Did jack kill liz stride?

[Fisherman]

I'm not sure about the coroners findings when Elizabeth Tanner is adamant that they had a drink together in the Queens Head on the same evening. Perhaps she only had one or two drinks and was relatively sober. I've read the inquest more thoroughly now and it only states about "malt liquor" (beer). There is no mention of them testing for other types of alcohol, such as gin for example.

Cheers.

Thatīs true - but the late 19:th century doctors would actually sniff to establish whether alcohol was involved or not, and we can be certain that Phillips noticed no trace. He would not have held back a knowledge about gin being present by only commenting on malt liquor, methinks.
Of course, Stride may have hade a smallish amount of alcohol in her just the same - too little to give off any scent and too little to show itself in her behaviour, as per William Marshall. And therefore, it would come very close to equalling being sober throughout.

As for Tanner, she states that Stride was with her at 6.30 in the pub, yes. She says nothing about whether Stride did drink any alcohol, but she DOES say that she knew her as a very quite and sober woman. And even if Stride DID drink alcohol at 6.30, she had some six to allow for it to leave her body.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

sic

Hello Michael. Thanks.

"Is there some reason you are fighting so hard to come to a non-solicitation decision."

Actually, I don't care one way or the other. As I've said before, I would like to reconstruct these crimes--would help tremendously if I knew why she was there.

"And please don't suggest it's any sort of gallant attempt to clear the poor lady's name."

Gallant? Clear? You completely misunderstand. I have no desire to "clear" Liz any more than Polly and Annie. But they were rather obvious cases--by their own admission. Most of us are overlooking the anomalies of the latter three. NOTHING obvious about them.

"Please list what the ramifications are if Stride had not been soliciting that night?"

If Liz were NOT soliciting, then she was doing something else. What? Now integrate that into the overall picture.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

One of the reason's I don't swear by the autopsy findings in the Stride case is, that the autopsy was conducted about 3:00pm on Monday, after her murder about 1:00am Sunday - 38 hours later!

It might be of value to have the opinion of a pathologist as to what would be lost in the stomach acids over such a length of time. Certainly any alcohol would have long been absorbed into the stomach, what else?

[c.d.]

Hello (again) CD. Thanks.

"I don't think that they pulled that conclusion out of a hat."

No, they made an assumption--but that is all it was.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

And would not that assumption have some basis? The fact of the matter is that the police concluded that she was an unfortunate. You might speculate that their methods for making such a determination were wide of the mark but ultimately that remains just speculation.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

If they were further back:

1. Why did Liz get killed on the way out?

2. Doesn't that make Schwartz a fibber?

Cheers.
LC

How so Lynn?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

This whole matter could be much easier if people wouldnt be so obtuse as to suggest a physician, a leading physician of the period, couldnt detect alcohol in someones system or that Liz Strides reason for being where she was is irrelevant.

If he says she had no alcohol in her system...it should be good enough.
If she isnt soliciting, which the evidence suggests by the way, then why is she there? Surely a key component in any potential solution.

When I read..."I dont think they knew how to detect alcohol"...or "why should her soliciting or not be important?", ...they identify themselves as people who have already made up their mind that they are correct in their guesswork, and see no evidence without that bias.

Anyone who thinks they know... doesnt. Anyone who thinks they are correct and others are wrong can prove that......cant they? Or is it my guess is better than yours childsplay.

Cheers

[Nick Spring]

Looking through the inquest I think is evidence of her being out and about soliciting.

William Marshalls testimony particularly could be interpreted as such.

Best

Nick

[Nick Spring]

Sorry also include PC William Smith. This sounds like two different people.

Its not definitive evidence but it strongly suggests she was 'working'.

Best

Nick

[The Good Michael]

"Please list what the ramifications are if Stride had not been soliciting that night?"

If Liz were NOT soliciting, then she was doing something else. What? Now integrate that into the overall picture.

Socratic questioning does not work well here because it's a tremendous 'if' you are talking about. If I could get past that, I may have something to discuss. I can't.

Mike

[El White Chap]

Some people on here clearly seem to have fallen out of love with querying the events of that Autumn and the 'so called' facts. The police couldn't do any forensics on the clothes of the victims, the piece of apron etc, the GSG getting removed right away. Botched attempts and poor practice left, right and centre. The way evidence was handled in the Victorian era was nothing short of primitive in comparison to todays methods.

As mentioned earlier by Wickerman, Liz had a postmortem 38 hours after death, great idea to postmortem a cadaver 1.5 days after a murder. Dr Phillips sniffed Liz to see if there was any alcohol in her system and that should be enough for us? He could of had a blocked nose that day. Hardly a fullproof test that. Certainly wouldn't be deemed accurate and conclusive in most peoples eyes. There are flaws and we rightfully should highlight and dissect them.

Anyway, probably the main reason why I'm here is to see others question what information we do have in the hope of making some progress with the mystery and understanding of the Whitechapel Murders. After all, isn't that why we're here?

I can appreciate that many of those questions will already have been answered on these boards prior and it may get a bit monotonous for some at times, however there are new people joining Casebook all the time, it's bound to happen. Get off your high horse. Deal with it.

For certain individuals to discourage challenging the information and evidence we do have is by and large pretty sad. Shame on you.

[Fisherman]

For certain individuals to discourage challenging the information and evidence we do have is by and large pretty sad. Shame on you.

Not sure who is represented by the "you" category here; the ones that need to be ashamed, that is.

But since I do not feel like a "certain individual", letīs hope Iīm in the clear!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Some people on here clearly seem to have fallen out of love with querying the events of that Autumn and the 'so called' facts. The police couldn't do any forensics on the clothes of the victims, the piece of apron etc, the GSG getting removed right away. Botched attempts and poor practice left, right and centre. The way evidence was handled in the Victorian era was nothing short of primitive in comparison to todays methods.

As mentioned earlier by Wickerman, Liz had a postmortem 38 hours after death, great idea to postmortem a cadaver 1.5 days after a murder. Dr Phillips sniffed Liz to see if there was any alcohol in her system and that should be enough for us? He could of had a blocked nose that day. Hardly a fullproof test that. Certainly wouldn't be deemed accurate and conclusive in most peoples eyes. There are flaws and we rightfully should highlight and dissect them.

Anyway, probably the main reason why I'm here is to see others question what information we do have in the hope of making some progress with the mystery and understanding of the Whitechapel Murders. After all, isn't that why we're here?

I can appreciate that many of those questions will already have been answered on these boards prior and it may get a bit monotonous for some at times, however there are new people joining Casebook all the time, it's bound to happen. Get off your high horse. Deal with it.

For certain individuals to discourage challenging the information and evidence we do have is by and large pretty sad. Shame on you.

The cavalry has arrived, thank f...

Monty

[lynn cates]

chat

Hello CD. Thanks.

"And would not that assumption have some basis?"

Very little.

"The fact of the matter is that the police concluded that she was an unfortunate. You might speculate that their methods for making such a determination were wide of the mark but ultimately that remains just speculation."

Just like all the chat about solicitation.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

fracas

Hello (again) CD. Thanks.

"How so Lynn?"

Because the fracas was out on the pavement.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

except

Hello Nick.

"Looking through the inquest I think is evidence of her being out and about soliciting.

William Marshall's testimony particularly could be interpreted as such."

It might, except that:

1. We don't know that was even Liz. He saw no flower.

2. The woman were not wasting time with extraneous activity.

Cheers.
LC