6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[Michael W Richards]

Phillips seemed inclined along those lines, if we are not taking his observation out of context.
The Coroner asked him:

[Coroner] Is there any similarity between this case and Annie Chapman's case?

Phillips: - There is very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones.

Phillips adds that a short blade would have sufficed, unlike the 6-8 inch blade referred to in the Chapman case.

Does Phillips think Stride was not killed by the same hand as Chapman?

We already know he had doubts about Eddowes being by the same hand as Chapman.

Does Phillips think this short blade could have been used to mutilate Eddowes? - probably not.

What is the implication of Phillips's words concerning Chapman, Stride & Eddowes, are there three hands at work, in his mind?

.

I like it best here when a sound point is made then it is examined more closely by other Ripper scholars,.... I think you make some good points Jon.

And although the quotes in question come from someone who has been negatively viewed by many students, he was a senior medical man, and he saw 4 of the 5 Canonicals in death. His opinion has merit..and importance.

Best regards Jon

[Sherlock Holmes]

what makes you think that this is a completely unrelated murder. It is possible that "the Ripper" had fallen on hard times and needed cash at the time of the double event. Was Eddowes robbed as well?

Mr Holmes

[Wickerman]

The man that killed Stride was not the kind of unique, remarkable, frightening, ghoulish and surgically adept fellow that committed the previous 2 murders,... the blade is different, the wound could be caused by anyone with a knife..there is nothing of any skill or knowledge in that one slice, and there is zero evidence that her killer had any intentions of doing anything to Liz Strides body after the throat cut. ...the single throat cut.

Phillips seemed inclined along those lines, if we are not taking his observation out of context.
The Coroner asked him:

[Coroner] Is there any similarity between this case and Annie Chapman's case?

Phillips: - There is very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones.

Phillips adds that a short blade would have sufficed, unlike the 6-8 inch blade referred to in the Chapman case.

Does Phillips think Stride was not killed by the same hand as Chapman?

We already know he had doubts about Eddowes being by the same hand as Chapman.

Does Phillips think this short blade could have been used to mutilate Eddowes? - probably not.

What is the implication of Phillips's words concerning Chapman, Stride & Eddowes, are there three hands at work, in his mind?

.

[Michael W Richards]

It is a bit peculiar that a dismissal of a link with this murder to the previous, or the one to follow that same night, is based on a presumption of how such a killer should act when the actual murderer and mindset thereof is unknown. In this instance, he could have just decided to kill her - for whatever reason - and move on... just as viable as any other theory being presented.

And for my part Hunter I dont see how 2 almost identical murders within a 2 week period... preceding this murder by almost a month...leave any doubt in anyones mind as to what that specific killer would do the next time he went out and killed.

CLEARLY...the man that did those murders followed an inner script that led him to acquire a victim for the purpose of performing mutilations upon her abdomen post mortem. Those murders, were committed for that reason....we also have senior medical opinion that suggests that the overall goal of Annies killer was achieved....."The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."...from Dr Bagster Phillips at Annies Inquest.

I think to ignore what was obviously a pattern is foolhardy in the most polite terms. The man that killed Stride was not the kind of unique, remarkable, frightening, ghoulish and surgically adept fellow that committed the previous 2 murders,... the blade is different, the wound could be caused by anyone with a knife..there is nothing of any skill or knowledge in that one slice, and there is zero evidence that her killer had any intentions of doing anything to Liz Strides body after the throat cut. ...the single throat cut.

When you have a plain old murder that anyone could commit coming after 2 that very few could have accomplished within the given time and circumstances, its hardly "peculiar" to assume different people at work.

Best regards Hunter

[Hunter]

I can see already that there is no Ripper case to be made here....that case is all about proximity to another death that night assumed to be a Ripper murder, the proximity to other deaths in the area during that Fall, a supposed interruption that is not present in any evidence, and the fact that a knife was used.

...And her throat was cut with it. With the exception of the interruption theory, that is all evidence in assessing her murder too... however inconvenient it may seem to some.

However, I agree that there is no evidence that her killer was interrupted; he may have been interrupted (and not necessarily by Diemshitz) but we weren't there and don't know.

It is a bit peculiar that a dismissal of a link with this murder to the previous, or the one to follow that same night, is based on a presumption of how such a killer should act when the actual murderer and mindset thereof is unknown. In this instance, he could have just decided to kill her - for whatever reason - and move on... just as viable as any other theory being presented.

[Michael W Richards]

Thats ok Michael, I knew what was written there, it was your reference to "between 5 and 6 pm" that I could not find.

The important question is when (at what time) did Tanner pay Liz the 6d. That is what we do not seem to have. I suspect Liz was paid directly after she finished the two rooms, which means she had 6d before she went to the Queens Head.
Why would she go to a pub if she had no money?

.

Hi Jon,

I do recall seeing that Liz worked until 5pm that day, and that Elizabeth Tanner "took" her to the pub afterward, ...since they were at the pub at 6:30pm, and Liz returned to ready herself before 7:00, it seems to make sense the time they went to the pub was between 5 and 6pm.

If I recall correctly, Ms Tanner stated she bought Liz a drink. Its likely her last alcoholic beverage too.

So Liz leaves the lodginghouse with her 6d, without a flower, and with a drink under her belt. Why doesnt she drink more that night is a really good question...she could have spent, then earned then spent,... just like Polly did.


Best regards Jon

[Wickerman]

Hi all,

Jon, in the London Times of Oct 4th Elizabeth Tanner states that she had last seen Liz at around 6:30pm, in the Queens Head Public House on Commercial Street. In the Daily Telegraph of the same day its reported that Elizabeth Tanner said that at half past 6 Liz was "With me in a public-house, called the Queen's Head, in Commercial-street." Catherine Lane saw Liz produce the 6d at the lodging house before leaving for the night.

Thats ok Michael, I knew what was written there, it was your reference to "between 5 and 6 pm" that I could not find.

The important question is when (at what time) did Tanner pay Liz the 6d. That is what we do not seem to have. I suspect Liz was paid directly after she finished the two rooms, which means she had 6d before she went to the Queens Head.
Why would she go to a pub if she had no money?

.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

Jon, in the London Times of Oct 4th Elizabeth Tanner states that she had last seen Liz at around 6:30pm, in the Queens Head Public House on Commercial Street. In the Daily Telegraph of the same day its reported that Elizabeth Tanner said that at half past 6 Liz was "With me in a public-house, called the Queen's Head, in Commercial-street." Catherine Lane saw Liz produce the 6d at the lodging house before leaving for the night.

So she didnt buy herself anything at the pub.

To Bridewell,.... so now we are talking about a killer who opts for stealing instead of mutilating during his few minutes alone with the corpse? My suggestion is based simply upon what we can say we know and Math....Liz left the lodging house with the 6d and no flower and no reported mints....and when she is found she does not have the 6d but she has the 2 new accessories.

To Colin.....for myself mate I need nothing other than the existing evidence to know that Liz Stride wasnt killed by the same man that killed Annie Chapman before her, but that Polly was likely killed by the man that kills Annie next. I can see already that there is no Ripper case to be made here....that case is all about proximity to another death that night assumed to be a Ripper murder, the proximity to other deaths in the area during that Fall, a supposed interruption that is not present in any evidence, and the fact that a knife was used. Why I continue to argue points here....why Liz was there, what she was doing there, where did her money go....is because I respect some of the members enough to assume that many others could also share my opinion of Liz if they used only the evidence itself and stayed away from the guesswork and supposition needed to include a Ripper in this murder.

My best regards

[c.d.]

Exactly. Very well put, Bridewell. There are just too many variables to draw a conclusion.

c.d.

[Bridewell]

I've heard no idea that accounts for their sudden appearance coupled with her 6d's sudden disappearance.

Does there have to be a link? The 6d could have been spent, lent, lost or so well concealed in her clothing that no-one ever found it. Alternatively her killer could have taken it.
The flowers and cachous could have been bought, received as a gift from an admirer or (if a different individual) her killer. Unless any purchase(s) totalled 6d exactly she should have had some change - but didn't. Most likely explanation IMHO - her killer took the money. If you're going to argue that he didn't intend mutilation because he wasn't interrupted and had plenty of time, you have to concede that her killer had time to search his victim for any money she might have in her possession.
There are too many variables here, surely, to draw any firm conclusions about what happened to the 6d?

[Colin Roberts]

...if we used only the evidence available in this murder there would be no debate as to whether or not a serial mutilator killed her. Then we could focus on discovering who actually killed her...

You could do so either way, Michael.

Walk away from this perpetual disagreement and work toward solving the mystery of Stride's murder, if you are so inclined. No one's stopping you!

[lynn cates]

green thumb

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"what do men know about flowers?"

Care to look at my flowers and shrubs? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Indeed. But I don't think that a report of dahlias was unanimous?

Cheers.
LC

If all the opinions had come from women, there may have been some consistency, what do men know about flowers?

[lynn cates]

not unanimous

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Indeed. But I don't think that a report of dahlias was unanimous?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

The testimony does allow some wriggle room. And he did note an important difference.

Now, about those "dahlias."

Cheers.
LC

Dahlia's are a late season flower, the Rose season should have been over before Oct 1st, I'm told its too cold.