Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

[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.

[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.]

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.

[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.]

Stride wasn't the only prostitute in Whitechapel. So why not make a little extra effort to stand out from the competition? Would looking nice and having fresh breath hurt her chances of getting clients? And how much extra cost and effort would it actually require on her part?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

AFTER ALL it wouldnt 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)

No, it wouldnt. But with Louis stating he only first arrived at 1 to discover the body, then Lamb had to be much later than "just before 1" when he saw Eagle, and Johnson could not have been there at 1:10 at all.

It doesnt makes sense suggesting that Louis DID arrive at 1 like he said and all the rest of the statements that would directly conflict with that time are all wrong......but there are folks who do that too.

[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.

Are you saying he could not deviate in any way from that if he chose to do so? Was it like a union thing?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

No, the facts are that up until Liz Strides inclusion into this farcical Canon he had ONLY targeted street women that were actively soliciting.

Are you saying he could not deviate in any way from that if he chose to do so? Was it like a union thing?

c.d.

IU feel like we do this in reverse cd.......I dont need to justify the profile that was created by the first 2 alleged Ripper murders, nor did I create the reason for Annies wounds...."The object of the inquiry is not only to ascertain the cause of death, but the means by which it occurred. Any mutilation which took place afterwards may suggest the character of the man who did it." ......."The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."

There is no questioning the fact that the women were both actively soliciting, they both confided that information to friends they saw on the nights they are killed. There is no question, at least to DR Phillips, that Annie was killed and cut open so her killer could extract precisely what he took.

So...you question whether this same man might not just change his spots next time out? I can only say that YOU need to provide a supported argument that suggests he was flexible in these aspects, I dont have to prove what is already proven. Because the details in those first 2 murders seem virtually identical, and the wounds more severe the 2nd time because he had more time alone with the body. The first 2 match in MO, technique and focus.

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

Excellent Michael

I concur with this entirely


In truth, the night of the Murder of Stride, there was no big drama, no assault, no anti Semitic slur shouted across the street...and no suspect who bought grapes either

The night was wholly uneventful and the only distinguishable sounds came from the after-hours lock-in at the club as they sang songs and got merry.

Stride's killer convinced her to walk from her position as seen by PC Smith and lure her into the relative darkness of the yard.
Within 30 seconds of manoeuvring her into the yard, he had pulled her back violently by her neck attire, strangled her, cut her throat savagely once, layed her down and walked off.

That's why nobody heard anything and saw nothing

Apart from Schwartz

Lave, Eagle and the other couple saw or heard nothing to warrant any suspicion.
Pc Smith saw Stride with Parcelman talking quietly

Mortimer heard boots and saw Goldstein

Brown may have been the last person to see Stride alive IF it was indeed Stride who he saw.

If it was, then the comment of "no, not tonight, some other night" ? paraphrasing possibly could be contextually relevant because there may be a chance that after Brown saw her (Stride?) she may have walked from her position to head toward the club in a bid to get away from the man who may not have taken no for an answer. As she walks thought the yard in a bid to go onto the club he may have followed and cut her throat before she could reach relative safety.
In other words, Stride may have been murdered by the man Brown saw just moments after she openly rejected him.

But going back to the Schwartz...

It is rather telling how he never appeared at the inquest.

It does make me wonder whether the police tried to locate him to be a key witness at the inquest, but they couldn't find him.

The man was a ghost


RD

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Abberlines belief and a match will light a cigarette, but belief alone will not help make a murder case. It only means Abberline had a personal belief, not that the authorities were operating in fashion that suggested they were using his story as a foundation here. In case you havent noticed they had a witness for the time of 12:45 appear at the Inquest, so they believed his story was relevant for that time. Even though, it apparently wasnt a valid sighting.

[c.d.]

So...you question whether this same man might not just change his spots next time out? I can only say that YOU need to provide a supported argument that suggests he was flexible in these aspects, I dont have to prove what is already proven.

Except that when it is pointed out to you over and over by myself and others that we have documented, factual evidence of killers in other cases drastically changing their M.O.'s you simply ignore it. Since we have evidence that killers can and do this, I would think the onus would be on you to provide some sort of justification for your intransient belief that Jack was committed to 100% consistency in every thing that he did.

c.d.

[c.d.]

In truth, the night of the Murder of Stride, there was no big drama, no assault, no anti Semitic slur shouted across the street...and no suspect who bought grapes either

You seem to have fallen into the habit of stating your opinion as an established fact as opposed to saying in my opinion or I think the evidence clearly indicates etc. etc.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again the impossible is being attempted. It’s the attempt to ‘prove’ that Stride wasn’t a ripper victim. Now I’ve made it very clear that I think it’s possible that she wasn’t but that she certainly could have been and I’m making this point again in case it’s stated or implied that I have a reason for ‘making’ her a victim - I don’t. Like everyone, I have no way of being certain because there’s no way of being certain. Others however have a committed opinion that she wasn’t.

So how do we decide? It’s been stated here that a different knife was used on Stride than was used on the other victims but I’d advise anyone to read Steve Blomer’s excellent article in the latest Ripperologist - A Question Of Blades: Looking at the possible knives of the Ripper, where he clears up this misinterpretation of the evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that Stride was killed using a different knife to the other victims. This can now be dismissed.

Then we have the suggestion that the Ripper only killed women who were actively soliciting. The addition of actively of course is intended to sow a seed of doubt but we have no way of knowing if Stride was soliciting at the time that she was killed or not. The various suggested possible sightings of her with men ‘might’ suggest otherwise but of course we can’t state this as a fact and I’m certainly not attempting to do so here.

Her clothing of course is entirely irrelevant as she would hardly have had an extensive wardrobe so it’s difficult to see why it’s ever mentioned in connection with this point.

Might the location preclude the suggestion of soliciting? It’s another unknown. Wess was asked at the inquest:

[Coroner] Do low women frequent Berner-street? - I have seen men and women standing about and talking to each other in Fairclough-street.
[Coroner] But have you observed them nearer the club? - No.
[Coroner] Or in the club yard? - I did once, at eleven o'clock at night, about a year ago. They were chatting near the gates. That is the only time I have noticed such a thing, nor have I heard of it.

Whether Wess was keen just to disassociate the club from anything disreputable or not is an unknown but his last comment suggests that it certainly wasn’t impossible for a prostitute to have tried her luck there.

One important point has been neglected though. Did she need to have been actively soliciting to have been a victim or might it just have been that she’d been recognised as a prostitute (even if only part-time)? It’s not difficult to suggest possibilities -

A drunken previous punter sees her waiting for someone, recognises her and propositions her but she turns him down. He gets angry, taking a ‘so I’m not good enough for you now’ attitude and cuts her throat.

Equally, as we know that the ripper probably knew various prostitutes by sight, maybe he saw her and targeted her? She turned him down with the same result. Maybe he wasn’t interrupted and it was simply the refusal that made him angry and killing her was enough: a spur of the moment anger kill?

Or maybe she was killed by the Ripper but he was interrupted. Not necessarily by Diemschitz though it’s possible of course. As Mrs D said that the side door was open maybe someone went to the outside looking and disturbed him? Maybe someone opened it to let some air in. There are any number of things that might have spooked the killer. Again though, I’m only stressing ‘might.’


So there really is no way that we can decide whether she was a ripper victim or not or whether she was actively soliciting or not. Sometimes we have to just hold our hands up and say that we have no way of knowing and not try to shape the evidence one way or another.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In truth, the night of the Murder of Stride, there was no big drama, no assault, no anti Semitic slur shouted across the street...and no suspect who bought grapes either

You seem to have fallen into the habit of stating your opinion as an established fact as opposed to saying in my opinion or I think the evidence clearly indicates etc. etc.

c.d.

This does appear to be the case c.d. as we yet again head down Conspiracy Avenue. And all of this because no one saw a 30 second incident in a Whitechapel backstreet at 12.45am. People would rather assume ludicrous planted witnesses and all manner of twists and lies that would seem far-fetched in a Hitchcock movie than keeping their feet planted on terra firma. Ripperology made to look like a joke yet again.

[c.d.]

There is no evidence to suggest that Stride was killed using a different knife to the other victims.

And even if this were proven what would have prevented the Ripper from having more than one knife? They were relatively cheap to buy and readily available were they not?

And again, this is another example of the increasingly more prevalent if A then B thinking. If it can be shown that the knife used to kill Stride was different from other victims then she could not have been killed by the Ripper. Uh no, simply not true. It would only tell us that a different knife was used.

c.d.