What's the compelling feature?

[c.d.]

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for the info. Did you get the Evening News article from a book or by searching online?

c.d.

[perrymason]

Thanks Mike (and the Two Swedes )It also lends weight to two noteworthy possibilities in relation to the Stride murder, namely (a) that she may have known her assailant personally; and (b) her assailant may have known precisely where to look if he wanted to find her. I'd maintain that in no "C5" case other than Kelly's could those two ideas be so strongly entertained.

Im flattering myself thinking that your presenting your suggestion in that manner in bold was in some way affected by the way I tend to "summarize". Perhaps not, or perhaps intentionally, but I like that you used "C5" Gareth...dont see you do that often.

This does still work with my notion that she was waiting for someone else, BSM is drunk, knows Liz and that she solicits, sees her...or as you suggest, goes looking for her, and in a stupid knee jerk drunk reaction to being "dismissed" without desert, cuts her in a moment of rage at being treated like dirt by her.

What bothers me is that for him to be so outraged that he would kill over it, he must be someone who thinks of himself as worthy of some respect or of a higher status than a poor housecleaner/street whore, or he is someone of higher status...someone he thinks she should obey regardless of his sobriety or her "inclinations". Perhaps someone of some minor influence locally or someone who people look up to.

It bothers me because for some reason I think Eagle might fit in here somewhere, if he comes back to the club after 12:40, or if he is the one she is waiting for perhaps. I didnt like the fact that he and Lave dont see each other at 12:40, nor did I like the fact that he says he is squeamish about blood, but fell "pell-mell" down the stairs for a look when the club members upstairs learned a woman was found with her throat cut in the yard. I also wonder why he is returning instead of going home or staying with his lady friend he escorted. Something in there.... but I dont know what yet.

All the best Sam

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for the info. Did you get the Evening News article from a book or by searching online?

c.d.

Hi cd,

The Evening News article from 1 October can easily be found in the Press Reports section of this site:

http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881001.html

It is interesting to note, that the same article actually contains Charles Letchford's statement as well (mentioning his sister), just beneath the passage about Mortimer.

"Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy, says: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gate with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went around the corner by the Board School. I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. 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.

Charles Letchford, living at 30, Berner-street, says: I passed through the street at half-past 12 and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual, and my sister was standing at the door at ten minutes to one, but did not see any one pass by. I heard the commotion when the body was found, and heard the policeman's whistles, but did not take any notice of the matter, as disturbances are very frequent at the club, and I thought it was only another row."

All the best

[perrymason]

Thanks for posting that Glenn, I had forgotten that Fanny also said "another murder" had been committed, just as Eagle and Diemshutz and Kozebrodski did. Seems most people that night were adding to Jacks list before the jury even went out to deliberate. And both witness statements refer to rows and activity in that yard after meetings, as something that was not uncommon. Yet not one person outside that night in the yard...after a rain.

Her contention about her must having seen someone enter or leave if it occurred just before 1 is interesting as well. Only BSM and Liz anywhere near the yard, no-one comes or goes, and her answer as to how the killer escaped is that he snuck by the cart Diemshutz rode in on.

What if the killer didnt leave? He would have virtually no blood on him, a knife can be hidden, and there are 28 witnesses upstairs that might swear he was singing with them at the time. Or that he just had arrived.

Cheers Glenn.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Glenn,

I have read with interest your posts in this segment. We haven't really got to fully exploring Sam's raising the possibility of Kidney's involvement, but nontheless, this is the part I asked you about before, the questioning of the Schwartz statement.

Schwartz identified the body of Elizabeth Stride at the mortuary. We fully agree on that. That is solid, basic police work which touches on physical evidence. And we know that Abberline was personally involved in questioning. A stated fact from police reports.

Among several things, you have introduced Mrs. Mortimer, and indeed her statement is incongrous and I am perfectly willing to have a good go at seeing if it can ever be reconciled. Phillip Sugden spent some time on her and this is part of what he wrote:

“There is nothing here to suggest that the man with the black bag was anything other than an innocent passer-by. But a day or so after Mrs Mortimer had made her statement he voluntarily presented himself at Leman Street Police Station to clear himself of any possible suspicion. He was Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street, a member of the International Working Men’s Club. He had left a coffee house in Spectacle Alley only a short time before Mrs. Mortimer had seen him. And his bag contained empty cigarette boxes.”

So I hope we can agree her statement does not lead that way or to any other black bag sightings. Rather, it is the absence of what she saw and heard that strikes you most, and it does me too.

In everything you said, and I read it all carefully, one thing stood out the most:

Personally, I see loads of problems with his statement and most of the confusing problems with Stride's murder is actually thanks to his statement - erase it, and many complex issues connected with the murder disappears.

So please do that for me. Erase it. The Schwartz statement. Or however you would like to do it. And tell where that leads. I'm all ears.

Roy

[perrymason]

I dont mean to segway Roy, Im sure Glenn will respond, but Ive been sitting here thinking about motives, and just thought to offer this....would it be fair to say that by the physical evidence, the only motive we could deduce is one that implies the killer wanted Elizabeth dead. Other than that, there are no clear signs that anything was done for the pleasure of the killer, meaning that wasnt specifically part of the act of killing her.

Can that motive and just those "required" actions be found with any other Canon victim? Dont all the other 4 have obvious indications that some acts were done at the whim or for the pleasure of the killer, things not required to kill them? Things in fact after he killed them.

The more I look at the issues here I think the only reasonable answer to my question of the thread is a possible interruption of the killer.

I dont think there is any evidence to suggest that the same killer would "decide" to only cut once to kill, or just to silence. Not when its supposedly his third victim in a series, and the 2 prior were killed to facilitate the cutting, not the reverse.

If not the Ripper, then perhaps with Sams notation on geography, her ex boyfriend. Someone who might just want her dead.

Cheers.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Peace-pipe cheerfully reciprocated.

Surely, when I can produce a picture of a cutaway coat with no tails - and it is very clearly named a cutaway coat in the context - you must admit that there was cutaways around with no tails?

Very clearly named by that website, but not by the actual definition of a cutaway, and therein lies my gripe unfortunately. Please understand that I'm not tryng to to be obstinate here. I bow to expertise to an extent, but I'd always bow to what the actual definition of a cutaway is. If the experts you've contacted come up with some compelling reasons to revise that accepted definition, I'll accept them. We're all here to learn.

...since it here seems that you agree that Marshalls man´s jacket could have lacked tails. Surely that is a mistake on your behalf?

It could have lacked tails, Fish, I grant ye, but given that Marshall was able to specify "cutaway" in very poor lighting conditions and from a distance, my guess is that the garment must have been rather obviously a cutaway, and the more obvious and conventional cutaways were characterized by a tail. But I hope my "could have" is taken on board.

All the best,
Ben

[Mitch Rowe]

Schwartz` story is corroborated ?

Mrs Mortimer heard what she thought was a policeman walking past her door at 12.45. This was not PC Smith, he was ten minutes earlier, it was either BS Man or Schwartz.

Both Mortimer and Letchford`s sister stood at their doors at about 12.50 and saw nothing, which fits Schwartz` statement, Liz was been assaulted by the gates.

All the Club members testified that no-one was in the yard between 12.45 and 01.00, which again fits with Schwartz` story.

If invented, how would Schwartz know the yard or street was empty for his incident to occur ?

Thats not corroboration. Thats more like too many conclusions with too little evidence. No one knows what really happened but from what I see its most likely JTR lured Stride to her death.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Roy,

I have to admit I at times get a bit puzzled by your posts because I sometimes don't know where you are going with things, and subsequently don't know how to reply - let me just comment a few things.

Schwartz identified the body of Elizabeth Stride at the mortuary. We fully agree on that. That is solid, basic police work which touches on physical evidence. And we know that Abberline was personally involved in questioning. A stated fact from police reports.

Schwartz DID identiy Stride's body (as did Packer), and that is yet another problem I have with the idea that Schwartz may not have been telling the truth. However, it is possible that she may have been to the area before and that SChwartz simply recognised her - or that he actually did see her, but that the incident itself with BS was a fabrication. But it's still one of those issues that complicates things further.
This is, for example, my view on Packer - I have no doubt that he saw Stride that night, but I don't think the incident with him selling grapes to her and her companion had any truth in it. The latter part was most likely a fabrication or 'addition' of his part so that he could get hold of the reward instigated by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committe after he had been approached by the private detectives.
As for Abberline interviewing, well I don't see what that has to do with things; it was his job, he was head of the investigations on the ground and the interviews. It doesn't mean one way or the other.

So I hope we can agree her statement does not lead that way or to any other black bag sightings. Rather, it is the absence of what she saw and heard that strikes you most, and it does me too.

Here I am not sure at all what you mean, nor with 'other black bag sightings'.
All that matters here is that GOldstein, the man with the black bag, actually came forward himself, and thus at least confirmed that THAT part of Mortimer's statement is true.
Backed up by Letchford and his sister, and others, saying that they saw no incident at that time on Berner Street that resembels anything like the Schwartz drama, we have to consider the possibility that the latter never happened.

So please do that for me. Erase it. The Schwartz statement. Or however you would like to do it. And tell where that leads. I'm all ears.

Well, it really speaks for itself. Up til the Schwartz incident we have a number of people who might have seen Stride a bit earlier in compnay of a man or a couple of different men, with the timings following each other quite fittingly. Of course erasing the Schwartz incident does not solve her murder or clear up how it happened, but without Schwartz we don't have a testimony that's in conflict with others and we don't have a killer who acts in a manner that no doubt would have created more attention than it did, if it happened at the time when he said it did. It would also diminish the problem with why she was seen attacked on the street but during mysterious circumstances was found dead inside the year only a few minutes later AFTER the attack.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"It could have lacked tails, Fish, I grant ye, but given that Marshall was able to specify "cutaway" in very poor lighting conditions and from a distance, my guess is that the garment must have been rather obviously a cutaway, and the more obvious and conventional cutaways were characterized by a tail. But I hope my "could have" is taken on board."

All fair and square, Ben! And yes, you are of course absolutely right that SOMETHING must have been there to make Marshall characterize that jacket as a cutaway. What that something may have been if it was NOT tails, is of course open to discussion.

Initially, and without having dug to the bottom of it all, I can see two obvious options:

1. The tailoring of the front. When looking at the different jackets offered as cutaways, it is obvious that they all have that same trait of the lower pieces on the front having been cut away. The extent to which this has been done varies, however - some jackets have lost only a few square inches to that rounding of the lower outline, whereas others lack quite substantial pieces of cloth there. Owing to the extent of how much was cut away, I think that there is a good chance that this trait could have been enough.

2. Cutaway jackets seem to have two buttons (of varying size from jacket to jacket) sewn into the back of them in most cases. If there were two such discernible buttons on this particular jacket, maybe that could have been the reason for identifying it as a cutaway.

All the best, Ben!
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Micheal,

As I pointed out, it isn’t a matter of interpretation; it is a matter of fact.

( I know people say things like that all the time on Casebook but in this case it's true)

No medical knowledge existed that would allow Blackwell to be as precise as you claim.

Also, you might want to read the rest of the Inquest paragraph you quoted.
Blackwell repeats the exact phrase, making his meaning crystal clear,

"Dr Phillips arrived from twenty minutes to half an hour after my arrival."

If you really want to use Blackwell;

He said Elizabeth Stride would have died within one and a half minutes of the throat being cut. Allow around five minutes to bleed out and you have an idea when the attack took place.
Spooner says she was still bleeding when he checked her. Ergo, minus roughly seven minutes from his check-time and you have the murder time.

Is it full proof? No.
But it is the evidence as we know it and any alternative 21st century theories need a sound explanation to justify them.

Does this connect Stride to the ripper? I’ve no idea I’m a fence sitter in that debate. It does add fuel to those who say he was interrupted, as the timing is spot on. On the other hand it doesn’t rule out Broad Shoulders or Pipe Man but it does decrease their odds.

Hopefully that corrects the misconceptions now I’m interested in hearing some good anti/pro ripper theories!

Thanks for your time.

[perrymason]

Hello Micheal,

As I pointed out, it isn’t a matter of interpretation; it is a matter of fact.

( I know people say things like that all the time on Casebook but in this case it's true)

No medical knowledge existed that would allow Blackwell to be as precise as you claim.

Also, you might want to read the rest of the Inquest paragraph you quoted.
Blackwell repeats the exact phrase, making his meaning crystal clear,

"Dr Phillips arrived from twenty minutes to half an hour after my arrival."

If you really want to use Blackwell;

He said Elizabeth Stride would have died within one and a half minutes of the throat being cut. Allow around five minutes to bleed out and you have an idea when the attack took place.
Spooner says she was still bleeding when he checked her. Ergo, minus roughly seven minutes from his check-time and you have the murder time.

Is it full proof? No.
But it is the evidence as we know it and any alternative 21st century theories need a sound explanation to justify them.

Does this connect Stride to the ripper? I’ve no idea I’m a fence sitter in that debate. It does add fuel to those who say he was interrupted, as the timing is spot on. On the other hand it doesn’t rule out Broad Shoulders or Pipe Man but it does decrease their odds.

Hopefully that corrects the misconceptions now I’m interested in hearing some good anti/pro ripper theories!

Thanks for your time.

Hi Dusty,

Personally I wouldnt accept a premise or two that you have Dusty. If Im correct in my interpretation of his remarks and his skills, I believe it was within his capacity to isolate a 10 minute period of the preceeding half hour within which the cut likely took place. I believe his adding a half hour to his 20 minute remarks does frame a time window like that, and even if he were unskilled, hes still probably given himself a 33% chance of being correct if its clear the overall time was 30 minutes or less by the physical evidence.

When you offered his later quote regarding Phillips, the only thing missing in the quote I posted is the word "from", which I bracketed. But the implication is clear that is what he was saying, in my opinion. From the time of his arrival.

Spooner may have seen blood running, or he may have seen a dim light cast upon a dark river that appeared to him to move. He has no expertise in that regard. And review the times he gives...not infallible.

Your time on death from cut time is about right, so is the bleed out timing, which makes it possible she was cut within 5 minutes of Diemshutz arrival as she was bleeding then, and since Spooner is there at approx 1:06, the 5 minutes has elapsed even if she was cut the second Diemshutz pulled in. Which makes little sense, if he heard a cart on cobblestones growing louder and louder leading up to that. If she was cut at that moment, Diemshutz would have seen a strong flow, possibly a spray too. He didnt say that.

Thats why I have stated that since the latest time "from" his arrival, or earliest on the clock, by Blackwell says she was cut around 12:46am, and the earliest time "from" his arrival that he mentions specifically is a 20 minute period, Its not logical to conclude he meant to say she was killed at 1am or just prior. He didnt approxinate the time he gave that opinion to say around 1:15, he attempted to be as accurate as he could be. And I dont believe the evidence indicates that his intentions were to say she was killed closer to 1am than say 12:50 or 12:51am.

I believe its 20 minutes to a half hour that is the essential part, not the "not more than", or omitting a "from", that may be the result of non-verbatim...or non-transcript quoting. Its my understanding the version I quoted was from transcripts.

But as you say...and I acknowleged, it appears that possible interruption of the killer would have to be the leading contender for "compelling reasons" as far as a Canon designation. And thats IMHO a very weak reason for inclusion. And it cant be proven with what Blackwell said, regardless of your take on what he intended.

....plus, if Fanny Mortimer had seen Liz at, outside or around the gates between 12:46 and close to 1am, we could imagine the killer hasnt got her alone yet. But she is not visible...we are told the yard was empty at 12:40am, and BSM and Liz are not visible. If she isnt being cut by Jack yet, or BSM, then what is he waiting for? 'Jack" has the empty yard, a poor whore, and Im sure his knife. Do you think he hesitated when he noticed many windows looked down into the yard at Hanbury? Some were said to be open at the time. Does he hesitate with Polly...cutting her in plain sight of anyone who might enter that street from either end? When he gets them alone, he kills, then cuts. Liz and her killer might have been alone in an empty yard at approx 12:46am. What would make him wait 14 minutes?

He gets Kate alone, kills her, guts her, slices her face, cuts out her left kidney from her front, pockets her organs and leaves in perhaps 6-8 minutes total, without being seen by two patrolmen who review the square intermittently from different entrances.

Best regards.

[Fisherman]

Michael asks:

"What would make him wait 14 minutes?"

You know my stance, Michael - if the man who killed her was BS man, and if the two were lovers or at least aquainted to each other, then I think it would be very plausible that they stepped into the yard to straighten things out in private after the initial row.
That would explain why heaps of time was allowed to pass by without any cutting action. Just as it would explain why she found the situation unthreatening and familiar enough to take her cachous out.

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Michael asks:

"What would make him wait 14 minutes?"

You know my stance, Michael - if the man who killed her was BS man, and if the two were lovers or at least aquainted to each other, then I think it would be very plausible that they stepped into the yard to straighten things out in private after the initial row.
That would explain why heaps of time was allowed to pass by without any cutting action. Just as it would explain why she found the situation unthreatening and familiar enough to take her cachous out.

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

Hi again Fisherman,

Surely a very likely scenario if the two were acquainted, and even if he intended to straighten her out as a stranger for refusing his advances. My point was that The Ripper need not be involved at all under those circumstances, and The Ripper, we believe, kills women he doesnt know...and only to further his objectives, which include some aspect of the PM mutilations.

We do not have a situation that requires Jack as an answer, we dont have evidence the man who killed Liz had any other ideas than simply that, and we know that she doesnt have any of what we could refer to as "trademark" Ripper PM wounds. And we also have her in the company of an "assailant", in or just outside an empty yard she is found dead in in less than 15 minutes, when we no longer can account for her exact location and status. And she may well be dead before Goldstein walks by, let alone when Diemshutz pulls in.

I think, my opinion of course, but to make a suggestion that the killer was Jack and yet spent any amount of time over 1 or 2 minutes alone with a victim and didnt kill her and start cutting is to disregard any evidence that is suggested by the first two appointments to the Canon.

Based on Polly and Annie, it would appear the man they were looking for acted as perhaps a client, and when alone with the victim, within the first few seconds maybe with Kate, he struck. Based on what we know about Liz, the man seen assaulting her just prior to her death is by far the most likely suspect, as he is the last man seen in her company, as was Lawendes man, and Mary Ann Cox's. There is a suggestion that the two might be acquainted by the fact that Liz doesnt clearly call for help when they first interact and she falls, which is contrary to what we surmise about Jack and his victims. And she is cut only once...with what must have been at least minutes left before he even could be disturbed.

Best regards.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi again Fisherman,

Based on Polly and Annie, it would appear the man they were looking for acted as perhaps a client, and when alone with the victim, within the first few seconds maybe with Kate, he struck. Based on what we know about Liz, the man seen assaulting her just prior to her death is by far the most likely suspect, as he is the last man seen in her company, as was Lawendes man, and Mary Ann Cox's. There is a suggestion that the two might be acquainted by the fact that Liz doesnt clearly call for help when they first interact and she falls, which is contrary to what we surmise about Jack and his victims. And she is cut only once...with what must have been at least minutes left before he even could be disturbed.

Best regards.

Agreed Michael, However we do not know for sure that Jack wasnt known to his victims, in fact it would make far more sense if he was known to his victims and thought of as relatively harmless...

In fact JtR could have been fairly harmless until 'God' interfered and started telling him what to do...I think we should be careful when trying to rationalize the killers motives....I dont think we can conclude JtR motives were Rational..

Perhaps he just wanted to talk to Liz about his laundary?

Yours Jeff