A Possible Reason Why Jack Didn't Mutilate Liz

[Jimi]

jack?

Thats to say it was jack who killed liz.
In that current climate, any one of the club regulars, who had arranged to meet his mistress after the meeting could have killed Liz in that manner.
Jacks methods had been well reported, get rid of a demanding bit on the side and let Jack take the blame.
Liz strides character for extorting money (Holland) is fairly positive.
What say you that she backed somebody into a corner and suffered the conseqences of Jacks reign of terror?
What do you think?
Keep Well
jimi

[caz]

Hi Jimi,

Not sure any of those youthful club members would have seen poor Liz as mistress material. Temporary beer goggles might have led to the odd fumble in the darkness of the yard I suppose.

But we are also constantly reminded by certain members of the very vocal 'no way was she a ripper victim' minority that the WM would have had plenty of time to do his trademark abdominal mutilations, and that if Liz had sported any, this same vocal minority would have had no doubt that she belonged with Polly and Annie.

Now this is quite bizarre logic when you think about it, because if the WM would have had plenty of time, then any Tom, Dick or Harry hoping to pass Liz off as another mutilation murder would have had plenty of time too - and could have fooled the current naysayers completely. And yet she is left with a single cut that her killer has to assume will prevent her from identifying him to the first person on the scene after he scarpers.

The killer - whoever he was - had a finite amount of time and security at the scene of this murder. So it just doesn't add up that the ripper would definitely have hung around in those circumstances to do some ripping, while anyone else (including anyone known to her personally) would not even have stayed long enough to make sure he had silenced her for good.

I'm now going to copy a couple of posts over here from the Berner St Con(spiracy) thread, which I've just been reading, because my observations would be way off topic there:

To solve the conundrum all you have to do is reconcile three things—

1. Stride was dead at 1.00 am.

2. Stride bled to death comparatively slowly.

3. The Ripper was interrupted at 1.00 am.

Like others, I'm not sure what Simon's point was here.

1. Blackwell's estimated time of death for Liz is consistently buggered about with by people who misunderstand his words or try to stretch the English language to breaking point. His best guess was that she had died less than 20 minutes before he examined her, ie after 12.56am. But he allowed for a maximum time of 30 minutes at the outside, taking it back to 12.46 at the very earliest.

2. What would bleeding to death 'comparatively' slowly actually mean in terms of minutes or seconds, given the window we have between 12.46 and when she was found dead (and allowing for any timepiece eccentricities of the day)?

3. The killer (whoever he was) made himself invisible in good time. But we don't know if he left Liz when and how he intended to leave her, or when and how he felt obliged to leave her in the circumstances.

This murder is so blatantly not Jack, that to engage anyone else in that discussion any longer for me is pointless,....so Ill bid you adieu, and let the nonsense flow without my disruption.

Thank god this resource doesnt require that evidence be submitted with counter posts.....there never would have been a Liz Stride/Ripper thread beyond an opening post.

Good luck.

This is quite the most rude, insulting and ignorant post I've read in recent times - even more so given that it still represents the minority casebook view according to the recent poll on who killed Liz.

What about all the documented cases of repeat offenders who have notched up their own double events, or been forced by riskier circumstances, different victim behaviour or pesky witnesses to adapt their attacks accordingly, or even used different methods and weapons, or aborted an attack in favour of safer avenues?

I hate to become a repeat offender myself, but once again the Sally Anne Bowman case in South Croydon makes mincemeat out of the 'blatantly not Jack' position, not least because it involves a mutilating killer who was high on drink and drugs who:

1) Didn't hear the taxi coming along the deserted street at 3.30am until he had battered his first victim round the head with a blunt instrument, after snatching her bag and threatening her with a knife.

2) Ran off when the taxi disturbed him and brutally stabbed Sally Anne to death with the knife, just 400 yards away and forty minutes later, as soon as her ex boyfriend had driven off after an argument the couple had been having in his car, leaving her alone and vulnerable on the pavement.

3) Retreated into the shadows immediately after killing her to check the coast was clear and only when no lights went on and all was still quiet returned to the body to inflict all manner of indignities and injuries on it, sexual and otherwise, before snatching her underwear, bag and mobile phone as trophies and heading back to where he was staying the night with a couple of female friends who lived locally.

And that's just one case out of at least three on record involving a second, excessively brutal attack in one night, due to the frustration of an aborted, incomplete or unsatisfying first attempt.

We just don't know that a refusal by Liz, or a pesky witness too many, or just a 'bad' feeling about a certain place and time (or even the sudden realisation that a pony and cart was fast approaching before he could roll this one on her back) would not have made Kate's killer react just like Liz's killer had done, less than an hour previously.

To think we do know that would be totally arrogant and shortsighted even if it didn't fly in the face of real evidence we can examine for ourselves from real documented cases of real serial offenders.

Incidentally, has anyone ever suggested that the cachous could have come from Packer's shop?

Matthew ran a fruit and sweet shop from the premises.

http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w/Matthew_Packer.html

I don't recall seeing that little detail before. I thought it was just fruit and veg.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mascara & Paranoia]

and could have fooled the current naysayers completely.

I wouldn't go that far. Just compare her throat wound to that of the other four canonical victims. It's remarkably dissimilar and nothing like how the Ripper had slashed a throat previously (and 45-odd minutes after Stride's death). Not to mention that, despite the Ripper being somewhat risky with his other killings, that yard was a bit too risky for a man of his type; he didn't want to get caught, that much is evident. I just can't buy into him attempting a rip there. At all.

Going by what little evidence we got, Stride's candidacy for being a Ripper victim is only based on the theory that the killer was interrupted, and if that was the case, and it's a serious if, then the Ripper was interrupted whilst he was actually cutting her throat. That's the only explanation for it.

[Supe]

M&P,

Just compare her throat wound to that of the other four canonical victims. It's remarkably dissimilar and nothing like how the Ripper had slashed a throat previously (and 45-odd minutes after Stride's death).

You might want to read "Suede and the Ripper" in the latest Ripperologist (No. 104 July 2009) that argues against that position.You also seem to have misunderstood Caz, who was arguing that Liz Stride was killed simply to still her voice forever. As I have said before in agreement: Liz was killed by JtR but was not a "Ripper" victim. It's not that cryptic.

Otherwise, I find Caz's post quite cogent. And it should be understood that even today, with all the forensic advances, estimating time of death is an inexact science--at best.

Don.

[perrymason]

Hi Jimi,

Not sure any of those youthful club members would have seen poor Liz as mistress material. Temporary beer goggles might have led to the odd fumble in the darkness of the yard I suppose.

Hi Caz,

Perhaps not, but I know of a few women in their forties who would be quite comfortable in the company of a younger man..and some who seek them out.

I believe the throat cut doesnt answer the question as to who killed her, it certainly doesnt convict Jack,.... but I believe the circumstances that we are given do suggest an impending liaison expected by Liz. As far as I know, no Ripper murder offers evidence that the killer planned his tete et tete with his victims before actually going off with them somewhere...he met them while they were soliciting....we know that was his MO in the cases of Polly and Annie at least....... and went somewhere dark. Liz appears as if waiting for someone.....not just anyone.

Also, in Liz's case, she had earned her doss before she went out....and still didnt pay for her bed which would leave her 2d to head out with.

The comments by her lodgemate, the lint brush issue, the piece of velvet for safe keeping, the ankle length skirt, the flower on her breast, the cashous, the loitering from 12:35am until rejecting a man likely propositioning her at 12:45am...either with Schwartz or Browns story, ...and most suggestive, the statement that she would not be staying at the Lodging House that night, and didnt know when she might return.......these do not suggest an Unfortunate heading out to solicit to raise her bed money and probably some boozing. These suggest anticipated male companionship of some kind that she assumed or hoped would conclude in a bed she need not pay for, likely one that is not in a lodging house. I know for many the idea that the women might actually be human and have romances instead of always "couplings for cash" is absurd, but for me its not. I think its in the evidence that Liz liked to have a steady man in her life, and tried to earn decent wages on occassion. And she didnt have a steady the night she was killed......or didnt as yet?

And if this is a new romance perhaps in the works, hows that likely to go down with the reject from earlier in the week if he were to find out?

Best regards

[Jimi]

Did he have the nerve for it?

Hi All
Sorry about the delay in answering you.
superb post caz.
I must say i never realised that Packer sold sweets as well as fruit. Do you think they found any cachous pips in her stomach?
On a serious note, i can see what you are saying about any murderer having the time to mutilate Liz, whether it was WM or JTR, it wouldn`t matter,she wasn`t mutilated in any way,but wouldn`t you agree that JTR would at least attempted some form of cutting or slicing besides the throat cut? So was Strides murderer somebody else who had no fetish for or stomach for mutilating his victim?
To kill is nerve wracking enough, would he know where the kidneys could be found, if he had been in a relationship with Stride, strange as it may seem,did he have the heart to slash her face.
Or did he just get lucky, Eddowes murder discovery must have resulted in a media frenzy, did the media coverage of the `the Double Event` play into the hands of an unknown killer? (Besides JTR i mean).
Here`s one thought for you. Could the police of the day have used the manpower of the JTR hunt to try and solve Strides murder? would another murder investigation have stretched the police resources so they merged Strides murder into the JTR investigations? Just a thought.
What you say about the sally Bowman case does bear thought.
However, like everything else, serial killers evolve. 20 years ago, the burning of victims bodies was quite rare.Now since the discovery of DNA it is more common. Since fingerprints, all burglars possess gloves. What i am trying to say is that Sally Bowmans killer has a century of serial killer media to study and listen to, he tailored his attack to the victim in my opinion. jack couldn`t.
May i ask how you know jack was on drugs or had been drinking?
JTR was an organised killer, Sally Bowmans killer was a disorganised blitz killer.
Who killed Sally Bowman? The man who took her life or the man who left her on a dark deserted street alone and with a head injury?
Keep Well
Jimi

[caz]

Hi Jimi,

Sorry for the delay in responding!

Most of your questions can be answered by reading my previous post again - a bit slower this time.

Going by what little evidence we got, Stride's candidacy for being a Ripper victim is only based on the theory that the killer was interrupted, and if that was the case, and it's a serious if, then the Ripper was interrupted whilst he was actually cutting her throat. That's the only explanation for it.

Hi M&P,

As I said in the post immediately before your response above, the killer of Sally Anne Bowman (a man called Mark Dixie, who was high on drink and drugs at the time):

‘…Retreated into the shadows immediately after killing her to check the coast was clear and only when no lights went on and all was still quiet returned to the body to inflict all manner of indignities and injuries on it…’

So it’s not the ‘only explanation’ that the ripper would have had to be interrupted whilst he was actually cutting Liz Stride’s throat. He could have - wait for it - retreated into the shadows immediately after silencing her (with the single fatal cut) to check the coast was clear, but it became too risky to return to the body or he heard the pony and cart in the distance.

And it’s not ‘only’ the interruption theory that makes Liz a viable ripper victim - far from it. Schwartz or Pipe Man could have been fetching a copper, or Liz could have refused to go anywhere quieter for her killer. Once his blood was up, he may not have been able or willing to leave a woman alive to go looking for another. If he hadn’t finished Liz off, she could have told the nearest copper that he had been behaving suspiciously.

Liz appears as if waiting for someone.....not just anyone.

Hi Perry,

So how different do you think Liz would have appeared when she was soliciting outside clubs in the small hours, and not waiting on her lonesome outside one for a bad-mannered new beau to show up?

I can't see how you arrive at the latter conclusion, especially if she was seen with one or more men earlier that same evening.

It's what her killer was doing there that matters, surely. How do you know that he was there to cut up rough with her, Liz Stride....and not just any woman who happened to look like she was trying her luck with the clubbers?

...and most suggestive, the statement that she would not be staying at the Lodging House that night, and didnt know when she might return.......

Could you source this statement for me please, or at least provide the actual quote? I thought Liz just said the bit about not knowing when she'd be back - like my daughter says when she goes out on a Friday night with friends. All she means is that she doesn't know what time of night we can expect to hear her key in the door. If she is staying over with a friend, she makes sure that we know as soon as she knows, so we won't worry.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

I think we are making an assumption that for Jack killing was simply a necessary step in order to accomplish his true purpose, i.e., the removal of organs. I would suspect that simply killing his victim gave him pleasure as well. I think we tend to forget that Liz was not the only woman in the world. If Jack is caught not only can he no longer kill and take organs but he himself will be killed by hanging. As Caz suggests, Liz might have made a small cry or perhaps the singing in the club stopped or for whatever reason after he killed her he thought it best to consider his threat level. If he was at all paranoid about being caught, why not simply move on? He had already had the thrill of the kill, he avoids capture this way and he simply looks for another victim as soon as possible.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

I would suspect that simply killing his victim gave him pleasure as well.

A fair point, CD - and a valid one. However, Liz bled to death "only comparatively slowly" (Dr Blackwell) owing to only a partial severance of the vessels on one side of the neck. To invent an imaginary scale for the sake of argument: if evisceration was Jack's idea of a "feast", and mere killing a "snack", then what happened to Liz was roughly equivalent to lifting the lid off a saucepan to sniff the contents.

[perrymason]

Has anyone guessed... because Jack didnt kill her yet?

Is there a prize?

Best regards

[Trevor Marriott]

I am one who also subsribes to the theory that Stride was not a Ripper victim.

The throat wounds inflicted on Eddowes and Chapman were committed by a right handed person who having grabbed the victims from behind has plunged a long sharp knife initially into the centre of the throat area and drawn it across to the right of the neck almost decapitating those victims.

In the case of Stride it is somewhat unclear however her neck wound was inflicted it wasnt in the same fashion as the others, and a different type of knife was used.

The description of the wound as described by the doctors to me makes it unclear as to how the wound was inflicted. It is documented that the wound was on the left side of the neck which might suggest her killer was in fact left handed. Unless of course he was right handed and tried to cut right across from left to right. If this be the case it makes it again different from the other aforementioned victims.

[c.d.]

A fair point, CD - and a valid one. However, Liz bled to death "only comparatively slowly" (Dr Blackwell) owing to only a partial severance of the vessels on one side of the neck. To invent an imaginary scale for the sake of argument: if evisceration was Jack's idea of a "feast", and mere killing a "snack", then what happened to Liz was roughly equivalent to lifting the lid off a saucepan to sniff the contents.

She died did she not, Sam?

If we knew with certainty that Jack killed 20 women and all 20 had EXACTLY the same throat wound then I would be quite skeptical to attribute a killing to Jack if that same throat wound was not present. But what are we comparing it to here? Three other murders? Not much of a database.

I think that Caz makes an excellent point. Why does Jack have to be some sort of champion killer rather than an ordinary human being? Tiger Woods makes bad shots. Pro football players drop passes and fumble the ball. Champion boxers sometimes look terrible against mediocre opponents. It is just being human. Why should Jack be an exception to the rule?

c.d.

[perrymason]

Its very possible that this killer made mistakes cd, in fact I agree with the coroner for both Polly and Annie when they suggest that both were killed for the same reason, only the venue in Bucks Row prohibited his completing his extractions.

So what does he do next within 10 days, he moves to a backyard, having found "on the street" unsuitable to complete his objectives. He learned and applied that knowledge.

Why does he now forget that with Liz? Why after being interrupted once before, does he select or agree to venue that is populated by people awake and singing when at any moment he might get "Crossed" once again?

Cheers cd

[Sam Flynn]

She died did she not, Sam?

She did, CD, but in a rather "tame" manner compared to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly - all of whom sustained significant, rapid blood loss from deep wounds to at least one side of the neck.

But what are we comparing it to here?

We're comparing this...



and this...



The latter occurs much less frequently than the former, and that's without mentioning the accompanying slashed-open bellies, all inflicted in a mere handful of minutes.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Whoever killed Liz, be it Jack or someone else, was willing to accept the risks that that particular venue imposed.

c.d.