The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[mariab]

In the Times´ account Johnston doesn´t touch the hands other than to feel them to see if they were warm. Phillips removes the cachous from her hand and I seem to remember that the packet broke because she was clutching them so tightly.

The Times has been one of the notoriously unreliable newspapers in their reports pertaining to the Ripper investigation. Edward Johnston touched Stride's hands to check for a pulse, not “to see if they were warm“! Curious, if you recall the old canard about the alleged “grapes“ in Stride's right hand, there is the plausible possibility that Dr. Johnston contaminated Stride's right hand with blood from her neck when he previously unbuttoned her dress and checked her neck before checking for her pulse. This is discussed in an interesting article in Ripper Notes #25, which is an oldie (but goodie) print issue.

Incidentally, the coroner in his summing up mentions that Dr Blackwell could not be sure how old the bruising was. This, I think, points to the fact that the bruising was important, that is, that similar marks had been seen on the other victims.

It's typically difficult to figure out how old bruising is, as it forms differently on different bodies. Have you concluded that “similar marks have been seen on the other victims“ without cross-referencing with the other inquiries?? Not good. ;-)

[Hunter]

We have the police reports on the Schwartz incident and we have the Star version.

If you abandon the official version in preference for the press version you either have some personal idea or theory to pursue (that the press version better fits) or you do not realise the quality of historical evidence. Either way you might as well give up on ever reaching a well-founded conclusion.

Amen to that, my friend.

It seems that on a couple of threads there is the notion that Phillips observed the cachous scattered about... with the assumption that the packet was not clenched by Stride, but the contents were scattered during the attack.

Phillips did mention this... but Blackwell later admitted ( at inquest testimony) that it was he who disturbed and spilled the cachous while he examined the body before Phillips' arrival.


From inquest testimony, Oct 5, as reported in the Daily Telegraph reproduced on this website:

Dr. Blackwell [recalled] (who assisted in making the post-mortem examination) said: I can confirm Dr. Phillips as to the appearances at the mortuary. I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand.

[mariab]

Blackwell later admitted (at inquest testimony) that it was he who disturbed and spilled the cachous while he examined the body before Phillips' arrival.
From inquest testimony, Oct 5, as reported in the “Daily Telegraph“ reproduced on this website:
“Dr. Blackwell [recalled] (who assisted in making the post-mortem examination) said: I can confirm Dr. Phillips as to the appearances at the mortuary. I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand.“

Thank you so much for quoting this from the Daily Telegraph inquest report, Hunter. I've always wondered if Blackwell might have also been “covering“ a bit for Johnston, esp. if Johnston disturbed the scene and contaminated blood on Stride's hand from her neck (i.e., the infamous “grapes“) before Dr. Blackwell turned up at the scene.

[Hunter]

That is possible, Maria. One can imagine the confusion and excitement when Johnston arrived at the scene. He may not have considered contamination of evidence as he was not a police surgeon such as Phillips, but rather felt the need to determine if life was extinct and then, how long she may have been dead. Johnston admitted to opening her blouse to feel her chest and checking her hands for warmth; though he stated that he did not notice the packet of cachous in her left hand. It is not known if Diemshitz was talking about Blackwell or Johnston. He may have thought that both were doctors.

All of this took place in the light of police lanterns; how many, we do not know. People were walking around trying to get a look; trampling in blood that ran through the darkness of the carriage wheel rut nearly to the door. Johnston could have gotten blood on his hand and not known it for some time.

There are many possibilities in a scene like this. Crime scene contamination is still a problem today in many cases. The first people to arrive at a murder scene are usually not the best trained in handling such circumstances.

Phillips didn't even know who had disturbed the packet of cachous until Blackwell was recalled to the witness stand. They obviously had not discussed it at the scene or at any of the post mortem examinations. But, it is fair to conclude that the cachous was disturbed by someone examining the body and not (as it has been suggested) in the progress of her murder.

[mariab]

One can imagine the confusion and excitement when Johnston arrived at the scene. He may not have considered contamination of evidence as he was not a police surgeon such as Phillips, but rather felt the need to determine if life was extinct

Absolutely my thoughts, Hunter. And thank you so much for a very reality-bound, informed post.

It is not known if Diemshitz was talking about Blackwell or Johnston. He may have thought that both were doctors.

From his testimony, it's my feeling that Diemshitz wasn't even sure which Doctor was which, Johnston or Blackwell. But it's plausible to establish when the contamination took place (i.e., just after Johnston handled Stride), as all witnesses after Johnston mentioned “grapes“ (=blood contamination) on Stride's right hand, while all witnesses BEFORE Johnston didn't mention anything about grapes. Tom has really thought this one out as discussed in Ripper Notes #25. (I apologize for frequently citing Tom Wescott, hopefully without sounding too much like Jeff Leahy, without meaning this in any disrespectful fashion whatsoever against Mr. Begg! It just happens that Tom has done some extensive and very fruitful research on this case.)

Crime scene contamination is still a problem today in many cases. The first people to arrive at a murder scene are usually not the best trained in handling such circumstances.

So I've heard.

Phillips didn't even know who had disturbed the packet of cachous until Blackwell was recalled to the witness stand. They {Phillips and Blackwell} obviously had not discussed it at the scene or at any of the post mortem examinations.

This makes sense, plus I find it best to trust Dr. Blackwell rather than Dr. Phillips about the body in situ (vs. later at the morgue), as Dr. Blackwell was the most experienced medical person to have been at the murder scene.

it is fair to conclude that the cachous was disturbed by someone examining the body and not (as it has been suggested) in the progress of her murder.

Absolutely. The evidence is clear that Stride didn't put up a fight (like, possibly, Tabram and Kelly) and spilled any cachous. The cachous held tight in her left hand postmortem clearly testify that Stride asphyxiated quickly – in my interpreration, possibly through an initial chokehold, then due to the cut to her jugular.

[curious4]

The Times has been one of the notoriously unreliable newspapers in their reports pertaining to the Ripper investigation. Edward Johnston touched Stride's hands to check for a pulse, not “to see if they were warm“! Curious, if you recall the old canard about the alleged “grapes“ in Stride's right hand, there is the plausible possibility that Dr. Johnston contaminated Stride's right hand with blood from her neck when he previously unbuttoned her dress and checked her neck before checking for her pulse. This is discussed in an interesting article in Ripper Notes #25, which is an oldie (but goodie) print issue.


It's typically difficult to figure out how old bruising is, as it forms differently on different bodies. Have you concluded that “similar marks have been seen on the other victims“ without cross-referencing with the other inquiries?? Not good. ;-)

Hello Maria,

You shock me! The Times unreliable! That´s like saying that the Bank of England can´t be counted on!

And in answer to your question I never say anything without checking first.
The problem is that there are so many missing documents - no newspaper report is 100 per cent reliable. The point about the bruising is that it seemed to be considered important, perhaps because there was similar bruising on earlier victims - we don´t appear to have access to the full (official) autopsy report as far as I can see and therefore don´t know what Phillips (and the other doctors) omitted at the inquests in order to keep back some information important to the police.

Regards,
C4

[mariab]

You shock me! The Times unreliable!

For a start, just observe how The Times spelled some of the names of the witnesses, Curious.

[Tom_Wescott]

an unsolicited response to Harry Mann

Theory versus evidence.Obviously the latter is preferable,but where evidence is lacking,it is common sense to theorise where evidence may be gained.It is then a matter of proving the theory.In the case of Stride ,theory must be predominent,as what evidence there is,is little and confusing.

Actually, I’ve felt blessed in researching Stride because there is more information on her movements than with the other victims, and most of it is really not conflicting at all once it’s researched properly by writers, which it rarely is. 80% of the ‘conflict’ or ‘confusion’ comes from modern day writers and posters, not from the press or records. And I’m just as guilty as the next guy (probably more so) because I think out loud and test new ideas here on the forums, and sometimes those ideas are picked up by others and promoted heavily until suddenly they’re accepted as damn near fact by some. Do I think Schwartz was known to William Wess and some of the clubmen? Yes, I do. Do I think he lied to the police? No, I don’t. Could a good argument be made that he did lie? Yes, it could, but not good enough.

My theory is that Pipeman was more likely to have been her killer.That he was also the man seen by Brown in the company of Stride.

You and I might be the only two people alive who see the connection between Brown’s man and Pipeman, but I’m damn glad someone else came to this conclusion on their own. Ha ha. A press report I found some time back contains an interview with the girl who spoke to Fanny Mortimer and claimed to have been standing with her man at the corner when the murder was committed. As you know, many, many writers have suggested this was the couple Brown saw. However, the girl told the reporter she was back at home by 12:30am, well before Brown came along, so it’s most likely that Brown did indeed see Stride, though of course that doesn’t mean he saw her with her killer. But the similarity in dress between Brown’s man and Pipeman is compelling.

That he was a person,who having shown no harm minutes before in another location,was a person she would have trusted after the incident with BS. A person who could take her by surprise,and the element of surprise,I theorise,played an important part in her death.But how to prove it?

If we take the stance that BS Man and Pipeman were unknown to each other, then this is a very likely premise. Another possibility would be that Pipeman took off after Schwartz, thinking him the man who pushed Stride down when BS Man called out. He returned to the scene to find Stride dead and split, not wanting to explain why he was so near Tiger Bay at that time of night. Of course, if we take the stance that they DID know each other, then that still leaves Pipeman firmly in frame as Stride’s killer and as Brown’s man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

You and I might be the only two people alive who see the connection between Brown’s man and Pipeman, but I’m damn glad someone else came to this conclusion on their own.

Incidentally, this is an idea promoted in the JTRForums by Jeff Leahy and currently discussed in the Wiggishness and the anti Anderson lobby thread there.
(Good thing that I just happened to wake up and check casebook just now.)

[Tom_Wescott]

The King and the Mac Daddy

I would fully agree that Pipeman is more likely. But how likely does that make him? Not very, because BS man is simply so unlikely due to the cachous in hand. Also, no other witnesses see a tall man with the victims.

And yet, most of the police suspects were tall, some even taller than Pipeman – Tumblety, Le Grand, Grant, Ostrog, Druitt, D’Onston, etc. Me thinks they knew something we don’t.

We have the police reports on the Schwartz incident and we have the Star version.

If only we DID have the police report on the Stride murder! However, we’re left with little more than a very abbreviated version of events compiled by Swanson who was in mind to impress his superiors. Not trying to be nitpicky, just mentioning this for the sake of accuracy.

If you abandon the official version in preference for the press version you either have some personal idea or theory to pursue (that the press version better fits) or you do not realise the quality of historical evidence. Either way you might as well give up on ever reaching a well-founded conclusion.

This is 100% true, with one exception – I believe the Star report has Pipeman taking off after Schwartz first, whereas Swanson’s version does not. This detail present in the Star is later confirmed by Inspector Abberline in his response to memos generated by Swanson’s Oct. 19th report. Since Abberline is the man who interviewed Schwartz at length and prepared the report from which Swanson based his summary, it must be considered an official source, even trumping the Swanson report. However, I don’t recall if Swanson merely didn’t include that detail, or conflicted with it. Posting from memory here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I believe the Star report has Pipeman taking off after Schwartz first, whereas Swanson’s version does not. This detail present in the Star is later confirmed by Inspector Abberline in his response to memos generated by Swanson’s Oct. 19th report. Since Abberline is the man who interviewed Schwartz at length and prepared the report from which Swanson based his summary, it must be considered an official source, even trumping the Swanson report. However, I don’t recall if Swanson merely didn’t include that detail, or conflicted with it. Posting from memory here.

Didn't conflict with it. The Swanson report states:
(...) then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he run as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

[mariab]

I think out loud and test new ideas here on the forums, and sometimes those ideas are picked up by others and promoted heavily until suddenly they’re accepted as damn near fact by some.

Do the “others“ refer to Lynn Cates and the “some“ to me? (Pertaining to Schwartz having possibly been connected to the IWEC.) Tom appears to be the sole Ripperologist to complain when others accept his theories.

Do I think Schwartz was known to William Wess and some of the clubmen? Yes, I do. Do I think he lied to the police? No, I don’t. Could a good argument be made that he did lie? Yes, it could, but not good enough.

If my research results (which are still pending until I'm finished) end up corroborating my suspicions, I might be able to present this “good argument“, and I promise that it'll be damned good enough.

[harry]

Thanks Tom,and if one goes back far enough on the boards,it will be found I have for many a year,favoured Pipeman and Brown's man as being one and the same.So only two suspects in the Stride killing,BS and Pipeman,and what are the chances of Stride being more comfortable with Pipeman,than with a person who had only minutes before,shown aggression towards her..As to whether either of the two were Jewish,well Schwartz didn't identify them as such,but can it be said he got a good look at either.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes we do...

...
If only we DID have the police report on the Stride murder! However, we’re left with little more than a very abbreviated version of events compiled by Swanson who was in mind to impress his superiors. Not trying to be nitpicky, just mentioning this for the sake of accuracy.
...
Tom Wescott

Yes we do have the police report on the Stride murder, written by Swanson on 19 October 1888, which is probably the best overall police report on the investigation of an individual Whitechapel murder to have survived (first three pages attached).

What we don't have is Schwartz's statement, but it is doing Swanson a disservice to describe his report as 'little more than a very abbreviated version of events', it is a decent overall summary and contains some good detail from Schwartz's statement.

[mariab]

Wow, always wanted to see the Swanson report in the original. Who are the annotations by?