where's Liz?

[Garza]

We don't even know if there actually was a BS man, we have one witness who didn't testify at the inquest - strangely. Wasn't there a newspaper article stating that the police were unsure about Schwartz's testimony a few days later? Schwartz also changed is testimony when interviewed again, so much so that Pipeman was holding a knife and was the one who yelled Lipski.

I'm not saying there wasn't a BS man, but there is a good possibility that Schwartz wasn't telling the truth. In fact if you take out Schwartz's testimony, the scenario becomes a whole lot simpliar.

Ah well.

[lynn cates]

Kidney

Hello Phil. I have often wondered about the "Kidney killed Liz" scenario. It has been offered that it was a random meeting. Now frequently, the Kidney scenario is dependent on the Schwartz story. And although I don't believe his story, let's accept it conditionally.

If Kidney = BS man, then, according to Schwartz, he was moving from north to south when he met Liz. Now Kidney was a dock labourer and the docks were located to the south. So if Michael were getting off work and coming home, shouldn't he be traveling south to north?

Just a thought.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Maybe Kidney was either following Liz or had been tipped off as to where she was with her new man.

It was late evening/early morning, so we don't have to assume Kidney was coming from work, I think.

Whether BS man was real or not SOMEONE murdered Stride, so what Schwatrz said is not key. neiher whether he was confused - but I think what he said can be interpreted as relating to "a domestic" better than to JtR.

As to change of testimony, I think differences are about translations, not changes (there used to be a thread on that as I recall - was it on the old board?)

And I don't think we can simply dismiss testimony because it "makes things simpler". We can question it, we can say it does not stack up, or interpret it, but it is very dangerous to wholly discount it unless there is clear evidence to say it was a lie, a forgery or recanted at the time.

Phil

[lynn cates]

varia

Hello Phil. I think I see your idea. Perhaps he had been home and was coming back?

Do you think that Kidney was questioned by SY? I always get the impression that, had this been the case, he would have folded.

I would not dismiss someone's testimony for simplicity's sake, but simply because it does not ring true. Schwartz's story (with the racial slur) strikes me like Pee Wee Herman's "I think they're Iranians."

Cheers.
LC

[Garza]

Maybe Kidney was either following Liz or had been tipped off as to where she was with her new man.

It was late evening/early morning, so we don't have to assume Kidney was coming from work, I think.

Whether BS man was real or not SOMEONE murdered Stride, so what Schwatrz said is not key. neiher whether he was confused - but I think what he said can be interpreted as relating to "a domestic" better than to JtR.

As to change of testimony, I think differences are about translations, not changes (there used to be a thread on that as I recall - was it on the old board?)

And I don't think we can simply dismiss testimony because it "makes things simpler". We can question it, we can say it does not stack up, or interpret it, but it is very dangerous to wholly discount it unless there is clear evidence to say it was a lie, a forgery or recanted at the time.

Phil

Phil, I am not wholly discounting Schwartz's testimony at all. It could have happened. Just as equally it could not have happened. We have people coming in and out of the club seeing nothing, or nothing strange. Mrs Mortimer heard nothing 2 doors away. Mrs Diemetz (sp) was in the kitchen 10 yards away with the door ajar. I don't know if you have been in a domestic, especially a drunken one - they are not quiet, calm, rational affairs. Alot of heated arguing goes on.

All this above does not mean Schwartz was lying, nor does it mean BS isn't real, but it does become a little suspicious, thats all.

[mariab]

Lynn, philosophy would have been my second guess.

To Phil H.:
Thanks so much for the judicious observations.
Phil H. wrote:
An opinion that requires us to assume that "the Ripper" (your assumption) "courted" his victims or at least this one? that he pretended to be something he was not? had he "courted" Eddowes in the same way - perhaps going "hop-picking" with her and Kelly, to charm himself into her good books? Bought Nichols her new bonnet? Sorry too complicated for me.
This is one of several scenarios that I would suggest, and I fully agree with you that it's the most complicated one, plus the assailant would have run the additional risk to be more easily recognized/identified by choosing this method of courting/ of offering goodies to his victims.

Phil H wrote:
I haven't read the article, and Tom's views are his NOT mine. I've read some of his posts, he seems informed, but I wouldn't say he had a monopoly on the truth or was always right.
I'm far from claiming that every single thing Wescott postulates is at 100% (see our disagreement about how Stride was killed), but the part of Kidney not having locked Stride in their room I find convincing.

[B]Phil H wrote:
We only have one illustration of Kidney which is a good drawing, but is artistic interpretation. Look at the two illustrations of Barnett and see how they differ. I don't find your argument convincing for a moment.
We might choose not to believe Schwartz at all. Or we might choose to consider what he said (albeit with a big grain of salt). In that case it's to be assumed that BS's feature of “broad shoulders“ must have been pretty prominent to have been used as a primary physical characterisation by the witness. “Artistic freedom“ or not, the sketch for Kidney shows very-very thin shoulders. It can't be denied that this is a very prominent inconsistancy.
On the other side, I can't seem to stop considering the fact that Kidney lived very-very close to the murder scene for comfort...
I only know of ONE single sketch of Barnett, and I'd be very thankful if you could give me more information about the second sketch, and where it can be seen. I happen to have Paley here with me (I'm currently on the road), but it's burried somewhere under things, and I'm about to call it a night as it is. And by the way, I do indeed consider Barnett a VERY strong suspect. In my interpretation, if Kidney happened to kill Stride, she was a non Ripper victim. But I suspect Barnett to possibly have been the Ripper. (And to all: feel completely free to denigrate me verbally and violently for this. )

[c.d.]

Hi Phil,

Some random thoughts -- If Kidney were the BS man, I can see him angry enough that he didn't care that he had been seen by Schwartz and proceeded to kill Liz. But that brings up several issues. Did Liz not realize how angry he was? Why would she go off with him into a dark part of the yard? Given his track record, would not a beating be the likely outcome? Does he seem like the kind of person to engage in a quiet argument? Yet nothing was heard from back in the yard. And then there is the problem of the cachous. If we assume that Liz did not have them out when she was pushed to the ground (otherwise they would have been broken and scattered), how likely is it that when faced with an enraged ex-lover she decided that the best course of action is to take out some breath mints? I also find it stange (although possible) that he didn't slap Liz around first. Yet there were no marks on her face.

Where I live (Washington, D.C.), every time the local news has a story of a woman being killed with no apparent motive, it inevitably follows that a few days later the police arrest an ex husband/estranged husband/ex lover/father of her child/co-worker. Every damn time. I can't believe that it was any different in 1888 and that the police would have taken a good look at Kidney.

You also stated that you find it inconceivable that Liz could have been "attacked" by two different men in such a short period of time. I would agree if Liz had been surrounded by a group of church goers at noon on a Sunday. But she was a known prostitute standing by herself late at night. Being hassled by drunk customers or potential customers (such as the BS man) would not be out of the norm.

c.d.

[Phil H]

c.d.

Did Liz not realize how angry he was? Why would she go off with him into a dark part of the yard?

Stride probably did not realise that Kidney was about to kill her, she may have thought he'd knock her about. maybe HE did not know what he was about to do - but the sight of her with another man pushed him over the edge.

I don't think Stride DID go with him into a darker part of the yard - he seems to have been trying to get her out "Come on home you!" (?) and then threw her down.

Nothing was heard from back in the yard.

Schwartz apparently heard "Lipski!" but that was not reported as being heard by anyone in the Club. As I have suggested a couple arguing might do it in an undertone - he wouldn't want his humiliation public, she would not necessarily have been shrieking at him.

And then there is the problem of the cachous. If we assume that Liz did not have them out when she was pushed to the ground (otherwise they would have been broken and scattered)

A possible issue whomever killed her, surely?

how likely is it that when faced with an enraged ex-lover she decided that the best course of action is to take out some breath mints?

She was probably holding them in her hand already.

I also find it stange (although possible) that he didn't slap Liz around first. Yet there were no marks on her face.

Perhaps something she said, or the situation - if Kidney had been following her, or had seen Stride with another man, something snapped. He pulled her head back and slashed with the knife on impulse... I don't know.

But Kidney DID go to the police and was at the Inquest!! Also by the time anyone caught up with him EVERYONE seems to have assumed they were dealing with a "double-event". If Kidney could show alibis for the other murders he perhaps be off the hook (ironically, JtR may have saved him!) . And there had already been one other throat slashing domestic that night in Westminster....

You also stated that you find it inconceivable that Liz could have been "attacked" by two different men in such a short period of time. ,, but she was a known prostitute standing by herself late at night.

How well known as an "unfortunate" was she - in that area, in a spot not necessarily known for soliciting, dressed up? Stride seems in some ways more of a "con" woman pretending to be other people or presenting sob-stories to get money.

You may be right, of course, but I don't think BS the punter is any more odd than BS = Kidney. Just MHO of course.

Maria

but the part of Kidney not having locked Stride in their room I find convincing.

My undertanding was that he locked her OUT!!

Edited to add - one Barnett photo shows him in a bowler hat, thick set, square faced (among the illustrations on this site) The other - which I cannot find on Casebook - shows an altogether thinner man, standing, leaning on something, at the Inquest.

Warmest regards to you both, and thanks for responding.

Phil

[caz]

Whether BS man was real or not SOMEONE murdered Stride, so what Schwatrz said is not key. neiher whether he was confused - but I think what he said can be interpreted as relating to "a domestic" better than to JtR.

Hi Phil,

Not key?

The whole "Liz could not have been treated badly by two men in quick succession" depends on Schwartz. Otherwise she becomes another unfortunate murder victim, with no injuries inconsistent with a swiftly efficient cut-throat with no obvious motive.

If Schwartz is not key, the already shaky case for a 'domestic' pretty much collapses for lack of any potential substance.

While I agree that we shouldn't dismiss testimony just because a case is easier to make without it, we are in danger here of making things far more complicated than all the available testimony warrants, by pulling a domestic cut-throat out of the ether, along with a motive for him wanting Liz dead, when there is a perfectly good (evil) unfortunate-hunting cut-throat out for blood that night and determined to have himself a ripping time.

Domestic violence, eventually leading to murder, tends to be committed by the possessive "If I can't have you nobody will" type - not a man who locks his woman OUT of the house. I had to leave my first husband because it got to the point where he wanted me at home 24 hours a day and didn't like me leaving the house to go to work.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"we are in danger here of making things far more complicated than all the available testimony warrants, by pulling a domestic cut-throat out of the ether, along with a motive for him wanting Liz dead, when there is a perfectly good (evil) unfortunate-hunting cut-throat out for blood that night and determined to have himself a ripping time."

Yes, Caz, itīs either that, or we are in danger of forgetting that two somewhat similar murders - or three, or four - in the same time period and in the same very limited vicinity, need not have been comitted by the same individual.

This is from the Denver Post, december 2009:

"Four bodies have been found in Denver alleys within 4 miles of one another over a four-week span.
All four discoveries are being investigated as homicides. All four homicide victims were found in northeast Denver, in hardscrabble areas mixed with single-family homes, new urban lofts, businesses and small industry.
But beyond that, investigators say there are no connections.
"The commonality is, it's a series of bodies left in alleyways," said Sonny Jackson, a Denver Police Department spokesman. "As far as the at-large public being at risk, we don't see it as a huge risk to others. Fortunately, we've made arrests in two cases, and it's two different individuals."
Teresa Rosemarie Harris, 45, is being held at the Denver jail on suspicion of first-degree murder in the stabbing death of 35-year-old Charles Moore Hardy.
Hardy's body was found Sunday in a trash bin in the alley between the 2200 blocks of Emerson and Clarkson streets.
Investigators have not released a motive in the stabbing, but the victim and suspect share a common bond: Both have a history of drug arrests in the metro area, according to Colorado Bureau of Investigation records. Both recently served time in prison after being sentenced to two-year terms on drug convictions.
In another case, police have arrested Kervin Andre Rogers, 25, in the shooting death of 22-year-old Allisen Falk-Compton. Falk-Compton's body was found Sunday in the alley between the 5000 blocks of Fillmore and Clayton streets.
Rogers, too, has a long history of drug arrests, according to the CBI.
The victim, Falk-Compton, also had been arrested multiple times on drug charges. She pleaded guilty in June in Denver to possession of drugs. A month later, in July, she was arrested again on a drug charge, according to records.
Two cases are open.
The body of Robert Clarke, 56, who was also known as Robert Stanley Ledbetter, was found Nov. 18 in an alley behind 3376 Blake St., about a dozen blocks northeast of Coors Field. Clarke had gunshot wounds to his head and neck, the coroner's office said.
On Nov. 19, a passer-by found the body of Cheriece Knox, 30, in the alley between the 4300 blocks of York and Josephine streets. Investigators have not found any evidence leading them to believe the two November shootings are related, police said."

So, four killings in the northeastern parts of Denver, all in the same type of area, and all victims dumped in a similar fashion. And the police have arrested two different killers, and expect that they have two more out there.

There is also the case of the killer - was it Resendez? - where a number of bodies were found dumped along the same short railway stretch. It turned out that one of the bodies was not killed by the serialist involved, whereas the others were.

That, Caz, is why there is an urgent need to go looking for EACH killer in EACH case, instead of leaning back and asking yourself: "Why take the trouble? If somebody in this neighborhood is killed, it HAS to be by the same guy", or, reformulating it: "we are in danger here of making things far more complicated than all the available testimony warrants, by pulling a domestic cut-throat out of the ether, along with a motive for him wanting Liz dead, when there is a perfectly good (evil) unfortunate-hunting cut-throat out for blood that night and determined to have himself a ripping time."

The best,
Fisherman

[Garza]

Fisherman, I don't think that is what Caz is trying to say at all.

Lets look at the facts.

~ No-one heard a sound, except Schwartz, even though there were people around the area.
~ Schwartz (for whatever reason) changed his testimony, it could be journalistic flair, but it might not be. It ends up with Pipeman with a dagger in his hand instead of a pipe and pipeman yelling Lipski. Since Schwartz testimony changed, while we can't say it definitely didn't happen but we have to be very careful with his testimony and reason enough to doubt it.


~ Liz was killed by surprise and very quickly (mints in hand)
~ she had one cut on her neck (like Eddowes)
~ her neck was cut in the same angle and manner as Eddowes, only not as deeply
~ the killer had her body in an angle the result of which he did not get splashed with blood

These are all JtR-esque, although it does not confirm 100% that he did kill her, the evidence (AS IT STANDS NOW) points to a Jack the Ripper killing. It might change later, it might not.

[Fisherman]

Hi Garza!

"Fisherman, I don't think that is what Caz is trying to say at all."

In fact, I think that is pretty much exactly what she is saying.

... but letīs look at what YOU are saying instead:

"No-one heard a sound, except Schwartz, even though there were people around the area."

There was ample reason for most of them not to hear anything, Garza, since they were singing and cheering in the IWMEC. Furthermore, I think that most of what took place in the yard did so in a quiet fashion since the two persons involved wanted it that way.

"Schwartz (for whatever reason) changed his testimony"

Well , Garza, maybe he did - or somebody else. Letīs not forget that the second recorder of Schwartz was a journalist at the Star.
I think you need to think about another aspect too: In the police version, Schwartz came to look as a pretty cowardly individual, running away from a woman in distress and offering no help. I think A/ that this speaks very much for Schwartz coming clear in the police interwiew, and B/ that it may subsequently have made him take on a slightly better role, finding himself a good reason to run.

" we have to be very careful with his testimony"

Ehrm, no - his testimony should be awarded the same value as other testimonies that remain unshaken or not disproved. And please observe that those who speak of a domestic affair or something along those lines, do not have the same adversity against Schwartz as the Ripper fans - for some reason ..?

One final point: Schwartz witnessed ībout a man clad in a black jacket and dark trousers, being around 5 foot 5 and sturdy, but giving the impression of being a respectable man, wearing a peaked cap. One hour earlier, Stride had been seen in the company of a man of that same approximate height, a sturdy fellow wearing a black jacket, dark trousers and a peaked cap, giving the impression of being a respectable man. That is an almighty pointer to us all that we may need to listen to Schwartz instead of trying to discard him - he describes a man that seems to be the twin brother of the guy Marshall testified to.

"Liz was killed by surprise and very quickly (mints in hand)"

Yes. And there is no timetable around stating that domestic murders take longer time than serial killings. Mrs Brown, who had her head nearly cut off by her husband in Westminster on the same night, would probably have preferred somewhat slower proceedings.

"she had one cut on her neck (like Eddowes)"

Mind you, there were things that differed inbetween the two also ...

"her neck was cut in the same angle and manner as Eddowes, only not as deeply"

Itīs from left to right or from right to left, Garza - dunnoīhow Mrs Brown was cut, though.

"the killer had her body in an angle the result of which he did not get splashed with blood"

Ah, progress! So you know who killed her, and you can vouch for the fact that he was not bloodied?

Letīs also realize that IF she had her left artery cut while lying down on her left side, facing the wall, by somebody who was standing/kneeling behind her, for example, it would not matter if the cutter was the Ripper, Dame Edna or a gibbbon monkey - it would be nigh on impossible for anybody of them to get bloodied any place else than on the cutting hand, since her artery would be facing the ground when it happened.

"the evidence (AS IT STANDS NOW) points to a Jack the Ripper killing"

Yes. And no. And thereīs the rub. Myself, Iīd opt for the second bid.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

signature

Hello Garza. Just out of curiosity, what do you count as JTR-esque?

You are right that C3 & C4 had single cuts. But C1 & C2 had two cuts, and both went to the vertebrae.

Yes, C3 & C4 both were killed in a night. But this after a lull of 3 weeks.

But perhaps location? C1 & C2 were killed within a few yards of a horse slaughter yard. But not C3 & C4.

There has never been a question about C1 & C2 soliciting. Grave doubts have been raised about C3 & C4.

C1 & C2 were described as skillfully mutilated, not C3 & C4.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

Does Kidney really strike you as someone who would engage in a quiet, reasoned argument? Yes, there was singing coming from the club but both Mrs. Diemschutz and Morris Eagle stated that they were sure that they would have heard an argument had there been one.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d asks:

"Does Kidney really strike you as someone who would engage in a quiet, reasoned argument?"

I really could not say, C.d; I think we have far too little information about him to conclude how loud-mouthed he was - or was not. He may have been loud, he may have been low-key, and those of us who were not at the inquest have no idea, right? Itīs easy to jump to conclusions, mind you. Letīs not do that.
Whichever way, my feeling is that Kidney was not around the night Stride was killed. Although a spouse should always be considered a possible perpetrator when somebody is killed, I think there is a lot speaking for BS man NOT being Kidney. I do not, like Tom does, regard Kidney as exonerated - there is not enough in it for that, but my own guess is that BS was another man. Living in Fashion Street, perhaps?

"Yes, there was singing coming from the club but both Mrs. Diemschutz and Morris Eagle stated that they were sure that they would have heard an argument had there been one."

...and Mrs Mortimer said that she would have seen anybody passing the club between 12.30 and 01.00 - but she didnīt, did she? Also, the tussle between BS and Liz took place outside the gates, as did the "Lipski" outcry, meaning that they may have been harder to perceive for the said two witnesses. And you know my meaning about the rest, C.d; the two persons in the yard may well have kept their voices very low, for the very reason NOT to be heard or detected.
Even if we surmise that BS man was no aquaintance but a punter (for argumentations sake only!), why would they raise their voices? It could have gotten them thrown out from the yard by angry clubbers.

The best,
Fisherman