Did jack kill liz stride?

[Sox]

Tom,

They have brick walls in Oklahoma, right? You might be better asdvised to bang your head on one than to attempt a meaningful dialogue with some of the posters here for whom "facts" are solely what they believe and that assembling those "facts" into a coherent whole leads only to a chaos of contradictions. But since they have told themselves they are arrayed against the close-minded Ripperology establishment they are convinced they are "fighting the good fight.' In fact, many of them are the true Flat Earthers.

Carry on.

Don.

Sorry Michael, but I'll have to agree with Tom and Don here (I would not have put it quite like they do, but hey ho) They do have a very valid point in that you repeatedly refer to certain things as facts, when they are anything but that.

I do believe that posting on this website carries a certain amount of responsibility to those who are just starting to study the case, and that it is wrong to knowingly lead those people astray. Having a theory is one thing, twisting supposition into fact, to fit that theory, is just plain wrong.....look what it did for Stephen Knight.

[perrymason]

Sorry Michael, but I'll have to agree with Tom and Don here (I would not have put it quite like they do, but hey ho) They do have a very valid point in that you repeatedly refer to certain things as facts, when they are anything but that.

I do believe that posting on this website carries a certain amount of responsibility to those who are just starting to study the case, and that it is wrong to knowingly lead those people astray. Having a theory is one thing, twisting supposition into fact, to fit that theory, is just plain wrong.....look what it did for Stephen Knight.

You refer to a source within Ripperology that has since been proven inaccurate....that hardly applies to theorizing from outside the mainstream Faith and Belief Road Show that is founded on data that is within the known body of evidence.

The biggest lie is that Jack the Ripper was a known killer of 5, a sexual serial predator.....anything I suggest based on existing evidence that doesnt jive with that conclusion is benign in comparison.

In this thread Ive cited 3 witness times that are obviously contrary to other witnesses who are assumed credible, some even without Inquest credentials. We know the Facts are that Fanny saw no-one and heard no scuffle in front of the gates near to 12:45am, she saw no Israel, BSM or Pipeman, and Brown at least heard nothing either, saw none of the above...and probably saw Liz nowhere near the gates himself anyway.

The only support Israel Schwartz has in the evidence is his witness statement which no-one alive has seen, and the only support in evidence that Louis has for his arrival at 1:00am is his own word.

Thats talking about facts.

Standard Ripperology rebuttal?

Suggesting that Israel was there and was probably accurate in his statement, and that he might have been at the Inquest even though no record of that which exists, and that Louis would have no need to be concerned on the appearance of a dead woman on the property owned and operated by the same group ethnically and regionally that fit the profile that Anderson says was being sought as the Ripper...and that the cart interrupted the killer at 1am.

That's what I argue with. My points are at least based in fact and known evidence....the counter arguments are based on unproven theory and status quo, knee jerk answers that someone long ago suggested, and questionable statements.

Israel is not in fact a proven viable witness at this point by any stretch, and Louis had every reason to be shitting his pants, directly culpable or not. And there is nothing at that murder scene or in the demeanor of the deceased that suggests an abdominal mutilator was cut short.

Best regards

[Tom_Wescott]

Don,

So I'm Frick to your Frack? That's cool. However, as you know I'm a big KISS fan, so I'm more for the whiteface.

Michael,

Why don't you write all this up into a cohesive, coherent essay, and send it off to Ripperologist for consideration of publication?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sox]

Israel is not in fact a proven viable witness at this point by any stretch, and Louis had every reason to be shitting his pants, directly culpable or not. And there is nothing at that murder scene or in the demeanor of the deceased that suggests an abdominal mutilator was cut short.

You see, this is exactly the problem most people have with you.

Diemschutz is the only witness that gives an exact time, he is also called at the inquest, two things that make him exactly the thing that you claim he is not.

Nothing at the murder scene?

Liz Stride is found liying to favour her left side, her throat has been cut, and with signs of her clothing having been tampered with. Exactly the kind of state she could be in, if the killer of Nichols & Chapman had been disturbed at the scene.

But that does not fit with your theory, so it is wrong. Well I am sorry Michael, but Liz Stride could easily have been one of the C5.

[lynn cates]

clothing

Hello Sox. I was wondering if you could direct me to the inquest testimony about Liz's clothes?

PC Lamb testified:

"[Coroner] Were her clothes disturbed? - No."

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Suggesting that Israel was there and was probably accurate in his statement, and that he might have been at the Inquest even though no record of that which exists

The only records we have of the Stride inquest are those preserved in the newspapers, Mike, and it's a fact that witness testimony was occasionally withheld by the press at the request of the authorities. This has a precedent even within the narrow horizons of the Ripper murders, and it has happened elsewhere. On that basis, it's no more outlandish to suggest that Schwartz's presence at the inquest was "covered up", than it is to suggest that Schwartz "covered up" for his mates at the Club... for which, I should point out, we have no facts at all. It's an interesting speculation, granted, but to suggest that it's somehow more "fact-based" than some other speculations we've seen is perhaps optimistic.

[Natalie Severn]

I agree with you Mike about Israel Schwartz.I am a bit perplexed about what you are saying about Diemshutz shitting his pants.
He was a serious man,probably a bit inflexible etc but what else are you suggesting here? I very much doubt club members had anything to do with the murder.The police searched every inch of the club.I doubt too that club members would have "covered up" for anyone who they thought had killed her in such a horrific way.They would not have wanted to get involved maybe but "cover up"? And I do think it possible that Morris Eagle may have had an altercation with Liz Stride but I dont think he would have killed her.


Best


Norma

[perrymason]

I agree with you Mike about Israel Schwartz.I am a bit perplexed about what you are saying about Diemshutz shitting his pants.
He was a serious man,probably a bit inflexible etc but what else are you suggesting here? I very much doubt club members had anything to do with the murder.The police searched every inch of the club.I doubt too that club members would have "covered up" for anyone who they thought had killed her in such a horrific way.They would not have wanted to get involved maybe but "cover up"? And I do think it possible that Morris Eagle may have had an altercation with Liz Stride but I dont think he would have killed her.


Best


Norma

Im suggesting Nats that Louis Diemshutz, the Club Steward of a club known to be owned and operated by anarchistic socialist Jews of European decent.... and known by the police before this incident as such,... would have EVERY reason to ensure that whatever story is given...(remember, before Spooner comes in we have ONLY club members that have been with the dead woman)...it suggests that the murderer was not from inside the yard or the house, and that no-one from the Club saw anything suspicious.

The fact that Israel offers us an offsite probable Gentile later that night is particularly handy.

What Im suggesting is that whether the murder was in fact committed by someone at the club isnt relevant to his need for a very clean story. He doesnt have to be covering for anyone but the club and the paper. As the Steward, so he should. If the man was from the club, even a guest in the yard, the equation just gets that more difficult for him.

All we know is that he found the body, I dont think we can be sure exactly when that occurred, and what exactly transpired afterward, but if Israel Schwartz was in any way planted by the club to add credence to their position of guilt free proprietors, I would think that might be proof the story was altered to best fit the need at the time. We only know that if he was there and saw what he says he saw, that no other testimony validates that story.

The fact that both he and Louis have only their own word to back up when they were where they said they were and what happened at that time, and the fact that 3 men who also gave statements contradict Louis's times by as much as 20 minutes, but corroborate each others stories and timelines, should be all the red flags we need before assuming any club member had only the safety of the good people of the neighborhood in mind and accuracy in their tales as their primary objective when talking with the Police.

Sam,

It is unknown whether Israel attended, it has yet to be proven by documentation, and I do know that when the City presented a witness they felt should hold back some details for the investigations purposes, it was stated so at the Inquest. Openly. If the Met you feel would have handled a similar situation differently or somehow convinced all the local press not to run his portion of the transcripts, a press that at the time were not sweethearts with the police,.....then I would ask for some precedent or proof that should be considered.

Notations of belief in memos doesnt suffice when we have a perfect opportunity for him to have documented his story for public review.

Best regards

[perrymason]

You see, this is exactly the problem most people have with you.

Diemschutz is the only witness that gives an exact time, he is also called at the inquest, two things that make him exactly the thing that you claim he is not.

Nothing at the murder scene?

Liz Stride is found liying to favour her left side, her throat has been cut, and with signs of her clothing having been tampered with. Exactly the kind of state she could be in, if the killer of Nichols & Chapman had been disturbed at the scene.

But that does not fit with your theory, so it is wrong. Well I am sorry Michael, but Liz Stride could easily have been one of the C5.

If you'll note Louis gives a few versions of what happened exactly and when, and in some he approximates the time and mentions no reference source, in others he adamantly assures us it was one based on a clock on the way to the yard. Well....Which was it? Do you know...or do you assume the one that says he saw a clock is correct?

Liz is the only woman found on her side and as PC Lamb stated she looked "as if gently lain down." Her skirt was still to the top of her boots, and her clothing was unruffled or scuffed as the result of any scuffle or any dramatic movement on her part after having hit the ground. Quite likely from the cut she received at the end of a choke and twist that lasted 2 seconds. Indicating the killer was choking her in some fashion while holding the knife.

Since when is that a Canonical Feature?

She is cut once across the throat, C1, C2, and C4 are cut deeply...twice.

Best regards

[perrymason]

Michael,

Why don't you write all this up into a cohesive, coherent essay, and send it off to Ripperologist for consideration of publication?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I dont know how I can help you....I cant type any slower.

Best regards

[Hunter]

The pretext being that the physical circumstances would be altered by an arrival earlier than stated? Not sure Im getting the gist Hunter.

I apologize for sacrificing clarity for brevity in my remarks, Michael.

I was suggesting that if Liz died between 12:46 and 12:56- as Blackwell estimated- and if Louis came upon her at around 12:45, it would give more plausibilty to the interruption theory as the time of the murder and Louis' arrival would be close. Spooner- the first non-club member to arrive- stated that the blood was still flowing from her neck. Death had to be very recent.

I believe that Louis, indeed, should have had an uncontrolled bowel movement when he made his discovery and the rest there- especially Eagle- should have been very concerned with the ramifications for them as to what had transpired- given the social and political climate. Whether they could come up with a consensual story amist what had to be confusion at the time is uncertain.

It would be interesting to put a name on Schwartz's interpreter though.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Garry Wroe]

That's a very interesting hypothesis, Mike. It does contain a potential flaw, however. Fanny Mortimer, as I'm sure you are aware, claimed that a disturbance emanating from the club yard tempted her back to her front door at approximately one o'clock. Since this disturbance was clearly the noise made by club members as they filtered out into the yard in order to view the body, we do have an element of independent corroboration for the time at which Diemschutz claimed to have discovered Stride.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Sox]

Liz is the only woman found on her side and as PC Lamb stated she looked "as if gently lain down." Her skirt was still to the top of her boots, and her clothing was unruffled or scuffed as the result of any scuffle or any dramatic movement on her part after having hit the ground. Quite likely from the cut she received at the end of a choke and twist that lasted 2 seconds. Indicating the killer was choking her in some fashion while holding the knife.

Since when is that a Canonical Feature?

She is cut once across the throat, C1, C2, and C4 are cut deeply...twice

I'll reply once more then I am done.

Look at a sequence of events.

1.The Killer puts one hand over her mouth, one hand around her throat.
2.Once unconscious the victim is placed/dropped to the ground.
3.The killer slashes the throat. with the victim turned away from him to prevent arterial spray.
4.Waits a minute or two for the blood flow to lessen.
5.Turns the victim flat on her back
6.Begins mutilations.

Diemschutz comes into view as Strides killer is at No4......and voila, you have a perfect case for her being one of the C5.

I'll check my notes tomorrow, but I am pretty certain Strides coat or bodice was undone.

Consider also the possibility that the second throat incision was part of the mutilations, an attempt to remove the head, one cut to kill, another one trying to take the head after the blood has ceased to flow/spurt.

Also the club was a Working Men's Club, one that held meetings of Anarchists and Jewish Socialists, two very distinct groups, who by 1888 had all but ceased to co-operate. Louis Diemshutz was a Steward of a Working Men's Club, one which held parties and dances as well as political meetings, just like all Working Men's Clubs in England have done since time immemorial. Louis Diemshutz was a Steward, not the Steward...the Stewards formed a committee, one that also included a secretary ( or membership secretary as they were more often known).

And now to the gist. Your scenario makes no sense to me,at all, for the simple reason that if, as you claim, Diemshutz was worried about the killing bringing the forces to be down on the club and paper, then surely all he has to do is drag/carry the body those few feet so that it lies on the street, swill the blood away, close the gates, and voila....she was killed on the street.

[lynn cates]

sequence

Hello Sox. Yes, her bodice was partially unbuttoned. How far, it is not clear. But it seems to me that in C1 & C2 (not to mention Martha T.) the clothes were disarranged FROM THE BOTTOM for mutilation. (Do open buttons count as disturbed? I'm not sure.)

Your sequence helps for a coherent time line but I do see one problem. If her assailant waits 1 or 2 minutes for arterial spray to lessen and given that choking to unconsciousness takes about 60 seconds (plus or minus 30), then, by cutting and pasting that scenario onto Mitre Square, you are looking at 3 or 4 minutes out of a total of 5-7. That may not leave enough time for the mutilation of Kate.

The best.
LC

[Supe]

She is cut once across the throat, C1, C2, and C4 are cut deeply...twice.

Not true. Kate Eddowes received only a single throat slash. And while it is difficult to be certain, Mary Jane Kelly would seem to have suffered a single slash as well.

Don.