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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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'.

.

[The Good Michael]

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.

l

Phil,

There seems to be something in the way you write that is typically uncharitable to others. I think it's wonderful that you can have utter respect, love and pity for people that are long gone and you know absolutely nothing about, but you are the opposite for people on the boards. Try not to be so thick if possible. It will be better for you.

Cheers,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

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?

haha! You really don't believe this do you? The others were thrown down like sacks of rubbish? You know this? You make so much up. It's hard to argue against.

Mike

[Damaso Marte]

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'.

Did 'Jack' have any control over where he killed the women, though, other than a no/no-go decision? Most models of the killer posit that the victims picked their own death site - after all they are the ones who avoid police detection for a living. Jack merely avoids it for a hobby.

[Michael W Richards]

haha! You really don't believe this do you? The others were thrown down like sacks of rubbish? You know this? You make so much up. It's hard to argue against.

Mike

Hi Mike,

If had said they were thrown down like sacks of rubbish Id agree with your opinion...but I didnt. There is a very obvious difference in the death pose of Liz Stride when compared with any other Canonical. Is that clearer? Had she been flipped onto her back and her legs splayed...even without any additional cuts to the single throat cut...an argument could be made regarding interruption, this killers intentions and whether or not we have the same guy as the one that killed Polly and Annie.

Since we do not have any of those markers I dont see why people would assume the killer is the same person anyway.

But thats based on my interpretation of logic...it may differ from some others.

Cheers Mike

[Michael W Richards]

Did 'Jack' have any control over where he killed the women, though, other than a no/no-go decision? Most models of the killer posit that the victims picked their own death site - after all they are the ones who avoid police detection for a living. Jack merely avoids it for a hobby.

If thats your opinion Damaso, fine...then explain why a prostitute would bring someone within feet of the street, with lights on in the cottages to the left and a kitchen door ajar a little further down the right hand wall...to perform sexual acts?

A working prostitute and Jack the Ripper have one goal in common...finding a dark, private place to do business. There was a place like that in Dutfields Yard, where the passageway that she dies in leads.

The question applies to both parties....if she was soliciting why such a semi public venue, and if the killer was Jack, a man who mutilates women after he kills them, why kill her where his chances of completing any mutilations are at best sketchy. We know people were awake on the property....so did Liz and her killer.

Cheers

[caz]

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.

Hi Mike,

But we don't even know that the man referred to as Jack the Ripper would have categorised himself as a 'ripper', so why do you? Peter Sutcliffe certainly wouldn't have done. If he hadn't been identified would you now be tossing out all his victims who lived to tell the tale or the murdered ones whose injuries don't fit the definition of a ripping?

If Jack's aim went beyond mutilation to taking away body parts, would he still have hung around for a quick slash or two regardless of how risky the circumstances may have become for him? He may have thought a location like Dutfield's Yard safe enough to begin with, reached the point of no return with Stride then realised he'd never have sufficient time and privacy to do a repeat Hanbury St job.

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

Yeah, well until you can produce a single case of another woman killed the same way during the same period, 'club......whathaveyou', I suggest you forget about her murder being of a 'mundane, everyday type'. It simply wasn't. If a Stride/Eddowes double event happened today, the murders would be linked for sure, without being sandwiched between a Nichols, Chapman and Kelly.

The hard evidence is clear...Liz Stride was absolutely NOT mutilated by someone who primarily sought to mutilate women he kills.

You are right there, Mike. Stride was NOT mutilated at all. But I don't think you meant to write that.

Take it back a step and imagine that your 'someone' had approached Stride, found her hostile and refusing to go off with him, and simply walked away, content to look elsewhere. That man would still have been Jack; would still have selected Stride as his next prospective victim; and would still have left her unmutilated, the only difference being that he would have let her escape with her life, despite her having thwarted his plans and, for all he knew, alerting the cops about his attempt to lure her away.

Take it back another step and imagine your 'someone' in Buck's Row or Hanbury, had Lechmere approached a little earlier before he could mutilate the dead body of Nichols, or had Cadoche peered over the fence before he could start gutting Chapman's corpse. You'd have the same killer, but without the 'ripper' trade name you are so fixated on. His first chance need not have come along until November with the indoor murder of Kelly, and you'd have no clue that her killer had been seeking chances to mutilate since the summer.

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.

As I have suggested, it was pure happenstance that allowed the killer of Nichols and Chapman to achieve what he did at each crime scene. Why would anyone expect a 100% success rate in such locations?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi Phil,

Yes, but if Stride's killer presumed that she could be manhandled and 'persuaded' to go off with him somewhere, apparently for sex but actually for murder and mutilation, she was evidently NOT soliciting, or was at least refusing to budge from the club to go off anywhere else with this man. That may well have been what sealed her fate but left her unmutilated. "Lucky Liz" indeed.

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.

But there would have been similar problems with any of Jack's points of encounter, assuming he approached, or was approached by women who appeared to be looking for paying customers. He may never have intended to mutilate Stride in such a location, any more than he would have tried mutilating Nichols along the Whitechapel Rd, Eddowes along Houndsditch or by St. Botolph's, or Kelly along Commercial St. Those victims presumably went willingly with their killer to the place where he was able to mutilate them immediately after killing them. Stride would have been killed at or very close to the point of encounter, which makes sense if she put up enough resistance and seriously pissed off the nasty man with the knife.

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.

True enough, but did Stride or Eddowes have a farthing between them when they were found dead? It seems not, and Eddowes had claimed she would be in for a damn fine hiding when she got home (presumably for getting drunk and coming back penniless). So unless you buy into the notion that Stride treated herself to the flower and cachous and didn't need any more money because she had a bed lined up, followed no doubt by a champagne breakfast with quails' eggs, courtesy of her new beau, both women were desperate for funds when they died, or their killer took what little they had on them.

Love,

Caz
X