Archive through 31 August 2001

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through 31 August 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth ' Long Liz ' Stride: Archive through 31 August 2001

Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 01:07 pm
Hello Viper, I've wondered for a while now, what reaction there would have been if Lawende could have been confronted with Barnett. Regards, Rick
Author: The Viper Monday, 11 December 2000 - 01:37 pm
So, are we to assume from the deafening silence about Kidney that nobody believes in his guilt any longer? Regards, V.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Monday, 11 December 2000 - 02:34 pm
Dear V- Forgive me for contributing to the "deafening silence," but personal matters and a general Christmas ennui have kept me away from the message boards these last weeks. My contention vis-a-vis Stride has always been that the reported manner of her final moments is inconsistent with the quiet and unobtrusiveness of what we consider a "classic" Ripper killing. If Schwartz is to be believed in most of his particulars, then Stride's killer not only manhandled her in front of two witnesses, he even had the temerity to draw more attention to himself by shouting out (albeit we no nothing more of what he said than the enigmatic "Lipski"). And all of this while not knowing whether either of the men who saw him were likely to return with a PC in tow. Are these the actions of the Ripper? I submit they are not. Are they the actions of Michael Kidney? Well, there's a different matter. I believe Kidney's name comes up more by default. If an author or theorist dismisses Stride's murder from the canonical tally, the murder still has to be explained away. How so to do? Is it a random, one-off killing? Considering how quick many are to tell us that Whitechapel was a seething hotbed of rapine and assault, one would think this the most likely fall back position. And, had Stride not been murdered on September 30 (or had not Eddowes also been killed that night), her murder might have receded into the same background as the Pinchin Street or the Whitehall torsos. But somehow, the idea of both the Ripper and a nonentity embarking on a mission of death the same night beggars coincidence. So, whence to attribute Stride's death if not to the Ripper and not to a credulity-straining anonymity? Michael Kidney, the "drunken," "brawling" docker with a history of assaulting Stride then appears a likely suspect, even though there is almost nothing beyond his relationship with Stride to consider him her killer (much like Joseph Barnett and Mary Kelly). I consider the circumstances surrounding Stride's death to cast some doubt on her canonicity, though I have always been open to argument. I do not, however, find that Kidney should be placed in the dock as an alternate suspect, particularly when there appears nothing but wishful thinking to propel him there. As ever, CMD
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 11 December 2000 - 02:52 pm
Well Viper, I'll comment, I think it was Kidney who killed her. In Victorian times a lot of men looked on women as their possessions, slaves and servants, to do as they are told, to be seen and not heard. He was a drunkard, wasn't he?, used her as a punchbag, thats why she kept leaving him. He tried keeping her under lock and key, but she found a way to escape that, but he would look for her and take her back. He found her the night of the tussle on the pavement, slipped into the gateway between the time the two witnesses ran away and the man who threw her down had left. When she was alone he coaxed her into the entry, and judging from the description of the wound and what type of weapon was used, he cut her throat with a folding razor, it was certainly the wrong sort of weapon for the Ripper to be using, but certainly the type of weapon the kind of man Kidney was would carry. All surmise of course Viper. Because the coroner and Stride's friends didn't think she had that much to fear from Kidney, doesn't mean he didn't do it Regards Rick
Author: The Viper Monday, 11 December 2000 - 05:36 pm
As ever, a measured and thoughtful piece, CMD. It sums up reasonably well my feelings of the moment. Having frequently changed sides on the matter of whether Stride was a Ripper victim or not, I am currently sitting with those advocating a separate killer. This is despite your point about the statistical unlikelihood of the same day murder as Eddowes, which is a huge pointer in favour of a common killer. If we look at the circumstances of the murder step-by-step, we have Schwartz following a man who appears to have been drinking down Berner Street to the club, where he assaults the luckless Liz immediately. Hardly any words can have passed between them because there simply wasn�t time. That�s where Coroner Baxter�s opinion first looks questionable when he mentions "� the strong probability that her destroyer was a stranger to her". In fact, the lack of communication suggests the very opposite � that they were familiar with one another. The man then chooses noisily to draw attention to himself as he drags Stride from Dutfield�s Yard, attacking her in front of Schwartz, and though we can�t be certain, this was probably the start of the fatal assault on her. Now, the bravado manner in which the man attacked his victim so publicly looks like a further indication that the man had been drinking and that his judgement was impaired. Indeed, it could be argued that this looks like a classic Saturday night, post-pub assault involving a drunken man with a grievance who has run into somebody who has upset him. This has either occurred accidentally, or more probably because he has gone looking for her in a place where he knows he�s likely to find her. If we don�t accept this point then the only realistic alternative is a completely random assault; possible but surely less likely. We don�t know much about Michael Kidney, but from what we do know he appears to have been well capable of such an attack. As Rick points out, he did drink and his relationship with Liz had been stormy. Yet as Rick himself notes, his scenario is purely surmise (as well as containing contentious points about two assaults, the weapon used and the causes of the couple's separations). The observations usually made about Kidney could equally apply to many men in the district, including maybe to one of Stride�s disgruntled clients. It does look to me as if Kidney has been rather framed �by default� (as CMD would have it), because of his obvious association with the victim � something which surely caused the authorities to take a detailed look at him� �Which brings us back to Baxter. So far none of us have addressed the question as to why Baxter so positively sought to exclude Kidney from suspicion and to suggest that the killer was a stranger lacking all the usual motivations for murder. At first site he�s wrong, so what did he know that we've missed so far? Regards, V.
Author: David M. Radka Monday, 11 December 2000 - 05:59 pm
Why couldn't Jack the Ripper, before waltzing down Berner, simply have taken a few pulls from the same wine bottle he later used to "prasarv" Eddowes' kidney? If you want a connection, there's your connection. Get a little vino in 'im, and he'll do a bit more than he usually does. It works for me. David
Author: The Viper Tuesday, 12 December 2000 - 03:13 am
In which case are we to assume that you are going with the random assault by a drink-fuelled Ripper, David? Assuming Stride's canonicity for a moment, there is absolutely no reason why Jack couldn�t have committed this murder under the influence of alcohol. That would account for his having taken less care than usual, though if he was drunk he seems to have sobered up considerably within about 45 minutes. Regards, V.
Author: Ashling Tuesday, 12 December 2000 - 07:22 am
I've never understood what Baxter meant by "DOMESTIC history of the deed." To me domestic implies extreme familiarity between two or more persons. Why did Baxter use domestic and stranger in the same sentence? Or does the (sic) after deed mean the sentence should read the "domestic history of the deceased," and Baxter was making a subtle reference to Stride being a prostitute? Thanks, Ashling
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 12 December 2000 - 09:28 am
Kidney's relationship with Stride was probably an all too common one, in which he knew full well the kind of life she was leading when they met, and therefore had no illusions when choosing her for a partner. Might Baxter have concluded - rightly or wrongly - that sudden strong feelings of revenge, jealousy, or passion (among his 'ordinary motives of murder'), were unlikely to be aroused in someone already accustomed to the life Stride was leading - at least not sudden or strong enough to purposefully snuff that life out with a knife across her throat? Love, Caz
Author: David M. Radka Tuesday, 12 December 2000 - 03:10 pm
Viper, My position is that both Stride and Eddowes were killed by the Ripper, yes. I'm basically a canonical five-er, as I've said here before, and I'd be willing to throw in Tabram too, although I don't think her murder means much in a diagnostic sense. And yes, I do feel Schwartz was correct in reporting him to be walking a bit tipsily. He probably had a drink or two before the murder. I don't think he was terribly drunk, however, and don't believe he needed to have sobered up much in order to handle duties in Mitre Square 45 minutes later. A drink or two before Berner Street, that's all. Regards, David
Author: The Viper Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 05:27 am
Ashling, "�while the domestic history of the deed [sic] suggested.... To clarify this point, the 'sic' is mine, added in the belief that this sentence contains a type-setting error in The Times and that the word which should have appeared was 'deceased', as you have suggested. Your explanation is a possibility, Caz. But for it to be so then Baxter ignored the fact, perhaps dangerously, that Stride had left Kidney again only days before the murder. It isn't hard in those circumstances to envisage one of the standard motivations for murder, namely jealousy, being applicable to Kidney. Regards, V.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 09:23 am
Hi Viper, I agree that Kidney could have been jealous - or just plain mad because Stride had walked away from him yet again, but, consider again Baxter's words, and the evidence on which they were presumably based: "...There was no one among her associates to whom any suspicion had attached. They had not heard that she had had a quarrel with any one � unless they magnified the fact that she had recently left the man with whom she generally cohabited; but this diversion was of so frequent an occurrence [my emphasis] that neither a breach of the peace ensued, nor, so far as they knew, even hard words. There was therefore in the evidence no clue to the murderer and no suggested motive for the murder..." I still think it's almost too much of a coincidence that the one time Stride's not so unusual behaviour caused Kidney to flip over the edge, making sure no one would ever have her again, if he couldn't make her stay, was the very night the ripper was due to claim his next victim. If Kidney's jealousy or anger did just happen to get the better of him that night, it was lucky for him that he didn't strike any later, otherwise this domestic murder would not so easily have been attributed to the same hand that killed Eddowes, and Kidney would have been the prime, if not the only suspect for his unco-operative partner's murder. Love, Caz
Author: Jim DiPalma Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 10:23 am
Hi All, Ashling, Viper - I'm in the process of transcribing the 27 October 1888 East London Advertiser for the Press Project. The photocopy of the newspaper report I have very clearly shows the word in question as "deceased". I tend to agree with Ashling that Baxter must have been making a subtle allusion to Stride's life as a prostitute. It's the only interpretation under which the rest of Baxter's statement to the effect that her destroyer was a stranger makes any sense. If Baxter had been referring to the stormy nature of the relationship between Stride and Kidney when he said "the domestic history of the deceased", then the remainder of his statement that her destroyer was a stranger, ie someone other than Kidney, doesn't make any sense. On a related note, it's quite interesting to read the two press reports side-by-side, as each contains details lacking in the other. It's clear that the reporters were recording a synopsis of what was said rather than a verbatim transcript, and that simply reading one press report and not the others does not provide the fullest possible picture. Cheers, Jim
Author: The Viper Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 11:03 am
All fair points Caz, backed by evidence in the form of the coroner's words. Once more though, we come back to Baxter and his scarcely disguised view that Kidney was above suspicion. I'm still wondering whether he had more reason for holding this view than we know about, or whether it was just his own gut feeling. Nobody so far has really addressed that issue satisfactorily. The point you make about the date and time of this murder is a good one. It remains one of the strongest weapons - if not the strongest - in the armoury of those who include Stride as a JTR victim. Jim, thanks for the clarification on the word 'deceased', (which I had in fact cross checked before adding the original 'sic'). You are entirely correct about the need to read more than one account. It is one of the benefits we hope to bring Ripper students through the Press Project. Let's move this debate on a bit now... The suspect followed by Schwartz was walking down Berner Street from the Commercial Road end. Can anybody answer this please: had this man been walking east or west along Commercial Road previously, or had he perhaps just crossed over it coming from the north? This fact may be more than just the trivial detail it appears to be. I have been pondering the movements of the killer(s) that night for some while now and the answer to the above question may be significant. Regards, V.
Author: Ashling Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 06:38 am
Hi everyone. Jim & Viper--Thanks for the clarity on deed/deceased. Another minor mystery solved. What do we know about Baxter's personal life? Any dirt turn up on him while he was running for election? I'm especially interested in any info that might indicate whether or not he physically abused women. Baxter's attitude towards Kidney's physical abuse of Stride appalls me. Baxter practically says wife-beating-is-no-big-deal-and-not-worth- talking-about. Said attitude inclines me to take any of Baxter's beliefs on the Stride case with a huge grain of salt. FYI, I still believe Kidney killed Stride. JtR would not have that amount of noise--practically begging for witnesses to remember him. To think that Stride walked the streets without becoming a JtR victim, AND was not assaulted by her physically controlling and violent boyfriend Kidney, but instead was killed by some stranger would be stretching coincidence far enough to reach the next galaxy. In my perception, there is a reason that Eddowes and Stride were killed on the same night by different men, but dang if I can prove it ... not this year anyway. Take care, Ashling
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 09:31 am
Viper--I have an uttterly trivial question. Where exactly is the 'railway arch' that Schwartz evidently ran to? Is this on Christian Street, past Pinchon Street just prior to Cable? Am I correct in imagining that Schwartz must have been pretty darned convinced that the pipe-smoker was leading chase, as this would have been a fairly long jaunt and beyond his new lodgings on Ellen Street? Thanks, RJP
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 10:10 am
Hi Ashling, All, My interpretation of Baxter's words, as quoted by Viper, is very different - all he is saying to me is that there is no evidence to suggest that on this occasion, ie 30th September 1888, Kidney set out to physically abuse Stride to the point of cutting her throat. He seems quite matter-of-fact and unbiased when talking about Liz too, with the bit about her having bouts of drunkenness but generally being a quiet woman - nothing to indicate a view that she could have expected - or worse, deserved - ill-treatment, at the hands of boyfriends or customers, because of her lifestyle. I am quite happy with the basic concept of Stride not being a JtR victim, except that it naturally puts Kidney straight in the dock, and I'm no happier making a case against Kidney, because he treated Stride as, sadly, so many men treated their womenfolk, than the one made against Barnett, because a window got broken once in some sort of argument, and people have sometimes assumed these two men, who both met and cohabited with prostitutes, suddenly had reason to slaughter them during the Autumn of Terror. Love, Caz
Author: Jim DiPalma Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 01:08 pm
Hi All, RJ, you raise two very interesting points. Some years ago, I looked at a map of the area trying to determine exactly where Schwartz was when he noticed pipe man had not followed as far. There was a railine adjacent and roughly parallel to Cable and Royal Mint streets, due south of the murder scene, the direction in which Schwartz and pipeman would have been running. While I have no way of knowing exactly where the arch may have been, or even if this was the right railway, the distance between the railway and the murder scene appeared to be less than 100 yards or so. (Viper, if you can provide more detail, please jump in.) From this, I concluded that pipeman was likely just a bystander, running away from the scene in the same manner as Schwartz. If he were the murderer's accomplice instead, he would surely have realized that Schwartz had seen and could possibly identify both of them, and it's unlikely he would have abandoned the chase after so short a distance. All IMHO, of course :-) Also, you are correct that Schwartz ran right past his lodgings on Ellen street. One possible explanation is that his wife had gone to look for new lodgings just that morning, and he may not have known that Ellen St was his new address. Cheers, Jim
Author: The Viper Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 01:33 pm
R.J., Jim has really answered the immediate question. And you two are not alone in having wondered about this reference in Schwartz's description! There were no railway arches between where the incident happened and Ellen Street. The latter ran across the southern end of Berner Street. To reach the nearest arch Schwartz would have had to run into Ellen Street before turning south out of it again, down towards Pinchin Street where the railway went. A spur of that railway swung north over Backchurch Lane, but again it passed well south of the junction with Ellen Street. All very odd. Regards, V.
Author: Rebecca A Bonell Monday, 08 January 2001 - 07:46 pm
hi my names rebecca does any one know what color liz's hair was and also what color were her eyes.
Author: David M. Radka Monday, 08 January 2001 - 11:36 pm
She had curly black hair. An autopsy study in, say, Sugden should fill in the rest. David
Author: Rebecca A Bonell Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 05:19 pm
thankyou david rebecca
Author: E Carter Monday, 05 February 2001 - 03:31 pm
Or even better 'the Jack the Ripper A-Z, Begg, Fido,Skinner, Headline Publishing.
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 16 March 2001 - 05:36 am
The idea of a violent assault seems to have originated with Swanson.Whether Schwartz did indeed use words, in the police interview,that would lead Swanson to form that opinion,is not known.No record of the police interview is available. Schwartz told the star reporter that the man halted and spoke to her and put his hand on her shoulder.That is the only contact that Schwartz speaks of. Whether he then pushed her,is I think, open to arguement.It was a dimly lit area,and Schwartz would have been looking into the black background of Dutfield yard.What might have happened,is that Stride,resentfull of his presence,backed or twisted away,and in so doing,slipped and fell.Perhaps some female posters might like to comment on what action they might take if placed in a similar position. Schwartz only saw one hand placed on a shoulder.That hardly constitutes a violent assault.If the drunk intended harm I would expext him to go in two handed,either for the throat,or a bearhug to force her to the ground.He also could have gone straight in with the knife. H.Mann.
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 16 March 2001 - 07:17 am
It is, perhaps, worth noting that the police seem to have given rather close consideration to Schwartz's statement, since it was recorded that Abberline had questioned him particularly closely about the cry of 'Lipski'. Has HM any historical reason for believing that the Star reporter's account is definitely more accurate than Swanson's report, especially in the light of the Star's candid and light-hearted admission that their reporter experienced considerable language difficulties in the interview? Martin Fido
Author: Bryan Stebelton Friday, 16 March 2001 - 10:34 am
Martin, a question do you believe(not withstanding the language barrier) Schwartz is the best wittness in the case? I should also enquire of you if you list Stride as a definite ripper victim? I should know this, as I've read your work I just can't recall your stance on the topic.Also do you think the man who followed Schwartz was an accomplice or bystander? thanks,Bryan
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 16 March 2001 - 11:16 am
Bryan - I think Schwartz is indubitably the most interesting witness to events in Berner Street; I also think he was a reliable witness. I also think (unlike Paul Begg) that Lawende is far more likely to be the man Anderson thought the only person who ever had a good sight of the murderer. And, as I've just responded to Ivor on another board, I think the man following Schwartz was a bystander. In every single case, this is only an 'I think'. I do not expect anybody to feel compelled to agree with me, and so I do not feel under any obligation to get into long arguments if they want me to agree with them! All the best Martin F
Author: Bryan Stebelton Friday, 16 March 2001 - 11:36 am
Martin, so very true, we are all here in theory to voice our own opinions, not really to argue anyone to come to our way of thinking. And I believe every theory no matter how ridiculous we think it is, deserves to be heard and entertained.I have visited zodiackiller.com many times as well, and find it to be a hostile enviroment, to any difference of opinion. Although I like the site as an infomational tool. thanks, Bryan.
Author: Harry Mann Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 03:54 am
Martin, There seems little reason why the information given to the police and to the star reporter should differ to any great degree.Both used interpreters,and the actual encounter between Stride and the alledged assailant,brief as it is,need no great telling as to detail. He placed his hand on her shoulder,that is all we know.In assuming what might have happened from the placing of the hand is speculation.My opinion is based on experience.I have witnessed many such encounters,and in none have I seen any homicidal tendencies displayed. H.Mann.
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 07:23 am
'The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly' (Swanson's report). 'a man of light complexion had been struggling with the woman Stride in Berner Street and ... he threw her down' (Manchester Guardian). 'The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage' (The Star). Ivor is proffering a report to demonstrate that the Pipe Man's emergence from the doorway of the public house as reported in The Star was not an emergence from the pub itself, and this may offer further evidence that the Star's report is the totality of the observed action; Swanson's details and the outline of them repoduced by the Manchester Guardian, just embellishment. But on what we have at prsent, I can't see any historical reason for giving firm preference to one or the other, or even, as everyone was working through interpreters, in assuming that there is any genuine contradiction. These work perfectly well as a brief and a fuller statement of the same events, filtererd through the language difficulties. Martin Fido
Author: Robeer Friday, 17 August 2001 - 02:13 pm
The behavior of Liz Stride on the day of her death was strange. She made some money that day but not a lot. She told her neighbor she was going away for a while. That night her behavior was almost bizarre. She acted like she had a date and hung around the area listening to the singing, (from the club?), with her escort in the rain. They could have found shelter from the rain and still heard the singing but instead remained in the open exposed to the elements. This curious behavior was noticed and commented on, because the weather was rapidly turning cold. At this point in time Liz seems to be taking a high profile on Berner Street. After her date she obviously prefers a much lower profile hiding in the shadows of Dutfields Court. Did Liz consummate with her date in the back of Dutfields and does this explain why she later turns down an offer, or did she decline her date's offer as well? If she accepted money from her escort she may have had enough money to decline the next offer. Did this rejection infuriate a random drunk walking the street or even JtR himself, enough to lose control and attack her on the spot in front of witnesses? Liz turned down a potential customer indicating she didn't need the money. That is odd since she had left home and needed money to secure a place to stay for the night. If she was expecting to have a place to share then she could afford to turn down a customer. She remained in Dutfields Court, with damp clothes exposed to the cold even though she could have taken shelter in the club or pub down the street. Was she trying to avoid Kidney by not seeking the warm shelter of the pub? We must assume so but why not use the club next to Dutfields? After being very public with her escort earlier she seemed to prefer the dark shadows of Dutfields but not for the purpose of business. She hovers around this part of Berner Street all night. Why? One can only conclude she was there to meet someone, evidently someone who would take her away for a while. Was this a man or a female friend? If it was a man was he a member of the club? This loitering in Dutfields is curious. She could have gone home and run away from Kidney another day when the weather was better. Instead she maintains her position in Dutfields all night. This certainly indicates a redezvous. Either the club or Dutfields is the focus of Long Liz throughout the night. She evidently felt safe there and was waiting to meet someone important to her, enough to risk pneumonia in the damp cold. Since JtR had promised a double event in a previous post could he have set up Liz to be his first victim of the night? JtR later mentions the first victim "squealed a bit". Would reporters have known this fact to hoax the next letter from JtR after this event? I thought the Schwartz interview was not well publicized. He is the only witness to mention Liz screamed after being assaulted by the man Schwartz saw. If the mud had dried on part of her dress that indicates she got up and moved around after being on the ground or else how could the mud have had time to dry? If she was horizontal upon the wet ground until discovered the mud would still be wet not dry. Does this indicate she survived the first assault to continue her vigil in Dutfields Court in a vertical position until the killer found her?
Author: Robeer Friday, 17 August 2001 - 03:08 pm
Does anyone know approximately how long "Long Liz" was? The witnesses measured suspects in comparison to the victims. If the average height of women in 1888 was 5' to 5' 3" then we might assume Liz was anywhere from 5' 4" to 5' 7". Seems like one suspect was estimated to be 3" taller than Liz. This means he was 5' 7" to 5' 10" tall. This would make him one of the taller suspects.
Author: E Carter Friday, 17 August 2001 - 05:27 pm
Robeer, Liz was standing outside the Yard because the man she had met earlier in the day planned the meeting! ED
Author: Jon Friday, 17 August 2001 - 06:34 pm
Ed Have you got this whole thing scripted?
Author: David Radka Friday, 17 August 2001 - 08:20 pm
Robeer, Excellent post, above. One of the best I've seen here in many a moon. Too many people post here for business-connection purposes--they should be required to include an objectivity warning on each post, IMHO. Thank you. David
Author: Jesse Flowers Saturday, 18 August 2001 - 04:12 pm
Robeer- Stride was 5'5" tall. I seem to recall reading that "Long" was not a reference to her height, but a nickname given back then to people with the surname Stride. AAA88
Author: E Carter Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 08:34 am
You are correct! ED
Author: E Carter Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 08:40 am
Its like the nickname for Mr White today, he would be called, Chalky White. Liz Stride would have definatley been called 'long' Liz Stride. I went to school in the East End, near the murders and I know the lingo! And therefore I know how it all works! ED.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 09:30 am
Luwe...with the Long-Arm,(aka, "The Far-Strider".) Hence, Luwedon? Rosey :-)
Author: Wendy Lawrence Friday, 31 August 2001 - 12:24 pm
Hey, My name is Wendy Lawrence, I am 16yrs of age and I live in Canada. I just found out from my mother that Elizabeth Stride was either my Great great aunt or my Great great great aunt...my grandma is Dorothy Stride...this is all really strange to me so I was wondering if anyone wanted to tell me more about her personality..(what she may have been like) or anything else about her could they please e-mail me at ditzy_sensation72@hotmail.com thank you it is greatly appreciated!!