What did he know?

[Jimi]

Hi all

While reading Donald Rumbelow's The Complete Jack the Ripper, lately I came across a statement which in casebook land seems both relevant and puzzling at the moment.

Now, to my mind, and I believe a lot of others, Donald Rumbelow is a respected and knowledgable author, with a panel of researches to back him up. Therefore where does he get the motivation for th following statement.

I quote from 'The Double Event' by Donald Rumnelow.

"In the spurt of the light Diemschutz saw that the object was a womans body and that she was either dead or drunk. He hurried into the club and got a candle. Some of the club members came back with him and helped him to lift the woman's head and shoulders from the ground. The woman's musty black clothes were wet from the rain but her body was still warm. As they lifted her they saw that her handds were folded beneath her, one of them gripping a bag of cachous. Some red and white flowers were pinned to her black fur-trimmed jacket. Blood had coagulated on the cobbles by the gash in her throat and a lot more - about two quarts, they thought - had flowed down the cobbles towards the club door."

Now to my mind this leads to a number of questions.

Was Mr Rumbelow using artistic license about what seems to me, Liz Stride being discovered face down with her arms crossed - or did he know something we didn't?

This could explain the blood and matted hair on the left hand side of Liz Stride's face, as to my mind, to lift her head you would roll the body to one side.

Also could this have any effect towards the blood on the back of the right hand. Could the hand have fallen and smeared with blood as the body had rolled?

I apologise if these points have been raised before however I do think that in light of recent events on casebook, perhaps Rumbelows statement could bear re-examination?

Please feel free to discuss your opinions.

keep well

JIMI

[Chris George]

Hello Jimi

You bring up an interesting point. The usual way the corpse was described as being found, based on the written report of Dr. George Bagster Phillips, who examined it at the crime scene in Dutfield's Yard and also performed the autopsy on Stride, is:

"The body was lying on the near side, with the face turned toward the wall, the head up the yard and the feet toward the street. The left arm was extended and there was a packet of cachous in the left hand.

"The right arm was over the belly, the back of the hand and wrist had on it clotted blood. The legs were drawn up with the feet close to the wall."

So you are right, Don's description does not exactly accord with this description.

Chris

[paul emmett]

Hello, Jimi, Chris.

Blackwell says the same as Phillips, and even Mrs Diemschutz says, "on her back. . . face looked ghastly." So I'm going for poetic license for Rumbelow, and we are left to explain the bloody hand--how do you?

[Tom_Wescott]

Jimi,

Rumbelow wrote those words in the 1970's. Contrary to what many think, his recent 'revised' edition wasn't so much revised as updated to include a few new chapters. If I'm not mistaken, he doesn't even mention Israel Schwartz (who was completely unknown at the time of his original edition) in the updated version. Most of the mistakes remain intact. The portion you quoted is just that, mildly mistaken. Nothing big.

Paul,

As for the bloody hand, I believe that occurred when Blackwell's assistant, Edward Johnston, examined the body. He unloosed her collar, felt her neck for a pulse, and then felt her wrist, and in the process transferred some blood. The first person to notice the bloody hand was Dr. Blackwell who examined Stride AFTER Johnston. Fisherman disagrees with this theory and will probably show up here to say so. I won't respond to him if he does. But since you asked a sincere question I felt you deserved a sincere answer and the explanation I offered is probably the right one based on the evidence we have.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"Fisherman disagrees with this theory and will probably show up here to say so."

Of course I will, Tom! Though I pretty much believe that Paul knows my position in all of this, I think that it is essential to point out that as you write "the explanation I offered is probably the right one based on the evidence we have", you do not mention that those who want to buy into your explanation on the bloody hand, will have to accept that
A. There was a cover-up conspiracy inbetween the doctors, designed to protect Johnston.
B. Phillips told the coroner that everything pointed to the right hand of Strides not having been touched before Blackwell did so - but in fact meant that he was sure that it HAD been touched.
C. Lamb and Spooner had seen the right hand in an unbloodied state, whereas evidence clearly points out that Stride was lying in a position that would in all probability have rendered it impossible to see the blood.
D. The coroner and Lamb had a specific exchange about Strides right hand, something that never took place according to the records.

...and there is the choice! You either choose to believe that the medicos went out of their way to protect Johnston, keeping important evidence from the coroner in the most high profile case they would ever participate in, that Johnston himself lied or kept his mouth shut, that Phillips slyly tried to imply what had happened, something that was accepted silently by the coroner, unless it went right past his nose undetected. You also have to believe that Lamb and Spooner, who never even mentioned the right hand, although they spoke a lot of the left one, actually would have seen that hand, lying deep down in the darkness of the crevace formed between body and wall in the Yard. Tom has that right hand lying on top of Stride, more or less, readily visible, just as he wants to keep the door open for Stride not having been completely on her side. She was, though, effectively proven by the five main witnesses, and clinched mainly by Blackwells testimony. What you cannot believe, however, is that the conversation on Strides right hand between the coroner an PC Lamb, as described by Tom, ever took place. That has been disproven, and I donīt think that even Tom himself would challenge that.

I suggest that we instead of all this fuzz and strange turns make a choice that means that Johnston never transferred that blood, that the doctors never conspired, that Phillips meant exactly what he said (as main witnesses of course ought to do), that the fact that Spooner and Lamb spoke of Strides right arm but never of her hand was due to the fact that they saw the former but not the latter.

Toms theory is a Ripper troll, and trolls burst in sunshine.
There was no clumsyness or improper behaviour on behalf of the medicos in Dutfields Yard. There is thus no need to spice the events up.
Strides right hand was bloodied in connection with her murder, effectively proven by the fact that she was left with "oblong" dots of blood on the hand, that were NOT described as fingerprints by the medicos. If the dots WERE set off by fingers, then they were produced by fresh, fluid blood. It is like painting with a brush; the straws of the brush will be undetectable after the painting, as long as the paint used is fresh and fluid enough to close the surface after the stroke of the brush. If you try to do it with old, drying paint, however, it will all mess up, and the evidence of the presence of a brush will be there afterwards, set of as imprints by the straws in it.
Strides blood had stopped flowing as Johnston came into the yard. Most of it had run away into the gutter, and what remained was clotting blood, as described by Johnston himself. If he had been responsible for setting off the dots on her hand with his fingers, the imprints of "the brush" - his fingerprints - would have been there for everybody to see afterwards. A man like Phillips would have seen hundreds of bloody fingerprints in his day. For the life of me, I cannot see how he would have failed to recognize fingerprints in blood on Strides hand.

The best, Tom, Paul, all.
Fisherman

[Jimi]

Hi all

First I must apologise for my lack of posting. This is down to computer/internet problems purely.

Chris

It is an interesting statement, isn't it! Although I have heard of this theory of the body being moved before, i've never seen it in print. I don't think Rumbelow is the man to make such a throw away sentence without some sort of credibility.

Tom/Fisherman.

Thanks for the posting. I do know of both your theories/beliefs and good, well worked out and researched theories they are too.

However, they are lacking in one thing. The bloody right hand and mud-caked face and hair surely MUST go together.
I can't see any Doctor smearing Strides hand with blood and coating her face in mud, can you?

Paul

Hi. You ask what I believe could be the explanation to the bloody right hand.

Well I'll go out on a limb and say that Liz Stride was moved, probably rolled onto her side, with the best of intentions. This resulted in the right hand sliding across her chest/throat area and becoming smeared. What say you?

Keep well

Jimi

[Fisherman]

Hi Jimi!

The notion that Stride was moved has always been there. Some say that there were som amny people around, that it was unavoidable. Some say that Diemschutz moved her, to clear the way for his horse.

I do no think this is true. My guess is that she was left lying more or less exactly the way that she was found - in a fetal position, lying on her left side. The left side of her jacket, remember, was "well plastered with mud", and we need no more indicators to establish how she had been lying from the outset, I think. There is no mentioning of a corresonding amount of mud on the back of the jacket; the only other portion of mud described was a small one, on the right side of the jacket.
So left side it was, from the outset. Thus no rolling over from an original position on her back!
You write:
"The bloody right hand and mud-caked face and hair surely MUST go together", and you put forward the idea that her right hand slid down her chest as she was rolled over on her side, perhaps sliding over her cut throat and being bloodied at that time. But we must always keep in mind that whatever happened to her to cause that bloodying of the hand, it bloodied BOTH SIDES of it, backside AND inside of wrist. And this is where Tom and I agree to a significant extent: a hand that displays oblong dots and smears on both backside and wrist, is a hand that most probably has been lifted by somebody whose own hand was bloodied. If you grab a hand and lift it, perhaps changing your grip on it in search of a pulse, then logically what would be set of is smears and oblong dots - on both sides of the hand.

One passage of yours that I have taken quite a liking to is "I can't see any Doctor smearing Strides hand with blood and coating her face in mud, can you?"

...and you are familiar with my answer to that question, I suppose: No, in Strideīs case I most certainly can not. I also think that the evidence present points firmly away from such a notion.

The best, Jimi!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

It is an interesting statement, isn't it! Although I have heard of this theory of the body being moved before, i've never seen it in print.

www.rippernotes.com I wrote all about it.

I don't think Rumbelow is the man to make such a throw away sentence without some sort of credibility.

It's not a matter of credibility - which Rumbelow has in abundance - it's a question of 'is a thirty year old book infalible?' Is any book infalible? Of course not.

Regarding the body being moved, it's quite possible that Edward Johnston moved the body a bit. Personally, I think the whole matter of confusion regarding Blackwell's description of the body can be cleared up by noting that when he wrote that her feet were towards the wall - which they were not - he meant the gateway.

However, they are lacking in one thing. The bloody right hand and mud-caked face and hair surely MUST go together.
I can't see any Doctor smearing Strides hand with blood and coating her face in mud, can you?

The mud was from the ground she was lying on. The blood was in clots on the inside and outside of her hand. The killer would have had no blood on his knife or person and blood in that pattern is not indicative of someone grabbing their bleeding throat. So, we're left with it being transplanted there. Edward Johnston was NOT a doctor. He was an assistant to a doctor. A young man who found himself awoken and taken to a dark yard. He found himself surrounded by anarchists, police, and staring down at a woman just murdered (it was presumed) by the most notorious killer the city had seen in years. If you find it unbelievable that such a man in such a situation could accidentally transfer blood from a neck wound to a wrist then I envy your unwavering and unconditional faith in our fellow man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Dan Norder]

The bloody right hand and mud-caked face and hair surely MUST go together.

Not only do I disagree that there's any "must" involved between the two, I can't even imagine how they could go together. It's not like mud was on her hands or that there was blood on the face. The ground was muddy. She was on the ground. Therefore she was muddy. How would her right hand have anything to do with that?

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"Edward Johnston was NOT a doctor. He was an assistant to a doctor."

There was a time, Tom, when Albert Schweitzer was not a doctor, believe it or not. The same goes for Christian Barnaard and Livingstone. That, however, does not go to prove that they were unresponsible, clumsy and prone to lying before they took the Hippocratic oath, does it, Tom?

You are anxious to try to make us believe that Johnston would have been a spooked, irresponsible, crap medico apprentice, getting it all wrong in the Yard, are you not? But where is the evidence to go with it?

Johnston was quick off his mark that night, and that is only the first sign of efficiency on his behalf. He went through all the right moves to ensure that she was dead, taking help from a PC to make sure that he was not mistaken about the temperature of the body, taking in the circumstances and later reporting them adequately at the inquest. It would seem he did EXACTLY what he was supposed to, would it not? And the Yard was no darker than to allow for him to establish the amounts of blood close to the neck and body, relate where it had gone and even affirm the condition of the blood as he examined her - clotting. There is not a hint of hesitation on his behalf, is there - he is to the point, from beginning to end.

Are these the activities of a frightened, uncertain man? Or are they the acts of a responsible, thorough medico in spe? Take your pick, Tom - but donīt forget to anchor it safely with the evidence existing! And remember, if you persist to claim that the blood on Strides right hand WAS put there by Johnston, you must come up with a feasible explanation as to why neither Blackwell, nor Phillips - men with many a year of experience - recognized the fingerprints that MUST have been obvious in such a case, taking into account that the blood that Johnston would have set of the oblong fingermarks in, was clotting blood. But not a word was said in recognition of the dots being possible fingermarks!

Though Edward Johnston is long gone, I fail to see why we should feel at liberty to soil his reputation as long as the evidence we do have points straight away from him.

The best,
Fisherman