Did jack kill liz stride?

[Wickerman]

Generally speaking, the press will talk of a victim as being one of a number of prostitutes, whereas, when talking specifically about one such victim they use the more gentle term, unfortunate.
Why anyone would suggest they refer to different activities, or as different classes, I'm not sure. The words represent one coarse term & one soft term, for the same pursuit.

[lynn cates]

3

Hello Nick.

"It's just too much of a coincidence that 2 murders happened within an hour of each other."

Try three--you forgot Mrs. Brown.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Nick.

"It's just too much of a coincidence that 2 murders happened within an hour of each other."

Try three--you forgot Mrs. Brown.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

You forgot that Mrs. Brown was not a prostitute but rather a domestic.

c.d.

[El White Chap]

Hello c.d.,

How do we know that they all ended up dead because of that choice though?

We don't know for sure that all the victims were actively soliciting to their killer just before they were murdered, regardless of them being known for it before. With Stride and Kelly for example, even if Kelly had already seen clients in the hours before she was dead there is no proof to say her killer didn't walk into number 13 whilst she was either asleep or laying inebriated on her bed. Both were in vulnerable situations, given. From material I've read on the case there is also no clear evidence that Liz was looking for customers before she was found in the yard entrance, only that she had been assaulted minutes before.

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry El White Chap, but the question (and I admit it's one I've asked too) isn't really that relevant - so long as the killer THOUGHT they were prostitutes...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

We don't know for sure that all the victims were actively soliciting to their killer just before they were murdered, regardless of them being known for it before.

With Nichols it can be argued that the killer attacked her at random on the street.
However, with Chapman in the backyard, and Eddowes in the dark corner, and Kelly on her own bed, it must surely be accepted that solicitation had been the first step.
That Chapman had taken her killer to a private location for one purpose, Eddowes may be debatable, but with Kelly it is once again most likely.

As solicitation appears to show itself as the first step in two, possibly three, of the murders then we might allow ourselves to also accept this killer did not attack his victim out of the blue, but made sure they were of this particular class first. That he made sure they made the offer he was looking for.

Stride & Nichols could also have shown their purpose to him first, but the circumstances are not so obvious.

[Fisherman]

With Nichols it can be argued that the killer attacked her at random on the street.

Yes it can - but we do know that Nichols seemingly set out to find money on the night she died. And we do know that she was a prostitute. And we do know that Buck´s Row was not the kind of street where prostitutes paraded. And we do know that Nichols was spotted by Emily Holland, walking eastwards on Whitechapel Street. And we do know that Whitechapel Street WAS a street where prostitutes paraded.

It is therefore not much of a stretch to venture the guess that Nichols, in the capacity of a prostitute, hooked up with a customer before diverting into Buck´s Row. It would seem, thus, that she too answers to the overall pattern of prostitutes being targetted.

Whether this was because the killer had a thing for prostitutes, or whether he simply took advantage of the fact that these women were readily available and willing to walk into secluded places with their customers is another question.
The killer may well have felt a grudge against lowly women in general, whereas the prostitution factor was of less importance - but convenient nevertheless.

The factor that speaks most for a wish to single out prostitutes on other grounds than purely practical ones would be the targetting of the lower abdomen and the reproductive organs, making it very tempting to ascribe some sort of sexual element to the killings.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nick Spring]

Hello Nick.

"It's just too much of a coincidence that 2 murders happened within an hour of each other."

Try three--you forgot Mrs. Brown.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

A good point but perhaps different circumstances?

Take your point though. You try and weave or develop a pattern on this subject and there is always something to ruin the cloth.

Best

Nick

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn,

A good point but perhaps different circumstances?

Take your point though. You try and weave or develop a pattern on this subject and there is always something to ruin the cloth.

Best

Nick

Hi Nick

The Brown murder is so different to the Double Event that it only strengthen`s the argument that the Double Event victims fell to the same hand.

(it was also about 8pm the previous day)

[lynn cates]

proof

Hello CD. Thanks.

Have you given the proof that either Liz or Kate were? (No weak inductions, please.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

on target

Hello Christer. Your thinking about Polly is dead on target.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

different

Hello Nick. Thanks.

"A good point but perhaps different circumstances?"

Quite--just like Liz and Kate, different.

But I was addressing the remark about coincidence.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

triple event

Hello Jon. Ah, but less than five hours, and only a couple miles away from Kate.

Look like the same to me (heh-heh).

Cheers.
LC

[Nick Spring]

Hello Nick. Thanks.

"A good point but perhaps different circumstances?"

Quite--just like Liz and Kate, different.

But I was addressing the remark about coincidence.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Definitely a coincidence but wasn't the murder of Mrs Brown a clear domestic and the husband confessed.

Plus different location.

But who knows?

cheers

Nick

[lynn cates]

significant

Hello Nick. Thanks.

Kate and Liz were killed in different locations as well. How far apart before it becomes significant?

Yes, the Brown case was solved. But surely a mere lack of solution is not proof of a single hand?

Cheers.
LC