Diemschutz arrival

[harry]

Well I are not writing about evidence.What we have in Strides murder are a number of different people giving information,and it is from this information,that both we today,a nd the police of 1888 try to form an idea of what might have happened.The only evidence is that the body of Stride was found in Duffields yard.As Tom has stressed,times should not be taken litteraly,some allowances must be accepted.That there is no corroberation,is to me of little importance.What I accept is that the police of that time were convinced the witnesses were truthfully recounting things to the best of their ability.I accept that Brown saw a stationary couple who he could not identify,that Schwartz followed a man along Berner St and observed an incident between that man and a female at the entry to Duffield Yard,and then observed another man at the intersectin,as he(Schwartz)fled.That Diemschutz entered the yard about one O'clock and found Stride's body.That these sightings happened between 12.45am,and 1am that morning.Sure I have no evidence of an interuption that may have discouraged the killer from further mutilating the body,but the information given certainly allows that the arrival of Diemschutz may have done so.

[Damaso Marte]

There seems to be some assumptives being discussed as if they were empiricals,....namely, there is a story by someone who gave the name Israel Schwartz, there is no BSM/Liz assault in front of the gates without him. No other witness testified to an altercation, and no other witness heard or saw one. He is not recorded as being part of any Inquiry or Identification process.

I would be curious to see just how many people on this site actually take Schwartz seriously.

I don't give credence to Schwartz. And if somebody proved to me that Schwartz was telling the truth, then I would immediately join the "Stride not a Ripper victim" camp. Which is why I find it interesting that Lynn also is a strong opponent of Schwartz's story: I guess it reflects well on him that he doesn't accept the testimomy merely because it would support his theory.

[Wickerman]

No offense to anyone present, but I'm always shocked at how the line of people who show up to pronounce me wrong don't seem to know even the most basic facts about the circumstance of the murder.

Hey look Ma!, everyone's out of step except our Tommy!

[mariab]

Maria,
No, I'm not kidding. At some point, it will get weird regarding the new Kozminski info. Either that, or people will continue to ignore it.

For some reason, in the 2 years I've been involved in Ripperology I'm getting the feeling that only Paul Begg, Rob House, and Chris Phillips are willing to consider Kozminsky as a suspect (notice that I'm not saying "as the culprit“), while everyone else is resisting the idea or rather willing to consider Cross or even van Gogh as a suspect... ;-)

At some And exactly how old do you think Schwartz or Kozminski were in 1888? They both would have been in their 20s.

I was kinda expecting Schwartz to have been in his late 20s if not over 30 (he was married even) while Koz still lived with his parents, possibly in his early 20s?

I'm going to sleep for an hour or two, don't think I can even think straight right now.

[Tom_Wescott]

Garry,

You're creating a circular argument here, which I suppose is necessary in order to argue for her to be excluded from the canon because of her neck wound. I don't find myself so burdened, so I choose to stick with the evidence as it is. I certainly never stated Stride was 'pulled forward' by her scarf. I'm not even sure I can imagine how that would be played out. As for the jagged stones that comprised the makeshift gutter over which Stride's neck was lying, there's ample evidence of all this. No offense to anyone present, but I'm always shocked at how the line of people who show up to pronounce me wrong don't seem to know even the most basic facts about the circumstance of the murder.

The difference in Stride's neck wound is attributable to the unique circumstances presented by her neckwear, positioning, and the haste at which the killer was working.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Wickerman,

This is not the thread for me to enlighten you...again...on all things Berner Street. I would agree that the doctors missed some things, but then they were not investigators or crime scene profilers, nor were they me. And yes, my argument regarding the couple was convincing, though not because of me, but because of the facts. Again, I'm not so inclined to discuss that stuff at the moment.

Maria,

No, I'm not kidding. At some point, it will get weird regarding the new Kozminski info. Either that, or people will continue to ignore it. And exactly how old do you think Schwartz or Kozminski were in 1888? They both would have been in their 20s.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I am thoroughly intrigued and excited by the findings presented in Patricia Marshall and Chris Phillips article. In fact, I'm surprised and a bit disappointed that it hasn't generated more discussion. However, once it sinks in, I expect a number of variations on theories, including Israel Schwartz being identified as none other than Kozminski.

I just hope you're kidding.
Neighbors at some point yes, possibly even fellow members or marginally involved with the IWEC.
Schwartz would have been several years older, if not a decade older than Kozminski.
This is almost starting to remind me of David Radka's A/R "theory" about a Jew having framed another Jew etc. ... :-)

[Garry Wroe]

The minor difference between Stride's cut throat and that of others has strictly to do with two factors ...

With respect, Tom, the differences between the throat wound sustained by Stride and those inflicted upon Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly are anything but minor. Of all the alleged Ripper victims Stride was the only one whose spinal column was not notched by the knife during the throat cutting process. She was also the only one whose left carotid artery was not completely severed. She was the only one, too, whose death was described by medical men as slow rather than immediate.

… the obnoxious (from the killer's point of view) scarf around her neck …

If memory serves me correctly, Tom, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were each wearing a scarf or neckerchief when killed. So why is it that such an accoutrement would prove problematic in the case of Stride and Stride alone?

… and the jagged stones over which her neck was lying.

Where is the evidence for these jagged stones? Given the fact, moreover, that Diemschutz was only able to distinguish the body of Stride after lighting a match, how was the killer able to see them even if they were there?

He had to use his free hand to pull the scarf up and raise her neck from the rocks, instead of using it to provide the necessary resistance to get a deep cut.

Unfortunately, Tom, this scenario does not accord with the evidence. In his initial medical assessment Dr Blackwell postulated that the scarf had been used to drag Stride backwards. In your interpretation of events Stride was dragged forwards – upwards and thus away from the ground on which she was lying. Again, where is the evidence for this contention?

There again, if there is any validity in the assertion that the killer elevated Stride’s head in order to cut her throat, this was a process that was so at odds with the Ripper’s established crime scene behaviour that it only adds weight to the contention that Stride was killed by a different hand.

[Michael W Richards]

Well, let me help you out here.

"The Coroner: Was the silk scarf tight enough to prevent her calling out? - I could not say that. "

"..The absence of noise is a difficult question under the circumstances of this case to account for, but it must not be taken for granted that there was not any noise. If there was an absence of noise I cannot account for it."

No mention of echymosis around the neck in line with the scarf, nor any reference to a hyoid bone in any of the cases.
Under the circumstances the doctors should have been well able to account for the lack of noise if there was physical evidence that the scarf was pulled tight enough.

Regards, Jon S.

Jon, Judging by the nicks made on the scarf, which matched the cut across her throat in pattern, the scarf was still tightened at the moment the knife made its cut. And Blackwell said she may "have been cut while falling", which leads to a conclusion that the grabbing of the scarf, the twisting of it and the cut across the throat took place in the same sequence of events. Meaning, he cut her, while holding the scarf tight, while she fell.

Thats why the unexpected attack is seen by clenched hands, not in a defensive position. Sudden, very quick, and suspect could have left via the gates or gone through the house and out the front door.

Another thing that is talked about with too much credence is any notion that this attack on Stride was interrupted. Liz Stride danced with her killer before he grabbed her. Liz Strides killer was interrupted and therefore did not complete the work he intended. Both of those statements have equal amounts of evidence available in support of them, none.

We can imagine many things that may have happened with Liz and her killer, but before any become a "fact", evidence must be presented.

There is none for an interruption. Liz Stride was merely killed, roughly and very quickly, and her killer intended only that action. According to what is known to-date, that is.

Best regards

[Wickerman]

Yikes. Does anyone study up before they post? Stride is the biggest blind spot in Ripperology, I guarantee it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well, let me help you out here.

"The Coroner: Was the silk scarf tight enough to prevent her calling out? - I could not say that. "

"..The absence of noise is a difficult question under the circumstances of this case to account for, but it must not be taken for granted that there was not any noise. If there was an absence of noise I cannot account for it."

No mention of echymosis around the neck in line with the scarf, nor any reference to a hyoid bone in any of the cases.
Under the circumstances the doctors should have been well able to account for the lack of noise if there was physical evidence that the scarf was pulled tight enough.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick. Your recollection is incorrect. I was thoroughly convinced.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I am quite convinced that you were convinced, but I'm not convinced it was a convincing conviction.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, it appears to be so. Its a shame neither doctor explored the possibility that the scarf being pulled so tight could be the reason there was no noise or evidence of a struggle.

Yikes. Does anyone study up before they post? Stride is the biggest blind spot in Ripperology, I guarantee it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Wickerman

Why are you asking whether I was serious in asking Monty my unanswered question as to whether he thought Stride’s had been incapacitated before her throat was cut?
In retrospect perhaps it wasn’t clear that I was asking Monty.

Right

I think she was incapacitated my some means, which meant they was less blood than might be expected and she seemingly did not struggle before having her throat cut, seemingly on the ground.

That is a common MO with the other Ripper victims of course.

Yes, it appears to be so. Its a shame neither doctor explored the possibility that the scarf being pulled so tight could be the reason there was no noise or evidence of a struggle.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom

You must understand that when Monty makes disparaging remarks about people seeking to bolster a theory, he is having a specific dig at the (pet) Charles Lechmere theory – as is his want.
When that is understood then it is clear who he aimed his barb at!

Hi Lech. You're probably right, but Monty and his set seem to have a sore spot reserved for anyone who researches and writes about suspects, with a few exceptions. I've been at the receiving end of those barbs a time or two myself, and have certainly been accused of skewing my own views just to support a suspect theory, which is blatantly untrue. Remarkably, researchers will actually accept my findings and conclusions, yet still accuse me of manipulating the facts to 'bolster my theory'. It was probably for this reason that I jumped at Monty's post like I did.

Incidentally you may have noticed that some of the ‘Stride non-Ripperists’ have a new favoured suspect for her murderer... Kosminsky! In that he just committed that crime and from that was incorrectly blamed for the rest by the police.

I am thoroughly intrigued and excited by the findings presented in Patricia Marshall and Chris Phillips article. In fact, I'm surprised and a bit disappointed that it hasn't generated more discussion. However, once it sinks in, I expect a number of variations on theories, including Israel Schwartz being identified as none other than Kozminski.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick. Your recollection is incorrect. I was thoroughly convinced.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott