Mrs. Fanny Mortimer, Time wrong?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Stewart

That is the fact that despite the seeming relevance of his evidence, Schwartz did not appear at the Stride inquest, he was not mentioned at the Stride inquest, and his evidence (and suspect) were not mentioned at the Stride inquest.

With respect though neither was/did Mrs Mortimer.

In my opinion there is only one explanation for this, especially as we know that his statement was not considered at the inquest.

Fair enough if that's your view. I will admit though that my own tired old brain will stretch to more than one explanation...either the senior policemen secretly discredited Schwartz or they secretly believed him and hid him from view.

Bearing in mind that as late as 6th November someone as senior as Sir Charles Warren himself refers positively to Schwartz's Inquest evidence (presumably mistakenly) then they certainly didn't at that stage discredit him...so the non-appearance in the Inquest evidence as (not) reported in the Press certainly wasn't down to disbelief.

With regard to your second post, I agree Swanson kept an open mind as to whether or not what Schwartz saw was the murder or an earlier and separate assault...Swanson was obviously a good copper...

All the best

Dave

[Investigator]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;268753]Totally Agree, C. D.

I do not subscribe the the BS-man being her killer, I can't rule it out totally because in all honesty I (we) simply do not know. But, the timing and the circumstances to me are all wrong.

Wik. Perhaps I can answer your queries on another thread, As Stewart remarks this is off target on this thread.
I'll leave it to you to start it - I'm not familiar with the procedure . Regards D.G.

[Stewart P Evans]

Soliciting

To just put in my take on the question of whether Stride was actually soliciting or not I would make the following observations. She was a known casual prostitute of the same type as the other victims, it was well after midnight and she was 'hanging about' on the street, and there are witness reports that seem to indicate she was soliciting. Not least of all the police stated that she was a prostitute. Common sense would seem to dictate that she was soliciting. I appreciate the arguments of others who try to say she wasn't soliciting but, to my mind, they don't hold any strength.

We then have the possibility of two attacks (or accosting) within a short period of time. Swanson had this to say, '...account must be taken of the fact that the throat only of the victim was cut in this instance which measured by time, considering meeting (if with a man other than Schwartz saw) the time for agreement & the murderous action would I think be a question of so many minutes, five at least, ten at most, so that I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man Schwartz saw is the murderer...' It is this question that has brought discussion as to whether it was likely that Stride would have been accosted twice within a, say, fifteen minute period of time. Indeed this is the very question raised in the Home Office marginal note on Swanson's report - 'But I understand the Inspector to suggest that Schwartz' man need not have been the murderer. True only 15 minutes elapsed between 12.45 when Schwartz saw the man & 1.0 when the woman was found murdered on the same spot. But the suggestion is that Schwartz' man may have left her, she being a prostitute then accosted or was accosted by another man, & there was time enough for this to take place & for this other man to murder her before 1.0.'

Swanson, as an experienced police officer, would know that far from being unlikely that two such events would occur in such a short space of time it was actually possible, even probable that they would. Casual prostitutes who tout for business on the street were (and are) often abused or assaulted by potential 'customers' they accost. Especially when, as in this case, they are 'chatting up' or pestering late night passers-by who more often than not have been drinking. Indeed The Star report on 'the Hungarian's' story says that the man seen by Schwartz to assault Stride was 'partially intoxicated' and 'half-tipsy'.

These are some of the complexities involved when addressing the question of what exactly occurred on that long-ago fatal night. All witnesses are long dead and we cannot establish any more on their veracity or the accuracy of what they saw. We have to assess and interpret what records have survived and draw our conclusions from that. But no modern commentator is in a position to give a definitive answer and none should state their interpretations and conclusions as given fact.

[Stewart P Evans]

Contribute

Just to contribute a little more on this debate I felt that the real issue here should be addressed.

That is the fact that despite the seeming relevance of his evidence, Schwartz did not appear at the Stride inquest, he was not mentioned at the Stride inquest, and his evidence (and suspect) were not mentioned at the Stride inquest. This is, actually, rather amazing given the apparent importance regarding Schwartz indicated by Swanson in his 19th October report. It is as if he did not exist as far as the coroner's inquiry was concerned.

Why was this? Privately the police appeared to still be attaching relevance to his statement as late as 6th November when the police were reporting to the Home Office on the shout of 'Lipski' and in a minute dated 6th November Warren stated '...the evidence given by the man Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case...' This when, as we know, Schwartz did not give evidence at that inquest.

Following their initial report on Schwartz ('the Hungarian') The Star immediately followed up with a report apparently discrediting Schwartz's statement as follows -

'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 afterward found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt 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.'

All this is very confusing and, despite the later mention of Schwartz in Swanson's report and those on the shout of 'Lipski', he receives no further mention by police or press after early November 1888. In my opinion there is only one explanation for this, especially as we know that his statement was not considered at the inquest.

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman,

I think the first step is to get away from using words like "assault" or "attack." Those are heavily loaded words. Schwartz only said that he saw a woman being thrown down. The simplest explanation is that she did not have the cachous in her hand when thrown to the ground but took them out later. It is hard to believe that she would have done that if she were in fear for her life. To me, it indicates that she took them out later when she felt safe meaning the B.S. man had left.

c.d.

Totally Agree, C. D.

I do not subscribe the the BS-man being her killer, I can't rule it out totally because in all honesty I (we) simply do not know. But, the timing and the circumstances to me are all wrong.

All we can reasonably conclude is that Stride had those cachous in her hand in the last minutes before her death. It is far less likely she held them when BS-man came at her, so what happened in between, and how much time passed in between?
To go down this path is to consider she was the victim of two assaults within 15 minutes, and that is not popular.

Were these cachous even her's? - we only assume they were, and that is primarily because we also assume she was alone in Dutfields Yard.

Both assumptions could be wrong, and we do not know what happened to the 'parcel' man see by Smith. She was obviously in no position to 'service' him nearby unless they went into the back of Dutfields Yard, so did she, and, did he ever leave?

If my assumption is correct, 'parcel' man was with her in the yard when BS-man passed, and 'parcel' man was her killer.
Assumptions can be wrong... but at this point I do not see a good indication that it might be.

[c.d.]

Hello Wickerman,

I think the first step is to get away from using words like "assault" or "attack." Those are heavily loaded words. Schwartz only said that he saw a woman being thrown down. The simplest explanation is that she did not have the cachous in her hand when thrown to the ground but took them out later. It is hard to believe that she would have done that if she were in fear for her life. To me, it indicates that she took them out later when she felt safe meaning the B.S. man had left.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Cadaveric spasm is only diagnosed if an object is held firmly and needs considerable force to break the grip. That the hand holding the cachues could be opened by Blackwell indicates there was no cadaveric spasm. Its absence also indicates that Elisabeth was not aware of what happened to her.

Thankyou D.G.

I think the dilemma we have always faced is that Stride appears to have suffered two physical assaults. The first in the gateway, and the second further within the yard. Some suggest the first assault was the only one. However, if that is so, then she held onto those cachous while being pushed to the ground, then also half strangled by the scarf (it was noted as 'tight'), then having her throat cut.
One might be forgiven for thinking she regarded those cachous as more precious than life itself.

If, as you suggest, no muscle spasm occurred then how was it that she did not drop them at any point during those three separate attacks (push/choke/cut)?

Finding a rational explanation to that question is our mystery.

[c.d.]

Hello Jon.

"How on earth, if Stride was pushed into the yard, did she fall and still retain those cachous? and this 'push' must also come before the knife attack, yet she held on to them damn cachous...unbelievable!"

And this is the MAIN hurdle one must leap if one buys into the Schwartz story.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

As we have discussed so many times, Schwartz never said that he saw Liz being killed only that he saw her being pushed to the ground. That hurdle is easily cleared, if we assume her killer was not the B.S. man.

c.d.

[harry]

I am pretty much alone in my view that pipeman was also the man seen by Brown in the company of Stride,and that he is the more likely person to have killed her.The incident with BS and Schwartz departure would have taken but a few minutes(2-5),and supposing that BS departed,then pipeman(Brown's man)could have joined her at the yard entrance.Sensing she had nothing to fear from him,she would be open to a suggestion to step into the yard.A short while for sight to get adjusted to the darker conditions,consoling her,and he was ready to act.Takes care of the non sighting by Mortimer,her being unprepared,and the time creeping to the arrival of Diemschutz.Did she know him?Probably.

[Investigator]

Sorry Wickerman, got carried away on some other post .
Cadaveric spasm is a muscular stiffening, usually in hands that are holding an object. It occurs at the moment of death and records the last act of life. The cause is not known but its usually found when intense emotion is aroused at the time of a violent death. e.g car accidents
Cadaveric spasm is only diagnosed if an object is held firmly and needs considerable force to break the grip. That the hand holding the cachues could be opened by Blackwell indicates there was no cadaveric spasm. Its absence also indicates that Elisabeth was not aware of what happened to her. The throat injury was so sudden there was no fear or anxiety response that initiates the accompanying hormone reaction e.g. ADH
I've had occasion to render instant death in a few animals for the purpose of measuring pituitary hormones for medical research purposes - a long time ago.
Cheers DG

[lynn cates]

hurdle

Hello Jon.

"How on earth, if Stride was pushed into the yard, did she fall and still retain those cachous? and this 'push' must also come before the knife attack, yet she held on to them damn cachous...unbelievable!"

And this is the MAIN hurdle one must leap if one buys into the Schwartz story.

Cheers.
LC

[Investigator]

Hi Dave.

I think we need a sound medical authority to explain how the muscular spasm works to clench the hands of a woman when physically threatened.
I think most of us of the great unwashed are divided on the subject.

This is indeed a three-pipe problem.

A note on some forensic issues:
In present times, TOD (time of death) means unrecoverable brain death but in 1888 would have been the loss of vital signs, heart, pulse, respiration and reflexes. That might mean being in a coma which, given CPR in time can be recovered. TOD depends on the nature of the injury and in the case of blood loss depends on the haemorrhage rate. Hence, 500 ml over 15 minutes and you’re still standing. The same amount in 1 minute and you’re out cold. The partial division of the carotid artery would mean a rapid loss of blood and consciousness within 1 – 2 seconds.
The medical evidence is that Elisabeth had about 1 pound of clotted blood (500Ml) in the gutter under her neck. Blood ceases to clot very quickly after death, triggered by cascading chemical changes at the point if injury. With sudden death the blood remains spontaneously coagulable only for a brief period immediately following death; it then becomes completely free from fibrinogen and will never clot again. But the rate at which clotting occurs is also temperature dependent. At normal body temperature, (38ºC) coagulation takes about 2 minutes, at 10ºC it takes about 12 minutes.
The Coroner asked of Spooner “Did you notice whether the blood was still moving on the ground? - It was running down the gutter” replied Spooner. This clearly indicates that when Spooner came to view the body, some 6 minutes before Johnson, the blood in the gutter was liquid.
A woman of her size and average weight would have a blood volume of about 3.5 liters and a loss of 40% blood volume (1.4 L) would not sustain life. At rest, the output of the heart is 4 – 5 liters per minute and a loss of 1.5 liters of blood from Elisabeth’s body would take less than half a minute if the heart had continued to function efficiently.
There is some indication however that her collapse may be due to heart block resulting in a sudden fall in blood pressure. By conjecture, this could have occurred by severing the left vagus nerve, no comment is made in the post mortem report. She could still have been alive, albeit unconscious until brain dead for, at a guess, 4-5 minutes after the injury. The heart could have regained contraction after a minute or two albeit in tachycardia, (ineffective as a pump) otherwise blood drained by gravity to reach the door of the kitchen.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon

Liz was found only two yards or so into the passage, so it wouldn't take much of a shove to put her there...

Hi Dave.

I think we need a sound medical authority to explain how the muscular spasm works to clench the hands of a woman when physically threatened.
I think most of us of the great unwashed are divided on the subject.

How on earth, if Stride was pushed into the yard, did she fall and still retain those cachous? and this 'push' must also come before the knife attack, yet she held on to them damn cachous...unbelievable!

I guess all of us are highly resistant to the possibility that they were placed in her hands after the murder?
Me too....

This is indeed a three-pipe problem.

[Wickerman]

Hi Stewart

As you say, I'd normally be far more trusting of an Official Report than a newspaper based one...but I was seeking elucidation of what constituted the "footway" in the official report, (I see even you have added an explanatory reference to footpath). I always understood pavement to be the usual term used and "footway" made me curious enough to wonder whether that could include the semi-paved passage.

Hi Dave.

Interesting that you should point this out. If you use the Press Search and enter "footway" you will see all the press articles where that term is use, and clearly it is the footpath.

However, it also occurred to me that Dutfields Yard was semi-paved, so I wondered if the paved section may have been referred to as 'footway' as opposed to cobbles or gutter.
Thankfully, our trustworthy Morning Advertiser described the yard in detail:
"The gutter of the yard passage is made of paving stones, the centre being of irregular boulders. The body was lying half on the paving stones."

So the body did indeed lay on the regular paved section, which was the gutter, but as those paved sections were on a slight grade, it cannot be called a footway.

Pencil sketch of Phil Hutchinson's photo.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Cut it out!

...Was BS-man Michael Kidney? - I would say a most emphatic "no!"

The story told by Schwartz was already in the press on the Monday, so whoever the man was who Schwartz saw, he knew there was a witness who could identify him.
Whoever BS-man was, once the Schwartz story was out he will lie low. He will not appear in court (as Michael Kidney) two days later and risk being identified.

You are making way too much sense here. How dare you! Although if it was Kidney, it would've been one hell of a play to make.