A Possible Reason Why Jack Didn't Mutilate Liz

[Sam Flynn]

If we were to be confronted today with a killer who shot his victims with a gun, and after that dug out the brains of his victims through the eye socket with a teaspoon...

Ah, one of my favourite films... The Ladle-Killers

[Roy Corduroy]

Fisherman, while I appreciate you dreaming up the teaspoon bit, it doesn't fit. Jack the Ripper was a murderer first and foremost, and he may or may not mutilate. With a knife. The victims were, until Kelly, middle-aged unfortunates, killed at night in dark places. Like a "yard" which in England is an enclosed space between buildings.
The weapon, victimology, crime scene location, time of death, place of death, are all very similar.

Respectfully, sir, you are trying to split frog hairs.

Roy

[Fisherman]

C.d asks:

"I think that Caz makes an excellent point. Why does Jack have to be some sort of champion killer rather than an ordinary human being? Tiger Woods makes bad shots. Pro football players drop passes and fumble the ball. Champion boxers sometimes look terrible against mediocre opponents. It is just being human. Why should Jack be an exception to the rule?"

He neednīt be, of course. Bu the fact of the matter is that what was achieved in Dutfieldīs Yard did not in any way exceed the tedious everyday knife killing. It has often been argued that there were no other throatcuttings close in time and in public spaces, but I think that is asking a bit much. Itīs quite sufficient to realize that a cut throat is something quite different from what Jack left behind.
Try a theoretical parallel: If we were to be confronted today with a killer who shot his victims with a gun, and after that dug out the brains of his victims trough the eye socket with a teaspoon; would such a thing call upon us to realize that every victim found shot to death would be a victim of the teaspoon killer who had been interrupted? Especially if we were not even dealing with the same caliber of gun?
I think not.

Feeling compelled to dig your victims brains out with a teaspoon points you out as being rather a deviating character. Shooting somebody sorts you in with a very large bunch of everyday, possible perpetrators.

There was never any real sign of Jack in Dutfields Yard. The fact that we have to think up more or less colourful scenarios to put Jack on the spot speaks volumes.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

That argument assumes that Jack was functioning rationally at the time and could coldly assess the pros and cons of a possible murder site. We are dealing with a serial killer here not somebody standing out side of a bank casing the joint. He could have been overcome with the desire to kill come hell or high water. While the other sites you mention didn't carry nearly as much risk none of them were entirely risk free.

c.d.

Hi Michael,

Whoever killed Liz, be it Jack or someone else, was willing to accept the risks that that particular venue imposed.

c.d.

I agree....and since what happened to her took perhaps 2 seconds, as stated by Blackwell, that venue seems to have been fine for him.

If the killer wanted to cut the body open afterward....something which is speculated,....then he made a poor choice.

If Jack made a poor choice in Bucks Row then a good choice in Hanbury in terms of completing his objectives, why would he then make a bad call again at Berner? Mitre Square was essentially deserted, 40 Berner was occupied by 29 or 30 men who were drinking and who would have to go into the yard to use the privvy....and the kitchen door was open.

Cheers cd

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Whoever killed Liz, be it Jack or someone else, was willing to accept the risks that that particular venue imposed.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

She died did she not, Sam?

She did, CD, but in a rather "tame" manner compared to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly - all of whom sustained significant, rapid blood loss from deep wounds to at least one side of the neck.

But what are we comparing it to here?

We're comparing this...



and this...



The latter occurs much less frequently than the former, and that's without mentioning the accompanying slashed-open bellies, all inflicted in a mere handful of minutes.

Its very possible that this killer made mistakes cd, in fact I agree with the coroner for both Polly and Annie when they suggest that both were killed for the same reason, only the venue in Bucks Row prohibited his completing his extractions.

So what does he do next within 10 days, he moves to a backyard, having found "on the street" unsuitable to complete his objectives. He learned and applied that knowledge.

Why does he now forget that with Liz? Why after being interrupted once before, does he select or agree to venue that is populated by people awake and singing when at any moment he might get "Crossed" once again?

Cheers cd

[c.d.]

A fair point, CD - and a valid one. However, Liz bled to death "only comparatively slowly" (Dr Blackwell) owing to only a partial severance of the vessels on one side of the neck. To invent an imaginary scale for the sake of argument: if evisceration was Jack's idea of a "feast", and mere killing a "snack", then what happened to Liz was roughly equivalent to lifting the lid off a saucepan to sniff the contents.

She died did she not, Sam?

If we knew with certainty that Jack killed 20 women and all 20 had EXACTLY the same throat wound then I would be quite skeptical to attribute a killing to Jack if that same throat wound was not present. But what are we comparing it to here? Three other murders? Not much of a database.

I think that Caz makes an excellent point. Why does Jack have to be some sort of champion killer rather than an ordinary human being? Tiger Woods makes bad shots. Pro football players drop passes and fumble the ball. Champion boxers sometimes look terrible against mediocre opponents. It is just being human. Why should Jack be an exception to the rule?

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am one who also subsribes to the theory that Stride was not a Ripper victim.

The throat wounds inflicted on Eddowes and Chapman were committed by a right handed person who having grabbed the victims from behind has plunged a long sharp knife initially into the centre of the throat area and drawn it across to the right of the neck almost decapitating those victims.

In the case of Stride it is somewhat unclear however her neck wound was inflicted it wasnt in the same fashion as the others, and a different type of knife was used.

The description of the wound as described by the doctors to me makes it unclear as to how the wound was inflicted. It is documented that the wound was on the left side of the neck which might suggest her killer was in fact left handed. Unless of course he was right handed and tried to cut right across from left to right. If this be the case it makes it again different from the other aforementioned victims.

Has anyone guessed... because Jack didnt kill her yet?

Is there a prize?

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

I would suspect that simply killing his victim gave him pleasure as well.

A fair point, CD - and a valid one. However, Liz bled to death "only comparatively slowly" (Dr Blackwell) owing to only a partial severance of the vessels on one side of the neck. To invent an imaginary scale for the sake of argument: if evisceration was Jack's idea of a "feast", and mere killing a "snack", then what happened to Liz was roughly equivalent to lifting the lid off a saucepan to sniff the contents.

[c.d.]

I think we are making an assumption that for Jack killing was simply a necessary step in order to accomplish his true purpose, i.e., the removal of organs. I would suspect that simply killing his victim gave him pleasure as well. I think we tend to forget that Liz was not the only woman in the world. If Jack is caught not only can he no longer kill and take organs but he himself will be killed by hanging. As Caz suggests, Liz might have made a small cry or perhaps the singing in the club stopped or for whatever reason after he killed her he thought it best to consider his threat level. If he was at all paranoid about being caught, why not simply move on? He had already had the thrill of the kill, he avoids capture this way and he simply looks for another victim as soon as possible.

c.d.

[caz]

Hi Jimi,

Sorry for the delay in responding!

Most of your questions can be answered by reading my previous post again - a bit slower this time.

Going by what little evidence we got, Stride's candidacy for being a Ripper victim is only based on the theory that the killer was interrupted, and if that was the case, and it's a serious if, then the Ripper was interrupted whilst he was actually cutting her throat. That's the only explanation for it.

Hi M&P,

As I said in the post immediately before your response above, the killer of Sally Anne Bowman (a man called Mark Dixie, who was high on drink and drugs at the time):

‘…Retreated into the shadows immediately after killing her to check the coast was clear and only when no lights went on and all was still quiet returned to the body to inflict all manner of indignities and injuries on it…’

So it’s not the ‘only explanation’ that the ripper would have had to be interrupted whilst he was actually cutting Liz Stride’s throat. He could have - wait for it - retreated into the shadows immediately after silencing her (with the single fatal cut) to check the coast was clear, but it became too risky to return to the body or he heard the pony and cart in the distance.

And it’s not ‘only’ the interruption theory that makes Liz a viable ripper victim - far from it. Schwartz or Pipe Man could have been fetching a copper, or Liz could have refused to go anywhere quieter for her killer. Once his blood was up, he may not have been able or willing to leave a woman alive to go looking for another. If he hadn’t finished Liz off, she could have told the nearest copper that he had been behaving suspiciously.

Liz appears as if waiting for someone.....not just anyone.

Hi Perry,

So how different do you think Liz would have appeared when she was soliciting outside clubs in the small hours, and not waiting on her lonesome outside one for a bad-mannered new beau to show up?

I can't see how you arrive at the latter conclusion, especially if she was seen with one or more men earlier that same evening.

It's what her killer was doing there that matters, surely. How do you know that he was there to cut up rough with her, Liz Stride....and not just any woman who happened to look like she was trying her luck with the clubbers?

...and most suggestive, the statement that she would not be staying at the Lodging House that night, and didnt know when she might return.......

Could you source this statement for me please, or at least provide the actual quote? I thought Liz just said the bit about not knowing when she'd be back - like my daughter says when she goes out on a Friday night with friends. All she means is that she doesn't know what time of night we can expect to hear her key in the door. If she is staying over with a friend, she makes sure that we know as soon as she knows, so we won't worry.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jimi]

Did he have the nerve for it?

Hi All
Sorry about the delay in answering you.
superb post caz.
I must say i never realised that Packer sold sweets as well as fruit. Do you think they found any cachous pips in her stomach?
On a serious note, i can see what you are saying about any murderer having the time to mutilate Liz, whether it was WM or JTR, it wouldn`t matter,she wasn`t mutilated in any way,but wouldn`t you agree that JTR would at least attempted some form of cutting or slicing besides the throat cut? So was Strides murderer somebody else who had no fetish for or stomach for mutilating his victim?
To kill is nerve wracking enough, would he know where the kidneys could be found, if he had been in a relationship with Stride, strange as it may seem,did he have the heart to slash her face.
Or did he just get lucky, Eddowes murder discovery must have resulted in a media frenzy, did the media coverage of the `the Double Event` play into the hands of an unknown killer? (Besides JTR i mean).
Here`s one thought for you. Could the police of the day have used the manpower of the JTR hunt to try and solve Strides murder? would another murder investigation have stretched the police resources so they merged Strides murder into the JTR investigations? Just a thought.
What you say about the sally Bowman case does bear thought.
However, like everything else, serial killers evolve. 20 years ago, the burning of victims bodies was quite rare.Now since the discovery of DNA it is more common. Since fingerprints, all burglars possess gloves. What i am trying to say is that Sally Bowmans killer has a century of serial killer media to study and listen to, he tailored his attack to the victim in my opinion. jack couldn`t.
May i ask how you know jack was on drugs or had been drinking?
JTR was an organised killer, Sally Bowmans killer was a disorganised blitz killer.
Who killed Sally Bowman? The man who took her life or the man who left her on a dark deserted street alone and with a head injury?
Keep Well
Jimi