|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 373
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:13 am: | 
|
Wow Mephisto........
I am impressed...........
I did have sneaking feeling that the legs might have been closer to the wall and you confirmed this.......... I will just do a small close up of her with what might be the more correct position by the wall ............we do have to take into consideration that her body may have changed postion post mortem due to 'natural causes' but at least it will show how she was found.........(I hope)
I think you are right about the line of the shoulders..................and the knees would naturally fall towards the left side.........yes I think you are spot on with that description........ see what others think when they see a quick pic of it...........
One thing that I did note from the inquest testimony was that:
"Her face was not more than five or six inches away from the club wall." (Lamb)
That would seem to imply that her legs would have actually been resting on the wall, if her knees had moved even fractionally to the left.......
"Her feet close against the wall of the right side of the passage." (Blackwell)
She would seem to have been walking back through the yard reasonably close to the right hand wall, when her killer attacked........unless she was walking further in the middle and he pulled her across towards the wall........(by the scarf) I'm trying to work out exactly where he would have been standing when he attacked. He had to have been waiting for her to walk passed him back along the yard........where did he stand? I think it does seem likely that he was tucked into the recess in the wall, there, which would fit in totally with the way Liz was manoevred to the ground and where she was found.........
I think the rest of what you say does follow through as making a great deal of sense to me......... especially the scarf part.......I know my husband has larked about with me when he has had a drinky or two and any clothing around the neck can be twisted to produce a cutting off of the air supply...........
It is also very quick, which would account for the fact that there were no signs of a struggle.....
The description of the wound incision does make a great deal of sense as well now............ I might try and see if I can reconstruct that to see how it would look......... but I do wonder about some of the specifics still........
"She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed. " (Blackwell)
I suppose that this couple with the scarf would certainly have stopped any spurting from the wound.......I am trying to gauge, just how savage the swipe would have been, in comparison to the other victims.....because at the end of the day, that is part of what we are trying to establish here.........how can we account for any variables?
One other thing that Blackwell said which seems relevant is:
[Coroner] A hand might have been put on her nose and mouth? -
{Blackwell} Yes, and the cut on the throat was probably instantaneous.
Thanks for that post Mephisto, I actually understood all the technicalities, so you must have done a grand job! Does make my brain ache though!!!!!
Jane
xxxxxx
 |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 374
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
You won't beat me at waffling!
Just a point about the dragging part......I did look at this, but it seems, well impossible actually, unless all of the witnesses left out a great chunk of testimony.........
I was initially thinking that Mr BS might have dragged her the yards back to the place where she was found......it was not that far.........at most 9 feet, although some testimonies seem to make it as little as 6 feet inside the yard......
The evidence is that she wasn't dragged at all.
It had been raining and the yard was very muddy, also there would have been horse manure......if she had been dragged at all, it would have left very obvious trails in the mud.
I think it is safe to say that she dropped on the spot and in fact it doesn't even seem likely that her feet moved at all from where she was standing when she was attacked.........
But of course I could be wrong!!!!!!!!
Jane
xxx |
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 7:51 am: |
|
Hello Ms. Coram,
Thank you for your kind remarks.
You wrote: 'Her face was not more than five or six inches away from the club wall' (Lamb).
"That would seem to imply that her legs would have actually been resting on the wall, if her knees had moved even fractionally to the left".
'Her feet close against the wall of the right side of the passage' (Blackwell).
PC Lamb's account of the proximity of Elizabeth Stride's face relative to the wall, and Dr. Blackwell's description of the proximity of her feet, imply that her back was arched forward toward the wall.
You also wrote: "She would seem to have been walking back through the yard reasonably close to the right hand wall, when her killer attacked........unless she was walking further in the middle and he pulled her across towards the wall........(by the scarf) I'm trying to work out exactly where he would have been standing when he attacked. He had to have been waiting for her to walk passed him back along the yard........where did he stand? I think it does seem likely that he was tucked into the recess in the wall, there, which would fit in totally with the way Liz was manoevred to the ground and where she was found". I think the position of Stride's body, the dimensions of the gateway, and the testimony of Israel Schwartz offer us an opportunity to determine the movements of all the actors prior to the fatal attack.
In his 19 October report to The Home Office, CI Donald Swanson gave this account of Schwartz' statement: "12:45 a.m. 30th Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic–Ellen] street, Backchurch Lane stated that at that hour on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly" (Evans and Skinner 2001:136, My emphasis).
If the information in your Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 5:33 am post is accurate; i.e., "the yard was approx 10 feet wide, (which would make each gate 5 feet wide)", then we can reason with the unknown parts of the equation to answer the question: Where, within that 10' wide gateway was Stride standing when her assailant approached her? Let's try to reconstruct the scene that Schwartz described, and see if that representation can help us along.
To begin with, we need to know two things:
1. Which direction Stride's assailant was coming from.
2. How far away was Schwartz from Stride when her assailant got in her face.
Swanson's summaries of the Stride case are a qualitative synthesis of police reports and coroner's inquests, etc. so we don't have any distance measurements to work with, but we do have a few factors we can use to calculate some fairly accurate approximations: we know the width of the gateway, and we can figure out the gait of a walking man according to height, and thus the distance a man of that height can cover in a specific amount of time.
Let's say that Schwartz was of average height, about 5' 6", I'm a little over 6' 1" and my stride averages 21 inches per step. My girlfriend is 5' 6" and she averages 17 inches per step, so we can safely assume that Schwartz' stride falls somewhere in between 17 and 21 inches per step. How many steps would Schwartz need to take to walk a distance of 10 feet? 10x12= 120 inches, divided by the minimum of 17 inches, and we know that Schwartz can cover a 10 foot distance in 7 steps. If we divide 120 inches by the average stride of my girlfriend and I, which is 19¼ inches, we find that Schwartz can walk 10' in about 6¼ steps. Now, how many steps can 5' 6" Israel Schwartz take in 5 seconds? At a leisurely pace, my 5' 6" GF can take 7 steps in 5 seconds, at 17 inches per, it works out to about 10 feet (9.9), or 2 feet per second. Let's assume Schwartz' stride was the average of 19¼ and he took 8 steps in 5 seconds, that works out to about 12 feet, or 2½ feet per second.
For the second part of this exercise, we need to determine from which direction Stride's assailant came into the frame. There are four possibilities:
1. North, from the direction of Commercial Street.
2. South, from the direction of Fairclough Street.
3. West, from Dutfield's Yard.
4. None of the above.
In the first instance, Schwartz is walking south on Berner Street behind another man. Schwartz needs enough time to observe what's happening in front of him, and to decide if he should cross the street and avoid invading the couple's space. According to Swanson's summary, it appears that the assault began soon after the man and woman started talking; how soon we don't know for certain, but I think we can make a fairly accurate estimate based on our own experience.
Let's assume for a moment that Stride's assailant sees her standing on the sidewalk from 30' away; he's feeling a bit randy, so he decides to chat her up. He's 2 feet away from Stride when he says: Hello luv, how'd you like to do me a favor? That takes all of 2.5 seconds. Stride looks him over and decides she isn't interested, so she replies: Sod off bub (1.95 seconds). He comes back with: What'd you go an' say that for (1.72 seconds)? To which she retorts: Bugger off slime ball (1.47 seconds). I'll show you who's a slime ball (2.18 seconds). Total time elapsed, 9.82 seconds.
At a minimum of 2 feet per second, Schwartz could walk almost 20 feet during the 9.82 seconds it took for Stride to push this guy's buttons. If Schwartz was walking down Berner Street 20 feet behind this suave man-about-town, he's now standing next to both of them looking a little sheepish. If he was 40 or 50 feet behind him, then the man stops in front of Stride when he's 20 to 30 feet away, so either the conversation was longer or Schwartz had to be closer. Now if Schwartz was walking only 30 or so feet behind Stride's assailant, 9.82 seconds of conversation puts him at or near the north side of the gateway. If the two actors are near the center of the opening when Schwartz arrives at the north side of the gateway, then he's 5 to 7 feet away as the situation unfolds, and is even closer by the time he crosses the street, however, if the actors are at the south side of the gateway, then Schwartz is no closer then 10 to 12 feet when the man stops in front of Stride. If we calculate this problem using the average speed of 2½ feet per second, then Schwartz is past Dutfield's Yard, and the action is happening behind him.
If, as Swanson explained, Schwartz "got as far as the gateway" when he saw the man stop and speak to Stride, then the conversation must have been exceedingly brief: Hello luv. Bugger off. And budda bing, Stride is laying on the ground softly screaming. In any event, the confrontation had to take place at least 10 feet away from Schwartz when he arrives at the north side of the gateway, otherwise he's right on top of the action. The Star published an article which claims that Schwartz was "some distance" behind the assailant as they walked south toward Dutfield's Yard. The same article also claims that the assailant was "tipsy", and contrary to the statement Schwartz' gave to Inspector F. G. Abberline, that Stride's assailant tried to pull her into the yard, as opposed to pulling her toward the street. Based on what I've read about the poor quality of The Star as a primary source of information, I can't put much faith in the accuracy of their reporting (Sugden 2002 :203).
The second possibility also offers an intriguing alternative. The first setting has the assailant approaching Stride on the east side of Berner Street, from the direction of Fairclough. In this scenario, a man is walking north toward Schwartz and stops to chat up a woman, while Schwartz is walking south toward Dutfield's Yard. Schwartz sees the tęte-ŕ-tęte and considers crossing the street. If the encounter took place near the center of the gateway, then Schwartz crossed the street before reaching its northern edge. But if we look at DI Swanson's summary of his statement; i.e., "he got as far as the gateway [when] he saw a man stop & speak to a woman", within the context of the statistical hypothesis I proposed in the first possibility, it becomes clear that the encounter must have taken place closer to the south side of the gateway (Evans and Skinner :136, My emphasis).
In the alternative scenario, the assailant still walks north, toward Commercial Road, but this time, on the west side of Berner Street, which means that he had to cross the street to confront Stride. Therefore, Schwartz must have been a little further north of the gateway when the assailant crossed over. As Schwartz approaches the north side of the gateway the man is talking to Stride; when the assault begins, Schwartz immediately crosses the street. The implication of this model is that at one point, the assailant and Pipe dude were on the same side of Berner Street. Were these men comrades, or was Stride's assailant so out of control that he was unconcerned if his assault was witnessed by two men? Furthermore, is this behavior consistent with the behavior of the men last seen with the other Whitechapel murder victims? Interesting, yes?
The third possibility is just as intriguing as the second. In this scenario, Schwartz sees Stride standing on the sidewalk; a man walks out of Dutfield's Yard close by the north side of the gateway and turns south toward Fairclough. When the man nears Stride, he stops to talk with her. As Schwartz reaches the gateway, the ruckus begins and he crosses the street. But what was Schwartz actually witnessing here? Did Stride conduct a little business with this guy further up the yard, and then abruptly returned to the sidewalk when the transaction failed to materialize? Did the man turn her around because he was trying to coax her into reentering negotiations? If so, was Stride attacked because she refused his invitation?
The fourth possibility is anyone's guess.
I think Israel Schwartz' statement alone answers two of your questions; i.e., "He had to have been waiting for her to walk passed him back along the yard", and "I think it does seem likely that he was tucked into the recess in the wall". Schwartz places Stride's assailant in front of her at the initial point of contact near the street. The disposition of the body, Dr. Blackwell's statement that "[…] the throat might have been cut as she was falling" (Sugden 2002 :199), and the fact that blood was not found on the front of Stride's clothing, strongly suggest (inter alia) that she was attacked from behind. I will try to address the remaining questions later today or tomorrow.
Finally, we should consider how the ambiance of the alley might have affected Stride's decisions and movements in the last few minutes before her death.
Although the alley was not well lit, we know it was somewhat illuminated by the light emanating from the second story windows of the club, which Morris Eagle claims were open, and according to Sugden, the light from the kitchen door, which Mrs. Diemschutz claims was half open (Sugden :209). I don't believe a hidden assailant surprised Liz Stride in the alley. The light cast on the wall opposite the club from the second story windows, and to some extent, the light from the open kitchen door brightened the area near the gate, and must have provided Stride with enough light to see what was happening around her, as opposed to her stumbling about in the complete unknown of total darkness. In her mind, the light and noise coming from the club, made her feel secure enough to walk into the yard with her killer. Therefore, it is more than likely that she went willingly to the spot where she died.
Thanks again for the thought provoking artwork Ms. Coram.
Cheers
Mephisto
(Message edited by mephisto on March 25, 2005)
(Message edited by mephisto on March 25, 2005) |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 553
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 9:24 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I wouldn’t say that you were blithering again – I wouldn’t even say that you were blithering for the first time! You’re one of the most down to earth posters out here, always trying to explore all things ripperesque from all angles, and in an objective way too.
But although the ‘cachous up the sleeve’ idea wouldn’t be impossible, I think the idea that she was holding them in her hand is more feasible. And like Jane suggested, if Stride had been dragged back into the passage, I feel that there would have been some evidence of this. The fact that only her left side was well plastered with mud and that she was found on her left side, seems to point away from her having been dragged. Furthermore, the closer she had been standing to the south side of the entrance the moment she was grabbed from behind and pulled into the passage, the odder it would seem that her feet seem to have ended up closer to the club wall than her head.
Anyway, to me the bridge of speculation seems a bit too long and shaky as far as the cachous up the sleeve and the dragging are concerned.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 554
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
Hi Mephisto,
Regarding the post you wrote yesterday: for the most part I agree with what you suggest, but I do find the part where he first guides her head and body with both his hands and then pushes her head down with his left while cutting her throat with his right in mid-air a bit too constructed. I think her heavy body would have been moving too fast for something like that to happen.
For me a more feasible scenario would be what I suggested not too long ago, which is that he violently and quickly pulled her back and down by the scarf with his left hand while taking out the knife with his right. While turning to her left, she falls backwards against her killer. In the split second that she ‘rests’ against him he cuts her throat while almost simultaneously stepping back in order to prevent getting blood on him. The knife leaves the throat closer to the jaw on her right side than it had entered it on the left because she is moving downwards. He lets go of the scarf as she is falling to the ground. She ends up on the ground completely on her left side.
One (perhaps minor) remark regarding your last post. Not that it would be impossible, but the idea that Mr Broad Shoulders came from the yard when Schwartz came by doesn’t fit with the evidence that we have. Like you already said, in the Star article Schwartz is walking some distance behind him and Swanson’s report has Stride standing in the entrance to the yard when Mr BS tries to pull her into the street.
By the way, thanks for the medical info.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 375
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
Hi Mephisto,
Sorry about this really long post, but you put forward so many points I had to go with the flow!
Ms Coram ???? you make me sound like a spinster with a bun standing at the front of the class! Jane will do nicely thank you!
 hee hee
I think I can see the exact position of Liz now, so that is one blessing...............
I do have to say though, that there have been lengthy discussions about how dark the yard was and the conclusion was that it was very dark.......even with a tiny slither of light from the gas lamps in the kitchen and from the upstairs windows, the spot where Liz was actually murdered was very dark indeed........ witness testimony confirms this, so I have to say that she might not have been able to see much at all. Although the club was busy, the gas lights from the windows would have actually shed no light down into the yard.........
I recently had to illustrate an article about gas lamps and how much ambient light they cast and it is very little indeed........they have a very restricted lighting capability...........I do think it is possible that someone could have hidden in the shadows there, but my point is why would they choose to? I'll come bck to that in a minute.
'The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly" (Evans and Skinner 2001:136, My emphasis). '
This I have always believed and understood as being very important......I did go over this in another post, but here it is again.......
After reading all the evidence, I personally came to the conclusion that Mr BS was in front of her when she was attacked at the entrance, but that at that point, she was attempting to walk away/pull away from him, which was why he had to 'turn her around' .
I also feel that he must have been behind her when he killed her in the yard.......as you say all the evidence points to that..............so I think we are in agreement there.........
I have always been undecided if Liz was killed by JtR or not............and I have been trying to be totally objective so as not to put personal interpretations on the events......but having put together the pics.......I have to say that I find it very hard to believe that Liz's killer was actually WAITING to kill her. If I were a killer, intent on killing somone, I would not wait by a half open kitchen door, with light coming from it. The members would have used that door to either relieve themselves in the alley, or possibly go to the one open loo at the end. The dustbins were there, so anyone could have come out it they were tidying up after the evenings entertainment........anyone could have come out for a breath of fresh air at any time.......I personally find it hard to believe that a premeditated killer would wait there to purposely claim a victim............which doesn't rule out JtR, but I feel means that the attack must have happened in a different way that's all.
Leaving aside the fact that he would have his back to the door and completely defenceless if someone came out, he was also in danger of his only escape route being blocked by someone coming in through the gateway........ .I am not saying I don't think he could have taken those risks, but I don't think he would have knowingly allowed himself to get into that situation in a premeditated manner.
I suggested that the recess was the only place that he might have been able to hide if he were premeditated killer, because I felt I had to try and be objective, but it didn't actually seem very likely to me............
I think any one of several other scenarios is more likely,
1. That her killer did not intend to kill her up until the moment that it actually happened and was merely waiting by the kitchen door for her to come back towards the entrance, so that he could finish off the argument they had started earlier and only killed her in a fit of rage on the spur of the moment.........if he had not intended to kill her then, he would have had no concern about standing by a kitchen door with some, even limited light coming from it.........this would be the case if it were a domestic killing........if Mr BS was intent on finishing the row, the most opportune place for him to wait was by the kitchen door where there was a little light to continue the conversation.........if anyone had seen him waiting, he was merely a boyfriend waiting for his girl to come back from the loo........ I personally found that scenario plausible because it did make a certain amount of sense.
2. That her killer walked with her into the yard to the point she was murdered with the intention of killing her........and that Liz was quite accessible to the agreement.......which is possible again......but why choose the spot by the kitchen door if that is the case, why not go further back into the darkness of the yard?
Any suggestions anyone?
I agree Mephisto, that she would have needed to feel secure with any person she was with in order to go into the yard............did you have someone/anyone in mind? Does how dark the yard was make a difference in this particular scenario?
I do think there are some possibilities here, but how well does it fit in with the other evidence.
I thought initially that Liz might have gone with her killer to 'service' him using that corner by the kitchen door as a good spot.........from a prostitutes point of view, that is actually an ideal spot...........she would feel a bit safer there as it was near enough the door, but tucked around the corner, so that they had some privacy.........she would have normally rested with her back against the wall.......using the angle of the wall for support..........
If that was the case, and it seem quite possible, her killer would have had to manoevre her around so that he was behind her when he killed her..........not impossible, but then we come back to it being by the kitchen door again, not the best spot for a killer to plan to kill somone.......which brings me to another scenario, which might be more plausible...........
3 That they both walked into the yard and that Liz's killer wanted her to go further back into the yard, but she didn't and turned to walk back out again, so he decided to kill her there and then in a fit of rage......... this does seem quite likely on the face of it..........
Except that Liz had already had the encounter with BS which would have left her a bit nervy to say the least......I can't see her walking into Dufield's Yard at all with Mr BS or with a stranger at this point, unless she did feel pretty safe...........and if she did feel safe, why not go further back into the yard to conduct her business.........change of heart half way through maybe........did her companion say or do something that worried her?
Maybe they got as far as the kitchen door, Liz said' this will do' he said 'no back there' she said.......well you can imagine......turned to walk back out of the yard......... he got the hump with her and killed her........possible......... I might have to think about that one a bit more.........
I suppose we are back to the same circular argument, but I would have to say if this is the correct scenario, then no way was Mr BS her killer. She would not go into the yard with someone that had just assaulted her........but by the same token, would she go into the yard just moments after being attacked with someone else........ I think (with some experience in these matters) that is extremely unlikely that Liz would have gone back into that yard so soon after an assault to service a client....... very unlikely but not impossible....... definitely have to think about that one some more.............
As to where Schwartz, Liz Mr BS were standing during the assault.............
I read every report I could find and I got so lost I ended up in a right muddle..........in the end I just did what I thought looked like a good starting point by way of a pic of the Schwartz confrontation...........(see bottom of this post)
The first problem I had was trying to decide exactly where Schwartz was, and as you say, where the assailant came from, and how long he had been there at Schwartz's first sighting.....
I assumed that Schwartz would not have been standing holding their hands when it happened, but it did say that he had reached the gateway, which would imply that it was only a few steps away. I sort of figured from that Liz and BS had to have been on the further side of the gateway.......obviously if Swartz was walking passed the frontage of the club.........
This is what I came up with as an initial pic, and I would be interested to see what anyone thinks.............it is only a rough, so be gentle with me..........
Anyway, thanks for that really useful post Mephisto......I will need several sherries to be able to take it all in, but it was very intriguing and thought provoking........
Jane
xxxxxx |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1366
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Hi,
Today being one of my rare days off[ no racing]I have spend several hours researching exspecially the Irish Times.
According to several reports Stride was clutching sweetmeats[ cachous] in her left hand and some Grapes in her right.
This has totally confused me, but the Irish Times are adamant.
Of course the grapes would give Packer some credence, and there were some reports of stalks being found in the yard.
However I find it hard to comprehend Stride being assaulted falling down and still retaining both handfuls of goodies.
This case is bewildering....
Richard. |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
This is somewhat off the topic of recent posts, but I think we must also consider the possibility that Liz "willingly" went into the yard with Mr. BS after he threw her on the ground. It is difficult to discern from the police statement how severe this "assault" actually was. For example, if the report merely said that he turned her around and "manhandled her", then she screamed quietly. This is not too far from what the report says. He may have turned her around, and held her forecefully, as in an argument, trying to keep her from walking away. It is difficult to tell if the mere act of throwing her to the ground was done in a violent enough manner to warrent her being in fear for her life at that point.
The main impression I get from this rather brief and vague statement is of a man trying to "control" Stride forcefully. And in the act of doing so, he "throws" her to the ground in some way, and tells Schwartz to mind his own business. I think it is possible that Mr. BS, especially if he was JTR, may have been able to control Stride through a combination of physical control, coaxing, psychological manipulation and reasoning, etc. Also, as has been discussed before, if Stride was in a state of fear, and also in the clutches of a controlling manipulator,she may have essentially broken down through fear or an inability to assert herself, and may have actually gone into the yard with him anyways... even if this was against her best judgement. We tend to picture these things in a very rational way, assuming that people will always act in a rational manner. But this is not true, and human nature is not always solely rational. We assume that Liz would not go into the yard with this man willingly, but I do not think that is a valid assumption.
Rob H |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 376
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Hi Rob,
I have thought about the idea you have put forward hard and long and in the end came to a conclusion based on what seems most likely under the circumstances.......... which is really all anyone can do..........maybe the wrong one, but I think that maybe women would see this situation slightly differently to a man.......
Knowing what we do of Liz, I don't think that she was intimidated easily, from what I know of her character and her relationship with Kidney...........she was a strong woman and although Kidney padlocked her in and assaulted her on more than one occasion, she did have the gumption to leave him had enough strength of character to stand up to him and give as good as she got............so I don't think she would be easily manipulated into doing something she didn't want to do.......that is just my personal opinion of course.
I honestly can't see her breaking down through fear or an inability ot assert herself in this instance, whoever Mr BS was......... whether it was Kidney, a date, a disgruntled punter or JtR.
We are not be unreasonable in assuming that JtR did have some ability to manipulate women, as we know that the other victims did go to their deaths with him......but if he had just assaulted her, which is what we are discussing here, I really don't think that any amount of coaxing or persuading would have made her go into that yard with him...........
I tried to improvise a conversation between them that might have led to this happening...... and nothing I came up with made any sense at all............
If Mr BS was Kidney or a date or a punter, then we have to look at what had just happened a few moments previously to gauge how likely it was for her to go into the yard with him.........
The testimony was that Mr BS was trying to pull her away from the yard, along the street why would he then want to coax her back into it? There may be a reason of course, but it did not seem to feel quite right to me..........
Once inside the yard, where would we logically go with this scenario?.......Mr BS leads her into the yard, obviously not the other way around if he was coercing her into doing something she didn't really want to do.......did he then just turn on her when they reached the site of her death and kill her?
Where do the cachous fit into this? Taking out cachous in the middle of this sort of coercion scenario seems completely incongruous....... expecially if she was in a state of fear.............the last thing I would do in that situation, is suck a breath freshener..........
No matter what way I follow that scenario through, it just does not seem logical...........
I do agree totally that Mr BS did give the appearance that he was trying to control her actions..........and it is possible that he could coerce her into doing what he wanted.........but if only moments before he had been trying to get her to go with him away from the yard, why would he then be so intent on getting her into it?
I think a much more likely scenario is that she got up and decided to straighten herself out, not really that bothered about whether Mr BS was still hanging about or not.......because she was not seriously hurt and she was capable of taking care of herself.......went into the yard and he followed a moment or two later.........
This of course could be true, whover her killer was, JtR, Kidney or a date............I somehow still feel though that they did not go in together, but that Liz went in, bonnet untied from the skirmish, went to the loo and straightened her clothes, took out the cachous and was attacked on her way back, by someone that followed her into the yard a few moments afterwards...............I know that is just an opinion, but I have say that seems the most reasonable to me..........was it JtR? I don't know, but I would love to find out!!!!!!!
Love Jane
xxxxxxx
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1903
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
It does appear that women of the LVP carried cachous either in tins or small quilted bags. I would imagine that if the cachous were contained in a quilted bag - and these would seem to have been a fashionable accessory - then this small quilted bag may have actually been attached at the wrist by a band of material.
So the lady didn’t drop it, even when she was having her throat cut. |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 377
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Naughty, naughty, you know as well as I do that the cachous were in a piece of tissue paper, 'folded double', and that some became dislodged and fell out when she was examined.......I have actually not heard of the quilted bag idea, but then I'm a peasant! What do you expect from an East End lass?
Funnily enough I always used to carry around some cachous in a small tin......... when I was well younger..........I was addicted to them. and they did make your breath smell nice...... I might have dropped them if someone had come at me with a 6 inch blade though........
Come to think of it............. there was one night coming out of the "Lion and the Lamb" pub in Hoxton..................
Jane
xxxxxx |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 359
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 7:59 pm: |
|
Jane,
Thank you again for helping me to see a couple of scenarios that actually fit. The pic helps a lot.
Now.. more about this time coming out of the "Lion and Lamb"... No, that would be going off topic, and we all know what can happen when one does that!
Easy on the sherry..!
Lotsa love,
Lyn
P.S. I have never heard of small quilted bags carrying cachous either, AP. Perhaps you can enlighten me more. In the case of our Liz, as Jane has said, they were wrapped in paper - unless I'm missing something somewhere. But if other women - maybe of the classier type? carried these quilted bags, I would love to know more.
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 360
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 8:39 pm: |
|
Jane, and all,
Me again.. Jane, from your research (or anyone else) do you feel that the victims' throats were cut with one fail swoop, like "cut cut", or was it more "stab stab"? I'm sure you've already gone over this, and I've probably missed it - sorry if that's the case!
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 378
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 9:22 pm: |
|
Hi Lyn,
I am not really an expert on wounds, as anyone might have noticed, so I might bail out of this one.........as far as I can make out though all of the wounds were definite slashes and not stabs..........
Love Jane
xxxxxx |
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:05 pm: |
|
Hello Mr. van Oploo,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
The scenario I proposed in my Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:26 am post is a synthesis of a personal experience with a fainting woman, and my military service.
After reading through this thread, and seeing Jane's evocative artwork, I re-read the Stride chapters in my reference books looking for information that corresponded with the vivid mental images Jane's graphics had stimulated. While looking for inquest testimony and other statements that described Stride's body in situ, I came across Dr. Blackwell's opinion that Stride's throat wound might have been inflicted as she fell. This immediately struck a cord with me, because it correlated some elements of the Stride case, with my experiences.
The fainting woman situation came about many years ago via an automobile accident two doors from my home. A young woman had run over a squirrel, and then side-swiped a parked car and I ran over to see if she was okay. She was badly shaken, but after a few moments, she got out of her car, took a step, and saw the remains of the squirrel a few feet behind the left rear wheel of her car. I had initially gone to the driver's side of her car, so I was standing a few feet behind her. As soon as she saw the squirrel, she put the back of her right hand to her forehead, and I instinctively knew what would follow. I stepped forward, she took a half step back, her shoulders hit my chest and she started to slid, just as I described it in my post of the 24th, her derričre slowly descending toward her heels. I managed to hold her up by grasping, first her right elbow, and then her left. Luckily, a number of my neighbors came out when they heard the sound of the crash, and they helped me bring her to the sidewalk. According to one neighbor, it appeared that the woman had passed out in two stages: first, a dizzy light headed feeling, and then semi-consciousness. This has also been my experience.
I served as a field intelligence analyst during Desert Storm. One evening, far to the rear of the combat zone, I was standing with a group of officers from my unit drinking a nice cup of coffee, when a grenade came out of no-where and landed some distance to our right. Someone yelled, GRENADE, and we all dove for cover; unfortunately for me, I was a little slow hitting the ground, and took some concussion from the blast and about 20 small fragments in my right side, leg, and back, but I distinctly remember the sensations of blacking out.
I was lying on the ground with my head turned to the left, and all I could see were boots moving about in slow motion. Suddenly everything began to blur; the voices I heard around me sounded like they were coming from an echo chamber, and I began fading in and out of consciousness. Later, I was told that I looked like I was enjoying the experience. I didn't feel any pain at all; in fact, it was so peaceful that the thought of speaking seemed inappropriate. Seeing Jane's artwork and re-reading the details of the Stride case brought the thoughts and images of these events back to me, and I used them to construct the scenario you mentioned. In light of your comments, I reviewed this construct, and saw your point; I also found that our concepts of the event are not all that far apart.
In my 3/24/05 post, I suggested that "the killer stood behind Stride, and gently slid the back of his hand along her neck and under the scarf, then very quickly and violently twisted it clockwise, toward his chest".
You wrote: "For me a more feasible scenario would be what I suggested not too long ago, which is that he violently and quickly pulled her back and down by the scarf with his left hand while taking out the knife with his right. While turning to her left, she falls backwards against her killer".
As I see it, the difference between the two scenarios seems to be that you feel the killer pulled her back, and she fell against him, while in my scenario, the killer only twists the scarf "clockwise, toward his chest". Nevertheless, I must agree with your assessment. In order for my hypothesis to have worked, I needed to slow Stride's descent, and place her weight somewhere other than the killer's right hand. The physical characteristics of your scenario, "she falls backwards against her killer", would keep her weight on the killer's body. This makes much more sense than my scenario, which has the killer shifting her weight to the left and supporting her with the knife in his right hand, before he cuts her throat.
When I apply your weight distribution concept to the killer in my scenario, he still brings the knife around with is right hand, but this time, he's holding Stride against his body. Her back against his chest also allows him to feel her body as it begins to go limp. At this point, he releases the scarf, puts his left hand on the right side of her head, away from the blade, he then violently pushes her head both down and forward toward the wall, as he moves the blade to the right. Stride falls to the ground on her left side in a sitting position, because the killer pushed her down in that direction. Five aspects of the case support the down and forward push hypothesis:
1. The knot of the scarf is on the left side of her neck.
2. Her right shoulder is off the ground.
3. She fell on her left side in a sitting position.
4. The proximity of her head to the wall.
5. Her killer avoided the arterial spray.
Regarding my assailant's direction scenario; I mentioned the relevant details of both Swanson's summary and The Star article, to demonstrate the discrepancies between the two accounts. At the end of the paragraph I panned The Star as a poor source of information and pointed out the errors and obvious inaccuracies of the article. Mia culpa, what I didn't make clear was that I considered Swanson's report a more reliable account of the statement Schwartz gave to inspector Abberline.
Swanson's chief responsibility was to prepare summaries for the Home Office and senior METPO officials. I quoted Swanson extensively throughout the essay, because he was summarizing directly from original source material to inform his superiors, while The Star was embellishing Schwartz' account to sell newspapers.
The passage I wrote describes one of three possible directions Stride's assailant could have came from as he approached the point of contact. It reads: "The third possibility is just as intriguing as the second. In this scenario, Schwartz sees Stride standing on the sidewalk; a man walks out of Dutfield's Yard close by the north side of the gateway and turns south toward Fairclough. When the man nears Stride, he stops to talk with her. As Schwartz reaches the gateway, the ruckus begins and he crosses the street".
According to DI Swanson's summary, Schwartz turned "into Berner St. from Commercial Road & had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly" (Evans and Skinner 2001:136). Because Swanson's summary doesn't specify the direction the assailant came from, I decided to model the possibilities, and to try and determine how each scenario might have influenced subsequent events.
You wrote: "The idea that Mr Broad Shoulders came from the yard when Schwartz came by doesn’t fit with the evidence that we have. Like you already said, in the Star article Schwartz is walking some distance behind him and Swanson’s report has Stride standing in the entrance to the yard when Mr BS tries to pull her into the street".
I feel that my scenario is consistent with the following details of Swanson's report:
1. Schwartz claims that he notices the man when he is nearing the gateway.
2. Schwartz sees Stride standing on the sidewalk
3. Swanson doesn't place Schwartz behind Stride's assailant as he walked down Berner Street.
4. When Schwartz reached the gateway, Stride's assailant "threw her down on the footway".
The details of Swanson's report do not discount the possibility that the man who assaulted Stride could have entered Dutfield's Yard hours or minutes before either Stride or Schwartz entered the frame. Nor do they exclude the possibility that she took her assailant into the yard for a quickie before Schwartz turned south on Berner Street from Commercial Road, and returned to the sidewalk while her client tidied himself up in the yard, emerging just in time to be seen by Schwartz. As you said, it is not impossible, and as I've shown, it doesn't conflict with reliable evidence.
I always enjoy reading your friendly and well reasoned posts Mr. van Oploo, and I thank you for addressing one to me. Your thoughtful insights lead me to clarify the weigh distribution problem affecting my murder scene scenario, and to notice some important errors of omission.
I look forward to reading your comments.
Best regards,
Mephisto
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 59
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 3:15 am: |
|
Looking into the yard as Diemschutz would have done on entering. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3332
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 6:06 am: |
|
Frank, Jane and Mephisto,
Very good posts all of you.
Mephisto,
I think both yours (your last one) and Franks scenario could work; although it is true that it is not impossible and not conflicting with evidence, I d' still say I find it a bit hard to come to terms with the fact that Mr BS may have come from the yard behind her. We really have no indications on this, but of course nothing rules it out.
The scenario that Jane put forward: "I somehow still feel though that they did not go in together, but that Liz went in, bonnet untied from the skirmish, went to the loo and straightened her clothes, took out the cachous and was attacked on her way back, by someone that followed her into the yard a few moments afterwards"
is still the best I've heard so far and the one that makes most sense in several aspects.
Mephisto, I totally agree with you regarding Swanson's report.
"Swanson's chief responsibility was to prepare summaries for the Home Office and senior METPO officials. I quoted Swanson extensively throughout the essay, because he was summarizing directly from original source material to inform his superiors, while The Star was embellishing Schwartz' account to sell newspapers"
I couldn't have said it better myself. Spot on.
Jane,
Excellent artwork regarding the Berner Street scene. Schwartz looks great.
And from what I can see, the persons are correctly placed too, from what we know. Wonderful.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Hello Jane,
I guess I'm old fashion about things like courtesy and respect, so I don't address any of the Casebook Jacks by their first names unless they invite me to do so. Thank you for your permission Jane. It's a pleasure to meet you.
In your Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:13 am post, you wrote: "I suppose that this couple[d] with the scarf would certainly have stopped any spurting from the wound".
A throat ligature prevents blood from entering or leaving the victim's head. According to Dr. Phillips' inquest testimony, the cause of death was "loss of blood from the left carotid artery"; therefore, Stride's heart was still pumping blood to the point where the scarf was constricting the blood vessels. Stride's throat was cut below the scarf while her heart was still beating, so there must have been a significant amount of arterial spray. On the other hand, if Stride's throat was cut above the scarf, then there would have been no arterial spray for the killer to contend with. Does the location of Stride's throat wound, relative to the location of the scarf/ligature, indicate anything about her killer's anatomical knowledge? How do these circumstances compare with the other Whitechapel murders?
Thank you for your time Jane.
Mephisto
(Message edited by mephisto on March 26, 2005) |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 555
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Hi again Mephisto,
Thanks for your very kind words, and please call me Frank. And thanks as well for sharing those personal experiences. They sure do give me some more insight. I hope that blast didn’t leave you with any lasting health problems.
As to how Stride may have been attacked and killed, I don’t have any favourite scenario. Your latest scenario, my scenario, or the scenario in which he cuts her throat as soon as she hits the ground - they all sound feasible to me, although perhaps the last one would be the simplest.
Regarding the possibility that Mr BS surfaced from the yard like you described, I think that’s a bit of an awkward way to go about it. William West deposed at the inquest that, when he returned from the printing office shortly before the murder, he was able to see that the gates were open. I think it’s fair to say that Mr BS, whose eyes must have gotten accustomed to the dark when he was about to walk towards the street from the yard, was able to see Stride standing at the south side of the entrance.
If he were able to see her, which seems probable, the logical thing to do would be to walk over to her in a more or less straight line, not in the sort of round about way you’ve described. Looking out from a dark place into a lighter place is always easier than the other way around. But of course, that wouldn’t make what you described impossible.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1906
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Quite right, Jane, so thanks for the ticking off.
I deserved it... late at night, too much brandy etc.
Last post then ex-author falls down the stairs.
Lyn
there is actually some kind of women's society in the USA who specialise in reproducing these small quilted cachous bags.
Try:
www.vvprints.com/frontpage/upcomingevents
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 379
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Hi Mephisto,
Pleasure to meet you to Mephisto.............
I had a good look at the position of the scarf etc., when I was doing the pic I put up on the last thread...........I do hope Stephen doesn't mind me posting it again fairly small, so that I can try to explain how I reached my conclusions.......... but I really don't have much anatomical knowledge, I just tried to reason it out using common sense.........I wonder whether it shows if her killer had worked out something? Good question........
Here is the pic:
I have since looked at the inquest again, and it is described as a 'handkerchief' which might give the impression that it was quite small, but it also talks about it having a bow, which sounds unlikely if it was THAT small......so I am not sure where that leaves us...........
This is Blackwells statement:
The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight. 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."
That confirms that it was below the scarf and if we look at the pic above, the scarf would therefore have had to have been more or less where it is in that pic........
my initial thought was that the wound would have opened up underneath the scarf, which is why I thought it might have stopped some of the spray..........but I really am only guessing, because I am totally ignorant of wounds and blood flow etc.,
"Does the location of Stride's throat wound, relative to the location of the scarf/ligature, indicate anything about her killer's anatomical knowledge? How do these circumstances compare with the other Whitechapel murders?"
I know that at least that Annie, Kate, and Liz were wearing scarves when they were killed, and the conversation between Mary and Mr Astrakan sees Mary saying that she has lost her handkerchief and him giving her a red handkerchief............bearing in mind that Liz's scarf was actually described as a 'handkerchief' at the inquest .............. so most of the other victims were wearing scarves.........
Having said that it was fairly common at the time for women to wear scarves, in fact really quite standard, so that in itself would not indicate anything untoward..................
If her killer had known that a constriction around the throat acting as a tourniquet would stop arterial spray, then surely he would have cut her throat above it?
I would say that his incision was purely arbitrary, in relation to the scarf.........and it was coincedental that the blood spray was staunched .........first thoughts anyway, but I will need to think about it a lot more!
I would be interesting to look at the other victims wounds in relation to the scarves they were wearing.....although I seem to remember just from the top of my head that Kate's throat was cut below the scarf, the same as Liz's.........interesting............
I've just checked James Kent's testimony and
speaking of Annie, he said:
"She had some kind of handkerchief around her throat which seemed soaked in blood. "
The only other mention I can find of the handkerchief was from Timpthy Donovan:
Coroner:You have seen that handkerchief? - Donovan:I recognise it as one which the deceased used to wear. She bought it off a lodger, and she was wearing it when she left the lodging-house. She was wearing it three-corner ways, placed round her neck, with a black woollen scarf underneath. It was tied in front with one knot."
Unfortunately the clothes were taken from Annie at the mortuary so we can't be sure of much except that it was blood soaked and tied quite loosely around the neck when she left home, but we have no idea how it was tied post mortem. It does say however that there was a black woollen scarf underneath, which is interesting..........the scarf was tied over the top by the looks of it............
I will go back and look at the other throat wounds to see if I can work out where the scarfs might have been on the other victims...........it mind be a waste of time, but I won't know until I try!
Very intriguing avenue to explore..........haven't got a clue where we are going to end up, but it will be interesting finding out!!!!!!!
Love Jane
xxxxxx
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 380
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
|
Hi,
I've just checked back and it does look as if the throat wounds would have to have been ABOVE the scarves in Annie's and Kate's case, because the wounds were too close to the line of the jaw...........
I do think that the slashes were just arbitrary and in fact I don't think that the scarves were actually 'touched ' at all by the killer in the case of Annie and Kate.......it does seem that if he used the scarf to disable/ strangle Liz, then it was the only time he did so.........
Any thoughts on this anyone?
Jane
xxxxx
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 60
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 4:55 am: |
|
There seems to be some thought that we can easily dispense with newspaper accounts as being less than factual.That reporters are more prone to tamper with truth than police officers.
However much Swanson may have wanted to convey the truth of what happened in Berner St,he was to a large degree reliant on the officer who took Schwartz statement,and the memory of Schwartz himself.
There are two statements,one from the police and one issued by a newspaper.They vary only marginally.The interpretation of assault was not made by Schwartz the witness.Through interpreters he relayed the actions he said took place.In deciding what really happened,I think the following should be taken into consideration.
1 Schwartz told his story many hours/days after the incident took place.
2 Interpreters were used on both occasions.Probable that different interpreters were used.
3 The place where the incident took place lacked good lighting.
4 The total information that Schwartz imparted i.e. the meeting,the detailed descriptions,the action of the third man,seem excessive and beyond what an ordinary person might evidence.
5 Schwartz could not speak English.
What happened in the yard of course is speculative,there were no witnesses,but at least posters have used common sense in assessing what might have happened.The only fact is that a woman was murdered there. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 556
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
First of all, Schwartz told his account in the early evening of 30 September, probably no more than 19 hours after he witnessed the incident. And it was Inspector Abberline who questioned him, and very closely too I might add. Furthermore, like I said before, there isn’t just one police statement covering the incident, there are more and they all correspond with one another, which implies (and would be logical) that they were based on the same source, that being the original statement made by Schwartz, which is now lost.
“The interpretation of assault was not made by Schwartz”
Even the Star article implies some physical violence. It reads: “The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, …”
Now, of course you can interpret this to mean whatever you like, but what it reads it that he put his hand on her shoulder and that he pushed her back. According to the Star article Schwartz had the distinct impression that the man and the woman had a quarrel.
So, the remark you made is rather speculative and, judging from your previous posts, based on a belief in the Star article rather than in the police reports, which isn’t the best way to go about things, if you ask me.
I admit it's possible that Schwartz didn't give an accurate account of what actually happened (no one else saw the incident, it was probably rather dark and he was frightened), but I do certainly not agree with you as to what he told and I put more faith in the police material than in the Star article, for the reason put forward by Mephisto. That would be common sense too.
Mephisto wrote: “Swanson's chief responsibility was to prepare summaries for the Home Office and senior METPO officials. I quoted Swanson extensively throughout the essay, because he was summarizing directly from original source material to inform his superiors, while The Star was embellishing Schwartz' account to sell newspapers.”
By the way, you did a good job on the yard the way Diemschutz would have seen it. You probably even get a better idea if you look at the picture when it's light outside.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 557
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
As far as I know, Stride's case is the only one in which there are indications that the victim's scarf was used to disable the victim.
Take care,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3334
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Frank,
You pretty much put me out of work here, and frankly I don't mind.
Good post as usual. No further comments necessary.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
Hello Mr. Andersson,
Thank you for your kind comments.
You wrote: "The scenario that Jane put forward: 'I somehow still feel though that they did not go in together, but that Liz went in, bonnet untied from the skirmish, went to the loo and straightened her clothes, took out the cachous and was attacked on her way back, by someone that followed her into the yard a few moments afterwards', is still the best I've heard so far and the one that makes most sense in several aspects".
I agree with your conclusion, i.e., Jane's scenario is very plausible. Actually, I agree with many of your arguments regarding Stride's connection to the alleged "ripper" murders.
I've always found it difficult to reconcile the unusual characteristics of the Stride murder, with the common characteristics that unify the "canonical" murders. The main distinctions between the two events are:
1. The nature of Stride's attack.
2. The nature of Stride's throat wound.
3. The absence of abdominal mutilations.
4. The behavior of the men last seen with the victims.
5. The murderer's purpose.
Dr. Blackwell's deposition at the Stride's inquest is the only testimony that mentions the possibility that a ligature might have been used to subdue a victim. As far as the other "canonical" victims are concerned, it's a moot point; Nichols wasn't wearing a scarf, and the testimony from the Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly inquests don't mention the possibility that their neckwear might have been used as a ligature.
Like the other victims, Stride's throat was cut; however, the nature of her wound is markedly different from theirs. Stride's left carotid artery was only partially severed, and although her trachea was cut through, her right carotid artery and jugular vein were undamaged; conversely, the other victims were almost decapitated. Some folks ask us to believe that Diemschutz interrupted the killer, which suggests that given more time, Stride's injuries would have been just as extensive as the others were, but this argument doesn't hang together.
According to Evans and Skinner's Ultimate Companion, Israel Schwartz saw a man assault Stride at 12:45 am. Louis Diemschutz found Stride's body at 1 am, a fifteen minute gap (p 136). Joseph Lawende, et. al. saw Catherine Eddowes talking with a man near the entrance to Church-passage at 1:35 am, (p 237). PC Watkins discovered Eddowes' body at 1:44 am, an 11 minute gap. In eleven minutes, Eddowes' killer cut her throat down to the spinal column, and savagely mutilated her face and abdomen (p 224). Stride's killer had fifteen minutes, yet failed to mutilate her abdomen. Even if Stride's killer only had five minutes, he still had enough time to inflict his signature cut to the bone throat wound.
Stride is the only "canonical" victim to suffer the double misfortune of being physically assaulted, and then minutes later, brutally murdered. According to witness inquest accounts, the other victims were not pushed, pulled, or thrown down in their presence. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to accept that the aggressive nature of the man last seen with Stride, is inconsistent with the low key behavior of the men last seen with the other victims.
It is possible that Stride provoked her assailant; this would mean that she controlled her encounters that night. James Brown's inquest deposition tends to support this idea. Brown stated: "I saw a man and woman standing by the Board School in Fairclough- street. They were standing against the wall. As I passed them I heard the woman say, "No, not to-night, some other night'. […] The man had his arm up against the wall, and the woman had her back to the wall facing him" (Evans and Skinner :186). What's revealing about Stride's dialogue is not so much her rejection of this man's proposition; it is the context in which it's made. The man has assumed a position of power and dominance; i.e., he's facing her, her back is to the wall, and his arm, or hand, is against the wall, which closes her in on three sides. But she's not having any of it; she tells him in no uncertain terms that, whatever his proposal was, it wasn't happening that night. In the other "canonical" last sightings, witness testimony indicates that the victims are being manipulated; Brown's testimony suggests that Stride was beyond manipulation. If she did provoke the man who assaulted her, then I think it's a safe bet that this individual did not leave his house intending to do murder. And if that's the case, then it's obvious that the personality of Stride's assailant contrasts significantly with the personality type of the men last seen with the other victims.
From time to time, everyone experiences some degree of anger, but what differentiates one person from the next is the extent that each individual expresses that emotion. A person driven by a purpose will seek the path of least resistance to reach their goal; for example, if you need to buy milk and the corner store is closed, you wouldn't loose your mind and burglarize the place, you'd look for a store that's open. Likewise, if you're intent on murder, and a potential victim gives you a hassle, you wouldn't create a public disturbance by throwing the unwilling victim to the ground in front of two witnesses; you'd walk away and look for a more compliant victim. Anger overcame Stride's assailant, because before that moment, his purpose was not assault. The men last seen with the other victims also had purposes, whether it was murder or sex we can't know for certain, but what we do know, is that unlike Stride's impulsive assailant, they were discreet.
I've never been convinced that the man who murdered Catherine Eddowes is the same man who murdered Liz Stride. For me, there are just too many factors working against it, and not enough working for it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure the sun will rise tomorrow, but if I'm right……then who killed Liz Stride.
Thank you for your time Mr. Andersson.
Mephisto
(Message edited by mephisto on March 27, 2005) |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 559
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Thanks & you're welcome. Had a hunch you wouldn't mind.
Sweet dreams,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 8:34 pm: |
|
Hello Frank, I'm pleased to meet you.
In my Friday, March 25, 2005 - 7:51 am post, I constructed three hypothetical models that could explain the direction from which Liz Stride's assailant approached the point of contact. Since Schwartz' statement doesn't specify the assailant's direction of approach, and the yard was a viable option, I had to account for the assailant emerging from the yard and stopping to confront Stride.
The scenarios are open to examination and correction and I welcome and appreciate everyone's input. Your concept: the assailant simply "walk[ed] over to her in a more or less straight line" is practical and more consistent with what Schwartz actually stated, i.e. he saw a man stop and talk to a woman, and with what a person might actually do. I'm glade that you, Jane, and Mr. Andersson found these models interesting enough to comment on.
Thank you for your concern re: my injury. I think I developed a bit of a limp from this, and some shrapnel I attracted a few years later; my friends and family disagree. These days, it's getting more and more difficult to gather any sympathy, but I do get a kick out teasing the metal detector attendants at airports whenever I travel. 
I hope you had an enjoyable weekend.
Cheers
Mephisto
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 61
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 4:11 am: |
|
Frank,
Thanks for your comment on the photo.
Now I do not know who took the statement of Schwartz,but I am much aware that the details of that meeting lack the essential wording that is neccessary for us to make an honest assessment.
We have to rely on the Star and it's content.In consequence we all have to speculate.Schwartz changed his story it appears,and 19 hours is a long time.Most police teaching is of the opinion that 30 minutes is ample time for witnesses to becme confused and unsure.
So I give an alternitive to the generally held belief of assault.I do not state it as fact,but alternatively I find no proof offered that would prove my assessment wrong.
One final comment.As the event was witnessed against the background of a very dark passage,in a dimly lit street,one might assume that the best of observers might be mistaken.
Regards. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1598
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 4:45 am: |
|
Hi Mephisto,
But she's not having any of it; she tells him in no uncertain terms that, whatever his proposal was, it wasn't happening that night. In the other "canonical" last sightings, witness testimony indicates that the victims are being manipulated; Brown's testimony suggests that Stride was beyond manipulation.
And here's the rub; if Liz didn't behave like the victims we assume were Jack's, then her assailant/killer would not have been able to behave like the other victims' killer, even if they were one and the same man.
We are then left to speculate how Jack might have behaved with a potential victim who was beyond manipulation, and some of us admit we just don't know. Jack never lost his temper with Polly, Annie or Kate, because they apparently gave him no reason.
Once BS's temper was lost and the witnesses had pushed off, Stride was murdered, so her refusal to be manipulated made no difference in the end - BS made his mind up; he wasn't going to leave her alive.
I still don't see how we can judge, from three other crimes where the victims presumably allowed themselves to be manipulated, that Jack would never have lost it and acted as BS did, in circumstances where the murdered woman - a prostitute - had not played ball.
If Jack wasn't in Berner Street when Liz had her throat cut, he must have been painfully close in time and space when this second man was taking a stab at the role.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 28, 2005) |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 560
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
I don’t know either who actually took the statement, but I’m sure it was someone qualified for it. Like with Hutchinson’s statement it was probably read and counter-signed by a higher ranking officer than the one who took it and finally signed and submitted by Inspector Abberline, who was present at the interview and did at least some of the questioning himself. This would make Abberline’s report of 1 November, which covers most of the Schwartz incident and corresponds with what Swanson wrote, a first hand report.
That makes the assumption that the details of Schwartz’ police statement lack the essential wording speculation, just as it would be speculating to say that it appears that it was Schwartz who did the changing of his story when he spoke to the Star reporters. The big picture is that both police reports and the Star article have Schwartz witness a brawl of some sort developing, have him cross the street where he sees a second man who might be involved and as a result have him scared enough to flee.
Schwartz probably only came forward after he had heard a woman had been murdered at the exact spot where he had seen something and he had nothing to gain by telling his story. Of course you’re right in saying that Schwartz might have seen anything or nothing at all, as there’s no proof of anything. However, this doesn’t make his account go away. But in the end, of course everybody's allowed to make up their own mind as they see fit.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 561
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 6:51 am: |
|
Hi Mephisto,
I'm pleased to meet you as well and sorry to hear the grenade blast left you with a bit of a limp. Good to know though that you can have a little bit of fun about it, too.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3335
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
Hello Mephisto,
Regarding your kind response to me and the arguments therein, I can only say, that I agree with every word of it.
I wish I could elaborate and contribute to it further but there really is no need. Pretty much like reading my own views. Thanks for a splendid post. And sorry to hear about your injury.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 28, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3336
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:18 am: |
|
Caz,
"We are then left to speculate how Jack might have behaved with a potential victim who was beyond manipulation, and some of us admit we just don't know."
It is not speculation, really, to such degree. From the crime scene evidence and the medical accounts we know pretty much how Jack operated in the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, and these cases are so similar that we can expect the approach shown here to be the one he preferred. Some might argue that those three murders represents to small a base in order to draw any conclusions from it, but I disagree.
But at least in those three cases we have facts to rely on, to a certain extent, that tells us something.
"Jack never lost his temper with Polly, Annie or Kate, because they apparently gave him no reason."
Now, THAT is speculation.
"If Jack wasn't in Berner Street when Liz had her throat cut, he must have been painfully close in time and space when this second man was taking a stab at the role."
And this makes such a "coincidence" impossible -- how?
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 256
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 9:06 am: |
|
If Jack wasn't in Berner Street when Liz had her throat cut, he must have been painfully close in time and space when this second man was taking a stab at the role.
What utter nonsense Caz.
I don't know why you are SO desperate to have Stride as a Ripper victim - I suppose she HAS to be for the Diary to stand any chance - but many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Londoners were close in time and spece (to relative degrees) to Berner St on that night. Since Jack almost certainly HAD to be in London that night as he probably killed Eddowes later, what you say is, of course, literally true.
But, in meaningful terms, if Jack did not kill Stride and (say) Kidney did, then Jack might not have been to the south of Whitechapel Road. For all we know he may NEVER have been south of that demarkation line - such things sometimes have importance in London. (I know of people born, raised and living south of the River, who - the West End apart - are proud never to have been to north London and have no desire to go).
There is no requirement for jack ever to have been close to Berner st that night, or any other. He might still have been indoors at home when Liz was attacked. He might have heard of her death only as the accompaniment (linked by the press) to his own later crime.
So in any meaningful terms your words are simply emotove - they have no relevance.
Phil
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1909
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
I think Phil is right, Caz.
It is about time you pulled up your petticoats and showed us what is underneath. |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 295
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:53 pm: |
|
Mrs. Chapman may have been lumped up by the Ripper. She had at least 3 or 4 bruises in areas consistent with an assault [ face and hand ]. I refrain from using Cadosch,who I feel is full of it,but just from The Bagster's testimony at the Inquest, we see him mention the bruises. Maybe from the Ripper....and maybe not. No way of being sure either way.
We can't tell if Kelly was lumped up because of the horrific damage to her face by a knife....but she may have been smacked around too.
How |
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:10 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I appreciate the symmetry of your analysis, i.e., the behavior of the last man seen with Liz Stride is commensurate with her behavior toward him, as the behavior of the men last seen with the other victims is commensurate with their behavior toward them. In your model, the men react to the women. My model contrasts the difference between the aggressiveness of Shoulderman, and the tact of Discreetman, to show that in the majority of the sightings, the women are reacting to the men. The difference between these characteristics is crucial in determining whether or not Shoulderman and Discreetman is one-in-the same individual. To test my hypothesis, let's assume that the last man seen with the victims is the man who murdered them.
Discreetman has a purpose, he wants to kill and mutilate prostitutes; he encounters a potential victim and engages her in a conversation to show her he's harmless and to put her at ease; he is controlling the situation. Shoulderman has the same purpose, he wants to kill and mutilate prostitutes; he encounters Liz Stride and engages her in a conversation to show her he's harmless and to put her at ease, but for some reason, he ends up manhandling her. Now what's wrong with this picture? Shoulderman is not controlling the situation; instead, he's being controlled. Either he's not focused on his purpose, to kill and mutilate prostitutes, or his purpose is not murder and mutilation.
Obviously, aggressiveness and tact coexist in most individuals, Discreetman's behavior is a perfect example of this, i.e., he masks his aggressiveness with tact to manipulate the victim, he goes with her to a spot of her choosing so she feels secure and in control, he then drops the charade and unleashes the terror within. In all endeavors, it's a given that humans primarily will seek the path of least resistance to their goals. Discreetman controls his aggressiveness because he wants to kill and mutilate a prostitute; instinctively he knows that controlling his aggressiveness is the path of least resistance to his goal. Shoulderman's m.o. is the complete opposite of Discreetman's.
If Shoulderman's purpose that night was to kill and mutilate a prostitute, then he definitely did not take the path of least resistance to his goal. He did not control his aggressiveness, and contrary to the behavior of the men last seen with the other victims, he assaulted his victim in the presence of two witnesses, Schwartz and Pipedude. To make matters worse, he displayed an incredible amount of stupidity by murdering the woman he assaulted, ten feet from the spot where he assaulted her. This man definitely did not have his wits about him.
If either Schwartz or Pipedude had bumped into a policeman while they were in flight, and that policeman made them stop to find out what the running was all about, then Shoulderman would have been up to his ass in constables and handcuffs. It is possible that Stride got under his skin and he lost his composure, and took it out on Catherine Eddowes 35 minutes later, but to me, that scenario doesn't seem to ring true.
Like the other victims, Stride earned part of her living from prostitution. If she was on the game that night, then rejecting a client doesn't make sense, i.e., it's not consistent with the purpose of prostitution, because it's not profitable to reject a client. James Brown's inquest testimony clearly shows that she rejected at least one potential client that evening (Evans and Skinner :186). How likely would it be for a woman who earned part of her living from prostitution, to reject two clients in succession on the same night? Not very likely. Or is it? What if Brown and Schwartz are describing the same man?
The descriptions are fairly close; Brown says he's 5' 7", wearing a dark overcoat, can't recall the kind of hat he was wearing, but he's sure he was "stoutish built". Schwartz says he's 5' 5', and broad shouldered, wearing a dark jacket and a black cap with a peak (Evans and Skinner :137, 186). To me, stoutish could mean that Brown thought the man was sturdy or muscular, i.e., he had broad shoulders; in any event, both witnesses seem to be describing a robust man. And unless you're accustomed to measuring people for clothing, a height differential of an inch or two is not that great of a discrepancy. Let's assume for a moment that the man Brown overheard Stride rejecting next to the Board School is the same man that Schwartz saw attacking her on Berner Street. Now, let's construct a hypothetical model and see how plausible this scenario might be, and how it corresponds to my theory of a purposeful killer.
Stride meets Shoulderman by the Board School building, whether he propositions her or she comes on to him really doesn't matter, what does matter is that for some reason, she tells him to take a hike. She pushes her way out of his three-sided power enclosure (See my March 27, 2005 - 6:36 pm post for details), crosses the street, and starts walking north, up Berner Street. The rejection rankles Shoulderman. He's thinking: she's a prostitute, my money's just as good as the next guys, this must be a personal issue, so a few seconds later, he follows her up Berner. When he catches up to her, he has four options:
1. Ask her why she rejected him.
2. Give her a good tongue lashing.
3. Rough her up.
4. Kill and mutilate her.
But Stride hears him hot on her heels, she also hears the voices coming from the International Working Mans Club and Massage Parlor, so she stops there, thinking that Shoulderman wouldn't try anything with so many relaxed people nearby. In the mean time, Izzy Schwartz is walking south on Berner; he sees Stride standing by the gateway, and he sees Shoulderman stop and confront her. One thing leads to another, Stride gets tossed, and Schwartz crosses the street and runs into Pipedude. So, why did Stride reject Shoulderman?
1. She knows him.
2. She's not on the game that night.
3. She's waiting for Godot.
4. He's the ugliest, foulest smelling slimeball she's ever seen.
If Stride is open for business that night, then why does she reject a paying customer?
1. She knows him.
2. He's the ugliest, foulest smelling slimeball she's ever seen.
If Shoulderman's purpose that night was to murder and mutilate a prostitute, then why didn't he just leave her be, and seek the path of least resistance, i.e., find a submissive victim he could manipulate.
On at least two previous occasions, the man last seen with a victim was quietly controlling the situation. Therefore, how reasonable is it to assume that a killer, bent on murder, would abandon a successful victim acquisition m.o., assault a woman in front of two witnesses, risk capture by murdering her a dozen feet away from the scene of the assault, next to a building filled with active people no less, and flee without leaving his signature throat wound? What's more, 35 minutes later, this same out of control dude, presumably goes back to being Discreetman long enough to manipulate, and then butcher Kate Eddowes.
The physical requirements alone argue against Shoulderman killing both Stride and Eddowes. In my experience, it is very unlikely that a person of any age or physical condition could recuperate a high enough level of epinephrine (adrenaline), after a lull of 35 minutes, to inflict the massive amount of damage found on Kate Eddowes body. To elaborate, any lull at all in the action and the killer's adrenal gland would begin to wind down; nevertheless, the hypothalamus gland will continue to secrete dopamine. The excess dopamine blocks the neurotransmitter receptor cells for epinephrine and the nervous system as a whole, then begins to wind down. For the sake of argument and example, let's assume Shoulderman killed Stride and is moving quickly to get out of Dutfield's Yard. His heart is still pounding; the initial adrenaline rush of the kill, has been converted into the anxiety of escape, excessive amounts of epinephrine will trigger anxiety, however, the farther away he gets from Berner Street the safer he feels; the safer he feels, the lower his anxiety level, which means that his adrenal gland is now secreting less epinephrine, and his dopamine level is beginning to catch up.
As he walks west on Commercial Road, he slows his pace to avoid attracting any further attention; this causes the increasing level of dopamine in his system to exceed the level of epinephrine. In the eight to ten minutes it took him to reach the corner of Commercial Road and Houndsditch, his adrenal gland has wound down considerably; this allows dopamine to dominate his epinephrine neurotransmitter receptor cells, which effectively blocks them from rapidly responding to stimulation.
At this point in time, it's a quarter past 1 Sunday morning; between 1:15, and the time he's spotted with Eddowes on Duke Street at 1:35, twenty minutes has gone by. During this time his brain has become so saturated with dopamine, and it's derivative C. L-Tryptophan, that it would take a heard of stampeding elephants carrying a stationhouse full of policeman, to rouse him from his lethargic, "doped-up" state. The bottom line is this: If Shoulderman is the ripper, then he's a lust murderer, so his lust had to be stimulated by the murder of Liz Stride; what's more, the unusual circumstances of that episode made his escape a lot more nerve wracking, and caused a lot more anxiety than his two or three previous murders, where he managed to kill those victims without giving away his location, and possibly his identity, to two witnesses. Under these conditions, I don't think he had the energy, or desire, to do anything more than go home and go to sleep.
Geez, I hope the length of this post hasen't put you to sleep.
Thanks for your time Caz. It's been a pleasure responding to your thought provoking insights.
Love,
Mephisto
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 263
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 3:11 am: |
|
Howard - I was under the impression that some of Annie Chapman's bruising was associated with her earlier brawl with another inmate in the lodging house. I thought that was well established.
Phil |
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 3:16 am: |
|
Hello Everyone,
Thank you Frank and Mr. Andersson for your concern re: my grenade injury. It happened fourteen years ago, and except for the limp that apparently I don't have, that particular incident has had no lasting effect, other then a few residual pieces of metal, which set off metal detectors and some amusing conversations.
Mr. Andersson, I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to know your opinion about the quality of the murder investigation techniques that prevailed during the Whitechapel Murders, and also if there was any special training for the constables who were promoted to the C.I.D.
Hello Mr. Brown,
I think Eliza Cooper caused Chapman's bruises during a throw-down over a gent named Harry the Hawker. And poor Mary Kelly, I think if she had any idea what was in store for her, she would have opted for a pair of broken arms.
Mr. Hill and Mr. Andersson,
Far be it for me to speak for anyone, but since Caz' post was addressed to me and I understood her meaning, perhaps the other contributors might find it useful (Or useless) if I share my thoughts.
Caz wrote: "We are then left to speculate how Jack might have behaved with a potential victim who was beyond manipulation, and some of us admit we just don't know. Jack never lost his temper with Polly, Annie or Kate, because they apparently gave him no reason".
In my post of Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 6:36 pm, I argued that based on James Brown's inquest deposition, Liz Stride appeared to be "beyond manipulation". Reading Caz' reply in context with my post makes it clear that she is telling me that my argument is a subjective interpretation of Brown's testimony. According to the witness accounts that I cited, I claimed that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were manipulated by the men they were last seen with, Caz counter argues, suggesting that the men were reacting to the victims; therefore, Caz' argument that "Jack never lost his temper with Polly, Annie or Kate, because they apparently gave him no reason", i.e., the victims were controlling the men they were last seen with, is a valid rebuttal to my claim of male manipulation. The opening paragraph in my 3/28/05, 10:10 pm post, summarizes Caz' point, and acknowledges her insight.
Caz also wrote: "If Jack wasn't in Berner Street when Liz had her throat cut, he must have been painfully close in time and space when this second man was taking a stab at the role", is also reasonable when considered in context to the post to which she is replying. Consider the following paraphrase: If the individual who murdered Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes did not murder Stride, then the proximity of time between the Stride and Eddowes murders indicate that he must have been on his way to Mitre Square as Stride's murder was unfolding, perhaps even "painfully close" to Berner Street. As I read it, Caz wasn't saying that one murderer couldn't be in Berner Street and another in Mitre Square at the same time, she was saying, however, that the same murderer couldn't be in both places at once.
Caz is just like any other Casebook Jack, she enjoys sharing her thoughts and ideas with the other contributors. Like Jane, Frank, and Ms. Millar, there are some things she speculates about, some things she is unsure about, and on some issues she has definite opinions, and that's cool.
I hope Caz isn't too annoyed with me for paraphrasing her post, and I hope I helped clear-up any misunderstandings.
Respectfully,
Mephisto
BTW, Jane, would you mind if I e-mailed you privately (Via your profile)? I have some information I'd like to run past you.
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 264
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 4:54 am: |
|
Mephisto:
If the individual who murdered Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes did not murder Stride, then the proximity of time between the Stride and Eddowes murders indicate that he must have been on his way to Mitre Square as Stride's murder was unfolding, perhaps even "painfully close" to Berner Street.
I'm not sure that I regard the twomplaces as "painfully close" geographically. Maybe closer than London and New York, but in terms of the locality, potentially in different spheres.
Sorry to continue to disagree. But this "lumping" of things together, just won't do, for me.
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 5:10 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Where have I said anything about the coincidental timing of your domestic theory being 'impossible'?
So why would I have to explain to you how it was impossible? You keep missing the point - I simply question how you can be so sure that Jack didn't kill Liz, considering that Mephisto's argument - which you appear to agree with - is that Liz may have behaved differently with the last man/men she encountered from the way Polly, Annie and Kate behaved.
Logic dictates that Jack's own behaviour would have had to be modified if a potential victim didn't behave as he expected her to, or as his previous and future victims behaved.
You are so certain that this modification would have taken the form of running off at the first sign of trouble. And all I am saying is that nothing is certain about this man, and he could have aborted his mutilation plans at any point and with any potential victim, but still felt it safer to silence the woman if she appeared to be suspicious of him.
Hi Phil,
You crack me up. You described what I wrote as 'utter nonsense' then had to concede it was, 'of course, literally true'. And Eddowes was only probably killed by Jack in your opinion?? 
And then you suggest that:
There is no requirement for jack ever to have been close to Berner st that night...
My point remains - why pick on some other bloke who should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and insist he did it, when you know there was already a knife-wielding maniac who cut the throats of prostitutes just 15 minutes' walk away, a bit later on that same night?
Consider it a possibility, as I do, but at some point you have to have more evidence than speculation about what Jack wouldn't have been seen dead doing - ie allowing himself to get into a bit of bother with an unwilling prostitute in a less than ideal location.
Hi Mephisto,
Shoulderman is not controlling the situation; instead, he's being controlled. Either he's not focused on his purpose, to kill and mutilate prostitutes, or his purpose is not murder and mutilation.
Or his plan was for them to go together to a more suitable location for his purposes and, unlike the others who were only too willing, this woman wouldn't budge? Isn't that at least possible? And isn't it possible for a man with an ego the size of Whitechapel to react unwisely to such a snub and regret it almost immediately? Whoever this man was, he was a human being first, a killer second.
To make matters worse, he displayed an incredible amount of stupidity by murdering the woman he assaulted, ten feet from the spot where he assaulted her. This man definitely did not have his wits about him.
The assault was stupid, yes; the murder itself could have been damage control, if she suspected her assailant was the most wanted man in England. Or he could have struck out of simple frustration, because everyone's behaviour - Liz's, the witnesses and his own - had conspired to thwart his mutilation plans and made his position precarious. However stupidly he acted, this murderer still escaped and was never identified. Each murder had elements of luck and good judgement in varying proportions. Perhaps the murder in Dutfield's Yard had far more of the former than the latter, and staying to mutilate would have been pushing that luck too far.
Your posts are, as always, a pleasure to read, and you might very well be right to suggest that if Jack killed Liz he wouldn't have been in a fit state to kill Kate so soon afterwards.
But I keep thinking of the Croydon double event in which a man strangled a woman into unconsciousness, but she came round before he finished the job and managed to scream. He ran off, chased by some youths alerted by the scream, but they lost him. He didn't go home and go to sleep. High on alcohol and drugs, he was caught on CCTV roaming the main street looking for another victim. He found one, and this time no force was spared; she died from massive head injuries when he battered her repeatedly with a lump of wood. Her bag of shopping was untouched. The first assault seems to have fired him up for the second. He is currently in prison, thank goodness.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 266
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
Caz:
Hi Phil, You crack me up.
Not, I can assure you, have as much as you do me. (Irony - please note!)
You described what I wrote as 'utter nonsense' then had to concede it was, 'of course, literally true'.
That was not a concession, caz. I think any half-educated reader would recognise that there is a difference between a literal truth and making a pertinent point.
And Eddowes was only probably killed by Jack in your opinion??
If you can PROVE he did it, caz, you'll make a lot of money!! We don't know who Jack was, so it's all supposition to some degree. But yes, I think Jack probebly killed at least Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, maybe more, but probably not Stride.
There is no requirement for jack ever to have been close to Berner st that night...
There isn't.
why pick on some other bloke who should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and insist he did it, when you know there was already a knife-wielding maniac who cut the throats of prostitutes just 15 minutes' walk away, a bit later on that same night?
You really don't pay attention do you. Try easing the straps on your blinkers to give you slightly wider perspective, Caz.
The point is that with Stride there is a VERY REAL alternative to the Ripper as the killer. Much of the evidence fits circumstances that ascribe the killing to Kidney better than they do to Jack. Kidney also had a known history of violence towards Liz, and potential motive, as she had left him and may have been seeing another man.
That is enough for me to question the conventional wisdom, and personally I have concluded it as more likely than that JtR did it.
Any objections to that?
You have to have, of course, because, as i said earlier - if Liz wasn't a Ripper victim, Diary and watch are revealed as hoaxes/forgeries. Hence, your perfervid desire to hold to the old thinking.
Consider it a possibility, as I do...
That is what i consider it - I have never claimed it as anything else.
... but at some point you have to have more evidence than speculation about what Jack wouldn't have been seen dead doing - ie allowing himself to get into a bit of bother with an unwilling prostitute in a less than ideal location.
You have never seen me argue that! I have refrained from discussion of what Jack may or may not have done.
What I have done is consistently to emphasise that the wounds seem disimmilar to those on the other bodies ascribed to Jack; and that the location is different in nature (essentially much more "public" in terms of place and hour) to those of the other victims (perhaps Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and maybe Kelly). Thus the MO seems to me questionable as Jack's, and given that there is at least one other suspect in the frame - why not give him (Lidney) similar weight.
Sorry Caz, you'll have to do better than that.
Phil
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Caz,
I generally agree with you on these points.
If you can PROVE he did it, caz, you'll make a lot of money!! We don't know who Jack was, so it's all supposition to some degree. But yes, I think Jack probebly killed at least Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, maybe more, but probably not Stride.
This statement of Phil's is to support his earlier statement the Jack may never have actually existed at all, which is laughable.
Logic dictates that Jack's own behaviour would have had to be modified if a potential victim didn't behave as he expected her to, or as his previous and future victims behaved.
There is a quote by Peter Vronsky in his book "Serial Killers: The Method and Madness of Monsters" which supports what you are saying... basically that it is normal to see some variation in MO and signature if the circumstances are different, or if the killer feels threatened. So I support your idea basically.
I also do not in any way support Mephisto's argument that Jack could not have killed again given the decrease in levels of adrenaline. I do not think this is supported at all by empirical evidence regarding serial killer cases. And you have pointed out an example as well, which I think is a good illustration of that.
I do not support the Maybrick theory by the way. Good luck with these guys. You're fighting an uphill battle.
Rob H |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Hi Glen
You wrote"
but from what we know of mutilating killers of this kind... simply because the mutilations are the important issues and those are the reasons for why they kill.
I can't see why he should kill anyone otherwise, and risk drawing unnecessary attention to himself."
Let me start by saying that I know what Caz is driving at and agree wiith what she has said.
It is an undeniable fact that JTR was a most evil and spitefull individual, the mutilation of Catherine Edowwes face shows just how much he hated his victims.
Now imagine Mr BS was JTR can you imagine the rage and spite he would have experienced in being thwarted by Liz Stride, that kind of killer in my opinion would have killed her just for pure spite.
He would have known that to hang around(he'd been seen by Schwartz)and mutilate Stride could possibly have led to his capture, so he slit her thoat and fled the scene.
What I'm saying Glen, is that BS fully intended to mutilate Stride, but circumstances forced him to flee.
If Brown is to be believed, and the couple he saw just prior to the Schwartz incident was Liz and BS, then we have evidence that Liz had apparently refused his advances, "Not tonight some other night".
Now I know that you have a belief, that JTR would not have behaved in the way described above, hence you do not believe that BS could in any way be JTR, but as I have argued with you before, how can you determine the actions of any individual who up until the murder of Liz Stride had virtually all his own way with his vitims. BS could have been JTR
Regards Cludgy
Regards Cludgy |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Dear Jane and all:
I have been greatly enjoying the illustrations of the crime scenes, like finding an old camera with long forgotten pictures on it.
Now, some time ago, I suggested the following scenario; That Jack the Ripper had already entered the yard to wait for Liz, but that was when the first interruption took place, the arrival of Michael Kidney. I think that Mr. Kidney was nothing more that a low life pimp, and any money that Liz made, even legitimately as in her cleaning and sewing jobs, he figured she had to hand over to him for supporting her.
He simply tried to pull her away from entering the yard with a customer, perhaps he knew the man had already gone into the yard, (he was a bit ahead of Schwartz, and could have actually seen a man going in and Liz ready to follow.)
This could be who he was yelling "Lipski" to.
He probably did not like Jews, and he didn't like Liz hanging around the Club. After being with Liz for so long, I find it hard to believe that he did not try to get her back in his clutches. Would he have just given up on her and her earnings so easily?
Liz would have pulled away and told him she was not coming home with him tonight or any other night. She placated him by giving him her sixpence from cleaning to get rid of him.
No money was found on her.
As she regained her composure, she would enter the yard to use the loo, (she had a few beers at the Bricklayer's Arms),and to find her waiting customer. It was dark, so after relieving herself, she probably hurried back toward the gate, and her customer (Jack) is hiding in the shadows. He could have let her walk by before accosting her.(Psst here I am, look and see if he is gone)
By now he realised that Kidney could be back any minute to start up again with Liz, so he quickly tries to subdue her. The way he lays her down to cut the throat is like when killing an animal and allowing it to "bleed out". This is not a domestic type of killing, a crime of passion, but a cold-blooded and practiced method that he had used before.
The second interruption of the arriving horse and cart probably caused Jack to look up, and hence the "J" shaped end of the cut as he quickly took the knife away, and hid behind the gate until he could leave.
I find it very strange that Kidney seemed to know more than he let on at the inquest, as though he knew the killer and could find him by posting detectives at certain spots. Then he suddenly clams up, in case he gives himself away for being at the scene so close to the murder.
As for the men from the club using the loos, do you think that over 100 men drinking beer would go all the way out to the dark yard for a pee?
I say, they had a chamber pot (or piss pot to put it crudely)up in the club to save this inconvenience. No witnesses mention going into the yard for this reason.
Now, there was a nickname for Liz, "Happy Lip",and I think that oral sex was Liz's forte.
She usually had active herpes, so regular sex would probably be painful.
What do Jewish men have that other men don't, or should I say, what do they NOT have that other men do? Remember the cachous, they can be used to take the taste of something away as well as freshen the breath.
Jewish men were not to indulge in extramarital sex, and when their wives were "unclean" they were not to have sex for 5 days during and 7 days after that time. This sounds like a perfect business opportunity for Liz, who was known to be fluent in Yiddish, and it seems like there was a lot of Jewish people in the Berner Street area.
Also Jane, I have always wondered about the two cuts on the necks of some of the victims.
Can you see a scenario where there is no scarf to grab, but a hand over the mouth with the left hand, and holding the knife against the neck with the right.He could then make the victim lie down in a similar manner to Liz, but the knife would dig into the flesh a bit, and then he would make the second, fatal cut. At first I thought he was cutting off the ligature after the main cut, as mentioned in the Rose Mylett case, but it may be the other way around.
You could do a drawing of the hand to mouth and knife to throat posture if you have the time or inclination, to see if it helps explain the shorter cuts.
Well that's enough for now.
Take care all
Joan
|
C.D.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
From a first time poster
There has been a great deal of discussion as to why Liz would go off with a man (Mr.Broad Shoulders) who had just thrown her to the ground. Here is a possible scenario: Mr.B.S. comes out of the pub after a long night of drinking. He is in the mood for sex and seeing Liz standing there, it is clear that she is a prostitute looking for customers. A price is named and the deal is quickly struck. Having been drinking, he starts to pull Liz into the yard perhaps more roughly than he intended in his haste to get on with things. Caught off guard or offended at the rough treatment, she pulls back. It all happens so suddenly that if she was a little drunk,it results in her losing her balance and falling to the ground. Perhaps what Schwartz saw was a clumsy attempt by Mr. B.S. to catch her and prevent her from falling. The volume of her screams and their duration would indicate surprise more than fear. There has been no time for an exchange of money and Liz now makes it clear that this is a money up front deal. Not wanting to lose out on her services, he apologizes profusely and even offers to add a little something to the price. Still angry, but placated by his apology and the extra money, she goes off with him. I don't believe that Broad Shoulders was the Ripper nor do I believe that he was Liz's killer(I do think she was a victim of the Ripper) but to me this seems a possible and reasonable explanation and one that was simply misinterpreted by Schwartz. |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Dear Jane; Catherines wound was above the scarf,but it is mentioned that the scarf was
" much cut about", so it may have been up higher beforehand.
Also, isn't it strange that the man seen with Catherine also had on a red scarf?
Joan
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Hi Glen
You wrote"
but from what we know of mutilating killers of this kind... simply because the mutilations are the important issues and those are the reasons for why they kill.
I can't see why he should kill anyone otherwise, and risk drawing unnecessary attention to himself."
Let me start by saying that I know what Caz is driving at and agree wiith what she has said.
It is an undeniable fact that JTR was a most evil and spitefull individual, the mutilation of Catherine Edowwes face shows just how much he hated his victims.
Now imagine Mr BS was JTR can you imagine the rage and spite he would have experienced in being thwarted by Liz Stride, that kind of killer in my opinion would have killed her just for pure spite.
He would have known that to hang around(he'd been seen by Schwartz)and mutilate Stride could possibly have led to his capture, so he slit her thoat and fled the scene.
What I'm saying Glen, is that BS fully intended to mutilate Stride, but circumstances forced him to flee.
If Brown is to be believed, and the couple he saw just prior to the Schwartz incident was Liz and BS, then we have evidence that Liz had apparently refused his advances, "Not tonight some other night".
Now I know that you have a belief, that JTR would not have behaved in the way described above, hence you do not believe that BS could in any way be JTR, but as I have argued with you before, how can you determine the actions of any individual who up until the murder of Liz Stride had virtually all his own way with his vitims. BS could have been JTR
Regards Cludgy
Regards Cludgy |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
