The Absence Of Evidence

[rjpalmer]

That's not hard evidence Michael. It's a theory. The very essence of Blackwell's statement is one of theory. He had no idea if she was murdered standing up or falling down. It's a theory. The official autopsy shows no external injuries aside from the neck (and minor abrasion under the arm). That is medical fact.

The statement Michael Richards quotes was not made by Blackwell. It was made by Bagster Phillips.

[erobitha]

The statement Michael Richards quotes was not made by Blackwell. It was made by Bagster Phillips.

The inquest transcript can be a little confusing I guess for all of us. Doesn’t detract from the fact a theory is just a theory.

[Losmandris]

How much "curriculum" kill training do you think there was prior to the 20th century? Yet, every major battle in the last thousand years will have victims of throat cutting. The impression they read instructions in "how to be an army soldier" handbook is somewhat silly. People were trained by people, before textbooks became all the rage.

A quick look at the knives used in battle during the American Civil War will give you a clue that many were not using their knives to cut wood.

"....A private in the white 29th Iowa Infantry, whose regiment supported the 2nd Kansas, wrote his family: "One of our boys seen a little n*gro pounding a wounded reb in the head with the but of his gun and asked him what he was doing. the n*gro replied he is not dead yet!" During a subsequent lull in the fighting, details from the 2nd Kansas ranged the field, cutting the throats of Confederate wounded. "We found that many of our wounded had been mutilated in many ways," reported the surgeon of the 33rd Arkansas Infantry. "Some with ears cut off, throats cut, knife stabs, etc. My brother . . . had his throat cut through the windpipe and lived several days."

Point stands. I don't imagine that they were 'trained' in how to cuts throats. They may have just done it anyway when the occasion arose but not specifically instructed on how to do it.

[Losmandris]

Cheers Losmandris.

The killer would be interpreting Stride's reactions and behaviour towards him, just as she would be doing the same with his. He only had to suspect that this one was trouble, and he had the means to put a swift end to the possibility.

The police were desperate to find their man, so any report from a woman who had been subjected to abuse by a stranger, or just his unwelcome attentions, would have been potentially significant. How much might Stride have been able to tell the police had he let her live? Was he in her company earlier that evening? Had they chatted or had a drink together? Was there anything distinctive about his speech, behaviour or mannerisms? Was he polite at first, before becoming pushy? Did he come bearing gifts? Did he have a memorable chat-up line? Was there a point when his manner changed abruptly because of something she said or did? Even if he was the man Schwartz and Pipeman saw, they could have told the police nothing about any of these aspects of his character. They saw a brief snapshot of the woman being shoved by a man, who may or may not have been the killer. So we just don't know how important it was to him to make sure she would not live to tell the tale.

Love,

Caz
X

I totally agree. This theory certainly holds water for me.

[c.d.]

The police were desperate to find their man, so any report from a woman who had been subjected to abuse by a stranger, or just his unwelcome attentions, would have been potentially significant.

In theory, yes but the police did not have the manpower to do a full investigation of every woman in Whitechapel that got pushed, sworn at, insulted or slapped. Whitechapel was a rough place with rough men. I just can't imagine the police saying "a woman out by herself late at night right after the pubs closed got pushed. This has to be our man."

c.d.

[FrankO]

The statement Michael Richards quotes was not made by Blackwell. It was made by Bagster Phillips.

If you're referring to the quote below, Roger, then you're mistaken. This is a quote from Blackwell, taken from his inquest deposition. If you're not referring to it, then I haven't said a thing.

"The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight. In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife." "I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up."

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

The police were desperate to find their man, so any report from a woman who had been subjected to abuse by a stranger, or just his unwelcome attentions, would have been potentially significant.

In theory, yes but the police did not have the manpower to do a full investigation of every woman in Whitechapel that got pushed, sworn at, insulted or slapped. Whitechapel was a rough place with rough men. I just can't imagine the police saying "a woman out by herself late at night right after the pubs closed got pushed. This has to be our man."

Indeed c.d., but even if the police thought this had to be their man, they would still have remained a very long way from arresting him for the Ripper murders.

[rjpalmer]

If you're referring to the quote below, Roger, then you're mistaken. This is a quote from Blackwell, taken from his inquest deposition. If you're not referring to it, then I haven't said a thing.

Hi Frank.

See Michael Richard's Post #73, which is what was being discussed. The quote Michael put up is not Blackwell; it is from George Bagster Phillip's inquest deposition.

"Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since." etc etc

Erobitha's claim that it is a "fact" that Stride suffered no injuries other than the cut to her throat is obviously on very thin, weak, melting, and almost invisible ice. Dr. Phillips obviously suspected that the bruising on Stride's upper chest was sustained during the attack, and twice he returned to the morgue to study it's progression.

Nowhere does he state that it was a bruise of long standing, and his interest in it, coupled with the fact that it continued to darken post-mortem, all but proves these bruises were of very recently origin.

Personally, I am of the opinion that Schwartz witnessed Stride's murder, but was confused about what he had seen, which is exceedingly common when someone sees a violent confrontation.

All the best.

[c.d.]

Indeed c.d., but even if the police thought this had to be their man, they would still have remained a very long way from arresting him for the Ripper murders.

Exactly my point. Literally hundreds of men were questioned but no one was ever charged with the murders. So a reasonable assumption would be that if the B.S. man had committed the prior murders the prospect of simply being stopped and questioned wouldn't have been a motivating factor to kill Stride.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Frank.

See Michael Richard's Post #73, which is what was being discussed. The quote Michael put up is not Blackwell; it is from George Bagster Phillip's inquest deposition.

"Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since." etc etc

Erobitha's claim that it is a "fact" that Stride suffered no injuries other than the cut to her throat is obviously on very thin, weak, melting, and almost invisible ice. Dr. Phillips obviously suspected that the bruising on Stride's upper chest was sustained during the attack, and twice he returned to the morgue to study it's progression.

Nowhere does he state that it was a bruise of long standing, and his interest in it, coupled with the fact that it continued to darken post-mortem, all but proves these bruises were of very recently origin.

Personally, I am of the opinion that Schwartz witnessed Stride's murder, but was confused about what he had seen, which is exceedingly common when someone sees a violent confrontation.

All the best.

bingo. I long have held suspicions that he was actually seeing the attack, or at least the beginning of the fatal attack, and bs man might have actually cut her throat there on the street, or shortly thereafter.

[c.d.]

Is there anything that tells us that Swanson actually interviewed Schwartz? I always assumed that he wrote his report after discussing it with Abberline but now I am wondering if he ever spoke to Schwartz himself.

c.d.

[erobitha]

Erobitha's claim that it is a "fact" that Stride suffered no injuries other than the cut to her throat is obviously on very thin, weak, melting, and almost invisible ice. Dr. Phillips obviously suspected that the bruising on Stride's upper chest was sustained during the attack, and twice he returned to the morgue to study it's progression.

Nowhere does he state that it was a bruise of long standing, and his interest in it, coupled with the fact that it continued to darken post-mortem, all but proves these bruises were of very recently origin.

Personally, I am of the opinion that Schwartz witnessed Stride's murder, but was confused about what he had seen, which is exceedingly common when someone sees a violent confrontation.

All the best.

I must be like Jesus. He was very good at walking on water.

Firstly, the theory of pulling Stride back via her scarf was Blackwell's theory. You know I enjoy a jolly good theory like the next man.

Secondly, Bagster Phillips did write what you wrote, but it is not a declaration that the bruising was connected to the attack. It was recent, and he would have known himself it could have happened independently of the attack. Medically, it simply was an aknowledgement that the bruises were recent. It might be relevant, it might not. He did not directly connect them to the attack. You have decided to append that medical fact yourself to the official report.

Schwartz's statement has never stood up well for me:

1) Can't speak English but recognises the local derogatory anti-semitic insult of 'Lipski' perfectly
2) None of his story correlates with other witness reports. Unlike Fanny Mortimer who did see Leon Goldstein, heard footsteps on the cobbles (assuming it to be police) and also heard then the horse and cart entering the yard
3) Stride would have had ample time to scream blue murder if she was just thrown to the ground. Nosey Fanny Mortimer most likely would have heard that like the other things she did see and hear. Schwartz didn't claim to see the suspect commit murder, so she was alive at the point of the so-called throw down. If she banged her head and was unconcious would such an injury not show post-mortem? Maybe swelling or a cut?
4) He claimed to have run towards a railway arch to shake off the men he believed to be chasing him. What railway arch exactly? Where is this railway arch on Berner Street?
5) How can he an ID a woman he barely saw if she was thrown to the ground as he was crossing the street?

Schwartz may have seen an attack similar to this, but I doubt very much it was where he thought it was. Red herring witness in my view.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My apologies, I should have quoted Erobitha’s post #87.

It’s difficult to see how Schwartz could have been mistaken Erobitha when we consider that he made his statement just a few hours after the Schwartz incident. The incident would have been pretty fresh in his memory but this certainly couldn’t exempt him from possible errors of identification or of interpretation. Maybe BS Man was a drunken friend of hers who was trying to get her to go to a pub with him? After all, Schwartz did say that he appeared drunk when he walked behind him. Maybe she fell over as he tried pull her by her hand to go with him and that the reason she didn’t scream loudly was because, as she’d known him, she knew that he wasn’t in danger? They might even have been laughing but Schwartz just heard raised voices and assumed aggression because he only made brief glances in their direction and BS Man only shouted “Lipski” because he felt that Schwartz was being nosey?

A lot of ‘maybes’ of course but I just think that the possibility exists, however slight, that Schwartz might simply have misinterpreted what was going on especially when we consider that he couldn’t actually understand what was being said. Another ‘maybe’ is maybe Pipeman simply left the pub and walked home in the same direction as Schwartz. Maybe Schwartz, being a bit over-dramatic, only imagined that he’d seen a knife or, as has been suggested by another poster (can’t recall who, sorry) he was using a knife to clean out his pipe before refilling it but Schwartz assumed a sinister motive.

Maybe this post was longer than I originally intended it to be?

[rjpalmer]

You have decided to append that medical fact yourself to the official report.

You're flailing Erobitha, simply flailing. What "official report" are you referring to? It doesn't exist. How can I be accused of "appending" these very real bruises to a non-existent report?

In reality, as most realize, Bagster Phillip's medical report on the Stride murder has not survived. So, as a replacement, all we have is what he said at the inquest.

Here it is, one more time.

"Rigor mortis was still thoroughly marked. There was mud on the left side of the face and it was matted in the head. The Body was fairly nourished. Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since. The cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and tailed off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw. The deep vessels on that side were uninjured. From this is was evident that the hemorrhage was caused through the partial severance of the left carotid artery. There was a clear-cut incision on the neck. It was six inches in length and commenced two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, one half inch in over an undivided muscle, and then becoming deeper, dividing the sheath...etc."

Obviously, I am "appending" nothing. The bruising to the shoulders are the first injuries that Phillips mentions!

It is true that Phillips is later quoted as saying "There was no recent external injury save to the neck," but, as he has already described the bruising to the shoulders, I think most intelligent people would conclude that this refers to knife wounds, etc., as were evident in the other Whitechapel Murder cases. In other words, 'She only had her throat cut.' Also, as we will see in a moment, though compelled to mention these injuries, he may have been deliberately circumspect.

It is interesting to note that Coroner Wynne Baxter also felt compelled to mention these bruises during his summation.

But, in analyzing what Baxter said, we must keep in mind that Schwartz had not given testimony. This is a key point. Schwartz's account was entirely unknown. Thus, as far as Baxter and the jury was concerned, all they knew was a dead woman had been found in Dutfield's yard, laying gently down in the mud with her throat cut.

Thus Baxter states:

"There were no signs of any struggle; the clothes were neither torn nor disturbed. It was true that there are marks on both shoulders produced by pressure of two hands, but the position of the body suggested either that she was willingly placed or placed herself where she was found. Only the soles of her boots were visible; she was still holding in her left hand a packet of cachous, and there was a bunch of flowers still pinned to her dress front."

Baxter is clearly puzzled. The tight-lipped Dr. Phillip's offered him no hints, so the Coroner had no explanation for these injuries. The recent bruising to the shoulders seemed relevant--Baxter, at least, is honest enough to acknowledge their existence instead of wishing them away!--but, since he doesn't know about Schwartz, he assumes they must be unrelated, since the woman seems to have laid down "willingly."

But she didn't lay down willingly. That's stupid. She was brutally murdered. There was a witness.

You see, Erobitha, we aren't in a similar state of ignorance as Baxter was---we know, in fact, from Swanson's report that Stride was grabbed and thrown or pulled to the ground--Schwartz saw it with his own eyes---which is clearly the most plausible explanation for these bruises. One might even argue that Phillip's was deliberately circumspect about the matter, as he knew Schwartz would not be called to give evidence.

So there you have it.

If you wish to remain in the same state of ignorance as Baxter was, feel free. But since we know about Schwartz why do that?

It should also be recalled that bruises were found in the Annie Chapman case, and there was an effort to trace their origins--as obviously there would be. The police discovered that they had been inflicted during a fight over a bar of soap.

No such alternative 'explanation' was ever offered in Stride's case. Had Long Liz been beaten about in recent days by, say, Michael Kidney, it would obviously be relevant and tend to implicate him. But that is strictly theoretical--made up out of thin air.

The only assault associated with her is the one described by Schwartz.

In my world, 2 + 2 = 4. If you want to come up with a more fanciful answer, be my guest.

R P

[erobitha]

RJ you really are something to savour.

I am not going to argue with you on every single point here as I’m sure it will get you and I nowhere fast.

Blackwell and your theory rely on the testimony given to the police by Schwartz as being true. Schwartz was not invited to give evidence at the inquest. How do you know Baxter had no prior knowledge of Schwartz’s police statement? The bruising on the shoulders could have happened in many ways. And maybe not even at the point of her attack, but I’ll acknowledge the likelihood is most likely.

No-one can corroborate Schwartz’s version of events but yet seemingly his statement is somehow indisputable.

Schwartz was not a reliable witness then and he isn’t 130 years on either.