The Cachous

[John G]

Hi JohnG
I didn't really want to get into the details of the kosminski ID, I was merely pointing out that if it was Schwartz as the witness then obviously the police believed him and believed BS could have been Strides killer.

I noticed you skipped the main point of my post-i'll ask again. Why didn't the police at the time rule out BS man due to the Caschous? Nor even mention it as a problem? I mean according to you all its so bloody obvious!

I'll answer it for you-Because no detective worth his salt-now or then-would rule out a suspect or throw out eye witness testimony(!!) based on the fact that the victim was found holding something in there hand. Its ridiculous.

Hi Abby,

Yes, I basically agree. In fact, the issue of the cachous wasn't discussed in detail at the inquest, so I would doubt that the police had even considered the problem. And I accept that if the police had substantial evidence against a suspect, such as an identification which took place in proper circumstances, from a witness who was prepared to testify, I'm sure the cachous problem, and the numerous other difficulties with Schwartz's testimony, would not have prevented the suspect from being charged. Although, of course, these issues may have been raised in his defence. After all, Saddler was charged with murder, despite the fact that numerous witnesses could place him somewhere else at the time, where he was incapably drunk!

However, none of that actually happened. Neither BS man, Kosminski or anyone else was ever charged with any of the Whitechapel murders. The best we have is a suspect, who may or may not have been Kosminksi, being identified in improper circumstances, by a witness, who may or may not have been Schwartz, who refused to testify anyway. Nonetheless, I'm sure he had a very nice day out at the seaside. I wonder if they let him have a go on the bouncy castle!

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Well, as I pointed out on the other thread, I'm sure Kosminski enjoyed a nice holiday by the seaside but I'm uncertain as to who else benefited from the charade! The fact is, the identification, which took place in improper circumstances, was of no evidential value whatsoever. And we cannot be certain who the witness was; it's just as likely to be Lawende, if not more so. And they refused to testify, which suggests to me that they were far from certain about the ID. In fact, I suspect that the witness was lead to believe that the police had far more additional, and substantive, evidence against the suspect than was the case. As soon as they realized this, they quickly backtracked. And isn't it also interesting that Grainger was also supposedly identified as the killer. I mean, as he was known to have seriously wounded Alice Graham, what makes him a less likely candidate?

The only other substantial evidence against Kosminski, if that's who it was, seems to be that his family suspected him. Well, funily enough so did Druitt's. Can you detect a bit of a theme developing here?

Hi JohnG
I didn't really want to get into the details of the kosminski ID, I was merely pointing out that if it was Schwartz as the witness then obviously the police believed him and believed BS could have been Strides killer.

I noticed you skipped the main point of my post-i'll ask again. Why didn't the police at the time rule out BS man due to the Caschous? Nor even mention it as a problem? I mean according to you all its so bloody obvious!

I'll answer it for you-Because no detective worth his salt-now or then-would rule out a suspect or throw out eye witness testimony(!!) based on the fact that the victim was found holding something in there hand. Its ridiculous.

[John G]

Hello Abby,

Well, as I pointed out on the other thread, I'm sure Kosminski enjoyed a nice holiday by the seaside but I'm uncertain as to who else benefited from the charade! The fact is, the identification, which took place in improper circumstances, was of no evidential value whatsoever. And we cannot be certain who the witness was; it's just as likely to be Lawende, if not more so. And they refused to testify, which suggests to me that they were far from certain about the ID. In fact, I suspect that the witness was lead to believe that the police had far more additional, and substantive, evidence against the suspect than was the case. As soon as they realized this, they quickly backtracked. And isn't it also interesting that Grainger was also supposedly identified as the killer. I mean, as he was known to have seriously wounded Alice Graham, what makes him a less likely candidate?

The only other substantial evidence against Kosminski, if that's who it was, seems to be that his family suspected him. Well, funily enough so did Druitt's. Can you detect a bit of a theme developing here?

[Abby Normal]

For the Cashoo Crowd:

Please explain if its so apparent that stride being found with caschous in her hand excludes BS man from being her killer, then why did none of the police at the time think so?

Also, many very knowledgable experts in ripperology put forth a convincing argument that it was Schwartz that was actually the witness in the Kosminski ID. If this is the case then obviously the police valued his story and took him for a credible witness, and very well beleived that BS man WAS Strides killer, no?

[lynn cates]

tall order

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

"so he grabs her by the shoulders, turning her with her back to him and possibly taking a few steps further into the yard"

This is like my second proposal.

1. While this is happening, she held onto the cachous.

2. She is pushed into the yard.

3. She must be throttled, but without ANY signs of it.

4. She ends up with significant mud on left side only.

A tall order.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Hello Lynn,

Not if he was holding her by the shoulders and guiding how she fell. He grabs her, tries to pull her forward. No go, so he grabs her by the shoulders, turning her with her back to him and possibly taking a few steps further into the yard, forces her to the ground, Eagle says six or seven feet from the gate. Throttles and then positions her on her side to cut her throat.

Best wishes,
Gwyneth

[John G]

Hello John,

Schwarz says "he saw a man stop and speak to a woman who was standing in the gateway" "the man tried to pull her into the street" "turned her around and threw her down on the footway". Sourcebook, Evans and Skinner.

If she was standing in the gateway when he "turned her round", I see no problem with her being found three yards in (approx). The footway could just as easily be the passage in the yard. It is quite possible that she was just inside the gates, which must have been open to let Diemschutz in, he didn't get down to open them.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

But there was a footway outside the gates, although it broke off either side of the gate. Therefore, from that perspective Schwarz's evidence makes sense. I don't see how anyone would regard passage in the Yard as corresponding to a public footpath: footpaths are walkways for pedestrians, that are invariably on either side of a road/street.

[lynn cates]

round

Hello Gwyneth.

"If she was standing in the gateway when he "turned her round", I see no problem with her being found three yards in (approx)."

OK. Try this. If BSM meets Liz, it is likely he is facing west, she east, at the confrontation. IF he turns her round--after pulling her--she would naturally be on the other side of him--eastward--FURTHER from the yard.

But, one could interpret this as causing her to rotate 180 degrees. In that case she would be facing west. And if she now hit the ground, she would be on her belly.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

yes

Hello John. Thanks.

Quite.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

In the yard

Hello John,

Schwarz says "he saw a man stop and speak to a woman who was standing in the gateway" "the man tried to pull her into the street" "turned her around and threw her down on the footway". Sourcebook, Evans and Skinner.

If she was standing in the gateway when he "turned her round", I see no problem with her being found three yards in (approx). The footway could just as easily be the passage in the yard. It is quite possible that she was just inside the gates, which must have been open to let Diemschutz in, he didn't get down to open them.

Best wishes
C4

[John G]

Hello Errata. You make several good points. I like a model that includes a shakedown.

I think my biggest difficulty is finding her assailant deeper in the yard (to the west) and behind her.

Any likely scenario?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Yes, this is problematical for all sorts of reasons. Murder, was pretty uncommon in Whitechapel, so I think it unlikely that Stride would have been killed over a debt, particularly as the perpetrator would have been seen by Schwartz. And, as you suggest, why the need to take her into Dutfield's Yard, and why was she apparently killed whilst attempting to exit the Yard? And then there's the tricky problem of the cachous...

[John G]

Dear John,

As I have said before, translation is not an exact science. In the re-telling and translation things may well have been slightly changed. After all, no-one could know that 100 plus years later people would be picking the statement apart. The killer taking her by the shoulders and forcing her down would explain why she didnīt drop the cachous. While we have no exact evidence as to what happened, we do have common sense, and that tells us that she was likely to have dropped them if she had been thrown to the ground. Schwartz was the best witness to date, so it is possible that the police played down its importance to protect him. We do have the threatening letter: "I know where you live", not that there is any proof it was sent to Schwartz, but it is likely.

Dear DJA,

Liz had lived in England for some years. It is more probable that she followed the London fashions as far she could. Not quite sure what you mean by a bib scarf and I do live in Sweden. I take it you donīt mean as in Swedish national dress? Unlikely.

Hello Errata,

And yet the killer did get his hand in and throttle her with it. From the medical evidence. A neckerchief was somewhat larger than a man`s hanky of (fairly) recent memory.Before tissues, that is.

Best wishes,
C4

Hi Curious,

Of course, that is what Dr Phillips suggests: "...and I opine that the latter [Stride] was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground..." However, he was referring to an assault taking place in Dutfield's Yard, and not on the footpath as described by Schwartz. In fact, if the attack had taken place in the Yard, during Schwartz's presence, I doubt he would have been able to see anything, as it was obviously so dark in there.

As I've suggested, that's the problem with Schwartz's evidence: you basically have to completely re-write his account for it to make any sense at all.

[lynn cates]

scenario

Hello Errata. You make several good points. I like a model that includes a shakedown.

I think my biggest difficulty is finding her assailant deeper in the yard (to the west) and behind her.

Any likely scenario?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

encapsulation

Hello (again) CD.

"If Stride took the cachous out after being thrown to the ground (which would explain why they didn't spill) wouldn't that seem to indicate that her being thrown to the ground was a minor event and not some brutal attack and that she felt no fear at that time?

It would also negate the argument that the B.S. man immediately forced her back into the passage way as Schwartz left the scene since there would have been no time to take them out.

If the B.S. man did not immediately attempt to take her back into the passage way and there was an argument/and or an offer of cachous, this is all time in which Schwartz could have been seeking out the nearest P.C. Not a real smart move on the part of the B.S. man."

Perfect encapsulation of my and John's points.

Well done!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

food and cinema

Hello CD. Thanks.

Haggis and a go at "The Quatermass Experiment" do? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC