Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did jack kill liz stride?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • There seems to be some misunderstanding about the terms Unfortunate and Prostitute in the context of these investigations, suffice to say Unfortunates need not sidle up to any strange man passing by on the streets at night, which is something that may have led the women that WERE selling their wares to their killer. That may be part of the MO....pick up a street whore using the pretense of a customer-provider relationship. And for the record, even in modern times, if someone uses Prostitution as a means to supplement their income, then they are at best part-time prostitutes, whereas women who have no other occupation or source of income other than solicitation, can be fairly and correctly called prostitutes.

    And remember,...this isnt some morality position Im taking, this issue is about how the women encountered their killer(s). If this Jack everyone seems to think was prowling about had affected women who resorted to prostitution as a last resort, or women who had jobs but worked late into the night, one might imagine the ONLY females who would be approaching strange men at night were working prostitutes.

    Seems to me that in Israels story Liz Stride is rebuffing Broadshouldered Man. And Kates hand on the chest seems to indicate a degree of comfort in the company of Sailor Man. And it occurs to me that Mary Kelly was attacked while in her underwear on her own bed in her own room....so, very unlikely an encounter with a stranger.

    What they were doing out on the streets on the early mornings that they were killed on is a key question....to determine the likelihood that a stranger would be able to coerce a woman who was not soliciting into a dark area and attacker her without any appreciable noise. Surely the proximity a working prostitute would have with such a man, the close quarters, would enable a swift attack to be virtually soundless.

    But why, when women are being killed in the streets, would a woman not relying on selling herself for her bed that night willingly go somewhere dark with a stranger?

    Thats why the answer to Unfortunate Vs Working Prostitute....at the time of their deaths..must be established.

    We know Polly was. We hear from a friend and the lodging house that Annie also was. Was Liz? Based on what evidence....recalling the BSM incident. Was Kate? Surely she needed some money...but why in the opposite direction of home and John? Mary did not need to raise one cent the night she was killed, she was already in arrears some 2 weeks rent and even the landlord confessed that he just took what he could get against such debts.

    So...of the 5...its within the known evidence to suggest that 2 were soliciting and likely met their killer that way, and 1 other may also have been actively soliciting...we just dont have the evidence to confirm that kind of suspicion for Kate.

    IF this killer of Polly and Annie chose them because of their immediate situation...which in both cases was grim at that moment....then he may have had women who made his task easy. IF thats how he killed....then you need to explain what happens to him with Liz....without an unrecorded or missing in any evidence story of interruption.

    If Liz was soliciting....why go just inside the passageway? Why not use the empty yard, empty stables, empty office beyond that point. If she wasnt soliciting, and the man was a stranger, then how did this killer get close enough to attack her without any appreciable sounds?

    Maybe he was already in the passageway when she entered it. Maybe he was there all night.

    Cheers

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
      Hello Christer. Your thinking about Polly is dead on target.

      Cheers.
      LC
      I'll drink to that!
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        But why, when women are being killed in the streets, would a woman not relying on selling herself for her bed that night willingly go somewhere dark with a stranger?
        It had been three full weeks since the last murder. From press reports we learn that the public reacted to these murders by staying off the streets only for the next couple of nights after a murder. Within days all was back to normal.

        If Liz was soliciting....why go just inside the passageway? Why not use the empty yard, empty stables, empty office beyond that point. If she wasnt soliciting, and the man was a stranger, then how did this killer get close enough to attack her without any appreciable sounds?

        Maybe he was already in the passageway when she entered it. Maybe he was there all night.
        If you recall, the last time Liz was seen was about 12:35, by PC Smith, talking to a man just opposite Dutfields Yard.
        Then Schwartz claims to have seen her about 12:45, so where had she been, and with whom, for those 10 minutes?

        Schwartz does not tell us if Liz was standing in the entrance, or even walking towards the entrance from the yard, nor even whether Liz was standing facing the street, or facing the yard.
        She may have been standing waiting for any man to take her on, or, she may have just left a man in the yard and was exiting through the gate when Schwartz saw her.
        We simply do not know.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • noticed

          Hello Mike.

          "Maybe he was there all night."

          In which case would not Lave or Eygel or Wess have noticed him?

          Cheers.
          LC

          Comment


          • dead on target

            Hello Jon.

            "It had been three full weeks since the last murder. From press reports we learn that the public reacted to these murders by staying off the streets only for the next couple of nights after a murder. Within days all was back to normal."

            Now YOU are dead on target.

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
              Hello CD. Thanks.

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

              Cheers.
              LC
              Hello Lynn,

              You mean proof that would convince you? That would be an exercise in futility. I doubt God himself could do it. (No disrespect meant to God. Some things are just harder to do than others).

              c.d.

              Comment


              • weak inductions

                Hello CD. Thanks.

                Actually, evidence would be acceptable. But what usually happens is that one offers:

                1. Liz was a prostitute in Sweden. (Well, she DID have a child out of wedlock.)

                2. The police regarded her as one. (They did indeed. But given the police lacked omniscience . . .)

                3. She was out at night. (Right, again. Of course, so were many others.)

                4. She talked to men. (Not quite the definitive evidence.)

                5. Her "get up" looked like a prostitute's attire. (So much for buying my wife flowers on St Valentine's Day.)

                These are all weak inductions.

                Cheers.
                LC

                Comment


                • Hi Lynn

                  These are your weak inductions but I`ll have a go ...

                  Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                  1. Liz was a prostitute in Sweden. (Well, she DID have a child out of wedlock.)
                  Yes, that`s right, she was a registered prostitute


                  2. The police regarded her as one.
                  Correct.

                  3. She was out at night. (Right, again. Of course, so were many others.).
                  Yes, she was seen standing on her own and in the company of different men during the evening.

                  Out of interest, which others do you refer to?

                  4. She talked to men. (Not quite the definitive evidence.)
                  No, not definitive evidence but given the time of night and locality ...

                  5. Her "get up" looked like a prostitute's attire..)
                  Yes, we can`t argue with the contemporary perspective.

                  (So much for buying my wife flowers on St Valentine's Day.)
                  Well, if ever you and your wife find yourselves in the East End in 1888, don`t buy her a flower to wear and then leave her standing alone on the street.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                    Hello CD. Thanks.

                    Actually, evidence would be acceptable. But what usually happens is that one offers:

                    1. Liz was a prostitute in Sweden. (Well, she DID have a child out of wedlock.)

                    2. The police regarded her as one. (They did indeed. But given the police lacked omniscience . . .)

                    3. She was out at night. (Right, again. Of course, so were many others.)

                    4. She talked to men. (Not quite the definitive evidence.)

                    5. Her "get up" looked like a prostitute's attire. (So much for buying my wife flowers on St Valentine's Day.)

                    These are all weak inductions.

                    Cheers.
                    LC
                    Weak by your understanding. Nearly conclusive by most understanding. Still, sometimes the minority is right. Not often, however.

                    Mike
                    huh?

                    Comment


                    • She was very poor, lived in lodging houses(partly) and she was a 'Seamstress'. It can't be proven she was a prostitute at the time but it is a fair bet she was and died because of it.

                      Best

                      Nick

                      Comment


                      • Hello Jon. Thanks.

                        "Well, if ever you and your wife find yourselves in the East End in 1888, don't buy her a flower to wear and then leave her standing alone on the street."

                        I'll make a point of it.

                        Cheers.
                        LC

                        Comment


                        • talking to men

                          Hello Michael. Thanks.

                          Nearly conclusive? Well, talking to men just about seals it. (heh-heh)

                          Cheers.
                          LC

                          Comment


                          • connection

                            Hello Nick. Thanks.

                            I'm afraid I don't see the connection in those.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                              Hello Mike.

                              "Maybe he was there all night."

                              In which case would not Lave or Eygel or Wess have noticed him?

                              Cheers.
                              LC
                              I'd be inclined to think if Liz had solicited parcel-man (by way of example), they might have gone deeper into the yard where it was truly dark. Which would have been behind where Eygel & Wess had walked, past the printing office.
                              If you recall, the yard was in shadow for about the first few yds from the street, then light from the windows of the three tenements cast over the midpoint of Dutfields Yard, then at the back, past the printing office, it was totally dark again.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • I fully take onboard her history of being 'on the game', but there is still to my current understanding no watertight proof if you will, that Liz was servicing a client. It seems from various sources (none to hand admittedly) that she had some money about her person the night she was killed, "6d" in cashflow (from this very site). Only 10 days prior to her being found in the yard murdered with her throat cut, she'd only gone and been granted financial assistance from the Sweden Church. Considering the money she'd come into from the church and also the lolly she'd shown earlier Did she really need to offer herself in total need of money to what could be a possibly a complete stranger?

                                Also we know that she was drunk having frequented a few local pubs that evening. Could it not be that she was spotted by the ripper, seen as quite the easy target and then deemed available for purpose despite not actually agreeing in any way, shape or form for consensual sex for money? Perhaps the subject was brought up and the rejection spurned the murderer into killing, overriding the consent because the advances were not reciprocated.

                                Again, I'm a newbie so please go easy and feel free to enlighten me on anything I've overlooked or misstated.

                                Tah.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X