where's Liz?

[c.d.]

Hi Fish,

Well if you want to go that route you can speculate that there were hundreds of men in Liz's life and maybe she had a pet Unicorn as well. The report speaks for itself. They didn't find any.

c.d.

[Phil H]

Caz:

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

Your post is just so vitriolic!

You may be keeping your options open, Phil - your emphasis. What's wrong with keeping an open mind on anything intellectual - and that's what the JtR enigma is at this remove, isn't it?

I'm talking about those who no longer entertain the possibility that Liz's killer was a stranger to her.

What does it matter what they think, so long as you are secure in your reasoning?

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.

Can I just suggest that, just assuming JtR didn't commit all the murders assigned to him, that might help us fit the remaining evidence together in better ways - we wouldn't have to reconcile thingsthat are not, in fact, relevant.

But I'm open to any reasonable suggestions. Atre you, really? I thought all my suggestions had been reasonable!!

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.

No one CAN put up such a sign, as neither I, not anyone else, has power to stop YOU modelling the crimes in any way you wish. By the same token, no one can say for sure that Kidney or A N Other was the killer either. We play games with the facts to get a better fit.

For my part, I do it with fenians, MJK, Tabram, potential earlier attacks etc, all the time, adjusting the mental model to see how it looks. At the moment, I'm seeing some interesting matches with Kidney as Strides' killer, but if a NEW argument or new facts emerge, I might change.

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.

I'm sorry you are so closed minded. But it IS a possibility. 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.

I accept that JtR probably killed at least, Nichols, Chapmen, Eddowes and perhaps tabram. I tend to rule out the other later killings as different, but I have once again an open mind. That still makes Jack a serial killer, though perhaps not such a dramatic one.

It wasn't a figment of the female victims' imaginations when they were slashed and sliced to buggery and beyond, was it?

Of course not, they WERE killed, but that does not make it follow that the SAME killer killed them all. Surely we owe it to them, in some sense, to find the truth if we can; to look carefully again and again at each individual killing to see if we can identify new evidence or clues. I'd say it was an imposition on their memories simply to lump them together as JtR victims without closer consideration.

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?

You rather wilfully reverse my, admittedly, crude analogy. I felt the sailing out into new waters was indicative of being open to new approaches, new interpretations, to new conclusions. Simply accepting the old familiar paths seems to me to tend to the "flat-earthist" and i mean that in the Colombus-analogy sense, not in a personal way. i enjoy reading your contributions to the boards even if I don't agree with them.

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.

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.

Sorry but I don't ask you to follow me, you cannot stop me - why should I want you to? And outside my day-dreams, I don't expect ever to find the Whitechapel murderer(s). unless that is the Special Branch ledgers open up new avenues of attack on the "political/Fenian" front, which I don't rule out.

Please accept this post as not about you or your ideas, but about the tone of your previous response, which i thought neither deserved, nor appropriate.

With (genuine) respect and hoping you'll respond in the sense this was written,

Phil

[mariab]

Fisherman wrote:
I´ve 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).
I also suspect him for Tabram, and even before, definitely for Annie Millwood (as a potential first, very clumsy attempt), and perhaps even for Emma Smith.
As for Stride having had a new “beau“ whom noone knew about, it doesn't add up. Why would she not brag about him to other people? She never ever mentioned ANOTHER “nice man, who treats me so much better than my old man, and I want to leave my old man for the other one“ etc. to her female friends. In my humble opinion, the new man in Stride's life was just a new john, who might have even been the Ripper himself – in one of many possibilities...
Re. fishes , I've seen quite a few ones in the lineup at the Jeffrey's-Bay point today. Was unable to go for a single wave due to a very wobbly double concave borrowed 6.10``board (which sounds just like your Groucho Marx joke, C.D.! ), which was also too stiff to duckdive, when I got “caught inside“ (in the impact zone) twice, but the J-Bay waves, even when about 5 feet big, are incredibly clean and mellow, and they break like in super slow motion. (A similar sized wave in France would have totally pulverized me.) But I swam for a couple of hours (“accidentally“ in front of Kelly Slater's house!) and no shark encounters, despite bleeding reef cuts. And the water is incredibly clean and very salty here, with all kinds of different shellfish and oysters, and some black birds with red claws who collect mussels...

[Phil H]

Maria

For your information, Phil H., domestic killings statistically and traditionally happen at home, NOT in the streets.

I bow to your greater certainty, of course. But that still leaves the possibility of an outdoor domestic, as I read your remark.

(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..)
So are you accepting my suggestion in THIS case?

c.d.

I don't see a period of inactivity of a month as being of any significance.

That's your privelege and I don't question your right to hold that view, but I would beg to disagree.

You'll note that my remark was made in response to a point in a previous post. The issue is neither particularly important to me at this point, nor do I draw any conclusions. my working model (subject to change) at this moment is that MJK was NOT a JtR victim, so the break is not a relevant issue except as one point POSSIBLY pointing to a different killer.

Warmest regards,

Phil

P.S. Soryr for 2 posts, but there was a great deal to respond to on my return from the office.

[mariab]

To Phil H.:
My “gut feeling“ (pun intended) tells me that Stride was a Ripper victim, interrupted. (Ouch! Another pun!) But I don't exclude the possibility of a domestic slaying by Kidney. What bothers me in the latter scenario is Kidney not fitting Schwarz's description as BS. I have often wondered if Schwarz was a tiny man, and therefore eager to describe other men as “broad shouldered“. His description of BS might even be an exaggeration of the situation he encountered as supposedly more “dangerous“ for him, as his second testimony brought up a knife in Pipeman's hands and the alleged claim that Pipeman was chasing Schwarz! So, you see it's all very uncertain, due to the completely unreliable testimonies...
PS.: Gee! I've been promoted to detective!

[Fisherman]

C.d:

"Well if you want to go that route you can speculate that there were hundreds of men in Liz's life and maybe she had a pet Unicorn as well. The report speaks for itself. They didn't find any."

The only thing the report speaks for is, just as you say, that they did not find any such man. That does not equate to no such man being there. If you, c.d, was to have a secret affair with a woman, taking great care not to let anybody know of it, the police of your home town would be as clueless to it as the Met was.
We KNOW full well that a man in Fashion Street was spoken of, just for starters, and then there are the other points in my post to Caz. Let´s face it, C.d, maybe there just was not room for a unicorn in Liz´life that autumn.

The best,
Fisherman

PS: If the fact that the police could find no proof of another man in Liz´life adds up to proof of no such man ever being there, then what does the fact that the police could find no proof of Jack the Ripper being her killer add up to...? Hmmm ...

[lynn cates]

what if

Hello Fish, Phil and Maria.

I am playing a game of "what if." I (as most) have always ASSUMED that either Liz was lying about her Thursday night break up (with words); or, Michael was lying about his Tuesday night break up (without words, but with Liz)--possibly both of them are lying.

But what if BOTH spoke truly? Then what? Yes, Liz was a veteran prevaricator, but what if, just this once, she weren't?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Maria:

"As for Stride having had a new “beau“ whom noone knew about, it doesn't add up. Why would she not brag about him to other people? She never ever mentioned ANOTHER “nice man, who treats me so much better than my old man, and I want to leave my old man for the other one“ etc. to her female friends. "

Who says she did not brag? Obviously, she had spoken of a man in Fashion Street, and we do not know whether there were women friends left out at the inquest who knew more.
Let´s not forget, for that matter, the very obvious possibility that the affair - if there was one - was onesided; maybe HE fancied her, whereas SHE only fancied his money, who knows? Stride seemed cunning enough to milk a few bob out of most situations.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Bleeding reef cuts + salty water = healthy combination!

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"what if BOTH spoke truly?"

Exactly, Lynn - what if? Then we have a parting with Kidney on Devonshire Street on Tuesday, a possible taking up with the Fashion Street man, a quarrel of some sort on Thursday, forcing her back to the doss house ...

... which is what I´m saying. The possibility is there - partly on record, even.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

fashion st

Hello Fish. Good. Then, as part of the game, it is incumbent upon us to unearth the Fashion st bugger.

Liz had been working amongst the Jews and spotted frequently over there (according to Lane--I think). I have looked over the Fashion st directory. There was a soup kitchen at #5 and Solomon Silver at #7. (Ironically, Kate gave her address as #6 Fashion st.)

Any ideas, young man?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"Any ideas, young man?"

That´ll be two negatives, Lynn ...!

... but I find it much intriguing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Of course, if anybody wants to have a go at it, there is at: http://www.census1891.com/fashionstfull.htm
a listing of Fashion street´s inhabitants at the 1891 census. Amongst the inhabitants, fascinating finds like Michael Foote, slipper maker, aged 29 (whatever else with THAT name...?) of 40 Fashion Street, can be made.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"If you want to go in the same direction that perrymason went before you, you won't find me trying to stop you"

Hello, what´s this now? This is the second time this week I find an honest post, grounded in a perfectly viable belief met by the suggestion that everybody who is not accepting Jack the Ripper as the only reasonable bid for Liz Strides murder is a Perry Mason-wannabee. Last time over, it was me who got hit over the head with this pathetic excuse for an argument, now it´s Phil H.

I find it a very strange way to argue - not least since there is no knowing if Perry Mason was right or wrong!

Could we please refrain from these tactics and allow each poster the courtesy of offering answers to the issues raised instead of scorning, calling names and pointing fingers?

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

lies people tell and distorted reality

Lynn,
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. The simplest solution (Occam's razor) is that the witnesses got their dates mixed up.

Fisherman wrote:
Who says she did not brag? Obviously, she had spoken of a man in Fashion Street, and we do not know whether there were women friends left out at the inquest who knew more.
Let´s not forget, for that matter, the very obvious possibility that the affair - if there was one - was onesided; maybe HE fancied her, whereas SHE only fancied his money, who knows? Stride seemed cunning enough to milk a few bob out of most situations.
I wouldn't take anything Stride blabbered about Fashion Street at face value.. The lady notoriously suffered from Munchausen's syndrom (constantly lying to impress people or for financial gain).
The whole Jewish territory makes me think even more that the new “beau“ (read: new john) might have been a "Jacob the Ripper"...
There is not something such as a “onesided affair“. We say “onesided interest“. But even if someone accepts someone's advances due to financial interest, obviously it's still an “affair“.

Fisherman wrote:
Bleeding reef cuts + salty water = healthy combination!
It's not the salty water I'm worried about, it's the sharks! There has been one single (great white) shark attack that occurred here at Jeffrey's Bay in 2003, on a 16 year old surfer during a Junior contest, who was lucky enough to remain unscathed, apart from a bitten board and a torn wetsuit. As expected, the locals don't like to talk about it/ they pretend it didn't happen. I've just researched about this occurence in depth (until now I was satisfied with the fact that there was no injury), and the details got my full attention: The attack happened EXACTLY at the spot we were surfing today, called The Point (which is no pointbreak at all, but reef), the shark is reported to have been 4m long, and he really attacked him and took him down. The guy was very lucky that he fell off his board in the process, and obviously the shark didn't like the taste of the board and spit it back. When I think that the local guy I was surfing with kept telling me “There are no sharks here“ – how more deceitful can one be?! Plus the funny part is that at some point today (and despite having promised myself I would be very careful and not let such thing happen) I happened to be positioned as the lone surfer in the deepest water, as I was paddling out to the lineup and avoiding the biggest waves. Naturally, when I noticed this, I quickly repositioned myself to be on the inside of some other surfers, not having any other option but getting some biggish waves on the head in the process. Tomorrow my only option is to walk on the reef with my board and to take any waves breaking on the inside, even if I end up on the reef after a 3m long ride. No deep water anymore at J-Bay for me...
For swimming I've found a little “channel“ deep enough to swim (with the extra bonus of swimming against the current, which I love, also metaphorically, he he!). This “channel“ is protected by a relatively long wall of very shallow reef, with the reef just inches away from the water surface, where no shark would be able to go through, unless he flew. (I know they leap, but I can't imagine them leaping over a wall of reef half their size in length, unless it's a Hollywood horror film.)
I apologize for babbling about this at such length, but what amuses me most here is the COMPLETE inaccurateness of the ENTIRE information I had about this place (from locals and from surfers, not from the unqualified):
Myth #1: “The infamous icy cold water.“ Reality: The water feels totally nice, Brittany/Bretagne is much colder.
Myth #2: “No serious shark attacks.“ Reality: Incidentally true, but only due to that one in 2003 having been a very lucky one.
Myth #3: “Huge crowds and fistfights in the lineup, like at the famous spots in Hawaii's North Shore“. Reality: Lineups consisting of a dozen surfers max, very kindly giving waves to each other, and very vulnerably exposed to any inclined predator.
The list could go on long, with more technical things. My point for stating all this (with many apologies) is: Consider how the facts have been so severely distorted about this place, where people aren't capable of keeping straight the most basic information. Now compare it to the contradicting information from 1888, plus the 120 years old inconclusive evidence we are subjected to about the Ripper slayings, and one needs not wonder why the case has not been solved – and possibly will never be!

[lynn cates]

parsimony, etc

Hello Maria.

"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. The simplest solution (Occam's razor) is that the witnesses got their dates mixed up."

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.

I, too, approve the principle of parsimony. But who was the chap who noted that there is always a simple explanation which is wrong? Parsimony applies only caeteris paribus.

Cheers.
LC