|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 December 10, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Elizabeth Stride:
Elizabeth ' Long Liz ' Stride:
Archive through December 10, 2000
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 05:28 pm |        | I read the Dave Yost article about Matthew Packer and it is very good , but it does not mention Tully's story about Packer being taken to view the Eddowes cadaver under the impression of it being Liz Stride. If this story is accurate , and Tully seems to be very accurate and has researched the case for many years , I think it provides compelling evidence that Packer did indeed see Stride. Does Dave know about the Tully story , it may make him change his mind a little about Packer's accuracy. One of the puzzling things about the Stride murder is that when observed by Schwartz , Liz screamed three times but not very loudly ( Sugden p.202 ). Could she have already been throttled or choked to some degree , this may have made speaking difficult for her and may account for her quietness ? Or could a punch in the stomach have had the same effect , this would leave no bruising either. |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 14 May 2000 - 08:32 am | | SIMON: Hi. Many of us call Dave -- Our Man in Berner Street. Yes, he knows about the "Tully story," and a hundred other things about Stride. I don't agree with all of Dave's conclusions on this area of the case, but after participating in discussions with him and others for months and months on Stride alone, I can say Dave has researched Long Liz in-depth. Now, that's not to say he knows more than Stewart, but hey, Stewart's got a 20 or 30 year head-start on most of us. ;-)
Dave's currently not posting on the boards, so you might not be able to get an answer from him directly.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 14 May 2000 - 12:39 pm | | That sure is an interesting wound under the arm. There aren't many ways that could have happened under the evidence, I'd wager. I can think of only a few:
1. It might have been caused by the murderer using the underarm as a kind of handle to get leverage to drag Liz around--possibly to carry her to the back of the gateway for the purpose of slitting her throoat there.
2. It might have been caused by a direct blow with the fist, or by a kind of karate chop. The underarm is a vulnerable area, and a sharp blow there can temporarily immobilize, which is what he might have wanted, if he wanted to transport Liz behind the gateway against her will.
3. It might have been caused by a kick, when Liz had her arm outstretched after having had her throat cut in the alley. But the autopsy stated Liz's jacket was clean, and since the alley was muddy, you'd expect to find mud on the jacket underarm if this had been done.
Can anyone else make a contribution here? Thanks!
David |
Author: Dave Yost
Sunday, 14 May 2000 - 07:31 pm | | Hi Simon, thank you for your kind remark regarding my thoughts on Packer.
Hi Chris, thank you also for your kind remarks.
Hi Ashling, long time and thank you as well. While quite true that I don't typically post on the boards, once in awhile the Berner Street Irregular likes to reappear when the Elizabethan Lamp is rubbed :-)
Simon, as Ashling stated, I am aware of the "story" in which Batchelor and Grand [Le Grand] take Packer to the mortuary, "On 4th inst, I [Sgt White] then went to 44 Berner St and saw Mrs Packer who informed me that two detectives had called and taken her husband to the mortuary. I then went towards the mortuary when I met Packer with a man. I asked where he had been. He said this detective asked me to go to see if I could identify the woman. I said have you done so. He said "yes", I believe she bought some grapes at my shop about 12.oclock on Saturday." (MEPO 3/140, folio 213)
Although to let you in on a secret, Simon. I don't read book's like Tully's for their views, but only for the information they offer - Tully's is excellent with respect to geographical data, albeit it's always a great idea to double check sources. Nevertheless, with respect to me changing my mind about Packer's "accuracy", I offer a few excerpts from the various essays I've written which have a bearing on this:
"Because of the Evening News article, Sgt White briefly re-interviewed Packer twice on 4 October. Before Batchelor and Grand whisked away their 'prize possession' to see Sir Charles Warren, Packer did tell Sgt White that he identified the body, believing she bought some grapes at about midnight. This is the first time Packer told the police he sold grapes to Elizabeth and her date." "Packer - Was He A Witness? Part I" published in Ripperologist, June 1999, no 23, pages 31-34 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/7020/yost23.html
"There seems to have been little outside influence on Packer with respect to the man's [the one who allegedly bought the grapes] aforementioned general appearance, as there had been with the man sounding like an American, with Richardson's portrait, and possibly with the 'Yankee hat'. The foregoing seems to suggest that not only did Packer see the couple, but probably spoke to the man himself, and that those were the details he distinctly remembered, which would account for his consistency on those points." "Packer - Was He A Witness? Part II" published in Ripperologist, August 1999, no 24, pages 26-28
"From the known information, I definitely assert that Packer closed up before the club's debate ended, that no couple was in the street when he did, and that his statement to Scotland Yard is the closest to the truth of what he did and/or saw that night." "Matthew Packer - Final Thoughts" published in Ripper Notes, November 1999, Vol1 No3, pages 10-14 http://www.casebook-productions.org/rn/vol1/rn3_article.htm
From studying various sources, I believe that Packer had most likely sold grapes to the man with Elizabeth that night, but Tully had no influence on this, only the prime material. Albeit I also assert the following: "Could there have been any potential value in Packer not only testifying at the inquest, but testifying accurately? Not really, since the grapes would have been bought about one and a half-hours prior Elizabeth's death. Even though a more accurate Packer statement aids us in better understanding the sequence of events, his actions have no bearing on Elizabeth's death, nor should this give any indication that her date was the murderer sought by the police." "Packer - Was He A Witness? Part II" published in Ripperologist, August 1999, no 24, pages 26-28
With respect to your comment about Stride possibly having been "throttled" in some way already, hence accounting for the not very loud screams, I would say, No. Schwartz "saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly." (HO/144/221/A49301C 8a.)
Schwartz states what was done to Stride while he was there - she was neither choked, hit, nor 'beat up', but instead she was turned around and thrown to the ground; Schwartz is very explicit on this. I would also caution against the use of such terms as "throttle" unless they truly apply, since they can subliminally lead astray by inferring concepts that don't exist or at least not to the degree that the term actually represents.
According to Cambridge International Dictionary of English web site -
throttle (THROAT) verb [T] to try to kill (someone) by pressing their throat so that they cannot breathe She had been throttled and left for dead. (informal) Sometimes he gets me so annoyed I could throttle him. (figurative) The reduction in funds is throttling (=preventing) the development of new programmes.
http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/default.asp?String=throttle
Here's Schwartz's statement as given by Ch Insp Swanson:
"12.45 a.m. 30th Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street [sc. Ellen St], Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road, and having gotten as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man 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 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[s]; comp., fair; hair, dark; small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak, and nothing in his hands.
"Second man: age, 35; ht., 5ft 11 in[s]; comp., fresh; hair, light brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat, wide brim; had a clay pipe in his hand." (HO/144/221/A49301C 8a.)
I also refer you to several related items that might be of interest regarding Stride that is on the CP web site:
(animated schwartz testimony / I Explorer preferable)
http://www.casebook-productions.org/explore/timelines/schwartz_testimony.gif
(stide's time line)
http://www.casebook-productions.org/explore/timelines/stride_elizabeth.htm
(stride's inquest)
http://www.casebook-productions.org/explore/inquests/elizabeth_stride.htm
"Elizabeth Stride - Her Killer and Time of Death"
published in Ripperologist, February 1999, no 21, pages 9-10
"The Identification of Elizabeth Stride"
published in Ripper Notes, March 2000, Vol1 No4, pages 11-17
http://www.casebook-productions.org/rn/vol1/rn4_article1.htm
David,
As for the 'wound' near the right arm pit as indicated in the previously provided pic, I refer to Dr Phillips, 3rd day of the inquest, "No recent external injury save to neck" (The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, October 4, 1888, page 5). Fairly self-explanatory and clearly indicates that such a wound was not caused that day, by either of the men seen by Schwartz or by anyone else, let alone her killer. And the autopsy stated, "Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud," Dr Phillips, 3rd day of the inquest (The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, October 4, 1888, page 5).
Jill,
I agree with everyone that these "wounds drawings" are quite excellent! I would be interested to learn, however, from where you obtained the information to locate that red mark by Stride's right arm pit. Or, is this the "abrasion of the skin, about an inch and a quarter in diameter, under the right clavicle"?
I also agree with Alex Chisholm that only one wound to the neck existed. Dr Phillips, 3rd day of the inquest, "On neck, from left to right, there is a clean cut incision six inches in length; incision commencing two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw. Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle, then becoming deeper, about an inch dividing sheath and the vessels, ascending a little, and then grazing the muscle outside the cartilages on the left side of the neck." (The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, October 4, 1888, page 5).
Dave |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 04:36 am | | Hi Dave,
I make the scetchings with a combination of post-mortem material gathered from few books (Sugden's,...) and the two Casebook websites, thus a lot of second-hand material, my anatomical knowledge (I have had 1 year of fysiology, and 4 years ergonomy and have been to weekend drawing school since I was 6) and when nothing precise enough located just what my gut tells me.
ABRASION:
"... there was an abrasion of the skin about one and a half inches in diameter, apparently stained with blood, under her right arm." The word UNDER if taken literary points to any body place alongside the arm or inwardside of the arm itself, nowhere near the clavicle/collarbone. Because there is no mention of torso or body in this sentence I deduct this as an abrasion on the arm itself. The statement of Schwartz gives a picture of how she was manhandled, certainly evidenced in her bruising. All this made me choose for the armpit.
I admit there is something strange with the abrasion: because I have the wordings "under the collarbone" in relation to the bruisings not the abrasion. Besides that I have an abrasion of 1,5 inches. You mention one of 1,25 inches. ???
I caution everyone about my schematices because ALL DRAWINGS ARE MY (INACCURATE) INTERPRETATIONS IN SO FAR THEY ARE NOT GUESSES. Besides sharing these interpretations, I posted the drawings to discuss their inaccuracy, and thus try to enhance them as much as possible.
NECK WOUND:
"...clear-cut incision on the neck. It was six inches in length and commenced two and a half inches in a STRAIGHT LINE below the angle of the jaw, one half inch in over an undivided muscle, and then becoming deeper... and DEVIATED A LITTLE DOWNWARDS."... "cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and TAILED OFF to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw." (Phillips’ post-mortem testimony)
Dr. Blackwell’s evidence “The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 ½ in. below the angle of the jaw, and ALMOST IN A DIRECT LINE WITH IT [the jaw]. It nearly severed the vessels on the left side, cut the windpipe completely in two, and terminated on the opposite side 1 ½ in. below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.” (Times 3 Oct)
Dr Phillips, 3rd day of the inquest, "On neck, FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, there is a clean cut incision six inches in length; incision commencing two and a half inches in a STRAIGHT LINE below the angle of the jaw. Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle, then becoming deeper, about an inch dividing sheath and the vessels, ASCENDING a little, and then grazing the muscle outside the cartilages ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE NECK." (The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, October 4, 1888, page 5).
How do I have to interprete the STRAIGHT LINE or the IN DIRECT LINE WITH IT? Following the jaw line or a horizontal line? My first interpretation is "following the jaw line". But since I could be wrong, what is your's? The mentioning of DEVIATING A LTTLE DOWNWARDS could refer to a horizontal cut.
But is the wound deviating downwards? Because according to the Daily Telegraph it is ASCENDING A LITTLE!
The information of the Daily Telegraph is very confusing because the sentence commences with FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, but ends with the left location. The first bit of wound description refers indeed to the left side of the neck, clearly the same location as described in the other ones. But it also ends with the CARTILAGES ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE NECK. This means that the Daily Telegraph description is speaking only of a 6 inches cut commencing on the left side where the jaw line starts, trails along the neck, at some point going upwards or downwards, and finishes at the FRONT of the neck on the LEFT side of it. In short a left sided wound, described from the most left in a rightward direction.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 15 May 2000 - 04:34 pm | | Thank you for replying to my post Dave , I shall look forward to the second part of your article with interest ! I think the newspaper package seen carried by the suspect with Liz , by PC Smith , also supports the theory that someone had bought grapes who was seen with Stride. What could this have been ? Probably some kind of foodstuff or chandlery quickly wrapped up in a newspaper bag , I'd say it was food as what else would you buy on a date ? It was cold and late and they probably felt like something to eat , or at least one of them did. The package could well have been grapes , there being a shop open late selling such fruit nearby. I have a soft spot for Stride too , when I made my tour of the Ripper sites I personally felt that the Berner Street one was the most moving of them all , I can't explain why. Perhaps because a school playground is now on the site and the street seems pretty normal with flats and shops - a powerful contrapoint to the events of 1888 there. I will post my portrait of Liz to this board at some future date. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 03:35 am | | Jill and Dave,
"The throat was deeply gashed, and there was an abrasion of the skin about 1½in. in diameter, apparently stained with blood, under her right brow."
"The apparent abrasion which was found on washing the flesh was not an abrasion at all, as the skin was entire underneath..."
"The throat was deeply gashed, and there was an abrasion of the skin, about an inch and a quarter in diameter, under the right clavicle."
"The abrasion which I spoke of on the right side of the neck was only apparently an abrasion, for on washing it, it was removed, and the skin found to be uninjured."
Whether the "abrasion" was on the brow, clavicle, neck or under the arm is unimportant as there was no abrasion to begin with. As Dr. Phillips stated, "There was no recent external injury save to the neck."
Wolf. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 16 May 2000 - 06:18 am | | Many Thanks Wolf
a new image then:
 |
Author: Stephen Keen
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 09:58 pm | | Like many others on the board, I was struck by the difference between Elizabeth Stride’s murder and those of the other victims. I could not read the post-mortem without jumping to the conclusion that this was not the Ripper’s doing. However, after more reflection, I’ve concocted a theory that suggests that the murder might be consistent with the other murders; particularly the murder of Kate Eddowes later that night.
The premise of my theory is that the Ripper set off on the night of the “Double Event” intending to mislead the police by planting clues. Starting at the end, I believe that the Ripper intentionally cut off and left a piece of Eddowes apron at the Wentworth Model Dwellings. It’s unlikely that he “accidentally” dropped the apron; he managed to commit the other murders without leaving any tokens behind. It’s more likely that he intended to link the “writing on the wall” to the murder at Mitre Square. The writing implicates the “Juwes.” [In fact, it you take out the double negatives “not” and “for nothing,” the message says that “The Juwes are The men That Will be Blamed.”]
According to Sudgen, the police “read the chalk message as a deliberate subterfuge, designed to incriminate the Jews and throw the police off the track of the real murderer.” (p. 255) This is buttressed by the fact that the prime suspect, “Leather Apron” Pizer, was at large until after Chapman’s murder. However, the police permitted him to testify at Chapman’s inquest on September 12 “to clear his name in public.” (p. 144) Until this point, the Ripper knew that the police were on the wrong track; after this, he may have felt a need to mislead them.
So if the Ripper intentionally planted evidence from the Eddowes murder to implicate the Jews, could this also explain the Stride murder? The murder occurred in a yard next to the International Working Men’s Educational Club, “mainly patronized by Russian and Polish Jews.” (p. 165) What are the implications if the Ripper chose this location for a murder, in order to implicate the Jews?
First, it would explain the unusual location of the murder. I’ve noticed several posts that comment on how this site seems unlike the others. It is also the only site south (if I’m reading Sudgen’s map correctly) of Whitechapel St. (Unless, of course, Frances Coles was a victim).
Second, it would explain why the Ripper forced Stride into the yard (assuming Swanson’s synopsis of Schwartz’s testimony is accurate). He needed to commit the murder in the yard. Once he found a victim he could handle in the vicinity, he needed to seize the opportunity, even if this entailed greater risks than the previous murders. So, having gotten Stride to the gateway, he had to get her through, even if there were witnesses.
Third, it could explain why the Ripper yelled “Lipski” at Schwartz. If we assume that the Ripper knew Schwartz had seen him attack Stride, yelling the name of a Jewish murder could only further implicate the Jews and throw the police further off track.
Fourth, if we assume that the Ripper knew someone had witnessed his attack, this would explain the lack of strangulation and mutilation of Stride’s body. Under my theory, it is Schwartz, not Diemschutz, who surprised the Ripper, while Stride was still alive. The Ripper could not leave a witness, and needed a quick, clean kill. He knew how to cut throats, so he cut open the left carotid, but not completely, directing the blood away from him. He also cut through the windpipe to prevent any further noise from the victim. Otherwise, he tries to keep his hands as clean as possible.
As soon as the Ripper’s done with her throat, he’s up and out of the yard before Schwartz comes back with the police. Only Schwartz never comes back, so Diemschutz finds Stride’s body.
Under this theory, the other man with the pipe is just a by-stander. He also sees the altercation, and sees Schwartz running away. He follows Schwartz because heading the other direction would take him back past the Ripper. I think it most likely that the newspapers embellished Schwartz’s story by putting a knife in the second man’s hand. I just cannot imagine Swanson ignoring this point if it was in Schwartz’s original statement to the police.
So does this seem to hang together? Or are there holes that I’ve missed? Also, has any one else suggested something along this line? I look forward to your thoughts. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 10:24 pm | | Hello Stephen:
I like your line of reasoning. Your inclusion of Liz Stride in the Ripper series also agrees with the thinking of Nick Danger, who believes that the so-called "short knife" that was believed to have been used in the Stride case may not actually been short but only seems so because it could only be measured against the cut to her neck and not against abdominal mutilations as in the other murders. In addition, Yazoo (Mark Warren) some time ago had tried to link all the Jewish references as you have. Although we can't be sure there was a connection to the Jews there are certainly a lot of such references in the case which makes you wonder if there was a link. Did you also know that Liz Stride spoke Yiddish?
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 12:21 pm | | Chris - are you sure Stride spoke Yiddish? I thought the only reference to this came from Michael Kidney's testimony (although I admit that if she did char work for Jews, she might have picked up the odd tzimmis and mazeltov here and there).
Stephen - an interesting theory, and one that holds an appeal for me, as I have been questioning Stride's canonicity for a while now. Do you, however, consider that the Ripper's planting of the apron at WMD was preplanned - that is, he saw the graffiti earlier that day and returned to it after Eddowes' murder - or that he not only dropped the apron but wrote the message as well?
CMD |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 06:21 pm | | | I have said right along that I thought Jack was an antisemite. The cry of "Lipski" the Goulston Street graffito, the murder conducted just outside the Jewish club all point in that direction. One wonders, then, why none of the victims was Jewish. Could he have hated them so much that he wouldnt even endure the contact necessary to murder them? Jack must have been really repulsive. A misogynist, a murderer, a pervert, and a racist. Yech! |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 06:27 am | | Hi, CMD:
In the matter of whether Liz Stride spoke Swedish, I know I have read it somewhere, and you might be right that this comes from Michael Kidney's testimony. Let me check around and I will get back to you on it.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 06:29 am | | Hi CM:
Of course Liz Stride spoke Swedish! She was Swedish, silly me.... The perils of posting fast before I run off to catch the train to my new job in Washington DC. I mean in the matter of whether she spoke Yiddish, I will get back to you on my source for this information.
Chris |
Author: NickDanger
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 10:43 pm | | Hi Chris and Christopher-Michael,
Right now I can't lay my hands on the source(s) for the fact that Elizabeth Stride spoke Yiddish but I doubt that it would be in any way unusual especially if she worked for Jews and needed to communicate with them. The East End was virtually awash with Yiddish, spoken, printed and written.
Just as an illustration of this from an American viewpoint, James Cagney said he learned Yiddish growing up because he lived on Delancey Street which was in the heart of the Jewish Lower East side of New York, the equivalent of London's East End. Now, I would have taken this to mean that he merely picked up a few phrases here and there, but there is a film clip which is often shown in various TV bios of Cagney that show him playing a cab driver speaking in rapid fire Yiddish to a customer. True, the great Cagney could merely have memorized the lines, but the pronunciation and inflection are spot on! I always knew he was among the greatest of actors but that film clip floors me every time I see it.
It sometimes seems to me that the Jewish Connection permeates almost every aspect of the Ripper case but I think that's because it's difficult for us to have a clear view of the environment that the events took place in. Certainly we know what happened, to whom and where but the aura of the immigrant East End itself is hazy to us.
In this connection I must make a bit of a confession. My Grandfather and father both worked for what was then the largest Yiddish language newspaper in the world, The Jewish Daily Forward founded by Abraham Cahan (author of The Rise of David Levinsky and a friend of H.L. Mencken). It still exists as a weekly but is mostly in English. Some of you may have heard of the Bintel Brief which, loosely translated, means 'bundle of letters'. A collection of these letters was published in book form some time back. The recent Yiddish speaking immigrants would write to the paper asking all kinds of questions about how to adapt to their new environment. The questions ranged from whether they should let their male children play baseball (an enthusiastic yes) to how single young women should conduct themselves with suitors.
I grew up in the suburbs of Long Island and while my father commuted to work on the Lower East Side, I as a hip, modern baby boomer wanted nothing to do with that type of culture. I used to like to go to work with my father so I could play around with the typsetting equipment in the composing room, but I was not much more interested in that. I had my first summer job at the Forward when I was fifteen, as shipping clerk and messenger but I NEVER wanted to learn the Yiddish language. That was the language of the ghetto and the tenements and was just too retro for a hip, young guy like myself. I will spend the rest of my days regretting it. I can read a little bit and can pronounce the words but I will never be able to fully appreciate the wonderful expressiveness of the language except in translation.
I was always made somewhat uncomfortable by the labor socialists that inhabited the building since they seemed to speak mostly in Yiddish (some could ONLY speak Yiddish) and it was difficult to get to know any of them. I saw Isaac Bashevis Singer there and Eli Wiesel (he was friendly to me but had the saddest eyes I'd ever seen even when he smiled). But I was never OF the place, if you know what I mean. In the years since then I've often wondered if any of the old men who worked there and came from many different countries, including the UK, remember reading Phillip Krantz's Der Arbeiter Fraint or knew of the International Workmens' Educational Club.
Sorry to carry on so long, but the Jewish/Yiddish connection to the case seems to pluck a lot of my own personal strings and I thought I'd share a little of it with the message board contributors.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Stephen Keen
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 10:09 pm | | CMD-
I think it more likely that the Ripper wrote the graffiti. First, DC Halse testified "I came through Goulston Street at 20 past 2," without seeing the apron or the graffiti. (Sugden, p. 182) Halse knew that about the Mitre Square murder, so he should have been attentive. Yet PC Long discovered the graffiti and the apron "at about 2:55." (p. 183). Long had also come up the street about 2:20. So the Ripper had plenty of time to plant the apron and write the graffiti.
Second, the graffiti resembles the letter that accompanied what may have been Eddowes' kidney. The letter shares the crudely misspelled words and broken punctuation. We'll never know if the hand writing is similar, because they washed off the graffiti.
If the Ripper chose to send the kidney to the Mile End Vigilance Committee, this may further support my theory, insofar as "Jews were also prominent" in the Committee. (p. 123)
The time line of the “Double Event” fascinates me. Stride is discovered at 1:00 a.m.; Eddowes at 1:44. The Ripper drops the apron on Goulston St. between 2:20 and 2:55. "The murderer could have reached Goulston Street in five minutes from the square . . . ." (p. 187) Did he have his escape route planned out? Could he observe and time the police beats? Did he change clothes? It's the timing that makes me think it was deliberate, that he enjoyed being the mouse that could escape the cats.
Diana-
If the Ripper were anti-semitic, he would have had plenty of company in Victorian London. This is the premise of my theory: regardless of how the Ripper felt about Jews, it was useful to feed the anti-semitic flames and keep the police and the public off base. Hence, he chose a Jewish building to "plant" evidence.
Your observation on the absence of Jewish victims is interesting. At this point, I cannot discern any pattern in the victims that random selection could not explain. The Ripper sought to kill women, in Whitechapel, between midnight and sunrise. To avoid detection, he had to find women who would agree to accompany him, alone, into secluded areas. The weaker/drunker, the better.
Given these criteria, I'm wouldn't be surprised that the Ripper's potential victims were limited to the most distitute prostitutes in London. So far as I can tell, the characteristic shared by all these women was that they'd rather spend what little they had on a drink than a doss (even Mary Kelly was on the verge of being thrown out). In Whitechapel, in 1888, how many of these women were Jewish? If the number was small, then selecting a Jewish victim would have been rather unlikely. If the number was large, then it’s more likely that he was avoiding them. I don't know where to find this sort of data.
Regnad Kcin,
Keep your third eye peeled.
Best to all,
Steve |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 01:42 pm | | Did Jewish women regularly prostitute themselves in Whitechapel? If they did, the absence of a Jewish victim may be important. I always thought that Jewish women did not prostitute themselves. I would much appreciate an historical perspective, if anyone has one.
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 05:00 pm | | Exactly, David. I got punted yesterday while
drafting a message to point out that according to
workhouse and infirmary records listing
occupations and creeds, virtually all
'unfortunates' were Anglican or Catholic. If
memory serves me aright, I only ever saw two
Jewish women described as unfortunates in a very
extensive examination of (very dusty and filthy)
East End workhouse records from c.1887-c.1892. So
I fear one can't base any theory of ethnic
selection on victims who were clearly selected for
their profession and the availability that gave
them.
Martin Fido |
Author: NickDanger
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 05:51 pm | | Hi all,
On the subject of Jewish women being prostitutes, for what it's worth, I can offer an American parallel what with the many similarities between London's East End and New York's Lower East Side. Far from being uncommon, prostitution among Jewish women was a major problem in the Lower East side of New York. I read some statistics somewhere (sorry, I forget the source right now) about the number of female Jewish prostitutes on Allen Street alone. The numbers were staggering. While there are major religious proscriptions against prostitution, poverty creates it's own imperatives. We also have to understand that not all residents of these Jewish immigrant communities were particularly religious. I will try to locate the source for the statistics. It may have been in Herbert Asbury's The Gangs of New York (1928).
Steve -
At last someone remembers! Perhaps we can split a pizza to go with no anchovies!
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 08:52 pm | | Hi David
While acknowledging the scarcity of Jewish unfortunates in Martin’s findings, and broadly agreeing with his conclusion, it seems that Jewish prostitution was perceived to be a problem by some respectable members of the community.
Page 206 of Fishman’s East End 1888 quotes from the Jewish Chronicle, during July and October 1888, where the Jewish Association for Preventive and Rescue Work among Women lamented, “a dark side of Jewish life...Most of these unfortunates are foreigners, and immediately on setting foot in England have been entrapped and ruined by miscreants who are ever on the watch for easy prey.” While a Mr. Zeffertt expressed the anxiety of City men unable to “pass through Liverpool Street and other parts of London, without witnessing the degradation of our sisters”, warning that “the amount of immorality daily growing among the women is a blot upon our community at large.”
Accepting an element of exaggeration here, and that the percentage of Jewish unfortunates may have been small in comparison to unfortunates of the Anglican or Catholic persuasion, there seems little doubt that Jewish women were walking the streets in 1888.
Best wishes
alex |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 10:35 pm | | Hi all. Perhaps the Jewish women somehow earned more and thereby kept themselves out of the workhouses. Anyway, I mainly wanted to ask a question ... What information was put on a prostitute's arrest sheet? Name, age, address? Anything else? Were they asked their religious beliefs?
Janice |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 05:52 am | | ALL!!!!!,
LETTER CARVINGS FOUND ON MARY'S FACE
I redirect you to the post of George Sitouriou 6/14 7:30 pm under Topics->Ripper Victims->Markings on Mary Jane Kelly
Can anyone confirm this finding seperately on the photograph this person meant? Can anyone confirm the finding on pre-diary photograph version? Or is this a prank?
He found the word 'FIVE' carved up in Mary's face. This could have major impact on either the inclusion or exclusion of Stride or Martha. |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 08:49 pm | | Alex,
Thanks so much for the information. Much appreciated!
David |
Author: Elizabeth Long
Friday, 23 June 2000 - 09:54 pm | | Hi,
I'm just curious about the witness name Elizabeth Long for the Annie Chapman Murder...is it coincidence that Elizabeth Stride "AKA Liz Long" was murdered just a couple of weeks later. Anyone know of any research into this? |
Author: Jon Smyth
Friday, 23 June 2000 - 10:06 pm | | | The AKA was 'Long Liz'....and what kind of connection do you suggest? |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 08:31 am | | G'day,
I reckon it was 'Striding Along'!
Jules. |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 03:58 pm | | Hello,
Can anybody help me with a matter that has been puzzling me for a some time.My confusion is with who actually found Stride's body first.Most of the books I have read say that it was Diemschutz at about 1.00am.But after checking the A-Z,I learned that Gilleman had seen the body five minutes earlier,gone into the club and announced that there was "A dead woman in the passage".
On hearing this, Morris Eagle and Isaacs Kozebrodsky went outside to see the body.
Diemschutz's account of events seems to be very similar.He discovers strides body in Dutfield's yard at roughly 1.00am [marked by the tobbaconist's clock in commercial road],he then enters the club informing various members of what he has seen and is followed back into the yard by a group of people inluding the same Morris Eagle and Mr.Isaacs Kozebrodsky. Is this just an error in the A-Z? Can anyone clarify?[are you there Martin Fido?].
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 05:43 pm | | | I think Diemschutz told Gilleman and then Gilleman told Eagle and Kozebrodsky. Any other offers ? |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 08:44 pm | | Gilleman WAS Diemschutz.
David |
Author: alex chisholm
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 11:31 pm | | Hi Mick
Peter Turnbull, in his “The Killer Who Never Was,” has made a case for Gilleman finding Stride’s body, but this for me is founded on a misinterpretation of sources and an over reliance on the precision of timings given.
In the Times 2 Oct. Eagle claims to have returned to the club at “about 25 minutes to 1.” And then states, “I had been there about 20 minutes, when a member named Gilleman came upstairs and said, ‘There is a dead woman lying in the yard.’”
This, together with the weight of other evidence (which I won’t bore you with here), points to Gilleman merely being one of the members on the ground floor of the club to whom Diemschutz imparted his news. And, rather than finding the body himself, Gilleman simply related Diemschutz’ discovery to Eagle and other members on the upper floor of the club.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Michael Lyden
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 04:52 pm | | Thanks chaps.
David, your answer was short and to the point-can you elaborate?
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 26 June 2000 - 12:47 pm | | Mick, Alex, Simon and David, Alex and Simon are right of course, Gilleman, or Gidleman according to The Daily telegraph October 2, did not find the body but merely informed those club members who were on the second floor, (or first floor if you prefer). Confusion seems to stem from Peter Turnbull's rather confused article, "The Killer Who Never Was", from Jakubowski and Braund's The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper. Turnbull seems to have muddled the details of Diemschutz, Eagle and Gilleman/Gidleman's actions for that night when he states that Gilleman/Gidleman had "returned to the yard after walking his young lady home", when it was Morris Eagle who had done this. How or why he jumped to the conclusion that Gilleman/Gidleman had been the first to discover the body when the newspaper reports of the inquest show otherwise, is beyond me, but he wasn't the first.
The London Weekly Herald of 5th October 1888, offers this recreation of the events,
About five minutes to one o'clock on Sunday morning a youth, about twenty years of age, named Joseph Koster, was accosted by a little boy, who came running up to him as he was passing, on the opposite side, 40 Berner Street, used by the International Socialist Club, and told him that a woman was lying in the gateway next to the club with her throat cut. Koster immediately ran across the road, and saw a woman lying on her side in the gateway leading into Dutfield's stabling and van premises. The gate, which is a large wooden one, was partly opened, and the woman was lying partly in the street. He immediately rouses the neighbours, and, by the aid of a candle, it was seen that the woman's throat was cut open very nearly from one ear to another...
Wolf. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 02:48 am | | Mick, Alex, Simon and David, Alex and Simon are right of course, Gilleman, or Gidleman according to The Daily telegraph October 2, did not find the body but merely informed those club members who were on the second floor, (or first floor if you prefer). Confusion seems to stem from Peter Turnbull's rather confused article, "The Killer Who Never Was", from Jakubowski and Braund's The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper. Turnbull seems to have muddled the details of Diemschutz, Eagle and Gilleman/Gidleman's actions for that night when he states that Gilleman/Gidleman had "returned to the yard after walking his young lady home", when it was Morris Eagle who had done this. How or why he jumped to the conclusion that Gilleman/Gidleman had been the first to discover the body when the newspaper reports of the inquest show otherwise, is beyond me, but he wasn't the first.
The London Weekly Herald of 5th October 1888, offers this recreation of the events,
About five minutes to one o'clock on Sunday morning a youth, about twenty years of age, named Joseph Koster, was accosted by a little boy, who came running up to him as he was passing, on the opposite side, 40 Berner Street, used by the International Socialist Club, and told him that a woman was lying in the gateway next to the club with her throat cut. Koster immediately ran across the road, and saw a woman lying on her side in the gateway leading into Dutfield's stabling and van premises. The gate, which is a large wooden one, was partly opened, and the woman was lying partly in the street. He immediately rouses the neighbours, and, by the aid of a candle, it was seen that the woman's throat was cut open very nearly from one ear to another...
Wolf. |
Author: alex chisholm
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 04:06 pm | | Hi Wolf
Without wishing to try and second guess Peter Turnbull’s reasoning, it seems from his book that he takes Eagle’s approximate timings to be precise and from this erroneously reads “Gilleman came upstairs and said...” as Gilleman discovered the body five minutes before Diemschutz entered the yard. In order to sustain this interpretation, he dismisses contradictory testimony as evidence of a collective desire to perpetuate the ‘double event’ scenario in which Diemschutz disturbed the murderer.
I think the Koster tale provides a good example of the confused and conflicting accounts presented in the press, especially in the days immediately following a murder.
The Times, 1 Oct., mentions ‘Costa’ in passing as an indication of ‘conflicting statements’ before detailing Diemschutz’ version under the heading of ‘Another Account.’ But other dailies seem to travel an even more tortuous route.
The Liverpool Daily Post of 1 Oct., carries the Koster story in full as you have it from the London Weekly Herald of 5 Oct. It then presents the statement of “Abraham Heshburg, a young fellow living at 28, Berner-street. ... one of those who first saw the murdered woman,” at “about a quarter to one o’clock” by his reckoning.
Heshburg confidently asserts, “No, the body was not found by Koster, but by a man whose name I do not know – a man who goes out with a pony and barrow, and lives up the archway, where he was going, I believe, to put up his barrow on coming home from market. He thought it was his wife at first, but when he found her safe at home he got a candle and found this woman.”
Duly corrected the Post then proceeds to give the accounts of Diemschutz, Eagle & co. As all this appears in the same issue, it does make one wonder why the paper plumped to lead with Koster’s account. Still, never mind the quality, feel the width.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 09:44 pm | | Michael,
As a Beggian Ripperologist, it is always my pleasure to assist anyone questioning sincerely to see by the light of my master. Here, then, is Mr. Begg's position on the subject of Gilleman, from his article "Gilleman-Finitum" in Ripperologist issue # 13 (October, 1997), pages 12-13:
"The sequence of events as we have them...is that Louis Diemschutz, the club steward, having discovered the body in the yard went into the club, raised the alarm and fetched a candle. He then went 'down' to the yard in the company of a man named Isaac who, according to the testimony of Morris Eagle, had been upstairs in the company of Eagle when Gilleman, otherwise described as 'the steward', informed them of the discovery of the body.
"It is always possible that Gilleman was one of the men downstairs when Diemschutz announced his discovery, that he went upstairs and broke the news to Eagle, Isaac and others, and that Eagle and Isaac then returned downstairs, where Isaac accompanied Diemschutz into the yard. We may explain the use of Gilleman/steward by either accepting Peter Turnbull's suggestion that steward could be taken as meaning committee member or by the simpler expedient of assuming that Eagle confused the discoverer of the body with the man who informed him of the discovery of the body. Frankly, though, I think it is more likely that Diemschutz and Gilleman were one and the same person. But the identity of the person who broke the news of the discovery of the body to those in the upstairs room is not the important point here. What is really important--and is the crux of Mr. Turnbull's argument--is the question of who discovered Stride's body and when. Was it Diemschutz, as accepted at the time and by almost everyone since, or was it discovered five minutes earlier by someone called Gilleman? The testimony of the witnesses seem to make it clear that Stride's body was discovered by Diemschutz, who alerted other club members of his discovery when he entered the club to fetch a candle. Nobody says that they were alerted prior to Diemschutz's announcement.
"At the risk of introducing yet further confusion with yet another potential discoverer of the body, additional evidence that Diemschutz found the body is to be found in an interview with a man called Abraham Heahbury (Yorkshire Post 1st October) who said: 'No, the body was not found by Koster, but by a man who goes out with a pony and barrow...' and went on to describe a man who was clearly Diemschutz."
There you have it Michael, and a thinner line of English I've not read.
David |
Author: alex chisholm
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 10:40 pm | | Hi David
While Paul’s scenario is certainly a possibility, I don't think it is the most likely conclusion to be drawn from the variety of evidence. In newspaper interviews Eagle is reported as referring to Diemschutz by name, which suggests that this was the name he knew him by. And in the Telegraph account of Stride's inquest Eagle names Gidleman, in this instance, and then goes on to name Diemschutz, clearly suggesting that these were two different individuals.
I do agree, however, that the more important matter is determining just who did discover Stride’s body, and on this point I don’t think there can be any serious doubt that it was Diemschutz.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 01:20 am | | For what it's worth, I agree with you Alex.
Stewart |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 09:36 am | | So do I.
Paul |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 07:40 pm | | Now Stewart, you know your opinion, whether in agreement or not, is always worth a great deal to me. And of course, likewise Paul.
All the Best
alex |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 11:50 am | | As some of you will be aware, the highest priority of the recent Press Project has been the addition of inquest details to supplement those already available to students online. In editing the transcription of The Times for Wednesday, 24th October 1888 recently, my attention was drawn immediately to the words of Coroner Baxter’s summing up, with regard to suspicions against any known individuals. Since the article is not yet available, here is the appropriate section:-
"…while the domestic history of the deed [sic] suggested the strong probability that her destroyer was a stranger to her. There was no one among her associates to whom any suspicion had attached. They had not heard that she had had a quarrel with any one – unless they magnified the fact that she had recently left the man with whom she generally cohabited; but this diversion was of so frequent an occurrence that neither a breach of the peace ensued, nor, so far as they knew, even hard words. There was therefore in the evidence no clue to the murderer and no suggested motive for the murder. …Those who knew her best were unaware of any one likely to injure her. She never accused any one of having threatened her. She never expressed any fear of any one, and, although she had outbursts of drunkenness, she was generally a quiet woman. The ordinary motives of murder – revenge, jealousy, theft, and passion – appeared, therefore, to be absent from this case…"
His opinions are similarly reported in the Daily Telegraph account, which can be read in full at:-
http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_stride.html/
which rather negates the possibility of any misreporting of his view by one paper.
In recent years there has been a move to discount Stride as a Ripper victim. It has been suggested by some authors (such as Hinton and Tully), and by some correspondents of these boards in the past, that her boyfriend, Michael Kidney, was her murderer. Yet it seems that Baxter, at least, had rejected this view. That leaves us with two main questions that need to be addressed:-
1). The reasons for Baxter believing what he did. Was it his personal opinion, or had he been told ‘behind the scenes’ that the police investigation had thrown up nothing on Kidney?
2). What is the evidence which has led people to that state in this forum that Kidney was guilty? Are you just being influenced by published authors, or is there something else?
As initial food for thought, here are some ideas to consider:-
a). The Coroner chose to make no mention of Kidney padlocking Liz into their room in his summing up, though this matter was brought up at the inquest.
b). He didn't mention that Liz once brought charges against Kidney, but failed to turn up in court to press them.
c). Baxter asked the jury to consider whether the witnesses Marshall, Smith and Brown all saw the same man, and if so, whether it is likely that he was the murderer. Read this for yourselves, but to my eyes it looks as though he was nudging them gently in favour of ‘yes’ and ‘yes’ answers.
d). Bob Hinton, (From Hell p82), expressed the view that a confrontation in court between Schwartz and Kidney might have been illuminating – and perhaps it would have been had Schwartz ever been called to give evidence. However, in view of the above point, Kidney was recalled to give evidence on Day 4 of the inquest, the day on which Marshall, Brown and Smith all respectively proceeded him into the witness box. No fireworks are recorded.
Regards, V. |
|
|
|
|
