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

[lynn cates]

oops

Hello Cris. Oops, so sorry, but could not resist.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Stiff upper lip

Hello Lynn,

Some people in the 1960s still thought sleeping in the same bed would do the trick. British, of course, stiff upper lip and all that.

Best wishes,
C4/Gwyneth

[niko]

Ofcourse they have !!and this is only my personal opinion.

[lynn cates]

infertility

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

Umm, stiff upper lip won't work either.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Ok.....back to the 6d.

Has anyone ever purchased something that they felt they needed to better fit in with an anticipated social or business interaction? Bought a new tie for a big meeting maybe? Wore your best outfit perhaps? Carried with you something to freshen your breath....wipe your nose.....buffed up the loafers maybe?

We know Liz has things with her in death that she didnt have at 7:30pm. We know she had some money at 7:30pm. We know that she wore a good evening outfit and asked to borrow a lint brush at her lodgings, before leaving for the night. We know she asked someone... who was surprised to be trusted so well... if she would hold a valued piece of fabric for Liz until her return. We also know that Liz did not die drunk. We also know that she was charring "among the Jews" the months before her death.

It seems to me we have reason not only to suspect where the 6d went, but also.... in general, why. She was putting forward her best "face" that night.

Because she had a date? Or because she intended to work in a decent home for someone?

The least likely answer is that she stayed sober and spent her money on a flower and breath fresheners so she could solicit sex with poor, dirty street folk.

Best regards

[Hunter]

I disagree. None of her contemporaries thought she was doing anything but soliciting that night. She had. A repetitive history. This is a circular argument that never gets anywhere.

[RivkahChaya]

I disagree. None of her contemporaries thought she was doing anything but soliciting that night. She had. A repetitive history. This is a circular argument that never gets anywhere.

It's not a circular argument, because a "circular argument" is something specific: it is an argument predicated on itself. What this is is a case where the evidence seems to be equivocal, or just as good on one side as the other, and so it is, for the time being (which is to say, until someone finds something new and spectacular), moot, another term people misuse. "Moot" is an uncertainty that can be debated, and "won" by one side being more skilled at arguing, but really has no final solution. People use it to mean "irrelevant," because legally, something that can't be resolved isn't applicable to either side of a legal dispute, but that really isn't what it means.

It's a perfect word for Stride's goings on that night. What she was doing is moot, because if JTR was targeting prostitutes for a personal reason, its only necessary that he thought her to be one, not that she actually was, and clearly at least some people back then did think her to be one, at least "by necessity," if not an actual pro. If he targeted prostitutes because buying services was a way of getting them alone, then we don't need to know whether she was actively soliciting, because the fact of her victimization demonstrates that her killer got her alone by some means. Then there is the possibility that her killer was not even JTR.

So, what she was doing does not matter.

Hunter's point that most people at the time thought she was soliciting is good, though, I think, because, assuming for the moment that she was killed by JTR, it just reiterates the point that he targeted people who were weak, desperate, and defenseless.

[RivkahChaya]

The least likely answer is that she stayed sober and spent her money on a flower and breath fresheners so she could solicit sex with poor, dirty street folk.

I completely agree. Heck, I'm not a drinker at all, but if I had to, umm, well, getting trashed might be something I'd consider.

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

Umm, stiff upper lip won't work either.

Speak for yourself.

[Michael W Richards]

I disagree. None of her contemporaries thought she was doing anything but soliciting that night. She had. A repetitive history. This is a circular argument that never gets anywhere.

The reason for that Hunter is because many people refuse to see the historical evidence that we have and instead assume a pattern. In fact Liz Stride had herself stricken from the prostitutes register back in Goteborg by obtaining legitimate charwoman/maid work, and after having a stillborn child. This may seem a minor administrative success to some but the fact is that the woman applying to have her name stricken from the register had to have already obtained "decent" work before applying. Meaning, while she supported herself by doing some street prostitution she sought ways to leave that sort of work behind her....convincing a family that she could do maid work. Likely her trip to London was just that sort of action..a fresh start as a maid in London.

She stated that she was "for the past few months at work among the Jews" to a "contemporary", Catherine Lane, the one who paid her to clean rooms that last afternoon. Liz and her husband worked in their coffee shop, she has been a live in maid in London, and she likely had many other temporary charring jobs we'll never learn about. She had stated to Sven Ollsen the clerk at the Swedish Church where she sought some aid that she had been "doing a little work sewing".

What is circular with Liz, and is subtlety stated by her latest boyfriend Kidney, was that Liz liked men in her life. Liz left his company from time to time over the years they were together, and although he suggests that he believed she "liked him better than any other man", and also that "he didnt believe that she left him for someone else" when she left him that last week, we may wonder if her departure from his side that week was due to another one of those "flights of fancy". She had said he had treated her ill, but one might wonder.

Lets review that night......her "good evening wear". A flower and fern on her breast. A desire to remove any lint that was on her skirt. Cashous for her breath. All this on a sober charwoman standing outside a Jewish mens club after a meeting had taken place. It seems to me that the historical data when coupled with the data for that last evening suggests that Liz may have had either a date or some work to do....maybe cleaning a club after a meeting, for example. Or cleaning and serving meals for a member at his home.

Do you think anyone at that club would tell the police that she was asked there to work after being suddenly found dead on their property? Why would they admit to even knowing her....that alone links the club with the murder victim and would set suspicions on the club members.

This way, she is a stranger found dead.

The term Unfortunate is one that should be respected a little more in these discussions, for it delineates the categories better...the categories being Those Who Freely Chose to Prostitute Themselves...(i.e. Mary Kelly),.... from Those Who Were Forced To Resort To Prostitution For Food And Shelter. Which would be the remaining Canonicals and most of the women on the streets at that time.

The prostitutes were, as they are today, a minority segment within a given population. These women were single, unprotected and unsupported, and vulnerable. It irks me to see it suggested that their issues were some sort of moral lapse rather than acts of desperation.

Cheers Hunter.

[Bridewell]

The term Unfortunate is one that should be respected a little more in these discussions, for it delineates the categories better...the categories being Those Who Freely Chose to Prostitute Themselves...(i.e. Mary Kelly),.... from Those Who Were Forced To Resort To Prostitution For Food And Shelter. Which would be the remaining Canonicals and most of the women on the streets at that time.

Hi Michael,

You make a good point about the "unfortunates" but was Mary Kelly really someone who chose to prostitute herself? She had split with her partner and was many weeks in arrears with the rent. I'm not convinced that she saw herself as having any real choice at all.

[Wickerman]

I think I see a tendency to draw a demarcation line between the Working class female and the Unfortunate. In Fishman's, East End 1888, we see instances where working girls might resort to turning a few tricks at night to supplement their income. Just having regular employment did not automatically mean you were earning enough to live.

Regards, Jon S.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

We have been over this so many times. Even if you feel that the evidence points 100% to Liz prepping for a date (which it does not), it does not necessarily follow that she actually went on a date. Her date might have cancelled on her or simply not shown up. Perhaps they had a fight early in the evening and he stormed off. All very real possibilities. So it is quite clear that the beginning of the evening does not always dicate how the evening actually went.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

You make a good point about the "unfortunates" but was Mary Kelly really someone who chose to prostitute herself? She had split with her partner and was many weeks in arrears with the rent. I'm not convinced that she saw herself as having any real choice at all.

Hi Bridewell,

First off I didnt mean to dump on Hunter, and in retrospect I believe I may have. But the distinction needs to be made clear if we are to truly understand what the evidence tells us.

As for Mary, I believe that the evidence suggests she was a prostitute. She worked in several brothels, and we hear she did "work the streets"...something Barnett says he objected to. I think in her case, and in the case of Polly and Annie, that we can say they made their living primarily from the goodness of strangers and prostitution. There is no concrete evidence for that in the case of Liz and Kate. We do know from the victims themselves that Polly and Annie were soliciting when they met their killer.

To cd,

I believe in my last post I made it clear that Liz may well have been prepping for work, so no, a date is not fixed in place for me.

She is dressed above her class on that night, in regular terms anyway. The women working the streets didnt have concerns for mints or flowers. And she is sober...at 12:30am. She has been seen out and about but apparently not consuming alcohol...as she was known to do. I believe her only arrests... under various names If I recall accurately, were for D & D's...Drunk and Disorderly. Perhaps 1 assault. As she filed against Kidney the previous year.

My point being the reason for the women to be where they were is of paramount importance here, and I believe that the only way we will ever have a hope of deciphering those answers will be based upon our ability to use the facts before the assumptions.

My best regards

[Sluggo]

Hello,
Thank you all for the warm welcome!
I have enjoyed all of the discsussions. I was doing a little lite reading last night from the Liz Stride report and it has prompted a question that I hope someone can answer for me.

In the paragraph just prior to the Funeral announcement it states:


The day after the murder, a citizen mob formed outside of Berner Street protesting the continuation of the murders and the seemingly slipshod work of the police to catch the Ripper. From here on in, the Ripper is public enemy number one, and Home Office begins to consider offering awards for his capture and arrest.

My question: What date was the first official announcement of a Reward for the capture of White Chapel Fiend/Jack The Ripper?

The reason I ask this question is because of the statement supposedly said by Catherine Eddowes on September 28, 1888.
"I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him."

I may be over thinking, i do have a habit of doing that.
Sluggo

[Wickerman]

My question: What date was the first official announcement of a Reward for the capture of White Chapel Fiend/Jack The Ripper?

The reason I ask this question is because of the statement supposedly said by Catherine Eddowes on September 28, 1888.
"I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him."

It appears you are only considering an official reward offered by the authorities. One of the earliest rewards announced in the press was from the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee:

"The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee has allowed its zeal to outrun its discretion. It has decided to offer a preliminary reward if £50 for the apprehension of the person or persons who committed the recent atrocities, and to increase the amount of the reward as funds come in!"

This was announced on 21st Sept. 1888 in the Evening News.
There were other privately sponsored rewards, I'm not sure of the dates for these. So Kate may have been referring to the one offered by the W.V.C.

Regards, Jon S.

P.S.
Here's the earlier one I was thinking about:
"Mr. S. Montagu, M.P., has assumed the functions of the Home Office. He has offered a reward of £100 for the capture of the murderer of Annie Chapman. It is well, however, to remember that Mr. Montagu represents the Whitechapel Division in Parliament. "
11 Sept. 1888, The Echo.