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

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

You have certainly put together a strong argument that Liz was not soliciting. But you are also trying to turn it into an if A then B argument which it is not. In other words, if you can show that Liz was not soliciting that night then she cannot be a Ripper victim. There are two problems with that. The first is that Liz's intention to actively solicit that night is not written in stone. You want us to believe that she swore a sacred oath in front of witnesses and signed in blood that she would not solicit that night. The other problem is that Jack would have absolutely no way of knowing whether she was soliciting unless she were holding up a sign. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a woman by herself late at night out on the street was soliciting especially if he had seen her doing so before at some point. He might have even been a previous customer of hers. Now let's assume that he approaches her and is told that she is waiting for someone or given some other excuse. Now let's also assume that Liz is tired. It is late and she is cold. It might seem to her that whoever she is waiting for is not going to show up. Her financial situation is not good and she would like to have some money for drink or other purposes. Jack gives her a story about how he just got paid and he wants to have some fun. He offers twice the usual amount. Is she really going to turn that down? That is what we don't know and any argument attempting to show that she was not actively soliciting that night cannot give us an answer to that question. That's the rub.

c.d.

Hi cd,

I do realize that it seems as if I want to use Solicitation as the litmus test for whether Liz Stride was a Ripper victim, but in practical terms it is but one factor among many that lead me to that conclusion. For this thread... it is the element I emphasize the most.

I believe what we can use reliably cd are the statements concerning her demeanor and attitude before leaving the lodging house, as the evening progresses using various witnesses, and as she is last seen by someone that I personally feel is reliable,.. PC William Smith.

From the request for a lint brush, to a description of Liz's ensemble by a house mate as "good evening wear", to the leaving of the velvet with someone other than the landlady... which was the convention...for a period of time she could not quantify other than "till I return", , ..the fact she leaves without stating or hinting or in passing that she will return at all that night,... the fact that she is not seen in the act of "sex-sales" when in the company of others,...the fact that she is sober, yet without the 6d she left the lodging house with, but she brandishes 2 new things that we did not hear that she had with her when she left the lodging house,...the fact that she is seen in the company of who was very likely William Wess with editions of the fresh off the press Arbeter Fraint under his arm by PC Smith,....the single cut, nothing indicating further interest in her....the fact its possible she was cut while falling....the fact that the statements of the onsite witnesses vary greatly from the first ones taken an hour after the murder to the ones given, or discarded or witheld, at the Inquest...and those early accounts appear to dramatically contradict the statements given by the 3 people most responsible for the Club and its liability at the Inquest,...the fact that she had been gainfully employed recently, "among the Jews", and had paid work as recent as earlier that day,....the fact that she is found far closer to the actual street than Annie Chapman, Kate Eddowes or Mary Kelly...thereby eliminating the likelihood of time and privacy for any kind of mutilations.....

There are more ideas about this case to cite, but the main thing to focus on when assessing Liz Stride, IMHO of course, is that the killer of Polly and Annie would have mutilated any future victims with the same focus and intent. A murder is just the preamble.

Best regards cd

[Wickerman]

,...the fact that she is seen in the company of who was very likely William Wess with editions of the fresh off the press Arbeter Fraint under his arm by PC Smith,..

William Wess did not remember seeing anyone in the street..

[Coroner] Or did you meet any one in the street? - Not that I recollect. I generally go home between twelve and one o'clock.

Is he likely to forget seeing the victim, and a policeman, less than 30 minutes before the murder?

[caz]

To prostitute or not to prostitute - why is that the question?

Hello Michael,

You have certainly put together a strong argument that Liz was not soliciting. But you are also trying to turn it into an if A then B argument which it is not. In other words, if you can show that Liz was not soliciting that night then she cannot be a Ripper victim. There are two problems with that. The first is that Liz's intention to actively solicit that night is not written in stone. You want us to believe that she swore a sacred oath in front of witnesses and signed in blood that she would not solicit that night. The other problem is that Jack would have absolutely no way of knowing whether she was soliciting unless she were holding up a sign. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a woman by herself late at night out on the street was soliciting especially if he had seen her doing so before at some point. He might have even been a previous customer of hers. Now let's assume that he approaches her and is told that she is waiting for someone or given some other excuse. Now let's also assume that Liz is tired. It is late and she is cold. It might seem to her that whoever she is waiting for is not going to show up. Her financial situation is not good and she would like to have some money for drink or other purposes. Jack gives her a story about how he just got paid and he wants to have some fun. He offers twice the usual amount. Is she really going to turn that down? That is what we don't know and any argument attempting to show that she was not actively soliciting that night cannot give us an answer to that question. That's the rub.

c.d.

Brilliant post, c.d.

I really think it's about time the focus was taken off the supposed morals of the victims, and what each one may or may not have been prepared to do on any given night, depending on their immediate needs and what money was on offer. Firstly we'll never know for sure, no matter how we interpret the limited evidence, and secondly I wonder about its relevance to the question of who killed Stride and why.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

Thanks for that. Yeah, there is certainly a lot of discussion and argument as to whether Liz was soliciting that night but to me it is a moot point. All that talk of Liz's attire and preparation for going out would be completely lost on Jack. All he would see is a single woman late at night standing by herself, lint brush and velvet be damned. As you say, we will never know what happened next. But trying to determine whether Liz was actively soliciting or not that night won't give us the answer.

c.d.

P.S. I enjoyed the heading on your post. Very appropriate.

[Michael W Richards]

William Wess did not remember seeing anyone in the street..

[Coroner] Or did you meet any one in the street? - Not that I recollect. I generally go home between twelve and one o'clock.

Is he likely to forget seeing the victim, and a policeman, less than 30 minutes before the murder?

Because I believe like with all the witnesses with direct links to the Club or the paper, some "fudging" occurred. That night or later at the Inquest. Lave not seeing Wess...or Eagle, Eagle not seeing Lave or knowing whether he had to step around a dead woman lying on the ground, nobody seeing Diemshutz arrive, a suspiciously founded story and appearance by a "passing by" Immigrant Jew witnessing an assault...seen or heard by no-one, .....

On the night statement were taken that suggest the Inquest versions, and the choice of witnesses to put forward, may have been manipulated by the people who had the most to loss by any suspicion on the Club or its attendees.

They would have been closed immediately, and their cause, irrevocably tainted.

Cheers

[caz]

Hi cd,

I do realize that it seems as if I want to use Solicitation as the litmus test for whether Liz Stride was a Ripper victim, but in practical terms it is but one factor among many that lead me to that conclusion. For this thread... it is the element I emphasize the most.

But Mike, as c.d. among others has observed, it shouldn't be a factor in your reasoning because it wouldn't have been a factor in the ripper's reasoning. Or are you seriously suggesting that a flower would have told him not to try his luck with this one, because she was obviously a cut above going off with strangers, despite being alone outside the club at that late hour, and described by witnesses as "poorly dressed"?

...the fact that she is found far closer to the actual street than Annie Chapman, Kate Eddowes or Mary Kelly...thereby eliminating the likelihood of time and privacy for any kind of mutilations.....

Exactly so. We can conclude that the ripper relied on his victims' co-operation (active or passive), because not one was dragged or forced to where he was able to perform the mutilations. Similarly, Stride appears to have determined the spot where her killer cut her throat, which would - as you say - have given him little chance to mutilate if that had been his original aim. If her killer (ripper or not) thought she was there because she was waiting for someone - anyone - then he had to strike quickly and get away as fast as possible, or risk that person arriving and catching him in the act. If this was the ripper, he'd have been less than thrilled to find her unwilling to go off with him like Nichols and Chapman had.

There are more ideas about this case to cite, but the main thing to focus on when assessing Liz Stride, IMHO of course, is that the killer of Polly and Annie would have mutilated any future victims with the same focus and intent. A murder is just the preamble.

But only if the next prospective victim had agreed to go off with him, allowing him the time and privacy he needed to get stuck in. We know that Stride would not have given the ripper what he needed in this respect, but he could not have known that if he saw her hanging around the club like she was just waiting for someone like him to whisk her off.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Caz,

Let me reply in the body of your post;

But Mike, as c.d. among others has observed, it shouldn't be a factor in your reasoning because it wouldn't have been a factor in the ripper's reasoning. Or are you seriously suggesting that a flower would have told him not to try his luck with this one, because she was obviously a cut above going off with strangers, despite being alone outside the club at that late hour, and described by witnesses as "poorly dressed"?

I believe there is evidence in the first 2 murders that the active solicitation, (as we can say without equivocation in the case of Polly and Annie...they admitted as much to others...), shows us that the Ripper followed the lead, he didnt lead himself. The women would be hustling the killer at first, then, because they would lead him somewhere private and dark, he simply let them do that. Let them feel safe, in control. Its not just the flower Caz, as you well know, there is a virtual case for Liz to have been waiting for something, or someone, specific, based on the totality of the evidence leading up to her disappearance,...sometime after PC Smith leaves. As for poorly or good evening wear, I would suppose that the opinion source needs to be considered when evaluating that...to another Unfortunate living at the lodging house, simple clean clothes might be "good evening wear".

Exactly so. We can conclude that the ripper relied on his victims' co-operation (active or passive), because not one was dragged or forced to where he was able to perform the mutilations.....I agree with that obviously..... Similarly, Stride appears to have determined the spot where her killer cut her throat, which would - as you say - have given him little chance to mutilate if that had been his original aim....Im not sure that Liz chose any spot to be with a client Caz, her choice may have been based on entirely different criteria... If her killer (ripper or not) thought she was there because she was waiting for someone - anyone - then he had to strike quickly and get away as fast as possible, or risk that person arriving and catching him in the act. ...which would limit his exposure to the bodies after the murder, which it seems by murders 1 and 2 is his priority in these sordid affairs....If this was the ripper, he'd have been less than thrilled to find her unwilling to go off with him like Nichols and Chapman had....and so he would have buggered off without drawing a knife or any suspicion that she encountered the "ripper". He would just be an aborted liaison to the woman,...not worth mentioning again.

But only if the next prospective victim had agreed to go off with him, allowing him the time and privacy he needed to get stuck in. We know that Stride would not have given the ripper what he needed in this respect, but he could not have known that if he saw her hanging around the club like she was just waiting for someone like him to whisk her off.

Technically, this murderer could have met up with Liz just after the PC leaves, and spent time with her...most likely inside the gates since only Israel Schwartz claims to see her on the street after 12:35, with multiple witnesses to that period of time....In fact I proposed to Sam once that she was waiting in the passage for someone, a man came by and tried to get her to go back into the yard...he mistook her intentions also ...., and she resisted at first. He got physical, poked her in the chest, and grabbed her and tried to pull her into the yard as a club attendee named Israel Schwartz came out the side door, he grimaces at Israel..he flees and pees....and Liz smarts off to the thug, she is after all, capable of taking care of herself with mean customers. She has taken out some mints to freshen her mouth, dry by this confrontation, and she turns and heads toward the open gates. Thug man is inebriated and P*ssed off at being insulted, grabs her scarf and pulls it backward, Liz loses balance, and in a moment of anger and poor judgement, the creep pulls a knife and slides it across her throat while she is still falling or down on her side. He leaves via the gates. All this takes place before Louis arrives, at whatever time he really arrived at.

All Louis knows is that he comes across a dead woman with a slit throat during a throat-slitting spree in the area on his virtual doorstep, on the club property, with a quiet street outside. Looks bad. He goes into a defensive statement mode.

All the best Caz, hope you didnt mind my manner of answering.

Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

I don't disagree that, on one level at least, it may not matter whether or not the victims were actually soliciting or not...so long as either Jack thought they were...or Jack was an opportunist killer...

However, on another level, it may after all matter...the MO with Nicholls and Chapman (Tabram too if you choose to include her) appears (and I emphasise appears) to be a "pick up" with the victim then being allowed to lead the killer to a secluded place of her own choosing...It's a technique which appears to serve the killer well, so why vary it?

So the technique is suddenly NOT used with Stride, but then may well be with Eddowes (though we can't be sure), and again appears to be with Kelly...

So, arguably, (and I agree it's moot) the question of whether a victim was soliciting (and would therefore lead the killer off somewhere) may be important...it could even be that Jack tried his luck with any number of potential victims and was rebuffed by a refusal to take him off somewhere...some of the press reports, admittedly lurid, do suggest this just might be the case...

Who knows what may or may not be important at this distance?

All the best

Dave

[Observer]

Hello Caz,

Thanks for that. Yeah, there is certainly a lot of discussion and argument as to whether Liz was soliciting that night but to me it is a moot point. All that talk of Liz's attire and preparation for going out would be completely lost on Jack. All he would see is a single woman late at night standing by herself, lint brush and velvet be damned. As you say, we will never know what happened next. But trying to determine whether Liz was actively soliciting or not that night won't give us the answer.

c.d.

P.S. I enjoyed the heading on your post. Very appropriate.

Hi c.d.

It's certainly not a moot point to those who believe that Liz Stride had an assignment the night she was murdered. She ultimately being murdered by the one/ones she met. Why do you think they are so insistant that Liz Stride was not soliciting? The suggestion that because Liz Stride took particular attention to her attire that night then she must have arranged to see someone does not hold water for me. For all we know this" dressing up", for what it's worth, come Saturday night (and I don't mean to beliitle Liz Stride here) might well have been a regular occurance in her life.
Regards

Observer

[RivkahChaya]

Thanks for that. Yeah, there is certainly a lot of discussion and argument as to whether Liz was soliciting that night but to me it is a moot point. All that talk of Liz's attire and preparation for going out would be completely lost on Jack. All he would see is a single woman late at night standing by herself, lint brush and velvet be damned. As you say, we will never know what happened next. But trying to determine whether Liz was actively soliciting or not that night won't give us the answer.

I think it's an important point of discussion. I think so, because one woman's definite statement about soliciting, another's statement that suggests that is what she was going to do, along with the fact that Mary Kelly seems to have been a pro, and the discredited, but nonetheless titillating "down on whores" line in one of the letters, has led to lots of wild and woolly theories where Jack was on some kind of manic, or religious (at least, in his mind) crusade, to rid the world of Jezebels. All those theories are bunk. Someone on that kind of crusade would go into a brothel, and do to the women there what Richard Speck did to the student nurses, or just set the place on fire.

You don't make a point about prostitution by killing women who are so ambiguously members of the profession. It would be like declaring a personal war against drug cartels, and then killing a guy with a prescription for medicinal marijuana, a guy who got fired for using cocaine back in the 1980s, but has been clean since, and a stand-up comic, who made a lot of drug jokes, but may not actually use drugs himself. That doesn't send much of a message.

[Observer]

Hi Rivkah

It was patently obvious long before the down on whores letter was delivered that the killer was targetting prostitutes. I don't think it had any bearing on the public mind that the killer was targetting prostitutes, they already knew this.
Regards

Observer

[c.d.]

Just for the record, my point had to do with whether Liz was actively soliciting that night. And my reference to it being moot had only to do with whether that could have ruled out Jack as her killer.

c.d.

[Observer]

And just for the record, my point was a reference to those who believe Liz Stride, on the promise of a date, was lured to her death, thus ruling out any involvment of JTR being responsible for the crime. Any mention of Liz Stride actively soliciting or casually visiting public houses destroys their theory. And by the way, I'd agree, it's a moot point whether she were soliciting or not on the night of her murder, Jack the Ripper done for her all the same.

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Rivkah

It was patently obvious long before the down on whores letter was delivered that the killer was targetting prostitutes. I don't think it had any bearing on the public mind that the killer was targetting prostitutes, they already knew this.
Regards

Observer

I think there's a difference between "targeting prostitutes," and "targeting vulnerable women."

All of the religious mania/crusade sorts of theories require that JTR knew, or had good reason to believe the women he killed were really working prostitutes. Actually, I've never seen a theory that even acceded to the idea that it was only necessary that JTR thought the women were prostitutes-- the theories were quite vehement about the women's activities-- one I read even insisted that JTR knew Stride had been a registered prostitute in Sweden :eyeroll:.

Casual prostitutes in the East End were unquestionably vulnerable. So was a woman who had a date and got stood up, or a woman living alone in a ground-floor apartment with a broken door-latch (which is a loose description of MJK's room, but if the killer happened to know the trick of reaching through the broken window, then effectively the door had no lock), or a woman who didn't have the money for a bed in a doss house, and was sleeping in a doorway.

I'm of the opinion that JTR wasn't targeting prostitutes per se, just vulnerable women he could get to go some place alone with him, and casual prostitutes were probably easy go-tos. Women who worked in brothels, "kept" women, and other higher level prostitutes, who, if one wanted to make a point about prostitution and sin, were more visible, and newsworthy, but a lot less accessible, were not what JTR was after.

For example, if Eddowes was not soliciting, but possibly stumbling and staggering a little, from a combination of residual alcohol, very low blood sugar, and plain tiredness, JTR could have offered her an arm to lean on, and asked which way she was headed, instead of asking her if she'd "do" him for 4d. It doesn't really matter. We know she was alone and vulnerable, and that's all the killer needed.

[lynn cates]

Oh where shall I go wander?

Hello Rivkah.

"For example, if Eddowes was not soliciting, but possibly stumbling and staggering a little, from a combination of residual alcohol, very low blood sugar, and plain tiredness, JTR could have offered her an arm to lean on, and asked which way she was headed, instead of asking her if she'd "do" him for 4d."

Indeed. But it does not explain her direction--to Mitre sq rather than to Flower and Dean.

Cheers.
LC