|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 608
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 11:15 pm: | 
|
Hi Restless,
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how this was done myself, nor can I remember where this information originates from. I'm sure I read it here somewhere, and that somewhere this information has a citation to a reference. The term "knee trembler" stuck with me though. I seem to recall some statements where prostitutes of the era bragged they had not been penetrated by a client in years though, or something to that effect.
While trying to maintain a bit of politeness, if the usual position was standing up, the client probably rather intoxicated, a fairly large bulky dress in much of the way, and not a lot of time, perhaps it would be difficult to know exactly what is where.
- Jeff |
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 2:33 am: |
|
Jeff Hamm
Jeff you are priceless, and I know exactly where you are coming from when you are trying to put the facts forward politely. Honestly I have tried every position myself to try to comprehend the concept but I will be dammed if I can figure out how it can be done under the circumstances with these ladies mentioned before (rather large of stature). I of course did not try this procedure with an unsuspecting male. You sure have been polite with your explanation but I am mystified, blown away(so to speak).
Thank you though for the lesson and explanation explaining the procedure.
It was a pleasure reading your post and I do hope you did not think I was impolite in my zeal to figure out or visualize this new or old approach to sexual activity. I am stymied. I do not have anyone to try it on at the present time,however I doubt very much that I would suggest it or try it on a partner of mine.
You are very patient and yes very polite.
Thanks Jeff
Restless Spirit
|
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 45
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 7:02 am: |
|
I dont know if this will make sense but I'll try!
I belive that the sequence of the "double event" makes Stride not a Ripper victim.
Stride was attacked in an area with many people about which was the complete opposite to the other victims. Eddowes in an area which was similar, in remoteness, to the other victims.
Had Eddowes been killed first and the Ripper didn't have the oppotunity to perfrom the mutilations I believe he would have been angry/pumped up enough to attack Stride in such a crowded area. But the other way round? I'm not sure. Why would the Ripper attack someone in an area as the one Stride was murdered in?
I strongly believe that Stride was killed by Michael Kidney in a drunken rage. |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 138
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 7:19 am: |
|
I'm afraid Restless, that your clear intention to point the finger at a particular "type" of Ripper, rather undermines your theory in my eyes. Although you are honest enough to make it clear that you are stating your "beliefs".
You wrote:
I certainly agree with you re Mr. B.S.
If he was J t R he was sure being careless to be seen by witnesses... I believe Mr. B.S. was someone like Kosminski... a known lunatic, she rejected him for obvious reasons, he attacked her... Mr. B.S. shouts to Schwartz, he flees Mr. Pipeman on his tail, Liz is left alone.
Along comes Jack who may have witnessed the whole scenerio (from a secure unwitnessed location). He the gentleman offers his hand to help her up...
This is all very well, but there is not a shred of conclusive evidence that "Jack" was a gentleman. Secondly, there is not a single report of a "gentleman" in Berner St that night.
Liz may have seen a "date" who sounds more like a clerk than a "gentleman" but even that is circumstantial. I suppose I have to ask - what do you mean by a "gentleman"? From what strata of Victorian society do you see him coming? How would he have been dressed? This is important in terms of what people saw - and there were plenty of people in busy Berner St that night.
Finally, you have created this person who comes up, gentleman or not, out of whole cloth.
If Mr B.S. has an identity, it was IMHO almost certainly Michael Kidney who had potential "reason" and was known to be violent". His involvement would explain, Occaam's razor style, almost all Liz's known actions.
Sorry to have to disagree so strongly.
Phil |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 302
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 7:35 am: |
|
Hi Restless,
I just sent you a private message about the above, which I didn't think I could post on the boards without the site being closed down!
Hope it fills in the gaps, although Jeff did an admirable job under the circumstances!!!!!
Hi Lee,
I am totally on board with your post, and it is what makes most sense to me, I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at who killed her, although I think Kidney is certainly in the frame for it......
Of course we still have to say that it is impossible to be sure one way or the other if she was a JtR victim or not, but I do lean more to your scenario than any other........
That is a good point about which order would have been more logical.........have to think about that one a bit.............
Any reasons other than that you think that Liz was not a victim of JtR?
Love to all
Jane
xxxxx |
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 8:07 am: |
|
Hi Restles spirit and Jeff
Yes there was a considerable debate on another thread about prostitutes and contreseption. The problem being that if women were doing a dozen or so tricks a night fooling every client with what you discribe as a knee trembler doesn't add up. Nor the anal theory which gained popularity after its inclusion 'From Hell'.
Unfortunately there appears to be no writen account about how women of this period reduced the risk of pregnancy. (I seem to remember someone gave a link to another site on this subject) Its a problem that was probably passed down by ladies of the night since Roman times but if you'll excuse the pun an oral history.
There were a number off idea's raised, but the one I liked, which sort of conects with MJK. Is the use of a hanker-cheif or peice of clothe. Silk was certainly used. Whether fine linin would work I'm not certain, perhaps it would reduce the odds, but I've never tried.
I would think pregnancy very common. I beleive the term 'Mothers Ruin' comes from a proceedure which included large amounts of Gin and Hot water to create an abortion but I'm afraid old nana Leahy never went into great details.
Interestinyly I cault a programme on the Aztec's and Mian's last night who invented latex hundreds of years ago. Certainly the Victorian inventor of the Macintosh new of its properties.
Logic dectates to me that in their heavy dresses, they turned their backs, lifted their dresses on to back the client coming from behind (though I dont bye the anal, not every customers choice). But this would be easier than standing upright facing each other in heavy clothes.
But from the research I did noone could give me a diffinative answer. I suspect that these woman would be street wise and pass down every trick from generation to generation but there simply would have been alot of ignorance and unwanted pregnancies.
The statistic is easy take the total number of prostitutes working in London, work out the average number of tricks per night and times by 365.
Lets hope the silk hankies worked
Jeff |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 303
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
HI Jeff,
I'll try and be as delicate as possible on this, but if it starts getting too out of hand, I might have to send a private message as I did to Restless!
I was brought up amongst prostitutes, the back alley that we lived in had more prozzies per square inch than any red light district. They all looked after each others kids, while they were working, so you can imagine that my upbringing was 'interesting' to say the least.
Pregnancies happened far too frequently, just as they still did in the 50's and 60's of this century.......some things don't change that much.
Yes there were methods used that helped to keep the pregnancy rate down a bit.....prostitutes knew what times of the month they were more or less likely to get pregnant and would avoid certain days......
There first choice for intercourse would be to avoid actual penetration if they could get away with it, depending on how drunk the client was basically they would try get get away with the least they could for money...........
Mother's ruin as the term goes, was boiled gin and a scaldingly hot bath. I think the idea was that boiling the gin changed it's chemical properties and turned it into a natural abortive substance.....the very hot bath presumably was supposed to induce shock to the system, but I honestly don't know how effective it was......very common though so I suppose it must have worked sometimes.......
Strychnine was used with the same principle in mind, and slippery elm too I believe, obviously some sort of plant, inserted was supposed to produce and abortion.........never heard that one actually used..........
Quite often they would get someone to punch them hard in the lower abdomen, which did often work, but was obviously dangerous and only used as a last resort if all else failed........
The other methods I might not be able to go into, but I'll see how I go and draw a veil over it, if it starts to get a bit out of hand........
Prostitutes often performed abortions on themselves using any sharp instrument to hand or they would do it for one another......it is actually not hard to do, but very dangerous and septicemia can set in or they could just not stop the bleeding.......quite a few deaths resulted from these home remedies........
An abortion could be procured from a midwife, who doubled up as an abortionist, but they used the same methods, usually just a knitting needle or something similar, unsterilized and with no anethesetic, although the poor woman was usually got so drunk before hand that it did help a bit............
I'm not sure what the mortality rate was, but there were often complications which the poor women had to live with quite often for the rest of their lives.
I had never heard about the silk before, but I suspect that prostitutes of the lowest class just too their chances.......It is quite possible that all of JtR's victims were passed child bearing age anyway, being in their mid to late forties and the chances of them actually getting pregnant less than when they were younger anyway........
They did used to have condoms though, which were made from animal intestines......not sure that would have been the case with our ladies, but it was very common ...........
I'm not sure if I should be ashamed that I know all that or not......but you did ask!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jane
xxxx |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 46
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Slight change of subject here. I would advise everyone to see the film Vera Drake which is a very powerful film based around illegal abortions in the 1950's.
Jane asked,
"Any reasons other than that you think that Liz was not a victim of JtR?"
Apart from the sequence of the "double event" and the location there are a few reasons. Liz Stride was spotted hanging around Berner Street for some time with a "date" who started to attack her. Whould JTR hang around for so long with a victim? We dont know how long he spent with any of his victims but I doubt any of them spent as long as Stride did with her attacker and in such public view.
Another thing I think is wrong is that Stride's killer was nearly caught. No one knows how the Ripper evaded the police on his murder nights but I suspect that it was because he knew a bit about the local police beat and area. It just stands out as wrong.
If Stride was a Ripper victim I personally belive that it adds weight to any "2 man" theory. Not just because of pipe man at the Stride scene but because of the "double event as well.
Another thing regarding the Stride murder. If she wasn't a Ripper victim, as I believe, I wonder if somebody avoided arrest because the police threw both murders together and the Ripper had a cast iron alibi for the Stride murder.
(Message edited by lee on March 03, 2005) |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 513
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Hi Lee,
Although I'm also inclined to think Stride wasn't a Ripper victim, I have some remarks regarding your last post.
Stride may have been hanging around Berner Steet in the company of a date for quite some time (this is the impression I got from reading about this particular case), but as far as I know there's no indication that it was her 'date' who attacked her.
Another thing is that, judging from the fact that blood was still flowing in Nichols' case as well when she was found, her killer had most probably just got away before Paul and Cross found her.
For what it's worth, I believe the Ripper kept on 'ripping' until he heard Charles Cross and PC Watkins approach the scene. Nobody in particular seems to have disturbed him in Chapman's case (it was probably the fact that it was getting light and that people were about to rise). He had probably already left at least some 15 minutes before Chapman was found.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 304
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Hi Lee,
Firstly before I say the following don't forget we're on the same side!!!!!!!!!
I just thought I better point it out before somone else does.....
It was not necessarily her 'date' that assaulted her.
If you read the witness testimonies, you'll see that Gardner and Best describe the man she was with outside the Bricklayers arms as being 'five feet five inches tall, had a black moustache, sandy eyelashes and wore a morning suit and a billycock hat'.....
There is no evidence that this man was her killer. As you rightly pointed out this man would have been in her company for a further two hours after they left the pub, hardly a sensible thing for a serial killer to do.........
Another witness William Marshall saw Liz with 'a man of clerky appearance, some five feet six inches tall, stout, wearing a small black coat, dark trousers and a peaked sailor's cap.'This would have been about 11.45 pm and it was obviously not the same man......
Then we come of course to dear old Matthew Packer who gives a description of someone who was 25 - 30 abut five feet seven, wearing a long black coat and a soft felt hat...But he did have broad shoulders and was stout........
Now whether we believe him or not is another matter but this again would have been around 11.45. Rather too long a time for her killer to want to hang around with his victim in public view......
Unfortunately after that she was supposedly seen again by Constable Smith and the description he gives is that the man was 'five feet seen inches tall, clean shaven, around 28, wearing dark clothes and a dark hard felt deerstalker hat'......which leaves us up sunny side creek without the proverbial paddle!
There was another sighting by James Brown which is a bit more tentative, at around 12.45 which describes the man as stout, abut 5 feet seven inches and wearing a long coat that reached almost to his heels........hardly surprising that no-one can say for sure what Liz actually got up to that night!
So where does that leave us in regard to Scwartz's testimony? How many men did Liz go with that night and which of them were dates and which clients? I would not like to hazard a guess which one of these if any are actually accurate descriptions but it does not seem that none of them really tally with Schwarz's description of Mr BS.........
There is some discussion though that they do tally with the sightings made by Lawende in Catharine's case, so that one has to be left open.
Allin all though I don't think it is at all safe to say that Liz was killed by a 'date' possibly, but it was just as likely to be a disgruntled client and ex boyfriend or of course JtR himself.....
I do think that JtR had a good knowledge of the local police beats, which makes me think that he was a local man.
In my personal view I agree with you that Mr BS didn't seem too clued up on how precarious his situation was that night, either didn't know or was too drunk to care.........
Not sure about the 2 man theory, not impossible, I did look into it once, but decided it wasn't so feasible, but I can't remember why......(old age)
If Liz was killed in a domestic, then I think you are right, he was a very lucky man indeed..........
Love Jane
xxxxx
|
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 47
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Hi Jane and Frank.
You both make some very good comments.
I think that the Stride case is the one with the most mystery attached to it. If it could ever be allocated to anyone other than the Ripper it will end once and for all a lot of theories. (including the diary!)
Jane wrote: "Firstly before I say the following don't forget we're on the same side!!!!!!!!! "
No need to worry about that Jane. If anyone is willing to post his/her views on this site they should except that they will be offered alternative views or errors will be pointed out to them. I am always willing to stand corrected, except with my girlfriend!
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3217
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
A very good post indeed.
You simply took the words right out of my mouth.
As you say, we have no evidence whatsoever that the "date" was the one that assaulted.
Let's just not forget, that one should be cautious about the true relevancy of witness descriptions; the perceptions of each person are so different and ruled by personal references that we should not rely too much on them whatever theory we have.
But still...
As for Mattew Packer, he actually delivered two, slightly diverging, witness descriptions, and also in later interviews changed the time of the incident, so one wonders really how reliable his testimony is.
To conclude, we have very little evidence of many men Stride really accosted that night and which role they played (and which ones that actually did exist), so we should not assume that the long date was the same man as Mr Broad Shoulders or her killer.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on March 03, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 514
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
"I would not like to hazard a guess which one of these if any are actually accurate descriptions..."
Neither would I. As I've said in earlier posts I don't attach much importance to such descriptions unless they include one or preferably more striking features.
In Stride's case that would only be the respectable appearance of Stride's companion and the flower pinned to her jacket. In addition the way they behaved seems telling to me as well. The man was showing affection for Stride, they were quietly talking to one another and they both appeared to be sober.
All my best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 609
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Hi,
I recall in one of the various JtR books (maybe Sugden's?) some discussion on whether or not all these sightings were, in fact, of Stride. The quote "Not tonight, some other night" couple was suggested as being two other people, a fellow and his fiance, though I forget if names were supplied and the full reasoning for this. Does anyone else recall such a suggestion?
Anyway, this is one of the issues that would need clarification. Which of these sightings are definate, and which are more tentative and so prone to error.
I agree with Glenn that Packer's description should be ignored. Where he agrees with others, well, we have the other's information already. And since his story keeps changing in time and place, and when originally questioned by the police he claimed to have seen nothing, well, I think we gain more by dropping him from consideration. Based upon his behaviour, he's more likely to add mis-information than useful information. Even if he were "telling the truth", we have enough similar information from other people that he adds little. The only unique bit he adds are the grapes, and the medical testimony clearly tested Stride's stomach contents for signs of grapes, and there weren't any. So, even if Packer sold someone grapes, it wasn't Stride who ate them. The reports of her holding a grape stalk are also refuted by the reports of the crime scene at the inquest, so we can put this down to "creative reporting" of the newspapers.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 610
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Hi Restless,
I would think that the "knee trembler" might be easier for a larger women to "get away with", simply because her thighs are wider? And, I believe the Egyptians knew that pregnancy could be prevented by an IUD, in the form of pebbles from a river. How they first discovered this, I'm not entirely sure (sort of like who first realised that if you let cabbage rot and ferment for a while, it makes tasty sourcraut? Who first thinks, "Hey, maybe that's good to eat?" ha!)
Anyway, poor diet and poor nutrition can greatly reduce the liklihood of pregnancy. It can even stop the normal cycle. Given the living conditions, this would all help to reduce the liklihood of pregnancy. Of course, it would not eliminate it, and there would be all sorts of "home remedies", and illeagle abortions, etc.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Hi,
I feel that Elizabeth stride was waiting for somebody before she was killed, possibly the man she left with when observed by Gardner and associate, is it not a possibility that her friend popped into the club whilst she waited at the entrance, and whilst he was inside the incident occured?.
we will never know the reason Stride was standing outside the entrance to Dutfields yard, but a fair bet is that she was told to wait there, by the person she spent part of the evening with, the question is Why?.
As mentioned she could have been waiting for the man of cleric description to return from wherever, mayby the man she spent the evening with saw her as his victim and went to attain his weapon, or a simplier explanation , he went into the club, and upon hearing of the episode that occured kept silent of any involvement.
Richard. |
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 29
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Jeff Hamm
Thank you for explaining this procedure to me. I am sure enlightned now. HAHA
I still have a difficult time trying to visualize this procedure, but I am still confused as to why these men didn't know the difference.
I must be living a very sheltered life.
regards
Restless Spirit
|
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Phil Hill
Hi Phil
Constructive critism never hurt anyone and should be accepted if presented tactfully,yours was. I will be the first one to admit that I am behind on the board discussions, that's why I am suggesting certain sceneros. Her case is different, there is no question about that. But so far there has not been any proof submitted by anyone who can unequibically tell us what actually happened that night.
I appreciate your comments,and accept your opinion.
regards
Restless Spirit
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 615
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Hi Restless,
It's strange to think they wouldn't know, but if the clients were generally intoxicated, and nervous about being caught, perhaps they weren't all that concerned? Again, I'm not really sure exactly how this was all supposed to work, but it's reported somewhere. Perhapse the Joy of Sex has a diagram? Then again, I'm not sure I really want to know. ha!
- Jeff |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 294
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 8:40 pm: |
|
Hey Everybody,
Im not trying to be rude or anything, but....
I just have to get something off my chest.
Several people have always stated that ....well
Jack wouldnt have exposed himself to so much risk
in Berner St........ Please take another look at the Chapman murder. He killed her in the back yard, in broad daylight...next to a house where
19 or 20 people could have at ANY SECOND came out of the house and caught him. He was sooooooo lucky that he didnt get buckled right there.
SO, I am not trying to offend anyone and you are entitled to your view as I am mine...
but saying that Berner St was the only crime where he exposed himself to great risk is
totally unfounded.
Glenn...whats up 'ol boy? how are ya?
Paul
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3218
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 8:47 pm: |
|
Hey Paul, ol' buddy.
How are ya.
I knew you were going to say that.
But it is not the same thing. The yard in Hanbury Street was risky, but that's all. In Berner Street the attacker/killer is assaulting someone in front of witnesses and is making a rather awkward assault, far from the Ripper's fast technique of silencing and killing his victims. Mr BS was a sloppy amateur, even though he managed to get away and remain unidentified.
It is not only the site location we're dealing here, but the approach.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Hello Glenn,
My above post was not aimed in your direction
Hope I didnt hurt your feelings...haha.
Jane....I have always discounted Browns statement, because I think he probably was describing the "other couple" that were near the board school at the same time...THe couple that Mrs. Mortimer referred to. I could be wrong on that, but it just makes more sense. Peace
Paul
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 616
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 11:05 pm: |
|
Hi,
I think the "risk" factor with Stride all depends upon "the unknown factor." This "unknown" is the answer to the question "At the time of the initial assault, did Mr. BS think he was alone?" If he was unaware of Schwartz's presence, and Pipe man hadn't come out of the pub (or wasn't noticed), then for all intensive purposes, Stride was attacked in a location no less risky than Nichols or Chapman. If Mr. BS was under the impression that nobody was around, then we may be seeing a glimps of the "blitz attack" that JtR appeared to employ. Sudden, and completely unexpected by the victim.
Of course, I'm also going with the assumption that Mr. BS was JtR here, but that's not an indication I've changed my mind on Stride. I'm just working from this "point of view" for the above.
Now, if Mr. BS was actually aware that others were watching him, I think this might point towards more of a domestic situation (sudden emotions erupt, etc).
Anyway, since we cannot know what Mr. BS knew, this is all very theoretical and perhaps not of much use in terms of limiting the options.
- Jeff |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 36
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 3:49 am: |
|
From the statement of Schwartz,it is not clear whether Stride was waiting at the yard entrance,or passing by when accosted.
The statement of Brown,citing a time of 12.45,the same time Schwartz says he entered Berner St,should not easily be dismissed.Allowing for a small discrepency in time,both could have been in positions mentioned,Stride by the yard and the man on the corner.
Whatever,there appears to have been four people,in pretty close proximity,and taking into account the poor lighting of the street,it is probable that not one of them would have been aware of all the others,prior to the actual encounter.
They would have been on the same side of the street untill Schwartz crossed over,and most of the time in shadow.Believe me I have walked such streets,and know the difficulty of discerning if others are present.
Sure there were others present,but all behind closed doors.There were no indications Stride had been dragged into the yard.She entered of her own accord,and in my opinion with someone of whom she had no fear..Only one man seems to offer that possibility,and that is the man that Brown saw.If he had proved no danger to her before,why be afraid a short time later. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3219
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 4:01 am: |
|
Jeff,
Of course it is theoretical, but Schwartz's account really do not display a blitz attack of the Ripper's kind, judging from the Ripper crime scene evidence we have.
What is crucial is how Mr Broad Shoulders reacts when he finds out that he is spotted, and I do not believe this is the conduct of the person who quickly killed and mutilated at least two other victims.
In no way -- within any stretch of the imagination -- can the assault by Mr Broad Shoulders be seen as a "blitz attack" aimed to kill and silence an intended victim quickly. And this is just the whole point -- it is simply not fast and efficient enough. It is actually rather lame and clumsy, and way too quarrelsome. What the Ripper probably did, was to fast overcome his victims by smother or strangle them, before they knew what hit them.
In my mind the Mr BS assault is a simple street brawl, possibly turning into a murder, nothing more, nothing less. Therefore the comparison with sites like the yard in Hanbury Street is pointless and therefore the question how aware he was of the bystanders equally redundant.
No one can make me believe that the Ripper would stand on the street, in view of TWO witnesses and shouting across the street in order to scare them away; it is a way too risky behaviour from someone who was careful of not being seen, and he couldn't know if those two (three with the woman) would get together and turn against him -- something that just as well could have been the outcome of his behaviour! It certainly does not add up, and the Ripper would -- in my personal opinion -- rather flee and disappear from the scene as quickly as possible, instead of letting himself be surrounded and threatened by THREE people (including the woman).
No, Jeff, in my personal opinion... a blitz style attack a la the Ripper it is not. What it does look like, is a quarrelsome assault by drunk and aggressive client or male spouse.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1525
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
But what if JtR is beginning to think he's invincible, because of his previous narrow escapes from Polly and Annie?
He presumably looks for potential victims in busier locations than where he finally attacks one. If BS were JtR, and his intention were to get Liz to take him to a more suitable place for another spot of murder and mutilation, and she were to start resisting, saying "It's here or nowhere, love"; and if then he realised they had an audience - surely it would depend on how fired up he was by that point, and how determined not to be messed about with, whether he would funk it and 'flee and disappear', or stick at it and make short work (as BS did) of seeing off firstly the audience and secondly the woman.
The fact is, BS wasn't surrounded or threatened by anyone. He did all the threatening that was witnessed - before murder was committed, unwitnessed. I don't see how anyone can be certain that JtR would never have acted as BS did, given those circumstances.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 305
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 7:51 am: |
|
Hi All,
There were a couple of things above that I thought were interesting...........
On the matter of location, yes Hanbury Street and Bucks Row both held their own dangers. But in Hanbury Street there was only one narrow passage as entrance to that yard which would allow a maximum of one or two people through at a time.
Suppose for an instant that someone did come out and see JtR killing Annie. This witness is confronted with a man wielding a knife, up to his knees in entrails and looking (one would imagine) rather terrifying....would any man on their own try to do anything other than run back into that house and get help? especially if Annie was already dead and there was nothing else that could be done for her..
Even if he saw the attack before she was killed, do you think that he would still risk intervening?
There was only a five feet high fence to the side for Jack to get over and be away....I would have to say that although there were a lot people in that house, the chances of JtR actually being cornered by any of them was fairly remote....
Bucks Row is not a dissimilar scenario..yes there were people in the houses all around, but if one of them had come out or seen the murder would they have intervened on their own? They would have had to have roused others to help and by that time JtR would have been long gone.........
The Berner Street situation is different for a number of reasons......
The club next to Dutfield's Yard was swarming with people, active working men who were probably of a certain mind set anyway in view of the meeting they had been attending.......not the sort of men that would stand aside if they saw a woman in trouble....
Alright some of the same constraints apply, they still had only two doors to come out of the kitchen and the front entrance, but this wasn't in the middle of the night when they were all asleep, they were wide awake, probably had a jar of beer or two and could have come out to get a breath of fresh air at any time in any number......
Would JrR really want to take a risk like that? Possibly but it just does not ring true to me........
The area itself was not known for prostitutes so why would JtR leave his usual very ripe for the plucking killing fields in favour of somewhere that was likely to yield thin pickings anway? I cannot imagine that he would not have been able to find a more suitable victim on home ground when one takes into consideration the number of prostitutes per square inch around Dorset Street etc.,
Would JtR have actually engaged in an argument with Liz drawing even more attention to himself, before assaulting her and calling out to someone across the street....the argument at the beginning of the assault really makes me incline towards it being a domestic.......I can't see the words argument and Blitz attack working in the same sentence. Surely Blitz attack means the absence of any kind of dialogue before the event? By definition it is an attack without warning, Liz had ample warning that an attack was coming.......
Of course it is always possible that bothJtR and Liz did leave their usual stomping ground that night.......
Catharine was well outside the usual area for JtR's attacks as well so there has to be some margin of doubt. Did he go further afield on two occasions that night?
I do wonder though that having strayed outside his usual area for the attack on Liz, whether he might have felt more comfortable going back to home ground? Some serious room for thought there........
Caz's point about not finding anyone suitable in his usual patch thus forcing him further afield, would actually add weight to him later attacking Catharine well out of his usual area.....perhaps he had looked around the nearer streets and found no suitable victims....an interesting thought too..............
I do still have to say though that it does have all the hallmarks of a domestic killing, but I am open to persuasion!
lots of love
Jane
xxxxx |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 516
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
If Mr BS got fired up enough and was determined enough not to be messed about with, I imagine he must have been irritated, frustrated and angry at that point – which he seems to have been. If so, it makes sense that he would indeed make short work. At some point soon after accosting her he became physically abusive of Stride, so I imagine she wouldn’t have been all that inclined to just go with him into the yard after he’d seen off the audience.
Still, she was found with her feet about 3 yards from the gateway. And, as far as I know, except for maybe the fact that her scarf had been pulled very tight, there is no evidence that she was actually dragged into the yard, her clothes had not been disturbed and no screams were heard. Of course, it’s true that that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have somehow forced her to go there anyway. However, the cachous certainly remain a hard fact to fit with the notion of an angry, frustrated man who would make short work.
All my best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3220
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
Caz,
I am sorry but I think you are wrong, form where I sit.
"The fact is, BS wasn't surrounded or threatened by anyone. He did all the threatening that was witnessed "
You totally missed the core of what I was saying.
My point was he HE cound't know that! How on earth could Mr BS know how those two witnesses in collaboration would react (maybe even with some help from the woman)? Even though he himself may not have felt threatened, he couldn't really know if they would interfere or not.
An irrational drunk and aggressive person surely wouldn't care about such matters, and I don't think Mr BS cared about this or one minute --, which is why he displays the obvious traits of a drunkard.
But most importantly -- I do NOT believe that the Ripper would be someone who took that chance.
And you still disregard the total differences in approach. Eddowes was killed 45 minutes later, in a manner and approach that corroborates with the earlier murders. Why would he all of a sudden in Stride's case temporarily attack his victim in a different, more sloppy fashion, and above all, on a site busier than the others (which in itself would require an even more fast, efficient and cautious approach)???? Because of the situation and location? I would think not.
I wouldn't say that I am totally certain of anything, Caz, but I say it's very unlikely that Mr BS was JtR, and that he in fact was a total amateur. I am afraid I just don't agree with your interpretations. That can't be helped.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on March 04, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3221
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
"Would JtR have actually engaged in an argument with Liz drawing even more attention to himself, before assaulting her and calling out to someone across the street....the argument at the beginning of the assault really makes me incline towards it being a domestic.......I can't see the words argument and Blitz attack working in the same sentence. Surely Blitz attack means the absence of any kind of dialogue before the event? By definition it is an attack without warning, Liz had ample warning that an attack was coming..."
A very good and valid point, Jane.
I totally agree.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 48
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
As I was saying yesterday, the sequence is wrong. If the Ripper had been distracted during the Eddowes murder, and therefore the 1st of that night, I would happily accept that he was mad enough to take such risks with Stride.
He would have been angry, frusfrated and hungray for a new victim. He would, in my view, have taken risks to satisfy his need to kill.
But it wasn't like that. Eddowes was murdered in a situation very similar to Nichols and Chapman. It was the first murder, that of Stride, that seems out of place and which had more risks than any of the others.
Are we really willing to belive that a killer who killed in quiet areas, where he had enough time to "rip" his victims apart, would really have killed Stride in such a differnt enviroment?
(Message edited by lee on March 04, 2005) |
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
Hi All
There are very good points made for Mr. B.S. being J t R and just as many good points as to why he wasn't J t R.
There are certainly very good points made as well for Mr. BS being a possible boyfriend, lover etc, and would classify this argument as a domestic.,points against as well.
Has anyone considered that maybe Mr. BS was an intended trick(client) who was unhappy with the price Liz quoted,or the fact that she may have wanted payment up front or maybe Mr. BS. had requested a specificate sexual act, eg: Oral,which Liz was unwilling to perform due to the added danger and suseptability to attack,especially with the ripper out there.
Either one of these scenerios could possibly cause an argument if Mr.BS was drunk,in a bad mood before he even ran into Liz or mentally unstable.
There is no question there have been very valid points made with respect to Mr. BS, however there are pros & cons for every suspect so far discussed.
I don't think Mr.BS was J t R, nor do I think he was a boyfriend, lover etc. I think he was a John or Tom or Dick or Harry who got pissed with her for either of the reasons listed above.
Of course I may be wrong, I was once before I think HEEHEE
my best to all
Restless Spirit
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 309
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
HI Restless,
Yes he could have been a disgruntled client, but hard to pin point a reason..........
No prostitute, would go with a client without having the money paid up front, that really is written in stone, so I think you can rule that one out........money in the pocket first and foremost every time............
Theprice was almost univerally the same for women like Liz fourpence......it very rarely if ever varied, that was just the going rate so it was probably not over that.......it is possible he didn't have fourpence and was trying to bait her down I suppose........
Although some sexual positions were more dangerous than others for obvious reasons, I don't think that would have been an issue for Liz at this particular juncture, so I wouldn't really find that feasible..........
I think more likely if it was a client, that he was just so drunk and unreasonable that Liz decided that she didn't want him as a client......I think in view of his obvious lack of boyish good looks and charm most women would have thought twice!
It is very possible that he was a disgruntled client though whatever the reason.......
Lots of Love
Jane
xxxxx |
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Hi Jane
You've made some excellent points of course, some things I was not aware off.
I am however very convinced that he was an unhappy client, which escalated from there.
And, as you said, for whatever reason.
thanks
Restless Spirit
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 517
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
You've written some sensible posts, put forward some very good and interesting points indeed.
Are you saying that the Ripper would have paid his victims where they made the deal and only then would have walked to the actual crime scenes? Or could his victims have allowed him to pay just before business was done, meaning when they had already reached the crime scenes?
"Caz's point about not finding anyone suitable in his usual patch thus forcing him further afield, would actually add weight to him later attacking Catharine well out of his usual area..."
Berner Street indeed doesn't seem to have been known for prostitutes, but I don't know if that's true for Mitre Square as well. I do know however that St. Botolph's Church was also called the Prostitute's Church because it was a church prostitutes would walk around to pick up punters without much chance, if any, of being arrested. And this church was probably no more than 150 yards from Mitre Square.
The fact that he murdered close to St. Botolph's Church might indicate that he knew it as a place where he could find prostitutes. If so, then initially choosing Berner Street as a place to look for a suitable victim doesn't seem to make much sense (that is, if JtR killed Stride too). But then again, the murders themselves didn't make much sense either...
All my best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3222
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Hi restless,
Yes, it is a good possibility that Mr Broad Shoulders could have been a drunk and rowdy client, where a deal's gone wrong. I have several times mentioned this as an alternative scenario and it can't be ruled out. And Jane makes some good points here.
Frank,
I am not sure -- and I could be totally confused -- but I have actually read somewhere (God knows where!) that Mitre Square was a place connected with occasional street prostitution, which doesn't surprise me because of -- as you mention -- its close location to Botolph's Church, but also the the fact that many of the surrounding buildings were unoccupied and empty.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3223
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
"But it wasn't like that. Eddowes was murdered in a situation very similar to Nichols and Chapman. It was the first murder, that of Stride, that seems out of place and which had more risks than any of the others."
Exactly, Lee! Well put.
Partly my point as well.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 310
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
About the payment, I have to try and put it in a context that I am familiar with and I really think that it would have applied then as it always has in the oldest profession.........
Right thinking on my feet here.........payment would usually be made on reaching the destination, but the lady would ask to see the money before she went anywhere with him, to make sure he had it......
so Liz in this case would have met the client, he would have propositioned her or her him, he would have shown her that he had the wherewithalls, then they would have gone to a convenient spot, He would have handed over the money and then they would have got down to business.
That's about right I think, the client would not give her the money until the last moment in case she went off with it, as has happened on more than a few occasions! She would not do the business without the cash in case he then refused to pay her......
HI Frank again and Glenn,
You are right about St Botolphs and I should have remembered that because it was my old schools church! I went to Central Foundation Girls School in Spitalfields and St Botolphs was the nearest church to us..........
So would seem to make Berner Street even less likely as a JtR crime scene.......
nice one Frank..........(and Glenn)
HI Lee,
I think we're on a roll here, keep the posts coming. Those of us in favour of a domestic killing seem to be doing all right here for a change!
Jane
xxxxx
 |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 518
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Thanks for elaborating on the issue of payment, Jane! Sounds very practical.
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 519
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
And thanks Glenn for the possible reference to Mitre Square as a place connected with occasional street prostitution. It sure wouldn't be a surprise if it actually was. I'll have a look and see what I can find.
Cheers,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 139
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 2:45 am: |
|
Jane, you wrote:
so Liz in this case would have met the client, he would have propositioned her or her him, he would have shown her that he had the wherewithalls, then they would have gone to a convenient spot, He would have handed over the money and then they would have got down to business.
Is there any evidence, as against, a tacit assumption, that Liz was acting as a prostitute at the moment of her death? I mean by this, that is there any evidence that her assailant(s) were a prostitute's clients? (I have even seen it argued that Liz was not a prostitute at all - that she made a living cleaning etc - though I personally doubt that.)
To me, all the evidence suggests that:
a) Liz was out that night for personal reasons, probably enjoying herself on a "date" and that touting for business was the last thing on her mind;
b) that Berners St, and in particular Dutton's Yard were far from obvious or ideal spots to conduct a sexual act, however brief!! The street was busy and the Yard a much frequented access to the Club.
We should not forget, and I think it is sometimes forgotten, that Victorian sexual prudery ran deep. Look at how shock Cross and paul were that Nichols' skirts were indecently exposing her, and sought to cover her up. Look at the Richardsons' in Hanbury St, who didn't want prostitutes and their clients in the passage or yard.
Even in what we would see as a "degraded" East End, the sort of people who used Berner St and frequented the Club would have been likely to be highly offended - and have noticed - two people making out even in the shadows by the gate.
For these reasons I do not find the Liz and client, or any suggestion of payment, at all convincing.
I return to the view that the explanation that most closely and easily fits the facts as we know them is the "Kidney done it" scenario.
Phil |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 37
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 4:04 am: |
|
Strides murder does not resemble a ripper killing,only because of the behaviour of the drunk.In all other respects Dutfields yard and Berner st is not much different than the backyard of 29 Hanbury st.Both lie off the street,and therefor provides some isolation from passers by.
There were people in close proximity,but behind closed doors.While the singing was continuing in the club in Berner st,there might appear small chance of people leaving.
The lack of extensive bruising seems against a vicious or prolonged attack,but more in line with the victim being suddenly and quickly overcome and killed.There were no abraisons to the lower body as might happen if Stride was dragged to the yard.
The actions of the man on the corner are rather odd.Why would he drive Schwartz away,and why not come forward the next day and give evidence.He must have seen things that Schwartz didn't.He was only about 30 feet away from Dutfield yard.He at least could have been witness to Stride's actions before she was accosted.
A drunk might try to accost a woman on her own
but rarely goes as far as murder.
It is the man on the corner whose behaviour seems strange.A word from him supporting Schwartz would have been the clincher in a case against the drunk. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3226
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 6:10 am: |
|
Phil,
I can't say I disagree with you as such, but I think you are too set in your beliefs about Kidney (although I find him to be the most credible solution as well), and not open enough to other possibilities.
Surely we do not have enough facts or evidence in order to rule out different scenarios.
I think it is rather safe to say that Stride did indulge in prostitution, if not that night in Berner Street, then at least on other occasions.
We have verified documentation showing her as a prostitute in Sweden (with tow spells on a hospital treatment for veneral diseases) before her arrival to England, so she was in no way a stranger to the occupation as such.
We also know that she disappeared from Kidney under longer periods of several, living in lodging houses together with other women in the trade and drinking. Surely she would need some kind of income under those lengthy spells away from where she lived, if not at least to get doss money and to pay for the drinking.
Many of the so called trades were in fact other code words for just prostitution, so just because it says somewhere that she was working as this or that, doesn't really prove anything.
And let's not forget that she probably that night was seen with more than one man -- and if this is true, it makes the love affair alternative rather invalid.
It is not impossible, of course, that she stood there on Berner Street in order to meet a new fellow on a date, but fact remains that we have even less evidence of a love affair on the side than we have of her as a prostitute.
I can't say one or the other, but looking at the facts we have, I see no reason whatsoever to dismiss her as a prostitute.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3227
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 6:22 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
I have no idea who you mean when you refer to the "man on the corner". Do you refer to Pipeman?
Because I don't know if that is really confirmed that he was there prior to the incident. If we are to believe the Star interview, he joins the scene later then Schwartz and comes out from the pub.
But the most important point of all, there could be a number of possible explanations why someone doesn't come forward; not being very keen on exposing oneself as a witness in fear of becoming a suspect himself is quite common, especially if the papers already have labeled you as some sort of unidentified mystery man. I have seen that several times. Some people just don't like to get involved -- and it is really as simple as that.
"A drunk might try to accost a woman on her own but rarely goes as far as murder."
I am afraid, Harry, that that is a totally wrong deduction.
Some drunks are capable of practically everything, and if they have an aggressive disposition already, this escalates even further under the influence of drink. This is really not something that should be taking anyone by surprise -- it happens frequently, actually, and for some perpetrators it really doesn't take a large amount of alcohol. We are not necessarily talking about someone who was so pissed that he couldn't stand on his feet here.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 140
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 7:26 am: |
|
Glenn
I don't think there is much difference between us at all. If you re-read my post, I said that the kidney explanation is a good fit. I neither stated nor implied that it is the only explanation. I have a wholly open mind on the case - but these days tend more towards a non-Ripper solution.
I also sp[ecifically stated that I do not accept the "Liz wasn't a whore" argument. I am well aware that such terms as "seamstress" were synonyms for women who were on the game. My point, was that as far as i am aware Liz was not soliciting THAT particular night.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.
As ever,
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3228
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
I know you didn't express yourself that she may not be a prostitute at all (you only stated that you had heard this theory) -- I only clarified to anyone out there that there really is no reason to doubt that she indulged in such activities (since that idea comes up once in a while). It may have sounded as I addressed that to you especially, though, which was an error.
Well, I may have missed it, but I have never actually heard you consider any other possibility than the Kidney scenario, and I got the same impression from your last post. Although I personally agree with you that this is the most credible and logical solution, I wouldn't get too stuck on one suspect and one scenario. You say you're not, but your posts and reasoning so far have clearly indicated otherwise. If that is a wrong interpretation, I apologise. But thanks for the clarification.
As for Stride not soliciting that particular night, you wrote: "To me, all the evidence suggests that:
a) Liz was out that night for personal reasons, probably enjoying herself on a "date" and that touting for business was the last thing on her mind".
This, I feel, is a rather groundless and unsupported statement. Actually, there are -- on the contrary -- no evidence whatsoever indicating that she did NOT indulge in prostitution that night, and I also explained the reasons for why in my post.
We can only speculate about this, but according to several witness statements, there are reasons to believe that she was seen with different persons that night. Unless one believes that it wasn't Stride on all occasions (which of course is a possibility).
But more importantly, as I pointed out, if she had been away from Kidney and her regular residence, she would have to make an income somehow. We know that she was more or less an alcoholic and during those occasions when she disappeared to live on her own or together with other prostitutes in lodging houses (and during those spells she often used to drink quite a lot), she certainly would have little options but prostitution in order to get money for the doss house or the drinks.
And this particular incident happened during such a period of absence from Kidney. I therefore find it less credible that she was involved in some affair on this particular night. That idea arose originally from Packer's story about a couple buying stuff in his shop. I have no doubt that he did see Stride that night (since he described her pretty much in detail), but that is probably the only point that is credible beyond doubt and that can be verified in his testimony. The rest is pretty much dubious and should not be regarded as facts.
Besides, even if Packer's story about the clerk man and Stride buying groceries from him, is true, then he could just as well have been a regular "special" client anyway -- not necessarily an affair.
And he doesn't fit the description of Mr Broad Shoulders anyway, so one wonders about his real relevancy in connection with the Schwartz incident.
Besides the Packer story, there are no indications whatsoever suggesting that she stood outside Dutfield's Yard waiting for a personal date.
I am not saying it's impossible or that I am ruling it out (because I don't), I am only pointing out that it is a fallacy to state that "all facts" points against her soliciting that night. Because as I see it, the facts we do have actually indicates the opposite.
As for me personally, I am open to both suggestions.
Besides this issue, I'd say we're pretty much in agreement regarding Stride and the Berner Street incident.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on March 05, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 314
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Totally agree with you on that she may well have been on a date that evening, at least part of the time. I was putting forward a hyperthetical scenario in answer to a question earlier.........however I think that she did indulge in prostitution as a means of making money at least some of the time......
I think that Liz was out on a date at least part of that evening, although perhaps not for all of it and that possibly she was waiting for him to come back after a short foray elsewhere, maybe to the loo or something? Or that she arranged tomeet him again later after she had earnt some money.......
That's totally hyperthetical of course, but makes some sense to me......the sightings of
her all through the evening suggest that she was on a date at least part of the time rather than exclusively looking for clients......
snogging ouside the pub, having the flower bought for her, possibly listening to music with him outside the club and more importantly trying to look her best that night when she went out, would suggest she was seeing someone special.
She asked if she could borrow a clothes brush before she left the lodging house and it was said that she was dressed in her best.........definitely a date scenario rather than a working girl out for the night.............
The idea of her hanging round the entrance to Dufield's yard unless she was waiting for someone just doesn't feel at all right to me, so I would say that Kidney, enraged by her having a new beau is certainly a very believable candidate as her killer.........but only one of the possibilities
She did have sixpence when she left from some work she did earlier charring for a Jewish woman, so yes she did earn her money cleaning at least sometimes........apparently she was a very hard working woman generally......
Love Jane
xxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on March 05, 2005) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3229
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 9:16 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
I admit, a good scenario, it might work.
I can't rule that out.
"She asked if she could borrow a clothes brush before she left the lodging house and it was said that she was dressed in her best.........definitely a date scenario rather than a working girl out for the night............. "
I had actually no idea about this. If that's the case, then it may indicate a date. What is the source for this? I have missed that one completely.
Could it be Elisabeth Tanner, amybe? Hmmm... may have to check out her testimony again...
Some of the elements, like them standing outside listening to music, is based on Packer's statement, however, and I would be rather cautious about that.
There remains a problem, though, with her being seen with different men (if that was Stride), which pretty much would leave the date scenario in doubt.
And yes, it is rather well confirmed that she did work for a Jewish woman, but probably not during those drinking periods she was away from Kidney, living in doss houses.
Still, a credible scenario.
All the best
G. Andersson
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on March 05, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3230
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
OK, I found it.
That statement was apparently made by a man (a hairdresser) from the lodging house called James Preston.
He says:
"I last saw her alive on Saturday evening, between 6 and 7 o'cklock. At that time she sat in the kitchen of the lodging house and was dressed ready to go out. She asked me for the loan of a clothes-brush. At that time she had a black jacket trimmed with fur, and it is the same one I have seen in the mortuary."
The problem is that there really is no indications on that she was dressed up. Only dressed to go out, which might only mean that she put on her coat and was about to go outside (unless I misinterpret the English language).
Another problem with the "dressed up" thing, is that Elizabeth Tanner says in her testimony that "The clothes she was wearing were the ones she usually wore, and they are the same she had on Saturday. I recognized the long jacket as belonging to her."
So, all in all, there are actally no indications at all that she was dressed up for a date. Actually, everything indicates that those were the only clothes she had at that time. She probably only wanted to loan the brush since her coat had become dirty in the lodging house.
Rats! I actually hope we had discovered an important, interesting clue here which could solve the uncertainties about her reasons for being there...
The only detail that might indicate a date here, is the flower pinned to her chest, but that is about it, if we disregard the elaborations in Packer's story.
I would still say, her soliciting can't be ruled out, since much indicate she was seen with at least another man besides the respectable man man with an over-coat, namely the man with the peaked cap and cut-away coat, seen by William Marshall.
Something just got me worried, though -- rereading the statements: One wonders... since this was a quarter to one, and the man seen by Marshall in some ways corroborates with Mr Broad Shoulders (if we disregard the moustache)... was Marshall's man Mr Broad Shoulders or was it actually a second man approaching her AFTER the Schwartz incident????
Ok, I admit, I am more confused than ever...
There are too many characters and contradicting statements in this murder.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 315
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I was Charles Preston that she asked to borrow the clothes brush from and he refused to let her borrow it according to his statement at the inquest.......
I do agree that Packer's tesimony is about as reliable as the weather forecast, and that might mean that it was not Liz listening to the music outside the club, but I still can't think of any legitimate reason for her being there other than to meet someone specifically.......
She may or may not have been in the company of several men that night, depending on the veracity of the witness reports, but I am inclined to believe Gardner and Best who had a very good look at the couple for some minutes and it seems unlikely that two witnesses would be that mistaken............the other testimonies I am not so certain about.......
There are a few things that make me sway in favour of a date for at least part of the evening.........
1. The clothes brush and the fact that she was trying to look her best when she went out that night.....
2. The fact that she was having a very serious clinch with a man outside the Bricklayers arms........(this is not really something that a prostitute would do with a client; the rule of not kissing, especially not in an amorous or romantic context makes this extremely unlikely indeed unless it was a date)
3.The fact that she had a button hole bought for her.......(she could have bought it for herself granted out of the sixpence she had, but I don't feel that likely)
4. The fact that she was in an area not generally known as a pick up point for prostitutes to meet clients
there are probably others that I have forgotten for the present, but you get the drift.........
Although she was away from Kidney on the day that she was murdered, she had in fact been cleaning for most of that day , so she must have at least partly supported herself by 'honest' work when she was taking care of herself......I do have to say though that she would almost certainly have been supplementing her income with prostitution.
Let's face it , if you can earn fourpence for a few minutes work as opposed to sixpence for a whole day of scrubbing floors, Liz might have been very tempted to take the former option, especially as she was a known prostitute anyway.........
There was one thing I did look into as an alternative or in conjunction with the date idea. That was that her date might have been a Jew and was at the IWEC for some reason, either to see some one or as part of the evenings activities.......Liz did have a fair amount of Jewish connections which would not rule this out.........I checked out the time of the meeting that was being held at the IWEC wondering initially if he might have attended the meeting and found that it finished around 11.45. According to `William Marshall's testimony Liz arrived at Berner Street about this time and was still 'kissing and carrying on' with her escort..going back to what I was saying about prostitutes rarely engaging in that sort of intimacy with a client, I would still plumb in favour of this being a date. (If in fact this was Liz and not someone else of course)
It does seem coincental that they were there just as the meeting was finishing. I couldn't helop but wonder if in fact the man that Liz was with, had to go to see someone at the club after the meeting had finished and that was where he was when Liz was killed......
I think Packer did see Liz because he described the flower she was wearing as a geranium, which rings true as testimony, but just got a bit carried away (to say the least) with the rest of his statement.......
This was at midnight....... that would seem to fit in with the following scenario, which of course is so totally speculative as to warrant a serious slap on my wrist, but it does seem to fit.......
Liz is in the company of someone for most of the evening that was more than a client, although I do think it is possible that she may have picked up clients at some point in the evening as well........
the man she is with tells her that he has to go to the IWEC to see someone there but if she wants to come with him they can go somewhere after ..........
he tells her to wait outside whilst he goes in at about midnight to see the man and is kept there for a bit longer than he had anticipated (which let's face it does happen when you put a man with a beer or two)
Liz stands outside the club, when Mr BS comes along........he could just be a drunk that propositions her.......it could be Kidney that has been told where she is or who has been following her.......it could of course be JrR.......we can't exclude that as a possibility
Liz tries to get rid of the 'nuisance' before her friend comes out....is assaulted but not seriously and goes to the loos to freshen up before she sees her friend again.......this would account for the cachous.......she wanted her breath to be fresh for the next round of smooching...........
Mr BS comes back and kills her for whatever reason.........
Yes totally unsubstantiated and not supported by anything but circumstantial evidence, but it does fit in with the known facts and makes some sense to me.........I suppose without some speculation no-one would put any ideas forward.........
lots of love
Jane
xxxxx
ps You're going to throw a bun at me aren't you? If so can it be a cream one as they are my favourite......
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
