Was Stride Really a JtR Victim?

[Phil H]

Firstly, where is the evidence that all the women seen were stride?

Secondly, where is the evidence that she was with different men each time?

I still see no evidence that she entered the Club at all - the yard once maybe.

Phil

[lynn cates]

Eygle eyes

Hello (again) Phil.

"she must have been a very chatty woman"

Possibly. And Eygle must have been blind since he did not see Schwartz.

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

UkranianPhil,

I KNOW EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS CAN BE DOGGY, but un less he went home, grew three inches, shaved and changed his clothes in an hour and a half, they would have to be different men.

Okay that was my first question. What about the rest? I can add more if you like.

Cheers
DRoy

[ukranianphil]

Firstly, where is the evidence that all the women seen were stride?

Secondly, where is the evidence that she was with different men each time?

I still see no evidence that she entered the Club at all - the yard once maybe.

Phil

first. they all identified stride at th mortuary.
second. all men were different discriptions. [hence different men]
Third. she must have known about the yard being a dark place, where else would she go
for privicy?
im using my phone on a bus, so sorry for any mistakes.

[DRoy]

Lynn,

Possibly. And Eygle must have been blind since he did not see Schwartz.

True that Lynn. I got one too...

Everyone on Berner's must be deaf and blind for not hearing or seeing what only Schwartz could!

Cheers
DRoy

[ukranianphil]

Hello Phil.

"She had several clients.?

Really? How do we know that?

"The man P.C. Smith saw at 11:30pm standing directly across form the club."

He was a client? Again, we have no knowledge of such.

"She used the club a couple of times that night."

When? Surely not at the time "she" were spotted by those august witnesses? Nor yet when any club members were in the yard?

Cheers.
LC

because, i read somewhere smith said 'she had her hand on his chest'
was that not how the women approached their clients? according to Donald Rumbilow.
i dont know for sure, if she did, but it fits the facts, with the gates being open and closed
so i'm sticking with that theory untill disproved.
dutfield yard would be perfect to take her clients.
If she was not out soliciting, what was she doing with them men?

[DRoy]

Ukranianphil,

first. they all identified stride at th mortuary.

I bet you anybody that went to the mortuary was able to identify her. She was in fact laying there in front of them.

second. all men were different discriptions. [hence different men]

If they all saw Stride then yes I concede descriptions do vary.

Third. she must have known about the yard being a dark place, where else would she go for privicy?

Assuming she went in the yard on her own accord. Assuming she didn't go in the yard to pee. Etc

Cheers
DRoy

[ukranianphil]

Hello (again) Phil.

"she must have been a very chatty woman"

Possibly. And Eygle must have been blind since he did not see Schwartz.

Cheers.
LC

remember, none of these men had watches, so Eagle who left the club to take his young woman home, might have been earlier? dont know. why did charles letchfields sister who was standing outside her door at 12:45 not see mortimer outside her door a few doors down?

[Phil H]

Whatever Don Rumbelow may say (and I respect him highly) - a hand on the chest is a very natural indication of closeness or affection, more so in Victorian britain. I read nothing sinister into that gesture without supporting evidence.

dont know for sure, if she did, but it fits the facts, with the gates being open and closed

How do the gates being open or closed say anything about Stride - are you saying she closed them - to do her business? If so, then why were they open when she died. But the whole nation is odd - where is the indication they were closed that night?

so i'm sticking with that theory untill disproved.

What theory?

dutfield yard would be perfect to take her clients.

Would it - a busy yard with a noisy club right next door? Lots of comings and goings, possible interuptions at any time? Rather different from the other locations, dark and relatively off the beaten track. I don't see dutfield's yard as suitable for prostitution AT ALL, hence my suspicions that Stride was not a Ripper victim.

If she was not out soliciting, what was she doing with them men?

If it was ONE man then he may have been her "date" for the night. Look at her preparations before going out.

If there were TWO I'd argue the second might have been Kidney - her ex-lover.

And women in a community do have "friends" - maybe more than clients. We KNOW Nichols was soliciting when killed (Emily Holland's testimony). Tabram - if a Ripper victim, had been. Eddowes - was she or not? She may not have known herself in her inebriated condition. Stride, I'd say wasn't - and seemed willing to try to find other work - cleaning etc to make money. Kelly seems to have been working the street or pub on the night before her body was found - but I no longer consider her a Ripper victim.

Phil

[Bridewell]

Actually, Schwartz could.

Yes - but he didn't. So either a lucky guess (if what Schwartz saw was the murder) or the sender had personal knowledge of the killing.

[ukranianphil]

Whatever Don Rumbelow may say (and I respect him highly) - a hand on the chest is a very natural indication of closeness or affection, more so in Victorian britain. I read nothing sinister into that gesture without supporting evidence.

dont know for sure, if she did, but it fits the facts, with the gates being open and closed

How do the gates being open or closed say anything about Stride - are you saying she closed them - to do her business? If so, then why were they open when she died. But the whole nation is odd - where is the indication they were closed that night?

so i'm sticking with that theory untill disproved.

What theory?

dutfield yard would be perfect to take her clients.

Would it - a busy yard with a noisy club right next door? Lots of comings and goings, possible interuptions at any time? Rather different from the other locations, dark and relatively off the beaten track. I don't see dutfield's yard as suitable for prostitution AT ALL, hence my suspicions that Stride was not a Ripper victim.

If she was not out soliciting, what was she doing with them men?

If it was ONE man then he may have been her "date" for the night. Look at her preparations before going out.

If there were TWO I'd argue the second might have been Kidney - her ex-lover.

And women in a community do have "friends" - maybe more than clients. We KNOW Nichols was soliciting when killed (Emily Holland's testimony). Tabram - if a Ripper victim, had been. Eddowes - was she or not? She may not have known herself in her inebriated condition. Stride, I'd say wasn't - and seemed willing to try to find other work - cleaning etc to make money. Kelly seems to have been working the street or pub on the night before her body was found - but I no longer consider her a Ripper victim.

Phil

i'm sticking with the theory she was using the yard for her clients.
And she was closing the door. The yard was dark and no one was about, most had gone home or where up stairs singing.

how do you know she did not use the yard?

[Bridewell]

Phil,

It is an educated guess on my part. I believe his statement was credible and important, so with that in mind, I don't believe it was ignored by the coroner's inquest. I have no proof, but as in all things JTR, there is no definitive word against this either. Logically, to me at least, it makes sense that the coroner would have read the statement or been given it in brief.

Mike

I agree, Michael. It would have been strange (and irregular) if such a seemingly pertinent piece of evidence had not been drawn to the attention of the coroner. I wonder if the coroner simply decided not to call Schwartz. The aim of the inquest was to decide where, when and how Stride was killed, The where and how were pretty obvious and the when could be established by the medical evidence. The only real contribution which Schwartz could make was in the identity of the assassin, which was not the concern of the coroner's inquest.

I wonder also if the police wanted to keep Schwartz out of the spotlight and the coroner, having realised that his evidence added nothing to what was known from other sources, co-operated in that process. Schwartz and his testimony were of more relevance to the purpose of the police enquiry than to that of the coroner's inquest.

On another point:- "Screamed three times but not very loud" looks to me like a clumsy translation because, as others have pointed out, it doesn't really make sense.

[Bridewell]

Hello,

In another life I was a translator/occasional interpreter. It is not an exact science. Schwarz could well have said "cried out" and the interpreter translated it as "screamed". The former makes more sense, as I see it.

Best wishes,
C4

So was I - and I agree.

[Bridewell]

I KNOW EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS CAN BE DOGGY, but un less he went home, grew three inches, shaved and changed his clothes in an hour and a half, they would have to be different men.

Or different witnesses' recollections of the same man?

It's very unusual for two witnesses to give identical descriptions of the same person in my experience.

[Bridewell]

Que?

Lynn,

True that Lynn. I got one too...

Everyone on Berner's must be deaf and blind for not hearing or seeing what only Schwartz could!

Cheers
DRoy

I feel rather sorry for Israel Schwartz.

Something happened on Berner Street - a woman was murdered. Schwartz claims to have seen something. Nobody else admits to having seen anything at all. Why assume that Schwartz is the one telling lies? (Apologies if I've misunderstood your point).