How "safe" were the respective murder sites?

[Hakeswill]

A far more likely explanation is that Schwarz was wrong about the time. As I noted on another thread there is no evidence that Schwarz had a watch, or evidence that he referred to a watch at the time of the assault.


Very possible that Schwarz was confused regards time, but for the sake of debate:

Schwartz had lived on Berner St so would have presumably been aware of the same clock in the Harris' tobacconists that Diemschutz used to make his tim estimate.

I'm also not sure where Schwartz was coming from - if it was from something that had a fixed 'end' he may have based his time estimate on that.

[lynn cates]

Tempus fugit.

Hello John. Thanks.

Well, WHICH police? Perhaps not at Lehman station.

Don't think you want to bring Spooner into the discussion? May not be advisable--especially as regards time.

The article written by the anarchists held out for 12.45. And they should know.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello John G,

Schwartz never said that he witnessed "an attack." So that is your own word. According to Schwartz, he simply saw a woman being pushed to the ground. And we don't know if the pushing was intentional or not. As for Liz being frightened enough to leave the scene, I think being hassled by drunken men was a common occurrence for prostitutes doing business in Whitechapel and would simply have been just another day at the office.

c.d.

P.S. I am now waiting for Lynn to say what proof do we have that Stride was a prostitute?

[lynn cates]

emulating the good doctor

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I'll cut through your chutzpah and rhetoric and conclude. (heh-heh)

At inquest--which obviously builds on all the previous speculation--Baxter had two difficulties:

1. He needed to explain the difference in Phillips on the one hand and Long/Cadosh on the other.

2. The fifteen minute gap between Long and Cadosh.

The latter does not concern us here. The first was neatly solved when Bagster, himself, held out for his possibility of having committed an error, GIVEN the unusual conditions.

Perhaps you would do well to emulate his example? (heh-heh)

Now, back to the issue of safety.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

good old Watson

Hello CD. Thanks.

In which case you will have a long wait as "Lynn" would NEVER make the mistake of asking for proof regarding an empirical object. Having a PhD in logic, he seems to understand the difference in a deduction and an induction.

Of course, he MIGHT ask for evidence. In which case HE would have a long wait as NONE should be forthcoming. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I'll cut through your chutzpah and rhetoric and conclude. (heh-heh)

At inquest--which obviously builds on all the previous speculation--Baxter had two difficulties:

1. He needed to explain the difference in Phillips on the one hand and Long/Cadosh on the other.

2. The fifteen minute gap between Long and Cadosh.

The latter does not concern us here. The first was neatly solved when Bagster, himself, held out for his possibility of having committed an error, GIVEN the unusual conditions.

Perhaps you would do well to emulate his example? (heh-heh)

Now, back to the issue of safety.

Cheers.
LC

Absolutely true - Baxter DID misinterpret Phillips, as people often do when they are positioned to try and make all evidence fit together. That´s what they do at such times - they fit it. Up.

But that doesn´t answer the question I posed to you, does it? Forget about Baxter. Tell me why Swanson was of the meaning that Long and Phillips were mutually excluding each other in the report he wrote.

I´ll point you to it, and to what Swanson had to say on the matter.

In his report of the 19:th of October (I think), Swanson listed what the police had done in order to secure any leads. He concluded that:
"Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer".

That means that he did not award Long any credibility at all, and that he ruled out that Cadosh had heard the killer.

He went on to say: "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. [sic] and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

And there goes Mrs Long. Farewell to her! Swanson correctly concluded that she had nothing to do with the Chapman case other than in the capacity of a misinformant.

So the police decided that Phillips could not have been an hour of the mark. They did not have the same type of task as Baxter did, and therefore not the same reason to sacrifice facts for a consensus that the police would never allow for anyway.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

whistling

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"That means that he did not award either Long or Cadosh any credibility at all."

What it MEANS is that the culprit had not been caught. Or so it was thought.

"He went on to say: "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect."

Yes. And Phillips SAID as much.

"And there goes Mrs Long."

No, there goes a journalist whistling past the graveyard. (No offense.)

"Farewell to her!"

I'll split the difference. Farewell, Christer. Good luck in finding the first piece of evidence for the carman.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

lynn cates:

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"That means that he did not award either Long or Cadosh any credibility at all."

What it MEANS is that the culprit had not been caught. Or so it was thought.

Not at all, Lynn. Did you not have a PhD in logic...? Listen here:

"Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer".

How does that mean that the killer has not been caught? That may be something that FOLLOWED from the fact that the police were clueless, but it is not the inherent meaning of the sentence at all.
The inherent meaning is that the police awarded Long no credibility at all. If they had believed her, they would have had a clue. But they didn´t.
Now, THERE´S logic for you.

"He went on to say: "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect."

Yes. And Phillips SAID as much.

Phillips said what?

"And there goes Mrs Long."

No, there goes a journalist whistling past the graveyard. (No offense.)

Hey, what about my question? The police had lots of time on their hands after the inquest to ask Phillips whether Baxter had interpreted him correctly. They came up with a decision that Phillips was correct and Long was wrong.

How could they do that, if Phillips allowed for a TOD at 5.30? Logic, please.

"Farewell to her!"

I'll split the difference. Farewell, Christer. Good luck in finding the first piece of evidence for the carman.

I´ve already added more evidence to that already presented, Lynn. You´ll be hearing of it in days to come.

Good luck in doing the same in Issy´s case, by the way! (heh-heh)

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

An obvious one, I´d say. To me, much hinges on the [Berner St Club] door. If he knew that it was used by the clubbers, he´d be a fool to use the yard. If not, I fail to see why it would not seem an ideal place to kill and eviscerate for him.

Stride's murder was committed in a natural bottleneck just within the gates, which was an incredibly risky spot to choose (or be lured into) in order to commit an evisceration murder. That "bottleneck" puts it on a par with Hanbury Street, but at least the latter didn't have alternative exits and entrances, unlike Dutfield's Yard with its side doors and outhouses. Dutfield's was made even riskier in my view, by the comparative bustle in and around Berner Street and the Clubhouse itself; such conditions didn't seem to apply at sleepy Hanbury.

[c.d.]

Hello Sam,

Nice to see you posting again by the way.

But what if Stride did or said something that made Jack want to kill her right there and then? And is it correct to look at the choice of location from only the perspective of the killer? I am sure that Stride was aware of the two previous murders as well as that of Tabram. Maybe she felt that being near the club enabled her to call out for help if she needed it. If Jack wanted to kill her and she would not budge in choice of location what was he to do?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

Phillips, et al

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"The inherent meaning is that the police awarded Long no credibility at all"

You know better than that. Their inquiries came up empty. Hence, no suspect in custody--other than the perpetrator (unbeknownst to them).

"Phillips said what?"

That he could be mistaken as to the time. Obviously a reference to the fact that his time was out compared to Long and Cadosh.

"They came up with a decision that Phillips was correct and Long was wrong."

I, too, think Phillips was correct. And he said his time could be off. Where do they say Long was mistaken?

And, really, logic is an academic discipline. No doubt you mean REASONING?

Thanks for the well wish. Right now, all I have is a strangler who wore an apron and carried knives. I'll keep looking. (heh-heh)

Back to topic.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

Stride's murder was committed in a natural bottleneck just within the gates,...

Yes, so it was!

... which was an incredibly risky spot to choose (or be lured into) in order to commit an evisceration murder.

True enough, Gareth! However, I am reasoning that the killers agenda did NOT include a bottleneck killing as he moved in on Stride. I think that he would have had the purpose to take her deep into the far end of the yard, and kill and eviscerate her there, as far away from prying eyes as possible. But then he got wind of the door, realized that he had made a bad choice, and changed plans.

After that, he killed Stride, whether from frustration of having had an evisceration taken away from him, or because ha had showed his intentions and wanted no witness alive, I will leave unanswered.

That "bottleneck" puts it on a par with Hanbury Street, but at least the latter didn't have alternative exits and entrances, unlike Dutfield's Yard with its side doors and outhouses.

As things turned out, the killer realized that it was a poor choice of venue, if I am correct - but what I have been saying all along is that he could have gone for it BEFORE he knew about the door. If the door had not been there, it would have been a very good choice, I believe.

Dutfield's was made even riskier in my view, by the comparative bustle in and around Berner Street and the Clubhouse itself; such conditions didn't seem to apply at sleepy Hanbury.

"Sleepy Hanbury"? At 5.30? Come on - people were rising all over to start their day, and there would have been nothing sleepy about it. It would arguably have been the busiest street of them all at that remove in time.

... but at 3.30, it would have been decidely sleepy.

Anyhow, killing in the bottleneck was okay, it only took a second. Eviscerating there would have been very risky, I agree with that. But I still think he never meant to in the first place.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

lynn cates: Hello Christer. Thanks.

"The inherent meaning is that the police awarded Long no credibility at all"

You know better than that. Their inquiries came up empty. Hence, no suspect in custody--other than the perpetrator (unbeknownst to them).

That was what followed from not having any leads. But what the FACT that they said that they had not a clue in the case means, is that they had not a clue in the case. And that also means that Long´s sighting was no longer considered a clue in October. Exit Long.

If they had put stock in Long, they would have had a massive clue in her description. They did not, however.

"Phillips said what?"

That he could be mistaken as to the time. Obviously a reference to the fact that his time was out compared to Long and Cadosh.

But that was not what you responed to. You responded to the sentence ""He went on to say: "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect" by saying that this was what Phillips said.

Clearly he didn´t. He said nothing of the sort. Not even near.

And his stating that it could be as little as two hours had nothing to do with Long and/or Cadosch, I´m afraid. The estimation he made would not have been something he altered to fit the tesitmony of others. That is rather a strange thing you are suggesting there, Lynn. It would have been extremely unprofessional:

"I think she has been dead for a week, since she has started to decompose."

"But a witness saw her five minutes ago!"

"Oh, alright then. She could have cooled of very quickly, I guess."

Great stuff that, Lynn. Very inventive.

"They came up with a decision that Phillips was correct and Long was wrong."

I, too, think Phillips was correct. And he said his time could be off. Where do they say Long was mistaken?

That is involved in the fact that they had no clue.

Thanks for the well wish. Right now, all I have is a strangler who wore an apron and carried knives. I'll keep looking. (heh-heh)

I´m not holding my breath. But I´m happy to have a lot more on my man than you have on yours.

The best,
Fisherman

[John G]

Hello John G,

Schwartz never said that he witnessed "an attack." So that is your own word. According to Schwartz, he simply saw a woman being pushed to the ground. And we don't know if the pushing was intentional or not. As for Liz being frightened enough to leave the scene, I think being hassled by drunken men was a common occurrence for prostitutes doing business in Whitechapel and would simply have been just another day at the office.

c.d.

P.S. I am now waiting for Lynn to say what proof do we have that Stride was a prostitute?

Hello C.D,

Yes, I think of all of the C5 murder sites Berner Street is the most contentious. Regarding the altercation witnessed by Schwartz. According to his reported account he claims to have witnessed a man pull Stride into the street and subsequently throw her down on the footway, Apparently Stride was so alarmed by this that she screamed three times. I would, therefore, conclude that Schwartz is describing an assault, although at this stage possibly not a very serious one, and if PC Smith, say, had witnessed the same event I feel sure he would have intervened.

As regards the timeline. For me the evidence strongly points to Stride having been murdered at about 1:00am. This is supported by the fact that her body was still warm when inspected by Spooner and the was still blood oozing from her neck-I believe that medical opinion was that she would have bled out in about a minute and a half. It is also supported by the evidence Fanny Mortimer who claimed that if the killer had come out of the yard before 1:00am then she would have seen him (although he would concede that she is probably not the most reliable witness!)

And Schwartz's evidence is arguably contradicted by James Brown, who stated that he saw a woman he believed was Stride, with a man, at the same time that Schwartz claimed to witness the altercation.

And if Schwartz was correct with his time then why did nobody witness Stride between 12:45 and 1:00am? After all, Schwartz claimed to have seen an altercation involving Stride outside the gates of the club where her body would subsequently be found so I think it reasonable to assume that she would have remained in the vicinity of the club. And, of course, Fanny Mortimer said that she was standing in the doorway of her house during most of this period and she saw nothing.

It does appear, however, that Schwartz's timings went unchallenged, but then so did Edward Spooner's when he claimed to have arrived at the murder scene at 12:35am- he even stated this obviously mistaken time at the inquest and not even the coroner thought to question it!

However, I would acknowledge that there are difficulties: Fanny Mortimer doesn't come across as a very reliable witness to me and James Brown's testimony is not altogether irreconcilable with Schwartz: he estimated the time of his sighting at "about" 12:45 and, of course, he saw Stride at the corner of Berner Street, and so very close to the Schwartz sighting.

Finally, as I pointed out in a previous post James Brown heard Stride, or someone he believed to be Stride, say to a man "No, not tonight, some other night", so maybe Stride wasn't soliciting that night!

[John G]

A far more likely explanation is that Schwarz was wrong about the time. As I noted on another thread there is no evidence that Schwarz had a watch, or evidence that he referred to a watch at the time of the assault.


Very possible that Schwarz was confused regards time, but for the sake of debate:

Schwartz had lived on Berner St so would have presumably been aware of the same clock in the Harris' tobacconists that Diemschutz used to make his tim estimate.

I'm also not sure where Schwartz was coming from - if it was from something that had a fixed 'end' he may have based his time estimate on that.

Yes, some very good points. However, for the reasons I have given in other posts I still feel that Schwartz was wrong about the time of the assault he claimed to have witnessed