The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[mariab]

I can only assume it’s modern sympathy and romanticism that leads some to conclude she was not a prostitute. This is doing her memory no favors and in fact suggests that her ‘defenders’ are more ashamed of Liz’s calling than she was herself.

Tom, I suspect that lots of the non acceptance for Stride having been a prostitute is related to the theory circulating that Stride was a spy. (For which, truly, I'm not sure why it couldn't be considered that she might have been both. Kidding now.)

[Tom_Wescott]

Just an observation

Pirate Jack hasn't posted since my post here last night...You're welcome.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

A whore is a whore, of course, of course...

As for Mr Westcott's assertions, we know he has his own theory to advance, and I take his post in that light.

Hi Phil. We don’t know each other that well, so I’m sure you don’t realize how offensive and degrading it can be to be accused of essentially being a manipulative liar, which is how I see it when someone suggests I would present the public with evidence in a light that will bolster a personal theory. My research into the Stride murder – and it has been extensive – is what led me to Charles Le Grand, not vice versa. Before knowing anything about it I had concluded, based on the evidence, that Kidney had not killed Liz Stride. If you read my essay on the matter, you will find it’s the evidence speaking, not me. If anything, Le Grand opened my mind further to the possibility that someone other than the Ripper killed Stride. I say this because a very strong case can be made against Le Grand in the murder of Stride, and a shockingly decent case against him as the Ripper, but the former is greater than the latter, so I hold to the very real possibility that he killed only Stride. In any event, I’m perfectly capable of separating one from the other and discussing with an open, bias-free mind.

Can we invoke some sort of "asterisk" rule with regard to Liz Stride being a prostitute? Maybe every time we refer to her as a prostitute we can just add a * and everyone agrees that this means that although we can't say with 100% metaphysical certainty that she actually engaged in prostitution

I’m afraid I can’t abide by that since there’s enough evidence on record for us to be able to say with certainty that she was a prostitute. For starters, the police inquiry (which took in virtually everyone she knew) concluded she was a prozzie, and enough of her friends said as much to the press that I can only assume it’s modern sympathy and romanticism that leads some to conclude she was not a prostitute. This is doing her memory no favors and in fact suggests that her ‘defenders’ are more ashamed of Liz’s calling than she was herself.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

testimony

Hello Maria. Yes, it is once again disclaimer time. I did NOT originate the IS fibbed possibility nor the IWMEC lad chatting up Liz scenario. But once I hear the jigsaw piece snap into place, it is there--for good or for ill.

"Their testimonies are part of the evidence, so we must deal with them."

They are indeed. And I deal with them on a case by case basis.

G & B wanted a piece of the limelight. Not convinced? They see Liz in a pub, yet she has no malt liquor in her tummy? Still not convinced? Their story is nearly as phony as John Kelly's about "his Kate" and fearing the knife. ("Be careful that's not Leather Apron getting his arms around you.") Finally, they were conspicuously absent from the inquest.

Brown was pretty sure he saw Liz. That's a trifle weak?

Marshall is the toughest to debunk. But for starters, why is Liz now SOUTH of the club?

Please continue to laugh at ALL jokes, those who don't end up taking themselves FAR too seriously.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Lynn,
I fully agree with you about Schwartz and PC William Smith's man seen with Stride possibly having been IWEC members (which initially are both ideas originated by Tom Wescott), still, we can't just go and dismiss the other witnesses. Their testimonies are part of the evidence, so we must deal with them.
Also, please don't look at this as a philosophical/mathematical equation. This is a crime investigation, involving political ramifications. (And yes, I know you'll love the last part. ;-))

PS.: You cracked me up with Al (from at al). Again, am I being too much of a “people person“ for laughing at a joke? Tom can laugh at all jokes without being branded “a deeply caring person“, I guess.

[lynn cates]

ad hominem circumstantial

Hello Caz, CD, Maria, et al. (Oops, Al is no longer a poster.)

To be completely serious, I do NOT attribute that remark to Liz any more than I attribute any of the other given sightings (save Smith's) of Liz to be really about Liz. Frankly, I must confess that it was a shameless argumentum ad hominem circumstantial. But I am astonished that many felt the need to deal with it. I suppose that's the result of accepting pieces of testimony that do not fit with the other pieces.

Say, did someone mention Israel Schwartz? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Quote Curious:
He said it at the inquest on Liz Stride - after performing the autopsy.

Curious,
the different newspapers have reported slightly different versions of the Stride inquest. Tom Wescott is absolutely correct in what he said to you last night. And at this point and as I've noticed on many occasions, Tom is much better acquainted with the entirety of the newspaper reports pertaining to Berner Street than myself or than anyone else, so we're really talking expert's opinion here. (While I hope to be going through these same reports in a couple weeks myself.)

I can see where C4 is coming with his idea that Phillips might have been comparing the bruising to cases from his past, based on the material C4 is using as his source. That's why it's so necessary to read ALL the papers who offered their own coverage of the inquests. Doing so, you will see that there's no question of what Dr. Phillips is saying - he noticed the bruising appear and get progressively more pronounced.

[curious4]

Hi Maria,

Purely from a language point of view, no. But in the wider context it would appear to make most sense if Phillips was talking about two recent cases where he had observed an injury of a similar nature, yes indeed. It's like he was saying "I've seen the same thing twice before", which would not mean much if he was talking about two random dead bodies he had once examined.

Do we know when he said it, in relation to when Liz was finally buried? There may also be a clue in the past tenses he uses.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

He said it at the inquest on Liz Stride - after performing the autopsy.
Cheers,
C4

[mariab]

He might have been a previous customer who was just a little too rough for her tastes or balked when it came time to pay up. So she gives him a polite brush off to avoid a scene.

This makes sense too.
As for the date, I have several reservations.

[Chris]

Purely from a language point of view, no. But in the wider context it would appear to make most sense if Phillips was talking about two recent cases where he had observed an injury of a similar nature, yes indeed. It's like he was saying "I've seen the same thing twice before", which would not mean much if he was talking about two random dead bodies he had once examined.

But what Phillips is reported to have said - referring to the discolouration over Stride's shoulders - is "which I have watched and seen on two occasions since."

He didn't say "I had watched and seen something similar on two occasions before." Obviously that means something quite different.

[c.d.]

There are just too many plausible explanations for Liz's remark to conclude that she was on a date and not soliciting at the time. He might have been a previous customer who was just a little too rough for her tastes or balked when it came time to pay up. So she gives him a polite brush off to avoid a scene.

c.d.

[mariab]

It's not a case of Phillips being pedantic though, that's just me. He would have been writing naturally, in the circumstances as he understood them to be at that moment.

That's what I meant. Phillips would have been jotting down naturally, without minding his past tenses, and without ever having fathomed in his wildest dreams that an army of historians/Ripperologists would be fussing over his little report over a century later.

One might also want to ponder why a woman turning tricks would turn potential customers down, Caz ...?

IF it was Stride who was seen saying “Not tonight“ etc.. If it was her, their talk might have possibly referred to her spending the night in the genleman's dwellings (without him paying her), and she might have preferred to go on working. Or something.
And Fish, I really liked Saegreifinn, thanks so much for the tip. I'm almost clinically depressed to have left Iceland prematurely. :-(

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"But Lynn, if this was Liz, what was she saying no to, that she was saying she might be up for on “some other night”? A prayer meeting? A drink? A chance to make back the sixpence she had evidently been parted from before meeting her end? "

One might also want to ponder why a woman turning tricks would turn potential customers down, Caz ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Maria,

It's not a case of Phillips being pedantic though, that's just me. He would have been writing naturally, in the circumstances as he understood them to be at that moment. That's what I was getting at - the natural interpretation of his words in context.

But surely turning down a client ("Not tonight, perhaps some other night.") is not typical prostitute behaviour?

But Lynn, if this was Liz, what was she saying no to, that she was saying she might be up for on “some other night”? A prayer meeting? A drink? A chance to make back the sixpence she had evidently been parted from before meeting her end?

Surely a distinct possibility was that the man was pushing his luck on a Saturday night and making some indecent suggestion, in which case she was trying to put him off politely without expressing either surprise or disgust at being offered such a proposal. She didn’t say “What kind of girl do you take me for?” I suppose she could still have been whiter than the driven snow, and simply afraid of what he might do if she turned him down flat, or too abruptly. But then she put herself in that position, when she was presumably streetwise enough to have stuck to mixed company or avoided any unwanted one-on-one situations.

So you have this man who made Liz wary; a man she couldn’t risk rejecting outright, suggesting some activity she didn’t want to engage in with him. That would begin to make sense of what happened later, if the same man saw her again outside the club and assumed that she was up for what he had suggested, but just not with him. It would also make sense if he killed her (as has been suggested) as she was trying to get away from him, because he feared she had seen through him and would describe him to the coppers as “not quite right”.

I do believe if any of these women had come across their killer and instinctively felt he was one to avoid, it would have been Liz. She had three recent murders in the area to act as a warning, plus she was sober, or relatively so, and not exhausted or at death’s door, nor just back from hopping and a spell in the nick, nor was she in bed asleep or entertaining someone she trusted.

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

Caz,
I know what you mean, and I want to research this in the various (press) reports in the coming weeks. This question has been nugging me (on and off) since I first became acquainted with Ripperology.
The way I see it, Dr. Phillips might have been referring
- to Chapman and Nichols (whom he might have examined?)
- to 2 random other dead bodies.
Obviously he might have said it a couple days after September 30, for the bruises on Stride to have visibly formed. Stride was burried on October 6 and her death certificate was issued on October 24. This courtesy of casebook, as I don't feel like going through Sugden/The Ultimate right this minute.

Dr. Phillips would not have been as pedantic when he jotted down these words as we are when analyzing them.