Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There’s nothing ‘feeble’ about it. At any given point in time people do things that, when explained, might appear a little strange to us but there’s no point in applying the ‘well I wouldn’t have behaved in that way’ argument. I don’t see anything ‘feeble’ or ‘strange’ in the slightest about what Schwartz said especially when we have to accept that we’ve been handed down a truncated version of what he’d said. If Schwartz were here now and could explain to us what went on that day then it more then we wouldn’t have any issues.

So we wouldn't have any issues because we have have faith in Israel Schwartz - a man whose identity we are unsure of.

What on earth is going on here?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

‘Fairly accurate’ doesn’t equate to exact though.

The exact what? The exact second? Minute? Or the 5 minutes or more that the entire incident would have occupied?

It doesn't need to be exact - fairly accurate is probably good enough, and if it's not, then there are witnesses other than Brown to consider. Besides, Brown passed within the near vicinity of the murder site, twice, within a 5 minute period. Why did he see a couple by the school, but no one running along his own street? Why didn't the couple see or hear anything unusual? If one of the couple was indeed Stride, then she was not at the gateway being assaulted, she was quietly talking to a man, just as she had been seen doing earlier, by Marshall.

We have a handful of witnesses and of that handful you’ve decided that Schwartz is the turd-in-the-swimming-pool.

Many versus one. Sounds like a good bet.

In reality though we know at least 2 things for certain. First, that the incident was of very short duration - the incident in the street can have taken no more than a few seconds followed by a quick throat-cutting out of site in the shadows at the side of the club. Second, that all of the witnesses were estimating their times and we don’t know how they came to their estimations (where and when they last saw a clock or indeed how accurate that particular clock was) So all that’s required for this confrontation to have occurred is for the street to have been deserted for a minute or so.

Schwartz placed himself and 3 others in the street. The incident begins when the first of the 4 arrives, and ends when the last departs - in whatever manner. Bracketing the event to Schwartz's point of view is arbitrary. However, it is necessary to do this to maintain the belief in the event lasting a few seconds. Your problem here is that Stride could conceivably have been standing at the gates for a few minutes or more. BS man could have continued his behavior after the other men leave the scene - claiming to know that BS man killed, and when he did so, is just being assumed to fit the event into the few seconds you need to fit it into. However, the earlier arrival and later departure of those Schwartz claimed to see, could also have been witnessed, but evidently you think that a multi-minute 'Schwartz incident' is too risky to suppose. Do you have confidence in Schwartz - yes or no?

We have a very reasonable (non-sinister) explanation for the couple based on the evidence. They were initially in Berner Street then they moved around the corner into Fairclough Street where Brown saw them.

Who is 'we'? Calling this explanation 'very reasonable', doesn't make it so. Stride was seen by Smith, with a man carrying a parcel. Brown didn't see a parcel and Schwartz didn't see this man at all. What is your very reasonable explanation for that?

So Dutfield’s Yard was out of sight to them, they would have been out of sight of anyone in Dutfield’s Yard and they didn’t hear anything because Stride wasn’t loud.

Oh, so this couple did not include Stride, but they had been in Berner street, and didn't see Stride when they were. So where was Stride at this point? On the Dutfield's Yard loo?

25 yards is not far enough on a quiet street, to not hear screams and shouts. Sound refracts around objects and bounces off hard surfaces. The incident would have been heard. The 'chase' would have been seen. Neither were. Someone lied.

[c.d.]

If jack the ripper had killed Stride ,the 15 mins would have been more than enough for any mutilations.

The spooked part ive already covered, it would have to have been almost a dead certainty that someone was coming into that yard for him to move on [hence the body would be discovered well before 1.00am

But time is not the only factor in play. And a physical interruption is not the only thing that could have made him move on. Simple mind generated paranoia could do that as well. Remember, if he is caught he is most likely hanged or put in an institution.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Exactly! The chances of what he claimed to see and hear being noticed by no one, is slim. Someone or someones was probably lying.

Not in the slightest. There was no one on the street for that short duration of time. This is immeasurably more likely than the suggestion that a non-English speaking Israel Schwartz would turn up at a Police station and pretend that he was at the scene of a murder (with no-one to verify his presence or to verify that he himself didn’t attack Stride himself and without knowing whether someone would have popped up to say “well I was looking out of my window from 12.30 until Mr Diemschitz arrived and I saw no argument in the street and I could see the gates of the yard from my window.”

The idea really should be kicked well into the long grass.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not only his account that should be doubted, at least to some extent, but also the feeble reason he gave for being on Berner street at that time of night.

There’s nothing ‘feeble’ about it. At any given point in time people do things that, when explained, might appear a little strange to us but there’s no point in applying the ‘well I wouldn’t have behaved in that way’ argument. I don’t see anything ‘feeble’ or ‘strange’ in the slightest about what Schwartz said especially when we have to accept that we’ve been handed down a truncated version of what he’d said. If Schwartz were here now and could explain to us what went on that day then it more then we wouldn’t have any issues.

[Herlock Sholmes]

JB: I went indoors, and when I had nearly finished my supper I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder." That was about a quarter of an hour after I had seen the man and woman.

The 12:45 estimate would seem to be fairly accurate. Brown's witnessing of a couple on his way home from the shop, but not on his way to it, seems to coincide with the arrival of the couple who spoke to the press and Mrs. Mortimer.

A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

We also have Joseph Lave placing himself on the street in the 12:45 period, and reporting to have seen nothing unusual. All of these witnesses must be moved out of the way, to clear the scene for The Sacred Cow of Berner Street.

‘Fairly accurate’ doesn’t equate to exact though. We have a handful of witnesses and of that handful you’ve decided that Schwartz is the turd-in-the-swimming-pool. In reality though we know at least 2 things for certain. First, that the incident was of very short duration - the incident in the street can have taken no more than a few seconds followed by a quick throat-cutting out of site in the shadows at the side of the club. Second, that all of the witnesses were estimating their times and we don’t know how they came to their estimations (where and when they last saw a clock or indeed how accurate that particular clock was) So all that’s required for this confrontation to have occurred is for the street to have been deserted for a minute or so. We have a very reasonable (non-sinister) explanation for the couple based on the evidence. They were initially in Berner Street then they moved around the corner into Fairclough Street where Brown saw them. So Dutfield’s Yard was out of sight to them, they would have been out of sight of anyone in Dutfield’s Yard and they didn’t hear anything because Stride wasn’t loud.

There’s no mystery here unless we make a deliberate attempt to create one. Yes, witnesses can lie, anyone can lie but the vast majority of the time witnesses tell the truth as they see it (and we know that they can very often be mistaken in descriptions, times etc) If we rigidly adhere to exact times then we obviously have problems but we know for example that Halse and Long claimed to have been in Goulston Street at the time and yet they didn’t see each other. Did they lie? Of course not, it was down to estimations of time. The same has to be applied to events in Berner Street. So the question is - if we allow for a reasonable margin for error on timings is there any problem with the events in Berner Street. The answer is emphatically no. When we get a murder in the street how often do we find planted witnesses and cover-ups? It might be a good plot for a novel but our first question should be “is there a reasonable explanation?” If there is then it’s overwhelmingly likely to be the solution. I’ve never understood the desire to create mystery where none exists. We have enough mystery in this case without inventing more imo.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You beat me to it with that last point Jeff. Perhaps, if BS man was the ripper, he wasn’t intending to kill that night? So he’s trundling off home after a pint or eight when he bumps into Stride touting for business. He’s not so far gone though that he doesn’t realise that it’s hardly the ideal spot but basically she’d ‘lit the spark’ so he initially tries to persuade her to go somewhere more private. A bit of pulling goes on a she ends up on the floor. She’s adamant that she’s not going anywhere when ‘this’ was the ideal spot.

The ideal spot for what?

He loses it and cuts her throat (in his drunken, confused state he might even have wondered if she’d come to think that he was the ripper?) He hears the singing upstairs, perhaps the side door is open or partially open (as per Mrs Diemschutz) or perhaps someone walks past the gate so he decides to scarper but the spark had been lit so he goes in search of another victim?

Was the man who killed Kate Eddowes, in a drunken, confused state? Why would a man in that state care about a bit of singing, or even someone going to the outside loos? Especially if he had 'lost it', which implies a loss of self-control.

[FISHY1118]

Dismissing all press reports as unreliable, is extremist. However, if you want to throw away a large amount of evidence, simply because it conflicts with the evidence of a man who didn't even make it to the inquest, fine. On the other hand, Schwartz's police statement can be no more honest and reliable than the man himself. So who was Israel Schwartz and how honest and reliable was he? Neither man he claimed to see was ever definitely identified, and Schwartz's own identity is unknown to modern researchers.

If Lave's timing doesn't 'cut it', then perhaps you could tell us when he was on the street. Was it earlier, when PC Smith saw Stride with Parcelman, perhaps? On the other hand, how could you know that Schwartz's timing was accurate? Was his timing an estimate, an accurate reading of an inaccurate clock, or an accurate reading of an accurate clock? We can never know.



Exactly! The chances of what he claimed to see and hear being noticed by no one, is slim. Someone or someones was probably lying.



Neither Schwartz nor the mythical creatures - BS man and Pipeman - were mentioned at the inquest.



It is not only his account that should be doubted, at least to some extent, but also the feeble reason he gave for being on Berner street at that time of night.

''Neither Schwartz nor the mythical creatures - BS man and Pipeman - were mentioned at the inquest.''



I see were moving into the trevor marriot school of thought on this topic , enough said, time to move on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, I think that's a good point to consider. It's possible that after the two previous murders, particularly as he successfully avoided being spotted by Cadoche and may have avoided being spotted by Cross/Lechmere, he may now feel like he's uncatchable and the busy location is not a problem for him. Going on to kill Eddowes would also reflect, in part, this sense of invincibility.



I would think inhibitions would be lower while intoxicated. A lot of serial murderers also drink or use drugs during their murders. Because of that, I tend to think that JtR could probably have been found (if not recognized as such) in a pub, and I suspect he probably regularly frequented one around the area of Commercial and Hanbury (within a 5 minute walk of there probably). I have no proof of that, of course, but not all ideas are evidence based and sometimes we just speculate on things (this being an example). But drink does lower inhibitions and if one has a rage inside them, it becomes more likely to manifest in one's actions after drinking. Who knows, maybe the murders stopped because he quit drinking, recognizing he would sooner or later get caught if he continued?



Entirely possible. I've always sort of thought that JtR probably approached his victims actually, but there's nothing to show they didn't speak first and engaged him. That part of the sequence (initial encounter) is unknown to us, which in a way means we really don't know if B.S. and Stride is different. I suppose Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan Man's meeting MJK is the only other statement about a potential JtR meeting his victim and his description is that he approached her ("...She went away toward Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. ..." found here). But of course there's controversy over Hutchinson's account, and even if he's accurate on that part, we don't know if Astrakhan Man = JtR.

If we go with the idea that he meets his victim, they go off together with him posing as a client, and then he begins his attack, we have to consider when in that sequence he had the intention of murder. What I mean is, did JtR intend to murder at the time he approached his victim (or once they approached him), or did something happen between them when they got to the location that set him off then? If he gets "triggered" at the crime scene, then it is quite likely he's a regular user of the local prostitutes. In fact, even if he already had the intention to murder, he is likely to be a regular customer (that's very common among prostitute killers). But if it is something they said at the crime scene that sets him off, then perhaps your idea that Stride said something to anger him right away. Perhaps he requested something and they refused him, and rejection sets him off. Or they said something cheeky and he took it as an insult, etc. All of this is unknowable, of course, but if what sets him off is something that occurs during his interaction with the victim then yes, it becomes entirely possible that Stride "crossed his line" as soon as they met.

On the other hand, if he intends murder at the point he engages his victim, then Stride seems to break his usual sequence, and as I've argued before, that deviation from his ideal sequence of events could be why he abandons her after killing her and doesn't go on to mutilate.

We have so little information that basically almost anything is possible, making them all improbable of course, but that doesn't mean we can't consider various possibilities. I just don't think it's wise for us to get too convinced by our creativity, so I just want to restate that all of these ideas I'm mulling over are just that, ideas, not facts.

- Jeff

You beat me to it with that last point Jeff. Perhaps, if BS man was the ripper, he wasn’t intending to kill that night? So he’s trundling off home after a pint or eight when he bumps into Stride touting for business. He’s not so far gone though that he doesn’t realise that it’s hardly the ideal spot but basically she’d ‘lit the spark’ so he initially tries to persuade her to go somewhere more private. A bit of pulling goes on a she ends up on the floor. She’s adamant that she’s not going anywhere when ‘this’ was the ideal spot. He loses it and cuts her throat (in his drunken, confused state he might even have wondered if she’d come to think that he was the ripper?) He hears the singing upstairs, perhaps the side door is open or partially open (as per Mrs Diemschutz) or perhaps someone walks past the gate so he decides to scarper but the spark had been lit so he goes in search of another victim?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What we dont have is Joseph Lave,s official witness testimony at the the Stride inquest, so his version of events must therefor be treated with speculation and unreliabilityl if it especially came in the form of a press report . '['in the 12.45 period doesnt quiet cut it tho does it'' , thats a silly quote really isnt it that could be anytime,, geez louise]

Dismissing all press reports as being unreliable, is extremist. However, if you want to throw away a large amount of evidence, simply because it conflicts with the evidence of a man who didn't even make it to the inquest, fine. On the other hand, Schwartz's police statement can be no more honest and reliable than the man himself. So who was Israel Schwartz and how honest and reliable was he? Neither man he claimed to see was ever definitely identified, and Schwartz's own identity is unknown to modern researchers.

If Lave's timing doesn't 'cut it', then perhaps you could tell us when he was on the street. Was it earlier, when PC Smith saw Stride with Parcelman, perhaps? On the other hand, how could you know that Schwartz's timing was accurate? Was his timing an estimate, an accurate reading of an inaccurate clock, or an accurate reading of an accurate clock? We can never know.

Theres no point going over Brown and Fanny Mortimer again and again as ive already said in previous post, there is just no record anywhere of anybody claiming at 12.45am what schwartz claimed in his official statement.

Exactly! The chances of what he claimed to see and hear being noticed by no one, is slim. Someone or someones was probably lying.

Only b.s ,pipeman and Schwartz were on that spot at 12.45am as the official inquest report clearly shows .[Stay away from the press ]

Neither Schwartz nor the mythical creatures - BS man and Pipeman - were mentioned at the inquest.

There is just no valid reason to exclude Schwartz eyewitness account in exchange for Browns , Mortimer and Lave.

It is not only his account that should be doubted, at least to some extent, but also the feeble reason he gave for being on Berner street at that time of night.

[FISHY1118]

JB: I went indoors, and when I had nearly finished my supper I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder." That was about a quarter of an hour after I had seen the man and woman.

The 12:45 estimate would seem to be fairly accurate. Brown's witnessing of a couple on his way home from the shop, but not on his way to it, seems to coincide with the arrival of the couple who spoke to the press and Mrs. Mortimer.

A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

We also have Joseph Lave placing himself on the street in the 12:45 period, and reporting to have seen nothing unusual. All of these witnesses must be moved out of the way, to clear the scene for The Sacred Cow of Berner Street.

What we dont have is Joseph Lave,s official witness testimony at the the Stride inquest, so his version of events must therefor be treated with speculation and unreliabilityl if it especially came in the form of a press report . '['in the 12.45 period doesnt quiet cut it tho does it'' , thats a silly quote really isnt it that could be anytime,, geez louise]


Theres no point going over Brown and Fanny Mortimer again and again as ive already said in previous post, there is just no record anywhere of anybody claiming at 12.45am what schwartz claimed in his official statement. Only b.s ,pipeman and Schwartz were on that spot at 12.45am as the official inquest report clearly shows .[Stay away from the press ]

There is just no valid reason to exclude Schwartz eyewitness account in exchange for Browns , Mortimer and Lave.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Who said she wanted, or was planning, to use that location for sex? If she was there when BS man approached her with threatening behaviour, she may simply have felt safer staying put, where club members were coming and going, in case he turned really nasty, rather than going anywhere else, with or without him.

What do you suppose was her purpose for being in the gateway?

Where club members were coming and going? Isn't that question begging?

So?

So the Star man might have done his best to determine what happened, and report it faithfully.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

James Brown: I live in Fairclough-street, and am a dock labourer. I have seen the body in the mortuary. I did not know deceased, but I saw her'' about'' a

quarter to one on Sunday morning last.


''About'' quarter to one is not 12.45am tho is it ?



''I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School. I was in the road just by the kerb, and they were near the wall.''

If they were standing on the corner at ''about'' quarter to 1.00 [about could be anytime leading up to that time] ,then swartz statement at 12.45 could easily have them placed where he said they were.


The inquest did not determined where Liz Stride was at 12:45, you did ,however its just speculation and unproven .

JB: I went indoors, and when I had nearly finished my supper I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder." That was about a quarter of an hour after I had seen the man and woman.

The 12:45 estimate would seem to be fairly accurate. Brown's witnessing of a couple on his way home from the shop, but not on his way to it, seems to coincide with the arrival of the couple who spoke to the press and Mrs. Mortimer.

A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

We also have Joseph Lave placing himself on the street in the 12:45 period, and reporting to have seen nothing unusual. All of these witnesses must be moved out of the way, to clear the scene for The Sacred Cow of Berner Street.

[Joshua Rogan]

Who knows, maybe the murders stopped because he quit drinking, recognizing he would sooner or later get caught if he continued?

Shades of the suspect who walked into a cab shelter and signed the pledge?

[JeffHamm]

Jeff, I do wonder if a couple of things were at play in regards the attack on Stride being out of character.

1) As attacks continue the perpetrator often begins to feel invincible. Chances begin to be taken that get even more wild and disorganised(particularly if somewhat disorganised at the beginning). The impulsiveness also begins to become more erratic. We see this will serial killers of this kind. His attack on Stride could have been driven by this.

Yes, I think that's a good point to consider. It's possible that after the two previous murders, particularly as he successfully avoided being spotted by Cadoche and may have avoided being spotted by Cross/Lechmere, he may now feel like he's uncatchable and the busy location is not a problem for him. Going on to kill Eddowes would also reflect, in part, this sense of invincibility.

2) Israel Schwartz mentions in his Press statement(I prefer Police statements but the two are very similar in Schwartzs regard) that B.S man appeared intoxicated. Did this intoxication lower his inhibitions still further? It is notable that this is the earliest attack that takes place. Was there time in the other instances for some of the intoxication to wear off?

I would think inhibitions would be lower while intoxicated. A lot of serial murderers also drink or use drugs during their murders. Because of that, I tend to think that JtR could probably have been found (if not recognized as such) in a pub, and I suspect he probably regularly frequented one around the area of Commercial and Hanbury (within a 5 minute walk of there probably). I have no proof of that, of course, but not all ideas are evidence based and sometimes we just speculate on things (this being an example). But drink does lower inhibitions and if one has a rage inside them, it becomes more likely to manifest in one's actions after drinking. Who knows, maybe the murders stopped because he quit drinking, recognizing he would sooner or later get caught if he continued?

3) We often assumed that the Ripper was approached by his victims but what if he actually approached them? He approaches Stride with the usual line but she does not respond as the others have and this upsets him leading to an impulsive assault through anger of being rejected. Speculative I know but worth thinking about.

Entirely possible. I've always sort of thought that JtR probably approached his victims actually, but there's nothing to show they didn't speak first and engaged him. That part of the sequence (initial encounter) is unknown to us, which in a way means we really don't know if B.S. and Stride is different. I suppose Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan Man's meeting MJK is the only other statement about a potential JtR meeting his victim and his description is that he approached her ("...She went away toward Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. ..." found here). But of course there's controversy over Hutchinson's account, and even if he's accurate on that part, we don't know if Astrakhan Man = JtR.

If we go with the idea that he meets his victim, they go off together with him posing as a client, and then he begins his attack, we have to consider when in that sequence he had the intention of murder. What I mean is, did JtR intend to murder at the time he approached his victim (or once they approached him), or did something happen between them when they got to the location that set him off then? If he gets "triggered" at the crime scene, then it is quite likely he's a regular user of the local prostitutes. In fact, even if he already had the intention to murder, he is likely to be a regular customer (that's very common among prostitute killers). But if it is something they said at the crime scene that sets him off, then perhaps your idea that Stride said something to anger him right away. Perhaps he requested something and they refused him, and rejection sets him off. Or they said something cheeky and he took it as an insult, etc. All of this is unknowable, of course, but if what sets him off is something that occurs during his interaction with the victim then yes, it becomes entirely possible that Stride "crossed his line" as soon as they met.

On the other hand, if he intends murder at the point he engages his victim, then Stride seems to break his usual sequence, and as I've argued before, that deviation from his ideal sequence of events could be why he abandons her after killing her and doesn't go on to mutilate.

We have so little information that basically almost anything is possible, making them all improbable of course, but that doesn't mean we can't consider various possibilities. I just don't think it's wise for us to get too convinced by our creativity, so I just want to restate that all of these ideas I'm mulling over are just that, ideas, not facts.

- Jeff