|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 March 22, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Elizabeth Stride:
Archive through March 22, 1999
Author: Karoline
Sunday, 14 March 1999 - 07:02 am |        | Caroline -
If you're serious about the question, I think you should E-mail me privately -
Karoline |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 14 March 1999 - 10:55 am | | This is, in the main, a reply to Paul Ingerson on the Barnardo/Stride connection. There realy isn't one - it is that, like so much else in this bewilderingly maddening case, the connection is based on proximity and a misunderstanding.
According to the good doctor himself (in a letter to the "Times," October 6), he had been at the lodging-house at 32 Flower and Dean Street on September 26. He was trying to convince the unfortunate women of the streets as well as the merely poor and destitute to allow him to take their children and raise them in a healthy, safe atmosphere, and in this particular place found the lodgers - as one might expect - talking about the Ripper.
He goes on to tell us that one woman, who seemed to be drunk, said "We're all up to no good, and no one cares what becomes of us. Perhaps one of us will be killed next!" It is only after this eerily prophetic statement that Barnardo tells us he had been to St. George's mortuary after the "double event" to assist in the identification of Elizabeth Stride. He writes, "I at once recognized her as one of those who stood around me in the kitchen of the common lodging house on the occasion of my visit last Wednesday week."
Please note that - "one of those." Barnardo never says that Stride uttered the broken words in the lodging house. He never says that he knew her, outside of brief facial recognition. She was simply standing there while he was speaking. It is the careless writer who allows the impression that Stride spoke her own memorial. Although, in fairness I will admit the scene is almost too good to be true, and were I plumping for maximum effect, I'd have had Stride say those words myself!
Steven - Tumblety, maybe, but D'Onston Stephenson? He's hardly genuine, and it's a pity Melvyn Harris can't see that.
Karoline and Peter - hear, hear.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Caroline
Monday, 15 March 1999 - 05:16 am | | Hi CM,
Can we use your idea re Stride and Barnardo in the film? Cracking idea, what?
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Difranco27
Monday, 15 March 1999 - 12:25 pm | | | May I ask what film? Sorry if that's nosey. |
Author: Difranco27
Monday, 15 March 1999 - 12:29 pm | | BTW, I opened a new conversation under specific witnesses, but no one has been there in quite a while. It may be silly, like a said, but I would love to hear ANYONE'S input.
thanx,
Sunshine |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 10:58 am | | Hi Sunshine,
Just day-dreaming is all.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Julian
Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 07:40 pm | | G'day Sunshine,
I'm on my way over now.
Jules |
Author: Difranco27
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 01:39 pm | | Thanks all!
Sunshine |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 05:43 am | | Hello All.
This is an old chestnut, but nevertheless one right at the heart of the case. I’ll just give a brief summary since the subject matter should require no introduction to any of you.
Until relatively recently Elizabeth Stride was accepted widely as a genuine victim of Jack The Ripper. However in recent years it has become fashionable to dismiss her from the sequence. Arguments have raged - including under this topic - and there has never been any final consensus.
Having for years accepted the conventional wisdom, I found myself moving to favour the revisionists last time round. The different location to the south of the Whitechapel Road; the lack of mutilation which accompanied the murder; the evidence that a different knife was used, and the apparent high profile of the killer, (if he was the man seen by Schwartz), when taken together all seem to point to a copycat killing.
Recently though, my thought pendulum has swung back. Suppose the conventional view of history is correct, that is the murderer was interrupted by Diemschutz. That would explain the main difference, namely the lack of mutilation. What’s more, it is very likely that the killer possessed more than one knife. In addition, the fact that Stride was found clutching those cachous suggests that she was killed completely by surprise, and not by the man who assaulted her. The clincher for me though is this:-
Those who dismiss Stride as a victim of JTR are asking us to believe that there were two knife murderers at work; that they shared an MO, (i.e. throat cutting); that they killed on the same night, within an hour of one another; that they did so within a mile of one another, and that both were sufficiently adept to escape capture.
As an occasional betting man I would love to know the odds that all those things are true. Do we have any statisticians out there? If so, are you able to calculate a probability, or do we come back to that other hoary old chestnut, the lack of reliable crime statistics?
Old topic I know, but hopefully a new take on it. Let’s see if we can reach a conclusion this time. And just for once, let’s see if we can reach it without any references to puppets, music, menus or Monty Python.
Regards, V. |
Author: Jeff D
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 08:32 am | | Hey Viper !
..... and yes, you have made some excellent observations regarding the Stride murder.
I'm a believer that Stride was not killed by the same hand that killed Eddowes, but always endeavour to keep an open mind, and you have made some very valid comments. Certainly the Ripper could have done Stride, however the history of events within Whitechapel that year, does tell us that there most certainly was more than one murderer at loose at the time.
Something that has always troubled me, is the fact that Strides murderer was very probably witnessed. He would have had no idea how good of a description Schwartz would have been able to give, but he knew very well, that he had been seen. Regardless of this, he still went ahead and killed Stride. Weighing up the two sides to this, the killer must have made a conscious decision, that being spotted by Schwartz, presented less danger to him, than leaving Stride alive.
What d'you think ?
Cheers All !
Jeff D |
Author: Calogridis
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 04:23 pm | | | Howdy from Texas! Wish we had more gas lamps down here. Seems like the Ripper probably killed Stride- I agree with Viper's probability theory. I've also been considering whether Michael Kidney was a complete innocent or not (e.g., Lusk kidney). Perhaps a row with Stride sent him off the deep end. This might also account for Stride getting off easy, and leaving him to vent his frustration on another unfortunate....Mike |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 05:44 pm | | Viper -
Curses! I thought we had you firmly in the pay of the "Stride wasn't a victim" camp! Is this how you treat the Mystic Knights of Whitechapel? Better watch to whom you utter your heresies, or you'll - whoops, I've said too much already. Just watch yourself, laddie.
And now, having gotten that off my chest. . .while I would certainly never dismiss Stride completely out of hand, the sticking point in her murder for me has always been Schwartz' sighting of the assault against her moments before her death. We've had discussions before on just how populated Berner Street was at that time of night, but even a causal look at the number of witnesses who testified seeing Stride (or someone very like her) in the hour before her death tells us the road was not completely deserted.
Now, if we accept that Annie Chapman and Mary Jane Kelly were both killed by the same hand, we see that their killer, though aware of witnesses, tried to ensure some privacy and silence before his murders. Would this man blatantly attack Stride in front of at least two witnesses, either of whom would - at such a time as that - be likely as not to fetch a policeman? I find it difficult, though not impossible, to accept.
Was Stride's killer in a drunken rage and determined to go ahead and kill her, capture be damned? Was he, as Jeff suggests, conscious that Stride dead was less of a threat to him than Stride alive? I wish I were sure of the answer. And while I won't discount Stride's canonicity out of hand, until someone can persudae me why - on that one occasion - her killer was determined to blatantly carry out his intentions, witnesses or not, I must lean a little towards excluding her from the grim tally.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 21 March 1999 - 09:14 am | | Thanks for your comments everybody.
Jeff,
As ever you are on the ball. Your observation, if true, can be interpreted as a point that favours the man who Schwartz saw attack Stride being her killer. Indeed, if this man were her murderer then he would certainly have feared identification, whether by Stride, by Schwartz or by the mysterious ‘Pipe Man’. It is impossible to read his mind of course, but with at least three people able to offer descriptions of him, maybe a quick thinking murderer decided that he couldn’t take the chance of leaving Stride (who had the best view of him) alive.
C-M
Sorry to disappoint you! However, when this topic last arose I don’t remember having expressed a view on the matter. I found the argument against Stride being a victim the more persuasive at that time.
My mind is by no means closed on the matter now. But my point was this. A few weeks ago on another board, one respected contributor was arguing that Eddowes left police custody for Mitre Square in order to meet the killer in an attempt to bribe him. I posted to the effect that whilst this scenario is not impossible, what is the real probability of it? Essentially, I am asking that question here. In fact we could apply it to other theories contained within the case too.
If we accept that the murders were not by the same hand, then we acknowledge that there was more than one blade murderer operating in Whitechapel in 1888. Of course this isn’t a new idea because most students have discounted Martha Tabram from the sequence in the past. But with the ‘double event’ we now have a conundrum; two murders, both involving throat cutting, perpetrated within an hour, in the same locality. For me the most likely explanation is that they were committed by the same hand. Otherwise we have to believe in a ‘coincidence’.
If we had all the necessary data, it must be possible for the mathematically minded to calculate the likelihood of said coincidence. I am not equipped to attempt it, realising that it is considerably more complex than the obvious ‘murders over days, times…’ stuff. This is an invitation to those out there who might have the capability to give the thing a try.
Doubtless, you’ll let me know if my thoughts are completely off-beam. All I seek is to subject the interpretations of 30th September to some objective measure of probability.
Regards, V. |
Author: Julian
Sunday, 21 March 1999 - 07:37 pm | | G'day Viper, Mike and of course CM.
Hey Mike, in regard to your comment about Ms Stride 'getting of easy' I suppose you might be right if taken in the context that she wasn't mutilated. On the other hand though I believe she would have been alive for one or two minutes after havong her throat slashed.
A few questions arise here though. If she was still alive, why didn't she do something/anything instead of just lying there? Was she already dead/unconcious before her throat was cut as has been indicated with the other murders?
CM, Are we positive that Stride's murderer was witnessed by two witnesses ie: Schwartz and 'Pipeman'? I'm still leaning in the direction that Pipeman was a lookout for the murderer of Lizzy mainly from the fact that he never came forward and that it is quite possible that it was he who 'chased' Schwartz off.
Viper, I think that we have to ackknowledge that there was more than one knife wielding lunatic around Whitechapel at the same time as Jack. The torso murder of Pinchin St would seen to indicate that as would the murder of Martha Tabram. However I get the feeling that you're talking about throat slashing/knife wielding murderers. Am I right?
Jules |
Author: D. Radka
Sunday, 21 March 1999 - 08:15 pm | | Jules,
Reading your post, I'm intrigued at the possibility that if Diemschutz's pony cart had come up Dutfield's Alley just a few moments earlier, we might have a REAL eyewitness account of the Whitechapel murderer, directly from one of the victims. If as you and others have said here is true, that Elizabeth actually lived for a moment or two after her throat had been slashed, this implies that whoever murdered her was in such a hurry to get out of there that he actually left her living. Further implications: Something apparently scared him out of there before he completed the job. Maybe he thought he heard someone coming up the alley, or out of the Jewish Workingmen's Educational Club, or Schwartz's pony's shoes on the cobblestones.
David |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Sunday, 21 March 1999 - 10:54 pm | | G'day David,
I can't remember where I got that information from but it was from a Drs report at the time that I found in something I was reading. The Dr said that it would have taken her between one and two minutes to have died from the injuries sustained. And yes, it does open a whole new world of thought, conjectures and 'what ifs'. for example: If Lizzy was still alive was it possible she wrote her killers initials in the mud somewhere? and if that was possible, was it possible for MjK to have written that FM on her wall?
But other thought arise too. Maybe she had frozen in sheer shock and couldn't move even when Diemshultz was prodding her. If this is the case then Jack (or her other murderer) was still in the yard at the time (as I believe).
Anyway, I'm not sure that this is going to lead anywhere but someone might have some ideas on what a dying person might do in their last minute of life, and that in turn might lead to some other answers.
Jules |
Author: Calogridis
Monday, 22 March 1999 - 12:08 am | | Jules,
You're right- I was stressing the fact that she wasn't mutilated like the others. But dead is dead so it probably didn't matter much from Stride's perspective. I don't think she would have been capable of anything after getting slashed (and she may have been throttled first)- certainly screaming wasn't an option.
Good question about the Pipeman. I can't figure out what his role was. Schwartz makes him look sinister but the jury's still out. If he was a lookout, he may have been the same dude lurking outside Mary Kelly's digs. However, I tend to go with the single psycho theory- no accomplices. Although, there's always the possibility of a collaboration like Pizer and Micheldy Joe (though unlikely) or a few thugs from the High Rip Gang. But I think the Ripper was a lone wolf. Thanks for the feedback!..Mike |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 22 March 1999 - 01:21 pm | | Julian:
If you read Ellery Queen or indeed other writers of the Golden Age, you would be astonished at the complexities of messages left by victims in their final minute of life! For example: Stride held a packet of CACHOU's in her hand because in her last minutes she had recognised her assailant as Albert CADOCHE (an imperfect anagram.) Want to start a new suspects board?
Peter. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 22 March 1999 - 02:39 pm | | Calogridis -
One of the problems with trying to ascertain the "pipeman"'s role in Stride's murder is that Schwartz himself gave us 2 completely different interpretations of the man and his actions.
In the report of Schwartz' statement to the police, Chief Inspector Swanson tells us that "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,' and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran so 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." (A-Z, pp. 385-386)
However, in the interview with him reported in the "Star" of October 1, we are told "Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off, and shouting some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in the second man's hand, but he waited to see no more." (A-Z, p. 387)
When Schwartz is speaking to the police, it seems as if the second man is simply standing on Berner Street having a smoke and watching what is going on across the road, moving away only after the first man calls out "Lipski." When Schwartz is speaking to the press, however, the wording is vague enough to make us wonder if the second man were rushing at Schwartz or Stride. The comment about "shouting some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman" and "rushed forward as if to attack the intruder" certainly leads us to think "pipeman" was chasing Schwartz. But I don't believe that is the only interpretation. The interview could lead us to think "pipeman" was going to Stride's aid and that Schwartz scurried away because he didn't want to get caught up in the quarrel.
Now, the immediate objection to this is "he couldn't have gone to help her, because Stride was murdered." True. And that being the case, we are left with one of three possibilities:
1. The second man was chasing after Schwartz because he thought Schwartz had attacked Stride.
2. The second man was the Ripper chasing off the first man, and he murdered Stride.
3. The second man was the first man's partner coming out to help him finish off Stride.
As before, it depends upon which version of events to believe. Was the second man standing on the street, or did he come out of a public house? Was he following Schwartz to make sure he didn't tell a policeman, leaving so as not to be involved, or chasing Schwartz? My own opinion would be to believe the police statement, as in such a time and with such a series of murders, the police would want to be very certain of Schwartz' actions and interpretations of what he saw. If Sir Charles Warren could take it upon himself to interview Matthew Packer, I think Swanson would be as duty-bound to get as precise a statement from Schwartz as he could.
So, on balance the probability is that "pipeman" was watching what he thought was a regular domestic quarrel and left after some sort of "wot you lookin' at?" was shouted at him. But there is always the intriguing possibility that Schwartz' "Star" statement was correct and "pipeman" came out of a public house after the first man had thrown Stride to the ground. If so, who was he chasing after and why did he do what he did?
Thoughts to ponder,
CMD |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 22 March 1999 - 03:30 pm | | Seems to me the statement taken by professional policemen takes precedence over that of a tabloid newspaper reporter. There are accounts of Jesus Christ having returned to earth to attend the recent Academy Award ceremonies in a tabloid sold at my local supermarket. Besides, the police were apparently able to obtain a decent Hungarian interpreter, whereas even the Star allows that their reporter had considerable difficulty talking with Schwartz. I'd go with account #1, therefore.
David |
|
|
|
|
