Stride..a victim?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thats the main difference between Fanny and Israel, 1 has corroboration and the other does not. 1 has the victim being in peril on the street minutes before she will be killed, 1 saw nothing save a few stragglers. But they could verify the stragglers, by Goldsteins admission and Browns sighting of the young couple...the ONLY 3 people seen on the road by Fanny between 12:35 and 1am.

Imagine if both Mortimer and Schwartz had appeared at the inquest.
In effect it would have been Scotland Yard's man - Israel Schwartz, up against Leman Street's woman - Fanny Mortimer.
The show-down would have had a cultural aspect - man versus woman, a political aspect - Jew versus Gentile, and a status aspect - high rank versus low.
It would have made for a fascinating contest, but alas we'll never know.
Assuming Schwartz was available to appear (albeit a huge assumption), Baxter probably wanted to avoid embarrassing Scotland Yard.
That tells us pretty much all we need to know - Mortimer would have contradicted Schwartz, and Baxter knew it.
Poor Fanny - she could have been famous!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good post MWR, but with respect, you're not getting right to the heart of the matter.

The Star, Oct 2: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Was the "but they are not likely..." part from information from the police or the opinion of the journalist?

Stride died early on the Sunday morning, yet before the Tuesday edition of the Star went to press, the Leman street police had already stopped looking for Schwartz' first and second man, because they did not believe Schwartz.

But they must have initially given weight to what he'd told them. Might they just have stopped looking because they were only going on a physical description. How many men could they bring in based on a fairly generic description?

It is a misconstrual of the situation to suppose 'they couldn't find these men', if they are not looking for them!
And let's be clear on this - it could not be the failure to locate the men by that early stage that is the causing doubts - rather it is Schwartz' story itself that is doubted.

There might well have been doubts but is it stated anywhere that Schwartz was completely dismissed?

Yes it's true - the Leman street police regarded Schwartz' story a lie, and thus the men in the story as non-existent.
Yet here we are in 2020, and most students of the case believe the opposite!

Doubt isn't the same as being certain of not being true.

In contrast to Leman street, the senior investigators never stopped believing in Schwartz, but also never succeeded in identifying the Ripper/murderers.
That is why all the years spent scouring the post-1888 words of the senior investigators has only resulted in weak candidates being proposed.

If there was a difference of opinion between the police on the ground and their senior officers how can we be certain who was correct? Are you saying that we should ignore anything from senior police officers?

The senior investigators failed, and they do not hold any secrets to the Ripper's identity.
However, the real clue from the police might just be found in considering the huge difference in opinion that is evident between the police 'on the ground', and that of the Scotland Yard 'suits'.

I'm with the former, and the mysterious, elusive Israel Schwartz is the best candidate for Jack the Ripper.

So Schwartz decides to christen his move to a new house by committing a murder just around the corner and then going to the police instead of scarpering? And if you're in a pro- police on the ground but anti- senior officers vein it would have to be mentioned that those on the ground let the ripper (a man they suspected of lying) slip through their fingers.

[caz]

Frankly its very irresponsible assigning Strides murder to a proven serial mutilator just using imagined interruptions, self serving excuses or the number of baseless arguments that people use to make Stride a Ripper victim. Which she was not... by all the available evidence.

Oh for crying out loud, Michael. Are you totally incapable of seeing the difference between not ruling out the ripper, and 'assigning' Stride's murder to him?

Where did I ever try to 'portray' the killer of Nichols and Chapman as someone who 'just wants to kill'?? Couldn't a serial mutilator ever misjudge his immediate surroundings and the potential for witnesses, or a prospective victim's willingness to co-operate? What if the killer of Nichols had misjudged things in Buck's Row? Would he have run off and left her alive if she had got wind of his intentions, for instance, and started screaming? He didn't 'just' want to kill her, but he didn't want to bump into a copper while she was still screaming her head off either.

[caz]

To address this continuing nonsense about interruptions, if there are any indicators that suggest one, then its open territory. In this case there are none, which means the absence of mutilations is intentional. Not accidental. If anyone thinks Annies killer would go out again and not mutilate his victim, they really dont belong on a site that tries to deal with the facts. Maybe there is a sandbox semi-equivalent out there for them, one where wild imagination and fantasy are welcome. They arent here.

Chapman's killer might have gone out again - assuming he was able to do so - with a strong desire to mutilate more victims, but that's not the same as always being able to do so, Michael. He wasn't all-powerful and all-knowing. He was a seriously deranged human being, whose behaviour, just like anyone else's, could have been influenced, limited, or even dictated, by any circumstances not entirely within his control.

If the idea is that Chapman's killer was so insane that he'd have been compelled to go ahead and mutilate a victim, no matter if the circumstances had made it 100% certain of being caught and prevented from ever doing it again, I'd appreciate some evidence for this.

But yes, I think Chapman's killer could easily have gone out again and not mutilated a victim if he didn't fancy getting caught in the act and being hanged as a result, and I find it hilarious to be told I really don't belong on this site by someone who doesn't believe there ever was a 'Jack the Ripper'.

[caz]

So Schwartz decides to christen his move to a new house by committing a murder just around the corner and then going to the police instead of scarpering? And if you're in a pro- police on the ground but anti- senior officers vein it would have to be mentioned that those on the ground let the ripper (a man they suspected of lying) slip through their fingers.

Yes, Herlock, I was wondering why Schwartz needed to tell his story at all, if he killed Stride and nobody was around to see him with her.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

I feel reasonably confident in saying that people are allowed to disagree with you. It's an open forum. Imagine if Steve Ryder took that attitude when starting the site, 'anyone who disagrees with my opinion is barred'. It'd be a lonely place.

Lots of people consider the interruption theory. It stands to reason that after consideration, some people lean towards it. Some whole heartedly believe it. Many on here don't include Stride. Some believe in 4 or 5 active killers. Some think 1. Lots of different ideas.

But, if what your saying is that different opinions are fine across the board, just not specifically on the interruption matter, then I'd question what exactly is it about this particular area that gets your ire up to such a point?

We'd all like to deal in 'facts'. Unfortunately, there's precious little of them in this case.

People are of course allowed to disagree with each other, I never suggested that they shouldnt or couldnt. What I have said...and this is for Caz too...is that you need to have some foundation in known evidence to even put some ideas on this table...this table meaning Casebook. This isnt Ripper 101, this is for people who know their stuff and know what is required of them when they post something. This interruption "concept" is wholly a by-product of Canonical enthusiasts who want desperately to have a Canonical slant on what happened to Liz. However, there is no evidence of any interruption on Berner St.

What happened to Liz by the evidence is that someone choked her with her scarf and slit her throat. To "consider" this interruption theory...to imagine its possible, to argue with anyone about it requires some evidence upon which to base the argument itself. Again...THERE IS NONE.

In the same way people cannot argue for the killer of Liz to have been flatfooted, to have red hair, to belong to the Friars club, to take annual vacations in Wales, to have owned a boat, to be on his way elsewhere, to have a sister named Edna, to own a pet monkey, to be an amateur sword swallower...none of these are warranted suppositions because there is nothing upon which to base the theory on, so....... people cannot offer an argument for an interruption in this case. ITS NOT INDICATED by any evidence, ...just by people who want to believe that only Jack cuts throats.

[Michael W Richards]

Oh for crying out loud, Michael. Are you totally incapable of seeing the difference between not ruling out the ripper, and 'assigning' Stride's murder to him?

Where did I ever try to 'portray' the killer of Nichols and Chapman as someone who 'just wants to kill'?? Couldn't a serial mutilator ever misjudge his immediate surroundings and the potential for witnesses, or a prospective victim's willingness to co-operate? What if the killer of Nichols had misjudged things in Buck's Row? Would he have run off and left her alive if she had got wind of his intentions, for instance, and started screaming? He didn't 'just' want to kill her, but he didn't want to bump into a copper while she was still screaming her head off either.

Read the last post I made Caz, you can "rule" in the Ripper all you want...all you need is some evidence? In this case you have a knife as a murder weapon and a throat cut....I know thats not enough for anyone to suggest Jack, so now youd like to include speculative imagination like interruptions. Not havin it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

People are of course allowed to disagree with each other, I never suggested that they shouldnt or couldnt. What I have said...and this is for Caz too...is that you need to have some foundation in known evidence to even put some ideas on this table...this table meaning Casebook. This isnt Ripper 101, this is for people who know their stuff and know what is required of them when they post something. This interruption "concept" is wholly a by-product of Canonical enthusiasts who want desperately to have a Canonical slant on what happened to Liz. However, there is no evidence of any interruption on Berner St.

What happened to Liz by the evidence is that someone choked her with her scarf and slit her throat. To "consider" this interruption theory...to imagine its possible, to argue with anyone about it requires some evidence upon which to base the argument itself. Again...THERE IS NONE.

In the same way people cannot argue for the killer of Liz to have been flatfooted, to have red hair, to belong to the Friars club, to take annual vacations in Wales, to have owned a boat, to be on his way elsewhere, to have a sister named Edna, to own a pet monkey, to be an amateur sword swallower...none of these are warranted suppositions because there is nothing upon which to base the theory on, so....... people cannot offer an argument for an interruption in this case. ITS NOT INDICATED by any evidence, ...just by people who want to believe that only Jack cuts throats.

What would constitute evidence of interruption? If the killer choked her with the scarf and then cut her throat (which I'm not disputing) then at that specific point how can we know that the killer wasn't interrupted? How can we know what was in the killers mind because only the killer would have known what he'd intended. Unless he'd unintentionally dropped a list at the scene saying:

1. Find woman.
2. Agree a price.
3. Find s spot.
4. Cut her throat.
5. Mutilate her body.

then there's absolutely no way of knowing what he'd intended. And therefore we can't say that he wasn't interrupted. We can say that we don't think that he was but it simply unproveable. And entirely plausible imo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Imagine if both Mortimer and Schwartz had appeared at the inquest.
In effect it would have been Scotland Yard's man - Israel Schwartz, up against Leman Street's woman - Fanny Mortimer.
The show-down would have had a cultural aspect - man versus woman, a political aspect - Jew versus Gentile, and a status aspect - high rank versus low.
It would have made for a fascinating contest, but alas we'll never know.
Assuming Schwartz was available to appear (albeit a huge assumption), Baxter probably wanted to avoid embarrassing Scotland Yard.
That tells us pretty much all we need to know - Mortimer would have contradicted Schwartz, and Baxter knew it.
Poor Fanny - she could have been famous!

Why would Schwartz and Mortimer clash? Mortimer said that she heard the policeman on his beat (Smith) at shortly before 12.45 which of course would clash with Schwartz but Smith said that he walked along near the club at around 12.30 -12.35. We can't be 100% certain of course but surely a police officer on a regulated beat would have been more aware of the time?

So if Mrs Mortimer then stood on her doorstep for 10 minutes this (if Smith was correct) meant that she went back inside at around 12.45 just as Schwartz turned into Berner Street.

I don't see an issue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
In contrast to Leman street, the senior investigators never stopped believing in Schwartz, but also never succeeded in identifying the Ripper/murderers.
That is why all the years spent scouring the post-1888 words of the senior investigators has only resulted in weak candidates being proposed

Do you think that Swanson was so far out if touch with the officers investigating the case that he didn't know their opinions?

"If Schwartz is to be believed , and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it,"

[Wickerman]

Do you think that Swanson was so far out if touch with the officers investigating the case that he didn't know their opinions?

"If Schwartz is to be believed , and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it,"

Hi Herlock.

I think his meaning was:

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it".

In other words, Swanson wrote that comment while Schwartz's statement was still being investigated. A police report of an investigation of Schwartz's statement had not been concluded.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just had to refresh my memory by reading the Stride section of Paul Begg's The Definitive History. On the subject of Schwartz and the Inquest I'm sure everyone's aware of this but it will bare repeating (I think)

Anderson to the Home Office:

'With ref. to yr letter &cc. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the Inquest in Eliz. Stride's case is that...'

Paul Begg suggests that Schwartz might have given evidence in camera. In the Oct 1st Star interview it's mentioned that Schwartz gave his address but the police withheld it from the Press. Does this point to the police understanding fears that he might have had of reprisals? And does it add weight to the possibility that he might indeed have given evidence at the Inquest in camera?

How unlikely does it seem that the police would simply dismiss a witness who claimed to have seen a woman being attacked on the spot where Stride was discovered 20 minutes or so later? None of the other witnesses discounted Schwartz and the police arrested one man on the strength of Schwartz description. The only point that I'm trying to make is how strange it would have been for the police to have discarded a witness like Schwartz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock.

I think his meaning was:

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it".

In other words, Swanson wrote that comment while Schwartz's statement was still being investigated. A police report of an investigation of Schwartz's statement had not been concluded.

Hello Wick.

That makes sense. I should have read it more than once. Cheers

[Fisherman]

Isnīt it a sad waste of time when posters demand evidence to accept the validity of a suggestion? Just as there is no evidence that Strideīs killer was interrupted, there is no evidence that he was not. So much for demanding evidence. It gets us absolutely nowhere.

There was seemingly a serial killer at large in the East End of London in the autumn of 1888. This killer seemed to have an agenda of contacting pennyless women with no company out in the open streets during nighttime, to silently subdue them, to cut their throats deeply enough to open up large vessels and to open the victims up and eviscerate them.

Once we look at the different parameters involved, we can see that Stride ticks many of the boxes. She was a pennyless woman who walked the East End streets in solitude and at night, she was silently subdued and she had her throat cut deep enough to open up a large vessel. If she had had her abdomen cut open, the fewest would be in any doubt about whether she was a Ripper victim or not.

Recognizing these details and coupling it with the fact that women did not regularly have their throats cut in silent circumstances out in the open streets, the suggestion that she fell prey to the Ripper becomes a very good one. Murder was a not very common thing, rough though the East End was.

The perhaps most compelling detail in the act of accusation against the Ripper is the fact that Elizabeth Stride was killed on a night when we know that the Ripper was on the prowl. He killed Catehrine Edddowes in Mitre Square around three quarters of an hour after Stride was slain. And the distance between Mitre Square and Berner Street is one that lends itself very well to speculating that it was the same killer. Setting off for Mitre Square, finding another victim, chatting her up and killing her seems to fit the chronological bell spot on.

Itīs one thing that Strides lack of a cut to the abdomen and ensuing eviscerations is something that tells her apart from the other canonical victims. Itīs an entirely different matter to say that this parameter makes her less likely to be a Riper slaying than a deed by another unidentified killer. Very clearly, although it is not a given thing who cut her, the Ripper MUST be the first hand choice for Stride, given the specific circumstances. If the scant evidence there is tells us something at all about the killers identity, then that is it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isnīt it a sad waste of time when posters demand evidence to accept the validity of a suggestion? Just as there is no evidence that Strideīs killer was interrupted, there is no evidence that he was not. So much for demanding evidence. It gets us absolutely nowhere.

There was seemingly a serial killer at large in the East End of London in the autumn of 1888. This killer seemed to have an agenda of contacting pennyless women with no company out in the open streets during nighttime, to silently subdue them, to cut their throats deeply enough to open up large vessels and to open the victims up and eviscerate them.

Once we look at the different parameters involved, we can see that Stride ticks many of the boxes. She was a pennyless woman who walked the East End streets in solitude and at night, she was silently subdued and she had her throat cut deep enough to open up a large vessel. If she had had her abdomen cut open, the fewest would be in any doubt about whether she was a Ripper victim or not.

Recognizing these details and coupling it with the fact that women did not regularly have their throats cut in silent circumstances out in the open streets, the suggestion that she fell prey to the Ripper becomes a very good one. Murder was a not very common thing, rough though the East End was.

The perhaps most compelling detail in the act of accusation against the Ripper is the fact that Elizabeth Stride was killed on a night when we know that the Ripper was on the prowl. He killed Catehrine Edddowes in Mitre Square around three quarters of an hour after Stride was slain. And the distance between Mitre Square and Berner Street is one that lends itself very well to speculating that it was the same killer. Setting off for Mitre Square, finding another victim, chatting her up and killing her seems to fit the chronological bell spot on.

Itīs one thing that Strides lack of a cut to the abdomen and ensuing eviscerations is something that tells her apart from the other canonical victims. Itīs an entirely different matter to say that this parameter makes her less likely to be a Riper slaying than a deed by another unidentified killer. Very clearly, although it is not a given thing who cut her, the Ripper MUST be the first hand choice for Stride, given the specific circumstances. If the scant evidence there is tells us something at all about the killers identity, then that is it.

Well summed up Fish