Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride & Diemschutz

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    Actively soliciting or not seems moot. I think the question is can anybody come up with a reason why she might not have been approached by Jack?

    c.d.
    Maybe she shook him off after their encounter at The Bricklayers Arms, only to have the misfortune of him finding her again an hour and half later? By which stage he may have taken a slight on his character to not have been allowed to get what he wanted from her.

    She senses all is not right. On the wind is the music of the nearby socialist club. It sounds Russian. She tries to subtlety negotiate her way there, but he won’t leave her be. There might be just enough people around to scare him away. She doesn’t see anyone. She can hear the music clearly now. If only she could get to the club, she will feel much safer.

    ”It’s not Jack. They said he was a Jew!” she convinces herself. “He is just another pestering man on the street who cannot take no for an answer.”

    She crosses the road at pace. The soft soles of her boots barely make a sound against the damp cobbles.

    She is almost there. Too late.
    "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
    - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
      Its entirely possible that someone might have mistaken Stride being out that night her soliciting, and although there is no evidence she was in fact soliciting, she could have been. Its the circumstances that tell us anything about why she was there. If you assemble the pieces youd have to conclude that there were no witnesses who saw her go off somewhere private with any man, though she spoke with some. She was sober, appointed nicely with a flower arrangement. That she acquired after leaving the boarding house with her 6d, she did not have it on when first leaving. She had something to freshen her mouth. A skirt that went down to her boot tops, one she wanted to brush any lint from.
      So did Nichols and Chapman wear mini skirts? I'm not getting the point about skirt length. This was 1888, not the 1960s. The 'flower arrangement' and cachous could have been gifts from a stranger in return for empty promises, for all you know. And even a prostitute would use a clothes brush if she had access to one.



      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        There are 20-30 men at the location she is killed at at the time she is killed.
        All the more reason for Stride to think she would be safer there, if she was trying to avoid a man she had met earlier.

        And all the more reason why Jack - if it was he - knew it wasn't safe for him to be there, doing a little surgery on this woman.

        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by erobitha View Post

          Maybe she shook him off after their encounter at The Bricklayers Arms, only to have the misfortune of him finding her again an hour and half later? By which stage he may have taken a slight on his character to not have been allowed to get what he wanted from her.

          She senses all is not right. On the wind is the music of the nearby socialist club. It sounds Russian. She tries to subtlety negotiate her way there, but he won’t leave her be. There might be just enough people around to scare him away. She doesn’t see anyone. She can hear the music clearly now. If only she could get to the club, she will feel much safer.

          ”It’s not Jack. They said he was a Jew!” she convinces herself. “He is just another pestering man on the street who cannot take no for an answer.”

          She crosses the road at pace. The soft soles of her boots barely make a sound against the damp cobbles.

          She is almost there. Too late.
          Interesting, but you would need to integrate this with the testimony of PC Smith, for it to be a viable story.
          Perhaps try weaving it into other accounts...

          She senses all is not right.
          So she wants to leave, and turns to leave, but he doesn't want her to, and so ...

          The man tried to pull the woman into the street ...

          She continues to resist, and then ...

          he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ...

          She screams at him.

          Eventually, he convinces her to stick around. He tries to make amends for the rough handling.
          So at this stage he was reassuring her ...

          ... and he was kissing and cuddling her.

          The man jokes at her ability to come up with excuses for leaving him and going home. He says ...

          You would say anything but your prayers.

          She laughs at him.
          They then walk off down the street ...

          This story only works if the eyewitness descriptions given by Israel Schwartz and William Marshall, are close match. They are.
          Schwartz' broad shouldered man, and Marshall's rather stout man, were one and the same individual.

          Marshall saw the pair walk down Berner street, toward Ellen street. Matthew Packer said they arrived at his shop, from the opposite direction.
          So the grapes sale time, can be narrowed right down.
          Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 05-12-2021, 01:06 AM.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post


            Marshall saw the pair walk down Berner street, toward Ellen street. Matthew Packer said they arrived at his shop, from the opposite direction.
            So the grapes sale time, can be narrowed right down.
            Packer claims he sold grapes "about 11:45 pm".
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              This story only works if the eyewitness descriptions given by Israel Schwartz and William Marshall, are close match. They are.
              Schwartz' broad shouldered man, and Marshall's rather stout man, were one and the same individual.
              The suspect seen by Schwartz & Marshall might be the same, but then you compare Marshall's suspect with Packer's suspect, which are quite different.

              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                Packer claims he sold grapes "about 11:45 pm".
                Yeah, but Packer was a little confused about the actual time.
                I think it were actually a little later, and not just because of the time given by Marshall.

                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                The suspect seen by Schwartz & Marshall might be the same, but then you compare Marshall's suspect with Packer's suspect, which are quite different.
                As you know, Packer was almost an old man, for that era.
                From behind a small window, let's see how he goes...

                Marshall, compiled: black cut-away coat and dark trousers, middle-aged, round cap with a peak, like a sailors, 5'6", rather stout, appearance of a clerk, no whiskers, no gloves or anything in hands.

                Packer, Evening News: The man was middle aged, perhaps 35 years; about five feet seven inches in height; was stout, square built; wore a wideawake hat and dark clothes; had the appearance of a clerk; had a rough voice and a quick, sharp way of talking.


                Well, that's not too bad at all, old man!

                The main issue would be the headwear, although it's possible that were changed at some point. Like the flower?
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  Yeah, but Packer was a little confused about the actual time.
                  I think it were actually a little later, and not just because of the time given by Marshall.
                  Hmm, but you weren't there, he was.
                  In fact, Packer's confusion was that he might have sold them earlier, not later.
                  The reason the earlier hour was incorrect is because we know Stride was at the Bricklayer's Arms about 11:00. This is why we can accept his later estimate.
                  Now you want to suggest an even later time?



                  As you know, Packer was almost an old man, for that era.
                  Ah, the old 'discredit the witness' angle. He was in his fifties.

                  .....

                  The main issue would be the headwear, although it's possible that were changed at some point. Like the flower?
                  It certainly would, but you suggest he had a reason to change his cap to a hat, then give Stride back the flower she had been wearing at the Bricklayer's Arms?
                  He took it off her, then gave it back just before he buy's the grapes?
                  I'll bet you've never stuffed a large flower in your pocket and expect it to not lose the petals. Of course, any rational reason as to why he would even want do this may be even more captivating.

                  Isn't it easier to just accept the couple seen by Marshall were some other couple, like the pair seen by Mrs Mortimer on the corner by the board school?

                  Mrs Mortimer:
                  "A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."


                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    The reality is you cannot take everyone’s account, put it together and it tells the whole story. It clearly doesn’t.

                    You can take elements of witness accounts and cherry pick the elements you believe are most likely to be true and weave the potential story that way.

                    I have a scenario in my mind which dismisses Schwartz entirely (until there is proof he even existed). I also swap the timing of James Brown and PC Smith. This indicates she could have been hassled and was last spotted opposite the club. I include Marshall as his sighting was very close to the George IV pub. I take Mortimer into account with the exclusion of her talking to the couple after. How did she? I believe they were Jack & Stride. Packers sighting could have been just after The Bricklayers Arms, jury is out for me on him. He positively ID her at the mortuary, but then his subsequent story of being stalked by Jack himself, does play to the notion that he was a fantasist.

                    We just have to accept some kind of composite of the descriptions as being close to the truth. A deerstalker hat seems very odd for Whitechapel unless it was more common that I give credit for.

                    You can definitely map a possible chain of events that are likely from the above.
                    Last edited by erobitha; 05-12-2021, 06:19 AM.
                    "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                    - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Hmm, but you weren't there, he was.
                      In fact, Packer's confusion was that he might have sold them earlier, not later.
                      The reason the earlier hour was incorrect is because we know Stride was at the Bricklayer's Arms about 11:00.
                      Right

                      This is why we can accept his later estimate.
                      ... is closer to the truth.

                      Now you want to suggest an even later time?
                      Yes. More on that shortly.

                      Ah, the old 'discredit the witness' angle. He was in his fifties.

                      .....
                      You're joking, right? The side-by-side comparison shows an uncanny similarity, which I'm sure you can see.
                      Take into account that the eyes might not have been what they used to be, it's dark, and the observation is through a small window, and the similarities between the two accounts are as close as could be expected, and I doubt two 20 year-olds would get closer.

                      It certainly would, but you suggest he had a reason to change his cap to a hat, then give Stride back the flower she had been wearing at the Bricklayer's Arms?
                      He took it off her, then gave it back just before he buy's the grapes?
                      I'll bet you've never stuffed a large flower in your pocket and expect it to not lose the petals. Of course, any rational reason as to why he would even want do this may be even more captivating.
                      I'm only guessing about the hat. It's just that the pair walked off toward Ellen street, and later came back from that direction, so who knows where they'd been? Although I doubt they went to help Mrs Schwartz with the unpacking!

                      The flower sequence seems to be; Dahlia at Bricklayer's Arms > white flower at Packer's shop > red Rose in yard
                      As the Dahlia could have been red and white, did Packer only see the white? That was the reasoning of the Evening News. Yet that would probably require a change of flower by murder time. Well, there may have been updates to the flower arrangement, during the evening.
                      Alternatively, there may have been a small bouquet of red and white flowers, and Packer only noticed a white one - the one she were playing with. This flower may have ended up scattered in the yard, la Rosenfield and Harstein.

                      Isn't it easier to just accept the couple seen by Marshall were some other couple, like the pair seen by Mrs Mortimer on the corner by the board school?

                      Mrs Mortimer:
                      "A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."
                      So the real issue is, who the board school couple are?

                      Okay, will have to loop back to the grapes sale time ...
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        According to police files, Packer described the flower as;

                        "she was playing with a flower like a geranium white outside & red inside"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Grapes sale time

                          William Marshall sets the early bound:

                          I saw the body of the deceased on Sunday. I saw her on the Saturday evening. She was in our street about three doors from where I am living. It was then about 11.45. She was standing talking to a man on the pavement.

                          So then we allow for some amount of time before reaching the shop...

                          WM: When they left they went in the middle if the road in the direction of Ellen street.
                          MP: ... a man and woman came up Berner street from the direction of Ellen street, and stopped outside my window looking at the fruit.


                          So getting on for midnight or later, at this stage.

                          For the late bound, we need to look at two things:

                          One: The early sweetheart couple, in the Echo:

                          From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.

                          She says:

                          I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then. I met my young man at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street.

                          So I doubt Stride and man are at Packer's shop, and then outside the yard, around midnight.
                          Probably more like when the couple are walking along Commercial Rd.

                          Two: Wess

                          W: I left the club for home at a quarter-past twelve.
                          C: Where did you go when you left?
                          W: To my lodgings, 2, William-street, Cannon-street-road.
                          C: Did you meet anybody in Berner-street?
                          W: I can't recollect; but as I went along Fairclough-street, close by, I noticed some men and women standing together.
                          C: Did you see no one nearer?
                          W: No, sir.


                          So Stride and man don't seem to be near the shop or yard this late, but perhaps they are on Fairclough street.

                          Considering all the above, I put the sale time in the region; 12:00-12:15

                          So can this be tested, in any way? Maybe!

                          I put the time of discovery at about 12:55, and time of murder at about 12:50, with ToD roughly in the middle.
                          That is just early enough to make sense of Smith's timing, and the fixed point end of shift time - 1am.

                          Now to the Evening News:

                          There are no suppositions or probabilities in the story we have to tell; we put forward nothing but simple facts, each substantiated by the evidence of credible witnesses. What they go to establish is that the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime and only passed from the sight of a witness TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE MURDER and within ten yards of the scene of the awful deed.

                          So what time would be forty minutes before the crime?

                          12:50 minus 40 minutes = 12:10

                          Theory validated?

                          By the way, ten minutes before the murder = 12:40 = Smith
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            So which couple did James Brown see? Stride and companion, or Mortimer's couple?

                            JB: When I had nearly finished my supper I heard screams of "Murder" and "Police." This was a quarter of an hour after I had got home. I did not look at any clock at the chandler's shop. I arrived home first at ten minutes past twelve o'clock, and I believe it was not raining then.

                            Both! He just got a little confused about who he'd seen, and when.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by caz View Post

                              So did Nichols and Chapman wear mini skirts? I'm not getting the point about skirt length. This was 1888, not the 1960s. The 'flower arrangement' and cachous could have been gifts from a stranger in return for empty promises, for all you know. And even a prostitute would use a clothes brush if she had access to one.


                              Check the length of streetwalkers skirts in historical records, part of the bait was that new shorter hem profile. Plus it makes for heavy lifting of the skirts from front or back. You speculate that she might have been given the flowers and cashous when you already have evidence that she left the lodginghouse with 6d and didnt have any money on her when found. She didnt drink it, and I believe their was no recent meal detected. But youd rather incorporate some unfounded speculation than follow the bread crumb trail there to your answer as to how she obtained these items.

                              Its that you reach all the time, your not content to try and make sense of whats there on the page so you imagine how far you can go to continue to propagate the mythology of Jack the Ripper that youve embraced.

                              There is no evidence that Liz Stride was soliciting the night she was killed, nor is there such evidence for Kate, ... such evidence exists with Mary, but by a discredited witness. The morning witnesses, who were mistaken, didnt have her activities the previous night info.

                              My point here is that you can discard the fact that only the first 2 of the five alledged Canonical victims can be said to have met their killer as a result of what they were doing at that moment in time. But it may well be a key component for the killer of the first 2 women. Opportunistic. Trawling.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                                According to police files, Packer described the flower as;

                                "she was playing with a flower like a geranium white outside & red inside"
                                A general observation appears to be born out by the question - what type of flower was she wearing?
                                Men are notoriously bad at identifying flowers.


                                [if I recall, we have a Rose, a Dahlia, a maiden fern & the Geranium]
                                Last edited by Wickerman; 05-12-2021, 12:26 PM.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X