For what reason do we include Stride?

[Michael W Richards]

As for Stride being a domestic it seems strange that no one heard any argument after Schwartz left. In addition, Stride was not slapped around the face area and there are no frenzied stabs to the body which you would expect with a domestic. That seems a bit strange.

Stride did have bruises on her chest, she was choked with her scarf, she was perhaps being intimidated at the time of her murder. I just wanted to remind you that the bigger picture here says no one heard or saw Israel Schwartz or his reported incident, despite there being someone with an open door who stated she would hear footsteps when they passed her door, let alone a yell. Israel's statement is not on record of having been submitted in any format or considered in any way relevant to the Inquest question of how Liz Stride died, which is completely counter intuitive considering its content and timing.

I still find it hard to accept that the B.S. man would go on to kill her after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man. Why not simply run off if at that point all you had done was push a woman to the ground?

In the given scenario, I agree that a man who is obviously seen at relatively close range by 1 or 2 people would be unlikely to go on and kill that same victim a few minutes later. I would say that a man intent on committing post mortem mutilations even less so.

c.d.

The manner in which she was killed suggests a spur of the moment decision made, a momentary lapse in control, it doesn't appear to be a premeditated event by the evidence. I would imagine that the killer of Polly and Annie was seasoned a bit and knew what he had to do and how quickly to work and then slip away unseen.

C1 and C2 were almost certainly killed as a means to an end, not merely as an ending. Liz was ended.

[Sam Flynn]

In the given scenario, I agree that a man who is obviously seen at relatively close range by 1 or 2 people would be unlikely to go on and kill that same victim a few minutes later. I would say that a man intent on committing post mortem mutilations even less so.

I'd never thought of it quite like that before, but I agree.

[JeffHamm]

First of all, it doesn't mesh with the murder scene. Stride clutching the cachous as she's manhandled to the floor, dragged into the yard and silenced. Unless we're supposed to believe that Stride went willingly into pitch darkness with her assailant or retreated into there, which is equally improbable. There were no signs of a struggle. No signs she was taken against her will. Hard to believe the killer swooped in mere moments after BS Man roughed her up.

We all know that the antisemitism was a powder-keg at the time. Last thing the jewish anarchists wanted was a Ripper victim on their doorstep. They had to do something to deflect any suspicion from them. Too risky to be caught moving the body. Enter Schwartz, stage right. A supposed outsider, Schwartz may have been walked past the club that night, he may have even seen Stride with a bloke, but I think the incident with BS Man was a load of...

Hi Harry D,

Well, whether by BS or someone else, she ends up on the ground and has her throat cut clutching the cachous, so I don't quite see how someone else is better than BS due to those. He was seen throwing her about, and pushes her up the alley, and kills her. While he's rough handling her, she's holding her mints so as not to lose them, not realizing his intent is more severe than just pushing her about. I'm not sure the cachous or the location, alone or combined, is enough for me to see the Schwartz's story as a conspiracy by the club to deflect attention. For all we know, BS could have put the sweets in her hand after he killed her even (though that's pure speculation of course). I guess, for me, getting rid of BS doesn't seem to actually solve the cachous, if they're even a problem requiring solving, and the location is entirely consistent with where BS was reported to have been roughing her up.

And if the club was making up a story, trying to deflect things away from the Jews, why would Schwartz's story include BS shouting Lipski at a presumed accomplice, which is how Schwartz told the story? That is only serving to suggest Jewish involvement, sort of the opposite of what I understand you to be suggesting they want to do. Remember, it was only later suggested by Anderson that Schwartz was most likely mistaken and it was probably shouted at Schwartz himself, not at Pipeman. (Schwartz did say he couldn't be sure it was directed at pipeman, but it's what he assumed).

- Jeff

[Harry D]

Hi Harry D,

Well, whether by BS or someone else, she ends up on the ground and has her throat cut clutching the cachous, so I don't quite see how someone else is better than BS due to those. He was seen throwing her about, and pushes her up the alley, and kills her. While he's rough handling her, she's holding her mints so as not to lose them, not realizing his intent is more severe than just pushing her about. I'm not sure the cachous or the location, alone or combined, is enough for me to see the Schwartz's story as a conspiracy by the club to deflect attention. For all we know, BS could have put the sweets in her hand after he killed her even (though that's pure speculation of course). I guess, for me, getting rid of BS doesn't seem to actually solve the cachous, if they're even a problem requiring solving, and the location is entirely consistent with where BS was reported to have been roughing her up.

It makes more sense that Stride had the cachous because she was with a punter or suitor moments before her death and her guard was down, than ending up there with them still in hand after she assaulted. If we take Schwartz's uncorroborated story out of the equation we are presented with no problem as to how Stride ended up in the yard. Also, the police seem to have dropped Schwartz's evidence, just as they dropped Hutchinson's, so obviously they had reservations about it.

And if the club was making up a story, trying to deflect things away from the Jews, why would Schwartz's story include BS shouting Lipski at a presumed accomplice, which is how Schwartz told the story? That is only serving to suggest Jewish involvement, sort of the opposite of what I understand you to be suggesting they want to do. Remember, it was only later suggested by Anderson that Schwartz was most likely mistaken and it was probably shouted at Schwartz himself, not at Pipeman. (Schwartz did say he couldn't be sure it was directed at pipeman, but it's what he assumed).

"Lipski" was a known antisemitic slur. That it was directed at Pipeman makes no difference, as he could've been tipping off his "accomplice" to the Jewish witness. I think the inclusion of "Lipski" alone was supposed to implicate a goyim.

[Abby Normal]

It makes more sense that Stride had the cachous because she was with a punter or suitor moments before her death and her guard was down, than ending up there with them still in hand after she assaulted. If we take Schwartz's uncorroborated story out of the equation we are presented with no problem as to how Stride ended up in the yard. Also, the police seem to have dropped Schwartz's evidence, just as they dropped Hutchinson's, so obviously they had reservations about it.



"Lipski" was a known antisemitic slur. That it was directed at Pipeman makes no difference, as he could've been tipping off his "accomplice" to the Jewish witness. I think the inclusion of "Lipski" alone was supposed to implicate a goyim.

so a shout of a jewish slur at jewish man is supposed to implicate a goy in her murder?
wow. so BS man is a lie and dreamed up by a club conspiracy? surprised at this from you Harry. your usually one of the more clear headed posters on here.

so we have a man that witnesses her being assaulted with no reason to doubt him, moments before her body was found. A man who sees a suspect with her that matches descriptions of other witnesses who saw a man with stride (and eddowes for that moment).

and Schwartz, new to the country is going to jeopardize his life and families, legally, to lie and protect the club in a big and famous murder investigation? really?

and the club members are going to invent some convoluted scheme to protect the club? involving many people, any of which could crack and spill the beans, or even refuse to go along with it from the beginning? all in the spur of the moment? if they wanted to deflect suspicion, all they had to do was move her body a short distance out of the yard. heck they even have diemshitz cart right there.

and you think all this nonsense just because shes found holding something in her hand? after modern forensic science has shown, time and again that its not uncommon for victims of violent death to be found clutching something in there hand.

its insanity.

[Harry D]

so a shout of a jewish slur at jewish man is supposed to implicate a goy in her murder?
wow. so BS man is a lie and dreamed up by a club conspiracy? surprised at this from you Harry. your usually one of the more clear headed posters on here.

so we have a man that witnesses her being assaulted with no reason to doubt him, moments before her body was found. A man who sees a suspect with her that matches descriptions of other witnesses who saw a man with stride (and eddowes for that moment).

and Schwartz, new to the country is going to jeopardize his life and families, legally, to lie and protect the club in a big and famous murder investigation? really?

and the club members are going to invent some convoluted scheme to protect the club? involving many people, any of which could crack and spill the beans, or even refuse to go along with it from the beginning? all in the spur of the moment? if they wanted to deflect suspicion, all they had to do was move her body a short distance out of the yard. heck they even have diemshitz cart right there.

and you think all this nonsense just because shes found holding something in her hand? after modern forensic science has shown, time and again that its not uncommon for victims of violent death to be found clutching something in there hand.

its insanity.

We have every reason to doubt Schwartz.

There is no evidence that Liz was dragged or forced into the yard. No defensive wounds, no abrasions, clothes undisturbed. Didn't drop a single cachou the entire time. No one else could corroborate Schwartz's narrative. No one else heard the altercation between the two. You believe that after her tussle with BS Man, Liz went willingly into the shadows with her guard down? Now that's insanity!

[Abby Normal]

We have every reason to doubt Schwartz.

There is no evidence that Liz was dragged or forced into the yard. No defensive wounds, no abrasions, clothes undisturbed. Didn't drop a single cachou the entire time. No one else could corroborate Schwartz's narrative. No one else heard the altercation between the two. You believe that after her tussle with BS Man, Liz went willingly into the shadows with her guard down? Now that's insanity!

perhaps but I doubt it. I think she may have been dragged in there by him. her scarf was pulled tight. its only a few fet away. or he cut her throat during the initial tussle and she stumbled into the yard towards the voices of the club and perceived help only to expire there.

[Harry D]

perhaps but I doubt it. I think she may have been dragged in there by him. her scarf was pulled tight. its only a few fet away. or he cut her throat during the initial tussle and she stumbled into the yard towards the voices of the club and perceived help only to expire there.

These aren't viable theories, Abby. No physical evidence Stride was dragged into the yard, and definitely no evidence her throat was cut before she entered the yard. The medicos believed she may have been grounded when the fatal cut occurred. There was also no blood found outside the gate. Everything points to her being taken unawares by the murderer.

Seems more likely to me that Liz was entertaining someone within the yard. She was about to freshen up with her cachous when the person suddenly pulled her by the scarf and slashed her throat. Her body went rigid in shock, leaving her still clutching the cachous in her hand. Do we seriously think this man was the same thug manhandling her moments earlier?

[Abby Normal]

These aren't viable theories, Abby. No physical evidence Stride was dragged into the yard, and definitely no evidence her throat was cut before she entered the yard. The medicos believed she may have been grounded when the fatal cut occurred. There was also no blood found outside the gate. Everything points to her being taken unawares by the murderer.

Seems more likely to me that Liz was entertaining someone within the yard. She was about to freshen up with her cachous when the person suddenly pulled her by the scarf and slashed her throat. Her body went rigid in shock, leaving her still clutching the cachous in her hand. Do we seriously think this man was the same thug manhandling her moments earlier?

I do. absolutely. the chances she was assaulted by one man only to be murdered by another man moments later is practally nil. ask any cop-its unheard of.

BS man fits the other witness descriptions also-hes corroborated.

"No physical evidence Stride was dragged into the yard,"
her scarf was pulled tight. he could have grabbed it as he pulled her in.

"There was also no blood found outside the gate."
theres blood on her hand. if she had her throat cut outside the gate-her hand instinctively goes to the wound, blocking it. she stumbles into the yard and expires.

added to that the stupid club conspiracy theory. cmon Harry and all this because shes found still holding onto something. Its ridiculous.

[The Baron]

First of all, it doesn't mesh with the murder scene. Stride clutching the cachous as she's manhandled to the floor, dragged into the yard and silenced. Unless we're supposed to believe that Stride went willingly into pitch darkness with her assailant or retreated into there, which is equally improbable. There were no signs of a struggle. No signs she was taken against her will. Hard to believe the killer swooped in mere moments after BS Man roughed her up.

We all know that the antisemitism was a powder-keg at the time. Last thing the jewish anarchists wanted was a Ripper victim on their doorstep. They had to do something to deflect any suspicion from them. Too risky to be caught moving the body. Enter Schwartz, stage right. A supposed outsider, Schwartz may have been walked past the club that night, he may have even seen Stride with a bloke, but I think the incident with BS Man was a load of...

Agree.

Two men saw BS attacking Stride, what did they do ?! They ran away!

Very brave men indeed.


The Baron

[APerno]

We have every reason to doubt Schwartz.

There is no evidence that Liz was dragged or forced into the yard. No defensive wounds, no abrasions, clothes undisturbed. Didn't drop a single cachou the entire time. No one else could corroborate Schwartz's narrative. No one else heard the altercation between the two. You believe that after her tussle with BS Man, Liz went willingly into the shadows with her guard down? Now that's insanity!

Unless she is a prostitute and he is her pimp. Under those circumstances she follows him wherever he says go. If you believe Schwartz testimony/what he claims to have overheard (and I realize you don't) then the man dragging Stride down the sidewalk believed he had some sort of empowerment/right over Stride's behavior. To me he sounds like a pimp claiming ownership of his property (Stride).

[The Baron]

[/I][/B]

Unless she is a prostitute and he is her pimp. Under those circumstances she follows him wherever he says go. If you believe Schwartz testimony/what he claims to have overheard (and I realize you don't) then the man dragging Stride down the sidewalk believed he had some sort of empowerment/right over Stride's behavior. To me he sounds like a pimp claiming ownership of his property (Stride).

Leather Apron comes to mind..


The Baron

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Yes, but the description of Stride's cut, which we know was a single wound reads:

Stride:
Testimony of Mr. George Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon of police, 2, Spital-square
"There was a clean-cut incision on the neck. It was 6in. in length and commenced 2½in. in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, ¾in. (note ½ in. is stated in Begg, Fido, and Skinner, 1996; Pg 351, but in all other respects the quote is identical) over an undivided muscle, and then becoming deeper, dividing the sheath. The cut was very clean and deviated a little downwards. The artery and other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through. The cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and tailed off to about 2in. below the right angle of the jaw. The deep vessels on that side were uninjured." (Evans and Skinner, 2000; pg 158).

And so a single cut made by drawing the knife across the throat will start superficially and become deeper, just as Eddowes appears to have. Also, Stride's cut is described as 6 inches, is deeper on the left than right, etc, as it Eddowes' (though hers is deeper overall, but effectively similar). I tend to suspect, given the details he provides elsewhere, that if there were two cuts made he would have stated that specifically, but that's an assumption which I accept can be validly questioned. Given the drawing shows a single wound, though, I think the combination of sources of information point towards Eddowes' only had her throat cut once, though the description from the testimony could be seen as a bit ambiguous when viewed in isolation.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff.

I think the first noticeable difference between Brown's description of Eddowes, and Phillips's description of Stride is that Brown describes a superficial cut in totality from the left side to the right. Then begins again at the left side to describe the deeper cuts working his way again towards the right side.

Whereas Phillips describes one continuous cut shallow at first (e.g: "Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle, then becoming deeper"), deep then shallow again. At no point though does Phillips say the cut to Stride was superficial, or even began superficial.
Where he does use that term is at the end of the cut where it tapers off to the right of the cartilage:

"The cut through the tissues on the right side of the cartilages is more superficial, and tails off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw".

The start of the cut to Stride was not described as superficial, only where it ended.
I find Phillips describing one clean sweep of the knife across Stride' throat, whereas Brown is using very different terminology to describe two independent sweeps of the knife, both running left to right, but one superficial, the other much deeper.

[Abby Normal]

[/I][/B]

Unless she is a prostitute and he is her pimp. Under those circumstances she follows him wherever he says go. If you believe Schwartz testimony/what he claims to have overheard (and I realize you don't) then the man dragging Stride down the sidewalk believed he had some sort of empowerment/right over Stride's behavior. To me he sounds like a pimp claiming ownership of his property (Stride).

hi AP
Stride had recently broken up with her man.. and there is no evidence that she was soliciting recently or even that night. on the contrary she had been working doing cleaning. I doubt she would have picked up a pimp so soon after breaking up with her man.

her actions that night don't really fit actively soliciting either. seems she was out for a good time and or looking for a new boyfriend.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.

I think the first noticeable difference between Brown's description of Eddowes, and Phillips's description of Stride is that Brown describes a superficial cut in totality from the left side to the right. Then begins again at the left side to describe the deeper cuts working his way again towards the right side.

Whereas Phillips describes one continuous cut shallow at first (e.g: "Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle, then becoming deeper"), deep then shallow again. At no point though does Phillips say the cut to Stride was superficial, or even began superficial.
Where he does use that term is at the end of the cut where it tapers off to the right of the cartilage:

"The cut through the tissues on the right side of the cartilages is more superficial, and tails off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw".

The start of the cut to Stride was not described as superficial, only where it ended.
I find Phillips describing one clean sweep of the knife across Stride' throat, whereas Brown is using very different terminology to describe two independent sweeps of the knife, both running left to right, but one superficial, the other much deeper.

Hi Wickerman,

From the combination of the ambiguity of Eddowes (1 or possibly 2 cuts), and the diagrams made of her injuries, it seems like Eddowes only had one cut to the throat and not two, so the superficial is a description the start of the wound, not the totality of it. I think we differ on our interpretation of that, however, which would reduce that aspect of the similarity.

But, as a single throat cut, which I think the evidence points to, the rest would just be two people both describing similar injuries, and the differences in specific words used reflect differences of language use, opinion as to which is the correct term, and the fact the wounds won't be identical. In either case, both are describing wounds that are initially shallow (so not stabbed and pulled, but sliced), of roughtly the same length, both deeper on the left than right, both leaving the right side relatively uninjured, and so forth. But that's just how I see it.

- Jeff