Schwartz and Brown

[c.d.]

Hi Michael and Fish,

Here in America, throwing someone to the ground constitutes an assault and is considered a crime. The rationale being that the thrower's intent was to inflict bodily harm on the person being thrown. So this is where I get totally confused. Was this a normal practice in the LVP? A standard greeting or perhaps a show of affection? In addition, we have the BS man issuing an implied threat of violence to Schwartz with his yell of Lipski. Now you have both stated that Liz would only take out the cachous in a situation where she felt no imminent danger. You both stated that she most likely didn't have the cachous in her hand when she fell to the ground. I agree 100% so I am completely at a loss to understand why Liz would take them out if still in the presence of the BS man. Michael, you have argued constantly that the BS man had to be her killer because of the narrow time frame. Are you now saying that the BS man might have gone off and come back? Because if so, we have now extended that time frame. If I were Liz and saw the BS man coming back my first instinct would be that he intends more harm and I would start moving closer to the club where I could yell for help.

If you want to make a case that the BS man killed Liz, you have to explain the cachous and why she would have felt no threat from him.

I wouldn't pop those champagne corks just yet boys.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Richard. Your dictum:

"I would suggest that after the initial falling of Stride, her assailant heaved her to her feet and forced her into the darkness of the yard, and swiftly cut her throat."

would work fine IF her body were 180 degrees opposite. It was not.

You see, I was a nice, normal C5 chap. My habit was and is to keep reading the coroner's reports, and try a forensic reconstruction of each. After doing Liz for the umpteenth time, it hit me like a cold slap in the face that Liz was EXITING the yard. That did not correspond to soliciting Jack and then going to a dark spot.

But couldn't "Jack" pull on her and turn her about? Not at all. The bloody cachous again. Any violent movement--except a quick take down from behind, replete with choking to ensure the involuntary grip--is ruled out.

Needless to say, my conversion was every whit as swift and sure as St. Augustine's.

The best.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Sorry to see that you have gone over to the dark side. Sometimes those conversions don't last so I will continue to hold out hope.

I hate to show my ignorance here but I still don't understand your point. What does her exiting the yard (if that was the case) correspond to?

c.d.

[Ben]

My feeling, Ben, is that we actually NEED to "generalize" here, since people VERY generally prefer to save themselves before they ponder saving a few cachous wrapped in paper tissue.

That's true, Fisherman, but my suspicion is that she was in a position to do both, and that by clenching her fists, she could both fend off her attacker (or at least attempt to do so with futility) and retain the cachous which she could well have considered valuable. There's no mutual exclusivity between breaking a fall and retaining the cachous.

That sentence leaves no room for any doubt about which is the reasonable interpretation.

If we accepted Schwartz at his word, and that he saw precisely what was recorded without any confusion, we have a somewhat illogical succession of events, with BS pulling her into the street, but then suddenly turning her around and throwing her in the opposite direction. IF BS grabbed her arm, for example, and Stride then attempted to escape in the direction of the streets, it could well appear that he was pulling her in that direction, since he would still have been clinging to her. The fact that he was observed to throw her down away from the direction of the street would suggest to me that he intended to take her in that direction.

"Thing is, nobody seems to be able to come up with credible explanations to the details involved when they use either a killer unknown to Stride or Jack in the role of the villain."

It depends on the perspective. I'd hazard a guess that some of the people who've argued for Stride's inclusion in the canon have done so with the conviction that theirs in the more credible explanation, which is why they stick to their guns and ensure the continuation of the debate. I find that both sides have interesting observations to impact, which is why I remain on the fence.

If you want an unaquainted killer (or Jack) in Dutfields Yard, then time and time again, you need to settle for the less credible and witness-wise unsubstantiated interpretations of things.
...and, once again, if you dont agree with this - be my guest!

Thanks. I don't agree with this. If we left Schwartz's account untouched without any interpretation whatsoever, we're left with unresolved grey areas that don't make much sense. I'd include the "into the street, onto the pavement" detail in that catergory. Even if it did occur precisely as Schwartz described, I don't think it would intefere with any conclusion that Jack or an unknown attacker may have been responsible.

Therefore, we can feel certain that he was of the belief that she could have cried out louder if she had wanted to.

I can't feel remotely certain of that, unless Schwartz was previously familiar with the pitch of Stride's "normal" scream. If he wasn't - as we can reasonably assume - then he had no way of determining whether or not she was deliberately lowering her screams.

Donīt tell me that it does not all add up. It does.

Woah!

And donīt tell me that there are OTHER full, alternative scenarios explaining all the bits and pieces, one by one. There is not, at least not so far

How can you possibly explore other alternatives if you instruct those debating with you not to provide one?

What doesn't quite add up for me is the idea that the individual in question would be seen with Stride at 12:30 only to disappear alone in the direction of Commercial Street, come straight back down, suddenly drunk, just ten minutes later with a radically different attitude.

Best regards,
Ben

[lynn cates]

conversion

Hello Richard. Your dictum:

"I would suggest that after the initial falling of Stride, her assailant heaved her to her feet and forced her into the darkness of the yard, and swiftly cut her throat."

would work fine IF her body were 180 degrees opposite. It was not.

You see, I was a nice, normal C5 chap. My habit was and is to keep reading the coroner's reports, and try a forensic reconstruction of each. After doing Liz for the umpteenth time, it hit me like a cold slap in the face that Liz was EXITING the yard. That did not correspond to soliciting Jack and then going to a dark spot.

But couldn't "Jack" pull on her and turn her about? Not at all. The bloody cachous again. Any violent movement--except a quick take down from behind, replete with choking to ensure the involuntary grip--is ruled out.

Needless to say, my conversion was every whit as swift and sure as St. Augustine's.

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"In remembering the following day,he either misinterprets what he saw,or accepts the idea of an assault suggested by the interviewing officer."

It could be, Harry - but that does not change the fact that generally when a witness says "left", then left it was, and when "right" is stated, the same thing applies.

Therefore, when you write "There is no probability of anything" I must beg to disagree. There is a POSSIBILITY that Schwartz got it wrong, yes; but the PROBABILITY is, was and remains that he did NOT do so.

All in all, I much welcome propositions like yours, though, with a wry smile on my lips. The reason being that it all goes very well to help me make my point - whenever somebody tries to pin the Stride murder on Jack or an assailant that was unknown to Stride, they have to look for other interpretations of the recorded events than the obvious ones: Stride is thrown towards the yard instead of towards the street, the events as we know them are not the result of a truthful session at the police station but instead something the police has forced down the witnesses throats, the low voice in which she cried out came about as a result of Stride not being able to cry out in a louder voice etcetera. We see this mechanism in work over and over again.
I am not speaking of just you, Harry, but of a number of posters who seemingly very much dislike my suggestion, without pointing out where I would be logically mistaken or where "my" chain of events would break.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
I still believe that Schwartz comments cannot be taken literally because of the conditions I mentioned.I think that if she was actually in the gateway she would not have been clearly visible to Schartz untill she moved.So let me put this situation.Stride is in the gateway and as BS draws abreast she steps into his path.There is a conversation in which she makes a proposition.He is not interested and attempts to move on.She grabs at him,and either slips and falls,or is grasped by him to move her out of the way,and then twists and falls.Schwartz sees no further activity because he is moving away.In remembering the following day,he either misinterprets what he saw,or accepts the idea of an assault suggested by the interviewing officer.
There is no probability of anything,only possibility.Regards
Harry.

[Fisherman]

True enough, Harry; we cannot possibly know for certain how it happened.

It all boils down to a case of probabilities, thus. And that tells us that "he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway".

So, Stride was standing "in the gateway". In all probability, that means that BS man was the one closest to the street - otherwise, we need to accept that he took a right turn and walked in behind her, as she was standing in the gateway.
After this, "The man tried to pull the woman into the street". Once again, the reasonable position he was doing his pulling from, is one where he stands between the street and Stride. The pulling will be performed with his back to the street, generally speaking.
Next up, "he turned her round and threw her down on the footway". This is a bit trickier - we cannot know for certain in which direction he threw her. The best bet would perhaps be that he threw her in the direction of the yard, but it equally applies that he may have thrown her to the left or the right. It is less credible to believe that she would have ended up between BS man and the street, since the footway was not very broad. It can, perhaps, not be ruled out totally though.

As for the main question you raise, though, "whether she was appeared to be dragged to the yard or away from it", I think that the assertion that BS man tried to pull Stride "into the street" leaves us with no doubt - she was dragged away from the yard from the outset.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
This all sounds like a case of a roughing up scene, If it is a case of Schwaltz, and pipe man running away from the scene, I would say BS was not the type of character you messed with, and the witnesses simply scarpered, when BS shouted out.
I would suggest that after the initial falling of Stride, her assailiant heaved her to her feet and forced her into the darkness of the yard, and swiftly cut her throat.
I do not see a mystery at all, the cachous, were in her hand before the assault , and remain fixed between the thumb and finger thereafter.
Was he JTR, i would say Yes.
Regards Richard.

[harry]

What was the relative position of Stride and BS man on meeting.We do not know as Schwartz didn't say,but as they are talking,one can accept that they were face to face.Whether she had her back to the yard at that time or was facing BS at right angle to the yard,might have revelance of whether she was appeared to be dragged to the yard or away from it.Schwartz by his testimony was behind BS,how far is not clear,and initial events to some extent would have been shielded both by the bulk of BS and the quality of lighting at the yard entrance..It seems it was after the talking had ceased,that she fell or was twisted to the ground,and only then had Schwartz drawn level.I think too much is taken for granted.There is to me,an even chance that Stride herself initiated events.To make any rational assumption on the events one would have to know how far away Schwartz was.

[ghoulstonstreet]

Not 1 of the Canonical 5?

A recently jilted lover is a far better suspect for this murder than a post mortem mutilator Tom...based on the actual evidence of course.

Motive.......a single slit of a throat does not fit with Jack the Rippers assumed motives, in that, he distinguishes himself by whats done after the murder...not by merely killing.

Someone wanted Liz dead and killed her. Thats the whole story, thats all of the evidence....and a jilted lover beats a ripping stranger anytime as a suspect based only on that simple principle.

At least the premise on which I stand has some logic attached....a serial mutilator post mortem of women deciding as he hears a cart approach to just cut once and only kill then wait for a chance to slip out the gates.....now thats fantasy.

Cheers Tom


edited to add.....you said a "wealth" of information exonerates Kidney.....what exactly do you feel is this evidence? The fact they interviewed him and didnt arrest him?

I'm new here and since this thread is at the top of the heap I've decided to start reading it. I am aware of the Schwartz/Lipski (comment) incident in that I realize a couple men saw Liz Stride with someone and noted it etc. I have read a couple different accounts of this and they were really a bit confusing. Would someone care to very simply describe the scenario with precision?
And, mostly, I'm getting the impression Michael, that some of you are thinking this killing is not to be attributed to the Ripper?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I thought we just established that a handful of tiny sweets can't be "easily picked up again afterwards", especially on a darkened street. I think we ought to be careful of generalizations too. "People" might extend their palm when they fall, but that could easily change if they find themselves in a situation in which they are holding something valuable to them that can not be so easily retrieved if relinquished."

My feeling, Ben, is that we actually NEED to "generalize" here, since people VERY generally prefer to save themselves before they ponder saving a few cachous wrapped in paper tissue. It is a reaction much governed by the spine and not by the brain, and it applies universally. Any difference in opinion on your behalf is something you are welcome to, of course!

"My explanation is that he never intended to pulll her towards the street - it just appeared that way because Stride attempted to flee in that direction."

Iīll just settle for Schwartzīs explanation, since he was the one who saw it going down. The reasonable thing to argue is that Schwartz saw an effort on BS mans behalf to pull her away from her position: "The man tried to pull the woman into the street". That sentence leaves no room for any doubt about which is the reasonable interpretation. The emerging picture is one where he grabs Stride by the arm and pulls, whereas she resists (it says that he TRIED to pull her into the street, implying that she did not comply). After that it says that "he turned her round and threw her down on the footway". This may have been exactly what happened, but there is also the possibility that the turning round that Schwartz saw could have been a combination of a grip lost and an effort on Strides behalf to break loose.

I understand how you see things and what you suggest, Ben, but it remains a scenario that has to settle for a place lower on the list than the scenario of which Schwartz bore witness and spoke. Once again, if you are of another meaning and think that your suggestion should be awarded as much value as Schwartzīs own interpretation - fine by me.

"If you've already decided that the evidence points in the direction of a "very common murder" it isn't really surprising that you'd consider it the "correct solution", and I don't begrudge you that. I'm sure you've noticed that others posting here are of a different persuasion, and feel the evidence points in a different direction."

What I have decided is that the chain of events and the built-in details ALL match with a scenario in which Stride was cut by somebody she knew very well. If we use this perspective, we find that we can account for all the little things that have been regarded as riddles for 121 years - the cachous, the blood on the hand, the lowered voice, why she went into the yard, why she was cut comparatively shallow and not eviscerated, why she seemed to bump into only respectable appearing men of the same height and age that night and so on.
As you wisely point out, others do not share my wiew. Thing is, nobody seems to be able to come up with credible explanations to the details involved when they use either a killer unknown to Stride or Jack in the role of the villain.
When all the pieces fall in place, Ben, we need to see the relevance of that!

It proves not that we are correct - but it does encourage us to believe that we are on the right track. Similarly, when we have a theory, but cannot explain all the details involved in a case without having to reinterpret what the witnesses involved tell us, then we are on loose ground. The same applies for a reasoning that people would prioritize holding on to a small pack of cachous instead of fending off a fall.
Just as I cannot swear that you are wrong in the first case, I cannot do so in this case either. But I CAN swear that a first-hand witness should be awarded more credibility than any interpretation going diametrically against it 121 years later, just as I CAN swear that the by far most normal reaction is to choose a fended-off fall over a pack of sweetmeats.

And the bottom line is very much related to these things!! If you want an unaquainted killer (or Jack) in Dutfields Yard, then time and time again, you need to settle for the less credible and witness-wise unsubstantiated interpretations of things.
...and, once again, if you dont agree with this - be my guest!

"Did Schwartz really register and surprise at the woman not screaming more loudly? I can't recall that detail, off hand."

Schwartz only said that she cried out three times, "but not very loud". Therefore, we can feel certain that he was of the belief that she could have cried out louder if she had wanted to.
It stuck in his mind, Ben. It was something he had not expected.
If you think that this is interpreting things too generously, and I mean it: feel free!

It is a complex thing to try and build a credible scenario from a number of details, Ben. Normally, there will be anomalies and difficulties as you go along, and quite often a small detail that swears against a more or less complete theory will force you to break it all up and start over again. Of this, you will be aware, I know.

This is where the Stride killing is something of a gem, since when we use the aquaintance scenario and accept that Stride was slain by someone she knew and trusted, ALL details are awarded significance. All of them. No exceptions.
They work together, actually reinforcing each other.
They snap in place one by one, all of them tally with the witness reports and - much importantly - NONE of them portray anything but trivial things, so often appearing in domestic cases.

It is nothing short of fantastic how we can see what would have happened in Berner Street on that night in so much detail. We can follow Stride and her respectable fellow (what a bacon-maker he would be!) through the streets, leaving the Bricklayers arms, being mocked by Best and Gardner and not caring too much about it, instead staying together, walking close together, kissing, chatting...
After that, the row outside the yard, him trying to make her come along with him, her resisting, everything going down EXACTLY as Schwartz tells us, their efforts to stay secluded as they had their disagreement, keeping the voices low, moving into the relative privacy of the yard. Even in the last moment of her life, she did not feel at risk, taking her cachous out, deciding to return to the street without him.
Then, the sudden strike from behind, the choking, the cutting as she fell, fraying the scarf, the sequence of events keeping her silent, prevented from any chance of screaming by the tightly pulled scarf.

She falls to the ground, and he bends over her, probably terrified by what he has just done. He checks her neck to see how bad it is, gets fresh blood on his fingers, knows she is cut - and so he reaches out for her right hand and feels for her pulse. Since he is not a medical man, he does not know that you should use your fingers and not your thumb when doing so, a very common mistake to make - and a very telling thing to find. And so he sets off a set of oblong clots of fresh blood on the back of her hand with his fingers, whereas he bloodies the inside of her wrist with his thumb, fumbling for her pulse. And afterwards, when Diemschutz and Kozebrodsky sees the doctor lifting that right hand in the sparse light afforded by a policemans lantern, they believe that she is holding grapes in that hand, for the simple reason that red grapes and bloody imprints of fingertips are of the same size and shape.

This is how the story can be told. I sincerely believe that it is also how it SHOULD be told. This is what happened, I think, detail by detail.

Donīt tell me that it does not all add up. It does.
And donīt tell me that there are OTHER full, alternative scenarios explaining all the bits and pieces, one by one. There is not, at least not so far.
If and when they arrive, I will listen with the greatest of interest. If they offer as good explanations as the aquiantance scenario does, I will throw in a good deal of amazement too!

Once again, Ben - I am not urging you to step over to my side. You make your calls, and I make mine. I just think that we have a beautifully simple case on our hands, and I think the story has been begging to be told for 121 years!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

hands would go to the earth, a semi clenched one with cachous in it would involuntarily open as much as possible given the millisecond of time it would take for her to fall.

Not necessarily, Mike, at least I know of no physiological rule that dictates as much. I do, however, see your point about the apparant gripping of the cachous, and that could well have occured inside the yard.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Gentlemen

Dr Blackwell spilt the cachous, so in all probability they were intact in Liz Strides hand when she was found. When recalled Dr Blackwell stated

" I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand."

all the best

Observer

And when we consider that this "packet" was actually fairly fragile folded tissue, its all the more reason to suspect she did not have these in her hand when she had her Schwartz incident.

Cheers mate

[Observer]

Hi Gentlemen

Dr Blackwell spilt the cachous, so in all probability they were intact in Liz Strides hand when she was found. When recalled Dr Blackwell stated

" I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand."

all the best

Observer

Hi Mike,



There was no evidence of any choking taking place at the time of the Schwartz encounter. She may have experienced the sudden compression of the carotid artery once inside the yard, however, and she was more than likely to clench her fists - and anything ensconced therein - in such a scenario.

All the best,
Ben

Hey Ben,

Not sure my point was clear enough...sudden choking would likely cause the hand to clench in a way that is more intense than it would if the person was merely startled and caught off guard.

Meaning,..if Schwartz's story is the accurate one, BSM could have known her or not and just caught her off guard. When she falls her reflex arm movement would be to try and stop that fall...hands would go to the earth, a semi clenched one with cachous in it would involuntarily open as much as possible given the millisecond of time it would take for her to fall.

But her hand was locked on that packet in a way that suggested her involuntary response was not to try and arrest her fall..... her hand didnt open at all...it gripped.

Thats very sudden, quick, and totally out of left field as far as Liz is concerned, based on the cachous and likely times she might avail herself of one or 2. I see the taking of cachous as very much the same type of thing as a primping of hair, or a smoothing down of a skirt, maybe with a lint brush ....or a check in the compact at how the lipstick looks.

Something one does when at ease and preparing to be seen by someone they want to be sure they look and smell good for.

Best regards as always Ben