|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 156
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 7:09 am: |       |
Shannon,
I don't know which evening paper it was on the 30th September but from The Times on 1st October:-
"The body has been identified as that of ELIZABETH STRIDE, a widow according to one account, according to another a woman living apart from her husband, and by all accounts belonging to the "unfortunate" class."
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 195
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 7:11 am: | |
The name Elizabeth Stride was given in the special edition of The Star published late on Sunday 30th. It was in several of the morning papers on Monday 1st including The Times as stated. On opening the inquest Wynne Baxter announced it as the inquest on Elizabeth Stride before being reminded by Inspector Reid that the identification was not yet certain.
Michael Kidney (and indeed most of Whitechapel) would not have cared a cuss whether the identification was official or not. He would just have seen and heard the name Elizabeth Stride being used for the victim since at least the morning of the day that he went to the police station. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1411
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 7:24 am: | |
Shannon, also I think Kidney would probably have viewed the body at the mortuary by Monday evening.
Robert |
Alexander Chisholm
Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 10:21 pm: | |
Hi Alan
I’m fascinated by your reference to a special edition of the Star on 30 Sept. 1888. Do you have a copy, or are you aware of any surviving copies of this special edition?
Alternatively, could you please point me to the source of your information that such an edition was published.
Sorry for being a thicko, but thanks in anticipation
Best Wishes
alex
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 197
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 6:54 pm: | |
Apologies, just checked and realised that I'd got my Star special editions mixed up, I was thinking of the Annie Chapman one. Apparently Stride was identified as "Long Liz" by someone named One-Armed Liz and as Elizabeth Stride by a Charles Preston both on September 30th and the name first appeared in the late editions that night. It doesn't say which ones. |
Alexander Chisholm
Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 9:26 pm: | |
Thanks for clearing that up, Alan.
While I was aware that the identifications by ‘One-armed Liz’ and Preston were reported in a number of papers on 1st Oct. 1888, I don’t know of any papers issued on Sunday 30th Sept., in which these identifications were reported.
So, if you wouldn’t mind clarifying one further point, when you say “the name first appeared in the late editions that night. It doesn’t say which ones” to which “It” are you referring?
Thanks again.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 198
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 8:27 pm: | |
Aaaargh. Okay, there is a certain four letter word which has been much overused on these boards and which I swore I was not going to use on here until I could use it in the past tense but.....
The it in question here is a contemporary article written around December 1888 which I don't own, I only have a photocopy of and am not prepared to say any more about because.... take a deep breath Alan.... here goes....  it'll be.... oh you know the rest. (Yes, Robert, pour scorn on me now!)
That said, I've seen a couple of the late editions from that night and I could swear that one-armed Liz was mentioned pretty much straight away. I may be mistaken. I'm hoping to get over to Colindale over the Christmas period to put in some research so I will have to check. |
Alexander Chisholm
Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 44
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 8:59 pm: | |
Alan
I’ve no idea why a civil question seems to have resulted in such exasperation. Nor have I any idea what four letter word you’re so reluctant to use, but please don’t trouble yourself to explain.
As said previously, I know of no late special Sunday editions which mention these identifications. Of course, I may be wrong and so look forward to your further research at Colindale. That is always assuming you will be prepared to say more about it then.
Cheers
alex
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 199
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 9:59 pm: | |
Alex, I apologise if that sounded rude, I really didn't mean it to. I also hate to be cagey, if you look over my previous posts on this board I have always been willing to share my information.
The four letter word in question is "book" and I have sought out some articles in contemporary periodicals, none of which I consider to contain any new information, and none of which are written by anyone involved in the case itself, but they do relate directly to my theme.
As regards lack of identification on the Sunday night, you may well be right (it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong and it won't be the last!) |
Alexander Chisholm
Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 10:37 pm: | |
Hi Alan
No apologies necessary. It’s I that should apologise for reading too much into your post – the joys of faceless communication I suppose.
Still, no excuse for my touchy response. I’m sorry!
I really hope the book goes well. Contemporary press articles are too often undervalued in my opinion, so I look forward to the fruits of your labours.
I’m just as likely to be wrong about the press coverage of the identification as you are, which is why I genuinely look forward to the results of your further research.
Renewed Best Wishes 
alex
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 11:20 pm: | |
Alex Chisholm, deconstructionist approach: By studying newspaper accounts of the crimes, we work toward a satisfying understanding of how and why the public created an entity, Jack the Ripper, in its discussion of the acts of several different men.
David Radka, cental epistemological approach: By discussing the crimes according to an epistemological center, we work toward a satisfying understanding of how and why a single man committed these several acts.
Get the picture, folks? Do you see where the class of these boards is? There are no "clues" or "suspect candidates" hereabouts! Only an intellectual curiosity, a quest for satisfaction. That's all we really need, isn't it? But, ah, have we come too soon?
Saddam
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 730
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:03 am: | |
"Get the picture, folks?"
Nope, not the slightest. Does anyone except David Radka himself?
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 215
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 10:24 am: | |
David,
Are you suggesting that your approach to this case is the only correct one? Why am I asking this? I already know the answer to that one.
Alan,
BOOK!
That is all I have to say.
Sarah |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:14 pm: | |
"Are you suggesting that your approach to this case is the only correct one?"
>>The only correct approach is that approach that solves the case in the end. All other approaches are incorrect. The case can only be solved by starting correctly. If you start incorrectly, you can never get back on the right track assuming your given starting point. So what you need do is try a great many starting points, and then reason through the evidence scrupulously by each. Every one but one will fail to analyze all the evidence. When one fails, just throw it away and start with another. How much does failure cost you? Ten cents? The only way to know if you started correctly is if you finish. If you can't finish, you didn't start correctly. See Hegel re: Totality.
Saddam
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 736
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 6:56 am: | |
David,
What if all relevant "starting points" fail to analyze the evidence...? How can you be sure that one of them won't?
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 221
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 7:28 am: | |
* Falls over backwards with shock *
David, I agree with you 100%. Now I think I need to go lie down for a little while. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 520
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:43 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Well, there must be a right starting point that would lead to who really did kill those women. It’s like those paper games we had as kids where you had to find the right fishing line that led to the fish and not the old boot, rusty tin, used condom or limp maggot.
We won’t know it’s the right line if and when we start along it, but the only way it can fail to give us what we are looking for is if we abandon it too soon, either because evidence we rely on was manufactured, mangled, misunderstood or misinterpreted in the reporting and recording, or because we are failing to identify and analyse the genuine evidence correctly.
People who won’t start along all those lines they don’t like the look of, or won’t try for fear of looking silly, may be drastically reducing their chances of solving anything.
Love,
Caz
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 228
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 8:19 am: | |
Of course then there are those people (a certain American crime novellist anyone?) who, having followed a line of enquiry to its conclusion, find it to lead nowhere but having put in the time and effort cannot bear to let it go and so choose to pretend that it was indeed the line leading to the solution.
On the whole though, I absolutely agree that if you do not try then you will not succeed, and if we have to put up with many failures along the way then that is just the price of doing business. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 10:05 pm: | |
'What if all relevant "starting points" fail to analyze the evidence...?'
>>If no starting point can analyze the present evidence, then the present evidence is insufficient to solve the case. We could have no satisfactory, determined solution. We still could have an empirical solution, if and only if sufficient evidence came to light.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 1:07 pm: | |
"We won’t know it’s the right line if and when we start along it, but the only way it can fail to give us what we are looking for is if we abandon it too soon, either because evidence we rely on was manufactured, mangled, misunderstood or misinterpreted in the reporting and recording, or because we are failing to identify and analyse the genuine evidence correctly."
>>Per norm, Caz is right. Essentially, we can tentatively intuit that we are on the right track if we seem to be generating adequate evidenciary confirmations as we proceed. If we aren't, then something is wrong with the evidence, or wrong with our assumption(s), etc. See Plato.
Saddam
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 250
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:35 am: | |
David,
You believe you have solved this case right? So you say that you have gone along the right track and found no flaws with your idea. Ok, so what would you say to others who have gone along a different track to you and say they also have found no flaws but have a different idea to you?
You cannot expect people to agree with you. You may publish your ideas and get loads of people suddenly finding flaws. Is this why you don't wish to publish it yet?
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 242
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 6:24 am: | |
Sarah, I can go you one better, I can find a flaw in David's theory right now.
When I first started posting David took me to task for daring to state that the second man seen by Schwartz was on the opposite side of the road, where the police said he was, rather than coming out of Nelson's Beer Shop, where The Star said he was. So obviously A?R relies on this second man coming out of Nelson's Beer Shop.
He also recently took Glenn to task for daring to say that Matthew Packer's testimony was not reliable. So plainly A?R must rely on Matthew Packer's testimony.
Now let's look at Matthew Packer's testimony.
It was then 10 or 15 minutes past 12 o'clock, Packer, who was about to close his shop, noting the time by the fact that the public-houses had been closed.
So from this we can assume that, like most public houses in the area, Nelson's closed at midnight. Thus we can reasonably assume that A?R relies on Schwartz's second man exiting a public house which by this time had already been closed for something between half and three quarters of an hour.
Oops, your starting point failed to analyze all the evidence David. Best rip it up and start again! |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 253
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 6:29 am: | |
Alan,
They are very good points. This is the same Packer as the very unreliable witness isn't it?
Interesting how David depends on what the The Star said and not the police when it was extremely common for the newspapers to be wrong as the police did their best to keep the facts from them.
Sarah |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 315
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 6:52 am: | |
Saddam: "If no starting point can analyze the present evidence, then the present evidence is insufficient to solve the case. We could have no satisfactory, determined solution. We still could have an empirical solution, if and only if sufficient evidence came to light."
Huh? When you start at an intersection in the road you examine each way to travel before setting out on your journey. Sometimes the way is clear, sometimes it isnt. When you fail to reach your destination, you come back to the point you started from and travel in another direction. You do this until you reach your destination, or when you have covered all the paths and find that none reach where you want to go. At that point you go to the spot where you were the closest and make your own path using best guess as to which way to travel. Your final steps may not be the exact ones, but if they take you to your destination and you dont misstep along the way odds are your close enough to know you have chosen the correct path. Even if you do, others may not see the trail the same as you, and they will find their own way. Problem here is that there is no clear path to follow, and what each of us are doing is going to the spot where we feel we are closest and making a path based on our own life experiences and understanding of the facts that exist which allow us to make a best guess. After all, that is what this is about. Its not the destination, its the journey, and what we learn about ourselves, and about others along the way...
Shannon
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 262
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 11:29 am: | |
Shannon,
I think you said it all just then.
Sarah |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
