Throat-slitting and Stride

[c.d.]

Hello CD.

"Liz might have had her suspicions and may have felt more secure being close to the club. If Jack was intent upon killing her and she said it's here or not at all, what were his options?"

More to the point, IF she were suspicious, what were HER options?

Perhaps to leave?

And suspicious of what?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Yes, not going off with Jack would be an option but that would mean not being paid.

I expect after Tabram, Nichols and Chapman had been killed that she would have been suspicious of any client.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Liz might have prepared herself as she did that evening because she was expecting to go on a date. It does not necessarily follow that she therefore went on a date because sometimes dates don't show up.

Even if she was on a date, we don't know how long that date lasted. Her date might have gotten sick. Perhaps there was an argument and he left.

It is extremely reasonable to think that Jack might have taken a woman standing by herself late at night to be a prostitute especially if he had seen her soliciting before. Cachous, a lint brush, a flower would mean nothing to him.

So whether Liz was soliciting that night or not is pretty much of a moot point. What we don't know is how she would have reacted at the end of the evening if approached by Jack and offered money for her services.

To sum up:

Liz on a date - she could have been killed by Jack.

Liz soliciting - she could have been killed by Jack.

c.d.

[Phil H]

Inteseresting.

I'd say those descriptions might all be of the same man - given that in late September the nights are drawing in and it would be quite dark, the lighting in the streets etc would throw shadows quite different to those we are used to.

On hats, we are not looking at photographs, but hearing people's recollections.

In a gas lit street could one be sure a bowler (derby for Americans) a deerstalker (fore and aft peaks) and other sorts of hats did not look similar, or might be mistaken for each other.

The thing that is common to me in all the descriptions is "respectable" nature of the man described:

well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat
had on a collar and tie
respectably dressed in a small black cut-away coat and dark trousers
He had the appearance of a clerk.
a long overcoat which went down almost to his heels
a dark overcoat and trousers
described as 'respectable' looking

People can acquire things in an evening out - it appears Stride was bought a flower and the cashous, as well as grapes. Maybe the man bought some fish or meat for his tea.

So I don't come to the same conclusions as you based on the evidence, nor do I consider myself niaive in doing so.

When I lived in London I used to see well-known actors doing their shopping in the local supermarket. Household names. Were they being celebrities as they shopped, or acting? No - they had a private life too. Why deny Stride one?

Phil

[Observer]

ll, I'll speak up for Stride - sticks and stones and all that, Observer.

However Liz made money from time to time - and that she was at least an occasional prostitute I have no doubt - I see no evidence that she was working as such on the night she was killed.

As I said earlier, even prostitutes have time off and I think the evidence (again I listed it all earlier, but I doubt the literacy of some of you) suggests that she was on her own time on a date when she was killed.

The evidence - the preparations she made (careful and personal) - the clothesbrush for instance; the piece of velvet; the flower, the grapes and the cashous later; the fact that IMHO at least) she was seen consistently with one "clerkly" man all night.--

I am quite prepared to be proved wrong, but no evidence I have seen to date says other than that Liz Stride was NOT soliciting that night.

Phil

It's all down to personnel interpretation Phil. Looking at the only photograph we have of Liz Stride I'd say she was still quite an attractive woman at the time of her death, all things considered.

Consequently it's quite possible that Liz Strides use of the clothes brush, the flower etc, was a regular occurrence come Saturday evening. Looking more attractive to a potential customer would no doubt increase her success rate in the solicitation stakes.

Regarding her being in the company of a single man that evening, I disagree.

Here are the descriptions from the various witnesses who purported to see her that evening.

Best and Gardener: The man was about 5ft. 5in. in height. He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat. He had rather weak eyes. I mean he had sore eyes without any eyelashes. I should know the man again amongst a hundred. He had a thick black moustache and no beard. He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie.

William Marshall: - he was middle-aged and stout, about 5ft 6in tall, respectably dressed in a small black cut-away coat and dark trousers. He was wearing a small peaked cap, "something like a sailor would wear". He had the appearance of a clerk.

James Brown (if you believe he saw Stride) -The man was described as being about 5ft 7in tall and stoutly built, wearing a long overcoat which went down almost to his heels. He was wearing a hat, but Brown was unable to describe it. It was quite dark, so he could not tell if the woman was wearing a flower on her jacket, but both appeared sober.

PC Smith: He described the man as being about 28 years of age, 5ft 7in tall, wearing a dark overcoat and trousers. He also wore a hard felt deerstalker hat and was described as 'respectable' looking. The man was also holding a newspaper parcel, about 18in in length and 6 or 8in wide. He also noticed that the woman had a flower in her jacket.

With the best will in the World the descriptions above do not equate to Liz Stride being in the company of a single individual between the hours of 11p.m. and 12:35 a.m. Most telling is the age difference between Best, Gardeners, and Marshall's man, and PC Smiths man. PC Smith had his man holding a parcel, none of the other witnesses mentioned this fact. The hats differ wildly also.

Observer

[Phil H]

ll, I'll speak up for Stride - sticks and stones and all that, Observer.

However Liz made money from time to time - and that she was at least an occasional prostitute I have no doubt - I see no evidence that she was working as such on the night she was killed.

As I said earlier, even prostitutes have time off and I think the evidence (again I listed it all earlier, but I doubt the literacy of some of you) suggests that she was on her own time on a date when she was killed.

The evidence - the preparations she made (careful and personal) - the clothesbrush for instance; the piece of velvet; the flower, the grapes and the cashous later; the fact that IMHO at least) she was seen consistently with one "clerkly" man all night.

I am quite prepared to be proved wrong, but no evidence I have seen to date says other than that Liz Stride was NOT soliciting that night.

Phil

[Observer]

Your naivety beggars belief.

[Michael W Richards]

The assumptions about whether Liz Stride was engaged in prostitution at the time of her death do not take into account what she was doing that last day, or the recent days leading up to the murder. She cleaned rooms her last day, and she stated that she was "at work among the Jews" during the weeks leading up to her death. We also know, as Lynn pointed out, that she only became "single" a few days before being murdered.

So we have a woman who was actively employed on the day of her death doing cleaning, a woman who had been employed as cleaner for some weeks prior to that point, a woman who had just left her boyfriend that same week, and a woman who in the words of her boyfriend, would disappear for weeks at a time when she was his girl.

Street walkers of that period needed one of 2 things in order to stop that activity, gainful employment, or a supportive friend or partner.

Liz Stride when actively working as a street prostitute in Sweden sought out legitimate work so she didnt have to solicit, she found it, and petitioned to have her name struck from the Goteborg prostitutes register once she had an employer who would sign that affidavit.

What Swanson said matters little since there is no record of her being arrested, charged or identified by people who knew her far better than he did as someone who worked the streets.

The statement from the fellow at the lodging house said it best....she was a very clean woman who when faced with a lack of funds would have to resort to whatever means to survive.

Thats an Unfortunate, not a prostitute......a world of difference.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

reconstruction

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Therefore, whatever they report along those lines is guesswork."

Quite agree--guesswork.

Liz may have been a prostitute for all that. She may even have been soliciting the night she died. But knowing would be helpful--only if to reconstruct her movements.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

forensic purposes

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"There was a charge of solicitation also."

You've located it then? I'd be most obliged for details. I've not found that one yet.

"But we're not talking about suspects here, or what the various police officials thought about suspects in retrospect. We're talking about the ongoing investigation and the police perspective on the evidence they were gathering at the time."

Yes, but "suspects" are surely part of their perspective.

I have no doubt they investigated Liz through her friends and acquaintances. And there was the allegation from her youth in Sweden. Whether they were right or wrong, I leave history to judge.

Of course, most important is, Was she soliciting that night? And this is important ONLY for forensic purposes.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

The police, according to the paper, thought she was a prostitute based on her get up. A tad weak, no?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

All I can say to that is what I have been saying all along, Scotland Yard did not inform the press on the details of their investigation. Therefore, whatever they report along those lines is guesswork.

[Hunter]

"The police did not limit their inquiries into Stride's past to the week before she died. They knew about her Thames Magistrate Court appearances. The coroner even brought them up at the inquest."

He did indeed. But can infer prostitution from D & D?

There was a charge of solicitation also.

"If there is a valid reason to question Swanson's assertion that Stride was a prostitute, I haven't heard it."

Perhaps. But I have never seen a good reason to accept it.
MacNaughten, Anderson and Littlechild all had reasons (which we know not of) for choosing certain suspects. But surely all three favourites were not guilty?

But we're not talking about suspects here, or what the various police officials thought about suspects in retrospect. We're talking about the ongoing investigation and the police perspective on the evidence they were gathering at the time.

[lynn cates]

There is therefore now no condemnation . . .

Hello CRB.

"has this discussion turned to "condemn the victim" rather than look for the killer?"

I know of no one who does this.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

police favourites

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"The police did not limit their inquiries into Stride's past to the week before she died. They knew about her Thames Magistrate Court appearances. The coroner even brought them up at the inquest."

He did indeed. But can infer prostitution from D & D?

"If there is a valid reason to question Swanson's assertion that Stride was a prostitute, I haven't heard it."

Perhaps. But I have never seen a good reason to accept it.

MacNaughten, Anderson and Littlechild all had reasons (which we know not of) for choosing certain suspects. But surely all three favourites were not guilty?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

get up

Hello Jon. Thanks.

The police, according to the paper, thought she was a prostitute based on her get up. A tad weak, no?

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Its about establishing some facts, or at least reasonable probability.
Good luck finding the killer at this remove.
I know of no one condemning the victim here... certainly not me!