Schwartz and Brown

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates writes:

"that would help explain why Liz was there in the first place"

Perhaps it would, Lynn. Then again, why was Kate in Mitre Square? What was Polly doing outside Essex Wharf? Why would Annie pick the backyard of 29 Hanbury?

I think we may have to concentrate on a somewhat larger area than the IWMEC. We know that she was standing in the doorway of 58 Berner Street earlier that evening, that PC Smith saw her at another location of that same street and maybe it is the street as a whole we should take an interest in, not just the club.
It was, by appearances, not a regular beat for prostitutes. That seems to point to Stride having had other reasons for her visiting Berner Street. She may have had a favourite pub in the vicinity, the preference dating back to earlier days when she stayed not far from Berner Street. Or somebody else may have had a reason to fix an appointment to the address. Whichever way, if we judge by the witness reports, she did not choose the IWMEC until late in her movements, so the more credible thing to believe is that it was at least not her goal from the outset.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

pub

Hello Fish. Your dictum:

"It was, by appearances, not a regular beat for prostitutes."

was precisely what I was driving at.

With the others, they seemed to be on fairly familiar (to them) ground for soliciting.

I think you are right about a possible favourite pub. But if I recall, Liz was said to have no alcohol (well, at least malted liquor) in her stomach. And yet she was seen in a pub less than 2 hours before. Baffling!

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates writes:

"I think you are right about a possible favourite pub. But if I recall, Liz was said to have no alcohol (well, at least malted liquor) in her stomach. And yet she was seen in a pub less than 2 hours before. Baffling!"

If you are referring to the Best and Gardner incident, it has to be said that she was there in the company of a man. Maybe he did the drinking himself ...
Moreover, Stride was of course not a woman of great means. Maybe that meant that she saved her money - or that she drank something non-alcoholic.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Actually, Lynn, when you take a closer look at what Best tells about the couple, it goes like this:

"I was in the Bricklayers' Arms, Settles-street, about two hundred yards from the scene of the murder on Saturday night, shortly before eleven, and saw a man and a woman in the doorway. They had been served in the public house, and went out when me and my friends came in. It was raining very fast, and they did not appear willing to go out."

So all we know is that the couple had seemingly been inside the Bricklayers Arms - but Bests assertion that they had been served there seems nothing but an educated guess. All things considered, though, they may just as well have popped in to ask for directions somewhere! No need, thus, to accept as a fact that Stride had had anything to drink there at all; alcoholic or non-alcoholic.

The description of the man, though, is of course much interesting: 5 ft 5, dark or black trousers and a "morning coat" - that was a garment that in the 1870:s came in a variety that was a shortish cutaway jacket, which would make it tally quite well with what Marshalls man and BS man were wearing.
He also sported a "thick black moustache", whereas Schwartz spoke of a small brown ditto. The colour is not much of an obstacle, and as for the size, Best says "thick" - not large! Moreover, since Schwartz came from another country, maybe what was considered a small moustace there would make more of an impression on an Englishman?
The last obstacle is the hat; Best spoke of a billycock hat, and one may have to allow for a mistake on that point. As for the rest, we once again have a pointing out of the man as being of "respectable appearance".
So, what may well be a matching attire, the right height, the right age and the right general apearance! It would seem Stride had a flair for respectably looking men of a certain size and shape - or could it be that all three were one and the same?
Well, it certainly cannot be ruled out!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Sugden

Hello Fish. The likelihood is there. Sugden makes nearly that same point. If they are the same, she spent some time in this one chap's company.

Significant?

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates writes:

"If they are the same, she spent some time in this one chap's company."

Exactly so, Lynn - and if they are NOT the same, it would seem she within the space of two hours met with three different men of the approximate same age, the same height, the same clothing more or less, possibly (confirmed in two instances and left uncommented on in instance number three) the same stature, and all of them making a respectable impression. Furthermore, she was very affectionate towards guy number one and two, and there is ample reason to believe that she was aquainted to the third man too. And all three men were seen with her in a very restricted area.

I know what it tells me - what does it tell you...? Surely not a story of a vicious eviscerator!?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

green eyed monster

Hello Fish. It suggests HE was her big date. If he were well educated/well off, that would explain her ebullience and her "sprucing up" earlier that afternoon. It might also explain why a former boyfriend was jealous.

Am I heading in the right direction?

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Not being picky here but it is c-a-c-h-o-u-s

Bless you!

[harry]

Fisherman,
If we can assume that Liz was a targeted person that night,then I agree with you that the same person was seen with her at different times in different places,and it was at Duffield yard that the killer decided an opportunity had presented itself.If it were the case,I cannot understand the approach of BS at that time,or accept him as being the stalker.That such patience shown, migh signal to many too great a variation in method as shown by the Ripper on previous occasions,who is to say what variation he was capable of.
Regards.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;105625]Lynn Cates writes:

"If they are the same, she spent some time in this one chap's company."

Exactly so, Lynn - and if they are NOT the same, it would seem she within the space of two hours met with three different men of the approximate same age, the same height, the same clothing more or less, possibly (confirmed in two instances and left uncommented on in instance number three) the same stature, and all of them making a respectable impression. Furthermore, she was very affectionate towards guy number one and two, and there is ample reason to believe that she was aquainted to the third man too. And all three men were seen with her in a very restricted area.

I know what it tells me - what does it tell you...? Surely not a story of a vicious eviscerator!?

It tells me that there would have been a very loud argument..."I thought I was the only man that you were seeing"..."I never told you that. I can see whoever I want"..."I won't be made a fool of"....etc. etc. etc.

Yet Mrs. Diemschutz and Morris Eagle say they heard nothing. No argument and no slaps to the face as the result of an escalating argument. Are we to believe that someone went from zero to sixty in the anger department and took out his trusty knife? Maybe. Just seems unlikely to me.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

sotto voce

Hello CD. But cannot one argue sotto voce?

But how angry can one get in such a situation? Well, being a married chap . . .

The best.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. But cannot one argue sotto voce?

But how angry can one get in such a situation? Well, being a married chap . . .

The best.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Well yes, most assuredly. But this ain't a high society dinner where a couple is surrounded by others of their ilk. Let's not forget the class of people who we are dealing with here. What is more probable? A quiet reasoned argument or all out yelling? And let's not forget the role alcohol might play. My money is on good old yelling.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates writes:

"It suggests HE was her big date. If he were well educated/well off, that would explain her ebullience and her "sprucing up" earlier that afternoon. It might also explain why a former boyfriend was jealous.

Am I heading in the right direction?"

God only knows, Lynn – but I can say that IF you are heading in this direction, we will do so in each otherīs company...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"If we can assume that Liz was a targeted person that night,then I agree with you that the same person was seen with her at different times in different places,and it was at Duffield yard that the killer decided an opportunity had presented itself.If it were the case,I cannot understand the approach of BS at that time,or accept him as being the stalker."

I see what you mean, Harry - and you are of course on the button, logically; BS man did NOT behave rationally if we assume that he was stalking her that night.

But my suggestion is that she was NOT stalked at all. To my mind, Best and Gardnerīs man/Marshalls man/BS man was a man who was very fond of Liz, as portrayed in his affection in the Bricklayers arms and in the doorway of 58 Berner Street.
I think he was Lizīs lover, or - at the very least - a man with aspirations of becoming her spouse. I do not think he had an intention in the world to harm her from the outset. On the contrary, Harry!

Now, men who aspire to become lovers of women they fancy, do most often not take kindly to these women showing favours to other men. The extreme of it would be when these favours are of a sexual nature. So if our man thought that he was the one and only for Liz, then he would have been very disappointed by a sudden revelation of her prostituting herself outside the IWMEC.
That, if I am correct, was why he tried to drag her away, and come with him instead. Stride apparently was of another mindset altogether, and I suspect that led her to take him into the yard to tell him off. When he would not accept things, she simply gave him the slip, turned her back on him and headed for the gates.

Then, and only then, was when things turned sinister if you ask me. That was when a red haze obscured his rational thinking and he took his knife out and grabbed her from behind, by her scarf.

If he could not have her, no-one else would either.

It is the oldest motive in the world. Throughout history, Harry, millions of women must have met their maker due to considerations like this.

The Stride murder is no more of a riddle than this if I am correct. We have the 5 ft 5 man of a respectable appearance lining Strides last path - four different witnesses see him at three different occasion during her last two hours, it would seem. And there is nothing of the usual prostitute/client behaviour about it.
Moreover, this man is the last person seen with Stride, minutes before she is lethally cut.

It is not too hard a call to make. It all fits. And itīs not about stalking and ripping, is it?

The best, Harry!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"It tells me that there would have been a very loud argument..."I thought I was the only man that you were seeing"..."I never told you that. I can see whoever I want"..."I won't be made a fool of"....etc. etc. etc."

Letīs just agree to begin with, c.d, that each and every man would react individually to a situation like this. Some would hit, some would yell, some would weep. Others would be stunned, and do absolutely nothing. Perhaps the odd chap would faint, perhaps there would be those who would just turn their back on the woman and walk away. Others would throw up, some would ...

See what Iīm getting at? If we could be sure exactly how each and every person would react to a situation concerning stress, we could cut the police force down to next to nothing. Everything would be predictable, and we would never be faced with any unpleasantly unexpected behaviour.

But this is not how it works, is it?

Of course we could see the relevance in a shouting spouse. But do not forget that this man seemingly threw Stride to the ground! And if he wanted to continue their relationship, he may at that point have realized that a more caring and careful approach may be useful.
Some menīs anger wonīt go away. Other men will display a sudden rush of fury, and when that is done, they cool off. Further men will keep their calm throughout.

We know there was an exchange in words. We know there was a physical brawl, some sort of disagreement. We know that the man was tense enough to shout "Lipsky!" to Schwartz (or "Lizzie!" to Stride).
Emotions were running high, c.d. No need to ask for a slap in the face to have that confirmed, no need to ask for further shouting if Liz instead decided that she did not want to get the attention of all the clubbers - most people prefer to discuss their love affairs and get their differences sorted out IN PRIVATE!

What do you do when you disagree with your wife, c.d? Do you take her out into the street, wake the neighbours and ask them to come outside and join you as you shout at her and give her a punch on the nose?

My guess is that you stay inside, keep your voices at a level that stops nosy neighbours from getting something to chat with their buddys about and take care of things IN PRIVATE. And if you did hit your wife (God forbid, and please realize that Iīm theorizing here to make myself fully understood - as far as I understand you are a thoroughly nice fellow, and if you have the kind of wife you deserve you are a truly lucky man) and produce a bruise thereby, my hunch is that none of you would call anybody elses attention to that bruise afterwards.

This is domestic violence, c.d. This is how it works. It makes for silent brawls, hidden damage and private persecution. What it does not produce, praise the Lord, is ripped-up bellies and inner organs gone lost.

All the best, c.d! And once again, excuse me for being drastic!
Fisherman