Why is Liz Stride's Murder So Contentious?

[Haskins]

I think people may feel strongly about this because, if we believe Israel Schwart, then we have a real window on Liz Stride's probable killer. Which is to say, we have both a good description and something of an insight into his manner and character. And the picture we have doesn't sit well with everyone, including me I might add.

I can accept a loud, burley abusive man as a killer. But a man bawling loudly, possibly aggressively and belligerently, in the presence of at least one and possible two witnesses just prior to committing a ghastly murder does not seem compatible with JtR's style. Maybe JtR needed more stealth than that to survive and prosper as he did.

Of course this could all be one great red herring. How much can we rely on Israel Schwartz? Was he telling the truth? Was he accurate about the timings? Were the police a bit too gullible where Schwartz was concerned? Was the Star right about his unreliability? Why wasn't he called as a witness? No one else can really corroborate his story.

If Schwartz is unreliable or mistaken in any way then it could be that BS did not kill Stride. If so, then lack of care or stealth is not an issue and Stride as a victim is perhaps easier to accept.

There are other objections of course. The lack of mutilations being the obvious one. No signs of strangulation. The not entirely irrelevant opinion of Bagster Phillips. And, yes, it might at first seem a bit too coincidental that Stride should be murdered with her throat cut right in the middle of the Ripper's reign. But, given the massive publicity, a copy-cat killing would have been the obvious option or excuse or camoflage for any would-be murderer, a fact which in my view lessens the weight of the "too coincidental" argument.

I cannot commit to either side in this argument because I think a case can be made either way.

[Steve S]

On Witnesses...If Schwartz had his timing right...Why didn't Mrs. Mortimer see anything.......? If His timing is out,then it being an un-related incident seems more possible......
Steve

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"it's like that famous picture that some people see as a vase whereas others looking at it see it as two people kissing"

But there WERE two people kissing, c.d! Remember Marshalls testimony!

There was never any vase, though...!

The best, c.d! I´d add some flowers for you if you only had a vase

Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Two women killed in the same way.

Apart from the fact that she lacks mutilations, the troat cut is also of dissimilar character and less confident. Those types of more ordinary throat cuts (as opposed to those performed by the Ripper where the head nearly stuck to the body) was hardly uncommon in London at the time.

Domestic homicide was ruled out to the satisfaction of the police.

Absolute nonsense and wishful thinking.

approachable by the same type of man.

same type of man? How do you know?

All the best

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"Domestic homicide was ruled out to the satisfaction of the police"

But on what grounds, Tom? Perhaps on the ground that the simplest explanation was that all women who had their throats cut must be Ripper victims?

"Both women had personal possessions in or by their hand"

You forget one "had", don´t you; both women had had personal possesions on them that may or may not have been taken away by their respective killers.

"Chapman ... was witnessed being manhandled"

Come on, Tom - you know very well that nobody witnessed Chapman being manhandled - unless you are referring to Eliza Cooper and the soap?

"Both women were the same age, of the same calling, thus approachable by the same type of man."

Millions of prostitutes are aproachable by millions of men, who on the next day choose another type of woman altogether. Not the strongest of arguments, Tom, which goes to prove what kind of case you are trying to build...

"The circumstances couldn't be more similar"

Ehrm, yes. Emphatically yes, actually. So emphatically yes that I would suggest that you are not being very honest here. A silent, empty square and a victim cut to pieces are not and will never be the anywhere near similar to a yard where people were running in and out and a victim with a comparatively shallow cut to the neck.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi all

I’ve been over this a thousand times and the only conclusion I can find is that Schwartz timing was out. Mrs Mortimer goes inside slightly earlier than she believes leaving a 5 to 10 minute window before Deimshutz comes into view and discovers the body.

BS man and jack are one of the same. BS leaves shortly after being disturbed by Schwartz and Pipeman. He is simply spooked. Stride is left bleeding to death for the period it takes Deimschutz to come up the road by cart.

This would seem to be supported by William Marshall who also describes a man similar to Schwartz BS and Lawende description.

I also found it amusing that the recent episode of ‘Whitechapel’ decided to dismiss Stride as a victim. The writers have clearly been spending to much time on casebook and not doing their own research.

As Tom has correctly pointed out it is a complete, and damaging myth, that Stride was killed with a different knife from Eddowes. We simply do not know that, and there is no evidence I can find to support that theory.

Perhaps one of the reason Strides murder has become so controversial of late is because it has been demonstrated that Lawende is unlikely to be Andersons witness.

Pirate

[Fisherman]

Jeff writes:

"This would seem to be supported by William Marshall who also describes a man similar to Schwartz BS and Lawende description. "

Yes - and no. Marshalls man was "clerklike" and respectably clad, whereas Lawendes man was shabbily dressed. The only pointer we have to BS mans attire is the Star report quoting Schwarz as speaking of a respectable appearance.
If this holds true (the Stars report), Marshalls man and BS man may very well have worn exactly similar clothes, and it can be argued that they were in fact one and the same. Lawendes man seems not to be of the clerkly type at all - on the contrary, he has all the traits of a not very respectably appearing man.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff writes:

"This would seem to be supported by William Marshall who also describes a man similar to Schwartz BS and Lawende description. "

Yes - and no. Marshalls man was "clerklike" and respectably clad, whereas Lawendes man was shabbily dressed. The only pointer we have to BS mans attire is the Star report quoting Schwarz as speaking of a respectable appearance.
If this holds true (the Stars report), Marshalls man and BS man may very well have worn exactly similar clothes, and it can be argued that they were in fact one and the same. Lawendes man seems not to be of the clerkly type at all - on the contrary, he has all the traits of a not very respectably appearing man.

The best,
Fisherman

Morning Fisherman

The trouble is that the human brain is an interpretation Machine. Given any group of people seeing the same person from different angles in slightly different light. And you will get a number of different descriptions.

While I agree with yes and No. I can see some similarity between these descriptions which is at least of interest.

Pirate

PS Perhaps the fact that he had just murdered LIZ made his appearance more shabby than earlier on?

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I don't think there had to necessarily be a different knife used to kill Stride, in fact, it's using the theory that Jack had two knives that discredit Stride as a Ripper victim if anything, as you have to ask yourself why he never used the other alleged knife on any of the other canonicals. But the throat wound is significantly different to that of the other victims; maybe she fought back and struggled and that's why the wound wasn't as deep or as powerful as his previous ones, but it's still a hard factor to ignore. Were there signs that she had been strangled that night at all? I think I remember something about a scarf being twisted around her neck, but I'm not sure. But even then, it's still a change in M.O., unless Jack was trying out new techniques (well, he hadn't mutilated anyone's face prior to Sep. 30th). I'm trying to think of arguments for her candidacy as a convincing Ripper victim, but I just can't. Pretty much everything about her murder is different. Would Jack really be so brazen as to attempt to mutilate a dead prostitute outside a club where there were a lot of people coming and going? Then again, it was a Jewish club, so maybe he did write the GSG. But I still can't seem to be convinced that she was killed by Jack for some reason. Maybe I'm biased because I believe the man Lawende saw was the Ripper, and there was no-one dressed like him in Berner Street that night. But even if that man was, I still don't think I'd be convinced as, like I said, everything about Stride's murder is completely different from that of Eddowes, Chapman and Nichols. I just think Stride was killed by a drunk and angry client who was lucky that Jack was also killing that night.

[Jeff Leahy]

I just cant see this. Schwartz and Lawende description are as close as you are going to get considering the light and circumstance.

Perhaps the cut to Stride was different because he was disturbed, by Schwartz?

Pirate

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Because of the apparent different approach between Stride, and Eddowes, I feel I would have to conclude that the man witnessed by Lawande with the dead woman, was not her killer.
This man was not in the process of roughing up Eddowes, and had the appearance of a sailor, and as the sighting was near a regular spot for prostitute trade, i would suggest that this man wanted no more then a spot of business.
Eddowes did not appear to be alarmed at his close proximity to her , although her hand position may infer that she was attempting to cool things down[ so to speak].
Rightly or wrongly she was not classed as a regular streetwalker, and there is no evidence that she was anything more then a one man woman[ kelly].
I would suggest that if this man had previously been the accoster of Stride, such a cool approach would have been most unlikely, more like a grab. slice and down to it. we should not forget the bruise [of recent origin] found on her left hand , the size of a sixpence, between her thumb and first finger, which has all the hallmarks of being grapped firmly on the hand, which would not be in character with the placid person moments before.
We all have in our minds visions of what happened during all the individual murders, we are all set in our ways, yet the truth is , if we could be transported back in time, we would almost certainly be surprised at what actually did happened.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Jeff writes:

"The trouble is that the human brain is an interpretation Machine"

In a sense, yes - and we have more than one interpretor. First there is Marshall and Lawende and Schwartz who take in and interpret what they see, and then there´s us, who read and interpret.
That does not change the factual bits, though: we have witness testimony that speaks of a respectably dressed clerklike character in Marshalls case, and something very much different on Lawendes side; a shabbily dressed man, who made Lawendes friend state that characters like him (mr Shabby) was what made him hesitate to go home late in the evenings. The picture that emerges in one of a distictinctly ruffian-like, shabby man, someone who does not tally at all with the clerk-like, respectable man Marshall saw.
And light and angles is something we must look away from, I feel, since it will only lead us into wild speculation. Remember that Schwartz, who saw a man performing something that points to a ruffian, still spoke of him as having a respectable appearance according to the Star.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Interpretation. Marshall is a labourer, lawande is a commercial traveller. Perhaps they simply have a different view of 'Shabby'.

And as i said before Marshall see's his suspect much earlier in the evening...plenty of time for him to go off have a drink commit a murder and get rather 'shabby' in the process. almost three hours.

Pirate

PS the exact light and angles interest me very much. Very much indeed. In fact they are my main focus of interest.

[truebluedub]

Remember that Schwartz, who saw a man performing something that points to a ruffian, still spoke of him as having a respectable appearance according to the Star.

How reliable is the Star? Did they have a trained interpreter? What purpose did they have in reporting this testimony? Did they in fact speak with Schwartz or speak to a third party who gave a garbled version of what Schwartz said? Don't forget there are significant differences between both his statements.

Chris Lowe

[Steve S]

Compared to the others,Berners St. seems to have been like Picadilly Circus for about 45 minutes...And we still can't reconcile all the accounts,'cos nobody seems to have seen the same things........
Steve