|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 5:24 pm: |       |
Alan, I agree with you completely.
The only alternative I would consider of the three, is [b], although it -- as you say -- would indicate that this was done in full view.
The first alternative I agree is not really a possibility, and the third, [c], certainly doesen't ring true to me at all, since we would have seen more evidence of a struggle.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
But what specifically are the "signs of a struggle" that we would see? Are we talking about bruises or what? I am just trying to picture this in my mind...
Say for example, he has her in a headlock and sort of pulls her into the yard. This would be likely to keep her quiet, and possibly unable to breathe. But is it certain that a headlock like this would produce bruising?
And other than marks on the body, what other signs of a struggle are we talking about? Wouldnt he have been able to drag her into the alley, then choke her into unconsciousness, then lay her down?
I admit, the cachous gives me pause... but I simply cannot dismiss this man altogether. I cannot dismiss a person who was witnessed attacking the victim at the approximate time of death within 10 feet of where her body was found. It is as simple as that. I admit there are things that are difficult to explain, but I just dont think we can rule him out. The cachous could have been placed in her hand. Who knows? There is just not enough information here to come to a definitive conclusion.
RH |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 7:26 am: | |
Obviously we are speculating based on Schwartz's statement, but it is a statement the police took a great deal of interest in. It remains possible that Schwartz is 'Anderson's Witness' for example.
I think Pipe Man is more interesting than Ruffian if one believes Stride was a JTR victim. If one believes Stride was killed by Kidney or whoever then Ruffian is more likely, although there are still problems.
I do not subscribe to the idea that JTR looked mad or deranged - there is no evidence that the victims had any warning they were about to be killed before the knife was drawn. Therefore a normal looking but slightly threatening person exhibiting somewhat detached behaviour looks good to me.
I guess my scenario (if Schwartz's testimony is accurate) is that Pipe Man is out looking for a victim - he sees an intersting possibility in Stride, perhaps his attention is drawn before the assult starts. He is watching to see if the scenario develops in a way useful to him. Schwartz walks by - obviously he wants to make sure he is leaving the area. When so satisfied he turns back, just on the off chance, and there is Stride, picking herself up and dusting herself off. He thinks his luck is in, but he is disturbed and the whole situation is a bit more chancy even than he likes - so he kills quick and leaves still with the urge upon him.
I wasn't aware of the knife report in the Sun, and obviously it could be total fabrication, but that would be another little bit of support for considering Pipe Man. Does his description match Cutbush or Hutchinson?
Regards
Pete
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 399
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
Peter
Ivor Edwards presents almost exactly your scenario in his book. His theory being that the murders had to take place in specific locations, he has his suspect, Donston, waiting in the doorway of Nelson's Beer Shop when Stride is attacked by Aaron Kosminski. Donston first scares Schwartz away, then "rescues" Stride from Kosminski before enticing her into the yard to her death. As a result Schwartz identifies Kosminski at the Seaside home and Donston gets away scot freee. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 6:00 am: | |
Alan wrote:
"while scenario c would surely have incurred far more defensive injuries than were apparent"
I don't consider that a "surely."
If she knew her attacker she may not have put up much of a struggle. Many battered women go quietly to a more private location just to avoid public spectacles. They trust that either the man just wants to talk or will give them another typical but survivable thrashing. Sometimes it escalates beyond that.
Even if she were struggling I don't think you could expect wounds to be visible. Monty's scarf theory makes perfect sense as one option for not causing much damage by the dragging. I think it'd take an extraordinarily intense struggle over ten feet or so to mark her up so that it'd be noticed. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1081
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
Dan wrote:
"Even if she were struggling I don't think you could expect wounds to be visible. Monty's scarf theory makes perfect sense as one option for not causing much damage by the dragging. I think it'd take an extraordinarily intense struggle over ten feet or so to mark her up so that it'd be noticed."
That is of course something to consider, I can buy that. I can accept that we are very much stumbling in the dark here.
"If she knew her attacker she may not have put up much of a struggle. Many battered women go quietly to a more private location just to avoid public spectacles. They trust that either the man just wants to talk or will give them another typical but survivable thrashing. Sometimes it escalates beyond that."
That is true. However, I feel that this is one of the points that speaks against the assaulting man seen by Schwartz. Why would she trust or follow a man that just some minutes or seconds before had assaulted her? It doesen't ring true to me.
To me it is a logical conclusion that Stride encountered another man after the Schwartz incident. According to Schwartz (if his timing is correct) the incident happened a quarter of an hour prior to that the body was discovered by Diemschutz. That leaves enough time for another individual to enter the stage, and it would only take a marginal of error of some additional minutes to make Schwartz testimony less significant. I do not believe he witnessed the prelude to the murder, but I can't prove it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 172
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
Hi Glenn & all,
Glenn, you wrote: “That is true. However, I feel that this is one of the points that speaks against the assaulting man seen by Schwartz. Why would she trust or follow a man that just some minutes or seconds before had assaulted her? It doesen't ring true to me.”
I think, like I (and others) have suggested in the past, that there’s one man she probably would have trusted, or at least, would have gone with into the yard without much resistance and that would be her former lover Michael Kidney.
If we look at what is known about the events of that evening, we might see Elizabeth Stride in the company of one man who at some point gives her a flower. This seems to suggest some romantic rendez-vous. From Schwartz’ statement it seems as though the assaulting man walks very purposely to Stride, says something to her and almost immediately grabs her and throws her down. Then Strides screams three times, but not very loudly.
This all fits quite well with the Kidney theory. He was known to be aggressive towards Stride, or at least, he had been on one occasion. Stride had just left this aggressive and probably jealous man. I think it’s perfectly feasible that Stride wouldn’t have screamed very loudly if indeed it was Kidney, as she wanted to avoid making him angrier and she would have gone with him to the more private situation in the yard, just to avoid a further scene and perhaps even in the hope that Kidney would calm down.
Perhaps he did indeed calm down a bit while they were in the yard, but as she turned away from him towards the street, saying something like it was really over between them and taking a packet of cachous out of her pocket to put one in her mouth, he got raving mad again, pulled her back by the scarf, which caused her to lie down, perhaps prevented her from screaming and might even have left her senseless for only a few seconds, which time Kidney used to slit her throat.
So, although this theory is of course speculation, I would say Michael Kidney and Jack are the most likely candidates for being Strides killer. Your guess is as good as mine or anyone else's.
All the best,
Frank
|
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 12:42 pm: | |
Just to go back a second to what Dan said....
"Even if she were struggling I don't think you could expect wounds to be visible. Monty's scarf theory makes perfect sense as one option for not causing much damage by the dragging. I think it'd take an extraordinarily intense struggle over ten feet or so to mark her up so that it'd be noticed."
This is a reasonable statement in my opinion, at least deserving some thought or discussion. If Stride could have been dragged into the alley in such a way as to not show bruising etc, then it seems entirely plausible that she may have been strangled or choked (possibly with the scarf) and thus knocked unconscious. Then her killer lays her down, and slits her throat. None of this would necessarily leave "signs of a struggle", would it?
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
Frank,
Your scenario is indeed as possible as anything else. We can't rule out Kidney completely, and I for my part have no objections to suggest him as identical with the assaulting man (if that man really existed -- remember that we can't be sure of this).
But I prefer to keep a question mark in the margin next to that man being credible as the killer. I understand what you say, but to me it seems unlikely (although not impossible) that she would have let her guard down enough to be taken by surprised and killed by the same man as who previously had assaulted her and shown abusive behaviour -- Kidney or not. I am sorry, it is absolutely not impossible, but I can't come to terms with that. And once again, there were quite enough time available after the Schwartz incident for another individual to enter the scene.
I am surprised, though, that the police didn't seem to bother about the pipe-smoker; according to the internal police communication available to us, they never seem to bother to check him up or to make any attempts to find his identity. To me he is much more interesting in this context.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 6:10 am: | |
Glenn wrote:
"Why would she trust or follow a man that just some minutes or seconds before had assaulted her?"
I can't give you the why without a long diversion into psychology and societal expectations. The fact remains that this exact kind of behavior is extremely common, unfortunately.
You might as well ask why a woman would go back to living with a guy who beat her so badly that she was put into a hospital. As an outside observer it sounds absurd, but that doesn't stop the scenario from being played out again and again all around the world, especially in poor areas and in male-dominated cultures. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
I see your reasoning, Dan, and I kinda expected you to say that. But I don't think it's the same thing. Here we are talking about a woman who -- according to Schwartz -- has been assaulted and thrown to the ground and then seconds or minutes later follows the same character into the yard and turns his back to him. All this in a very short amount of time -- maybe a couple of minutes the most. It is, as I see it, not the same as domestic assaults on wives at home, and how they keep going back to their bullying husbands (I can agree that that indeed seems absurd to an outsider). I don't think this scenario rings true at all and I don't think it adds up. Sorry.
I think it is more logical to assume that she was assaulted -- if this Schwartz incident really did happen -- by someone who wanted to get her put of there (maybe even Kidney), but that she then encountered another man who killed her after the incident.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 6:44 am: | |
Hi Alan
Thamks for that - I hadn't read Ivor Edwards' book because I wasn't very interested in D'onston as a suspect. I didn't mean to imply I think the killer had to commit a murder in a particular location.
I'm not committed to my scenario - I'm really just trying to show alternative explanations in what Schwartz saw coupled with the known facts of Stride's murder. Unfortunatly, the statement twists in one's hands depending on what other assumptions one makes, but without making any assumptions the statement is virtually useless.
If the man assaulting her was not the murderer (and I think if he was her murderer then he probably wasn't JTR, or the other victims would show signs of pre-death bruising, defensive wounds etc.) then someone else had to meet her and gain her confidence in a very short time - the scenario I described gives one (of many) possible ways this could happen.
Of course, if 'Ruffian' was her murderer and was JTR, then the murder of Stride may have had a different motive, such as he suspected her of informing on him (or just knowing who he was).
Regards
Pete
|
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 12:40 pm: | |
1. "To me it is a logical conclusion that Stride encountered another man after the Schwartz incident."
>>It sure isn't to me. To me, it seems one would need to be swept rapturously away with emotions and fantasies to risk this thought in one's mind.
2. '"Why would she trust or follow a man that just some minutes or seconds before had assaulted her?"
I can't give you the why without a long diversion into psychology and societal expectations. The fact remains that this exact kind of behavior is extremely common, unfortunately.'
>>Women do all sorts of funny things, don't they? But don't you think you need a reasonable explanation for specifically why Elizabeth Stride acted as she did--her behavior extraordinary--in this particular situation?
B. Winkle
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 10:21 am: | |
I’ve been thinking about the fact that Stride upon being attacked by Shwartz man, cried out three times, but not very loudly.
The "not very loudly" has perplexed me. Now why would Stride not scream her heart out upon being attacked that night? JTR was after all on the prowl.
Could it be the fact that a local man with a few pints inside him, objected to her presence that night, in his neighbourhood?
I have no access to the 1891 census of that area but I would bet that Berner Street was made up of
poor but hard working folk.
Such people have their pride.
What if one of It's Inhabitants on returning from a nights drinking encounted Stride soliciting. What if he resented Stride in his street (or area) so much, that he assaulted her.
The assault on Stride as witnessed by Shwartz wasn't serious, it doesn’t seem to have the ferocity of a man with a purpose.
The reason why Stride didn’t scream loudly might have It's origin in the fact that Stride realised that she was in the wrong trying to solicite in Berner Street that night, and only put up a quite resistance ( why try to exasperate the situation) , also it could be she didn't want to draw the attention of the patrolling Bobby.
Who knows, it might not of been the first time the man had warned her for soliciting in Berner Street.
The time of his attack also coincides with the Pubs turning out.
All this of course is speculation. But it would explain Strides muffled cries.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 2:01 pm: | |
David (B. Winkle),
" '1. "To me it is a logical conclusion that Stride encountered another man after the Schwartz incident.'
>>It sure isn't to me. To me, it seems one would need to be swept rapturously away with emotions and fantasies to risk this thought in one's mind."
Absolutely not. There was quite enough time -- at least ten or fifteen minutes -- for another person to come through after the Stride incident. It can't be ruled out, David.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 653
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 3:13 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I do agree that it is entirely possible , for the man seen to attack Stride, not to have been her killer.
My thoughts are Stride was appearing to be waiting for somebody, she left the Bricklayers Arms, with a man of clerk like appearence, and they were seen heading off in the direction of Berner Street, she was also seen with a man in that street[ descriptions vary].
I feel that she was standing in that entrance waiting, for someone to return, a possible decent financial gain, thus the cachous to sweeten her breath, as she had been drinking.
She may have been attacked by the person , she was waiting for , who possibly having found a suitable target, went to retrive his famous murder weapon, and returned to her , after she had already been attacked, I would then imagine, Stride would have told this man , about recent happenings, and therefore he wasted no time in despatching her without mutalation, as he may have felt the witnesess to her attack, may have gone to fetch a policeman.
Another possible scenario.
Regards Richard. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 6:05 am: | |
Glenn wrote:
"Here we are talking about a woman who -- according to Schwartz -- has been assaulted and thrown to the ground and then seconds or minutes later follows the same character into the yard and turns his back to him. [...] I don't think this scenario rings true at all and I don't think it adds up. Sorry."
I'm sorry you chose to focus on my other example as if that's what I was saying happened all the time. Let me try once again:
Women often do go off with boyfriends or husbands who threw them to the ground (punched them in the face, twisted their arm, etc.) not more than a few minutes before. Whether it rings true to you or not, it's rather standard behavior, unfortunately.
I'm rather puzzled that you could have lived life and not have witnessed this at some point. I'm not exactly all that streetwise or anything, but in the infrequent times I've been to bars -- or just happening upon people downtown or around -- I've personally seen this many, many times.
Maybe I'm just aware of it more from my psychology training. Perhaps it's a difference in cultures. Maybe it's just that I'm a night owl and stay up late frequently so happen to be in the all-night diner when the drunks come in.
Beyond just my experience, my psychology classes taught me that this behavior just gets more and more common in lower income areas and in cultures that are more traditionally male dominated.
Now if we knew for a fact that the man attacking Stride were a stranger it'd be a different scenario altogether. Even then I doubt it's as unusual of an occurance as you think.
And all of the above assumes that she freely chose to follow her attacker. Since it is also very possible that the same guy just dragged her away while she was too drunk or too stunned to resist, your belief that her killer had to be a second man is even more unsupported. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
Dan,
Firstly, I am a night owl too -- I would think that's obvious from the times of my postings in general!
I don't know where you live, but I can assure you things could not be much worse than they are in the city where I live. Those things you describe I can see every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night if I just walk a few blocks.
Now, this is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a prostitute, quite aware of the risks involved in her occupation -- I can't say anything for certain, of course, but I see no reason to believe that she in her position would walk into the yard (a rather dark secluded spot) with someone who has just been quite aggressive towards her, and then turns her back at him -- and we must also remember that Stride had prior to this incident stated that she was quite worried and afraid and she felt like she would be the Ripper's next victim. These women took enough risks at it was during the Ripper scare, without increasing them even further than going away with someone with an obvious aggressive behaviour and who had just struck her down. You can't compare this with rowls on the street among lovers on a Friday night today or domestic feuds -- the context here is quite extraordinary in comparison.
You may think that is a reasonable behaviour but I beg to differ.
I can agree on though, that it is a problem that we can't be sure of whether the assaulting man was someone she knew personally or not. If we knew this, a lot of questions would be answered. However, to me it makes no difference whatsoever as far as her murder is concerned, since I don't believe he had anything to do with it.
And once again, we are here discussing from a point of view that Schwartz really saw what he saw. Why are we doing that, since his information is not verified? That was my main concern to begin with. My thoughts are not more unsupported than Schwartz' witness statement.
"And all of the above assumes that she freely chose to follow her attacker."
And that is why I don't believe in the assaulting man as her killer. I am not sure he even existed.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Edgar Hadley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 1:12 pm: | |
Hi,
I Think Stride was attacked by one man only and that man was the Ripper.
I admit it seems odd at first,that Jack carried on whilst two men witnesed the attack but Scwartz did say that Liz screamed three times but not very loudly.
I think this part of his statement is important.
I believe that both Schwartz and the gentleman with the pipe didn't take the attack too seriously and probably had seen quite a few scuffles involving prostitutes who had picked up "rough punters".
Therefore Jack probably finnished the job after the gentleman smoking the pipe got bored and moved on.
In other words I don't think that our man with the pipe was some sort of accomplice.
Thanks for listening,
Edgar |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 622
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 7:56 am: | |
Glenn, Dan,
This does unfortunately happen. My boyfriend's sister is a prime case, or at least was until just before Christmas. She had a violent boyfriend who hit her but she would stay with him that same night. Personally if my boyfriend hit me I certainly wouldn't be going anywhere with him, I'd be off in the opposite direction.
However, as much as I agree with Dan on this matter, this would suggest that her killer was Kidney but I don't think that was the case. I believe it was the Ripper who killed her and that maybe the pipe man and Schwartz didn't think much of it as maybe they thought she was conducting some business or just having a fight with her punter. I don't think there were many "have a go heros" back then and people tended to mind their own business or have a peek and then just wander off.
Sarah
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 729
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Hi All,
But would Stride have gone further into the yard, knowing her boyfriend had just lost his rag with her? For what purpose? Because he suddenly calmed down and asked her nicely?
A total stranger, pushing Stride to the ground, and at some point becoming aware that he had witnesses, would not have had too many worries. He had only to leg it before the departing witnesses could return with assistance and he would be home and dry. Couldn’t this stranger have watched the witnesses until they were out of sight, then, worried that Stride might be able to give a good description of her assailant (and at the height of the ripper scare, whether he was Jack or not), produced a knife as she was dusting herself down and getting out her cachous, and told her not to make another sound or a move out of place or else?
Stride could have done exactly what she was told, but at a stranger’s knifepoint rather than out of duty towards a violent boyfriend, not daring to argue but going obediently into the yard, clutching the cachous tightly and hoping against hope that all he wanted was a freebie. I bet she would have been saying her prayers by then.
Love,
Caz
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
Sarah,
It is still not the same thing. As Caz points out, why should she go further into the yard and turn her back on a man that just had assaulted her?
Of course she could have been dragged into the yard before she was killed, but at least we know that her throat was cut in Dutifield's Yard, not out on the street. And then we have the cachous. I think there are a lot of things pointing at she was taken by surprised when she was killed, and for me it has no logic to it to connect this with the assaulting man seen by Schwartz.
And once again, why are most people here automatically taking for granted that the incident referred to by Schwartz necessarily is a correct or truthful account? Why is his testimony so sacred and beyond all doubts? I don't get it.
The man Schwartz reported to have seen assaulted her -- if he existed -- could very well have been someone she knew, but I believe she was murdered by a stranger, or at least by a customer.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 630
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 5:52 am: | |
Glenn,
But women weren't as strong as they are today (I don't mean that in a muscly way) and even today you get women who stay with man who assault them. If a couple like this was to argue in the street and he hit her but then tells her to get up and come on she would. Unfortunately to happens all the time and I should imagine even more so then.
I am only trying to make it clear to you that women do these silly things but I do not agree that Kidney was her killer so do not think this situation took place.
If we don't believe Schwartz's account then what do we have? Nothing. We would have to guess from scratch what had happened that night and I don't think that Schwartz would have lied and even if he had been mistaken in some ways then at least we have some of the truth.
Sarah
Sarah |
Edgar Hadley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
Hi all,
I think that Strides feeble,half hearted screams suggest that she didn't want to draw attention to the situation.
With the Ripper scare at its height,exactly the opposite would have been the case had her attacker been a complete stranger.
Edgar
|
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:11 am: | |
Hi Sarah
I don't think you should make the assumption these particular women weren't strong. The east end was an exceedingly tough place and these women had particularly tough lives. Even though they might have been in alcoholic decline and even quite ill they did far more manual labour than would now be the case - a day's hop-picking would be much harder work than most people of any sex would now care to undertake.
I would expect they would be well capable of having a brawl with a man threatening them unless they were taken by surprise or there was a complicating factor like a previous relationship.
Regards
Pete |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
