A Case of Misattribution?

[lynn cates]

Cook

Hello Simon. The "Saucy Jacky" reads almost like an afterthought. And the hand strongly resembles "Dear Boss."

Are you familiar with Cook's hypothesis here?

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

No. Cook's book has yet to arrive.

A nutshell version would be appreciated.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Garry,

I completely agree with you about Stride not being a Ripper victim.

However, it does leave us with the rather thorny problem of who wrote Saucy Jacky, the fortuitous postcard which claimed her as a Ripper victim.

Someone obviously had reasons for wanting people to believe it.

Regards,

Simon

Probably not much of a stretch of the imagination seeing as Lloyds Weekly News reported on both murders on the Sunday (30th) edition, and included this line:

"There is a growing belief that the two crimes were committed by one man,..."

How much creative imagination do you need?

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Creative imagination about what?

Regards,

Simon

[S.Brett]

Seaside Home!

By the way:

There was an asylum (500ft distance/beeline to Dorset Street), which included a Naval Lunatic Asylum until 1818. The asylum closed in 1911.

It was the Hoxton House Asylum.

Between 1792-1814 there were treated 1852 members of the Navy (1679 Seamen, 173 Executive). The Hoxton House Asylum also played a part in the Ripper case. The suspect Oswald Puckeridge was an inmate between January and August 1888.

Perhaps it was popularly (vernacular) known as "Seaside Home".

[lynn cates]

Cook book

Hello Simon. Well, it seems that Mr. Cook sees Ernest Parke and "The Star" as the driving force behind the JTR myth. He identifies the author of the "ripper missives" as Best.

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

I completely agree with you about Stride not being a Ripper victim … However, it does leave us with the rather thorny problem of who wrote Saucy Jacky, the fortuitous postcard which claimed her as a Ripper victim.

To be honest, Simon, I tend to think that this communication was reflective of the general assumption that the Stride and Eddowes murders were committed by a common hand. Investigators were clearly anticipating another crime (as witness the number of reinforcements drafted into the area immediately after the Chapman murder), so when Stride was discovered with a cut throat, assumption fuelled by expectation unduly influenced the normal investigative process. As a consequence police immediately treated the Berner Street crime as Ripper-related, a mindset which transmitted itself to reporters and thence to the general public. Under such circumstances it is hardly surprising that the Saucy Jacky author as well as other hoaxers assumed the double event to have been a reality and structured their communications accordingly. Nowadays any competent investigative team would recognize the discrepant modus operandi and crime scene signature of the Stride murder, with the result that linkage to other crimes would be far less likely.

[Wickerman]

By the way:

There was an asylum (500ft distance/beeline to Dorset Street), which included a Naval Lunatic Asylum until 1818. The asylum closed in 1911.

It was the Hoxton House Asylum.

Between 1792-1814 there were treated 1852 members of the Navy (1679 Seamen, 173 Executive). The Hoxton House Asylum also played a part in the Ripper case. The suspect Oswald Puckeridge was an inmate between January and August 1888.

I've heard worse suggestions.
If this is the same institution that has been mentioned before, perhaps AKA The Seaman's Home, then yes this is plausible.
I'm not sure if it ever was known locally as The Seaman's Home, but given its association with the Navy & Seamen in general, its a distinct possibility.

I'd be quite happy to accept Swanson making an honest mistake between the Seaside Home and The Seaman's Home, especially as both existed.

Regards, Jon S.

[S.Brett]

Another suggestion:

Holloway Sanatorium in Virginia Water, Surrey.

Henry Cox:

He occupied several shops in the East End, but from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey.

The Holloway Asylum was (just) about 30 miles of Leman Street, London.

Near Holloway Asylum was Virginia Water Lake. Maybe, there was a ward near the lake, known as "Seaside Home" but I do not know...

"The Sanatorium expanded in time by buying other properties. In 1891 Hove Villa, Brighton was purchased by the Governors as a home where patients could benefit from the fresh seaside air. In 1909 the Scottish architect Robert Weir Schulz (1860–1951) was asked to design a permanent seaside home for the Sanatorium, and so in 1910 St Ann's Hospital at Haven Road, Canford Cliffs, Poole in Dorset, was built and replaced Hove Villa. Named after St. Ann's Heath, the site where Holloway Sanatorium was built, it was opened in 1912, on 14 acres (57,000 m2) of land, with a porter's lodge and later cottages for the chauffeurs. In 1948 Holloway Sanatorium and St. Ann's, both then psychiatric hospitals, formed a group of the South West Metropolian Region of the National Health Service, but in 1960 the hospitals finally dissociated into different administrative groups.

St. Ann's Hospital is a Grade II listed building."

Today:

"The circuit around the lake is about 4.5 miles (7.2 km), about half is paved and the other half is a "natural" path both providing easy walking..."

This asylum "had its own Sea"...

But I'm not an expert.

Regards.

[Bridewell]

Purpose of Inquest

On the subject of Schwartz not being called to give evidence, I would offer the terms of reference under which the inquest operates:

The purpose of the inquest is to answer four questions:
Identity of the deceased
Place of death
Time of death
How the deceased came by his/her death
Evidence must be solely for the purpose of answering these questions and no other evidence is admitted.

The last issue of how the deceased came by her death is restricted to the narrow issue of the actual cause of death, not the circumstances surrounding it. On that basis, is it not quite possible that the police provided the coroner with Schwartz's statement, and that the coroner decided that his testimony was not relevant to the questions which had to be answered concerning the death of Elizabeth Stride?

Identity of the deceased: Schwartz could not identify the woman killed.
The place of death: was obvious from other testimony.
The time of death: was clear from other evidence, give or take a couple of minutes (and Schwartz could provide no evidence of a time of death, even if that were not the case).
The cause of death: was the puncturing of her carotid artery in a violent attack. No evidence from Schwartz was heard because none was necessary within the coroner's narrow terms of reference:

Evidence must be solely for the purpose of answering these questions and no other evidence is admitted.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

Colin.
May I ask, then why do you suppose other witnesses were called like Drage, Coram, Marshall, Kidney, etc.?

We have chewed over those very salient points, Identity, Time of Death, Cause of death, Place of death, etc. Though it does look like peripheral information was also admitted, perhaps only at the Coroner's discretion?

Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

Were you to apply these same criteria to the Mitre Square murder, Bridewell, Lawende would not have been required to present his evidence. Nor would Pizer at the Chapman hearing. In fact, with the exception of investigators and medical men, most of the witnesses would have been superfluous.

[Dave O]

"Evidence must be solely for the purpose of answering these questions and no other evidence is admitted."

Hi Colin,

That last part isn't Victorian procedure, as I think Jon and Garry are indicating. There have been considerable changes over the years--for example modern inquests don't make accusations of murder, unlike the Victorian version. Is that what you've posted refers to?

Proceedings of the inquest (evidence), Coroner's Act 1887 section 4(1):

The coroner and jury shall, at the first sitting of the inquest, view the body, and the coroner shall examine on oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts whom he thinks it expedient to examine.

They'd look at not only the cause of death, but the circumstances of the death as well, the previous history of the deceased, if they could get it because it might relate to cause of death. And the coroner had a wide discretion in presenting evidence (very useful it was that the coroner couldn't be guilty of libel while holding an inquest--that's how wide the discretion was). You'd think that an attack on the victim shortly before her murder would be something they'd include, and Schwartz's absence is a mystery.

Best,
Dave

[Garry Wroe]

Having been hugely impressed by the work you have done on the inquest procedures, Dave, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on why Baxter of all people seemingly failed to summon Schwartz?

[Michael W Richards]

On the subject of Schwartz not being called to give evidence, I would offer the terms of reference under which the inquest operates:

The last issue of how the deceased came by her death is restricted to the narrow issue of the actual cause of death, not the circumstances surrounding it. On that basis, is it not quite possible that the police provided the coroner with Schwartz's statement, and that the coroner decided that his testimony was not relevant to the questions which had to be answered concerning the death of Elizabeth Stride?

Identity of the deceased: Schwartz could not identify the woman killed.
The place of death: was obvious from other testimony.
The time of death: was clear from other evidence, give or take a couple of minutes (and Schwartz could provide no evidence of a time of death, even if that were not the case).
The cause of death: was the puncturing of her carotid artery in a violent attack. No evidence from Schwartz was heard because none was necessary within the coroner's narrow terms of reference:

Evidence must be solely for the purpose of answering these questions and no other evidence is admitted.

Regards, Bridewell.

I have to admit that this was a gutsy position to take by Gary from the outset..., its fascinating how details seem either more or less relevant to a particular student when dissecting a subject, we all have our own POV preferences I suppose.

However, on the above Bridewell I'd like to point out that;

1) There is no way you can speak with authority as to how well or how little Israel Schwartz claimed to have seen the woman assaulted.
2) The place of death may well hold secrets about the manner of her death, therefore facts like Israels relationship to the Club and that nights meeting are quite relevant.
3) The time the body was found ranges from approx 12:40 to 1:00am according to statements made to the press that same night, depending on which witness you choose to believe and what makes most sense to you.
4) That she died of the artery wound is assured, whether she was also choked is relevant here as well.

Im just trying to maintain the stance that we know very little in reality about any of these events. We do know at a glance that this specific event is, of any, the least probable Ripper murder. If there was such a beast at all.

So Israel identifying anyone would likely reveal nothing about the killer of the previous women, I say killer because I believe C1 and C2 were almost certainly, killer related.

Having said that, I will add that anything Anderson had a say in should be weighed with great caution. The man had some issues.

Best regards Bridewell, all,

Mike R