The Double Event

[JeffHamm]

The inquest began well over 24 hours after the event, and some witnesses had to wait days before taking the stand. Compare that to people being interviewed on the morning of the murder, and in some of those cases close to dawn. Which category of accounts are most likely to be the most accurate, from a memory point of view?



A clock based time requires that time to have been recorded, very close to the time of the reading. A recollected clock based time - for example, one recollected 36 hours later - is not a clock based time.

I believe the police took statements from the various club members at the time of discovery. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that Diemshutz's recollection of the clock would have been done at that time and unreasonable to suggest he would not have included the detail of his time of arrival at that time.

But, your argument for dismissing the clock based times would also dismiss any statement about time at all, collapsing any argument or conclusion you've put forth on the basis of times. So your conclusion that the body must have been found at 12:55 is unsupportable because you have no times to work anything out. You can't say that something happened at X o'clock if you have no times to work with, and you're approach throws away all references to time, both of the clock and estimates of inter-activity durations. With no evidence to work with, you can make no statements (no, you don't then get to imagine anything you want, you aren't "free of constraints", you are "devoid of building material", when it comes to anything to do with time).

I'm not willing to do that, and so, until it is shown that the clock-stated times must be incorrect, I start with the notion that the Victorians could tell time, and had memories of having looked at those clocks. People on their way home, do want to know if they are running late or early, etc, and so Deimshutz checking the clock is perfectly normal behaviour that he might do on his journey back. The doctor testifies he noted the time by his watch upon his arrival at the scene, and states it was 1:10. Since his watch is not the same clock Deimshutz referenced, we might want to consider the possibility that the clocks were not entirely in sync with each other, but they wouldn't be out by much, and 2 minutes is probably a reasonable estimate, making the time window as narrow as 8 and as wide as 12 minutes between those events.

Testimonies about who arrived first, etc, can be looked at simply as an ordering, and the amount of time between the arrival of two people must always be considered as the amount of time between when person A arrives and when they noticed that person B was now there - unless of course they state they saw Person B arrive. But given the commotion, Person B could even have been there when Person A arrived, but was simply not noticed until later, and an incorrect assumption about who arrived first was made. While those errors are likely to be few, so one has to be careful how often one plays that card, it does mean that arrival times, and the duration between arrivals, are far more error prone. And given the stated times are estimates of time and based upon recollections of things they would not necessarily have take particular notice of, they should be treated as guestimates at best (what I meant there is that when someone arrives at a location, they don't start considering how long they've been there and take note of things like "oh, I think I've been here 5 minutes and now Joe has shown up, making his arrival 2 minutes after Mary appeared, etc".

There are a lot of statements made, some at the inquest, others to the press. Statements made to the press are far more highly suspect for all sorts of reasons (note, this is different from when the press reports statements made at the inquest when the press reports a transcript of the testimony; interviews with people are far more likely to contain overstatements by the person interviewed, and embellishments by the reporter when they write their article, hence the reports in the press need to be viewed with extreme prejudice).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I mentioned previously that there was an interesting study on the reliability of eyewitness testimony.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...019.00703/full

Ultimately the study suggests that you can assess the accuracy of testimonies through understanding the speed and confidence of how the witness answers questions. If audio recordings of witness testimonies were available then, you could use this method to get a sense of which details are more likely to be true versus the more spurious or false memory details.

The accuracy in the study was quite impressive. I would not be surprised if these techniques make their way into law enforcement.

For our purposes, a matrix of some kind where we grade the details provided by witnesses based on the wording would be the next thing. "I think, could have been, probably, maybe" we weight low. "Definitely, absolutely, certain," we grade with a higher weighting. Details that do not seem either confident or unsure are weighted mid level.

Perhaps eliminating newspaper (with exception of police newspapers) testimonies from the outset for the reasons you outlined as well, focus on inquest testimonies and police reports / letters. It would be interesting to also include a column that showed if that detail is corroborated by another witness. That would give more weighting to that detail.

From that you grade details with a certain accuracy based on confidence and corroboration and the results could be:

High Weighting:
Suspect Moustache Colour
Suspect Height
Position of Victim's body

Mid Weighting:
Time of Body Discovery

Low Weighting:
Suspect Hair colour
Last Person Seen With Victim
Hat of Suspect
Clothing of Suspect

etc

Just a thought.

Hi erothiba,

That's an interesting article, which I might incorporate into my lectures on memory where I get into eye-witness testimony and false memories. There are some caveats, though. Our memory for events and the details can get modified during the interview process, and false details get inserted. What also can happen, is that those false details become part of the memory, and they will get recalled as quickly and confidently as "true details". How police interview witnesses has changed a lot since the 1800s, when this sort of thing was not known. It was then believed you could draw out more details by pushing for information (dig it out of their memory type thing), but we now know this is more likely to result in people inadvertently "filling in details" in order to answer the question and by doing so contaminate the original memory trace. And it's really easy to do. If you ask a witness "Did you see the broken headlight?", they are more likely to indicate they did, and subsequently identify photos showing the car with its headlight broken as being what they saw, then if you ask a witness "Did you see a broken headlight?" (note, in these types of studies, the headlight is not broken in the original accident scene they are presented with - so saying "yes" is factually incorrect).

The times and such in the above study appear to apply only for the initial telling of information. Our evidence, however, comes after all sorts of opportunities for false details to have been established, and depending upon how many times the person has told their story (either to the police or to others during conversations), they may present as far more confident then perhaps they should be.

Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a student research project, which would be to combine the two types of studies, one where one creates some false memories during interview. Later, one follows a procedure more akin to the one you've presented. And then, one can look at "statement confidence" for a) true details that were covered during interview (so had opportunity to be recalled, refreshed, and restored) b) false memories that occured during the interview (so false details that the person confirmed during the interview, which had opportunity to the created, refreshed, and implanted) c) details that were not covered in the original interview.

I suspect the details in C will separate along lines of the article you linked to. The details in A will generally be more confident, and recalled more quickly, etc. And I also suspect that the false details, in B, will look far more like those from A than C.

Things like that have been done, though I can't recall the studies at the moment. They wouldn't have been done exactly as I've outlined, but something to get at that underlying question will be out there.

Ok, I'm digressing, but thanks a lot for providing that link. It's given me something to think about.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

My understanding is that Spectacle Alley is now called Whitechurch Passage. How close was 253 Whitechapel Road, in 1888, to Spectacle Alley?
We already know something about that address...

Baxter: What is No. 253?
Coram: A laundry.

Not just any laundry. That was the laundry of Norah Christmas!!!

I knew her father Scott. Chubby guy, long white beard.

A new suspect, Bad Santa

This is no laughing matter, people. East London Observer, Oct 6:

At the inquest also, Thomas Coram of 67, Plumber's-row, Commercial-road, said he was a labourer in a cocoanut warehouse. Last Sunday, about midnight, he was coming away from Bath-gardens, Brady-street, and when he got to Whitechapel-road, he found a knife lying on the doorstep of No. 253, which is a laundry, belonging to Mr. Christmas. The knife produced was the one he found, and the handkerchief (also produced) was wrapped round it. The blade of the knife was apparently about ten inches long, and the handkerchief was bloodstained. Witness continued that he called a policeman, and showed him the knife as it lay on the step. The constable took it to Leman-street Police-station, and witness accompanied him. - Police-constable Joseph Drage, H 282, said he saw the last witness stooping down opposite the doorway of No. 253. He rose up and beckoned to witness, afterwards saying, "Policeman, there is a knife lying here." Witness picked up the knife, which was covered with dried blood, and had a blood-stained handkerchief bound round the handle and tied with string. Witness took the knife to Leman-street Police-station, and Coram accompanied him. The knife was not on the doorstep at 11.30. On Monday, witness handed the knife and handkerchief to Dr. Phillips, sealed and secured.

[Scott Nelson]

Yes, no laughing matter. Was it David Cohen's knife? And did the knife pass into the hands of Met. Inspector Stroud, who gave it (?) to Hugh Pollard, who then passed it to Stroud's granddaughter (?), Dorothy, who then gave it to Donald Rumbelow?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, no laughing matter. Was it David Cohen's knife? And did the knife pass into the hands of Met. Inspector Stroud, who gave it (?) to Hugh Pollard, who then passed it to Stroud's granddaughter (?), Dorothy, who then gave it to Donald Rumbelow?

Do you have a description of Rumbelow's knife?

MA, Oct 4:

The police are busily engaged making inquiries with reference to the knife produced at the inquest yesterday, but however it came to be put on the steps of the house in the Whitechapel-road, it is certain that it could not have been there an hour before it was found, although the murder was committed twenty-four hours previously. What the motive for putting it there could be cannot be imagined; but owing to the blood upon the blade, and the blood stains upon the handkerchief which was tied round the handle, the police are not going to allow the matter to drop. It is not thought that the witness Michael Kidney is keeping back any important information, but should this be the case he will be reexamined to-morrow at the adjourned inquest.

DT, Oct 6:

Michael Kidney, the man with whom the deceased last lived, being recalled, stated: I recognise the Swedish hymn-book produced as one belonging to the deceased. She used to have it at my place. I found it in the next room to the one I occupy - in Mrs. Smith's room. Mrs Smith said deceased gave it to her when she left last Tuesday - not as a gift, but to take care of. When deceased and I lived together I put a padlock on the door when we left the house. I had the key, but deceased has got in and out when I have been away. I found she had been there during my absence on Wednesday of last week - the day after she left - and taken some things.
[Coroner] The Coroner: What made you think there was anything the matter with the roof of her mouth? - She told me so.
[Coroner] Have you ever examined it? - No.
[Coroner] Well, the doctors say there is nothing the matter with it? - Well, I only know what she told me.

Did Kidney go poking around in Mrs Smith's room?
Why did Stride give the hymn book to Mrs Smith to mind, and give the large green piece of velvet to Catherine Lane, to mind? Was she worried she was coming to some unfortunate end?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Did Kidney go poking around in Mrs Smith's room?
Why did Stride give the hymn book to Mrs Smith to mind, and give the large green piece of velvet to Catherine Lane, to mind? Was she worried she was coming to some unfortunate end?

Could be something as mundane as people with no fixed abode and no security leaving what meagre possessions they have with people they trust.

[DJA]

Perhaps Stride felt she was about to come into some money and moving on.

[Scott Nelson]

Do you have a description of Rumbelow's knife?

Rumbelow has a photo of it on p. 95 of his book, "The Complete JTR", Signet 1976. Fortunately he provides a centimeter scale under the knife. The blade is about 10 inches long, the tip is rounded from being ground down and there is a thumb grip on the top of the blade close to the handle.

[erobitha]

Rumbelow has a photo of it on p. 95 of his book, "The Complete JTR", Signet 1976. Fortunately he provides a centimeter scale under the knife. The blade is about 10 inches long, the tip is rounded from being ground down and there is a thumb grip on the top of the blade close to the handle.

19m 24s

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Perhaps Stride felt she was about to come into some money and moving on.

The man she were seen with at the Bricklayer's Arms, appears to have been middle class, or at least better off than Kidney...

The man was about 5ft. 5in. in height. He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat. He had rather weak eyes. I mean he had sore eyes without any eyelashes. I should know the man again amongst a hundred. He had a thick black moustache and no beard. He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie. I said to the woman "that's Leather Apron getting round you." The man was no foreigner; he was an Englishman right enough.

Dr Phillips found: Partly digested food, apparently consisting of cheese, potato, and farinaceous edibles.

Did Stride eat with Bricklayer's Arms Man?

I find it interesting that Thomas Barnardo said that he spoke to a roomful of women, which included Liz, just days before the murder, and that he went to the mortuary and identified Stride. What was his purpose in going to the mortuary?

So what was Barnardo doing on the night of the double event? Unfortunately the link in the following post is broken - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ioned#post1907 - but Uncle Jack says "According to his alibi, he was at a dinner party on the 29th..."

Who was Liz going to see when she left the lodging house? No one in particular?

[The Rookie Detective]

The man she were seen with at the Bricklayer's Arms, appears to have been middle class, or at least better off than Kidney...

The man was about 5ft. 5in. in height. He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat. He had rather weak eyes. I mean he had sore eyes without any eyelashes. I should know the man again amongst a hundred. He had a thick black moustache and no beard. He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie. I said to the woman "that's Leather Apron getting round you." The man was no foreigner; he was an Englishman right enough.

Dr Phillips found: Partly digested food, apparently consisting of cheese, potato, and farinaceous edibles.

Did Stride eat with Bricklayer's Arms Man?

I find it interesting that Thomas Barnardo said that he spoke to a roomful of women, which included Liz, just days before the murder, and that he went to the mortuary and identified Stride. What was his purpose in going to the mortuary?

So what was Barnardo doing on the night of the double event? Unfortunately the link in the following post is broken - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ioned#post1907 - but Uncle Jack says "According to his alibi, he was at a dinner party on the 29th..."

Who was Liz going to see when she left the lodging house? No one in particular?

Great post and very fascinating indeed!


RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Great post and very fascinating indeed!


RD

Thanks RD, but as I said, very speculative. So speculative that I left out part of the story, for fear of embarrassment - the part about the dinner party at the Bricklayer's Arms, actually being Elizabeth Stride's engagement party.

Coroner: Did you see her leave the lodging-house?
Catherine Lane: Yes; she gave me a piece of velvet as she left, and asked me to mind it until she came back. (The velvet was produced, and proved to be a large piece, green in colour.)
Coroner: Had she no place to leave it?
Lane: I do not know why she asked me, as the deputy would take charge of anything. I know deceased had sixpence when she left; she showed it to me, stating that the deputy had given it to her.

The large green piece of velvet was to be for her wedding dress. Apparently, Liz didn't want the deputy to know she was getting married, perhaps in case she told Michael Kidney.

[The Rookie Detective]

Thanks RD, but as I said, very speculative. So speculative that I left out part of the story, for fear of embarrassment - the part about the dinner party at the Bricklayer's Arms, actually being Elizabeth Stride's engagement party.

Coroner: Did you see her leave the lodging-house?
Catherine Lane: Yes; she gave me a piece of velvet as she left, and asked me to mind it until she came back. (The velvet was produced, and proved to be a large piece, green in colour.)
Coroner: Had she no place to leave it?
Lane: I do not know why she asked me, as the deputy would take charge of anything. I know deceased had sixpence when she left; she showed it to me, stating that the deputy had given it to her.

The large green piece of velvet was to be for her wedding dress. Apparently, Liz didn't want the deputy to know she was getting married, perhaps in case she told Michael Kidney.

That's a fascinating hypothesis indeed.

I always find that it's good to look at the reasons why certain actions are taken, or why certain words are spoken and then imagine what could be a possible explanation for those actions and words.

I like that you've taken factual inquest testimony from a witness who seems reliable in the context of what she explained to the coroner, and have then looked for reasons behind why Stride gave her the piece of velvet for safekeeping instead of giving it to the deputy.

There are of course a number of reasons why she did that, but I agree that your hypothesis is particularly interesting because it would then perhaps indicate that Billycock Bricklayer's Arms man with whom she was seen kissing and hugging after they came out of the pub by multiple witnesses, could have in fact been her fiance?

It would explain why they were standing outside the door of the pub, because it was raining heavily at the time. They rushed off in the direction of Berner Street BUT Stride is NOT seen being intimate with anyone else once she has arrived in Berner Street.

The witness who saw the couple kissing and "carrying on" in Berner Street would appear to have been another couple because they were standing on the southern part of Berner Street and the man in the sailor hat who told the woman "you'll say anything but your prayers" is likely to have been a red herring. This is based on the brilliant map that Wickerman uploaded; it really shows exactly the geographics of WHERE each witness/suspect was seen at the time.

If we rule out the couple seen kissing and carrying on in Berner Street, then Stride; despite being seen talking with other men, was NOT seen touting for business in Berner Street.
This is evidenced when she tells a man around 12.45am "No, not tonight, some other night."

Notice that she doesn't say "Go away" or "NO, i'm not doing that!"

Her choice of words clearly indicate that she was NOT touting for business that night.


Your hypothesis (I won't say theory because it might cause friction with others) is very interesting, because while there appears to be no evidence, it could explain her actions that night.

And raise the question, was her Fiance in the club? And was she waiting for him?

Did a regular client see her and approach her but because she rejected his efforts,he walked off, but then came back, threw her down and then just slit her throat moments after he shouted across the road to Pipeman and Schwartz.

Or perhaps Kidney found her and it was the actions of a jilted lover?

Your idea that was planning on getting married is made even more interesting by the fact that she was present when Barnardo was in the kitchen. Did his speech to her inspire her to try and get out and way from the life of destitution?

Stride left kidney on the Tuesday and stayed at 32 Flower and Dean St for the next few nights up until her murder.

To me, it has always felt that she was running away and perhaps Barnardo made an impression on her. Barnardo was also obsessed with the family unit and the idea of a secure marriage was part of his preaching.

I mean, it's conjecture for the most part, but still an interesting take on her story leading up to her death.

IF there's evidence that she touted for business AFTER leaving Kidney on the Tuesday before her death, then I would question the likelihood of the idea she was planning on getting married.
However, if the contrary is true and she did make an attempt to escape the life of prostitution, it could have made certain people very angry, including Kidney and those who ran her former lodging house.

While the common lodging houses weren't officially classed as brothels, the irony is that most of the common lodging houses endorsed the solicitation of prostitution by proxy and ironically were in many ways LESS safe than organized brothels.

The men who ran the common lodging houses were all criminals and extortion of prostitutes who used their double beds on a regular basis were seen as business assets.

When you have individuals like Billy Cohen and Daniel Sullivan as enforcers who were known for being aggressive towards women, some of the girls lived in fear and so if a woman tried to leave the life of prostitution, it was just as bad as owing them money, like MJK owed McCarthy.


So, did Stride have a secret and intend to marry?

What's interesting is that she chose to drink at the Bricklayers Arms and then headed to Berner street, which isn't in the local vicinity of where she was residing at the time. in other words, why didn't she choose a pub nearer to her?


I would also ask whether there's a chance she was pregnant. But considering there's no evidence of that, then I'd probably avoid that particular minefield.

The being "engaged" hypothesis could be something worth pursuing though, even if it leads nowhere, it's always good to flush out every idea possible.

Lots to ponder


RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That's a fascinating hypothesis indeed.

I always find that it's good to look at the reasons why certain actions are taken, or why certain words are spoken and then imagine what could be a possible explanation for those actions and words.

I like that you've taken factual inquest testimony from a witness who seems reliable in the context of what she explained to the coroner, and have then looked for reasons behind why Stride gave her the piece of velvet for safekeeping instead of giving it to the deputy.

Thanks for those words. It's a somewhat far-fetched hypothesis, but I suppose the notion of Liz Stride getting engaged on the night of her death, is a little bit intriguing.

There are of course a number of reasons why she did that, but I agree that your hypothesis is particularly interesting because it would then perhaps indicate that Billycock Bricklayer's Arms man with whom she was seen kissing and hugging after they came out of the pub by multiple witnesses, could have in fact been her fiance?

It might explain the kissing and hugging, but not the apparent mismatch in class, or the man's evasive behaviour to the three stirrers.

It would explain why they were standing outside the door of the pub, because it was raining heavily at the time. They rushed off in the direction of Berner Street BUT Stride is NOT seen being intimate with anyone else once she has arrived in Berner Street.

The witness who saw the couple kissing and "carrying on" in Berner Street would appear to have been another couple because they were standing on the southern part of Berner Street and the man in the sailor hat who told the woman "you'll say anything but your prayers" is likely to have been a red herring. This is based on the brilliant map that Wickerman uploaded; it really shows exactly the geographics of WHERE each witness/suspect was seen at the time.

Right, the couple seen by Marshall were possibly not Stride and companion/fiancé, if the woman was not wearing a flower. I agree that Wickerman did a great job with that map. I've noticed some posters seem to struggle a bit with the mental models of where everything and everyone was. That sort of thing really helps.

If we rule out the couple seen kissing and carrying on in Berner Street, then Stride; despite being seen talking with other men, was NOT seen touting for business in Berner Street.
This is evidenced when she tells a man around 12.45am "No, not tonight, some other night."

Notice that she doesn't say "Go away" or "NO, i'm not doing that!"

Her choice of words clearly indicate that she was NOT touting for business that night.

In contrast, I agree with Wickerman that the couple were the young couple who spoke to the press and Fanny Mortimer - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...437#post817437

Your hypothesis (I won't say theory because it might cause friction with others) is very interesting, because while there appears to be no evidence, it could explain her actions that night.

And raise the question, was her Fiance in the club? And was she waiting for him?

Well if she did have a fiancé, it certainly wasn't Thomas Barnardo!

Did a regular client see her and approach her but because she rejected his efforts,he walked off, but then came back, threw her down and then just slit her throat moments after he shouted across the road to Pipeman and Schwartz.

Or perhaps Kidney found her and it was the actions of a jilted lover?

As we have no doubt that Kidney existed, I'll think about that option.

Your idea that was planning on getting married is made even more interesting by the fact that she was present when Barnardo was in the kitchen. Did his speech to her inspire her to try and get out and way from the life of destitution?

Stride left kidney on the Tuesday and stayed at 32 Flower and Dean St for the next few nights up until her murder.

To me, it has always felt that she was running away and perhaps Barnardo made an impression on her. Barnardo was also obsessed with the family unit and the idea of a secure marriage was part of his preaching.

I mean, it's conjecture for the most part, but still an interesting take on her story leading up to her death.

I hadn't thought about Barnardo in those terms. That's interesting, but did he get around to preaching marriage to the women in that kitchen?

What's interesting is that she chose to drink at the Bricklayers Arms and then headed to Berner street, which isn't in the local vicinity of where she was residing at the time. in other words, why didn't she choose a pub nearer to her?

I've often wondered why she was in Berner street that night, wearing that flower. I really have no idea.

The being "engaged" hypothesis could be something worth pursuing though, even if it leads nowhere, it's always good to flush out every idea possible.

Lots to ponder

Like, did she have a ring? If she did, and the murderer stole it, could he really have been interrupted?