Liz Stride: Why No Loud Cry?

[Jon Guy]

A newbie, like you Stewart.

Tom- Chapmans items were placed. Eddowes thimble was laying off her hand, it would seem she was wearing it, and her items were upon her.

Monty

Hey Up Monty

A bloody farthing and a pipe loaded with `baccy was found under Alice McKenzie.

Wasn`t there a couple of items lying by Eddowes hand, including the thimble, suggesting it had fallen there and she did not have it on her finger ?

[anna]

Hi all,
I think Liz is displaying the classic moves of a woman guarding her personal space,when she is waiting around.
I also think the cachous didn't belong to her,which is why she is still holding them,and they were handed to her in the moments before he struck.Allowing him to move much closer,as a stranger,within a few seconds of meeting her.
Also allowing those few moments of distraction for him to strike.
I think they all grabbed hold of his coat or jacket,which would be a natural reaction.
He has to approach to rob,which will eat into the time he has to kill and mutilate..
Just some ideas.

[Fisherman]

C.d!

In response to the question asked, I usually recommend people to imagine what they would do if they were at a social dinner party, when their wife suddenly pinched them in their bottom.
Not cry out at the tops of their voices, I think. No, they would keep it low but sharp: "Not NOW, honey!"

...and in response to Toms suggestion that he may have used a robber´s scenario: Perhaps. But I think that if we take a look at Nichols, for instance, she was so drunk that he must have realized that she would perhaps not react rationally to such a threat, instead yelling away.
When it comes to Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes we do not have to suggest the faked robbery - the ordinary suggestion that he came along - or took them along - for reasons of paid-for sex, seems to provide him with his opportunity of subduing them and cutting their necks anyhow. Suggested sex, interrupted by a hand placed over mouth and nose, a quick move to get them of balance, and swooosh - it´s over.
Stride, that is something else. She was manhandled before the strike, whether performed by BS man or someone else, and would have been on her guard. Therefore I say that a perspective where the man who takes her into the yard - or is taken into it by her - is someone she is aquainted to, is something that explains both the lowered voice AND the fact that she took her cachous out. What robbery victim asks her robber to put the knife away for a second to allow her to nibble away at a pack of cachous?

The best!
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

You certainly present a viable option although I have never been too fond of the idea of Kidney as her killer or any other lover for that matter. It seems to me that if it was some sort of lover's quarrel that ended with her having her throat cut, it would have been proceeded by arguing and then a few good shots to her face before taking out the knife. It is the absence of evidence that she was hit in the face that makes me question that scenario although it is certainly possible that her killer went right for his knife.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

You completely misunderstand me. I'm saying that Stride emptied her pocket of coins for her robber/killer. This is how the cachous packet got lodged between her thumb and forefinger, just as paper money might when digging in the bottom of your pocket for change. Or a thimble. Or maybe a portion of envelope. Hmmm...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Been here before, c.d, and I feel certain that you will recognize my answer: There is no need at all to believe that he was set on beating up on her. The violence she was subjected to outside (or inside if Jon Guy is right) the gates, may well have amounted to nothing more than them pulling in opposite directions, only to loose their grips.
And if we imagine a repentful man, who is set on getting his woman back (Kidney or not), we must not imagine someone who starts punching her in the face, must we?
One sentence on her behalf: Get out of my life! ...may have been what resulted in that single cut, c.d!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom wescott writes:

"You completely misunderstand me"

I can see that now, Tom! Still, much as I now realize what you are speaking of, I think that what you leave us with is not the most credible scenario.
To begin with, such a method would have left him with the risk that the victims were either too drunk to follow his wishes, instead crying out, or simply loosing their nerve, rendering the same result. And I think that the number one priority for the Ripper as he set about his business was to ensure silence. It was absolutely vital to him! Without it, he would probably not get to the evisceration stage, and that was magic to him, as I think you will agree. And there was no need to use the robbery ploy with Nichols, was there? She was staggering drunkenly about, and she would have been the easiest of prey. The sick Chapman, the frail Eddowes: much the same thing. He was physically powerful, as evinced in the cuts, and they would have been sitting ducks in his hands.

Besides, I guess that Jack is the guy you throw forward as employing the robbery thing with Stride? Not B S man, I take it, since it would seem strange to first try and drag her into the street, only afterwards swopping methods and masquerading as a robber.
If I am correct here, you are still faced with that age-old problem: You need to bring violent man number two on the stage! Meaning that you need to have Jack in the shape of Ditto-in-the-box appearing in them few minutes after BS mans meeting with Liz, plus you need a couple of sweaty fingers adhering to that cachous packet, so that it is fished up from her pocket at that exact time - and not thrown away.

Much as I realize that you don´t share my wiews, you may perhaps admit that I have a simpler case to defend - much, much simpler!

The best, Tom!

Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

But why is bringing violent man #2 (Jack) on stage such an insurmountable problem when it is generally agreed that he killed that night a mere mile and a half away?

c.d.

[Monty]

Monty,

Hello old friend. Did I not say Eddowes' thimble was next to her hand? Makes more sense to me that she was holding it than wearing it. Chapman's belongings MAY have been arranged, but they first must have been laid on the ground or they fell there. From the evidence, it seems to me more likely that her rings were wrenched from her fingers while she was alive and conscious as opposed to after. Not only were her rings missing, but also her medicine and lotion, which may have been taken away by her killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

You certianly did say Eddowes thimble was next to her hand, which is the most likely place it would be after her pocket. Indicates to me she was thimble tapping.

I agree about Chapman, there would seem to be a degree of rifling, though we are no sure he did take the lotion and medicine.

I just dont feel he would have wasted his time with a stand and deliver routine. It just smacks of a classic blitz attack.

Cheers
Monty


PS Good to see you back

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"But why is bringing violent man #2 (Jack) on stage such an insurmountable problem when it is generally agreed that he killed that night a mere mile and a half away?"

It is not! It is a viable scenario, no question about it. But the thing is, c.d, that since we already HAVE a violent man on stage, there is no call for another, is there? It is a simpler scenario to believe in BS man as her killer, and since we KNOW that he was there whereas we DONT KNOW that Jack was, why opt for the more complex choice?
And, as you well know, if we do opt for Jack, we are faced with all them other difficulties - why the shallower cut, why the position on her left, why no disarranged clothing, why no mutilation. It is not as if accepting that Jack chimed in buys us a full package of explanations, is it?

The best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty writes:

"I just dont feel he would have wasted his time with a stand and deliver routine. It just smacks of a classic blitz attack"

My sentiments too, Monty - as few and silent preludes as possible, thank you very much! And the rifling through the pockets may well be post-mortem.

Off to bed now - and back to business tomorrow. Sleep well, sweet princes and princesses. You too, Monty!

The best,

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Monty,

I'm sorry but I don't believe thimble tapping was alive and well in 1888 London. I can't imagine Eddowes was indiscrimately tapping on windows to try and drum up business when men were leaving nearby clubs. I'm not suggesting there was no blitz style attack. When it came time to attack, that might be what Jack did. I'm just trying to make sense of the fact that three sequential victims had their personal belongings near them when found.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;40915]C.d writes:

"But why is bringing violent man #2 (Jack) on stage such an insurmountable problem when it is generally agreed that he killed that night a mere mile and a half away?"

It is not! It is a viable scenario, no question about it. But the thing is, c.d, that since we already HAVE a violent man on stage, there is no call for another, is there? It is a simpler scenario to believe in BS man as her killer, and since we KNOW that he was there whereas we DONT KNOW that Jack was, why opt for the more complex choice?
And, as you well know, if we do opt for Jack, we are faced with all them other difficulties - why the shallower cut, why the position on her left, why no disarranged clothing, why no mutilation. It is not as if accepting that Jack chimed in buys us a full package of explanations, is it?

Hi Fisherman,

But this all goes back to the act of throwing Liz to the ground and how much weight we want to assign to that act. If we believe that that was an absolutely unique event in the history of prostitution and the BS man is already on the scene then there really would appear to be no reason to introduce Jack. But since it is generally acknowledged that Liz (as well as the other victims) had probably suffered much worse assaults without those assaults resulting in their deaths, it would seem quite possible that the BS man simply walked off after giving Liz a good cussing. Enter Jack stage right.

But you are right that the Jack scenario presents its own difficulties as does the BS man scenario. Hence I see it as about a 70/30 probability in favor of Jack.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. One can accept both Jack and BS Man as Stride's killer. It's not necessarily an either/or thing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Tom,

I cant see her sowing at that time either.

Im trying to wrack my brains to remember if Eddowes belongings were placed or on her persons. Im flitting between things at the moment.

Im in agreement with you essentially. I think he did pay attention to personal belongings if he could, certainly Chapman. Just that I think it was after he committed murder, not prior.

Monty


Night Fisherman, dont let the bed bugs bite.