Mrs. Fanny Mortimer, Time wrong?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

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.

So a slight incline precludes the use of the word footway? Tell that to Donald Swanson!

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!

Well whoever killed her and whenever, the cachous apparently, (mostly). stayed put...and yes I'd love to hear a medic's explanation too, although I probably wouldn't understand half of it!

Hi Lynn

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

Well yes...or anybody's story. They obviously stayed put throughout her murder, however and whenever it happened, because the evidence says so...

Hi 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.

That's an interesting thought, and one that's just as likely in my view as a separate killer coming along later...but that's not to say either is impossible...

Hi again Jon

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)?

But if the killing is one swift move (cutting the throat as she's pushed/thrown to the ground?)...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Lynn

Yes, maybe and Yes again

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

marker

Hello Dave. Thanks.

"Well yes...or anybody's story. They obviously stayed put throughout her murder, however and whenever it happened, because the evidence says so..."

Yes. And so they provide a unique marker as to Liz's actions around the moment of death.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Stewart

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.

You can say that again!

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.

I suspect he'd blurted out a second statement to the Star before the police muzzled him (for his own safety as much as anything)...a man who'd perhaps seen the Whitechapel Murderer at work...

Schwartz's evidence would surely, more naturally, have been given well before the last day of the Inquest but I am intrigued by your mention of 23rd October...The only connection I can make of that is a regal one, but perhaps you'd care to elucidate?

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Lynn

"Well yes...or anybody's story. They obviously stayed put throughout her murder, however and whenever it happened, because the evidence says so..."

Yes. And so they provide a unique marker as to Liz's actions around the moment of death.

I agree they certainly prove that whatever happened to her was pretty sudden

(I knew you couldn't resist this thread in the end! )

All the best

Dave

[Stewart P Evans]

Amaze me

It never ceases to amaze me how so many of these debates descend into a question of semantics and common sense seems to fly out of the window. Here we have the seemingly straightforward word 'footway' being mulled over in the Ripperologically time-honoured way. The entrance to Dutfield's yard was around only nine feet wide and was a passageway for both vehicular (as witness Diemshitz's pony and trap) and pedestrian traffic.

That the police referred to the part of a public footpath at a yard entrance as a 'footway' is evidenced by Inspector Abberline in his report of 19th October 1888 on the Nichols murder where he writes, 'The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Buck's Row, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross & Robert Paul...' In the inquest evidence the location of the finding of Stride's body is referred to as 'a passage leading into a yard', which seems to me to be a reasonable description of it. Dr Blackwell referred to it as 'the yard passage'.

But those of you who wish to refer to this passageway as a 'footway' please feel free to do so. Far be it from me to wish to browbeat anyone into my humble point of view.

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Stewart

Spratling in his original report on 31st August refers to it as a yard crossing...most folk seem to regard it as "outside a gateway", as does Neil, as quoted in the Times.

Returning to the Stride killing, I merely thought footway sounded unusual and followed it up. I'm sorry if that seems to you somewhat lacking in common sense...I always thought a sense of curiosity was a good thing...clearly not in this case.

All the best

Dave

[Stewart P Evans]

A Note

Many know that I left the message boards (Casebook and JTRForums) for over a year recently.

This was because of senseless, and sometimes idiotic, debate and abuse I suffered. It will be seen (as I pointed out on JTRForums) that I do not address anyone by name or in referenced response to any point made. I do not wish to become embroiled in debate with anyone. I just like to put my point of view wherever I wish and where I think it might be of interest.

I do not consider myself a special case of any sort and if the way I post upsets anyone I shall be happy to leave the boards again. Just let me know.

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Stewart

Wouldn't have you leave the boards mate...and in case you're in doubt there's never anything personal in my comments!

All the best

Dave

[Stephen Thomas]

It never ceases to amaze me how so many of these debates descend into a question of semantics and common sense seems to fly out of the window. Here we have the seemingly straightforward word 'footway' being mulled over in the Ripperologically time-honoured way. The entrance to Dutfield's yard was around only nine feet wide and was a passageway for both vehicular (as witness Diemshitz's pony and trap) and pedestrian traffic.

Yes, Stewart. The word 'footway' is quite precise and refers to the break in the footpath (US sidewalk) which allows entrance to side roads and passages.

ie 'footway' is neither road nor pavement.

In my part of London these footways are now raised to the level of the pavement with distinctive bricks to provide ease for pedestrians and a warning for drivers that they are approaching a footpath.

[Cogidubnus]

Oxford English Dictionary: A path or way for pedestrians

Nothing about a break in the footpath there until you add the word crossing

All the best

Dave

PS Apologies for pedantically descending to the level of semantics!

[Stephen Thomas]

Oxford English Dictionary: A path or way for pedestrians

No-one says 'footway' anymore. We say 'walkway'.

Meanwhile, back in the LVP.......

[Cogidubnus]

No-one says 'footway' anymore.

Exactly Stephen...that in part explains why I thought the wording sounded curious and looked at the newspaper report...it could simply be that it's usage was more widespread in the LVP but I don't know

All the best

Dave

[Hunter]

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.

Indeed.

[Hunter]

Hi Stewart,

On the subject of Schwartz not appearing at the inquest, I agree that it is rather complicated, but I think a possible answer lies with Wynne Baxter himself and some of the circumstances at the time. He certainly knew about Schwartz and we have every indication that the police considered his testimony very relevant during that time. I am inclined to believe that Baxter let the police have this one for once. There were special provisions in the Coroner's Act to do so and the situation with this particular witness may have met that criteria.

Of course, this is off topic for this thread. It has been discussed before but I don't remember the title of that thread.