Two

[Jon Guy]

Hello

Schwartz` translated account of the assault can be read two ways. BS either threw her down on the street pavement, or he threw her down on the footway just inside the gates where she would be found.

We know for a fact that she was thrown down on her left side as this was where her dress were plastered with mud, and she was held or forced down on her left side by someone behind her as the finger marks on her shoulder show, and her throat was exposed by pulling back her scarf from the left side.

[Jon Guy]

A distance behind BSM of even more than say 12 ft and Liz would have been out of site around the corner of Dutfield yard to the right.

Stride was standing in the gateway not inside the yard, Jeff.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Mike

Yes fair comment, although my use of the word ‘Threat’ is rather presumptuous reading it back. We don’t actually know the context or meaning of the shout ‘Lipski’

However sad though it may seem, I do intend to go outside with some wheel bins today and try and work out the angles, and how close Schwartz would actually have to be to see Stride to his right talk to BSM in Dutfeild yard.

I will report back

Pirate

I’m not certain if this is a little off topic, but I guess it’s relevant to the attack claimed by Schwartz between BSM and Liz

If Schwartz was close to BSM when he shouts the threat then perhaps that explains why Fanny hears nothing?

Another take on the pertinent evidence is that she neednt have heard anything if Liz was talking quietly to a man by the school at 12:45am...with his arm blocking her passage....just like Brown said, at the Inquest.

Doesnt it seem advantageous for the Club that not only does Schwartz, a Hungarian Jew, provide an off site altercation just before she is found dead, but he also injects anti-semetic overtones in his statement?

Seems inflaming and threatening the Jews was a Ripper theme that night. Might do the Club well in the reporting spin on the events....silence some speculation that the killer was in fact a Jew....which was the number one speculation from the authorities at that time.

All the best.

[Jeff Leahy]

That's not necessarily the case. Consider what Swanson says: "12.45 a.m. 30th Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street [Ellen St], Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road & having gotten as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman..."

What this tells us is that Schwartz himself was at the gateway in which Stride stood. He could have gotten a decent look at Stride at this point. Personally, I think Schwartz lingered because he was intending to go INTO the club, and therefore got the good look that he claims to have had.

Keeping in mind that we're not reading Schwartz's actual statement, but a condensed version prepared by Swanson, we have to give a little leeway for the human element. Schwartz said he got a good look at Liz and there's nothing here to really suggest it wasn't possible, so assuming he didn't make up the entire encounter, we should accept that he saw what he says he saw.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ok, but off the top of my head, surely Schwartz claimed that as he turned into Berner Street, BSM was ahead of him, walking as if drunk?

So Schwartz followed BSM down Berner Street a distance of at least one hundred yards from Commercial Road to the Dutfeild yard Gate. Yet it seems he followed BSM quite closely if he was able to witness the conversation between Stride and BSM.

A distance behind BSM of even more than say 12 ft and Liz would have been out of site around the corner of Dutfield yard to the right. If Schwartz was indeed scared doesn’t that strike you a little odd that he walks so close?

If I walk back late at night in the Eastend and there is odd characters ahead, I drop back, move out of the way.

Yet as you observe Schwartz must have been actually fairly close to the incident to have witness what he claimed, within feet of the incident, surely?

As you say we have a condensed statement but it was only tonight having posted the statement that it struck home how odd what it says…means..

If it is the case, then Schwartz must have been practically on top of Stride and BSM when he witnessed the encounter, rather than the other side of the Street, which is what I had always assumed.

Pirate

PS. Another interesting thing to consider is whether Schwartz was much closer to BSM when he shouts 'Lipski' if Schwartz is on the opposite side of the road, we assume a loud shout. However Fanney Mortimer, only feet away, doesnt hear it. If Schwartz was close to BSM when he shouts the threat then perhaps that explains why Fanny hears nothing?

[jmenges]

I was just bemoaning the fact that technology seems to have relieved many a webmaster/editor/writer of any feeling of responsibility in making sure the information they put out is as accurate as possible. There doesn't seem to be ANY check and balance with the podcasts. Also, many of the people I've read as appearing on there aren't particularly knowledgeable on the case, but a listener would assume they were experts.

Hi Tom, et al

A thread is started for each episode for discussion/criticism/correction once the show is uploaded. There is plenty of opportunity for listeners to correct mistakes made on the podcasts. We actually welcome corrections, guests often admit "on-air" when they are unsure of a particular point or are going from memory, and we have received from listeners many clarifications and corrections. It is an entirely unscripted show in a conversational format and so there are bound to be a few errors.

To my knowledge I've never referred to a single guest in the 50-odd episodes as a Ripperologist or an expert on these crimes (please correct me if I have ). It's up to the listener to investigate this subject further and make those judgments for themselves.

Lastly, as I'm enjoying this thread, I suggest we take all discussion of particular Rippercast episodes to their appropriate threads.

And surely for the lastly, Tom Wescott has been invited on the show more than once, and he would be a welcome guest anytime. One must realize that any perceived lack of expertise on the show is due to lack of participation. I cannot have "experts" if certain "experts" turn down requests to appear. But frankly, I'm totally satisfied being able to podcast the opinions of Ally Ryder, Gareth Williams, Ben Holme, Chris Scott, John Bennett, Philip Hutchinson, Paul Begg, AP Wolf, Robert Mclaughlin, Mike Covell, Howard Brown, and everyone else who has been on the show.

JM

[Aristocles]

Hi Jay, I have absolutely no idea why I called you Barry in my last post. As for Stride, all we know is that marks indicitive of finger marks appeared over both shoulders following her death. If that means anterior deltoid in your book, run with it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

As I am running with this. . . finger marks kind of make the issue moot, since fingers are not footways.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jay, I have absolutely no idea why I called you Barry in my last post. As for Stride, all we know is that marks indicitive of finger marks appeared over both shoulders following her death. If that means anterior deltoid in your book, run with it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Aristocles]

Archaic, I'm more than happy to teach as well as learn. But I'm surprised you were unfamiliar with the word 'Pirate'!

Jay,

I would imagine that Stride was very succeptable to bruising given not only her alcohol intake, but her age, weight, and nutrition. Her bruising (or lack thereof) could be very telling. As I've written elsewhere, there was no old bruising on her body, indicating that Michael Kidney was not the abusive brute many modern commentators would have us believe. Then there's the matter of no scuffing or bruising on her hands, hips, or tailbone area - something I'd expect to see if she were violently thrown down on the pavement. There was a bruise on her chest and over her shoulder. These occured either just before her murder or shortly thereafter. It's not impossible the shoulder bruising could have come from a zealous client earlier in the evening, so we can't say for sure it was her murderer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Greetings Tom:

Precisely! That is the crux of one of my questions. I do not note any mention of bruising, etc. on the rear side of her organism. I took the "over her shoulder" bruising to mean ~the anterior deltoid. Perhaps, I am wrong? I guess this all seems pedantic but there are certain logical inferences that follow. . .

[Tom_Wescott]

Barry,

Having never heard a podcast, I wasn't specifically criticizing them. I don't think Pirate criticized them at all, did he? I was just bemoaning the fact that technology seems to have relieved many a webmaster/editor/writer of any feeling of responsibility in making sure the information they put out is as accurate as possible. There doesn't seem to be ANY check and balance with the podcasts. Also, many of the people I've read as appearing on there aren't particularly knowledgeable on the case, but a listener would assume they were experts. It's reminiscent of a kid making a horror movie in his backyard and casting his friends. Having said that, I've heard enough good things about the podcasts from credible people that I will probably give some of the more recent ones a listen at some point.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

If you were filming this from schwartz POV, then you wouldnt see Liz.

That's not necessarily the case. Consider what Swanson says: "12.45 a.m. 30th Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street [Ellen St], Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road & having gotten as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman..."

What this tells us is that Schwartz himself was at the gateway in which Stride stood. He could have gotten a decent look at Stride at this point. Personally, I think Schwartz lingered because he was intending to go INTO the club, and therefore got the good look that he claims to have had.

Keeping in mind that we're not reading Schwartz's actual statement, but a condensed version prepared by Swanson, we have to give a little leeway for the human element. Schwartz said he got a good look at Liz and there's nothing here to really suggest it wasn't possible, so assuming he didn't make up the entire encounter, we should accept that he saw what he says he saw.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Aristocles]

HI Jay

OK, lets just clarify: The suggestion of a dull rounded blade was made by Andrew Cook in a recent podcast, and is almost certainly incorrect.

There is no evidence that Stride was killed with a different knife. In the Double event Podcast Paul Begg mentions the possibility that a longer knife was used in the Eddow’s murder (also mentioned by John Guy on this thread) and this is quite possible but the exact length of the blade is not accurately ascertainable from the wounds on Stride, just approximations.

The unknown non-author mentioned is clearly Ally Ryder, and she is mistaken in stating a dull rounded blade was used, I have no intention of defending her, however the dissertation below raises some interesting points that might bail her out a little. In this Podcast Chris Scott clearly points out a Sharpe blade was used on Liz Stride, and on the whole the information contained within that podcast is pretty good, end of. However if you wish to criticize it please be specific about points and who raises them, not general.

As to the bruising, clearly it depends on how you see the event and I attach the statement given by Schwartz. This suggests that Liz was standing inside the yard (out of view of Fanny Mortimer) and was pulled towards the Street. If BS man was JtR then very little struggle needed to take place. Just a slash to the throat, that would take 2 seconds. You don’t necessarily require two separate attacks on Liz that night. If jack disappeared/escaped through Dutfield yard rather than up Berner street then Deimshutz coming down Berner Street from Commercial street might not have seen him or Schwartz running down Berner st in the opposite direction towards Ellen Street. So the whole time frame could have been very close indeed.

Thus Deimshutz could have found the body very soon after the attack described by Schwartz. Its possible that the same knife was used in both attacks, ‘Double Event’ but just as possible that JtR carried more than one knife.

I shall leave you in the capable hands of Willy the Weasel.

Yours Pirate

REINVESTIGATING MURDER: THE MYSTERY OF THE KNIFE
Bill Beadle
Investigating murder sometimes resembles picking gnat's droppings out of cow dung;- or to put it a little more salubriously, this will be a journey of exploration and whether you get to the end of it with me will depend on your perception of how logical the deductions are.

We begin on the night following the double murder of Liz Stride and Cathy Eddowes. Thirty minutes after midnight on Monday, October 1st, a warehouse operative named Thomas Coram was walking up Whitechapel road on the right-hand side going towards Aldgate when, near Great Garden street, he spied something white lying on the bottom step of number 252 on the other side of the road. Coram crossed over and found that the object was a long bladed knife with a handkerchief tied round the handle. Both the knife and the hankie were stained with dried blood.

Coram summoned Police Constable Joseph Drage who was on fixed point duty nearby. Drage later told the Stride inquest that the knife had definitely not been there an hour beforehand but:
"Some little time before a horse fell down opposite the place where the knife was found. I assisted in getting the horse up and during that time a person might have laid the knife down on the step. I would not be positive that the knife was not there a quarter of an hour previously, but I think not".
One is infuriated that Drage was not questioned more closely. Was the horse drawing a vehicle or being led? Did Drage think it more likely that the horse's owner or a passer-by had disposed of the knife? We do not know, but obviously somebody thought it necessary to divest himself of the bloodstained items. Was it Liz Stride's murderer? Well the police clearly thought it could have been otherwise they would not have brought it up at the inquest.

The weapon used to cut Stride's throat was not the same as the one used on Eddowes, a fact primarily responsible for some ripperologists querying whether Liz was a ripper victim. However, there is no reason why "jack" should not have carried more than one knife, a point endorsed by John Douglas, one of the world's leading experts on multicides (The Cases Which Haunt Us h/b p.48). Could then this knife have caused Stride's wound? Here is what Dr. Blackwell and Dr. Phillips told her inquest:

Blackwell: Although it might have possibly inflicted the injury it is extremely unlikely that such an instrument was used....

Phillips: Such a knife could have produced the incision and injuries to the neck of the deceased, but it is not such a weapon as I would have chosen.

One reason which Dr. Phillips gave for his doubts was the awkwardness of such a long-bladed knife given the position of the incision. But Dr. Blackwell's objections, while similar, was put perhaps a little more intriguingly:

"The murderer using a sharp, round-pointed instrument would severely handicap himself, as he could only use it one way".

Summed up, although the evidence did not preclude the knife from being the murder weapon, its awkwardness in relation to how the throat had been cut rendered it "improbable" (Phillips). Having established this, let us put the knife on hold for the present and concentrate on another mysterious facet of the death of Elizabeth Stride. We resume with Dr. Blackwell again:
"The right hand was lying on the chest and was smeared inside and out with blood. It (the hand) was quite open. There was no blood on any portion of Stride's clothing"

But could the blood smattered hand be explained by the use of a weapon not entirely suited to the task? With this in mind, let's bring our knife back on stage. Might it have dripped blood onto Liz's hand from her injured throat? Unlikely, as according to Professor Bernard Knight in Simpson's Forensic Medicine (eleventh edition p.38), a knife will not pick up blood from the first incision as there is a slight delay before bleeding commences. Here, there was only the one wound, and it does in fact convey the impression that it was inflicted with the wrong type of knife. First, the damaged carotid artery was not completely severed, after which the cut became deeper as it progressed, as though the perpetrator was having to adjust the pressure on the knife as he went along. Then, said Dr. Phillips, the cut: "deviated a little downwards" before becoming "superficial" and tailing off about two inches below the right angle of the jaw, at which point there was a tear in the silk scarf around Liz's neck which, added Phillips, he had ascertained as being a cut in the material.

The cut in the scarf could obviously have been caused by the knife jerking suddenly. Why? Now comes the hypothesis. As the incision tapered off so the killer again tried to reassert pressure, but his hand slipped down the blade of the cumbersome weapon and he cut himself. He swiftly wrapped a handkerchief around the wound but not before his blood had permeated the knife and dripped down onto Stride's hand.

The sudden pain and discomfort from having cut himself may well have been a contributory factor in the killer's decision to depart without mutilating the body. Later, he regained his equilibrium and with his lust now heightened by the aborted attack on Stride set off in search of another victim. But here again there is evidence that not all was well; - that something was hampering him, even though he was back using the knife he normally used. The first incision to Eddowes' throat is described as "merely superficial" while the second, like Stride's, petered out towards the end. Dr. Fredrick Brown, the City Police Surgeon, reported:

"the sheaf of the vessels on the right was just opened (by contrast with those on the left);- the (right) carotid artery had a fine hole opening. The internal jugular vein was opened an inch & a half (but), not divided".
Compare this with Nichols, Chapman and Kelly's throat wounds. The second cut to Nichols throat deeply divided the neck muscles on each side, both Chapman's throat injuries went right the way round to the extent that she was almost decapitated and Kelly's neck tissues were severed: "all round down to the bone". In fact, Eddowes' second wound was more reminiscent of Stride's single injury, and the implication is that after failing with the first incision on Cathy's throat, he had to make a special effort with the second but could not sustain it all the way.

The abdominal mutilations likewise appear laboured, the incision running in a grotesque zig-zag fashion as if the perpetrator has to have kept pausing. The effect was three wounds going in different directions, each commencing from its predecessor.

Another anomaly was the piece of Eddowes' apron which the killer had evidently used to wipe his hands and knife. In no other murder do we detect a garment belonging to the victim having been utilised. Was it pressed into service because his own handkerchief was already saturated in blood and tied on to the handle of his knife?

We return to Dr. Phillips at Stride's inquest for a final pointer. Examining the knife which had been found, he declared:
"It has been recently blunted and the edge turned by apparently rubbing on a stone. It evidently was before that a very sharp knife".
Which suggests that its owner, in a temper, had blunted it because it had injured him.

A final mystery. What would actually have motivated the killer to use a different knife on Liz Stride? One possible answer is that having had a struggle with her he used the weapon which was most conveniently to hand. But alternatively, perhaps he wanted to try out this "very sharp knife". Besides: "Nobody's consistent; they don't do everything the same every time". Says who? Says Ted Bundy, and I suppose one has to consider him an expert in a ghoulish sort of way!

SCHWARTZ STATEMENT.

12.45 a.m. 30th Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street [Ellen St], Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road & having gotten as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.
Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen. He thus describes the first man who threw the woman down:- age, about 30; ht, 5ft 5in[s]; comp., fair; hair, dark; small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, and nothing in his hands.
Second man: age, 35; ht., 5ft 11 in[s]; comp., fresh; hair, light brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat, wide brim; had a clay pipe in his hand.

A fairly reasonable post. Thank you. I will add this. I have neither critiqued nor criticized any podcast whatsoever, again that is you and TW. I simply mentioned that I heard the knife notion mentioned there and was making an inquiry. I rather ignored the name of the commentator. Difficult for a dolt such as myself to keep up with names. I am mystified by your notion that I was criticizing the podcast. I enjoy them! Now, if folks wish to critique them in the Kantian sense, it would be, no doubt, welcomed by all.

I am curious as to your analysis vis a vis the 'attack'. I quoted a snippet of this earlier:

"He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly."

I took that to mean that they were face to face when he attempted to pull her into the street but in this attempt she ended up being spun around and THROWN onto the footway, letting out three screams. That is why I thought she was slammed onto her posterior, exemplia gratia: her buttocks, rear delts, shoulder blades, elbows, palms of hands, etc. should bear some significant bruising or scraping. . . It is entirely possible I misunderstand Schwartz or yourself. All up, that was the issue I was curious about. I do not see any mention of the rear bruising/scraping from the medicos, perhaps it is extant. The whole thing had me questioning Schartz's story. . .

Again, thank you

JG

[Jeff Leahy]

I may not be a Ripper researcher Tom but I do understand Camera angles.

If I place a camera behind Schwartz and BSM as they walk down Berner Street past Fanny Mortimers door. Then Liz, inside the gate way, to the right is completely out of veiw.

If I move my camera angle out across the street to the left, then depending on the angle she will come into view.

The statement says this:

12.45 a.m. 30th Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street [Ellen St], Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road & having gotten as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

If you were filming this from schwartz POV, then you wouldnt see Liz. At least until she was pulled out into the road?

It then goes on to state:

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.

Now from the camera angle Schwartz POV, you can see, BSM and Liz clearly over your right shoulder looking back and Pipeman, forward and to your right.

Of course it would be interesting to know what light is available from this angle but as it stands you cant see Liz until you cross the street.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The way I have it, Schwartz was walking behind BS Man on the club side of the street. As BS Man stopped and talked with Stride, Schwartz drew closer to him. BS Man then manhandled and threw Stride down. At this point, Schwartz was pretty much on top of them and chose to cross the street. As he stepped onto the kerb on the board school side of the street, BS Man yelled 'Lipski' and Pipeman emerged from the Nelson doorway or thereabouts, which was on the club side of the street with the other players.

Which part does Swanson have out of order?


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

By the way, Schwartz, BS Man, Mortimer, Stride, and Pipeman were ALL on the same side of the road UNTIL Schwartz crossed over to the board school side to get away from BS Man. Pipeman then stepped out of the shadows of the Nelson beerhouse. Since Schwartz crossed the street, Pipeman was now on the opposite side from him, but the same side of the street as BS Man and Stride. Yours truly, Tom Wescott

Well yes thats the way I've always had it. But if you re-read the statement carefully it doesnt say that. It says that he saw a man stop and talk to a woman in the gateway. Then it says he crossed the street.

Having recently paced out everyones actions and where everyone stood in Berner Street, this statement is incorrect. Because unless he first crossed the street then saw the man talk to Liz in the gate way...then he wouldnt have seen anything...not from the angle behind BSM on the right hand side of the street..ie the same view as Fanny Mortimer, whose front door is possibly only 20-30 feet from the gate on the same side of the road.

Its not major, but either the statement is wrong or at least out of order.

Pirate