The Increasing Attractivness of the Victims

[Slimsid2000]

[QUOTE=c.d.;18493]

Hi SS,

1. The single wound on Liz Stride was made no later than 12:56am by the onsite medical expert at 1:16am...using a watch. There is then no credible argument that he was interrupted by Diemshutz/shitz at 1:00am. The amount of injuries increased excluding Liz, however the abdominal focus so prevalent in the first two, and in part, the 4th, seems to disappear altogether.

Hi Michael,

You constantly site those times as though they came out of the mouth of God Himself when in fact they are simply estimates and since they were given by a doctor in 1888 they are more in the realm of guesstimates. They can not be the basis for a rock solid theory.

c.d.

Have to agree. It is only a four minute difference anyway and surley they could not be that precise.

[Scott Nelson]

He was killing his mother.
And then decided to get a girl friend.
Because his mother was dead.

That's what I've always thought.

[Barnaby]

In statistics, this would be called a "floor effect." There was nowhere to go but up.

[caz]

There is no interruption of Liz Strides killer on record, nor is it likely he stood in place for at least 4 minutes doing nothing.

Unfortunate for the Canonites...because what happened to her is all that was going to happen.

Unbelievable.

Here we go again.

Perry, it doesn't matter if the medical testimony got Liz's time of death spot on, down to the last second.

What 'the record' shows is only ever going to be what the record can reasonably be expected to show.

You cannot use the record to demonstrate that nothing happened that could have spooked Liz's killer into cutting short his business there. You just can't. If nobody was in a position to witness the act of murder and the killer in the act of fleeing the scene (and you certainly weren't), then nobody was/is in any position to say whether he left because he had done all he intended to do, or because something made him feel too ill at ease to hang around a second longer than he did.

As usual, you are the one (and not your ill-defined 'Canonites') busily ruling out valid possibilities. Yes, it's possible that Liz's killer would have felt perfectly at ease hanging around afterwards to do a bit of ripping or just killing a few minutes watching the world go by. But it's also more than likely that he wouldn't have felt perfectly at ease, whoever he was, in that place and at that time, especially if he was aware that two men might be fetching the coppers after witnessing the woman being treated roughly.

While the number of victims is way too small to speculate usefully about the killer's motivation from their physical attributes (any three, four or five unaccompanied females in the area after midnight, sampled at random, could have produced a broadly similar bunch, right down to one being younger and boasting a room she could call her own), it is also pretty much on the cards that unless Jack was superhuman he would at some point have shown less than 100% perfect control and judgement, either over a victim, the circumstances or his own reactions and timing. He was not exactly operating in a vacuum, and there is every possibility that he was high on drugs and/or alcohol for one or more of the attacks, which can have unpredictable effects on judgement as well as capability.

Do you believe Jack was superhuman? If not, how many times would you expect him to have been able to offend without making a single bad decision, either through being incautious or overly cautious?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

While the number of victims is way too small to speculate usefully about the killer's motivation from their physical attribute

Hi Caz,

Agreed wholeheartedly.


Mike,

I suggest that you keep any response within the bounds of the argument about the attractiveness of the victims - which is the topic of this thread. The stuff you brought in about interruptions (etc) is rather off-topic, and is being discussed elsewhere anyway. You can always quote and respond on another, more apposite, thread.

[John Bennett]

How on earth can we really know how 'attractive' the victims were from merely a few crackly mortuary photographs and drawings of dubious accuracy?

This premise is quite frankly daft.

[c.d.]

Hi Caz and Mike,

You might want to check out what I wrote on the compelling feature thread (post no. 436) as a possible explanation as to why Jack did not mutilate Liz.

c.d.

[detective abberline]

How on earth can we really know how 'attractive' the victims were from merely a few crackly mortuary photographs and drawings of dubious accuracy?

This premise is quite frankly daft.

I agree absolutely. Jack didn't give a rat's .... what his victims looked like. He was after his kicks and any woman that he could get his hands on would do.

[PepeLep]

I would say that the main difference with Kelly is that she was young and attractive enough to keep a room and work indoors, and hence got a substantially higher price...So it may have just been his need to find a woman willing to take him back to her room.

I think that's an excellent point.

[joelhall]

Here is something I have noticed: each time the next victim is slightly more attractive (or slightly less ugly if you prefer) than the previous one.

If we accept the notion of the C5 (or even include Martha Tabern) a case could be made that starting with Martha and ending with Mary JTR seemed to go for a more attractive woman each time.

In corrolation with this are a couple of other trends:

1) The level of mutilation (if we accept he was interupted with Long Liz) increased on each occasion;

2) The time between each attack also increased.

The culmination of all three of these trends was Mary Kelly on 9th November. I don't know what relevence any of this has, as I cannot get inside the head of a psychopathic serial killer but in Jack's mind was there some relevence?

Discuss.

do you think the facial mutilations were done to 'ugly up' the later victims, so they appeared as visually unappealing as the earlier ones?

[Sam Flynn]

do you think the facial mutilations were done to 'ugly up' the later victims, so they appeared as visually unappealing as the earlier ones?

Apart from Annie Chapman, bless her, the other victims seem to have been comparably attractive. Certainly, I don't see that Polly Nichols was "visually unappealing".

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I agree with John Bennett,

How on earth can we estimate the victims' level of attractiveness from some very poor mortuary photos, some worse than others (Nichols' apparence most certainly can't be judged from that picture because of the poor angle and because it is - that's right, a mortuary photo)?
It's silly to say the last.

To quote poster "detective abberline": he most certainly didn't give a damn.

All the best

[Natalie Severn]

do you think the facial mutilations were done to 'ugly up' the later victims, so they appeared as visually unappealing as the earlier ones?

Polly Nichols and Liz Stride looked a good deal younger than their years.The doctor thought Liz was 28 and Polly,who had "neat delicate features" according to the journalist who saw her in the mortuary,looked about 30.This despite their alcohol fuelled lives!
So I dont think we can judge their attractiveness or otherwise.I agree with the poster above who said all Jack was interested in was finding available women.I believe he went indoors in the case of Mary,for exactly the same reason as I believe he had lain low for 5 weeks during the increased police patrols and upwards of a hundred "vigilantes" that had sprung up ,it was simply to avoid getting caught when he was at it!