|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 18
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 9:38 am: |       |
Monty,
I have just been reading up on the Stride inquest and have discovered an anomoly. The quotation from the inquest you have above is the one stated in the A-Z. The statement in the official documents section of the casebook reads: "I produce the handkerchief. This corresponded to the right angle of the jaw. The throat was deeply gashed, and there was an abrasion of the skin, about an inch and a quarter in diameter, under the right clavicle."
I can't find the latter statement in any of the books I have here, anyone know where the difference comes from?
Perhaps if the abrasion was under the clavicle it might explain the statement better. It seems strange that Phillips would discuss the throat and brow in the same sentence as they are not in close proximity to one another.
Poses more questions than answers, but there it is for what it's worth.
Scotty. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 10:41 am: | |
Scotty,
Yeah, I know what you mean.
It was the A-Z passage that caught my eye. I couldnt find it on here (but could find the abrasion on the collarbone you mention) or in Eddleston so I went to the Bible....The Sourcebook (pg 187...I think). The section in italics in my above post comes from Phillips inquest statement.
So both the A-Z and the sourcebook are stating brow. Is this error ? If so then yeah, the cavicle would make sense. If not then we may have something which backs up Schwartz's statement the woman was struck three times, confirms it was Stride he saw and that she was beaten at some stage.
....but then again !
Monty
 |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 20
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
I've come across a couple of further points. Firstly in my reading of the inquest testimony an abrasion is only mentioned in one location (either brow or clavicle depending on the report). So we can assume that at first there was thought to be only one abrasion. Then on a later day of the inquest Dr Phillips states "The abrasion which I spoke of on the right side of the neck was only apparently an abrasion, for on washing it it was removed, and the skin found to be uninjured.". Now to my mind again this matches up more closely with an abrasion in the region of the neck. Of course I would have described anything below the clavicle as chest or torso rather than neck so.....
The fact that the abrasion washes off raises the question of whether any abrasion really existed anywhere on her body.
Further Dr Blackwell states regarding the shoulders: "They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure, but subsequently they became very evident. They were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion. Each shoulder was about equally marked."
It seems to me both doctors are trying to clear up the abrasion issue by stating that what was thought to be an abrasion was actually dirt or something similar.
Hope this helps.
Scotty. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1804
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 3:42 pm: | |
Hi Cludgy,
Nice to see you back again.
No, I didn't take it too seriously, but I just thought I'd straight things out anyway. It was a fair question, I think.
"My enquiries will probably do the sales of the book the world of good."
Yes, it was a great help, actually.
I promise I'll keep you in mind for a dedication in case of future editions.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 243
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
Cludgy,
I'm in the midst of job hunting so I might just slip your line into my resume -- especially since you didn't copyright your post.
Really, though, it was a good book and it was interesting that there were some parallels between the Ripper murders and the murder of a prostitute discussed in the book.
Don. |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 7:46 pm: | |
Hi Everybody,
Monty, where did you find a statement by Schwartz that Stride was struck three times?
Just curious...I dont remember reading that anywhere. I know she screamed three times.
And about the brow thing...Ive never heard the clavicle being referred to as the brow either.
Best regards.
Paul |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 8:57 am: | |
Paul,
You are quite right. I got it wrong. Stride did indeed scream 3 times.
Monty
|
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 24
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 9:25 am: | |
Hi all.
I am just reading through this entire thread but I have become impatient and wanted to raise this issue, so if it's been mentioned before I apologise.
I am a trained Lighting Designer for Film, Television and Theatre. As part of my studies I had to learn about the effect of light on the human eye. Now we all know that the human eye has an iris like that of a camera which adjusts depending on the ammount of available light. Any optical device such as and including the human eye have what is known as a black point. What this means is that at the current exposure anything below a certain brightness will appear as black. To put this practically it means that something which might appear as a visible object at a certain exposure disappears to black as the iris is closed. We've all experienced this as we move indoors to outdoors at night or from a bright room to a dark one. It takes a few moments for us to be able to see correctly again. Now from the inquest testimony it appears that every witness after the murder in the yard states that they struggled to see the victim lying on the floor. Diemschutz says he would not have seen the body but for his horse's reaction.
So my question is this. How did the killer deliver one strike to the throat of his victim with such precision that it was sufficient to cause death in such a dark environment?
To my way of thinking there are only three solutions:
1. He was working by feel and did not require sight. I am not saying he was searching with one hand for her neck while the other was ready with his knife, but rather that he had her in such a position (possibly ready to commit a sexual act) that it would have been obvious where her neck was.
2. That he and Stride had both stood in the shadow of the yard together for sufficient time for their eyes to adjust to the darkness. I find this unlikely if we are also to assume that the man who killed her was not the man who accosted her in the street as we would be running very short of time.
3. That the killer had been lying in wait in the yard and therefore his eyes were already adjusted to the darkness. I believe that in this way Stride could have entered the yard and had no idea that she was standing only feet away from her killer, whilst he was observing her movements completely. If she had, as has been suggested earlier, gone in to the yard to use the lavatory this theory works well.
I have excluded the idea that the killer used a lamp of some kind as I just don't believe that he would draw attention so clearly to himself.
Any thoughts?
Scotty. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 833
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
Hi Scotty,
I have thought about this "venue" quite a few times.
I think its possible that the killer was able to enter the international working men"s club without people noticing.This could have been because he was Jewish [though secular] or one of the gentiles that frequented the club.If he was either then he could have been somebody like Kosminski[Aaron or Martin] who could have been absorbed into such a milieu.Or indeed it could also have been Aaron Kosminski"s brother in law or another male relative of his.If it was Aaron
and just for arguements sake we say he was the ripper,then he may have been interested in the anarchic atmosphere before his illness took too much of a hold.Liz Stride may have been one of a number of prostitutes who solicited at those gates
and caused his obsessions to fire off at her.He may be the man who was heard to have said to someone who looked like Liz "you would say anything except your prayers" and he may have left her there and gone inside the club.He may too have come out again,without being seen when all the Russian dancing was goimg on and the place was getting rowdy and nobody was noticing
what anyone else was doing.
I think that if her murderer was the ripper he knew what he wanted but was disturbed in the act and fled towards Mitre Square to satisfy his needs
I cant see him hanging about in the shadows of the yard---too many people were toing and froing
that night.Lots of people singing and dancing.
So if in fact it was a ripper murder he chose a place that was very lively and busy to attempt any of his cutting up.
Natalie |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 383
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
Scotty,
Interesting idea. All scenarios are possible. Is it possible the there might be a 4th? From experience he knew exactly what he was doing and grabbed across the mouth with one hand and cut her throat with the other, therefore not needing to see anything at all??
Mikey |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 233
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 6:20 pm: | |
Try the Escape from Dutfields Yard Thread for some interesting stuff on Stride.
Paul |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 9:05 pm: | |
Hey Everybody,
I like Mikey's scenario best. The scenario regarding her lying down for sex is not a likely one considering there was water and mud all over the yard. It is not likely that Liz would have consented to horizontal sex in those circumstances.
It does not seem that difficult to slash a throat with no light if you are behind the person, which is how I think she was killed.
Scotty, you do however bring up some interesting thoughts though. I like the originality.
The side door was slightly ajar which would have provided a little bit of light anyway. You want darkness...look at the mitre square killing. That may have been even darker than Dutfields yard. Best Regards
Paul |
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 21
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 11:50 pm: | |
Just a little idea... maybe the killer frequented the working mens club possibly was even a member |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1135
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 3:00 am: | |
Scott,
Good work.
Seeing as the only damage to Liz is her throat wound and couple that with the positioning of the scarf (which indicates to me she was dragged back) and the location of her body (that tripling aint it??) would it be possible that the act of Strides murder began in light and concluded in the dark ?
OK, this is where you and you expertise comes in.
Would such a dramatic drop in light effect this scenario ??
Cheers,
Monty
|
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 26
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 5:15 am: | |
Hi Monty,
No, you certainly could be right as in that instance the killer would be working by touch rather than sight once in the dark. I guess in general the point that I am making is that it is extremely unlikely that someone entered the yard with Stride and immediately attacked her unless they had some sort of physical contact with her. The shift from light to dark simply makes it impractical to find a target so precisely unless you know by feel where it is. The only other solution is that the attackers eyes had to adjust to the dark either before Stride entered the yard or after. Personally I think they must have had physical contact and I still see no reason to doubt that this was a transaction occuring between a prostitute and a client and that both knew the position they were assuming once in the yard.
On a seperate note regarding the reported difference in the knife used in this attack compared to the others. In my reading of the inquest testimony it appears to me that rather than the wound displaying any characteristics of having a differently shaped knife used, that in fact the reason the doctors decided that a shorter knife was used was that they did not see that there was sufficient room between Stride's neck and the wall. Because they reached the conclusion that her wound was inflicted on the ground they must also conclude that a shorter knife was used. I find this thinking bizarre as the wound is clearly not as deep as in the other victims and actually appears less deep at one end which is exactly what we would expect if the knife had to be withdrawn early from it's stroke.
I'll find some quotes to back this up when I have some time.
Scotty. |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 27
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 8:17 am: | |
OK here are some statements from the Doctor's at the inquest to back up my statement above.
Firstly Dr Blackwell states: "In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife." The doctor actually states that the knife was a sharp one in direct contradiction to some assumptions that I have read that the knife was blunt. In fact a blunt bloodstained knife was found after this murder at a nearby location, regarding this Dr Phillips states: "It has been recently blunted, and its edge apparently turned by rubbing on a stone such as a kerbstone. It evidently was before a very sharp knife.
The Coroner: Is it such as knife as could have caused the injuries which were inflicted upon the deceased? - Such a knife could have produced the incision and injuries to the neck, but it is not such a weapon as I should have fixed upon as having caused the injuries in this case; and if my opinion as regards the position of the body is correct, the knife in question would become an improbable instrument as having caused the incision." Two important things here, firstly Phillips does not say why he thinks it an unlikely weapon to have caused the injuries, he could simply be referring to the fact that it is blunt. Secondly he states clearly that because of the position of the body this knife becomes an improbable murder weapon.
Regarding the shape of the murder weapon Phillips again: "[Coroner] The knife produced on the last occasion was not sharp pointed, was it? - No, it was rounded at the tip, which was about an inch across. The blade was wider at the base.
[Coroner] Was there anything to indicate that the cut on the neck of the deceased was made with a pointed knife? - Nothing." I don't think we should read too much into this statement, this was a question by the coroner to see if the knife in their possession could be excluded as the murder weapon, it couldn't be. Neither was any other style of knife specifically excluded by the medical evidence. Phillips also states: "The wound was inflicted by drawing the knife across the throat. A short knife, such as a shoemaker's well-ground knife, would do the same thing." This is Phillips' opinion only and it is worth noting that the Coroner did not ask him a question to directly evoke this response nor does Phillips ever state what it would do the same as.
Doctor Blackwell when recalled states: "With respect to the knife which was found, I should like to say that I concur with Dr. Phillips in his opinion that, although it might possibly have inflicted the injury, it is an extremely unlikely instrument to have been used. It appears to me that a murderer, in using a round-pointed instrument, would seriously handicap himself, as he would be only able to use it in one particular way." He thought also that a different style of knife would have been used and that despite there being no evidence of a sharp pointed knife. He states: "I am told that slaughterers always use a sharp- pointed instrument.
The Coroner: No one has suggested that this crime was committed by a slaughterer. - Witness: I simply intended to point out the inconvenience that might arise from using a blunt-pointed weapon."
I believe that the evidence above clears up the question of the knife in this case being different to the others. Neither of the doctor's state in any way that they could rule out either the knife which was found or any other knife. Further they both believe that this would was probably created by a sharp pointed and sharp bladed knife.
I found little evidence to back up my thoughts that that the knife was drawn upwards at the end of the slash to avoid the wall as my reading of the statements make it clear that the doctor's believe the cut started at the wall side of the throat and ended away from the wall. However with this in mind I wonder why the length of the knife was an issue at all. I would imagine when cutting a throat your cut might well start with the middle rather than one end of the blade.
Hope I made that all clear. I welcome any thoughts.
Scotty. |
Heikki Annala
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Hi Scotty
A very good point! I have always thought the murderer had been waiting in the yard for some time but never thought about that lack of light and eye thing.
- Heikki - |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 7:56 pm: | |
Hi Scotty; I believe the killer of Liz was a tall man, and used a "hangman's" method of holding her just off her feet by the scarf until she passed out, and then he could lay her down fairly gently to the ground.
You have a good point about the the way the cut is sharply curved at the end. That could be the exact point at which the killer looked up, and the point of interruption of the killing, at which time he fled. It is also difficult to make a sharp curve with a longer knife than a short one.
I also believe that Liz's specialty was oral sex, due to her nickname of Happy Lip, and the use of the cachous. Her killer had time to follow her down the lane and wait while she used the lavatory at the end of the yard, (perhaps to straighten up for the customer), giving his eyes time to get accustomed to the dark well enough to do what he had in mind.
Great Work !
Joan
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1811
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:28 am: | |
Hi Scotty,
I must say I fail to see how the above can be interpreted as "clears up the question of the knife in this case being different to the others." The question is not whether it's a long or a short knife, but whether it's a round or sharp-pointed one. And I believe it's obvious that there are uncertainties regarding that. Even if we disregard the knife that was found (which, of course, had nothing to do with it), there are clear suspicions that the knife used on Stride had a round tip: "The knife produced on the last occasion was not sharp pointed, was it? - No, it was rounded at the tip, which was about an inch across. The blade was wider at the base[...] Was there anything to indicate that the cut on the neck of the deceased was made with a pointed knife? - Nothing."
This, in contrast to what you say, clearly shows that they don't believe in a sharp-pointed weapon and to say that these lines only are influenced by the knife that was found, is an unsupported assumption.
You say, "I don't think we should read too much into this statement..."
Well, the statements are there, and they are all we've got, although they are not conclusive -- at it's worst, they are contradictory but they don't prove your point in any way. How we choose to interpret them is something else and it seems to me that you are trying to read them in a certain direction. After all, the doctors had seen the throat cut wound in live and colour, we have not.
The statements above show that there were doubts about if it was the "ordinary" long sharp Ripper knife that was used, and that can't be disregarded. From the descriptions, the cut on Stride's throat differs from the the wounds on the other victims, and I believe the doctors involved had valid reasons to doubt the nature of the murder weapon -- the questions did arise form somewhere.
I don't believe Stride was a ripper victim (and not only based on this technical issue), but I can't prove it.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 40
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 6:18 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Not to labour the point but what is being referred to at the inquest is the knife that was found which had a round tip. As I pointed out earlier this line of questioning is to ascertain whether or not that knife could have been used to cause the cut to Liz Stride's throat. Once again as I stated earlier the Doctor's found nothing to state that this knife could not have caused the wound. Let me stress this point, This is very different from stating that only a round tipped knife could have caused the wound. If you can point me to where the Doctors have stated that this wound was caused by anything other than a knife which could also have caused the wounds to the earlier victims then I would concede the point. Let me also state that I started this line of enquiry because I was curious why Stride was considered to perhaps not be a victim of JtR. So I have gone back over the inquest testimony and find no evidence to support that a different knife was used. I have no preconceived idea as to whether she was a victim of JtR or not.
Glenn I feel as though I will not convince you and that's fine I can live with that. By clearing up the question of the knife I think you have taken me to mean that I have proved that the same knife was used as in the other killings. I make no such claim and the evidence does not support it. The evidence does not rule in or out a sharp pointed knife however and this is the point I am making.
Scotty. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1814
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 6:35 am: | |
Hi Scotty,
No, you have not proven anything whatsoever. And if you could, you should be awarded the Noble Prize.
"Not to labour the point but what is being referred to at the inquest is the knife that was found which had a round tip."
Yes, the first line!
But look at the other one:
"Was there anything to indicate that the cut on the neck of the deceased was made with a pointed knife? - Nothing."
Although the knife that was found, was addressed just prior to this statement, this particular line has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Here the coroner are only asking for their over-all medical opinion -- which is probably based on the medical examination, not the knife presented. But that is obviously your interpretation -- if you want to use that as a stated fact to support your views, OK, be my guest.
It is obvious that this problem regarding the murder weapon derived from somewhere, and not just because of the knife (which I think you conveniently lay too much weight upon here).
If you think, in contrast to everyone else (regardless of points of view), that you have solved it and proven your point -- fine by me. I won't take that away from you.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 42
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 6:50 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
I have never claimed to have solved anything as you put it. I merely point out that the wound being not inconsistent with a round pointed knife having created it does not mean that it was created by one. I think it is you who puts too much weight on this statement not me. You are working on the logic that "all dogs have four legs, my cat has four legs, therefore my cat is a dog." All I ask is that you back up your statements as I have done mine. To simply say "It is obvious that this problem regarding the murder weapon derived from somewhere", I'm afraid is simply not good enough. I believe I have stated my case with facts from the inquest to back it up, if you wish to raise a serious counter arguement place do likewise.
I would also be careful in claiming that my views are "in contrast to everyone else" as I am sure this is not the case.
Scotty. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 6:54 am: | |
G'day Joan,
HAPPY LIP??????? Where did you read that?
LEANNE |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 9:48 am: | |
Dear Leanne; See the thread about "new nickname" and there is a link there about the name in a paper being first "Happy Lip" and later in the same article, as "Hippy Lip", which I feel is a typo.
Joan |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1817
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 10:30 am: | |
Hi Scott,
No offense, I didn't refer to that your views were in contrast to anyone elses (it would be a terrible fallacy to state something like that) -- I just referred to your statement: "By clearing up the question of the knife I think you have taken me to mean that I have proved that the same knife was used as in the other killings", which I unfortunately misread sloppily and misinterpreted (and also didn't read the following lines careful enough) -- I for some reason interpreted the meaning of it as "By clearing up the question of the knife I think you have helped me proved that the same knife was used as in the other killings.", which could have been avoided if I had not been too much in a hurry to read your post (which is a terrible thing to do, since I'm dealing with a second language here).
I sincerely apologize for that -- my sloppy mistake.
Still, let me just comment on the following:
"I merely point out that the wound being not inconsistent with a round pointed knife having created it does not mean that it was created by one."
>>And still, that is all we've got. The questions were raised at the inquest, and I can't disregard them, and the second line I refer to from the inquest (which you seem to disregard) does state that the doctors weren't convinced about a sharp-pointed knife being used, but possibly a rounded one. That is the facts we're stuck with and those are their own words. It's not much, but it's there (and the problem doesen't come up in connection with the other murders).
Unfortunately we don't have the facts and the information we are used to in modern investigations. If we had proper authopsy protocols and photos of the wound (making it possible for us make up our own minds), things would be different. But as it is, their words are all we've got, and even if we can't take for granted they knew what they were talking about, they seem to have an opinion on the matter that can't be overlooked.
Once again, sorry about the misinterpretation of your text.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 43
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for clearing that up, my humble apologies also.
We shall still have to disagree as I still see no evidence that the doctor's believed in the round ended knife theory.
I have read and respected many of your views on the casebook and look forward to crossing swords again in the future.
Scotty. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1818
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 11:14 am: | |
Hi Scott,
The apologies are on me, make no mistake about it; sometimes I get too hasty and too hot-headed, which is a fatal combination, so I appreciate that you made me aware of this error.
Yes, I think we'll have to accept diverging views on the matter. Well, I guess we'll survive it...
I look forward to future discussions as well. You seem well read up on the case.
All the best 
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
PF Arm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 10:39 am: | |
Joan
I've just started reading this thread and only the other day came across your reference to the red lipstick etc. I was wondering whether a red flower was like a poor womens equivalent of the lipstick. It just i've always thought it was a strange thing for Liz to be wearing.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 5:51 pm: | |
G'day Joan,
I'm really digging at the back of my memory here and will search for further answers when I get home: but didn't Elizabeth Stride have some sort of deformity or injury that she claimed happened while escaping in the 'Princess Alice' disaster?
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1819
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 6:20 pm: | |
Leanne,
On the mortuary photo there appears to be some sort of deformity on the lip (although it's strange that the doctors don't comment on it), but it had probably nothing to do with the Princess Alice disaster.
She claimed that her husband and her children had drowned in the accident and that she had received a blow when she escaped from the ship, from someone above her who was kicking.
Apparently her whole story was a hoax (probably to receive aid from the Swedish Church), since her husband and her alleged children were not listed among the deceased from the ship. Her husband died from other causes.
Apart from this, she was obviously known for making up fanciful and elaborate stories in order to make herself interesting.
If what we see on the photo really is a deformity, we can't know of its real origin (she also had lost some of her front teeth in the upper jaw, I think). It could derive from a syphilis injury and the mercury treatment for the illness (which also could be an explanation for the loss of teeth).
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 7:19 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
I know the Princess Alice story was 'a little white-lie', so she got a fat lip from some other trauma. Perhaps someone referred to her as 'Happy Lip Liz' to a reporter, so it was assumed that it was a commonly used nickname.
LEANNE |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 8:28 pm: | |
Hey Guys and Gals,
Ive never heard the Happy Lip thing either. Sounds like a bunch of hogwash. Probably all the hookers back then were good at oral sex.
Joan and Leanne and Glenn (whats up big dog?)
The part of Liz' mouth that was supposed to have been severely injured was palate in the roof of her mouth.....she claims it was missing. Like ya'll discussed earlier, she claimed to have had her front teeth knocked out in the "boating accident" which was probably not true. Kidney probably knocked them out along with ripping her earring out for which she had a scar.
The photo of Stride does make it look as if she had some kind of lip injury. Then it could have been just the way her mouth was positioned when the photo was taken. Ive not read any info to address that.
Joan....regarding your statement of the killer holding her by the scarf...off her feet till she passed out.....besides being very tall....he would have to be strong enough to hold a 130 lb woman, by a piece of cloth, for about 2 minutes if not more( thats about the length of time the brain can go without oxygen without the person losing conciousness). There arent that many people today, that are that strong. I doubt that he strangled her that way. Theres not really too much evidence to say that Stride was strangled other than the marks on her shoulders and collarbones, which doesnt reconcile with a conventional strangling.
If Schwartz is to be believed, Liz screamed a little. I think that when she started making a lot of noise, the killer just slit her throat. I think that Stride was dead before Schwartz even got to fairclough St. Which I think was a lot closer to 1:00 am than he thought. Because Deimshutz comes driving up on his horse and (Glenn is gonna disagree with me here...but thats ok.) totally ruins the game for the ripper. So when Louis goes running inside....the Ripper takes off. Anyway...Thats my theory about the way it happened.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1820
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 8:43 pm: | |
Hey Paul, big dog!
How's things?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 54
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 8:46 pm: | |
Leanne and Paul,
Richard K. Fox, reporter and author of 'The History of the Whitechapel Murders' in 1888, wrote that one of Liz's nicknames was 'Hippy Lip Annie', because of her outrageously large bottom lip (hippy means to stick out). Also, one of her legs was gimped, not from an accident but from a birth defect. I've always felt this point was too often overlooked because, with such singular physical characteristics, it would have made it much easier to determine which witness actually saw her. Also, it opens up the possibility that the attacker Schwartz saw didn't intentionally throw her down but, as a result of her bad leg, caused her to go off balance and fall.
Glen and Scott,
What's the debate about? Because Liz wasn't mutilated, there's not way to tell whether or not the knife had a sharp point. To say it was 'round-tipped' would be an assumption, and probably an incorrect one.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 237
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 9:21 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
If Schwartz' man didnt push her down and she only slipped...then why would he yell out "Lipsky" in Schwartz' direction? The fact that Schwartz' man yelled out some sort of comment (which contained the word Lipsky...Schwartz didnt speak English so he probably didnt understand the rest of what was said) would lead me to believe that some amount of malice was involved. I dont believe that another man came along after Schwartz' man and killed her. I think Schwartz' man did it, right then and there. With Schwartz already having freaked out and taken off, he didnt hang around and watch her die. But his testimony that the man tried to pull her into the street and then threw her down tells me that the man had something besides sex on his mind. Best regards.
Paul |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 45
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 10:15 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
I agree, what I am trying to discover is why some people think Stride was not a ripper victim. I thought that one of the contentious issues was that the knife used was claimed to be different to those used in the other murders. I have discovered from reading the doctors testimony at the inquest that you are exactly right in that because there were no mutilations and only one cut it is impossible to determine exactly what type of knife was used. It is of course worth noting that the doctors do make statements regarding the difference between Stride's murder and those of the others. These differences however are mainly regarding the severity of the injuries and the fact that no abdominal mutilations were done. This of course is completely consistent with the murderer having been interrupted.
So I guess I'm confused as to why some people see Stride as perhaps not being a victim of JtR.
It's also worth noting that the coroner in his summing up stated that there were "no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator". The coroner believed it quite possible that Eddowes was not a victim of JtR.
Scotty. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 56
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 10:26 pm: | |
Paul,
I didn't say Stride wasn't attacked, only that it's not very difficult to knock a gimp down, so we might imagine the 'assault' as being more brutal than it was. Also, you remember that Schwartz witnessed the man attempting to pull Stride across the street, toward the Pipeman. Why? Stride resisted, and this might have been when she broke from his grip and fell backwards. This certainly makes more sense than the attacker wanting her to cross the street, then changing his mind and throwing her down. What we then have is an attacker wanting Stride to cross the street (a fact too often overlooked or not appreciated) towards where the Pipeman is standing, and Stride not wanting to go. So, the question is, who's the Pipeman?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 57
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 10:30 pm: | |
Scott,
The major contentions people have with Stride being a Ripper victim are that a)the wounds to her neck aren't as severe as other Ripper victims b) it was not possible to ascertain that the knife used on her was the same as on Eddowes c) the activity that Schwartz witnessed (i.e. a brutal attack in public) doesn't seem to fit the Ripper's M.O.. Personally, I believe she was a Ripper victim.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 11:05 pm: | |
Hi, Scot
What a weird, weird passage. I think this might be awkwardly worded, and that Baxter is actually referring to Stride's assailant as the possible imitator (he seems to me to be contrasting Stride with the other victims). I can't see Baxter dismissing Eddowes' abdominal mutilations while accepting Stride's throat wound as being indicative of the Ripper.
To add to Tom's point about Stride's throat, it's also remarked at the inquest that worse throat wounds had been seen in cases of suicide. Of course, Stride didn't kill herself (or else the knife would have been found).
Anyway, as far as Stride's candidacy as a Ripper victim, I'm open either way. To be honest, I don't think it really matters--if we could compare her last moments to the others', I bet you we'd find that they were pretty much the same, and IMO, there's no more or less honor in being a Ripper victim than someone else's.
Cheers,
Dave |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 11:15 pm: | |
Hello,
Re: the knife question. As Donald Rumsfeld says "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I think this sums up Dr. Phillips response of "Nothing" to "Was there anything to indicate that the cut on the neck of the deceased was made with a pointed knife?" It does not say much either way about the knife used. The coroner could have followed this up with "Was there anything to indicate that the cut on the neck of the deceased was made with a round tipped knife?" To which Phillips probably would have also answered "Nothing".
Tom,
I have never been able to determine how much credence to give to the statement the Schwartz's man pulled Stride INTO the street. It is difficult to interpret the exact scenario here.
Rob House |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 58
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 11:58 pm: | |
David,
Believe it. Baxter said it. It makes no sense, I know, but he said it nonetheless.
Robert,
If you don't give credence to that portion of Schwartz's testimony, then you'd have to dismiss the whole testimony. I'm not sure I see the need for interpretation, as Schwartz was pretty clear on what he saw, and the police certainly held him in high regard as a witness, calling him forward years later for identity parades. Of course, the man was frightened, it was dark, there was distance to consider, not to mention his age and the likelihood that his eyesight was poor. But even with all of that, I see no reason to discount his stating that the man pulled Stride into the street.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1822
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 5:26 am: | |
Tom,
"To say it was 'round-tipped' would be an assumption, and probably an incorrect one."
>>It's not me saying it was round-tipped, that detail originates from statements at the inquest. And yes, it's an assumption also on their part, but what isn't in this case?
An incorrect one... Really? And you know this for sure? Congratulations.
The doctors did noticed a possible dissimilarity in weapon, and we could of course choose to acknowledge this or not. That is the choice we have. I choose to do so.
As for your three points as explanation to why people might discard Stride as a Ripper victim (personally I am open either way, although I nowadays tend to rather exclude than include her -- but not without hesitation), they are quite correct.
Although I think the throat cut isn't that consistent with the ones we see in the other Ripper victims (which I am by no means the first one to point out -- I myself spoke AGAINST this point for over a year and had to take huge wrap for it), I regard (c as the most important point (that is, if Schwartz testimony is relevant).
If Schwartz story is correct, and Mr Broad Shoulders was her killer, then I find it very hard to believe that it was a JtR murder Schwartz witnessed. From his behaviour, the assaulting man is by no means a credible candidate for Jack. I have stated it in the past, and although I've changed my mind quite many times on several points regarding the Ripper murders, I will continue to state this and to stress this point.
If people want to believe that Schwartz witnessed the fore-play to the actual murder, then one must probably discount it as a Ripper act altogether. It is my humble personal opinion.
Of course, we've got a big coincidence here to consider -- with two murders involving throat cuts within the same 45 minutes (or so) -- but stranger things have happened.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 598
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 5:37 am: | |
Scotty (et al)
If interested, if you look back a couple of months on this thread you will find a related discussion(argument) between myself and Shannon Christopher which may contain some relevant points. The discussion was on the subject of whether Liz's throat wound was of the same nature as that of the other victims.
As I recall it went on for some time before everyone got cheesed off and told us to shut up  |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1823
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 5:41 am: | |
Indeed, Alan.
There is something about the Stride murder that turns the threads upside-down into chaos after a while. The answer to this is probably that it reveals so many unanswered questions -- which also makes it the funniest murder to argue about in my view; it never seems to run out on new different turns, although I believe many of the same points are risen over again.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 8:59 am: | |
Hi, Tom
You really think so? I'll have to go back and read the whole Stride inquest thoroughly. Like you said, it just doesn't make sense that he's presided over the Nichols and Chapman inquests, then questions Eddowes' own candidacy (with organ removal, etc). I wonder if this was a Met/City thing.
Best,
Dave |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 3:37 pm: | |
I used to wonder about Stride until I began to compare the eyewitness accounts of various people who claimed to have seen the Ripper. The only two that tallied were Schwartz and the man who saw Eddowes with her attacker. They tallied almost exactly. I think they saw the same man. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1826
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Diana,
Those characteristics could fit any man in Whitechapel in the late 19th century -- including the peaked cap, which was a very common working class headgear. The witness accounts prove nothing and witness descriptions seldom do.
What bothers me is that the man seen by Lawende (if he is relevant) had a very distinct clothing item, namely a red neckerchief, which would be stand out rather well against the black clothes - and Lawende spotted it, although he saw the man even less time than Schwartz did.
They could be the same man, but I think there are serious doubts.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 399
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I've been thinking about the red neckerchief a bit. As you know, I'm not one to push for Stride as definately being a Ripper victim, but (there's always a but, isn't there? ha!) from the general description of events, didn't Schwartz see the Ripper sort of "back on", while Lawende had a more side/front on view?
Schwartz sees an altercation, with Liz's attacker between Liz and Schwartz. That seems to me to suggest that if Liz's attacker were wearing a red neckerchief, Schwartz being across the street, is less likely to see it (he gets more of a view of the man's back, his face when he turns to shout out Lipski). Lawende, however, sees the couple talking, with Liz placing her hand on the man's chest. This implies he may have seen the man's chest, and hence see the red neckerchief.
Of course, there's no ruling out the possibility that Schwartz just failed to recall the item, or that Lawende mis-remembered it as being there. If neither of those very reasonable concerns are put aside for a moment though, could not this difference in the clothing simply reflect the different angles that the two suspects viewed the same person? (Of course, I'm also going with the unproven and risky idea that we're dealing with the same suspect, otherwise the difference is way too easy to explain - different people = different clothes).
Anyway, as always, I'm not entirely sure that Schwartz missing the red neckerchief can be taken as a big problem. The scene he witnesses is much more emotional, and hence he's much less likely to take in all the details of the suspect's attire (more concerned about his own safty). Lawende sees a much less violent situation, and though this normally wouldn't be something to remember, because they did happen to take notice of the couple as they left the pub, it would explain why he remembers at least some details (whether or not those memories are accurate is impossible to say though).
- Jeff |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 60
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 7:22 pm: | |
Glen writes: "It's not me saying it was round-tipped, that detail originates from statements at the inquest. And yes, it's an assumption also on their part, but what isn't in this case?
An incorrect one... Really? And you know this for sure? Congratulations."
As you quoted me in bold print you must have noticed the word 'probably', so no, I don't know this for certain, but very sharp knifes tend to have points. Of course, you can point out exceptions to this rule, but they are just that, exceptions to a rule.
As for Schwartz witnessing the prelude to Stride's murder, he probably did, but that's not to say the broad-shouldered guy was the killer. Remember what I said about Pipeman.
As for the Stride case being so different from the others, I don't see it. If she'd been mutilated, even slightly, nobody would be questioning it today.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 8:44 pm: | |
Hey Everybody,
Regarding what Tom said about the killer pulling
Stride into the street toward the pipeman....
According to Schwartz the pipman was standing in front of a public house, or coming out of it...or whatever. The address was 26 Berner street and the club was called the Nelson.
It would seem that Pipeman was not standing directly across the street or even that close.
The board school was directly across the street from Dutfields yard, so the pipeman was probably standing a little further down. So, In my opinion, the killer wasnt pulling her toward
the pipeman....in the sense that they were going to attack her. I think pipeman was just standing there and left the scene as soon as Schwartz did as his testimony indicates.
The Star report places a knife in the hands of the pipeman, which was probably just to make the story sound better. Even though Swanson didnt take the original police report, he wrote it from memory and I believe he would have remembered to put in his report that the pipeman had a knife if Schwartz' original testimony had indicated that.
Regarding the knife....and the wound on Stride's neck (and Glenn will disagree with me here,,again.....Whats up Glenn?)....Some of the other victims had 2 incisions in their neck. A smaller wound that didnt encircle the neck, and a complete wound that did. IF IF IF IF IF, the killer was interrupted, he may have only had time to cut her throat once. Thats the only possible reason that I can think of that the killer (IF HE WAS JACK THE RIPPER) didnt finish with Stride.
Regarding why Bagster Phillips didnt think Eddowes was a Ripper victim.....Who knows.
Thats one of the craziest pieces of testimony of all of the witness in all of the inquests other than Mary malcomb and her Psychic friend.
Dave makes a good point with the city/met thing. Good call dude. Best regards.
(Message edited by paulj on May 26, 2004)
Paul |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
