The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[The Good Michael]

If a dozen witnesses had spotted a dozen different couples, canoodling in the darkness, and each woman had worn a flower on her bosom, would you expect a dozen faithful flower reports?

A true suspectologist would choose the one out of the twelve that fit their theory. In effect that means there can be only one flower report.

Mike the Helpful

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I think it is more probable* that Liz was prostituting* herself that night than the notion that she was on a date but I don't find the suggestion of a date to be ridiculous. Even prostitutes can have a private life.

So let's see here -- I have to use an asterisk to appease Lynn for the probable and one for saying Liz was a prostitute in the first place.

c.d.

P.S. I'll throw in another * just for good measure for speaking colloquially rather than coming from an epistemological position. I swear I didn't mean to. It jus happened that way.

[lynn cates]

piscator

Hello Maria.

"Who's Christer?"

Och, lassie, dinnah ye know? He's FISHERMAN.

"Stride's flower appearing and disappearing can mean that
. . . the witnesses confused her with another woman [.]"

Now you're talking! Recall the Watts conundrum? How many coincidences?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Clouseau: "Nothing escapes me."

Hello Caz. My inference (merely an inductive one) is that the witnesses could have been bettered by a bit of training. Certainly glad that my life or freedom does not depend on their testimony.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael.

"She was as active in that trade as any of the other victims."

If you have a single shred of evidence for this, I'd LOVE to see it. You are right about MJK but there are similar questions regarding Kate. All of which brings up my next question:

When was the last time you saw Polly and Annie's vocation questioned?

Cheers.
LC

Barnardo's statement for one, though you can refute it. I was actually reading through the Facts last night and Tully's book and there were many indications therein of her being an active prostitute. Circumstantially speaking, there were the appeals for assitance from the Swedish embassy, the lodging house for (mainly) prostitutes in which she lived and all her lying stories that imply she was full of shyt. I have no books with me so the particulars will have to wait for a long time as I have no internet where I live and cannot have it there as it is 100 meters out of reach of wifi.

Mike

[lynn cates]

bless me father

Hello CD. Asterisk is not accepted. You must do FULL penance. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

sermon time

Hello Michael. But that was true of most lodging houses.

As for Dr B, here's a little thought experiment for you. Take B's speech and Liz's purported reply, ("What about we who are up to no good?") You role play reciting the Doc's speech and let a female friend recite Liz's remark. I daresay that, when finished, you both laugh yourselves to tears.

Cheers.
LC

[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:

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.