The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[curious4]

"In the time past, counting backward from the present; before this or now; ago"

That's the same usage as "eight years since" that you mentioned before. But you're suggesting something different from that - you're suggesting that in addition to "before the present" it can also mean "before a previous occasion." I don't agree. I'm saying that "since last Wednesday" always means "after last Wednesday", not "before last Wednesday."

Hello Chris, Well this is why I came to grief with Standing Order 432, there is no way of knowing in what sense Phillips was using the word unless, in the future, someone can wire up a surviving Victorian brain and ask. I am at present reviewing my Dickens to see whether I can find anything to substantiate my claim. I`ll be back (I hope).

Regards,
C4

[Chris]

Well, we can´t ignore Standing Order 432, can we? How about this: http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/since/ no 2 on the list. Gotcha!

"In the time past, counting backward from the present; before this or now; ago"

That's the same usage as "eight years since" that you mentioned before. But you're suggesting something different from that - you're suggesting that in addition to "before the present" it can also mean "before a previous occasion." I don't agree. I'm saying that "since last Wednesday" always means "after last Wednesday", not "before last Wednesday."

[curious4]

Tom, we don't know which part of Schwartz' story might be true, including his (or other IWEC members') perhaps having seen Stride with “Pipeman“ and his minions on September 30 or even previously, despite the IWEC and other neighbors denying of having seen Stride before on Berner Street.

Wow! It's the very first time in my life I've been called a “people person, caring about those she associates with“. I almost feel like I should run and enlist as a nurse, or a kindergarten teacher! Normally, my people call me a “misanthrope“. No, Tom, really, it's just attention to detail, until Alzheimer's hits. I happen to recall that Curious is a housewife or something from Sweden, simply for the same reason I insisted on finding out about the German Emperor('s clothes).

Not just a housewife, Maria, I have both English and Swedish qualifications, but I prefer to keep a low profile.....

[curious4]

"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 ...

Well, we can´t ignore Standing Order 432, can we? How about this: http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/since/ no 2 on the list. Gotcha!

Acrimoniously yours,
C4

[Phil H]

Niko

...just for curiosity, what makes you mention that "Jack" only killed three ? Has any theory been written suggesting that Jack only killed three ?

I don't know, off hand, whether any books or articles have been written asserting that theory alone. Peter Turnbull's: "The Killer Who Never Was", suggests that JtR may have been a composite created by the press, and that there was no one overall killer.

That said, I think you'll find threads all over Casebook that discuss how many victims we should attribute to "Jack". There has certainly been discussion of the clear correlation between Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, while Stride and MJK have been questioned on various grounds.

I, for one, believe that these angles are worth following up because they may throw up suspects who COULD have killed some but not all victims. It also allows us to examine alternative scenarios for some of the other women.

For what it's worth my own current view is that "Jack" was responsible for the three I have mentioned (Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes) and possibly for McKenzie - where I feel the attempt to mutilate might indicate a weaker, less confident "Jack" or that he was disturbed. Stride I assign to Kidney as a domestic; MJK to an "intimate" (possibly Joe Barnett, his brother, Dan, Fleming or someone of that ilk).

Hope that answers the question - sorry if the post is off-thread.

Phil

[Phil H]

The tone of responses to posts that challenge the narrow focus of conventional thinking amuses me.

the one I am about to respond to is a good example. The sense of outrage is almost tangible. That then means that the questions are posed in such a way that they are the wrong questions - because they are all centred on cherished "cob-webby" hypotheses. open the windows and let the fresh air in guys"

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

What nonsense - I am no expert on domestic violence, but even I know that relationships between the "beater and beaten" are more complex that that! I also recognisre that you need to destroy counter-arguments to your own for your own peace of mind.

Who knows what Stride's feelings were for Kidney at that moment or previously. Couples have histories. If nothing else she may have been able to ameliorate his violence.

If he was in such a rage, how could she possibly know what his intentions were?

Mayhap she was seeking to find out what his intentions were.

I would think that given a choice she would have preferred not to be beaten up.

I agree - but possibly she had other motivations that night - not wanting to embarrass her "date". Stride may have thought getting off the road and out of sight was more important that being bruised and battered.

...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?

But as far as I can see, by the time the police got around to looking into Kidney, the myth of the "double event" had already started to dominate their thinking. Thus if Kidney could have shown he could not have killed Eddowes, the heat might have gone off him.

Don't you think that he would have been questioned and asked for an alibi?

We know he was, don't we? He turned up at the police station voluntarily and angry - which may also have created an impression of innocence. (Which of course he may have been!)

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?

Always assuming that Schwartz could have done so.

If Kidney got a pass in all of this then we are looking at some very incompetent police work.

Given some of the abuse thrown at the police over the years, would that surprise you? Personally, I think the police in 1888 tried their hardest to do a good job - but if they were making basically erroneous assumptions, the conclusions would be awry, wouldn't they?

So if they were looking for a man who had killed two woman, they may have ruled out any suspects who would not have done so. Similarly for JtR more widely - possible suspects for say, Nicols, Chapman and Eddowes may have been ruled out if they had alibis for Stride or MJK.

As for Mr Westcott's assertions, we know he has his own theory to advance, and I take his post in that light. I admire the work he has done, and he has certainly shed light in interesting places, but i remain at the moment agnostic about Le Grand.

Phil

[mariab]

Agree with C.D. on both counts.
(Hope this fact doesn't bring forward more posters calling me a “people person“, though.)

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

You say that there was no Ripper scare but certainly the prostitutes were afraid of the unnamed individual who was reportedly cutting the throats of their fellow prostitutes and REMOVING THEIR ORGANS. Even with a three week hiatus it was still clear to them that he had not been caught.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I just don't see Jack (as the BS man) going through the motions of "dating" Liz. For one thing, if they spent any time together in public places, it makes him vulnerable to being identified by the police making inquiries afterwards. I also don't see Liz playing the coquette and playing hard to get. If it was supposed to ultimately be a business transaction why not get on with it? Time was money.

c.d.

[mariab]

Tom, we don't know which part of Schwartz' story might be true, including his (or other IWEC members') perhaps having seen Stride with “Pipeman“ and his minions on September 30 or even previously, despite the IWEC and other neighbors denying of having seen Stride before on Berner Street.

Wow! It's the very first time in my life I've been called a “people person, caring about those she associates with“. I almost feel like I should run and enlist as a nurse, or a kindergarten teacher! Normally, my people call me a “misanthrope“. No, Tom, really, it's just attention to detail, until Alzheimer's hits. I happen to recall that Curious is a housewife or something from Sweden, simply for the same reason I insisted on finding out about the German Emperor('s clothes).

[niko]

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

Hello Phil, just for curiosity, what makes you mention that "Jack" only killed three ? Has any theory been written suggesting that Jack only killed three ?
All the best, Agur.

niko.

[Tom_Wescott]

It all depends on how many days she stayed at the morgue, but I'd rather tip for a previous john than BS as the “inflictor“.

I wouldn't be too sure. The Star report of Schwartz's evidence has BS Man grabbing Stride by the shoulders and turning her around. I've always found this an interesting details that perhaps points to Schwartz having told the truth - not only because there's bruising on her shoulders but NOT her arms, but also because it's not a detail that someone would make up. As for Curious4 being a she, I remain unconvinced. And there's nothing wrong with you being Casebook's biographer. Your memory for such details shows that you're a people person who cares about those she associates with, even if only through the internet.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

perimortem bruising

Most likely, it occurred prior to death. but a malnutritioned, middle-aged woman with fair skin would be extremely easy to bruise, so a client trying to get a grip might be all we see here. It's impossible to say.

I agree, as already discussed in my posts #76 and #77. Speaking from experience (with sports) I can't imagine bruising appearing earlier than 8-12 hours after the impact which caused it. For me it often requires up to 48 hours or several days for the bruising to turn up, but this refers to deep bruising, from crashes from high up to the ground. (Plus I'm neither malnutritioned nor –gasp!– middle aged.) Pressure bruises, like the ones Stride spotted on her shoulders, would have appeared quickly, most probably earlier than 12 hours after they were inflicted. It all depends on how many days she stayed at the morgue, but I'd rather tip for a previous john than BS as the “inflictor“.

Pertaining to another issue, I have to come forward and say that Paul Begg made a really nice and completely correct impression on me in his fascinating debate with SPE in the Kozminski identification questions thread, and that he requires no assistance from any pirates, one eyed or not.

PS.: Oh, and Curious is a she. Which will probably bring forward the accusation of my being “casebook's biographer“, whatever that means. ;-)

[Tom_Wescott]

Someone should use this quote on a book cover. But maybe some newbies won't get the irony?

Good point. I often forget that Casebook isn't as insular as it seems, and that literally hundreds of people read our posts without contributing. To any newbies out there, I was being sarcastic. Stewart Evans is a master of discovering, analyzing, and determining the relevance of contemporary press reports, as a read of any of his books will make obvious. Equally as engaging is Pirate Jack's debut work, Paul Begg's Arse: An Insider's View. However, I don't recommend the scratch and sniff edition.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Curious4 and the Phillips - George and Chris

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. this is Parimortem bruising, and it could only have occurred within a short time prior to death or even after death - possibly even when her body was picked up for moving inside the club. Most likely, it occurred prior to death. but a malnutritioned, middle-aged woman with fair skin would be extremely easy to bruise, so a client trying to get a grip might be all we see here. It's impossible to say.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott