A Possible Reason Why Jack Didn't Mutilate Liz

[perrymason]

A bit earlier there was some discussion about rituals, and in the case of some of the Ripper murders, there appears to be an almost ritualistic approach to achieving his objectives.

Needless to say I emphasized "some" because the ritual is not present in the murder of Liz Stride....or from what the evidence suggests, in the case of Mary Jane.

The sequence of Acquire outdoors while victim is soliciting-Direct or follow to dark location-Apply non lethal force to subdue-Inflict Lethal wound-Mutilate abdomen.... is how he begins the alleged series, and his second murder follows that same "ritualistic" approach. It is also present in the data regarding Kate Eddowes murder. That cant be said in the case of Liz Stride though......beginning with the assumption that he meets her while she is agreeable to going into an alley with a stranger.

The variations that are present in the final part of the ritual,... differing degrees of mutilations, removal of different organs,... can probably be considered as not being enough to discount an invitation into the Canonical Group, but the omission of the culmination of the act seems to me to indicate a different motivator or objective.

If in the opinion of the medical experts who reviewed the remains of Mary Ann and Annie.... (where it it is stated that they believed the act of murder was really to facilitate the actual objectives, which were to mutilate the womens abdomens and take organs from there)....... were correct in their assessment, then a murder like Liz Strides could only be added to the list reasonably if there are some indications that there was a final phase of the ritual planned.

She is untouched since the time she hit the ground, she is left on her side, and she has a single throat cut that may have been made while she fell. There isnt one bit of evidence that might suggest that what happened to her wasnt all that was intended. He killed her, plain and simple.

Jack killed so he had a motionless warm cadaver to cut into that would have little blood left in it to soil his clothing. Jack killed so he could cut.

Best regards all

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

If you have read the most recent posts, you will see that they tend to focus on the question of whether Jack exhibited a rational fear of being caught that overrode his desire to continue mutilating or begin mutilating. That is the basic question here. If you answer no and believe that Jack would have mutilated Liz come hell or high water then the only possible conclusion that you can arrive at is that Jack was not her killer.

If, on the other hand, your answer is yes and you believe that fear of being caught and hanged would override his desire to mutilate then the question becomes is there something that might have caused Jack to fear for his safety. Let's call that an interruption whatever form it might have taken.

Now we have to ask is there something to indicate that Jack was interrupted. Certainly finding Liz with her clothes pulled up would indicate that or some sort of ripping cut however small on her body would lead us to believe that there was some sort of interruption. But what if the interruption occurred before he started to mutilate her? Hearing a door open perhaps or a change in the level of singing? There would be no evidence of that. Yet those remain distinct possibilities as well as just basic paranoia that perhaps he was pushing his luck. Paranoia (if indeed that was the case) would be in the mind of Jack and would leave no trace.

So if you believe that fear of being caught trumped the desire to kill, then the possibilty of Jack being interrupted has to factor into the equation regardless of whether there is actual evidence of it or not.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

If you have read the most recent posts, you will see that they tend to focus on the question of whether Jack exhibited a rational fear of being caught that overrode his desire to continue mutilating or begin mutilating[/B]. That is the basic question here. If you answer no and believe that Jack would have mutilated Liz come hell or high water then the only possible conclusion that you can arrive at is that Jack was not her killer.

If, on the other hand, your answer is yes and you believe that fear of being caught and hanged would override his desire to mutilate then the question becomes is there something that might have caused Jack to fear for his safety. Let's call that an interruption whatever form it might have taken.

Now we have to ask is there something to indicate that Jack was interrupted. Certainly finding Liz with her clothes pulled up would indicate that or some sort of ripping cut however small on her body would lead us to believe that there was some sort of interruption. But what if the interruption occurred before he started to mutilate her? Hearing a door open perhaps or a change in the level of singing? There would be no evidence of that. Yet those remain distinct possibilities as well as just basic paranoia that perhaps he was pushing his luck. Paranoia (if indeed that was the case) would be in the mind of Jack and would leave no trace.

So if you believe that fear of being caught trumped the desire to kill, then the possibilty of Jack being interrupted has to factor into the equation regardless of whether there is actual evidence of it or not.

c.d.

I had seen the trending but wanted to balance some earlier points cd.

This is a fairly easy question for me based on my beliefs regarding the essential evidence that makes a Ripper kill....if he was interrupted in Bucks Row and corrected that situation by choosing a backyard for his second kill,...while changing virtually nothing about his "ritual" in both murders, I would fully expect that the next murder in his sequence would have the privacy requisite for him to fulfill his desires and show evidence that the "ritual" is still being followed.

Kate Eddowes murder does have those facets.

The absence of JtR's ritual in the case of Liz Stride is for me enough to set her aside.

I cannot for the life of me imagine that a man who killed and slit a woman open in public on a street would then be scared off by a noise while alone with the victim in the dark, and I cannot imagine the killer initiating his ritual desires unless he was fairly sure he could reach his true objectives....which were post mortem.

So I dont see the location as being very Jack friendly, and I dont see this man being skittish.

Cheers cd

[c.d.]

Sorry, I mean to say the desire to mutilate instead of kill in the last sentence of my previous post.

c.d.

[perrymason]

I see Jack this way cd......he's like a closet serial masturbator.

Would a closet serial masturbator even begin his self indulgence if he was be fairly sure he could not complete the act based on his available privacy?

My guess is no.

Best regards

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Well that goes back to the old question of whether Jack was a robot or a human being. Did he possess the same level of confidence every time he attempted a kill? I would suspect that simply by being human that Jack varied from kill to kill. Much like everybody does in day to day living. One day you approach an interview completely confident. Another interview a few days later and you are a bit nervous. Asking a woman for a date. One time you might walk up and ask her brimming with confidence that she will say yes. Another time you might pass altogether for fear of rejection. This goes on all the time with pretty much everybody I would guess. It is simply part of being human.

As far as Jack goes, at this point in time, his actions are on the front page. The police are out looking for him. People are taking a second look at those they pass on the street. Is it really a leap to think that his level of paranoia has not increased?

And if he was somehow somebody with major league brass balls why does he leave the scene of the murders before the police arrive? I differ with Fisherman and believe it was for the simple fact that he didn't want to get caught.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

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

The more anger and the more rage, the deeper the cut, you mean? That, c.d., would largely depend on who held the knife! For all we know, we may be dealing with a guy who normally would never come up with the idea of using his knife to hurt people - and if you are right in believing that excesses are what follows on anger and rage, then maybe the mere fact that he even produced the knife was such an excess.

The fact of the matter, c.d., is that if Jack did not do the cutting - and the evidence speaks against such a scenario - then we do not know what produced the cut. We can be reasonably sure that it was not a wish to eviscerate a dead body, but after that, it´s anybodys guess.

Could have been a sudden rage.

Could have been a spur of the moment thing.

Could have been a knifewielding meant to scare only - that went wrong.

Could have been a domestic thing.

Could have been something the cutter rejoiced in - or regretted.

Once we remove Jack, we also remove all the givens that surround his deeds. After that, we are left with a case where anybodys guess could be the correct one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

If he didnt want to risk getting caught why commit the murder at that location. he could have coerced Stride further down the yard to where the stables were where i presume it would have been even darker and more secluded.

The answer to the original question on this thread is quite simple an un complicated but sadly some posters as usual want to argue about what was in the killers mind, what were his intentions and why he did didnt do this or that, and what if ?

We dont know and never will know so why keep trying to wildy theorise ?

[Roy Corduroy]

If he didnt want to risk getting caught why commit the murder at that location. he could have coerced Stride further down the yard to where the stables were where i presume it would have been even darker and more secluded.

Hi Trevor, as I understand it, he couldn't get her to go further in. They struggled right there, which Schwartz saw, and he killed her right there.

...some posters as usual want to argue about what was in the killers mind, what were his intentions and why he did didnt do this or that, and what if ? We dont know and never will know so why keep trying to wildy theorise ?

I couldn't agree more.

I find plenty enough similarity to call this a Jack the Ripper murder. Others disagree and some, including top published authors, say Michael Kidney got away with murder. And there we stand.

James Tully fingered Kidney for this murder. But looking at his primary suspect, the insane James Kelly, he could have easily done this murder cutting the throat when a wave of insanity came over him. And killed the others doing mutilation.

Same with Mr. Wolf and his suspect, Cutbush. If TC was so unpredictable, it's not all cut and dried then is it.

Same with Kosminki or Cohen, or Bury. Totally unpredictable. Not a set thing. Not done by a manual, or set prescribed formula. Not at all, in any way shape or form.

Stewart Evans at least presented a whole scenario, involving the Batty St Lodger, and Tumblety being off in Mitre Square, then returning to find out a woman was killed back here. Evans not only implicated Kidney but laid out an intricate, and possibly believable scenario.

And Trevor, how about your man Feigenbaum? Did he have to be so predictable? So formulatic?

And I could go on.

Who is this robot that my colleague Perry Mason and Co. conjure up? Are you sure that you, the anti-Striders and not then caught up in the hype?

Roy

[lynn cates]

Liz's direction

Hello Roy. You state:

"as I understand it, he couldn't get her to go further in. They struggled right there, which Schwartz saw, and he killed her right there."

I may be mistaken, but I thought that BS man was observed by Schwartz to be pulling Liz AWAY from the yard?

The best.

LC

[Trevor Marriott]

I belive you are correct Lynn.

As to Feigenbaum if he did kill in Whitechapel then Stride was definatley not one of his victims. He knew exactly how to kill by throat cutting his method identical to the way Eddowes and Chapman were killed

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I think there must be a misconception about what a "ritual" is and what "robotic behavior" is, because the first word very often results in second word. They are connected thematically.

I think the police and medical authorities surmised that victims 1,2 and 3 were met while they solicited outdoors, were led or led by the man to a more private location nearby, that he did not use a knife until they were on the ground unable to resist him, on their backs, and that all the previous actions were requirements of his actual final objective...which was mutilation.

If he was going to commit another murder without leaving a trace or a possibility of his being halted before the completion of his intended actions, then being seen by 2 witnesses just before he kills... isnt too smart. Killing just inside a yard, instead as Trevor pointed out, in any one of the unused stables in the yards rear,... isnt too smart. Killing when he knows for a fact that there are many men at that site that are awake and singing,.. isnt too smart. Cutting a womans throat when he can hear an approaching cart and horse on cobblestones, ...isnt too smart. Getting caught in the yard by that cart and horse,...isnt too smart.

You may not think that Jack was a genius, I know I certainly dont, but I would never assume he is a fool either. Hes smart enough to come up with this ritual that seems so effective...he uses it without being caught every time he goes out.....he knows how to get a uterus out in quick time and a kidney, in near darkness and in record time ...and he may be able to read and write. He evades Vigilante Groups, he doesnt fall for undercover agents, he is never seen fleeing by anyone, he outfoxes hundreds of police and local residents in the later kills...there are no incomplete attacks that have been historically linked with him....other than Stride......and he manages to do all this within a square mile over 2 months.

He is capable of thought.

Cheers all.

[Roy Corduroy]

Race Car Driver

Wife: Would you go to the store? We need a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs.

Husband: I only drive race cars. I don't drive the family car.

[Fisherman]

Roy Corduroy asks:

"Who is this robot that my colleague Perry Mason and Co. conjure up? "

The "robotic" qualities, as you like to call them, Roy, were not "conjured up" by anybody on these boards. They were manifested by the killer himself.

We have a number of evisceration killings in the East End, and they all have a good deal of common traits. They were all commited late in the night, the victims all had their necks very deeply cut and the abdominal cavity was sliced open. These things, Roy, are facts.

If somebody needs to theorize that a killer acting along this kind of schedule would have been just as likely to, say, poison women or hit them over the head with a lead pipe; fine! There is no way I or anybody else can disprove such things.
Likewise, I cannot disprove that such a killer would swop killing in the small hours for an earlier time. Nor can I disprove that he would trade a silent, empty and abandoned venue for the yard of a bustling and singing club. I am also having difficulties proving that he could not have opted for a comparatively shallow wound to the neck than what was the case in his more "robotic" stages, or, for that matter, that he would not refrain from eviscerating for some reason - maybe, as has been suggested, because he was dead set on killing two women that night, and did not want to get bloodsoiled during his first strike. I cannot even prove that he would not opt for letting the victim stay on the side instead of on her back.

What I CAN prove, though, is that IF Stride was killed by the same man that struck down Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly - then the very, very "robotic" methodology he took advantage of in the two strikes BEFORE Stride and in the two killings that came AFTER Stride, was suddenly - inbetween - abandoned for something very much different at that venue and that venue only. In the other cases, he "conjured up" a "robotic" behaviour all by himself, with no need for anybody on these threads to do it for him.

"I find plenty enough similarity to call this a Jack the Ripper murder."

She was killed by a cut to the throat. It happened in the East End and in the autumn of 1888. She was a parttime prostitute.

Let´s face it, Roy - that is what you have to go on.

After that, you need to ask yourself a number of questions:

-Was killing by knife a rare or common crime?

-Was cutting somebody´s throat something eviscerators only were capable of, or did other men cut women´s throats too - even the very same night?

-Were prostitutes common or rare?

-Are prostitutes more or less often victims of violent crime than the average, unprostituted woman?

-Did the crime rates of the East End drop to zero under the Ripper scare, allowing us to identify all knife violence against women as Ripper deeds?

Answer these questions honestly, and then tell me again that you have enough evidence to pin the Stride murder on Jack! The truth of the matter is that we KNOW that a knife killer was on the loose at the time and in the vicinity, and that calls upon us to realize that the opportunity was always there that Stride was his victim. The evidence, though, points AWAY from such a scenario in a very flagrant manner. So flagrant, in fact, that we need to theorize along the lines that anybody who was as crazy as Jack could well have acted in a crazily deviating way in this slaying, and this slaying only, if we try to put him on the spot. After that, we can add a suggestion that the "robotic" qualities of Jacks killing method were never anything but a mind ghost of those who do not finger him for the Dutfields Yard killing, and we´re almost there! Almost, that is...

The best, Roy!
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

One thing you should never lose sight of is the fact that murder by throat cutting was the main method of despatching a victim to the afterlife in victorian times and had been so for many years previous. So the throat cutting in The Whitechapel murders is not unique to those murders.

What is unique is the method of throat cutting which was different in Strides murder to any of the other victims. This is an important factor which sugggests she was killed by someone else. The other important facts which i would suggest make her murder different to the others is the location, and the time of the murder, and she was not subjected to any other wounds. In a previous post I also suggested that Strides killer could have been left handed. But I can definatley say Eddowes and Chapman were killed by a right handed person

IMPO Stride was not a Ripper Victim !