The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Here's the bet. Allow your neck to be slashed (no, not nicked by a razor--well and truly slashed). If your throat is not cut, you can come see me and get a handshake. Fair enough?

Nobody anywhere "allowed" their necks to be slashed. Not just a bad analogy, but done in very poor taste too.

The idea Stride was just a common "throat cut" victim of the East End is the myth proposed by the MKH to ignore the results of the inquest where her gashed neck indicates the person who killed Nichols and Chapman did this too. The throat is just one collection of parts. JtR attacks the whole neck.

"Apparently the thought though of holding something and releasing your baby finger, ring finger, middle finger while relaxing is impossible for Stride to have done with her sweets for you."

They were not there--they were between thumb and forefinger.

I got it. You don't accept Dr.Blackwell (who was there), that as the force on the sweets in her hand diminished as she lay dying, likely unconscious, is why there wasn't a full grip upon his examination. You don't go from a relaxed hand to a relaxed hand. Anyway should be obvious, but got it, its a mystery to you, even though the Jury asked Blackwell to explain this to them, as he did.

[Batman]

Pizer

Begg, Sugden, Fido, Skinner, Evans, Rumbelow all cover the contemporary anti-Semitic claims concerning the Whitechapel murders which was a reality of time.

It stemmed from Chapman and the apron in her yard, the description of a foreigner and word going around about leather apron, Pizer, a Jew, who nearly got lynched over it. Swanson/Abberline actively worked the anti-Semitic line of inquiry with respect to Stride's/Schwartz's Lipski and Swanson/Warren/Old Jewry with the GSG on the grounds it was done to cast suspicion on the Jews.

This is as contemporary as it gets.

Another thing is this. If Stride wasn't killed by JtR. If the GSG wasn't connected. Why didn't they just come right out and say that?

It seems everything they did suggested they accepted these as connections or else why bother with the investigative wild goose chase they documents over a period of months?

[Wickerman]

Another crucial issue for me is the couple referred to by Fanny Mortimer. Now she states that they would have been stood just 20 yards away from where Stride was attacked, which is incredibly close- I mean, an Olympic runner could cover this distance in less than 2 seconds!

Nonetheless, they informed her that they didn't see or hear anything. But they should have seen BS man, Pipeman, Schwartz, and Stride. And how could they possibly have missed the commotion that Schwartz refers to: Stride crying out, albeit not loudly, BS man shouting "Lipski" etc.

Okay, I accept that there inclination may to have been not to get involved but not to notice anything? To my mind it simply defies belief.

Hi John.
Mrs Mortimer mentioned a young couple, and the female of the couple spoke to the Echo about what she did that night.
It doesn't quite fit with Mortimer's story.

"From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.
"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881001.html

Mortimer claims to have stood at her door between 12:30 and 01:00 am, yet this couple were in the street between 12:00 and 12:30.
Someone is wrong.
Was Mortimer out by a full half hour?

[John G]

Hi John.
Mrs Mortimer mentioned a young couple, and the female of the couple spoke to the Echo about what she did that night.
It doesn't quite fit with Mortimer's story.

"From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.
"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881001.html

Mortimer claims to have stood at her door between 12:30 and 01:00 am, yet this couple were in the street between 12:00 and 12:30.
Someone is wrong.
Was Mortimer out by a full half hour?

Hello Jon,

Yes, timings are a constant issue in this case. Of course, James Brown also claimed to see someone he was virtually certain was Stride at 12:45.

[Wickerman]

Hello Harry.

"There's no convincing scenario where Liz would still be holding onto the breath mints if her killer was BS. That would mean she held onto them whilst he roughed her up, dragged her into the yard and slit her throat, or alternatively she willingly went with him after he had just attacked her."

Absolutely. And that is the nub of the matter.

Cheers.
LC

Exactly, which is what I was alluding to with Jon Guy. I can fully understand the mechanics of her holding on to the cachous as she dies, cadaveric spasm, and all that.
But not when being thrown about, pushed or pulled, and cast down to the ground. The natural instinct is to use your hands to break your fall, which supersedes any instinct to hold onto a packet of cachous - to my way of thinking anyway.
I'm sure any normal person would have let go of whatever they had in their hands, as they use their hands to break their fall.

[John G]

Exactly, which is what I was alluding to with Jon Guy. I can fully understand the mechanics of her holding on to the cachous as she dies, cadaveric spasm, and all that.
But not when being thrown about, pushed or pulled, and cast down to the ground. The natural instinct is to use your hands to break your fall, which supersedes any instinct to hold onto a packet of cachous - to my way of thinking anyway.
I'm sure any normal person would have let go of whatever they had in their hands, as they use their hands to break their fall.

Excellent point Jon. I don't see how anyone can fault this logic.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

Yes, timings are a constant issue in this case. Of course, James Brown also claimed to see someone he was virtually certain was Stride at 12:45.

Hi John.
Indeed, and I have always thought that Brown saw this couple, not Stride.
Yes, I know the time is still a problem, allowances must be made for time's in most of these cases.

I tend to place more importance on a sequence of events rather than being restricted by times that cannot be made to fit no matter how you juggle them.

[Wickerman]

We could try to mesh the time's given by Mortimer, with the time's associated with the young couple who walked up and down the street. And accept a little give and take on each side.
But, Mortimer claimed to have heard nothing and saw no-one, least not anyone we can identify with known sources.
So there is little to be gained by giving Mortimer any credit when her experiences do not even match the time's she claims herself.

Mortimer does say: "I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed".

If this took longer than she realized, then we might have a solution to the problem. Mortimer was at her door before 12:30, not after.
She saw the young couple pass, she otherwise saw & heard nothing, going back inside for 15-20 mins, then heard all the commotion and came back outside - but she had missed all the juicy bits.

Mortimer was no Hilda Ogden, thats for sure.

[John G]

Hi John.
Indeed, and I have always thought that Brown saw this couple, not Stride.
Yes, I know the time is still a problem, allowances must be made for time's in most of these cases.

I tend to place more importance on a sequence of events rather than being restricted by times that cannot be made to fit no matter how you juggle them.

Hi Jon,

But that is difficult to reconcile with the Echo article, which states that the couple were out walking between 12:00 and 12:30- James Brown's sighting was at around 12:48-12:49. And James Brown said he saw the couple on Fairclough Street- the Echo article makes no mention of the young couple walking down that street. Moreover, he heard the woman say, "No, not tonight, some other night." I feel that would be consistent with Stride, i.e. if the man thought she was soliciting. If, however, they were a different couple it's surprising they didn't come forward and acknowledge that they had that conversation at the time and place Brown refers to. After all, Leon Goldstein came forward for elimination purposes.

[John G]

We could try to mesh the time's given by Mortimer, with the time's associated with the young couple who walked up and down the street. And accept a little give and take on each side.
But, Mortimer claimed to have heard nothing and saw no-one, least not anyone we can identify with known sources.
So there is little to be gained by giving Mortimer any credit when her experiences do not even match the time's she claims herself.

Mortimer does say: "I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed".

If this took longer than she realized, then we might have a solution to the problem. Mortimer was at her door before 12:30, not after.
She saw the young couple pass, she otherwise saw & heard nothing, going back inside for 15-20 mins, then heard all the commotion and came back outside - but she had missed all the juicy bits.

Mortimer was no Hilda Ogden, thats for sure.

But surely the problem with this scenario is that she definitely saw Leon Goldstein, with his shiney bag, who passed Berner Street shortly before 1:00am. She also claimed to have heard a pony and trap, presumably Louis D, around 4 minutes after she went inside.

[c.d.]

Hello (again) Jon.

"I think another question that is key is why would the B.S. man go on to kill Liz after being seen by both Schwartz and the Pipeman? A reasonable and prudent person would have to think that there was a good chance that Schwartz had run off to find the nearest P.C."

I agree that this question has never been satisfactorily addressed--nor ever shall be.

Cheers.
LC

A very simple and reasonable explanation would be that the B.S. man was not her killer.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Wickerman,

Yes, exactly but it is also not having them scatter when she pushes herself back up which requires putting your weight on the palms of your hand with the palms outstretched. Also, if she attempted to push the B.S. man away as he was dragging her again that means her palm is open. You don't naturally push with your palm closed in a fist.

It seems that people keep talking about her holding the cachous in death which is not the point or they give examples of people holding on to things when they fall. But the things they mention like a purse or a beer can are things that can survive a fall as opposed to the cachous which were simply wrapped in tissue paper.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

But that is difficult to reconcile with the Echo article, which states that the couple were out walking between 12:00 and 12:30- James Brown's sighting was at around 12:48-12:49. And James Brown said he saw the couple on Fairclough Street- the Echo article makes no mention of the young couple walking down that street.

Hi John.
I don't think that is the case, Brown said the couple stood at the corner of Berner & Fairclough.
" I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School."

But you're correct about the time's, no matter which way we interpret this we have to manipulate the stated times.

Moreover, he heard the woman say, "No, not tonight, some other night." I feel that would be consistent with Stride, i.e. if the man thought she was soliciting. If, however, they were a different couple it's surprising they didn't come forward and acknowledge that they had that conversation at the time and place Brown refers to. After all, Leon Goldstein came forward for elimination purposes.

Wasn't it yourself who said something about people not wanting to get involved?

Once the inquest testimony became public knowledge on the 6th, this couple may have come forward. I see no reason the police need to announce this to the press.
Some things the press found out, and some they don't.
If you remember, that interview with the girl was published on the 1st Oct., but James Brown's testimony was published later on 6th.

We do not know if this couple came forward soon after, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

[Wickerman]

But surely the problem with this scenario is that she definitely saw Leon Goldstein, with his shiney bag, who passed Berner Street shortly before 1:00am. She also claimed to have heard a pony and trap, presumably Louis D, around 4 minutes after she went inside.

Hi John.
Yes, Mortimer does say she saw Goldstein pass "previously", but I wasn't aware that she placed a time on that - what does "previously" mean?
Neither can I find anywhere that Goldstein gives a time.

[harry]

It is equally possible that it was Stride who accosted BS.That BS was an uninteresred person on his way home,whose reaction was to push her out of the way,and that she lost her balance and fell.There was no way,in my opinion,that Schwartz following BS,and in poor light ,would have had a clear and uninterrupted view of what happened.