Did jack kill liz stride?

[Hunter]

I don’t think the marks of Nichols’s face were made by putting a left hand over her mouth from behind. Because if so, the circular bruise would have been on her right cheek, but it was on her left. Furthermore, the pressure mark on her other cheek would then not have ended up on ‘the lower part of the jaw’, but higher up on her face. The thumb would more or less have been pointing upwards, not downwards.

Frank

That's a good point Frank. Maybe he used his right hand to cover her mouth -because it would be natural to start with the strong hand- put his left hand around her throat, and then moved his right hand down after he felt like she couldn't scream. If he attacked from the front, she could use her arms in defense. From behind, she would have to reach backwards. All he would have to do is pull her backwards to throw her off ballance. Of course, being intoxicated she may not have been too balanced. I guess what I wanted considered was that these women would have been most vulnerable when they were about to service their customer- standing and from the rear... But back to Stride.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[harry]

Hunter,
In reply to an earlier post by you,the hand and the cachous may have been in a coat pocket,and in a reflex action she may have grasped the packet and withdrawn the hand as she was attacked.Would that have been possible?

[Hunter]

Hunter,
In reply to an earlier post by you,the hand and the cachous may have been in a coat pocket,and in a reflex action she may have grasped the packet and withdrawn the hand as she was attacked.Would that have been possible?

It seems possible Harry. She may have been holding it in her pocket and quickly removed her hand to break her fall- her right hand used to reach for her throat if she was pulled by the scarf, which may accout for the blood on that hand after she was cut. Of course it could be from someone touching the wound and then checking her pulse.

I get the impression from Dr. Blackwell's assistant, Mr. Johnson, that her left arm wasn't extended from the shoulder but nearer the body and extended from the elbow.
'The left arm was bent, away from the body. The right arm was also bent, and across the body.'

It may have been more natural for her to continue to clutch the tissue in a sudden onslaught than to release it as was previously thought.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Tom_Wescott]

fail to see why more mud had to be on the clothing if she had been dragged.

It had rained and the pathway was quite muddy. The mud on her clothes was on the left side and consistent only with her having been laid down. Had she been dragged there would have been more mud on the back or front of her skirts.

Tha rarity is enormous. However, they were not similar besides both their throats had been cut, and the proximity of their locations.

Well, 45 minutes and a 10 minute walk apart is indeed remarkable. You also have two middle-aged prostitutes killed in the exact same manner by someone who knew to cut the carotid artery (it's under-appreciated how rare this is) and was willing to do so in a public location. The location of Dutfield's Yard was perfectly in keeping with his two previous murders - Chapman killed in a back yard next to its only exit/Stride killed in side yard next to it's only exit; Nichols killed outside a stable gateway/Stride killed inside a stable gateway. There are far more similarities than differences.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[harry]

Tom,
My remembrance of those kind of cobbled yards,and pathways,is that after a heavy rainfall,the dirt and debris is carried away,and the cobbles are relatively clean.It had rained heavily that night.

[DVV]

That sounds true, Harry.
Tom's point isn't decisive.
That Stride might have been dragged on a short distance is still a viable scenario (as viable as Tom's).

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

That sounds true, Harry.
Tom's point isn't decisive.
That Stride might have been dragged on a short distance is still a viable scenario (as viable as Tom's).

With all due respect to Harry's remembrance, the doctors present said the pathway was muddy and that the clothes and mud evidence told them that she fell (or was laid down) where she was killed and no struggle had taken place. So there's no need to theorize or look for alternative explanations here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sox]

Tom,
My remembrance of those kind of cobbled yards,and pathways,is that after a heavy rainfall,the dirt and debris is carried away,and the cobbles are relatively clean.It had rained heavily that night.

Pavements (pathways) were not cobbled. So Tom is almost certainly correct in his assumption.

[Tom_Wescott]

Pavements (pathways) were not cobbled. So Tom is almost certainly correct in his assumption.

Hi Sox. The pathway was paved with stones. How you can add water to dirt and not get mud, as Harry suggests, is beyond me. Again it's important to not call this an 'assumption' of mine. The doctors who visited this particular pathway on the morning of the murder said she had not been dragged nor had she struggled. If someone wants to ignore this professional evidence and back a theory with absolutely no factual support, then they will have to do so at the expense of their own credibility.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Tom, your work about Stride's murder is truly interesting. We are waiting for the final result (your next essay, I mean).
Now for the time being, as far as I understand, your scenario seems to dismiss Schwartz as a reliable witness... Is that right ?

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

DVV,

Thanks for the kind words. No, I do not dismiss Schwartz as a viable witness. I believe there's a very, very strong case for him having been affiliated with the Berner Street Club, although I lack documentary proof at this time. I also believe there is strong argument that the police did dismiss Schwartz as a viable witness. But again, having no proof to that end (outside of the Start comments), I'm not in a position to dismiss Schwartz.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

Schwartz

... No, I do not dismiss Schwartz as a viable witness. I believe there's a very, very strong case for him having been affiliated with the Berner Street Club, although I lack documentary proof at this time. I also believe there is strong argument that the police did dismiss Schwartz as a viable witness. But again, having no proof to that end (outside of the Start comments), I'm not in a position to dismiss Schwartz.

Hi Tom,

Swanson, in his summary, seems to give creedence to Schwartz's testimony. However, due to translation and the fact that he got the deerstalker hat wrong in summarizing PC Smith's account, I'm not sure about the description of the man Schwartz allegedly saw.

A little note of interest- if Schwartz's statement was to direct blame against the Jews, it didn't work with whoever wrote in the margin of Swanson's report ( Anderson?) who stated that it clearly implicated a Jewish suspect.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[corey123]

Hello All,

This is not a post replying to any other poster on this thread, just some pointers that I have found.

First, from a prolific stand point, there were TWO murderers. On for the rest of the c5 and one for Liz Stride. I know you are going to say at this point "ahh, profiling, so unreliable" but it isn't. Just listen to what I am going to say. I do believe Jack the Ripper killed elizabeth stride, due to certain circumstances, but at a prolfic standpoint, the methodology of two murders(Stride compared with Annie) are different.

Ok to start of with a profile of Strides killer.
1)The killer did not initiat contact, so lacking social skills, he stalked her, "blitz" attacking her.
2)The wound was incomplete, with the partial severance of the carotid artery, so may suggest a hesatent killer.
3)He let her fall to her side, and most likely ran away. Not possesing the daring of the ripper.
4)No other recent injuries besides the throat wound, so the primary intention(that I can profilifically suggest) was not mutilations.

A profile of Chapmans murderer.
1)Killer approached the victim, showing confidence.
2)The killer cut her throat down to the vertibrea. Suggesting he was not hessitant.
3)The killer arranged her body in a way not to show fear or disgust or even remorse in what he did. This indicates the killer is a sadist.
4)The killer takes time to mutilate the abdomen, showing a darring killer.

No matter how reliable or unreliable profiling may be it shows two distinctive killers. These profiles can ONLY be right if the circumstances fit within the murders. I believe the profile found with Stride to be wholly wrong. If something went wrong, say he asked her to follow him into the allyway and she refused, thus forcing him to pull her in by her scarf, would change the circumstances available. This accounts for the throat wound(as with other possible senerios posted in this thread explaining why the throat wound was different)and the circumstances of her death. Then why did he leave her? The killer obviously, ripper or not, did not fufill his intention in the murder. The murder of stride is very different yet extremily similar to the rest.

Thanks for reading.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Hunter,

Swanson never met Schwartz nor knew anything more than what he read in Abberline's police report. What Swanson said was that "if Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report leaves no doubt about it..." so what we're really talking about is Abberline's initial feelings about Schwartz. Keep in mind that Abberline's police report on George Hutchinson also left no doubt that he should be believed, but after some time had passed there was plenty of doubt to be had. There's no question that at first the police took Schwartz to be a credible witness and acted on his evidence. However, the Star reported that after arresting one man based on Schwartz's statement, they were unlikely to act further on it until they had some corroborated evidence, because there was apparently some doubt about Schwartz's veracity. Sure enough, he disappears from the written record after this and is not used by the police as a witness in the way the Joseph Lawende would be.

Regarding the marginalia on the Swanson report, I believe the one you're referring to is Godfrey Lushington, who made up his mind very early on that the murderer was a Jew. He felt that the Goulston street graffiti was a Jewish Ripper 'boasting' of the murders. So, this is just how he chose to interpet the evidence. In reality, what Schwartz described was a man spitting out racial epithets while a blatantly gentile pipe smoker chased him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Tom

I’ve been over Schwartz timings, and Browns Statement and Mortimer’s for that matter.

There is nothing there that proves his account was NOT possible.

The timings he gave, despite popular misconception, are within the realms of possibility.

So I’m interested in WHY, so many people have problems with his statement?

Its not like he invented a PINK Elephant walking down Berner street.

He claims he saw Liz attacked. And there is some evidence from press reports that the man with the pipe that he claimed he saw, was interviewed by the police?

So apart from the fact that a reporter claimed he had a theatrical appearance, why is Schwartz any less reliable than Lawende?

Pirate