No Trophies

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Thats wrong cd...if this man was the same man that killed Polly and Annie we would see some physical representation of his mutilation intentions in Liz Strides demeanor in death. Moved onto her back...skirt lifted, dress opened, legs spread....but we dont.

And as for hanging....so he kills without mutilating...the thing that makes him kill in the first place, if he is the same man of course...and so he takes the same hanging risk anyway? For a single throat cut?

The fact that Liz is untouched after the single throat cut should be a huge warning marker for anyone who would like to believe Jack killed Liz....Im still amazed how often that it is downplayed.

Best regards cd

[caz]

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.

Hi Bridewell,

What about the fact that he only inflicted a single cut, which left her dying but not instantly dead?

Couldn't that be suggestive, if not actual evidence, that he had to leave the scene before he could make sure the job was done?

For example, how would an inexperienced cut-throat have known, in the pitch darkness, that he hadn't left her able to whisper "It was that bastard Kidn..." to anyone before finally expiring?

Whoever killed her risked the gallows, so why would he have left before making absolutely certain she was dead - unless it was unsafe to stay another second or he had cut throats before and knew he had done a thorough job?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

.if this man was the same man that killed Polly and Annie we would see some physical representation of his mutilation intentions in Liz Strides demeanor in death. Moved onto her back...skirt lifted, dress opened, legs spread....but we dont.

Funny thing about being interrupted...it doesn't allow you to do what you want to do. In fact, what I was go....oh, the phone's ringing. Gotta go.

[caz]

Thats wrong cd...if this man was the same man that killed Polly and Annie we would see some physical representation of his mutilation intentions in Liz Strides demeanor in death. Moved onto her back...skirt lifted, dress opened, legs spread....but we dont.

And as for hanging....so he kills without mutilating...the thing that makes him kill in the first place, if he is the same man of course...and so he takes the same hanging risk anyway? For a single throat cut?

The fact that Liz is untouched after the single throat cut should be a huge warning marker for anyone who would like to believe Jack killed Liz....Im still amazed how often that it is downplayed.

Best regards cd

No Mike, c.d. is not 'wrong'; you are - to presume that the same man who killed Nichols and Chapman would have been either willing or able to do any of the preparations you list in Dutfield's Yard. What if he took the precautions Mark Dixie did immediately after killing Sally Anne Bowman? He was high on drink and drugs at the time but he moved away from Bowman's body to hide in the shadows for a few moments, looking and listening out for signs of anyone coming to investigate, before returning to achieve his own awful objectives when he felt confident that the coast was clear.

Why would Stride's killer have prepared her for mutilation if he was sensible enough to do what Dixie did, and go off into the shadows immediately after cutting her throat, to reassess the situation and decide if it was safe to go ahead? It might explain why he managed to remain uncaught if he took this sensible precaution. Hearing an approaching pony and cart, for instance, would have made the decision for him. For all you know, he may have used a similar tactic in Buck's Row or the backyard in Hanbury, lying low in the darkness for a bit after each murder, making sure that nobody had heard anything, or was approaching, before proceeding to the next stage. Same with Mitre Square, and perhaps even after the "oh murder" in Miller's Court.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

No Mike, c.d. is not 'wrong'; you are - to presume that the same man who killed Nichols and Chapman would have been either willing or able to do any of the preparations you list in Dutfield's Yard. What if he took the precautions Mark Dixie did immediately after killing Sally Anne Bowman? He was high on drink and drugs at the time but he moved away from Bowman's body to hide in the shadows for a few moments, looking and listening out for signs of anyone coming to investigate, before returning to achieve his own awful objectives when he felt confident that the coast was clear.

Why would Stride's killer have prepared her for mutilation if he was sensible enough to do what Dixie did, and go off into the shadows immediately after cutting her throat, to reassess the situation and decide if it was safe to go ahead? It might explain why he managed to remain uncaught if he took this sensible precaution. Hearing an approaching pony and cart, for instance, would have made the decision for him. For all you know, he may have used a similar tactic in Buck's Row or the backyard in Hanbury, lying low in the darkness for a bit after each murder, making sure that nobody had heard anything, or was approaching, before proceeding to the next stage. Same with Mitre Square, and perhaps even after the "oh murder" in Miller's Court.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

The part I emboldened above is a critical point...in that, do we see any evidence that the man took any precautions at all to ensure that both his objectives and his continued freedom were safe? He attacked Polly in the street. He attacked Annie in the tiny backyard of a house overlooked by many neighbor windows and occupied at that time by some 17 people....in near daylight.

He didnt control anything but their screams, his cutting hand and his overall timing.

Killing Liz where she died ensured that there would be no privacy and no safe refuge should someone stumble upon him....assuming of course that he intended to stick around after cutting her throat once...rather that just continuing to stroll out the gates and into the night...or into the club. That does suggest a man who couldnt control his impulses....yet the fact that Liz Stride has no further physical interaction with her killer after she is on the ground cut, and she is on her side... in a pseudo fetal position....seems to point away from the type of killer that A, intended to stay around after that cut, and B, is intent on mutilating the corpse he creates.

Best regards Caz

[Errata]

Hi Bridewell,

What about the fact that he only inflicted a single cut, which left her dying but not instantly dead?

Couldn't that be suggestive, if not actual evidence, that he had to leave the scene before he could make sure the job was done?

For example, how would an inexperienced cut-throat have known, in the pitch darkness, that he hadn't left her able to whisper "It was that bastard Kidn..." to anyone before finally expiring?

Whoever killed her risked the gallows, so why would he have left before making absolutely certain she was dead - unless it was unsafe to stay another second or he had cut throats before and knew he had done a thorough job?

Love,

Caz
X

Actually Liz Stride's throat had the most expert cut out of all of the murder victims. The cut was clean, precise, pretty much the perfect depth and position. The Victorian equivalent of a double tap to the back of the head. Her throat cut is the one you look at and say "Wow. This guy clearly knew what he was doing."

[Michael W Richards]

Actually Liz Stride's throat had the most expert cut out of all of the murder victims. The cut was clean, precise, pretty much the perfect depth and position. The Victorian equivalent of a double tap to the back of the head. Her throat cut is the one you look at and say "Wow. This guy clearly knew what he was doing."

It was cut once, and it didnt sever arteries on both sides....she bled out much slower than the previous 2 victims as a result.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

No Mike, c.d. is not 'wrong'; you are - to presume that the same man who killed Nichols and Chapman would have been either willing or able to do any of the preparations you list in Dutfield's Yard. What if he took the precautions Mark Dixie did immediately after killing Sally Anne Bowman? He was high on drink and drugs at the time but he moved away from Bowman's body to hide in the shadows for a few moments, looking and listening out for signs of anyone coming to investigate, before returning to achieve his own awful objectives when he felt confident that the coast was clear.

Why would Stride's killer have prepared her for mutilation if he was sensible enough to do what Dixie did, and go off into the shadows immediately after cutting her throat, to reassess the situation and decide if it was safe to go ahead? It might explain why he managed to remain uncaught if he took this sensible precaution. Hearing an approaching pony and cart, for instance, would have made the decision for him. For all you know, he may have used a similar tactic in Buck's Row or the backyard in Hanbury, lying low in the darkness for a bit after each murder, making sure that nobody had heard anything, or was approaching, before proceeding to the next stage. Same with Mitre Square, and perhaps even after the "oh murder" in Miller's Court.

Love,

Caz
X

Why are you using some data about a killer who has nothing to do with Whitechapel in 1888 or the victims of unsolved murders during that year that we study? By segmenting the acts from the historical backdrop and using only murder itself as the criteria you eliminate all that is important to consider about these murders, ..the historical environment both politically and economically, the variances in all 5 murders, and many more relevant aspects to consider.

You are looking for a serial Caz, you always have been , and as a result you will see one in these murders whether the actual evidence warrants that or not.

The only thing you havent done, to my knowledge, is pre-select a probable killer before bending the known facts to fit that scenario. Like many do. But youve certainly made up your mind as to what kind of individual you believe the killer to be, and therefore what "data" is, in your mind, relevant.

Best regards Caz

[Errata]

It was cut once, and it didnt sever arteries on both sides....she bled out much slower than the previous 2 victims as a result.

Cheers

It probably wasn't a whole lot slower. You don't bleed to death twice as quickly with twice as many cut arteries. Once you lose a significant amount of blood, your blood vessels constrict and your blood pressure drops in an attempt to survive massive trauma. The faster you bleed, the faster that happens. You get roughly the same survival rate for people who cut both wrists as people who cut only one. The things you learn in a psychiatrist's office.

And I'm not entirely certain that the average guy knew that you cut the main artery in the throat to kill them quickly. Most people to this day operate under the assumption that the point is to sever the windpipe. It works either way, but people linger on terribly with just a severed windpipe.

[caz]

Why are you using some data about a killer who has nothing to do with Whitechapel in 1888 or the victims of unsolved murders during that year that we study? By segmenting the acts from the historical backdrop and using only murder itself as the criteria you eliminate all that is important to consider about these murders, ..the historical environment both politically and economically, the variances in all 5 murders, and many more relevant aspects to consider.

You are looking for a serial Caz, you always have been , and as a result you will see one in these murders whether the actual evidence warrants that or not.

The only thing you havent done, to my knowledge, is pre-select a probable killer before bending the known facts to fit that scenario. Like many do. But youve certainly made up your mind as to what kind of individual you believe the killer to be, and therefore what "data" is, in your mind, relevant.

Best regards Caz

Hmm, well Mark Dixie isn't a convicted serial killer as far as I know. I was merely using him as an example of someone who wanted to violate his victim's body after murdering her, but as she was in a residential street when he found her he sensibly decided to wait, between the murder and the violation, in case anyone had seen or heard anything of the former and might come to investigate before he could achieve the latter.

That's not about serial killer behaviour; it's about common sense human behaviour, on the part of anyone who wants to get away with doing something unseen and unheard. As such, we cannot tell whether Stride's killer only ever intended cutting her throat once and fleeing, or whether he would have done more if there had been fewer people around. The crime scene evidence allows equally for both situations. But a one-off, inexperienced cut-throat would have been taking the extra risk that he had left his victim able to identify him before expiring.

Love,

Caz
X

[J6123]

two things i would like to know here regarding the decisions and behaviour of Polly's killer:

1 - does he attempt decapitation but fail? or does have a clear goal in mind to just sever the carotid artery, becomes satisfied he's done it, and then moves on to phase 2?

2 - is he disturbed by an approaching workman, and has to flee. or does he simply end the attack voluntarily?

if he wasn't disturbed and had more time, it makes you wonder why he didn't do more to the body. if he wasn't disturbed, is it fair to say he was inexperienced at that stage and didn't have a specific goal in mind? like it was just a great release of anger, with the wound patterns clearly indicating his depraved curiosity? maybe this wasn't as controlled and carefully a planned out murder by a cool head as some think. just thoughts.

[GUT]

G'Day J6123

My take is that his signature was still evolving, for what my take's worth.