Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Scotland Yard]

Hello folks!

This is my first post to the Casebook.

I've been 'lurking' for some time now...though not, I hasten to add, in a shadowy corner with malicious intent! More as someone who's been greatly impressed by the resource that this site represents and also by the thoughtful and courteous community that exists here. Reading the forum threads with so many interesting discussions on so many different topics has provided a fascinating supplement to my other JTR readings. Its reassuring to learn that, despite the gruesome nature of the Whitechapel murders, the people that are attracted to the case are such pleasant company.

That being so (and if you'll indulge me in a somewhat long-winded first post!) I feel compelled to sign up and give an account of a Whitechapel excursion I undertook just yesterday and share some of my thoughts and impressions with you. No doubt many of you will already have visited the actual murder sites and be familiar with their locations. It was my first time and, seeing as the trip went a long way to confirming my own thinking on Elizabeth Stride's murder and the 'Double Event' I thought that this thread would be the best place to post.

My interest in the Ripper case was brought into sharp focus recently when I bought a copy of Philip Sugden's excellent 'Complete History of Jack The Ripper' as recommended by the Casebook. As I'm sure most here will agree, this book paints an excellent portrait of life in the Victorian East End and cuts through the myths to provide a superbly detailed sense of the 'reality' of the Whitechapel murders. I'm a Scotsman by birth but have lived in South London for the better part of 15 years, so it was both easy and inevitable that with my curiosity piqued, I would make my way to the Ripper's old haunting ground to get a better idea for myself of the geography of the area.

At first, I resisted the inclination, feeling that searching out a number of old murder sites was both a macabre and questionable thing for me to be doing with my spare time. I also didn't want to join one of the tours, partly because I felt I had a good grounding in the basic facts and partly because I wanted to be left with a bit of freedom to explore, unhindered by a large crowd or a tour guide's time restrictions. Finally though, with my wife reasuring me that my motivations were the same ones shared by armchair detectives the world over, I found the time to do the walk yesterday morning and, equipped with Richard Jones's excellent directions, I arrived at Whitechapel Tube station at 10:30.

Whitechapel itself seems to possess much the same atmosphere it must have done 120 years ago. A bustling place of cheap shops, market stalls aplenty and a thriving ethnic community. Being in no particular hurry, it was fascinating to drift along and apply my imagination to an exercise in time-travel. It wasn't difficult to listen to the shouts, conversations and activities around me and place myself back at the time of the murders. Within a few short minutes I was standing at the spot Mary Nichols met her demise and was struck by just how close this was to the main thoroughfare of Whitechapel Road. I have to say, looking down at the small parking space that now marks the place, I once again questioned my presence there. The very idea of visiting the place of someone's grisly murder seems ironically 'Victorian' and yet there seems to be some need in people to 'touch' certain historical events and to 'make real' a place they may have only read about. My thoughts on the matter weren't helped by the presence across the street of some hard-hatted builders who added to my sense of awkwardness and I quickly moved on to Hanbury street. All in all, my first encounter with a Ripper site was extremely interesting but almost upsetting as well. There's something horribly banal about the reality of murder and stripped of any 'romantic' mythology, the Whitechapel murders are certainly no different.

The route from this murder site to Hanbury street is through a housing estate which Richard Jones warns not to enter alone after dark as it is not considered safe. In this regard then, some areas of Whitechapel have perhaps remained unchanged. Although the side of Hanbury street that number 29 was part of has long since been demolished, the opposite side of the street remains and gives a good idea of how the street must have been at the time of the murders. Indeed, there was one or two houses round the corner from adjoining Wilkes street that are so delapidated they could almost have been untouched since 1888.

And so to the part of my walk that I found most thought-provoking in terms of getting into the culprit's 'mind-set' and theorising about the murders themselves. Like many people who've studied the case, I can see the reasons to doubt Liz Stride being an actual Ripper victim. But having personally walked from what was Berner street to Mitre Square, my own feeling is that Stride did indeed die at the hands of the Ripper.

Here's my reasoning on that: Just across the street from the passage that goes into Mitre square is St Botolph's Aldgate. In 1888, the police offered the local prostitutes immunity from arrest if they confined their soliciting to the 'island' on which the church stands. Hence it was known as 'Prostitute Island.' Now, given that the Ripper had already killed at least two prostitutes by this time and knowing that people were far more 'on alert' than they had been, why would he expose himself to unnecessary danger by choosing to hunt his next victim in a location known as the best spot for picking up women in the area? Particularly given that the City police force had been instructed to keep a close eye on prostitutes.

I don't see JTR as deliberately setting out to be 'daring' that night. His first and only real instinct was to satisfy his own twisted ends. On this basis, its reasonable to assume that he would first seek out a 'safe' victim where prostitutes are less thick on the ground, like the area round Berner Street. I see our man setting out with the specific intent of murdering and mutilating but in so far as planning for this is concerned, his cautionary thinking goes no further than 'where' he's going to hunt. He's willing to take risks but he's not entirely lacking in common sense.

As far as events in Dutfield's Yard are concerned, I go along with much of the 'Stride as JTR victim' thinking. He kills her but, for whatever reason, is forced to leave her unmutilated. Unsatisfied but with his blood-lust now in flow, he needs to avail himself of another victim and wishing to waste no time - (as he must have known that Stride was sure to be discovered soon) where would he go? Throwing caution to the winds and knowing the ways of the local area after dark, he made straight for the first place he knew he was likely to pick up another victim quickly, Prostitute Island. The very place he rejected going to earlier in the evening -possibly the place he rejected the night he killed Chapman - as too exposed.

Botched as the Stride attempt may have been, he's just killed one woman and walked -for all we know- calmly away. His danders up and he's feeling empowered, adrenalized and maybe even a little indestructable. Only now does he decide to take a chance on the location around St Botolph's.

I timed myself circumnavigating what would have been Dutfield's Yard by going right onto Fairclough Street, right onto Back Church Lane and then on towards St Botolph's Aldgate in order to arrive at Duke's Place, leading to Mitre Square. It took me a little over ten minutes at a reasonable but not overtly brisk pace.

(*As a side note, another thing that really struck me on this walk was just how unexaggerated are the accounts that describe Whitechapel as a warren or a labyrinth. The place really is a confusing mess of alleys, side roads and lanes. Without paying careful attention to the directions and my 'A-Z' it would have been very easy to get lost. There seems little doubt to me that our man was a local.)

Assuming Jack left Dutfield's Yard no later than 1:00 am, he could still have been in a position to approach Kate Eddowes from anytime between 1:10 and the time when Lawende and his companions saw the couple lingering on a corner near the entrance to Mitre Square a little after 1:30. Eddowes was only released from the Bishopsgate Police Station at 1:00 and was therefore not likely to be have been in position to meet a killer that's walked from Dutfield's Yard until at least 1:10 herself. Even if they did not meet straight away and even taking into account the potential imprecision of reported times, the window of opportunity for them to do so is very narrow, certainly no more than 25 minutes. (Admittedly, there's another assumption here and that is that the woman Lawende and co. saw was indeed Eddowes.)

Would our man have lingered 25 minutes on or near the location to zone in on another victim, knowing that there will be a lot of police activity emanating from Dutfield's Yard just ten minutes away? I reckon its unlikey. But remember, it may have taken a short while to sweet talk Eddowes into joining him. Naturally, what with a killer about and with only just getting out of the nick, Eddowes would have been at least a little cautious.

But the clincher for me is that he probably DIDN'T linger for 25 minutes. It probably took the killer much longer to walk from Dutfield's yard to the area near Mitre Square than merely 10 minutes. He was probably trying to appear casual, he may even have been ducking in and out of dark doorways or going out of his way to avoid other pedestrians. He might not even have taken the quickest route. Which means that the window of opportunity to meet Eddowes narrows even further. I believe this actually enhances rather than detracts from the possibility of the same man killing both Stride and Eddowes. Put simply, the smaller the window of opportunity for Eddowes to meet with a killer walking from Dutfield's Yard, the bigger the coiincidence that Stride was murdered by a seperate individual.

What it boils down to is that I find the timing of Stride's murder -along with her body being placed on the ground, Ripper-style, before being killed - 'dovetails' far, far too neatly and perfectly with Eddowes murder to be mere coincidence as it would have to be if Eddowes killer was not the same man that killed Stride.

This, of course, is merely my own speculation on the matter and I doubt I'm adding anything new here. It just seems to me that the location of Prostitute Island so close to Mitre Square is a very exposed location for the Ripper to choose as a 'preferred' hunting ground that night. No doubt many will see holes in the idea, not least of which, I suppose, is the very big assumption that JTR wouldn't be the kind of person to do what what was least expected of him.

As has been said on this board many times, in all liklihood we'll never know for sure, and maybe we're all just indulging in a fascinating parlour game. Having said that, there's always the possibility of new finds, some startling new advance in forensic technology or even some genuinely startling future technology.

I've always felt that something akin to the 'Wormcam' technology as described so plausibly by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter in their book 'The Light Of Other Days' is our only real hope of finding out the truth about the Ripper's identity. Quantum Time Travel seems to become less and less of a far-fetched sci-fi possibility every day, even if it has unfortunate implications (as described in the novel) for our personal privacy.

I suspect that in reality JTR was much more likley to have been a distressingly dull local nobody- a vile but cleverly self-contained sociopath -than any of the suspects yet named. I'd like to think that, whoever he was and whatever happened to him, some small part of his clearly mislocated conscience emerged at night to bring some small justice where no human court ever did.

Regards,
Gary

[Fisherman]

After what has perspired on this thread, David, I would move for Dizzy...

The best!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish,
After all these posts about him or her, I'd really like to know the pony's name.
"Lipski" would be a nice one.
And why not "Lizzie" if a female?

Amitiés,
David

ps: I really read "Nils" when young, at the time of my "Scandinavian" period (Hamsun,Lagerkvist...very classic, I'm afraid). Good memories to me.

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"maybe it shied more than once"

...and that is where I get of the train. Or should I say shy?

The best, Harry!

Fisherman

[harry]

We do not know what type of cart it was,or where the seat was situated, but a good guess is that whatever type,the driver would have been behind the pony with enough room to mount and dismount.
As I understand it,and as fisherman says,the gate was open,leaving no room for anyone to be behind it.The feet were near but not up to the gate,and another good guess is that if the killer was still in the yard he would have been standing near the head of Stride,as the cart turned to enter so that would put him at least10'into the yard at that point.
On each side of the yard,from the gate inwards,a brick wall ran for 15',before on the right side(going in) it joined the club building,and on the left a row of cottages.
If the cart was stopped by the steps,of club or cottage that would put both pony and cart well beyond what I estimate,and well beyond the body.I know of no other steps.
As the pony entered the yard,it would most surely have been guided by Diemshultz,and pressure of the reins might cause it to shie and bear left towards the wall on that side.According to the book I quote,the pony shied and stopped some distance inside the yard.So maybe it shied more than once.
Remember that Diemschultz remarks(as do others)the blackness of the yard,
and that all he could see was a dark bundle.Too much to right or left and he might have missed it,so looking straight down,is a reasonable assumption,bearing in mind,that Diemschultz does not specify.So be careful.Assuming that Diemschultz might have been looking back towards the gate and saw the bundle there,it would put the horse well into the yard,and away goes the theory that he stopped for either the body or smell of blood.
Now I do not know the source material others are guided by.Mine is the books I have read,and all claim to have been well researched and factual,and my calculations and assumptions,are based on these claims.Of course Ripper authors themselves researched other peoples documetation,so they in turn would have to rely on the correctness of those writings.
As to where Diemschultz sat,I have seen many carts with bench type seats,that being so ,and he being alone,I guess the centre would have been as good a place as any.Especially as the entrance was so narrow,and his judgement on guiding the pony better from centre.A bench type seat would be more useful for seating more than one person,if the cart was loaded,so they were more popular.
I believe that covers the questions.

[Fisherman]

Yep, Tom. Plus Diemschitz firmly stated that the gates were wide open as he drove in, and I think that would have left Jack no room behind that gate.

The best, Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Jack would have had to have been standing behind the right gate to make the pony shy and remain unseen by Diemschutz. I don't understand, Harry, why it's so hard to accept that the pony shied from Stride's body.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"Diemschutz parked his pony and cart in front of the steps."

Thanks, Tom! What I am trying to point out here, though, is that the pony shied to it´s left on passing the gates. Harry´s wiew seems to be that the pony may have been scared by somebody (and that somebody would be Jack) standing deeper into the yard.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Diemschutz parked his pony and cart in front of the steps.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Harry, I am amazed at your measuring of where that pony ended up in the yard. Thanks for that lesson! I do not think, however, that we are going to be able to use it. I´ll explain why.

To begin with, "looking down" does not necessarily equal "looking straight down". You can look down at an object on the ground a fair distance away. Moreover, this is what was said:

Diemschitz, from the inquest:

"All at once my pony shied at some object on the right. I looked to see what the object was, and observed that there was something unusual, but could not tell what."

No looking down there!

Diemschitz, as quoted in the Evening Post, October 1:st:

”...it struck me when I was passing through the double gates into the yard that he wanted to keep too much to the left side against the wall. I could not make out what was the matter, so I bent my head to see if there were anything to frighten him. Then I noticed there was something unusual about the ground, but I could not tell what it was, except that it was not level.”

Please notice that Diemschitz says that his pony shied to the left as the steward was passing through the gates. This implies that it shied at an early stage.
Now, no matter when the pony shied, we must not conclude that it stopped as it shied! It may well have proceeded to a point where it had passed the body. Much as it did not want to proceed along the way Diemshutz usually took, it may of course have proceeded any stretch of the road after it had shied to the left.

There may have been a killer in that yard, Harry. There is no disproving it. The horse may have been spooked by anything else but Stride´s body, and if you feel that it is a reasonable explanation, well then there you are, Harry.
But since we have records telling us that the horse shied as Diemschitz drove through the gates, I think it remains something that will a very secondary choice of reason to that shying, considering that there was a dead woman, reeking with blood, lying to the right directly inside that yard. That leaves us with a situation where no other explanation is called upon for the horse´s behaviour.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Harry,

Maybe you know the answer to this next question, because I sure don't.

If Diemschutz hopped down and looked down, he had to have hopped down to the right or to the left or he'd be sitting on the pony's back. In the UK, as modern drivers sit on the right side of the car, I assume that a cart driver would sit at least a bit to the right and that the natural inclination would be to hop down on the right side. If he did just that, it would have meant that the body was just off to the right and ahead of the cart, possibly putting it precariously close to the right front wheel, or right wheel if it was only a two-wheeler. This would mean that the body was, in the pony's mind, very, very close to being in it (the cart's path). Yet, I like your thinking about a lurking man being there. As soon as the cart passed where the body was, and we know that it did, a man could have easily gotten away in the ample space that was created. I see no argument that can say even 'probably the killer had already gone'. There is nothing that eliminates the possbility that he was there, not even remotely, but there is nothing that says he was definitely still there. The shying is something, however. Yet a body would have done that as well.

What does this mean? Maybe nothing.

Cheers,

Mike

[harry]

Fisherman,
How far did the pony travel into the yard?well I last attended school sixty five years ago,thats right 65,and I may be a little rusty, but here goes.
The right hand side of the gate 4"5".Strides body 5'7",but being as she was not fully stretched I'll settle for five'.As the cart was about level with the body,we can accept the horse being in front of the cart.and allow at least 5 foot for the animals length.Now lets see thats4'5"+5'7"+5'=say15'.Correct headmaster?
As the wall on the right hand side,before it joined the clubhouse proper was 15',the animal's head would have levelled the junction.So it had,I presume,travelled past the body to an extent that disallows blood or the body causing it to shie and stop,but it does allow something else.An upright man perhaps.
How do I place the cart level with the body.Well Diemschultz says he looked down,and there the bundle was.Not to right or left,but down.
Can I now sit down sir?

[Sam Flynn]

It strikes me that, if the IWEC wanted to get someone to invent a story about an altercation at the Club gates, they'd have had someone looking from a window or nipping out the back to witness it, rather than the almighty palaver that Schwartz came out with.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"It's pure speculation on my part, but if it is shown that Schwartz was associated with William Wess and the club - through one of their leagues, for instance - then very serious doubt would be thrown on Schwartz's credibility. What I'm suggesting is the possibility that a) he lied at the instruction of William Wess, who possibly acted as his interpreter, or b) he was paid by Charles Le Grand to lie, as was Matthew Packer. Since Schwartz was moving that evening and not able to attend the club festivities, he would be a likely and trustworthy choice for someone like Wess who was on serious damage control mode."

Thanks for this, Tom. I thought that this was how you wiew it, and it has it´s points, of course. But I still think that the Sod-it,-Schwartz-does-not-speak-a-word-of-English-issue would have prevented the whole thing.
Then again, it can be reasoned that a scheme like this may have reinforced the chance that the police would take it seriously. Given the choice, though, between regarding Wess/Le Grand as being that sly or regarding the whole notion of Schwartz acting as a paid misinformant as not very credible, I move for the latter choice.

The best!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

"It would be utterly remarkable if he were neighbors with young men just like himself but did not enjoy an acquaintance and/or frequent the club."

Abraham Heshburg might not think it so "utterly remarkable".

Heshburg was a child, not a young man, and he was not an immigrant. He was not at all fond of the club. Apples and oranges, my friend.

I´m slightly troubled by this, Tom. Do you mean that Schwartz would have been there, but told a story that differed from what happened, or do you mean that he was just a hired misinformant who was never even there?
In each case, but maybe mostly so in the last one, I think it would be a strange thing to hire a man who did not speak English, and then provide him with an interpreter. It would involve more risks that somebody got something terribly wrong. Just a thought.

It's pure speculation on my part, but if it is shown that Schwartz was associated with William Wess and the club - through one of their leagues, for instance - then very serious doubt would be thrown on Schwartz's credibility. What I'm suggesting is the possibility that a) he lied at the instruction of William Wess, who possibly acted as his interpreter, or b) he was paid by Charles Le Grand to lie, as was Matthew Packer. Since Schwartz was moving that evening and not able to attend the club festivities, he would be a likely and trustworthy choice for someone like Wess who was on serious damage control mode.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott