A Possible Reason Why Jack Didn't Mutilate Liz

[Trevor Marriott]

All the other locations were quiet and fairly secluded. Dutfields yard area thronging with people on the street and yards away in the club.

As to time i beleive this would have been the earliest recorded murder but I stand to be corrected.

You have not read my post correctly it would only take moments to slash and wound a victim in a frenzied attack so although I am not able to postively say he wasnt disturbed you have to way up the facts. If he had lured Stride there with the intention of murder and mutilation he would have made dam sure he would have given himeself a chance of carrying it out. Thats why i suggest he could have gone further down the yard where it was dark and secluded

As I said before cross her off the list !!!!!!!!!!

[dixon9]

trevor

why is there a question mark for you about the location and time of the Stride murder?(as such pointing to another murderer)

Looking at the (approx times of the C5s) 3.40,5.30,1.00,1.44,4.00am seems pretty random to me,also Dutfields Yard would have been a pretty decent area (with the lack of light) for a murder.
The lack of body mutilations could have been down to being disturbed as if i recall the blood was still flowing from Liz's neck wound.(according to Edward Spooner)

Thanks for any help in putting me right

Dixon9
still learning

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=caz;100582]Hi All,

Why do people automatically assume that if Jack killed Liz it must have been in preparation to mutilate her? He’d have been doing his thing - perhaps uniquely - at the same spot where he found her.

Caz I dont think people automatically assume that quite the contrary.

As I said in a previous post everyhting about Strides murder suggest it was carried out by a different killer to others.

The Time
The Location
The weapon used
The throat wound.
The lack of other bodily mutilations

If it had been the same killer how many seconds would it have taken to carry out a frenzied attack.

Sorry but cross Stride off the list of JTR victims, and of course that list is now very much questionable.

[Fisherman]

To Michael, for his listing of the fourteen Old Bailey cases involving men killing women: Thanks! Much needed and very useful - exactly the type of alarm bell needed! Well done!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz asks:

"Can you not imagine any circumstances in which he might have been unwilling or unable to do more than cut quickly and get the hell out?"

I can imagine situations where he swopped his normal prey and his knife in favour of a method of battering homeless dogs to death with a turnip, Caz. There was never any loss of imagination on my behalf!

This suggestion of mine remains an unsubstantiated one, though, since all the evidence surrounding the four mutilation cases speaks the exact same language on the details that can arguably be seen as important when it comes to establishing what Jack was all about. In none of these cases are we given any reason at all to suspect that we needed to go looking for a turnip-wielder.

Similarly, we are not given any reason to believe that our man would settle for just the odd, shallow(er) cut to the neck every once in a while. Nor are we given any hints at him being easily spooked when at work - if Cadosche heard what most of us think he heard, we are instead dealing with a man that was hellbent on his knife handiwork.

I do not think that we are looking at a small deviation when we compare Stride´s neck wound with the others - I think that we are dealing with something so obviously different that the opening bid must be that it did not tally with the Rippers work at all.

That cut is one very significant difference. But there are very many more differences. And I agree very much with Dave Yosts conclusion that each and every of these mistakes could be accepted as understandable variations taken on their own - but weighed together, they speak a very clear language, and that language tells us that whoever cut Stride, did so in a manner that did not tally with the Ripper, in a venue that did not tally with the Ripper and at a time that did not tally with the Ripper. Moreover, the surrounding circumstances with a witnessed-about attack on Stride at the approximate time she died, of course also urges us to realize that this was something totally different from a Ripper deed - it was a public affair, more or less.

When all of this is assessed, I think there is no need for imagining anything about a man who quite possibly had not even taken to the streets at the time Stride was cut - since he knew that later hours and deserted streets offered him what he wanted.

Therefore, Caz, the answer to your question:

"would he have checked himself and not gone for this woman’s throat on the grounds that this wasn’t the right place for a slice and dice job, even if it was the right time and she was just the right type?"

...must be divided in two:

A/ It was NOT the right time - it was a time where people were still feasting and singing and coming and leaving the club.

B/ Yes, he WOULD arguably have checked himself under such circumstances. We must assume that he checked himself dozens of times of the day, when he ran into "adequate prey" but under conditions where he obviously would not be afforded seclusion and secrecy.
Have a look at Bela Kiss, Caz - it was said of him that he was the type of man who felt a burning sensation in his stomach every time he saw somebody of the opposite gender, regardless if they were children, ninetyfive years old, beauty queens or drab hags - to him they represented the opposite sex and they made him water at the mouth. Still, he killed only in seclusion - he suppressed that ever-occuring urge every single time when there was a risk at hand that he would be detected - and we are speaking of thousands and thousands of such occasions - and let the tension build up until he was given the right opportunity. And Kiss killed in his Cincota home, Caz - he had the luxury of being able to close the door behind him.
This was not something the Ripper shared with him - his hunting grounds were the open streets, and nobody should be surprised that he favoured the hours of roughly 2 to 5 in the deep night, just as he favoured deserted spots, surrounded by sleeping people.

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[caz]

But Perry, the man you seem to know so well was not operating on a desert island, nor was he psychic. Do you honestly believe he could have gone on committing successful mutilation murders in that area indefinitely, just because he said to himself: "I must include some kind of post mortem mutilation whenever I take my knife to a woman"?

Can you not imagine any circumstances in which he might have been unwilling or unable to do more than cut quickly and get the hell out?

Love,

Caz
X

I dont see that there is any evidence that contradicts what the coroners said regarding the murders of Polly and Annie Caz....the killer committed murder so as to facilitate further knife activity.

I dont think a reasonable assumption is that those 2 murders do not suggest patterned behavior that must include post mortem mutilations.

Cheers.

[caz]

Hi All,

Why do people automatically assume that if Jack killed Liz it must have been in preparation to mutilate her? He’d have been doing his thing - perhaps uniquely - at the same spot where he found her.

The equivalent would be a willingness to mutilate Kate by St. Botolph’s, for example, or Annie at the entrance to Spitalfields Market.

If these women went willingly from the point of encounter to their semi-private place of execution (Mitre Square and Hanbury St respectively), we can only guess what might have happened to either of them if they hadn't played ball. But we can assume their killer was not stupid enough to have gone ahead with his mutilation plans at any relatively busy pick-up point - especially if the woman was making a fuss or said she was waiting for someone. He could hardly have got stuck in with the thought of her date turning up at any second and catching him elbow deep in her dead body.

It’s entirely feasible that this same killer had no intention of mutilating anyone in the location where Liz was found. If he did see her there he would have assumed she was up for business, and anything about her behaviour - towards him or in general - could have had a dangerously negative effect on a man who cared nothing for such women and was in the mood to use his knife on one that very night. If he thought his mutilation plans were being hindered in any way, or he was just itching for an excuse to lose his cool, would he have checked himself and not gone for this woman’s throat on the grounds that this wasn’t the right place for a slice and dice job, even if it was the right time and she was just the right type?

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Just trying to put the "facts" in the correct context

i thinks it is fair to say that say far as Mckenzie and Tabram is concerned both are different from each other and different from Eddowes and Chapman, and all are different to Stride who was different from Kelly who was different from all the others.

So make of it what you will was it one killer or different killers i know where my money lies.

Thats not a proven fact.

There is no doubt the killer cut the throats in a particular fashion which shows a degree of know how.

However the killer caried out a frenzied attack on the bodies cutting and mutilating them. he certainly didnt make a nice neat incision in the abdomens.

I fail to see why you are trying to make this distinction Trevor....all I wrote is that there was only one killer who cut his women open after, I wrote nothing about how neatly he may have done that.

If we assume that the authorities were correct in determining that Jack did not kill Alice Mackenzie, she is most likely a copycat inspired by the Ripper murders.... then you have Polly, Annie and Kate that were cut open after they had their throats slit, after they were on the ground flat on their backs unable to resist...and Mary who was attacked with a knife while in bed...while resisting.

There are only a limited number of victims that have their abdomens opened, I would think that they would be the most likely prospects to match with what Jack shows us he does in the C1 and C2 murders.

Cheers Trevor

[Trevor Marriott]

But there was only one who cut his victims open after.

Thats not a proven fact.

There is no doubt the killer cut the throats in a particular fashion which shows a degree of know how.

However the killer caried out a frenzied attack on the bodies cutting and mutilating them. he certainly didnt make a nice neat incision in the abdomens.

Hi again,

It seems to me that of the 13 or 14 women that are often associated with the crimes and are attacked over the relevant period of time, all were attacked with knives and many had their throats stabbed or slit.

Annie-stab, Ada-stab, Martha-stab, Polly-slit (2 times), Annie-slit (2 times), Liz-slit, Kate-slit (2 times), Mary-slit (? times), Annie-cut, Rose-strangulation, Alice-slit and stab, Frances-slit-(3 times), and of course 2 Torsos and Elizabeth Jackson's remains.

During the period from January 1887 until January 1889 there were 14 trials with either attempted murder or murder as the charge, with a male defendant and a female victim....

-Joseph King charged with the murder of Ann Sutton-(slit throat with razor)
-Thomas Currell charged with the murder of Lydia Green-(wound on temple, 2 cuts on throat by knife)
-Joseph Finemore charged with the murder of Elizabeth Finemore-(stabbed in the stomach with knife)
-John Fyfield charged with the murder of Mary Ann Fyfield-(blow to the head)
-Franz Schultz charged with the murder of Emily Pottle-(Burned by fire)
-Israel Lispki charged with the murder of Miriam Angel-(Ingesting acid)
-William Brickley charged with the murder of Johanna Brickley-(Stabbed with knife)
-Henry Bowles charged with the murder of Emma Bowles-(Poison)
-James White charged with the murder of Margaret White-(Beating)
-Charles Latham charged with the murder of Mary Newman-(Throat cut with knife)
-James Glouster charged with the murder of Eliza Jane Schumacher-(Attempt at abortion)
-Levi Bartlett charged with the murder of Elizabeth Bartlett-(Hammer blow, 3 stabs in neck with knife)
-John Brown charged with the murder of Sarah Brown- This is the third throat cutting murder of the Double Event Night-(Throat cut with knife)
-Henry Glennie charged with the murder of Frances Maria Wright-(Fatal Blow-perhaps death from weak heart) **Interesting footnote on this crime, Mr Glennie was described as ....."he had on a dark suit, a cutaway sort of coat, not an overcoat, and a hat something like that (a chummy), a little wider in the brim" and also "he had on a black cut-away coat, and a felt hat with a square crown."

I cited these cases to illustrate a couple of things. One, death by knife, whether stabs or cuts, was not uncommon. Two, most of the cases showed a relationship had existed between killer and victim. I think we need to remember that strangers killing strangers isnt common. And that slicing women open after the murder is very uncommon.

The Old Bailey files indicate that there were 14 trials for murder for the period I selected, and during that same time 12 new and still unsolved murders occurred,.... The Canonicals, and Annie M, Ada, Emma, Martha, Annie F and Rose....as well as the Whitehall Torso. There are of course more unsolved murders after January 1889 in that area.

When we wonder whether we could possibly have more than one man running about using a knife on women, I think the stats and the fact that the Canonicals only represent half of the unsolved murders that year....most with knives as the instrument....show us thats the only conclusion we can make.

Clearly there were other men killing with knives.
But there was only one who cut his victims open after.

Best regards all.

[Fisherman]

C.d:

"for more than a hundred years people have believed the earth is round but at your suggestion I shall try to keep an open mind on the matter and consider arguments to the contrary"

It´s not quite round, c.d. - it is compressed from the poles. Would that constitute "the contrary" to you?

Joking aside, I do think that most research over the last years have tended to dispell the idea of Jack as Strides killer, and I think that is only logical. Did you read Dave Yosts cracking little book "Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper"? If not, you should. It offers very good insight into the different details involved, and Yost deduces - quite rationally and in a very unbiased manner - the same thing as I and many others do; Jack was not in Dutfields Yard on that evening.

But let´s not mourne the loss of Stride too severely - there is always Tabram to fill in for her ...

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello CD. Thanks. I fear my broad mindedness may be the result of my ignorance.

I want desperately to recanonize Liz (and Kelly), but it is hard to get it to add up.

Cheers.

LC

[c.d.]

And for more than a hundred years people have believed the earth is round but at your suggestion I shall try to keep an open mind on the matter and consider arguments to the contrary.

c.d.