The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[mariab]

Apologies, Lynn, I meant of course Wess, and not Diemshitz. I agree about your suspicions pertaining to Wess allegedly having watched the gates ("Just because they were open."), but this report (from the inquest) is corroborated in how many newspapers? My suspicion is that this is a journalist's mix up, for mainly 2 reasons:
1) I've seen reports claiming that the IWEC featured windows looking INSIDE of Dutfield's Yard, which can't be correct. (This in the Eyge book, where he's most plausibly confusing the description of 40, Berner Street with the latter house where the IWEC moved.)
2) Let's imagine for the sake of argument that Stride and Eddowes were a provocatory murder organized by the Okhrana, to harm the London anarchists: Lynn, apart from all the other improbabilities, they would have NEVER orchestrated the murders with one victim only slain and the next one slain AND mutilated, in a progression from Nichols/Chapman. Stride was most clearly an interrupted murder (or, more accurately, an interrupted postmortem), thus it must be concluded that Diemshitz said the truth. (Though he might have exaggerated the time a bit.)

As for testimonies that Stride was a prostitute, there's the man at the F&D lodgings, the police, and female acquaintancies. Can't look this up right now, but I will anyway in the coming weeks, as I'm planning to read up on all reports.

[harry]

There are two observation's to be made in linking Strides prostitution in her death.The first is that she was not ,while in Berner street that night,propositioning for the purpose of prostitution.The other is that she was,and that she instigated the incident with BS man in making the initial approach.

[lynn cates]

hypothesis

Hello Maria. I fully believe that Wess said that. My point is that he may be fibbing.

I don't understand your progression argument. I will accept your hypothesis and say the murders were orchestrated. Now, Liz's murder was to be near the IWMEC for obvious purposes. If anyone knew the least thing about the club and its meeting that night, that person would realise the danger in killing AND mutilating inside the yard. Just a simple throat cutting would, in itself, be problematic. So just leave a body.

Kate's killing seems to have been planned a good bit in advance. There, not only were mutilations needed (to make continuity with Isenschmid's work) but also the ears and nose were required to be cut off to remind one of the work of the Russian socialists who did precisely THIS to a police informant.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Lynn

Your posts are usually one's I can nod my head in broad agreement with, but to say:

Kate's killing seems to have been planned a good bit in advance. There, not only were mutilations needed (to make continuity with Isenschmid's work) but also the ears and nose were required to be cut off to remind one of the work of the Russian socialists who did precisely THIS to a police informant.

Builds supposition on supposition.

Kate's killing seems to have been planned a good bit in advance.

Are you saying here that EDDOWES as an individual was specifically targetted - or that the next victim's injuries were planned?

There, not only were mutilations needed (to make continuity with Isenschmid's work)

We don't know that Isenschmidt was "Jack" - that is your conclusion and your inference.

but also the ears and nose were required to be cut off to remind one of the work of the Russian socialists who did precisely THIS to a police informant.

So where would the killer of Eddowes have got that information; from what source? Was it a single killing as your statement implies?

NOTE: I am not knocking this idea - if you are saying that Eddowes was killed as a police informant. That is a theory I hold in mind all the time. But it works best if disassociated from Stride IMHO.

Phil

[mariab]

Hello Lynn.

I fully believe that Wess said that. My point is that he may be fibbing.

I know that you suspect Wess having fibbed, but it could also be a(nother) journalist's mixup. It's not what we believe, it's what the evidence says. In how many newspapers reports does the Wess quote about the gates ("Just because they were open.") appear? No time to research this now (as I just woke up ;-)), but in a few weeks, hopefully.

I will accept your hypothesis and say the murders were orchestrated. Now, Liz's murder was to be near the IWMEC for obvious purposes. If anyone knew the least thing about the club and its meeting that night, that person would realise the danger in killing AND mutilating inside the yard. Just a simple throat cutting would, in itself, be problematic. So just leave a body.
Kate's killing seems to have been planned a good bit in advance. There, not only were mutilations needed (to make continuity with Isenschmid's work) but also the ears and nose were required to be cut off to remind one of the work of the Russian socialists who did precisely THIS to a police informant.

It's NOT an hypothesis of mine, it was just for the sake of argument. Come on, Lynn, you know that what you're hypothesizing here doesn't stand.
- Had the murders been orchestrated (by a foreign intelligence), they would have left 2 similarly slain corpses. The evidence shouts that Stride was an interrupted crime, thus it speaks for Diemshitz having said the truth.
- Cutting off the nose and ears of a police informant is light years away from disemboweling a woman and “harvesting“ her organs. There's NO record whatsoever of any foreign intelligence having done that. Which I guess is a good thing. :-)

[lynn cates]

no need to shout (heh-heh)

Hello Maria.

"I know that you suspect Wess having fibbed, but it could also be a(nother) journalist's mixup."

I'm baffled. What sort of a mix up? Actually, it's a minor point, but I have a hunch that Wess saw the body whilst he was in the yard.

I know that the hypothesis was for the sake of the argument. That is why I readily accepted.

"Had the murders been orchestrated (by a foreign intelligence), they would have left 2 similarly slain corpses."

What on earth makes you believe that? My point of departure has been Sir Charles' ruminations. I plan to pursue that--at least until I "definitely ascertain" that he was mistaken.

"The evidence shouts . . . "

Ah, but it doesn't shout very loudly, nor 3 times (heh-heh).

" . . . Stride was an interrupted crime"

What evidence? If one engages in a petitio principii and uses as a premise, "Liz was killed by a mutilator" then, of course, that must be the explanation.

What has happened is that you have projected an opinion into the evidence, and so then it seems clear that the assailant didn't get to finish. Now we ALL do that same thing, so I'm not complaining of that fact. But, realistically, I don't see any "shouting" evidence of an interruption. All I see is a lady, with a cut throat, who died cachous in hand, face pointed east. I am not sure how to get from THAT to an interruption.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

errata

Hello Phil.

"Your posts are usually one's I can nod my head in broad agreement with"

Thanks, having been a son and now a husband, I find it safe to agree with broads. (heh-heh)

"Builds supposition on supposition."

It does indeed. I use this merely as my research agenda. I think you will admit that John Kelly's testimony leaves much to be desired. Oddly, I never paid much attention to it UNTIL I saw the listings in the SB ledgers. And, to this day, I am not sure that the John and Catherine are the right ones, any more than I am sure that the alias of Johann Stammer (John Kelly) means anything germane to the case. But all this HAS forced me to look over John's testimony--and it is egregiously bad.

"Are you saying here that EDDOWES as an individual was specifically targetted - or that the next victim's injuries were planned?"

Both, actually. And I believe it was announced by whoever wrote the "Dear Boss." (Although I DO NOT believe that Kate's slayer wrote it.)

"We don't know that Isenschmidt was "Jack" - that is your conclusion and your inference."

Indeed. But if even a quarter of the things we know about JI could be attributed to, say, Aaron Kosminski, all his followers would uncork a bottle of champagne.

"So where would the killer of Eddowes have got that information; from what source? Was it a single killing as your statement implies?"

My source was "The Centaur." I posted it on my Kaufmann thread, post #6, if I recall properly.

Finally, I KNOW you are not "knocking" my ideas. You criticise, but only to learn--as I do. Frankly, I criticise my own ideas more than anyone else could. Constructive criticism is a good thing.

You have a good imagination and, I think, that is PRECISELY what is required for this business. Of course, the 2 extremes must be avoided, 1. no imagination 2. over active imagination. Sometimes difficult to achieve the old C of E standard, the Via Media.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Wow, Lynn Cates said “broads“!

I'm baffled. What sort of a mix up?

A mixup as in Wess possibly having been quoted wrong – instead of having lied. Just another possibility. That's why I want to check all newspapers' reports for the Stride inquest. (Which others have done, and years ago.)

"The evidence shouts . . . "
Ah, but it doesn't shout very loudly, nor 3 times (heh-heh).

"that Stride was an interrupted crime"
What evidence? If one engages in a petitio principii and uses as a premise, "Liz was killed by a mutilator" then, of course, that must be the explanation.

Petitio principii, but due to the fact that the most probable possibility is that Stride was killed by the same mutilator who killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly.

What has happened is that you have projected an opinion into the evidence

Not really.

All I see is a lady, with a cut throat, who died cachous in hand, face pointed east.

You are omitting seing another 4 ladies, slain before and after her, AKA the big picture.

[lynn cates]

Fred and Barney

Hello Maria. Can you provide a possible scenario for a mix up? What I have in mind is this, "Lizzie" is a fair mix up for "Lipski." If, however, one were to suggest that Schwartz heard, "Fred" instead, I'd be just a trifle incredulous. So, could you speculate on what Wess actually said?

"the most probable possibility is that Stride was killed by the same mutilator who killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly."

Why most probable? Perhaps most romantic?

"You are omitting se[e]ing another 4 ladies, slain before and after her, AKA the big picture."

Quite a few more than 4, actually. But if you want the really BIG picture, perhaps we could start with the Upper Paleolithic chaps?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Lynn, I don't need a scenario about Wess' quote, I just need to check all newspapers to see how often it turns up, and if in varied versions.
Not romantic at all, just probable. (This has nothing to do with a mythologized JTR figure with a cape, hat, and a bag full of knives. These ladies were most probably slain by the same perp.)
Agree about the “more than 4“. Plausibly.

[lynn cates]

helter skelter

Hello Maria. Of course, .0001 is considered probable. You mean likely? On what basis are we to judge something likely?

Here's a thought experiment for you. Recall the Tate slayings of 1969. The police were all but certain that the goundskeeper, Wayne Garretson, was the culprit. It was supposed to be some kind of drug deal gone wrong.

What would have happened had you walked into a police station and related a "theory" of helter skelter? Which theory was more likely? Which story was right?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Lynn, after a while there was enough evidence for a Helter Skelter, including the confession of an inmate to another inmate.
Incidentally, I'm a follower of the school of letting the evidence guide, instead of forming theories.

[lynn cates]

theory

Hello Maria.

"after a while there was enough evidence for a Helter Skelter, including the confession of an inmate to another inmate."

And that is precisely what I seek. But Rachkovski's role in other events came to light MUCH later. I can wait--well, if I were not so bloody old I could.

"Incidentally, I'm a follower of the school of letting the evidence guide, instead of forming theories."

So am I. But without ANY theorising there is nothing to drive the research.

Now consider this. Liz had 6d from cleaning at the beginning of the evening. If she were soliciting (as you seem to believe) and had any success, she had a bit more money when she died. And yet no money was found on her. The evidence is that she had no money. But the theory is that her assailant took it back. Theory, then, dictates her assailant was Bury. That's because he was the only Scotsman suspected and surely no one else would demand a refund. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

.... What I have in mind is this, "Lizzie" is a fair mix up for "Lipski."..

Hi Lynn.
As we all know "Lizzie" is an abreviation for "Elizabeth", but in English.

Schwartz, as we are told spoke no English, so "Lizzie" may not have been a familiar expression to him.
It is quite possible that Schwartz on hearing some foreign (to him) exclamation phonetically like "Lizzie" will associate it with a Hungarian/Jewish name or expression he was familiar with. He thought he heard "Lipski", because that is what it sounded like to him. And living in that area around Berner St. it might have been more familiar to him.

Elizabeth in Hungarian is "Erzsébet", and the short-form is "Örzse", a parallel to our "Lizzie".

If Schwartz heard the English "Lizzie" he is not going to think it sounded like Örzse, but it might have sounded like "Lipski", to him.

I think the man that Schwartz heard, actually may have shouted Lizzie, for what it's worth. It was only picked up by 'foreign ears', if you know what I mean.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

names and such

Hello Jon. If Schwartz is to be believed and his story largely true, I have no problem with that account. Lizzie works OK here. My point was that the 2 names sound similar, hence the purported mix up.

I was trying to find out what was the possible mix up in Wess' case.

Cheers.
LC