Did jack kill liz stride?

[c.d.]

if the person seen assaulting liz was not the killer,how unlucky was long liz that night?
This was not meant to sound as though i am making light of her murder,just that she went from one assault by someone,to being murdered by another in the space of some 15 minutes

Hi Dixon,

There are assaults and then there are assaults. I don't think that throwing someone to the ground (and we don't even know if it was intentional or how hard she was thrown) is in the same league as getting the dreaded Samoan drop made famous in the World Wrestling Federation. I think it was simply an occupational hazard and I wouldn't be surprised if another prostitute working that night suffered something comparable or worse. For that matter, I would guess that Liz had suffered far worse at the hands of a client or potential client.

c.d.

[Sox]

Hello Sox.

"A Juror: Was there any trace of malt liquor in the stomach? - There was no trace. "

Answer was by George B. Phillips.

The best.
LC

Hiya Lynn, thanks for the reply. I had already seen that, but that relates to the contents of her stomach, not a lack of alcohol in her blood as Michael keep referring to.

[lynn cates]

contents

Hello Sox. I am not sure, but it may be that blood alcohol testing was beyond LVP technology. I thought that, perhaps, you were asking directions to Phillips' statement about her stomach contents. (Incidentally, that's one job I'm delighted NOT to have--examining a decedent's stomach contents.)

The best.
LC

[DVV]

Hi Lynn

in any case, nobody is saying she was drunk to hell.
She was seen in various pubs that day, she drank, we don't know what nor how much, but if it was some beers, it went unnoticed, and I don't find this of crucial importance.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

As for Stride prettying up, that likely was just her way. She was described as a very clean person, as was Mary Kelly. These two were used to having a regular address so it would make sense they'd be more apt to take better care of their appearance. Nichols acquired a new dress and a new (to her) bonnet in an effort to gain more clients, Stride asked to borrow a lint brush. I hardly call that evidence of a secret lover.

Tom Wescott

A sensible post.
Of course they were "coquettes" and would enjoy being elegant, like other women, as poor as they could be.

Flower + cachous do not mean: rendez-vous.
A stinking mouth doesn't mean: prostitute.

Amitiés all
David

[lynn cates]

having a good time

Hello DVV. I agree, I don't see this as critical on any theory of Liz and her assailant.

I'm not sure how many of the purported sightings of Liz were actually such, but in all of them (Schwartz excepted) she seems happy and having a good time. I see nothing inimical in having a drink or two AND having a good time.

The best.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn,

Like you, I'm also not certain that all the proposed sightings were of Liz. After all, if James Brown and J. Best were only 'almost certain' it was Liz, how could we claim to be more certain than they? Although i've done a bunch of research and writing on Stride, I've more or less neglected the earlier hours of her last evening, because they weren't pertinent to the points I was writing on. I've recently turned my attention that way and there's a couple of points I find very curious. Virtually ALL of the men she was seen with that evening are a better class than you might expect to find with a middle-aged prostitute. As for her movements that evening:

6:30 to at least 7pm - Is with Catherine Tanner at the Queens Head pub. I'm assuming they would have spent at least 30 minutes in each others' company since they went there together.

Approx 10:50 to 11:10pm - Seen with Best and Gardner at Bricklayer's Arms in Settles Street.

11:45 to 11:55pm - Watched by William Marshall for 10 minutes outside 58 Berner Street.

12:35am - Witness opposite IWEC by PC Smith.

Approximately every 40 minutes she's witnessed with a different man. This indicates soliciting. She may have purchased the flower herself and almost certainly purchased the cachous herself for the same reason Polly purchased the bonnet. It seems to have worked given the quality of men she was with.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

The Lost Hours

I would like to know more about Stride's movements between 7pm and 10:45pm. My guess is that she was nowhere near the area where the door to door searches turned up most of the witnesses we have. It would have been during this time, and well outside the Berner Street area, that she acquired the flower and cachous, since all storekeepers were questioned and apparently none recalled selling it to her. Of course, that's assuming a man didn't purchase the items for her without her present, which is entirely possible. But she had the flower prior to 11pm, if Best was accurate in his sighting. She did not have it when Catherine Tanner last saw her circa 7pm.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Michael the Great (not to be confused with The Good Michael)

Michael,

Please don't preach at me. A lecture from you about facts, research, and responsible theorizing is like getting a lecture from Dan Norder on how to make friends and influence people. Having said that, let me say that unlike most of the people who fly by on these threads to tell us the Ripper didn't kill Stride, at least you've made the effort to look into the cracks of the mystery and try to find out who DID kill Stride, if not the Ripper. I applaud this, because it's simply not good enough to fold one's arms and say 'the Ripper didn't kill Stride' without making an effort to tell us who did. Also, some of your posts have sparked ideas in my head that have furthered and improved my research, so I'm grateful for that. One day if you stumble across a great Ripperological find, you might be grateful that I kept challenging and frustrating you, just as you've had me pulling my hair out for what, 3 years now?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom, forgive me if I err... I often do.
But how come you accept the flower, but you don't accept the black grapes of wrath Packer sold to the couple on that night?

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

The flower was seen on her by most witnesses, including PC Smith, and by every breathing human in Dutfield's Yard. It was on her when they took her body to the mortuary. The grapes were witnessed by no one except Diemschutz who had apparently changed his mind by the time of the inquest. And since he only glimpsed the 'grapes' in Stride's hand, in the dark, when her hand was open, it seems likely to me that he mistook the 'oblond blood spots' as something solid, and his mind told him 'grapes'. This is assuming that anyone actually said grapes and that it wasn't a press invention. But it would take more than one witness saying he saw grapes, when witnesses who were there at the same time and much closer to the body than Diemschutz (i.e. Spooner, Johnston, Blackwell, etc.) saw nothing of the sort.

The most likely conclusion is that Diemschutz was mistaken; the only other alternative is that it was a press invention. But there were no grapes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Hello Mike,

This is Hunter. I've checked PC Lamb's statements and can't find where he said Wess was standing by Phillips in the yard. He does say Inspector West was with Phillips... But I don't have all of the records and could have missed something.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

The quote is from A-Z Hunter....but you do raise an interesting point, because Wess is called "West" by many people still today....even Philip Sugden calls him that. There is no mention that the man Lamb saw was an Inspector, something a subordinate might note.....which he might well have been.....nice addition to the question Hunter.

Something thats been raised lately...Liz was checked for anesthetics and narcotics as well as the malt liquor.

Another point, early witnesses to Liz Stride are likely to reveal nothing about the man that was with her when she died, as we know she was in the company of several, the only relevant witness sightings start with PC Smith.

Tom, my comments were directed at anyone who is asinine enough to continue to buy into theories and suppositions that are clearly unproven and unworkable....as they have always been. Standing by some of the overtly flawed opinions cannot solve anything.

As to witness timings......as Ive pointed out, with Hunter adding a 3rd witness, 3 witnesses gave statements to the press that were published Oct 1st. All 3 suggest a time of discovery at around 12:40-12:45am. 2 directly contradict Louis Diemshitz's Inquest statements, which puts one of those witness in Louis's company heading out for help....a story that is not confirmed by the witness himself.

What are the obstacles for us in accepting the majority 3 to 1 storylines and times?

Brown says he saw Liz across the street at approx 12:45 with a man.....he might be early or late...but he sees no altercation in front of the gates, no Israel, no BSM and no Pipeman.... Fanny doesnt either, and doesnt hear a scuffle or the "Lipski" taunt. Spooner's story correlates to a time of approximately the same as Browns for the time he says he saw men running back to the Club. Issac says he was sent out alone at just after 12:40, by Louis....and Diemshitz says he and Isaac left for help after 1am.

Is Brown likely to be accurate to within 5 minutes or so? Is Spooner? Is Isaac...having come from inside the club to the yard at Louis's request? Are the last 2 witnesses likely to be early in their times by 20 minutes?

Who really conflicts with these times?

Israel Schwartz, Louis Diemshitz, and Morris Eagle.

How many of them can we be fairly sure had no direct impetus to falsify their claims? Do we know that the 3rd witness wasnt also affiliated with that club? Who translates for Israel?

With the early witnesses we have no idea where the killer came from, with the later biased ones we can see the suggestion is that it was likely BSM....a probable gentile from off the property.

Since the only witness that we are unsure of club affiliations within the 3 "problem" witnesses apparently is not called to the Inquest, we may have grounds for dismissing his story...at least as he gave it.

Which leaves the ONLY 2 problem witnesses as the Club Steward and the Guest Speaker. 2 men who would be eager to avoid a prolonged investigation.

Best regards all

[Sox]

The stark reality is that only a single witness called at the inquest gave an exact time when giving evidence, Diemschutz. Everyone else gives an approximation. A discrepancy of up to twenty minutes is not unusual in eye witness evidence. I think it is a vital mistake to accept most times given at Ripper inquests as exact.

[corey123]

Mike,

I second sox.

[Tom_Wescott]

Mike,

I Red Sox.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott