A Possible Reason Why Jack Didn't Mutilate Liz

[Aelric]

Aelric,
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, others believe Stride to be a possible Ripper Victim, but i can't see it as With Nicholls, Chapman & Eddowes he didn't want anyone drawing attention to himself.
With Stride the man who grabbed her cried out ' LIpski '. Yet with Eddowes the man seen with her only minutes before she was found dead had been talking with her and Eddowes comfortable enough to place a hand on his chest.

You'll note in my inital post in this thread I said "assuming Stride was a Ripper victim". Up to now I've not actually stated if I think she is or isn't as that was, IMO, by the by when considering what I wanted to say.

For the record I'm not convinced either for or against her being canonical. On the side of her not being a Ripper victim, I do think it is possible that whoever killed her cut her throat deliberately as they knew it would be associated with the Ripper, and that it likely was the person who was seen grappling with her on the ground.
On the other hand I think it is a little too coincidental that it happened 45 minutes before the Eddowes murder and within running distance.

I suppose, if pushed, I'm a cautious "no".

[perrymason]

I've often wondered if, assuming Ms Stride was a Ripper victim, it could have been less of a case of being interrupted by someone else and more a case of the killer deciding she wasn't "quite right" somehow, finishing her off quickly and heading off. He then comes across Eddowes, who for whatever reason feels more right than Stride, and he sets to work, the disappointment from the earlier faliure spurring him on to further depravity.

I realise that there is no way of knowing how the Ripper felt about his victims and that proving it is impossible, but it has made me ponder on many an occasion.

With regard to the hypothetical MJK-night "Triple Event" musing, the taste for the extreme was already there due to his efforts with CE, and now he'd been granted the opportunity to go even further due to being indoors.

Hi Aelric,

Shouldnt we have some precedent for a stop and start killer...lets remember this "spree" supposedly has him opening his first woman on the sidewalk in the street...exactly what does a potential victim have to do to ward him off if he is that kind of man....bad body odor of the potential victim?

Im being sarcastic as a means for a smile....not a judgement of any kind.

The story is that Liz Stride is last seen at 12:46, in Schwartz's rear view glance....and Diemshutz pulls in at 1:00am...the yard is on record as empty from 12:40pm...and we know of no-one that entered it...not even BS man and Liz....if thats the case. Thats 15 minutes.....in a dark yard likely as dark as Mitre...with singing heard from the upstairs window indicating the men were still in place and werent ending the night at that moment. He has the best opportunity of all outdoor sites...excluding the house call...which does have only a single exit....anyway, what exactly turns him into a discriminating killer? He supposedly kills women 20 years different in age, and ranging in looks from what can be kindly called not so good looking....to one that was close to a beauty by most accounts.

I think if you consider the opportunity....there was no reason to stop....or if he decided otherwise, to kill her at all.

How many unsolved attempted or aborted knife attacks that resulted in no injuries to anyone were reported from August to November do you think?

I highlighted the Triple Event line because you may not know, the Double Event by Jack is on the same night a domestic fight gets a womans throat slit.

There are JACKS.....and there are Jacks....the first is a unicorn, the second is more common.

Whats uncommon about Liz's throat cutting murder?

Cheers mate

[Aelric]

Hey perrymason,
Regarding the "not quite right" thing, check my second post. I think I've explained myself better there.

Regarding the "Triple-Event", that wasn't mine. Memory fails me, but someone else coined it earlier this thread and I'd picked up on it while typing my first post in here. Bad me, I should have gone back and quoted, but I didn't think to at the time, apologies.

[EDIT]

Just gone back and checked and it was Sam Flynn who coined the "triple event" in reply to caz.

On which basis, where are the missing two-thirds of the "Triple Event" that preceded the Kelly carnage?

That's what I was referring to. Again, apologies.

Incidentally, if I did know about the woman whos throat was slit in a domestic fight, I've since forgotten it. I think I'll be spending a bit more time perusing the files on the website! Oh, the hardship

[perrymason]

Hey perrymason,
Regarding the "not quite right" thing, check my second post. I think I've explained myself better there.

Regarding the "Triple-Event", that wasn't mine. Memory fails me, but someone else coined it earlier this thread and I'd picked up on it while typing my first post in here. Bad me, I should have gone back and quoted, but I didn't think to at the time, apologies.

[EDIT]

Just gone back and checked and it was Sam Flynn who coined the "triple event" in reply to caz.



That's what I was referring to. Again, apologies.

Hey, I should be apologizing if I didnt pay close enough attention to whom I was responding...I had a stream of thought hit me early in your post and I had to get it out or lose it. So my bad....sorry bout that.

But heres the thing....I do think that post even addressed incorrectly is one of my best argument posts for the issue of the interruption .....so Im going to leave it at that and say sorry for misquoting, but I do hope you read my last post. It makes a lot of sense to me anyway...and it popped into my head as is, so I like to leave stream thought alone.

I had a hell of a good one after logging off last night about Mary Kelly and Joe Barnetts possible Fenian role.....but, its gone now.

Cheers Aelric

[Aelric]

Hey, I should be apologizing if I didnt pay close enough attention to whom I was responding...I had a stream of thought hit me early in your post and I had to get it out or lose it. So my bad....sorry bout that.

But heres the thing....I do think that post even addressed incorrectly is one of my best argument posts for the issue of the interruption .....so Im going to leave it at that and say sorry for misquoting, but I do hope you read my last post. It makes a lot of sense to me anyway...and it popped into my head as is, so I like to leave stream thought alone.

I had a hell of a good one after logging off last night about Mary Kelly and Joe Barnetts possible Fenian role.....but, its gone now.

Cheers Aelric

No apology needed from you, either! I often get struck with thoughts like that, too, which is exactly what happened regarding the "triple event" Nae worries.

As far as what you said goes, I did read it, so I'm sorry if it seemed like I was dismissing what you said out of hand. Now I've given it some proper thought the whole "not seeming right" idea is a bit half-baked. If there's more in mind than just plain murder, why stop at the first hurdle?

Hmmm...note to self. Think things through more before posting in future.

[perrymason]

No apology needed from you, either! I often get struck with thoughts like that, too, which is exactly what happened regarding the "triple event" Nae worries.

As far as what you said goes, I did read it, so I'm sorry if it seemed like I was dismissing what you said out of hand. Now I've given it some proper thought the whole "not seeming right" idea is a bit half-baked. If there's more in mind than just plain murder, why stop at the first hurdle?

Hmmm...note to self. Think things through more before posting in future.

Not at all Aelric, I kind of like the way you broached the topic, and god knows Im no expert....so lets say you didnt make a half bad suggestion, and Im looking forward to more posts. As long as your within knowns and unknowns you should feel you have the freedom to express any ideas you want, and by the way,...... your suggestion is indeed one of the possible answers here. So a fine beginning.

Welcome aboard....and I know this has been an unconventional way of getting to know you a bit, but nice to meet you...

All the best...and Mike or Michael is foine. Cheers

[Grabbit]

Not quite right.

Actually Aelric's point should be given some serious consideration. There's at least one victim of Sutcliffe who didn't receive his 'trademark' slash or stab wounds after the initial attack despite NOT being disturbed. There seems no apparent reason for this, yet it happened and after he had already killed several victims which followed his more usual pattern. Presumably only he knows the reason, but it does illustrate just how unpredictable the serial killer signature can be.

Ally

[perrymason]

Actually Aelric's point should be given some serious consideration. There's at least one victim of Sutcliffe who didn't receive his 'trademark' slash or stab wounds after the initial attack despite NOT being disturbed. There seems no apparent reason for this, yet it happened and after he had already killed several victims which followed his more usual pattern. Presumably only he knows the reason, but it does illustrate just how unpredictable the serial killer signature can be.

Ally

Hi Ally,

I think not including the acts that are obviously the overall objectives and focus of the attack...as shown in the murder of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, is more likely to mean a different man killed her than it is he opted not to mutilate her...but did decide to kill her anyway.

The kills...the act of murder is a facilitator, not the objective. He doesnt dawdle over killing, nor does he prolong it or do it while they are still aware....he kills 3 of the 5 when they are at best semi conscious. And all that Fall men scared women by pulling knives out....an attack not ending in a kill. Jack has absolutely no reason to kill her if he doesnt want to mutilate, because even if she sees him pull a knife...or says hes Jack the Ripper, if he just walks away the most that can happen to him is that he gets identified by the witness that escapes and is charged with assault with a weapon...possibly attempted murder. But if she is not cut at all....they wouldnt be able to prove intent to kill.

As illustrated, if the Ripper was there....he has a woman alone in an empty yard from as early as 12:46-47. No-one is recorded to be in the yard from then until Diemshutz pulls in. He has almost twice the amount of time available alone with a potential victim than in Mitre Street....and add up the damage he did in maybe 5 minutes there.

He doesnt need to silence her and he has ample opportunity to mutilate kill her after cutting her throat.

There is an argument that goes like this......what if he just arrives there a few minutes before Diemshutz? Well, that would be a very fortuitous event for the pro-Ripper clan, but it would also mean he never heard the cart wheels and hoof sounds on cobblestones that would have been audible for a minute or two before Diemshutz pulls in.

So it can work like that, but like any other Ripper insertion into this crime scene... its not likely.

He comes in with 2 minutes to the cart...he hears the cart approach. He comes in with 3 minutes to the cart...he could have done half of what is done to Kate.

Cheers Ally.

[Grabbit]

"The kills...the act of murder is a facilitator, not the objective."

But we don't know for sure if that was the case. With Sutcliffe we'd expect the reason for the initial attack to be to silence the women in order to carry out his version of mutilations. Yet we have a clear case where he didn't follow through with the attack for no apparent reason.

I know it's long odds on this happening at the Liz attack, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be given full consideration, even as an outside possibility.

Keep an open mind.

Ally

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

In going back through the postings, I see that you repeatedly state that the difference in the way that Liz's throat was cut is a deal breaker for you. I have to say that that goes by me completely. In the first place, how many throat cuttings are we including in the norm? It's not like there are 10 or so that are absolutely consistent which would make one that is not really stand out. Secondly, aren't there numerous factors that could account for the difference? A different angle of attack perhaps? Liz fighting back? The knife getting slippery with sweat and blood? It seems to me that the purpose of cutting her thoat was to kill her which he accomplished. I don't see him with a ruler measuring the cut in order to keep a sense of consistency.

c.d.

[Grabbit]

I know the post isn't directed at me c d, but I think you're point about the different angle of attack is well worth noting. Much is made of the depth of the cut, (which given the ferocity of the other attacks is a fair point), and the fact that Liz was lying on her side instead of her back.

Yet the depth, or lack of it, of the throat cut could be as a direct result of her lying on her side. It would make the angle of the first point of attack on the throat much more difficult to get at as the left side of her neck was now next to the ground. Even using a short knife, this would be a trickier manouvre than any of the others.

Ally

[Roy Corduroy]

Quartz Schwartz

I thinks Liz Stride was a Ripper victim.

But I give folks with the opposite view credit for consistency. They uniformly believe Israel Schwartz had perfect track of time, like some people have perfect pitch.

Or a fine watch.

Roy

[Sam Flynn]

I don't see him with a ruler measuring the cut in order to keep a sense of consistency.

If he were the Ripper, CD, he'd have had the same build (and biceps!) at the time of Stride's death as he would an hour or so later - and presumably would have exerted as much force as he would have on other occasions, and deployed a similar technique. Therefore it's pertinent to wonder why he failed to penetrate Liz's neck to the same degree as he had the necks of previous and subsequent victims. Not even the initial thrust of the blade seems to have penetrated as far - one would have thought that at least part of the blade's trajectory would have divided the tissues to the same degree as was seen elsewhere.

Also, it's not so much the way that the throat was cut that acts as my "deal-breaker", rather the fact that many others before and since have been killed by having their throats cut. Some, indeed, were dispatched in that manner around the time of the Whitechapel Murders but are nonetheless not believed to have been proper "Ripper" crimes.

Like I say - the only thing that distinguishes Liz's death in that regard is that she died on the same night as an indisputable Ripper victim. Were it not for this "Double Event", I'm certain that most people wouldn't consider Stride as a "probable" Ripper victim at all.

[c.d.]

If he were the Ripper, CD, he'd have had the same build (and biceps!) at the time of Stride's death as he would an hour or so later - and presumably would have exerted as much force as he would have on other occasions, and deployed a similar technique.

But Sam, isn't that assuming that all other factors were exactly the same as before?

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Therefore it's pertinent to wonder why he failed to penetrate Liz's neck to the same degree as he had the necks of previous and subsequent victims.

Perhaps...and I'm going out on a limb here...the Ripper was human and not a robot who could perform the same task repeatedly with exact precision.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott