Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Grapes in hand prove nothing...do they?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Yes, its not been formally conveyed as such, but I do intend to do my best to have Liz Stride retired from the Canonical Group on the existing evidence alone. In the case of Stride there is evidence her scarf was twisted tightly, which in and of itself doesnt indicate it was used for strangulation. He may have grabbed her by the scarf and when she resisted as best she could, it twisted tight. Remember, the physician who tended to her said the act of slitting her throat may have been 2 seconds long. And she may have been cut while falling. Once. This is nothing like any other alleged "Ripper" murder within the Canonical Group. The decidedly square peg in the round hole. They were not killed like Liz was, the only similarity being the type of weapon used.

    Slitting throats was not at all rare as some would like to believe, and a great many of assaults during those times were with a knife as the primary weapon of the offender. Stride is cut once. There is no indication within the known physical evidence that any further action was intended or interrupted. Therefore, this kill was complete as is. Nothing like Jack, whose specialty comes after that throat cutting...with 2 deep cuts, severing both major arteries. His ultimate objectives were laid bare for all to see in the Chapman murder. Its one of the primary reason why Kate cannot be summarily excluded...like the only non-ripped Ripper victim can.

    As for solicitation, people want to see what they want, they want to believe desperation drives every move these impoverished people made. They want to overlook the circumstances in favour of the reputation, or the past. In this case, of a woman who when on the register of prostitutes in Goteborg, sought legtimate employment to be removed from it...and was. She arrived in London as a nanny. She owned a coffee shop for a time. She cleaned rooms for money. These are multidimensional beings, who from time to time stepped out of their grim existence to live like someone who had something to live for.

    I think Liz Strides dress, her demeanor, her primping, her recent single status, and the fact that we have no idea why she is standing outside that club at 12:30am all leads to one of 2 likely scenarios. She is dressed nice to appear for work at the club to clean, likely arranged by one of the Jews she worked for the past few months, or, she is waiting to meet someone..either would explain why she wasnt sure when she would return to the lodging house. You see, if you accept that these were humans with lives, then it can be much easier to understand some of what is there on paper.
    Liz had her troubles and at very least was a casual prostitute. Yes, she also occasionally cleaned but she was also an alcoholic and (allegedly) suffered with syphillis. Her cleaning money alone would not cover lodgings and her drinking. However I’m sure all the women (aside from Kelly) were not more than casual prostitutes themselves. Needs / addictions must.

    As for murder by slitting a woman’s throat on the street was NOT common.
    "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
    - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by erobitha View Post

      Liz had her troubles and at very least was a casual prostitute. Yes, she also occasionally cleaned but she was also an alcoholic and (allegedly) suffered with syphillis. Her cleaning money alone would not cover lodgings and her drinking. However I’m sure all the women (aside from Kelly) were not more than casual prostitutes themselves. Needs / addictions must.

      As for murder by slitting a woman’s throat on the street was NOT common.
      On the last bit, she wasnt on the street though, was she? My point was that knives were plentiful, and many encounters with street thugs revealed them. This murder could be a one of by a drunken thug who gets rebuffed when approaching Stride. The bruises on her chest may be from being poked and warned. Maybe he thought she was soliciting too. Its a simple scenario and supported by the majority of the evidence. As for money, well she does have 2 new things with her since leaving her lodgings with 6d. She doesnt have the 6d when items in her possession are inventoried. She is sober as well. Seems likely she bought the breath fresheners and a new flower arrangement for her jacket herself. To solicit? She asked for a brush for her skirt before leaving her lodgings....would her alleged street clients disapprove of lint on her skirt?

      She was at work cleaning "among the jews" in previous weeks or months, she is outside a jewish mens club after a meeting of 200 odd people and assuredly in need of cleaning. Its a reasonable premise that she was there for arranged employment. It is also reasonable given her new status as single and her attention to detail in her overall appearance that this might be a social occasion. Ive wondered aloud here why Eagle, who escorted his date home after the meeting, then returns to the club. At around the same time as Liz Stride had been sighted there. They seem to appear on the scene like a time had been prearranged to do so. I dont know if Eagle is really the man shes there for, just saying the timing of the 2 allows for some speculation.

      As I attempted to point out earlier...in the quote you used....using a prior reputation and presumed circumstances as way to speculate about her soliciting that night means that youve ignored all the circumstantial evidence and physical evidence. What she did the night before that night isnt relevant unless clear indications of repetitive behaviours can be seen. new night, new circumstances, new factors in play...use whats there, not what you personally expect to see.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post
        I have on several boards been making a lot of fuss about the grapes Liz was eating during 0055 and 01.00 on the night of her death. Despite what is claimed in books or postings here, I do not like the "shoehorning" of evidence or statements to fit MY suspect. At this time I don't have one. There are some suspects on the main list who I think definitely were not JtR, but it's my opinion and that's all. In the case of the grapes, it seems several people, individually told the press that she was, "lying on her left side her arms outsretched with the fists clenched, in the right hand she was holding grapes in the left sweetmeats." Or something like that. Both Constables, Dew and Lamb reported to the press they saw "Skins and stones" (Dew) "Grapes in the right hand" (Lamb.)
        So if they hand leapt upon the idea that she had bought the grapes from nearby Mr Packer, they could have got a very good description of the man who was with her, if anyone was, that is. We know she was seen with a well dressed man at 0035 opposite Dutfields yard. Now, so what?
        See looking at this from another view, let's assume the guy bought her the grapes, it's cold and wet. They are discussion terms perhaps when seen by Constable Smith at 00.35. He goes off, Packer goes to bed, they arn't going to hang around until 01.00 before they get going are they? Chances are, they crossed the street behind Smith,s receding back and got the business done. 15-20 mins later the "well dressed 28 year old" could have been on the way home to the Mrs and kids.
        Because as I've said elsewhere I think it very odd that a woman who is about to bend over to service a client, JtR, would have both hands full. She will need to support herself or would be too unsteady. She would put the grapes and sweets down first, wouldn't she? This could mean that the killer was not the grape buyer. The skins and pips on the ground means she was eating them in the yard, like I said, I cannot believe on a crappy wet night, that any punter would hang around while a 3 penny tart finished her grapes. But she might have picked them up again after he had gone, started eating and spitting, then got jumped by the killer.
        Whats the liklihood that at the time of her attack, and during it, she maintained a grip on items in both hands? What are the odds she would be holding things in each hand at the same time? I think the cashous are dealt with sufficiently by credible contemporary sources, but the grapes still are debated.

        Packer cannot be trusted for a few reasons, but that doesnt mean there were no grapes or stalks near her. One of my go-to's in this murder investigation is Fanny Mortimer, her off and on vigil covers key times within that half hour, she has no reason to lie, and she sees only a young couple and Goldstein. Confirmed by their own stories. But she does see grapes.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • #19
          Mortimer had no reason to lie, true, but people do make mistakes.
          West had no reason to lie either, but the difference between West and Mortimer, you are required to accuse West of lying (without a SHREAD of evidence), and accept Mortimer at her word, all to support this theory you concocted out of nothing.

          The actual time was debatable in an age when the common person did not own a watch. Shop window clocks, townhall clocks, church clocks were not synchronised.
          There was a person who's job it was to synchronize clocks with Big Ben, but it only applied to clocks associated with train stations. Not local businesses or street clocks.
          If you didn't have a timepiece (watch), or no access to a local clock then within any 15 minutes period a person had little true idea what the time was.
          A theory that is dependent on the accuracy of the stated times is a weak theory.

          I have been looking forward to the day that someone comes up with a theory that doesn't involve anyone lying in order to make the theory work.
          In not one case does any theorist ever substantiate the accusation of lying - never. They seem to think they can just accuse anyone of lying and they don't have to prove it. Well, that is total BS.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            Mortimer had no reason to lie, true, but people do make mistakes.
            West had no reason to lie either, but the difference between West and Mortimer, you are required to accuse West of lying (without a SHREAD of evidence), and accept Mortimer at her word, all to support this theory you concocted out of nothing.

            The actual time was debatable in an age when the common person did not own a watch. Shop window clocks, townhall clocks, church clocks were not synchronised.
            There was a person who's job it was to synchronize clocks with Big Ben, but it only applied to clocks associated with train stations. Not local businesses or street clocks.
            If you didn't have a timepiece (watch), or no access to a local clock then within any 15 minutes period a person had little true idea what the time was.
            A theory that is dependent on the accuracy of the stated times is a weak theory.

            I have been looking forward to the day that someone comes up with a theory that doesn't involve anyone lying in order to make the theory work.
            In not one case does any theorist ever substantiate the accusation of lying - never. They seem to think they can just accuse anyone of lying and they don't have to prove it. Well, that is total BS.
            As reluctant as I am to get between you two, Mary Malcolm is a prime example. Did she have reason to lie? Was she up to no good? She was convinced at inquest that her sister was lying dead. Mary doesn't suit anyone's theories so maybe that's why she's not debated as much, despite her astonishing claim. Yet, no one believes her, that's not in doubt. Can a person be wrong with good integrity?
            Thems the Vagaries.....

            Comment

            Working...
            X