A Possible Reason Why Jack Didn't Mutilate Liz

[Fisherman]

C.d compliments Lynn Cates:

"Let me compliment you in that you seem to keep an open mind to all arguments and don't seem to be wedded to a particular point of view."

For a hundred years Liz´belonging to Jacks tally was considered a done deal by almost everybody. So an opened mind on that particular point should no doubt please you!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

C.d. writes:

"Liz was a prostitute who had been repeatedly abused by Kidney. How concerned could she have been about her social standing?"

If you do not understand that, you have not understood the mechanisms involved in domestic violence, c.d. Many a severely beaten woman have denied having been even touched by their spouses, who are described as perfect gentlemen and very loving. Only this week we have a case in Sweden where a famous artist is accused of having beaten his 22 year younger fiancée up very badly, almost cracking her skull in the process. The apartment where it took place is bloodied all over. There are witnesses aplenty and a very sordid prehistory. But the girl says that she had a nasty fall, and that her guy would never, never ...

It´s about self deception, c.d., and the fact that the rest of us laugh does not enter the equation - the women still claim they have a neat relationship with their bullies. "Mine´s a healthy relationship, it is, and if you claim the opposite, you´re a rotten liar!"

Moreover, when did I say that Kidney was the only suspect? I have claimed dozens of times, and will keep claiming, that I think an affair with somebody else is perhaps more credible.

"As for the noise, I am referring solely to the statements of Eagle and Mrs. Diemschutz. You're right that Schwartz stated that Liz gave out three small cries but that was in the street not in the yard where she was killed."

But if she kept her voice down in the street, owing to it being a domestic affair - why would she start yelling in the yard if she did not see what was coming?

"The lack of noise tells me that Liz went into the yard voluntarily."

Bravo - that is exactly what is indicated!

"I just can't see her doing that with Kidney."

Domestic disputes are more often than not a battle where both sides fire away - albeit in different manners. Often, the man hits and beats, and the woman gets her damage done verbally. This may very well have been the type of domestic violence that went down between Kidney and Stride - it is the most ordinary type, according to research. So if he threw her to the ground, Liz may have wanted to retaliate by taking him into the yard and calling him a spineless coward. That, of course, also constitutes a very useful incitament for bringing the knife out.
So if you cannot see this possibility, I sure can. And very clearly too!

"Obviously we see things differently."

Who says we can´t agree on things, c.d? Im with you on that one!

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

Let me compliment you in that you seem to keep an open mind to all arguments and don't seem to be wedded to a particular point of view. More and more of a rarity on the boards these days.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Fish,

Liz was a prostitute who had been repeatedly abused by Kidney. How concerned could she have been about her social standing? I can't imagine that if Liz saw a probably drunken Kidney coming towards her that she imagined that he was bringing her candy and flowers. I would imagine that her first thought would have been that another beating was on the way. I just can't see her going into the yard with him voluntarily so I guess we see things differently.

As for the noise, I am referring solely to the statements of Eagle and Mrs. Diemschutz. You're right that Schwartz stated that Liz gave out three small cries but that was in the street not in the yard where she was killed. The lack of noise tells me that Liz went into the yard voluntarily. I just can't see her doing that with Kidney. My opinion only. Obviously we see things differently.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d. asks:

"Aren't we supposed to be on a Liz thread here?"

Absolutely, c.d - the Chapman side-rail came about in comparison.

But since you point to this being a Stride thread, I will answer your question:

"As for the singing possibly drowning out any noice, see the thread regarding the statements of Morris Eagle and Mrs. Diemschutz. They went out of their way to emphasize that they felt certain that they would have heard any noise coming from the yard yet they did not."

You have many a time craved a collection of bruises and a lot of yelling in raised voices to accept the suggestion of a domestic dispute, c.d. I will once again point you to Schwartz´testimony where he states very clearly that although Stride was thrown to the ground, she only cried out in a lowered voice! And - once again - typical of domestic disputes is that you manage them away from curious listeners and onlookers. It is the same today - the maltreatment, whatever form it takes, takes place in hidden conditions, normally in a home.

So what do people do when a home is not at hand? Exactly - they look for a secluded place to replace that home, AND THEY KEEP THEIR VOICES LOW! Just like Schwartz tells us that Liz did.
In many cases, screaming will only result in worse treatment. I have no trouble whatsoever to accept that the row - if there was one - inside the yard may have taken place in whispering, heated voices. Nor do I have any problem accepting the thought that Liz may have been the part that chose the yard - normally, the woman is more conscientious of society´s norms, and therefore she chooses to hide a dysfunctional relationship from curious neighbours and friends.

So, c.d., there is an alternative - and, I would say, very likely - scenario of what would have gone down in the yard if we are dealing with a domestic row. And if the man who cut her had murder on his mind from the outset, he would probably have been so much the happier if nothing gave the presence of the couple away, thus depriving the good Mrs. Diemschutz and the wary Mr. Eagle of any hints of what went on.
This is a scenario that has been extremely relevant since man took up social relations, it remains a very common scenario today, and it would have been just as common in 1888.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

what if

Hello CD. Of course all those are good points. Perhaps domestic in the traditional sense was misleading of me?

Would it not be ironic if she met a fine young Jewish man at her employer's and, although disparate in age, they decided to meet and have a date. What if he met her at the door? What if he were named Kosminski or Kaminski? What if he were having a psychotic episode and feared for his virginity?

Of course, I don't buy it, but it's a thought.

Best.
LC

[c.d.]

Aren't we supposed to be on a Liz thread here?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Dixon9 asks:

"are you saying we disregard all these witness's?"

That I am not, Dixon. But I AM saying that the witnesses stories and timings do not correlate, just as is ordinarily the case with the Ripper testimonies. It is stated that 5.30 was seven minutes after sunup, but we know, for example, that Cadosch said that as he looked at the clock on his way to work, some distance from home, it was 5.32. So we are moving around in the vicinity of sunup, it would seem - but just how bright it was when the Ripper struck is very difficult to say.
It is tempting to see the Chapman deed as a decision along the "it´s now or never" line - the Ripper may have realized that the nights secure conditions were slipping away, and acted on that. He did not need many minutes to do what he wanted.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

I'm sorry but I just can't see the whole domestic scenario. Would any of Liz's neighbors or friends been aware that she was involved in numerous torrid affairs and divulged that information to the police so that they could have pursued it?

Also, if it were a domestic, wouldn't you expect an escalating argument? Wouldn't you expect voices to get louder and louder as the anger built? Wouldn't you expect that Liz would have been slapped around so that she had marks on her face? Your question of what Liz could have done to merit being killed is a good one because whoever killed her wanted her dead.

As for the singing possibly drowning out any noice, see the thread regarding the statements of Morris Eagle and Mrs. Diemschutz. They went out of their way to emphasize that they felt certain that they would have heard any noise coming from the yard yet they did not.

c.d.

[dixon9]

thanks again lynn,i am just going by richardson saying it was almost light when he was cutting piece off his boot,cadosch going to little boys room twice and finally long's sighting.
Just feel to many to overlook about approx time/how light it would have been.

Dixon9
still learning

[lynn cates]

noise

Hello CD. I am not advocating Michael Kidney. I don't think he could have held it in at the inquest.

It looks like she was meeting someone at the side door of the club. They went a few feet, and it happened.

The big problem for such a scenario: what the devil did she do to cause such an over reaction?

Liz's sound.

Well, we don't know if she did or didn't. If she yelled during the sudden onslaught (which seems unlikely due to anatomical constraints), AND she were heard, would you want your club (socialist) investigated closely by the police? Why not feign ignorance?

Moreover, wasn't there a noisy party in progress?

LC

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

If there were flared tempers, why didn't anybody in the club hear any noise?

Also, if it were a domestic dispute, why would Liz have ended up back in the yard? If it were Kidney and all he wanted to do was "talk" why not do it on the street? The same holds true for somebody else exhibiting signs of jealousy. Liz would have to have been a fool to go back voluntarily into a darkened yard with them. And if she is dragged back into the yard during a domestic dispute, how do the cachous remain in her hand unbroken?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

witnesses

Hello Dixon. Let's not disregard them; let's take them cum grano salis.

Remember: Richardson had 3 different stories. The inquest version seems to be number 2. First, he seems not to go into the yard. Then, he does. He sits on the step to trim his shoe. But when questioned, he changes to, I tried, but failed to trim the shoe. (This is reminiscent of a Monty Python skit--The Piranha Brothers. After a denial, Luigi is confronted with the facts and makes a quick reversal: "Yeah, 'e did that. 'E 'ad to!")

Long and Cadosch are hopelessly out of sync with the time. It is likely that she heard 5:15 (not 5:30) strike. She sees a punter and a prostitute close a deal. Albert, meanwhile hears them enter the back yard. She sees Annie's body. (No, No!) Hearing Albert, she (or he) stumbles thinking the killer is coming back.

Work out the times. It's quite logical.

There is a good piece by Vanderlinden regarding this very thing.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

domestic dispute

Hello CD. Well, if it were a sudden altercation--as in domestic dispute--it would be natural for the flared temper to simmer down and a horror at the deed to assert itself. (Oh, Liz, what have I done?)

Cheers.

LC

[dixon9]

thanks fisherman and lynn,i just feel we have to take on trust(and merits) the three witness (Richardson,Long and Cadosch) regarding the time,noises etc.
Or are you saying we disregard all these witness's?

Dixon9
still learning