where's Liz?

[Fisherman]

MAria:

"I wouldn't take anything Stride blabbered about Fashion Street at face value.. "

That´s for you to decide, Maria - myself, I find it risky to discard things in such a manner. The material we have is scarce, so every bit needs to be listened to, I feel. But of course, we know that Stride could be less than truthful at times.

"it's not very plausible that Stride would have fought with Kidney on Tuesday, then (already and again) fought with her new beau on Thursday."

Neither is it stated that this was so. What Kidney says, is that they parted on good terms on Tuesday. We also know that he tells us that Liz stayed away from home from time to time. The only argument we have on record is the one Stride had "with her man" on Thursday - two days after she and Kidney had parted on good terms.

Occams razor, Maria, is sometimes a dangerous instrument to use, since it always leans against the simplest solution. Also, it should only be used when we do not have testimony already laying down what happened, as we do here. Okay, I am being purposefully provocative, and I am the first to admit that there may be a mistake on behalf of either Kidney or Liz as to the dates involved - but then again, we know that the witnesses at the doss house seem to corroborate Liz´version, by telling us that she arrived there Thursdayish. And my flair for simple solutions does not stretch to cases where the suggested simplicity seemingly swears against the witness testimonies.

"with the extra bonus of swimming against the current, which I love, also metaphorically, he he!"

Well, then, Maria ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Mrs. Fiddymont]

Hello CD.

"You can lead a horse to water . . ."

If by that you refer to Liz's putative soliciting, then, of course, I would say "Neigh." But perhaps that was not your mane point? Perhaps you were trying to spur me into saying something else? Or was I being taken for a ride?

Perhaps you were saddling me with a certain point of view?

Cheers.
LC

Not meaning to threadjack (er, no pun intended ), but just had to say: This answer has me whinnying with delight.

However, upon reflection, murder is a serious matter, so let's stop horsing around, shall we?

[mariab]

Lynn Cates wrote:
I don't think there is any suggestion of Michael and Liz fighting on Tuesday--he vigourously denied it. If she left WITHOUT a fight (as in my "what if") if might have been to seek greener pastures.
The way Kidney behaved with the police after Stride's murder, I can't imagine Stride having left Kidney without a fight. My personal interpretation is, he either lied about their fight to give a good impression of himself to the police, or it was he who “did“ her. (I tend towards the first interpretation.) In this case, I feel very strongly that parcimony applies!

To Fisherman: I simply need to re-read the different testimonies and reflect upon this. Right now I'm just back from some animal parks in the Eastern Cape, and my mind is still completely preoccupated with furry animals. I was 2 feet away from giraffes and their cubs, I've played with cheetahs (I've been playing with cheetahs almost every day since last week. Cheetahs can lick you to death.), I've petted cub lions (on of them bit me on the neck , like a vampire, when I was holding it and carrying it around), and a monkey kept following me around, jumping over my head.
No surfing due to the overwhelming on shore wind, which turned the perfect peeling waves into foamy chop.

[lynn cates]

Kidney

Hello Maria.

"I can't imagine Stride having left Kidney without a fight"

Quite possibly true. But she had left before and she always came back. Why? As Kidney said, "I think she liked me better than any other man."

Reading between the lines: "Yeah, Liz left me for another man, but I didn't worry--I knew she'd be back. After all, she loved me best."

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Reading between the lines: "Yeah, Liz left me for another man, but I didn't worry--I knew she'd be back. After all, she loved me best."

But this time his ego was severely bruised. He found there was another man, and it seemed to be serious.

So he made enguiries and tracked her down, or followed her - saw her with this new man - a Jew, and effing Jewboy!!

Now he was angry, Liz was damn well going to come home where she belonged or else...

To me this fits the evidence better than an assumption that JtR made an attack practically in the open, in a heavily frequented spot... not HIS style. But Kidney wouldn't care... he had no plans, acted on impulse, and ... fortunately for him, Jack WAS on the prowl that night, but in his usual dark and solitary places.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

"To me this fits the evidence better ..."

It´s easy to follow your reasoning, Phil, and it´s not impossible that you are right. But ask yourself a number of questions:

1. Would Kidney have given Liz the flower she wore? Probably not, given the mindset you think he was of, wouldn´t you say? So who did it? My guess is that Marshalls man is a very good bid - here we have a companion that stands around in a doorway with Liz, fondly speaking with her, kissing her, walking off with her, his arm around her neck. Now, that would not be Kidney, would it?
Thing is, this man tallies totally with the description of BS man, down to the "respectable appearance", the dark trousers, the height, the peaked cap, the black jacket, and the sturdy body. How do we account for that? Well, my solution is that they looked exactly the same because they WERE the same. And if so, BS man was NOT Kidney - but the guy I prefer to call the Fashion Street man.

2. Kidney appearead at the inquest, and if he had been BS man, he would have stood the very obvious risk that either Schwartz or a dug up Pipeman would have appeared, sending him to the gallows. Seems improbable to me that he would have taken that risk.

3. The drawing of Kidney. A drawing is only a drawing, of course, but it does not seem to portray the kind of man BS was. Nor do I think that "respectable" would have been the first word connecting with Michael Kidney - he was described as a morose, rough-spoken man whereas Marshall stated that his guy sounded like an educated man. And we know Kidney was a waterside labourer - those are generally not known for their respectable, clerk-like appearances.

So yes, Stride did not fall prey to the Ripper, but no: Kidney is not our man either, if I am correct.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Jtr

Hello Phil. I wonder whether Kidney's ego wouldn't be bruised each time? Of course, that may be dependent, as you say, on further factors.

I agree that the evidence fits your scenario better than JTR. I don't think "Jack" had anything to do with Liz (or Kate or MJ for that matter). But neither, I think, did Michael.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi All,

Whatever Kidney may have suspected about some new man in Liz's life, she was on her own when BS manhandled her and it was late into the evening. I could have sworn I read somewhere that she had paid for her Saturday night bed, which would imply that she had low expectations of any Mr Right whisking her off anywhere, made even lower by the indignity of hanging around outside that club long enough to get herself murdered.

But had she paid for her bed, or was it a press invention? I ask because we had all that nonsense for a long time from perrymason (and I'm sorry, Fisherman, but he did leave a legacy of loose ends like this) that Liz stated her intention not to return to her lodgings that night, which was a misreading of the witness testimony.

Caz:

I'm sorry if my post caused offence, but what are you frightened of in opening your mind to possibilities?

Hi Phil,

I’m not offended in the slightest. I’m not frightened either, about keeping my own mind wide open to possibilities. I can’t see how you got such a different impression from anything I actually wrote.

I’m also truly sorry if you thought my post was in any way ‘vitriolic’. I was merely questioning what you wrote, in the same way you question what I write. It’s what we do here.

If your problem was my reaction to the trendy notion that the ripper murders and the terror they caused were a mere figment of ‘men’s’ imagination, then fine. I’m willing to meet you half way and open my mind even wider than before to consider this as a serious option.

We don't now accept that Smith was a Ripper victim, but many then did, and the press built on it. So some of the coverage then WAS invented - a figment of imagination, supposition, or false conclusions.

Who’s we? And now who’s displaying a closed mind? I have always considered that one of Emma’s attackers might have gone on to murder one or more of the subsequent Whitechapel victims, or even been the ripper himself. I retain an open mind on it today, in the absence of any evidence that it was a false conclusion. Are you coming with me on this one?

I accept that JtR probably killed at least, Nichols, Chapmen, Eddowes and perhaps tabram.

Well there you are then. That would make him a real serial killer creating real terror, so I’m with you all the way. I won’t be closing my mind anytime soon to MJK or Stride either, you’ll be glad to hear. But how do you figure that lumping certain victims together, or leaving others out, gives less consideration to their murders or their memories? I do object to the perrymason school of thought that says we somehow ‘owe’ it to the victims to put some absurd upper limit on the ripper’s activities, and that anyone who disagrees is being disrespectful to their memories.

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?

I completely disagree. Had the wife in other killing been left on a side road and the killer not have identified himself, we would either be saying, could it have been a "triple-event"/did Jack do it; or we'd have to accept that there was more than one killer abroad that night. That's the relevance for me. But again, I impose nothing on you.

The problem with your point is that you have had to change the facts to make it.

The Westminster wife was not left on a side road, nor did her husband run off and get away with murder. It was a classic domestic murder which virtually solved itself from the moment the knife was drawn. Nobody in their right mind would have associated the Mitre Square murderer with this indoor West End crime the same night, had the husband done a bunk or stayed put and denied all involvement.

We know there was ‘more than one killer’ abroad that night in London, although a husband flipping his lid in his own home was hardly ‘abroad’ in the sense you mean. But assuming the average was fewer than two murderers abroad on any given night, East End Jack and West End Hubby were between them already making this particular night top heavy in the killer department. So three independent assassins on one night would make a crowd in my book - an even more unusual statistic than two of the buggers.

There - all that and no vitriol.

Sometimes 'tone' is perceived rather than intended. And if it's any consolation to you, I don't perceive the tone in your posts that one or two others have commented on elsewhere.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

inquest

Hello Caz. This is from the inquest summation:

"Here she remained until Saturday, September 29. On that day she cleaned the deputy's rooms, and received a small remuneration for her trouble. Between 6 and 7 o'clock on that evening she was in the kitchen wearing the jacket, bonnet, and striped silk neckerchief which were afterwards found on her. She had at least 6d. in her possession, which was possibly spent during the evening. Before leaving she gave a piece of velvet to a friend to take care of until her return, but she said neither where she was going nor when she would return. She had not paid for her lodgings, although she was in a position to do so."

Baxter got his information from Tanner.

Seems Mike Richards was correct in his estimate.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Thanks Lynn. I must have dreamt it then.

At least the velvet shows her intention to return at some point. And she certainly didn't say she was on a promise with her bed taken care of.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

interviews

Hello Caz. Not necessarily dreaming. There is a good deal of conflicting information (as you know)--especially in interviews.

Actually, things don't change much over the years.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Hello all,
according to the evidence it doesn't appear to me at all like Stride had a new man and was planning to put up house with him, or even to sleep at his place on September 30. She left the velvet piece at her neighbour's, she sounded like she might expect to return to her dwellings (even if whe didn't pay for them for September 30), etc..
As Caz wrote:
At least the velvet shows her intention to return at some point. And she certainly didn't say she was on a promise with her bed taken care of.

Lynn Cates wrote:
I don't think "Jack" had anything to do with Liz (or Kate or MJ for that matter).
I'm not with you at all on this, Lynn. I'm assuming that by “MJ“ you mean Mary Kelly? And you believe that neither Stride nor Eddowes were the victims of JTR? I'm sorry, but this doesn't make much sense!
(...) Actually, things don't change much over the years.
As for Stride and Kelly having parted, then made up again on a regular basis, there are relationships like this , hell, I was in such a one until about a month ago (minus the physical abuse!), and I completely agree with you that, even with history and society shifting, romantic relationships haven't change too much since 1888, or even since the Rennaissance! That's why Shakespeare's Otello, the comedies by Moličre, and other works of art still speak to us so powerfully today. I believe that Kidney's ego would have been bruised by the constant fighting, but not in a dramatic fashion, but if Stride found another partner, this might have struck Kidney enough to have wanted to kill her.
On the other side, there is the case of Eddowes and Kelly, who sometimes spent nights apart from each other, in different dwellings. Still, I have a strong suspicion that Eddowes was hiding something when she so insistently decided to spent a night away from Kelly. Was there perhaps a “date“ prearranged with some well-off john, perhaps a Jew, who happened to be the Ripper? But this scenario again doesn't fit at all with Eddowes getting so drunk and disorderly, being arrested, and then meeting the Ripper just as she got released out of jail. Their meeting seems more like an accidental occurrence. As you see, the evidence is everything but helpful!

Phil H. wrote:
But this time his ego was severely bruised. He found there was another man, and it seemed to be serious. So he made enguiries and tracked her down, or followed her - saw her with this new man - a Jew, and effing Jewboy!! Now he was angry, Liz was damn well going to come home where she belonged or else...
To me this fits the evidence better than an assumption that JtR made an attack practically in the open, in a heavily frequented spot... not HIS style. But Kidney wouldn't care... he had no plans, acted on impulse, and ... fortunately for him, Jack WAS on the prowl that night, but in his usual dark and solitary places.
This makes MUCH more sense to me. The way I see it right now, I'd say the odds look to me for Stride at 60% to have been a Ripper victim, at 40% to have been killed by Kidney.

Fisherman wrote:
Would Kidney have given Liz the flower she wore? Probably not, given the mindset you think he was of, wouldn´t you say? So who did it? My guess is that Marshalls man is a very good bid - here we have a companion that stands around in a doorway with Liz, fondly speaking with her, kissing her, walking off with her, his arm around her neck. Now, that would not be Kidney, would it?
The flower was definitely a gift by some john. It could even be by the Ripper himself, who then arranged to meet Stride again, in the yard by Berner Street. In this scenario (with a pre-arranged meeting) the Ripper/the killer cannot have been BS – who surely would not have started pushing her around after having given her a flower?! Perhaps the Ripper was Pipeman, avoiding BS and coming back to meet Stride after she got rid of BS. Who knows?

Fisherman wrote:
Thing is, this man tallies totally with the description of BS man, down to the "respectable appearance", the dark trousers, the height, the peaked cap, the black jacket, and the sturdy body. How do we account for that? Well, my solution is that they looked exactly the same because they WERE the same. And if so, BS man was NOT Kidney - but the guy I prefer to call the Fashion Street man.
BS definitely was not Kidney, since the physical description doesn't fit at all. But BS might have been the Ripper, in which case we must rethink our romanticized idea of a “silent“ blitz-attacker who avoided witnesses.
As I see it, ALL of the above mentioned scenarios are fully possible: Kidney (as a scourned lover), BS (as the Ripper or as a random pimp), or Pipeman (as the Ripper) might have slayed Stride.

Caz wrote:
I have always considered that one of Emma’s attackers might have gone on to murder one or more of the subsequent Whitechapel victims, or even been the ripper himself. I retain an open mind on it today, in the absence of any evidence that it was a false conclusion. Are you coming with me on this one?

I'm with you on this, Caz. Also I have to add that this Perry Mason person doesn't sound very, well... sound! And, Caz, I hope that you'll be relieved to hear that when I was at Cape St. Francis earlier today, the local paper store featured “stationery“ with an “e“. So the South Africans seem to have gotten it right. (And I immediately thought of you when I saw the inscription!)
(Apart from this, the swell is tiny, we surfed luckluster longboard waves, and no fish encountered, but many kinds of beautiful shells and unfamiliar birds instead, big and small...)

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"At least the velvet shows her intention to return at some point. And she certainly didn't say she was on a promise with her bed taken care of."

Actually, Caz, although your proposition has a lot going for it, I think that the only thing we can say about that velvet is that she did not wish to bring it along with her that night, but cherished it enough to find somebody that she knew well enough and trusted to take care of it. Apart from that - no guarantees, I´d say.
We know that Liz - as so many other women of her kind - lived the life of a vagrant to a large extent, and there is no aparent reason to think that Catherine Lane differed in any respect from that, which is why we cannot state with any certainty that the velvet would stay at the doss-house.

It is of some interest that Lane herself - if my memory serves me - stated that she was slightly amazed that Stride had not given the velvet to Tanner for keeping, and that reeks a bit of "because then she would know for sure where it was".

This is just a side remark, of course, since we may of course surmise that Liz WOULD have gone to the doss-house in the first place to look for her cloth. But we must also realize that we have no idea of how long she expected that Lane would have to keep it for her, and that means that we must allow for the possibility that she was counting on having a bed elsewhere waiting for her.

As for stating that we can know for sure that she expected to stay away from the doss-house since she did not pay in advance for her bed, that is something I agree we cannot do, just as you say. I think it very likely that, surmising that Liz WAS banking on sleeping in Flower & Dean that night, she would still not pay in advance, but instead keep all opportunities open and hold on to her money for the evening.

But surely the most flagrant part of all of this is the fact that it seems quite clear - and was accepted by the coroner - that Liz and Kidney parted on Tuesday, and that we therefore have two successive nights to account for, where we have no idea where she stayed. All we know is that Kidney says it was not with him, and the fellow lodgers state very clearly that she did not arrive at the doss house until Thursday.
So where was she? And with who?

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Would Kidney have given Liz the flower she wore? Probably not, given the mindset you think he was of, wouldn´t you say? So who did it?

Presumably and logically the man she was seeing that nigth, the man she was taking care of her appearance over, the man she was seen with kissing and cuddling by several people.

Thing is, this man tallies totally with the description of BS man, down to the "respectable appearance", the dark trousers, the height, the peaked cap, the black jacket, and the sturdy body. How do we account for that?

Many may have dressed in that way, but if BS man was Stride's killer, I don't think she was the man she had been with for most of that evening.

Well, my solution is that they looked exactly the same because they WERE the same. And if so, BS man was NOT Kidney - but the guy I prefer to call the Fashion Street man.

I wouldn't, at this stage, agree. But we could BOTH be wrong! the sum of the evidence we have is SO slender.

Kidney appearead at the inquest, and if he had been BS man, he would have stood the very obvious risk that either Schwartz or a dug up Pipeman would have appeared, sending him to the gallows.

If Kidney killed Stride he may not have had much alternative, but to brazen it out. Flight would have been an admission of guilt - and kidney had turned up early with the police telling a strange, emotional story - perhaps to try to establish an excuse along the lines of "I came to you, so I CAN'T BE YOUR MAN!"

He may have been unaware of Schwartz, and believed that Stride's "paramour" (if he was PS man, would not compromise himself by giving evidence. Equally, if he was drunk, Kidney may simply have been hazy afterwards about who was there.

Thirdly, by the time of the Inquest, all the talk was of a double-event. As I have said before, I think on this thread, so long as kidney had good alibis for the other murder-nights, he might have escaped notice.

The drawing of Kidney. A drawing is only a drawing, of course, but it does not seem to portray the kind of man BS was.

Such interpretation, as with my views of the drawing and the decription of BS man, is entirely subjective. I point again (as i have before) to the two drawings of Joe Barnett, which but for the written identification, would not be taken as being the same man.

Nor do I think that "respectable" would have been the first word connecting with Michael Kidney - he was described as a morose, rough-spoken man whereas Marshall stated that his guy sounded like an educated man.

But now you are taking the Marshall/BS descriptions as being identical. An assumption too far for me.

And we know Kidney was a waterside labourer - those are generally not known for their respectable, clerk-like appearances.

But could well be "morose, rough-spoken " and violent, and thus capable of an unpremeditated, act of passion, in killing Stride, the lover he seemed to be losing.

Please come back at me,

Phil

[mariab]

Fisherman wrote:
I think it very likely that, surmising that Liz WAS banking on sleeping in Flower & Dean that night, she would still not pay in advance, but instead keep all opportunities open and hold on to her money for the evening.
Completely agree with that, Fisherman. That's how Nichols and Chapman also proceeded in the night of their death.

Fisherman wrote:
But surely the most flagrant part of all of this is the fact that it seems quite clear - and was accepted by the coroner - that Liz and Kidney parted on Tuesday, and that we therefore have two succesive nights to account for, where we have no idea where she stayed. All we know is that Kidney says it was not with him, and the fellow lodgers state very clearly that she did not arrive at the doss house until Thursday.
So where was she? And with who?
She might have slept at Dr. Barnardo's mission, as Tom Wescott states in his Examiner 1 essay. Dr. Barnardo even sort of corroborated that.
By the way, where's Tom been this week? Perhaps away on a holiday? I hope he's fine...