|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 22, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Elizabeth Stride:
Archive through July 22, 1999
Author: Dave Yost
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 01:34 pm |        | Hi Tim,
Many thanks for your reply.
I've sent you an e-mail with additional information, but would like to re-state a few things here for everyone's benefit.
The panel discussion we will have at our conference will be guided by a moderator and deal primarily with the much debated topics of 'Tabram, Stride & Kelly - Are they or are they not Ripper victims?'
Each victim will be discussed for approximately 1/2 hour with breaks imbetween each one. Any panelists may comment on any topic and/or question presented during this discussion. An audience will be present, but the direction the discussion takes will depend on the moderator, but primarily on the panelists, themselves.
If anyone has any questions regarding this or any other aspect of our conference, please e-mail me.
Cheers,
Dave Yost
Secretary
Casebook Productions
jacktripper@fcmail.com |
Author: scotthannaford1
Monday, 19 July 1999 - 05:19 am | | Just a little thing for you to think about.
Liz Stride was originally mis-identified as a certain Elizabeth Stokes. Yet before she was correctly identified, Michael Kidney arrived at Leman Street Police Station ranting and raving about her murder! How, when the world was unsure who the dead woman was. |
Author: adam
Monday, 19 July 1999 - 07:04 am | | Hi Scott
This point was raised by A P Wolf in Jack The Myth.
To the best of my knowledge no explanation, apart from the obvious one, has been given since the book's publication.
Like you, I'd be interested to see if anyone has any alternative theories!
Adam |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 19 July 1999 - 12:12 pm | | 1. Just because Liz was misidentified as Stokes in ONE place doesn't mean she was misidentified in ALL places.
2. There was plenty of time for Kidney to hear that Liz had been killed, by name, from people in the streets.
3. Kidney could have been in the crowd in Berner Street and seen the body.
4. Kidney might have known that Liz was going to solicit in Berner Street that night, possibly even knew it would be in Dutfield's Yard. He hears a brief description of the dead woman from the streets, then puts two and two together.
There would seem to be several additional possibilities.
David |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 19 July 1999 - 07:53 pm | | Hey All!
Mary Malcolm couldn't correctly identify the body of Stride...but she thought she could.
The police could not dismiss her identification since they are not clairvoyant and cannot see into the soul of a witness to know if they are telling the truth or are even certain of their own statements.
Does Mrs. Malcolm's, and therefore the police's, uncertainty and confusion mean that no one knew that it was Elizabeth Stride who was killed that night? Or that Stride's name wasn't mentioned that night or soon after by other people besides (or even before) Kidney?
I don't think so. But that's what we're asked to assume in the point being raised here.
This point about Kidney's Leman St. appearance and the uncertainty over identifying Stride's body seems a bit of clever sleuthing. But the point assumes far too much about who knew what and when, and uses Mrs. Malcolm's confusion to generate a doubt that may not have existed among the 1888 police.
If you want to believe Kidney killed Stride, this "uncertainty" goes along with other supposed anomolies; such as:
1) Kinds/types of knives used in Stride's murder vs. one or more of the other killings
2) Left vs. right-handedness...or vice versa
3) Kinds of wounds inflicted
There are probably more. None of them are any more convincing than this bit about Leman St.
Kidney is innocent. The 1888 police thought so too or they would have arrested him.
Stride is a JtR victim. The 1888 police thought so too. ("Wherefore art thou, Dr. Bond?")
Not being able to catch a serial killer does not make the 1888 police incompetent, stupid, or always wrong.
We know too little enough as it is about this series of crimes to be rather blithely removing bodies from the victims list on less than absolutely convincing, overwhelming evidence.
And as to whose body was found in Mary Kelly's room: to me it's like asking people to solve the mystery of who's buried in Grant's tomb? But if you prefer substituting another name, another identity, for Kelly's...who can stop you. It doesn't change the fact that someone was killed in that room or that the perpetrator was most likely JtR.
My opinion(s). And it's lucky for me that CM isn't around to hear 'em!
Yaz |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 19 July 1999 - 09:26 pm | | Glad to have you back contributing, Yaz.
David |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 19 July 1999 - 11:28 pm | | Hello Scott, Adam, Yaz, David
Perhaps we can draw some conclusions using the inquest report carried in The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday, 2nd October 1888. The article begins as follows:-
THE INQUEST
Yesterday [1 Oct], at the Vestry Hall in Cable-street, St. George-in-the-East, Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, coroner for East Middlesex, opened an inquest on the body of the woman who was found dead, with her throat cut, at one o'clock on Sunday morning, in Berner-street, Commercial-road East. At the outset of the inquiry the deceased was described as Elizabeth Stride, but it subsequently transpired that she had not yet been really identified. A jury of twenty-four having been empanelled, they proceeded to view the body at the St. George's Mortuary.
Later in the article the following exchange was reported:-
The Coroner: The body has not yet been identified? - Not yet.
The Foreman: I do not quite understand that. I thought the inquest had been opened on the body of one Elizabeth Stride.
The Coroner: That was a mistake. Something is known of the deceased, but she has not been fully identified. It would be better at present to describe her as a woman unknown. She has been partially identified. It is known where she lived. It was thought at the beginning of the inquest that she had been identified by a relative, but that turns out to have been a mistake.
The inquiry was then adjourned till this (Tuesday) afternoon, at two o'clock.
Regards, V. |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 04:28 am | | Hey, David, and thanks. This particular issue (removing victims from the JtR list) yanks my chain, I guess. Don't mean to be gnarly about it.
Thanks for the quote, Viper. After reading that, I wonder if we are we dealing with a purely legal question -- what are the legal requirements for an official identification of the body? How could they be so sure where she lived if, as the Coroner claims, she hadn't been "really identified"? And what is the legal (or otherwise!) definition of partial identification? I would assume that identifying the body as Elizabeth Stride was merely a matter of formalities, confused by Mrs. Malcolm and having to sort out her story.
But...
If the theory of suspicion against Kidney holds true, we can now include the Foreman of the jury, possibly every other member of the jury, and maybe even Baxter the Coroner, as suspects with the same qualification as Kidney...having foreknowledge of the victim's name without her having been "really identified" by police officialdom.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 10:44 am | | Hi, Yaz, Viper, et al.:
The identification of Liz Stride was fouled up because she was misidentified by a woman who thought that the victim was her sister. This turned out not to be the case, and the police had to get Michael Kidney to do the identification. The intricacies of the process of identifying Stride are to be the subject of an upcoming article in "Ripper Notes" by Dave Yost and Stewart P. Evans.
Chris George
Co-Editor
Ripper Notes
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/cp_ripper_notes/ |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 01:45 pm | | Hello Mr. George,
Re: your July 20, 5:44am posting, what prompted the police to seek Mr. Kidney to I.D. Ms. Stride?
If she could not be identified as that woman's sister, why did the police think Mr. Kidney could
make the I.D.?
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 04:08 pm | | Hi, Joseph:
Nice to hear from you. I will defer to Dave Yost who has a greater in-depth knowledge of the "problems" with identifying Liz Stride than myself.
Chris George |
Author: Dave Yost
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 04:44 pm | | Hi All,
Via Stewart Evans, "proper identification" of a body was accomplished only by a relative.
Yes, the body of the Berner Street victim was correctly named as Elizabeth Stride by as early as Sunday, but this ID was not "officially" accepted at that time. The difficulty was that Malcolm claimed to be her sister, calling her Elizabeth Stokes. When Malcolm's identification proved incorrect, the court deferred to other sources such as Michael Kidney who lived with Liz for about 3 years, as well as to Catherine Lane who knew Liz from the lodging house and ID the body on sunday as Elizabeth Stride with the nick name of Long Liz, thereby verifying Kidney's ID.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 08:05 pm | | Evening All,
Yaz, you rogue
CM being indisposed is no good reason to invoke the specter of old Bones Bond. "Wherefore art thou Dr. Bond?" indeed. Hopefully the good doctor is, and will remain, exactly where he deserves to be in relation to Stride’s murder, and that is, of course, nowhere near.
However, although I certainly don’t share the conviction that Stride was a ‘Ripper’ victim, I must agree with your good self and others here that confusion over Stride’s identification should not be seen as evidence with which to damn Kidney. The Times, Star, Telegraph, Evening News, all of 1 Oct, reported identification of the deceased as Elizabeth Stride, residing at 32 Flower and Dean-street, taking place on Sunday 30 Sept. These identifications were variously attributed to ‘One-armed Liz,' John Arundell, Charles Preston and others. Catherine Lane later testified that she identified the body as that of Long Liz on Sunday afternoon.
Mary Malcolm, on the other hand, was unable to identify the body on her first visit to the mortuary on Sunday night, and only concluded that the victim was her sister, Elizabeth Watts/Stokes, in the course of two further visits on Monday Oct 1. So, regardless of the subsequent confusion or strictly legal requirements, and in addition to whatever local gossip there would have been, Elizabeth Stride was being publicly presented in the press as the murder victim before Malcolm made her erroneous identification, and Kidney created his disturbance at Leman-street station.
Kidney’s notion that the victim could be his former partner, therefore, seems slightly less suspicious.
Best Wishes
Alex |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 21 July 1999 - 03:33 am | | Yikes!!!
A rogue is a rogue is a rogue, and a rogue by any other name...
Therefore, before CM can come back and catch me in the act, I have this small speculation to add:
Warning: What follows is pure speculation. I know it and it is only fair that you should know it too!
1) I consider the public across the street from Dutfield's yard closed per Packer's statements and those of others who judged their time by pub closings. No one walked out of the pub after midnight.
2) Stride had an "arrangement" with the Jewish-Socialist Club, or someone else in the Yard, to work the entrance to the Yard. Either a percentage was given or Stride's services were made availbale to Club members.
3) To protect either the money and/or their membership/clients, a man was posted in the dark doorway across the street from Stride.
4) Schwartz et al enact their fatal drama.
5) Our hero, hiding in the doorway until he sees Scwartz arrive, feels embolden to make known his prescence. He boldly goes forth, lights his pipe, is seen by Schwartz and, more importantly, the attacker Schwartz accidentally followed.
6) The attacker is unimpressed, shouts "Lipski!" This colloquial invective can be charged either to Schwartz, the man from the doorway, or both.
7) Heeding the adage "The better part of valor..." Schwartz continues to walk on. Our hero from the doorway, who may have hoped Schwartz would stop the attack or join him in stopping it, follows same counsel.
8) The man from the doorway never follows Schwartz all the way to the Railway arch, and he never seems to have appeared at the police.
9) The man in the doorway never came to the police because he would be implicated both in prostitution and possibly murder, maybe dragging in the Jewish-Socialists along with him. He was acting as a pimp -- with as much bravery. The Club denied knowing a woman who was working near their entrance because they were in collusion with her in being there. Stride was never in danger of "discovery" during her work because her erstwhile employers knew she was there.
10) I leave it to other febrile imaginations to fit the Goulston street graffito into this scenario, whether our boy JtR knew the score, etc. I, humbly, have not the temerity to speak of this -- at the moment.
So the man with the pipe (or the man in the doorway) may have had an unpleasant motive for being in that spot and for not coming forward, without necessarily being in partnership with Stride's murderer.
I will now run and hide (even the sage of Scotland may hurl thunderbolts upon my unworthy crown for this one).
Yaz |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 21 July 1999 - 08:38 am | | Why run Yaz?....did you see Dave Yost coming ? :-)
Jon |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 21 July 1999 - 09:01 am | | Hey Jon!
Dave is probably the only person alive (and I emphasize that last word for those of you who do not know the rules and regulations Dave is required by the United States government to carry out -- and, no, you do NOT want to ask!!!) who really knows what happened that night...and I don't want him him telling me! (Grinnin' at ya, Dave!)
So in the meanwhile, you all get a silly, unprovable, untestable story of my own.
Bad enough what CM would do to me, let alone Dave telling me secret information! Heaven forfend!
Yaz |
Author: Dave Yost
Wednesday, 21 July 1999 - 05:02 pm | | ok, Yaz.
A speculation is a speculation is a.... :-)
I would like to point out, however, that the pub was not opposite Dutfield's Yard, it was on the same side of the street. The board school was opposite Dutfield's.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 21 July 1999 - 11:26 pm | | Hi y'all.
YAZ: Good to "see" ya again. A small point. If even one other member of the Jewish Radicals Club knew of Stride's business zone -- The most logical and simple action for Pimp-Man/Pipe-Man to take - would be to run into the club & fetch his friend(s) to help rescue Stride ... which makes the rest of your scenario ... fade away.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 22 July 1999 - 02:21 am | | Hey All!
Sorry, Dave. Last time I was here people were swearing the man with the pipe was coming out of a pub.
No point in me fine-tuning unprovable speculations, Ashling. I retreat before logic and simplicity.
Yaz |
Author: Dave Yost
Thursday, 22 July 1999 - 05:17 pm | | Hi All.
Excellent point, Ashling.
Additionally it should be pointed out that per inquest testimony of PC Smith on 5 Oct, prostitution in that area was not common. (per Sudgen, hardback, 1994, p214, 501)
There is no information which states that pipe-man came out of the pub. From HO/144/221/A49301C 8a: Schwartz then crossed to the other side of the street and noticed a second man, lighting his pipe. from the Star (per A-Z, 2nd ed, pages 401-402): but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off.
There is nothing here which states that pipeman came out of the pub, only speculation that he did, says he did. Even the Star's account would only place pipeman within the doorway, not within the 4 walls of the pub.
Thirdly, Schwartz gave his statement from his perspective. hence, when he crossed to the opposite side of the street (over to the board school side), pipeman would be opposite from him (dutfield & packer side of the street).
Nevertheless, the pub (The Nelson) is located on the NW corner of Berner & Fairclough, just one door down from Packer, on the same side of the street as Packer & Dutfield.
I offer the URL for the chronology of Liz Stride on the CP web site and an extract from there on the "residences" of Berner Street: http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/cp_investigates_jtr/time_lines/stride_elizabeth.htm
'Berner Street is a residential street located in the Northern area of St. George's-in-the-East parish, near Whitechapel. It ran North-South from Commercial Road to Ellen Street, (two blocks south of Boyd Street). Berner Street ended at the London, Tilbury and Southern railway. It is crossed by Fairclough Street at its midpoint. Beyond Ellen Street lay the Swedish Church. On Berner Street's Western-side, heading North of Fairclough Street, lay a public house, The Nelson, (#46, North-West corner of Fairclough & Berner Streets); Matthew Packer's greengrocer's shop (#44); a cottage (#42); a double-gated entry, leading to Dutfield's Yard; The International Workingmen's Educational Club (#40); residence of Barnett Kentorrich (#38), residence of Mrs Fanny Mortimer (#36)and more cottages, including Charles Letchford's residence (#30) and Edwin Sumner's greengrocer shop (#2).On Berner Street's Eastern-side (North of Fairclough), stood several houses with a board school (#25-41) at the North-East corner of Fairclough & Berner Streets. on the South-East corner of the junction was a dwelling house (#43). On the South-West Corner of this junction was Henry Norris's chandler shop (#48, opposite The Nelson). On the Western-side of Berner Street heading South from Fairclough Street was William Marshall's residence (#64). On the Northern corner of Boyd & Berner Streets was the George IV public house (#68, owned by Edmund Farrow). Continuing South on the Western-side there was Louis Friedman's baker shop (#70), Jacob Lubin's greengrocer shop (#74), and a chemist, John Simkin (#82). There were 82 "numbers" listed on Berner Street at the time.'
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Dave |
|
|
|
|
