The Stride Murder

[The Rookie Detective]

So we have...


11pm - A man seen with Stride in the doorway of the Bricklayer's Arms pub (them having just left the pub) by Laborers John Gardener and John Best.
They are kissing and hugging.
(Short, Dark Mustache, Sandy Eyelashes, BILLYCOCK HAT morning suit and coat)


11.45pm - A man is seen talking with Stride outside 63 Berner Street by the laborer William Marshall. The man says to Stride "You'd say anything but your prayers"
They are kissing and carrying on.
(Short black cutaway coat and SAILORS hat)

SAME intimate behavior but DIFFERENT attire and HATS.

2 different men

...

Now then...

Between 11.45pm - 12am Stride and a man buy black grapes from the witness and fruit seller Matthew Packer at 44 Berner Street. (yards away from murder location)

(stout, 5ft 7", middle-aged around 35, square build, wore a WIDEAWAKE HAT and dark clothing. Appearance of a Clerk, Rough voice, Fast-talking)

Packer said that Stride and the man crossed the road and had spent over HALF AN HOUR standing together in the rain almost directly opposite the shop (and in full view of himself) before they crossed back over the road again to stand outside the club around 12.15am. This is the time based on Packer being self-aware of the time and that he recalls the pubs having already closed, as he was about to close his own shop.

For the couple to have been standing for over half an hour across the road PLUS the time it took for the couple to speak to Packer and buy the grapes, would help to confirm that the potential murderer chose to be observed by Packer with the subsequent victim for the entire time, standing in the rain with their black grapes.

Over half an hour would mean that the time that Stride and the man bought the grapes was around the same time that William Marshall saw Stride standing outside 63 Berner Street at 11.45pm with a completely different man, due to their descriptions being very different.

It means that either Marshall OR Packer are incorrect in some way.

For BOTH suspects to be right, Marshall must have seen Stride BEFORE Packer did, because Packer confirms that the man who bought grapes was standing with Stride for over half an hour before they crossed back over the road to stand outside the club and then moved out of line of sight by doing so.

For BOTH Marshall and Packer to be correct, Packer needs to have got his later times wrong and the couple bought grapes from him later than he thought, meaning that Stride and the man walked over to the club closer to the time she was murdered.

Now unless the man had a big bag of hats, then the man Marshall saw wasn't the same man that Packer saw with Stride.

And the man seen with Stride even earlier by the pair of laborers was someone else as well.

That's Stride being seen with 3 different men. In this order...

Billycock Hat man - Kissing and hugging
Sailor's Hat man - Kissing and carrying on
Wideawake Hat man - Spent over half an hour together with black grapes

Now unless they worked as a team, only one is likely to be the killer.

Let's continue...

Packer's statement therefore confirms that the man was with Stride for over half an hour AFTER they bought grapes from him...and yet Stride never ate any of them...The couple stood with those grapes in the heavy rain opposite Packer's shop window for over half an hour...

Stride picked black grapes and then didn't eat them. Perhaps the man ate all of them and handed her the stalk for safekeeping.

Important to note that Packer originally told Police Sergeant Stephen White that due to the heavy rain, he had to close his shop early and hadn't seen anything or anyone that night on Berner Street.

However...he later CHANGED his statement to say he sold fruit to Stride before she was murdered.
HE changed his statement only AFTER the private investigators Batchelor and Le Grand (subsequently convicted blackmailer and extortionist) said to be representing the Vigilance Committee had interrogated/questioned him)

A witness who changes his statement after speaking to a proven rogue like Le Grand makes Packer's fruit-selling story open to scrutiny.
Furthermore, he later told the press that the police hadn't spoken to him regarding the night of the murder and yet police Sergeant White was said to have interviewed him.


...

However, this scenario would fit...

Stride does indeed TRY a black grape...but dislikes the taste and then pulls out her handkerchief to wipe her mouth and effectively spit out the grape. Fruit stains WERE found on one of her 2 handkerchiefs, as though she had wiped her mouth. She then chooses to NOT eat the grapes...because none were found in her stomach..but the man perhaps does eat them instead...they walk over to the club but she just can't get the taste of the grape out of her mouth and so she takes out some Cachous with her left hand to help take away the taste... but as she takes them out she is momentarily distracted and she is suddenly attacked, thrown onto the floor on her left side, her left arm automatically stretched out to instinctively cushion her fall...within seconds the left side of her face is pushed down into the mud due to the heavy rain (left side of her face was muddied) and her killer kneels on her and then cuts her throat; the killer being by a right-handed killer slashing across her throat from left to right with his right hand. The brutal attack lasts just a few seconds.

But i digress...



12.35am - PC William Smith, an active police officer and witness describes seeing a young man with Stride opposite the club and site where she is later murdered.

Packer must have closed his shop and gone by 12.35am, because he doesn't see the man OR PC Smith. This could mean that Packer sold the Grapes as late as midnight.

(28 years old, dark coat, hard DEERSTALKER HAT, carries a parcel approximately 6 by 18 inches and wrapped in newspaper)


So, that's 4 different hats..

4 different men or the same man with 4 different hats?

BILLYCOCK HAT MAN
SAILOR HAT MAN
WIDEAWAKE HAT MAN
HARD DEERSTALKER HAT MAN

That pretty much covers all the different kinds of hats worn by men at that time.

But one thing is certain, a man wouldn't carry lots of hats unless he was a magician or an actor.

But let's continue...

And then we have Israel Schwartz... poor Israel Schwartz who has often been ridiculed and dismissed. But why?
Perhaps Anti-Semitic views have played their horrid part and if he had been English, then he may have been deemed as the most reliable witness ever. Very sad for him indeed.

And yet, what's the real reason for dismissing him?

Israel must have entered Berner Street AFTER PC Smith had seen his suspect at 12.35am, because Israel never saw PC Smith.


12.45am (approx)

He sees a man STOP and speak to Stride.

That implies that the man he saw was in transit because the man stopped to talk to her and wasn't already talking with her.

It's the only man to have been seen stopping to talk to her i.e. he approached her and wasn't already with her.

Stride was standing in the gateway, just a few feet from where she was found.

(about 30, 5ft 5 with a fresh complexion, dark hair, small brown mustache, overcoat, OLD BLACK FELT HAT WITH A WIDE BRIM)


That hat is similar only to the Wideawake Hat man, and of all the descriptions, the man seen by Schwartz and Packer may have been the same man.


Schwartz implies that the man tried to pull her into the street, but then turned her around to throw her down onto the footway.

The man standing across the road opposite was lighting his cigar and appeared stationary...

Or did he just come out of the pub? But the pubs would have been closed at this point according to Packer's statement/altered statement.

Was the man who threw Stride to the floor trying to drag her over to the man standing across the road with the cigar? But she resisted and he span her around and threw her on the floor.

She screamed multiple times, but not loudly for some reason? Was her ability to scream compromised in some way?


After Israel heard the term LIPSKI being shouted over towards the man standing across the road, the man followed Israel for a short while. Israel said he RAN but the other man didn't follow as far.

In context, this would imply that the man who followed behind Israel was working with the man who threw Stride to the floor.

Or perhaps the man who threw her to the floor was just trying to get behind her and the action of trying to drag her onto the street may have been the man struggling to get her onto the floor and so he spins her around first in a slingshot motion to throw her towards the footway.

Did the man shout Lipski?

Luski? (George)
Lipman? (Barney)

Let's move on...


And not forget James Brown, another key witness...around the same time, he sees Stride leaning against a wall talking with a man.

(Stout, 5ft 7, long black coat down to his heels, arm against the wall)

He hears Stride say to him...

"No, not tonight, some other night"


That's the only time that we hear NEGATIVE rejective speech.

Billycock hat man - kissing and hugging 2 hours earlier at a different location. (CLIENT)

Then in Berner Street...
Sailor Hat man - Kissing and carrying on - "You'd say anything but your prayer" - An hour earlier. (CLIENT)

Where do they go before she meets...

Wideawake Hat man - Spend over half an hour together - no kissing just talking and buying grapes while being watched by Packer. (CLIENT OR KNOWN TO HER PERSONALLY)


Then PC Smith at 12.35am sees Deerstalker hat man - younger and with a parcel. (Possible client but NO intimacy observed)


Then Schwartz witnesses her being attacked and thrown to the floor by WIDE BRIM FELT HAT MAN


But James Brown observes around the same time - (a man with a style of hat unconfirmed?)...being REJECTED by Stride.


What did she mean by "No, not tonight, some other night" ?

The phrase implies that she was familiar with him as a client, a regular perhaps?

"Some other night" - meaning that she was either tired through having been intimate with several other men over the past couple of hours....or he was asking her to do something sexually that she wasn't in the mood for.

Was the man Brown described the same man that Israel saw approach Stride, and who then assaulted her seemingly unprovoked?


And then there's Fanny Mortimer from 36 Berner Street who was adamant that there was nobody was outside between 12.45 -12.55am; because she was standing at her door, apart from Leon Goldstein who had passed her door with a black bag.

And so with all of the witness statements clashing in terms of timings and descriptions, what is the most accurate scenario?


Well if we consider Mrs Mortimers evidence and that of the Israel Schwartz, then the killer is likely to have been the man who threw her to the floor. However, neither Mortimer or Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest, which is unusual.

What are the chances of Stride being attacked by 2 different men in under 15 minutes of each other?


And what about Goldstiein? Mrs Mortimer saw him around 12.45am and he later went to the police to confirm him being passing through Berner Street. That would indicate that Mrs Mortimer's evidence is particularly reliable.


And so, it's picking a HAT MAN time.

One of those men killed her, but who?


We have men with at least 4 different style hats and 2 whose hats aren't mentioned.


Getting height or age wrong can be subjective and depends on the persons interpretation of a description. However, looking at a man's hat shorty before a woman is murdered, is better a way to identify a potential killer because men DIDN'T share their hats and certainly wouldn't have carried any spare ones on their person.

And what happened to SAILOR HAT MAN after they were kissing and carrying on?... They must have gone somewhere to conclude their intimate business? The man she left the pub with; BILLYCOCK HAT MAN, he likely went with her and then they parted ways before she entered Berner Street.


Do any of the suspects match?

Only the man seen by Packer who bought grapes and the man seen by Schwartz throwing her to the floor are similar in terms of their hats.

WIDEAWAKE HAT MAN (Packer) /WIDE BRIM FELT HAT MAN (Schwartz) are the only two that I can see are similar and possibly the same man.


LOTS to think about...

Did Goldstein kill her as he passed her in his big clunky boots?

Was Stride laying hurt and inured by the man who threw her to the floor... and the real killer had been waiting for a while at the back of the yard biding his time and watching her from behind her in the dark, waiting to strike?

Notice that I'm not looking at Stride Post Mortem, because there's a better chance of finding her killer BEFORE he actually killed her. Once she was murdered, the killer was in the wind.


BILLYCOCK HAT MAN - Clerk?
SAILOR HAT MAN - Sailor?
WIDEAWAKE HAT MAN - religious man/quaker/evangelist?
DEERSTALKER HAT MAN - Actor carrying a flute asking for directions to the nearest theater?
...



RD

[c.d.]

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.

You're approaching the whole interruption issue with the mindset of a juror, Michael. No judge has instructed us to completely disregard the idea as there is no substantive evidence for it. No one's freedoms will be taken from them and no one will get the death penalty if we consider it. But try looking at it with the mindset of a detective. As detectives, considering the possibility of an interruption makes sense with the next step trying to determine if that idea is at all reasonable and what may have caused it.

Change your approach, Michael. It might help you see the case in a whole new way.

c.d.

[c.d.]

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

But isn't fresh breath an asset in both those cases?

c.d.

[c.d.]

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

Thanks for making the effort, Mac. Let's go with penny candy until proven otherwise. What we don't want to do is put them in the same category as designer chocolates, hand crafted, imported from Belgium, wrapped in real gold foil and only sold in upscale shops in Beverly Hills. Let's keep it in perspective.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n817368]

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.
[/QUOTE

It seems you still feel that youve been given the authority to speak for everyone, or at least you think you have. All Ive done on this particular point is to highlight the fact that if you continue to consider an interruption.....which is entirely based on the fact that something didnt happen, namely the mutilations that this Ripper fellow was decidedly intent on, you are suggesting that something which no piece of evidence in this case indicates. There are no indications what you imagine may have happened, actually occurred. So you build your argument on sand, for myself I prefer to build on a foundation. To each his own.

But Please stop insisting that your wholly imagined scenario should supersede the actual evidence in this case. You want this to be a Ripper murder so you have to cling to whatever you can come up with to explain the obvious lack of a Rippers touch. I get it, the only way this could be a murder by someone who we know mutilates the abdomen of his victims is if he couldnt finish. I submit all indications are that he just cut her throat and left her untouched from then on.

It is ironic that a person who always chastises people when hard evidence to support a suggestion isnt there, yet you argue for inclusion of a consideration that is completely unwarranted by any known evidence. There is always circumstantial evidence to consider, but only when it actually exists.

[Michael W Richards]

You're approaching the whole interruption issue with the mindset of a juror, Michael. No judge has instructed us to completely disregard the idea as there is no substantive evidence for it. No one's freedoms will be taken from them and no one will get the death penalty if we consider it. But try looking at it with the mindset of a detective. As detectives, considering the possibility of an interruption makes sense with the next step trying to determine if that idea is at all reasonable and what may have caused it.

Change your approach, Michael. It might help you see the case in a whole new way.

c.d.

I believe if you had spoken with any detective you would know that until something is perfectly clear within the known physical evidence, they will consider any circumstantial evidence as potentially important to that final truth. What they do not do is imagine things that are not there physically or warranted by any circumstantial evidence. Its like trying to find a killer of Five women before you know for a fact that one killer killed those particular victims. Sound familiar?

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;n817375]

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.
[/QUOTE

It seems you still feel that youve been given the authority to speak for everyone, or at least you think you have.

I think no such thing. I merely point out that whether individuals think that Stride was or wasn’t a victim of the ripper they can all at least see that the killer being interrupted is a possibility. It’s been accepted as a possibility for 135 years. It remains a possibility apart from to someone who claims to know the unknown.

All Ive done on this particular point is to highlight the fact that if you continue to consider an interruption.....which is entirely based on the fact that something didnt happen, namely the mutilations that this Ripper fellow was decidedly intent on, you are suggesting that something which no piece of evidence in this case indicates.

Firstly, all reasonable people accept the possibility. Nothing more.

Secondly, as I and others have explained a hundred times……the absence of any evidence of an intention does not, and cannot, mean that that intention wasn’t there. We can’t expect evidence of something that didn’t come to fruition. Please grow up and try to grasp this.

If I prevent you from entering a room it couldn’t be claimed that you hadn’t intended to do some named action in that room because there was no evidence of such an intention…….and yet you are claiming exactly this. It didn’t make sense when you first said it, it didn’t make sense when you kept repeating it and……it doesn’t make sense now. You are showing yourself in an extremely poor light by pursuing this point Michael. And yet you expect to be taken seriously?

There are no indications what you imagine may have happened, actually occurred. So you build your argument on sand, for myself I prefer to build on a foundation. To each his own.

Another point that’s completely disproven by what I’ve actually said on numerous occasions. How many times should I say it Michael? I know it’s inconvenient when all that you want to do is parrot the same point but what can I do? I’ll say it yet again…….I am undecided on whether Stride was a ripper victim or not. She may not have been. So…..and perhaps you could get someone to explain this to you…..why would I make a dishonest attempt to prove something that I’ve been on the fence about for years?

At least try and understand this Michael. Im certain that everyone else can.

But Please stop insisting that your wholly imagined scenario should supersede the actual evidence in this case. You want this to be a Ripper murder so you have to cling to whatever you can come up with to explain the obvious lack of a Rippers touch. I get it, the only way this could be a murder by someone who we know mutilates the abdomen of his victims is if he couldnt finish. I submit all indications are that he just cut her throat and left her untouched from then on.

It’s ironic that this rather childish accusation comes from someone who has deliberately invented a scenario for the sole reason that it’s known the Isenschmidt couldn’t have killed Stride and Eddowes. This is the truth of the matter and yet you try and portray your ‘theory’ as an honest attempt to follow evidence when it clearly isn’t. It’s plain for all to see.

It is ironic that a person who always chastises people when hard evidence to support a suggestion isnt there, yet you argue for inclusion of a consideration that is completely unwarranted by any known evidence. There is always circumstantial evidence to consider, but only when it actually exists.

Rubbish points from you as ever. What a waste of time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I believe if you had spoken with any detective you would know that until something is perfectly clear within the known physical evidence, they will consider any circumstantial evidence as potentially important to that final truth. What they do not do is imagine things that are not there physically or warranted by any circumstantial evidence. Its like trying to find a killer of Five women before you know for a fact that one killer killed those particular victims. Sound familiar?

If your detective hero is called Clouseau, maybe.

[Wickerman]

I appreciate you taking the time....

So we have...
11pm - A man seen with Stride in the doorway of the Bricklayer's Arms pub (them having just left the pub) by Laborers John Gardener and John Best.
They are kissing and hugging.
(Short, Dark Mustache, Sandy Eyelashes, BILLYCOCK HAT morning suit and coat)

11.45pm - A man is seen talking with Stride outside 63 Berner Street by the laborer William Marshall. The man says to Stride "You'd say anything but your prayers"
They are kissing and carrying on.
(Short black cutaway coat and SAILORS hat)

SAME intimate behavior but DIFFERENT attire and HATS.

2 different men

I do not include Marshall, he said the woman did not have a flower.
We have since learned there was one other couple, possibly two, near the Berner/Fairclough junction, around the time of the murder.

...

Now then...

Between 11.45pm - 12am Stride and a man buy black grapes from the witness and fruit seller Matthew Packer at 44 Berner Street. (yards away from murder location)

(stout, 5ft 7", middle-aged around 35, square build, wore a WIDEAWAKE HAT and dark clothing. Appearance of a Clerk, Rough voice, Fast-talking)

The description on file with police originating from Packer, but signed by Assist. Comm. Carmichael-Bruce, reads:
...about 11 pm a young man from 25-30 about 5.7. with long black coat buttoned up – soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat rather broad shoulders – rather quick in speaking, rough voice.
Why this record has 11:00pm as opposed to 11:45pm, as reported in the press is unclear, also the suggested age is not the same.

Packer said that Stride and the man crossed the road and had spent over HALF AN HOUR standing together in the rain almost directly opposite the shop (and in full view of himself) before they crossed back over the road again to stand outside the club around 12.15am. This is the time based on Packer being self-aware of the time and that he recalls the pubs having already closed, as he was about to close his own shop.

For the couple to have been standing for over half an hour across the road PLUS the time it took for the couple to speak to Packer and buy the grapes, would help to confirm that the potential murderer chose to be observed by Packer with the subsequent victim for the entire time, standing in the rain with their black grapes.

Over half an hour would mean that the time that Stride and the man bought the grapes was around the same time that William Marshall saw Stride standing outside 63 Berner Street at 11.45pm with a completely different man, due to their descriptions being very different.

It means that either Marshall OR Packer are incorrect in some way.

Right, but in my view Marshall saw a different couple.

For BOTH suspects to be right, Marshall must have seen Stride BEFORE Packer did, because Packer confirms that the man who bought grapes was standing with Stride for over half an hour before they crossed back over the road to stand outside the club and then moved out of line of sight by doing so.

For BOTH Marshall and Packer to be correct, Packer needs to have got his later times wrong and the couple bought grapes from him later than he thought, meaning that Stride and the man walked over to the club closer to the time she was murdered.

Now unless the man had a big bag of hats, then the man Marshall saw wasn't the same man that Packer saw with Stride.

And the man seen with Stride even earlier by the pair of laborers was someone else as well.

That's Stride being seen with 3 different men. In this order...

Billycock Hat man - Kissing and hugging
Sailor's Hat man - Kissing and carrying on
Wideawake Hat man - Spent over half an hour together with black grapes

Now unless they worked as a team, only one is likely to be the killer.

So, Marshall's sailor-hat-man is out, which leaves Billycock & Wideawake.
I'm allowing for them both being the same man. Billycock-man is the one with 'weak-eyes', a man with strange eyes is noted by other witnesses.
So, why does Packer suggest a Wideawake?

We might also recall the first description released by police from PC Smith's statement is that he wore a "hard felt hat", only later at the inquest does he call it a "Deerstalker", which is not made from hard felt. A Billycock hat is made of hard felt.
I wonder if Packer was not certain because he spoke to the man through a small window, so only had a limited view of the man up close.
It is true he saw the man at a distance but he may have been near-sighted so the figure would have been blurred at a distance. Packer was 56?, and I had to wear glasses at 56, I was near sighted.

Let's continue...

Packer's statement therefore confirms that the man was with Stride for over half an hour AFTER they bought grapes from him...and yet Stride never ate any of them...The couple stood with those grapes in the heavy rain opposite Packer's shop window for over half an hour...

Stride picked black grapes and then didn't eat them. Perhaps the man ate all of them and handed her the stalk for safekeeping.

An important point here is the autopsy was conducted some 30+ hours after the murder, and grape 'flesh' being 95%? water anyway would have dissolved in the stomach. The digestive system does not abruptly halt at death, it's a chemical process that winds down slowly.
That said, there is the parallel question of why no pips or skin found in the mouth or stomach?
My only answer to that is that my own wife loves grapes but hates the skin, which she spits out (puts them on a tissue). She only buys seedless grapes to avoid having to spit those out too, so why not Stride, perhaps she spat out the skin & pips?
I can hardly argue against it if my own wife avoids swallowing the skin & pips.

Important to note that Packer originally told Police Sergeant Stephen White that due to the heavy rain, he had to close his shop early and hadn't seen anything or anyone that night on Berner Street.

However...he later CHANGED his statement to say he sold fruit to Stride before she was murdered.
HE changed his statement only AFTER the private investigators Batchelor and Le Grand (subsequently convicted blackmailer and extortionist) said to be representing the Vigilance Committee had interrogated/questioned him)

A witness who changes his statement after speaking to a proven rogue like Le Grand makes Packer's fruit-selling story open to scrutiny.
Furthermore, he later told the press that the police hadn't spoken to him regarding the night of the murder and yet police Sergeant White was said to have interviewed him.

Right, in that statement Packer said he closed his shop at 12:30 am., which is consistent with what he told the press.
He is also quoted as saying:

“No I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard. I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise, and know nothing about the murder until I heard of it in the morning.”

Packer might be thinking of seeing the murderer - "no-one" meaning the murderer by himself, and he saw no murderer - a man by himself, go up the yard. Sgt White does say he asked Packer if he had seen a man or woman, though I know from experience we sometimes need to rephrase questions when talking to older people. 56 isn't old to us today, but in the East End it was a hard life, and the sketch of Packer looks older than 56.



I may be guilty of giving him too much benefit of a doubt, but his actions are not suspicious to my mind, and an anxious detective just may have confused or even frightened Packer and the older witnesses.

...

However, this scenario would fit...

Stride does indeed TRY a black grape...but dislikes the taste and then pulls out her handkerchief to wipe her mouth and effectively spit out the grape. Fruit stains WERE found on one of her 2 handkerchiefs, as though she had wiped her mouth. She then chooses to NOT eat the grapes...because none were found in her stomach..but the man perhaps does eat them instead...they walk over to the club but she just can't get the taste of the grape out of her mouth and so she takes out some Cachous with her left hand to help take away the taste... but as she takes them out she is momentarily distracted and she is suddenly attacked, thrown onto the floor on her left side, her left arm automatically stretched out to instinctively cushion her fall...within seconds the left side of her face is pushed down into the mud due to the heavy rain (left side of her face was muddied) and her killer kneels on her and then cuts her throat; the killer being by a right-handed killer slashing across her throat from left to right with his right hand. The brutal attack lasts just a few seconds.

But i digress...

Yes, the fruit stain does support the purchase of grapes - a smoking gun in the grape fiasco.

12.35am - PC William Smith, an active police officer and witness describes seeing a young man with Stride opposite the club and site where she is later murdered.

Packer must have closed his shop and gone by 12.35am, because he doesn't see the man OR PC Smith. This could mean that Packer sold the Grapes as late as midnight.

(28 years old, dark coat, hard DEERSTALKER HAT, carries a parcel approximately 6 by 18 inches and wrapped in newspaper)


So, that's 4 different hats..

4 different men or the same man with 4 different hats?

BILLYCOCK HAT MAN
SAILOR HAT MAN
WIDEAWAKE HAT MAN
HARD DEERSTALKER HAT MAN

That pretty much covers all the different kinds of hats worn by men at that time.

But one thing is certain, a man wouldn't carry lots of hats unless he was a magician or an actor.

Well, the sudden change from "hard felt hat" to "Deerstalker" has always been a mystery.
A police 'Wanted' poster released the day after the murder does read "hard felt hat", so what happened to the deerstalker?

As you can see, the Daily News, 1st Oct. published the police statement.

The following is a description of a man stated to have been seen in company with the woman murdered in Berner-street, and for whom the police are looking:-Age 28; height 5ft. 8in.; complexion dark; no whiskers; black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; carried a newspaper parcel; was of respectable appearance.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881001.html

It was repeated in the Police Gazette on 19th Oct., three weeks after the murder.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/police_gazette/police881019.html

The first we hear of the deerstalker is on the 5th Oct. at the inquest, yet the police stick with "hard felt hat" - they are not the same.

But let's continue...

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

Thanks for making the effort, Mac. Let's go with penny candy until proven otherwise. What we don't want to do is put them in the same category as designer chocolates, hand crafted, imported from Belgium, wrapped in real gold foil and only sold in upscale shops in Beverly Hills. Let's keep it in perspective.

c.d.

I'd say it takes an appreciation of the lives these people were living.

A penny to you is only a penny, C.D, but not necessarily to people in entirely different circumstances; particularly people with an alcohol problem.

Liz had the money to pay for her bed but she didn't, she was in the pub at half 6 on Saturday night. That should tell anyone where her priorities lay: booze, not a bed, and given that it wasn't a bed then it certainly wasn't sweets either.

And then the argument goes that Liz wanted to attract a client by virtue of breath fresheners. Liz wouldn't have needed a client had she just paid for her bed, which in turn suggests that Liz's priorities lay somewhere other than beds and sweets. That penny would have been precious booze money.

I think you're American, C.D. I've lived in England all of my life: born, bred and still living in a working class environment. Obviously I'm not living in a hovel, but I think you'd need to understand the English working class to understand that which would have been in Liz's mind. And then, Liz was a few rungs below even the working class, among the most desperate living in a flea infested hovel, and like many of her ilk: struggling with an alcohol problem.

I'd go as far as to say that's it fanciful to think Liz was buying breath fresheners in her situation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;n817375]

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.
[/QUOTE

It seems you still feel that youve been given the authority to speak for everyone, or at least you think you have. All Ive done on this particular point is to highlight the fact that if you continue to consider an interruption.....which is entirely based on the fact that something didnt happen, namely the mutilations that this Ripper fellow was decidedly intent on, you are suggesting that something which no piece of evidence in this case indicates. There are no indications what you imagine may have happened, actually occurred. So you build your argument on sand, for myself I prefer to build on a foundation. To each his own.

But Please stop insisting that your wholly imagined scenario should supersede the actual evidence in this case. You want this to be a Ripper murder so you have to cling to whatever you can come up with to explain the obvious lack of a Rippers touch. I get it, the only way this could be a murder by someone who we know mutilates the abdomen of his victims is if he couldnt finish. I submit all indications are that he just cut her throat and left her untouched from then on.

It is ironic that a person who always chastises people when hard evidence to support a suggestion isnt there, yet you argue for inclusion of a consideration that is completely unwarranted by any known evidence. There is always circumstantial evidence to consider, but only when it actually exists.

I even did a Poll.

People that agreed with Michael on this point……. 1 (Michael himself)

People that agreed with me……… 21 + me.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/motive-method-and-madness/756057-the-absence-of-evidence#post756097

Its not difficult stuff is it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just begun One-Armed Jack by Sarah Bax Horton and in the introduction she says: “At least one of them, Elisabeth Stride, knew her killer.”

[The Rookie Detective]

I appreciate you taking the time....



I do not include Marshall, he said the woman did not have a flower.
We have since learned there was one other couple, possibly two, near the Berner/Fairclough junction, around the time of the murder.



The description on file with police originating from Packer, but signed by Assist. Comm. Carmichael-Bruce, reads:
...about 11 pm a young man from 25-30 about 5.7. with long black coat buttoned up – soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat rather broad shoulders – rather quick in speaking, rough voice.
Why this record has 11:00pm as opposed to 11:45pm, as reported in the press is unclear, also the suggested age is not the same.



Right, but in my view Marshall saw a different couple.



So, Marshall's sailor-hat-man is out, which leaves Billycock & Wideawake.
I'm allowing for them both being the same man. Billycock-man is the one with 'weak-eyes', a man with strange eyes is noted by other witnesses.
So, why does Packer suggest a Wideawake?

We might also recall the first description released by police from PC Smith's statement is that he wore a "hard felt hat", only later at the inquest does he call it a "Deerstalker", which is not made from hard felt. A Billycock hat is made of hard felt.
I wonder if Packer was not certain because he spoke to the man through a small window, so only had a limited view of the man up close.
It is true he saw the man at a distance but he may have been near-sighted so the figure would have been blurred at a distance. Packer was 56?, and I had to wear glasses at 56, I was near sighted.



An important point here is the autopsy was conducted some 30+ hours after the murder, and grape 'flesh' being 95%? water anyway would have dissolved in the stomach. The digestive system does not abruptly halt at death, it's a chemical process that winds down slowly.
That said, there is the parallel question of why no pips or skin found in the mouth or stomach?
My only answer to that is that my own wife loves grapes but hates the skin, which she spits out (puts them on a tissue). She only buys seedless grapes to avoid having to spit those out too, so why not Stride, perhaps she spat out the skin & pips?
I can hardly argue against it if my own wife avoids swallowing the skin & pips.




Right, in that statement Packer said he closed his shop at 12:30 am., which is consistent with what he told the press.
He is also quoted as saying:

“No I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard. I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise, and know nothing about the murder until I heard of it in the morning.”

Packer might be thinking of seeing the murderer - "no-one" meaning the murderer by himself, and he saw no murderer - a man by himself, go up the yard. Sgt White does say he asked Packer if he had seen a man or woman, though I know from experience we sometimes need to rephrase questions when talking to older people. 56 isn't old to us today, but in the East End it was a hard life, and the sketch of Packer looks older than 56.



I may be guilty of giving him too much benefit of a doubt, but his actions are not suspicious to my mind, and an anxious detective just may have confused or even frightened Packer and the older witnesses.





Yes, the fruit stain does support the purchase of grapes - a smoking gun in the grape fiasco.




Well, the sudden change from "hard felt hat" to "Deerstalker" has always been a mystery.
A police 'Wanted' poster released the day after the murder does read "hard felt hat", so what happened to the deerstalker?

As you can see, the Daily News, 1st Oct. published the police statement.

The following is a description of a man stated to have been seen in company with the woman murdered in Berner-street, and for whom the police are looking:-Age 28; height 5ft. 8in.; complexion dark; no whiskers; black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; carried a newspaper parcel; was of respectable appearance.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881001.html

It was repeated in the Police Gazette on 19th Oct., three weeks after the murder.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/police_gazette/police881019.html

The first we hear of the deerstalker is on the 5th Oct. at the inquest, yet the police stick with "hard felt hat" - they are not the same.

Thank you for your response and I can't argue with that. well thought out, balanced, and objective. Can't ask for more than that. Hats off to you sir!

[c.d.]

I'd go as far as to say that's it fanciful to think Liz was buying breath fresheners in her situation.

Looks like we will have to disagree on this one, Mac and call it a day. It's possible that a friend (not a client) gave her a few. Also possible that she simply bought a handful with the intention of rationing them. It needn't be a regular practice. Differentiating between wants and needs is tough for everyone. Maybe she simply had a momentary weakness and gave in to it. We all do (well, I do anyway).

I simply can't conclude that they must have been given to her by a client.

And yes, I am a Yank. Right here in the nation's Capital.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

The only issue I have with Packer regards the time he says that the couple spent standing across the road talking and standing in the rain with grapes for over half an hour with no signs of intimacy like witnessed with her previous client outside the Bricklayers Arms.

Would her killer spend over half an hour with Stride before he killed her?

At least with Schwartz, he implies that the man he saw walking ahead of him just walked up to Stride and attacked her and threw her to the floor. Could this have been the same man who had been seen with her earlier, but he had come back for more and just decided to attack her?

Something just doesn't add up.


Based on Wickerman's brilliant viewpoints a few posts previous, it has cleared the fog somewhat and perhaps the idea that she had several clients isn't as accurate a depiction as I had first thought.


If PC Smith saw a man talking to Stride with the parcel but he wasn't wearing a Deerstalker Hat, then that changes the picture and perhaps signifies that Stride was in the company of the same man for a while.

Is there a chance then that if we dismiss the man with the sailor hat who said "You'd say anything but your prayers" becasue she may have been a different woman, then it perhaps suggests that once she arrived in Berner Street, that she wasn't touting for business after all and may explain why she told the man seen talking to her by the wall "No, not tonight, some other night."

If she was in Berner Street after she had been with the man in the Billycock hat, then she could have been waiting for someone in Berner Street. Why stand by the entrance to the yard outside the club?

In the rain.

If the man in the Sailor hat was a red herring and was a different couple, then there's no evidence that Stride was touting for business in Berner Street and changes things somewhat


Interesting indeed...


RD