The Stride Murder

[Wickerman]

...And HOW did she not drop them if they were BETWEEN her thumb and forefinger?

I can understand her not dropping them as part of an involuntary brain reaction...

but just between her thumb and forefinger...

How did she not drop them?

How is that physically possible?


RD

It's because of what you are pointing out that I wondered if the packet of cachous was on the ground already.
The doctors did not find them in her hand, as would be the case if she was carrying them.

The packet was only between her thumb & forefinger, as if the packet was on the ground. But as she fell her hand (left hand) fell on the packet. In that case the back of her left hand hits the ground, or if her hand was twisted slightly, her thumb & forefinger would face the ground, and if there was anything on the ground at that point it may fall over the packet of cachous. Anyone may think she had them in her hand, but she didn't, it was just a coincidence.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Just a little observation regarding the Cachous.


Stride was holding the packet between her thumb and forefinger.

That suggests that before her throat was cut, Stride had either just TAKEN the Cachous out of her own pocket OR had just TAKEN the packet from her killer.

In other words, she wasn't carrying the Cachous in her HAND, just between her 2 fingers.

In other words; her finger placement implies the motion of her having taken the packet of Cachous between her fingers and therefore the moment she was perhaps distracted and her attention drawn away at the critical moment.


RD

...And HOW did she not drop them if they were BETWEEN her thumb and forefinger?

I can understand her not dropping them as part of an involuntary brain reaction...

but just between her thumb and forefinger...

How did she not drop them?

How is that physically possible?


RD

This is certainly a difficult question to answer.
Dr Phillips at the inquest ...

[Coroner] Does the presence of the cachous in the left hand indicate that the murder was committed very suddenly and without any struggle? - Some of the cachous were scattered about the yard.
The Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted? - That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

So, it would be reasonable to suppose that had Stride been thrown to the ground just prior to being cut, she would have dropped the packet/paper holding the cachous. However, it seems she did not drop the packet.

Dr Blackwell: 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.

He may well have 'split' them, but we still have an apparent contradiction to explain. How could the packet of cachous be lodged between left thumb and forefinger, and there be cachous scattered about the yard?

Although the quote we have from Abraham Herschburg is not inquest testimony, he does seem a very inquisitive, perceptive and well-spoken young man. He said ...

In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous.

How can his ability to count the cachous be reconciled with Blackwell's comments? I'm not convinced Herschburg was referring to her left hand, especially given Spooner's comment ...

I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand ...

What had been in that piece of paper? More cachous, some of which had been scattered about the yard? Here's another reason for supposing that cachous had also been in Stride's right hand ...

Blackwell: The left hand, lying on the ground, was partially closed, and contained a small packet of cachous wrapped in tissue paper.

Herschburg and Spooner do not mention this packet within tissue paper, they just mention a piece of paper.

Returning to the cachous scattered about the yard, consider also Diemschitz' comment to the press ...

Her hands were tightly clenched, and when they were opened by the doctor I saw immediately that one had been holding sweetmeats and the other grapes.

What do clenched hands and scattered cachous suggest to you? I'm sensing a struggle over the cachous. She has them, he wants them. So, not a 'domestic' type struggle, but more like a primitive fight for the possession of calories.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How can his ability to count the cachous be reconciled with Blackwell's comments? I'm not convinced Herschburg was referring to her left hand, especially given Spooner's comment ...

I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand ...

My hunch is that Herschburg removed the cachous from the piece of paper in the right hand. That is how he was able to count them, and why Spooner did not see anything in this piece of paper. Herschburg said ...

It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway. Two or three people had collected, and when I got there I saw a short dark young woman lying on the ground, with a gash between 4 and 5 inches long in her throat.

Having removed the cachous, Herschburg may have used Stride's right hand to ascertain the extent of the cut to the throat. Thus ...

Blackwell: The right hand was open and on the chest, and was smeared with blood. ... I could not ascertain whether the bloody hand had been moved.

I think Herschburg moved the hand across her throat, and he seems to have arrived at the yard before Diemschitz returned with Spooner. His hearing of the whistle therefore seems to time well with Mr Harris hearing it too ...

Spooner: As I was going to Berner-street I did not meet any one except Mr. Harris, who came out of his house in Tiger Bay (Brunswick-street). Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman's whistle blowing.

Who blew this whistle, and why?

[GBinOz]

Who blew this whistle, and why?

THE MEMBERS OF THE WHITECHAPEL VIGILANCE COMMITTEE

George Lusk - President	Joseph Aarons - Treasurer
Mr. B. Harris - Honorary Secretary	Mr. J. A. Cohen - Committee Member
Mr. Reeves - Committee Member	Mr. Haughton - Committee Member
Mr. Lindsay - Committee Member	Mr. Jacobs - Committee Member
Mr. Isaacs - Committee Member	Mr. Mitchell - Committee Member
Mr. Hodgins - Committee Member	Mr. Barnett - Committee Member
Mr. Lord - Committee Member	Mr. Lawton - Committee Member
Mr. Vander Hunt - Committee Member	Mr. Sheed - Committee Member
Mr. Van Gelder - Committee Member	Albert Bachert - Chairman (1889)

Probably Jacobs, to summon the police. It was less likely to have been Koze (Isaacs) as he didn't mention it in his interview.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Probably Jacobs, to summon the police. It was less likely to have been Koze (Isaacs) as he didn't mention it in his interview.

Did Spooner, a horse-keeper, just happen to know the secretary of the WVC, or was he involved with it?

[The Rookie Detective]

This is certainly a difficult question to answer.
Dr Phillips at the inquest ...

[Coroner] Does the presence of the cachous in the left hand indicate that the murder was committed very suddenly and without any struggle? - Some of the cachous were scattered about the yard.
The Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted? - That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

So, it would be reasonable to suppose that had Stride been thrown to the ground just prior to being cut, she would have dropped the packet/paper holding the cachous. However, it seems she did not drop the packet.

Dr Blackwell: 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.

He may well have 'split' them, but we still have an apparent contradiction to explain. How could the packet of cachous be lodged between left thumb and forefinger, and there be cachous scattered about the yard?

Although the quote we have from Abraham Herschburg is not inquest testimony, he does seem a very inquisitive, perceptive and well-spoken young man. He said ...

In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous.

How can his ability to count the cachous be reconciled with Blackwell's comments? I'm not convinced Herschburg was referring to her left hand, especially given Spooner's comment ...

I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand ...

What had been in that piece of paper? More cachous, some of which had been scattered about the yard? Here's another reason for supposing that cachous had also been in Stride's right hand ...

Blackwell: The left hand, lying on the ground, was partially closed, and contained a small packet of cachous wrapped in tissue paper.

Herschburg and Spooner do not mention this packet within tissue paper, they just mention a piece of paper.

Returning to the cachous scattered about the yard, consider also Diemschitz' comment to the press ...

Her hands were tightly clenched, and when they were opened by the doctor I saw immediately that one had been holding sweetmeats and the other grapes.

What do clenched hands and scattered cachous suggest to you? I'm sensing a struggle over the cachous. She has them, he wants them. So, not a 'domestic' type struggle, but more like a primitive fight for the possession of calories.

Brilliant post as always NBFN.

Could the reason why she didn't drop the cachou have been because she had a fit?

Stride was alleged to have suffered from fits (her brother suffered from fits and was of allegedly of unsound mind)

I've mentioned this on a new thread I started yesterday...but could she have had the Cachou as a way of giving herself a boost or stimulation to prevent her having a fit?

Another member on the other thread I started (Sam) proved that I was wrong in my assumption that she may have taken the Cachou for Hypoglycemia as low blood sugar levels wasn't known about for many decades after (thanks again to Sam for confirming that)

But she still may have had the Cachou as a way of giving her a lift of energy, and this may have been related to her having fits under stress - she once had a fit directly after she was charged for a previous offense and had to be physically helped out of the room.

Could Stride of had a fit at the point she was attacked? And could this explain why she went to the ground without dropping her Cachou?

I'm no clinician but could there have been a form of fit that Stride had that made her muscles suddenly contract and freeze up?

Could the initial attack on her have caused her to have a fit or seizure?


Let's not forget...

"That joke about Leather Apron gave me real FITS"

and...

"Red ink is fit enough I hope ha ha"



RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Could Stride of had a fit at the point she was attacked? And could this explain why she went to the ground without dropping her Cachou?

I'm no clinician but could there have been a form of fit that Stride had that made her muscles suddenly contract and freeze up?

Could the initial attack on her have caused her to have a fit or seizure?

Coroner: Were her clothes disturbed?
PC Lamb: No. I scarcely could see her boots. She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.

I'm no clinician either, but this evidence does not suggest to me that being attacked caused Stride to fit.

How do you account for the cachous scattered around the yard?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What do clenched hands and scattered cachous suggest to you? I'm sensing a struggle over the cachous. She has them, he wants them. So, not a 'domestic' type struggle, but more like a primitive fight for the possession of calories.

Coroner: Were her clothes disturbed?
PC Lamb: No. I scarcely could see her boots. She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.

I'm no clinician either, but this evidence does not suggest to me that being attacked caused Stride to fit.

On the contrary, this evidence suggests she was not involved in a struggle at all. So, the two snippets above are in conflict.

Perhaps we need to think about how Stride came to be in possession of the cachous, and also the nature of the attack on her. I'm curious about the following comments from Dr Phillips.

Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect [and?] under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration which I have watched and seen on two occasions since.
...
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.

The bluish discolouration over the shoulders could be the killer exerting downward pressure on the victim while she is standing, but what about the marks under the collar bones? To me, these suggest pressure being applied once she is on the ground and lying on her back. Except she wasn't found lying on her back ...

The body was lying on its left side, the face being turned towards the wall, the head towards the yard, and the feet toward the street.

I just wonder what exactly Phillips meant by the left side of the jacket. Does he mean left of the midline of the jacket, or just the parts that were in contact with the ground when lying on her left side?

As for the marks on her chest, I can picture the murderer grasping her fisted hands and pressing into her chest with his thumbs. However, that doesn't explain why Stride doesn't scream or at least call out, at this point. The only thing that immediately comes to mind is that Stride did not want to draw attention to herself, because she had stolen the cachous. I believe costermonger carts were kept at the back of Dutfield's Yard, when not in use. Perhaps Liz knew about the comings and goings of the costermongers, and she was in the process of trying to sneak in and out of the yard after helping herself to one or two packets of sweetmeats she had found.

So, theft may have been Stride's motivation for being near the yard, which is otherwise hard to explain. Had Liz been able to grab more than a couple of handfuls of costermonger wares, she would probably have needed something to put it all in. Does anything come to mind? What about her partner in crime?...

PC Smith: He had a parcel wrapped in a newspaper in his hand. The parcel was about 18in. long and 6in. to 8in. broad.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Jeff,

I quote from your # 827, Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

Rather, his initial statement was that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman and it appears Schwartz took that to be Pipeman's name, and that Pipeman was working with Broad Shoulders. While not definitive, it would suggest that Schwartz therefore assumed Pipeman was Jewish (Lipski being a common-ish Jewish name) and by implication so was Broad Shoulders.

I think that is wrong.

I agree with you that Schwartz may have suspected that Pipe Man was working with Broad Shoulders, but the fact that Schwartz thought it possible - and he was not definite about it - that the insult was shouted at Pipe Man does not mean that he thought that the insult was directed at him too.

BS may have directed the insult at Schwartz but looked at PM to indicate Schwartz's presence.

When PM seemed to follow him, Schwartz may have taken that to mean the two were working together.

There is no reason to think, however, that Schwartz would have thought that the man with the pipe was Jewish.

He was about 5 ft 11 ins tall.

That fact alone makes it unlikely that he was Jewish.


Since 1843 Jews inhabiting the Kingdom of Poland were obliged to serve in the Russian army and therefore were examined by draft boards on a par with Christians. Basing on samples drawn from 21-year-old conscripts born between 1845 and 1892 we find that Jewish conscripts were shorter than the Christians by 2.5 cm at the beginning of the period under scrutiny and the difference exceeded 4 cm in the 1890s. The height of Jewish conscripts inhabiting provincial towns declined in the late 1880s and in the early 1890s was about the same as in the 1840s, i.e. 161 cm.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570677X10001085

161 cm is slightly more than 5 ft 3 ins.

However, when the police pressed him on this point (who exactly was Lipski shouted at), it appears that Schwartz backed down from his interpretation that it was shouted at Pipeman, and accepted that it could have been directed at he himself (given its derogatory use at the time, and apparently he was readily identifiable by sight as being Jewish - perhaps by manner of dress and/or hair style, etc). Once he changed his mind on that point and accepted it could have been directed at him, then it that too changes the view of Broad Shoulders from a Jewish offender shouting a warning to his Jewish accomplice, to a Gentile offender shouting an antiemetic insult to a Jewish looking bystander.

Why would Schwartz have thought that BS was Jewish?

BS was drunk.

It was almost unheard of for Jews to be drunk in public in Whitechapel.

BS was roughing up a woman in the street.

Again, it was almost unheard of for Jewish men to behave that way in public.

There is plenty of contemporaneous information about that.

It is obvious that Schwartz felt threatened.

Does that suggest that he had fallen foul of two of his brethren?

I would like to make one more point: if recently-arrived Jews were so reluctant to report crimes committed by other Jews, why would Schwartz have reported the assault to the police?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Roger,

I quote from your # 828, Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche:

In one source, the broad-shouldered bloke was staggering slightly, which might be somewhat unusual for a Jew on the Sabbath, but it was well past sundown and it’s not unknown to break Sabbath with a drink. There’s no law against it.

It was not just unusual; it was almost unheard of.

Jews traditionally would drink wine on the Sabbath at home or in their synagogues, but did not get drunk.

Why would they be in the street eight hours later, still drunk, and roughing up prostitutes?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are always pitfalls if we try to generalise. We aren’t talking about Jews in general we are hypothesising about an individual Jewish person. Could any nationality make such sweeping claims for itself… that no one from that country couldn’t have been ‘a bad person’ or could any religious group claim that none of their members could ever actually break with the tenets of that faith? Would the police, either then or today, dismiss anyone on the grounds that a person of that particular religion ‘was unlikely to have behave that way?” We can read of far too many examples of crimes, including murder, by Buddhist monks, horrible abuse by Catholic priests, Islamic honour-killings, murder by Christian’s, Sikh’s, Hindus and atheists. No one group should be considered exempt or even less likely.

The height issue falls into the same category. 5’11” would have been ‘tall’ for anyone in Victorian London and we have to remember that Schwartz was merely estimating Pipeman’s height in a situation where his main focus of attention had been on BS man and Stride. With any talk of an average height there we be some that are shorter and some taller.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why would Schwartz have thought that BS was Jewish?

BS was drunk.

It was almost unheard of for Jews to be drunk in public in Whitechapel.

BS was roughing up a woman in the street.

Again, it was almost unheard of for Jewish men to behave that way in public.

There is plenty of contemporaneous information about that.

It is obvious that Schwartz felt threatened.

Does that suggest that he had fallen foul of two of his brethren?

I would like to make one more point: if recently-arrived Jews were so reluctant to report crimes committed by other Jews, why would Schwartz have reported the assault to the police?

At what point did Schwartz feel threatened?

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

Would a man who felt threatened remember such an innocuous detail, let alone refer to it?

Once Schwartz senses he is being pursued, he may feel threatened, but by then he is heading down Fairclough St, and should be of no interest to either man. He could only be of interest if he has something they want. When Schwartz went to Leman St police station, he was described as being well dressed. Presumably Schwartz was targeted by the men for his perceived wealth. Had he been out all day and half the night, he may have been carrying personal possessions in a bag. A well-dressed man with a nice bag, on the street alone after midnight, may have been like waving a red flag at a bull.

[Sunny Delight]

Very intrigued at the map produced by Richard on the threads. Amazing work and it has give me lots of food for thought on the following sighting after Stride's murder:

"From two different sources we have the story that a man, when passing through Church Lane at about half past one, saw a man sitting on a doorstep and wiping his hands. As everyone is on the look-out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and sailor's hat."

On looking at the map it does appear to be a good place to 'clean up'. It also means JTR could then continue a few minutes down the road to Mitre Square. Of course the description is vague but it is interesting both Lawende and these sources claimed the man was wearing attire similar to that of a sailor. This description appeared in the Star newspaper before Lawende's description was made public. It is also interesting that this man waw wiping his hands. We don't know what with but let's say this was a cloth or such. Could this explain the taking part of Eddowes Apron to seemingly wipe his knife and/or hands. He had nothing further to clean his hands and/or knife with?

Also interesting that assuming this was JTR he seems to have a bit of a pattern whereby just like Goulston Street he likes to get clear of the crime scene before stopping in a quiet side street to clean up.

Is there any more information on this sighting?

Just some thoughts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

At what point did Schwartz feel threatened?

I agree with your answer to that question.

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

Would a man who felt threatened remember such an innocuous detail, let alone refer to it?

I think so.

Once Schwartz senses he is being pursued, he may feel threatened, but by then he is heading down Fairclough St, and should be of no interest to either man. He could only be of interest if he has something they want. When Schwartz went to Leman St police station, he was described as being well dressed. Presumably Schwartz was targeted by the men for his perceived wealth. Had he been out all day and half the night, he may have been carrying personal possessions in a bag. A well-dressed man with a nice bag, on the street alone after midnight, may have been like waving a red flag at a bull.

I have always thought that if Schwartz was followed, it was because of what he had seen.

But I think your theory is an interesting one.

[Sunny Delight]

At what point did Schwartz feel threatened?

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

Would a man who felt threatened remember such an innocuous detail, let alone refer to it?

Once Schwartz senses he is being pursued, he may feel threatened, but by then he is heading down Fairclough St, and should be of no interest to either man. He could only be of interest if he has something they want. When Schwartz went to Leman St police station, he was described as being well dressed. Presumably Schwartz was targeted by the men for his perceived wealth. Had he been out all day and half the night, he may have been carrying personal possessions in a bag. A well-dressed man with a nice bag, on the street alone after midnight, may have been like waving a red flag at a bull.

Schwartz felt threatened or afraid because he had just seen a man be violent with a woman then shout at him in what would have been an aggressive manner going by the fact it was an anti-semitic slur. There is no grand conspiracy. We are talking about an event that took maybe 10-15 seconds. Instinct takes over. You may not be threatened but you may feel that you are in that moment. Add in the fact that Schwartz initially felt the slur was directed at Pipeman and again you can see how in those seconds, in a foreign country with another man now involved seemingly following you- well it would get very frightening indeed.