Did jack kill liz stride?

[curious]

As for where Stride worked for the Jews, when women of F&D Street said they worked for the Jews it typically meant they cleaned for the Rothschild Building near them. Both Stride and Eddowes likely cleaned there at the same time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi, Tom,
Love it when you drop tidbits like this . . .

how do you learn things like this? Where?

Thanks,

curious

[The Good Michael]

Is it probable that the Jews among whom she had been working were also Jews who attended a Club with anarchist sympathies? If not, then the endangering of her employment doesn't come into question, does it?

The answer is a definite, "No." These socialists would have frowned upon having maids and such. They were struggling for better wages and later for labor unions. I don't believe for a minute that they would have paid the crappy wages to these ladies that forced them to ply a different trade on the streets.

Mike

[caz]

Hi Michael

I'm sorry but you've theorised way beyond the available evidence, and I've noticed in the past, on other threads, a tendency to do likewise...I'm sorry but you don't convince me

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

Not only that, but he changes the little evidence we do have and invents a different scenario entirely, presumably because his unrealistic theories wouldn't work at all otherwise. And meanwhile he keeps telling everyone else to stick like superglue with the available evidence. What a sauce.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I don't mind anyone speculating that Stride could have been killed by someone other than the only cut-throat known to have been active on the streets in the near vicinity at that time.

I find it curious that they don't seem to think it important to eliminate this known cut-throat - the only suspect we have for this murder - before trying to point the finger at some unknown individual and saddle him with a murderous grudge against this entirely innocent victim.

I find it odder still that those of us who prefer to question the Mitre Square cut-throat first and foremost about his movements that night before arriving there with Eddowes, are criticised for taking that position, as if the evidence points in someone else's direction and poor Jack should therefore be presumed innocent.

The evidence does not support two independent throat cuttings of unfortunates in Berner St and Mitre Square within the hour. It merely allows for that to have been the case, in the event that Jack is found to have been unavailable for the former. At present he has no alibi and cannot have been a million miles away. There is nothing in the evidence that even hints at him being unable or unwilling to carry out this particular crime.

And don't even think of dragging in the corpse of poor Mrs Brown from Westminster yet again.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

The answer is a definite, "No." These socialists would have frowned upon having maids and such. They were struggling for better wages and later for labor unions. I don't believe for a minute that they would have paid the crappy wages to these ladies that forced them to ply a different trade on the streets.

Mike

Perhaps the men would have frowned on having maids, but Sarah Diemshitz certainly didn't. She employed a girl named Mila who was with her in the kitchen that night.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi, Tom,
Love it when you drop tidbits like this . . .

how do you learn things like this? Where?

Thanks,

curious

Hi Curious, you live up to your name, and I like that. It's rare I get asked about the tidbits I drop. I think many are more interested in their own theories than they are in actually learning about the case, thus the general lack of curiosity. I recently did an interview for Jenni Shelden's blog and mentioned that Emily Holland was not the person who last claimed to have seen Polly Nichols alive. The interview got a few comments on the forums, but not one person...not one...asked me about that. Strange. I would have asked me about that. But to answer your question, I just read different stuff.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't mind anyone speculating that Stride could have been killed by someone other than the only cut-throat known to have been active on the streets in the near vicinity at that time.

I find it curious that they don't seem to think it important to eliminate this known cut-throat - the only suspect we have for this murder - before trying to point the finger at some unknown individual and saddle him with a murderous grudge against this entirely innocent victim.

I find it odder still that those of us who prefer to question the Mitre Square cut-throat first and foremost about his movements that night before arriving there with Eddowes, are criticised for taking that position, as if the evidence points in someone else's direction and poor Jack should therefore be presumed innocent.

The evidence does not support two independent throat cuttings of unfortunates in Berner St and Mitre Square within the hour. It merely allows for that to have been the case, in the event that Jack is found to have been unavailable for the former. At present he has no alibi and cannot have been a million miles away. There is nothing in the evidence that even hints at him being unable or unwilling to carry out this particular crime.

And don't even think of dragging in the corpse of poor Mrs Brown from Westminster yet again.

Love,

Caz
X

Did I write this post? No, it's far too eloquent and well-presented. But I sure do agree with it!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

They certainly could not all have been the same man. But I know what you mean. The value of the earlier sightings is that we find Stride in or outside of a number of pubs through the night and in some of those instances the men are not the same. So she was not on a 'date', she was soliciting.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

hello
there are other options to what she was doing that night other than solicitating or on a date. just two off the top of my head are that she was out looking for a new boyfriend or sugar daddy due to her breakup or that she was simply out having a good time bar hopping. A woman who is actively solicitating typically dosnt hang out and walk around with the same man over an extended period of time. and it seems that she was, with peaked cap man.

unfortunately for her he was the ripper. she probably met him by chance at a pub and they started hanging around together- with him trying to finagle her to a dark corner for sex and she playing rather coy as she saw him more as a posible boyfriend and knowing that that posibility would be ruined if she had sex with him so soon(and perhaps because she was wary of the ripper). which is why she wound up with only a cut throat and not mutilated.

after a while of this cat and mouse he probably got fed up with all the time and money he spent on her and realizing she was not going to go off in a dark ally with him lost his temper and just attacked her out of frustration.

which is what schwartz saw.

[The Good Michael]

Perhaps the men would have frowned on having maids, but Sarah Diemshitz certainly didn't. She employed a girl named Mila who was with her in the kitchen that night.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You know what Tom, I never thought about the wives. Sure. They may have thought a little differently about such things.


Mike

[Roy Corduroy]

Thanks, Rivkah

As reported in real life in Rothschild Buildings by Jerry White, yes, a woman from the nearby lodging houses could be hired by a Jewish household to clean, char, etc. The Jewish woman of the house did the hiring and paying, not the man of the house.

Roy

Jerry White books writes good books.

So OK, Tom, who was the last person who claimed to see Polly Nichols alive, if it wasn't Emily Holland?

Roy

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Caz

The evidence does not support two independent throat cuttings of unfortunates in Berner St and Mitre Square within the hour.

What the evidence supports is a throat-cutting on the one hand, and a more extensive throat-cutting with extensive evisceration/mutilation on the other. Can we legitimately classify Jack as a "mere" throat-cutter?

[Wickerman]

Hello Caz
What the evidence supports is a throat-cutting on the one hand, and a more extensive throat-cutting with extensive evisceration/mutilation on the other. Can we legitimately classify Jack as a "mere" throat-cutter?

And if we are able to account for a difference between the two methods then we might have cause to blame the same man.
However, if no appreciable cause is deemed acceptable then we may have two independent killers.

Neither conclusion is 'unlikely', so you pays your money and you takes your pick.

On the other hand, and primarily because a simple knife wound to the throat is ambiguous, then the real clue may lie in the method he used to get Stride down in such a position to enable him to use the knife.

We do have good reason to believe that strangling/suffocation is the first act of the Whitechapel murderer.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Jon

We do have good reason to believe that strangling/suffocation is the first act of the Whitechapel murderer.

Perhaps so, but (to extend my earlier point) I'd no more refer to JTR as a "strangler" than I'd refer to him as a "throat-cutter". He may have done both those things, but so have many others since time immemorial. That's why I find Stride's inclusion in my personal "canon" a little more problematical than I'd like.

[Tom_Wescott]

hello
there are other options to what she was doing that night other than solicitating or on a date. just two off the top of my head are that she was out looking for a new boyfriend or sugar daddy due to her breakup or that she was simply out having a good time bar hopping. A woman who is actively solicitating typically dosnt hang out and walk around with the same man over an extended period of time. and it seems that she was, with peaked cap man.

unfortunately for her he was the ripper. she probably met him by chance at a pub and they started hanging around together- with him trying to finagle her to a dark corner for sex and she playing rather coy as she saw him more as a posible boyfriend and knowing that that posibility would be ruined if she had sex with him so soon(and perhaps because she was wary of the ripper). which is why she wound up with only a cut throat and not mutilated.

after a while of this cat and mouse he probably got fed up with all the time and money he spent on her and realizing she was not going to go off in a dark ally with him lost his temper and just attacked her out of frustration.

which is what schwartz saw.

I don't see that she was with any one man for an extended period of time, but of course we can all believe what we wish for whatever reason. Sounds to me like you've romanticized this murder to some extent.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Caz
What the evidence supports is a throat-cutting on the one hand, and a more extensive throat-cutting with extensive evisceration/mutilation on the other. Can we legitimately classify Jack as a "mere" throat-cutter?

Not if we're talking about method of dispatch. Neither was more or less extensive than the other as both women were killed with a single cut to the throat. That's it. Everything else that happened to Kate was after her death, and in all the Whitechapel murders these things occurred differently and in different degrees. If going by medical evidence alone it would have to be concluded that Stride and Eddowes were possibly killed by the same man. When working in all other factors it must be concluded they were most likely killed by the same man. Any other conclusion based on the same evidence, whether it be - 'certainly' or 'unlikely' - would be in error.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott