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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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?

.

[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

[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

[caz]

"I think that Jack acted on the spur of the moment. He realized that he had made a mistake by killing Liz in such close proximity to other people."

Actually, I can live with this. Of course, it would preclude all nonsense about planning, stalking, letters, graffiti, taunting and so on.

Hi Lynn,

You were quoting c.d. above. But what nonsense is this about nonsense?

Could I just remind you that Dennis Rader, or "BTK", planned, stalked, sent letters and taunted, all to the nth degree, yet he still made mistakes, like on one occasion when he burst into his selected victim's home and found her brother was there with her, but because he had failed to bring along his full 'murder kit', he had all sorts of trouble putting the brother out of action so he could concentrate on acting out his violent sexual fantasies with the sister.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

You cannot retrofit the behaviourial patterns of subsequent serial killers onto an alleged prototype.

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

Unfortunately Simon Caz is determined to search for the answers in the revelations uncovered in the analysis of serial killer interviews and investigations. I wish everybody would start with the presumtption that they are studying 5 unsolved murders that occurred in a small section of London in 1888 over approx 2 months and to ONLY consider the most rare of all killers if it is warranted based on the evidence.

But we all know that data doesnt exist in the known materials, its not indicated clearly or even opaquely...... and that to embrace the Canonical Group requires a huge leap of faith. One that I wont make without evidence.

Lets say you are lost in the wild....and you meet another traveler who tells you that he just came from a town a few miles East of where you are. Do you...assume he knows which way is East and heard the way he pointed? That he is being sincere and honest? Do you in fact know based solely on his saying so that such a place even exists? Could this be a ruse to send you to bandits?

Because someone says something doesnt make it true...and sadly the minute these contemporary officials started offering their own take on what they were dealing with, they doomed many, many, students. They had no right and zero factual grounds for stating that the murders of the five women in question were done by the same deranged killer. Irresponsible to say the least. Its accusing someone specific...(we dont know who that specific person is the peoples choice yet ).. of a serious crime without any evidence.

Ive often wondered what would happen if a direct descendant of one of the so-called suspects decided to challenge in court some authors book about their long lost relative, one the author specifically names as Jack the Ripper.

Im not sure if its possible, but that would be fantastic to see a slander trial and have the author prove beyond a reasonable doubt, his claim. In every case, with every "suspect", the outcome would be the same I would think.

Its the reason that Ripperology has the hedge market cornered.

Cheers Simon

[Bridewell]

I'm not sure if its possible, but that would be fantastic to see a slander trial and have the author prove beyond a reasonable doubt, his claim. In every case, with every "suspect", the outcome would be the same I would think.

Sadly it's not possible, Michael, because the law, in its less than infinite wisdom, says that you cannot libel or slander the dead. Morally that's nonsense, in my view, but that's the way it is, hence the likes of Van Gogh, Sickert, Toulouse Lautrec etc being maligned, on no evidence whatsoever, and with total impunity. It would be wonderful, though, to see these authors have to put what they call evidence before a court of law.

[lynn cates]

backward

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Not sure how adducing a modern day serial killer allows one to extrapolate backwards to "Jack"?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

oops!

Hello Simon. Just read your post. Sorry.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

I don't understand why we should not look at the actions of contemporary serial killers. Who should we be looking at? Opera stars, accountants, mountain climbers? Now I agree that just because a modern day serial killer behaves in a certain manner or displays a certain pattern that we can't assume therefore that Jack would have done the same. But by the same token, I see people turning that argument around and saying Jack would never do X when we have clear evidence that a present day serial killer has done exactly that.

c.d.