If Stride Was a Victim of JTR, What Would It Tell Us?

[kensei]

A lot has transpired here since I last logged on but I just wanted to point out to any who doubt that Liz was indeed a prostitute- Lynn mentioned her being "branded" that in Sweden but wasn't that because she willingly registered as one and listed it as her occupation in a country where it was then legal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that should settle it.

[The Good Michael]

Kensei,

I think you are right. I've read that here in a dissertation.

Mike

[curious4]

Swedish prostitutes 1875 onwards

In 1875 the laws for registering prostitutes were slightly amended and were not altered until 1918.

Any woman convicted of "loose living" was registered (as these laws were designed to stop the spread of STDs, if Liz was found to be suffering from any one of these, she would have been obliged to register with the police and regularly present herself for inspection by a doctor). If she was registered as a prostitute, she was subject to very strict conditions as follows:

She was required to live quietly and peacefully; not to call out to passers-by from her window or any part of her home or draw attention to herself in other ways; not exhibit herseif in a window by candlelight, windows to have shutters or blinds; and at all times of year remain indoors after 11p.m.

There were, however, many unregistered prostitutes. These laws were unaltered until 1918

These laws would have been in place when Liz left for England, even if they were slightly amended in 1875 (doesn´t say how but the original law was from 1847)

Regards,

C(just call me thread-killer)4

Source:

"Från Franzoser till Aids" by Nils Thyresson
(from the french disease to aids)

[Steven Russell]

Hello, all,

Just a few points re. suitability of Dutfield's yard as a location for "business" or murder:

1) From "The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper" By Connell and Evans: "This spot, on a fairly busy street outside a social club that was in session, did not seem the typical, out-of-the-way site as with the previous victims". I had not read this at the time I made my earlier observations.

2) This may be of interest to Rubyretro who correctly brought our attention to Schwartz's testimony at Leman Street police station. His account given to a Star reporter is different, though, and states, in part, "... saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage..." [My emphasis].

3) From the inquest:
A Juror: If anyone had run up the yard, you would have seen him?
Insp. Reid: Yes, because it is dark just in the gateway; but further up the yard you could see anybody running or walking by the lights of the club. [My emphasis again].

Now, I don't insist that any of this is proof that my tentative theory (that the killer, overcome by his urges, chose the location rather than being guided by Stride) is correct but I do believe it is germane to the argument and sheds some light, literally, on the issue of visibility in the yard although Reid does say that it was dark in the gateway.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[mariab]

1) From "The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper" By Connell and Evans: "This spot, on a fairly busy street outside a social club that was in session, did not seem the typical, out-of-the-way site as with the previous victims".

This is one of the extreme rare cases where SPE didn't interpret the facts accurately, Mr Russell. Hanbury Street and its yard were not “out of the way“, but very busy during the night, similarly to Dutfield's Yard. In fact, I can't count the times I've kept repeating in the Stride threads how similar the circumstances were between these two locations (Hanbury and Dutfield's). I'm not surprised that very few are taking this into account, but I keep hoping that repetition is key here. ;-)

2) This may be of interest to Rubyretro who correctly brought our attention to Schwartz's testimony at Leman Street police station. His account given to a Star reporter is different, though, and states, in part, "... saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage..." [My emphasis].

Schwartz' accounts (as far as we know) appeared to have varied almost every single time he made a deposition, but it's entirely another matter when the press gets involved. The press reports referring to the Berner Street murder contain a host of inaccuracies, which in all probability are related to the journalists having worked too hastily/carelessly when jotting down the interviews.

Insp. Rhis is proof that my tentative theory (that the killer, overcome by his urges, chose the location rather than being guided by Stride)

This is definitely a possibility, although in this case there is also evidence that possibly points to Stride having been standing in Dutfield's Yard already before encountering her killer. I'm referring to the possibility of Stride having spoken to a IWEC member carrying a package of Der Arbeter Fraint, and to the possibility of BS having been an IWEC member ejecting Stride from the yard. In the coming weeks I'm planning to look up the entirety of the (partly contradicting) reports pertaining to this, in an attempt to establish some clarity.

[Steven Russell]

This is one of the extreme rare cases where SPE didn't interpret the facts accurately, Mr Russell. Hanbury Street and its yard were not “out of the way“, but very busy during the night, similarly to Dutfield's Yard. In fact, I can't count the times I've kept repeating in the Stride threads how similar the circumstances were between these two locations (Hanbury and Dutfield's). I'm not surprised that very few are taking this into account, but I keep hoping that repetition is key here. ;-)


Schwartz' accounts (as far as we know) appeared to have varied almost every single time he made a deposition, but it's entirely another matter when the press gets involved. The press reports referring to the Berner Street murder contain a host of inaccuracies, which in all probability are related to the journalists having worked too hastily/carelessly when jotting down the interviews.


This is definitely a possibility, although in this case there is also evidence that possibly points to Stride having been standing in Dutfield's Yard already before encountering her killer. I'm referring to the possibility of Stride having spoken to a IWEC member carrying a package of Der Arbeter Fraint, and to the possibility of BS having been an IWEC member ejecting Stride from the yard. In the coming weeks I'm planning to look up the entirety of the (partly contradicting) reports pertaining to this, in an attempt to establish some clarity.

Thank you for your reply, Maria.

1) Read it again.

2) Possibly. Fair enough.

3) I am flattered that you chose to quote me. However, if you insist on doing so, please do it correctly. You have shamefully stitched together some statements made by me and caused them to be put in a box indicating that these are my thoughts. Casebookers are invited to look at previous posts to see that you have misrepresented my views.

Your thoughts on the Arbeter Fraint are, at best, pure speculation, and I do not, in any way, support them. And who is Insp. Rhis?

Steve.

[mariab]

Mr. Russell,
I'd suggest you get better acquainted with the rules of posting on the casebook forum. Since this is a discussions forum and not a publication, casebook members are encouraged to quote ONLY specific parts of other members' posts when commenting upon them. Quoting only the relevant parts saves space and time, and the admin has frequently complained about people quoting an entire post when not relevant, as they feel that an unnecessarily long quote slows down the debate. There's not been a hint of “shameful misinterpretation“ of your post under the official rules of the casebook forum. Naturally, were I to quote someone in one of my publications, I would have used (...) for a not integral quote.
However, I apologize for having accidentally included “Insp. Rhis“ inside of your quote as a mistake (due to haste).
No need for me to read your post again, as its content's perfectly clear.
My suggestion that the man seen with Stride carrying a large package might have been an IWEC member with a package of Der Arbeter Fraint is not “pure speculation at best“ but conjecture based on circumstantial evidence, as the package witnessed pretty much fits with the dimensions of an original Arbeter Fraint copy, which certain Ripperologists I know own. Incidentally, several Berner Street specialists share my suggestion. But you are not, in any sense whatsoever, obliged to support it yourself. ;-)

[Steven Russell]

Come on, Maria. You hijacked my (half-arsed) views for your own ends and then pretended that I was supporting you when I wasn't! Best of luck with the book and everything but I do feel you misrepresented me. This is boring and I do apologise to others but my original post read, "... I don't insist that any of this is proof..." etc. etc.

You chose to quote, "is proof..." thereby giving my remarks far greater weight than they were intended to convey. Once again, I would invite Casebookers to look at the thread history and draw their own conclusions.

You owe me an apology. For the sake of your book, do the right thing!

Best wishes (and I mean it)
Steve.

[mariab]

This is getting severely irrational. I've already explained about the quote rules on the casebook forum. You've probably not realized it yet, but in my post in question I corrected things, as in the inaccuracy in The man who hunted Jack the Ripper and the fact that the newspapers frequently contained misinformation.
I've already apologized for accidentally quoting “nsp. Rhis is proof“ as a word salad in my last quote, out of haste, and I have no problem whatsoever with apologizing again. Noone in his right mind will be misguided in the content of your quote by such a visible mistake, and noone will have the time to notice or care, I assure you. :-)
As for my having “pretended that you were supporting me when you weren't“, no idea why you've come to such a paranoid assumption. Support me for what?
As for me writing a book, this is another wrong assumption, and the folks here will laugh their guts out seing you assuming this. I'm writing just an article, and as it happens I already have a book manuscript for publication in my hands plus a second book to prepare in another field, so it's safe to say I'm not considering producing a book on Ripperology, even in the assumption that I'd possess the qualifications to do so, which is a very outrageous notion.
So chill please, Mr. Russell, and get better acquainted with the specifics of this forum and the people posting on it.

[Steven Russell]

I'm chilled. Pure ice water.

[The Good Michael]

I can quickly see one place where Steven was quoted, but the interpretation was incorrect. Steven cites SPE in regards to his saying that Dutfield's wasn't an out of the way place, yet Maria seems to think Steven is saying that it IS. Just a mistake apparently, but enough to give someone credit for intention that isn't there. maybe just be careful when quoting and attempting to garner meaning.

Mike

[mariab]

Quote The Good Michael:
Steven cites SPE in regards to his saying that Dutfield's wasn't an out of the way place, yet Maria seems to think Steven is saying that it IS. Just a mistake apparently, but enough to give someone credit for intention that isn't there. maybe just be careful when quoting and attempting to garner meaning.
Hmmm. To me it appears that Steven Russell takes the SPE/Connell quote at face value, or is at least considering it seriously, the way he quotes it (see his post #64 in its entirety, if in doubt):

Just a few points re. suitability of Dutfield's yard as a location for "business" or murder:
1) From "The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper" By Connell and Evans: "This spot, on a fairly busy street outside a social club that was in session, did not seem the typical, out-of-the-way site as with the previous victims". I had not read this at the time I made my earlier observations.

I assume that the “earlier observations“ he mentions refer to this? (See his post #5 in its entirety if in doubt, plus his post #9).

I agree with Scorpio that Dutfield's Yard was a poor choice for a murder given the knees-up in progress at the IWMC.
We know that prostitutes were, and are, in the habit of leading potential clients to spots where interruption is unlikely and that this fact undoubtedly contributed to the demise of several of the victims. Could it be that Liz had turned Jack down (see James Brown's evidence) and, consumed with the need to kill and mutilate, Jack took matters into his own hands and forced her into the yard (see Israel Schwarz)? If this was the case, it means that it was Jack who chose the location and not Liz, who might have chosen a safer spot given the chance.

I wish to clarify 2 details pertaining to this:
- If someone considers Dutfield's Yard as a “poor choice for a murder“ given the activity in the IWEC, please consider the busy yard at Hanbury Street, where people were coming and going at all hours of day or night, and where a successful murder occurred, at the crack of dawn, almost in front of a witness (Cadosh).
- Pertaining to a prostitute's notion of a “safe spot for business“, ESPECIALLY during the “autumn of terror“, the proximity of the IWEC might have added the illusion of security to Stride.

Also, NOT the best idea to rely too much on the general Ripperological lit pertaining to Berner Street, not even on SPE or Sugden. The book adequately discussing Berner Street has yet to be written. For a thorough discussion of the numerous erroneous notions and misconceptions still circulating on Berner Street, read Tom Wescott's articles in Ripper Notes 25 and especially in Examiner 1, where he discusses misinformed/misinforming early lit (from the early books to AP Wolf).

I'd like to apologize a last time for accidentally turning Steven Russell's last quote (in my post #65 from his post #64) into a word soup, by means of copying and pasting the thing a tad too hastily. (Which is a first, as people familiar with my posts might be aware of.) Fact is, it was a lazy Friday night, I had friends over who were noisily cooking pasta, and I was simultaneously emailing with my South African friend and casually posting in another thread on casebook. So it's safe to say there was a certain amount of censory overload.

This is what I intended to quote (compare it with the actual quote in my post #65, if in doubt):
Quote Steven Russell:
Now, I don't insist that any of this is proof that my tentative theory (that the killer, overcome by his urges, chose the location rather than being guided by Stride) is correct but I do believe it is germane to the argument and sheds some light, literally, on the issue of visibility in the yard although Reid does say that it was dark in the gateway.

Yes, quoting's an art and a science, all by itself.

[Steven Russell]

Maria: Your last post clears things up greatly. Like Michael, I originally thought you had misunderstood my Connell and Evans quote but I now see that you meant that Hanbury Street was not out-of-the-way either.

I accept your apology and explanation for the misquote and concede that my reaction was perhaps disproportionately shirty.

Best wishes,
Mr. Steven Russell.

[mariab]

Steven,
no problem whatsoever. What do we learn from this? (Apart from the fact that the copy and paste feature can be your enemy.) It's much trickier to adequately quote from a discussion forum (where different people merge) than simply from a publication.

[Sickert]

Victim

It is quite obvious that she was the 3rd Ripper victim. As far as I am concerned there is no doubt about that. The only reason he didn't mutilate her was because he was disturbed.