saving Liz Stride

[lynn cates]

satori

Hello Observer. I think I see your point.

1. One witness said 9 feet. That's a mistake.

2. Another said 6-7 feet. He was merely guessing.

3. Another said 5 feet. He's just right.

Would it be wrong to admit there is a discrepancy and suspend judgment?

The best.
LC

[Observer]

Hi Lynn

I'd take the word of the policeman who shut the gate above the rest of the witnesses, he stating that it just cleared her feet. Looking at the photo, and illustrations of the scene, I'd also go along with the assertion that the entrance was 9 feet in width.

But when all said and done does it make a lot of difference whether she lay 4 feet six inches into the yard or 9 feet? It dosn't say a lot to me, the differences in position of the body that is, because I believe that she walked into the yard with her killer.

I am becoming more convinced that Schwartz was telling a little white lie when he spoke of the man assaulting Liz Stride. I do believe he saw the couple, but rather than being assaulted, I believe the man was merely talking to Liz Stride as Schwartz walked by. Schwartz learns of the murder the next day, and rather dramatically added on a few details by himslef. It was a Jack the Ripper murder after all, so Schwartz painted the picture accordingly.

If this is the case the supporting evidence would make much more sense, the cachous etc.

Two things which don't sit quite right are the Lipski reference, and the Pipeman. Could Schwartz have made those two incidents up? They have the ring of truth for me. It could well be that the couple were merely talking, and as Scwartz walked by, he showed a little too much interest, and the man with Stride rebuked him with the insult "Lipski".

Pipeman is harder to explain, for he ran after Schwartz. It could well be though that he was merely a fixed observer, and didn't actually chase Schwartz.

all the best

Observer

[lynn cates]

difference

Hello Observer.

"I'd also go along with the assertion that the entrance was 9 feet in width."

I could never disagree with that. (Well, just a trifle over.) And, as you have pointed out, if the gate brushed her feet in closing, of course her feet would be just under 5 feet from the plane of the gates when shut.

"But when all [is] said and done does it make a lot of difference whether she lay 4 feet six inches into the yard or 9 feet?"

I'd say it makes a great deal of difference. About half of the forensics difficulties I've run into involves distance and body placement. If Liz is killed just inside the gates, the Schwartz story (if true) could be made to dovetail with her death. So she is met at the gates by BSM. She takes out her cachous. He pulls towards the street. She falls (or if you prefer, is thrown down on the pathway just inside the gates), he pulls out the short, rounded knife. Cuts. Runs. Liz somehow retains the cachous.

But with Liz 9 feet into the yard and near the kitchen door, the Schwartz story cannot be made to dovetail with that. Indeed, given body placement, she is going OUT of the yard.

Regarding Schwartz: I'd be delighted to throw the bugger overboard. His testimony is a genuine nuisance.

[Forgive me if I am tardy with my replies. Grade posting day for me.]

The best.
LC

[Observer]

Hi Lynn


"But when all is said and done does it make a lot of difference whether she lay 4 feet six inches into the yard or 9 feet?"

I'd say it makes a great deal of difference. LC

Not if the assault as witnessed by Schwartz did not take place. As I said, I believe Liz Stride walked into the yard, at ease with her killer.

all the best

Observer

[lynn cates]

sequence

Hello Observer. Your hypotheses are:

"Not if the assault as witnessed by Schwartz did not take place. As I said, I believe Liz Stride walked into the yard, at ease with her killer."

I am quite comfortable with both. So, right up front, let's be rid of Schwartz and his BS, um, I mean BS man.

That leaves us with:

"I believe Liz Stride walked into the yard, at ease with her killer."

Alright. Where do we go from here? I presume Liz turns and faces her future assailant. Very well. Perhaps they are chatting pleasantly. No problem. Whilst chatting, she goes for the cachous. I take it her assailant is still face to face with her? OK.

At some point, this assailant needs to be alongside Liz and slightly behind in order to commence the scarf pull/cut sequence followed by a laying down of the body.

Would you care to pick up the action with Liz and assailant face to face and Liz going for the cachous?

(Ah! I appreciate my break time. But now it's back to work.)

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

It seems Lynn that a reconstruction of the event that would satisfy the available known data is where the conversation has turned, and I wonder how effectively that answer would deal with the question of whether Jack the Ripper was the culprit in this case....which is I believe what you hoped to find decent arguments for.

It certainly might illuminate a prior knowledge of each other if that existed, if the apparent comfort level is commensurate with that kind of relationship....but suggesting that Liz knew her killer if that appears likely doesnt exclude the Ripper.

It would put another asterisk on this murder in terms of how it matches the established pattern within both priors by Jack.....but at this point how are we to have any real definitive position on whether Jack knew any of his victims before the murders.....it is still possible based on what we know....and we do know some "congregating" spots throughout the district that many of the lead characters appear in on occasion.

I know I contributed to some off topic blah blah, so I just thought Id try to make amends by helping to correct the course and steer it back onto its original heading.

My best regards

[perrymason]

I guess what I meant to say is that isnt the real issue in "Saving Liz" defining what about her murder is indicative of the new Whitechapel killer that was at large since the end of August?

All the best

[lynn cates]

errata

Hello Mike. You never have to make amends. I am having much fun and learning a good deal.

As you know, I've had a devil of a time with forensics--and that based upon Liz's placement. It turns out that we have 3 different distances for Liz. Now distance is important IF we wish to do the BS business. Turns out, we may not have to. Right now, we are trying to get Observer's friendly conversation to rearrange itself geometrically and turn deadly. No violent convolutions, of course, lest the cachous go by the board.

Thanks, as always.

The best.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Regarding Schwartz: I'd be delighted to throw the bugger overboard. His testimony is a genuine nuisance.

I agree the Schwartz evidence is frustrating, but that's hardly reason enough to dismiss it. It may very well be genuine evidence. In the event he made it up, he certainly didn't do so for notoriet, since he was careful to keep his name out of the press. There's only three motives I can see for his lying:

1) He killed Stride.
2) To protect the Club
3) Because Le Grand paid him too as he did Packer.

I'm inclined to rule out number one because there's nothing to support it, although it could be argued that the way he positioned his players in his story, BS Man could just as easily have found Stride lying there and by calling 'Lipski', was accusing Schwartz of the murder. Schwartz, afraid that either BS Man or Pipeman would go to the cops on him, went there first and provided a story that implicated BS Man. I'm also inclined to rule out number 3 because I can't imagine Le Grand would provide someone a false story involving a character that looked just like himself. That leaves number 2, and my gut tells me Schwartz had some affiliation with the club. But that aside, Schwartz was considered genuine evidence and we must cautiously treat it as such.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

Schwartz

Hello Tom. Yes. 1. looks like a good candidate for dismissal 2. looks best.

It would be very helpful if he could be linked to the club. But I am aware of the argument that, as a Hungarian, he would not likely have affiliated with a club with a Russian flavour. Of course, I cannot pronounce on that one.

Nor can I disregard his testimony--much as I'd like to. I wonder why the newspaper account mentioned that his story was not entirely believed? I wonder what their reservations were? Perhaps the later account about pipe man with a knife?

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

Hello Tom. Yes. 1. looks like a good candidate for dismissal 2. looks best.

It would be very helpful if he could be linked to the club. But I am aware of the argument that, as a Hungarian, he would not likely have affiliated with a club with a Russian flavour. Of course, I cannot pronounce on that one.

Nor can I disregard his testimony--much as I'd like to. I wonder why the newspaper account mentioned that his story was not entirely believed? I wonder what their reservations were? Perhaps the later account about pipe man with a knife?

The best.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I think in Israels case his ethnicity and probable economic level rather than his nationality is what makes him a good possibility for a club member candidate.....also in my opinion, a very weak accompanying explanation for why he was at that spot at that time of night.

I would think that prior to the Double Dip by Jack the International Club and its members must have been aware of the anti-Jew slant that the press and the gab on the streets were putting forward about Jack. If we can believe Anderson's comments, the police had spent the last 3 weeks going door to door in neighborhoods that were densely populated with Jews. Likely some members or attendees had their lodgings inspected.

With that in mind, it seems particularly advantageous to the entire Jewish population of the immediate area and certainly the club itself that one Israel Schwartz happened to be the brunt of an anti semitic remark by a ruffian accosting a woman just outside the gates to a yard of the Jewish men's club with 28 or so Jewish men still in attendance, minutes before the accosted victim of the ruffian is found dead in the Clubs yard.....a yard that was stated by 2 members of the club to be empty at 12:40am.

It seems to me that activities in September in Anderson's absence were proceeding with the assumption that The Ripper lived among the poor immigrant Jews within that area of town. He even suggests that he believed that they would actually help conceal him rather than give him up to "gentile" justice.

On that Saturday night, they have one of 2 assumed Ripper murders actually occur on the private property of poor Jewish Immigrants. Based on Septembers activity and Anderson's later comments concerning the searches, wouldnt this immediately seem to be just what Anderson and the met cops were looking for....a tangible link of a Ripper crime to poor immigrant Jews?

I know they searched the occupants, and the cottages and the unused stables, and the club itself....but I wonder if that would have been the end of that level of suspicion had Israel Schwartz not come forward that Sunday night with a translator. If there had been no BSM-Liz story claimed, or the "Lipski" insult or threat....the club might have been closed pending a full investigation. The police had referred to this club a known Anarchists Club in discussions about the evidence.

But Israel offers us an off-site Gentile being aggressive with the victim minutes before her murder, outside an "empty" yard, thanks to Eagle and Lave....who both said they were in that yard at 12:40, and neither sees the other man.

The convenience of all this is to me quite remarkable....and if the truth, very fortuitous for some Immigrant Jews.

Best regards Lynn

[lynn cates]

disjunction

Hello Mike. Yes. Fortuitous, if true. Handy, if not.

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

Hello Mike. Yes. Fortuitous, if true. Handy, if not.

The best.
LC

The way some things read in some of these murders Lynn you would think that they really should provide a choreographer credit with the reports. The precision with the entrances and exits from Mitre alone would be the envy of any stage manager or choreographer.

Best regards and bon soir mon ami.

[lynn cates]

G & S

Hello Mike.

"the entrances and exits from Mitre alone would be the envy of any stage manager or choreographer"

I'll say. Gilbert and Sullivan would be proud.

Say, were they in Whitechapel in 1888? Maybe a new book?

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

I find the comments attributed to Blackwell in the Oct 1 edition of The Star to be interesting and fairly consistent with the Inquest reporting...


"Dr. Blackwell, the first medical man called, says, "At about ten minutes past one I was called to 40, Berner-street by a policeman, where I found a woman who had been murdered. Her head had been almost severed from her body. She could not have been dead more than twenty minutes, the body being perfectly warm. The woman did not appear to be a Jewess, but more like an Irishwoman. I roughly examined her, and found no other injuries, but this I cannot definitely state until I have made a further investigation of the body. She had on a black velvet jacket and black dress of different material. In her hand she held a box of cachous, whilst pinned in her dress was a flower. 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. I have no doubt that, the woman's windpipe being completely cut through, she was unable to make any sound. 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."

I thought the 2 parts in bold were of value if accurately reported.

And of course their comment on Israel is interesting....."The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted."

But what I really thought was interesting and forgotten about was this bit...."The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it........."

Who are "those"? As far as I can tell not only Schwartz is absent in the Inquest documents and so are any statements from one of "those" that saw the altercation....and "thought that the couple were quarreling."

Best regards