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

[Wickerman]

...Why would he attempt to mutilate her at that less than private location when more suitable surroundings are within his reach?

Precisely so, though I do not recall anyone raising this point.
Deeper into Dutfields Yard would have been on parallel with the backyard of Hanbury st., and also with the darkest corner of Mitre Sq.
Did he learn nothing from Bucks Row?

It could be posed that, whoever killed Liz did not share the same concerns for solitude as 'Jack'.

.

[Michael W Richards]

I wonder why, if this scenario includes a actual undocumented interruption that scares off the killer, ..would he risk that happening if an empty yard is a few yards further down the pathway? Why would he attempt to mutilate her at that less than private location when more suitable surroundings are within his reach? Does this guy have no personal charm to lure her further in? He does after all seem to keep getting women to go to dark places with him while the killing spree was on.....or does he attempt to do so, and she rebuffs him....so he kills her anyway...because...hes frustrated?

If you dont presume that Mary Anns killer was also Annies killer, thats fine...but if you do, then you must agree that those mutilations be considered the key element required to be present in ANY so-called, later, Ripper murder. They certainly were in those 2 kills.

Liz Stride appeared as if "lain gently down". Curled up, knees toward her chin, on her side. Then look, or read about, the last body position of the other Canonicals...anyone appear gently lain down? Or on their side?

Cheers

[Phil H]

As far as prostitution, not wanting to accept that Stride was most probably soliciting is a bit too charitable for my thinking.

And should we not be charitable?

These were once living women, who faced the challenges of life in a world without a welfare state and in which women, if they fell, were treated differently to men.

Is your thinking to treat them as theoretical chess-pieces, categorised by a single word - prostitute? If it is shame on you.

For myself, I don't doubt that all these women had, or were capable of, soliciting to earn a crust and a bed. They had problems of character - drink mainly, and of health (Annie), but as researchers have shown us, they all had real lives, most with a period when the future was full of hope and promise.

So Stride was a liar, probably a swindler and a con artist, but all the indications - for me - are that on the night of her death she was enjoying herself, and that she was with someone she liked, NOT a client. She had put the awful Kidney behind her -but to you she is a just an object to be scorned and dismissed.

Thank you.

Every so often I have noted, we descend to this - the victims are dehumanised and made into cardboard cut-outs that we can play games with. Only the other day I noted, and commented on - another poster referring to the victims as c1, C2 etc. instead of by the names. We know them all, they are not long, they do not take much time or effort to type. In common humanity we should refer to them by their names and regard them charitably (to use your word). Respect is so easy to entertain.

On Dutfields Yard as a ripper location, one has the problem of the attacks Schwartz allegedly saw, which were in the public gaze. I don't see "Jack" as ever taking such a risk of being seen, perhaps someone (or several someones) intervening and him perhaps being questioned by police.

I don't dismiss Stride as a Ripper victim - certainly not after the potential Kosminski connection was made - but as the evidence stands at the moment I tend to a not-his-work verdict.

Phil

[The Good Michael]

There is a more than implicit assumption there that Stride was soliciting/working the streets at the time of her death.

In my view that cannot be proven - by all accounts she was on a "date" that night (given the care she took over her appearance). I am not saying that she was NOT working the streets - I could not prove it - but your sentence carries an inference that is not creditable to the woman concerned, and for which, equally, there is no proof.


I think we can argue a wholly different approach to yours. Either of us could be right or wrong of course.

But what about the rest of the victims? Well, the same questions exist for all the victims and the fact that they are all unsolved murders of prostitutes makes the connection between them possible...

Again an assumption. We know Nichols was looking for money, probably Chapman, and Kelly (if a victim of "Jack"). But i would question whether Stride was soliciting at the time of her death, and eddowes may not have been.

l

Phil,

Of course we can argue these points. We can argue every point with every victim. The only one that holds water is the idea that Stride was in a more public place, though Diemshitz didn't even see the body until the pony shied. This implies at least some obfuscation. As to the sound of the cart, I'm sure if this was a ripper slaying the killer would have bolted if possible, regardless if the cart was 10 yards or 100 yards off, and yet, there was a lot of noise in the club just about 15 yards away. My actual point is that the non-mutilation is a wash when it comes to argument against. That doesn't leave much to go on either way.

As far as prostitution, not wanting to accept that Stride was most probably soliciting is a bit too charitable for my thinking.

Mike

[Phil H]

Who initiated the walk to a place where they could have sex?

There is a more than implicit assumption there that Stride was soliciting/working the streets at the time of her death.

In my view that cannot be proven - by all accounts she was on a "date" that night (given the care she took over her appearance). I am not saying that she was NOT working the streets - I could not prove it - but your sentence carries an inference that is not creditable to the woman concerned, and for which, equally, there is no proof.

These questions are the same for all the victims.

What questions?

This is the historical answer, and interruption, and I'd say that it is too convenient to have a lack of mutilation being used as a disassociation from other victims.

You are welcome to take that view, but I would disagree. He appears to have been interrupted with Nichols, but managed to begin abdominal cuts. With Stride, he must have heard the clatter of the costermonger's approach well before he had to cease work.

The location of the Stride killing also IS crucial.

Unlike any of the other crime scenes it was practically in public view, on a fairly busy street, near a Club full of people who were very much awake. If Scwartz's testimony has any credibility, then the attack on her strikes me as odd, and disassociated from the killing. Given that there is a possible killer in Kidney and the evidence will bear the weight of interpretation as a "domestic" - I think we can argue a wholly different approach to yours. Either of us could be right or wrong of course.

But what about the rest of the victims? Well, the same questions exist for all the victims and the fact that they are all unsolved murders of prostitutes makes the connection between them possible...

Again an assumption. We know Nichols was looking for money, probably Chapman, and Kelly (if a victim of "Jack"). But i would question whether Stride was soliciting at the time of her death, and eddowes may not have been.

Phil

[The Good Michael]

That really is a fair assessment of how Liz Strides inclusion should be judged....did her murder, fundamentally, ..in any way match the style, skill and focus of the murder of Mary Ann and Annie?

Michael,

Who knows this answer? How was Stride picked up by her client? Or was the client picked up by Stride? Who initiated the walk to a place where they could have sex? These questions are the same for all the victims. The actual murder itself, and not the setting of the scene, has no real bearing here as it seems obvious that Diemschitz was on the scene withing seconds or a few minutes of Stride's murder, so we can't know what was planned or what was going to be "discovered" by the murderer. This is the historical answer, and interruption, and I'd say that it is too convenient to have a lack of mutilation being used as a disassociation from other victims. But what about the rest of the victims? Well, the same questions exist for all the victims and the fact that they are all unsolved murders of prostitutes makes the connection between them possible...at lest as possible as them not being related.

Cheers,

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

I think the premise is fine as well Caz, the only codicil I have is that the man who misread her availability does not have to be categorized as a Ripper at all. This is the crux of the matter with our disagreements, I believe that there is no way in hell that the very next murder committed by the same man that killed Mary Ann and Polly would not have mutilations or early or attempted ones.

Liz was killed just like many people were killed during that period, knife, club......whathave you....a mundane, everyday type of murder.

The only difference is that it took place in the middle of an alledged serial killer spree and that the killer in question is supposed to have done a second murder not too far from the first. Thats purely circumstantial...and perhaps relevant in addition to a factual evidence-based prosecution, ...but when you do not have the evidence to base that theory upon, utilizing that circumstantial evidence as support...namely hard physical evidence of corroborated skill, knowledge and mutilation focus with the first 2 victims....then you have no legs to run with.

That really is a fair assessment of how Liz Strides inclusion should be judged....did her murder, fundamentally, ..in any way match the style, skill and focus of the murder of Mary Ann and Annie? Circumstantial evidence also includes that she is supposed by many to have been prostituting herself that night, that she was killed with a knife, and things like this alleged series taking place that same Fall. All they can do is aid in the creation of Ripper based theories...nothing more.

The hard evidence is clear...Liz Stride was absolutely NOT mutilated by someone who primarily sought to mutilate women he kills. That is usually dealt with in the following way....." Who says the Ripper always has to mutilate?"...and..."Who says he wasnt interrupted?."

I would say based on the first and second murderer the man responsible sought out the women so he could mutilate them, murder was just part of a formula that allowed him to do so. So, yeah...I believe the man that killed those women would mutilate every time. And for the second approach, the evidence doesnt indicate that he was interrupted....so why would we assume he was? Based on what? Circumstantial evidence given by Louis Diemshitz?...Evidence that is contradicted the very night of the murder by Isaac Kozebrodski? The club steward? One of the men most responsible for what goes on at that Club...and therefore one of the men most liable for any wrongdoings that happen there? Therefore one of the men who might be compelled to modify his statement to reflect the club in its best light?

Liz dies without the turbulence and weirdness of the first 2 Canonicals...but she seems to be forever doomed to travel in that killers circle anyway.

Best regards

[lynn cates]

thus far . . .

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"Another alternative is that he saw her for the first time at the club and wrongly supposed her to be soliciting, but found her unwilling to leave the premises. . . "

I could live with that.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hello Caroline. What kind of mistake did you have in mind?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

If you mean what kind of mistake the ripper could have made if he killed Stride, there are several possibilities, although he may not have made a mistake at all. Tom Westcott believes he may have set out that night to bag two victims, and never intended to hang around the first one long enough to mutilate her. Alternatively, Stride could have rejected his advances earlier that evening and he could have found her later outside the club, apparently offering her wares to the Jews there, and decided to punish her for it.

Another alternative is that he saw her for the first time at the club and wrongly supposed her to be soliciting, but found her unwilling to leave the premises with him or indeed unwilling to engage with him at all. Or he could have made the mistake of thinking he could mutilate her in the yard, but then realised he was likely to be interrupted at any second by a club member coming or going.

I'm sure there are other possibilties. One mistake I don't think he did make was to leave her for dead, unsure if he had inflicted a fatal wound. I do believe this was a man who had cut a human throat before and knew how to make a thorough job of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Simon

Not everyone. But when one involves Scotland Yard, Sinn Fein, The Ochrana, Russian anarchists, The Whitechapel Vigilance Commitee, mad Swiss pork butchers , Pontius Kak internationally renowned nose flautist, The lads form the dodgy tobacco shop in Cleveland Street, the one and only Billy Spears, I'll stop there,I think you'll get my meaning, conspiracy theory comes to mind. Wouldn't you agree?

Regards

Observer

To add to this, Simon has repeatedly hinted at the authorities back in 1888 manipulating the murders for their own ends; letting the public believe in a lone killer when they knew there were several; knowing stuff about the ripper missives but not telling anyone - that kind of thing.

That would amount to conspiracy to mislead at best and to cover up the truth at worst, so it remains Simon's conspiracy theory until he provides the evidence to turn it into conspiracy fact.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

Thank you Michael - that is very generous of you. I reciprocate.

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

Maybe, on that basis, accuracy in regard to Ripper-relasted facts is not important to you either? THAT is my point.

Enough

Phil

Phil,

I will address a point that at least is Ripper related, ... if facts were the only things used by students I would be quite content. There would be no Canonical Group, no frivolous arguments to debate made solely on the premise that a particular fiend was involved despite the variances. No Suspects... in the strictest sense of the word,..and any that arise will be based on something more than merely someones opinion, modern or contemporary.

Ive never fought for a particular story Phil, Ive fought against one that is bereft of evidence and yet THE most widely accepted theory. A Serial madman.

I was unnecessarily rude yesterday to you, my apologies for that.

Regards

[Phil H]

I dont care what you believe is the truth about the Alamo, so please...dont waste anymore of my time, your time, or anyone else's.

Maybe, on that basis, accuracy in regard to Ripper-relasted facts is not important to you either? THAT is my point.

Enough

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

Why so defensive Michael.... why not just admit you were wrong.

Phil

Im not defensive at all, Im offended at the tone of your posts...thought that was obvious enough.

Unless you have a undeniably accurate single source, some new and revelatory information concerning the historical documentation or some additional proof of your opinion that your source is the trusted one, the statement I made is well enough documented to match any objection you might post in the form of opinion Phil.

You cant even accept a draw, can you? Lucky for me I dont invest as heavily in others opinions as you do. It does answer a bit about your position on some of these cases.

I would suggest cancelling the parade Phil...and for the third time, set your ego aside about this matter and respect the rights of the person who started this thread. I dont care what you believe is the truth about the Alamo, so please...dont waste anymore of my time, your time, or anyone else's.

[Phil H]

Why so defensive Michael.... why not just admit you were wrong.

Phil