A Possible Reason Why Jack Didn't Mutilate Liz

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Thanks.

Then you will agree that the Saucy Jacky postcard was a forgery?

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Other than a "maybe" list that would involve Coles

When I said "maybe" I personally meant "probably not", Mike - others' mileage might vary

The ONLY argument for Liz Strides inclusion begins with a killer, not a victim, and thats just about the exact opposite way to solve a murder.

Whether or not it's the "only" argument, Mike, your point is excellently put.

Hi Simon,

I'm actually suggesting that Stride was not a "Ripper" murder, period - signature or no signature. From my perspective, it's less a matter of "signature" and more one of logic. In short, I believe the "interruption" argument to be untenable, except inasmuch as it's used to shoe-horn the Ripper into culpability. The "interruption theory" is thus a circular argument which I can't entertain - not because I arbitrarily exclude Stride, but because circular arguments are null arguments as far as I'm concerned.

In the absence of any other compelling indicator that the Ripper was at work (and this is where the "signature" bit might apply), I see nothing to support the belief that he was involved. Were it not for the "Double Event", which effectively canonised Stride from Day One (as well as spawning a host of other circular arguments about both Stride's and Eddowes' deaths), I'm sure Stride would be firmly on the "maybe" list along with Frances Coles.

Other than a "maybe" list that would involve Coles, Im with you on the rest Gareth.....glad to have you on the good guys side on this issue.

The ONLY argument for Liz Strides inclusion begins with a killer, not a victim, and thats just about the exact opposite way to solve a murder.

Cheers Sam, all.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Simon,

I'm actually suggesting that Stride was not a "Ripper" murder, period - signature or no signature. From my perspective, it's less a matter of "signature" and more one of logic. In short, I believe the "interruption" argument to be untenable, except inasmuch as it's used to shoe-horn the Ripper into culpability. The "interruption theory" is thus a circular argument which I can't entertain - not because I arbitrarily exclude Stride, but because circular arguments are null arguments as far as I'm concerned.

In the absence of any other compelling indicator that the Ripper was at work (and this is where the "signature" bit might apply), I see nothing to support the belief that he was involved. Were it not for the "Double Event", which effectively canonised Stride from Day One (as well as spawning a host of other circular arguments about both Stride's and Eddowes' deaths), I'm sure Stride would be firmly on the "maybe" list along with Frances Coles.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Very interesting.

Are you suggesting that Liz Stride WAS NOT a "signature" Ripper murder?

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

I'm going to disagree with you, Sam. Jack had the thrill of the kill. If he was spooked in some way before he could mutilate Liz, why not give it up as bad business and find another victim as quickly as possible? Which is exactly what I believe he did. It was not as though Liz was the last woman on earth.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

But what if that meant getting caught?

We're into dwindling odds territory, CD, if he were interrupted in the split-second it would have taken to allow the knife to dig just a centimetre deeper, and to progress just a few centimetres further around the neck. I see little reason to doubt that whoever left Liz lying there, he left in the full knowledge that it was - from his perspective - "job done".

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

But what if that meant getting caught?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Are we to imagine that on each and every night that the ripper claimed a victim, she was the first unfortunate he crossed paths with?

Not at all, Caz - in fact I'd be pretty amazed if there weren't plenty of occasions between the "canonical dates" where Jack returned home empty handed, so to speak. If so, I'd be inclined to interpret it as a matter of the opportunity not presenting itself under the right conditions.

Once a victim had been found, however, I find it hard to comprehend the notion of him abandoning ship, when his knife had barely penetrated deeper than the superficial fascia on one side of a victim's neck. That's not even "mutilatus interruptus", come to think of it. It's more like the Ripper being half-way through undoing his flies.

[caz]

Hi Sam,

But one could argue that frustration or adrenaline, due to an earlier encounter with another unfortunate (mutilation-free for any number of possible reasons, only one of which was mutilatus interruptus), might better explain the absolute mess in Mitre Square than Jack sauntering out cold with the whole night still ahead of him, three weeks after Annie (and three days after some joker posted off the letter giving him his official trade name and promising a bit more work).

Are we to imagine that on each and every night that the ripper claimed a victim, she was the first unfortunate he crossed paths with?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I'm hazarding a guess here. Jack didn't mutilate her because he was interrupted or thought he was about to be interrupted.

His twitchiness seems to have deserted him in Mitre Square, YS, where he only had a handful of minutes in which to work, yet still made an absolute mess of his victim. Now, if it had been the other way around (i.e. Eddowes first, Stride later) I might be a little more sympathetic to the mutilatus interruptus argument.

[YankeeSergeant]

Why indeed

I'm hazarding a guess here. Jack didn't mutilate her because he was interrupted or thought he was about to be interrupted. HAppy Holidays all,

[The Good Michael]

Hello Good Michael!

What I meant, was;

We would be doing the same kind of comparison as with CE and MJK;

"This cut relates to the cut with CE, that cut with the cut on MJK..."

All the best
Jukka

Jukka,

I understood your meaning. I was just suggesting that it would be a more definite connection to the C5 murders, maybe one that wouldn't be questioned so much if he had the time you alluded to.

Cheers,

Mike

Hello you all!

I still think, that if mr. Diemschutz had arrived about fifteen minutes later with his pony, then;

We would be wondering about Liz's injuries being something between CE and MJK!

All the best
Jukka

Hi Jukka,

....and if Mary Kelly had been killed outdoors, how badly would she have been mutilated...maybe more like Catherine was? Neither question is really germaine Jukka, all we can say is what happened....we cannot know why specifics were different each case, because we do not know motives. We can see by the condition of Liz Stride when found, that the killer had not started anything that was interrupted, because she appeared to be "gently laid down", and her clothing was not dishevelled...not even the hem of her long skirt was lifted. She is also on her side...facing the wall.

I believe cd that Sams answer on your question is likely the correct one, in that if he had rituals they must have been little more than making the sign of the cross in the air with his hand or something to that effect. None of the first 4 Canon victims had more than 15 minutes alone with their killer I would think,... it seems Kate's had about 8 but maybe as little as 6, and Liz's needed only a second or two. In all these 4 may represent less than 30 minutes, total time.

At least outdoors, it was speedy processing.
Hope the knee is better cd, cheers.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Good Michael!

What I meant, was;

We would be doing the same kind of comparison as with CE and MJK;

"This cut relates to the cut with CE, that cut with the cut on MJK..."

All the best
Jukka