The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[caz]

"Over both shoulders, especially the right and under the collar bone and in front of the chest there was a blueish discolouration, which I have watched and seen on two occasions since".

In describing his original observation, Phillips says “there was a…” but he goes on to say “…which I have watched and seen…”.

If Liz was already in her grave when he was talking, and his three observations all related to her bruising, it would have been more natural to say “…which I watched and saw”, ie on two further occasions, if that’s what he meant. But it is entirely natural if he was talking about observations “I have made twice before”, ie on other bodies.

Pedantically yours,

Caz
X

[caz]

Would you go as far as to interprete this as Dr. Phillips referring to the previous Ripper murders, Caz? Cause I've been wondering about this.

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

[mariab]

It does make more sense to me if Phillips was saying that he was familiar with this kind of discolouration because he had observed something similar on two previous occasions.

Would you go as far as to interprete this as Dr. Phillips referring to the previous Ripper murders, Caz? Cause I've been wondering about this.

[curious4]

Curious,
if Stride's bruises were augmenting and becoming more pronounced postmortem, Dr. Phillips would have registered this, and possibly would want to re-check it.
Apologies for calling you a housewife and a Swedish! I recall about the Scandinavian part from the Liz and the grapes thread, where we were talking about snow conditions. (I'm a freestyle snowboarder on withdrawal for most of this season, which I can assure you is not a pretty sight, and I just had to leave Iceland without really wanting to.)

Abby, Lynn,
Stride most clearly was working it on the night of September 30, hence the host of different men she was seen spending time with for short intervals. And Lynn, your Rocker is still in impeccable condition, despite its travelling to Iceland.
(Now I bet I'm gonna be accused again of being a “people person“, just because my brain happened to register someone's location and a colleague was generous enough to lend me a book, for research.)


Fully agree, C.D., and you don't even wanna know how cranky I am myself today.

With looots of hugs and kisses for all the bunnies and the butterflies and my barbie doll from casebook's biographer, AKA the people person who deeeeeply cares about those she associates with

Apology accepted.

[curious4]

Stride's schedule:

1. Getting drunk in a pub at 6:30 pm.

2. Making out with a respectable man.

3. In the company of a different man.

Yeah, normal date behavior.

I am not saying it's impossible she didn't take some time off from prostituting what with all that wear and tear from being thrown up against one gate or another, I'm saying, "where's the evidence she wasn't?" This smells of agenda to me.

Mike

Well, to be honest, that sounds like a normal saturday night for some girls these days!

[curious4]

Nicely stirred, curious.

"Over both shoulders, especially the right and under the collar bone and in front of the chest there was a blueish discolouration, which I have watched and seen on two occasions since".

Phillips doesn't mention here any changes in the discolouration, or the interval between each of the three observations, so it's hard to see quite what point he was trying to make, without a wider context. And why does he say "watched and seen" if "observed" would have done? It's almost like he's saying he watched for the discolouration and saw it again twice, which makes little sense. It presumably didn't disappear and reappear like Liz's flower.

Coupled with your Lancet example, where the old-fashioned "eight years since" would translate into unambiguous modern-day English as "eight years ago", I suspect that you may be correct with your interpretation. It does make more sense to me if Phillips was saying that he was familiar with this kind of discolouration because he had observed something similar on two previous occasions.

We had a fair bit of trouble a while back with people imagining that "nearly related" meant "not quite related", when it actually meant the opposite, ie "closely related". We can't ask them what they meant when the language is not crystal clear to us, but we can often get a feel of it, and use the context and similar examples to work out the best bet.

At one time, centuries since , "presently" used to mean "straight away" (which is more logical when you think about it), whereas it has come to mean "in a while". And the old adage about the exception proving the rule is widely misunderstood and totally misinterpreted today, because "proving" actually meant "testing" in this context, as in "challenging". So an exception, far from showing the correctness of a rule, offers a direct challenge to it.

So it's not always as simple as we assume to pick up and run with the language of our past.

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you Caz. Am now in the process of re-reading Oliver Twist and The Uncommercial Traveller to find any examples of the use of since - my volume is almost 100 years old and has therefore not been altered for the modern reader - might take a little time though. Agree with you on the changes in languages - I remember my mother having dificulty with the word "bonk" which didn´t at all mean what she thought! There is also a swedish word used by Sweden´s Agatha Christie which has a completely different meaning now.
Best wishes,
C4

[lynn cates]

induction/deduction

Hello Michael. My belief that she was NOT prostituting and your and CD's belief that she was, are surely matters of induction, not deduction. Hence, there can be no proof at all--only evidence.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD.

"Even if Liz were definitely soliciting that night, it does not necessarily follow that that she was killed by Jack or some other customer. By the same token, if we are sure that Liz was on a date that night, it does not necessarily follow that it was her date that killed her. Dates can end."

All quite true. And I'm delighted that you are using proper logical terminology "does not necessarily follow."

Death to colloquialism.

Cheers.
LC

Amen to that. I hate that damn colloquialism.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael.

" . . . [not] normal date behavior . . . "

If those WERE her behaviours, perhaps you are right. But surely turning down a client ("Not tonight, perhaps some other night.") is not typical prostitute behaviour?

The evidence she wasn't? Well, as I recall, in the rules of argumentation, the onus is on the assertor of the positive proposition (no pun intended).

Cheers.
LC

Exactly, you positively asserted that she wasn't prostituting. Prove it.

Mike

[lynn cates]

right

Hello CD.

"Even if Liz were definitely soliciting that night, it does not necessarily follow that that she was killed by Jack or some other customer. By the same token, if we are sure that Liz was on a date that night, it does not necessarily follow that it was her date that killed her. Dates can end."

All quite true. And I'm delighted that you are using proper logical terminology "does not necessarily follow."

Death to colloquialism.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hallo all,

Dr Phillips states at the inquest on Liz Stride: "Over both shoulders, especially the right and under the collar bone and in front of the chest there was a blueish discolouration, which I have watched and seen on two occasions since".

I have always believed Dr Phillips used the word "since" in the sense of "previously" - that is, he noticed bruising on the chest of Liz Stride and had seen this on two previous occasions. There is evidence that the word since was used in this way in The Lancet, Vol 2, Nov 16 1844, I quote;"first perceived palpitation..... about eight years since".

If this bruising was found on previous JTR victims (it is also mentioned in his statement at the inquest of Annie Chapman) it follows, I believe, that Liz was one of his victims.

Just stirring things up a little,
C4

Nicely stirred, curious.

"Over both shoulders, especially the right and under the collar bone and in front of the chest there was a blueish discolouration, which I have watched and seen on two occasions since".

Phillips doesn't mention here any changes in the discolouration, or the interval between each of the three observations, so it's hard to see quite what point he was trying to make, without a wider context. And why does he say "watched and seen" if "observed" would have done? It's almost like he's saying he watched for the discolouration and saw it again twice, which makes little sense. It presumably didn't disappear and reappear like Liz's flower.

Coupled with your Lancet example, where the old-fashioned "eight years since" would translate into unambiguous modern-day English as "eight years ago", I suspect that you may be correct with your interpretation. It does make more sense to me if Phillips was saying that he was familiar with this kind of discolouration because he had observed something similar on two previous occasions.

We had a fair bit of trouble a while back with people imagining that "nearly related" meant "not quite related", when it actually meant the opposite, ie "closely related". We can't ask them what they meant when the language is not crystal clear to us, but we can often get a feel of it, and use the context and similar examples to work out the best bet.

At one time, centuries since , "presently" used to mean "straight away" (which is more logical when you think about it), whereas it has come to mean "in a while". And the old adage about the exception proving the rule is widely misunderstood and totally misinterpreted today, because "proving" actually meant "testing" in this context, as in "challenging". So an exception, far from showing the correctness of a rule, offers a direct challenge to it.

So it's not always as simple as we assume to pick up and run with the language of our past.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

behaviour

Hello Michael.

" . . . [not] normal date behavior . . . "

If those WERE her behaviours, perhaps you are right. But surely turning down a client ("Not tonight, perhaps some other night.") is not typical prostitute behaviour?

The evidence she wasn't? Well, as I recall, in the rules of argumentation, the onus is on the assertor of the positive proposition (no pun intended).

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Michael, Lynn et al,

Even if Liz were definitely soliciting that night, it does not necessarily follow that that she was killed by Jack or some other customer. By the same token, if we are sure that Liz was on a date that night, it does not necessarily follow that it was her date that killed her. Dates can end.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

Stride's schedule:

1. Getting drunk in a pub at 6:30 pm.

2. Making out with a respectable man.

3. In the company of a different man.

Yeah, normal date behavior.

I am not saying it's impossible she didn't take some time off from prostituting what with all that wear and tear from being thrown up against one gate or another, I'm saying, "where's the evidence she wasn't?" This smells of agenda to me.

Mike

[mariab]

Hi Lynn. Right, I forgot that piscator's name is Christer. (Hey, this proves I'm not as much a “people person“ as accused of.) Incidentally, the fish tavern Saegreifinnpiscator recommend to me in Reykjavik was super cute, and authentic, and yummy, AND cheap.

Hey C.D., if you keep it on, your posts will soon be looking like this: