The Absence Of Evidence

[FISHY1118]

Henry Gawen Sutton - Wikipedia


Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (character) - Wikipedia


Jack the Ripper - Wikipedia

Same guy.

Sorry i must be missing something ,this Sutton guy is he a suspect ?

You said'' Sutton struck '' is that right ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Dr. Phillips describes the wound as "...Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle, then becoming deeper, about an inch dividing sheath and the vessels, ascending a little, and then grazing the muscle outside the cartilages on the left side of the neck. ...", so at the deepest it does not reach the cartilage, but only grazes the muscles outside of them.

I can't find any testimony from the medical examination about bruises to her left temple or cheek. The only mention of bruising, which I take the bluish discolouration to mean, is the following:

"...Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration which I have watched and seen on two occasions since...."

As is not uncommon, the press reports are incorrect in their specifics.

There are definitely problems with those reports. However, the later report begins:

The body of the murdered woman, which now lies in St. George's Mortuary, close to St. George's Parish Church, presents a dreadful spectacle. It is the corpse of a woman about 40 years of age, and, as it lies on the slab, exhibits prominently a fearful wound on the throat.

That sounds to me like the reporter is at the mortuary, observing the corpse at first hand.

Also in Phillip's testimony he reports "...On removing the scalp there was no sign of bruising or extravasation of blood between it and the skull-cap. ..." negating the idea she suffered any kind of head injury, otherwise an interesting idea.

Would a fall resulting in bruising to the temple, necessarily result in that sort of head trauma?

I'm not being clear, and that's my fault. What I'm referring to is the idea that she tries at some point to move away from her attacker. He grabs her scarf, and this halts her forward motion suddenly. That would be similar to being hit in the throat, so she might not be able to speak temporarily, but by the time she would have recovered he's cut her throat. I'm not suggesting he used the scarf as a ligature as in pulling on it until she passes out. Rather, the doctor's suggestion that the killer pulled her backwards with the scarf seems to make sense.

If he pulls the scarf - not enough to strangle but enough to prevent speech or screams - and then quickly gets her to the ground and cuts her throat, when does this stuff occur ...?

"...Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration which I have watched and seen on two occasions since...."

There were cachous found in the gutter as well, so they did get a bit scattered. She doesn't appear to have dropped them completely, so it seems to me she must have been put to the ground very quickly.

It's a very tricky problem. I seriously wonder is she were sitting down when the attack began. Then any fall or rapid decent becomes more like a fairly gentle recline.

Lamb: She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.

Maybe, but of course, you're now saying Schwartz existed and saw something again.

I'm fairly confident that Schwartz existed, however I'm undecided on whether he saw less or more than he claimed to.

The cut does appear to have been very clean and done without any signs of hesitation (there aren't any small cuts reported suggesting he held it against her throat first, etc), so it would appear once the knife was in his hand the decision to cut her throat had already been made and it was used directly, that is consistent with skill with using a knife. It's also consistent with someone who is not having to overcome any doubts about progressing on to murder. Mind you, this sort of thing is not very strong evidence and the ideas that come with them should not be viewed as strongly supported ideas.

- Jeff

Do you mean, not very strong evidence that it was JtR? Isn't there strong support for the idea that Stride was an interrupted murder? What is that support based on, if not the apparent skills of the murderer?

[DJA]

Nope.

Busy staying alive.

Thanks though

Still seeking a suitable screenwriter to tell the truth.Waiting on some writers from Warnambool.Contact caught co-vid.

[GBinOz]

Any progress on your movie Dave?

Cheers, George

[DJA]

Henry Gawen Sutton - Wikipedia


Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (character) - Wikipedia


Jack the Ripper - Wikipedia

Same guy.

[FISHY1118]

Stride did not scatter the cachous.Dr.Blackwell did.

They had been lodged between thumb and first finger,which suggests to me that she had just plucked them from Jack the Ripper's palm as offered.

Sutton struck and the cachous were held in a death grip.There is a term for it.

Sutton ?

[DJA]

Meh! Doctors!

On ya bike and finish the Prayer Book Revolt.

[JeffHamm]

Stride Inquest.

Dr, Phillips: The left arm was extended from elbow, and a packet of cachous was in the hand. Similar ones were in the gutter. I took them from the hand and gave them to Dr. Blackwell.

Dr. Blackwell: I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand.

Oh yes, I had forgotten about that. My mistake. Regardless, the main point is that she didn't drop them so no matter who attacked her, JtR or someone else, she appears to have been put to the ground fairly quickly (which goes against there being a period of manual strangulation). The only alternative I can think of would be her killer putting them in her hand after she was dead as some sort of posing, but that sounds more serial killer like (so JtR) and we don't see that sort of posing in any other murder so it seems like a stretch to me even if there's nothing to specifically rule it out in this instance.

- Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Stride Inquest.

Dr, Phillips: The left arm was extended from elbow, and a packet of cachous was in the hand. Similar ones were in the gutter. I took them from the hand and gave them to Dr. Blackwell.

Dr. Blackwell: I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand.

[DJA]

Stride did not scatter the cachous.Dr.Blackwell did.

They had been lodged between thumb and first finger,which suggests to me that she had just plucked them from Jack the Ripper's palm as offered.

Sutton struck and the cachous were held in a death grip.There is a term for it.

[JeffHamm]

A couple of papers made reference to severe bruising to the temple and cheek region. The Irish Times said (on different pages):

The hypothesis that the wound was inflicted after and not before the woman fell is supported by the fact that there are several bruises on her left temple and left cheek, thus showing that force must have been used to prostrate her, which would not have been necessary had her throat been already cut.

The vertebrae of the neck was scraped owing to the great force with which the weapon was wielded, and it is obvious that if the murderer had not been interrupted the poor creature would have been hideously mangled, for the savagery of her assailant is evidenced not alone by the terrible wound in her throat but also by two severe contusions on the head - one on the temple, the other on the cheek, which seem to point to the conclusion that he was proceeding to further outrage when some chance incident alarmed him and caused him to desist from his infamous work.

Dr. Phillips describes the wound as "...Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle, then becoming deeper, about an inch dividing sheath and the vessels, ascending a little, and then grazing the muscle outside the cartilages on the left side of the neck. ...", so at the deepest it does not reach the cartilage, but only grazes the muscles outside of them.

I can't find any testimony from the medical examination about bruises to her left temple or cheek. The only mention of bruising, which I take the bluish discolouration to mean, is the following:

"...Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration which I have watched and seen on two occasions since...."

As is not uncommon, the press reports are incorrect in their specifics.

Once on the ground, if the murderer had to pull upward on the scarf to expose the left side of the neck, then why would he have also pushed her face into the stony ground? Presumably because she was still conscious, and therefore capable of calling out. So why didn't she? Well, this occurred in intense darkness, and we know Stride had that 'funny' leg, so how about ...? She was tripped and fell, hitting her head hard on the ground as she did.

Also in Phillip's testimony he reports "...On removing the scalp there was no sign of bruising or extravasation of blood between it and the skull-cap. ..." negating the idea she suffered any kind of head injury, otherwise an interesting idea.

If not that, then how could the murderer have pushed her downwards, and strangled her with the scarf at the same time? I doubt there actually was an attempt to strangle with the scarf.

I'm not being clear, and that's my fault. What I'm referring to is the idea that she tries at some point to move away from her attacker. He grabs her scarf, and this halts her forward motion suddenly. That would be similar to being hit in the throat, so she might not be able to speak temporarily, but by the time she would have recovered he's cut her throat. I'm not suggesting he used the scarf as a ligature as in pulling on it until she passes out. Rather, the doctor's suggestion that the killer pulled her backwards with the scarf seems to make sense.

Coroner: Was the silk scarf tight enough to prevent her calling out?
Blackwell: I could not say that.

If the scarf were not even tight enough to have definitely prevented her calling out, then it definitely wasn't tight enough to strangle. Unless that is, the murderer maintained strong tension on the scarf with his own hands. Yet if he had done so, Stride's hands would be pulling in an opposing direction, and she would necessarily have let go of the cachous packet.

There were cachous found in the gutter as well, so they did get a bit scattered. She doesn't appear to have dropped them completely, so it seems to me she must have been put to the ground very quickly.

That would only leave the bruising over the shoulders, unexplained. At least in the sense of how this was achieved, without the victim making noises that were audible to those nearby. Conceivably this moment was noticed ...

The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage ...

Maybe, but of course, you're now saying Schwartz existed and saw something again.

This must have been seconds before the murder. About 20 minutes later though, Spooner reports her still bleeding. Or if with go with 'Police time', no more than 10 minutes, but in that 10 minutes, Goldstein must be seen by a witness, and that witness may have been in a position to see him since hearing the 'measured, heavy tramp' of a passing policeman, who saw Stride alive and well. I guess we will have to stick with the 20 minutes, and just assume the bleeding went on and on.

Whatever the case, the murderer seems to have been very skilled with the knife, and at keeping her quiet. Definitely not some raucous drunkard.

The cut does appear to have been very clean and done without any signs of hesitation (there aren't any small cuts reported suggesting he held it against her throat first, etc), so it would appear once the knife was in his hand the decision to cut her throat had already been made and it was used directly, that is consistent with skill with using a knife. It's also consistent with someone who is not having to overcome any doubts about progressing on to murder. Mind you, this sort of thing is not very strong evidence and the ideas that come with them should not be viewed as strongly supported ideas.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

To me, the idea of being able to cut someone's throat while they are falling is so implausible (given the cleanness of the cut as well) that this only leaves Blackwell's idea of her being on the ground at the time, which is similar to Eddowes (who also had no blood down the front of her upper clothing, which would have been the case if she were standing, etc).

I could see the bruises under her collar bones arising if she was attacked in the alley, say shoved with two hands back against the wall, this results in her turning to flee, grabbing her scarf, chocking her to the point of silence and her going down, then her throat is cut.

A couple of papers made reference to severe bruising to the temple and cheek region. The Irish Times said (on different pages):

The hypothesis that the wound was inflicted after and not before the woman fell is supported by the fact that there are several bruises on her left temple and left cheek, thus showing that force must have been used to prostrate her, which would not have been necessary had her throat been already cut.

The vertebrae of the neck was scraped owing to the great force with which the weapon was wielded, and it is obvious that if the murderer had not been interrupted the poor creature would have been hideously mangled, for the savagery of her assailant is evidenced not alone by the terrible wound in her throat but also by two severe contusions on the head - one on the temple, the other on the cheek, which seem to point to the conclusion that he was proceeding to further outrage when some chance incident alarmed him and caused him to desist from his infamous work.

Once on the ground, if the murderer had to pull upward on the scarf to expose the left side of the neck, then why would he have also pushed her face into the stony ground? Presumably because she was still conscious, and therefore capable of calling out. So why didn't she? Well, this occurred in intense darkness, and we know Stride had that 'funny' leg, so how about ...? She was tripped and fell, hitting her head hard on the ground as she did.

If not that, then how could the murderer have pushed her downwards, and strangled her with the scarf at the same time? I doubt there actually was an attempt to strangle with the scarf.

Coroner: Was the silk scarf tight enough to prevent her calling out?
Blackwell: I could not say that.

If the scarf were not even tight enough to have definitely prevented her calling out, then it definitely wasn't tight enough to strangle. Unless that is, the murderer maintained strong tension on the scarf with his own hands. Yet if he had done so, Stride's hands would be pulling in an opposing direction, and she would necessarily have let go of the cachous packet.

That would only leave the bruising over the shoulders, unexplained. At least in the sense of how this was achieved, without the victim making noises that were audible to those nearby. Conceivably this moment was noticed ...

The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage ...

This must have been seconds before the murder. About 20 minutes later though, Spooner reports her still bleeding. Or if with go with 'Police time', no more than 10 minutes, but in that 10 minutes, Goldstein must be seen by a witness, and that witness may have been in a position to see him since hearing the 'measured, heavy tramp' of a passing policeman, who saw Stride alive and well. I guess we will have to stick with the 20 minutes, and just assume the bleeding went on and on.

While there is a broad similarity (an initial silencing sequence via strangulation of some sort, followed by victim on the ground, followed by a deep cut to the throat severing major arteries, etc) the sequence I just described is also different in the specifics from what seems to be the case in the other C5 victims. So, either those differences made the whole event unacceptable to JtR, so he leaves at that point (perhaps he needs that initial manual strangulation to get himself worked up and that leads to the mutilations, for example) or it's not a JtR case after all. I still can't decide on Stride, but I've learned to live with that.

Anyway, I would suggest that Blackwell rules out a standing position for Stride in his testimony, and I don't see anything in the reports to suggest his interpretation should be overturned. I don't think his idea that her throat could have been cut while she was falling results in a plausible event, leaving only the idea she was on the ground at the time.

I hope that makes my reasoning clear, and as I've been thinking about it, I'm not sure how similar I now think the initial sequences might have been other than in very broad and generic ways. If her killer was not JtR, for example, that whole initial strangulation by scarf pulling might have just been the result of him grabbing her scarf to prevent her from getting away rather than him intending it as a silencing technique. But it does lead to the possibility that if she is a JtR victim, that for Jack the initial manual strangulation was a very important aspect for him, as much as the mutilations were. Perhaps he got off in seeing the fear in their face while he did so, and with Stride, he didn't get that?

- Jeff

Whatever the case, the murderer seems to have been very skilled with the knife, and at keeping her quiet. Definitely not some raucous drunkard.

[JeffHamm]

For once, I don’t agree with you, Jeff. The way I see it, it's unclear whether the initial sequence was very similar to the other cases. Unlike any other case, there were pressure marks under both collar bones, there was the tightly knotted scarf, which led Dr. Blackwell to believe that Stride was, in fact, pulled backwards by her killer, cutting her throat as she was falling or when she was on the ground. And she was lying on her side, which wouldn’t be the ideal position for mutilating her abdomen.

Even though I agree that both Stride and Eddowes (& the others) were attacked and silenced quickly, it’s not clear that Stride was first rendered unconscious, then laid down and then had her throat cut. With Stride it seems to have happened all in one, sort of fluent, go.

So, what's your reason for stating "not one grabbed from behind and cut while standing"?

Hi Frank,

I missed this, sorry (way back on page 3).

I probably overstated things, and should have phrased it as suggesting the initial sequences could have been the same, rather than to suggest they were the same. By initial sequence I was referring to an initial strangulation followed by cutting the throat while the victim was on the ground, while the "not one grabbed from behind ..." was referring more to grappling the victim and keeping them in a standing position while cutting their throat.

As such, the "grabbing the scarf" type of attack would be of the "initial strangulation", although in this case not manual (with the hands) and not necessarily to unconciousness, but perhaps enough to injure her throat enough to prevent screaming out (which is all that had to be accomplished).

You included the following quote from Blackwell in your post 81, so I've copied it here:

"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."

and he seems to have ruled out a standing position. To me, the idea of being able to cut someone's throat while they are falling is so implausible (given the cleanness of the cut as well) that this only leaves Blackwell's idea of her being on the ground at the time, which is similar to Eddowes (who also had no blood down the front of her upper clothing, which would have been the case if she were standing, etc).

I could see the bruises under her collar bones arising if she was attacked in the alley, say shoved with two hands back against the wall, this results in her turning to flee, grabbing her scarf, chocking her to the point of silence and her going down, then her throat is cut.

While there is a broad similarity (an initial silencing sequence via strangulation of some sort, followed by victim on the ground, followed by a deep cut to the throat severing major arteries, etc) the sequence I just described is also different in the specifics from what seems to be the case in the other C5 victims. So, either those differences made the whole event unacceptable to JtR, so he leaves at that point (perhaps he needs that initial manual strangulation to get himself worked up and that leads to the mutilations, for example) or it's not a JtR case after all. I still can't decide on Stride, but I've learned to live with that.

Anyway, I would suggest that Blackwell rules out a standing position for Stride in his testimony, and I don't see anything in the reports to suggest his interpretation should be overturned. I don't think his idea that her throat could have been cut while she was falling results in a plausible event, leaving only the idea she was on the ground at the time.

I hope that makes my reasoning clear, and as I've been thinking about it, I'm not sure how similar I now think the initial sequences might have been other than in very broad and generic ways. If her killer was not JtR, for example, that whole initial strangulation by scarf pulling might have just been the result of him grabbing her scarf to prevent her from getting away rather than him intending it as a silencing technique. But it does lead to the possibility that if she is a JtR victim, that for Jack the initial manual strangulation was a very important aspect for him, as much as the mutilations were. Perhaps he got off in seeing the fear in their face while he did so, and with Stride, he didn't get that?

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Caz,

I guess it can be interpreted in numerous ways.

The description Schwartz gave of BS man would conjure up a drunk Englishman. However, the whole Lipski thing I believe back fired. I believe Schwartz TRIED to insinuate there was anti-semitism being used by the killer. Whether it was aimed at him or pipeman the intention was to show this racial slur was used by the killer.

Swanson went out of his way to add a note on his 19th October letter to define as follows. “The use of ‘Lipski’ increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew”.

Would it not seem odd a Jew would abuse another Jew with such terminology? If you were alerting your mate that they had company would you have chosen a slur against someone of your own creed? I just don’t understand how that makes any sense.

If pipeman’s name was Lipski and BS man was simply alerting his pal, then okay fair enough.

My theory is Schwartz wanted to demonstrate anti-semitism which would suggest a gentile, but it somehow got muddled up in the killer being Jewish. Accidentally or by design.

Just my thought.

You said similarly here. Nor does it make sense to the author of the dissertation, Interpreting Lipski.

The person responsible for the marginal note that a Jew was believed responsible for the murders was Godfrey Lushington, Permanent Under Secretary at the Home Office. This logic doesn't fit well, and the opposite seems a better conclusion. With the yelling of 'Lipski' in Berner Street and the message left in Goulston Street later that same night, it would appear that someone was trying to implicate the Jewish people instead.

The logic does not fit well - or so it seems - because Schwartz's story has been too casually accepted. The word 'Lipski' had strong connotations with murder, especially murder by a Jew. The only man in the street with a Jewish appearance, was Israel Schwartz. For the word 'Lipski' to have been used, is evidence that the murder had already occurred. The marginal note now becomes perfectly logical ...

The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew.

... and it's implication is clear - Godfrey Lushington believed Israel Schwartz to have been the murderer. Note that Lushington did not arrive at his conclusion, based on the use of 'Lipski'. Rather this supported an existing belief. Doubts about Schwartz seem to have extended beyond Leman street station, and so it may have been more than (or not at all) the opinion there, that Swanson had in mind when commencing a sentence in his report with "If Schwartz is to be believed ..."

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The use of the single word 'Lipski' as a slur, makes little sense. It would be like yelling 'Jew', or at the same time in the USA, a man yelling 'Negro'.

Yes, what? Can I be of assistance?

The use of the single word 'Lipski' as a verb, also makes little sense. It would be like yelling 'assault', or 'murder'.

Really? Can I aid in assisting the victim?

However, it does make sense in two ways.

One: As a name. Pipeman was a Mr Lipski.

Two: As an alert to Pipeman.

A Mr Lipski was never identified, leaving an alert as the only reasonable explanation.
This reasoning can be easily tested. Does it match what we see in Swanson's report...?

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

Evidently the second man also ran, and towards Schwartz, else why would Schwartz have thought it necessary to run so far?
Schwartz was implying that the second man was an accomplice to the first. We see something similar in the Star account, in which ...

A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

Schwartz was the intruder. Note that this time, the alert or warning goes in the opposite direction - Pipeman/Knifeman warns BS Man, whereas in the Met account, BS Man sends the warning to Pipeman.

The two men are described in a way that clearly suggests they are working together. Yet, for some reason, the police do not suspect the second man. How could they not suspect him, without speaking to the man himself? So where does that leave the mysterious chase, and thus the authenticity of Schwartz' account?

Aside from the mystery of the chase, there is an element to the whole Schwartz issue that deserves more discussion.
That is; how definite a link did Schwartz want it to be supposed existed, between the two men?
As Abberline saw it, the existence of a relationship between BS & Pm was unclear.
Here's a chunk of a letter from FCA to the Home Office ...

I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as a mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.

See entire letter

Not only can Abberline not see a link between the two men, but he actually suggests that Pipeman may have become alarmed and run off like Schwartz did. Note also that he supposes a lot of the reason for Schwartz' own alarm was due to him "being a foreigner and unable to speak English". So what did he suppose might have caused similar alarm to Pipeman?

Contrast this interpretation, with that of the Star:

... the story of a man who is said to have seen the Berner-street tragedy, and declares that one man butchered and another man watched, is, we think, a priori incredible.

So the Star was not even buying the idea that two men watched an assault (or worse), without intervening, whereas Abberline has imagined the two men scurrying off like frightened rabbits, while the woman went into the yard without a thing being heard.

Two very different interpretations! However, the critical interpretation belongs to Israel Schwartz himself.
The relationship between BS and Pm (now Km), is made very clear in the Star ...

The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

Jumping straight to the conclusion to keep this post to a reasonable length; the whole raison d'être of the Star interview was to make the relationship between the two men, absolutely clear.
This raises an obvious question; why did Schwartz and friend care so much about precisely how his account had been interpreted, to the point that they wanted to go public with Israel's story?