Welcome aboard....and I know this has been an unconventional way of getting to know you a bit, but nice to meet you...

All the best...and Mike or Michael is foine. Cheers