Stride..a victim?

[caz]

Caz
I was referring to 1888 not 21st Century serial killers, as i have always said you cannot compare 20th century serial killers to a 1888 serial killer, and I am right am I not that there is no evidence from 1888 or the years before or after that two murders occurred on the same night which were belived to have been committed by the same person.

With the Stride murder there are so many differences between her murder and the rest in the series suggesting to me she was not killed by the same hand as the rest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

On what grounds are you arguing that a serial killer in 1888 was a significantly different animal from the 20th century variety? How would their psychology and behaviour have been incomparable with offenders from later generations? My grandparents were all born in the late 1870s, so it's not that long ago in evolutionary terms!

The main difference, as far as I can see, is in the methods available to catch the crafty buggers today, such as fingerprints, DNA, CCTV and accurately maintained criminal and personal records, to identify potential suspects. That makes my comparison even stronger, in that there were more ways for my modern double eventers to come unstuck when they risked staying around to find their second victims, yet they still did so, and all did come unstuck sooner or later. In 1888, they couldn't even have proved a suspect had Stride's blood on his clothes, if they had picked him up in Aldgate, chatting up Eddowes.

And don't forget, the author of the Saucy Jacky postcard appeared to recognise a Victorian double eventer as soon as the news broke of these two murders, and he didn't have the luxury of making comparisons with modern examples.

Have a good weekend, Trev, and stay safe.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'm not ignoring the possibility that a translator fine-tuned the account. I am just seeking evidence that it is so rather than supposition. Such evidence as we have suggests that Schwartz was a recent arrival in the UK and therefore probably spoke little or no English. That is what the evidence shows and I move forward from that, The claim that Schwartz spoke good English is conclusion-led and not supported by the evidence. It is as simple as that. I respect your right to an opinion on the matter but not to the extent of not having one of my own which, to my mind, is better supported by the evidence. Stay Safe!

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.

The choice to not get involved in a quarrel, presupposes that the quarrel is occurring in a language that is understood.
That language was either Swedish (low probability), or English (high probability).
Ergo, it is reasonable to assume that Schwartz could speak and understand English, at least moderately well.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

The choice to not get involved in a quarrel, presupposes that the quarrel is occurring in a language that is understood.
That language was either Swedish (low probability), or English (high probability).
Ergo, it is reasonable to assume that Schwartz could speak and understand English, at least moderately well.

No it’s not a reasonable assumption. The argument was obviously a physical one. BS Man manhandled her to the ground so she would have been in some distress. If Schwartz had approached the couple and tried to intervene to protect her he’d have accepted the possibility of BS Man reacting with violence toward him. So he decided on his own safety rather than hers. We cant assume that he understood what the dispute was about.

[c.d.]

The choice to not get involved in a quarrel, presupposes that the quarrel is occurring in a language that is understood.

I disagree completely with that conclusion. Tone and loudness of voice, facial expressions and gestures probably indicate a quarrel is taking place even if the language is not understood.

I recall being thrown out of a youth hostel in Germany many years ago by a very irate German woman. I have no idea what I did or what she was saying but it was pretty clear that the thrower outer was not happy with me. No translation needed.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The choice to not get involved in a quarrel, presupposes that the quarrel is occurring in a language that is understood.

I disagree completely with that conclusion. Tone and loudness of voice, facial expressions and gestures probably indicate a quarrel is taking place even if the language is not understood.

I recall being thrown out of a youth hostel in Germany many years ago by a very irate German woman. I have no idea what I did or what she was saying but it was pretty clear that the thrower outer was not happy with me. No translation needed.

c.d.

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.

Was the warning 'shouted' using facial expressions and gestures, or English, or another language?

[c.d.]

Hello NBFN,

Do you expect me to know the answer to that? Isn't what you cited a translation of what Schwartz told Abberline?

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No it’s not a reasonable assumption. The argument was obviously a physical one. BS Man manhandled her to the ground so she would have been in some distress. If Schwartz had approached the couple and tried to intervene to protect her he’d have accepted the possibility of BS Man reacting with violence toward him. So he decided on his own safety rather than hers. We cant assume that he understood what the dispute was about.

Evening Post:

AN EYE –WITNESS TO ONE OF THE CRIMES

A Hungarian has made a statement to the police that he was present at the Berner-street tragedy. He had, he said, gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodging in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one, he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance on front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. 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, turning 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 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 the second man’s hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently to his new lodgings. He described the man with the woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seemed to belong to the same grade of society. The idea of a quarrel having preceded the murder is, however, generally discredited.

Discredited, likely because no one saw or heard any of it.
That would be because an incident on Berner street involving shouting, quarreling and screaming, not being noticed by anyone, defies common sense.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hello NBFN,

Do you expect me to know the answer to that?

No, I don't - it could have English, Yiddish, German, or Russian.
Whatever the case, Schwartz seems to have had more understanding of the situation, than did Stride.
He fled incontinently, whereas she went into the darkness of Dutfield's Yard, with little resistance (or so the story goes).
Men's intuition, I guess.

Isn't what you cited a translation of what Schwartz told Abberline?

c.d.

No, it was what the interpreter (probably the same one as was in Fred's office), told the reporter on Backchurch Lane - a comfortable distance from the scene of the crime, I guess.
What Schwartz' motivation was in talking to the press, is also something I don't expect you to know the answer to.

[c.d.]

Discredited, likely because no one saw or heard any of it.
That would be because an incident on Berner street involving shouting, quarreling and screaming, not being noticed by anyone, defies common sense.

But yet we have Swanson's report alluding to Schwartz possibly seeing just a not uncommon Whitechapel street hassle which is why he allowed for the possibility of Stride's killer coming along shortly after the B.S. man had left the scene.

Schwartz can hardly be blamed if no one else witnessed what he said took place. Could he be lying? Sure. But simply there being no other witnesses doesn't warrant that conclusion. Such things happen all the time.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Was the warning 'shouted' using facial expressions and gestures, or English, or another language?

There was physical violence involved. Therefore the only assumption that we can make is that Schwartz wasn’t blind. He saw that the man was violent and so obviously didn’t want to get on the wrong end of the man’s temper. Why is this an issue?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Evening Post:

AN EYE –WITNESS TO ONE OF THE CRIMES

A Hungarian has made a statement to the police that he was present at the Berner-street tragedy. He had, he said, gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodging in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one, he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance on front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. 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, turning 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 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 the second man’s hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently to his new lodgings. He described the man with the woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seemed to belong to the same grade of society. The idea of a quarrel having preceded the murder is, however, generally discredited.

Discredited, likely because no one saw or heard any of it.
That would be because an incident on Berner street involving shouting, quarreling and screaming, not being noticed by anyone, defies common sense.

When you keep producing quotes that tend do disagree with each other it should tell you something. That these press reports aren’t particularly take-it-to-the-bank-reliable. Human error comes into it. Sometimes a bit of press embellishment to sell papers. The idea of a quarrel preceding the murder was very obviously not discredited as has been shown many times. If the police thought that this evidence was of no value would they really have put Schwartz description of BS Man on the front page of the Police Gazette on October 20th. I’m pretty certain that they didn’t do that just for a giggle.

Why is it so earth shatteringly unbelievable that no one else saw or heard this very short incident? The street was hardly teeming. It’s not logical to say that if someone hears one thing then they must hear another. Three not very loud screams and one word. How loud was the word shouted across a narrow street? Schwartz was believed by the police. Whether they actually checked or not they were given information by him about where he’d been and when he’d left etc. Apart from the 15 minutes of fame argument he has no reason to place himself at the scene of a murder at a time when Jews and foreigners in general are suspected. Especially as he could easily have been unlucky enough to have been contradicting someone who was actually there at that time. Schwartz making this up is what defies common sense.

[Varqm]

Evening Post:

AN EYE –WITNESS TO ONE OF THE CRIMES

A Hungarian has made a statement to the police that he was present at the Berner-street tragedy. ...The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in the second man’s hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently to his new lodgings. He described the man with the woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seemed to belong to the same grade of society. The idea of a quarrel having preceded the murder is, however, generally discredited.

Discredited, likely because no one saw or heard any of it.
That would be because an incident on Berner street involving shouting, quarreling and screaming, not being noticed by anyone, defies common sense.

Also.Baxter had 22 days ( time of Schwartz story till end of inquest testimony) to decide whether to include Schwartz in the inquest,Schwartz being the most important witness, describing an assault before the murder or closest to the time of murder.

[Wickerman]

Schwartz can hardly be blamed if no one else witnessed what he said took place. Could he be lying? Sure. But simply there being no other witnesses doesn't warrant that conclusion. Such things happen all the time.

c.d.

"A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises".
Daily News, 1^st Oct. 1888.

If what is reported by the girl is true, Schwartz's story must be questioned, surely?

Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

"A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises".
Daily News, 1^st Oct. 1888.

If what is reported by the girl is true, Schwartz's story must be questioned, surely?

Jon S.

Absolutely, nice to see the young coupled quoted too. No-one saw anything or anyone during the minutes Israel claimed he and three other people were in the street. 1 being Liz. And no less than 4 witnesses...once again....cite a discovery time around 12:40 and 12:45. Their stories are virtually identical, and so are the times given.

[Michael W Richards]

On what grounds are you arguing that a serial killer in 1888 was a significantly different animal from the 20th century variety? How would their psychology and behaviour have been incomparable with offenders from later generations? My grandparents were all born in the late 1870s, so it's not that long ago in evolutionary terms!

The main difference, as far as I can see, is in the methods available to catch the crafty buggers today, such as fingerprints, DNA, CCTV and accurately maintained criminal and personal records, to identify potential suspects. That makes my comparison even stronger, in that there were more ways for my modern double eventers to come unstuck when they risked staying around to find their second victims, yet they still did so, and all did come unstuck sooner or later. In 1888, they couldn't even have proved a suspect had Stride's blood on his clothes, if they had picked him up in Aldgate, chatting up Eddowes.

And don't forget, the author of the Saucy Jacky postcard appeared to recognise a Victorian double eventer as soon as the news broke of these two murders, and he didn't have the luxury of making comparisons with modern examples.

Have a good weekend, Trev, and stay safe.

Love,

Caz
X

Building your own list of victims by a single killer is fine, almost everyone associated with studying these does the same. But presuming that the data is sufficient to conclude that 5 women can be linked by killer is another. Serial killer data, ...although Im thinking that here its often used more like propaganda,...can only be relevant when comparing the "series" characteristics. So your assumption necessitates a profile be created that encompasses a myriad of skill sets, vacillating objectives, and unbelievably good timing. Certainly in the Stride case the mundane nature of that murder decreases the likelihood that she was killed by some slasher on the loose?