Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[Michael W Richards]

And once again, Stride actively soliciting is not a requirement for her being a Ripper victim. So her breath, clothes, flowers etc. are a moot point.

c.d.

No, the facts are that up until Liz Strides inclusion into this farcical Canon he had ONLY targeted street women that were actively soliciting. Also, both were of diminished capacity and reason at the time,.. one being ill, the other being drunk.

Youve said this before and it makes me wonder whether you are actually reading the evidence or just imagining that the killer changed his goals..objectives, MO and skill sets for every murder that doesnt match the type of details and profiles of the person who killed Polly then Annie. Cause that man killed working street women so he could mutilate them.

And Liz is killed.. because.....??? She pissed off a drunk? Was mistaken for a snitch? By someone who caught her cheating on them?
Lots of possibilities for WHY with Liz, when we already know WHY for Polly and Annie. Obviously different reasons.

[c.d.]

I dont recall Abberline championing Israels statement other than just stating he believed it, same for Swanson....

What would "championing" a statement entail? Isn't saying he believed it sufficient in and of itself?

c.d.

[c.d.]

"To look attractive" got me...like either party gave a rats ass about that. It was cheap, dirty street sex. And Liz was not dressed, nor prepared, for that kind of encounter with anyone.

Not long ago, our good friend Caz, specifically and patiently (I must say) explained that all to you from a woman's perspective. You might want to go back and read her post to help you with your perspective.

c.d.

[c.d.]

He, nor his story, are not found in any documents relating to Strides Inquest,...he was not called to appear, nor was his story entered on its own.

So what can we conclude from that, Michael?

I swear I am going to get carpal tunnel syndrome responding to this over and over.

WE DON"T KNOW WHY HE WAS NOT CALLED. Assume all you want but the bottom line, the reality is, we simply don't know.

And I will be polite and make no mention of the fact that Fanny Mortimer was not called either. Oh wait....

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I doubt whether any clients of "Working women" got the breath freshener, flower arrangement, lint brushed skirt treatment as part of their "servicing".

Exactly. Ask any woman and they will tell you the best way to attract men is to have bad breath and dirty clothes and make zero effort to look attractive.

Her situation and intentions at the start of the evening didn't have to correspond with what took place at the end of the evening.

c.d.

I know you are aware of how poor these women and men were, how dirty and smelly dock workers and warehouse men were while working, how disgusting a smock covered with animal blood on the slaughterhouse men would be.....all of which would be in the client pool of those working the streets after midnight in that area. Now factor in the cost of presenting yourself to smelly dirty men with fresh breath, brushed skits and flowers on her jacket.

"To look attractive" got me...like either party gave a rats ass about that. It was cheap, dirty street sex. And Liz was not dressed, nor prepared, for that kind of encounter with anyone.

[Michael W Richards]

Your kidding right ? , Schwartz gave an official statement to the police , he was taken to the mortuary to officially identify the dead body of the women he saw b.s man assault.

You had better have a good reason for why this witness lied twice to the police in a murder investigation

The evidence of this is where exactly?

I've said it before, the only reason ppl want to eliminate Schwartz is because he conflicts with their chosen suspect or theory . .

I dont recall Abberline championing Israels statement other than just stating he believed it, same for Swanson....so, how you figure this is a vetted, verified, validated accurate story given by a reputable witness is beyond me. The mere fact that his story includes the victim minutes before her death would make him the last to see her alive if true, and that would be one of the first people the Inquest would want to hear from. Couple that with an alleged victim assault in that sighting...hard to imagine that would be considered irrelevant. But it appears it was just that. He, nor his story, are not found in any documents relating to Strides Inquest,...he was not called to appear, nor was his story entered on its own.

Perhaps you might want to revisit the quote "not wholly accepted" as relates to Israel and the investigation into his claim. It may not refer to the man they questioned....."The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted." Yes, It is ambiguous as to whether they are skeptical about the man who gave the original statement, or the man they refer to as "prisoner", but it seems to me since they referred to him as Prisoner in the previous line and the questioning, the "man's statement" may well refer to the original statement by the original "man".

So we dont get caught up in semantics, there is no official document made concerning the statement given Sunday night by Schwartz that indicates the details of his story should be considered an empirical fact of any kind. People believed it...well, you above all should know that people can believe anything they wish to. Providing evidence of it can be quite another thing.

In addition, the translator may well be Wess, who knew Israel before this incident, and who later translated for Goldstein. One wonders, would Wess translate for any club attendees or members that didnt speak English. And How, if at all, might Israel fit in with that.

So...taking umbrage at me for pointing out the well documented and obvious, isnt getting anyone anywhere.

[c.d.]

The idea that she was out to solicit that night just doesn't hold water because all of the accumulated evidence, both actual and circumstantial points towards Stride not out to pull a punter.

But here is the problem, R.D., even if we can say with absolute certainly that she was not out to actively solicit that night we have no way of knowing her response if approached by Jack and let's say offered more money than usual for her favors. Is she going to turn that down? Remember, she was not well off financially and had just left Kidney and is now on her own. Plus, apparently she had a drinking problem which takes money. The expression don't look a gift horse in the mouth comes to mind.

We simply don't know what she would do. So whether or not she was actively soliciting really doesn't matter.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

At the time the sale of Cachou were marketed/aimed at middle class women who smoked and wanted to freshen their breath.

It was seen as part of the experience; relax and enjoy a smoke like a sophisticated lady before taking a Cachou to freshen up that breath and move on with the rest of the day.

The idea of Stride having Cachou on her person may not just have been for practical use, but also for show, ergo, to look classier in front of others.

When you incorporate Stride's choice of attire that night/morning it could be considered reasonable to suggest that she was trying to impress someone.

The idea that she was out to solicit that night just doesn't hold water because all of the accumulated evidence, both actual and circumstantial points towards Stride not out to pull a punter.


RD

[Robert St Devil]

So to reply to your question, I think that the constable had come off of fixed-point duty at 1am, but that the conclusion of his duty coincided with Lamb's encounter with Eagle. JMO.

{yawns, stretches & opens Casebook} “hey look… a response… bonus points!”

appreciate the reply, always welcomed HOWEVER an alternate interpretation regarding fixed-duty being:

the constable’s work-shift went from 9pm to 5am; there was a specific task assigned to constables during that period of time, that being: fixed-duty; fixed-duty concluded at 1am WHEN the fixed-duty constable (possibly) returned to regular beat operations.

so NO I don’t think the fixed-duty constable was readying to head to home & hearth because his shift was readying to end at 1 o’clock
It can be read as… he had come off fixed-duty shift at 1 o’clock AND THAT was when Lamb saw him

my presumption being: fixed-duty was a task assigned to constables during their shift, during peak hours of activity, provided as a convenience to the public HOWEVER it concluded city-wide at 1am when street-activity began to slow down (ie. after the closure of public-houses, after all the drunks had gone home, after most of the rows had occurred).
This may have prompted the Coroner to assert a rumor that SOMETIMES constables had remained on fixed-duty for the duration of the night TO WHICH the inspector dismissed the claim as a rare occurrence (iow NOT in this particular instance).

- - - - - -

my thoughts on The Times and 1:10. The transcription from pencil to print was botched, someone read the circle scribble of “6” as a “0” AFTER ALL it wouldn’t make sense for the doctor to say that the constable arrived at 1:10 AND SUBSEQUENTLY he himself arrived at Dutfield Yard at 1:10.



Cheers george, ripperologists… and DJA (hope life is well, ol’ buddy)

[c.d.]

And once again, Stride actively soliciting is not a requirement for her being a Ripper victim. So her breath, clothes, flowers etc. are a moot point.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I doubt whether any clients of "Working women" got the breath freshener, flower arrangement, lint brushed skirt treatment as part of their "servicing".

Exactly. Ask any woman and they will tell you the best way to attract men is to have bad breath and dirty clothes and make zero effort to look attractive.

Her situation and intentions at the start of the evening didn't have to correspond with what took place at the end of the evening.

c.d.

[FISHY1118]

Nor anything Israel claimed, so thats a draw then?

Your kidding right ? , Schwartz gave an official statement to the police , he was taken to the mortuary to officially identify the dead body of the women he saw b.s man assault.

You had better have a good reason for why this witness lied twice to the police in a murder investigation

The evidence of this is where exactly?

I've said it before, the only reason ppl want to eliminate Schwartz is because he conflicts with their chosen suspect or theory . .

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

I think this is a definite possibility.

Cheers, George

Well,... I certainly feel compelled to address a poster that actually agrees with something I posted. There is very little that is remarkable about Liz Strides murder, in my opinion anyway. A single slice, men that we know had been drinking having easy access to the location she is murdered without being seen from or on the street, left to bleed out after the single cut is made, a knife unlike the one used on previous alleged JtR murders, Phillips finding little to compare favourably with what he saw with Annies killing, and her reasons for being there seem to be either related to cleaning work or a social excursion. Either one would likely mean she wouldnt know what time she would return to the lodging house, which explains her leaving her small treasure with another resident until she returns, and her desire to clean lint from her skirt. I doubt whether any clients of "Working women" got the breath freshener, flower arrangement, lint brushed skirt treatment as part of their "servicing".

She is scrutinized today because she was bundled into an unsolved mystery that took place in the same geographical area and with the same chronological timing.

This is why I debate the preconceptions about this murder in particular, and why I suspect that one of the men at that location is likely her killer. This isnt slippery silent rubber soled Jack the serial mutilator, its more probably a tipsy attendee knee-jerk reacting to something about Liz, something she said, something she did, something she might represent. Street women were recruited by the police to spy on these kinds of clubs and organizations, and the men at the club, in particular the ones in charge at the club, would know that. One arrived without being seen by anyone and "discovered" the body, ....discovered, or......

Yes.....I did suggest between the lines that its within the realm of possibility that Louis killed her, then created a timeline that suggested he couldnt have. She was obviously cut before 1....so... he arrived precisely at 1. Its possible he could have done just that, and it would explain why we have an abundance of witnesses that said they knew of the body well before 1am, which contradicts Louis's contention...and I think the assumption by many...that he must have discovered her first, at 1.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

"I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock."

To me, he seems to be saying that the patrol of Berner Street during which he saw of Stride & companion also began at the top corner of Berner Street, or else he couldn't have stated that he was there "again at one o'clock".

But if that's Smith actually turned into Berner Street from Fairclough heading north, then I would be interested in your idea of how he only went up Berner Street on the round in which he saw the couple at 12:30 to 12:35 and ended up at the top of Berner Street 25 to 30 minutes later at 1 o'clock, about to turn into Berner on his way south.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

The short answer to your question is.... I don't have the slightest idea. As I said, Smith's testimony only outlined the perimeter of his beat with a comment regarding the internal possibilities, which I interpret as random with regard to Smith's judgement in each particular case on the night. At one stage I spent some considerable hours trying to work out a feasible beat, but with no joy. I have formed the opinion that we have no way of deducing the internal configuration of Smith's beat, so the logical conclusion is that we can only accept Smith's testimony that he saw Stride with Parcelman as he was proceeding north along Berner St, and accept that, in his experienced professional opinion, that occurred between 12:30 and 12:35 police time. The fact is that he is the ONLY ONE that knew his beat on that night. I shall remain obdurate in this opinion until evidence is produced to the contrary, such evidence not to include the unsubstantiated times of Fanny Mortimer.

Best regards, George

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

There is, of course, the possibility that our rendition of Smith's postulated beat is incorrect, and he actually turned into Berner St from Fairclough and headed north. His testimony referred only to the perimeter of his beat, so the fact of the matter is that we are really only guessing at the actual internal configuration of his beat. Only Smith knows the truth.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

"I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock."

To me, he seems to be saying that the patrol of Berner Street during which he saw of Stride & companion also began at the top corner of Berner Street, or else he couldn't have stated that he was there "again at one o'clock".

But if Smith actually turned into Berner Street from Fairclough heading north, then I would be interested in your idea of how he only went up Berner Street on the round in which he saw the couple at 12:30 to 12:35 and ended up at the top of Berner Street 25 to 30 minutes later at 1 o'clock, about to turn into Berner on his way south.

Cheers,
Frank