Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[Tom_Wescott]

Fish,

Your hypothesis would make sense except for a few things:

* The evidence points away from (and not to) a domestic murder.
* Stride's alleged 'row' with Kidney three days prior was a verbal row, not a physical row as often assumed. Had it been physical, there would have been ample evidence on her person a mere three days later, yet there was none. In fact, there was no evidence whatsoever that she experienced habitual physical abuse.
* Kidney - not a particular bright man - drew zero suspicion from Stride's associates or the police and willingly placed himself in the authorities hands.
* Kidney willingly put himself in front of people who potentially witnessed the murder of Stride and thus might be able to identify him.
* The police, following their interogation of Kidney and thorough investigation into Stride's life and whereabouts were not moved to consider Kidney a suspect in her murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

What the...? You are discussing the case, Tom! Well, I never...!

Right, let´s sink our teeth into it while it lasts!

The evidence is a question of interpretation, as always. If you have watched the documentary "To kill and kill again", you have also heard Stewart Evans referring to the stride killing with the words: "It bears all the hallmarks of a domestic killing".
Does that make me right or does it go to show that there are more dumbasses out there? It does neither. But it goes a fair way to prove that not only pompous newbies like myself read the evidence in another fashion than you do.
BS mans´ efforts to drag her into the street, away from the gates, her keeping her voice down, the evidence that she first was manhandled by BS man outside the yard - but still accepted to follow him into the yard, as it would seem; these are easily interpreted as clear, clear pointers to her dealing with a close aquaintance.

The row three days earlier would not have been a very physical one, since that would have been there to read on the corpse if it was the case. But that row is not the only indicator; there is also the opportunity when she turned Kidney in, but failed to show up in court, is there not? That would not have been merely languagewise abuse, I think.

We know not how bright Kidney was, I´m afraid. And even if we did, there are bright killers and there are stupid ones. But I suspect that what you are after here is that his alledged stupidity would have rendered him unable to conceal a more sinister side from friends of his, right?
But there are lots of examples of people who have been considered meek, nice people, and turned out to be something quite different. Rader, for instance, leaps to mind. And to state that he drew no suspicions from the police, well... as you willingly admit, he would have evoked interest, given his role in Strides life. But if he came up with an alibi, perhaps provided by Honest Harry or Trustworthy Tim "Yeah, Gov, ´onest to God, é was ére all nite long, playin´cards and boozin´away...", then that would perhaps pretty much have been it. Especially considering the posibility that the police did never WANT a domestic - they thought that they were seeing Jack.

"Kidney willingly put himself in front of people who potentially witnessed the murder of Stride and thus might be able to identify him"
He did? Who? Are you placing Schwartz in the inquest room?

"The police, following their interogation of Kidney and thorough investigation into Stride's life and whereabouts were not moved to consider Kidney a suspect in her murder"
...which could owe to any one of a number of reasons, one of them of course being that he was exonerated beyond doubt, as far as the police were concerned. Thing is, we have not a shred of evidence to show that such was the case. And even if we had, I would still stand by a domestic scenario - for there may well be other aquaintances to consider here, unnamed and unknown so far, but some such connotations surface if we lend an ear to the men who claimed to have seen her with a very affectionate man earlier that day.

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

The evidence is a question of interpretation, as always.

Sometimes, not always.

If you have watched the documentary "To kill and kill again", you have also heard Stewart Evans referring to the stride killing with the words: "It bears all the hallmarks of a domestic killing".
Does that make me right or does it go to show that there are more dumbasses out there?

It does neither. If Stewart would like to join us in our friendly discussion that would be great. Until then, we probably shouldn't guess at his thought processes. In his theory book, he also argues strongly that the Batty Street Lodger was the Ripper. Of course, the Batty Street address was within spitting distance of Dutfield's Yard, so make of that what you will.

BS mans´ efforts to drag her into the street, away from the gates, her keeping her voice down, the evidence that she first was manhandled by BS man outside the yard - but still accepted to follow him into the yard, as it would seem; these are easily interpreted as clear, clear pointers to her dealing with a close aquaintance.

Really? Because many streetwalkers would call that simply another night on the job. If Stride were not a prostitute and were hanging about in her own neighborhood, I might be inclined to agree with you, but...

But that row is not the only indicator; there is also the opportunity when she turned Kidney in, but failed to show up in court, is there not? That would not have been merely languagewise abuse, I think.

It's evidence that she made a complaint against Kidney and then changed her mind. Nothing more.

We know not how bright Kidney was, I´m afraid.

This is true, and that was a poor choice of words on my part. What I mean to say is that he was rough and uneducated. He may have been clever.

"Kidney willingly put himself in front of people who potentially witnessed the murder of Stride and thus might be able to identify him"
He did? Who? Are you placing Schwartz in the inquest room?

I doubt Kidney (assuming he was BS Man) asked and was allowed to see a roster of inquest attendees prior to making his personal appearance. In short, if you were BS Man, witnessed by NO LESS than two men, would you have handed yourself over to the police, appeared in public, and allowed your likeness to appear in newspapers?

...which could owe to any one of a number of reasons, one of them of course being that he was exonerated beyond doubt, as far as the police were concerned.

Actually, we do. It's all right there in 'Ultimate'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Phew, Tom! I´m aging over this.

Glad to see that you copied and pasted my own answer on the Evans issue: It does neither. We are agreed, Tom!

"Many streetwalkers would call that simply another night on the job"
Those who were used to being dragged away from their chosen venues, and responded by lowering their voices, that is, folks!

"In short, if you were BS Man, witnessed by NO LESS than two men, would you have handed yourself over to the police, appeared in public, and allowed your likeness to appear in newspapers?"
Nope. I would refuse, resist the police, try to conceal my face from the public, ultimately I would flee and in every way try to ensure a one way ticket to the gallows. Come on, Tom...

"It's all right there in 'Ultimate'"
If it was that easy, Tom! Alas, it is not all there, just as it is not all there in Stewart Evans´theories. It is scattered in tiny pieces, many of them never to be found again.

Go to bed, Tom; I will. Never mind the time difference.
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Fishman,

Sorry about the delay, real life intervened.

"Johnston relayed the news to Blackwell, who was sleeping at the time, and then immediately followed 426H back to Berner Street. Blackwell arrived at the scene shortly afterwards at precisely 1.16am."


A doctor who lives 50 seconds from a life threatening incident and who takes 6 minutes to respond, is legitimately open to criticism. The fact that he sent an unqualified person ahead who contaminated the crime scene, only compounds his woes, in my book.


Next, a detailed look at exactly what Blackwell said.

Thanks for your time.

[drstrange169]

Hello Fishman,

Unfortunately, for the hapless Doctor Blackwell, his own observations tend to disprove his theories. I came into this discussion late so please forgive me if I missed something but you seem to have picked isolated pieces from Blackwell to suit, rather than looking at his statements as a whole.

Here’s what he was reported as saying on the night of the murder


"Dr. Blackwell says-“At about ten minutes past one in the morning I was called to 40, Berner-street by a policeman, where I found a woman who had been murdered…."

Note how he fails to mention turning up late or sending an unqualified person to do his job.

“Her head had been almost severed from her body.”

Beating it up for the papers is hardly the act of a responsible doctor.

“She could not have been dead more than twenty minutes, the body being perfectly warm.”

Not exactly true but let’s be generous and assume he is generalizing.

“The woman did not appear to be a Jewess, but more like an Irish woman. I roughly examined her, and found no other injuries …”

Reasonable enough observation.

“… but this I cannot definitely state until I have made a further investigation of the body.”

Big noting himself, that was always Dr Phillips’s job.

“She had on a black-velvet jacket, and black dress of different material. In her hand she held a box of cachous; whilst pinned to her dress was a flower.”

Box?

“Altogether, judging from her appearance I should say she belong to the immoral class; at least, her general get-up would lead me to suppose that.”

All poor women are sluts apparently, Poor Liz actaully thought she looked quite smart, as did Diemshitz. Fine for a private opinion but categorically not an appropriate statement for a doctor to be making to the press. And one would have hoped a doctor serving East End clients would have been a little more sympathetic to it's inhabitants. This is a classic example of how Dr Blackwell appears to be ignoring his training and leaping to unfounded conclusions.

“I have no doubt that the same man committed both these murders...”

Probably the best indication of how much Dr. Blackwell’s opinion should be trusted. Is there any record of him ever examining Kate Eddowes? He kills your theory stone dead on a slab with the maggots chomping! Not a domestic killing, not an acquaintance, not even the merest whiff of a possibility, Dr Blackwell has "no doubt" that the same man committed both these murders”.

“… and should say he is a maniac …”

Not a domestic quarrel.

“… but one at least who is accustomed to use a heavy knife."

Where did the heavy knife bit come from and way did he change his testimony about this at the inquest?

“I should say that as the woman had held sweets in her left hand that her head was dragged back by means of a silk handkerchief she wore round her neck, and her throat was then cut. One of her hands, too, was smeared with blood, so she may have used this in her rapid struggle.”

Dr Blackwell believes she fought to defend herself yet held onto the cachous?
If he believed this to be true why didn’t he speak up at the inquest instead of allowing the mystery of the bloody right hand to be officially recorded as unexplainable?
Oh Dr Blackwell what a tangled web you weave when first you … ;-)

“I have no doubt that, the woman's windpipe being completely cut through, she was unable to make any sound.”

Reasonable observation.

“I might say it does not follow that the murderer would be bespattered with blood, for as he is sufficiently cunning in other things he could contrive to avoid coming in contact with the blood by reaching well forward.”

"reaching well forward” whilst pulling back, I’d like to see that one!
But that aside, his opinion is one of a struggle involing a “cunning” and “contrived” "maniac" serial killer, not of spur of the moment, swift and sudden, domestic.

Later, a walk through of the mechanics of pulling back, whilst leaning forward, whislt fending off a bloody right hand, whilst completely relaxing a left hand, whilst twisting a body in mid air, whilst slicing a turning throat, whilst not spilling blood, whilst not disarranging the clothing and lots more;-)

[Fisherman]

Dusty writes:
"
A doctor who lives 50 seconds from a life threatening incident and who takes 6 minutes to respond, is legitimately open to criticism. The fact that he sent an unqualified person ahead who contaminated the crime scene, only compounds his woes, in my book. "

No, Dusty, I´m afraid I have to disagree with you very strongly here. A doctor who himself is unable to respond to an urgent call, that may well involve the issue of life and death, and who chooses NOT to send help ahead if competent help is at hand, is a man who has failed his doctor´s oath sadly.
That I will not discuss any further, since I think it is blatantly obvious.

As for the time it took Blackwell to arrive at the scene, I think it is very hard to estimate what would have been reasonable. But waking up, getting out of the bed, getting hold of your clothes and putting them on, and finding your bag with doctor´s equipment, HAS to take time. And I honestly think that doing these things IS responding to the call. You cannot hold him responsible for not having "responded" until he stood in the yard, can you?

As for your next post, I will return to it as soon as I have the opportunity. What I can say from the outset is that the papers are not to be trusted, and I suspect you accept as much yourself.

The best, Dusty!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dusty!

After having given your post a quick glance, I notive that you write that I have picked the parts on Blackwell that suit my purpose. Therefore, I would very much like if you could provide me with the sources relating to your own harvest presented here. It would much facilitate for me to provide you with an answer.

The best, Dusty!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dusty!

I have gone over the material again, at considerable speed. Only to find that your criticism is to a significant extent grounded on material published in The Star, a paper that many of the posters here would call notorious.
Only the other day I discussed on another thread the fact that the Star described the seventeen wounds to the chest area of Tabram as "seven or eight stabs in a circular shape".
Really, Dusty, if you feel a need to point me out as choosing snippets of information only when they suit my purposes, this is not the way to go about it. At least not if you want to gain credibility yourself!

To take just one example, you state that Blackwell mistook Strides packet of cachous for a box of such. But that only fits if you ride with the Star. They published it on the 1:st of October, but the day after that, called to the inquest, Blackwell - according to the Daily Telegraphs recording of the inquest proceedings - described a "small packet" of cachous. NOT a box, that is.

And there is more, for example in the passage:
"
“… and should say he is a maniac …”

Not a domestic quarrel."

Do you really mean that such a passage in some - any? - way, points to some sort of proof for the Stride killing not being a domestic?

To begin with, Blackwell handled the medical proof. The strongest indicators by far for it being a domestic lies in what happened outside the yard, as witnessed by Schwartz.
To carry on, and this is of course the crucial question here: What hindrance is there for a spouse to be a maniac???

I think, Dusty, that you are jumping the gun big time when you speak of Blackwell killing my theory stone dead. Moreover, if you use material from the Star to clinch it, then I am not the one that should keep an eye out for maggots.
Besides, I can handle maggots - I am a fisherman, remember?

How about you?

The best,
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Fishman,

Nore haste less speed, re-check the newspaper reports.
Six newspapers (that I’ve seen) covered Dr Blackwell’s statement. Three paraphrased him and three quoted his actual statement.

So yes, I believe my previous post was a fair assessment of what Blackwell said, as reported in the press.

And no, The Star was not the specific source I quoted.

But your obfuscating the post's point. As mentioned, you seem to be selecting sentences from Blackwell to suit. When it helps, you’re claiming Blackwell is pedantically perfect. When it hinders your simply avioding the relevant passages hence the reason for my quoting his statement in full. Interestingly you’ve done the same thing again with the two examples you cited.

Yes, “box” is what all three newspapers that quoted him said.

Yes, “maniac” does means “not a domestic quarrel”, as far as Dr. Blackwell was concerned. Blackwell “had no doubt” a “maniac” committed both crimes. (See the previous posting to understand the implication that that to your theory.)

Buzzzzzz
Don’t worry about the maggots they’ve grown into blowflies;-)

Thanks for time.

[drstrange169]

Hello Fishman,

Whoopsie daisy, missed a bit.

"To begin with, Blackwell handled the medical proof."

If only he had, we wouldn’t be debating it now.
Unfortunatly, Blackwell made some strange statements that were not supported by the evidence we have access to.

"The strongest indicators by far for it being a domestic lies in what happened outside the yard, as witnessed by Schwartz."

You think?
On what concrete evidence? We can’t even verify Schwartz’s story based on cross referenced timelines from the other witness’s. We can't definitely rule out a domestic (even though Blackwell did!) but we are a looooog way from any "strong indicators".

[Fisherman]

...and off we go again!

Dusty, you are just going to have to believe me when I tell you that I am not a descendant of Blackwells. I have no personal interest in claiming that he was either a brilliant medico or a sloppy one.
I do, however, prefer to believe that the medicos involved in the case were more or less capable of tending to thheir business. It does not make them unfallable, but it makes them good, reliable sources fot the most of the time. In fact, their evidence is perhaps the best and most useful evidence we have on the case, the way I look upon it.

You seem to disagree strongly when it comes to Blackwell. You are welcome to do so, I suppose, but I do think that you have chosen strange grounds for your grudge. Like for example the few minutes it took him to wake up, get into his clothes and get to the yard. You even seem to propose that he should not have sent Johnston ahead (if he actually did so; for all we know the initiative may have been Johnstons)

You persist pointing out that the papers quoted blackwell as speaking about a "box" for Strides cachous. I must say, that I do not feel that this discredits Blackwells asessments on the rest of the case. Moreover, there is of course the possibility that they came in a sort of box, folded manually in paper where they were bought, much the same way as cream cakes were folded up manually in paper "boxes" in the old days. I am not sure if this was done in the cachous case, but it would be a possibility.
And whichever way you want it, the fact remains that Blackwell said at the inquest that she was holding a small packet of cachous in her hand. And "packet" may well tally with a folded paper box, as far as I can see.

So I choose not to grow suspicious on our doc because of his vocabulary here - it may well be a very apt one, the way I see it. And if it is, it would be gravely wrong and misleading to take his words on it as evidence of sloppy craftsmanship when it came to his job.

And though you repeat your argument about the impossibility for a husband to be a "maniac" and thus perpetrate the acts of a madman, it does in no way enhance that case of yours, I´m afraid. If you take a look at for example Buck Ruxton, I should say that I find it easier to describe him as a raving maniac than a caring husband. So that point is gonna have to go, too - at least on my behalf.

Finally, you press me into a debate of semantics with your last post, Dusty; you write ”If only he had” in reply to my words that Blackwell handled medical proof.
This was of course a pointer from my side to the fact that he did not handle ANY OTHER proof; he did not have the whole picture, and given that circumstance, he was pretty much left with a throat-cut woman at a period were throat-cut women often translated into Jack the Ripper. I would have been inavoidable, more or less, that his thoughts would involve Jack. That does not mean, however, that he had anything more to go on, evidencewise, than a cut in the neck that differed to a great extent from those dealt to the other purported Ripper victims.

More semantics: You point out that we are a long way from strong indicators, and I will not make that a topic of debate just now. I will only point out that my line ”The strongest indicators by far....” Does not say ”immensely strong”, ”very strong” or ”quite strong” or anything like that. It only points out that if you are to compare the different factors of evidence in the Stride case, the testimony of Schwarz as to the proceedings outside the yard, is the material that contains the strongest indicators of domestic violence having come into play.
If you compare an ant to a louse, Dusty, the ant is by far the strongest one. That does however not mean that it will readily wrestle you to the ground, does it? ”Strongest” only goes to point out strength in a comparative sense.

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

As far as Liz Stride being possibly a victim of domestic violence, or a victim of Jack the Ripper for that matter, it seems that when Pipeman leaves after Schwartz does, that only Broadshouldered Man and Liz are left on the street, in front of the gates, and there is no-one in Dutfields Yard, as per the witnesses in it at 12:40am.

If Schwartz, Eagle and Lave are to be believed, Broadshouldered Man is the only man within the immediate area that Liz is killed in, sometime during the 10 minute period when her throat is cut.

My best regards.

[drstrange169]

Hello Michael,

It’s a brave man who can chart the timings in Berner Street on that night.
And by that definition, the bravest is probably Gavin Bromley in Ripperologist.
He suggests the “parcel carrier” may have been the last man standing, so to speak. Then there is Brown’s sighting and of course Goldstein is officially the last man seen in the street prior to Diemshitz. But your right, BS is a prime suspect.

Thanks for your time.

[drstrange169]

Hello Fishman,

Easiest to answer your post is backwards, starting with the probability of a domestic.

All we have to go by is the evidence, such as it is. Tempting though it is invent new things, we must still take account of that evidence.

Baxter was a very experienced Coroner; he would probably have dealt with more deaths by domestic violence than the two of us combined will ever encounter. He had the MASSIVE advantage of seeing all the evidence presented at the inquest, as opposed to our second hand snippets. He also had the advantage of meeting Kidney in the flesh. His summation should not be treated lightly without compelling contrary evidence.

Baxter concluded that there was a ...,
“… strong probability that her destroyer was a stranger to her.”
and,
“ ...there was no one among her associates to whom any suspicion had attached.”
also,
“ The ordinary motives of murder, revenge, jealousy, theft and passion appeared therefore absent from this case.”

Strike one.

The police reports (Swanson and Abberline) cast absolutely no suspicion whatsoever on the possibility of the murder being the result of a domestic dispute.

Swanson wrote there wasn’t ...,

“… the slightest pretext for a motive on behalf of friends or associates or anybody who had known her.”

Strike two.

Neither the police nor press reports make reference to the witnessed assault resembling a domestic dispute. Schwartz’s description in no way resembles the droop shouldered droop moustachioed picture of Kidney.

Strike three.

I realise you’ve invested in a theory involving a domestic dispute but looking at the evidence available, you should really acknowledge that the people involved ALL dismissed the idea and start your theory from that basis.

Thanks for your time.