A Possible Reason Why Jack Didn't Mutilate Liz

[Aelric]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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

It's hardly pointless to examine a case on its own merits, Caz - which is all the thought experiment invites us to do.

The technique needn't be confined to thought experiments either. I'm reminded of the fact that astronomers have recently managed to image extra-solar planets, which would otherwise have been undetectable owing to the glare of their parent star. The way the astronomers achieve this is by blotting out the star, so that the planets have a chance of being seen. We know that the star exists, but (in effect) "pretending" that it isn't there is essential in order to make possible the objective analysis of bodies in its periphery.

If ever there were a metaphor of how the "Double Event" should be looked upon, that's it. Put aside "Saucy Jacky", 120 years of Ripper lore, and blot out the glare of the Eddowes murder, and what are we left with?

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

And here I was thinking that I could convince you to chage your mind. Now where is that damn head shake smiley?

c.d.

[c.d.]

I never really thought of this before but if the killer was Jack, was an actual interruption necessary to make him forego mutilating her or could a wave a paranoia and the fear of being caught have the same result? Keep in mind that there were now more police on the street looking for him than before and if he is caught he will most likely be hanged. I think that would make me just a little paranoid.

c.d.

[Ben]

Apparently he takes the TIME to get Liz into the yard

Hardly, CD.

If he quickly dragged her into the darkness of Dutfields yard and hastily dispatched her, he wouldn't have been taking much time at all.

[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.

[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.]

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.

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.

[Fisherman]

That´s what I call some good, strong, solid arguments, NTS! Good luck with that!

The best,
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 Jack´s 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 don´t make sense may just be wrong - in a sense.

Hoping that makes eminent sense,

Fisherman

What?

[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 Jack´s 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 don´t make sense may just be wrong - in a sense.

Hoping that makes eminent sense,

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 woman´s neck in any fashion they choose to on that particular night. And they will automatically get away with it, won´t they, since Jack´s presence on the streets automatically precludes all other solutions to all the potential neck-cuttings than the good old "must ´ave 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 Stride´s 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 it´s 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. It´s 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]

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 woman´s neck in any fashion they choose to on that particular night. And they will automatically get away with it, won´t they, since Jack´s presence on the streets automatically precludes all other solutions to all the potential neck-cuttings than the good old "must ´ave 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 Stride´s 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 it´s 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. It´s an approach I would be none too proud of.

The best,
Fisherman

[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.