A Possible Reason Why Jack Didn't Mutilate Liz

[c.d.]

A prostitute in Whitechapel with her throat cut? Yes, I think that would be on the probable list.

c.d.

[Mort Belfry]

But what if Jack had some sort of ritual that he followed before beginning to cut? Something that was extremely important to him and something from which he would not deviate.

I have to say I doubt it. As sickening as it sounds I try to think of a serial murder as a form of masturbation with the signature part of the killings, in this case the evisceration, as the climax.

Even if you have your little rituals, you're not going to put them ahead of the wank itself. So if you're scared about "mum coming home" getting it over with is the most important thing.

Especially if you only do it four or five times in your life.


That said, in light of what we learned about Peter Sutcliffe after he was arrested, the only ritual I can think of that might slow up Jack would be masturbation itself.

[perrymason]

Call it what you like....ritual, habit, ordered behavior....but there is little doubt that the killer of Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate followed a process....one that was seemingly consistent.

Consider that as part of Liz's murderers process, he may have cut her throat while she was falling. At least Blackwell thought and said so. If the Rippers victims were not cut until they were on the ground unconscious, why should this death not clearly be following the same pattern?

Oh....and the fact that this victim has a witnessed assault on her person feet from, and minutes before her death, and was not clearly soliciting...as we know Polly and Annie were... should be factored as well.

Somebody sees a man assault Liz....since he is the only person on the street by the gates in addition to Liz, and the yard was stated by witnesses to be empty by 12:40...this man was likely her killer....and if you like Jack for this, him also. There are no other people around....just him and her outside an empty yard.

So...a man sees him assault a soon to be victim, the man yells at him.....then, if Jack, he takes Liz inside the yard to kill her.

Reasonably....logically, does at least a double murderer to that point kill her just after being seen by a witness assaulting her?

My answer would be when hell freezes over. The guy who kills Liz obviously wasnt troubled by Schwartz's potential ID of him later. Why? Because he wasnt a criminal mastermind or likely a double murderer...he was a drunk thug.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

A prostitute in Whitechapel with her throat cut? Yes, I think that would be on the probable list.

Deeply cut throat and guts ripped open, CD... them's the clinchers for me. Beyond which - in all objectivity - it's the "possible" list at best, I'm afraid.

[caz]

In this case, the premise of the thought experiment is hardly controversial. It's simply this: "Imagine for a moment that Eddowes was not killed on the same night. What effect would that have on our perceptions of the Stride murder?"

We all know that it didn't happen, but that's not the point. The point is whether Stride's murder would be on our "probables" list if we viewed her murder in isolation - which is all the thought experiment asks us to do. That's fair enough, surely?

Morning Sam,

Not controversial, no. Thought experiments may be fair enough, but the ‘point’ in this case is just a bit - well - pointless.

Of course we would view things differently if things were different: if Liz and Kate were killed on different nights, as in your own example; or if nobody had written in claiming to ‘want to get to work right away if I get a chance’ and the fiend had become known as Sam the Slasher .

Or to take it to its logical conclusion, if only Martha, Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary had not been murdered at all, what effect would that have on our perceptions of the Stride murder as the possible work of an active serial mutilator?

T’would be a ridiculous thought experiment but I really don’t see the difference. We are stuck with the few facts we have, and the two murders on the one night do make perfect sense of one another if the same man was responsible but simply failed to get the first woman from their point of encounter to a suitable ripping spot.

I must say, this equation looks fine to me as it is and it doesn’t require the addition of a second unknown killer, with another unknown motive, or a single coincidence in order to solve it. The strain of your argument is really showing if you have to take away the murder that proves the ripper was active that night to improve the cut of your jib. You won’t catch me going for cosmetic surgery.

The guy who kills Liz obviously wasnt troubled by Schwartz's potential ID of him later. Why? Because he wasnt a criminal mastermind or likely a double murderer...he was a drunk thug.

Hi Perry,

What, so the guy who kills Kate wasn’t likely a double murderer because he obviously wasn’t troubled by Lawende and co potentially identifying him later?

And who is saying anything about a ‘criminal mastermind’, apart from you?

Love,

Caz
X

[Nothing to see]

Morning Sam,

Not controversial, no. Thought experiments may be fair enough, but the ‘point’ in this case is just a bit - well - pointless.

Of course we would view things differently if things were different: if Liz and Kate were killed on different nights, as in your own example; or if nobody had written in claiming to ‘want to get to work right away if I get a chance’ and the fiend had become known as Sam the Slasher .

Or to take it to its logical conclusion, if only Martha, Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary had not been murdered at all, what effect would that have on our perceptions of the Stride murder as the possible work of an active serial mutilator?

T’would be a ridiculous thought experiment but I really don’t see the difference. We are stuck with the few facts we have, and the two murders on the one night do make perfect sense of one another if the same man was responsible but simply failed to get the first woman from their point of encounter to a suitable ripping spot.

I must say, this equation looks fine to me as it is and it doesn’t require the addition of a second unknown killer, with another unknown motive, or a single coincidence in order to solve it. The strain of your argument is really showing if you have to take away the murder that proves the ripper was active that night to improve the cut of your jib. You won’t catch me going for cosmetic surgery.



Hi Perry,

What, so the guy who kills Kate wasn’t likely a double murderer because he obviously wasn’t troubled by Lawende and co potentially identifying him later?

And who is saying anything about a ‘criminal mastermind’, apart from you?

Love,

Caz
X

Jack, 2 for 2. That night. It doesn't make sense otherwise. He kills Stride but he can't go for her body. He's interrupted.

Before I walked the streets there I didn't realise just what a small area Jack's killing field was.

Jack wasn't a criminal mastermind. He was a serial killer loose in an era when there wasn't the resources available to track him.

[Fisherman]

Caz comments on Sams suggestion to remove Eddowes and see what happens to our impression of the Stride killing:

"The strain of your argument is really showing if you have to take away the murder that proves the ripper was active that night to improve the cut of your jib."

There is no strain in Sams argument, Caz. It is completely relevant and needs to be added to any fair discussion of the Stride case, since the damage inflicted on Stride was not only far less than in the other canonical cases, but also seemingly of a different character.

What the pro-Stride camp is constantly resorting to is providing an amnesty for any other knife killer that may have been around on that night. Somehow, the Eddowes slaying provides those other potential knife killers with a carte blanche to cut any womanīs neck in any fashion they choose to on that particular night. And they will automatically get away with it, wonīt they, since Jackīs presence on the streets automatically precludes all other solutions to all the potential neck-cuttings than the good old "must īave been our boy" solution.

Please note that the fact that Stride was killed on the same night as Eddowes is considered the clincher. If she had been killed the night BEFORE, she would have been a strong candidate too, and people would have said that the Ripper had managed to hold back his urges for a day. But the longer we move away from the actual date of the "double event", the more Strideīs inclusion can be legally questioned.

To treat the Stride case like this is to do things backwards and in a very biased manner. And that is where Sams argument applies to the full, since it urges us to judge the case on itīs own evidence only. And beginning by firmly establishing that a woman for some unfathomable reason could not possibly fall prey to any other killer than Jack on the given night - in a society where knifes, drunkenness and violence was very, very common - is to do it the other way around completely.

To put it in other words: To say that Sams suggestion does not apply, is to say that we need not make any thought experiments at all, since we already know that Jack must be the killer, case closed. Itīs an approach I would be none too proud of.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

Caz comments on Sams suggestion to remove Eddowes and see what happens to our impression of the Stride killing:

"The strain of your argument is really showing if you have to take away the murder that proves the ripper was active that night to improve the cut of your jib."

There is no strain in Sams argument, Caz. It is completely relevant and needs to be added to any fair discussion of the Stride case, since the damage inflicted on Stride was not only far less than in the other canonical cases, but also seemingly of a different character.

What the pro-Stride camp is constantly resorting to is providing an amnesty for any other knife killer that may have been around on that night. Somehow, the Eddowes slaying provides those other potential knife killers with a carte blanche to cut any womanīs neck in any fashion they choose to on that particular night. And they will automatically get away with it, wonīt they, since Jackīs presence on the streets automatically precludes all other solutions to all the potential neck-cuttings than the good old "must īave been our boy" solution.

Please note that the fact that Stride was killed on the same night as Eddowes is considered the clincher. If she had been killed the night BEFORE, she would have been a strong candidate too, and people would have said that the Ripper had managed to hold back his urges for a day. But the longer we move away from the actual date of the "double event", the more Strideīs inclusion can be legally questioned.

To treat the Stride case like this is to do things backwards and in a very biased manner. And that is where Sams argument applies to the full, since it urges us to judge the case on itīs own evidence only. And beginning by firmly establishing that a woman for some unfathomable reason could not possibly fall prey to any other killer than Jack on the given night - in a society where knifes, drunkenness and violence was very, very common - is to do it the other way around completely.

To put it in other words: To say that Sams suggestion does not apply, is to say that we need not make any thought experiments at all, since we already know that Jack must be the killer, case closed. Itīs an approach I would be none too proud of.

The best,
Fisherman

I don't understand your post. I know it's not directed towards me but it doesn't make sense.

Sorry.

[Fisherman]

Nothing to see writes:

"I don't understand your post. I know it's not directed towards me but it doesn't make sense."

Oh, but it IS directed towards you, NTS, to the extent that you think - according to you former post - that any other belief than the one that Stride was a victim of Jackīs does not make sense either.

So what I am saying, to clarify things, is that your sense is the same sense that has too long made Ripperologists sense Jack where he was actually not to be sensed. Or, put differently, your telling me that I donīt make sense may just be wrong - in a sense.

Hoping that makes eminent sense,

Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

Nothing to see writes:

"I don't understand your post. I know it's not directed towards me but it doesn't make sense."

Oh, but it IS directed towards you, NTS, to the extent that you think - according to you former post - that any other belief than the one that Stride was a victim of Jackīs does not make sense either.

So what I am saying, to clarify things, is that your sense is the same sense that has too long made Ripperologists sense Jack where he was actually not to be sensed. Or, put differently, your telling me that I donīt make sense may just be wrong - in a sense.

Hoping that makes eminent sense,

Fisherman

What?

[Fisherman]

Thatīs what I call some good, strong, solid arguments, NTS! Good luck with that!

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Just to reply to Caz's comments.....the mastermind line was I thought obviously facetious....and you make a fair point on Lawendes suspect. Both men, Sailor man and Broadshouldered Man, have to be considered as prime candidates for the the killers of those women based on the timing of the witnesses who find the victims.

So does that mean he changes clothes now between kills? I supopose he does have 35 minutes to "kill"...or maybe he just brings a Gladstone with hats and scarves inside. Or does that mean that only Kates killer was Jack cause he takes abdominal organs? Or is it that he wore his lucky outfit when he meets Kate? The suspect who picks up Kate has to do all he does in around 7-8 minutes including getting into the square and out of it. Broadshouldered Man meets Liz within 15 minutes of her death cut, which leads to my next point....

The interruption notion...which you didnt use, is all well and good except that it relies totally on faith. There is no evidence that the killer was interrupted at all,...in fact, she is left on her side, unlike all the others, and with her clothes untouched or altered. There is nothing indicating partially completed actions...like stripping only one thigh to the bone is.

There is of course the possibility that neither Broadshouldered Man or Sailor Man are Jack the Ripper... but are the killers of those women.

Cheers Caz.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I reread what Sugden has to say about Liz's murder the other night. I was surprised to learn that the times sited by some of the witnesses were estimates since they did not look at a watch to confirm the time.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I'm not sure what would constitute evidence of interruption. Is is really such a leap to believe that the killer could have been interrupted by the arrival of Diemschutz?

c.d.

[c.d.]

If the BS man was Liz's killer, he chose to kill her after being seen by two witnesses, Schwartz and the Pipe Man. But at least one of those witnesses (Schwartz) has now run off. Is it reasonable for the BS man to assume that he ran off with the intent of finding the nearest copper? Now it could be that he was so filled by rage that he was beyond caring. But if he gave any thought to keeping a rope from around his neck, the prudent thing to do would have been to get the hell out of there as fast as possible or at the very least kill Liz on the spot. Apparently he takes the TIME to get Liz into the yard. Not a real smart move on his part.

c.d.