A Whip and a Prod

[Robert St Devil]

I have been off the boards for a year or so, and hadn’t realized (until last night) that this thread is a retread of another similar thread that you had started – something-something-obstruction of justice or passage – and that most of my observations have been laid out by other members. I don’t see any more that I can add other than a novel concept here-or-there

Leaning was mentioned in the original thread.
It doesn't add much to the overall reach.

Yes; I saw how dismissive you were of the act of leaning when you wrote in Post #1 {{{flashback}}}…

Now we know that Diemschutz claimed that his pony shied to the left, and we also know he would be capable of leaning a little to his right. Let's assume these two factors cancel,...

…“assumptively dismissive” to the point that you didn’t bother including leaning-over as a margin of error in your Pythagorean outtake on why Louis Diemschutz is|was lying unequivocally. The issues that I take with your calculations is:

1. that they construct a static model of a robotic-type Louis D. with none of the abstract tendencies of the human body; and,...
2. that they rely on several blinding assumptions that are all coordinated into a cheating effort to skirt around an existing probability that, “Yes Virginia, there is a way that Diemschutz could have prodded at her body with a whip from his barrow!” (and, believe me, I have damned the infuriation several times over the years when a probability that exists in-bounds has been pointed out to me!)

Have you used your leaning estimate to recalculate?

I did you one better, Sin Culpa Por Nada. In the spirit of methodology, I attempted my own simple experiment. True, my bed is not a barrow and a ruler is not a whip handle; still, I give myself a measure of credit for the reenactment. And, sitting atop my bed and leaning over its’ side, I came to two realizations:

1. I mentioned that your calculations are static and don’t account for natural tendencies of the human body. Partially what-I-mean is, they only design an outstretched arm, not one that is prodding around in different directions and different intervals to feel for what this “lump” on the ground could be
2. More importantly, I don’t think that your calculations accounted for the vertical span of Elizabeth Stride’s body while it was lying|laying* on the ground. It would seem that you have removed Elizabeth Stride entirely from the equation, and that you are trying to calculate if Loius D. can touch the ground – which may not have even been necessary.

The issue with the prodding is complicated by the fact that we don't know the dimensions of the whip used (or even if he had one).
There is also dispute about the position of the body in relation to cart, in the passageway length dimension.
We need to know:

• height of deck (it's about 65cm)
• distance of right arm to body, across the lane
• same again, but along the lane

Granted we don’t.

A the inquest:

• Diemschutz appeared day 1
• PC Lamb appeared day 2
• PC Smith appeared day 4, as did DI Reid

The police weren't there to be asked.

It was an inquest. The Coroner could have asked the constables whatever question he wanted. Coroner Baxter was satisfied with Louis Diemschutz response to his question when he himself asked about the fate of the pony.

The times are a big issue.
Worthy of a new thread. Stay tuned...

For better or worse, I’m upcoming on my 5^th year of membership here on The Board, no plans on going anywhere

* I can never remember when to use which term

[c.d.]

So the interruption 'theory' is unfalsifiable.

Similar to the 'theory' of the smears of blood on the right hand being mistaken for grapes, it can never be proved wrong, because it's just an interpretation of someone's thinking or subjective experience.

Hello N.B.F.N.,

Do you think it is possible that Jack could have been scared off before he had a chance to mutilate Stride? If so, how would you go about proving that?

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

For the sake of argument, if the murder had occurred in the back yard of #40 Berner St, we would have to wonder what Philip Krantz heard or saw:

I work in a room forming part of the printing office at the back of the International Working Men's Club. Last Saturday night I was in my room from nine o'clock until one of the members of the club came and told me that there was a woman lying in the yard.
[Coroner] Had you heard any sound up to that time? - No.
[Coroner] Any cry? - No. Or scream? - No.
[Coroner] Or anything unusual? - No.
[Coroner] Was your window or door open? - No.
[Coroner] Supposing a woman had screamed, would you have heard it? - They were singing in the club, so I might not have heard.

So he heard nothing suspicious. Then what?...

When I heard the alarm I went out and saw the deceased, but did not observe any stranger there.

Where is the 'there', he went out to - down at the gates, where the body is?

[Coroner] Did you look to see if anybody was about - anybody who might have committed the murder? - I did look.

Where did he start looking, after witnessing the deceased?

... I went out to the gates, and found that some members of the club had gone for the police.

So where had Krantz witnessed the deceased?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why the need to elaborate on a lie with an aspect [pony & barrow] that could have been verified by asking one of the constables present in the yard {ie. Coroner to PC Lamb: By the way, about this pony & barrow that Diemschutz mentioned…]?

A the inquest:

• Diemschutz appeared day 1
• PC Lamb appeared day 2
• PC Smith appeared day 4, as did DI Reid

The police weren't there to be asked.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Can the interruption theory be proved? No. But it is certainly plausible and again it could have taken place without hard evidence of it.

So the interruption 'theory' is unfalsifiable.

Similar to the 'theory' of the smears of blood on the right hand being mistaken for grapes, it can never be proved wrong, because it's just an interpretation of someone's thinking or subjective experience.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You have:

1. Calculated that the only way Diemschutz could be sitting in his barrow is center-upright when he reached to prod Stride’s body without any possibility that he could have… oh, I dunno… leaned over in his seat
2. Diemschutz fabricating an imaginary pony & barrow merely for his deceitful amusement when it would have been 10-fold easier to simply claim that he walked to the club, tripped over something in the passageway, lit a match and saw a woman. Why the need to elaborate on a lie with an aspect [pony & barrow] that could have been verified by asking one of the constables present in the yard {ie. Coroner to PC Lamb: By the way, about this pony & barrow that Diemschutz mentioned…]?
3. Fanny Mortimer married to Patek Phillipe and whose very nature is seemingly designed around her accuracy for time. This when we have examples at the inquest of people being uncertain about time in general – PC Lamb says that he was alerted around 1am, but later says he arrived 10 to 12 minutes prior to Dr. Blackwell (who says that he arrived promptly at 1:16a). So, which is it – is he at Dutfield Yard around 1a or is PC Lamb on site at 1:04, 1:06… or maybe even 1:08,…
4. “trodden” meaning something other than “stepped in” - even after the Coroner asks, “was there any blood on the soles of the deceased” in light of the word “trodden” being spoken by Dr. Blackwell and “soles” being in reference to her boots.

Leaning was mentioned in the original thread.
It doesn't add much to the overall reach.
Have you used your leaning estimate to recalculate?

The issue with the prodding is complicated by the fact that we don't know the dimensions of the whip used (or even if he had one).
There is also dispute about the position of the body in relation to cart, in the passageway length dimension.
We need to know:

• height of deck (it's about 65cm)
• distance of right arm to body, across the lane
• same again, but along the lane

The sound of the pony and barrow becomes the excuse for finding the body, without becoming a suspect.
The Ripper hears it coming, and takes off, just in time.
That story is both easy to believe and sell.
Compare that to walking into the lane, and discovering the body.
Everyone would want to know were the Ripper had gone, or wonder if the discoverer was also the culprit.
That would be 10 times harder to explain - not easier.

The times are a big issue.
Worthy of a new thread. Stay tuned...

Re the blood, I think we are talking past each other.
Consider this, which might be a case of seeing a face in a cloud...

PC Lamb finds her legs, very close to the gate:

The feet of the deceased extended just to the swing of the gate, so that the barrier could be closed without disturbing the body.

Eagle, not so much:

I could then see a woman lying on the ground, near the gateway, and in a pool [?] of blood. Her feet were about six or seven feet from the gate ...

That either means, 6 or 7ft from the gate, or 1 or 2 ft from the gate (6 or 7 minus 5ft).
That's not the same thing as having her boot ends, tucking in behind the open gate.
Was she moved a few feet closer to the gate, for some reason?

If we suppose yes, the blood flow would have been unequal along the gutter.
Now consider:

Phillips: I could trace none except that which I considered had been transplanted - if I may use the term - from the original flow from the neck.

A bit of water from a bucket, would have quickly evened things up.

Phillips: Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body.

Now, with water added to the gutter, what area of blood would have congealed first?

Phillips: The blood near to the neck and a few inches to the left side was well clotted, and it had run down the waterway to within a few inches of the side entrance to the club-house.

What Phillips is getting at, may have nothing to do with spots or treads.

[DustyBones]

If I had to guess (and that is all it is) I think that Jack's desire to kill overcame his good judgment and at some point (maybe even before he killed Stride) he realized that this was not a safe place and chose to get out of there as quickly as possible after killing her.

c.d.

I agree with this. Killers like Jack are absolutely compelled to act out their respective fantasies. They lack foresight of future consequences; immediate or long term. Jack would have survived moment to moment; dealing with his victim one moment the next moment escaping undetected. Someone like Jack(when in his mode) is more than likely incapable of thinking more than one or 2 steps ahead.

[c.d.]

If I had to guess (and that is all it is) I think that Jack's desire to kill overcame his good judgment and at some point (maybe even before he killed Stride) he realized that this was not a safe place and chose to get out of there as quickly as possible after killing her. Stride was not the only woman in Whitechapel and I think he was mentally competent enough to realize that if he were to be caught he would be hanged. That would certainly make me a bit jumpy.

Can the interruption theory be proved? No. But it is certainly plausible and again it could have taken place without hard evidence of it.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, you post this over and over which makes me wonder if you even read posts in opposition to your theories and if you simply dismiss them without giving them any consideration.

As I have said so many times before there might not be any hard physical evidence of an interruption. I doubt very much whether Jack was going to leave a note saying I intended to mutilate the victim but I got scared off. What if he thought he heard somebody coming out of the club and that scared him? How would we have evidence for that? And I know you absolutely hate any references to modern day serial killers but what of Sutcliffe saying there were several time when he failed to follow through with a murder simply because of his own paranoia? How would there be any evidence of that? Yet, it happened.

You are always so quick to chastise other posters for how they view the case. Perhaps deviating from your own either black or white perspective and considering a little grey might be beneficial.

c.d.

In this instance cd the only thing that would open my mind to an interruption is some kind of proof there was one. As it is all the evidence says her killer killed her in likely a 2 second interval and left her to bleed out. What time he did that exactly is my concern, because if it can be proven that Louis actually did arrive at 12:40-12:45, using the 4 witnesses who stated that they were by the body and Louis at that time.., then there would be a possibility the killer was interrupted,..because it coincides with the estimated earliest cut time.

Remember, he didn't move the body in any way, so if he was interrupted just as he kills her, then its a possible scenario. Still wouldnt mean it was Jack, but at least youd be off to the races to argue that.

As many believe Louis arrived when he said he did, which is contrary to 5 witnesses statements...including Fanny, then ist not probable the cut was just made...therefore, why didn't he even touch her after cutting her as many as 14 minutes earlier?

[c.d.]

This Interruption Model needs to have some meat to begin with to rank it as a possible theory cd, as it is, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the killer of Liz Stride had any further intentions after the single throat cut, nor is there that the killer was "interrupted" in the process.

Michael, you post this over and over which makes me wonder if you even read posts in opposition to your theories and if you simply dismiss them without giving them any consideration.

As I have said so many times before there might not be any hard physical evidence of an interruption. I doubt very much whether Jack was going to leave a note saying I intended to mutilate the victim but I got scared off. What if he thought he heard somebody coming out of the club and that scared him? How would we have evidence for that? And I know you absolutely hate any references to modern day serial killers but what of Sutcliffe saying there were several time when he failed to follow through with a murder simply because of his own paranoia? How would there be any evidence of that? Yet, it happened.

You are always so quick to chastise other posters for how they view the case. Perhaps deviating from your own either black or white perspective and considering a little grey might be beneficial.

c.d.

[Robert St Devil]

I'm not accusing you of this Robert, but I'm wary of thinking that tackles the problem by choosing a broad overall scenario, and then trying to fit in the details...

The problem is, this locks you in to a fixed way of looking at it.

I have serious reservations that I am locked into “a fixed way of looking at [the mystery of Elizabeth Stride’s murder]” simply because I have book-ended her death with official markers [ie. PC Smith’s sighting and PC Lamb’s finding]. The truth of the matter is, there isn’t sufficient evidence available within that timeframe to "blatantly|obviously" solve two of the largest mysteries concerning her murder:

1. What time was Eliz Stride murdered?
2. Did the Schwartz encounter truly occur?

So, of course you are going to fit in the details with meticulous measure to determine a probable answer or, at the very least, a miniscule advance towards a probable line of reasoning (ie. a better set of questions with which to approach the scenario). You, on the other hand, want to hang the Interruption Model on any open-minded Ripperologist who doesn’t agree with your alternative and dismiss their approach with ham-handed examples when it seems since the start of this thread that you have been trying to hammer a square peg into a non-existent hole. You have:

1. Calculated that the only way Diemschutz could be sitting in his barrow is center-upright when he reached to prod Stride’s body without any possibility that he could have… oh, I dunno… leaned over in his seat
2. Diemschutz fabricating an imaginary pony & barrow merely for his deceitful amusement when it would have been 10-fold easier to simply claim that he walked to the club, tripped over something in the passageway, lit a match and saw a woman. Why the need to elaborate on a lie with an aspect [pony & barrow] that could have been verified by asking one of the constables present in the yard {ie. Coroner to PC Lamb: By the way, about this pony & barrow that Diemschutz mentioned…]?
3. Fanny Mortimer married to Patek Phillipe and whose very nature is seemingly designed around her accuracy for time. This when we have examples at the inquest of people being uncertain about time in general – PC Lamb says that he was alerted around 1am, but later says he arrived 10 to 12 minutes prior to Dr. Blackwell (who says that he arrived promptly at 1:16a). So, which is it – is he at Dutfield Yard around 1a or is PC Lamb on site at 1:04, 1:06… or maybe even 1:08,…
4. “trodden” meaning something other than “stepped in” - even after the Coroner asks, “was there any blood on the soles of the deceased” in light of the word “trodden” being spoken by Dr. Blackwell and “soles” being in reference to her boots.

To employ a term used by mi amigo DJA: Crikey!

However. I do enjoy that the thread has been a continuous effort and I have made realizations of my own through the endeavor. Just like the aspect of the un-muddied bonnet beside her head has been tossing about in my contemplations, I have also been considering the “what-if” aspect. As in, what-if Louis Diemschutz hadn’t arrived at 1am as he claims? Maybe my general sense of direction is wrong but it seems that PC Smith would have been coming up on Berner Street in very short time. Would the murder have occurred so near in time (1am) to having a constable walk-by and within a dead-end scenario such as Dutfield Yard?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

A suspect? What? Israel is not now nor ever was considered a suspect, nor is Louis, in any official records.

First read posts #282 & #290.

Now let's think about this...

Schwartz claims to have gone out on a day that he and his wife are moving address.
To 'go out' does not imply 'to go to work' - therefore we have to wonder what the hell he is doing out all day.
He inexplicably leaves the packing and moving to his wife.
This might make sense if he leaves fairly early, but if we suppose he leaves just before 9 am, he is out for 16 hours. Why?
If he leaves late in the morning, he is still out for well over 12 hours, but then has time to help his wife move, but he doesn't. Why?
Furthermore, leaving late in the morning leaves us to contemplate this:

A young Jewish man named Israel Schwartz, leaves behind his wife at their Berner St address, late on the morning of Sep 29.
We have no idea what he does all day, but we do know what his wife does!
He is returning home at 12:45 the next morning, when he has a close encounter with Jack the Ripper.

A young Jewish man named Louis Diemschutz, leaves behind his wife at their Berner St address, late (why?) on the morning of Sep 29.
He spends the day alone, working at the markets.
He returns home at 1 am, and just misses having an encounter with Jack the Ripper.
Jack, by the way, is in a street that prostitutes - according to Louis and two of his comrades at the club - are rarely if ever seen in.

Louis is returning to his wife and home at the club, which by 1 am, still contains tens of other members and guests.
What about Israel?
He claims to be going to the old address to see if his wife has managed to vacate the premises, well over 12 hours after he left there.
She surely has, so what does that mean?...

On the night of the double event, Israel Schwartz has access to a vacated residence!

How utterly convenient! Or is it just a coincidence that he access to this empty place?

This is incredible to contemplate, but it gets worse, or better, depending on your point of view.
Remember I asked about the bleed time to death after cut? I guessed 2 minutes. Here is a better estimate...

Dr Blackwell: Deceased would take about a minute and a half to bleed to death.

So the ~12:52 time of death looks a pretty safe bet.
Schwartz told Abberline, that at just after 12:45, he was running away from the vicinity of the club.
Why do you think he was running as if his life depended on it, a few minutes before the victim dies?

There are only 2 things that can possibly save him:

1. The fantastical story he tried to sell to Abberline
2. Louis' claim to have arrived at exactly 1:00, and discovered the body

Schwartz' story is so unlikely, bizarre, uncorroborated, unstable, and uncertain in terms of the characters within it, that it simply cannot be taken seriously.
It may appear that Abberline did take it seriously, but he didn't.
Schwartz positively identified Stride at the mortuary, after supposedly the briefest and indirect of encounters on that dimly lit street.
Impossible! He did identifier her, but that's because the interaction was much more involved that we are led to believe.

As for the 1 am arrival time, as you and I know from multiple witness statements, that is also a load of old cobblers.
But then why not make out that the discovery time was closer to the actual time of death? Why not say 12:50, for example?
Simple, it is to protect the identity of the murderer, by making it look like the kill time was several minutes after Schwartz ran away frantically.

Now see if you can make sense of the GSG, including the misspelling of 'Jews'...

[Michael W Richards]

A suspect cannot be used to validate anything.

A suspect? What? Israel is not now nor ever was considered a suspect, nor is Louis, in any official records.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I hope that the people who include Israel Schwartz in their viable investigation smorgasbord have also looked at how this scenario plays out without him. Without Israel, the only thing really that cannot be validated is Louis's arrival time.

A suspect cannot be used to validate anything.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The only theory that I support, NB4N, is that there is a 30-minute window of time, from when the constable sees her at approx. 12:35a until another constable is brought to her dead body, when Elizabeth Stride is murdered presumably by the serial killer known as Jack the Ripper. Within that thirty minutes, I try to favor probability over possibility (but that still offers very little consolation in terms of the general mystery of her death). For instance, a) was her murderer interrupted by the arrival of L. Diemschutz; or b) was he spooked by I. Schwartz and decided to scram before a constable was brought round; or c) did her murderer leave after discovering that location under that shade-wall too dim of light that he couldn’t see well enough to harvest her organs; or d) {to be determined}…

I'm not accusing you of this Robert, but I'm wary of thinking that tackles the problem by choosing a broad overall scenario, and then trying to fit in the details.
For example:
Was Stride a Ripper victim?
If No, move on to the other murders.
If Yes, why no mutilations?
Easy answer #1: Jack was interrupted.
Who by?
Easy answer #2: The guy with the pony.
Proceed from there...

The problem is, this locks you in to a fixed way of looking at it.
It leads to conformation bias, and explanations that garner a lot of support (because that style of thinking is so common), but which lack thoroughness.
For example:
Is BS Man, JtR?
Yes - what are the chances of one woman being attacked by different men, 15 minutes apart?
Okay fine, but this is at 12:45, and the body is not discovered until 1:00.
What happens in this 15 minute period of apparent limbo?
Does BSM/JtR kill Stride, get bored and walk off?
Or does he keep manhandling her until 1 am, when he finally puts her out of her misery?
The 'limbo period' is never explained, and that's because the Interruption Model gains most of its strength through numbers, not explanatory power.

I don’t believe that Dr. Blackwell was referring to a transfer of blood from neck to ground because he used the word “trodden”, which means that he is referring of a transfer of blood (by someone’s footstep) from the pooled or stream of blood to the ground nearby. Also he follows up this statement: “There were no spots of blood, but there was a little trodden about near to where the body was lying” with this statement: “There was no blood on the soles of [Elizabeth Stride’s] boots as far as I could see by the light, which was a policeman’s lantern”. So obviously, Dr. Blackwell must have been aware that someone stepped in her blood, and he was trying to ascertain if that person was Elizabeth Stride. Could it have been her murderer? Likely; but then again, there were several people in Dutfield Yard by the time Dr. Blackwell made this observation.

Remember it is Phillips statement re the transplanting of blood.
This is Blackwell's exchange:

[Coroner] Were there no spots of blood about?
[Blackwell] No; only some marks of blood which had been trodden in.
[Coroner] Was there any blood on the soles of the deceased's boots?
[Blackwell] No.

I don't think he is implying that the blood has been transferred via shoes.
He merely clears up the notion that the trodden in marks of blood, could be due to Liz.
How the blood actually got onto the ground is not discussed.

As far as repositioning of her body, I’ll add this much: it was observed that she had bruises over both of her shoulders. However, she was found lying (mostly) on her left side. I just can’t imagine a positioning where someone could be exerting pressure over both shoulders while she is lying on her left side. There’s room for speculation: someone sitting atop of her and forcing pressure down on her chest until she expired or passed out (for instance!); regardless, it would just seem that she was positioned onto her side before the cut was made.

She also has bruise points below each collar bone.
Somehow he has to push her down to the ground, while keeping her quiet, and also still enough that he can cut along the line of the scarf.
Obviously he wants her on her side, so he can (with great difficulty) cut mainly the same side of the neck, to avoid arterial spray on himself.
So he had to release his grip, roll her over, and then cut.
All the while she is fairly quiet and more or less clinging to the cachous packet!
Oh, and all this occurs in darkness that Louis Diemschutz described as 'intense'.
A truly 'heroic' effort!

Her bonnet must have been off in order to get the mud in her hair , but it was found near the body, so was there mud near that rut|gutter?

Unless she were moved, what choice is there but to believe; Yes