Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride..a victim?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Also you’d have though that if there’s one thing that even the most Laurel and Hardy level plotters would have tried to ensure was that everyone had their timings co-ordinated. They would have known that the police would have wanted to question everyone so why would they have been prepared for some members to have blabbed a time of discovery that they were trying to cover up? After all, there weren’t that many members left at the club. We have a lengthy list of things that just don’t make sense for any plot to have taken place. It’s a poorly thought out plot that achieved nothing and is based around 4 shaky/unreliable witnesses for its foundation.
    Indeed, Herlock.

    If the murderer had come from the club, I could imagine that the club would concoct some plan to deflect suspicion away from the murderer and the club. So, I can imagine they would have wanted to give the murderer time to clean up, if possible change into some other clothes, get their story & timings straight, decide on who would do what & when and, preferibly, have the murderer leave the club before they would go for the police.

    If the murder didn't come from the club and Stride's body was just discovered around 12:40 am, then the best plan would have been to get Stride on a cart, cover her body, drive to some quiet place and leave her there. And, of course, clean the crime spot.

    But even the first alternative doesn't go well with the evidence. Why would they send Kozebrodski to go looking for a policeman immediately after the murder? Why would they send 2 other Jews to go running and calling for one at almost the same time? Why would they want to bring someone from the public (Spooner) back only minutes after the murder? Why would they want to attract other people from public (Heshburg, Mr. Harris) to the yard by whistling or other commotion right after the murder? Why would they want Eagle & Lave to be so vague about their timings that it could seem that they were in the yard at the same time, but didn't see each other? None of it makes sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    This begs the question as to why Smith only sees Stride and man with parcel, when returning up Berner street, but not when going down it.
    Although I think you're right, the evidence leaves room for the notion that they had been there already when Smith came down Berner Street and that he only looked at or noticed them when he went back up. Maybe they had just come from a shady recess offered by the board school.

    Times of 6 October:
    "When you saw them talking, which way did you go? - Straight up Berner-street into the Commercial-road."


    They seem to have appeared on the scene very quickly. So from where did they come from to get where Smith saw them?...

    One possibility is from Dutfield's Yard, but then if they were leaving there, why then stop a short distance away, on the other side of the street?
    Another option is that they followed Smith down Berner street, and he didn't notice they were some distance behind him. If this had been the case, then the distance they would have walked behind Smith cannot have been far, as Smith only has a little way to go to get to Fairclough street, and then turn around.
    Another possibility is that the couple had just walked through Hampshire Court...
    They could also have come from Sander Street or the yard 4 houses north of Hamshire Court or the court right next to the Mission Hall (if they weresn't closed yards/courts, of course).

    Perhaps the intention was to go into the yard, but having seen the constable, they decided to wait until he had disappeared up Berner street.

    The same question applies to Fanny Mortimer. Where had the couple gone when she goes to her doorstep?
    They had been standing almost directly across from her place. They must have been speaking very quietly for Fanny not to have heard anything, if she were near the front of the house at the time.

    So perhaps the couple had continued on down Berner street, past where William Marshall had seen them. But then why the pause?
    Perhaps they had gone up Berner street, just far enough behind Smith that he doesn't notice them. But why turn around and walk back to where they had just come from?
    We can only guess, there's no way of knowing or even intuiting their motives and intentions.

    Then there is the possibility they have gone through Hampshire Court, and thus to Batty street.
    That doesn't seem to be possible, as the Batty Street end of Hamshire Court seems to be closed, or at least it is on the map we're both looking at.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Ditto for Nichols, if Cross or Paul had come along Buck's Row a little while earlier.

    Ditto for Chapman, if someone had been caught short and visited the outdoor privy just as she and her killer were entering the yard. Even worse if someone had come out of the privy while Jack was about to get stuck in! Surely, between 8th and 30th September, he'd have given a passing thought to how close he could have come to being caught in the act.

    Another point is that if the killer's only goal was to obtain the womb from a victim [something I can't believe anyone would still believe today], and he had the skill to do it if given the opportunity, there must have been a reason why he didn't achieve that goal in Buck's Row and had to find a second victim the following weekend. Was he interrupted by the sound of Cross approaching? Was he aware that someone might come along at any moment, on their way to work, or even a copper on his beat, and decided to quit while he was ahead? Was her clothing impeding his progress? Or was it just a lack of confidence, which he worked on over the following week and overcame in the backyard of Hanbury Street?

    If Cross's approach did interrupt the killer of Nichols before he could get at her womb, why on earth could the sound of Louis's pony and cart not have put paid to any chance of Stride's killer doing more than to cut her throat, swiftly and silently, and to get the hell away from there, regardless of whether or not his goal had been to do more? Instead of waiting a week to try again, might he not have been less patient this time, and keener to get straight back on the job before the night was out?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    There’s no reason at all to suggest that the killer couldn’t have been interrupted of course Caz. Michael repeatedly points out that because there’s no positive evidence of interruption then we should assume that there was none. But, as we all know, there’s no reason that we should expect such evidence (as I tried to illustrate with my bag snatching analogy.) If he’d been interrupted 2 or 3 seconds later then yes Liz might have been discovered with her skirts raised but no mutilation but if he’d been disturbed just as he’d finished drawing the knife across her throat they we are left with nothing. So it’s obviously possible that the killer was interrupted. I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone could dispute this very obvious reasoning.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Surely the chances of the killer being interrupted just as, or immediately after, he’d cut her throat are exactly the same as if he’d been interrupted at any other point in the operation? If Diemschutz had been 5 seconds earlier Stride might have ended up dying of old age.
    Ditto for Nichols, if Cross or Paul had come along Buck's Row a little while earlier.

    Ditto for Chapman, if someone had been caught short and visited the outdoor privy just as she and her killer were entering the yard. Even worse if someone had come out of the privy while Jack was about to get stuck in! Surely, between 8th and 30th September, he'd have given a passing thought to how close he could have come to being caught in the act.

    Another point is that if the killer's only goal was to obtain the womb from a victim [something I can't believe anyone would still believe today], and he had the skill to do it if given the opportunity, there must have been a reason why he didn't achieve that goal in Buck's Row and had to find a second victim the following weekend. Was he interrupted by the sound of Cross approaching? Was he aware that someone might come along at any moment, on their way to work, or even a copper on his beat, and decided to quit while he was ahead? Was her clothing impeding his progress? Or was it just a lack of confidence, which he worked on over the following week and overcame in the backyard of Hanbury Street?

    If Cross's approach did interrupt the killer of Nichols before he could get at her womb, why on earth could the sound of Louis's pony and cart not have put paid to any chance of Stride's killer doing more than to cut her throat, swiftly and silently, and to get the hell away from there, regardless of whether or not his goal had been to do more? Instead of waiting a week to try again, might he not have been less patient this time, and keener to get straight back on the job before the night was out?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 12-15-2020, 04:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    What I struggle with is why anyone associated with the club would have conspired to protect someone they suspected of this horrific murder of a defenceless woman. It's not normal behaviour. And if the police had got wind of it, due to contradictory statements given by the various witnesses, then those involved would have put themselves and the club in far more jeopardy than if they'd given honest accounts and co-operated fully to help catch the bastard. Would they really have wanted him roaming free after that to attend future meetings, with their womenfolk present?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Yes it would demonstrate a strange kind of group-callousness. Also you’d have though that if there’s one thing that even the most Laurel and Hardy level plotters would have tried to ensure was that everyone had their timings co-ordinated. They would have known that the police would have wanted to question everyone so why would they have been prepared for some members to have blabbed a time of discovery that they were trying to cover up? After all, there weren’t that many members left at the club. We have a lengthy list of things that just don’t make sense for any plot to have taken place. It’s a poorly thought out plot that achieved nothing and is based around 4 shaky/unreliable witnesses for its foundation.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 12-15-2020, 04:31 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    It’s a good point but I’m guessing that others might say that the gap could be explained by being the time taken to come up with the plot?
    What I struggle with is why anyone associated with the club would have conspired to protect someone they suspected of this horrific murder of a defenceless woman. It's not normal behaviour. And if the police had got wind of it, due to contradictory statements given by the various witnesses, then those involved would have put themselves and the club in far more jeopardy than if they'd given honest accounts and co-operated fully to help catch the bastard. Would they really have wanted him roaming free after that to attend future meetings, with their womenfolk present?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    And what if a little boy had come out out of one of the cottages to use the outside loos, noticed the body and alerted Mr Koster, who just happened to be walking by on the street at the time?



    The contrast between a club conspiracy and the picture drawn of the murderer, is arguably a false dichotomy.
    Der Arbeter Fraint gives us a good sense of how much ill-feeling and suspicion there was between the club and the police - Arbeter Fraint's Take - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

    After a while the gate and the club were closed and the whole house was guarded. The members who remained inside the club couldn’t get out, since no one was permitted to go in or to go out.
    [Regular] police and secret police arrived en masse. Everyone who had been in the club was examined, their hands and their clothing inspected, to see if there were blood stains. Everyone’s names and addresses were taken, and everyone was questioned as to whether they had seen anything unusual. During these examinations the police inspector received a telegram [saying] that in Meyter Square near Duke Street Oldgate, another woman had been murdered. This one had been cut into pieces just like the murdered Annie Chapman. Once again there was a commotion among the policemen and people began to run—out of the club, into the club, out into the yard, back from the yard. It went on like this until 4 [o’clock] in the morning. They searched everywhere; they looked for the murderer in all the neighbors’ houses, in the editor’s office, in every corner, under the tables, on the tables and in every pocket.
    During the examination of the members of the club, the Police Sergeant wanted to show, through his coarse behavior, that he was also somebody, therefore one of the members took him over to Parsons’ picture, which was nailed to the wall and explained to him that this is was Parsons the anarchist, who had been murdered in Chicago and asked him if he wanted to see the others, [if so] he could go upstairs to see [them]. Everyone laughed, and the poor policeman bit his lips.
    The headman of this group also wanted to create difficulties for the club. Pretending that he was in a hurry, he asked if he could buy several cigars. Dimshits responded with a question: didn’t he know that the law, which he protects, forbids strangers from selling cigars in a club. If he wanted [however] they could give him two cigars. The police big shot did not refuse and asked to be given [the cigars].


    To suppose that there is no possibility of a conspiracy (aka 'plan of action') occurring, implies there would have been no threshold at which Wess and Mr & Mrs Diemschitz decided they would have to 'do something' to take the heat off the club. How can that be supposed with certainty?
    The problem is, apart from there being no evidence of a conspiracy of course, is that it doesn’t even look like a conspiracy but the plan doesn’t achieve any aims. The body is still discovered in Dutfield’s Yard next to the club. The presence of BS Man (as per Schwartz who is suggested as part of the conspiracy) doesn’t ‘deflect’ from the club. He tries to pull her into the yard for a start so the fact that he was seen walking toward the yard achieves nothing. He wasn’t seen running away. The police checked the club so they obviously accepted the possibility that the killer had gone inside. Then we have the reliance on total luck. That no one saw Diemschutz arriving back earlier. That no one could testify that Schwartz couldn’t have been there. That no one in the club decided to talk possibly in the hope hope of a reward.

    Thiis conspiracy is based on 3 very shaky props. Schwartz non-appearance at the Inquest and 3 witnesses with contradicting times and Fanny Mortimer not seeing Schwartz. As for Schwartz - there might have been a perfectly reasonable reason for his non-attendance but even if the police lost confidence in him it still doesn’t point to a conspiracy in any way. The three witnesses - were all relying on guesswork for timing and none of them had any reason to log the exact time. Spooner for example is very easily shown to have been mistaken. The others can very sensibly and calmly explained by error. And Mortimer - as shown by the EN report told varying versions. In the one version we have her spending no more than 10 minutes on her doorstep between 12.30 and 1.00. We also have to ask who was more likely to have been correct on timings; her or Smith. I’d suggest Smith. If correct then Fannywas inside when Schwartz passed.

    This is how conspiracies are easily formed. Errors and understandable discrepancies. I see no reason to assume a conspiracy except for the desire for one to exist because it’s more ‘interesting’ than a ‘boring’ murder.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    There were also the guys in the little print shed who could have looked out or came out at any time. Risky indeed.
    And what if a little boy had come out out of one of the cottages to use the outside loos, noticed the body and alerted Mr Koster, who just happened to be walking by on the street at the time?

    The lack of escape route, no suspicions from witnesses, Schwartz and BS man not being noticed by anyone in the area (and let's face it, if Schwartz never came forward, we'd have no commotion in Berner St), Goldstein's walk through, it's understandable that theories involving the club are out there. It ties up lots of loose ends. If we remove the club conspiracies, what are we left with. A murderer who apparently can kill and slip away unseen, unheard, leaving no trace. Seems unlikely, but that's exactly what happened to the other victims.
    The contrast between a club conspiracy and the picture drawn of the murderer, is arguably a false dichotomy.
    Der Arbeter Fraint gives us a good sense of how much ill-feeling and suspicion there was between the club and the police - Arbeter Fraint's Take - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

    After a while the gate and the club were closed and the whole house was guarded. The members who remained inside the club couldn’t get out, since no one was permitted to go in or to go out.
    [Regular] police and secret police arrived en masse. Everyone who had been in the club was examined, their hands and their clothing inspected, to see if there were blood stains. Everyone’s names and addresses were taken, and everyone was questioned as to whether they had seen anything unusual. During these examinations the police inspector received a telegram [saying] that in Meyter Square near Duke Street Oldgate, another woman had been murdered. This one had been cut into pieces just like the murdered Annie Chapman. Once again there was a commotion among the policemen and people began to run—out of the club, into the club, out into the yard, back from the yard. It went on like this until 4 [o’clock] in the morning. They searched everywhere; they looked for the murderer in all the neighbors’ houses, in the editor’s office, in every corner, under the tables, on the tables and in every pocket.
    During the examination of the members of the club, the Police Sergeant wanted to show, through his coarse behavior, that he was also somebody, therefore one of the members took him over to Parsons’ picture, which was nailed to the wall and explained to him that this is was Parsons the anarchist, who had been murdered in Chicago and asked him if he wanted to see the others, [if so] he could go upstairs to see [them]. Everyone laughed, and the poor policeman bit his lips.
    The headman of this group also wanted to create difficulties for the club. Pretending that he was in a hurry, he asked if he could buy several cigars. Dimshits responded with a question: didn’t he know that the law, which he protects, forbids strangers from selling cigars in a club. If he wanted [however] they could give him two cigars. The police big shot did not refuse and asked to be given [the cigars].


    To suppose that there is no possibility of a conspiracy (aka 'plan of action') occurring, implies there would have been no threshold at which Wess and Mr & Mrs Diemschitz decided they would have to 'do something' to take the heat off the club. How can that be supposed with certainty?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Which wall did he 'just jump'?

    Im not stating that it’s definitely what happened as I leave the certainty to others but it appears to have been a possibility. You can go with a 3D reconstruction (very good though it is) I’m just going on the words of someone who was there at the time and no doubt actually went into the yard.

    he is by no means caught in a trap, for there are plenty of backyards that can be scaled, and a great many courts and passages, leading to Berner and other streets, to be easily reached

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Or a killer who just escaped by jumping a wall?
    Which wall did he 'just jump'?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by FrankO View Post

    The evidence says that Smith went up Berner Street right after seeing Stride & companion, Herlock, and I think it tells us that he was about to enter Berner Street from Commercial Road when he saw people outside of Dutfield's Yard. So, to me it seems that, generally, Smith first went down Berner Street as far as Fairclough Street, then turned round and went up Berner Street again and at the top turned right on Commercial Road towards Batty Street to continue the 'exterior' of his beat. Since Berner Street was one of the 'interior streets' of his beat, according to his own testimony, it makes sense that he passed them in two directions, in this case first down and immediately afterwards back up again.
    This begs the question as to why Smith only sees Stride and man with parcel, when returning up Berner street, but not when going down it.
    They seem to have appeared on the scene very quickly. So from where did they come from to get where Smith saw them?...

    ...a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.

    One possibility is from Dutfield's Yard, but then if they were leaving there, why then stop a short distance away, on the other side of the street?
    Another option is that they followed Smith down Berner street, and he didn't notice they were some distance behind him. If this had been the case, then the distance they would have walked behind Smith cannot have been far, as Smith only has a little way to go to get to Fairclough street, and then turn around.
    Another possibility is that the couple had just walked through Hampshire Court...

    Click image for larger version

Name:	rip81-photo3.jpg
Views:	197
Size:	69.4 KB
ID:	748020

    Perhaps the intention was to go into the yard, but having seen the constable, they decided to wait until he had disappeared up Berner street.

    The same question applies to Fanny Mortimer. Where had the couple gone when she goes to her doorstep?
    They had been standing almost directly across from her place. They must have been speaking very quietly for Fanny not to have heard anything, if she were near the front of the house at the time.

    So perhaps the couple had continued on down Berner street, past where William Marshall had seen them. But then why the pause?
    Perhaps they had gone up Berner street, just far enough behind Smith that he doesn't notice them. But why turn around and walk back to where they had just come from?
    Then there is the possibility they have gone through Hampshire Court, and thus to Batty street.
    Once reaching Batty street, they would be pretty much right at the doorstep of #22 - Mrs Kuer's lodginghouse.

    By the way, note how convenient Queen's Court would have been for someone wanting to return to Batty street via Christian street, thus keeping well away from Berner street.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Or a killer who just escaped by jumping a wall?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    There were unused stables in the back of that yard, and the lock to the office door over the stables had been broken. Someone hiding? Someone who knew about that office there?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Azarna View Post
    Pall Mall Gazette - 2nd October 1890
    Good find Azarna

    So it looks like it’s not impossible that the killer might have escaped from Dutfield’s Yard without using the gate. I wonder how this possibility will be explained away?

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Azarna View Post
    Pall Mall Gazette - 2nd October 1890
    Great find! I'd not read that before.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X