Throat-slitting and Stride

[Michael W Richards]

Hello again,

I agree with some of the comments on the issue of whether or not Liz was soliciting at the time of her death, its not the defining characteristic one can use to include or dismiss her as a "Ripper" victim. I think the first 2 victims were chosen because they were actively soliciting alone, but the same killer might have just assumed Liz was too....as many here do. It is likely very relevant to the question of WHY she was killed.

What I cannot understand is a belief that a "Ripper" killed her. Using only the physical evidence and setting aside the circumstantial, there is nothing on which to base that assumption. No evidence of Ripping...or attempts to do anything other than kill.

This murder makes Canonical believers argue that there was an interruption despite the lack of evidence for that conclusion or that a Ripper, who cuts throats in a specific manner and then mutilates his victims, might just choose not to. Without a catalyst for that decision, such as an interruption..which again, isn't present in the evidence, there seems to be little basis for that to be considered the most probable case.

Cheers

[The Good Michael]

This murder makes Canonical believers argue that there was an interruption despite the lack of evidence for that conclusion

lack of evidence? In a small mind, maybe. The cart came up to the gate about the time of the murder. The death was so very recent that it could have been anytime between a few seconds and several minutes that she was killed. Stride, if believed to have been a soliciting prostitute as many contemporaries did, fits closely with the other victims generally speaking. She was killed in a darkened area nearly up against a gate. This is also similar to the others. At a time when throat-cutting of older female prostitutes was a seldom occurrence as shown by many researchers, the interruption theory logically answers the question of why she wasn't mutilated, and why another was more savagely mutilated than the others who came before. If this is putting the cart before the horse, then so be it, but to conclude that there is lack of evidence is daft and simple-minded. At worst and until other things are known, this is a 50/50 or greater proposition.

Mike

[Stephen Thomas]

Hello CD.

My summary:

"Liz on a date - she could have been killed by extra-terrestrials.

Liz soliciting - she could have been killed by extra-terrestrials."

Hello Lynn

Rather lax use of quotation marks there, my friend.

[Observer]

It was you who stuck your nose in pal. I was replying to Mike Richards when you offered your opinion.

Observer - as caz wrote yesterday (I think): These are public boards and public discussions. I'll continue to stick my elbow in as and when I see fit, irrespective of bullies like you.

Your snide remarks even appeared in the east End pics thread - and I note from the e-mail version sent to me automatically that you removed a highly personal comment from it! I think that was advisable.

So don't come all holier than thou, perlease!!!

Someone has to stand up to you.

Phil

Phil- Casebook message boards are indeed all you make them out to be. The reason I commented about you sticking your nose in , was a direct response to you telling me to GET OFF YOUR BACK. I was merely pointing out that it was you who initiated the exchanges between us.

The reason I made the comment in the other thread was
a) the response you made to my comment was in my opinion provocative
b) It came after you had thrown a strop, and told me to GET OFF YOUR BACK.

By the way, I encourage posters to stick up to me, as you say this is a public forum. The thing is Phil I can take criticism, unlike you. I tell you, if I had a quid for each occasion that you had thrown a strop, and exiled yourself from this forum, I'd be a wealthy man. You've made more comebacks than Billy Bongo's boomerang.

Oh, and by the way, regarding bullying. Not once have my comments resulted in a fellow poster leaving this forum. Something of which you are guilty of.

[Stephen Thomas]

Love all of you for caring about a horror 125 years old that we WILL solve eventually.
Yours truly deadstrings1969

Dead right. That's why most of us are here.

The L word doesn't get used here often and it's nice to see it.

[lynn cates]

gnosis

Hello CD. Thanks.

No doubt her friends would have known EXACTLY what she was doing at all times.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Ask, and ye shall be . . . confused.

Hello (again) CD. Thanks.

"You ask the was she soliciting while with Kidney question as though you know the answer. I certainly don't know but I would not be surprised if that were the case, if only occasionally and maybe without him knowing it."

What? Someone who knew her well and did not know whether she were soliciting? Good thing the coppers did not ask HIM! (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

forensic reconstruction

Hello Michael. Actually, it is merely a matter of forensic reconstruction.

If Liz had been between gate and building, all bets would be off.

She was not.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

And I quote. . .

Hello Stephen. Thanks.

Are quotes not used for the whole item quoted?

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Thomas]

Hello Stephen. Thanks.

Are quotes not used for the whole item quoted?

Hello Lynn

One shouldn't quote what was never said or written as if it had been.

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael. Actually, it is merely a matter of forensic reconstruction.

If Liz had been between gate and building, all bets would be off.

She was not.

Cheers.
LC

Unimportant to my statement of similarity. There was a gate and a yard and a building. This was similar seclusion to what had gone before. There were also decent escape routes. Had Stride been killed any further in, escape would have been more difficult. Luckily for him, the interruption allowed him to get out quickly...or hide...or blend in with the club (if you go for that sort of thing.)

Mike

[lynn cates]

template

Hello Stephen. The quote was used as a template, with my summary, mutatis mutandis.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

meaningful reconstruction

Hello Michael. Thanks.

"Unimportant to my statement of similarity."

But of paramount importance to a meaningful reconstruction.

"Had Stride been killed any further in. . ."

But if she were engaged in "trade," why was she not hiding behind the gate (as per martin Fido)?

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael. Thanks.

"Unimportant to my statement of similarity."

But of paramount importance to a meaningful reconstruction.

"Had Stride been killed any further in. . ."

But if she were engaged in "trade," why was she not hiding behind the gate (as per martin Fido)?

She died inside the gate; the door swung just past her feet...but you mean she solicited outside I presume. I don't see why she would have hidden or could have hidden behind the gate and still be visible for solicitation. Is that what you mean?

Mike

[Bridewell]

Hello Colin.

"What was his exit strategy, I wonder?"

Why must we assume he had one?

Cheers.
LC

We don't have to make such an assumption but the alternative is that he got away on every occasion through blind luck. Either is possible, but I think some kind of thought process more probable than the alternative in the circumstances.