Was Stride Really a JtR Victim?

[Michael W Richards]

No, there is no evidence or testimony of any kind that the murderer of Polly (Nichols) "had the knife skills and knowledge of a medical student"

The words of Dr Llewellyn -

'The abdominal wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted.'

'I have seen many horrible cases but never such a brutal affair as this'

What you failed to do is to account for the statements made regarding both murders in the Chapman Inquest, since they were ongoing and being treated as part of a "series" of unsolved murders.

As you can clearly tell by the summation of the Coroner in the Nichols Inquest," The instruments used in the two earlier cases are dissimilar. In the first it was a blunt instrument, such as a walking-stick...(Emma); in the second, some of the wounds were thought to have been made by a dagger....(Martha); but in the two recent cases the instruments suggested by the medical witnesses are not so different. Dr. Llewellyn says the injuries on Nicholls could have been produced by a strong bladed instrument, moderately sharp. Dr. Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge."

Oh yeah...and Llewellyn thought that the mutilations were done before the throat cuts....so save the attitude.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Or as an alternative

Eddowes and Kelly tramped back to London with another couple who were headed for Cheltenham. It's obvious that the couple in question were familiar with London as the woman gave Kate Eddowes a pawn ticket for a shirt which she had pawned in London.

Now, if tramps were on the road and aiming to pass through London to another destination, they were given tickets to stay temporarily in London at casual wards. This ticket entitled them to stay at the casual ward without having to perform the required morning work which was customary. I suppose the reason for the tickets was to make sure they were quickly on their way out of London at an early hour. The later they stayed, and after half a days worth of hard work, the more likely they were to remain in London.

Could the women tramping with Eddowes and Kelly have been in the possesion of such a ticket? She was on her way to Cheltenham. Could she have given Eddowes such a ticket? Eddowes was known at the Mile End Ward, if she produced such a ticket and the deputy knew full well she was a native Londoner there might well have been a little dispute, as was indicated.

The above is a long shot I know, but I tend to look for ordinary mundane reasons for anomalies in press reports. Flights of fancy, (I'm thinking Eddowes in the clutches of those dastardly Fennians) I'll leave to the more deluded poster we have here in Casebook.

Just another thought. I doubt Eddowes was a great fan of the casual ward, perhaps she intended to go there when she parted company with Kelly on Friday the 28th.

It's not unreasonable to suppose she had second thoughts, and decided to sleep on the streets. Of course she would need to fib to Kelly that she stayed at the ward during the night of the 28th. With a killer on the loose would she want to worry Kelly unnecessarily, with the fact that she walked and slept on the streets? Hence the fib.

Considering the available evidence, it really does amuse me the tall tales that are bandied around here in this forum

Regards

Observer

Would you happen to have a source that verifies your claim that a special ticket allowed a casual ward visitor to avoid any work before discharge....seems contrary to any records Ive read about these institutions.

And your thinly veiled insults do not cover up your own predilection for off the cuff theorizing without any of the requisite evidence of course. "I doubt Eddowes was a great fan of the casual wards", "could the women have done this"...might this have happened,..maybe this was the case,... I suggest before you look disparagingly upon the "theorists" you might want to temper your own infractions.

Its amusing how many egg-throwers are covered by yolk.

Cheers

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Eggs

Eggs taste wonderfull, no need to waste them on throwings. Unless they are rotten of course.

[Mr Lucky]

What you failed to do is to account for the statements made regarding both murders in the Chapman Inquest, since they were ongoing and being treated as part of a "series" of unsolved murders.

No, I've haven't failed to take account of the Chapman inquest, what I've failed to do is make stuff up like;-

there is ample evidence and expert testimony that the man that killed Polly and Annie had the knife skills and knowledge of a medical student

It's solely the organ stealer theory of Baxter that had lead him to believe that Nichols killer was after the same as Chapman, Baxter had received this information by letter and should have had the writer summoned and give testimony if he thought it was relevant to the Nichols inquest. Which he didn't bother to do.

As you can clearly tell by the summation of the Coroner in the Nichols Inquest," [I]The instruments used in the two earlier cases are dissimilar. In the first it was a blunt instrument, such as a walking-stick...(Emma); in the second, some of the wounds were thought to have been made by a dagger....(Martha); but in the two recent cases the instruments suggested by the medical witnesses are not so different. Dr. Llewellyn says the injuries on Nicholls could have been produced by a strong bladed instrument, moderately sharp. Dr. Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable. There are bruises about the face in both cases; the head is nearly severed from the body in both cases; there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge."

Ok, lets look at what was said at the time, not two weeks latter after Baxter had convinced himself the killer was an organ thief who by definition would have to have anatomical knowledge;-

'The murderer must have had some rough anatomical knowledge, for he seemed to have attacked all the vital parts.' - Dr Llewellyn, from inquest

We always get the phrase "anatomical knowledge" bandied about, but never the "some rough" at the start of it, and how does the killer gets the qualification "anatomical knowledge" - Well it's because he had sense enough to attack vital parts, the throat and abdomen, whilst trying to kill someone.

Oh yeah...and Llewellyn thought that the mutilations were done before the throat cuts....so save the attitude.

Cheers

No, after the abdominal wounds were discovered it's something he thought may be possible, in connection with the lack of blood at the scene.

'At nine o'clock the body of deceased was removed from the mortuary to an improvised operating room on the premises, and Dr. Ralph Llewellyn made a post-mortem examination. The object of the examination was to determine if possible, the order in which the various cuts were made. It is evident from the cuts in the throat that the head was bent back by the murderer before the knife was used. Whether the other mutilation took place before or after death remains to be settled, as also the position in which the woman lay when the deed done. There are several questions of this kind which may throw light on the case, notably the small quantity of blood at the place where she was found and the fact that there must have been much of it somewhere else.'

It may be that Llewellyn was unable to make a judgement on this, Nichols death cert mentions both throat and abdominal wounds as the cause of syncope, but he didn't have any clues like the intestines and uterus removed, just a load of violent stabs and rips both in the throat and in the abdomen. Again it's only Baxter's summing up that gives us the abdomen first statement, it's not in any record of what Llewellyn said at the inquest on Sept 1.

[Observer]

Would you happen to have a source that verifies your claim that a special ticket allowed a casual ward visitor to avoid any work before discharge....seems contrary to any records Ive read about these institutions.

No I have no evidence regarding special tickets I made it all up. No different from involving The Fennians in the Whitechapel murders though. Also, regarding the casual ward and those tickets of leave, If it's contrary to what you've read on the subject then that's it, it's rubbish.

However

Lets get one thing straight. No one who had to endure the ignominy of the casual ward would have hailed it as a feather in the cap of the Victorian establishments attempt to relieve the suffering of the desperately poor classes. Thats a fact. So I'm on safe ground when I posted that Eddowes would not have been a fan of that system.

So, if you've read one iota of what went on in the casual ward, then you should be agreeing with me that Eddowes would not have been a fan.

And your thinly veiled insults do not cover up your own predilection for off the cuff theorizing without any of the requisite evidence of course. "I doubt Eddowes was a great fan of the casual wards", "could the women have done this"...might this have happened,..maybe this was the case,... I suggest before you look disparagingly upon the "theorists" you might want to temper your own infractions.

Its amusing how many egg-throwers are covered by yolk.

Cheers

Thinly veiled? They wern't meant to be. Whenever have my insults been thinly veiled?

There is no harm in theorising. If I theorise, I like to think I remain in the parameters of believability. But then again I woukld say that wouldn't I?

However Mr Wickerman seems to agree that I keep my feet on the ground. Sorry to bring you into this Mr Wick!

I quote

"I do understand you are attempting to maintain as much of the storyline as possible, and you may be right"

I wrote

The above is a long shot I know, but I tend to look for ordinary mundane reasons for anomalies in press reports.

Mr Wick replied

"I'll drink to that!"

And

I didn't have you in mind when I composed ther above post, but what the £$!$ if the cap fits you wear it my freind.

But

Regarding available evidence, when have you ever bothered about available evidence when you take off on one of your half baked theories?

I'll tell you what Mike, regarding the Whitechapel murders, there are no Fennians involved, no Ochrana. Stride was found by Deimschutz as near to 1:00 a.m. as damn it. The only thing on Liz Strides mind as she set out on the night of 29th September 1888 was how many punters she could fit in. Need I go on?

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Never heard of this, who would issue the ticket?

The casual wards in various other towns.

As I said the tickets in question are a long shot.

Would that not defeat the purpose of the Casual Ward, that you essentially earn your keep?
On the same train of thought then, could tickets not be issued for the Whitechapel Refuge on the same basis?

The London wards did not issue them.

They were issued to those on the move who had to pass through London on their way to another location. For example, someone tramping from Dover to Colchester. As I said, it was a way for the London wards to get them on their way in the early morning. If they were forced to do the required work, and stay in the casual ward until midday or later, then they were less likely to move on. I thought I had bookmarked the article in question, but it appears I did not. Silly me people will think I'm making this all up!

I'm inclined to think the police would have made inquiries at the Mile End Casual Ward as part of their investigation.

I'm sure they did. The trouble is theres no record of their enquiries should they have visited Mile End Casual Ward.

In reading up on Casual Wards, they were not a refuge of choice.

Tell that to Mike

Fibbing to a loved one, your significant other, is part of survival in the East End. Hence the fibs about going to Bermondsey to obtain money. Obviously, when she returns to John with coin in her hand she feels like pacifying him with the story of it being a loan rather than from turning a trick.
This is purely understandable, as is the possibility she never went to the Casual Ward, for whatever reason

I think some of the inexactitudes ascribed to John Kelly more likely originated with Kate, and for mostly mundane reason's.

I'd agree. This and the fact that Kelly himself admitted he was befuddled regarding the order of events. Lets not forget the man must have been under enormous stress, his partner murdered and mutilated. Lord only knows what was going through the poor man's mind. I'd say the last thing he required was questions shot at him from all directions. Of course some of those questions were very much near to the knuckle. I'm thinking of the suggestion that he was living off the proceeds of immoral earnings.

Regards

Observer

[Michael W Richards]

First off in response to Mr Lucky, if the authorities didnt believe the man that killed Polly and Annie had medical student qualifications, then why did they aggressively investigate medical students as potential suspects after Chapmans murder? Not just one...but a few. They believed the man had skills that would match those of a med student...I said it differently but within the same context. So argue all you like....the comment is very defensible.

You can believe what you like about anyones opinion of the day, its really nothing to me personally, but when you state your take on things as "the facts" and disparage anyone who finds existing contrary evidence, well...

Which brings me to Observer... so this all comes down to a belief that your opinion is better than everyone elses? Well then, no point in debating these issues with you then, so after this post I am concealing your posts. But just so you dont make errors with your spelling as well as most everything else...its Fenians, Not Fennians, and I dont recall ever saying that Fenians killed Liz Stride or anyone else. I do recall stating that the Irish Self Rule issue was on the minds of about every senior official assigned to these cases and the issues were assassination attempts on government officials.....and that these cases were a drop in the proverbial bucket of woes at that time. But you dont see the likelihood that there could be any connection to those issues and the 2 dead women who had Irish links....fine, noted. And thanks for reminding me about what Diemshutz said, it has nothing to do with what actually happened necessarily, but its always nice to see accurate quotes.

Do you have proof that no-one else knows about that would make your statement regarding Liz Stride "punting" ...how did you put it....oh yeah, more believable than other suggestions? I wonder if this was your great, great grandmother whether you would take offense at the disrespectful references to what was surely a last resort to women like Liz.....well at least ones we know didnt have steady work at the time....like Liz had.

The question is obviously rhetorical, I wont be seeing the answer. Best of luck to you.

[Observer]

"Which brings me to Observer..."

I'm honoured

" so after this post I am concealing your posts. But just so you dont make errors with your spelling as well as most everything else"

Concealing my post's. Thank God for that.

I'll tell you what, my spelling and grammer is poor to say the least, but you're not a kick in the backside behind me

I quote you

"Do you have proof that no-one else knows about that would make your statement regarding Liz Stride "punting"...how did you put it....oh yeah, more believable than other suggestions?"


Ehhhhhhh??? Come again

Also

"I dont recall ever saying that Fenians killed Liz Stride or anyone else."

I know that. And I told you my "veiled insults" were not aimed at you. So why are you posting me complaining about " veiled Insults"?

There is no proof that Sein Fein were involved in the murder of Kate Eddowes.

There is no proof, absolutely no proof, that Liz Stride was in regular employment at the time of her death. Liz Stride did however have a record for soliciting.

Bye Bye. You remain deluded now.

[Michael W Richards]

"Which brings me to Observer..."

I'm honoured

" so after this post I am concealing your posts. But just so you dont make errors with your spelling as well as most everything else"

Concealing my post's. Thank God for that.

I'll tell you what, my spelling and grammer is poor to say the least, but you're not a kick in the backside behind me

I quote you

"Do you have proof that no-one else knows about that would make your statement regarding Liz Stride "punting"...how did you put it....oh yeah, more believable than other suggestions?"


Ehhhhhhh??? Come again

Also

"I dont recall ever saying that Fenians killed Liz Stride or anyone else."

I know that. And I told you my "veiled insults" were not aimed at you. So why are you posting me complaining about " veiled Insults"?

There is no proof that Sein Fein were involved in the murder of Kate Eddowes.

There is no proof, absolutely no proof, that Liz Stride was in regular employment at the time of her death. Liz Stride did however have a record for soliciting.

Bye Bye. You remain deluded now.

Ok, I admit I had to take a look at what youve come out with now ....and it seems youve solved the issue!!....if Liz Stride was a registered prostitute in Sweden in 1865, then it must mean she was still one in 1888!!...even though she worked diligently to find legitimate work in Sweden and had her name stricken from the list before emigrating.

Is her known history irrelevant, or just less likely to be as accurate as your opinion about her?

We know she was a maid, or a charwoman, she worked in coffee shop and she cleaned rooms since arriving in London, and we have someone hint she might have had to resort to desperate measures on occasion. She was a maid near Hyde Park at one time. And we know she worked cleaning rooms that last day, and we know she left the lodging house with money. 2 things the prior Canonicals did not have...legitimate work, or money for their doss. Thats why they were desperate enough to solicit...and why Liz wasnt.

But if you think all that we know pales in comparison to what you think,..well then.... continue to disregard anything that you find less helpful to your argument.

There is not one bit of evidence that Liz Stride ever solicited in London, although she may well have on occasion. D & D's dont count. Stating that she did is mere guesswork on your part. Your forte. So, I suppose Ill have to remain deluded by the known facts and you can continue to play your guessing games... without any evidence to back anything you state with such certainly.

Vi ses

[Cogidubnus]

The beauty from Pflugerville

Lyn, if a woman is hanging around the outside of the victorian equivalent of a nightclub at one in the morning, of course she was a brass. Would you be hanging around an alleyway outside a nightclub at one in the morning? of course you wouldn't.

But i appreciate you are making me prove every point, lol.Best wishes, Bob.

Thought I'd followed this thread pretty closely, but only just (very belatedly) spotted this post and nearly spat me tea all over the keyboard...it must be that cute chin!

All the best

Dave

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Wow yall, wow.

Got me to break out some the local venacular. We need a 'send other posters a valium' button. Peace love and unity. If our ridiculous obsessions with The White Chapel Murderes can't bring us together then there really is no hope and we'll all be living in a world with Van Gough as "JTR". Get it together everyone. People aren't counting on us, but they need us regardless. We gotta come together for all the stupid people who don't have an unhealthy obsession with this case. I have no problem with admitting it. All, embrace it! Let's take it to those normies! Excelsior!!!

[Observer]

We know she was a maid, or a charwoman, she worked in coffee shop and she cleaned rooms since arriving in London, and we have someone hint she might have had to resort to desperate measures on occasion. She was a maid near Hyde Park at one time. And we know she worked cleaning rooms that last day, and we know she left the lodging house with money. 2 things the prior Canonicals did not have...legitimate work, or money for their doss. Thats why they were desperate enough to solicit...and why Liz wasnt.

Employment at the coffee shop ended 18 years before her death. The sum total of evidence which points to her her charring, cleaning rooms at the time of her death amounts to the 6d she earned on the 29th september 1888.

If you have any other evidence which points to Liz Stride being in regular employment at the time of her death feel free to share it with us. I'll not hold my breath.

Liz Stride recieved financial help from the Swedish Church on two occasions during the month she was murdered. Not much of a pointer to being in regular employment, I'd say.

Kidney saw Liz Stride for the last time on the 25th September, he said "it was the drink that made her go away". He also added that she had done this often. It's alledged that he padlocked her in the house, to keep her from the drink. She had also appeared at the Magistrates court on a number of occasions for being drunk and disorderly. Lets face it Liz Stride loved a drink. And yet she held down regular employment?

There's no doubt in my mind that the very little work she did do, if any, was supplemented by money earned from prostitution. She was in the company of at least three men on the night of her murder. Liz was on the rocky road to ruin, just as the other victims were. They all took chances, and all ended up the same way. May they rest in peace.

[Wickerman]

If you have any other evidence which points to Liz Stride being in regular employment at the time of her death feel free to share it with us. I'll not hold my breath.

Good luck with that.
I hit a roadblock when I ask for evidence.
Some of these opinions thrown out on Casebook are rooted in faith. And as experience shows, proof and faith are not mutually compatible.

[lynn cates]

grape response

Hello Dave. Thanks.

"Oooh, peel me a grape." (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Ah, now you're talking about too much evidence Lynn, both for and against.