A Possible Reason Why Jack Didn't Mutilate Liz

[Sam Flynn]

Cuttus interruptus?

The question is a simple one...why do you think Jack fled the scene of the murders of Polly, Annie and Kate? Was it because he had no further desire to continue with what he had been doing or do you think it was because he was afraid of being caught?

The real question, as I see it, is - can anyone honestly imagine a situation where this...



...could be interrupted to the extent that only this...



...had been allowed to happen???

I can't.

[c.d.]

You're not trying to dodge my question are you Sam?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

You're not trying to dodge my question are you Sam?

Not at all, CD - I'm just raising a more solvable, and arguably more relevant, one. Whether it would be feasible, in a mere instant, for Jack to hold back from penetrating the throat further than he did is a largely mechanical matter. As such it's more amenable to being answered objectively than the psychological "was he satisfied or did he chicken out?".

If I might give my personal opinion on the latter, and in answer to your question...

why do you think Jack fled the scene of the murders of Polly, Annie and Kate? Was it because he had no further desire to continue with what he had been doing or do you think it was because he was afraid of being caught?

I favour the latter (underlined), in that I've no doubt he'd have gone on and on mutilating had he been given the opportunity. It's just that I can't see him deciding to call it quits when his blade was less than halfway through Liz's throat.

[Fisherman]

C.d.asks:

"It seems like you took one statement out of my post to address but not the main point that I was attempting to make. The question is a simple one...why do you think Jack fled the scene of the murders of Polly, Annie and Kate? Was it because he had no further desire to continue with what he had been doing or do you think it was because he was afraid of being caught?"

I addressed that point of yours since I think you are very much wrong on it, c.d. And in that belief of mine lies, of course, my own conviction that Jack may well have chosen to leave the murder venues without being disturbed in any manner.
I would, though, warn against trying to simplify too much on the point - we could well be dealing with a killer that felt a lot more uneasy at the start, but reached much more confidence as he moved along. Maybe he did not need any specific occurence to scare him away at his first effort/s in the killing business. He may have been very much aroused, and that should perhaps be combined with a fear factor - he was, after all, killing in spots where he could be found out and sent to the gallows. Maybe he simply left because he could not stand that pressure, c.d; but that does not have to mean that he would have had a clear agenda of what he would have done if he had been left in peace!

As he gained more and more selfconfidence - something that is witnessed about in many serialist cases - he stayed longer with his victims and found out other avenues to explore, like organ procuring, facial mutilations and such things. But I think the evidence speaks against him having a clear agenda of subduing, throat cutting, facial mutilations and a complete evisceration of the body, thorax included, from the outset, and that he would have performed these things on each and every victim, given the time. The fact that we have an escalation speaks very much of a combination of a less easily spooked Riper as he added to his death toll, and a fuller and more clear understanding and agenda of what he wanted to do.
Each killing must be assessed by it´s own merits, c.d., but equally, the killer was a different one at each occasion too. Each slaying put him through a sort of metamorphosis if you ask me. He would have emerged a more determined and secure individual after each victim.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Exactly Sam. In every single instance where Jack kills on the street, he flees the scene before completing what he wanted to do. In other words, he shows rational behavior controlling his desires in order to save his life. He accepts that there are factors which prevent him from accomplishing his task.
If he is willing to forego additional ripping and mutilation in order to save his own life, is it such a leap of faith that he might have the same mind set before starting to mutilate?

I have to say I really don't get your throat cut arguments. Jack wasn't operating in a controlled lab environment. I doubt if he was trying to win Serial Killer of the Year or even best throat cut. He accomplished what he wanted to do. He killed her pure and simple. It was a means to an end. There are just too many variables that could easily account for the differences with the previous cuts. I go back to my Tiger Woods example. Sometimes he hits bad shots but he is still Tiger Woods.

c.d.

[c.d.]

You're right, Fisherman. I am assuming that Jack left the scene of the crimes because he did not want to get caught. It is an assumption but for me it is an easy one to accept. Everybody will have their own view of it.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d. states:

"In every single instance where Jack kills on the street, he flees the scene before completing what he wanted to do."

I thought we were discussing this, c.d; not that it was already a done deal. It is not, I assure you.

Look at things this way: He never went back on anything. Once he had cut Tabram in the stomach (if that was him), he kept doing it. Once he had opened Nichols up and cut her neck, he kept at it. Once he had procured organs from Chapman, he kept doing so. Once he had cut Eddowes face, he kept cutting faces. Once he had ...

Not once does he go back. But you obviously argue that in each case, he was afforded that specific stretch of time that allowed him to do just a bit more. Then, in each case, he was subsequently interrupted! And in each case, this happened a bit further down the line, mutilationwise.

Now, would it not be an almighty coincidence if things went down like this, in a clockwork fashion, more or less? Why were the victims not mixed up, so that he was allowed "an Eddowes" on Tabram, "a Nichols" on Chapman, "a Chapman" on Stride, but merely "a Tabram" on Kelly? Where does this relentless, fascinating, slowly yelding time allowance come from?

If we look upon things the other way, and accept that he evolved as a killer as he went along, the increasing damages surrounding the timeline of victims suddenly gets a logical explanation. And logical explanations are not to be easily discarded, c.d!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I have to say I really don't get your throat cut arguments. Jack wasn't operating in a controlled lab environment. I doubt if he was trying to win Serial Killer of the Year or even best throat cut.

If he was the same man who killed Nichols and Chapman, he had the same body mass and biceps, and would have been able - quite naturally and without a second thought - to exert at least the same pressure on the knife when he cut Stride's throat. To this extent, the way a knife is wielded is almost congruent with a footprint - a question of physics, more than just technique. Heck - he didn't even start Stride's wound with the same penetration as the two former (and subsequent) murders.

There are just too many variables that could easily account for the differences with the previous cuts.

Here's a variable you can't account for - why didn't he make bloody sure that she was dead, instead of leaving her to bleed to death only slowly - especially if he suspected that "help" might have been on its way in the form of Diemschutz and co? I mean, how much longer is it going to take him to slice her neck again, deeper this time? Two seconds, perhaps less.

I go back to my Tiger Woods example. Sometimes he hits bad shots but he is still Tiger Woods.

The difference is that, unlike Tiger Woods, Liz's killer would have had ample opportunity to take another "shot", to make sure he'd finished her off. But he didn't. I deduce from that that he wasn't a practised throat-cutting killer.

[c.d.]

I was addressing that one to Sam, Fisherman simply reiterating what he had written. It is still open to debate.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

How much practice could he have had if he had only killed Polly and Annie?

As to why he didn't cut a second time, no one other than Jack can answer that. If I had to guess, I would say that he probably thought that he had killed her with that one cut.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d:

"If I had to guess, I would say that he probably thought that he had killed her with that one cut."

But having showed very clearly in the four other cases that he favoured KNOWING that he had killed - why would he settle for guessing and hoping in Dutfields yard? And since there is every reason to believe that the deep throat-cutting came about as a means to silence and kill in order to allow for the eviscerations with no further sounds or moves coming from the victim - why not use that self same, thoroughly efficient and very quick method on Stride?

"As to why he didn't cut a second time, no one other than Jack can answer that."

I have a feeling that Jack would have had no idea - since he was never there in the first place...!

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman and Sam,

The same question can be asked about whoever killed Liz. Why didn't he make a deeper cut to ensure that she didn't live and completely eliminate the possibility that she could recover and possibly identify him?

As for the BS man or Kidney being the possible killer, isn't it naturally assumed that their motivation was anger? For the BS man, it is believed that the anger stemmed from being turned down by Liz. For Kidney, it would have been jealousy that fueled the rage. The BS man (assuming he was not Kidney and was indeed Liz's killer) was so enraged that he killed Liz after being seen by two witnesses.
You would think that both of them would have so much anger and rage that their knife cut would have damn near decapitated Liz. Yet, that didn't happen. Now that boys is a real puzzler.

c.d

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

How much practice could he have had if he had only killed Polly and Annie?

As I see it, CD, the salient point is the force with which he cut their throats - and subsequently those of Eddowes and Kelly - not the amount of practice he may have had.

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"The same question can be asked about whoever killed Liz. Why didn't he make a deeper cut to ensure that she didn't live and completely eliminate the possibility that she could recover and possibly identify him?"

Not really, c.d. - for if we leave Jack out of the discussion, why would we suppose that the man who cut her was somebody with a nasty habit of carving away down to the spine in one almighty stroke? And why would we deduce that the man who cut her was actually determined to kill?

If we need Jack on the stage, we also need to explain why he left his habits behind on this particular day. If we exclude him, we open up for just about any sort of cutter of whom we know absolutely nothing.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fish,

You didn't address the second part of my post. Wouldn't you expect anger and rage to produce a deep cut?

c.d.