Why is Liz Stride's Murder So Contentious?

[c.d.]

Ben/Fisherman,

Guys, I'm begging you, please don't start that fricken cutaway thing again. If you must, start a separate thread. All of us will thank you.

c.d.

[Ben]

Don't worry, CD.

I'm begging him!

Really hope he obliges.

[Fisherman]

Oh, I do oblige, Ben. Since I have published the pic there is really nothing much more to say.

Fisherman

[Grabbit]

'If' BS was drunk, then isn't it quite likely that he's left a pub at closing time? This puts the time more likely to be after 12.30. But how much after 12.30?

If he's on his way home, much would depend on where he was drinking, but would he not be more likely to be drinking fairly locally. This may put the timing of his siting earlier than than we think.

Pipe man may be another pub kick-out who has just stopped in a convenient doorway to fill his pipe for the walk home.

Just musing. Any thought anyone?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all, just a few quick points...

* It's far more difficult to kill a person by slicing their throat than most people think, particularly if you've never done this before. More often than not, there are small cuts or 'false starts' found on the throat. Many times the victim does not even die. In the case of Stride, we have one clean cut opening the left carotid artery. And this was done in the dark in a semi-public place without attracting attention. I'd say this denotes some level of confidence and competence in her killer. Certainly Dr. Phillips felt the same way. This is also how Chapman and Nichols were killed. The second, deeper wound was probably intended to escalate the bleed out of the victim to fascilitate the Ripper's intended abdominal mutilations. Since none were to be performed on Stride, there was no reason for superfluous wounds.

* It was in fact Schwartz that the Star is talking about when they say the police did not 'wholly accept' his statement. This is corroborated by other articles appearing around the same time.

* I suspect that Schwartz was temporarily living at the Berner Street club up until the day of the murder and that it was this association that caused police to suspect his statement, since it was awfully convenient for the club members that Schwartz came forth essentially placing the blame on gentiles. William Wess may have been Schwartz's interpreter as he served in this position at the same time and at the same police station as Leon Goldstein. But all of this right now is speculation on my part.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for that information. If you don't mind, I have another question on which I am unclear. Didn't the position of Liz's body indicate that it had been placed deliberately on the ground? If so, why would the BS man (assuming he was not Jack) take the trouble to do so?

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi C.D. It was said that she looked as though she'd been laid down. What they're illustrating by saying this is that there was no sign of any struggle or resistance. Also indicating this is that none of the cachous slipped from her hand, as would have been the case had she taken a hard fall. So yes, I believe she was laid down on the ground, probably in a similar manner as most or all of the other street victims.

Regarding Schwartz, my earlier points were simply meant to show that there is reason not to accept his testimony as gospel. Certainly Abberline believe him, but then Abberline also believed George Hutchinson. Make of that what you will.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Tom,

Who was it that made the statement about the position of her body?

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi C.D., I don't have my notes (and haven't looked at them in a year) but I believe it was one of the doctors. Llewellyn noted that the cachous fell from her hand when he moved it, so felt she couldn't have been rattled around too much prior.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

It seems to have become "official" that the man Schwartz saw with Liz was drunk, so it is interesting to note where this came from. In his interview with the Star, not the police, the Star reported saying the man walked as if "partially intoxicated." This observation depends, of course, on Schwartz's own opinions about degrees of sobriety, but certainly does not suggest rip-roaring drunkeness.

Moreover, the observation may have been cadged out of Schwartz by a newspaper reporter who would have no qualms about asking leading questions.

Star: Try to remember, anything unusual about this man you saw approaching Stride?
Schwartz: Not really, it was so quick.
Star: How did he walk?
Schwartz: I'm not sure; maybe he swayed a bit.
Star: As if he'd been drinking?
Schwartz: I don't know . . . I suppose so.

I've been there, done interviews and led someone along in order to put some "color" into a story. So I'm suggesting that the man who accosted Liz may have been stone cold sober

By the way, I quite agree with Tom's point about the wound.

Don.

[c.d.]

I have to wonder. Wouldn't the police have told Schwartz not to say anything to the press?

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm sure they did, but a good reporter gets the job done. He obviously bargained and agreed not to run Schwartz's name, since it never appears. He may also have agreed to change some details, hence Pipeman becoming a red-headed Knifeman, etc.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Grabbit]

"Star: Try to remember, anything unusual about this man you saw approaching Stride?
Schwartz: Not really, it was so quick.
Star: How did he walk?
Schwartz: I'm not sure; maybe he swayed a bit.
Star: As if he'd been drinking?
Schwartz: I don't know . . . I suppose so.

I've been there, done interviews and led someone along in order to put some "color" into a story. So I'm suggesting that the man who accosted Liz may have been stone cold sober"

It's almost as if newspapers 'make things up'! Surely that can't be true?

[Chris]

* It was in fact Schwartz that the Star is talking about when they say the police did not 'wholly accept' his statement. This is corroborated by other articles appearing around the same time.

I'd be interested if you could point me towards these other reports. The only one I know of is also in the Star, the following day.

I reckon it's pretty clear that the man whose statement is said to be doubted in the original report is the one who was arrested, not Schwartz:
"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."

Throughout the report, Schwartz is nearly always referred to as "the Hungarian", or "the foreigner", even when it is clear from the context who is meant. And I think it would be very strange for the author, having discussed Schwartz and his story at length, to come out at the end with the throwaway remark that the police doubted whether it was true.

The report the next day says:
"In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts."

That is unambiguous, but in view of the ambiguity in the original report, I wonder if the second one could have been written by someone who had misunderstood it.

[Tom_Wescott]

I believe you have that backwards, Chris. The first statement is rendered unambiguous by the more detailed second statement. Even the Star didn't believe Schwartz, which could be why they didn't play his story up too much.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott