|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through January 27, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Elizabeth Stride:
Archive through January 27, 1999
Author: Andrew J. Spallek
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:51 pm |        | Author Philip Sugden casts considerable doubt on the validityof including Liz Stride as a genuine Ripper victim. Most peopleinterpret the events so that JTR was interrupted just aftercutting Stride's throat and before he could mutilate her. That iswhy he felt compelled to kill again that night. I have wonderedabout another possibility. Has anyone ever noticed the similarityin the names Elizabeth Long and "Long Liz" Stride?Elizabeth Long was a witness who possibly saw the Ripper (shesaid from behind) just before the murder of Chapman. What if JTRhad thought that she could identify him. Perhaps Long's claimthat she could not was out of fear. Perhaps she did really seehis face and he saw hers (her description was quite detailed).Then perhaps JTR stalked Long and attempted to murder her inorder to protect himself. Only, he confused "Long Liz"with Elizabeth Long. This might explain why Stride was notmutilated, as the Ripper was killing for a different and morerational reason than usual. Note also the similarity in theiraddresses: Long at 32 Church St. and Stride at 32 Flower andDean. Was Stride a Ripper victim, but a case of "mistakenidentity" on his part?
None of the 3 sources I have at home (Sugden, Fido, and Evans& Gainey) mention Long's age. There is, however, someconfusion about her name -- it is sometimes reported as"Durrrell" or "Darrell." Fido, in Crimes,Detection & Death of JTR notes the confusion and procedesto call her "Durrell." Sugden does mention theconfusion and calls her "Long" throughout. Of course,such confusion was commonplace due to the practice of common lawmarriages in the East End. Sugden also notes confusion aboutLong's address. In addition to the generally accepted 32 ChurchSt., there is given 3 Church Row (Whitechapel), and 198 ChurchRow (Whitechapel). Swanson gave 32 Church St. as the address.There were "Church Streets" in Bethnal Green, Minories,and Spitalfields. there was also a "Church Lane" inWhitechapel. None of these have addresses that go as high as 198,however. They all go at least as high as 32. In fairness, I notethat although the addresses of Long and Stride are similar, theformer lived in some sort of home while the latter slept in acommon lodging house.
The only description I can find of Long at the moment is thatshe was a market worker and was married to a cart minder. Itcould have been an somewhat elderly couple or a younger couple.It would be interesting to find a description of her. |
Author: Adam Wood
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:52 pm | | Another problem for me in accepting Stride as a victim is thatI find it hard to believe that if Jack was disturbed beforecarrying out the mutilations he simply went and found anothervictim.
Surely he would have got the hell out of the area after comingthat close to being caught?
Maybe Mitre Square was on his way home!
Response from Viledandy (August 22nd, 1998):
Had he been interrupted during Stride's murder, logicwould indeed dictate that the Ripper would want to flee the areaas quickly as possible. But the behaviour of the murderer,like so much else in the case, seems to defy logiccompletely. Without entering into his possible myriad ofmotivations for "ripping", it must be remembered that-- without arguing whether Stride was a canonical victim or not-- the Ripper retreated back into the East End after killingEddowes, leaving the apron and the scrawled message at GoulstonStreet. Jack intentionally took himself back into thepolice-infested centre of that night's panic. Thisdemonstrable arrogance on his part is a compelling argument forStride's case as a victim -- a sort of "I'll show them" attitude. |
Author: Larry S. Barbee
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:52 pm | | | I have recently reread Sugden's account of Stride's murder. Init he described how the body was found on its left side and themud stains indicate that was her position the whole time while onthe ground. After talking with my father, who has over fortyyears of experience in mortuary science, suggested that theRipper may have begun his cutting of the throat from thatposition as it would be even greater protection from beingsplattered with blood than cutting the throat from the oppositeside alone with the body positioned on its back. Even if a majorartery is cut after death it is still possible that there can bea jet or spurt of blood. This can happen if there is a build upof blood near the artery immediately prior to death. The valvesin the heart work only one way and when they shut down built upblood cannot flow back. Until this conversation I had alwaysthought that when a major vessel is cut after death there is agentle evacuation of the blood in the immediate area of the cutonly. This is the case usually, but not every time. I wonder howmany people would know that, in 1888, and would have tilted thevictims to their left before cutting? What I'm wondering now isif the Stride crime scene is actually a picture of what theRipper did every time, and was interrupted at the very beginningof his procedure, that he didn't even finish cutting the throatas planned. The wound was a small one but so was the first one onNichols. It was a second cut two inches down that almost severedthe head from the body. What if the Ripper always tried to tiltthe body to the left before he began cutting? Well, I'm not"Quincey" so I don't "know" if I'm on tosomething but maybe someone else can find out. |
Author: Paul Feldman
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:53 pm | | When investigating any aspect of the Ripper Crimes it is vitalto backtrack to source material. Although Stride was killed witha different knife to the other victims and was NOT ripped apart -the Police at the time were convinced that she was killed by thesame hand. Whatever their reasons - they had them - perhaps itwas a clue left by the murderer.
Note
1.A knife that COULD have killed Stride was found at the samespot as the postbox that the Saucy Jacky postcard was sent from.
2.Schwartz said that Stride screamed - so did the author ofthe postcard - Schwartz statement was NOT published in thePress!!!
3.Andersons chief reason in the belief that the murderer was apoor polish Jew was the testimony of Schwartz. He did not believein the likelihood of her being attacked by two different men atthe same spot at the same time.
4.ANDERSON WAS WRONG............
The man who pushed Stride to the ground could not have killedher. The proof in the cachous found in her hand after her death.If the man who pushed her, killed her, then he would have had todrag her the twenty yards or so WHILST she was on the ground,whilst she was relatively quiet AND INSTEAD OF FIGHTING FOR HERLIFE she WAS HOLDING ONTO HER CACHOUS!!!!!! Indeed how could sheeven afford what was then a luxury(Cachous)?
5.Probable Events.......
a. Stride solicited the Jew
b. He responded by pushing her to the ground
c. As she fell , out of fear she took OUT her OWN knife.
d. The man ran after the man out side the pub shouted' Lipski'and Scwartz thought he was running after him so ran too.
e.The man outside the pub WAS the Ripper and saw anopportunity.
f.The Ripper ( a gentleman) went overto help Stride up. HEgave her the cachous and took the knife from her. Persuaded to gointo the yard by use of his charms.
g. As prostitutes then did she leant against the wall andlifted her dress , Ripper used her knife to cut throat but due toits bluntness , she had time to scream (what Schwartz heard whenhe returned after realising he was not being chased)
h. She raised her hand to her throat , but as she was leaningagainst the wall gravity would not allow her to let go of otherhand - hence the cachous found.
i.The man who pushed Stride WAS probably identified bySchwartz (maybe even Kosminski) but the reasons Anderson gave forhim not testifying (race) had nothing to with it. Schwartz didNOT se the murder. He knew his testimony may hang the wrong man.Would you have that on your consience?
The Ripper a gentleman? Would Kelly have entertained a poorpolish jew in her own room for hours?
The Juwes are the men are not the men that will be blamed fornothing.
The Jew was the cause. Juwes is a play on the name JAMES. (tryit youself by writing in script)
The author of the Ripper Diary is the only person to havesuggested Stride was killed by her own knife |
Author: Koji
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:53 pm | | It comes to something when in a murder case, not only is thekiller unknown, but exactly who he killed is unknown too! I wouldfind it ironic if it is found one day that the ripper neverexisted and each crime was unrelated!
I would say that the ripper killed 4 victims. These are MaryNichols, Annie Chapman, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Kelly. I dontaccept Martha Tabram or the Brick Lane attack as Ripper crimes,nor any of the murders after Kelly that the police tried tocredit him for.
What may seem most surprising is that I dont credit ElizabethStride as a Ripper victim. She wasnt mutilated. Sensationaljournalism at the time attributed this to the fact that theripper was disturbed and then murdered again - a DOUBLE EVENT!!.This headline had the desired effect, but in reality there is noevidence to support it.
I understand Stride's throat was cut in the opposite way toall other victims and with a different type of knife. A witnesssaw a man assaulting her, but I wont go into that here. The factis the woman still held the cashews in her hands when she haddied. One theory is that she was murdered by her boyfriend. Theyhad argued that night and he was violent. Maybe, she justexpected a beating and he murdered her.
The Ripper, if he did murder Stride would have left infrustrated fury and would not have had the presence of mind to goand persuade another woman to go to her death with him.
No, Stride was not murdered by the Ripper. |
Author: Y. Willars
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:53 pm | | To reply to Adam (response #2)...if JtK was interruptedwhile killing Stride, it is reasonable that he would try tosuccessfully complete another kill, as serial murderers arecompulsive, as you can tell by the things he did while committingthe murder. Factors like modus operandi and signature come intoplay here, because these predators kill and most importantly,mutilate their victims to satisfy some kind of urge. So if he wasunable to complete his ritual on Stride, it might be why he wentafter someone else later that nite.
To Larry...(response #3) I am a criminology student,and am presently taking a course in Forensic Science. Myprofessor is an investigator with the city's coroner's office, soI will try to find out if he knows anything about blood splatterin relation to body tilt. |
Author: Johan Manning
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:54 pm | | | Elisabeth Stride was born in Sweden in 27 nov 1843 on theisland of Hisingen outside Gouthenburg. |
Author: Michael Hutchinson
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:54 pm | | | I think that the police jumped the gun with Stride. Her throatwas cut from left to right, not right to left. For a serialkiller, his modus operandi is like a religious experience, henever deviates from it. |
Author: Kevin Hall
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:54 pm | | I find it really interesting that the author of article #2would think that Jack the Ripper would not go after a anothervictim that night. Consider that most organized serial killersbelieve themselves to be superior to almost everyone, policeincluded, to think that Jack the Ripper would just hightail itout of the area goes against what type of character the Ripperwas. The Ripper was driven by some sort of sexual motive and themutilations served some sort of purpose for him, it was importantfor him to "rip" his victims, when he was disturbed,and was forced to flee, he simply went and found another victim.You must remember that women to this man were merely tools forhim to fulfill his fantasies, he did not view them as a threat oras human beings merely as objects, he would have not hesitated togo and find another victim on the night of the double event.Perhaps the thrill of almost being caught got his adrenalingoing, which is why the mutilations on Eddowes were the worstyet.
I find it very hard to believe that anyone is having problemswith Liz Stride being a victim of the Ripper. Like I statedearlier, a killer of the Ripper's type is not frightened by thepossiblity of being caught, he was simply disturbed before he wasable to mutilate Stride, and went in search of another victim. Ireally do not think that too much can be made of the fact thather throat was cut from a different direction than the othersbecause it wouldn't have made much difference if she was lyingdown and the killer was kneeling by her head. It boggles the mindthat there would be two deaths by the same cause in the samenight, and both of them committed by two separate men, no thisgoes against all the data, not to mention common sense, onhomicides that is known to police. Elizabeth Stride was killed byJack the Ripper and no one else. |
Author: Scott A. Munro
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:55 pm | | am also of the opinion that Stride was probably not a Rippervictim. Although any single deviation from the normal pattern canbe explained away, there are simply too many devations in theStride case. The Stride murder just wasn't the Ripper's style.
I have posted an essay on the subject on my web page: http://www.nextdim.com/users/smunro/ripper/stride.html |
Author: David Cairns
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:55 pm | | | You can post this anywhere you think appropriate - it's just athought that occurred to me. I can't think why it hasn't occurredto anyone else, and it strikes me as quite important! IsraelSchwartz sees the attack on Liz Stride in progress, and runs,apparently followed by another man. Then Louis Diemschutz arriveswithhis cart and finds Stride dead, but unmutilated. If Stride'skiller was the Ripper, the only plausible explanation that hasbeen put forward for her lack of mutilation is that the Ripperwas interrupted by the arrival of Diemschutz. There seem to me tobe near-insurmountable problems with this version of events.First problem: Diemschutz didn't see anyone running away. PhilipSugden seems to dispose of the idea that the killer may havehidden in Dutfield's Yard: the horse would have smelled him outand given him away. That's the first problem. The second problemis that Diemschutz didn't see Scwartz and his pursuer, andSchwartz apparently didn't see Diemschutz. This suggests that thecart and i's driver didn't arrive until at least a short timeafter Schwartz saw Liz assaulted. The killer would have cut Liz'sthroat quickly, and would have been able to at least beginmutilating the corpse before being interrupted. Remember therecent Channel 4 documentary - a doctor attested that KateEddowes' mutilation would have taken only about two and a halfminutes to perform. So the killer didn't mutilate Stride, notbecause he was interrupted, but because he chose not to. Thisstrongly suggests that he was not the Ripper. The only theoryI've read that takes care of this problem is the one where theRipper is the guy who chases off Schwartz, then returns to seeoff Stride's assailant, before killing her and fleeing fromDiemschutz. I find this theory implausible - the whole action ofchasing away Schwartz seems unnecessary, since he wasn't hangingabout anyway. Why behave so suspiciously? Would Stride reallyaccept as her defender this man who prefers to chase passers bybefore offering his assistance. I'm the first to admit thatSchwartz's testimony presents enormous problems of interpretation- the man himself seems unable to tell whether "Lipski"was addressed to him, whether the second man was chasing him,whether the two men were together... Is it just possible thatSchwartz's testimony is not as reliable as has always beenassumed? Hmmm... |
Author: William Dauenhauer
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:55 pm | | | How ridiculous to disregard Liz Stride and Mary Kelly asRipper victims. Why not eliminate Annie Chapman, she was killedin the early morning daylight hour, we all know the Ripper workedin the nightime. Now we only have two victims, Nichols andEddows. |
Author: Leofish
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:56 pm | | | With regard to all the evidence concerning information to LizStride, it appears most of it is irrelevant after RipperologistJames Tully proves that she was not a Ripper victim. Walkerhimself acknowledges a different blade being used. Most Ripperevidenge indicates that Jack strangled, then stabbed (all victimslying down while killed, pressure on neck, no screams, etc.).This did not happen with Stride. Judging by Israel's testimony,she was grabbed and thrown down violently by a drunken man, andher throat was then cut, with no abdominal mutilations. Perhapsher murderer was pimp Mike Kidney, as again pionted out by Tully.Whoever it was it was not "Jack". |
Author: Jeff D.
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:56 pm | | Would just like to make a few comments relating to the nightof the "Double Event" and reasons why I do not believethat Elizabeth Stride was a Ripper Victim. I doubt I am makingany startling new comment here, but anyway.......
First of all we have as close as anyone can get to an actualeye witness. Israel Schwartz at around a-quarter-to-one comingacross an obvious altercation. Long Liz would have had to havebeen the most unlucky person of all-time, to have somehow got outof that violent situation, only to have run straight into thearms of a Serial Killer, and be found dead within a 10 to 15minute time-frame ?
Because of this, I genuinly believe that the men that Schwartzsaw WERE involved in Strides Killing. Based on this information,Strides killer had an accomplice. If her killer was Jack theRipper, then we have positive proof that Jack was 2-people ! So,we have the first fact. All those who believe that Stride was aRipper Victim, must all accept that there were 2 men involved.(We can today, only go by the evidence that we "do"have, and Schwartz's statement must be considered as evidence inStrides killing).
Due to what we understand today, on Serial Killers, very fewever run in pairs. I believe that Jack was a solitary individual,posessed of his own inner demons, who roamed the area ofWhitechapel freely, knew the area well, and was therefor able togo relatively un-noticed, while all the comotion was going on,usually within minutes of the crime being commited anddiscovered.
As we know today, these individuals are usually known byneighbours and friends as being the "Last Person" theywould ever think capable of such an horrendous crime. I am surethat Jack would fit this profile no problem. Unnassuming, a bitof a loner, maybe suffering from massive mood swings, andcertainly unnaccountable to anyone. One of the most common thingsthat catch out many criminals, is there (as a human being)inability to "keep a secret" If there were two peopleinvolved at least one would have said something somewhere,sometime, to someone.
My main reason for not believing Stride was a Ripper victim,is the nature of the throat wound itself. We know it was adifferent knife, evidence points also toward a person ofdifferent dexterity than the killer of Nichols, Chapman andEddowes ....
I have no problem with the killer using a different weapon,but the main thread that runs through all of these killings isthe ferocity of the throat wounds. Strangulation or not,mutilations or not, when the throat was slashed, it was slashedwith anger, violence, and power. To the point where the victimwas very nearly decapitated. If Strides killer was Jack, and hehad time to slash her throat "once", he would have doneit with the violence that WAS his trade mark. 1-slash OK, thensomones coming so I'd better hide, or run, but 1-slash at thethroat was enough, and Jack would have made sure. Angry, violentand with a lot of force. That is simply all part of the same M.O.Stride was not slashed with any where near the verocity of theothers.
As noted (I believe) in Evans & Gaineys book, "FirstAmerican Serial Killer" on running to ground back intowhitechapel, after having such a good time dealing with Eddowes,Jack must have been amazed at all the comotion, confusion, peoplecongregating, and policemen running to Berner Street after thediscovery of Strides body. A wild night in Whitechapel thatnight, for-sure. But 2 by the same hand in one night..... I don'tthink so.
Thanks for allowing me to make this comment. I realise that mycomments are based mainly on circumstantial evidence, but still,with even all the other murders, there is some factual evidenceout there. I have compiled a list of the few bits of actualevidence that we do have and would appreciate the opportunity topost this, for any comments in the very near future. |
Author: Jeff Adamson
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:56 pm | | | I believe that Stride could have very well been killed by thesecond man, as most theorize. One might consider a scenario inwhich she is assaulted by one man and then 'saved' by a member ofthe vigilance committee. At this point she would have no problemfollowing her savior back into the alley. If Paul Harrison andDr. Walker are correct, Joe Barnett was a member of the vigilancecommittee and would thus fill the role of JTR making the most ofan opportunity. Barnett would already be known as a member andwould be expected to come to the rescue under the circumstances.This would also explain better how he lured other victims to gooff alone with him, seeing as how he would have the reputation assomeone 'protecting' the women of Whitechapel. |
Author: Tim Costello
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:57 pm | | | I'm just posting a theory on the murder of Elizabeth Stride. Actually, it is more of a question. Do you find this possible? I have read a bit about the "bloody knife" found in Whitechapel Road - or was it Commercial Street? - following the Double Event. As I recall, this knife could have inflicted the wound to Elizabeth Stride's throat. Stride was perhaps the second tallest of the Ripper's victims, standing at 5 feet 5 inches. (Mary Jane Kelly is recorded as being 5 foor 7.) The Ripper, or at least Stride's killer whoever he was - most likely attacked her while she was in a standing position. (Kelly was probably already prostrate on her bed when attacked, her throat being cut through the sheets - according to Fido I believe.) It has also been reported that Stride, fearful of the Whitechapel Killer, armed herself with a short sort of kitchen knife. Now, let us consider... Stride's height would have put her at a similar stature to what all witness descriptions of her male companions on September 30, 1888, relate. The Ripper, possibly as short as 5 foot 5 inches himself, could have been looked in the eye by Stride - if not down upon considering her style of shoes. Imagine this... Once in Dutfields Yard, the Ripper strikes to strangle her as in the previous murders. Stride however, ever resourceful, pulls out her table knife in retalliation. A struggle ensues between the two. The killer takes his only advantage of strength by holding back her armed hand with one arm and cinches her scarf tightly aroung her throat with the other. Perhaps with the dominant hand occupied in strangulation the weaker hand is left to wrench the knife from her fingers as she slips into a suffocated stupor, possibly being wrestled down into the muddy gutter in the process. Then, with her knife in his opposite hand, he cuts her throat in the noted different direction. Muddling around in the dark alleyway and searching for his preferred knife - perhaps in his black doctor's bag? - he loses time. In this confusion there is the startling sound of hooves on the cobblestones and it's into the darkness behind the opening gate as the mule and cart pull into the yard. With Diemshutz inside the club, the next step is a mad rush out into Berner Street and away, dropping the dripping knife on a doorstep in Commercial Street, and off toward Aldgate and the City where Catharine Eddowes has recently been let out of the Leman Street Police Station. Unfortunately for Eddowes, the pubs are all closed at this late hour. |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 15 November 1998 - 07:05 pm | | I expect more coming on this issue of Liz Stride as a victim, but here's one note. It is not accurate to state that Sugden casts "considerable doubt" on Liz Stride's authenticity as a Ripper victim. Two instances:
1) On page 196 of the revised, paperback 1995 edition of "The Complete History of...", Sugden says this: "Kidney was obviously anxious to deny a new argument with his paramour lest he be suspected of her murder but there is little reason to doubt his statement that he did not see her after Tuesday." I believe Kidney is suspected of being Stride's "real" murderer now?
2) On page 201 of the same edition, the entire second paragraph is relevent to any claims about Sugden's views. I'll only quote this part: "Alone of the witnesses called forth by this terrible series of crimes, Schwartz may actually have seen a murder taking place. More than that, with its possible implication of two men, his evidence cautions us against embracing too readily the conventional wisdom that the killings were the work of a lone psychopath."
Neither of these statements comes close to eliminating Stride, implicitly or explicitly, from the Ripper series of murders. The rest of his account follows in this vein regarding Stride. The only suspicion Sugden ever throws on Stride is her purported stories of her past life as witnesses testified/were reported to have heard her say.
Can anyone tell me if Sugden is still alive? If so, does he know what people say about his writings and how they use them? Does he care? Is he a techno-phobe and thus not online and doesn't want to be? Does he just wait, preparing his next edition to address these and certainly many more "new" issues?
I for one miss his emminently reasonable voice and sound judgement on all this re-eavaluation, new theories, etc etc. What Sugden says, goes, as far as I'm concerned.
Doomed to be controversially yours,
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 16 November 1998 - 08:52 pm | | My last post contained an error.
In rereading Sugden's chapter on Stride, I noted on pages 210-211 that Sugden does in fact make statements acknowledging what he calls "an element of doubt about the Stride case." He also says: "In fact, there is a very strong case for regarding Martha Tabram as the first Ripper victim and at least a plausible one for discounting Elizabeth Stride altogether." However, he goes on in his analysis and places more weight on the factors that are similar in Stride's case to other Ripper victims.
The lesson learned (by me anyway)? Always read it yourself. Again and again if necessary.
I still don't think this counts as Sugden casting considerable doubt about Stride. But it must be acknowledged that Sugden addresses the doubts about Stride's place in the series.
Also, you might want to check out Hawk's postings on JtR's MO. This discussion and that one should be separate but they sure run parallel...at least to me. Look under General Discussion, then "Jack's 'MO' & 'Signature'." Good stuff.
Apologies for the error.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 17 November 1998 - 08:55 pm | | Prologue:
This posting grew out of an earlier discussion on the "Letters" board when Yaz and I were discussing the canonicity of Elizabeth Stride. Commentary, dispute and reasonable disagreement always welcome.
CMD
Yaz -
When I first began reading about Jack the Ripper, I accepted the standard view that Stride was one of his victims. She is, of course, generally counted as one today, but there is a small groundswell towards reducing her status to that of a coincidental murder and thoughts toward pinning her murder to the hands of her boyfriend Michael Kidney. The more I have read on the matter and the more I have thought about it, I presently entertain doubts on Stride's place in the Ripper list. However, I am not dogmatic on the point and am certainly open to conversion!
I'm not going to expand my argument a great deal, as I expect we will get deeper into this as we go along. Let me just set out my basic points, and you can reposnd as you see fit. . .
There are 3 points connected with Stride's murder that, to me, do not fit the hallmark of an "accepted" Ripper kill:
1. Immediate circumstances: our eyewitness account of the moments just before Stride's murder are provided by the testimony of Israel Schwartz. Bearing in mind the caveats that he didn't speak English, that he seems to have altered his tale between the police and press versions he gave and that he was very likely trying to get away from the Dutfield's Yard area as quickly as possible, he raises 3 points that are, at the least, odd.
Firstly, he testifies that the man he saw walking in front of him down Berner Street who accosted Stride tried to pull her into the street; NOT, be it noted, the darkness of Dutfield's Yard, in front of which gate Stride was standing. Secondly, the man throws Stride to the pavement, whereupon she "screamed three times, but not very loudly." Thirdly, as Schwartz tries to scuttle away and not get involved, this man calls out "Lipski" ACROSS THE ROAD. Note that as well.
Taken together, these three points suggest an argument rather than an attempt at murder. Stride is thrown to the street - a public walkway where Schwartz is passing and where at least one man is coming out of a pub. She squeals a bit (had to say it!), but doesn't raise the cry of "Leather Apron!" or "Murder!" This infers that she either knows her assailant or knows he isn't trying to kill her. Finally, her assailant calls out across the road. To who? Schwartz? The man with the pipe? It doesn't matter. What does matter is that even if the second man stepped out for nothing more than a private smoke, the cry has turned his eyes toward Stride. Anyone nearby would have their attention caught as well.
This man is drawing attention to himself; whether deliberately or not, we cannot say. But his actions are a far cry from the man seen by Mrs. Long who only shows his back in Hanbury Street, a far cry from the man seen by Lawende talking quietly in a badly lighted spot outside of Mitre Square, and certainly not the actions of the man seen by George Hutchinson who tried to hide his face as he passed by with Mary Jane Kelly.
2. Location and time: 40 Berner St seems an odd location for the Ripper to ply his trade. As we have seen above, the street is travelled and there is an open pub across the way. There is singing and noise coming from the Working Mens' Club, and it is almost 1.00am in the morning, with many people out and about (just look over the records of the Stride inquest to see how many people were standing about or walking around at that time). There may be darkness just behind Dutfield's gate, but it seems incredibly risky, compared to what we see as the Ripper's other kills:
Polly Nichols on a dark, quiet street at about 3.30am or so, when there are few people about and no one in the immediate vicinity seems to be awake. -
Annie Chapman at 5.30 or so; a bit later, and the dawn is breaking, but 29 Hanbury is dark and silent. -
Catharine Eddowes around 1.30; early, but Mitre Square is shrouded in night, with empty buildings all around. -
Mary Kelly at 4.00 (maybe); inside her own room and behind a locked door.
All in quiet or private locations, and almost all far later in the night than Stride. Eddowes' time is, of course, the exception, and I will admit that on that point she differs from her sisters. However, in the location of her murder, she fits the "pattern" (if such there be) better than Stride.
3. Modus operandi: this is a weak point, and I don't necessarily defend it strongly. However, it ought to be kept in mind that the "accepted" Ripper victims showed signs of strangulation, and we have come to accept that this is how the Ripper avoided blood spurting all over him. Stride does not bear these marks, but only a nick to the carotid artery and dribbling gash to the throat. It can be argued that the absence of JTR spoor is because he was scared off by Diemschutz, yet I find I cannot accept that argument when reflecting on what has just happened previously.
The Ripper (assume for the moment it is he) has been seen. Two men have seen him throw Stride to the pavement, and he has compounded his folly by shouting at one of them. They leave the area - but for good? How does he know they are not fetching a policeman? How does he know other patrons in the pub aren't watching him? How does he know he isn't being observed by the men in the Club? He doesn't know any of this; yet, the standard story would have you believe that even after these foolhardy actions, he still goes ahead and slices Stride's throat in rage, heedless of anything else, only to be scared off by someone trundling up to the gate of Dutfield's Yard.
These thoughts do not necessarily point to Michael Kidney, but they certainly seem to indicate a man who was somewhat familiar with (or to) Stride and who appears to have been irritated or angry, but not murderous. He could have been Kidney, and his drunken rage got the better of him. He could be a punter who got a bit too stroppy and let his temper drown his judgement. He could even have been Jack the Ripper. . .but not necessarily so.
As I say, I've kept this post somewhat short. There are other aspects of the Stride killing that I do not feel comfortable ascribing to the Ripper, but these 3 are my main points. We will, I am sure, have plenty of time to discuss it all.
There you are, Yaz (and any other interested parties). I've set myself up, so load with grapeshot and have at me.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 17 November 1998 - 11:40 pm | | Bear with us, folks, this’ll take a while.
Let’s start on even ground. The Schwartz testimony itself has not survived. The account of his testimony (Sugden calls it a "synthesis" -- the use of that term you’d probably want to dispute) comes from a report made by Chief Inspector Swanson, written on October 19 – twenty days after the event. So not only do we have a man who speaks no English, we have none of his actual words at all…only Swanson’s summation. A quibble but the potential for misinterpretation is aggravated by the potential for, at best, a selective summary, at worst…well, who knows what errors could’ve crept in. I cannot adequately judge how much truth is in newspaper accounts -- the details differ in kind and tone from Swanson. I’ll rely on Swanson.
On your first point: Swanson’s summary states he was reaching a corner at 12:45 a.m. He saw a man walking ahead, he stops at the gateway and speak to a woman (whom he later identifies as Stride). Stride is standing in the gateway. No shouts, no angry words or sounds pass between this couple…but the man suddenly tries to pull the woman into the street. "But he turned her around and threw her down on the footway" Swanson’s summary continues. Which is it, Mr. Swanson? Or is it Schwartz’s contradictory evidence? Or is what it says...a "pull" in one direction, then another? Sounds violent to me.
I also note that in Swanson’s account, Schwartz crosses the road (no motive given for Schwartz’s doing this), where he then sees a man lighting a pipe. At this point, the man with Stride shouts "Lipski." Schwartz "walks" away…note that verb; again, is it Swanson’s coolness under fire, a mistranslation of Schwartz, or the truth…he walked away, not yet afraid? Odd indeed, but to a foreigner maybe all these English are crazy, no? I’m opposing Swanson’s "walk" to your "scuttle." At this point, we have a woman pulled around toward the street, then back, then thrown to the ground. I think we have more than just an argument here. Schwartz’s lack of alarm (in Swanson) is admirable indeed.
Does anything else support the statement that no argument preceeded what Schwartz saw? Yes; testimony given by William Marshall on October 5 to Baxter, the coroner; also James Brown's testimony. Sugden quotes and emphasizes heavily relating to the description of the man seen with a woman, but preceding it (page 204, Sugden 1995), Sugden summarizes Marshall’s testimony as to the relations between the man and woman at that moment: they kissed, talked in normal-to-low voices, laughed, walked away casually. No signs of a harsh word even. James Brown’s testimony, though briefly described by Sugden, also mentions no signs of a fight or argument.
Marshall and Brown see the couple together; Schwartz testifies to seeing them meet before his eyes at the gate. I love eyewitnesses. The only use I make of Marshall and Brown is the lack of tension between any man and woman any witness saw talking/walking together that night.
Isn’t it a little suspicious that the violence comes into our view precisely at the spot where Stride was killed, with no heated words before this? And to describe what Scwartz saw as an argument is like saying Mike Tyson had a disagreement with Holyfield (?) over the shape of his ear!
The business about the pubs always confused me. The grocer says he closed his stand when the public shops closed (meaning pubs, or is it a restaurant, or chandler’s, or what? Is there an inconsitency here or just a confused Americano?). Anyway, your description of what the man with the pipe is doing or how it affects either Schwartz or the murderer is confusing to me. It could be the murderer didn’t see the pipe-man either when he shouted; it could be the man was teamed with the murderer. No one knows.
She "squeals" a bit and doesn’t raise ANY other cry…Swanson says she "screamed three times, but not very loudly." Big, big difference between a squeal and three screams…and that ominous silence afterwards. If she knew the man, why not scream, "Yazoo, let me go!"? And we know that silencing victims is a JtR trademark. Does she know the man and merely protests rough treatment by a few "squeals" or is this JtR violently attacking and silencing a victim? It’s sounds like the latter to me.
Point two as it relates to JtR taking risks with the locations of his other murders doesn’t jibe. Chapman was killed early enough in the morning in the backyard of a house full of people…some of whom were awake…some of whom were getting ready to work (early risers, those Victorians!)…none of whom heard anything! Mitre Square, less crowded but more confined with two, metronomic Victorian PCs on patrol and a man on the inner steps of a warehouse 25-30 feet (?) away; Kelly – a closed room, but a man waiting across the way, people living all around. JtR was maddeningly audacious and silent, always.
And it is Chapman’s time that is the exception more than Eddowes, I think. The Berner street scene is confused by Packer’s testimony and Mrs. Mortimer, but it seems from PC Smith and Schwartz combined there may have been only three people on the street: the murderer, the victim, and the pipe-man. Smith and especially Schwartz were mere passers-by. The club is noisy, I’ll accept crowded as a description, but the dark and the passage into the yard obscured any view of the murder site from there.
I think you know my arguments on the progression (? – digression?) of JtR’s method. I don’t hold much weight in the "cookie-cutter" school that JtR did all his murders precisely the same way…even down to using the exact same knife! Nichols and Chapman are like one chapter, after that JtR opens another chapter…same story, plot, characters, but noticable differences. Insisting on absolute uniformity, you’d have to say there were not one murderer, or even two, but four (Nichols/Chapman=1; Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly=I each).
Stride’s wounds: a partial severence of the left carotid artery and a "division of the windpipe" (I quote from Sugden because his word-choice makes the wound sound so gentlemanly). The autopsy describes a 6 inch cut, varying in its depth, that is by no means "a nick" as you describe it.
No one knows when the wounds were made. They could easily have been made before the "Lipski" shout. A point in favor of that speculation? How else can you explain Stride’s silence after her "squeals" or "three screams"? I think Stride was dying as Schwartz crossed the sidewalk…JtR wasted no time in getting the victim down and dead.
I’ll rid myself of Diemshutz by speculating that the murderer ran exactly the same time as Schwartz and the pipe-man. As good a speculation as another. The smartest move if it was JtR. As you say, Schwartz, and maybe the pipe-man, could be running for a PC, after all…not in fear for their safety. The murderer couldn’t be sure. But Sugden adds another speculation that he may have gone deeper into the yard and escaped in the crowd later. Equally plausible. No one knows. But the coolness and the absence of witnesses to the flight is pure JtR...NOT a first-night amateur!
I think I answered all except Kidney. Sugden pretty much covers Kidney on his own. Unless there’s a special witness who testified to a murderous rage in Kidney that night, the likelihood of him finding her ON THE SAME NIGHT as another JtR murder (or even at all), that he (or any Whitechapel citizen…they seem in the 1880s not to have been a murderous lot) would consciously imitate the JtR style, and get away with it when the police and God knows who all were aware of his relationship with Stride…well, if he did it, he’s a cleverer killer than JtR. And I DON’T buy that.
No, If Stride knew her killer, she would also likely know that her killer was angry with her (to the point of murder…with that result, even angry seems a paltry descriptive). Schwartz would have heard angry words of mutual recognition. None of this happens. All is peaceful until the sudden violence. This tells me Stride did not know her killer.
Wheeeew!
Anybody who got through these two posts deserves a prize or something.
Yaz
And I hope CM and I passed the audition. |
Author: An Historian
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 04:27 am | | What If...?
It is fascinating to see that as each 'student' of this case delves deeper into the 'facts,' he or she develops his/her own insight to the case. This or that 'fact' is interpreted as meaning this or the other, and it all becomes very confusing. This is demonstrated well by 'Yazoo.' Yes, the newspaper reports contained many errors, and, yes, the police reports must (with nothing better to go on) be taken as the best primary source material. And this in itself presents a further problem. Nearly all the original written statements are missing, and the extant files are incomplete. And, NO, the files will not answer the ultimate questions - who was the murderer and which murders did he commit?
The inherent danger for those like 'Yazoo' is to accept his own interpretation of certain known or assumed circumstances, and then to continue to reason accepting this as 'fact.' From what he has written 'Yazoo' is probably (and he certainly seems intelligent enough to be) aware of this fact. Also, like it or not, coincidences DO occur, and are not all that uncommon. Ergo, it is impossible to list the specific victims of a single killer in this case; and other similar unsolved cases for that matter. However, with so little of a solid factual nature surviving we are all led into the paths of assumption and conjecture...'What if...?'
Now, the very real problem here is that in the case of Stride there are so many eye-witnesses (and this alone argues against the killer being the 'Ripper'), with so many descriptions of the assumed killer, that, if you accept her as a 'canonical' victim, you introduce much contentious evidence. Omit her and, if she was a 'Ripper' victim, you may ignore some vital grain of evidence. There is no answer to this problem, but the danger of just blindly accepting her, or Tabram and Kelly for that matter, is that you may exclude the killer (if he is in the reckoning, or does enter the reckoning, which seems unlikely) from your list if he doesn't fit the bill for all the murders. So the true historian should look at both options, and keep them both in mind throughout his studies. As I believe I have stated before, this is one of the few criticisms which may be leveled at Mr. Sugden. He draws his own conclusions, and then shapes all his subsequent reasoning from those conclusions. And the surviving evidence is simply not clear-cut enough to enable such reasoning.
To my mind no author has made a clear-cut case against ANY suspect. Yes, some are better than others, and some so blatantly ridiculous (such as Clarence, Gull, and Maybrick), that they may be fairly dismissed out of hand as bearing no hint of real evidence in support of them. So, you bear in mind ALL options, you reason from that standpoint, and base your own deductions on that. No, you will not find the elusive 'final solution' but you will probably come up with, on a balance of likelihood, your own favored suspect, or list of suspects.
So the arguments, discussions, debates, theories, and certainly the books, will continue to roll out in a seemingly never-ending succession. To the veterans of this field it becomes a case of permanent deja-vu, as the likes of 'Yazoo' (and I cite him merely because of his prolixity) and others roll out all the old arguments for the umpteenth time. And in fairness to them, it shows that they are thinking about the case deeply, and they are truly interested in it.
Personally the whole subject, at this stage, is in danger of becoming tiresome, and I think that this is what was indicated by Mr. Yost.
An Historian |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 06:56 am | | Hello again, Historian.
The trouble with the witnesses to the couple seen that night is very apparent. Did any or all of them see the man and the woman seen by Schwartz? I do not know. Since Swanson's summary indicates a reading of the man and woman meeting in front of Schwartz's eyes, and if you prefer to stick to Schwartz's account, the others must have seen another couple. I included the other witnesses, with an attempt to warn CM and readers why I was and what were the dangers, to corroborate Swanson's report ONLY in the area which does not speak of an argument between Schwartz's couple.
As the issue has been raised on the Gold Farthings board, I will just summarize what I say there. I find it part of the hitorian's task to not just collect, classify, and preserve the artifacts and records, but also to interpret them. I am no historian, not even by the name I call myself here, but CM and I are in excellent company trying to work out interpretations of 'facts.' Neither of us claim we are definitive or even exhaustive...that was not the point of exercise.
CM can speak for himself but I viewed our exercise as simply a mental testing ground, a way of talking to one another about a specific area of JtR study. Where one of us is wrong, I expect the other to assist by pointing to the error...likewise from others besides CM and myself. I wish, if you noted any errors, you had pointed them out specifically. Your objection focuses on the value in performing the exercise at all. I can only say, respectfully, "Oh well!"
And if this is deja-vu (all over again) for you; if it seems never ending; if you've heard the arguments for the umpteenth time; and if the whole subject (at this stage or any other) is in danger to you of becoming tiresome...I simply wonder why you bother paying attention to all this. Let it go. Let fools ramble. There is no shortage of scholarship to defend the 'facts' and correct the miscreant. You seem so well-versed in this subject that maybe you need a new challenge, a new area to study. In any case, opinions are always welcome to me. Specific suggestions are even more so. Pointing out our errors is intellectual gold.
Yaz
P.S., You don't have to put Yazoo in quotes. It's quite obviously a psuedonym much the same as your 'An Historian.' Save some keystrokes! (grins) |
Author: Chris George
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 07:53 am | | Hello all:
In regard to the murder of Elizabeth Stride, I rather think that this latter day pointing of a finger at Michael Kidney is a rather complacent way of thinking. There were, as everyone has noted, an overabundance of witnesses at the scene, and a very good (if non-English speaking) witness in Israel Schwartz. That being the case, one would think that if Michael Kidney was the killer, he would have been identified by the witnesses and charged with the murder. Such a charge of murder was NOT brought by the police against Kidney. Therefore, the conclusion has to be that Kidney was NOT the killer and that her killer must have been, as was concluded at the time, "person or persons unknown." Whether the killer was Jack the Ripper is another question entirely, but until recently there seems to have been no question that she was killed by the fiend of Whitechapel.
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 21 November 1998 - 01:00 am | | All is too quiet around here, especially on this board. Where is everyone?
I've heard the statement that if Stride "really" was a Ripper victim, he wouldn't have made such a botch of it. How much of a botch did he "really" make of it?
According to Schwartz's testimony, he had Stride down and silent within seconds. Schwartz reports no further sounds or movements from her. Since we know she died of blood loss, complicated by a severed windpipe, neither the silence nor the possibility of her being already dead while Schwartz is still walking the street is far-fetched. I think alternative explanations rely too much on unwitnessed, unverifiable (and, I think, unnecessary) speculation.
Schwartz starts his "clock" on his testimony at 12:45. Diemschutz has found the body by 1:00. It is the testimony of medical eximaners in other cases that the subduing, murder, and mutilations of the victims was a matter of minutes (Kelly the exception because of the extent of mutilation and the murder taking place in private -- her room rather than the street). The murderer had plenty of time to do to Stride what he did to Nichols and Chapman before Diemschutz arrives. That fits our JtR planner exactly -- not closely, not sort of, not kind of, EXACTLY. Again, only Kelly is the exception (and no, the reason is not because her boyfriend or someone other than JtR killed, but for the reasons I already mentioned).
Then why doesn't he?
He doesn't mutilate because Schwartz and the man with the pipe run off. They may be after a PC. Again, JtR is never stupid, and only with Kelly again is there a suspicion that the murderer might have been seen AND knew that -- Eddowes was spotted by Lawende, it isn't clear if Lawende or the man Eddowes spoke to saw each other. He runs, walks, skips and jumps...don't care how you describe it; he is gone from view when Stride's body is discovered and people are searched by PCs.
I think Schwartz's presence on that street and his statement and his timing are as inconvenient to those who want to remove Stride from the canonical list as he was to JtR!
Stride's throat wound is consistent, even down to the length of the cut in some cases, with all four other canconical victims. The cause of death is identical to all four other canonical victims. Both these aspects of his MO or "signature" fit JtR exactly, even down to the satistical range of the length of the throat wound.
Statistically, 1880s Whitechapel was not a murderous place (see How Common Was "Murder!" in Whitechapel?, Paul Smithkey III, Ripperologist Number 10, April 1997). Statistically, it is shown that in our own time the percentage of murder victims who know their killer is in the high 90s; but since murder was not common in Whitechapel in the 1880s -- until 1888! -- we may be thinking anachronistically here. Same thing with the issue of spousal/lover abuse. It seems to have been as common then as it is now...that is, all too common. But the murder stats show NO tendency towards abuse leading to murder. A statistician could do a more forceful job than I have in this area, but the points are clear enough.
I fully expect to have to raise these same issues and my answers in regard to those who want to discard Kelly as a victim. I'll save that for when it appears on THAT board.
Thoughts? Comments? Changed minds? (grins)
Yaz |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 04:41 pm | | Yaz -
Yes, it has been quiet here, but as I have noted elsewhere, I've been running into some nasty computer problems lately.
I must say at the outset, however, that while I admire "Historian's" breadth of knowledge and respect his (I assume) concerns, I am not quite sure what the point of his argument is. He laments that all the old arguments get trotted out in these discussions, but then counters that with a sort of left-handed compliment to the effect that at least we seem to care about the subject. I can't see that it works both ways. Yes, perhaps I and he and all of us here have heard the arguments about Stride and Kidney or Chapman and farthings (or even Eddy and Gull) dozens of times over; there will, however, always be those new to the subject who will think "here! why hasn't anyone thought of this?"
And we may very well have thought of "this;" it doesn't mean that the inquiry itself is without merit. To my way of thinking (muddled and inconsistent though it is), this entire case is a welter of confusion and variant interpretations which must always be kept in mind as we try to struggle through to what each of us believes the most logical explanation of an incident. To simply say (as Historian seems to) that history is contaminated by different opinions and by our acepting of these opinions as "fact" - whether the opinions are our own or Sudgen's - seems to me to be admitting that all of history is a giant "Rashomon," and there's no need to examine it any longer as we can't know what "really" happened and it is all a waste of time.
Obviously, I cannot know the workings of Historian or David Yost's minds, but is this the "tiresome" aspect of the case to them? Then I fear that it will continue so. I care about the Ripper case; I find it endlessly fascinating. I have thoughts and arguments about various aspects of it; if these are "old" to certain people, then that must, I am afraid, come with the territory - otherwise, we might just as well post Sugden or Fido or Begg here, tell people "read it and accept it" and have done with the whole subject.
My opinion, in its own illogical and wearying way.
And so, if there is still anyone in the room. . .
Yaz, I was going to ask that we break down our differences into separate points, so that we can dispose of them one by one and bore the hell out of anyone stumbling into this discussion! :-)) I was going to begin this with my assertion that I do not believe (as you seem to) that Stride's killer was the same man seen by Best and Marshall. Admittedly, my belief is entirely subjective, and based on the personal interpretation of words; in this case, Schwartz' statement(s).
To the police, Schwartz stated he saw the man who assaulted Stride "stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway." To the "Star," this was elaborated to "As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. . .[T]he half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her." (both Sugden, pp. 201-203) Both of these statements infer that the man was not with Stride, but had come across her. I can see 2 different interpretations on this:
1. The man is the same man who has been in Stride's company this night. He has walked off, but is now coming back to her.
2. The man is walking around the neighbourhood and sees Stride.
If (1), then why does he argue with her and throw her to the street? Is he mad, having spent all this time with Long Liz and got no more than a kiss and cuddle? Is he just drunk, and something has brassed him off?
If (2), why does he argue with her and throw her to the street? Does he recognise Stride as a prostitute and try for her favours? Was he bilked out of money by her at an earlier transaction? Does he just not like her, whether as a whore or as a woman?
Keeping this in mind, let us move on to Stride's reaction to the assault. Firstly, I must say that I know there is a difference between a "scream" and a "squeal." I was being facetious, referring to the "saucy Jacky" card. You ask, if she knew him, why not scream "Yazoo, let me go?" I refer you to your own point - Schwartz doesn't speak English. Yes, he recognises "Lipski" but one would think that a foreigner in the East End would have heard that word quite a lot before September 30, 1888. Would he have taken notice and been able to understand something that sounded like "Klaatu barada nikto, Yaz!," especially as it is not being addressed to him? I don't believe so.
This sounds to me like a street assault that got out of hand. It COULD have been Stride's "date," but I find it hard to accept. They have spent a great deal of time together, and have been seen by different people and a policeman. They've been quiet and unobtrusive. Yes, they came out of a pub, but we have no way of knowing how much they may have had to drink - if they had anything at all! And if this man is so angry at Stride as to assault her after all the time they have spent together, why be so blatant about it? He must know that he's been seen puttering about with her for the past hour or so, and within a limited area. He's going to be seen. Better to just hiss "here, come in the yard" and have done with her there
Again, we are dealing with the unfathomable blackness of the human mind. I cannot absolutely determine anyone's actions. I can only say that I find the supposition of Stride's "date" turning vicious unlikely, wrong though I may undoubtedly be.
I don't say the man was Kidney, simply because I can't say how easy it would be for him to find Stride. We have no record of him stalking the area that night, asking where his woman was (which isn't to say he didn't do it, we just don't know that he did). We don't know whether the Berner/Fairclough area was one of Stride's regular "hangouts." We can't say whether Kidney would have gone directly to Dutfield's Yard, whether he just stomped about the area or whether he was just getting blind drunk that night. It's a welter of imponderables.
Well! That's long enough, I think. Let's deal with this point first, Yaz, and then move on to another. You and I may be the only two here when it's all over, but I don't mind if you don't.
And as soon as we've finished with Stride, I'll be happy to trot over to the Kelly board and discuss her with you (or we can do it at the same time, if you're truly a masochist!). Ample warning for the rest of you. . .
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 05:45 pm | | Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water! Or, what's the line from Godfather III? "Just when I was getting out, they suck me back in!!!!!"
Yes to keeping our notes shorter and (hopefully) sweeter. No to your ideas on the witnesses. My point is no other witness saw the SAME couple Schwartz did; therefore the other witnesses testimony is not relevent unless you build a bridge between them on speculation. This is important: it addresses all your other points about other eyewitnesses.
Yes, I besmirched you unjustly on the squeals/screams issues. (But look what you've done to me...minding my own beeswax, talking about a few letters when WHO comes along and starts this Stride stuff? Hmmmm? Who, CM? -- grins and groans)
Schwartz spoke no English but he could tell the police whether the couple spoke, when, for how long, probably even able to characterize it as "friendly" or "angry" or "shouting" or "laughing". Swanson's summary is not helpful here...again, not his fault. I expected you to argue this weakness more, force me into speculations. Most fair of you. Honestly.
I too can see no reason for a date or Michael Kidney to turn so suddenly violent. The only suspect who could, TO ME, is JtR -- no one else in Whitechapel in 1888.
Keep tormenting me, but I agree on shorter barbs and arrows. Most glad you're back.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 05:49 pm | | I'll have passed out looooooong before we get to Kelly!
Avante anyway!
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 02:11 pm | | A few thoughts, speculation really, following on from my piece about the cachous, which I thought you might find sufficiently entertaining to comment on and which ponders the question of how the victims, Elizabeth Stride in particular, got to the place where they were murdered. This is pretty rough, so be gentle with me...
One theory about how the Ripper got to the murder site is that he was taken there by his victims - that Jack the Ripper waited until propositioned by a prostitute and then accompanied them to a secluded place of their choosing and gambled on it being as free of detection for murder as it was for sex. There is some evidence to support this theory. Both Annie Chapman and Katharine Eddowes were seen talking to a man close to where they were murdered, in the case of Chapman, outside 29 Hanbury Street, and in that of Eddowes outside the passage leading to Mitre Square. It would seem safe to assume that both had met the killer where they were seen because if they had met and transacted business with him elsewhere, they would not have stopped to talk, but would have gone direct to the place where the transaction could be completed.
One possible bit of additional support is the choice of the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, which hardly seems a suitable site for sex or murder. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that Jack knew it to be a safe location, but it seems more likely that Chapman, if Hanbury Street was her 'beat', knew it to be. And we know from the testimony of John Richardson that the yard and even the interior stairs were used by prostitutes.
Does this theory also apply to Elizabeth Stride? Did she use the passage to Dutfield's Yard as her 'office'? Certainly a woman who may have been Stride was seen in Berner Street over a period of time that evening, which might suggest that it was her 'beat'.
On the other hand, the passage, despite its shroud of gloom, does seem an odd place for sex. The passage was the only means of access to the house located in the Yard and occupied by three tenants, to the work areas and to the editorial and type-setting offices of Arbeter Fraint, so the gates were usually left unlocked for people to pass through until quite late. At the time of the murder the passage was also the only way of entering the Club, the front door having been locked. The Club itself was well-known and even notorious in the district. Meetings often went on until 2 or 3 in the morning and were sometimes rowdy ('disturbances are very frequent at the Club,' - Charles Letchford, 'lots of squabbles and rows which were common on a Saturday night' - P.C. Henry Lamb). On the night of the murder about 100 people had attended the Club for a lecture about Jewish Socialism. The lecture finished and most of the people left, but twenty or thirty remained, about a dozen downstairs and the rest upstairs, engaged in conversation or singing. Curtains apparently covered the downstairs windows, but light from the large upstairs room spilled onto the street. The windows were open and people in the house in Dutfield's Yard said they had lain awake listening to the singing. Some little light may even have spilled into the yard from the side door, which was opposite an outside lavatory, and sounds may have carried from the kitchen which was still serving food. From the street, Yard and passage it was clear that the Club was alive with activity. The risk of discovery was considerable, both for a prostitute to take her client and a murderer to take his victim.
So, was the passage used by Stride to take her clients? Prima facie is may look unlikely and further evidence to support this is that fact that Diemschutz, the Steward of the Club, denied that women used the passage, said that he'd never heard of anyone else finding them, and said that he had never seen Stride before. One might argue that 'he would say that wouldn't he', but if what he said was true (and withholding information pertinent to the identification of the victim would have been fairly serious), then it lends weight to the overall feeling that the passage was not where Stride took her clients.
How did Elizabeth Stride get into the passage leading to Dutfield's Yard? Assuming that she was indeed the woman seen assaulted by Israel Schwartz, she either went into the passage with the man who had assaulted her or gone into the passage with someone else (the 'pipe-man'). As said, the cachous seem important. While Stride could certainly have tightly grasped the cachous at the time of a sudden attack, would she have grasped them throughout the assault witnessed by Schwartz, where there was a verbal argument and a short tussle, during which Stride cried out three times, followed by Stride being thrown to the ground. She would then have had to have been manhandled into the passage, forced to the ground and had her throat cut. Throughout which she clung to that box of cachous.
It is possible that she could have voluntarilly gone into the passage with either of the men or with someone else and been given the cachous just before being thrust to the ground. There is one further possibility, namely that Stride struck her head when she was thrown to the pavement and was stunned or rendered unconscious. The man who had assaulted her may then have dragged her into the passage and slit her throat. This would certainly explain how she'd been placed on the ground - something she wouldn't have done voluntarily because of the mud - and how she came to be still holding the cachous. Her feet were pointing towards the gates, as they would have been if she had been dragged in and although Dr Philips told the Inquest that 'on removing the scalp there was no sign of bruising or extravasation', The Illustrated Police News for 6th October 1888 reports that there was severe bruising on her left temple and left cheek - areas which wouldn't have shown up when the scalp was removed. Could that be where Stride hit her head on the pavement and was sufficiently stunned to offer no resistance when her attacker moved her into the passage?
And after the murderer slit her throat, did he become conscious of the noise from inside the Club and realise that he was in a perilous situation? Is that why he made a hurried escape? Would this explain why the Ripper 'botched' this job - that he lost his rag, made an unpremeditated attack, found himself in front of witness and trapped in a passage that had every appearance of being in use? |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 03:37 pm | | Hee, hee. I detect a stealth vote of "yes, include Stride in JtR's column" from this. Pardon my chortle, Paul, but CM will undoubtedly find a way to make me pay for it.
You probably don't know but I went back over your On the Other Hand article and found some trouble with parts of it...especially those cachous. I think all the questions regarding why Stride was found with cachous in her hand point in the direction of Stride, and don't really offer anything about her attacker and/or murderer. Here's my reasoning.
In the dictionary, there is a word 'cachou' that means a small lozenge used to freshen the breath. It makes perfect sense to me that a prostitute trying to entice clients would use this 'cachou' and have them in her possession BEFORE meeting clients. But maybe I'm wrong, and cachou is how the British (and I think I've seen it here in the States) spell the cashew nut...which might indicate Stride or a companion bought them from Packer etc. Without knowing precisely which is meant by 'cachou' you might follow a false trail.
The inside of the passage seems not to have been visible from both the sidewalk and the buildings around the yard -- unless you faced either end of it. I wouldn't expect Diemschutz or anyone else to be patroling it, so he could very well have honestly not known that prostitutes used it -- he was away most of the time anyway working, I presume. The passage seems more logical -- dark, close to the street , easy to recover from a coital position and also to saunter away -- than someone's backyard like Hanbury! You're trespassing if found there, but could more logically plead transience if caught in the passage. (And it amazes me that there is no testimony from other prostitutes about them embarassingly running into their compatriots with their clients in these common spots!)
On the Schwartz testimony, depending only on Swanson, he doesn't see the man and woman go into the passage -- unless that's what Swanson means by 'footway'. He also doesn't see or hear anything except a brief conversation and then the violent pulling, accompanied by the three screams (this could also be read as the final act of that macabre dance, I admit). No arguments, no angry words -- Schwartz could characterize the type of discussion even though he didn't speak the language. Again, this could be Swanson's "fault" because he didn't need the detail or think it important for a summary...or Schwartz never said it, or even said something different (but that's too speculative for even me).
Her silence after the pulling and throwing to the ground troubles me a great deal. Phillips' autopsy, like Swanson's summary, carries the greater weight with me (although I know I need caution...I simply lack the ability to judge the news accounts). Her being stunned then appears unlikely as a cause for silence...and as a cause for holding those __________ (fill-in your favorite swear word) cachous, as a concussed/stunned person would relax her hand. You don't go into convulsions upon being stunned or knocked senseless...unless Stride had some history of seizures or convulsions, actuated by disease (epilipsy etc) or alcohol. I don't know if she had such a history.
Again, we're back to asking the ghost of Mrs. Stride why she held them so tightly, not so much the murderer/assaulter. Romantic, idealistic, quixotic it may be, I prefer to think she clenched her fists to fight and died that way, fighting in her own pitiful way. Her silence and the swiftness of death indicate, my speculation now, that what Schwartz DID NOT see was the man's knife cut Stride's throat as she lay on the ground in the passage...but she is definitely still and silent as Schwartz walks by in Swanson's summary.
As to the man's escape...he would likely have heard the noise and seen the light from the club before he attacked as much as after, no? Doesn't seem like the noise or light bothered he or Stride. Again, we're back to Schwartz and the assumedly innocent man with the pipe as the cause for the murderer's flight...a potential for public notice/police presence.
I like this one better than On the Other Hand. And you might watch Hawk's MO & Signature board...one of these years we'll get to a discussion on whether JtR chose his victims or allowed them to choose him...along with the importance of where the victim was taking JtR in his making that choice (meaning here: more if he should kill rather than if he should go along).
And don't turn your back on that CM character...he's a slippery one!
Yaz |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 08:55 pm | | Slippery, eh? Nice to know how people talk about me when my computer is down!
First, a general explanation and apology - I have been having enormous problems with my system crashing over the past week. I'm on-line for the moment, but can't say how long it will last. So let's make this quick. . .
Paul, while I enjoyed your posting on how Stride might have come to Dutfield's Yard, I wonder if you might answer a question for me, namely - how do we know Berner Street was Stride's "office" at all? I realise that much of this depends upon whether you view Stride as having been with one man or a number of men that night. If one man (and her actions prior to going out that night bespeak someone doing more than just planning for a night of prostitution), could it not be argued that the Berner area was where her "man" felt comfortable? That it happened to be his stomping ground rather than hers?
Yaz - your thoughts on Schwartz' testimony are intriguing, and you might get me over to your side in time. . .but not without a fight, I'll tell you that! One thought, however: I don't know that I can agree with you as to Stride's silence after being pulled/thrown to the ground. Simply because Schwartz didn't mention sound doesn't mean there wasn't any; remember, he is trying to avoid the argument in front of him. Some unknown man is shouting "Lipski" in his direction, and he thinks he is being followed by "Mr Pipe." He's going to be busy getting his arse away, not looking back or listening to see if the woman is all right.
And I still can't agree with you on why Stride didn't scream for help. Yes, Schwartz was able to tell what sort of argument was taking place in front of him (and perhaps in speaking to Swanson he elaborated in his artful Hungarian way), but I will still point out that he didn't speak English. Stride's attacker could have been slurring drunkenly at her about all sorts of things, but Schwartz won't know what those things are.
I wonder how long Schwartz had been in England? Would he have known if Stride was calling a particular name?
To me, this all comes back to circumstance. The attack on Stride is far too open and obvious to be the Ripper's style. He doesn't call attention to himself, even when (or if) he is seen.
Now the final thought in your message is interesting: could Jack have chosen his victims by forethought and planning, or was it taking advantage of opportunity? If he knew enough to avoid patrolling police (and Eddowes' murder suggests he did), why not know enough to recognise certain women's various beats and know when they were at their most vulnerable point? Hmm. . .
Sorry for being short and a touch incoherent. Fuller discussion next week when my system is fully repaired, I promise! Don't get too far ahead of me, please!
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 10:54 pm | | Hey, CM!
Don't think for a minute I'M fooled by your camaflauge of computer problems...you're planning and plotting, I know it! -- and I sleep with one eye open thinking of what evil you'll do to me next!
I agree that the office is a speculation, but (and unless someone has specific, contemporary evidence to the habits of prostitutes in/around 1888) it does seem to be a reasonable assumption that prostitutes had "territories" or, as Paul calls them, "offices." It might explain why we hear little or nothing about these "common" places where "all" prostitutes take their customers and finding the site already in use!!! I can imagine the row that would cause, day or night! To say nothing of what it would do to business! Chapman's office may have been Hanbury street house's backyard. Only if there is a lack of customers would they forsake a stationary spot.
Who knows (pure speculation, yes yes...but we do have Pizer!) but they had "arrangements" (payoffs etc) with PCs and the owners of the premises? After all, several of these women are said to have specifically gone out to earn money to sleep off the street that night. Some or all are gone far longer than it would take to turn a trick. I wonder what the going price was for sex in 1888? Certainly some or all of the victims spent frivilously and/or on drink. But it is POSSIBLE that to earn their 4d (4 pence=4 pennies, right? -- a low sum to me) they had to earn, say, 10d to payoff PCs, pimps, thugs like Pizer, landlords, etc? Or is this too wildly off-center?
Having "offices" allows JtR to observe, plan, and choose who to kill. Another tie-in: you often hear that the nights JtR struck were "bank holidays" and such...implying JtR had free time to hunt. I think (pure speculation, yes yes yes!!) it equally plausible that JtR came out because of the crowds -- to hide among them, to increase his chances of finding a previously observed, stationary target. But enough of that.
On Schwartz: you gotta follow Swanson's summary carefully (and because it's a summary and not directly by Schwartz lies its faults). Schwartz is following the man as they turn the corner. From whatever distance between he and the man, he hears the couple speak. After the assault, Schwartz is much closer and he is still very cool, only cautious at this point. If Stride could speak -- that is, if her windpipe was still intact -- Schwartz was in a very good position to hear. And his attention is fully focused on this couple, even with the man and his pipe, UNTIL he looks back and decides the better part of valor...
On JtR (presumably, in Stride's case...I cringe at the thought of your further posts on this) never calling attention to himself before: He never was in the position he was with Schwartz before or after -- that includes Hutchinson and (the controversial?) Kelly. There is no pattern. He was seen assaulting, possibly/probably killing his victim! You could certainly say he screwed up, but not just by shouting "Lipski!" Why didn't he notice Schwartz behind him before he assaulted Stride? He had no contingency plans on being caught in the act and this "superman", this invisible menace, did not react very well at all -- the mask of omniscience, power, and invincibility slipped drastically that night!
"If he knew enough to avoid patrolling police (and Eddowes' murder suggests he did), why not know enough to recognise certain women's various beats and know when they were at their most vulnerable point? Hmm. . ." Here again, go back to Schwartz's summarized testimony. To Schwartz, only he, the man he followed and the woman were on the street. JtR had planned well. But accidents happen and Schwartz was JtR's worst accident. This leaves us with the age-old intriguing question about the man with the pipe whom Schwartz doesn't see until he nearly bumps into him! That pub was closed for 45 minutes. Why was the man just standing and watching? Why didn't JtR see him either? THAT ways lies mucho speculation!
The double event contains so many "coincidences" and first time behaviors and actions that little could surprise me...except that he got away with at least one (I say two) murders on the same night. Even if he didn't kill Stride, to kill Eddowes and then seemingly run BACK in the direction of Stride's site activity is maddeningly audacious!
Time to buy that iMac, eh?
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 25 November 1998 - 03:55 am | | Hi all,
I can remeber as a kid, my older sister regularly buying 'cashous' by the name of Parma Violets. They were small, square soft lozenges, wrapped in printed paper, heavily perfumed and sweet. They were not even classed as 'sweets' but more or less could be viewed as chewing gum is now.
My sister didn't drink, but Parma Violets were well known and recognised as being useful for treating alchohol breath or other oral smells.
Stride would almost certainly have been taking such caschous. The name 'Caschou' is of course french in origin and in England clearly defines these 'breath purifiers'. A cashew is, pardon, a nut.
Bob |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 25 November 1998 - 04:28 am | | Hi Chris
I'm just about to head to hospital for a operation, so please excuse the haste of this reply, but I didn't mean to suggest that Berner Street was Stride's beat (I used 'office' to denote the place where the business was enacted, rather than the work area or place where the deal was agreed). Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. I'm bothered by the choice of the passage to Dutfield's Yard as a place for sex. I know it was dark and from witness testimony it is possible that somebody could have walked up the passage and not seen anybody hiding there. This might have made it as good a place as any for prostitutes to take their clients. On the other hand, the Club was well-lit, noisy, with a lot of people inside. The passage provided the only access to the tenanted dwellings in Dutfield's Yard and may also have been used by anyone going to or leaving the editorial offices of Arbeter Fraint. The Club was internationally known, visited by such eminent speakers as William Morris, and also notorious locally, especially for the fairly common disturbances on Saturday nights (see the testimony of PC Henry Lamb and Charles Letchford). That night it was well-lit, busy, people singing, the downstairs dining room and kitchen in use. The passage also had a side entrance into the yard which faced the door to the kitchen on the inside and a lavatory outside. Anyone knowing this and also knowing that the front door to the Club was locked after the open-discussion and that entrance to the Club was via the passage, might not have thought the passage the least bit free from discovery.
My ultimate point is that Stride somehow got from the pavement to the passage. She did so either with the man who had assaulted her, with another person (the 'pipe-man') or on her own. But why would she have gone into the passage. For business? With the man who had just thrown her to the floor? For the solicitious attentions of another man?
Reviewing all this, one (of many possible) explanation that I keep returning to is that something was said which resulted in an otherwise unprovoked assault. There was a struggle. Stride was thrown to the pavement. Very simply, the man involved lost his temper and in anger assaulted Stride without realising that he was in front of a well-lit and noisy Club and two witnesses. When Israel Schwartz and the 'pipe-man' walked/ran away, the attacker dragged Stride into the passage and quickly killed her. Stride, I suggest, struck her temple on the pavement when she fell and in this dazed state she continued to hold the cachous, only gaining her senses a little when the killer pulled back her scarf to expose her throat. In a final moment of vain defence, she reached to her throat as the knife cut, blood gushing over he hand and wrist. Realising that he had been seen and, perhaps more importantly, that he was in a place where discovery was likely (a point of some importance if, as we may surmise, the victims took their killer to the place where they were killed; in this case of an unprovoked assault, the killer did not know whether the passage was where Stride did business and consequently didn't have any idea how safe it was likely to be), the killer fled.
Was the man the Ripper? Well, I suppose even the Ripper could have lost his temper. But this scenario explains why there were no mutilations, explains the time problem presented by Mrs Mortimer, and explains the possibly odd murder scene and the cachous.
I agree that we don't know whether anything more than 'Lipski' was shouted out - I have a theory that the attacker possibly shouted out something to the effect that Schwartz had attacked the woman just like Lipski or was another Lipski, meaning someone violent to women. That's why the second man, perhaps uncertainly, began to follow Schwartz, but may have thought better of getting involved when Schwartz began to run. Be this as it may, I personally don't think we have a hope in hell of ever determining whether Stride remained silent after being thrown to the pavement. Of course, if stunned from a blow to the temple…
And regarding your point that the Ripper knew the area well enough 'to avoid patrolling police (and Eddowes' murder suggests he did)', this wouldn't apply if the victims took the Ripper to the place where they were killed, and I suggest that they probably did (it is by no means impossible that the Ripper knew that the yard of 29 Hanbury Street was safe, but it is equally and perhaps even more likely that a local prostitute would have done, a conclusion I think slightly supported by the testimony of John Richardson).
Well, that's a lot more than I'd planned on writing. But thinking about Jack the Ripper sure takes your mind of the surgeon's knife... er, well, you know what I mean. See your all next week or sooner. |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 25 November 1998 - 06:23 am | | All the best wishes go with you, Paul, and a swift recovery. Don't ask the surgeon if his name is Jack though!
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 25 November 1998 - 08:09 am | | Let me add my best wishes, Paul, to Bob's. See you soon.
Yaz |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 01:28 pm | | Grapes or no grapes...that is the question. At least for me anyway. Did Lizzie Stride have grape stems/grapes loosely clutched in her hand as Martin Fido reports in 'The Crimes, Detection & Death of JTR'? He says that the police found grape seeds and skins scattered around and that the absence of any grape matter in her stomach was because she was fastidious and spit out the seeds and skins. I think I read that the grape thing was nonsense somewhere, but I wonder what everyone's input is on this subject.
Edana (Just keeping an oar in the water) |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 02:31 pm | | Hi Edana,
It is said that someone said (huh?) that they sold grapes to Lizzie shortly before she got the chop. Even a handkerchief she had was supposed to have been stained with fruit juice (let us believe it).
I don't know if Lizzie had all her teeth, but to separate the skin from the flesh was more Jack's thing as Lizzie's. I havn't heard about seeds and skins or stalks laying about. Maybe someone else knows more.
Bob |
Author: SKeenan
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 03:10 pm | | Hello Bob,
From what I've read the man who said he sold grapes to Stride was Matthew Packer. Further, I've also read that this "witness" lies like carpet. He was changing his story about the night of the double event even after Kelly's murder. I think his first account of that night is most plausible: "I didn't see anything." No grapes, no murder victims in his store. To back this up, there was no trace of grapes found in Stride's stomach.
Also, I have read that a newspaper reported having found grape stalks in Dutfield's Yard, but an author (I'm sorry I can't remember which one) writing on the subject proved it false. If somebody can help me fill in the blanks, it would be much appreciated.
SKeenan |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 03:58 pm | | Hey!
Sugden deals with the grapes of Stride issue pretty thoroughly in his Long Liz and False Leads chapters. Private detectives working for, I believe Lusk's community task force, claimed to have found a grape stalk in the drain in the yard -- police didn't verify it. One of the doctor's said her scarf might have had fruit juice stains on it -- but I think he was, shall we say, less than positive about his conclusion? The rest is as SKeenan says.
The only thing I know with any certainty found on or near Stride was a packet of certain nasty and unmentionable items that I refuse to even think about anymore, let alone discuss (weary grins)!
Yaz |
Author: SKeenan
Sunday, 20 December 1998 - 08:30 pm | | Hello all,
There are other discrepencies (?) between Stride's death and the others that make me ponder, but the main problem I have with accepting Stride as a ripper victim is the lack of strangulation. It's been mentioned before, but I think this is a pretty big deal. Strangulation was Jack's way of silencing the victim so she couldn't call out. Dutfield's Yard would be the ripper's potentially most dangerous and public location for a murder. Yes it was dark, but there was an open window right above the murder site where 20 or more people could have heard any sort of cry. At least two people actually saw attack begin. If there was ever a place for a ripper victim to be strangled, it would be here. Strangulation would be the ripper's best bet so as not to be caught. Yet Stride was not strangled. It is not simply an argument about M.O., here it is an argument about the murderer's lack of intelligence. Jack knew how to murder silently. This murderer did not.
The ripper proved with his other murders that he liked to escape after his mutilations. Why would he suddenly open himself up to being immediately discovered, caught in the act? The answer is that it was not the ripper. When JtR attacked, it was alone in the dark after "sweet-talking" the woman to go with him. Stride was attacked in public by a man who immediately assaulted her and then swore at potential witnesses (Schwartz suggested the man might have been drunk as well). Stride's murderer seems too "amateur" to have been the ripper. Not to sound crass, but maybe the man with the pipe was the ripper, and after seeing Stride attacked, he went and found Eddowes to prove what a real ripper kill looked like. Now how's that for a stretch?!
Rack 'em up,
SKeenan |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 20 December 1998 - 10:20 pm | | Hey, SKeenan,
The only clear-cut mention of strangulation of any of the traditional five victims is Chapman...which surprises me. If I am missing any evidence or testimony, someone please correct me. But it appears that, as far as what the murderer did to the victims' throats, that Chapman is the anomoly, NOT Stride.
As to effectively silencing a victim, Stride's murderer cut her windpipe as well as the left carotid. In fact, it seems he made a better cut of the windpipe in this case than he did the artery. This may be a stupid question -- but I'm no doctor, and maybe it is possible -- but how well can anyone whose windpipe has been cut in two make any sound at all? If the answer is effectively none, then once again JtR shows he knew his business...even in very risky situations.
When you say he "opened himself up to being immediately discovered" -- I don't quite follow. He was open to immediate discovery during all of his murders. Berner Street was no different. In fact, he had that small tunnel made by the passage from the street into the yard in which to kill.
How do we know JtR "sweet-talked" anybody? Prostitution is an act of solicitation, not coercion or persuasion...at least not on the part of the "john" or customer. It is just as likely JtR "allowed" himself to be persuaded to go with his victims. In Stride's case, neither she or her murderer went anywhere. Schwartz testified that the man stopped and spoke to the woman; but he does not and cannot say who spoke first. Why assume her attacker did? He may have simply been responding.
Stride was no more attacked in public -- as if a multitude were watching -- than any of the other victims. As far as we know from Schwartz, the attacker only knew that he and his victim were on the street at approximately 12:45. Schwartz comes along as a surprise. And then Schwartz is surprised by the man with the pipe. Hardly a crowd. And the man with the pipe has been standing in a doorway to a pub that's been closed for 45 minutes, watches the attack, watches Schwartz approach, and then comes out to do what...enlist Schwartz to aid the victim; try to engage Schwartz in conversation so he has company to slink away from the scene? No, none of this. He lights his pipe! What does that gesture tell us about this Third Man? How confident was Stride's attacker that he need only fear what Schwartz might do, NOT the Third Man? How is Schwartz handled by the attacker/murderer? He shouts an anti-Semitic name at him, intending what...to hurt Schwartz's feelings or to scare him away? What does the Third Man do to support frightening away Schwartz? We aren't sure. It seems he just started to follow Schwartz. It was only then that Schwartz decided to run. The summary does not say the Third Man ran after him, it only says that he did not follow Schwartz as far as he went (to the Railway Arch).
The press report has Schwartz saying the man was a little drunk. Since we have Swanson's summary, I see no reason to resort to a press report for info on the attack. The article may provide additional details, but it lacks the credibility of a summary of testimony given to the police...who, I feel safe in assuming, verified Schwartz's statement through repitition, looking for inconsistencies. The press took what it could get in a one-time interview under unknown conditions relating to the reliability of the translator who happened to be "at hand." And in discounting the press report, I'm also discounting the alleged Third Man weilding a knife and rushing at Schwartz -- certainly a cause to believe both men were together in the attack on Stride.
Yaz |
Author: Edana
Monday, 21 December 1998 - 09:47 am | | Ye Gods, Yaz, you've almost got me convinced of your 'two man' theory. You have made the scene very clear to me (not just you, but all who have contributed to this board). It's the time factor that makes me wonder if you're not hitting the nail on the head with this. If these two guys (or even just one of them) were just mugging poor Lizzie, then how did she end up dead so quickly thereafter? The only thing that makes me hesitate at this point is my gut feeling (sorry) that Jack was a loner. Ok, so if Lizzie was not a JTR victim, then those two guys must have been her killer(s)...and if she was a JTR victim, then those two guys must have been the ripper. Conjecture, conjecture..all is conjecture!
There was a thought that had occurred to me before I read your last post...that perhaps the man who yelled 'Lipski' at Israel, was not threatening him, but maybe used the term in a sort of 'in-joke' way...much like a lot of derogatory terms are used by those they are meant hurt as a sort of bonding thing. Ridiculous, I know, and I don't believe it for a second now that the scene is clearer in my mind. I think that the pipe-smoking man (sounds like an episode of X-Files)made Israel feel threatened to make him go away so that they could deal with Lizzie.
Edana (I'm just a ramblin' gal) |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 21 December 1998 - 11:07 am | | Hey, Ramblin' Gal (aka Edana),
I hope you or anyone else doesn't take my comments as trying to convince anyone of a two-man JtR. What I want to do is, in a real sense, start the whole investigation over, reviewing all the facts carefully, trying to find what happened to as much exactitude as we can achieve. I start out with the basic assumptions that the police did the very best investigation they could; the witnesses are generally reliable but any and all physical descriptions are useless 110 years (no one to confront the witness for a positive ID and no witness!); and that our brains have not grown larger or better than the ones employed by others in 1888...we just have 110 years of bitter experiences to add to their work.
In that light, nothing (no, not even the "Diary" -- I hear the wails already) should be thrown in the trash yet..nor raised as the ultimate solution (I shudder at using the word 'Final' with the word "solution"...historical sensitivity, I guess).
Suspects and theories should be noted and remembered, but momentarily shunted to the side. Let's question everything and test its validity and usefulness in solving the crimes (with no inference that anyone, then or now, was/is an idiot/fraud/liar because we ask questions of the evidence). Let's just try identifying which crimes fit a creature called JtR -- that seems hard enough! When the crimes are clear in our minds, THEN let's proceed cautiously into the more speculative phase of the investigation...identifying population groups of valid suspects, from which may emerge our nasty little JtR...or JtRs (partners, multiple-but-independent murderers, copy-cats, whatever).
That's what I'm learning to do, anyway. Which may explain why I seem so contrary to others, so often.
Yaz |
Author: Edana
Monday, 21 December 1998 - 01:35 pm | | Huzzah, Yazoo!
I am never convinced of the absolute truth of anything, so have no fear that I have taken your musings as gospel. I meant to emphasize that this message board has been helpful to me for visualizing things....and that everybody's input has been a joy for me to read. I truly have no belief in anything concerning the Ripper as of yet and I suffer from a very open mind, therefore I appreciate your stand on the subject. Let's stride forward!
Edana |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 03:53 am | | Hi all,
Back again for a few days.
I agree with Yaz's two-man theory, believing it to have good chances, although I tend to hold on to my 'apprentice' idea. Hey, Yaz, we could write more later in another topic.
On the Stride murder, has anyone made comparison with the apparent MO, or at least type of wound etc. there with those on Francis/Coles?
I just think of the possibility of Jack being dead/in jail/in asylum/abroad and his apprentice/croney carrying on the tradition with at least these two, either trying to assume Jack's laurels or in honour of his great master.
I am going to be away in the wilderness of Saterland (no computer, no net), Germany until the 4th Jan 1999 so wish Yaz, Avala, Edana,viper, Paul, Jeff (just to name a few) and all others with families and friends a very merry christmas and a happy and prosporous new year.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 09:53 am | |
We have headlines to make! People may forget us! (grins)
All the best wishes for a safe and happy holidays to you and yours, my friend.
Yaz
And we aren't that far apart concerning your ideas of the possible "partnership." Not enough to argue, but enough to someday make us explore the possibility more than we have. But first we have to determine who JtR killed (e.g., Stride and possibly Kelly). |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 03:15 pm | | Yaz -
It's good to see you're being just as stubborn about Stride as ever; God knows there have to be some constants in the world! I do want to quickly respond to your earlier note about the apparent lack of strangulation in the other canonical victims.
Discussion between Coroner Baxter and Dr Phillips at Annie Chapman's inquest do bring the opinion that she was strangled before her throat was slit to the forefront, and such "clear-cut" evidence does not seem to be extant in the other cases. But we can, I think, make educated guesses in the cases of Polly Nichols and Catharine Eddowes:
1. Nichols: most of the blood that left her body pooled into a puddle underneath her clothes, and the blood from her ghastly abdominal injuries collected within the wounds themselves. This leads us to consider that her heart was not pumping when her throat was slit and body plundered; in other words, she was strangled, lain down and attacked.
Dr. Llewellyn also noted that Nichols' face was swollen and discoloured, and her tongue slightly lacerated. This also tends to support the idea of her being strangled before her killer began his work.
2. Catharine Eddowes: as with Nichols, there was no blood to be found on her bodice or jacket, and blood clotted on the side of her neck as though it had dribbled there. Again, this would lend credence to the idea that her heart - which would power spurts of blood from a carotid artery - had been stilled before the Ripper began his loathsome work.
Nothing more than assumations, I admit, but I have limited medical experience; more neurology than pathology. Just a couple of thoughts to keep the pot going.
And by the by - can we break this discussion off to a new folder? There's so much here at the moment that I'm having difficulty accessing it; my computer tends to stall out about November 19. I'd do it myself, but my knowledge of computers is not much more above the level of stone knives and bearskins!
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 04:16 pm | | Hey, CM!
And who else might be clinging to their old constants re: Ms. Stride, eh? I won't push the strangled/not strangled angle...but we should keep it in mind that the evidence for it is circumstantial and may be misleading.
Yes, let's make a Part 2. I'll do it if the functionality is back. It seemed to have gone away a few days back.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 04:23 pm | | Er, on second thought:
Found this message from Stephen Ryder: "Use this board to discuss the victims of Jack the Ripper. Comments specific to certain victims should be posted under the first topic (Specific Victims), while all
other discussion should be placed under General Discussion. New topics can only be created under the "General Discussion" board. "
Sorry. No Part 2 possible.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 04:39 pm | | Hey again, CM,
A horrible thought struck me as I thought about the possible reasons for the relatively small amounts of blood found with certain victims. While the apparent small quantities might be explained by the proximity of the bodies near drains, or the inexactitude of the witnesses about how much blood was estimated to be found in clothing etc...remember what our sniveling little friend, the "Dear Boss" letter writer, wrote about saving blood in ginger bottles! Maybe?
Yaz |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 09:38 pm | | So near, but yet so far away.
David |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 11:31 pm | | Gee whiz, I give up. What is so near but yet is so far away?
Yaz |
Author: SKeenan
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 02:22 pm | | Hello all,
The evidence for strangulation is "circumstantial?" Hardly. Polly's face was discolored, her tongue protruding and lacerated, with a bruise on the left of her neck corresponding to a thumb and and abrasions on the right corresponding to the pressure of fingers. Eddowes face was puffy with the same abrasions on her neck. Kelly was too mutilated to discern, but if one includes Tabram just look at her mortuary photo. She was strangled too. All of this is hard physical evidence which does not have to be discounted.
As for Yazoo's contention that there was "hardly a crowd" in the street, he is correct. However, that is not what I meant. In the room with an open window right above the murder site there sat "a few dozen people" (Sugden p. 166) chatting. This is where the crowd was.
So if we accept Stride as a ripper kill, we are to believe Jack and Stride ended up in Dutfield's Yard. Jack can hear the crowd in the upstairs window right above him, and if he knows the yard he knows it's a cul de sac with only one means of escape. If Stride were to call out the people upstairs would hear and trap him with his victim in the yard. But Jack does not use his most effective technique, strangulation (which he has used time after time before and after), to keep Stride silent. Nor has he yet severed her windpipe before forcing her to the ground, for that would have left bloodstains all over him and the front of her dress (no such stains were found; she was attacked on the ground). No, Jack grabs Stride by the shoulders and forces her into the mud (corresponding pressure marks were found on Stride's shoulders). From the time Jack grabs her to the time she is on the ground Stride has enough time to at least scream. Fortunately for him she does not. But why does Jack take this chance in this area? This is my point. It wasn't Jack! Jack knew how to kill silently by strangulation. He did with Nichols, Chapman and possibly Tabram beforehand, and he would with Kelly and Eddowes (later that same night!) Dutfield's Yard is certainly the worst place for a murderer to decide to get creative. The only reason for Jack not to have strangled Stride is that he did not kill her. This lack of strangulation cannot be explained away. Faced with this, the other evidence (not circumstantial) that when used as primary evidence could normally be explained away, like a different knife, a less ferocious cut, no abdominal mutilations, the swearing at potential witnesses, all help when discussed secondarily. They all point to a murderer who was not known as Jack the Ripper.
Decking halls and making spirits bright,
SKeenan |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 03:28 pm | | Hey, SKeenan!
The evidence for strangulation of Nichols is inconculsive. And if we can't include Stride, I'm not yet prepared to argue on Tabram (though I think she may be a victim as well...just, first things first).
The Socialist Club was noisy...noisy enough that no one heard the three screams Stride did make per Schwartz. The killer also had the passage ( a small tunnel) in which to kill -- NOT the yard and NOT the street and NOT the sidewalk. He did throw Stride down. I say he did make the single six inch wound that partially severed her left carotid and cut her windpipe, so she was already bleeding from an artery, was on her side, when the windpipe was cut.
Hanbury was crowded as well and the time of the murder meant people in the house and neighbors were on the streets, in the next yard, and in their rooms above JtR's head! Mitre Square was as dangerous a trap as Dutfields, maybe more because of the TWO patrolling PCs, a third sleeping in a room backing on the square, and a fourth man who was an ex-PC! Talk about walking into the lions' den!
Eddowes and Kelly are too mutilated to discern evidence of strangulation.
That leaves the only CERTAIN victim of strangulation as Chapman.
If you don't think JtR changed his methods simply look across the victims from Nicholls (include Tabram and it is even more apparent) to Kelly. JtR changed...he did so with almost every kill he made; subtly, not enough in my mind to argue separate killers...but he changed.
In Stride's case, both the lack of (the seemingly unnecessary) strangulation and mutilations can be put down to the fact that he was interrupted by Schwartz. Schwartz's presence creates many problems for the killer. That is why the "double event" is important in my mind...so many unusual things happened, and only Schwartz seems to be a circumstance JtR didn't plan. The real, true "myth" about JtR -- that he was invisible and invincible -- breaks down with the "double event." But he was still never caught, and nothing substantial ever came from his 'mistakes' at Stride's murder. THAT is JtR, to me at least.
Yaz |
Author: Caroline
Wednesday, 27 January 1999 - 06:59 am | | Hi all!
Following the points made by Yaz about Stride’s murder on the Was Mary Kelly a Ripper Victim Part 2 board, I have been checking my JtR A-Z of 1996, which I finally managed to purchase yesterday!
I am going to use my imagination again to give a possible version of events that night:
JtR1 has already singled out Stride and made her acquaintance on one or more previous occasions.
JtR2 accompanies Stride, buys the grapes, later offering her some, which she refuses: “ain’t got the teef for ‘em, love, the skins are too tough and I can’t abide the pips! Oh my, you’ve got juice all over your mush, ‘ere, use my ‘ankie to wipe it orf.”
JtR2 becomes nasty at some point and starts his assault, but Schwartz is ambling towards them now and JtR1 spots the danger.
He calls out “Lizzie” (he is unaware of Schwartz’s inability to understand even a word of English, but Schwartz thinks he has heard the word “Lipski” because he may have heard the name before).
Then JtR1 chases Schwartz off (wielding his own knife at him for extra effect?).
This leaves JtR2 just enough time to finish Lizzie off (using her knife?), before others arrive on the scene.
Meanwhile, JtR1 trots off, intent on killing Eddowes. He uses his own knife for the purpose, carving initials into her cheeks, to incriminate his other half in case of repercussions. The writing on the wall also serves this purpose if JtR2 is known to be anti-Semitic and not very literate.
There! What did you think?
As I’ve said before, I’d like to know if any of my ideas can be shown to be nonsense, because they should all be modified until they fit the known facts precisely. Then my own ‘evidence’ can come into play, when I have checked it out to the best of my ability.
Love, Caroline |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 27 January 1999 - 02:12 pm | | Hey, Caroline!
A few problems for me (surprise, I know). And I always go by Swanson's summary of Schwartz's statement, not the newspaper accounts as I can't tell where they might have been wrong, mistranslating, or embellishing Schwartz's account. Maybe my issues go away if you accept the newspaper account.
From Schwartz's summarized statement, he followed the man who attacked Stride, who is seen meeting Stride, and then very quickly attacking her. There really can never be any way to corrobrate any other witness' testimony about various couples seen in the area and the man Schwartz saw. They appear to meet (possibly again, but that's conjecture) for the first time in front of Schwartz.
Also the second man never makes a move against Stride according to Schwartz.
Schwartz may not have spoken English, but he might have known the name Lipski, if it is East-European Jewish in origin (it might have been all he {could} understand -- which also happens to be an 1888 Whitechapel/East End anti-Semitic slur. There doesn't seem to be any confusion in 1888 over what was said, but what it meant.
Why would either JtR shout "Lizzie" at each other, or at Schwartz for that matter? Silence would have been better -- which leads me to conclude the attacker was upset, maybe startled, quite probably stupid, as well. The cry is especially stupid coming from the man attacking Stride, thus drawing more attention to himself.
It is unclear from Swanson that anybody actually ran after Schwartz at all. He was briefly followed at a walking pace, then Schwartz ran, then the man follows (the summary does not say he ran, but possibly is corroborated by the next statement...), but not so far as Schwartz.
I don't know about any initials on Eddowes' face or Kelly's arms. These things are in the eyes of the beholder unless the murderer draws some special attention to the form of the mutilation -- like Ramirez and his dopey pentagrams. Who is it that supposedly "sees" these initials in Eddowes' face or Kelly's arm? Do we have a way to visually check or are we interpreting verbal descriptions of the wounds?
I think Stride's silence after being thrown to the ground is ominous -- meaning that her throat and especially her windpipe were already cut by the time Schwartz passes. The Stride murder is essentially over once the murderer(s) notice they've been made by Schwartz -- who runs off, and they can't be sure if it's for a cop -- except if one/both robbed Stride of whatever money she made that night.
Just some thoughts.
Yaz |
Author: Anonymous
Wednesday, 27 January 1999 - 04:20 pm | | 12.45 a.m. 30th Israel Schwarz of 22 Helen (sic), 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. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road "Lipski" & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man who threw the woman down:- age about 30 ht. 5ft. 5in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands. second man age 35 ht. 5ft. 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.
It will be observed that allowing for differences of opinion between the P.C. [Smith] and Schwartz as to apparent age & height of the man each saw with the woman whose body they both identified there are serious differences in the description of dress:- thus the P.C. describes the dress of the man whom he saw as black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, while Schwartz describes the dress of the man he saw as dark jacket black cap with peak, so that it is at least rendered doubtful whether they are describing the same man.
If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered. At the same time account must be taken of the fact that the throat only of the victim was cut in this instance which measured by time, considering meeting (if with a man other than Schwartz saw) the time for the agreement & the murderous action would I think be a question of so many minutes, five at least, ten at most, so that I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer, although it is clearly the more probable of the two. |
|
|
|
|
