PDA

View Full Version : A Case of Misattribution?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Garry Wroe
07-03-2012, 11:46 PM
A few days ago I submitted a post that elicited a number of interesting yet off-topic responses. Below is a rehash of the said post which, as the more discerning members will be aware, echoes an argument I advanced in my book many moons ago with reference to Anderson and the Seaside Home identification. So here goes.

According to Anderson the Seaside Home witness was ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’, a man who ‘unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him’. In reflecting on this assertion Swanson declared that the identification would ‘convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged …’ (My emphasis.)

In Swanson’s opinion, therefore, the identification in itself would have been sufficient to have secured a conviction. Since Lawende’s vague and unremarkable sighting could never have effected such an outcome, the witness could have been no-one other than Schwartz. Thus the assault perpetrated by Broad Shoulders must have been considered the initial stage of the attack that left Stride lying dead just a few feet away. If Dr Blackwell’s estimated time of death may be taken as reliable, moreover, the murder may have occurred within a minute of Schwartz departing the scene.

So Schwartz was Anderson’s mystery witness, and Kosminski was the man identified as Liz Stride’s attacker and thus Jack the Ripper.

All well and good. But there is a problem. Beyond more than a century of assumption and supposition there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate the contention that Stride fell victim to the Whitechapel Murderer. In point of fact everything about the Berner Street crime suggests that it was unrelated to the Ripper series. If this was indeed the case, the solution to the Seaside Home identification has been staring us in the face all along: Kosminski was implicated in the Ripper murders by way of a crime that was entirely unconnected to Jack the Ripper.

Whereas this scenario explains why Swanson believed the eyewitness evidence alone was sufficient to have secured a conviction, and why Anderson believed that the Whitechapel Murderer had been positively identified, Anderson clearly overstated the case when insisting that the identification had been established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’. This was less of a lie than a straightforward case of wishful thinking fuelled by a non sequitur. The real flaw in Anderson’s conclusions relates to the Stride murder and its automatic inclusion in the Ripper series. Had this crime been evaluated strictly on the evidence it would have been treated as incidental, and Kosminski could not have been linked to Jack the Ripper, even in the event that he did kill Stride – a proposition which to my mind is extremely doubtful.

And that’s it. Cause and effect as explained by the evidence.

Over to you.

Roy Corduroy
07-04-2012, 12:20 AM
... there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate the contention that Stride fell victim to the Whitechapel Murderer. ..

... Had this crime been evaluated strictly on the evidence it would have been treated as incidental, and Kosminski could not have been linked to Jack the Ripper, even in the event that he did kill Stride – a proposition which to my mind is extremely doubtful....

You've suggested two (2) things, Garry. That Elizabeth Stride was not a Ripper victim, and that Aaron Kosminski did not kill her anyway.

I was following you until your last sentence. If you don't think Kosminski killed Stride, why do a hypothetical with Schwartz/Koz/Anderson/Swanson then. Because if you find it doubtful Kosminski killed Stride, yet hypothetically it was Schwartz who ID'ed Kosminski as her attacker, then he simply identified the wrong man.

Is that what you are saying? Or is there somethng here I'm missing.

Roy

Wickerman
07-04-2012, 12:29 AM
Very good perspective Garry.

One sideline issue that has always intrigued me is, that the press were constantly on the alert for people taken in for questioning, or being arrested, in connection with the Whitechapel Murders.

In this case we have a potential suspect, presumably incarcerated, and a prominent witness, being brought together for an identification, yet, not a whisper was leaked to the press.

We even have no 'after-the-fact' rumours, even if it happened 3 months ago surely someone in the press is going to jump on this little gem. The question of "who was Jack the Ripper" is timeless, it wouldn't matter if this identification actually occured 6 months ago or five years ago, it would still have been news in the 1890's!
Yet, there is nothing in the press at all.

Regards, Jon S.

Simon Wood
07-04-2012, 01:01 AM
Hi Jon,

No press coverage?

It's possibly because the seaside identification never took place.

Regards,

Simon

Jonathan H
07-04-2012, 02:12 AM
Simon, I agree.

In the first version of Anderson's memoirs in 'Blackwoods' he also seems to concur that the [alleged] positive identification, at least, did not take place at a coastal police hospital or anywhere else outside a mental institution. After confirming that a libel action was possible if he named the murderer and the journalist who created the hoax letter, Anderson writes:

'... I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.'

The detail about seemingly already 'caged' was dropped from the book version, but not specifically denied.

Furthermore, Anderson linked the identification of the Polish Jew to the house to house search, and also added the Poplar case to his footnote with McKenzie -- by implication further projecting back these events, regarding a positive identification, into 1888.

This is why secondary sources -- initially denied Aaron Kosminski's name before 1987 -- theorised, understandably, that Anderson must have meant Pizer and the collapse of the testimony of the witness Emanuel Violenia.

Later secondary sources, post-Fido, scratch their heads wondering why Cullen and Rumbelow, in 1965 and 1975 respectively, would have thought Anderson meant Pizer? This is because they have become so sued to Aaron Kosminski as the Polish Jew suspect that they have lost sight of how Anderson (and Swanson in private) give the strong impression that they are writing about 1888, or early 1899 at the latest. That is why Fido did not find 'Kosminski' in the earlier records. Fido has never given up on that time line, rejecting Aaron Kosminski as too late and too harmless to be the real Polish Jew suspect.

In my opinion, this inevitably self-serving memory malfunction about the timeline makes Anderson (and Swanson) a very unreliable source about the Ripper (and there are other examples of his memory failing him; always to the benefit of his ego and, even to the benefit of the Conservative Party).

Evans and Rumbelow in 2006 persuasively argue (for me anyhow) that this muddle is inspired by a real event: Joseph Lawende, a Jewish witness, being brought in to 'confront' Tom Sadler -- a seaman suspect -- shortly after Aaron Kosminski was indeed 'caged in an asylum'. And all after what was initially considered to be the latest and 'final' Jack murder: Frances Coles, who in certain flailing primary sources is merged with Kelly -- but not Macnaghten and not Reid.

In a sense, to quote a previous poster, the failed witness identification has been 'in front of us' all the time.

Furthermore, Evans and Rumbelow argue that:

'It is difficult to believe that the attempted identification of a suspect as Jack the ripper could take place ... with no mention ever being made by anyone who was party to that identification (p. 249)... Some who adhere to the theory that the identification took place exactly as Anderson described it say there must have been another witness and that he (probably Schwartz) had been used to identify Kosminski, but was not used again because of his refusal to testify against the Polish Jew. This idea is not tenable. First, as Lawende was used in the attempt to identify Sadler he would naturally, also have been used in any other attempted identification of a Ripper suspect. Secondly a witness cannot simply 'refuse to give evidence' if it is required.' (p. 252)

Wickerman
07-04-2012, 02:39 AM
Hi Jon,

No press coverage?

It's possibly because the seaside identification never took place.

Regards,

Simon

Yes Simon, but not a popular interpretation.

Regards, Jon S.

Simon Wood
07-04-2012, 03:37 AM
Hi Jon,

Agreed, but unpopular with whom?

All Swanson did on Page 138 of TLSOMOL was pencil-in a variation of a footnote which appeared in Anderson's magazine article but was missing from his book.

On the other hand, the end-paper notation is just so much modern mischief.

Regards,

Simon

Jonathan H
07-04-2012, 05:58 AM
Dear Simon

Do you think it is a viable compromise position that it is still Swanson's notation but written at a significant length of time after the first entry.

At a time when he was, inevitably and understandably, straining to recall bits and pieces and so he has got things muddled up, and exaggerated.

I think your essential point that the second entry, in content, is seemingly a quantum leap from the first is very astute.

Yet the writer has 'Kosminski' dead 'soon after' whereas Macnaghten in 'Aberconway' does not, and yet Anderson does -- but only in his son's biog.

Monty
07-04-2012, 07:11 AM
Excellent post Gary,

Great stuff.....however,

The simple fact Stride had her throat cut is evidence that she fell victim to the Whitechapel murderer, which tallys with the other victims. My experience in researching the newspapers about attacks (on all persons, not just women) is that when compared to other MOs, garotting and stabbing are by far the most popular modes, with throat cutting lagging behind. However, I stress, this is purely my experience.

Also, maybe to be noted, the murder rate statistics for the years pre and post 1888. The sudden explosion of murders in that area also supports. However, in my opinion, there are far more evidences against which is why I, personally, am reluctant to include Stride.

Monty
:)

S.Brett
07-04-2012, 09:34 AM
I think it could be as follows:

After the Stride-Murder, the MET Police searched the Area (the first house to house search for the Stride- Killer) and found "Pipeman" first and probably another man (hours) later. I do not think, that the second man was Leon Goldstein. Goldstein was never arrested.

The second man could have been "Kosminski".

About 30. September, Swanson´s report:

"If Schwartz is to believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it, it follows-if they (Schwartz and Police Constable William Smith) are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer."

1. October 1888, Star:

"The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. The prisoner has not been charged, but in held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man´s statement is not wholly accepted."

2. October 1888, Star:

"In the matter of the Hungarian... the Leman- Street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts."

To Israel Schwartz ("The appearance of being in the theatrical line"), the officers changed their minds from "Schwartz is to believed" to "have reason to doubt the truth of the story"

"from another source" could mean that someone else saw a "suspect" near the crime scene "unrelated" to the crime. This suspect could be "Kosminski".

After the Kelly- Murder, the MET- police got information that this man, called "Kosminski", was caged in an asylum. There was held the first identification and "Kosminski" was identified by an Jewish witness (MET- witness).
Before "Kosminski" is released, they take him to the City police. The second identification took place in any "Seaside Home" (probably present were the Jewish witness Lawende and PC Watkins).The PC recognized him. Resembling the person whom he saw. Subsequently the City police watched "Kosminski" by day and night.

The murderer killed his victims:

About 3:30 AM Nichols

About 5:35 AM Chapman
(By the way, really, a good time for: "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer")

About 12:50 AM Stride
(Witness William Marshall: "He was middle-aged and stout, about 5ft 6in tall, respectably dressed in a small black cut-away coat and dark trousers. He was wearing a small peaked cap, "something like a sailor would wear". He had the appearance of a clerk"... "He admitted that the spot where the couple was standing was badly lit")
(Witness Israel Schwartz: "age about 30, 5ft 5in, complexion fair, dark hair, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket, trousers black, cap with a peak, nothing in his hand")

About 01:40 AM Eddowes
(Witness Lawende: "of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak" and "age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor."

About 02:00 - 04:00 AM (or later???) Kelly

It seems, in both scenes (Berner Street and Mitre Square) there was a man:
About 30 years of age
Stout, full face, broad shouldered, round neck
Small moustache
Cap with a peak
Appearance of a sailor

It seems that it was the same man. But these descriptions were nothing special. But:

"from another source"= William Marshall?

But it would mean, that Schwartz and "Pipeman" could not identify "Kosminski" (on 1/2 October).
It would mean, that Lawende and the PC saw him much later (at the "Seaside Home").
It could mean, the MET did not observed "Kosminski".

The DoubleEvent was a "good time" to overlook the "Ripper", if he was interrogated and suspected.

If Schwartz, "Pipeman" and Lawende had not been the Jewish witnesses, who came to an asylum to "identify" the "suspect"?

Joseph Hyam Levy? Harry Harris? Anyone from Berner Street (Club)? Anyone from Buck´s Row, Hanbury Street or Dorset Street? I don´t know, we don´t know...

It would be possible:

Swanson listed Stride as a Ripper-victim, because "Kosminski" was seen in Christian Street/Boyd Street (by Williams Marshall) at 11:45PM. An hour before Stride was killed.

Marshall and Lawende saw a man, who "...had the appearance of a clerk" and the "...appearance of a sailor".

Just thoughts...

Jonathan H
07-04-2012, 10:13 AM
I see two main flaws in this laying out of various sources from 1888.

For one thing they are all from 1888, at a time when Aaron Kosminski was unlikely to be known to the police in any significant way, perhaps beyond a name on a list.

There are a number of primary sources, not least Anderson's interview in 1892 which makes it seem very unlikely that he was aware of the Polish Jew suspect yet.

Secondly, Lawende described a man who does not match so-called Broad-Shoulders Man and does not seem to be Jewish at all, being fair, and is specifically dressed like a sailor unlike anybody at the Stride murder (with the possible exception of 'Knifeman').

Hence Lawende being used to 'confront' Sadler, and if the one source is reliable, being used to confront Ripper suspect William Grant in 1895 -- also a seaman.

It can be strongly argued from the scanty, incomplete extant record that Anderson's locked-up lunatic does not become established until after the dust settled on Grant -- to whom the eyewitness [allegedly] positively affirmed, yet the case for him as the Ripper went nowhere -- but he was 'safely caged' for a while though.

There are thus several elements in 1895 which can be joined together, from disparate bits and pieces, which broadly matches the mishmash which Anderson will deliver to scorn and derision in 1910:

- a Ripper suspect is caught, virtually red-handed.
- a Jewish witness affirmsto the [Seaman] suspect, yet the case against him as the fiend does not go ahead.
- The suspect is thankfully incarcerated.
- Grant had been temporarily in an asylum in Surrey in 1891.
- Swanson says that the best suspect is a man who is 'now deceased'.
- Anderson says that the best suspect is a madman who was locked-up.
- Grant's lawyer believed, wrongly, that Grant had died in prison.

Fifteen years later the two tales of Grant and 'Kosminski' -- at least as Anderson understood the details about that suspect -- may have merged together.

Garry Wroe
07-04-2012, 01:45 PM
If you don't think Kosminski killed Stride, why do a hypothetical with Schwartz/Koz/Anderson/Swanson then. Because if you find it doubtful Kosminski killed Stride, yet hypothetically it was Schwartz who ID'ed Kosminski as her attacker, then he simply identified the wrong man.
For the purpose of the present discussion, Roy, it doesn’t really matter whether Kosminski did or did not kill Stride. Based upon his psychology and the fact that there exists no evidence to suggest he was prone to violent outbursts, I think it unlikely that he did so. The sequence of events in which I’m most interested involves Anderson’s claim that Jack the Ripper was identified coupled with Swanson’s seeming corroboration of such and his naming of the suspect as Kosminski. This begins to make sense only once it is recognized that the man who identified Kosminski must have been Schwartz, meaning that Kosminski was linked to the Stride murder and only the Stride murder.

Is that what you are saying? Or is there somethng here I'm missing.

No, Roy. You understood my argument perfectly.

Garry Wroe
07-04-2012, 01:47 PM
Very good perspective Garry.
Thanks, Jon. Hopefully we’ll find out if it’s evidentially robust.

In this case we have a potential suspect, presumably incarcerated, and a prominent witness, being brought together for an identification, yet, not a whisper was leaked to the press.
I’m not so sure that Kosminski was incarcerated, Jon, but I do take your point. This is yet another reason why we need to make sense of what happened, and how and why it happened.

We even have no 'after-the-fact' rumours, even if it happened 3 months ago surely someone in the press is going to jump on this little gem. The question of "who was Jack the Ripper" is timeless, it wouldn't matter if this identification actually occured 6 months ago or five years ago, it would still have been news in the 1890's!
Absolutely. Which goes some way to explaining why so many are sceptical about Anderson’s claimed identification.

Garry Wroe
07-04-2012, 01:48 PM
It's possibly because the seaside identification never took place.

Perhaps, Simon. But then we would have to accept that Anderson lied about the identification, aided and abetted by the stoic and seemingly upright Swanson. That just doesn’t ring true to my way of thinking.

Garry Wroe
07-04-2012, 01:50 PM
The simple fact Stride had her throat cut is evidence that she fell victim to the Whitechapel murderer …
That’s my point, though, Monty. It isn’t. And if this is the level of proof we apply in order to distinguish a Ripper victim from a non-Ripper victim, Coles and a number of others ought to be included in the canon.

Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly each sustained a cut throat, a wound that penetrated back to the spinal column. Not so in the case of Stride. Each also suffered a severed left carotid artery. Not so in the case of Stride. Whereas both Phillips and Blackwell stated that Stride died ‘relatively slowly’, death was said to have been ‘instantaneous’ for the other victims. We also have an absence of strangulation in the Stride case, as well as the fact that she was discovered whilst lying on her left side. This latter element occurred in none of the other Ripper murders. Victims were strangled and then lain on their backs to facilitate evisceration. Not so in the case of Stride.

When I talk about evidence, Monty, I refer in part to the consistent, seemingly ritualized behaviours exhibited by the Ripper at his known crime scenes. Given that none of this was apparent in the case of Stride, I maintain that there is not a shred of evidence to connect the Berner Street murder to Jack the Ripper.

Also, maybe to be noted, the murder rate statistics for the years pre and post 1888. The sudden explosion of murders in that area also supports.

As a qualified statistician, Monty, I would urge caution when interpreting such trends. There is a strong correlation (r>0.7) between ice cream consumption and drownings, but that’s no guarantee that you’ll plunge to the bottom of your local lido after sampling a Mr Whippy. Correlation is a measure of association, not causality.

Just for clarification, I cannot say with absolute certainty that Stride was not a Ripper victim. I can only say that there is a complete absence of evidence to support the commonly held belief that she was. Should anyone provide convincing evidence to the contrary, however, I’d change my stance in a heartbeat.

Simon Wood
07-04-2012, 02:20 PM
Hi Garry,

I think we can safely leave Swanson out of this.

Regards,

Simon

lynn cates
07-04-2012, 02:25 PM
Hello Garry. Your last post was so good that I would like permission to quote it--especially the observation about correlation and causality. It is PRECISELY what old school philosophers claim.

Cheers.
LC

Simon Wood
07-04-2012, 02:50 PM
Hi Jonathan

Regarding your "viable compromise", I offer you the words of Jim Swanson in a 1987 letter to the editor of The Daily Telegraph—

"My Grandfather was a highly intelligent man. He was in complete command of all his faculties at the time of his death in 1924 at the age of 76. My Grandfather's notes were made in 1910 when he was 62 . . ."

How Jim Swanson knew the exact year of his grandfather's marginalia I do not know, but why hasn't his statement put an end the matter?

Why any need for a viable compromise?

Regards,

Simon

lynn cates
07-04-2012, 03:05 PM
Hello Simon. Is it possible that he was just using the date of publication for that book?

Cheers.
LC

Monty
07-04-2012, 03:16 PM
Garry,

I agree that there are other factors leading against Stride being included and they are, in fact, the reasons why I am not certain.

However we do have a group of women with their throats cut, to varying degrees, in a small period of time. And by short I am referring to years rather than months. And I do not like the to reference the victims as a 'canon'. Its a personal taste as I do not think that is the correct term.

And yes, stats can support any theory one cares to advance. However the returns are there.

I do not wish to get into a circular debate on this. One, I'm too tired. Two, I happen to agree with you over all.

Just that its not as clear cut as it seems.

Monty
:)

Garry Wroe
07-04-2012, 03:30 PM
I think we can safely leave Swanson out of this.
With respect, Simon, we can't. He constitutes an integral link in the evidential chain connecting Kosminski to Anderson's contention that Jack the Ripper was positively identified. It would be a different matter if it could be demonstrated that he was prone to lying or exaggeration, or indeed if the marginalia had been falsified. Thusfar, however, no such evidence has been adduced.

Garry Wroe
07-04-2012, 03:36 PM
Your last post was so good that I would like permission to quote it--especially the observation about correlation and causality. It is PRECISELY what old school philosophers claim.
Be my guest, Lynn. For what it's worth, the missing variable is ambient temperature. The hotter the day, the more inclined are people to jump into potentially dangerous water - rivers and canals. Thus ice cream consumption is an extraneous variable.

lynn cates
07-04-2012, 03:45 PM
Hello Garry. Thanks. This is reminiscent of the nearly perfect positive correlation between violent criminals and milk consumption as a baby.

Cheers.
LC

Simon Wood
07-04-2012, 04:22 PM
Hi Lynn,

Absolutely.

But Jim Swanson was making a point.

Even at age 76 his grandfather had been playing with a full set of marbles, and his notes had been written fourteen years prior to this.

The notes were far from being the confused, conflated, half-remembered ramblings of a failing memory, yet this is exactly what we have had to convince ourselves they were in order to make any sense of them.

It sure is a puzzle.

Regards,

Simon

Simon Wood
07-04-2012, 05:28 PM
Hi Garry,

I have no reason to believe that Swanson—unlike Anderson—was prone to lying or exaggeration.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, his marginalia at the foot of page 138 of TLSOMOL was simply a recap of a Blackwoods footnote missing from Anderson's book.

There it sits, looking and feeling perfectly genuine, perfectly natural, in place, just the sort of notation an interested close-reader might make, neither attempting to corroborate, nor hint at any independent knowledge of, the event in question.

And then we turn to the rear end-paper . . .

Regards,

Simon

lynn cates
07-04-2012, 05:48 PM
Hello Simon. Yes, I see what you mean.

Cheers.
LC

Cogidubnus
07-04-2012, 08:59 PM
Regarding Schwartz I'm somewhat ambivalent.

On the one hand, his presence drawing attention away from the Jewish socialists is just too fortuitous...

Yet on the other there is the suggestion (I think I recall seeing it described in Paul Beggs "Definitive" book as appearing in a police memo or report) that Schwartz may've given evidence in camera at the Stride inquest, and hence wasn't quoted in the newspaper reports...

This suggests the police gave him some credence, and kept him up their sleeves (for later identification purposes?)...do we have any further evidence of any police memo/report suggesting inquest testimony or commenting on his credibility?

Scratching my head

Dave

Bridewell
07-04-2012, 09:02 PM
Hi All,

One of the salient features of the end-paper notes is the allusion to Kosminski being taken to his brother's house in Whitechapel. If the Kosminski referred to is Aaron, then he did indeed have a brother living at a Whitechapel address.

If Swanson wrote the end-paper note, he may well have known this. If someone else wrote it, how would he or she know it? Laborious research conducted in a pre-internet age? Lucky guess? From Swanson himself? More likely, in my view that DSS wrote the Marginalia in their entirety.

Regards, Bridewell.

Bridewell
07-04-2012, 09:12 PM
Regarding Schwartz I'm somewhat ambivalent.

On the one hand, his presence drawing attention away from the Jewish socialists is just too fortuitous...

Yet on the other there is the suggestion (I think I recall seeing it described in Paul Beggs "Definitive" book as appearing in a police memo or report) that Schwartz may've given evidence in camera at the Stride inquest, and hence wasn't quoted in the newspaper reports...

This suggests the police gave him some credence, and kept him up their sleeves (for later identification purposes?)...do we have any further evidence of any police memo/report suggesting inquest testimony or commenting on his credibility?

Scratching my head

Dave

Hi Dave,

That's an interesting thought. If Schwartz gave evidence 'in camera' it would be unusual, but would reflect the perceived importance of his testimony. Schwartz had already had some press attention. What would the authorities do if they wanted to prevent a recurrence? Put it about that they had doubts about the credibility of his evidence perhaps?

Regards, Bridewell.

Cogidubnus
07-04-2012, 09:15 PM
Hi Colin

As you observe, the marginalia does imply that the suspect was transported not from a locked and secure asylum, but from either a workhouse or his brother's care, and was returned to the care of his brother...therefore, assuming Aaron Kosminski, surely 1890 is indicated rather than 1891?

Dave

Simon Wood
07-04-2012, 09:16 PM
Hi Dave,

In discussing the use of the name "Lipski", Anderson in a draft letter of 5th November wrote " . . . the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case . . ."

This draft appears to have been used by Warren in a 7th November report which, in discussing the same subject, reads "the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwarz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case . . ."

It looks like Warren got it from Anderson.

Small wonder we're confused.

Regards,

Simon

Cogidubnus
07-04-2012, 09:17 PM
That's an interesting thought. If Schwartz gave evidence 'in camera' it would be unusual, but would reflect the perceived importance of his testimony. Schwartz had already had some press attention. What would the authorities do if they wanted to prevent a recurrence? Put it about that they had doubts about the credibility of his evidence perhaps?

Hi again Colin, and that's an interesting suggestion too!

Dave

Cogidubnus
07-04-2012, 09:23 PM
In discussing the use of the name "Lipski", Anderson in a draft letter of 5th November wrote " . . . the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case . . ."

This draft appears to have been used by Warren in a 7th November report which, in discussing the same subject, reads "the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwarz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case . . ."

It looks like Warren got it from Anderson.

Small wonder we're confused.

Hi Simon

Yes, probably that's the origin of Paul Begg's suggestion, (assuming I recall the source correctly...I'll check later). Thanks, and yes, no wonder we're confused...It'd be intriguing if he did give evidence though...oh to be a fly on that particular wall...

All the best

Dave

Wickerman
07-04-2012, 09:33 PM
Hi Dave,

That's an interesting thought. If Schwartz gave evidence 'in camera' it would be unusual, but would reflect the perceived importance of his testimony.

How would that work though?
I'm assuming you are talking about the Coroner's Inquest. Isn't it the Jury who are required to hear all the evidence?

Regards, Jon S.

Bridewell
07-04-2012, 09:52 PM
How would that work though?
I'm assuming you are talking about the Coroner's Inquest. Isn't it the Jury who are required to hear all the evidence?

Regards, Jon S.
Hi, Jon,

Good point. Coroners' Juries are smaller than those in the Crown Court, but there would still be seven people who would have to be kept quiet.

Regards, Bridewell.

Cogidubnus
07-04-2012, 10:14 PM
Hi Jon

Yes I believe legally you're right, so either:-

1) Schwartz wasn't called (for whatever reason, language difficulties or other) and no written statement by him was presented to the Coroner (else a mention in the summing up would be expected)...bearing in mind the potential importance of his evidence this is somewhat irregular...following on from this, Anderson made a mistake, which Warren repeated in his report.

2) Schwartz was called, or a statement of his was admitted in evidence, but the Coroner imposed some form of reporting restriction, which against all odds, succeeded. Anderson, (and in turn Warren), was correct.

3) Schwartz was called or his evidence was otherwise admitted in the presence of the Coroner and his Jury, but the Public and Press were excluded from this part of the inquest. This too is irregular as interested members of the public would not be able to question the evidence...again Anderson, (and in turn Warren), was correct.

4) Schwartz was indeed totally discredited by the time the inquest took place

My reluctant conclusion (?) is that the police may have publicly devalued Schwartz's evidence (in order to ensure that he wasn't called to appear at the Inquest, necessary because it was unlikely that Baxter or his officer just hadn't heard about Schwartz by then), then kept him "up their sleeve" for later use...unless someone else has more plausible ideas?

All the best

Dave

Garry Wroe
07-04-2012, 10:53 PM
The only problem being, Dave, that the police were instruments of the Coroner's office and thus under a statutory obligation to make available all information relating to the death under investigation.

Cogidubnus
07-04-2012, 10:57 PM
Hi Garry

In which case one is perhaps drawn towards the conclusion that Schwartz is totally discredited?

Pray expand!

Dave

Jonathan H
07-04-2012, 10:59 PM
To Simon

Fair enough, but Jim Swanson is a self-serving source on that point. I do not mean in a deceitful way. His grandfather probably was known to be sharp-witted right into old age.

Yet, inevitably, the grandson would have wanted to believe this, to emphasize this aspect, or else his scoop is undermined to a sceptical tabloid.

Look, people can, in general, have all their 'marbles' and still make mistakes of memory, especially when they have nothing but their memory to access.

I think the compromise position is more viable because it does not require any 'modern mischief'; eg. an act of conscious deceit, of which there is no evidence.

The muddled account which Swanson wrote on the flyleaf is, on the other hand, arguably evidence of a failing memory. It does not mean he was ga ga! He could so easily be conflating three separate bits here: 1) 'Kosminski' who did return briefly to his brother's home and was believed by Anderson and/or Swanson -- wrongly -- to have died shortly after being sectioned; 2) another suspect who was under surveillance by city police and who was removed to an asylum in Surrey; and 3) a Jewish witness, Lawende, describing a suspect dressed like a seaman and/or that a 'Sailor's Home' played a part in the Sadler tale -- which mutates into the unlikely 'Seaside Home' location but disposes of 'Jack the Sailor'.


The late Senator Ted Kennedy in his memoirs describes a scene between his brother Robert and LBJ which we know from other sources did not happen that way. Moreover, the point of the story -- Bobby asking to be made a kind of emissary over the Viet Nam War by his nemesis -- is just so highly unlikely.

On the other hand, the best theory is that the aged and ill Edward Kennedy, relying on memory instead of his aides, who could have checked, has merged two different encounters between his brother and President Johnson, one of which involved this emissary notion, thus creating a single story. One that, moreover, casts his beloved brother in an even better light.

Sound familiar?

Garry Wroe
07-04-2012, 11:09 PM
In which case one is perhaps drawn towards the conclusion that Schwartz is totally discredited?
There's no evidence for such amongst the police files, Dave. On the contrary, he appears to have been regarded as an important witness. And, as I stated in my initial post on this thread, Schwartz was the only eyewitness whose evidence might have convicted a suspect on its own merit. There really isn't anyone else who fits the bill.

Cogidubnus
07-04-2012, 11:12 PM
So Garry...do you veer towards option 1, 2 or 3 (or another of your own) ???

All the best

Dave

Garry Wroe
07-04-2012, 11:20 PM
I honestly don't know, Dave. Something appears to be amiss whichever way you care to look at it, particularly since Fanny Mortimer seems not to have appeared before the inquest either.

Cogidubnus
07-04-2012, 11:27 PM
No Garry, that bugs me too...what she saw/heard (or didn't) was clearly pretty critical...

By the way, sorry if it looked like I was putting you on the spot...I didn't mean to do that - just curious about your views...

All the best

Dave

Garry Wroe
07-04-2012, 11:45 PM
The thought never entered my head, Dave. I've been banging on for years that the Stride case is in dire need of some real critical analysis, so I'm hardly in any position to complain when it receives just that.

Simon Wood
07-04-2012, 11:57 PM
Hi Garry,

I completely agree with you about Stride not being a Ripper victim.

However, it does leave us with the rather thorny problem of who wrote Saucy Jacky, the fortuitous postcard which claimed her as a Ripper victim.

Someone obviously had reasons for wanting people to believe it.

Regards,

Simon

lynn cates
07-05-2012, 12:58 AM
Hello Simon. The "Saucy Jacky" reads almost like an afterthought. And the hand strongly resembles "Dear Boss."

Are you familiar with Cook's hypothesis here?

Cheers.
LC

Simon Wood
07-05-2012, 01:08 AM
Hi Lynn,

No. Cook's book has yet to arrive.

A nutshell version would be appreciated.

Regards,

Simon

Wickerman
07-05-2012, 02:44 AM
Hi Garry,

I completely agree with you about Stride not being a Ripper victim.

However, it does leave us with the rather thorny problem of who wrote Saucy Jacky, the fortuitous postcard which claimed her as a Ripper victim.

Someone obviously had reasons for wanting people to believe it.

Regards,

Simon

Probably not much of a stretch of the imagination seeing as Lloyds Weekly News reported on both murders on the Sunday (30th) edition, and included this line:

"There is a growing belief that the two crimes were committed by one man,..."

How much creative imagination do you need?

Regards, Jon S.

Simon Wood
07-05-2012, 04:07 AM
Hi Jon,

Creative imagination about what?

Regards,

Simon

S.Brett
07-05-2012, 08:24 AM
By the way:

There was an asylum (500ft distance/beeline to Dorset Street), which included a Naval Lunatic Asylum until 1818. The asylum closed in 1911.

It was the Hoxton House Asylum.

Between 1792-1814 there were treated 1852 members of the Navy (1679 Seamen, 173 Executive). The Hoxton House Asylum also played a part in the Ripper case. The suspect Oswald Puckeridge was an inmate between January and August 1888.

Perhaps it was popularly (vernacular) known as "Seaside Home".

lynn cates
07-05-2012, 10:11 AM
Hello Simon. Well, it seems that Mr. Cook sees Ernest Parke and "The Star" as the driving force behind the JTR myth. He identifies the author of the "ripper missives" as Best.

Cheers.
LC

Garry Wroe
07-05-2012, 02:22 PM
I completely agree with you about Stride not being a Ripper victim … However, it does leave us with the rather thorny problem of who wrote Saucy Jacky, the fortuitous postcard which claimed her as a Ripper victim.

To be honest, Simon, I tend to think that this communication was reflective of the general assumption that the Stride and Eddowes murders were committed by a common hand. Investigators were clearly anticipating another crime (as witness the number of reinforcements drafted into the area immediately after the Chapman murder), so when Stride was discovered with a cut throat, assumption fuelled by expectation unduly influenced the normal investigative process. As a consequence police immediately treated the Berner Street crime as Ripper-related, a mindset which transmitted itself to reporters and thence to the general public. Under such circumstances it is hardly surprising that the Saucy Jacky author as well as other hoaxers assumed the double event to have been a reality and structured their communications accordingly. Nowadays any competent investigative team would recognize the discrepant modus operandi and crime scene signature of the Stride murder, with the result that linkage to other crimes would be far less likely.

Wickerman
07-05-2012, 08:12 PM
By the way:

There was an asylum (500ft distance/beeline to Dorset Street), which included a Naval Lunatic Asylum until 1818. The asylum closed in 1911.

It was the Hoxton House Asylum.

Between 1792-1814 there were treated 1852 members of the Navy (1679 Seamen, 173 Executive). The Hoxton House Asylum also played a part in the Ripper case. The suspect Oswald Puckeridge was an inmate between January and August 1888.


I've heard worse suggestions.
If this is the same institution that has been mentioned before, perhaps AKA The Seaman's Home, then yes this is plausible.
I'm not sure if it ever was known locally as The Seaman's Home, but given its association with the Navy & Seamen in general, its a distinct possibility.

I'd be quite happy to accept Swanson making an honest mistake between the Seaside Home and The Seaman's Home, especially as both existed.

Regards, Jon S.

S.Brett
07-05-2012, 09:27 PM
Another suggestion:

Holloway Sanatorium in Virginia Water, Surrey.

Henry Cox:

He occupied several shops in the East End, but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey.

The Holloway Asylum was (just) about 30 miles of Leman Street, London.

Near Holloway Asylum was Virginia Water Lake. Maybe, there was a ward near the lake, known as "Seaside Home" but I do not know...

"The Sanatorium expanded in time by buying other properties. In 1891 Hove Villa, Brighton was purchased by the Governors as a home where patients could benefit from the fresh seaside air. In 1909 the Scottish architect Robert Weir Schulz (1860–1951) was asked to design a permanent seaside home for the Sanatorium, and so in 1910 St Ann's Hospital at Haven Road, Canford Cliffs, Poole in Dorset, was built and replaced Hove Villa. Named after St. Ann's Heath, the site where Holloway Sanatorium was built, it was opened in 1912, on 14 acres (57,000 m2) of land, with a porter's lodge and later cottages for the chauffeurs. In 1948 Holloway Sanatorium and St. Ann's, both then psychiatric hospitals, formed a group of the South West Metropolian Region of the National Health Service, but in 1960 the hospitals finally dissociated into different administrative groups.

St. Ann's Hospital is a Grade II listed building."

Today:

"The circuit around the lake is about 4.5 miles (7.2 km), about half is paved and the other half is a "natural" path both providing easy walking..."

This asylum "had its own Sea"...

But I'm not an expert.

Regards.

Bridewell
07-05-2012, 10:31 PM
On the subject of Schwartz not being called to give evidence, I would offer the terms of reference under which the inquest operates:
The purpose of the inquest is to answer four questions:
Identity of the deceased
Place of death
Time of death
How the deceased came by his/her death
Evidence must be solely for the purpose of answering these questions and no other evidence is admitted.
The last issue of how the deceased came by her death is restricted to the narrow issue of the actual cause of death, not the circumstances surrounding it. On that basis, is it not quite possible that the police provided the coroner with Schwartz's statement, and that the coroner decided that his testimony was not relevant to the questions which had to be answered concerning the death of Elizabeth Stride?

Identity of the deceased: Schwartz could not identify the woman killed.
The place of death: was obvious from other testimony.
The time of death: was clear from other evidence, give or take a couple of minutes (and Schwartz could provide no evidence of a time of death, even if that were not the case).
The cause of death: was the puncturing of her carotid artery in a violent attack. No evidence from Schwartz was heard because none was necessary within the coroner's narrow terms of reference:

Evidence must be solely for the purpose of answering these questions and no other evidence is admitted.

Regards, Bridewell.

Wickerman
07-05-2012, 10:45 PM
Colin.
May I ask, then why do you suppose other witnesses were called like Drage, Coram, Marshall, Kidney, etc.?

We have chewed over those very salient points, Identity, Time of Death, Cause of death, Place of death, etc. Though it does look like peripheral information was also admitted, perhaps only at the Coroner's discretion?

Regards, Jon S.

Garry Wroe
07-05-2012, 10:54 PM
Were you to apply these same criteria to the Mitre Square murder, Bridewell, Lawende would not have been required to present his evidence. Nor would Pizer at the Chapman hearing. In fact, with the exception of investigators and medical men, most of the witnesses would have been superfluous.

Dave O
07-05-2012, 11:04 PM
"Evidence must be solely for the purpose of answering these questions and no other evidence is admitted."

Hi Colin,

That last part isn't Victorian procedure, as I think Jon and Garry are indicating. There have been considerable changes over the years--for example modern inquests don't make accusations of murder, unlike the Victorian version. Is that what you've posted refers to?

Proceedings of the inquest (evidence), Coroner's Act 1887 section 4(1):

The coroner and jury shall, at the first sitting of the inquest, view the body, and the coroner shall examine on oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts whom he thinks it expedient to examine.

They'd look at not only the cause of death, but the circumstances of the death as well, the previous history of the deceased, if they could get it because it might relate to cause of death. And the coroner had a wide discretion in presenting evidence (very useful it was that the coroner couldn't be guilty of libel while holding an inquest--that's how wide the discretion was). You'd think that an attack on the victim shortly before her murder would be something they'd include, and Schwartz's absence is a mystery.

Best,
Dave

Garry Wroe
07-05-2012, 11:12 PM
Having been hugely impressed by the work you have done on the inquest procedures, Dave, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on why Baxter of all people seemingly failed to summon Schwartz?

Michael W Richards
07-05-2012, 11:13 PM
On the subject of Schwartz not being called to give evidence, I would offer the terms of reference under which the inquest operates:

The last issue of how the deceased came by her death is restricted to the narrow issue of the actual cause of death, not the circumstances surrounding it. On that basis, is it not quite possible that the police provided the coroner with Schwartz's statement, and that the coroner decided that his testimony was not relevant to the questions which had to be answered concerning the death of Elizabeth Stride?

Identity of the deceased: Schwartz could not identify the woman killed.
The place of death: was obvious from other testimony.
The time of death: was clear from other evidence, give or take a couple of minutes (and Schwartz could provide no evidence of a time of death, even if that were not the case).
The cause of death: was the puncturing of her carotid artery in a violent attack. No evidence from Schwartz was heard because none was necessary within the coroner's narrow terms of reference:

Evidence must be solely for the purpose of answering these questions and no other evidence is admitted.

Regards, Bridewell.

I have to admit that this was a gutsy position to take by Gary from the outset..., its fascinating how details seem either more or less relevant to a particular student when dissecting a subject, we all have our own POV preferences I suppose.

However, on the above Bridewell I'd like to point out that;

1) There is no way you can speak with authority as to how well or how little Israel Schwartz claimed to have seen the woman assaulted.
2) The place of death may well hold secrets about the manner of her death, therefore facts like Israels relationship to the Club and that nights meeting are quite relevant.
3) The time the body was found ranges from approx 12:40 to 1:00am according to statements made to the press that same night, depending on which witness you choose to believe and what makes most sense to you.
4) That she died of the artery wound is assured, whether she was also choked is relevant here as well.

Im just trying to maintain the stance that we know very little in reality about any of these events. We do know at a glance that this specific event is, of any, the least probable Ripper murder. If there was such a beast at all.

So Israel identifying anyone would likely reveal nothing about the killer of the previous women, I say killer because I believe C1 and C2 were almost certainly, killer related.

Having said that, I will add that anything Anderson had a say in should be weighed with great caution. The man had some issues.:)

Best regards Bridewell, all,

Mike R

Dave O
07-05-2012, 11:34 PM
Hi Garry,

Thanks for the kind word. I haven't a clue why Baxter didn't do it. Language and religion wouldn't have been a barrier. If there was a written statement, I think it would have been read aloud in court. If Baxter had cleared an open court to take the evidence, which I think he had the power to do, I think the press would have noted that he had done so. I don't believe the police would have withheld the evidence as their role was one of assistance, not hindrance. Even if they thought that Schwartz was lying or mistaken, which they don't seem to have thought, it seems to me that they still would have brought him in to get him to swear to what he saw, or what he thought he saw, or said he saw. If they were concerned about any descriptions circulating in the press, I believe they would have put that to the jury's discretion as they can't withhold evidence from the jury trying to reach a verdict (though it's true there would have been a risk there if the jurors proved troublesome, which they sometimes were).

I have no idea what was going on.

Cheers,
Dave

Simon Wood
07-05-2012, 11:57 PM
Hi All,

I think the answer is quite simple.

Schwartz and Lawende's descriptions of the men they saw were different, and you can only have one Ripper.

Also, Schwartz's inquest evidence would have knocked a big hole in the "Ripper disturbed at 1.00 am" scenario which played such an important part in the concept of the double-event.

Regards,

Simon

Dave O
07-06-2012, 12:02 AM
Hi Simon,

Wasn't Baxter open to the idea that there was no double event?

Best,
Dave

Garry Wroe
07-06-2012, 12:04 AM
Much appreciated, Dave. Your take on the issue accords very much with my own, which is some consolation at any rate. Given that the various news agencies apparently didn't get to Schwartz, I'm beginning to wonder whether he might have been sequestered.

Garry Wroe
07-06-2012, 12:06 AM
Wasn't Baxter open to the idea that there was no double event?
He certainly implied that the Eddowes murder was an immitative crime.

Simon Wood
07-06-2012, 12:12 AM
Hi Dave,

I honestly don't know, but the "Ripper disturbed at 1.00 am" scenario was part of Wynne Baxter's summing up at the Stride inquest.

"If he [Diemschitz] had not actually disturbed the wretch in the very act, at least he must have been close on his heels; possibly the man was alarmed by the sound of the approaching cart, for the death had only just taken place."

Exit Schwartz.

Regards,

Simon

Dave O
07-06-2012, 12:15 AM
Hi Garry,

I've seen two "sick notes" for absent witnesses in Macdonald's records, but I can't imagine that would apply to Schwartz, not with them adjourning multiple times over much of October. Just thought I'd mention it.

Dave

Wickerman
07-06-2012, 12:22 AM
Much appreciated, Dave. Your take on the issue accords very much with my own, which is some consolation at any rate. Given that the various news agencies apparently didn't get to Schwartz, I'm beginning to wonder whether he might have been sequestered.

Being sequestered wouldn't prevent him appearing at the inquest though. We do read that Lawende was also sequestered (sequestrated?)

"They have no doubt themselves that this was the murdered woman and her murderer. And on the first blush of it the fact is borne out by the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about."
Evening News, 9 Oct. 1888.

Paying all his expences suggests they put him up in a hotel? or something of that nature. The detectives must be bodyguards?

Regards, Jon S.

Wickerman
07-06-2012, 12:23 AM
Hi Garry,

I've seen two "sick notes" for absent witnesses in Macdonald's records, but I can't imagine that would apply to Schwartz, not with them adjourning multiple times over much of October. Just thought I'd mention it.

Dave

You don't remember the names, Dave?, or are you not talking about the Kelly Inquest?

Regards, Jon S.

Dave O
07-06-2012, 12:55 AM
Hi Jon,

No, they're nothing to do with the Kelly inquest (in that case, most of the police statements are numbered in Macdonald's hand so you can see his tentative witness order prior to the inquest).

But here's one of the excuses though, related to a Tottenham inquest October 20 1888 (LMA/MJ/SPC/NE 326 D), just so people can see what one looks like (inquest on Henry Elliott, who tried to murder his brother-in-law and then shot himself to death out in public). But again, I don't think this would have applied to Schwartz.

Dave

Carotid Capers
07-06-2012, 03:48 AM
Hi, Cadet, this is most interesting although one detail nags at me. Swanson writes “..the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with great difficulty ...”. Hoxton, as you point out, is 500m from Dorset Street, Hove 50 miles or whatever from London….on the strength of this detail, the Police Home at Hove would seem more likely as the "Home" in question where the ID was purported to have taken place?

Garry Wroe
07-06-2012, 08:13 AM
I've seen two "sick notes" for absent witnesses in Macdonald's records, but I can't imagine that would apply to Schwartz, not with them adjourning multiple times over much of October. Just thought I'd mention it.
Agreed, Dave.

Garry Wroe
07-06-2012, 08:22 AM
Being sequestered wouldn't prevent him appearing at the inquest though. We do read that Lawende was also sequestered (sequestrated?)
Perhaps I should have presented it as 'sequestered', Jon, as in conveniently out of Baxter's reach whilst the Stride inquest was in progress. Ordinarily I wouldn't countenance such a possibility, but then the Kelly hearing leaves no room for doubting that something very strange was going on in the background.

Garry Wroe
07-06-2012, 09:51 AM
I have to admit that this was a gutsy position to take by Gary from the outset...
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that my approach has been ‘gutsy’, Mike. I have long believed that there are two areas of the case with which modern researchers could make real headway, and the so-called double event is one of them. If we accept that Anderson and Swanson related factual (if not entirely accurate) details pertaining to the Kosminski identification, there was only one witness who observed a physical assault being inflicted on a soon to be killed victim. Thus Schwartz must have been the witness whose evidence was sufficient in itself to have secured a conviction. As for the Stride killing, there genuinely isn’t any evidence to connect it to the Ripper series. Not a scrap. The concept of the double event is founded on mere supposition, and unsupported supposition at that.

But let’s see. If I’m wrong, the evidence to disconfirm my hypothesis will be forthcoming. If it isn’t, we really have to start looking at Schwartz and Stride in a new light and re-evaluate our perceptions of the case as a consequence.

S.Brett
07-06-2012, 11:19 AM
Hi CC,

Primarily, we can essentially assume that the "Seaside Home", "...was only one of nearly seventy seaside convalescent homes for men, woman, and children, most of which were located on the southern English coastline"(Robert House)

Perhaps the Police Convalescent Seaside Home at Hove (Brighton)
or similarly
Metropolitan Convalescent Institution at Bexhill-on-sea
(To all researchers: It would not surprise me if the Witness Thomas Ede/ William Eade lived there, `in Bexhill,` sometimes)
Morley House Seaside Convalescent Home for Working Men
"... Morley House reserved a certain number of beds for members of the City of London Police Force..." (Robert House)
The latter would be important for "the City PC"

On the other hand, is it really possible that Swanson confused Sadler and the Sailor's Home- Story with the "Kosminski" (and "a Seaside Home", whatever)- Incident? It seems too easy...but it is possible...

I think, "Kosminski" was seen near the crime scene, near the Berner Street that night (shortly before the crime) and not identified by anyone whom we guess. This incident ("was seen near by") could be one of Macnaghten´s "many circs". If "Kosminski" was seen there (near Berner Street) and identified by a witness from another crime scene, then the suspect would have been associated in connection with the Stride-Murderer.

To Hoxton (and Holloway):

Where I live, there is a "Seaside Garden" (a Inn with outdoor area). But there is no sea, just a tiny lake. "Tiny Lake Garden" would sound better than "Seaside Garden".

Somewhere in the USA there was a "pink room" inside a prison (mentioned in a book written by John Douglas). Maybe, the asylum-wards had "names". One of those fancy names was perhaps "Seaside Home", who knows...

Anderson 1895:

"Jack the was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum"

Anerson 1901 (and again 1907):

"...the fiend was on the prowl as they were before the mania seized him, or after he had been safetly caged in an asylum"

Anderson 1904:

"...undoubtedly insane, and was ultimately confined within an asylum"

Anderson 1910:

"I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him".

and

"…In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact".

Anderson was 69 years old, 9 years in retirement, 22 years after the Whitechapel- Murderer, when his "Maniac" turned to a "Polish Jew" und his "person who had a good view" (also a Jew) identified this Pole (in an asylum). Sounds like: Old enough and far away from 1888... time to tell the whole truth...

Anderson mentioned an asylum again and again. Macnaghten and Swanson did so. Sagar und Cox did so. Und Cox said "Surrey". If the "Seaside Home" was in Surrey, "...where he had been sent by us with great difficulty in order to subject him to identification" (Swanson) it is possible that the suspect was brought from an asylum to another asylum. Of course, Hoxton is not in Surrey. But that Holloway Asylum was in Virgina Water, Surrey. "...but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey" (Cox) and "On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night" (Swanson) could mean, Cox and Sagar talking about the same occurrence. If "Kosminski" was in a simple asylum in London, where the first witness appeared, there could have caused too much trouble and it seems better to take the suspect away from London. "And after this identification which the suspect knew" (London) "with great difficulty" (to Surrey), "and he knew he was identified" (City PC).

Abby Normal
07-06-2012, 12:08 PM
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that my approach has been ‘gutsy’, Mike. I have long believed that there are two areas of the case with which modern researchers could make real headway, and the so-called double event is one of them. If we accept that Anderson and Swanson related factual (if not entirely accurate) details pertaining to the Kosminski identification, there was only one witness who observed a physical assault being inflicted on a soon to be killed victim. Thus Schwartz must have been the witness whose evidence was sufficient in itself to have secured a conviction. As for the Stride killing, there genuinely isn’t any evidence to connect it to the Ripper series. Not a scrap. The concept of the double event is founded on mere supposition, and unsupported supposition at that.

But let’s see. If I’m wrong, the evidence to disconfirm my hypothesis will be forthcoming. If it isn’t, we really have to start looking at Schwartz and Stride in a new light and re-evaluate our perceptions of the case as a consequence.

Hi Garry
I enjoyed your theory-it was very interesting. However.

"Thus Schwartz must have been the witness whose evidence was sufficient in itself to have secured a conviction. "

The caveat with this is that if Anderson (and swanson) can misremember the IDs outcome to being so positive, they could easily misremember Lawendes sighing as also being so positive.

Garry Wroe
07-06-2012, 02:23 PM
The caveat with this is that if Anderson (and swanson) can misremember the IDs outcome to being so positive …
I’m not sure that I follow you, Abby. Whereas Anderson stated that the witness identified the suspect ‘unhesitatingly’ the moment he was presented with him, Swanson confirmed the identification and further stated that it took place at the Seaside Home. There was absolute consistency between the two men in this context.

… they could easily misremember Lawendes sighing as also being so positive.
The witness wasn’t named, Abby. Swanson stated that the witness’s evidence would ‘convict the suspect’, and confirmed his intended meaning beyond any shadow of doubt when declaring that he ‘would be the means of the murderer being hanged’.

We know that the witness was male, Jewish, had no prior knowledge that the suspect was a fellow Jew, and that, according to Anderson, he was the ‘only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. From this we can be certain that the witness was either Lawende or Schwartz. Swanson, however, provided critical additional information when asserting that the witness’s evidence alone would have been sufficient to have secured a murder conviction. This could mean only one thing: the witness had seen an actual attack taking place. No other sighting would have been sufficient in itself to have secured a conviction. Thus the witness must have been Schwartz. It could have been no-one else.

Roy Corduroy
07-06-2012, 03:14 PM
... So Schwartz was Anderson’s mystery witness, and Kosminski was the man identified as Liz Stride’s attacker and thus Jack the Ripper. ...

Had this crime been evaluated strictly on the evidence it would have been treated as incidental, and Kosminski could not have been linked to Jack the Ripper, even in the event that he did kill Stride – a proposition which to my mind is extremely doubtful.

even in the event that he did kill Stride –a proposition which to my mind is extremely doubtful

Then you are suggesting not only misattribution but also misidentification.

In which case, if Israel Schwartz mistakenly identified the 23 year old Aaron Kosminski as the man he saw attack Elizabeth Stride, then perhaps the man he really saw was 19 year old Joseph Lis (Silver), cadet criminal who was in England until 1889. As proposed by Charles Van Onselen.

So Garry, for me anyway your suggestion has a silver lining. :pleased:

Roy

Fisherman
07-06-2012, 03:34 PM
Garry:

"we really have to start looking at Schwartz and Stride in a new light"

I cut that quote a bit short, admittedly, but I like it all the same. New light is always useful.

... but on the Schwartz matter: how would Swanson convict BS man/Kosminsky on what Schwartz claimed to have seen? It only amounts to a very minor case of battering! And Swanson takes great care to point out that there was time aplenty after the incident for other men to step in. It is often suggested on the boards that Pipeman took over where BS man left of - how would Swanson rule that - and any other scenario with BS man way up Ellen Street when Stride died - out, and convict Kosminsky?

All the best,
Fisherman

Simon Wood
07-06-2012, 05:36 PM
Hi Garry,

Joseph Lawende being the witness at the "Kosminski ID"—a witness whose evidence "would be the means of the murderer being hanged"—makes little sense. All he saw was a man he doubted he would know again standing with a woman whose clothes were all he could later identify.

Not much there to bother the hangman.

Israel Schwartz being the witness at the "Kosminski ID"—a witness whose evidence "would be the means of the murderer being hanged"—makes even less sense. The idea of him being able to uniquely identify the Ripper violates the murder-interruptus timing of the double-event [a scenario endorsed by the Saucy Jacky postcard] which, to retain any semblance of credibility, necessitated Schwartz not being called to give evidence at the Stride inquest.

Schwartz upsets the status quo.

The focus of our attention should be Anderson, Macnaghten and the frankly questionable "Swanson" endpaper notation.

Regards,

Simon

Bridewell
07-06-2012, 11:32 PM
The concept of the double event is founded on mere supposition, and unsupported supposition at that.

Is not the concept of two single killers committing separate murders within an hour of each other, and a half-mile of each other, also founded on supposition?

Regards, Bridewell.

Wickerman
07-07-2012, 02:16 AM
... And the coroner had a wide discretion in presenting evidence (very useful it was that the coroner couldn't be guilty of libel while holding an inquest--that's how wide the discretion was).


Hi Dave.
This issue of the Coroner's discretion raises another point of interest.
(Bearing in mind the 19th century system)

In various debates on Casebook the suggestion is made that "X" was never called as a witness so the police must have not thought the story worthy, etc. etc.

The Coroner can only really exercise his discretion over what to hear if he has read all the witness statements in possession of the police.
If, the police are deciding what is relevant and what is not then this limits the Coroner's powers of discretion.

The police are experienced enough to know in advance what the Coroner needs to select from, so yes, some completely irrelevant statements will be held back, but the selection of 'who to summons' from the broadly relevant statements must lay with the Coroner's office, not the police?

If that is the case, the decision to omit anyone was the Coroner's?

Does that sound correct?

Regards, Jon S.
Incidently, many thanks for the 'sick note' example.

Dave O
07-07-2012, 04:17 AM
Hi Jon,

Right, that would be the coroner's call. The coroner's a magistrate of sudden death, with the powers of a magistrate. At the inquest, he's in charge. His job was to allow the jury access to evidence, and advise them upon points of law. He'd be the one deciding what was relevant and what wasn't, and so he would be the one to decide which witnesses would appear at the inquest (but also keep in mind that evidence at an inquest is for the jury's benefit, and jurors could also ask for witnesses, and the coroner had to be careful not to inhibit the jury on relevant evidence). And the coroner acted independently, meaning that in investigating a sudden death, he really could not be interfered with. Many people worried about the strength of the office.

However, while independent, the coroner would at the same time also be dependent upon the cooperation of not just the police and other organizations, but the community at large. If he didn't get it, he could compel it. That's because in the usual course of holding inquests into all sorts of manner of deaths, in any given parish the coroner's people wouldn't have numbered many people--you'd have the coroner, a single officer, a deputy coroner might be involved, and perhaps a clerk. Often, the workload would be 3, 4, 5, 7, even 10 inquests in a day, so you can see why the coroner would require assistance, because without it, they'd get very little done. So information about a death could come to the coroner via any means at all--through the police, through hospitals, private individuals, etc, and this would be encouraged. If you were a witness yourself, you had a duty to come forward rather than wait to be found, and whether or not you were heard at the inquest would be at the coroner's discretion.

So in a murder investigation, cooperation of the police as an interested party would be essential to any inquest, since besides providing legwork and manpower, they would also be a very important conduit of information--not the only one, but they'd be supplying most of it. I'm not privy to actual dialogues between coroners and police inspectors, but as an interested party, I'm sure an inspector would share opinions about witnesses with the coroner, and likely that opinion would carry weight.

What they couldn't do is tell the coroner, "we have this witnesses, but you can't call him or her." They didn't have that power to direct a coroner. And I'm pretty sure that it would be illegal for them to withhold a relevant witness from the coroner. I think it's more realistic to suppose that what they might do is appeal to the coroner's discretion. He might make a call, or, if he was wise and the information was actually relevant, and not wanting to be guilty of misconduct himself, he might in turn pass it over to the jury's discretion. For sure there's a risk there, because a coroner could never guarantee in advance what a jury might do. Apparently though, Schwartz doesn't make in front of a jury, and I think all we're left starting at is Baxter's discretion at work, and we don't know his reasoning.

Hope that's not too long-winded and that it helps. And you're welcome for the photograph :)

Best,
Dave

Simon Wood
07-07-2012, 04:43 AM
Hi Dave O,

Schwartz giving evidence at the Stride inquest would have completely screwed the double-event scenario.

It really is that simple.

Regards,

Simon

S.Brett
07-07-2012, 09:20 AM
For example:

A witness seeing Stride with a man that night combined with a PC from Mitre Square could result in “a man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by two witnesses near two different crime scenes”. Maybe it does not matter whether he was seen with or without a woman.

What if, the police found a (Jewish) witness in Goulston Street who saw a man with a bloodstained shirt? A suspect without a victim. What if, this Jewish witness could identify the “Bloodstained Shirt -Suspect”, without hesitation? What if, the witnesses from/near Berner Street and Mitre Square saw this suspect on the night of the DoubleEvent?

"would be the means of the murderer being hanged"???

Take note of House-house-searches and the Batty Street Lodger Stories (October 1888)!!!

“No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer” (Macnaghten)
But:
“This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square”
“the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer” (Anderson)- Schwartz???
"Probably the only trustworthy description of the assassin", having seen him with a woman at the corner of the passage leading from Duke Street to Mitre Square on the night of Eddowes's murder"
(The Case Sadler/Coles) - Lawende
“one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman” (The Case Grant/ Graham)- Lawende

"the only trustworthy description of the assassin" and "one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer" must be LAWENDE
Anderson´s:
"the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer" must be LAWENDE, not SCHWARTZ

BUT:

Lawende:
"seen him with a woman" and "seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman"

Anderson about his murderer: Seen without woman/victim!!!??? just "a good view of the murderer" ??? Lawende and Schwartz saw a suspect with a victim.

Hunter
07-07-2012, 11:59 AM
Hi Dave O,

Schwartz giving evidence at the Stride inquest would have completely screwed the double-event scenario.

It really is that simple.


With all due respect... it is not.

As Dave pointed out, witnesses appeared at the coroner's discretion, or in certain circumstances, at the request of the jury. In Baxter's summary, he intimates that he believed the two murders to not be connected. Up until the Stride inquest, Baxter did not have an amicable relationship with the police and even went so far as to insult their methods of investigation during his summary at the Chapman inquest.

All of this assumption by some that the police and/or the coroner thwarted their own investigation into the Stride murder because of a predetermination of a single killer or an interruption theory is unfounded. Both the police and the coroner had standard procedures that were followed in each instance, and each case was investigated separately throughout... compiling the antecedents of the victims, interrogating and examining people in and around the murder scene, investigating people known to the victim and compiling witnesses. That the results of such investigations left the police without any discernible clues only emphasizes the unique nature of her murder in the aftermath of methods of detection for the usual motive, not a fallibility born of presumption.

Baxter used his own discretion in dealing with the testimony of Israel Schwartz and his reasoning was a logical and sensible one. There is a provision in the 1887 Coroner's Act for him to do so in certain circumstances and the situation with Schwartz qualified as one. Baxter's demeanor was totally different at the Stride inquest than it had been at the previous ones... and for good reason. For the first time, he actually commended Inspector Reid & Co. for their efforts in this case... something he had never done before. He had been severely chastised from all quarters for his conduct at the previous inquest and was well aware of his diminished credibility. He backed off and let the police do their job and protect the anonymity of a possibly critical witness.

Simon Wood
07-07-2012, 01:11 PM
Hi Hunter,

Wynne Baxter was a double-eventer.

" . . . At 1 o'clock the body was found by the manager of the club . . . If he had not actually disturbed the wretch in the very act, at least he must have been close on his heels; possibly the man was alarmed by the sound of the approaching cart, for the death had only just taken place . . .

" . . . there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre Square—possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful . . ."

The intimation was that Eddowes' murder may not have been connected with those of Nichols and Chapman.

Regards,

Simon

Wickerman
07-07-2012, 03:25 PM
Hi Jon,

Hope that's not too long-winded and that it helps. And you're welcome for the photograph :)

Best,
Dave

As always, "time well spent" reading your posts, thankyou very much Dave.

Regards, Jon S.

Hunter
07-07-2012, 03:35 PM
Hi Simon,

The intimation by Baxter was that the two murders on the same night were not connected; the Mitre Square murder being "possibly the work of an imitator."

He was stuck with his 'Burke and Hare' theory on Nichols and Chapman and considered the mutilations on Eddowes to be 'unskilful' as compared to those perpetrated at 29 Hanbury St.

Wynne Baxter was no 'double eventer.' As far as the medical evidence was concerned, he was incorrect on both counts, but he had dug himself a hole and he was trying to extricate himself from it.

Wickerman
07-07-2012, 03:42 PM
Baxter used his own discretion in dealing with the testimony of Israel Schwartz and his reasoning was a logical and sensible one. There is a provision in the 1887 Coroner's Act for him to do so in certain circumstances and the situation with Schwartz qualified as one. ........
He backed off and let the police do their job and protect the anonymity of a possibly critical witness.

Chris, I fully respect your approach to this dilemma, what I am not confortable with is this, protecting the identity of a witness need not extend to omiting his/her entire testimony from the process.

The same ends would also served if the witness was simply not named, but the "story" is still given out (read out?) with a view to assisting the Inquiry.

Afterall, according to Schwartz, his testimony bore directly on; place of death & time of death. So his story without his specific identity was required.

Regards, Jon S.

Simon Wood
07-07-2012, 04:05 PM
Hi Hunter,

Wynne Baxter was explaining how Stride displayed none the "skilful mutilation" as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and none of the "unskilful injuries" as in the case of Eddowes.

The lack of skill in the Eddowes murder, as opposed to the skill shown in the Nichols and Chapman murders, made it appear to him as "possibly the work of an imitator."

Eddowes could hardly be described as an imitation of Stride.

Regards,

Simon

c.d.
07-07-2012, 05:11 PM
I think a large part of the problem is that we don't know if the refusal to give testimony against a fellow Jew is to be taken literally or if it was simply the impression of the police officials who were present. So we have two possible scenarios:

1. "Yes, that is definitely the man I saw that night. I am absolutely sure of that but I will not state that in a court of law. I will not testify against another Jew."


2. The police officials who were present are talking afterwards over a pint -- "don't tell me he didn't recognize the suspect. The son of bitch simply wouldn't testify against a fellow Jew."

c.d.

Garry Wroe
07-07-2012, 05:35 PM
Then you are suggesting not only misattribution but also misidentification.
Kosminski appears to have been a hebephrenic schizophrenic, Roy. On top of this he seems to have been a relatively benign individual not given to violence or aggressive outbursts. All things considered he just doesn’t strike me as having been the kind of man who would have assaulted and then killed Stride using a knife.

In which case, if Israel Schwartz mistakenly identified the 23 year old Aaron Kosminski as the man he saw attack Elizabeth Stride, then perhaps the man he really saw was 19 year old Joseph Lis (Silver), cadet criminal who was in England until 1889. As proposed by Charles Van Onselen.
Eyewitness identifications are notoriously unreliable, Roy, to the extent that here in the UK they can no longer be used as the sole means of convicting a defendant. Thus I wouldn’t be too surprised if it turned out that Schwartz did misidentify Kosminski.

Garry Wroe
07-07-2012, 05:37 PM
... but on the Schwartz matter: how would Swanson convict BS man/Kosminsky on what Schwartz claimed to have seen? It only amounts to a very minor case of battering! And Swanson takes great care to point out that there was time aplenty after the incident for other men to step in.

What I assume lay at the heart of Swanson’s thinking, Fish, relates to a chain of evidence principle that was then applied in English criminal cases when neither direct evidence nor a confession were forthcoming.

Schwartz saw Stride being manhandled at 12:45am just feet from the spot on which her body would be discovered fifteen minutes later. Whilst Dr Blackwell estimated that she had died at some point between 12:46 and 12:56am, both he and Phillips stated that death occurred ‘comparatively slowly’.

Thus the fracas witnessed by Schwartz was clearly thought to have been the onset of an attack that resulted in Stride’s murder. The fact that Blackwell believed Stride could have died as early as 12:46 from a wound that was not instantaneously fatal is indicative that the throat could have been cut even as Schwartz fled the scene. In short, Schwartz was believed to have seen all but the murder itself. Had this not been the case Swanson could never have been confident that the Schwartz sighting alone would have secured a conviction.

Garry Wroe
07-07-2012, 05:39 PM
Is not the concept of two single killers committing separate murders within an hour of each other, and a half-mile of each other, also founded on supposition?
Not exactly, Colin. It is predicated on an assessment of the Ripper’s known crime scene behaviour and the ritualized injuries which featured in all of the definitely attributable killings. Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were each throttled, for example; Stride was not. Each sustained a cut throat that penetrated back to the spinal column; Stride did not. Each was lain on her back; Stride was placed on her left side. Each was left with her legs exposed and splayed wide apart; Stride’s legs were covered and not parted. Each sustained sharp force injuries to her abdomen and genitalia; Stride suffered no such injuries.

On top of this, the drunken, aggressive and abusive behaviour of Broad Shoulders bore no resemblance whatever to the passivity of Eddowes’ Church Passage companion. Indeed, the overtly menacing approach witnessed in Berner Street occurred at none of the other crime scenes.

Garry Wroe
07-07-2012, 05:42 PM
Joseph Lawende being the witness at the "Kosminski ID"—a witness whose evidence "would be the means of the murderer being hanged"—makes little sense. All he saw was a man he doubted he would know again standing with a woman whose clothes were all he could later identify.
Agreed, Simon.

Israel Schwartz being the witness at the "Kosminski ID"—a witness whose evidence "would be the means of the murderer being hanged"—makes even less sense.
Not to my way of thinking, Simon. Schwartz observed violence being perpetrated on a woman just feet from the spot on which her murdered body was discovered minutes later.

The idea of him being able to uniquely identify the Ripper violates the murder-interruptus timing of the double-event [a scenario endorsed by the Saucy Jacky postcard] which, to retain any semblance of credibility, necessitated Schwartz not being called to give evidence at the Stride inquest.
Personally, Simon, I regard the ‘interruption theory’ as yet another red herring. It accords neither with the medical opinion nor the physical evidence. Had Jack the Ripper been interrupted by Diemschutz, Stride would have been found lying on her back with her skirts draped about her waist in preparation for the abdominal mutilation. She wasn’t. Given that her throat wound would not have proved instantaneously fatal, she would also have been alive when Diemschutz happened on the scene. She wasn’t. It is clear, therefore, that the interruption theory has no evidential basis, and was only proposed as an explanation for an absence of abdominal injuries in what was assumed to have been a Ripper event.

Hunter
07-07-2012, 05:47 PM
Wynne Baxter was explaining how Stride displayed none the "skillful mutilation" as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and none of the "unskilful injuries" as in the case of Eddowes.

The lack of skill in the Eddowes murder, as opposed to the skill shown in the Nichols and Chapman murders, made it appear to him as "possibly the work of an imitator."

Eddowes could hardly be described as an imitation of Stride.


Baxter was not describing Eddowes' mutilations as an imitation of Stride, of course. He was considering the Eddowes murder as an unskilled imitation of Chapman; thus, in his reasoning, the Eddowes murder not being committed by the same hand who killed Nichols, Chapman, or Stride. In his mind, Stride and Eddowes were killed by different hands while still considering the notion that Stride may have been killed by the same hand that killed Nichols and Chapman.

Hunter
07-07-2012, 06:36 PM
Chris, I fully respect your approach to this dilemma, what I am not comfortable with is this, protecting the identity of a witness need not extend to omitting his/her entire testimony from the process.

The same ends would also served if the witness was simply not named, but the "story" is still given out (read out?) with a view to assisting the Inquiry.

Afterall, according to Schwartz, his testimony bore directly on; place of death & time of death. So his story without his specific identity was required.


Here is the relevant section in the 1887 Coroner's Act. The most pertinent part in bold. Baxter would have had every inclination to exercise this discretion in this instance... to prevent any possible flight of the man seen by Schwartz; to protect the witness himself from possible threat and to consider the implications of such testimony on an already tenuous ethnic climate exacerbated by the murders.


Section 3 - part 3:
It is obvious, although the inquiry of the coroner is preliminary only, that it may, and frequently does, lead to accusation. Such an inquiry ought, for the purposes of justice, in some cases, to be conducted in secrecy. It may be requisite that the party suspected should not, in so early a stage, be informed of the suspicion that may be entertained against him, and of the evidence upon which that suspicion is founded, lest he should elude justice by flight, by tampering with the witnesses, or by any other means. Accusation may begin at the moment when tho evidence commences. Cases may also occur, in which privacy may be requisite for the sake of decency; others, in which it may be due to the family of the deceased. Many things may be disclosed to those who are to decide, the publication of which to the world at large would be productive of mischief, without any possibility of good. Even in cases in which absolute privacy may not be required, the exclusion of particular persons may be necessary and proper. Of the necessity of this privacy or exclusion the coroner is the judge. It is a power necessary to the due administration of justice; and it is impossible that the proceedings should be conducted S. 3 (3). with due order and solemnity, and with the effect that justice demands, if the presiding officer have not the control of the proceedings. The coroner is therefore the proper person to exercise discretion as to the degree of publicity to be allowed in inquests held by him.

Simon Wood
07-07-2012, 07:07 PM
Hi Garry,

I agree with you completely about what Schwartz observed. Time, place, incident, plus later identification of Stride. A material witness if ever there was one.

But the giant red-herring of the murder-interruptus incident, the Ripper's unsated lustmord and subsequent Eddowes murder—the official version of events—could never have won the day had Schwartz given evidence at the Stride inquest.

You cannot create a scare about a lone Jack the Ripper stalking the streets of the East End if on the same night there just happened to be another unconnected murder just around the corner, which is why Stride was made to look like the work of Jack.

Schwartz's evidence rocked Jack's boat. Small wonder he did not appear at the inquest.

This is why I find it impossible to imagine Schwartz having been the witness at a "Kosminski ID".

One final point.

William Stewart, 1939—

"There is not a shred of evidence to support the belief that Elizabeth Stride was murdered by the Ripper . . . The murder of Stride was a coincidence and, merely because her body was found in a yard, both Press and public jumped to the conclusion that both this murder and that of Eddowes . . . was the work of the Ripper."

What do you think became of the person who actually did murder Elizabeth Stride?

Regards,

Simon

Garry Wroe
07-07-2012, 07:22 PM
S.Brett, post #85:-

"the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer" must be LAWENDE, not SCHWARTZ
Highly unlikely, SB. To begin with, Lawende saw very little and remembered even less, as a consequence of which he would have been all but useless as a prosecution witness. Additionally,Swanson not only claimed that Kosminski was positively identified at the Seaside Home, he also asserted a prior interest on the part of City investigators, who went so far as to mount a round the clock surveillance operation on Kosminski.

Despite the fact that Major Smith was desperate to lay hands on the Whitechapel Murderer, he later admitted to having had no clue as to his identity. Yet if City detectives had gone to the extreme of mounting a round the clock undercover surveillance operation on Kosminski, it stands to reason that Major Smith not only knew about it, but would have called upon Lawende to view Kosminski, whether in an overt or covert capacity. Either way, Lawende clearly did not identify Kosminski as the man he had seen with Eddowes. He couldn’t have done, otherwise Kosminski would have been arrested by City investigators in connection with the Mitre Square murder. This being the case he couldn’t have been the witness who unhesitatingly identified Kosminski at the Seaside Home shortly thereafter. But this goes without saying, since nothing about Lawende’s testimony could have resulted in a conviction in its own right.

Wickerman
07-07-2012, 07:29 PM
Here is the relevant section in the 1887 Coroner's Act. The most pertinent part in bold.

Thankyou. In cases of privacy then yes I see Sec. 3 pt 3. being applicable.
In this case though, Schwartz's story was already in the public domain.
If Schwartz had been called as a witness, and if there is an implied sequence to observe, he would not have appeared anytime before the 5th Oct., among other witnesses who also saw Stride just minutes before her death.

Apart from the witnesses name (Schwartz) what was there left to protect when his story had been public knowledge for a week?


Alternately, if the reason for Schwartz's story being withheld had been soley so as not to tip the villain off, then what happened to Lawende served the same purpose, without keeping the witness out of the Inquest.
Crawford interrupted the questioning with:
"Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man."

Yet, the press had already given out the description of the man involved in the Berner St. incident along with Schwartz's story.

I appreciate your point Chris, I just think, if this Sec. 3 pt 3. was the reason, it looks more like a case of bolting the gate after the horse has gone.

Regards, Jon S.

Cogidubnus
07-07-2012, 07:46 PM
I appreciate your point Chris, I just think, if this Sec. 3 pt 3. was the reason, it looks more like a case of bolting the gate after the horse has gone.

Hi Jon

Possibly, having been criticised for his performance at previous inquests, he felt he had to be seen to make some concilliatory gestures or else face unpleasant consequences...Maybe the Lord Chancellor had made this clear to him?

Judicious use of Sec 3 Pt 3 would offer him one such avenue, and his praise of the police investigation another...

Pure supposition of course!

Dave

Phil Carter
07-07-2012, 07:46 PM
Hello Simon,

Whoever killed Stride must have kept a blinking low profile when he realised he might be fitted up as Jack the Ripper.
In my opinion, given the police reaction after 30th September, given the press reaction and not least the public reaction, I can well see the man going awol from the area.

There is an alternative however. IF, and I do mean IF, the Stride killer was a Jew from the IWMEC, THEN it is possible that this lone killing MAY have been kept hushed up within the IWMEC membership..I do not connect this with Swanson's questionable marginalia claim. I AM happier connecting it with part of Anderson's story about refusal to give up one of their own (especially if the man was an anarchist- Anderson's undercover operations area- Special Branch involvement in the case- National Security aspect)) - with the caveat that Anderson embellishes the whole thing into a Jack the Ripper identification and therefore SRA solves the crimes...
IF this killer was a slash n dash man, was known within club circles, I can see Jewish elders arranging his future for him- and no one knows the wiser until SRA gets a tip off 7 years later. That would explain all the anomelies because SRA wasnt told the whole story.
This scenario would leave Swansons marginalia hanging out to dry as made up on known public knowledge and a scenario put together. Deliberately, perhaps.

As an additional point, for me it is obvious that should there have been a one man double murder that night- knowing where he killed Stride and the furore that would cause amongst the Met Police swamping the area, there is no way on God's Earth he would go BACK into Met Police swamped East End to dump the apron piece! Thats not being the all seeing super cool Jack the Ripper.


Just a few speculative thoughts.

Best wishes

Phil

Cogidubnus
07-07-2012, 07:59 PM
Hi Phil

Not disagreeing entirely with you, but I don't think the Jewish elders (in the traditional sense of the word) would have approved of the IWMEC or it's activities, (although I suppose they might've exerted some influence for the greater good of the Jewish community)...

I can't see the general IWMEC membership being fully complicit either...the more who know, the less chance of secrecy...a small caucus maybe...

All the best

Dave

Phil Carter
07-07-2012, 08:05 PM
Hello Dave,

Quite- so that leaves the group within the group- the troublemaking anarchists known to frequent the place (see addition to text)

best wishes

Phil

Cogidubnus
07-07-2012, 08:19 PM
That's a considerable addition to the text Phil...I can see that even with my best beer glasses on (Wychwood Hobgoblin tonight) !

All the best

Dave

Phil Carter
07-07-2012, 08:39 PM
Hello Dave,

Back in the land of the Vikings, am enjoying an Old Pec-taken in my suitcase- the addition is the sentence in brackets only- but we do know of SB involvement in the case, in the area, and the club (known raids-later date).

Best bitter!
cheers

Phil

Cogidubnus
07-07-2012, 08:52 PM
Back in the land of the Vikings, am enjoying an Old Pec-taken in my suitcase

Hells teeth Phil, most of us sup the stuff genteelly from a glass! :lol:

Dave

Phil Carter
07-07-2012, 09:06 PM
Hells teeth Phil, most of us sup the stuff genteelly from a glass! :lol:

Dave

Hello Dave,

'The Old Peculier Case of the English Viking'
- Arfa Colon Diddlydoo.

Back to the thread- I just cannot equate the killer of Eddowes running BACK towards an area of police manhunting- especially if he KNOWS that he is running into it- AND supposdly with a bloody rag on him. If he wasnt Stride's killer- then I concede he may not have known about the Stride murder.

best wishes

Phil

Cogidubnus
07-07-2012, 09:09 PM
I'm beginning to think that way myself Phil...though I try to keep an open mind...

Dave

Bridewell
07-07-2012, 09:36 PM
Eyewitness identifications are notoriously unreliable, Roy, to the extent that here in the UK they can no longer be used as the sole means of convicting a defendant.

Hi Gary,

Can you give a source for this? There is an increasing reluctance by the courts to convict solely on eyewitness testimony, but I'm not aware of any legislation which prohibits it.

Regards, Bridewell.

Trevor Marriott
07-07-2012, 09:54 PM
Thankyou. In cases of privacy then yes I see Sec. 3 pt 3. being applicable.
In this case though, Schwartz's story was already in the public domain.
If Schwartz had been called as a witness, and if there is an implied sequence to observe, he would not have appeared anytime before the 5th Oct., among other witnesses who also saw Stride just minutes before her death.

Apart from the witnesses name (Schwartz) what was there left to protect when his story had been public knowledge for a week?


Alternately, if the reason for Schwartz's story being withheld had been soley so as not to tip the villain off, then what happened to Lawende served the same purpose, without keeping the witness out of the Inquest.
Crawford interrupted the questioning with:
"Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man."

Yet, the press had already given out the description of the man involved in the Berner St. incident along with Schwartz's story.

I appreciate your point Chris, I just think, if this Sec. 3 pt 3. was the reason, it looks more like a case of bolting the gate after the horse has gone.

Regards, Jon S.

All this talk of the corner withholdoing evidence is not sitting well.

First of all the coroner holds an inquest for the purpose of determining how a person died.There are no rules of evidence in a coroners court.

The police are obliged to furnish the coroner with all available evidence appertating to that death. The police would not withold statements.

If it became an issue with the testimony of a witness in a coroners court likely to impede a police investiagtion.The police could have

1. Asked for an adjourment this way the inquest could be formally opened and
then formaly adjourned
2. Asked for the witness to not be named
3. Considered excluding the public and press.

A coroner would not do as has been suggested by some posters.

Clearly Schwartzs testimony would never in a million years be sufficient to charge anyone with a murder let alone convict and the police would have known that.
So another nail in the marginalia coffin and Andersons book.

Add to that the fact that if the ID procedure did ever take place we must assume that the only witness must have been Schwartz. Why did the Met not liaise with the City Police and take Lawende at the same time by another means, or why did the city police not carry out their own ID and test Lawende.

In addittion the ID parade as described in Andersons book would appear to have been what is known as a direct confrontation which has an evidential value of almost nil.

The police would have know this so if this is correct why did they embark on a course or action which was doomed to fail as soon as they left London, even without the witness subsequently refusing to give evidence.

So thats two more nails in the marginalia and Andersons book how many more must be hammered in before its laid to rest once and for all?

Cogidubnus
07-07-2012, 11:00 PM
Which particular set of rules are you envisaging the Coroner following Trevor? Surely not those pertaining when you were on the job?

The particular set of rules which applied at the time were laid down in the Coroners Act of 1887. These rules have since been heavily modified, and indeed this Act was eventually totally repealed in, I think, 1988.

It is interesting to note that the Coroners Acts of 1887, 1892, 1926, 1954, 1980, 1983 and 1988 have all been either totally or partially repealed in the process of effecting the current situation laid down by the Act of 2009 (not to mention parts of the various Criminal Justices Acts, Local Government Acts, Juries Acts etc etc)...

Tempora mutantur...Cicero I think...different times mate!

All the best

Dave

Garry Wroe
07-07-2012, 11:19 PM
Can you give a source for this? There is an increasing reluctance by the courts to convict solely on eyewitness testimony, but I'm not aware of any legislation which prohibits it.
If memory serves me correctly, Colin, it was a recommendation of the Devlin Report commissioned in the Seventies following a series of wrongful convictions based solely on eyewitness identifications. The way I understand it, the CPS will no longer proceed under such circumstances, though I'm unsure as to whether this has come about as a consequence of statutory regulation or unofficial policy.

Michael W Richards
07-07-2012, 11:25 PM
Hello again,

What is known with Lawende is that he was a witness who says he saw Kate and someone around 1:35 near her murder site. We know the police paid for his lodgings and sequestered him. We know he was a witness at the Inquest, that he had some of his statement suppressed. We know he was used later by the police, I believe for Sadler if memory serves....

What we know about Israel is that he was an Immigrant Jew who claimed he was outside an Immigrant Jews club at 12:45am and saw a gentile rough up a lady who is killed minutes later inside the gates.

My italics and bold above represent my belief that his story was a fabrication to place the murderer off club property. Making him an anti-Semite was inspirational genius in my opinion. No one saw Schwartz, no-one saw him flee being chased, no-one heard any cries, no-one saw a Broadshouldered Man or a Pipeman, no-one identifies the address of the dwelling he was supposedly checking on his wife. No-one identifies scuffs on Liz Strides skirt from the scuffle. No-one clearly states Israels relationship to that club, if any.

As I suggested before, if Israel was considered "the" witness then the police were looking for someone other than a "Jack the Ripper" for her murder and based on BSM's description. Because in that story BSM is almost certainly her killer due to time and proximity and expressed physical threat, but in reality, Liz Stride is almost certainly not a victim of any Ripper.

Had there been a desire to mutilate it could certainly have happened given the location and timing. In fact, the yard was empty, unused stables....why kill her in the passageway just inside the gates if you desire some quiet time?

Best regards,

Mike R

Garry Wroe
07-07-2012, 11:27 PM
You cannot create a scare about a lone Jack the Ripper stalking the streets of the East End if on the same night there just happened to be another unconnected murder just around the corner, which is why Stride was made to look like the work of Jack.
For my money, Simon, there was nothing conspiratorial in the Stride investigation. In fact, given the pressure under which the Ripper manhunt was being conducted, it would have been positively beneficial to the authorities had the Berner Street killing been rejected from the Ripper series. To my mind it was simple human error rather than anything sinister or underhand that led to the assumption of the double event. If we require an illustration of how such mistakes can occur, there is no better example than that of the Geordie Hoaxer amid the Yorkshire Ripper manhunt.

What do you think became of the person who actually did murder Elizabeth Stride?
The fact that Stride screamed three times but ‘not very loudly’ whilst under attack by Broad Shoulders suggests to me a pre-existing relationship between the two. At any rate Stride did not appear to believe that she had fallen into the hands of the man who had previously murdered Nichols and Chapman. I incline to the view, therefore, that Stride was a one-off committed in a fit of rage that the killer probably never repeated.

Lechmere
07-07-2012, 11:40 PM
And that another exceptionally rare knife murder of someone else who was clearly soliciting happened within walking distance and within a timscale that would exactly fit a double killing was just a perverse coincidence.

Michael W Richards
07-07-2012, 11:46 PM
And that another exceptionally rare knife murder of someone else who was clearly soliciting happened within walking distance and within a timscale that would exactly fit a double killing was just a perverse coincidence.

Three women were killed that same night, by knife to the throat. Rare?

No-one is suggesting coincidence, more aptly, contrivance. An effort to leave someone in a condition matching a Ripper victim. I cannot imagine a more attractive possibility for a killer should he find himself killing during that Fall....for whatever the reason.

Rip her, and any other potential motive seemingly vanishes.

Best regards,

Mike R

Phil Carter
07-08-2012, 12:35 AM
Hello Lechmere,

it was the Coroner who mentioned the possibility of a copycat killing.
Didnt seem so implausible to him.

Best wishes

Phil

Garry Wroe
07-08-2012, 12:40 AM
And that another exceptionally rare knife murder of someone else who was clearly soliciting happened within walking distance and within a timscale that would exactly fit a double killing was just a perverse coincidence.
A knife murder, Lechmere, that exhibited not a single one of those features which appeared consistently across the four definitely attributable Ripper killings.

Abby Normal
07-08-2012, 12:48 AM
I’m not sure that I follow you, Abby. Whereas Anderson stated that the witness identified the suspect ‘unhesitatingly’ the moment he was presented with him, Swanson confirmed the identification and further stated that it took place at the Seaside Home. There was absolute consistency between the two men in this context.


The witness wasn’t named, Abby. Swanson stated that the witness’s evidence would ‘convict the suspect’, and confirmed his intended meaning beyond any shadow of doubt when declaring that he ‘would be the means of the murderer being hanged’.

We know that the witness was male, Jewish, had no prior knowledge that the suspect was a fellow Jew, and that, according to Anderson, he was the ‘only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. From this we can be certain that the witness was either Lawende or Schwartz. Swanson, however, provided critical additional information when asserting that the witness’s evidence alone would have been sufficient to have secured a murder conviction. This could mean only one thing: the witness had seen an actual attack taking place. No other sighting would have been sufficient in itself to have secured a conviction. Thus the witness must have been Schwartz. It could have been no-one else.

What I am saying is that the witness was Lawende and just as they misremembered (perhaps wishfully)that the Seaside ID was so positive so they misremembered that Lawendes first sighting was so positive. Its really as simple as that.

robhouse
07-08-2012, 02:02 AM
A knife murder, Lechmere, that exhibited not a single one of those features which appeared consistently across the four definitely attributable Ripper killings.

I am sorry, but I do not agree with this. The cut to Stride's throat is entirely consistent with the throat cuts to the other victims. They are all made from left to right, commencing under the angle of the left jaw. The cut to Eddowes throat likewise severed the vessels on the left side of the throat, but only partly cut the vessels on the right... just like Stride. Granted, in some of the other cases, the vessels on both sides were severed, but in the Stride case, we are under the assumption that the killer was interrupted, so did not perform any mutilations. And the attempt to sever the head, which is evident in the Chapman murder for example, should fall under the category of mutilation.

RH

lynn cates
07-08-2012, 02:33 AM
Hello Rob. I appreciate your recognising that Eddowes cut throat was not as deep as Nichols and Chapman's and that Liz's was less deep still.

It is frequently urged that Stride's killer was interrupted. Whether one believes that or not, it COULD account for the lack of mutilations. But I'm not sure how that would account for the less deep throat cutting?

Cheers.
LC

Trevor Marriott
07-08-2012, 08:10 AM
Hello Rob. I appreciate your recognising that Eddowes cut throat was not as deep as Nichols and Chapman's and that Liz's was less deep still.

It is frequently urged that Stride's killer was interrupted. Whether one believes that or not, it COULD account for the lack of mutilations. But I'm not sure how that would account for the less deep throat cutting?

Cheers.
LC

I think that one should not forget that in Victorian times the most accepted method of despatching someone to the afterlife was to cut their throats.

So therefore linking all the murders together on the basis of the throat cutting is unsafe.

As far as Stride is concerned in addittion to the different knife wound to the throat you have to consider as has been mentioned there were no other wounds.

If the killer had time to cut her throat he had time to carry out wounds to other parts of the body, how much time does it take to wield a knife several times into someones abdomen.

As has also been pointed out the time and the locations are totally different from the other murders. In reality everything abut her murder points to another killer.

For those who suggest it was to much of a coincidence well coincidences do happen. :scholar:

S.Brett
07-08-2012, 10:32 AM
S.Brett, post #85:-


Highly unlikely, SB. To begin with, Lawende saw very little and remembered even less, as a consequence of which he would have been all but useless as a prosecution witness. Additionally,Swanson not only claimed that Kosminski was positively identified at the Seaside Home, he also asserted a prior interest on the part of City investigators, who went so far as to mount a round the clock surveillance operation on Kosminski.

Despite the fact that Major Smith was desperate to lay hands on the Whitechapel Murderer, he later admitted to having had no clue as to his identity. Yet if City detectives had gone to the extreme of mounting a round the clock undercover surveillance operation on Kosminski, it stands to reason that Major Smith not only knew about it, but would have called upon Lawende to view Kosminski, whether in an overt or covert capacity. Either way, Lawende clearly did not identify Kosminski as the man he had seen with Eddowes. He couldn’t have done, otherwise Kosminski would have been arrested by City investigators in connection with the Mitre Square murder. This being the case he couldn’t have been the witness who unhesitatingly identified Kosminski at the Seaside Home shortly thereafter. But this goes without saying, since nothing about Lawende’s testimony could have resulted in a conviction in its own right.

Hello Garry,

everything you say makes sense. :cool:

Personally, I think neither Lawende nor Schwartz identified the suspect.

My first choice:

George Hutchinson´s suspect. Astrakhan- Man is my witness.:dancing:

Regards.

lynn cates
07-08-2012, 12:11 PM
Hello Trevor. Thanks.

I am trying to imagine a thug, hand grasping knife, ready to strike. He hears a noise. He is interrupted. No cutting happens.

Similarly with a cut throat but no mutilations.

But I can't understand how interruption causes a cut to be more shallow.

Cheers.
LC

Wickerman
07-08-2012, 12:39 PM
My first choice:

George Hutchinson´s suspect. Astrakhan- Man is my witness.:dancing:

Regards.

This smells like a wind-up line :)

The witness most certainly was not Hutchinson, he left the scene about 3:00 am, Prater was sure it was "after 4:00 am" when she heard the cry of "murder".

Either Kelly was already dead by 2:00 am (per Bond's report) or, she was murdered around 4:00 am, neither conclusion puts Hutchinson in a position to have been the most likely person to have seen the murderer.
Anything could have happened between the time he left Millers Court at 3:00 and the cry of "murder" after 4:00 am.

No, the witness was not Hutchinson, and if you think Astrachan was the witness, boy have you set a task for yourself :)

Regards, Jon S.

Simon Wood
07-08-2012, 01:02 PM
Hi All,

Might it not be better to first establish that a seaside ID actually took place?

Regards,

Simon

Hunter
07-08-2012, 01:41 PM
It was the Coroner who mentioned the possibility of a copycat killing.
Didnt seem so implausible to him.


Hi Phil,

Yes, and that was the point I raised earlier when Simon asserted that Baxter was a 'double eventer.' Clearly he was not. However, the context in which Baxter made that statement has to be considered. If Kate Eddowes was killed by the same hand that killed Annie Chapman, then his 'Burke and Hare' theory was implausible. He could either admit that he was wrong in his assumption about the Nichols and Chapman murders, or he could separate the Eddowes murder from them to save face. It would have been totally out of character for Wynne Baxter to admit to possibly being mistaken about anything, so he naturally chose the latter course.

Bridewell
07-08-2012, 01:42 PM
Originally Posted by Garry Wroe

We know that the witness was male, Jewish, had no prior knowledge that the suspect was a fellow Jew.

This is interesting of itself because it means that a Jewish witness, who supposedly got a good enough view to be able to make a positive identification, didn't recognise a fellow-Jew. Therefore, if there's anything to this story at all, the suspect was a Jew who was not easily recognisable as such.

Regards, Bridewell.

Trevor Marriott
07-08-2012, 02:48 PM
Hello Trevor. Thanks.

I am trying to imagine a thug, hand grasping knife, ready to strike. He hears a noise. He is interrupted. No cutting happens.

Similarly with a cut throat but no mutilations.

But I can't understand how interruption causes a cut to be more shallow.

Cheers.
LC

It doesnt !:2thumbsup:

robhouse
07-08-2012, 03:02 PM
Hello Rob. I appreciate your recognising that Eddowes cut throat was not as deep as Nichols and Chapman's and that Liz's was less deep still.

It is frequently urged that Stride's killer was interrupted. Whether one believes that or not, it COULD account for the lack of mutilations. But I'm not sure how that would account for the less deep throat cutting?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I would guess that the killer dispatched Stride rather quickly, then ran out of there. I assume that he was afraid of being caught, so he would have been more hasty than in other murders.

Some of the other murders, most notably the Chapman murder, indicate an attempt to behead the victim, and so obviously the throat cut will be deeper. And in comparison to Eddowes, Stride's throat was only slightly less deeply cut.

In Stride's case:
"The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 inch below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side."

In Eddowes case:

The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. The carotid artery [on the right side] had a fine hole opening, the internal jugular vein was opened about an inch and a half -- not divided.

So clearly in both cases, the cut commences on the left side, cuts through the vessels on the left side, and partially cuts through the vessels on the right side. Yes, Stride's cut was less deep, but the similarities between the two, and indeed with the other victims, is obvious, and easily explained by the fact that the killer was scared of being caught, and hence in a hurry.

Incidentally, this would also explain why the position of the body in this case is different. In the other cases, the victim is clearly posed by the killer, with the legs drawn up at the knees and spread apart. In Stride's case, I suggest he just killed her and left. She apparently did not die immediately, and I imagine she may have curled up in a sort of fetal position on her side.

RH

Monty
07-08-2012, 03:09 PM
I think that one should not forget that in Victorian times the most accepted method of despatching someone to the afterlife was to cut their throats.

So therefore linking all the murders together on the basis of the throat cutting is unsafe.

As far as Stride is concerned in addittion to the different knife wound to the throat you have to consider as has been mentioned there were no other wounds.

If the killer had time to cut her throat he had time to carry out wounds to other parts of the body, how much time does it take to wield a knife several times into someones abdomen.

As has also been pointed out the time and the locations are totally different from the other murders. In reality everything abut her murder points to another killer.

For those who suggest it was to much of a coincidence well coincidences do happen. :scholar:

Present, on JtR forums site by that great Statistic colllator Colin Roberts on 22 July 2010.

"In Accordance with the Fifty First Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England, 1888:

England

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 55
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 2
Ages 15 - 19: 2
Ages 20 - 24: 5
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 2
Ages 45 - 54: 7
Ages 55 - 64: 2
Ages 65 - 74: 3
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 84

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 48
Ages 5 - 9: 3
Ages 10 - 14: 2
Ages 15 - 19: 2
Ages 20 - 24: 8
Ages 25 - 34: 12
Ages 35 - 44: 17
Ages 45 - 54: 11
Ages 55 - 64: 1
Ages 65 - 74: 6
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 111

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Manslaughter', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 10
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 5
Ages 15 - 19: 4
Ages 20 - 24: 4
Ages 25 - 34: 18
Ages 35 - 44: 8
Ages 45 - 54: 9
Ages 55 - 64: 5
Ages 65 - 74: 5
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 71

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Manslaughter', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 12
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 1
Ages 15 - 19: 1
Ages 20 - 24: 1
Ages 25 - 34: 4
Ages 35 - 44: 6
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 2
Ages 65 - 74: 2
Ages 75 - 84: 2
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 35

---

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 65
Ages 5 - 9: 4
Ages 10 - 14: 7
Ages 15 - 19: 6
Ages 20 - 24: 9
Ages 25 - 34: 21
Ages 35 - 44: 10
Ages 45 - 54: 16
Ages 55 - 64: 7
Ages 65 - 74: 8
Ages 75 - 84: 2
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 155

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 60
Ages 5 - 9: 4
Ages 10 - 14: 3
Ages 15 - 19: 3
Ages 20 - 24: 9
Ages 25 - 34: 16
Ages 35 - 44: 23
Ages 45 - 54: 14
Ages 55 - 64: 3
Ages 65 - 74: 8
Ages 75 - 84: 3
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 146

---------

London

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 21
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 2
Ages 35 - 44: 3
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 30

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 17
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 2
Ages 35 - 44: 7
Ages 45 - 54: 7
Ages 55 - 64: 1
Ages 65 - 74: 3
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 39

The available data for London is unfortunately not expressed in any finer detail; i.e. in terms of 'Murder' and 'Manslaughter' being subsets of 'Homicide'.

It should be noted, however, that the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'murder' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout England, i.e. 56, represents 73.68% of the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout the same. It is reasonable, therefore, to estimate that 73.68% of the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout London, in 1888, i.e. 22, involved specifically 'murder'.

In other words: It is reasonable to estimate that approximately 16 of the registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout London, in 1888, were classified as 'murder'.

Put more simply: Approximately 16 women were murdered in London's metropolis, in 1888.

---------

England

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Weapons and Implements', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 5
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 1
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 13

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Weapons and Implements', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 4
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 6
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 5
Ages 45 - 54: 8
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 28

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Gun-Shot', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 0
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 7

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Gun-Shot', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 0
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 3
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 6

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 1
Ages 35 - 44: 0
Ages 45 - 54: 0
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 3

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 4

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 3
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 0
Ages 45 - 54: 0
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 3

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 3
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 3
Ages 45 - 54: 6
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 18

---

So, a grand total of 15 of the registered deaths, involving the 'murder' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout England, in 1888, involved specifically 'murder' by way of 'cut throat'.

Fifteen; throughout the whole of England!

---

In accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891 ...

Total Population, England: 27,482,104

Total Population, London*: 4,231,431

*As Defined by the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, i.e. the Administrative County of London

---

I will provide similar data, in accordance with the Annual Reports of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England; 1886, 1887, 1889, and 1890, upon my return from vacation, in early August.

But, for now ...

1886 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 3

1887 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 9

1888 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 15

1889 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 6

1890 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 7 "


Now, with that in mind, was throat cutting THAT common?

Monty
:)

Wickerman
07-08-2012, 03:26 PM
If there was indeed any evidence of strangulation, or suffocation, with Stride then I'd be inclined to have reservations, but as it stands with what we know about the Stride murder, it is in the same class as those of McKenzie & Coles.
And McKenzie even had the same collarbone bruises, but so did Chapman so that only levels the playing field.
Maybe those bruises were a result of being a prostitute rather than a victim of JtR.

Regards, Jon S.

Simon Wood
07-08-2012, 03:38 PM
Ah, statistics!

Kill me now.

Regards,

Simon

Trevor Marriott
07-08-2012, 03:49 PM
Present, on JtR forums site by that great Statistic colllator Colin Roberts on 22 July 2010.

"In Accordance with the Fifty First Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England, 1888:

England

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 55
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 2
Ages 15 - 19: 2
Ages 20 - 24: 5
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 2
Ages 45 - 54: 7
Ages 55 - 64: 2
Ages 65 - 74: 3
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 84

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 48
Ages 5 - 9: 3
Ages 10 - 14: 2
Ages 15 - 19: 2
Ages 20 - 24: 8
Ages 25 - 34: 12
Ages 35 - 44: 17
Ages 45 - 54: 11
Ages 55 - 64: 1
Ages 65 - 74: 6
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 111

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Manslaughter', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 10
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 5
Ages 15 - 19: 4
Ages 20 - 24: 4
Ages 25 - 34: 18
Ages 35 - 44: 8
Ages 45 - 54: 9
Ages 55 - 64: 5
Ages 65 - 74: 5
Ages 75 - 84: 1
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 71

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Manslaughter', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 12
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 1
Ages 15 - 19: 1
Ages 20 - 24: 1
Ages 25 - 34: 4
Ages 35 - 44: 6
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 2
Ages 65 - 74: 2
Ages 75 - 84: 2
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 35

---

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 65
Ages 5 - 9: 4
Ages 10 - 14: 7
Ages 15 - 19: 6
Ages 20 - 24: 9
Ages 25 - 34: 21
Ages 35 - 44: 10
Ages 45 - 54: 16
Ages 55 - 64: 7
Ages 65 - 74: 8
Ages 75 - 84: 2
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 155

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 60
Ages 5 - 9: 4
Ages 10 - 14: 3
Ages 15 - 19: 3
Ages 20 - 24: 9
Ages 25 - 34: 16
Ages 35 - 44: 23
Ages 45 - 54: 14
Ages 55 - 64: 3
Ages 65 - 74: 8
Ages 75 - 84: 3
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 146

---------

London

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 21
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 2
Ages 35 - 44: 3
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 30

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Homicide', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 17
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 2
Ages 35 - 44: 7
Ages 45 - 54: 7
Ages 55 - 64: 1
Ages 65 - 74: 3
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 39

The available data for London is unfortunately not expressed in any finer detail; i.e. in terms of 'Murder' and 'Manslaughter' being subsets of 'Homicide'.

It should be noted, however, that the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'murder' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout England, i.e. 56, represents 73.68% of the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout the same. It is reasonable, therefore, to estimate that 73.68% of the total number of registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout London, in 1888, i.e. 22, involved specifically 'murder'.

In other words: It is reasonable to estimate that approximately 16 of the registered deaths, involving the 'homicide' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout London, in 1888, were classified as 'murder'.

Put more simply: Approximately 16 women were murdered in London's metropolis, in 1888.

---------

England

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Weapons and Implements', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 5
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 1
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 13

Total Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Weapons and Implements', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 4
Ages 5 - 9: 2
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 6
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 5
Ages 45 - 54: 8
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 28

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Gun-Shot', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 0
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 2
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 3
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 1
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 7

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Gun-Shot', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 0
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 3
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 6

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 1
Ages 35 - 44: 0
Ages 45 - 54: 0
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 3

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut'/'Stab', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 1
Ages 45 - 54: 1
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 4

---

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Male)
Infancy - Age 4: 3
Ages 5 - 9: 0
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 0
Ages 25 - 34: 0
Ages 35 - 44: 0
Ages 45 - 54: 0
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 3

Registered Deaths Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', within Specified Intervals of Victim Age (Female)
Infancy - Age 4: 2
Ages 5 - 9: 1
Ages 10 - 14: 0
Ages 15 - 19: 0
Ages 20 - 24: 3
Ages 25 - 34: 3
Ages 35 - 44: 3
Ages 45 - 54: 6
Ages 55 - 64: 0
Ages 65 - 74: 0
Ages 75 - 84: 0
Ages 85 - xx: 0

Total: 18

---

So, a grand total of 15 of the registered deaths, involving the 'murder' of female adults (ages 20 - xx) throughout England, in 1888, involved specifically 'murder' by way of 'cut throat'.

Fifteen; throughout the whole of England!

---

In accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891 ...

Total Population, England: 27,482,104

Total Population, London*: 4,231,431

*As Defined by the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, i.e. the Administrative County of London

---

I will provide similar data, in accordance with the Annual Reports of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England; 1886, 1887, 1889, and 1890, upon my return from vacation, in early August.

But, for now ...

1886 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 3

1887 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 9

1888 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 15

1889 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 6

1890 - Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat': 7 "


Now, with that in mind, was throat cutting THAT common?

Monty
:)

An average of 10 females a year I would say thats a high figure but then again you want to argue just for the sake of arguing.

If you read my post I didnt specify women only so perhaps next time before you rush to score brownie points you should engage your brain before accessing the keyboard. :2thumbsup:

Monty
07-08-2012, 03:57 PM
The figures are there. Refer to them before making misleading statements.

Monty
:)

Monty
07-08-2012, 04:05 PM
Ah, statistics!

Kill me now.

Regards,

Simon

How's that queue forming? ;)

Monty
:)

Garry Wroe
07-08-2012, 04:12 PM
The cut to Stride's throat is entirely consistent with the throat cuts to the other victims.
Not according to the medical evidence, Rob.

The cut to Eddowes throat likewise severed the vessels on the left side of the throat, but only partly cut the vessels on the right... just like Stride.
According to Dr Brown, all of the left-sided vessels in Eddowes’ neck were completely severed, with the result that death was ‘immediate’ and occurred as a consequence of ‘haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery’. Both Phillips and Blackwell, by comparison, stated that Stride had died ‘comparatively slowly’ as a result of ‘partial severance’ of the left carotid artery. (My emphasis.)

Again with reference to Eddowes’ neck wound, Dr Brown stated that the tissues had been divided back to the bone and that the knife had scored the intervertebral cartilages. This did not occur in the case of Stride, but it did with Nichols, Chapman and Kelly.

Granted, in some of the other cases, the vessels on both sides were severed, but in the Stride case, we are under the assumption that the killer was interrupted, so did not perform any mutilations.
Some are under the assumption that Stride’s killer was interrupted, Rob, though this is a position that is not consistent with the evidence. But then, even in the event that Stride’s killer had been interrupted by the arrival of Diemschutz, I fail to understand how this would have affected the way in which he inflicted the throat wound. Similarly, if the killer was interrupted after he cut the throat and before he commenced the abdominal mutilation, I fail to understand why Stride was positioned on her side rather than on her back.

And the attempt to sever the head, which is evident in the Chapman murder for example, should fall under the category of mutilation.
No it shouldn’t. The strangulation was undertaken to immobilize a victim, and the throat cutting to kill her. These two acts were no more than facilitators for the factor that really motivated these crimes – the abdominal mutilation.

Stride suffered no abdominal mutilation, and neither was she strangled. The wound inflicted to her neck was also of a totally different character to those sustained by Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Thus there is no justification for the claim that ‘Stride's throat is entirely consistent with the throat cuts to the other victims.’ The difference between Stride and the known victims is that of night and day.

Garry Wroe
07-08-2012, 04:18 PM
Personally, I think neither Lawende nor Schwartz identified the suspect.
There really wasn't anyone else, though, SB. More to the point, if police adhered to standard procedure, both would have been taken to view Kosminski.

My first choice: George Hutchinson´s suspect. Astrakhan- Man is my witness.
He was otherwise engaged appearing in pantomime.

lynn cates
07-08-2012, 04:19 PM
Hello Neil. Thanks for posting this.

Just to be clear, is the claim:

1. Throat cutting was not common?

or

2. Throat cutting was not a common form of killing?

According to Colin's statistics, murder was not that common a thing. So in that sense, I can live with claim #1.

On the other hand, given Colin's target population, "adult females in all England in 1888" it seems that, out of 56 deaths, 16 were by cut throat. Unless my math skills have completely deserted me, that means that between 1/4 and 1/3 of murdered adult women in England were sent out of this world with a cut throat.

Did I get something wrong?

Cheers.
LC

Garry Wroe
07-08-2012, 04:21 PM
This is interesting of itself because it means that a Jewish witness, who supposedly got a good enough view to be able to make a positive identification, didn't recognise a fellow-Jew. Therefore, if there's anything to this story at all, the suspect was a Jew who was not easily recognisable as such.
Absolutely, Colin. One can only assume that Kosminski didn't appear Jewish.

lynn cates
07-08-2012, 04:31 PM
Hello Rob. Thanks. Almost missed your post. Sorry.

"I would guess that the killer dispatched Stride rather quickly . . ."

Completely agree.

" . . . then ran out of there. I assume that he was afraid of being caught, so he would have been more hasty than in other murders."

I see. Then you postulate that he cut her throat AFTER the interruption?

"Some of the other murders, most notably the Chapman murder, indicate an attempt to behead the victim, and so obviously the throat cut will be deeper."

Absolutely.

"And in comparison to Eddowes, Stride's throat was only slightly less deeply cut."

Tend to agree. Polly and Annie, very deep--nicked the bone. Kate, quite deep--nicked the cartilage. Liz, deep.

"In Stride's case:
"The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 inch below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.""

Quite. I appreciate your noting carotid was not severed.

"In Eddowes case:

The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. The carotid artery [on the right side] had a fine hole opening, the internal jugular vein was opened about an inch and a half -- not divided.'

Yes. And that opening of the carotid (fine hole) I find intriguing.

"So clearly in both cases, the cut commences on the left side, cuts through the vessels on the left side, and partially cuts through the vessels on the right side."

Yes. If fact, there are only two cases: starting on left, commencing right; and, starting right commencing left (eg, "MJK")

"Yes, Stride's cut was less deep, but the similarities between the two, and indeed with the other victims, is obvious, and easily explained by the fact that the killer was scared of being caught, and hence in a hurry.'

Not a bad hypothesis. If, however, I were the attacker, i would be even more frightened at #29 Hanbury.

"Incidentally, this would also explain why the position of the body in this case is different. In the other cases, the victim is clearly posed by the killer, with the legs drawn up at the knees and spread apart."

But this is NOT clearly a pose, anymore than a woman giving birth, having he feet in stirrups, is being posed. It is a mere case of the demand for access.

"In Stride's case, I suggest he just killed her and left."

Indubitably.

"She apparently did not die immediately, and I imagine she may have curled up in a sort of fetal position on her side."

Yes, the medical examiner thought as much. But all this leaves the question of number of hands untouched.

Cheers.
LC

robhouse
07-08-2012, 04:42 PM
Not according to the medical evidence, Rob.


According to Dr Brown, all of the left-sided vessels in Eddowes’ neck were completely severed, with the result that death was ‘immediate’ and occurred as a consequence of ‘haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery’. Both Phillips and Blackwell, by comparison, stated that Stride had died ‘comparatively slowly’ as a result of ‘partial severance’ of the left carotid artery. (My emphasis.)

Again with reference to Eddowes’ neck wound, Dr Brown stated that the tissues had been divided back to the bone and that the knife had scored the intervertebral cartilages. This did not occur in the case of Stride, but it did with Nichols, Chapman and Kelly.


Some are under the assumption that Stride’s killer was interrupted, Rob, though this is a position that is not consistent with the evidence. But then, even in the event that Stride’s killer had been interrupted by the arrival of Diemschutz, I fail to understand how this would have affected the way in which he inflicted the throat wound. Similarly, if the killer was interrupted after he cut the throat and before he commenced the abdominal mutilation, I fail to understand why Stride was positioned on her side rather than on her back.


No it shouldn’t. The strangulation was undertaken to immobilize a victim, and the throat cutting to kill her. These two acts were no more than facilitators for the factor that really motivated these crimes – the abdominal mutilation.

Stride suffered no abdominal mutilation, and neither was she strangled. The wound inflicted to her neck was also of a totally different character to those sustained by Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Thus there is no justification for the claim that ‘Stride's throat is entirely consistent with the throat cuts to the other victims.’ The difference between Stride and the known victims is that of night and day.

Hello Gary,

I dont have a lot of time so this will be a brief reply. I am sorry but I still disagree with you. Yes, the cut was less deep, but in general character it was similar. I have explained other reasons for the difference above. Incidentally, I am of the opinion that Stride was interrupted by Schwartz, not Diemshitz. To my way of thinking, this should be obvious... but others do not seem to agree with me. We know that a man was seen attacking Stride. I would call this "interruption." If this man was the killer, as I believe, then he would obviously worry that Schwartz would go get a policeman. But he couldn't let Stride live to identify him. So he drags her into the alley, cuts her throat quickly, and bolts. To me this is common sense, and is "consistent with the evidence."

In the case of Chapman's murder, Dr. Phillips reported the "appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck." Also, the cut to the throat went all the way around the neck. To me this goes beyond simply a means of effecting murder, and suggests the killer wanted to decapitate the victim. Hence it is in the category of post-death mutilation.

RH

Monty
07-08-2012, 04:43 PM
Hello Neil. Thanks for posting this.

Just to be clear, is the claim:

1. Throat cutting was not common?

or

2. Throat cutting was not a common form of killing?

According to Colin's statistics, murder was not that common a thing. So in that sense, I can live with claim #1.

On the other hand, given Colin's target population, "adult females in all England in 1888" it seems that, out of 56 deaths, 16 were by cut throat. Unless my math skills have completely deserted me, that means that between 1/4 and 1/3 of murdered adult women in England were sent out of this world with a cut throat.

Did I get something wrong?

Cheers.
LC

Not so much the figures but rather the location.

Monty
:)

robhouse
07-08-2012, 04:45 PM
Absolutely, Colin. One can only assume that Kosminski didn't appear Jewish.

This is a good point, which is consistent with what little we know...

RH

lynn cates
07-08-2012, 04:49 PM
Hello Neil. Do you mean that the statistics have nothing to do with it? Very well. Agreed.

So the salient point is that the C5 were all killed in Tower Hamlets?

Cheers.
LC

Simon Wood
07-08-2012, 04:53 PM
Hi All,

Who else would have been in this seaside ID parade?

It surely can't have been just Kosminski standing there on his lonesome.

Regards,

Simon

Monty
07-08-2012, 05:05 PM
Hello Neil. Do you mean that the statistics have nothing to do with it? Very well. Agreed.

So the salient point is that the C5 were all killed in Tower Hamlets?

Cheers.
LC

If I did Lynn then I would have said so wouldn't I?

No, the point is that throat cutting was not that common, with 15 throat cuts deaths on women for the whole of the UK in 1888.

How many of those occured in Whitechapel?

Monty
:)

Simon Wood
07-08-2012, 05:23 PM
Hi Monty,

"Statistics means never having to say you're certain."

Regards,

Simon

Roy Corduroy
07-08-2012, 05:35 PM
Ah, statistics!

Kill me now.



No you are spared, 007 :lol:

These aren't statistics. These are official records. Useful for this thread, and for Lynn's One size fits all thread.

Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat':

1886 -3

1887 - 9

1888 - 15

1889 - 6

1890 -7

Do you see it? The sudden spike in the number of women in England murdered by cut throat in the year 1888 AD.

Now that wasn't so bad was it.

Roy

Trevor Marriott
07-08-2012, 05:39 PM
No you are spared, 007 :lol:

These aren't statistics. These are official records. Useful for this thread, and for Lynn's One size fits all thread.

Registered Deaths of Female Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat':

1886 -3

1887 - 9

1888 - 15

1889 - 6

1890 -7

Do you see it? The sudden spike in the number of women in England murdered by cut throat in the year 1888 AD.

Now that wasn't so bad was it.

Roy

Perhaps someone should look up the figures for the ensuing years going into modern day times. For both females and males might be interesting to compare?

Simon Wood
07-08-2012, 05:40 PM
Hi Kronsteen,

Yes, the upward national trend had not escaped me.

Was 1888 the year they first put fluoride in drinking water?

Regards,

Simon

Monty
07-08-2012, 05:43 PM
I can see why these stats unnerve you Simon, seeing as it goes against your pet theory and all.

I suggest you look away now, and Trevor.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=180312#post180312

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=180478#post180478


You see, if you are going to provide an arguement, tis always best to have something of substance supporting your arguement. It bodes better than interpretation.

Dead men and women don't lie.

Monty

Simon Wood
07-08-2012, 05:57 PM
Hi Monty,

I've never been unnerved by a statistic.

Bored yes, but never unnerved.

Regards,

Simon

Monty
07-08-2012, 06:08 PM
Hi Monty,

I've never been unnerved by a statistic.

Bored yes, but never unnerved.

Regards,

Simon

I get a similar thing with pure speculation. Then y'all go and dress it up as fact which does stimulate me again, so you kinda get away with it.

Monty
:)

lynn cates
07-08-2012, 06:51 PM
Hello Neil. Thanks.

You do agree, then, that just under 1/3 of English adult female deaths in 1888 were by cut throat?

So I thank you and Colin once again.

Cheers.
LC

Bridewell
07-08-2012, 06:52 PM
I dont have a lot of time so this will be a brief reply. I am sorry but I still disagree with you. Yes, the cut was less deep, but in general character it was similar. I have explained other reasons for the difference above. Incidentally, I am of the opinion that Stride was interrupted by Schwartz, not Diemshitz. To my way of thinking, this should be obvious... but others do not seem to agree with me. We know that a man was seen attacking Stride. I would call this "interruption." If this man was the killer, as I believe, then he would obviously worry that Schwartz would go get a policeman. But he couldn't let Stride live to identify him. So he drags her into the alley, cuts her throat quickly, and bolts. To me this is common sense, and is "consistent with the evidence.
Hi Robhouse,
But he couldn't let Stride live to identify him.
Especially if she knew him. Your post makes a lot of sense to me, for what it's worth.

Regards, Bridewell.

lynn cates
07-08-2012, 06:56 PM
Hello Roy. Given the mathematical turn of this thread, look closely.

1886 -3

1887 - 9

1888 - 15

What do you notice? Well, from 1887 to 1888, there was a 66.66% increase.

But from 1886 to 1887 there was a 300% increase!!!!

So the real "spike," percentage wise, came in 1887, NOT 1888.

How can a Jackster account for that?

Cheers.
LC

Bridewell
07-08-2012, 07:41 PM
Hello Roy. Given the mathematical turn of this thread, look closely.

1886 -3

1887 - 9

1888 - 15

What do you notice? Well, from 1887 to 1888, there was a 66.66% increase.

But from 1886 to 1887 there was a 300% increase!!!!

So the real "spike," percentage wise, came in 1887, NOT 1888.

How can a Jackster account for that?

Cheers.
LC
Hi Lynn,

I think that 1886 to 1887 is a 200% increase, not 300% (6 would have been a 100% increase). Whichever way you look at it 1888 is a 400% increase over 1886.

Regards, Bridewell.

Roy Corduroy
07-08-2012, 08:19 PM
Oh, Okay so you want to play shuffle the numbers around?

1888 - 15

1889 - 6

1890 -7


Why the sudden drop off afte ... no wait, Robin, I see Batman's getting bored.

I've never been unnerved by a statistic.

Bored yes



He insists these are statistics anyway, not official records. Another Clew. So whatever yall are cooking up in the Bat Cave, just go with it.

:mask: :batman:

Roy

Michael W Richards
07-08-2012, 08:19 PM
I am sorry, but I do not agree with this. The cut to Stride's throat is entirely consistent with the throat cuts to the other victims. They are all made from left to right, commencing under the angle of the left jaw. The cut to Eddowes throat likewise severed the vessels on the left side of the throat, but only partly cut the vessels on the right... just like Stride. Granted, in some of the other cases, the vessels on both sides were severed, but in the Stride case, we are under the assumption that the killer was interrupted, so did not perform any mutilations. And the attempt to sever the head, which is evident in the Chapman murder for example, should fall under the category of mutilation.

RH

Hi Robhouse,

I think I can see the problem Rob, above in bold. Your position above is only viable if your "assumption" of an interruption is valid. That is not something that the physical evidence asserts though, the missing mutilations are only missing if the same man killed the first 3 women. If your case rests on the hand used to cut the throat, thereby dictating the direction of the cut, Id say you are playing a longshot.

Right handed people arent that rare.

Best regards,

Mike R

Michael W Richards
07-08-2012, 08:26 PM
Put more simply: Approximately 16 women were murdered in London's metropolis, in 1888.


Now, with that in mind, was throat cutting THAT common?

Monty
:)

I used just 2 sections of your post Monty to ask a few questions.

What of the number of attacks to the throat with knives, suicide by slitting ones own throat, what are the comparative numbers for murders by other means...like with a lead pipe, or a garrote or a screwdriver?

After all, we do have 5 Canonicals killed by throat cuts in 3 months and we have no proof that they were connected to the same killer. We also have to my count 2 suicides by slit throat, male and female, and we have 1 torso that could well have been killed by slit throat during the same period. Not to mention all knife attacks for the year.

Best regards,

Mike R

Abby Normal
07-08-2012, 08:51 PM
Hello Gary,

I dont have a lot of time so this will be a brief reply. I am sorry but I still disagree with you. Yes, the cut was less deep, but in general character it was similar. I have explained other reasons for the difference above. Incidentally, I am of the opinion that Stride was interrupted by Schwartz, not Diemshitz. To my way of thinking, this should be obvious... but others do not seem to agree with me. We know that a man was seen attacking Stride. I would call this "interruption." If this man was the killer, as I believe, then he would obviously worry that Schwartz would go get a policeman. But he couldn't let Stride live to identify him. So he drags her into the alley, cuts her throat quickly, and bolts. To me this is common sense, and is "consistent with the evidence."

In the case of Chapman's murder, Dr. Phillips reported the "appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck." Also, the cut to the throat went all the way around the neck. To me this goes beyond simply a means of effecting murder, and suggests the killer wanted to decapitate the victim. Hence it is in the category of post-death mutilation.

RH

Totally agree

lynn cates
07-08-2012, 09:26 PM
Hello Colin. Thanks. A faux pas.

Still, a 200% increase should raise the eyebrows more than a 66.66% increase.

Why compare 1886 to 1888? What has that to do with a sexual serial killer active in 1888?

Cheers.
LC

lynn cates
07-08-2012, 09:28 PM
Hello Roy. Thanks.

The drop off tally is still double the 1886 rate, right?

My point is that you can do ANYTHING with math, should you so choose. None of this tells us who killed whom.

Cheers.
LC

robhouse
07-08-2012, 10:25 PM
Hi Robhouse,

I think I can see the problem Rob, above in bold. Your position above is only viable if your "assumption" of an interruption is valid.

It is a fact that Schwartz witnessed a man assaulting Stride, just a few minutes before she was found murdered. This is what I call an "interruption." The only real assumption I make is that the man seen assaulting Stride actually killed her, which, yes, I do believe. The other assumption is based on human behavior: that if you are in the process of trying to murder someone, and a person happens to see you doing this, you are going to be afraid of being caught. So yes, while this is an assumption, it is an entirely reasonable one... which, incidentally, in my opinion, has been grossly overlooked for years, while people have assumed the interruption was by Diemschitz. The much more likely interrupter is Schwartz himself.

RH

Lechmere
07-08-2012, 10:53 PM
The statstics show just how rare these sort of attacks were on women. Unsolved attacks were even rarer.
Two in one night in walking distance of each other and neatly allowing a timeframe for the same person to potentially do both... with the first showing potrential for interruption and hence unsated activity.

And yet some want it to be another hand... because the cut wasn't quite so deep (because he didn't feel comfortable in that location perhaps) or the body left in a slightly different position (because he was interrupted perhaps).
There can be many reasons why the murders are not duplicates of each other.

lynn cates
07-08-2012, 11:11 PM
Hello Lechmere. Speaking of rarity, don't forget there was a third fatal knife attack--same night. And that was a lady as well.

No offense, but wishing won't make it come true.

Try again?

Cheers.
LC

Wickerman
07-08-2012, 11:36 PM
If there was an interruption, it must have occured after the knife was used on her throat, not when Schwartz passed, which apparently was before the knife was pulled at all.

So, Schwartz see's BS-man throw her down, Schwartz takes off.
BS-man pulls the knife and slashed her throat, and ......is interrupted by someone else?
Pipeman?

I don't think BS-man was her killer, I'm just explaining how the interruption must have occured after Schwartz left, maybe 2-3 minutes or longer, after he left.
So, Schwartz was not "caedes interruptus", it was someone else...

Regards, Jon S.

Michael W Richards
07-08-2012, 11:52 PM
It is a fact that Schwartz witnessed a man assaulting Stride, just a few minutes before she was found murdered. This is what I call an "interruption." The only real assumption I make is that the man seen assaulting Stride actually killed her, which, yes, I do believe. The other assumption is based on human behavior: that if you are in the process of trying to murder someone, and a person happens to see you doing this, you are going to be afraid of being caught. So yes, while this is an assumption, it is an entirely reasonable one... which, incidentally, in my opinion, has been grossly overlooked for years, while people have assumed the interruption was by Diemschitz. The much more likely interrupter is Schwartz himself.

RH

Hi Robhouse,

Im sorry, but it is a FACT only that Israel Schwartz's statement allegedly included a scuffle between a Broadshouldered man and a woman nearly in front of the gates to the Mens Club at approximately 12:45. We have neither the statement itself, nor a corroboration for the story, to be sure. The facts are that we have statements on record that indicate perhaps no-one was there at 12:45 and nothing at all occurred in front of the gates until our black bag handler Mr Goldstein at around 12:55-56.

I am on your side on the matter of the BSM...because if that altercation took place at all, he is most probably the man that also kills her a few yards and minutes away.

You might also consider that if you were the murderer and were seen assaulting the soon to be victim, and had a verbal exchange with the suspect, it would be unwise to then finish the job while that witness is still available for interview.

And another thing to consider is the fact that there is absolutely no indication by her physical state that anything more was intended to happen than the murder itself. Since the experts thought the killer of the first 2 women did so to then mutilate and excise, a murder in and of itself seems far less satisfying to such a man, and in fact, suggestive of a new motive. For example, in your scenario he kills her to shut her up.

So he killed "just for the jolly" did he? Not exactly.

Best regards,
Mike R

robhouse
07-09-2012, 12:22 AM
Hi Robhouse,

Im sorry, but it is a FACT only that Israel Schwartz's statement allegedly included a scuffle between a Broadshouldered man and a woman nearly in front of the gates to the Mens Club at approximately 12:45. We have neither the statement itself, nor a corroboration for the story, to be sure. The facts are that we have statements on record that indicate perhaps no-one was there at 12:45 and nothing at all occurred in front of the gates until our black bag handler Mr Goldstein at around 12:55-56.

I am on your side on the matter of the BSM...because if that altercation took place at all, he is most probably the man that also kills her a few yards and minutes away.

You might also consider that if you were the murderer and were seen assaulting the soon to be victim, and had a verbal exchange with the suspect, it would be unwise to then finish the job while that witness is still available for interview.

And another thing to consider is the fact that there is absolutely no indication by her physical state that anything more was intended to happen than the murder itself. Since the experts thought the killer of the first 2 women did so to then mutilate and excise, a murder in and of itself seems far less satisfying to such a man, and in fact, suggestive of a new motive. For example, in your scenario he kills her to shut her up.

So he killed "just for the jolly" did he? Not exactly.

Best regards,
Mike R

No, in my scenario it is a botched attempt at accomplishing what he was trying to do, which as you say, is mutilating the person after death. Once Schwartz arrived on the scene, it was botched. I am suggesting that he killed her, then bolted... so he would not be caught in the act, and so Stride would not be alive to identify him.

RH

lynn cates
07-09-2012, 01:23 AM
Hello Rob. I see what you mean.

I wonder, though, if he had not killed her, but had walked away, surely he would not be guilty of a very serious charge? Battery, perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

Wickerman
07-09-2012, 02:21 AM
Hello Rob. I see what you mean.

I wonder, though, if he had not killed her, but had walked away, surely he would not be guilty of a very serious charge? Battery, perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

On the other hand, if Schwartz had brought a copper, Stride might have been arrested for soliciting...

Regards, Jon S.

Simon Wood
07-09-2012, 04:05 AM
Hi All,

These Berner Street scenarios are even more inventive than that of Chief Inspector Swanson.

Regards,

Simon

Trevor Marriott
07-09-2012, 06:17 AM
Hi All,

These Berner Street scenarios are even more inventive than that of Chief Inspector Swanson.

Regards,

Simon

I totally agree.

What should be considered is that if Stride was soliciting prior to her death and her soliciting was of an aggresive nature. .i.e physicllay stopping males as they passed by then the likelihood is that one of these males could have quite easily in declining her offer pushed her aside.

Things are not always sometimes what they seem but despite that some choose to interpert them in a way that suits their purpose

Bridewell
07-09-2012, 09:21 AM
On the other hand, if Schwartz had brought a copper, Stride might have been arrested for soliciting...

Regards, Jon S.

Only if she was doing so in a street or public place. If she was in Dutfields Yard that wouldn't apply. Perhaps that's why she was standing so close to the gateway, because said copper wouldn't be able to arrest her on Schwartz's say-so, the power of arrest being 'found committing' (by a police officer).

Regards, Bridewell.

Bridewell
07-09-2012, 09:34 AM
I totally agree.

What should be considered is that if Stride was soliciting prior to her death and her soliciting was of an aggresive nature. .i.e physicllay stopping males as they passed by then the likelihood is that one of these males could have quite easily in declining her offer pushed her aside.

Things are not always sometimes what they seem but despite that some choose to interpert them in a way that suits their purpose

Hi Trevor,

It's hardly unreasonable to speculate that a man seen to assault a woman fifteen minutes before her body is found may have been her killer. There's no more supposition in that than in the suggestion that the assault was violent rejection by an offended passer-by.

Regards, Bridewell.

Garry Wroe
07-09-2012, 10:07 AM
I am sorry but I still disagree with you.
Entirely your prerogative, Rob.

Incidentally, I am of the opinion that Stride was interrupted by Schwartz, not Diemshitz … We know that a man was seen attacking Stride. I would call this "interruption." If this man was the killer, as I believe, then he would obviously worry that Schwartz would go get a policeman. But he couldn't let Stride live to identify him. So he drags her into the alley, cuts her throat quickly, and bolts. To me this is common sense, and is "consistent with the evidence."
The principal flaw as I see it, Rob, is that Broad Shoulders had done no more than manhandle Stride when Schwartz appeared on the scene. Stride obviously didn’t suspect that she had fallen into the clutches of the Whitechapel Murderer otherwise she would have screamed for all she was worth. So why did he need to silence her? Why not simply walk away rather than commit a murder knowing that he had been seen by two witnesses?

In the case of Chapman's murder, Dr. Phillips reported the "appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck." Also, the cut to the throat went all the way around the neck. To me this goes beyond simply a means of effecting murder, and suggests the killer wanted to decapitate the victim. Hence it is in the category of post-death mutilation.
I’m open minded about the alleged attempted decapitation, Rob. I would suggest, however, that had the killer been intent on removing a victim’s head, he had ample time and opportunity to do so in the privacy of Kelly’s room. That he didn’t is indicative that the spinal scoring was merely an artefact of the ferocity with which the throat injuries were inflicted.

Garry Wroe
07-09-2012, 10:11 AM
The statstics show just how rare these sort of attacks were on women.
Perhaps, Lechmere. But they do not demonstrate that Stride was a victim of Jack the Ripper.

Two in one night in walking distance of each other and neatly allowing a timeframe for the same person to potentially do both... with the first showing potrential for interruption and hence unsated activity.

And yet one of these murders evinces not a single element of the Whitechapel Murderer’s modus operandi or crime scene signature.

And yet some want it to be another hand ...
Want, Lechmere? I rather suspect that you are confusing evidentially based conclusions with some unspecified agenda.

… because the cut wasn't quite so deep (because he didn't feel comfortable in that location perhaps) or the body left in a slightly different position (because he was interrupted perhaps).
Or Stride wasn’t killed by Jack the Ripper perhaps.

There can be many reasons why the murders are not duplicates of each other.
As far as I’m aware, Lechmere, no-one is looking for precise duplication. How could they when no two of the Ripper’s crimes were exactly alike? But the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly shared a number of clear and consistent behavioural commonalities which were conspicuous by their absence in the Berner Street crime. The simple fact of the matter is that there was far greater similitude between the murders of Stride and Coles than those of Stride and Eddowes. Does this mean that you believe Coles to have been a Ripper victim too? And are you suggesting that the volatile, aggressive and abusive drunk who assaulted Stride in full view of two witnesses was the same passive individual sighted by Lawende in company with Eddowes at the mouth of Church Passage?

Trevor Marriott
07-09-2012, 11:36 AM
Hi Trevor,

It's hardly unreasonable to speculate that a man seen to assault a woman fifteen minutes before her body is found may have been her killer. There's no more supposition in that than in the suggestion that the assault was violent rejection by an offended passer-by.

Regards, Bridewell.

So why not kill her in the course of carrying out the assault ?

What would have made a woman who had been violently assaulted by a man then choose to go into a dark area with him? Coupled with the fact that the assault took place in a busy street and the man knowing that he may have been seen and may have been known. Would he then go onto kill that woman ?

Jon Guy
07-09-2012, 11:47 AM
So why not kill her in the course of carrying out the assault ?


Perhaps he did, and it was so quick that Schwartz did not realise he had witnessed her murder.

Bridewell
07-09-2012, 11:51 AM
So why not kill her in the course of carrying out the assault ?

What would have made a woman who had been violently assaulted by a man then choose to go into a dark area with him?
If the assault was a prelude to murder, I doubt if choice entered into the equation.
Coupled with the fact that the assault took place in a busy street and the man knowing that he may have been seen and may have been known. Would he then go onto kill that woman ?
Possibly, if he was known to her, but it's a fair point. Nevertheless, someone killed Stride within, at most, 10 -15 minutes of this assault. I guess Pipeman could have played the part of a man coming to her rescue. She might have trusted such an individual.

Regards, Bridewell.

Trevor Marriott
07-09-2012, 12:18 PM
Perhaps he did, and it was so quick that Schwartz did not realise he had witnessed her murder.

So knowing her throat had been cut she goes into the yard sits down and dies :shakehead:

Trevor Marriott
07-09-2012, 12:21 PM
If the assault was a prelude to murder, I doubt if choice entered into the equation.

Possibly, if he was known to her, but it's a fair point. Nevertheless, someone killed Stride within, at most, 10 -15 minutes of this assault. I guess Pipeman could have played the part of a man coming to her rescue. She might have trusted such an individual.

Regards, Bridewell.

Can we stick to facts not make things up as we go along :2thumbsup:

So many original facts and theories do not stand up to close scrutiny

lynn cates
07-09-2012, 12:21 PM
Hello Trevor. Are you suggesting her last request was one of the cashous?

Cheers.
LC

Garry Wroe
07-09-2012, 12:25 PM
The three 'quiet' screams as described by Schwartz suggest to my mind that Stride knew her attacker and didn't consider herself to be in any real physical danger.

Jon Guy
07-09-2012, 12:30 PM
So knowing her throat had been cut she goes into the yard sits down and dies :shakehead:

Goes into the yard, Trevor?
Looks to me like she was simply pushed or pulled one or two yards into the passageway (which is what Schwartz describes). Her feet were almost touching the gates, and her scarf showed that it had been pulled tight.

Garry Wroe
07-09-2012, 12:32 PM
Perhaps he did, and it was so quick that Schwartz did not realise he had witnessed her murder.
That's an interesting hypothesis, Jon. But then the attack occurred in the street. The bloodflow from Stride's neck wound suggests that the injury was inflicted on the spot where the body was discovered.

Garry Wroe
07-09-2012, 12:39 PM
Looks to me like she was simply pushed or pulled one or two yards into the passageway (which is what Schwartz describes).
Schwartz was walking some distance behind Broad Shoulders, Jon. He couldn't have described Stride being pushed to the ground if it occurred in the yard because this area wasn't visible to him. Therefore it must have taken place on the pavement itself.

Trevor Marriott
07-09-2012, 12:39 PM
Hello Trevor. Are you suggesting her last request was one of the cashous?

Cheers.
LC

No Lynn she was probably trying to plug the hole in her throat with them to stop the bleeding :lol:

Jon Guy
07-09-2012, 12:44 PM
Hi Gary

In Schwartz`s statement he said " the man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her around and threw her on the footway."

Could be the whole incident took place just inside the gates.

Garry Wroe
07-09-2012, 12:50 PM
Possibly, Jon. I'm not entirely convinced, but your thinking accords better with the evidence than most.

Jon Guy
07-09-2012, 12:54 PM
Schwartz was walking some distance behind Broad Shoulders, Jon. He couldn't have described Stride being pushed to the ground if it occurred in the yard because this area wasn't visible to him. Therefore it must have taken place on the pavement itself.

But he would still have seen BS pulling her about from walking behind him, and as he crossed over the road he could have seen the incident just inside the gates.

BS man swings Stride about, drags her back two or three yards into the passageway, she screams but not very loudly as she is being pulled by her scarf or she is been forced down and her throat cut. BS notices Schwartz and verbally abuses him, Schwartz runs off.

Jon Guy
07-09-2012, 12:57 PM
Possibly, Jon. I'm not entirely convinced, but your thinking accords better with the evidence than most.


Thanks, Gary. That`s exactly how I see that scenario. I`m not entirely convinced but it accords better with the evidence than most.

Bridewell
07-09-2012, 01:06 PM
But he would still have seen BS pulling her about from walking behind him, and as he crossed over the road he could have seen the incident just inside the gates.

BS man swings Stride about, drags her back two or three yards into the passageway, she screams but not very loudly as she is being pulled by her scarf or she is been forced down and her throat cut. BS notices Schwartz and verbally abuses him, Schwartz runs off.

Hi Jon,

That seems like a pretty good fit with the known circumstances of her death and with the evidence of Schwartz - except for Pipeman. I'm wondering if Schwartz told the truth in every other respect, but invented Pipeman to justify having fled the scene. That would be one explanation for the man, who had a pipe in his initial account, acquiring a knife in his second.

Regards, Bridewell.

Jon Guy
07-09-2012, 01:22 PM
Hi Colin

Pipeman was probably just one of the many people making their way home. Standing outside the Nelson he wouldn`t have seen anything in the yard, and there was singing going on in the club. I believe he just lit his pipe and went on his way, which might have been in the same direction as Schwartz.

As the knife is not mentioned in his Police statement, I take that detail with a pinch of salt, as some sort of journalistic invention. Maybe added, as you say, to cover Schwartz`s blushes in leaving a woman in peril.

robhouse
07-09-2012, 01:34 PM
Hello Rob. I see what you mean.

I wonder, though, if he had not killed her, but had walked away, surely he would not be guilty of a very serious charge? Battery, perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

I take your point Lynn, and have considered this. But I think what is important is the subjective perception of the attacker/killer. If the attack witnessed by Schwartz was "prelude" to murder, then in the mind of the attacker, he would perceive that had been seen in the process of trying to kill her. I do not think the man would be thinking very rationally at this point anyway. Plus, he would have been extremely angry... both at Stride herself, and at the fact that he was seen. So I think he would have killed her anyway, perhaps mainly out of frustration and anger at that point. But he would not hang around to see if Schwartz returned with the police.

RH

lynn cates
07-09-2012, 01:59 PM
Hello Rob. Thanks. I think I understand your point. When one has a guilty conscience, one seems to think everyone is looking my way.

A recurrent theme, by the way, in Hitchcock's works. To say nothing of Dostoevski.

Cheers.
LC

robhouse
07-09-2012, 02:18 PM
You can't beat Hitchcock and Dostoevsky in my opinion.

RH

Scott Nelson
07-09-2012, 02:33 PM
Well, I think Nick Drake was a better singer.

lynn cates
07-09-2012, 02:46 PM
Hello Scott. Ah, but John Drake was a better spy--at least, when a danger man were needed.

Cheers.
LC

robhouse
07-09-2012, 02:48 PM
Well, I think Nick Drake was a better singer.

I don't go for that emo stuff.

Lechmere
07-09-2012, 03:50 PM
Garry
I have my doubts about the whole Schwartz episode. He may have seen something occur but whatever he may have seen probably did not involve the person known as Jack the Ripper. The whole episode may well have got magnified in intensity in his mind, once he found out that a murder had occurred in that street.
I am inclined to think that if the BS pushing over incident did happen, then if she cried softly it may have been as she didn't feel that threatened (not to the extent of her life being under threat) and as a soliciting prostitute didn't want to attract too much attention.
I doubt that BS man - if he existed - was the murderer of Stride.

The physical evidence pertinent to the attack on Stride suggests it was carried out very quickly. It seems likely to have been botched. People seldom cooperate when a murderer tries to kill them and things can go wrong. Add to that the fact that the Ripper was generally compelled to attack outdoors, and this murder obviously took place outdoors, where other people could interrupt his actions and you are left with a very variable crime scene. It is frankly amazing that there are the common factors that can be shown to link the crimes. Bearing this in mind, the attack on Stride is well within the meaningful paramentere that connect these crimes.

I doubt that Lawende saw the same person as Schwartz and I doubt that Lawende saw the person known as Jack the Ripper.
I also doubt that either Schwartz nor Lawende were the witness talked of with regard to the Seaside Home identification. I think the whole thing was horribly garbled by desk bound senior police officers desperate to validate their careers in later life.

I will repeat that the chances of two unsolved fatal throat cutting knife attacks, outside, on prostitutes within walking distance of each other and within a narrow time frame make it exceptionally unlikley that two hands were at work. These sorts of attacks were exceptionally rare.
That another woman other than Eddowes was killed by a knife elsewhere on the same night does not make it anymore commonplace, quite simply as we know for an iron fact that such attacks were anything but commonplace. It means that this night was statistiaclly perverse in there being three. But the chance that three different knife attackers were out on that night are slim to say the least.
The happenstance that the other, domestic, knife attack did take place that night actually makes it much less likely that Stride was murdered by a different hand to Eddowes.

I don't think that pouring over hysterical witness accounts and self serving Police memoirs gets us any closer to establishing who may or who may not be the culprit, even if these are interesting things to look at for sociological reasons - connected with how the human mind corrupts the data that is fed into it by our senses.

As for Coles I would have to say that there is a good chance that she was kiled by the same person and I would say it should be kept on the file. On balance I think Saddler probably did it - he was very much in the frame, which makes this one quite unlike the other murders. Also to be brutally honest the Coles murder doesn't fit to my mind with being committed by my favoured suspect and so I would have to strike it out for that reason!

Rubyretro
07-09-2012, 04:22 PM
Garry
[QUOTE]I have my doubts about the whole Schwartz episode. He may have seen something occur but whatever he may have seen probably did not involve the person known as Jack the Ripper.

Totally agree.

The whole episode may well have got magnified in intensity in his mind, once he found out that a murder had occurred in that street.

Very likely.

I am inclined to think that if the BS pushing over incident did happen, then if she cried softly it may have been as she didn't feel that threatened (not to the extent of her life being under threat) and as a soliciting prostitute didn't want to attract too much attention.
I doubt that BS man - if he existed - was the murderer of Stride.

I have always said that, in all my posts on this subject.

The physical evidence pertinent to the attack on Stride suggests it was carried out very quickly. It seems likely to have been botched. People seldom cooperate when a murderer tries to kill them and things can go wrong. Add to that the fact that the Ripper was generally compelled to attack outdoors, and this murder obviously took place outdoors, where other people could interrupt his actions and you are left with a very variable crime scene. It is frankly amazing that there are the common factors that can be shown to link the crimes. Bearing this in mind, the attack on Stride is well within the meaningful paramentere that connect these crimes.

Absolutely agree -adding only the 'perhaps' the Ripper mean't to kill 2 victims that night, and the Stride murder wasn't as botched as all that.

I doubt that Lawende saw the same person as Schwartz and I doubt that Lawende saw the person known as Jack the Ripper.

Gordon Bennett ! We agree, Lechmere ! (the Earth might stop turning !).

I also doubt that either Schwartz nor Lawende were the witness talked of with regard to the Seaside Home identification. I think the whole thing was horribly garbled by desk bound senior police officers desperate to validate their careers in later life.

YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!

I will repeat that the chances of two unsolved fatal throat cutting knife attacks, outside, on prostitutes within walking distance of each other and within a narrow time frame make it exceptionally unlikley that two hands were at work. These sorts of attacks were exceptionally rare.

What have you been doing this afternoon , Lechmere ? Too true, blue.

That another woman other than Eddowes was killed by a knife elsewhere on the same night does not make it anymore commonplace, quite simply as we know for an iron fact that such attacks were anything but commonplace. It means that this night was statistiaclly perverse in there being three. But the chance that three different knife attackers were out on that night are slim to say the least.


OMG -Yes, again.

The happenstance that the other, domestic, knife attack did take place that night actually makes it much less likely that Stride was murdered by a different hand to Eddowes.

Yes, true.

I don't think that pouring over hysterical witness accounts and self serving Police memoirs gets us any closer to establishing who may or who may not be the culprit, even if these are interesting things to look at for sociological reasons - connected with how the human mind corrupts the data that is fed into it by our senses.

(Do I really have to be a 'yes' woman, now ?) Yes.

As for Coles I would have to say that there is a good chance that she was kiled by the same person and I would say it should be kept on the file. On balance I think Saddler probably did it - he was very much in the frame, which makes this one quite unlike the other murders. Also to be brutally honest the Coles murder doesn't fit to my mind with being committed by my favoured suspect and so I would have to strike it out for that reason!

WDW !

GregBaron
07-09-2012, 04:37 PM
You can't beat Hitchcock and Dostoevsky in my opinion.

RH


Don't forget Poe boys.........to which both men were admittedly indebted............Is not "Tell Tale Heart" rather a good story of guilt?



Greg

Lechmere
07-09-2012, 04:58 PM
And what may I ask does WDW mean in the English language?

Bridewell
07-09-2012, 05:31 PM
And what may I ask does WDW mean in the English language?
I want to know the answer to that one too! (My guess is a mis-spelt WOW, but I'm probably going to be horribly embarrassed when I learn the truth).

Regards, Bridewell

Rubyretro
07-09-2012, 08:36 PM
'WDW !' is a term that I just learn't today -in an effort to broaden my vocabulary by self education. .

It means 'well done Winner', and is a bingo expression to congratulate those having a Full House

(2TG means '2 to go' for a Full House

Wtg means 'way to go' to 'congratulate' other losers ).

I am a useful and intelligent person, I'm sure. The fact that I would use a bit of my day off memorising a chunk of the Bingo Lingo Dictionary is no indication of anything odd (er...).

(Sorry Lynn -it appears that Bingo Lingo was more immediately attractive to me than brushing up my amo, amas, amat...)

(nb : I have always lost at Bingo ).

Bridewell
07-09-2012, 08:46 PM
(Sorry Lynn -it appears that Bingo Lingo was more immediately attractive to me than brushing up my amo, amas, amat...)

Hi Ruby,

Amo amas amat? The next step is conversing with tables, isn't it?!

Regards, Bridewell.

Rubyretro
07-09-2012, 08:58 PM
Hi Ruby,

Amo amas amat? The next step is conversing with tables, isn't it?!

Regards, Bridewell.


Exactly , Bridewell...mensa mensa mensam ? (er... book 1 page 2) mensae ?

Cogidubnus
07-09-2012, 08:58 PM
Amo amas amat? The next step is conversing with tables, isn't it?!

No Colin, our next step was conversing with "puella" - but it was after all a single-sex boys grammar school and we were, therefore, somewhat obsessed with the subjecy of "puella" !

Dave

Rubyretro
07-09-2012, 09:04 PM
[QUOTE=Cogidubnus;228020]No Colin, our next step was conversing with "puella" - but it was after all a single-sex boys grammar school and we were, therefore, somewhat obsessed with the subjecy of "puella" !

Dave

Homo, hominis, homini ? I went to a girl's school, Dave.

Cogidubnus
07-09-2012, 09:08 PM
I went to a girl's school, Dave.

Somewhere in Sussex?

Dave

Michael W Richards
07-09-2012, 09:33 PM
Hello all,

I was thinking about a few questions that trouble me when assessing Israels story, and I thought it might be helpful to some others doing the same;

1) What was the address Israels wife was moving from that Saturday?
2) Did the translator used at his statement know Israel and vouch for him?
3) Why didnt Spooner and his date see Israel exiting Berner Street at 12:45ish?
4) Since Fanny heard bootsteps when not at the door, how is it that she missed Israels and the Pipemans?
5) What is the only portion of Israels statement that is mentioned in later internal memorandum?
6) Did Israel see Morris Eagle going from the front door to the club side entrance inside the gates as he approached?
7) Did Morris Eagle or Joe Lave see anyone at all on the street in either direction at around 12:40?
8) Had Israel ever attended that club? Was he a member?
9) Who translated for Israel and how was that arranged?
10) Do we know if anyone was interviewed to substantiate any of Israels statement?
11) Do we have any hard evidence that Israel Schwartz gave testimony at the formal Inquest into Liz Strides murder, or that he was a protected witness kept from the proceedings?
12) When he was interviewed by the police, what occupation did he give them?
13) Did anyone in the press do a follow up interview with Israel Schwartz after that weekend?
14) If Lawende is the witness that is supposed to have been "the only person who saw the Ripper", then what possible value does Israel Schwartz's sighting have to the Ripper investigations?
15) If Schwartz is the witness that was "the only person to have seen the Ripper", then why is Lawende called in years later to identify someone thought to be a suspect in the Whitechapel killings?

I realize that I and many others could add lots of other questions to this list, but my point is really to illustrate how little we know about Israel, what specific information he gave via his translator, and how contradictory that is to any other witness we know of in these cases.

Every witness is interviewed, and the facts were checked as well as could be. You can bet someone went to The Victorian after George Hutchinson said he stayed there. You can bet Harris and Levy were asked to verify that they were with Lawende that night at that time, you can feel safe in assuming that every story by every relevant person was investigated for authenticity.

The problem with Israel is for every question I can think of regarding his story there is no information available that can be used for verification.

Including the actual story as told to the Detective that Sunday night. That report is missing or gone.

There are too many unknowns and zero reassurances. Abberline and Swanson saying they believed the story in internal memos doesnt reassure me. :)

Best regards,

Mike R

lynn cates
07-09-2012, 09:41 PM
Hello Ruby. You mean, "Romani ite domum"?

Cheers.
LC

Cogidubnus
07-09-2012, 09:50 PM
Hi Mike

I'd guess you and Lynn are singing from similar Hymnsheets here, (and even Tom was once considering becoming a choirboy)...

Perhaps I'm over-presumptuous though regarding any theory you might or might not subscribe to!

Trouble is, as Tom once quite rightly commented to one of my posts, there's no proof and we simply don't know enough about the man at this stage...interesting though...

All the best

Dave

Abby Normal
07-09-2012, 09:51 PM
Perhaps he did, and it was so quick that Schwartz did not realise he had witnessed her murder.

Hi Jon
Absolutely. I have always thought this coud be very possible-Scwartz may have actually seen her getting her throat cut by BS man.

lynn cates
07-09-2012, 09:57 PM
Hello Dave. IF Schwartz's story is true, then I have no doubt that BS man killed Liz. But after the assault, I'd like to know WHEN the cachous came out and why.

Christer used to have an almost passing story here--I mean the old, Pre-Lechmere, Christer.

But Tom is right: we cannot state definitively whether Schwartz is lying or not.

Hence . . .

Cheers.
LC

Rubyretro
07-09-2012, 10:39 PM
Somewhere in Sussex?

Dave

Yes. How did you guess that ?? (Burgess Hill !).

Simon Wood
07-09-2012, 10:45 PM
Hi Lynn,

If Schwartz was lying why did Swanson go to such gymnastic lengths to factor his story into the murder-interruptus scenario?

Regards,

Simon

Garry Wroe
07-09-2012, 10:48 PM
I have my doubts about the whole Schwartz episode. He may have seen something occur but whatever he may have seen probably did not involve the person known as Jack the Ripper.
I fully concur, Lechmere.

People seldom cooperate when a murderer tries to kill them and things can go wrong.
But that’s my point, Lechmere. Whoever he was, Jack the Ripper had developed a mode of attack that left his victims powerless to resist. He seized them by the throat in order to immobilize them, laid them on their backs, then cut their throats with a ferocity such that his knife gouged the spinal column. Forget about the mutilations. Think for a moment about the immolatory phase of the crime. This same sequence occurred with Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and, to a large extent, Kelly. But it didn’t occur with Stride. Today any competent crime analyst would note these discrepancies and exclude the possibility of common authorship until such time as emergent evidence indicated otherwise.

I will repeat that the chances of two unsolved fatal throat cutting knife attacks, outside, on prostitutes within walking distance of each other and within a narrow time frame make it exceptionally unlikley that two hands were at work. These sorts of attacks were exceptionally rare.
You may rest assured that statistical crime analyses do not work in the way you and others appear to imagine. A crime analyst would systematically examine the Ripper’s known behaviours and then determine which if any of these behaviours occurred in the Berner Street crime. Then and only then would a probability analysis be undertaken, this providing a mathematical determination as to the statistical likelihood of the Stride crime being linked to the overall series. The one thing a crime analyst wouldn’t and couldn’t do is to make such a determination based upon a frequency distribution of generalized knife crime. That would be akin to measuring a person’s height in pounds and ounces.

I doubt that Lawende saw the same person as Schwartz …
You and me both, Lechmere.

… and I doubt that Lawende saw the person known as Jack the Ripper.
I think it overwhelmingly probable that he did.

As for Coles I would have to say that there is a good chance that she was kiled by the same person and I would say it should be kept on the file.
That’s interesting.

On balance I think Saddler probably did it - he was very much in the frame, which makes this one quite unlike the other murders.
Very interesting. Curious too, Lechmere, since you are putting Sadler in the frame for the entire Ripper series despite the fact that he wasn’t in London when the earlier murders were committed.

Also to be brutally honest the Coles murder doesn't fit to my mind with being committed by my favoured suspect and so I would have to strike it out for that reason!
That’s refreshingly honest, Lechmere. Now try setting aside your preconceptions and examine the Stride murder purely on an evidential basis.

Cogidubnus
07-09-2012, 11:01 PM
Hi Ruby

Have PM'd you to avoid going even further off-topic!

All the best

Dave

lynn cates
07-10-2012, 02:26 PM
Hello Simon. Simplest answer: he believed it.

Cheers.
LC

Simon Wood
07-10-2012, 02:56 PM
Hi Lynn,

Hard to say. Swanson arm-wrestled the evidence.

On the one hand he wrote—

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it . . ."

On the other hand, he went on to postulate that between the Schwartz incident and the 1.00 am discovery in Dutfields Yard Stride had a second violent encounter. This occasioned puzzled marginalia in his 19th October report and, if true, made Elizabeth Stride possibly the most unfortunate unfortunate in history.

Regards,

Simon

lynn cates
07-10-2012, 03:01 PM
Hello Simon. Thanks. That would indeed be the case provided:

1. She were an unfortunate.

2. Met a second violent chap.

I agree about Swanson. He seems to wear his credulity on his sleeve, but underneath . . .

Cheers.
LC

Simon Wood
07-10-2012, 03:39 PM
Hi Lynn,

The bottom line with Schwartz is that, no matter how truthful his story, it could not be allowed to torpedo the 1.00 am murder-interruptus incident and "double-event" which subsequently passed into official history.

Who do you believe? Israel Schwartz or Saucy Jacky?

Regards,

Simon

lynn cates
07-10-2012, 03:42 PM
Hello Simon. I prefer to doubt both.

1. Schwartz' story is very convenient for the IWMEC.

2. SJ conveniently puts two disparate items together.

Both are convenient but likely have different target populations.

Cheers.
LC

Simon Wood
07-10-2012, 03:48 PM
Hi Lynn,

Saucy Jacky wins hands down in terms of influencing target populations.

I'm not being combative, but in what way was Schwartz's story convenient for the IWMEC?

Regards,

Simon

lynn cates
07-10-2012, 03:56 PM
Hello Simon. Well, given that Wess and the lads believed that they were watched by the police, and given that they felt there might be an attempt to pin it on the club, the Schwartz story dismantles by positing a Gentile bully.

So, you see, it could NOT have been one of us at the club.

Cheers.
LC

Simon Wood
07-10-2012, 04:24 PM
Hi Lynn,

Wess and the lads were being watched by the cops who, for all we know, might have been on a tea-break at the appointed hour.

Are you suggesting that Israel Schwartz fudged the matter of BS man's ethnicity in order to prevent the murder being pinned on the IWMEC?

Regards,

Simon

lynn cates
07-10-2012, 04:35 PM
Hello Simon. That is PRECISELY my suggestion.

Cheers.
LC

Bridewell
07-10-2012, 04:37 PM
Hello Simon. Well, given that Wess and the lads believed that they were watched by the police, and given that they felt there might be an attempt to pin it on the club, the Schwartz story dismantles by positing a Gentile bully.

So, you see, it could NOT have been one of us at the club.

Cheers.
LC
Hi Lynn,

If the Schwartz story is a fiction intended to remove suspicion from members of the IWMEC, why have him witnessing only an assault? Why not, unequivocally, the murder itself? Why not say, overtly that 'it was obvious to me that the man was a Gentile', rather than simply implying it in the description?
In addition, if Wess and the lads believed that they were watched by the police it would be extremely dangerous to have a Club stooge invent a story of this nature, because there would be every chance that a watching policeman would be able to disprove it. Where would that leave Israel Schwartz in the great scheme of things? Slopping out in Pentonville?

regards, Bridewell.

Simon Wood
07-10-2012, 04:47 PM
Hi Lynn,

Okay. I respect that.

I realise I'm going out on a limb here, but how do you feel about Lawende having also fudged the ethnicity of the man he saw with "Eddowes" at the entrance to Church Passage?

Regards,

Simon

lynn cates
07-10-2012, 04:50 PM
Hello Colin. Thanks. IF Israel claimed to have witnessed the murder, then he MIGHT be asked for details. That could prove embarrassing. Better to describe an assault and let there be a nascent murder.

Having the Met step in and say, "We saw no one there where Schwartz was supposed to be" could be risky. But then they might add, "We saw no one at all with Liz."

Further, no one else--Brown, Mortimer, etc.--saw Israel OR BS man. So . . .

Cheers.
LC

lynn cates
07-10-2012, 04:53 PM
Hello Simon. Thanks.

Well, if his story is credible (as I believe it is) then he did not get a close look at the man.

Cheers.
LC

Bridewell
07-10-2012, 04:58 PM
Hello Simon. That is PRECISELY my suggestion.

Cheers.
LC

Sorry, Lynn. My previous post was based on a misunderstanding of what you were saying. If we go with the notion that Schwartz saw what he claims to have seen, but postulate that he changed the man's description from Jew to Gentile, where does that lead?
The Schwartz account was initially believed, but he was not called to give evidence. The assailant now becomes a Jew, but presumably Pipeman, if not involved, remains a Gentile. There is some doubt about whether it was BS or Pipeman who shouted 'Lipski', but Schwartz reports being chased down the road by the latter. If the IWMEC was indeed being watched, Pipeman could have been one of the watchers?
The scenario becomes one wherein a watching policeman sees two Jews, one of whom is attacking Stride. Pipeman believes the two men are acting as a team and invokes the name of 'Lipski', a cowardly Jewish murderer from the previous year. He chases one of the two men away, returns to the scene and finds that the second has cut the throat of Liz Stride in his absence. If this is the nub of what you are suggesting it throws up some interesting questions, not least of which, to my mind is: Why wasn't Schwartz arrested?
In this scenario, surely, Schwartz would be in grave danger of being implicated as an accomplice to the murder. Would it also mean that Pipeman was a candidate to be Anderson's witness?
Apologies if I have, once again, mistaken the thrust of your argument.

Regards, Bridewell.

GregBaron
07-10-2012, 05:30 PM
Hello Simon. Thanks.

Well, if his story is credible (as I believe it is) then he did not get a close look at the man.

Cheers.
LC

Well Lynn, if you're talking about Lawende here, then he got close enough to say about 5'7", fair, red kerchief, rough-looking, sailor etc. That's some detail....

Could Schwarz and Lawende both be lying to protect Jews?

Heaven forbid! Then the much maligned Anderson is right.........Ha



Greg

lynn cates
07-10-2012, 08:17 PM
Hello Colin. Thanks.

"If we go with the notion that Schwartz saw what he claims to have seen, but postulate that he changed the man's description from Jew to Gentile, where does that lead?"

Well, I don't believe he saw anything. I think that Wess and the lads contrived the whole story, again, to avert danger for the club. And, yes, the stress was on his being a Gentile.

It may have been an unnecessary ruse, but from the IWMEC view, it was a sort of insurance policy.

Cheers.
LC

lynn cates
07-10-2012, 08:20 PM
Hello Greg. Thanks. But yet he could not likely pick him out subsequently. And his description is sufficient only to implicate hundreds, perhaps thousands, of London men.

So I'm not sure about protecting Jews.

Cheers.
LC

Bridewell
07-10-2012, 08:29 PM
Hello Colin. Thanks.

"If we go with the notion that Schwartz saw what he claims to have seen, but postulate that he changed the man's description from Jew to Gentile, where does that lead?"

Well, I don't believe he saw anything. I think that Wess and the lads contrived the whole story, again, to avert danger for the club. And, yes, the stress was on his being a Gentile.

It may have been an unnecessary ruse, but from the IWMEC view, it was a sort of insurance policy.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

It's certainly a bold assertion. If true, it exposed everyone who was party to the conspiracy to the risk of life imprisonment. Would they really go to those lengths just to prevent (possibly unsuccessfully) the attachment of suspicion to those frequenting the IWMEC? It would be an insurance policy with a very high premium, that's for sure.

Regards, Bridewell.

GregBaron
07-10-2012, 08:32 PM
Hello Greg. Thanks. But yet he could not likely pick him out subsequently. And his description is sufficient only to implicate hundreds, perhaps thousands, of London men.

So I'm not sure about protecting Jews.

Cheers.
LC

Points well taken Lynn but wasn't Lawende drug in a couple of years later to identify Grainger? And didn't he in fact finger him. I'm going from memory here. If this is true then he picked out somebody he couldn't pick out! Interesting.

All the descriptions could implicate thousands but one thing the sailor wasn't was a Jew!

All very curious...



Greg

Cogidubnus
07-10-2012, 08:45 PM
It's certainly a bold assertion. If true, it exposed everyone who was party to the conspiracy to the risk of life imprisonment. Would they really go to those lengths just to prevent (possibly unsuccessfully) the attachment of suspicion to those frequenting the IWMEC? It would be an insurance policy with a very high premium, that's for sure.

Hi Colin

Actually when you think about it, the man most at risk is Schwartz himself...and the risk isn't actually that high...as a non-English speaker, he can always claim that any discrepancies in his story are down to translational misunderstandings, and that by coming forward he was acting in good faith.

Assuming a small remaining caucus of committee members, they've only got to stick together, and they've cracked it...and as members from birth of of an oppressed minority, I should think they were pretty good at sticking together...

If true, it's a pretty shrewd move actually...

Dave

lynn cates
07-10-2012, 09:17 PM
Hello Colin. Thanks. I don't see the risk. If 2 or 3 of the brighter chaps got together and fed Schwartz the story, how could they have gotten caught--unless one cracked?

Cheers.
LC

lynn cates
07-10-2012, 09:18 PM
Hello Greg. Thanks. He was indeed. And, yes, ALL very curious.

Last point, Grainger was not Jewish--you are correct.

Cheers.
LC

lynn cates
07-10-2012, 09:22 PM
Hello Dave. Thanks.

Your assessment of the risk to Schwartz is so bang on that I cannot intelligently add to it.

In fact, IS may have been reciting his Aunt Rebekah's recipe for knish and Wess (if Tom's conjections be true) could translate as he liked.

Well done!

Cheers.
LC

Michael W Richards
07-10-2012, 09:59 PM
Hi Lynn,

Wess and the lads were being watched by the cops who, for all we know, might have been on a tea-break at the appointed hour.

Are you suggesting that Israel Schwartz fudged the matter of BS man's ethnicity in order to prevent the murder being pinned on the IWMEC?

Regards,

Simon

That is what Ive been suggesting here and at one time on both Ripper boards Simon.:)

The ONLY thing that is discussed later about Israel's account by Swanson and Abberline is the "Lipski" element. Since we know antisemitic activities rose after Annie's murder....in part due to the possibly erroneous initial suspicion of a link of the Jew Piser to the crime,..it seems that these crimes had decidedly ethnic perceptions by both the officials and the media.

IF Israel Schwartz fabricated his story in order for the suspicion to be cast off Jews for the moment, Id say he did a great job. Had he only known that someone had other plans that night with a bloody apron and a slightly veiled accusation about Jewish involvement.

Who knows....maybe Israel was sent in to counter act that apron and message....they were both known of when Israel came in Sunday night.

These people were known as anarchists to the Police and the neighbors. Any hint that one of their own was involved would close that Club for good. Israel Schwartz singlehandedly saves their bacon...pardon the pun.

Best regards,

Mike R

Garry Wroe
07-10-2012, 10:24 PM
Has it not occurred to anyone that Schwartz might have been an honest witness who simply recounted events to the best of his ability?

Trevor Marriott
07-10-2012, 10:39 PM
Has it not occurred to anyone that Schwartz might have been an honest witness who simply recounted events to the best of his ability?

Yes and that what he saw was in no way connected to Stride or the murder

Cogidubnus
07-10-2012, 10:53 PM
Has it not occurred to anyone that Schwartz might have been an honest witness who simply recounted events to the best of his ability?
Quick reply to this message

Hi Garry

Yes certainly it's occurred to me, for one...and I hope I have a sufficiently open mind to continue to keep all my options open - but part of the trouble with his testimony, for my part, is that nobody else saw what he saw, nobody else even saw him at the scene...and additionally of course there are the largely unanswered questions about who he actually was, where was he moving from, and what happened to him post 1888...if some of the gaps could be filled, maybe he'd be better trusted, and less regarded as having a theatrical bent...

All the best

Dave