For what reason do we include Stride?

[Joshua Rogan]

Spooner wasn't out with his estimate

No? So he was summoned to the body of Stride by two jews shouting "Police, murder!" at the same time as PC Smith saw her alive, ten minutes before Schwartz sighting, ten minutes before even your embarrassingly inept conspiracy apparently occurred? Was he also spot on with his estimate when he said the police arrived 5 minutes after he himself did?

...Louis's assertion he arrived precisely at 1am...something which cannot be reconciled with the fact that from 12:50 until 1am Fanny Mortimer was at her door continuously and heard or saw no incoming cart and horse.

So who was the woman who lived two doors from the club (just like Fanny), who stood at the doorstep for ten minutes shortly before 1am (just like Fanny) and who heard a horse and cart go past 4 minutes after going inside?
It sure sounds a lot like Fanny, but whoever she is, her tale does seem to corroborate Louis' timing.

There are 2 witnesses who were inside the club and claimed to be by Louis and the body at 12:45, one of them had only returned to the club at 12:30 and checked a clock inside to verify the time, He says 10 minutes later he heard Louis was calling for him.

I wish you'd name these witnesses.

Not all the witnesses had no access to clocks.

True. Louis, for instance. But of course, he was lying. Unlike the other club members.

[Michael W Richards]

On the face of it, the Stride murder had all the hallmarks of a Ripper killing if BS Man is excluded: victim caught by surprise by a perpetrator who lured her into the passageway-suggesting that he had enough social skills to put Stride at her ease-and then quickly overpowered her, giving the victim little opportunity to respond.

It's possible that someone from the club was involved, such as a boyfriend she'd arranged to meet, although the murder seems to have been too efficiently carried out for, say, an unplanned domestic murder.

On balance, I think Scwartz lied but that he probably did so of his own volition, i.e. without the involvement of the club.

Stride has none of the hallmarks...we don't know Liz was soliciting, there is a single cut and an undisturbed victim from that point. Just those 2 factors are enough to count the Ripper out.

[John G]

Stride has none of the hallmarks...we don't know Liz was soliciting, there is a single cut and an undisturbed victim from that point. Just those 2 factors are enough to count the Ripper out.

Wr don't know that any of the victims were soliciting. Like the other victims it seems obvious that she was taken by suprise, given no opportunity to resist or cry out. Not the hallmarks of a domestic murder.

[Michael W Richards]

Wr don't know that any of the victims were soliciting. Like the other victims it seems obvious that she was taken by suprise, given no opportunity to resist or cry out. Not the hallmarks of a domestic murder.

We DO know that John. They both admitted as much to witness friends of theirs. Polly and Annie were out earning their doss after midnight, there were very few other ways they could do that. Taken by surprise can be a result of sudden, momentary anger, and in fact Liz Strides wound matches another throat cutting that same night, the third, and that was a domestic murder.

The Ripper, based on the first alleged Ripper victims, sought out women actively working the streets late at night, alone. He subdued them quietly..we don't know silently for sure...and he cuts their throats twice. The next step is to have them flat on their back, legs parted, raise the skirts and mutilate their abdomens. In both of those 2 cases the women were physically compromised, Polly was drunk, and Annie was ill. That also might be a factor in his choices. Liz had a single cut, and was left in the position she fell in, on her side, her legs curled slightly in...resembling a fetal position.

[Michael W Richards]

The murder of Elizabeth Stride has long been considered the odd one out of the 'canonical five' murders. Down the years she has been ruled in and out by numerous Ripper authors and amateur sleuths but the consensus seems to be that she was probably a victim of the serial killer known as 'Jack the Ripper'.

The question is why?

Stride's throat was cut less than an hour before a Ripper-esque murder. Sure, the timing is convenient, but life is full of strange coincidences. The Ripper case certainly isn't an exception to happenstance, e.g. Eddowes giving the same name to the police as the next victim, and Sarah Brown having her throat cut in a domestic on the night of the Double Event.

The lack of mutilations. These are largely attributed to an interruption, hence the savagery of Eddowes' attack by an assumed frustrated Ripper. This is purely speculative. If mutilation was the key, why would the killer attack his victim next to a busy social club? Furthermore, the eyewitness description given by Schwartz of Stride's assailant doesn't jive with the previous murders. And if this man wasn't Stride's killer, it only leaves a small window of opportunity for another murderer to enter stage left.

All we have are two women that are murdered within an hour of each other. Both of them have their throats cut but aside than that there is no evidence that the two murders are related.

I just re-read your intro Harry and agree completely.

[Michael W Richards]

No? So he was summoned to the body of Stride by two jews shouting "Police, murder!" at the same time as PC Smith saw her alive, ten minutes before Schwartz sighting, ten minutes before even your embarrassingly inept conspiracy apparently occurred? Was he also spot on with his estimate when he said the police arrived 5 minutes after he himself did?



So who was the woman who lived two doors from the club (just like Fanny), who stood at the doorstep for ten minutes shortly before 1am (just like Fanny) and who heard a horse and cart go past 4 minutes after going inside?
It sure sounds a lot like Fanny, but whoever she is, her tale does seem to corroborate Louis' timing.



I wish you'd name these witnesses.



True. Louis, for instance. But of course, he was lying. Unlike the other club members.

The witnesses that said they were by the body at around 12:45 were Kozebrodski, Heshberg and Gillen. Their statements are in the witness files here. And of course Spooner. I said his estimates were fine.."I live at 26, Fairclough-street, and am a horse-keeper at Messrs. Meredith's. Between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. I had previously been in another beershop at the top of the street, and afterwards walked down. After talking for about 25 minutes I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out "Murder" and "Police." They then ran as far as Grove-street and turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter. They replied, "A woman has been murdered." I then went round with them to Berner-street, and into Dutfield's yard, adjoining No. 40, Berner-street. I saw a woman lying just inside the gate. At that time there were about 15 people in the yard, and they were all standing round the body. The majority of them appeared to be Jews."

Note what he saw when he got there. About 15 people. If it took him 20 minutes to walk there from the Commercial Street pub, and 25 minutes with the woman outside the Beehive, his estimate was that around 12:45 he saw the Jews running for help. There is no way he was 20 minutes early in his estimate, not with corroborating accounts.

The witness who heard that cart and horse was Fanny. And she heard it after going back inside at 1, and there is no indication whether the cart and horse were coming or going. See if you can locate a report that states the horse and cart were still inside the passageway, or had been offloaded in the yard, when the police were there.

[John G]

We DO know that John. They both admitted as much to witness friends of theirs. Polly and Annie were out earning their doss after midnight, there were very few other ways they could do that. Taken by surprise can be a result of sudden, momentary anger, and in fact Liz Strides wound matches another throat cutting that same night, the third, and that was a domestic murder.

The Ripper, based on the first alleged Ripper victims, sought out women actively working the streets late at night, alone. He subdued them quietly..we don't know silently for sure...and he cuts their throats twice. The next step is to have them flat on their back, legs parted, raise the skirts and mutilate their abdomens. In both of those 2 cases the women were physically compromised, Polly was drunk, and Annie was ill. That also might be a factor in his choices. Liz had a single cut, and was left in the position she fell in, on her side, her legs curled slightly in...resembling a fetal position.

Stride was subdued quietly. She was clearly at ease with her killer, hence the cachous, which doesn't gel at all with a domestic confrontation.

The other throat cutting murder that night took place indoors, as you would expect for a domestic incident: not a outdoors, in pitch black darkness.

Stride's throat had been deeply gashed, indicating overkill, JtR's signature. The severing of the windpipe would have prevented the victim from crying out, suggesting a planned murder. The presence of the scsrf may have impeded the killer from making an even more extensive cut.

We don't know that either Polly or Annie were soliciting at the time of the attacks. Stride waa a registered prostitute in Sweden, and appears to have been seen with more than one man that night, suggesting she may have been soliciting.

Lack of mutilations could be explained by the killer being disturbed, i.e. by Louis D.

[Sam Flynn]

Stride was subdued quietly. She was clearly at ease with her killer, hence the cachous, which doesn't gel at all with a domestic confrontation.

No matter whether you know your killer or not, being jerked back by the scarf and being cut through the throat is probably going to make you drop your wee bag of sweets. There's something unusual about those cachous, to be sure, but I don't think they can tell us much about the killer.

[JeffHamm]

At the same time, constructing a false witness to mislead the investigation.

According to Schwartz, Liz was manhandled and thrown to the ground by some thug. Minutes later she's dead in the yard. There was no sign of a struggle, the cachous were still in her hand, no one else heard or saw anything to corroborate Schwarz's story. Everything points to Liz being killed suddenly, without warning. Hard to believe that Liz would enter in the blackness of the yard with her guard down with the same man who moments earlier roughed her up. People will proffer theories in order to reconcile the two but imo none of them wash. Funny how people have no problem handwaving that issue, but to suppose that an immigrant jew would bend the truth to protect his own kin? Preposterous!

Hi Harry D,

Schwartz describes BS as pulling her towards the street then swinging her around to the pavement (sidewalk/footpath). That's one incident, and we don't know how she fell, it could just be to her knees since there's no details on that. At that point Schwartz is leaving, pipeman following him, BS shouts "Lipski". We don't know what happens next. But there have been two options.

Now, one possibility is that BS also goes on his way, and someone else comes along and kills Liz. If this is true, why do we have to suggest Schwartz's statement is a lie designed to deflect attention away from the Jewish population by cunningly implicating a Jewish accomplice?

Or, Liz has been holding her cachous up until this point, keeping hold of them through the above, because she didn't fall flat on her back or front. She gets up, rushes down the alley to escape BS (probably knows there's a door to the club and she can hear the people) and he's now between her and the street. He grabs her scarf, and quickly kills her, and then leaves. And if something like that happens, then again, that fits with everything Schwartz described, without a prolonged continuation of the event.

The 2nd option has BS doing the "sudden attack" on Liz that you suggest the new person has to do anyway and still have her holding the cachous. And she's not facing him, which she's more likely to do if a newcomer is a customer. If she's facing her attacker, in the alley, and he suddenly grabs her that makes it seem more probable she would grab at him, dropping the cachous since she's just been attacked once already - so how come she's still holding them?

- Jeff

[John G]

No matter whether you know your killer or not, being jerked back by the scarf and being cut through the throat is probably going to make you drop your wee bag of sweets. There's something unusual about those cachous, to be sure, but I don't think they can tell us much about the killer.

It's possible that she clenched her hand into a fist, i.e. as an automated shock response as she was taken by surprise.

The cachous certainly would not have survived being pulled into the street, spun round and thrown to the ground (on this last point she would most probably have opened her hand and spread her fingers to break the fall, thus spilling the cachous.)

[Harry D]

Or, Liz has been holding her cachous up until this point, keeping hold of them through the above, because she didn't fall flat on her back or front. She gets up, rushes down the alley to escape BS (probably knows there's a door to the club and she can hear the people) and he's now between her and the street. He grabs her scarf, and quickly kills her, and then leaves. And if something like that happens, then again, that fits with everything Schwartz described, without a prolonged continuation of the event.

Problem you have here is that Liz's body was found with her feet pointed towards the gate. It doesn't support the hypothesis that she was running towards the kitchen door when she was killed. If anything, she was leaving the club.

Also, don't you find it awfully convenient that Schwartz said that Stride yelled softly three times. Had to be softly because no one else in the vicinity heard this little piece of theatre. And what on earth is a "soft" yell anyway? Bit of an oxymoron if you ask me.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Harry D,

I believe the description of what he said is that she "yelled 3 times but not very loudly". The manhandling described by Schwartz doesn't sound like it was a brutal assault, and so she probably wasn't in fear of her life, just in fear of being further beat up/roughed up. And we know the club was noisy, with singing and so forth going on, and as other witnesses have testified for some of the other murders, yells and calls (even of "murder") were not all that note worthy by themselves. And, grabbing her scarf would just halt her (she's not sprinting as it only looks like she got a couple steps into the ally), and he grabs her and gets her to the ground - and with him coming up behind her to do so, it makes sense that he would keep that direction of motion in getting her to the ground, which results in the position she's found in. I don't see any problem with the final position of her body whether she's going in or out or just standing in the passage way.

Basically, Schwartz's statement doesn't contradict anything (doesn't prove it either, just saying there's nothing that requires any great suspension of disbelief, which is what I find the conspiracy theory requires because Schwartz's statement as he gave it, whether you believe it or not, implicates a Jewish accomplice which is the antithesis of the whole point of the conspiracy theory in the first place). That argument, however, is entirely separate from whether or not you think Schwartz is a reliable witness, or whether or not you believe the incident Schwartz saw was in fact JtR just about to kill Stride. The point is, there's no way Schwartz was part of a conspiracy to divert attention away from the Jewish population because the statement he gave implicated a Jewish accomplice. The fact that the police believed Schwartz was mistaken doesn't change the fact that his statement is directly opposed to the goals of the proposed conspiracy, so the theory contradicts itself, therefore, must be wrong. But just because the conspiracy theory isn't internally consistent doesn't automatically elevate Schwartz to absolutely true. While I don't see anything in the evidence that can't be explained if Schwartz did see what he states, that just means his statement could be true, perhaps via scenario like I describe above, but there could be other speculative descriptions as well. There is the "then BS goes away and JtR comes along" option, which also allows for Schwartz to be reporting something that he actually saw. Of the two, my own opinion is that the former is more probable, but neither is impossible.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

"Also, don't you find it awfully convenient that Schwartz said that Stride yelled softly three times. Had to be softly because no one else in the vicinity heard this little piece of theatre. And what on earth is a "soft" yell anyway? Bit of an oxymoron if you ask me."

Hello Harry,

Isn't the most likely explanation that this was a translation problem?

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

It's possible that she clenched her hand into a fist, i.e. as an automated shock response as she was taken by surprise.

The cachous certainly would not have survived being pulled into the street, spun round and thrown to the ground (on this last point she would most probably have opened her hand and spread her fingers to break the fall, thus spilling the cachous.)

Depends upon how she fell and how violent the pulling and turning etc was (obviously enough to move her, but that doesn't mean it was a full on judo throw). If her fall was something like down to one knee, etc, then she would not drop them. And importantly for our considerations, we don't know how she fell, so all possibilities that fit the data are open. So, if she had the cachous in her hand when she was pulled and turned and put to the ground, then she couldn't have fallen such that she used her left hand, at least, to break her fall. And it is possible to fall in such a way. Yes, we can also imagine those events being far more violent, whereby she would have dropped them. But as she didn't, we know those descriptions cannot be the case. What we cannot do is rule out less violent pulls and throws and falls, we cannot be sure she wasn't holding them all along, we can only be sure that if she was, she didn't drop them, and so that constrains what that encounter would have had to be like if it happened that way (note, please, I'm not saying it had to be this way - I'm just saying it is a viable hypothesis that we cannot exclude). If she was thrown violently to the ground, had to break her fall with her hands, there would be road rash on her hands, and that is not reported in the medical notes. There aren't signs of a violent fall to the ground where she had to shield herself from the fall, so that lack of evidence for these violent face plant type descriptions excludes them, but not the less violent type, which are the ones where she can retain hold of them.

Also, how do we know her killer didn't put the cachous in her hand after killing her? I doubt that's the case, but if we're only going to imagine the pulling and throwing to be more violent in order to get her to drop them despite there being no evidence for her having had a violent fall to the ground, then prove to me she was holding them when alive rather than her killer putting them there as some sort of token.

- Jeff

[The Baron]

Problem you have here is that Liz's body was found with her feet pointed towards the gate. It doesn't support the hypothesis that she was running towards the kitchen door when she was killed. If anything, she was leaving the club.

Also, don't you find it awfully convenient that Schwartz said that Stride yelled softly three times. Had to be softly because no one else in the vicinity heard this little piece of theatre. And what on earth is a "soft" yell anyway? Bit of an oxymoron if you ask me.

I used to think Schwarz was Anderson's witness.

Your analyse is convincing. I completely agree.

The whole story started to fail apart.


The Baron