Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

    You have got me confused here, Mac. I was under the impression these were penny candy. Is that not correct?

    Can somebody help us with the price?

    c.d.
    I've looked all over the internet and cannot find a price, C.D.

    But, I don't think it matters. In that world, breath was the least of their worries and it wouldn't have been a concern for her clients in the same boat.

    I reckon it was a little treat, sweets they didn't normally have, a gift; except it was intended to get Liz's hands down and well out of the way. We know Liz had no defence wounds on her hands, and so whatever happened she didn't have time for the natural reflex of putting her hands up to stop the attack, meaning her hands were well out of the way, I'd say she was looking down at the cachous before being attacked.

    'Suggests to me not one of Liz's usual type of clients, but somebody who was a rung up and cachous was part of his existence.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      nah. a little too far out time wise and sadler probably killed her. he was a hot mess that night.
      I see it differently. I think prime Jack. The darkest spot in the area. That doesn't happen by accident. That's not an enraged Sadler looking for revenge because of some possible slight, he could have caught up with her anywhere and took out his rage. That's a couple who have gone into a dark spot for a premeditated purpose.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

        I see it differently. I think prime Jack. The darkest spot in the area. That doesn't happen by accident. That's not an enraged Sadler looking for revenge because of some possible slight, he could have caught up with her anywhere and took out his rage. That's a couple who have gone into a dark spot for a premeditated purpose.
        good point.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
          Am I correct that the alleged witness; Matthew Packer, only changed his story after he was subsequently interviewed/hounded by Charles Le Grand; the so-called "private Investigator" alleged to have worked for the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee?
          ...
          Prior to Le Grand's intervention, Matthew Packer offered no evidence in relation to a man and woman he sold grapes to.

          To me, there's a possibility that Le Grand threatened Packer to create a story that could be perpetuated in the press and further develop the myth of the ripper that Bachert fantasized and obsessed about.

          In other words, I would not rely on any evidence extracted from a witness after the likes of Le Grand had spoken with him. It makes Packer's evidence flawed and I think that Le Grand had an ulterior motive due to his association with Bachert.
          You do realize Packer's statement to police, and even to the press, is considered evidence?
          This scenario you offer to explain his evidence is speculation, but you suggest others dismiss actual evidence based on a story you invented?
          You have no proof of any kind of a relationship between Le Grand & Packer, or that Le Grand was involved in any suspicious activity. Without proof, you have nothing to challenge Packers evidence with.
          I'm not saying Le Grand didn't act as a private detective, we know he did. It's all the conjecture behind the conspiracy between Packer, Le Grand & Backert, etc. it's all made up isn't it?
          It sounds to me you have bought into the theories of one particular writer who rarely appears on Casebook, he can't take the grilling he gets when asked to substantiate what he writes.

          We can't know for certain why Packer initially told police he saw nothing suspicious, but then 4 days later changed his story.
          Today, police will tell you witnesses often say they know nothing at a first interview, they prefer not to get involved, only to change their minds days later. It's not like this initial reaction is unknown, some are just too scared to help police.

          Le Grand was also known to have a violent streak and I would suggest that there's also a scenario where Le Grand was BS man and Bachert was Pipeman. Le Grand knew that Packer has identified him earlier and intercepted him by telling Packer to concoct a different description of a man who never existed.
          Everything to do with LeGrand in the Stride case is nothing but speculation, maybe this, maybe that.
          I think we both know who is responsible for that, his books are full of "what-ifs" in trying to inject Le Grand in this case.
          What I think you have been subject to is a modern attempt at creating a conspiracy that never truly existed.
          It's a way to sell books.
          The author never produced any evidence to support his theory - right?

          The story Packer told both police & the press involved a woman & a man, who came up Berner St. towards Comm. St. The woman was wearing a flower on her jacket breast. The man had bought a parcel of grapes, the couple stood opposite the club at about 12:30 am.

          Now, although PC Smith was a second witness, because he was a policeman his statement was never leaked to the press, no journalist had the opportunity to interview him, so the first we know about his story is when he gave testimony on the 5th, it was in print the next morning - the 6th.

          So, how could Packer know what the policeman saw - a man & woman coming up Berner St., the woman wearing a flower, the fact the man was carrying a newspaper parcel, and they stood opposite the club about 12:30 am?

          Unless Packer really did see the same couple?

          Neither Packer nor Le Grand, nor anyone else are going to know these singular details contained within PC Smith's statement before the 5th October.

          This codswallop involving Le Grand is pure fiction, it's a modern invention.


          For me Stride wasn't a JTR victim because I believe that Bachert orchestrated the letter referring to the double event; Bachert subsequently wrote JTR-style letters to himself and the press didn't buy it, neither did the police.

          Bachert may have used Le Grand to act out his fantasy of killing someone, ergo, Stride, in an attempt to mimic his letter for a double event.
          The main problem I have with modern suspect books is they are 90% nonsense, mostly fabrication, and I suspect you've bought into one of these theories hook line & sinker.

          The only reasons why Stride is on balance still considered a JTR victim, is because of the timing of the double event in relation to the letter (which might be fake) and that she was killed before MJK, who some see as the pinnacle of his killing spree (I don't believe he stopped after MJK)
          Frederick Best is the one who is the most likely to have wrote Dear Boss letter. There's a memo that was found between owners of the Star that refers to the fact he should have been fired sooner than he was for misleading the police and embarrassing the newspaper the way he did.
          The memo doesn't go into details, but that is the current interpretation, that they are talking about Best creating the Dear Boss letter.


          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            You do realize Packer's statement to police, and even to the press, is considered evidence?
            This scenario you offer to explain his evidence is speculation, but you suggest others dismiss actual evidence based on a story you invented?
            You have no proof of any kind of a relationship between Le Grand & Packer, or that Le Grand was involved in any suspicious activity. Without proof, you have nothing to challenge Packers evidence with.
            I'm not saying Le Grand didn't act as a private detective, we know he did. It's all the conjecture behind the conspiracy between Packer, Le Grand & Backert, etc. it's all made up isn't it?
            It sounds to me you have bought into the theories of one particular writer who rarely appears on Casebook, he can't take the grilling he gets when asked to substantiate what he writes.

            We can't know for certain why Packer initially told police he saw nothing suspicious, but then 4 days later changed his story.
            Today, police will tell you witnesses often say they know nothing at a first interview, they prefer not to get involved, only to change their minds days later. It's not like this initial reaction is unknown, some are just too scared to help police.



            Everything to do with LeGrand in the Stride case is nothing but speculation, maybe this, maybe that.
            I think we both know who is responsible for that, his books are full of "what-ifs" in trying to inject Le Grand in this case.
            What I think you have been subject to is a modern attempt at creating a conspiracy that never truly existed.
            It's a way to sell books.
            The author never produced any evidence to support his theory - right?

            The story Packer told both police & the press involved a woman & a man, who came up Berner St. towards Comm. St. The woman was wearing a flower on her jacket breast. The man had bought a parcel of grapes, the couple stood opposite the club at about 12:30 am.

            Now, although PC Smith was a second witness, because he was a policeman his statement was never leaked to the press, no journalist had the opportunity to interview him, so the first we know about his story is when he gave testimony on the 5th, it was in print the next morning - the 6th.

            So, how could Packer know what the policeman saw - a man & woman coming up Berner St., the woman wearing a flower, the fact the man was carrying a newspaper parcel, and they stood opposite the club about 12:30 am?

            Unless Packer really did see the same couple?

            Neither Packer nor Le Grand, nor anyone else are going to know these singular details contained within PC Smith's statement before the 5th October.

            This codswallop involving Le Grand is pure fiction, it's a modern invention.




            The main problem I have with modern suspect books is they are 90% nonsense, mostly fabrication, and I suspect you've bought into one of these theories hook line & sinker.



            Frederick Best is the one who is the most likely to have wrote Dear Boss letter. There's a memo that was found between owners of the Star that refers to the fact he should have been fired sooner than he was for misleading the police and embarrassing the newspaper the way he did.
            The memo doesn't go into details, but that is the current interpretation, that they are talking about Best creating the Dear Boss letter.


            A brilliant post and I like your response to my hypothesis.

            In terms of Le Grand, he was a convicted criminal who blackmailed women. Unless he was wrongly convicted.

            Bachert was a fantasist because the evidence is there to support the fact he repeatedly tried to involve himself on the front line of the case. He repeatedly claimed to have received correspondence from the ripper, he even claimed to have apprehended the ripper.
            His antics were well-documented in the press.

            When his father disappeared, he wrote a letter to a newspaper specifically asking them to correct their description of his father as a Jew.
            He claimed to have no connection with the Jews Whatsoever.

            His father reappeared rather conveniently.

            The truth was that he had a mixed German/Jew ancestry.

            That's not conjecture from my part, that's Genealogical fact.
            He made attempts to distance himself from the Jews, as evidenced in his letter to the press, but his father was of Jewish heritage.


            Of course, I do completely accept your point that in connection with Stride, there's no proof.

            But that's not my point.

            Albert Wilhelm Bachert was a proven fantasist and a compulsive liar...unless the ripper did send him letter after letter, as he had claimed.

            There are scores of newspaper reports relating to Bachert and when you piece them together; based on his own letters to the press, it becomes very apparent that he was a fanatic with the ripper case.

            Why did he go to great efforts to distance himself from the Jews, when he was part Jewish himself?

            And why did he speak at the socialist meetings on Tower Hill as an antagonist who despised socialists?


            He claimed to have headed the vigilance committee and Le Grand also did work as an investigator for the committee. That is also fact based on written documentation.

            One of the committee members claimed to have been on "the Right Track," a direct reference to a certain alleged ripper correspondence. This could have been the actor Reeves, but could also have been Bachert himself.

            The fact is that Bachert either genuinely received letters from the killer/a fraud OR he didn't receive anything and he made it all up to get his name into the press. But this action of getting himself actively involved with the case is based on fact.

            Now whether he was anywhere near the Stride murder is conjecture and NOT based on any evidence I do agree, BUT the rest of the data IS evidence based on newspaper reports, court hearings, witness statements, genealogical research etc...

            I don't think he was the ripper, but he disliked Jews, had issues with his own ancestry, hated socialists, fantasized about being the main recipient of the rippers correspondences after Lusk left the committee and sent letters tot he press on a regular basis, all of which is documented.

            He absolutely earns a place at the suspect table. He perpetuated the myth of the ripper up until everyone had enough of his BS and he just faded into obscurity after being convicted of fraud.

            But I appreciate your response as that's what's needed


            RD







            "Great minds, don't think alike"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post


              A brilliant post and I like your response to my hypothesis.

              In terms of Le Grand, he was a convicted criminal who blackmailed women. Unless he was wrongly convicted.

              Bachert was a fantasist because the evidence is there to support the fact he repeatedly tried to involve himself on the front line of the case. He repeatedly claimed to have received correspondence from the ripper, he even claimed to have apprehended the ripper.
              His antics were well-documented in the press.

              When his father disappeared, he wrote a letter to a newspaper specifically asking them to correct their description of his father as a Jew.
              He claimed to have no connection with the Jews Whatsoever.

              His father reappeared rather conveniently.

              The truth was that he had a mixed German/Jew ancestry.

              That's not conjecture from my part, that's Genealogical fact.
              He made attempts to distance himself from the Jews, as evidenced in his letter to the press, but his father was of Jewish heritage.


              Of course, I do completely accept your point that in connection with Stride, there's no proof.

              But that's not my point.

              Albert Wilhelm Bachert was a proven fantasist and a compulsive liar...unless the ripper did send him letter after letter, as he had claimed.

              There are scores of newspaper reports relating to Bachert and when you piece them together; based on his own letters to the press, it becomes very apparent that he was a fanatic with the ripper case.

              Why did he go to great efforts to distance himself from the Jews, when he was part Jewish himself?

              And why did he speak at the socialist meetings on Tower Hill as an antagonist who despised socialists?


              He claimed to have headed the vigilance committee and Le Grand also did work as an investigator for the committee. That is also fact based on written documentation.

              One of the committee members claimed to have been on "the Right Track," a direct reference to a certain alleged ripper correspondence. This could have been the actor Reeves, but could also have been Bachert himself.

              The fact is that Bachert either genuinely received letters from the killer/a fraud OR he didn't receive anything and he made it all up to get his name into the press. But this action of getting himself actively involved with the case is based on fact.
              Yes, no issue there, the East End was full of deviants & despicable individuals, but all that is a separate issue to the question of whether Packer lied.


              Now whether he was anywhere near the Stride murder is conjecture and NOT based on any evidence I do agree, BUT the rest of the data IS evidence based on newspaper reports, court hearings, witness statements, genealogical research etc...
              As you say, it's all conjecture, but it is presented in such a way as to suggest conspiracy, which is a fiction.

              I don't think he was the ripper, but he disliked Jews, had issues with his own ancestry, hated socialists, fantasized about being the main recipient of the rippers correspondences after Lusk left the committee and sent letters tot he press on a regular basis, all of which is documented.

              He absolutely earns a place at the suspect table. He perpetuated the myth of the ripper up until everyone had enough of his BS and he just faded into obscurity after being convicted of fraud.

              But I appreciate your response as that's what's needed
              RD
              Ok, so you have the makings of a drama centered around Backert and/or including Le Grand, none of which includes Packer in any way except by association as a client of Le Grand.

              So, why object to Packer evidently describing the same people, at the same place, at the same time, as PC Smith?

              Whether the grape stalk was planted, or whether there ever were any grapes in Stride's right hand is not a matter for Packer, he did not suggest it.
              I maintain Packer was telling the truth about who he saw that night, and PC Smith confirms Packer.
              Their descriptions of the suspect do not match exactly, but other circumstances show they are both talking about the same man.

              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
                But for me, McKenzie and Coles were more likely ripper victims than Stride.

                The only reasons why Stride is on balance still considered a JTR victim, is because of the timing of the double event in relation to the letter (which might be fake) and that she was killed before MJK, who some see as the pinnacle of his killing spree (I don't believe he stopped after MJK)

                Thoughts?
                Hi RD,

                I am on the fence slightly more with Stride than with McKenzie. Both had the cut throat, both possibly interrupted, but with McKenzie the attempt at abdominal mutilation had begun. IF Stride is to be accepted as a JtR victim, it would be a Non Sequitur to exclude McKenzie.

                Cheers,
                George
                It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                Comment


                • I keep reading over the circumstances of events leading up to and after Strides murder and I question whether we are making matters more complex than they ought to be. There is lots of discussion about timings of the murder and events after Stride is discovered. Looking at the Schwarz story again I believe this. There seems no logical reason why he should lie. What possible reason would there be for this. Yes he could be mistaken about what he has seen that is understandable. There could be a lack of light, confused angles, shadows, misinterpretation of events etc. However I think we have to accept that he witnessed something and he states what he think he saw. UNLESS he has been coerced to lie and invent a story to cover up what really happened. Perhaps cover for somebody in the club. Lets assume that Schwartz is genuine. He says that he sees BSM walking in front of him and that he appears slightly drunk, he then notices a female (Stride) standing in the gateway to Dutfield's yard. We dont know at this time whether BSM has been following Stride for some distance and she is frightened. The first thing somebody would do if they found themselves in this situation is seek out the safety of other people. There was obviously activity at the club was she seeking out a place of sanctuary. He reaches her, there is a disagreement, some pushing and pulling and she falls/is pulled/pushed to the ground. Now I still believe the comments by Mr George Baxter Phillips regarding the state of Stride are very important, in particular "Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side". Why does he use the word "matted" why didn't he say 'Mud on face and left side of the head and hair'? Then further in his examination of Stride he says "Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud". Why the word 'plastered' Baxter was an intelligent professional. The word plastered means spread thickly as he emphasizes the word with the phrase "well plastered" He is making a point. I suggest people would say covered in mud. It makes me think Stride was dragged in the mud. Dragged into the gateway. Her annoyed killer slashing her throat. Frustrated. JTR? it would fit I think.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by New Waterloo View Post
                    I keep reading over the circumstances of events leading up to and after Strides murder and I question whether we are making matters more complex than they ought to be. There is lots of discussion about timings of the murder and events after Stride is discovered. Looking at the Schwarz story again I believe this. There seems no logical reason why he should lie. What possible reason would there be for this. Yes he could be mistaken about what he has seen that is understandable. There could be a lack of light, confused angles, shadows, misinterpretation of events etc. However I think we have to accept that he witnessed something and he states what he think he saw. UNLESS he has been coerced to lie and invent a story to cover up what really happened. Perhaps cover for somebody in the club. Lets assume that Schwartz is genuine. He says that he sees BSM walking in front of him and that he appears slightly drunk, he then notices a female (Stride) standing in the gateway to Dutfield's yard. We dont know at this time whether BSM has been following Stride for some distance and she is frightened. The first thing somebody would do if they found themselves in this situation is seek out the safety of other people. There was obviously activity at the club was she seeking out a place of sanctuary. He reaches her, there is a disagreement, some pushing and pulling and she falls/is pulled/pushed to the ground. Now I still believe the comments by Mr George Baxter Phillips regarding the state of Stride are very important, in particular "Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side". Why does he use the word "matted" why didn't he say 'Mud on face and left side of the head and hair'? Then further in his examination of Stride he says "Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud". Why the word 'plastered' Baxter was an intelligent professional. The word plastered means spread thickly as he emphasizes the word with the phrase "well plastered" He is making a point. I suggest people would say covered in mud. It makes me think Stride was dragged in the mud. Dragged into the gateway. Her annoyed killer slashing her throat. Frustrated. JTR? it would fit I think.
                    absolutely possible. her scarf was pulled tight, suggesting it was grabbed during the dragging. and if you see my scenario a few posts up it fits with tje ripper being pissed off she wouldnt go with him into a dark alley. as in... oh you wont go? oh yes you will.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                      ... I was under the impression these were penny candy. Is that not correct?

                      Can somebody help us with the price?

                      The report that they were wrapped in tissue paper makes me wonder if she bought a few loose ones from the shop, rather like kids and the poorest folks nowadays get a tobacconist to (illegally) sell them a few loose ciggies from an opened pack. There are old cachou tins sometimes offered for sale online, suggesting that a normal purchase was in the dozens or hundreds.

                      All suggests to me that she was meeting a beau rather than looking for sex work.

                      M.​
                      (Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Unless he was interrupted which is entirely possible and cannot be disproven.
                        There is zero substantive evidence that any interruption took place, just like there is no substantive evidence that her killer wore blue shoes. But you are welcome to accept both as something that may have been the case if you like. Seems like an idiosyncratic investigative technique to me, but I am less surprised about what people will believe after reading some posts here.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by New Waterloo View Post
                          ... Now I still believe the comments by Mr George Baxter Phillips regarding the state of Stride are very important, in particular "Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side". Why does he use the word "matted" why didn't he say 'Mud on face and left side of the head and hair'? Then further in his examination of Stride he says "Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud". Why the word 'plastered' Baxter was an intelligent professional. The word plastered means spread thickly as he emphasizes the word with the phrase "well plastered" He is making a point. I suggest people would say covered in mud. It makes me think Stride was dragged in the mud. Dragged into the gateway. Her annoyed killer slashing her throat. Frustrated. JTR? it would fit I think.
                          Hi New Waterloo.

                          I notice your emphasis on mud, it's just that this entrance was for cart storage. Carts came in and out on a regular basis, so if the ground was soil it would have been churned up many years ago. It is only to be expected if a place is designed for wheeled traffic it will be lined with cobbles, so where does this 'mud' come from?
                          Here is a sketch of the yard, I hope it's large enough...



                          I know it's not a photograph, but as you can see the surface of the yard is drawn as cobbles, no doubt some were missing, but we don't know of any areas where we could find quantities of mud.

                          My own view is the doctors might have used mud as a euphemism for horse dung, otherwise I'm at a loss to find anywhere that we should expect to find large patches of soil.

                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                            I acknowledge that observant Jews wouldn't have cleaned on the Shabbat​ (Saturday), and might have wanted a 'Shabbes goy' to do it; but (i) surely the IWMES crowd wasn't at all religious, and (ii) if Stride was going to be standing over a sink, or kneeling down with a bucket and a scrubbing brush, would she really have dressed up to that apparent extent, freshened breath included?

                            Genuine question. I do want to see all avenues explored.

                            Mark D.
                            Actually the club members themselves were predominantly, if not almost exclusively, Jewish immigrants who aligned with Socialist theologies. Anyone could join, but in practical terms it was a Jewish mens club. The meeting topic that night that was delivered by Morris Eagle, as on other meeting nights, was Why Jews should be Socialists. And as you point out, this was on the eve of a religious observance.

                            I would imagine having a gig to clean the club, if thats why she is there, would pay better than just cleaning a few rooms for someone and perhaps Liz assumed an etiquette that was not required. Or maybe she was advised that they had an apron for her when she began. There is also the distinct possibility her being there was social in nature...like as in a date. I find it interesting that at the same time that she is not see on the street, around 12:35, Morris Eagle would have almost arrived back at the club.
                            Last edited by Michael W Richards; 08-31-2023, 12:11 PM.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              There is zero substantive evidence that any interruption took place, just like there is no substantive evidence that her killer wore blue shoes. But you are welcome to accept both as something that may have been the case if you like. Seems like an idiosyncratic investigative technique to me, but I am less surprised about what people will believe after reading some posts here.
                              And by now I’m used the you making this particular point even though I was was more than a bit stunned when you first made it although it still has the power to make my jaw drop as it’s undoubtedly on of the most nonsensical, illogical, vacuous, poorly thought out, unbelievable, childish, embarrassing suggestions that has ever been made in the entire history of ripperological studies. But hey….I’m quite happy for you to stand entirely alone in proposing and defending this point.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                Hi RD,

                                I am on the fence slightly more with Stride than with McKenzie. Both had the cut throat, both possibly interrupted, but with McKenzie the attempt at abdominal mutilation had begun. IF Stride is to be accepted as a JtR victim, it would be a Non Sequitur to exclude McKenzie.

                                Cheers,
                                George
                                Fair enough George, but how long must pass before you will accept another knife murder was an independent murder?
                                McKenzie was about 8 months after Kelly, and the abdominal wounds did not come close to replicating those of Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes.
                                Like you I'm not 100% on Stride.

                                McKenzie's throat was cut twice, plus 4 other cuts on or beside the jaw.
                                Phillips wrote that the throat had at least two cuts made from L to R, while the body was on the ground.
                                Last edited by Wickerman; 08-31-2023, 12:43 PM.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X