The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[curious4]

I can only guess that he thought the markings might develop post mortem. The use of the word "watch" might suggest he was looking for such a development.

I'm not convinced the word "since" has ever had the meaning of "before." That would be very strange, as it's the opposite of its usual meaning. I think "it happened eight years since" is really a kind of shorthand for "it is eight years since it happened."

In any case, had Phillips examined two previous victims? I can't see any reference to him in connection with Nichols or the earlier murders.

Hello Chris,
I did give an example of "since" being used in this way from The Lancet in the 1800īs if you look back a few pages (page 5). It really was.
Best wishes,
C4

[curious4]

Jack worked fast if we are to believe the reports at the time, so plenty of time for him to approach her after she was attacked by pipemanīs friend, it would seem, so are we looking at the wrong suspects? Jack appears to have taken his victims completely by surprise, so beginning by throwing her to the ground doesnīt fit.

Or this is an indication that we are looking at the evidence/testimony in the wrong way. For instance, if "Jack" was NOT the killer, "beginning by throwing her to the ground" wouldn't fit, would it?

Phil

Hello Phil,
Yes, but if you accept that there was enough time for Liz to get up from the street and meet someone else, whoever she met may well have been JTR. By saying that beginning by throwing her to the ground I meant that it was possible that pipeman and friend had no connection with Jack.

And the cachous - where were they when she was thrown to the ground? If she had them then wouldnīt they have been dropped then? But she had them clutched in her hand when she was killed. I believe one of the signs of strangulation is the hands clenching, which would explain why they were still in her hand, but if the box/paper came apart when the doctor removed them from her hand, wouldnīt it have been damaged (and wet) if she dropped it on being thrown to the ground? It seems to me that she got (or was given) the cachous later.

Best wishes,
C4

[Chris]

I did give an example of "since" being used in this way from The Lancet in the 1800īs if you look back a few pages. It really was.

That was the "eight years since" that I referred to in my post.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think that is equivalent to the interpretation you're suggesting. Using "eight years since" to mean "eight years ago" isn't the same thing as using "since" some occasion in the past to mean "before" that occasion.

[Phil H]

...but if the box/paper came apart when the doctor removed them from her hand, wouldnīt it have been damaged (and wet) if she dropped it on being thrown to the ground? It seems to me that she got (or was given) the cachous later.

VERY flimsy grounds for any conclusion to be built on, in my opinion.

One of the difficulties here is timing. For my own musings I always try to avoid anything that builds on a stated time - I simply doubt that at that period, in that police, anyone (even church clocks and police pocket-watches) would have been very accurate. Again, just my personal view.

So in a sentence such as:

What I was trying to say was that there are approximately 20 minutes to account for between Liz being thrown to the ground and being found with her throat newly cut (and only half done if she is a Ripper victim).

That 20 minutes could/should probably be narrowed considerably, and thus I question whether any structure of speculation should be built upon it.

Phil

[curious4]

Agree to differ

Hello Phil and Chris,

Well, I must accept that we interpret things differently. I will stick to my interpretation and you to yours. Part of the fun (if I can use that word) of discussions on the Casebook is many people thinking about the case and coming up with their own take on it. The more people who think about it, the more chance of coming nearer the truth.

Hopefully we will someday find out who is right!

Best wishes,
C4

[Phil H]

We all may be right!

Hopefully we will someday find out who is right!

We all may yet be right!

If "Jack" only killed 3 (maybe more if we include Mckenzie); Kidney 1; Barnett or Fleming 1; another name or names for the torsos and Pinchen St...

Phil

[Chris]

"Agree to differ"?

What an outrageous suggestion. Doesn't Standing Order no 432 prescribe at least three days' increasingly acrimonious argument over a point like this? Let's not forget what Casebook is all about ...

[c.d.]

I think it is a natural reaction to try to catch yourself with your hands when you fall. So the cachous (which were loosely wrapped) would have to withstand the impact of the fall. But more importantly we have to figure out how Liz got from the street into the yard where she was found. Would she have gone voluntarily with the BS man who has just thrown her to the ground and threatened Schwartz? That seems unlikely. Now if she is dragged by the BS man and she makes any attempt to fend him off, the cachous have to withstand that as well. That would make them pretty resilient breath mints. To me, it indicates that she only took them out when the BS man had left the scene and she felt safe.

c.d.

[Phil H]

But if her assailant was Kidney, she would probably have few qualms about going further into the yard - and perhaps closer to the club back-door - with him.

If, as I believe, she was on a "date" that night, she may have wanted to avoid a public "scene" with her former lover. Knowing him she may have thought she could pacify him with a few words.

I am certainly not going to draw any conclusions from the cashous in her hand - if we had photographs or even a sketch I might be more convinved, but interpreting words and then building speculation on that interpretation is too much and too far for me.

It is quite possible, in my view, that Kidney feeling provoked and possibly drunnk, slashed her throat in a single motion, and she crumpled, gripping the cashous tightly perhaps in her final rictus. Speculation, I know, but for me a simpler scenario than some of the complex interpretations of the evidence I have seen.

Phil

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

You say that she would have few qualms about going further into the yard with Kidney. Would this be the same Kidney that has physically abused her in the past and the same Kidney that just threw her to the ground and threatened Schwartz with violence? Does she really think at this point that he wants to calmly discuss investment opportunities outside the city of London?

c.d.

[Phil H]

...Would this be the same Kidney that has physically abused her in the past...

She KNEW Kidney, had probably learned how to calm him. I see no reason why she should have been particularly frightened of him. The worst she might have expected was to be beaten up a bit.

If she was on a "date" that night, then she might have been more afraid of her beau seeing an altercation.

...and the same Kidney that just threw her to the ground and threatened Schwartz with violence?

You'll note that I did not mention the Hungarian, specifically because I am suspicious of his testimony. the two versions are different enough not to know which might be right, and to create an impression (at least in my mind) that - if he saw anything - he misinterpreted what he saw.

Hope that explains where i am coming from,

Phil

[c.d.]

If she knew how to calm Kidney, she never would have been beaten up in the past.

If he was in such a rage, how could she possibly know what his intentions were? I would think that given a choice she would have preferred not to be beaten up.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that Kidney is her killer. How do the police figure in this scenario? Doesn't it seem reasonable that an ex-lover whom she has recently left and who had a history of abuse with her would be the prime suspect? Don't you think that he would have been questioned and asked for an alibi? And, if in talking to Schwartz, his description of the BS man resembled Kidney in any way, don't you think that they would have asked Schwartz to take a look at Kidney and see if he was the man he saw throw Liz to the ground? If Kidney got a pass in all of this then we are looking at some very incompetent police work.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

I dont see how someone could go from being attacked in the street by one man to very shortly after (within minutes) go with another man into an alley. If IS testimony is correct, then more than likely BS man was her killer, who dragged her into the yard to finish off the initial attack after scaring IS off.

[c.d.]

Hi Abby,

I think the key word in your statement is "attacked." Schwartz never used that word. It's quite possible that Liz simply lost her balance and fell or that it was some sort of mild altercation that took place between prostitutes and potential customers (probably drunk) with some regularity. The BS man could have simply cussed her out and been on his way.

You also use the word drag. How did the cachous survive being thrown to the ground and Liz being dragged?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I think the key word in your statement is "attacked." Schwartz never used that word. It's quite possible that Liz simply lost her balance and fell or that it was some sort of mild altercation that took place between prostitutes and potential customers (probably drunk) with some regularity. The BS man could have simply cussed her out and been on his way.

You also use the word drag. How did the cachous survive being thrown to the ground and Liz being dragged?

c.d.

Hi cd

your right he never said attacked. he said


He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. .... The man who threw the woman down called out,




taken together it sure sounds like an attack or assault, not a mere cussing out. It was a physical altercation. I don't think attack is too strong a word at
all to describe the event. I do think cussing out is too light a word to describe it. I think anyone after being assaulted like that might need a little more time to regain there composure.

But even if she shook it off immediately she would need to find another client and retire to the alley within minutes-which in itself seems unlikely given the short time and/or relative paucity of potential clients in the area.

As regards to the caschous-I think too much is made of it. There is many instances where people who have been attacked, murdered, died violently etc are found clutching something in their hand. In Strides case it might have been a natural reaction to clutch them tighter (perhaps if she is making a fist to punch back).