Why is Liz Stride's Murder So Contentious?

[Grabbit]

I think it's safe to say the actual cut to the throat seems to be considered fairly contentious as it doesn't go right down to the vertebrae and all the others did. Or did they?

I've been reading the inquest notes on this site again and there's a couple that are of particular interest. I've highlighted what I think is ambiguous in bold.

Inquest: Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols

Henry Llewellyn, surgeon,

On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes.


Inquest: Elizabeth Stride

Mr. Frederick William Blackwell deposed: I reside at No. 100, Commercial-road, and am a physician and surgeon.

In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife. The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 inch below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.


Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown

The authors of the Jack the Ripper A-Z include a transcription (with added punctuation) of Dr. Brown's post-mortem on Catherine Eddowes. A handwritten copy made by Coroner Langham survives at the Corporation of London Records:

The throat was cut across to the extent of about six or seven inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe below (and about two and a half inches below 'and behind) the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of right ear. The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side. The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. The carotid artery had a fine hole opening. The internal jugular vein was opened an inch and a half - not divided.


If the interruption theory is correct (and let's face it, it really could be that simple) then maybe Liz's cut isn't so different from the others after all. Maybe it was just a fore-runner to a more savage attempt.

Just thought it was worth pointing out. Apologies if it's been thrashed out elsewhere.

Ally

Hello all,

There is also a press article, I cant recall the exact source at the moment, but Ill check....that says The police used Schwartz's description of the two men he saw and tracked down one of them. He was questioned and released.

When I read it I assumed it must have been Pipeman if accurate. And if so, I would think that might be the man whose story wasnt fully believed, because investigating Schwartz's claim seems to indicate they believed his. At that time anyway.

Pipeman had a reddish 'stash, did'nt he? Might be easier to find by that feature.

Cheers all.

[Jeff Leahy]

The 2 October report is neither "detailed" nor "more thorough" - it's just two sentences in a general paragraph on various possible descriptions the police had been given. The detailed report on Schwartz was the first one, published on 1 October.

What I am doing is simply suggesting the possibility that the second report is based on a misunderstanding of the first. I'm not insisting that's what happened. I have no vested interest either way in Schwartz's credibility.

While Chris I agreed with you whole heartedly. The title of this thread is why is Strides murder so contentious?

And there are those who need to discredit Schwartz. That way they discredit Anderson.

Pirate

[c.d.]

Thanks for that, Fish. Much appreciated.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d asks:
"Who was it that made the statement about the position of her body?"

It was PC Lamb, c.d.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

I guess I just don't see why you're willing to discredit a detailed press report in favor of one we call agree is ambiguous and might not even contradict the more thorough report.

The 2 October report is neither "detailed" nor "more thorough" - it's just two sentences in a general paragraph on various possible descriptions the police had been given. The detailed report on Schwartz was the first one, published on 1 October.

What I am doing is simply suggesting the possibility that the second report is based on a misunderstanding of the first. I'm not insisting that's what happened. I have no vested interest either way in Schwartz's credibility.

[Tom_Wescott]

I guess I just don't see why you're willing to discredit a detailed press report in favor of one we call agree is ambiguous and might not even contradict the more thorough report.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Tom

Earlier you said it was 'ambiguous', but now you think it's pretty clear?

No. I said in both my posts that I think the meaning is pretty clear. But I acknowledge there is some ambiguity in the wording.

But on the whole I don't think I have time to waste on this kind of discussion.

[miss marple]

cutaway

Frigging hell, Ben and Fish, your not still banging on about cutaways. I have avoided getting involved, but I am going to lay down the law, listen to the Judge, on cutaways.
In the early Victorian period there were four main styles of coat, the tail coat , the frock coat, the cutaway and the jacket. The tail coat was the slightly dandified style you see which started in the 1830s[ early Dickens] big collars gathered sleeves,single breasted, padded, tighter waists,the tail coat was double breasted, cut square at the waist hanging in square tails at the back, the frock coat was knee length, and the same length all round, usually double breasted. The cutaway was a tail coat which became fashionable in the 1850s and replaced the tail coat for the fashionable man. It was the foundation of the modern day morning coat having rounded tails splaying from a single button at the waist, they were day coats made of broadcloth or serge. The 1850s cutaway style was less dandified and looser. Jackets, coats without tails started coming in in the 1850s.
The East Enders and other working people who bought clothes third or forth hand from street stalls would be wearing styles ten twenty years out of date. By 1888 the cutaway was an old fashioned garment, but still worn by working class men.
The cover of THE ORGAN GRINDER sung by Arthur Lloyd [1865] shows a cutaway coat.[I posted 19th century songs etc]
Cheers Miss Marple

[Tom_Wescott]

The only one who had even heard of Schwartz Prior to Swanson writing his report (including SWanson) was Abberline.

As for the 2nd press report regarding Schwartz, it includes information not mentioned in the first report and does not read like someone repeating an earlier source.

As I said, I think the wording pretty clearly implies that it's the prisoner whose statement was doubted, not Schwartz.

Earlier you said it was 'ambiguous', but now you think it's pretty clear?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Tom

We'll have to agree to differ on the original report. As I said, I think the wording pretty clearly implies that it's the prisoner whose statement was doubted, not Schwartz.

The "a priori incredible" statement seems to have been made by someone under the inaccurate impression that Schwartz had described someone "butchering" Stride while another man watched, so it probably doesn't tell us a great deal.

As to the subsequent report, I think one has to be careful about saying that a later press report either corroborates or clarifies an earlier one. The other possibility is that the later report was copied from the earlier one by someone who misunderstood it.

In any case, we do know that Swanson wasn't aware of any doubts about Schwartz's statement on the part of the police. Nor does any of the associated correspondence with the Home Office mention any.

[Tom_Wescott]

An interesting excerpt from the Star of Oct. 1st:

"And, first, let us examine the facts, and the light they throw on any previous theories. To begin with it is clear that the BURKE and HARE theory is all but destroyed. There is no suggestion of surgical neatness, or of the removal of any organ, about the Mitre-square murder. It is a ghastly butchery - done with insane ruthlessness and violence. The gang theory is also weakened, and the story of a man who is said to have seen the Berner-street tragedy, and declares that one man butchered and another man watched, is, we think, a priori incredible."

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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

[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.

[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?