where's Liz?

[c.d.]

Hi Fish,

Are we to believe that the B.S. man was so angry that he killed Liz even after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man yet deliberately kept his voice down for fear of offending club members?

c.d.

[caz]

Hi Fishfingers,

...we are in danger of forgetting that two somewhat similar murders - or three, or four - in the same time period and in the same very limited vicinity, need not have been comitted by the same individual.

Need not be down to one man, no. But since we have no arrests in this case, no charges, no nothing - hell, not enough for the police even to connect Kidney with Berner Street or what happened to Liz there, never mind any of her other associates - it would be silly to put all our eggs in a domestic basket.

That, Caz, is why there is an urgent need to go looking for EACH killer in EACH case, instead of leaning back and asking yourself: "Why take the trouble? If somebody in this neighborhood is killed, it HAS to be by the same guy", or, reformulating it: "we are in danger here of making things far more complicated than all the available testimony warrants, by pulling a domestic cut-throat out of the ether, along with a motive for him wanting Liz dead, when there is a perfectly good (evil) unfortunate-hunting cut-throat out for blood that night and determined to have himself a ripping time."

Eh? Who says there's no need to go looking for Liz's killer because it HAS to be the same guy we are STILL LOOKING FOR in connection with other unfortunate murders that autumn??

All I'm saying is that in the continued absence of any evidence against another individual, I'd have a hundred and one questions to put to the ripper, if he could be found, before I would dream of concluding that Liz's death had nothing to do with him.

So I would treat looking for the ripper as a priority over looking for Liz's killer, all the while it could be the same guy. Solving her murder might not bag us Jack, but bagging Jack could very well turn out to solve her murder.

What is achieved by fannying around looking for a second person to blame, when there is nothing to suggest he even existed? If he did exist, and you manage to find him and connect him in any meaningful way to Liz's murder, you'll still have umpteen unsolved cases and no ripper.

Just seems a bit backwards to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hi Caz,

Your point is well made. I find it bewildering too that even those who believe Jack killed Kate a short time and distance away look for a domestic suspect that might not have even existed (as you point out) to blame for Liz's death. The same logic seems to be employed by those who want to blame a copycat whose existence we know nothing of for mutilating Mary when a known serial killer and mutilator named Jack was out and about and doing his thing.

c.d.

[mariab]

Garza wrote:
Lets look at the facts.
~ No-one heard a sound, except Schwartz, even though there were people around the area.
~ Schwartz (for whatever reason) changed his testimony, it could be journalistic flair, but it might not be. It ends up with Pipeman with a dagger in his hand instead of a pipe and pipeman yelling Lipski. Since Schwartz testimony changed, while we can't say it definitely didn't happen but we have to be very careful with his testimony and reason enough to doubt it.
~ Liz was killed by surprise and very quickly (mints in hand)
~ she had one cut on her neck (like Eddowes)
~ her neck was cut in the same angle and manner as Eddowes, only not as deeply
~ the killer had her body in an angle the result of which he did not get splashed with blood
These are all JtR-esque, although it does not confirm 100% that he did kill her, the evidence (AS IT STANDS NOW) points to a Jack the Ripper killing. It might change later, it might not.
Excellent, very lucid listing of the facts, Garza. I completely agree with everything you say.

Fisherman, you can't compare drug shootings (in Colorado) to serial killings! Drug shootings happen independently of age group and gender.

To Phil H.:
My understanding is that Kidney (in typical male traditional behaviour) kept the key himself and obviously wanted to have control of when Stride entered or left their room. But since there are testimonies that she was able to come and go as she wished, I can very well imagine that she had secretly made a double out of the key, while pretending to Kidney that the landlord was letting her in. (Which is traditional female behaviour, totally normal for 1888 and sometimes even for today, as Caz and many other ladies would probably testify!)
As for Barnett, I've only seen the “portrait“ sketch of him, with the hat on, where he's broad shouldered and looks strong enough to have been the Ripper. Has anyone noticed that many witnesses' descriptions (Schwartz's, Lawander's) would have totally matched Barnett?!!

C.D. wrote:
Where I live (Washington, D.C.), every time the local news has a story of a woman being killed with no apparent motive, it inevitably follows that a few days later the police arrest an ex husband/estranged husband/ex lover/father of her child/co-worker. Every damn time. I can't believe that it was any different in 1888 and that the police would have taken a good look at Kidney.
Very good point, C.D., and I like your compassion (esp. if you're not a female).

Caz, wow, nice husband! I've heard of similar cases from as recent as the 1980s in the US! (But the guy was of Arab extraction.) Good that you got rid of the looser.

Plus I wanted to add that, despite what the club goers claimed, their singing and debating would have totally prevented them from hearing what happened in the court.
Best greetings to all and

[mariab]

C.D. wrote:
I find it bewildering too that even those who believe Jack killed Kate a short time and distance away look for a domestic suspect that might not have even existed (as you point out) to blame for Liz's death. The same logic seems to be employed by those who want to blame a copycat whose existence we know nothing of for mutilating Mary when a known serial killer and mutilator named Jack was out and about and doing his thing.
Also COMPLETELY agree with you on this, C.D.

[Phil H]

c.d.
Are we to believe that the B.S. man was so angry that he killed Liz even after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man yet deliberately kept his voice down for fear of offending club members?

Scwartz reports that words (or a word) is reported to have been spoken - but no one heard it in the Club. Enough said. Inhabitants in buck' Row appear to have heard nothing at the time of Nichol's death or the discovery of her body - until roused by the police. But we know that Cross and Paul spoke.

caz:

But since we have no arrests in this case, no charges, no nothing - hell, not enough for the police even to connect Kidney with Berner Street or what happened to Liz there, never mind any of her other associates - it would be silly to put all our eggs in a domestic basket.

Who's putting any eggs in any basket? I am simply fitting what evidence we have to the options i know, and currently I find a better fit in regard to Kidney than JtR. I don't ask you to agree, I invite comments.

Solving her murder might not bag us Jack, but bagging Jack could very well turn out to solve her murder.

But solving Liz's could clarify things in relation to JtR?

What is achieved by fannying around looking for a second person to blame, when there is nothing to suggest he even existed? If he did exist, and you manage to find him and connect him in any meaningful way to Liz's murder, you'll still have umpteen unsolved cases and no ripper.

What is achieved? Perhaps clarity, perhaps the opening up of other avenues. Surely we need to be unafraid in considering the options? 100 plus years ago, Melville macnaghten believed there were five victims. Others have claimed more. recent researchers and thinkers have asked, might there be fewer than 5? Was JtR as much a creation of the media/press as real? Was the serial killer and the terror a figment of men's imagination? I don't think that is impossible. it doesn't reduce the fascination of the case, but it might make the remaining evidence easier to assess.

Perhaps I'm doing you an injustice, but your position as stated above seems to me akin to a sailor in the time of colombus saying, "Oh let's just explore the Mediterranean, why go across that ocean? We have so much to explore here - let's not open up new vistas.

I'm afraid that such mental attitudes don't sit well with me. But feel free to stick with the traditional if you want, it's a free world.

But I am reminded that there was ANOTHER domestic in Westminster on the night of Liz's death, and thus we know that the Ripper was not the only killer at work that night.

c.d. again:

...when a known serial killer and mutilator named Jack was out and about and doing his thing.

But we don't know he was on 8/9 November - he didn't seem to have been for a month previously.

And the MO and location seem different, and not subtly so.

Phil

[caz]

Who's putting any eggs in any basket? I am simply fitting what evidence we have to the options i know, and currently I find a better fit in regard to Kidney than JtR. I don't ask you to agree, I invite comments.

You may be keeping your options open, Phil, even if you do think Kidney looks more guilty of murder in Berner than JtR himself. I'm talking about those who no longer entertain the possibility that Liz's killer was a stranger to her.

But solving Liz's could clarify things in relation to JtR?

I don't really see how anyone is going to solve it, or how this would clarify anything in relation to JtR's identity, if he wasn't involved on this occasion. But I'm open to any reasonable suggestions.

Of course there is no need to be afraid of considering every option, which is why it amazes me to find so many posters putting a 'No entry' sign up in Berner St to keep the ripper out at all costs.

I'm afraid if you think it's not impossible that 'the serial killer and the terror' was 'a figment of men's imagination', we have little common ground between us. It wasn't a figment of the female victims' imaginations when they were slashed and sliced to buggery and beyond, was it?

I'm happy just to assess the basics, eg the murders of Polly, Annie and Kate, if you'd prefer all the excess baggage stripped away to see things more clearly. But wouldn't that be more akin to your sailor only wanting to explore the Med, when there's an ocean to cross?

The Westminster domestic is a smelly old red herring and you show your fatal bias by calling it 'ANOTHER' domestic (even shouting the offending word), without the slightest evidence that the unsolved murder on a Whitechapel street had anything in common with it. It's like saying there was a wife clubbed to death by her husband in Paris that night too, so there. So what?

If you want to go in the same direction that perrymason went before you, you won't find me trying to stop you, Phil. Just don't expect me to follow you - and don't expect too much success finding any of the Whitechapel murderers when you get there.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

C.d wants to know:

"Are we to believe that the B.S. man was so angry that he killed Liz even after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man yet deliberately kept his voice down for fear of offending club members?"

What you want to believe or not is your own choice, c.d, as ever! As for your question, I stand by my old belief that there is no need whatsoever to work from the assumption that Strides killer - and that would reasonably be BS man, who I believe was an aquaintance/lover of hers, quite possibly being the Fashion Street man - went into the yard with murder on his mind. Just as the so called assault outside the gates may add up to no more than Stride resisting BS mans pulling her into the street and falling as a result of it, so he may also have gone into the yard quite meekly ON STRIDES REQUEST. If we work from the assumption that she was displeased with him and determined to tell him off for not letting her mind her own business, then there is every chance that he regretted it all and wanted to make up with Stride. If this holds water, and if she finished the exchange in the yard by telling him that they were no l9onger a couple, that may well have made him desperate, and desperate men do not startout by reasoning intelligently about where and when they were last seen. If he was also "tipsy" as has been suggested, then so much more reason to realize that he may not have been the best judge of the situation.

You know me, C.d, and you know my stance - I am the tedious, fantasyless guy who points to the fact that a killing like this need in no way call for us to look for a serialist ripper and organprocurer, since there is no evidence of such a man about. My proposition is that we heed the fact that an enormous amount of the killings of women are carried out by spouses, whereas only a fraction of a promille of them fall prey to serial killers. Therefore, as long as we have an abandoned Kidney, a possible beau and a murder weapon that was as common as darkness at sundown, we may do well not to call for the devil.

the best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

When I say that no one heard any sounds, I am talking about the location where she was killed not on the street where Schwartz heard Lipski. That would mean an angry Kidney but no sound of an argument. That just seems a bit strange to me.

With regard to Mary's killing, Jack was active during the Autumn of 1888. I don't see a period of inactivity of a month as being of any significance. If you want to put forth a copycat as her killer, then we could just as well ask where was he for the past month?

c.d.

[mariab]

To Phil H:
For your information, Phil H., domestic killings statistically and traditionally happen at home, NOT in the streets. (Although in Kidney's case it's clear that he would have had to seek Stride on the streets, her having left their domestic dwelllings etc..)

Caz wrote:
The Westminster domestic is a smelly old red herring and you show your fatal bias by calling it 'ANOTHER' domestic (even shouting the offending word), without the slightest evidence that the unsolved murder on a Whitechapel street had anything in common with it.
Very, very well said! There's not enough proof to call Stride's murder a “domestic slaying“, but there is enough proof to consider it a POTENTIAL Ripper slaying, an interrupted one.

To C.D.:
Thank you so much, C.D., for explaining what Caz meant with the “Perry Mason“ deal!

[mariab]

Fisherman, I assume that you also consider Mary Kelly a Barnett job, and perhaps even that Eddowes was a Kelly job? Pity that the first 2 victims didn't have a boyfriend, in that case would you have been keen to deny the existence of the Ripper? (Don't get offended by this, I'm just slightly exaggerating for the fun of it. )

[Fisherman]

Caz! Hi! Good to hear your sound voice!

"Need not be down to one man, no. But since we have no arrests in this case, no charges, no nothing - hell, not enough for the police even to connect Kidney with Berner Street or what happened to Liz there, never mind any of her other associates - it would be silly to put all our eggs in a domestic basket."

Absolutely, Caz. Nor would I do such a thing. Problem is, the domestic basket never came around until very late in Strides case, in spite of the obvious fact that it may well belong there. And dont forget that in the Denver case I posted, half of the cases are still looking for suspects too. Given the meagre resources in experience and forensic techniques available to the London police of 1888, it is not strange that no suspect could be knitted to the killings. The same, as you know, applies to the torso killings, to Mylett, to Tabram, to MacKenzie, to John Gill ...

"All I'm saying is that in the continued absence of any evidence against another individual, I'd have a hundred and one questions to put to the ripper, if he could be found, before I would dream of concluding that Liz's death had nothing to do with him."

Agreed! Make no mistake about it, I consider him a very decent bid for the Stride killing too - but not the most probable one, for the simple reason that he was so "programmatic" at the other murder sites. A good deal of the things that happened to Stride and that surround her case on the whole, are things I would not expect to find with the Ripper as the perpetrator.

"Solving her murder might not bag us Jack, but bagging Jack could very well turn out to solve her murder."

... is how you word it, while I would settle for "solving her murder will probably not bag us Jack, but bagging Jack may of course turn out to solve her murder". Small but significant difference!

"What is achieved by fannying around looking for a second person to blame, when there is nothing to suggest he even existed?"

Not much - so it is good that there ARE quite a few things that DO speak of such a man; the likeness inbetween the men of the murder night seen with Liz, the behavior of Marshalls man that seems to point very much away from prostitution, the care we know Liz took about her looks on that evening, the fact that Kidney stated that they had parted on Tuesday, whereas Liz said that she had had words with her man on Thursday, the witness statements that do NOT place her in her doss house in the time inbetween these two days, the fact that even if Kidney could have thought himself to have good reason to lie about a row, he had NO apparent reason to do so about the day it happened, and last, but not least, the fact that a number of witnesses all stated that Lizīman was living in Fashion Street, whereas we know that Kidney lived in Devonshire Street, although he stated that 38 Dorset Street was his adress at the inquest.
Now, Caz, whichever way you look upon things, weighing this together Iīd say we have got quite a lot telling us, loud and clear, that there may well have been another man in Strides life.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Maria:

"Fisherman, I assume that you also consider Mary Kelly a Barnett job, and perhaps even that Eddowes was a Kelly job? Pity that the first 2 victims didn't have a boyfriend, in that case would you have been keen to deny the existence of the Ripper? (Don't get offended by this, I'm just slightly exaggerating for the fun of it. )"

Go ahead, Maria - enjoy! No, I am not trying to deny the Ripper; Iīve got him down for five killings, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. So no haggling on my behalf - what I take away (Stride), I replace (Tabram, who incidentally had a three-inch cut to her lower abdomen, something that sounds a lot more Ripperish to me than the ordinary throat-cutting).

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

We can speculate about another man in Liz's life but the police report didn't come up with any.

c.d.

P.S. Somehow the way my post is worded reminds me of the Groucho Marx line...When asked if he always took his dates out in a canoe, Groucho responded "I wanted to get a flat bottom but the girl at the boat house didn't have one."

[Fisherman]

C.d:

"We can speculate about another man in Liz's life but the police report didn't come up with any."

That is hardly any news, C.d - but it has not stopped recent research to focus very much on the fact that they ought to have done precisely that. The fact that the police could not find such a man does not prove that he was never there, just as the fact that they did not catch Jack does not disprove his existence either. But we DO know that the possibility of another man in Strides life was obvious to them, just as we know that they harboured the same suspicion that I do; that all the men of the murder night was quite possibly one and the same.

If there was a man as the one we are speaking about, then Stride would probably not shout his name out in the streets, and he would reasonably not be too inspired to go to the police after the murder.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Iīm a Groucho fan too! The man leaving Grouchos home: "I would like to say goodbye to your wife too". Groucho: "Yes, who wouldnīt?"