What Does It Mean to "Know" Someone?

[c.d.]

Ok...glad you read the posts to at least check the spelling. Maybe you should digest the ideas as well.

Like I said there was no need to thank me.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Cachous not cashous. No need to thank me.

c.d.

Ok...glad you read the posts to at least check the spelling. Maybe you should digest the ideas as well.

[c.d.]

Liz Stride had cashous and a flower arrangement for her jacket, she did not leave the boarding house with either, but she likely did have the 6d that she was paid for cleaning that night. Which was ample for her doss had she chosen to stay there that night. She is sober, with new accoutrements, and had plans that would last the evening.

Cachous not cashous. No need to thank me.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Are you implying she was robbed?
If yes, why don't things spill onto the ground when she digs into her pocket(s), and pulls stuff out?
Why does she submit to this without struggle and/or calling out?

[Michael W Richards]

Liz Stride had cashous and a flower arrangement for her jacket, she did not leave the boarding house with either, but she likely did have the 6d that she was paid for cleaning that night. Which was ample for her doss had she chosen to stay there that night. She is sober, with new accoutrements, and had plans that would last the evening.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hello Not Blamed for Nothing,

I wasn't downplaying the importance of the coin question, I simply wasn't sure exactly what you were asking.

It was an open question. Go where you like with it.

To me, whether or not Stride was soliciting is a moot point. Even if she was not we have no way of knowing her response if approached by Jack and offered money for her services.

Should we roll tape with Israel Schwartz turning into Berner St, and not worry too much about what came before that, and how the actors came to be where they were at 12:45?

As to location, I have always thought of it as taxis at the airport. Yes, there are plenty of customers in that location but there are also plenty of other cabs trying to get those customers as well.

I feel you might be talking around the issue, here.

I would guess that the standard practice was money up front. So she had Jack's money mixed with hers if she had any. If he took it back after he killed her he would have taken it all. This could indicate that he was lower class and in need of money but it could simply mean that he'd be damned if some filthy whore was going to keep anything of his. Either way he is taking the money.

Stride: thimble in pocket, cachous packet in hand
Eddowes: thimble lying near, nothing in hands

Were both women robbed?

These are simply possible explanations.

c.d.

Okay, thanks.

[c.d.]

Hello Not Blamed for Nothing,

I wasn't downplaying the importance of the coin question, I simply wasn't sure exactly what you were asking.

To me, whether or not Stride was soliciting is a moot point. Even if she was not we have no way of knowing her response if approached by Jack and offered money for her services.

As to location, I have always thought of it as taxis at the airport. Yes, there are plenty of customers in that location but there are also plenty of other cabs trying to get those customers as well.

I would guess that the standard practice was money up front. So she had Jack's money mixed with hers if she had any. If he took it back after he killed her he would have taken it all. This could indicate that he was lower class and in need of money but it could simply mean that he'd be damned if some filthy whore was going to keep anything of his. Either way he is taking the money.

These are simply possible explanations.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What exactly is the question regarding Stride's coins? Do we know for a fact that she had them? And are you asking for known facts or just seeking speculation?

c.d.

It can hardly be a mystery as to why someone might be curious about Stride having no money on her, after her death.
It relates to what she were doing that evening; prostituting - and therefore making money, socialising - and therefore likely spending, or both.
From there we can look at why she might have ended up in Dutfield's Yard.

Elizabeth Tanner said Long Liz had not paid for her bed for the night.
Catherine Lane said:

I know deceased had 6d. when she left, as she showed me the money, but I cannot say that she had any money besides that. Deceased did not tell me she was coming back. I do not think she had been drinking.

Three labourers witnessed Stride leave the Bricklayers Arms, at about 11pm, with a man who had been kissing her.
PC Smith witnessed Stride with a man at about 12:35, and said both appeared to be sober.
Another important point is that is was stated by people like Wess that Berner St was not known as a location for prostitutes.

So we could look at this in terms of two scenarios:

Stride was prostituting that night. So:

1. Where is the money?
2. Why is she soliciting where prostitutes are rarely if ever seen?
3. Why is Jack looking for his next victim in such a place?

Stride was socialising that night. So:

1. Why does she end up in Dutfield's Yard?
2. Where had she been expecting to sleep that night, with no money on her?

Before answering, mind this:

PC Smith: I did not overhear any conversation. They both appeared to be sober. The man was about 28 years of age, and was respectably dressed. I noticed the woman had some flowers in her dress.

[DJA]

Thanks for posting that, DJA. In my memory she was quite a bit older. You may be right.

As mentioned previously,she was baptized at The Shoreditch Church, St Leonards.

Same place she finished up. Their mortuary.

Henry Sutton was their Vestry Board medical officer from 1868 until his death,so Mary Ann Kelly was 8 to 10 years old at that time.
That tallies with RLS's novella that returned to London as a stage play shortly before Nichols murder near the London Hospital.
Mary Kelly was the girl trampled.

Hopefully people here will start to understand why Jack/Sutton disfigured her face.


He was actually born in 1835.

[Bridewell]

1. Cite 1 specific evidence supported detail about the Stride murder that demonstrates a connection with Polly and Annies murder.


These are the same kinds of useless rebuttals I get time and again for [I]statements that I make while using supporting evidence. And you wonder why I get snooty...

The only connection I'm aware of between Nichols and Chapman is the near identical MO. If that counts as specific evidence supported detail then common factors in the MO have to be considered in other comparisons too surely?

Stride: Committed at night, in the small hours of the morning, within a couple of hundred yards of a main road in the East End of London, using a sharp bladed instrument to attack the left carotid artery. That doesn't mean that the same killer was responsible; in fact I no longer believe that to be the case but there are similarities as well as differences. If differences invalidate the comparison then I would point out (despite believing that the same killer was responsible for both) that there is a difference between Nichols (killed in the street) and Chapman (killed in a yard near to the street) - as Stride was.

I agree with you on the other points though.

[Bridewell]

Quite sure that Mary Ann Kelly is the one we seek.

Wasn't a lodging house. Think she was being treated for VD.

Possibly still C of E,not Catholic.

29 when murdered.

Thanks for posting that, DJA. In my memory she was quite a bit older. You may be right.

[Michael W Richards]

My pursuit is for something far less ambitious than full agreement Al, its that when taking a position...like Jack the Ripper killed the Canonical Group for example, there is a standard of proof that has to be met to have that premise taken as anything more than just an individual opinion. Its not a foundation for rebuttal. Its a guess. Its a presumption, but it is in no way a conclusion. My suggesting that we make some determinations based on the totality of the known evidence, not the preconceptions that are used, seems to rile some folks, but id rather make up my own mind based on sound evidence rather than follow a premise that is still...at this point in time.... just conjecture and guesswork.

[caz]

1. Cite 1 specific evidence supported detail about the Stride murder that demonstrates a connection with Polly and Annies murder.
2. Cite specific evidence that shows why a Killer that has obviously chosen to kill women he doesnt know out on the streets while they are soliciting would then seek out women alone in their own rooms, half undressed in their own beds, in a small courtyard off the beaten path.
3. Provide evidence that the statement Israel Schwartz made to the police was in any way entered for formal review at the Inquest into the manner of her death.
4. Show evidence that proves Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly, was there that night as he claimed, and saw someone out with Mary Kelly after 11:45pm Thursday, the last time of a sighting of her by someone who actually did know her.
5. Show, using evidence, why Jack the Ripper crimes were unique by virtue of the fact they were committed using knives.

1. No proven connection. But equally, no proof that there was a different cut throat in this case. The boyfriend, Kidney, was eliminated, so not even a sniff of a motive, domestic or otherwise. Circumstantial evidence that the killer - ripper or not - would have risked being caught if he'd lingered at the scene. Could explain the Mitre Square murder, within the hour, if the killer left Dutfield's Yard unsatisfied.
2. Cite specific evidence that shows Kelly's killer sought her out in her own room, and could not have been led there by her after meeting up on the street.
3. Israel Schwartz may or may not have seen Stride's killer, and he didn't see the actual murder, so his evidence would have been of no use at the inquest and I wouldn't use it to form any opinions about the killer's identity.
4. Hutchinson may or may not have seen Kelly's killer, and he didn't see the actual murder, so his evidence would have been of no use at the inquest and I wouldn't use it to form any opinions about the killer's identity.
5. Show, using evidence, where anyone has ever suggested that murders committed with knives were 'unique' to the unsolved Whitechapel Murders.

I'm sorry if this sort of discussion makes you snooty, Michael. I would have had no particular wish to inflict a serial mutilator on Whitechapel if the evidence had shown there could equally have been one mutilating knifeman for Tabram; a second mutilating knifeman for Nichols and Chapman; a one-off cut throat for Stride; a third mutilating knifeman for Eddowes; and a fourth mutilating knifeman for Kelly. What I don't accept is that the evidence shows this was more likely than one mutilating knifeman for at least four of the murders [Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly].

If I was in a minority on this one, I might feel differently. Maybe it's the reluctant feminist in me, but I do fight against a theory that has four of these six women not attacked at random for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but because they had each done something to cross some unidentified man so badly that they supplied a unique motive for their own destruction. Can you understand why I find that so distasteful, when I am very far from being alone in not seeing the 'evidence' you see for this being the case?

Have a restful weekend, Michael.

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I have never claimed that someone here was intellectually inferior Caz, nor have I claimed that Im seeking to be the de facto source about anything. Ive said that people who choose to believe something without any evidence to back them up have essentially wishful perspective. Serial killers change Michael, so that explains Liz Stride...serial killers evolve, so that explains Marys indoor party...just because Israel isnt recorded as having any evidence of his statement entered as Inquest evidence doesnt mean it wasnt,....its not unbelievable that someone who claimed to be a friend of Mary Kellys would wait 4 days to come forward, nor that his description would be so very remarkable considering his distance and the fact it was in the middle of the night...its unlikely that multiple killers using knives were active in London 1888 other than Jack...

None of these positions above have any kind of support within the known evidence from the Canonical Group murder investigations.


1. Cite 1 specific evidence supported detail about the Stride murder that demonstrates a connection with Polly and Annies murder.
2. Cite specific evidence that shows why a Killer that has obviously chosen to kill women he doesnt know out on the streets while they are soliciting would then seek out women alone in their own rooms, half undressed in their own beds, in a small courtyard off the beaten path.
3. Provide evidence that the statement Israel Schwartz made to the police was in any way entered for formal review at the Inquest into the manner of her death.
4. Show evidence that proves Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly, was there that night as he claimed, and saw someone out with Mary Kelly after 11:45pm Thursday, the last time of a sighting of her by someone who actually did know her.
5. Show, using evidence, why Jack the Ripper crimes were unique by virtue of the fact they were committed using knives.

Ill help...

1. There is no supporting evidence.
2. There is no supporting evidence.
3. There is no supporting evidence
4. There is no supporting evidence
5. Abdominal mutilations were unique, knife crimes were not.

Go on then, I'll have a stab.

1 - Geographically small location, over a short period, seemingly motiveless random killing, very low class victim out alone at night, not obviously a domestic or the result of an established animosity. With throat cut. Not throttled or bludgeoned.

2 - Cite evidence he wouldn't. It's impossible to state as fact either way without actually knowing the killer, his motives, personality etc.

3 - No evidence. He was interviewed and was cited in The Star, but as stands, no evidence he was involved personally or that his information was used.

4 - Bit of a three part question. A) No evidence of personal acquaintance, just Hutch's word. Equally, no evidence otherwise, as in counter statements from people who did know her. B) I'll waver here, again, no statement he was elsewhere, just the Sarah Lewis statement that is matched to Hutch's, but I'll give you this one. No evidence. C) No evidence.

5 - No evidence.

Not totally at odds with you Michael, but it's always worth bearing in mind that if we only have one side of a story, one witness, we can't corroborate them, but just as equally, they can't be dismissed as having no supporting evidence. Unless two people witness one event, I can't see how that would be any different? I find looking for 100% proof or it's no evidence at all is far too black and white. We don't have enough left to us to make those kind of judgements.

​​​​​

[c.d.]

We know she had a sixpence and went to two hotels .....

Ok. I can't help but think that this is some sort of trap question. What exactly is being asked?

c.d.