No Trophies

[Errata]

Thanks for the replies- it just seemed odd that noone saw her earning or spending it and in some of the other murders people seem to be falling over themselves to volunteer sightings. Maybe it's just because it was an early murder and if she'd been killed later in the series people may have been more 'on the lookout' for that sort of thing.

She was spending it. On drink. She was a longstanding alcoholic, and she was not going to get that drunk off a beer or two. That is several gins worth of drunk, and I'm betting that's where the doss money went.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

If Jack was Liz's murderer, how can we possibly know what his intentions were regarding mutilation? Just because he didn't do it doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't want to.The one factor that you constantly leave out of the equation is that Jack will be hanged if caught. So no matter how strong his desire might have been to cut on Liz, it could easily be trumped by his desire not to be caught. Maybe it's just me but that seems to be an awfully reasonable assumption.

c.d.

[Bridewell]

Hello Caroline. It could indeed.

But if he does not stick at killing in a back yard, why worry about a club?

Cheers.
LC

If it was the same killer? Speculation:

Felt more threatened in Dutfields Yard than in the yard on Hanbury Street for some reason:-

Realised that in Dutfields Yard he could be caught in a trap if two people (or groups) simultaneously exited the club by the side entrance and entered the yard from Berner Street?

Was more likely to be recognised on Berner Street than on Hanbury Street - so lived or worked nearby perhaps?

Conversely it could be argued that he felt more confident on Hanbury Street because he knew that area better - so was very close to home perhaps?

Bottom line (for me anyway) is that, while there is no evidence that the Dutfields Yard killer was spooked by something, there is also, in my view, no evidence that he wasn't.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks for the replies- it just seemed odd that noone saw her earning or spending it and in some of the other murders people seem to be falling over themselves to volunteer sightings. Maybe it's just because it was an early murder and if she'd been killed later in the series people may have been more 'on the lookout' for that sort of thing.

She does mention her new bonnet adelsa, but as you said we dont see her earning and spending, ... so we dont know whether that bonnet was a gift, in trade, or a self purchase.

Its worth noting that Polly seems to be claiming a few clients that night and Annie, by her own admission, was getting nowhere out on the streets, but both were somewhat incapacitated,... one by booze, one by illness.

All we can assume for sure is that both of them had at least one person as a client, or someone posing as one.

Best regards

[Michael W Richards]

And there's no evidence it wasn't the same killer because there's no way of knowing if he was interrupted or not. You have no real argument here.

Mike

Mike, since there is no evidence any interruption occurred....in exactly the same way there is no evidence that he danced with her before killing her, although that too is I suppose possible...why would I want to assume he was anyway? Or why would I abandon the profile of the Leather Apron killer based on the specifics of Liz Strides murder?

My point is being twisted somewhat.....I am not contending that something likely occurred, or that something possibly occurred, without any real evidence of that occurrence present in the known data...you are.

Im saying that based on the actual, real, known physical evidence of Liz Strides murder... and utilizing the evidence of the murders preceding her in the Canonical Group,.. it cannot be said that Liz Strides killer had any intentions of mutilating his victim, and it can be said that the first 2 Canonicals were killed by someone that certainly had that objective.

Im using only the existing evidence for my statement...you require a story for yours, complete with events that left no physical representation of themselves...like any intentions at all of mutilation. Or a reasonable explanation as to why the same killer would abandon his objectives for only this one kill? If he killed all the Canonicals, of course.

Are you by any chance a descendant of Israel Schwartz of Brick Lane? Stories without any validating substance are not anything Id like to build a theory upon myself.

Best regards Mike

[adelsa]

Thanks for the replies- it just seemed odd that noone saw her earning or spending it and in some of the other murders people seem to be falling over themselves to volunteer sightings. Maybe it's just because it was an early murder and if she'd been killed later in the series people may have been more 'on the lookout' for that sort of thing.

[The Good Michael]

I'm quite new at this and it's probably a stupid question, but Polly said she'd had her doss money 3 times and spent it. Was she seen that day with anyone who may have been a client?

It's just what she said, and she seems to have been quite drunk, so who knows.

Mike

[Mr Lucky]

I'm quite new at this and it's probably a stupid question, but Polly said she'd had her doss money 3 times and spent it. Was she seen that day with anyone who may have been a client?

Hi Adelsa,

Welcome, firstly, that's a very good question, I'd love to know the answer myself. But as far as we know now, she wasn't seen with any one who may have been a client. Sadly, most of her last day is a mystery to us now.

Best Wishes

[adelsa]

I'm quite new at this and it's probably a stupid question, but Polly said she'd had her doss money 3 times and spent it. Was she seen that day with anyone who may have been a client?

[The Good Michael]

I believe that the first 2 murders provide us with a litmus test ability to use on future unsolved murders. And I believe you have to disregard that profile to include Liz Stride among his victims....because there is no evidence that suggests anything other than a murder.

And there's no evidence it wasn't the same killer because there's no way of knowing if he was interrupted or not. You have no real argument here.

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

I should just add to my last post that I am as yet undecided how many of these murders were indeed committed by one person, but since the physical evidence strongly indicates that Mary Ann and Annie likely were killed by the same person or people, they are the only 2 I can say with some conviction should be linked by killer.

Its based on the profile of THAT man that I measure Liz Strides murder, as well as the abilities or skills exhibited by Kate's killer.

I believe that the first 2 murders provide us with a litmus test ability to use on future unsolved murders. And I believe you have to disregard that profile to include Liz Stride among his victims....because there is no evidence that suggests anything other than a murder.

The timing and geographical proximity to other murders is circumstantial...not evidence as such of anything but coincidence. Or in the case of Ripperology, the misidentification of a culprit.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

But this would only be a valid conclusion if the conditions would clearly have allowed the killer to have mutilated her and removed an organ in the location where she was found, if that had been his objective.

Since it is screamingly obvious that nobody could have done all that without enormous risk, you are merely left with your speculation about the ripper's limited objectives, and your opinion that 'these freaks' will simply walk away when the goal you have set for them is not achievable, because bang goes their 'need' to kill.

It's all pie in the sky.

Love,

Caz
X

The murder evidence of Elizabeth Stride tells us very little about what objectives her killer may have had beyond killing her Caz, I agree, thats why its crucial that the evidence is compared with the previous killings we can pretty safely assume were by one man. We do have characteristics we can look for from those murders, and we do have senior investigative opinion as to the motive for at least the second crime...to obtain what was taken.

Since the major difference with these 2 murders is the extent of the postmortem damage inflicted,... not the victimology which includes their circumstances, not the specific type of throat cut, not the apparent focus on mutilating the abdomen...we might assume that Mary Ann represents a learning curve for a single killer, later changing locale for privacy in order to complete the objectives.

My argument is based on the fact that we DID know something about the killer of Mary Ann and Annie until we speculated whether less involved murders, more savage ones, or even less skilled ones, were also by the same man. He WAS a Leather apron type. Skilled with a knife, menacing, and intent on the mutilations more than any other single aspect of the murders. Killing was not the overall goal...it was a step.

I dont understand why we should re-invent our man based on what seems to me to be pure speculation about why Liz Stride is murdered and left where she fell untouched.

Best regards

[caz]

Hello Caroline. It could indeed.

But if he does not stick at killing in a back yard, why worry about a club?

Cheers.
LC

Well, c.d. offered a few reasons, Lynn.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I suppose I side with those arguing that he was interrupted with Nichols and not with Chapman. While it is true that there might be a tight timeline with Chapman, it either wasn't that tight or he didn't need much time, as we know he was not caught. Maybe it took him but 5-10 minutes; perhaps he was just unluckily interrupted with Nichols.

In my opinion, the Nichols/Chapman mutiliation issue reminds me of the Double Event mutiliation debate, just on a slightly longer time scale. The killer strikes and if all goes well (Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly) there is an extended cooling off period. If his is interrupted (Nichols, Stride) he gets to work shortly thereafter. There are too few data points to make any definitive case, but to me this is suggestive.

I agree, Barnaby. That week, between Nichols and Chapman, must have seemed like a year to the ripper, if something or someone had spooked him in Buck's Row before he could really get stuck in, and his next opportunity only came in the early hours of the following Saturday, when he encountered Chapman on her last legs and she went meekly into that backyard with him. We don't know if he was able to go out looking on other nights that week, or how many women would have made such easy targets.

If he found his opportunities limited, perhaps because of work commitments or the women were becoming more wary with each new atrocity, it could explain an earlier start on the last Saturday night of September, and the brutality shown in Mitre Square, immediately following a disappointing outcome in Berner St.

I could understand the tendency to exclude Stride as a ripper victim if Eddowes had been first, because it could then have been argued that he would not have had the desire or the energy to go after a second victim. But if he set out that night to mutilate, and his first opportunity came to nothing, the whole night's grim work makes too much sense to put down to two unconnected crimes.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

back yard

Hello Caroline. It could indeed.

But if he does not stick at killing in a back yard, why worry about a club?

Cheers.
LC