Elizabeth's murder and the double event

[Wickerman]

Ok, sorry, I thought you were alluding to Kelly lying. I just recall Simon & LynnC. offering that view as an argument, I assumed you were doing the same.

Now I'm left guessing what your argument is :-)

[packers stem]

Ok, sorry, I thought you were alluding to Kelly lying. I just recall Simon & LynnC. offering that view as an argument, I assumed you were doing the same.

Now I'm left guessing what your argument is :-)

Plenty he lied about
But the taking into custody of Eddowes wasn't one of them clearly as she was .
He was just premature in mentioning it

[Bridewell]

You're both assuming she was drunk .
Ever been so drunk you need picking up off the floor and help to walk ?
If so you'll also know that once your head goes down you don't wake up four hours later singing and asking to be free from the dry bed you've found by chance .

One thing I learned in 13 years as a police custody sergeant - every drunk is different. Everyone's metabolism is different. Some drunks are placid, some violent. Some are noisy, some quiet. Some sober up quickly, some don't. Some want to be let out as soon as possible; some are happy to stay locked up and maybe get a free breakfast out of it. One size most definitely does not fit all.

She wasn't drunk.

The only witnesses who can give evidence of opinion are those deemed by the court to be expert. It is accepted in the UK courts that a police officer can give such evidence with regard to drunkenness. More than one officer opined that Eddowes was drunk. On the balance of probabilities (at least) that is what she was.

[Wickerman]

Plenty he lied about
But the taking into custody of Eddowes wasn't one of them clearly as she was .
He was just premature in mentioning it

Oh brother!

Ok, if Kelly wasn't clairvoyant, or lying, then how could Kelly mention Kate's arrest prematurely?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

She could have been robbed by her killer. I don't know about kissing but I would imagine some talking taking place first. In that case, fresh breath would be helpful.

c.d.

This seems to be a popular explanation for why a soliciting Stride was found to have no money one her person. The obvious question is - would this robbery have occurred before or after she was murdered?

An after response leads to the question of which pocket the money would have been taken from. There seem to be two candidates.

D-I Reid: In her jacket pocket were two handkerchiefs, a thimble, and a piece of wool on a card.

Dr Phillips: I found in the pocket of the underskirt of the deceased a key, as of a padlock, a small piece of lead pencil, a comb, a broken piece of comb, a metal spoon, half a dozen large and one small button, a hook, as if off a dress, a piece of muslin, and one or two small pieces of paper.

I don't know which side either of these pockets were on. If it is supposed that the underskirt would have been the best place to secure coins, then the following would need to be considered.

Coroner: Were her clothes disturbed?
PC Lamb: No. I scarcely could see her boots. She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.

So, what about a robbery before the murder? Presumably the man would have threatened the woman to hand over her money, "or else". She then hands over her money but suffers the "else" anyway. Why would a non-Ripper robber do that? Alternatively, how risky would it be for the Ripper to demand money, possibly at knifepoint, before he kills? She might scream for help. Would Jack take that risk? Did he take that risk with Eddowes?

[Michael W Richards]

I wonder how many people consider the fact that Kelly knew about where Kate was and yet was complacent about looking intro her whereabouts when she doesnt show up Sunday morning as being a little odd? Based on what we hear about those 2 that Kelly is the only man she has been seen with since returning from hop picking and that they lived "as a married" couple. Together each night. So, he knows she is in jail Sat evening and will be discharged when she is sober enough....not like the Met jurisdiction who kept them in over night at that time. So...he has no reason Saturday night to believe she will be in all night, yet he doesnt check on her. Shes not back Sunday, he doesnt go find out where she is. Sunday night comes and goes and when reading the paper Monday concerning murder and the pawn tickets he realizes thats his Kate.

Every night together? Catch and release D & D incarceration that would have ended before Sunday am...and he waits until he reads the paper Monday. How long would he have gone not looking into what happened with her if he hadnt heard of or seen that newspaper article?

The actual date of the pawn ticket, when he pawned his boots, how the money was split, why Kate is there early at 8am Sat morning if she had stayed in a workhouse Friday night, his lack of interest in her whereabouts Sunday,...the unknown people Kate got drunk with Saturday afternoon....some important questions. That have some questionable answers thus far.

[mikey559]

Kelly lied. Period.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Consider Schwartz's account against the inquest testimony of PC Lamb.

[Schwartz] saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

L: When I got there I had the gates shut.
C: But did not the feet of the deceased touch the gate?
L: No; they went just behind it, and I was able to close the gates without disturbing the body.

I take Lamb to mean that her feet were several inches deeper into the yard than the swing of the gates. The gates were about 9 feet wide together, so we could say that Stride's feet were about 5 feet inside in the yard. So, how far was the throw down point to the murder point, if that is (somewhat arbitrarily) defined as being her neck? 12 to 15 feet, perhaps? I'm interested to hear what people suppose could account for that distance.

A lot has been made over the years of the lack of injuries and damage to clothing (including her flower) that might reasonably be supposed to have resulted from Stride being thrown onto the footway. Here's a good example...

To be honest Batman, if I was told the victim had been assaulted and cast to the ground I would be looking for bruises & scrapes on the heels of her hands, elbows, knees, hips, etc. Likewise for mud at the same points of contact.

If I found none, I might be suspicious about the accuracy of that claim, or perhaps consider this was a different individual.

Bruises on the chest, or front of shoulders, does not indicate contact with the ground.

How did Stride end up where she did, having been thrown down, it would seem, on the footway outside the yard? Was she dragged? Perhaps something like the this?...

Dr Blackwell: I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground.

How then, do we account for this?...

Dr Blackwell: The bonnet of the deceased was lying on the ground a few inches from the head.

Between being thrown onto the footway and being dragged a few yards backwards by her scarf, did Liz find the time to put her bonnet back on?

[Michael W Richards]

Ive offered a simple reconstruction here many times, and it fits with the knowns and reasoning. Its of course theoretical, but arent all solutions to large problems just theories at the beginning? Liz is waiting inside the passageway...waiting to enter or waiting for someone to come out. A BSM kind of fellow sees her and figures she is there to make some street money, so he hits on her. She isnt interested because she is not there to work the streets that night, and with her known feistiness, she tells him to buzz off. He pushes her a bit, gets her back to the club wall just behind the open gate and pokes her in the chest to makes his point about not taking guff from any street worker...Israel Schwartz comes out the side door and sees this happening just behind the open gates inside the passageway and scoots past the 2 not wanting to be involved, someone is smoking a pipe on the other side of the passageway and is watching the man manhandle the woman a bit. The man being rough with Liz sees this smoking man as Israel is quickly walking past and insults him, the intent being to warn the man, or men, to mind their/his own business. Pipeman also exits on to the street. Liz pushes the man a bit and tries to move around him and out onto the street assuming the man wont assault her in the open, he grabs her scarf as she is leaving, twists it tight and pulls back slightly. Liz is facing the street and now off balance and moving backward. He turns her by means of the scarf, and runs a blade across her throat as he lets go of the scarf. She falls on her side, head towards the wall, feet to the gate, curls her legs up close to her body as a reaction to this sudden pain, lies motionless and slowly bleeds out.

In this scenario the rough man is almost certainly Gentile, so his being there at that hour needs explaining. Hired security for the meeting? We know that Willam Morris had originally been scheduled to speak that night but was cancelled due to threats the club received. Morris differentiated what his struggle was for, Socialism, with the club and other groups tendencies to adopt a more anarchistic position. There was tension around....maybe warranting security that could be cancelled at the last minute? or....maybe just walking by, staggering a bit, and saw Liz when he looked into the passageway?

I suggests that something like the above works and is a realistic scenario based on all that we know about the crime, and it doesnt reflect a cunning serial killer. Or a really lucky serial killer. In fact, just someone unremarkable and easily combustible.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Ive offered a simple reconstruction here many times, and it fits with the knowns and reasoning. Its of course theoretical, but arent all solutions to large problems just theories at the beginning?

No, they aren't. Some people start with the evidence and build a theory based on it, whereas you seem to start with a theory and then proceed to make the facts fit. Hence why you end up creating your own facts.

Liz is waiting inside the passageway...waiting to enter or waiting for someone to come out.

Why can't she wait inside, or at least at the door? Is she too low in social status to be allowed to do that? Makes me wonder then, why any of the toffs at the club would be associated with her.

A BSM kind of fellow sees her and figures she is there to make some street money, so he hits on her.

So, the hired security guard you've imagined into existence decides he is going to have sex with a woman who obediently waits at the gates, while he is on duty?

She isnt interested because she is not there to work the streets that night, and with her known feistiness, she tells him to buzz off.

"Go away!", she exclaimed, "I'm waiting for Godot".

He pushes her a bit, gets her back to the club wall just behind the open gate and pokes her in the chest to makes his point about not taking guff from any street worker...Israel Schwartz comes out the side door and sees this happening just behind the open gates inside the passageway and scoots past the 2 not wanting to be involved, someone is smoking a pipe on the other side of the passageway and is watching the man manhandle the woman a bit. The man being rough with Liz sees this smoking man as Israel is quickly walking past and insults him, the intent being to warn the man, or men, to mind their/his own business. Pipeman also exits on to the street. Liz pushes the man a bit and tries to move around him and out onto the street assuming the man wont assault her in the open, he grabs her scarf as she is leaving, twists it tight and pulls back slightly. Liz is facing the street and now off balance and moving backward. He turns her by means of the scarf, and runs a blade across her throat as he lets go of the scarf. She falls on her side, head towards the wall, feet to the gate, curls her legs up close to her body as a reaction to this sudden pain, lies motionless and slowly bleeds out.

How much of this "fits with the knowns and reasoning"? You're claiming that not only was Schwartz there due to his exiting of the club, but also Pipeman observes the whole thing at close range. You go onto claim that this killer was almost certainly Gentile, so why didn't the club point the finger at him, based on the account of two witnesses? In this scenario, my reasoning is that the club would have been far better off telling the truth than distorting it. Somehow, you've come to the opposite conclusion.

In this scenario the rough man is almost certainly Gentile, so his being there at that hour needs explaining. Hired security for the meeting?

No witnesses refer to this hired security guard - you just made him up. It is meaningless to ask why a made-up character is there at that hour. However, having assumed him into existence, he is your puppet, and you are his master.

We know that Willam Morris had originally been scheduled to speak that night but was cancelled due to threats the club received.

No, we do not know that. As far as I'm concerned you made this up. Please provide a source for your claim that Morris's speaking engagement was cancelled due to threats made on the club.

Morris differentiated what his struggle was for, Socialism, with the club and other groups tendencies to adopt a more anarchistic position. There was tension around....maybe warranting security that could be cancelled at the last minute? or....maybe just walking by, staggering a bit, and saw Liz when he looked into the passageway?

The club did not officially become Anarchist until the 1890s, but let's say for the sake of argument that there were 100 men at the club that night, 50 of whom were Socialists and 50 of whom were Anarchists. Please explain how the tension between the two camps could, if things came to blows, be dealt with by a single Gentile security guard? Why do you suppose this man was outside at the time Stride was supposedly at the gates, rather than inside keeping a good eye on the attendees?

I suggests that something like the above works and is a realistic scenario based on all that we know about the crime, and it doesnt reflect a cunning serial killer. Or a really lucky serial killer. In fact, just someone unremarkable and easily combustible.

Who, nonetheless, was really lucky the club didn't dob him in.

[Mark J D]

Consider Schwartz's account against the inquest testimony of PC Lamb.

[Schwartz] saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

L: When I got there I had the gates shut.
C: But did not the feet of the deceased touch the gate?
L: No; they went just behind it, and I was able to close the gates without disturbing the body.

I take Lamb to mean that her feet were several inches deeper into the yard than the swing of the gates. The gates were about 9 feet wide together, so we could say that Stride's feet were about 5 feet inside in the yard. So, how far was the throw down point to the murder point, if that is (somewhat arbitrarily) defined as being her neck? 12 to 15 feet, perhaps? I'm interested to hear what people suppose could account for that distance.

The confected element of the story told by this 'Schwartz' includes the deliberate shifting of the site of the assault from well inside the Club's passageway to a point just off the pavement. This is necesary in order that the fictional violent drunken antisemite Gentile can encounter Stride on his imaginary walk south from the main road and therefore be a passer-by who had nothing to do with the club. Nothing at all, d'you hear?

Bests,

Mark D.

[Lewis C]

The confected element of the story told by this 'Schwartz' includes the deliberate shifting of the site of the assault from well inside the Club's passageway to a point just off the pavement. This is necesary in order that the fictional violent drunken antisemite Gentile can encounter Stride on his imaginary walk south from the main road and therefore be a passer-by who had nothing to do with the club. Nothing at all, d'you hear?

Bests,

Mark D.

Hi Mark,

I think that BS man could just as easily be a member of the club if the assault occurred where Schwartz said it did as if it had occurred inside the passageway.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The confected element of the story told by this 'Schwartz' includes the deliberate shifting of the site of the assault from well inside the Club's passageway to a point just off the pavement. This is necesary in order that the fictional violent drunken antisemite Gentile can encounter Stride on his imaginary walk south from the main road and therefore be a passer-by who had nothing to do with the club. Nothing at all, d'you hear?

Bests,

Mark D.

I hear. Thanks for your replies, Mark.

Explaining the displacement of the body from the supposed throw-down point, is something I'd have thought the confident defenders of Schwartz would be keen to jump into. So far, no takers.

[c.d.]

I hear. Thanks for your replies, Mark.

Explaining the displacement of the body from the supposed throw-down point, is something I'd have thought the confident defenders of Schwartz would be keen to jump into. So far, no takers.

You still want to blame Schwartz for things that took place after he left the scene. He only described what he saw take place. He did not say he saw a murder.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

I hear. Thanks for your replies, Mark.

Explaining the displacement of the body from the supposed throw-down point, is something I'd have thought the confident defenders of Schwartz would be keen to jump into. So far, no takers.

Hi Andrew,

That Schwartz said that BS Man threw the body in the opposite direction from where it was found makes it seem less probable that BS man was her killer. That leads me to believe that Schwartz didn't make up the story just to make BS man appear to be the killer. If he wanted us to think that BS man killed Stride, he probably wouldn't invent a detail that makes it appear less likely that BS man was her killer.