Did jack kill liz stride?

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Desperate poverty? That may not be an apt description of Liz and Michael Kidney's life together. Does sound terribly romantic, though.

You and I must have very different ideas of 'romantic' in that case. I can think of very little that would be less romantic than finding myself alone at night, believing a savage murderer to be loose on the streets, and with not a farthing to my name, having spent my last and only sixpence during the evening. To me, that is pretty much the definition of desperate poverty.

But then, if Stride had tried and tested ways of begging, borrowing or conning her way out of similarly dire situations, then she may have felt relatively in clover.

What do you think?

Not sure what Liz might have expected. After all, the furore was subsiding and it was about three weeks past.

So much so that when her body was found, the cry went up about 'another' murder.

Maybe they just meant 'another Saturday night, another woman with her throat cut, same old same old'.

Or maybe they didn't.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I almost dropped my coffee mug when I read this Caz.... ;

"It does seem that you and Michael are the ones with prostitutes on the brain, while others only see the desperate poverty that caused these women to be out alone at all hours, with a nutter on the loose."

Youve discovered the polar opposite of the truth.....I have consistently argued against you and Good Michaels consistent usage of the word "prostitute" when referring to the Canonical Five...

Hi Michael,

Since you seem unable to distinguish 'unfortunate' from 'prostitute' in my posts (while you yourself use the former in the same context I do, to mean 'not fortunate' enough, for instance, to have the funds for a guaranteed roof over one's head), perhaps you are also unable to distinguish between me and Good Michael. For future reference, one of us has whiskers and the hide of a rhino and the other one is Good Michael.

I am amused by your glee at a poll swinging your way, like it somehow validates your beliefs and answers the question, but all it points out is that there are more "others" who believe like you do than the opposite. Is the premise that one side "wins" when that happens?

Hmm, like Lynn, I fear you missed the point I was making. Over recent weeks, you have both been arguing strongly for a different killer, basically by trying to ridicule those who merely consider the same killer more likely. Very few reject outright one or other possibility, while you two appear to have done just that. You even admit that you are here for the entertainment value, having made up your mind that you are right and the (now standing at 80) contrary voters are all wrong. And in all that time, up until my latest visit, your efforts failed to attract a single vote.

One voter has now rectified that to bring the number up to 36, but it still means ten times more recent votes for the same killer than for a different one.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

Nur Eins.

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"What do you think?"

Hard to believe that she was desperate, so long as going back to Kidney was an option. And she did that before.

"So much so that when her body was found, the cry went up about 'another' murder."

Yes. Same as Tabram after Smith. And you are certainly consistent in seeing possibly one hand through them all.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

But having spent every last penny she had on her, Stride didn't go back to Kidney, did she?

Believing a bloodthirsty murderer was on the loose, preying on women who were out alone in the early hours, she chose to go to the club instead, and straight into the clutches of - a bloodthirsty murderer. Whatever she thought was in it for her, it was clearly preferable to anything Kidney could have provided.

You and Michael say this was 'another' bloodthirsty murderer, who presumably targeted Stride because of who she was, or because of something she had personally done to offend him.

I say it was more plausibly the same bloodthirsty murderer, picking on Stride merely because she was there, and not tucked up in bed with Kidney, or in some doss house, where she would have been safe from any of the scores of bloodthirsty murderers who routinely roamed those horrible streets back in the dark ages of the LVP.

And yes, I was being just a wee bit sarcastic there, which you should recognise well.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

target

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Sarcasm, eh? Well, you DO know all the tricks--puns, pathos, parody, dramatic irony, litotes and satire. (You may be vicious, even.)

No, she did not go back to Kidney. But that is to say she was not exactly desperate.

She may have been targeted, can't say. But any explanation requires a MUCH better explanation of the forensic evidence--in particular, the fact that she was IN the yard when she died.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

She may have been targeted, can't say. But any explanation requires a MUCH better explanation of the forensic evidence--in particular, the fact that she was IN the yard when she died.

Barely in the yard, and she could have easily been pulled in, making the death's starting point outside the yard. Anyway, it isn't a very important factor. Usually I pour milk into a glass. If I am distracted, a few drops can end up outside the glass. The only significance is the distraction, which could be a number of things. Still, I drink the milk and go on my way.

Mike

[Cogidubnus]

Aah Michael, but if half an hour or so later the few drops on the worktop taste so much staler than the glass you drank earlier...

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

But having spent every last penny she had on her, Stride didn't go back to Kidney, did she?

I don't believe she did at all. In fact I'd say there's evidence to the contrary. Also, we should not expect that she showed up at 32 F&D Street broke. She may have already possessed money on top of what she was paid for cleaning and then add to this money earned from men during the evening. In fact, the only time it appears likely she spent her own money was on the drink she shared with her friend at the Queen's Head. After that, she's seen either with a man or quite alone.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Observer]

I don't believe she did at all. In fact I'd say there's evidence to the contrary. Also, we should not expect that she showed up at 32 F&D Street broke. She may have already possessed money on top of what she was paid for cleaning and then add to this money earned from men during the evening. In fact, the only time it appears likely she spent her own money was on the drink she shared with her friend at the Queen's Head. After that, she's seen either with a man or quite alone.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Nah, that's far too sensible a suggestion to be based on truth. Stick a few anarchists in, and various members of the Okhrana, and you might well be believed around these parts.

Observer

[Michael W Richards]

I believe the landlady bought Liz the beer after the room cleaning, we have a witness who says Liz left the lodging house with her 6d intact.

We do not however have a witness for when and how she acquires the maidenfern and cashous. But we have a woman without her 6d when she is found with those 2 new items. I guess its using too much common sense to imagine that missing money and the new things were related.

As to Stride being "targetted"...I suppose that is suggested to parallel what the killer might have done with Polly and Annie..watch their activities and wait for an opportunity...but there is no evidence for that theory in all 3 cases. There is evidence that suggests Liz was killed before 1am on anarchists property in a passageway that was supposedly devoid of life at 12:40am, yet there is evidence that suggests more than 3 people recalled being summoned to the dead woman before 12:45am....and there is evidence that Liz was cut once and then left untouched. There is evidence that her murderer may have used her scarf to pull on, that it was pulled and nicked while he cut her throat, and that she was cut while she fell ....onto her left side, her legs curled into a fetal position, with her boots poking out from the ankle length hem of her skirt.

The most logical remarks concerning Liz Strides murder are the ones that suggest something other than Jack the Ripper happened to Liz, as is indicated by all the physical evidence in this murder.

Calling the Immigrant Jews in the club Anarchists isnt Fantasy....thats precisely how they were known to the Police and as "low men" to the immediate neighbours. Categorizing the murder on their property as potentially catastrophic for the club isnt Fantasy, its clearly the case. Suggesting that Liz Stride may have been killed because she was hired to spy on anarchists by the police isnt Fantasy...Unfortunates were being used to gather information. There is no hard evidence for that suggestion, but it is clearly within the bounds of possibility based on the circumstances. Suggesting Liz Stride may have had a date with someone at the club, or that she might be working for Mrs Diemshitz or some other member isnt Fantasy...we have Strides own words to her landlady about the people she had been working for in recent weeks,... and Mrs Diemshitz may well have needed extra cleaning staff after a large meeting. There is no evidence for this within the known evidence, but its hardly fantasy to look for logical explanations that address some of the known facets of this murder. We know that Liz didnt indicate she would return that night, and we know she entrusted a less than close friend with some fabric she was keeping. To imagine that a woman would dress in an ankle length skirt, seek to brush the lint from it before leaving her lodgings, and acquire some color for her outfit and some mints for her breath to meet a date or an employer isnt Fantasy....its well within the possibilities based again, on evidence.

Fantasy is declaring that a woman, who has a single artery cut in her throat and is found lying on her side "as if gently lain down" in a passageway of known anarchists, was most probably killed by someone who had killed 2 previous women in a very different manner and mutilated them both post mortem....after pushing up their clothing while the victim was on their back, spread eagle.

That story needs another story to make it work....when you already have evidence that exists for more logical alternate conclusions......Liz known to have been cleaning for Jews,....Liz seemingly making arrangements for someone to watch her things while she would be away for an indefinite period, not unlike what Kidney characterizes as her habits with him, that she would leave him for someone else, sometimes for months....Liz being single.....Liz being well dressed and accessorized....Liz being on the private property of anarchists,....Liz not clearly soliciting, when both priors were....Liz possibly killed while falling, while being pulled by her scarf...

There are logical arguments for many of the ideas some brush off as fanciful....and none that adequately explain why a serial killer and post mortem mutilator of working prostitutes wouldnt behave exactly as he had done 2 successive times previously, less than 2 weeks apart.

I could see a metamorphosis as being possible, but I dont see any catalyst or compelling reason to alter what was obviously a successful methodology for him. He got away scot free twice before. And the women who had to work the streets at night were still plentiful and at that point in time, they were 3 weeks away from any horrible murders. Less sensitized as a result.


Cheers

[J6123]

it would not be inconceivable if 2 different men had killed a prostitute in whitechapel that night, the two murders seperated by less than an hour and a mile. but it would be a pretty big coincidence. the proximity of the murders in time and space, coupled with the similarities, leads me to strongly favour that this was an opportunistic and impulsive murder by the Ripper, slightly away from his comfort zone and at an earlier time than usual, in a location he knew wasn't secure enough to mutilate, so he never even attempted it, he just went for the swift kill and then left. obviously he enjoys mutilation and removing organs to take as trophies, and hence kate Eddowes is found a little later on, and quite close by, mutilated and missing a kidney and uterus.

things like lack of mutilation, position of body, clothes undisturbed, don't rule out jack the Ripper being Stride's killer. the Stride murder is consistent with the rest of the Ripper's fearless and maniacal behaviour that night.

to me the Stride murder represents the Ripper impulsively kicking his evening off earlier than usual with an opportunity that presented itself in a location that was too dark, and not secure enough to stay for long enough for his eyes to adjust so he could carry out mutilation and remove an organ.

i unhesitantly vote yes.

[Michael W Richards]

I would suggest to you J6123 that there may have been different motives at play here which would better explain any great variances in style and objectives, and without having concrete evidence that Liz, or Kate, was indeed in a situation similar to their Canonical predecessors...(that being out on the streets to earn money for their bed by means of prostitution), we should not assume too much about a killer in its absence. Polly and Annie were soliciting, they admitted it to friends. We dont have that same kind of empirical evidence for Liz, Kate or Mary....from the horses mouth, as it were.

You have a choice at this point in time,...as you have for the last 125 years, do you believe that the only murderer working the streets of Whitechapel during the Fall of 1888 was a man who randomly killed strangers? Well, we know a man unconnected with the Ripper series slit his own wifes throat on the night of the so called Double Event...so I suppose one must conclude that no, not all murders that Fall were by necessity or evidence, Ripper kills.

Are there other murders that were not connected with the Ripper series?....the semi-official position... for the most part, excluded Martha Tabrams murder in the series, so, unless James Brown also killed Martha Tabram we have 2 murderers, in addition to Jack. Then there is the matter of the Torso......Jacks work? Not by the opinion of any contemporary investigator....and not likely killed by James Brown.....so, we have 3 murderers, in addition to Jack, that killed women that same Fall. And one of them mutilated the corpse post mortem.

Then we have the women who were attacked earlier in the year....well, we have evidence at least one was attacked by several people....Jack seems to work alone, so that means we have a small gang, and 3 individual people, and Jack living in the East End in the Fall of 1888, all killers.

If you would like to assume that the significant variances in the Stride murder can be best dealt with by modifying the Motivation, Victimology and Profile of the killer of C1 and C2, then you are going to need some pretty concrete proof, (not a speculated interruption without evidence of one, or a theory that just killing would satisfy him), that the same mutilator just cuts Liz once and leaves. However, if you accept the reality of the times and accept the fact that many dangerous men lived in that area and some were killers as well as Jack, then you might want to hedge your bets on inclusion in the Canonical Group a bit.

Why Liz was killed is far more important at this stage than by whom....its like trying to guess the killer of a murder mystery on page one. You need more data.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

Mike

What an astute post. Succinctly argued, and very well put indeed.

[J6123]

Hello Michael,

i have probably done far less research than most here, and i may be a little out my depth. and i have no new to evidence to present.

yes fully agree. there clearly were other savage characters in the area. assaults and robberies, especially against these women, must have been commonplace. also agree that there do seem have been some variances in perpetrator style and behaviour with some of the murders.

the case for just seems a little stronger than the case against, the way the evidence stands.

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello J. Welcome to the boards.

By "evidence" for, I take it you mean she was killed the same night as Kate?

That is so.

Cheers.
LC