Mrs. Fanny Mortimer, Time wrong?

[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.

[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 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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Cogidubnus]

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.

Hi CD

But if what Schwartz saw was indeed the murder (thrown down and throat slit in one movement) how is cadaveric spasm excluded? If she happened to have the packet of cachous in her hand when confronted...a few were scattered in the gutter weren't they...suggesting some degree of violence

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

betwixt and between

Hello CD. Thanks.

"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."

Agreed. But . . .?

"That hurdle is easily cleared, if we assume her killer was not the B.S. man."

And hence the cachous came out between the BSM encounter and her killing?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

time frame

Hello Jon.

"what happened in between, and how much time passed in between?"

According to Schwartz, Liz met BSM around 12.45. According to the story in "Der Arbeter Fraint," Liz was killed around 12.45. Given LVP time keeping anomalies (see, I got that in first!), perhaps 3-5 minutes?

Cheers.
LC

[Stewart P Evans]

An Addition

Just a small addition to my earlier post on Schwartz. Mrs Mortimer cannot be drawn as a parallel to Schwartz in the witness stakes. Her story was widely reported and was confused and confusing. I get the impression, from the press reports, that she may well have been assessed as being in the same class of reliability as Packer and was thus discounted by the police. Also her story was not as direct as Schwartz's which involved an alleged sighting of Stride herself and a suspect for the murder.

Schwartz's evidence, if true and accurate, is hugely relevant. This makes it a real mystery as to why it wasn't heard, nor considered at the inquest. Warren, it seems, merely assumed that Schwartz had given evidence at the inquest. Suggesting secrecy on the part of the police is not really a viable consideration given the official reports that have survived and their content. The problem actually lies, in my opinion, in the fact that much official material, such as Schwartz's original statement, is now missing. And therein may have lain many answers to our puzzling mysteries.

The fact that The Star gave a version of Schwartz's story, which was reported in several other papers as a domestic dispute, shows he was no 'secret'. I don't believe that the exclusion of Schwartz from the inquest has a straightforward explanation, it is more complex than that. But of significance is the date of the conclusion of the inquest which was 23 October 1888.

[lynn cates]

parcel man

Hello (again) Jon.

Let's discuss parcel man.

1. Smith spots him with Liz, on the east side of Berner, around 12.35.

2. Let's say they were striking a deal.

3. It would be reasonable to assume that he was headed north or south on the east pavement of Berner.

4. Given the "usual" scenario, Liz was in the gateway looking for "customers."

5. She spots him, crosses the street, and chats--beginning negotiations? (Enter PC Smith; exit PC Smith.)

6. They head for the yard.

7. Before anything happens, BSM shows up.

8. Parcel man, who had intended to kill someone all along, had to bide his time waiting for BSM to go away. He finally does.

9. He calms Liz down and gives her some cachous.

10. Whilst preparing to take one, he kills her.

Of course, one must assume that he had his knife, possibly in the parcel, and had been looking for a victim.

Do you really like this? I don't.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Lipski

Hello Stewart.

"'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."

Precisely. Not to mention that Abberline seems a bit perplexed by his questioning of Schwartz and his reply to exactly whom "Lipski" was shouted at.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

clumsy of me

Hello Dave.

"If she happened to have the packet of cachous in her hand when confronted...a few were scattered in the gutter weren't they...suggesting some degree of violence."

Or a slightly clumsy doctor who admitted to spilling them?

Cheers.
LC