Elizabeth Stride

[How Brown]

Thread for discussion and background on this murder victim....

[admin tim]

For those who have not seen this image before. Please note that as late as a couple of years ago, Tom Slemen was still claiming that Liz must have been found with "cashews" and that "cachous" was an obvious misspelling. Speaking of cashews, he's nuts.

Of course, Tom Slemen is the guy who sees ghosts everywhere and who has, incidentally, also claimed to have solved the case, his suspect being Colonel Conder.

[Debra Arif]

This is a bit of a babble so apologies in advance!

This is a post by AP copied over from casebook which I found interesting given a case from 1893 which I recently have looked at
"Looking at the circumstances of Stride’s murder I have attempted to drag out a couple of cases that might shed some more light on those circumstances.
First off, I wondered why we all seem to assume that the man who seemed to spend the most of the evening with her could not have been her killer. I have been guilty of this myself."
The keywords being here 'spent some time with'
I came across a case from June 25th 1893, which I know AP has looked at too. The murder of Jane Robertson, which to my mind has many things in common with the murder of Liz Stride.
The story is a complicated one but basically on the night of 24th june 1893, two sailors came on shore leave, all spruced up with new civvy suits from a tailor who came aboard their ship to take orders one week before their official leave. (didn't know they did things like that!)
The sailors in question were youngsters, one of them only 20 years old, but they ended up in the company of two 53 year old 'prostitutes' who worked the Victoria dock area. One of them a woman named M'Carthy, who was married and lived in a street off the Commercial Road, she stated she didn't work but
went out drinking with sailors.
M'Carthy and another woman drank with these two foreign sailors at various pubs around the dock area, finally they split up into couples (shades of Martha tabram and Pearly Poll here)
However, after taking some money and a handkerchief from her sailor boy, M'Carthy decided that she didn't like his company anymore and passed him on to a friend of hers named Jane Robertson, after drinking at Jane's room for a while the party split up and M'Carthy took further payment from the sailor and asked Jane to go around the corner with the him.
What happened next is unclear, but a few minutes after this Jane and the sailor were observed walking down the street together by two witnesses who had just left a public house and were having a conversation in the street.
The sailor and Jane crossed over to the dark side of the street.
A few seconds later the witnesses heard the woman give out a cry of 'oh' and crumple in a heap onto the pavement, and observed the man running away from the scene.
On investigating, the witnesses found that the woman's throat had been cut and she was dead. She was clutching a latch key
and another object in her hand and the other arm was laid across her breast.
The only reason this sailor was caught was the fact that he had left a waistcoat behind at the deceased house, with details of the name ofthe place his ship was docked in, otherwise if his captain and shipmates had had anything to do with it he would have been safely away from the scene and untraceable.
There are a few questions this brings up for me, namely activities of prostitutes. M'Carthy's role in all this seems to have been a female 'pimp' type figure, passing on sailors she had been drinking with to other women, she was paid twice by the sailor it seems.
Another thing is the fact that M'Carthy lived in Commercial Road. Now if she had taken it upon herself to take this sailor to her house and not pass him on to someone else, maybe we would have had another throat cutting incident out on the street in the St George area....

[A.P. Wolf]

Nicely done, Debs, I'm glad you brought this case up.
I've been wanting to discuss it for ages, because I was absolutely amazed at the similarities to the Stride murder.

[SirRobertAnderson]

M'Carthy and another woman drank with these two foreign sailors at various pubs around the dock area, finally they split up into couples (shades of Martha tabram and Pearly Poll here)



There are a few questions this brings up for me, namely activities of prostitutes. M'Carthy's role in all this seems to have been a female 'pimp' type figure, passing on sailors she had been drinking with to other women, she was paid twice by the sailor it seems.


At the risk of sidetracking us back to ol' Pearly, this would explain the curious relationship of the 'manly' PP and Martha. Poll may have acted as a pimp.

[How Brown]

Very interesting story Debra...thank you dear.

Ms.Robertson...if my street smarts kicked in correctly here...may have asked her killer for another chunk of change before engaging in a sexual act that her killer felt was already paid for.

This is a form of "rolling"....where prostitutes wind a guy up...in this case,a young dude,fresh off a boat, hot to trot, probably a few beers in him,and with a chunk of change. These are all factors in a "rolling" when prostitutes smell blood. The kid probably flashed some paper in front of these women.

The kid (as Debra pointed out,a young man of 20) probably got that angry at being taken for a ride for a third time and unleashed on Robertson. That might explain him forgetting his jacket was back at the dead lady's dwelling.

[Tom_Wescott]

Debs and AP seem to be under the impression that Stride had spent her evening with the same man and I don't see that as being the case. She was alone when seen by Schwartz, prior to that she was speaking with a well-dressed young man by PC Smith, before that with a different man further up the street by William Marshall.

The press report Debs is describing bears little resemblance to the Stride murder but quite a bit more to Tabram I would say.

What might be of more significance if one is to argue that Stride was not a Ripper victim would be this excerpt from the Oct. 1st Echo:

LEVYING BLACKMAIL - MAN "WANTED."
A description is being circulated this morning of a man who is stated to have accosted an "unfortunate" in the vicinity of Commercial-road on Saturday night, and to have threatened to cut her throat if she did not give him money. The woman gave him a shilling, and he then went away.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[How Brown]

Tom:

Is it me or what?

The number of reported attempts and threats of throat-slashings are really astonishing in the WM. Its easier to stab someone in the chest/heart area to kill them ( I think...). You get the "feeling" that throat cutting,as opposed to a knife plunging into the chest of a victim,is a little more personal. I don't know...maybe its me.

[How Brown]

By the way,Tom, ditto on your point about how Debra's post on Robertson is similar to the Tabram scenario...

In fact its a mirror image....to me at least.

Perhaps Tabram was the "Jane Robertson" who came around after the original woman Connally was with split...Poll encourages a man to pursue Tabram...Tabram ups the ante...the gent goes wild...offs Tabram ( really risky site for a murder...one that can be construed as impulsive....as impulsive as Robertson's killer was,in killing her within view of witnesses and leaving his coat at the victim's house).

[Monty]

Debs,

I found it Chick !

Need to talk to you about it, if thats OK?

Monty
:)

[A.P. Wolf]

As I still had the reports, mentioned by Debs, on file I thought I would post them here to give all a chance to read them.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/d3-1.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/d4-1.jpg

[A.P. Wolf]

And the last report before the case went to the Old Bailey.
The first report is from July 6th 1893; second July 19th 1893 and this one July 21st 1893.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/d5-1.jpg

[A.P. Wolf]

As has already been mentioned it is the age of the 'unfortunates' here that gives one pause for thought. The victims of the Whitechapel Murders were spring chickens in comparison.
But what I do like, in fact I love, is the killer standing up in court and giving the examining police surgeon a very hard time indeed concerning how the mortal wound was inflicted.
I mean he did it; and then he goes on to demonstrate to the court exactly how he did it.
And the police surgeon just has to sit there with about fourteen scrambled eggs all over his face.
Bond and his like never had to suffer this, because the killer was never caught, but if he had been I don't think there would have been enough eggs in Billingsgate Market to cover his face.

[Tom_Wescott]

These are interesting tales, AP. And potentially relevant - but only to the murder of Tabram. It really bears no resemblance to the Stride murder.

Howard,

Yes, cutthroats were all the rage back then. Of course, it seemed many more were satisfied with just the threat in order to rob. But I suppose it's no different than a mugger threatening with a gun today. What REALLY surprises me are the suicides by cutting one's own throat!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra Arif]

The press report Debs is describing bears little resemblance to the Stride murder but quite a bit more to Tabram I would say.


I agree Tom that the way the prostitutes are operating in this report bears more resemblence to Martha and PP, but...looking at it from the another angle, say that he hadn't left his waistcoat at Jane's room, to all intents and purposes they were just a couple strolling down a street in the eyes of the witnesses, when suddenly he took her over to the dark side of the street and cut her throat, from behind, no rows, no altercations, just a swift manouvere from behind. The sailor even wore the same clothes he wore on the night to make his escape the day after, so they must have been free from bloodstains. This is a spur of the moment anger type attack? But yet he still has the common sense to attack from behind? And slit the womans throat down to the bone.

Monty...I tried but you not answering!

[How Brown]

A.P. or Debra:

In the reports A.P. posted,the name of the victim is Jane Thompson. Debra mentioned a Jane Robertson....probably the same person,correct? Thanks for uploading them too !

Debs:

You might be right,dear. There's little "spur of the moment" or impulsive about attacking from behind like this man did,is there? Good points...

Tom:

Just today, at work we were talking about the late actor,Charles Rocket,who slashed his own throat in his back yard a couple of years ago. Small world gettin' smaller.

[Debra Arif]

How, it's me, Jane Thompson or Jenny Hicks...I have not a clue where Robertson came from, sorry!


AP, yes, the medics were looking at it from the wrong angle don't you know!!!until the sailor demonstrated just how it was done!!

[Tom_Wescott]

Debs,

I hear what you're saying, but there's a significant difference. The killer in AP's article killed her (so we assume) in a spur of the moment attack. Stride's killer either waited until they got to Liz's spot of choice, or led her there himself. He had her facing the wall and THEN attacked her. It was premeditated.

Howard,

I've never heard of Charles Rocket. Wow, people are still committing suicide that way? Blows my mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[How Brown]

Tom:

He was the guy who played on Saturday Night Live ( back in 1980)...and got fired immediately for saying the word "shit" at the end of a program. You've seen him....he played the guy who hired Mike Starr to whack Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels in "Dumb and Dumber" and he played the guy who was obsessed with finding out the true gender of "Pat" in "Its Pat"......also he was Max Headroom.

Dear Debs...

Thanks dear...I thought it may have been an additional case for a moment there involving that woman McCarthy. Thanks for clarifying.

[Debra Arif]

Tom, she had been out drinking in various pubs, she picked up a guy she was all over in lots of accounts, kissing and canoodling, now...have you ever been a pub drinking with a woman and fallen out with her...she storms off outta the pub and huffs off down the road, only to wait for you at a close point to the pub, and there you come staggering along the pavement, Schwartz hot on your heels, find your girlfriend stood in a doorway...
I'm not serious, but these things happen

[A.P. Wolf]

Quite right, Debs.
The essential difference in Stride's murder; and the direct comparison to the case you have posted here, is the complete lack of premeditation or planning, as evidenced by the fact that the murder was carried out in front of immediate witness.
Tom may wriggle and twist, which is fun to watch, but the fact is undeniable.

[Tom_Wescott]

"......also he was Max Headroom.

No, that was Matt Frewer, who's very much alive. He even played Sherlock in a series of movies done for cable a few years ago. I'll have to look up Rocket on the internet cuz none of that's ringing a bell. Been FOREVER since I've seen those movies she's mentioned.


Tom, she had been out drinking in various pubs

Had she now. She was seen kissing and canoodling outside the George IV by William Marshall, but was not seen inside. Best and Gardner allegedly saw her and a man standing in the doorway of another pub, but no one else apparently saw her inside. Dr. Phillips said there was no alcohol in her system.


Tom may wriggle and twist, which is fun to watch, but the fact is undeniable.

If facts were undeniable, you'd never have anything to say, AP. As for the facts, funny how they always seem to be on my side, is it not? I look forward to the day that I can have lengthy discussions about the Stride case with someone who has taken the time that I have to actually know the facts and who isn't supporting some personal agenda. Until that day comes though, I suppose I'll have to settle for you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra Arif]

ok one pub then Tom!

Best and Gardner allegedly saw her and a man standing in the doorway of another pub, but no one else apparently saw her inside

I thought Best and Gardner said of Liz and her companion, in the Bricklayers arms that "They had been served in the public house and went out when me and my friends came in." ????

[Tom_Wescott]

ok one pub then Tom!

I thought Best and Gardner said of Liz and her companion, in the Bricklayers arms that "They had been served in the public house and went out when me and my friends came in." ????

Before Best and Gardner had made it in the door, Stride and her man were coming out. I'd hardly expect them to know what did or didn't happen to Stride inside. They made a logical inference (i.e. people coming out of a bar had been drinking). But then we're back to there not having been alcohol in her system, and I believe Best and Gardner's sighting was only two hours before her murder (though I can't remember for sure offhand). so it should have been quite easily detectable.

Let's not forget that the source for B and G is the same source that gave us Matthew Packer - the Evening News. I'm not willing to dismiss them outright as liars, but they're evidence really has no value at all and the police did not track Stride's movements there. In any event, STride was not repeatedly seen in the company of the same man all evening and, though I don't doubt the possibility she did some drinking, there's no evidence that she was 'barhopping' at all. She had a very unique visage and was dressed out of place for the neighborhood, yet the police found not one bartender or patron who could place her drinking in a bar.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange]

“I look forward to the day that I can have lengthy discussions about the Stride case with someone who has taken the time that I have to actually know the facts and who isn't supporting some personal agenda.”

Excuse me butting in as a newcomer but Tom did ask ;-)
Although, in this instance I agree, there is no actual evidence that Ms Stride was with one man or drinking for an extended period of time that night.

Tangentially related, did anyone notice the dishonest detective agency based in the Strand in the article APWolf kindly posted? Wonder if John George Binet ever used Bachelor as an alias?

[SirRobertAnderson]

Tom may wriggle and twist, which is fun to watch, but the fact is undeniable.




If facts were undeniable, you'd never have anything to say, AP.

Gents : please play nice. :hand:

Carry on.

:bolt:

[A.P. Wolf]

Yes DRS, I followed that report up about the bogus detective agency some months ago and got nowhere with it.
But that doesn't mean to say that the idea is at all bad.

[A.P. Wolf]

Tom, one can always go in a pub and not drink alcohol.
I understand you Americans do that sort of thing all the time.
Personally speaking you wouldn't get me out of a pub door until I was howling drunk at the moon.

I think this question is up for grabs.
My impression has not altered in some thirty years, that Stride was keeping company with the same man all night, and that he was someone, probably Jewish, whom she actually cared for.
You don't really know. I don't really know.
But hey, don't try and drown Debs with straws, because at least she is trying to find out.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

It's been some 30 years since you paid any attention to the facts (most of which weren't at hand at that time) so naturally your impression hasn't changed. Nevertheless, as I've demonstrated, someone arguing that STride was with the same man all night up until her murder, and throwing back the brewskies no less, will have his work cut out for him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

Tom, I always had my work cut out for me, but you know what, I kinda like that.
I think Debs is trying to make folks look twice at the circumstances of Stride's murder, and then think on it a bit... rather than just accepting the chant and cant of which we are force fed through the normal channels.
I for one totally support her efforts here to think again, and not just roll over and play dead to command.

[Tom_Wescott]

No, I would say that because of voisterous people such as yourself, who consistently express error as fact, Debs took for granted certain things that aren't supported by the facts upon close examination. Just as I used to, and most everyone used to. And many still do. This is the impetus behind my reinvestigation of the Stride murder. To separate the facts from the myths. You're either with me or against me in that endeavor. What's it for you, AP? Myth or fact?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Sir Robert,

90% of the "ideas" AP posts aren't actually ideas he believes in. They're veiled attacks or attempts to evoke a response. Normally, such things are easy to ignore, but when ignored, other posters unaware of the situation take his fantasies for fact. For this reason I feeled compelled to respond to his posts in a like fashion. Follow the posts on this thread (or any AP-heavy thread here or at Casebook, where he felt compelled to leave) and you'll see what I mean. If you look at these posts, and extract AP from them, you extract all animosity. Funny thing that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[SirRobertAnderson]

Sir Robert,

90% of the "ideas" AP posts aren't actually ideas he believes in.

I assure you I am not taking sides. I consider you and A.P. to be two of the most insightful and interesting posters here. You have forgotten more about Stride than I've ever known. And that's just one example. I've also been a long time admirer of A.P. although I have never quite recovered from the discovery that he's a guy. The things he posts initiate a lot of discussions.

So you're both valued members. I'd say 'treasured' but that's far too New Age-y for me. But neither of you can stop jabbing the other for very long.

Attack the ideas you feel erroneous, not the person. If you think the idea has been posted to be provoke or annoy and the author doesn't believe what they're saying, it should be easy to refute or show the idea is inconsistent with other known beliefs of the author.

And if you're attacked, don't respond. It's like a hockey fight. Not only the aggressor but the other guy gets penalized when he drops his gloves as well.

PM me instead . I am going to start snipping insults out of posts after a few warnings. It's invasive and smacks of censorship, but the alternative gets ugly.

I don't need to tell you why this is important for this site to thrive.

[drstrange]

Hello Sir Rob,

“…all are welcome, but no guns…”

Ok, the piano player has stopped the crowds have parted and the silence is deafening. As any Casebook kiddies know I’m strictly anti guns so I’ll just wait for the moment to pass but I would like to talk Stride …

Ignore me if this has been covered but witnesses, believable or not, all describe different men.
The fact that she moved from street to street does not sit comfortably with the notion of one man.
The fact that she was hanging around the club gates does not sit comfortably with one companion as it is an obvious “knee trembler” site.
The article posted gives a template for an “all nighter”, pub, food and a night’s accommodation. In that scenario she would have been off to bed with Best and Gardener’s Mr Billycock.

In general, I can’t see a problem with prostitutes spending a long period with their clients. Obviously those with pimps or an agenda would be looking for the maximum multiple partners but a significant number of the East End women were simply survivalists. The idea of one man supplying them with food, drink, gifts and accommodation would have been a primary goal. But nothing I’ve read suggests that Elizabeth Stride was in that category on the fatal night.
(May the Lord forgive me for agreeing with Tom, shudder)

[Debra Arif]

Debs took for granted certain things that aren't supported by the facts upon close examination. Just as I used to
Tom Wescott
Did I indeed Tom? No doubt one day I will stop all this rambling, away with the fairies stuff and concentrate on the true facts and become just as wise as you then ;)

Right honey, you get on with your important work now and I'll run along and package up those shiny new mags that have just arrived. :)

[Monty]

Debs took for granted certain things that aren't supported by the facts upon close examination. Just as I used to...,

:rolleyes:

Monty
:)

[Tom_Wescott]

Did I indeed Tom? No doubt one day I will stop all this rambling, away with the fairies stuff and concentrate on the true facts and become just as wise as you then ;)

Just as wise as I?!!! Young lady, perish the thought! Sorry if that came off snooty. Between Beadle and AP I'm up to my perfectly centered and proportioned ears with mythical Stride nonsense. I'm afraid you got caught in the crossfire. Not the first time that's happened to you, I'm certain. :)

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. How DO you ever manage to keep up with RN's grueling schedule? Isn't this your second issue in a year? :)

[A.P. Wolf]

Quite right, Sir Robert, I shall cut me jib accordingly and sail further from the wind.

I think the problem we encounter here is a deep-rooted misunderstanding concerning the behaviour of typical Whitechapel prostitutes of the Late Victorian Period; in that many today regard these prostitutes as women who were out to ‘score’ as many customers – and hence cash – as they could per night.
However this does not really hold true when one examines the material from this case, and other similar cases from the period.
If we but take two examples from the series ascribed to the Whitechapel Murderer, Martha Tabram and Frances Coles, and then follow their movements and study their behaviour on the nights of their murders, we immediately see that both prostitutes did indeed spend that entire night in the company of one man.
We can trace their movements as the women are treated to drinks and meals in public houses by the men; they meet friends and acquaintances in the pubs, on the streets and in the common lodging houses of the area; they are treated to little gifts from the men like bonnets; and it does appear that the men have every intention of paying for shared lodgings for the night for them; and it just might be the case that the women concerned are actually setting the men up to be robbed by their pimps or ‘bullies’ at a prearranged time and place during the later course of the night… of course without the woman appearing to be related to the incident of robbery.
This was certainly so in Coles’ case, and in the case that Debs has brought to our attention.
Time and time again I have demonstrated – through using newspaper and court accounts of the period – that it was in the best financial interest of the woman concerned to get herself a man for the night, rather than a quick fumble in an alleyway which would earn her 4 pence. Commonly men would spend in excess of 4 pounds on a woman during the course of a night.
The economics dictate the market.
In the case of Elizabeth Stride we see exactly the same patterns of movement and behaviour as in the Frances Coles case – and the case that Debs has brought to our attention – and I would suggest that the confused encounter (complete with men with knives) that took place in Berner Street resulting in the death of Stride was in fact a prearranged robbery that went horribly wrong when the man fought back.

[Tom_Wescott]

In the case of Elizabeth Stride we see exactly the same patterns of movement and behaviour as in the Frances Coles case

Except in the case of Stride, her man was a shape-shifter, who could change age, height, weight, clothing, and facial hair in only a moments notice, allowing for different witnesses throughout the night to describe her being with different men. Funny Liz never noticed. Must have been all that alcohol she drank that mysteriously disappeared from her system before the autopsy. :)

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

Just like the grapes, eh Tom?
Unlike you I'm not convinced that Stride was with a variety of men that night; and I don't think the witness testimony indicates that either.
Differing witness description of the same individual is a very common factor in all murders; and as I said one doesn't have to drink alcohol to be in a public house.
Most public houses were coffee shops as well, and you could even get tucker in them... but anyway, Liz seemed to like black grapes and cachous.
I did think one of the most pertinent facts in the case that Debs posted was what the murdered prostitute was clutching in her hands when found.

[Tom_Wescott]

but anyway, Liz seemed to like black grapes and cachous.

That's probably true, but in reality there's not a shred of evidence that suggests Liz had ever eaten grapes in her life. In fact, we don't know that she ate any of the cachous, although at least their presence on her person is a fact, whereas the presence of grapes on her person is a myth, and the lack of presence of grapes in her belly at the time of death is an ascertained fact.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. And before you hurt yourself searching through the casebook press reports for the statement that there were grapes stains found on a handkerchief in her possession, I'll save you some time and remind you that it was 'fruit' stains, but what kind of fruit was never determined, nor how old the stains were.

[Debra Arif]

AP's post #38 ,in a nutshell, exactly what I am trying to say,but don't have the capabilities, thank you.
Some people read of the times in the Times, some people study the scenes, neither is wrong, but I sometimes wish the the people who study the scenes would factor human nature in to the equation.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP's post #38 ,in a nutshell, exactly what I am trying to say,but don't have the capabilities, thank you.
Some people read of the times in the Times, some people study the scenes, neither is wrong, but I sometimes wish the the people who study the scenes would factor human nature in to the equation.

I assume that was directed at me. I'm sorry if you didn't like my correcting you, but this is a discussion form creating for the exchange of information. Considering that you were attempting to correct me when posting, I'm not sure what the problem is. Also not sure where you ever got that I don't figure in the human nature factor. A read of any of my essays would quickly show otherwise. But I didn't correct you on any statement of human nature. I corrected it when you stated that Stride was bar hopping with the same man and was drunk. That simply is not supported by the facts in the Stride case, even if it was someone else's human nature to do just those things. Tabram, for example. The victim to whom your press excerpts most closely fit. I'm certain you'd agree that assumptions based from our personal knowledge of human nature must always take backseat to the facts as we know them.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra Arif]

I assume that was directed at me
Then you assume wrongly Tom, it was just a general statement about reading about the times and these women's lifestyles, and based on what AP posted in his summary about the way we view these women and the way they operated, which I agreed with for the most part.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest if I get corrected on something, If I'm wrong I'm wrong and I'll admit it.

[R.J.Palmer]

Mr. Tom Wescott -- I already have my own opinion on the matter, but since you are an obvious connoisseur of the Stride murder, I would be interested in hearing yours. Do you think there was ever a 'young man and his sweetheart' in Berner Street that night? Or was Mrs. Mortimer merely seeing Stride and a client and not knowing it? The only argument I've seen on the 'pro couple' side was offered up by Paul Begg in The Facts, who seems to believe that Spooner might have been James Brown's man. You will know how I stand on the matter when you hear me opine: "I don't see how that could possibly be." Any thoughts?

As they sometimes used to say in the Met correspondence, 'respectfully submitted,' RP

[A.P. Wolf]

Getting back to business.
I’m quite sure that many - when they view the circumstances of Stride’s last night on planet Earth – become confused between the events leading up to her murder, and then the events of her actual murder.
In that, I believe anyway, Schwartz’s witness testimony relates directly to the murder of Stride, rather than the progressive circumstances of that night leading up to that event.
Ergo, that during the course of the night Stride appeared to be with one man only, visiting public houses and other establishments in the immediate vicinity of Berner Street; and direct witness testimony appears to confirm that… but then enter Schwartz, stage right, and we have a confusion of men seen with Stride in the last moments of her life. Three men are described, in rapid sequence, and these three men are then used to confound the issue of which man Stride was with earlier on the night.
This strikes me as a fundamental flaw in the arrangement of the evidence pertaining to Stride’s movements and the company she kept on the night of her unfortunate demise.
As I’ve said before, the actual circumstances that Schwartz described do come across as an attempt at robbery; and the timing appears to credit such a thought, in that the pubs had recently shut and the clubs had yet to kick out, so pedestrian traffic in the area should have been minimal.
I think it not unfair to suggest that Liz Stride probably spent some hours that night in the company of just one man, and that it was only in the last few minutes of her life that several men became involved in a fracas which cost her most dearly.

[SirRobertAnderson]

[FONT=Times New Roman]As I’ve said before, the actual circumstances that Schwartz described do come across as an attempt at robbery;

I personally believe that Mr. Big Shoulders would not pull Stride into the middle of the street in order to then cut her throat, irrespective of what the foot traffic or the width of Berner Street may have been. That just makes no sense to me. Grabbing her and throwing her down in the street is consistent with robbery, not murder. So I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point.

Unfortunately, that still doesn't quite explain to me how she turned up with her throat cut in an ally way almost immediately thereafter.

I'd go with the simplest-explanation-is-the-best, except I'm not sure what that simple explanation should be.

[A.P. Wolf]

Personally Sir Robert, I think Debs has the best insight into the swift events that ended in Liz Stride's murder, as evidenced by her last few posts.
Some considerable time ago I posted a case from around the same time in Whitechapel where a young man, jilted by his girlfriend, followed her through the streets all night, and then suddenly ran at her, pulled her into the gutter - away from a nearby alley - and then stabbed her in the throat.
For me this has always been the essential point, that Liz Stride's killer was not hiding anything, he did what he did without recourse to smoke and mirrors.
A man fuelled by the normal passions of life, jealousy, greed, broken heart, robbery... but not the mutilation and obliteration of a fellow human being, for if so, he would have swung her back into the yard entrance, away from public view.
Think of Sutcliffe's testimony at the Old Bailey when he was half-way through his business with one of the poor girls, and then a car parked up near to his car, so he froze, and prayed that the girl didn't move or cry out; the minutes ticked by, and then finally the car left and he killed the girl.
He pulled his victims into the alley.

[SirRobertAnderson]

A man fuelled by the normal passions of life, jealousy, greed, broken heart, robbery... but not the mutilation and obliteration of a fellow human being, for if so, he would have swung her back into the yard entrance, away from public view.

We are in complete agreement on this point. The problem, of course, is that she was found in Dutfield's Yard.

So the scenario that would explain that would be a robbery attempt or an assault followed by yet another party - the Ripper - who pounced once all the voyeurs were gone.

I'm not happy with the scenario, but it explains the location of the body.

[Chris Phillips]

We are in complete agreement on this point. The problem, of course, is that she was found in Dutfield's Yard.

It's strange, isn't it, that whereas Swanson's summary says "The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway", the report in the Star says "The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage".

Actually, I've never really been able to visualise what's supposed to have happened according to the first description. Presumably she started out facing the man. Is he supposed to have turned her completely round so that he was behind her, and thrown her down on to her face, or half turned her and thrown her down sideways (either on to her face or on to her back) or what?

Naturally one would hope the statement to the police would be more accurate than that to the newspaper, but I suppose that would depend on the quality of the interpreters used. And at least the description of the man putting his hand on her shoulder and pushing her backwards is consistent with the pressure marks on her shoulders observed post mortem by Dr Phillips.

Chris Phillips

[Tom_Wescott]

Do you think there was ever a 'young man and his sweetheart' in Berner Street that night? Or was Mrs. Mortimer merely seeing Stride and a client and not knowing it?

Sorry RJ I'm just now seeing this post of yours. Regarding Mortimer, she never stated she 'saw' the young woman and man, although it's a common mistake of authors to infer this. She stated that she spoke with them at Dutfield's Yard following the discovery of the body. The couple had been standing at the corner 20 yards away from approx. 12:30am until the alarm was raised following the discovery of the body. James Brown spotted a couple standing on the Fairclough side of the board school, just around the corner from Berner Street, precisely the spot this young couple would have been standing. Therefore, Mrs. Mortimer could not have seen them. But James Brown corroborates Mrs. Mortimer's second-hand tale of the couple. The value in this is not only being able to eliminate James Brown as a Stride witness, but also to point out that the young couple apparently did not hear anyone yell 'Lipski' nor spot a scared Jew and Pipesmoker running just past them.

The only argument I've seen on the 'pro couple' side was offered up by Paul Begg in The Facts, who seems to believe that Spooner might have been James Brown's man. You will know how I stand on the matter when you hear me opine: "I don't see how that could possibly be." Any thoughts?

Wow, I don't recall Paul Begg ever suggesting that Brown saw Spooner. This wouldn't have been possible since Spooner and his girl were some streets up and nowhere near the board school.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Actually, I've never really been able to visualise what's supposed to have happened according to the first description.

Hi Chris,

Stride is standing in the gateway. The man walking down the sidewalk stops and talks to her. At about the point where Schwartz is directly upon them, the man begins pulling Stride towards the street. She would have resisted and at this point he either pushed her away or she pulled free and fell, looking to Schwartz as though she was pushed. The man never was behind her. If Stride were pulling away from him at the time he pushed her, it would explain why she fell. It's also important to remember that she had a deformed leg, which wouldn't have helped her balance.

And at least the description of the man putting his hand on her shoulder and pushing her backwards is consistent with the pressure marks on her shoulders observed post mortem by Dr Phillips.

Actually it's not. The medical evidence is in no way consistent with Schwartz's tale. The pressure marks described by Phillips and Blackwell were caused by applied pressure, not a quick shoving. They left finger impressions and were left by someone gripping her shoulders. What we might expect if Schwartz's story were true would be grip marks on her arm from the man pulling her, not to mention some marking on her knuckles or palms from having to catch herself on the pavement. None of this is there though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[SirRobertAnderson]

At about the point where Schwartz is directly upon them, the man begins pulling Stride towards the street....

The pressure marks described by Phillips and Blackwell were caused by applied pressure, not a quick shoving. They left finger impressions and were left by someone gripping her shoulders.

Hi Tom,

Just so I am clear, you're saying that BS pulled her into the street by grabbing her by the shoulders ?

The problem I see is that most of the time when you're trying to grab someone and yank them towards you, you grab them by the arm. I'm having a little trouble envisioning an immediate grabbing of both shoulders from the front. I'd worry about a knee to the groin or getting shanked.

It's time for another How Brown re-enactment of the crime scene.

And just to confuse things further...once we regards Schwartz as less than entirely reliable...let me throw this into the mix: what if she was standing in the courtyard, talking to someone IN Dutfield's Yard ? BS comes along, grabs her away from the prospective client within for whatever reason you posit (jealousy, robbery, etc etc) . PM chases Schwartz, BS gets the money or whatever and splits the scene, and Liz is left alone with Jack.

It would start to explain how all this went down in a very short time period.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just so I am clear, you're saying that BS pulled her into the street by grabbing her by the shoulders ?

The problem I see is that most of the time when you're trying to grab someone and yank them towards you, you grab them by the arm.

Please go back and read my post...including that which appears after the last sentence you quoted. You'll see that's exactly what I was saying.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris Phillips]

Stride is standing in the gateway. The man walking down the sidewalk stops and talks to her. At about the point where Schwartz is directly upon them, the man begins pulling Stride towards the street. She would have resisted and at this point he either pushed her away or she pulled free and fell, looking to Schwartz as though she was pushed. The man never was behind her.
The bit I have difficulty with is "he turned her round", which you don't mention. The reason I mentioned the possibility of his being behind her is that if he turned her round through 180 degrees he would end up behind her (presumably).

It seems to me that there's a contradiction between the two accounts of Schwartz's evidence in this respect. In one account the man pulls, and in the other he pushes. If so, it's one of several contradictions, of course.

The medical evidence is in no way consistent with Schwartz's tale. The pressure marks described by Phillips and Blackwell were caused by applied pressure, not a quick shoving. They left finger impressions and were left by someone gripping her shoulders.
But neither account refers to "a quick shoving". The Star account says Schwartz saw him "put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage". Admittedly the shoulder is singular, but if it was a "quick shove" Schwartz would scarcely have said the man put his hand on her shoulder. The account would be quite consistent with his having gripped her by the shoulder and pushed her back more slowly.

What we might expect if Schwartz's story were true would be grip marks on her arm from the man pulling her, not to mention some marking on her knuckles or palms from having to catch herself on the pavement. None of this is there though.
That would all come from the Swanson version, though, wouldn't it? My point was precisely that the medical evidence was more consistent with the Star version.

Chris Phillips

[SirRobertAnderson]

But neither account refers to "a quick shoving".....

.......Admittedly the shoulder is singular, but if it was a "quick shove" Schwartz would scarcely have said the man put his hand on her shoulder. The account would be quite consistent with his having gripped her by the shoulder and pushed her back more slowly.




Hey Chris,

I can see how someone could confuse a push and a pull so long as it involved one arm on one shoulder, sort of like a quick straightarm in football. It's dark, it's a quick movement and I don't doubt Stride's fall was more memorable. Heck, BS could even have grabbed her first, pulled her towards him and then shoved her away.

The only way I can envision a two handed, two shoulder grab is if BS was trying to draw Stride into an embrace...and the scene as described by Schwartz sounds more like a mugging.

[Tom_Wescott]

The bit I have difficulty with is "he turned her round", which you don't mention.

I didn't need to mention it since you did, but I addressed it when I stated that Stride may reasonably have been trying to get away and thus what Schwartz took to be the man turning her around and throwing her down may have been her turning, breaking lose, and falling from the momentum. Of course, if the man had hold of her arm, it wouldn't have meant much for him to swing her around, grab her by both arms, and push. It wouldn't make sense for him to grab her by the shoulders in this scenario.

The account would be quite consistent with his having gripped her by the shoulder and pushed her back more slowly.

Neither account is consistent with the evidence. Neither the Star nor Swanson's report explains the physical evidence, though that doesn't discount what may have occurred after Schwartz fled. On the other hand, the more reliable of the two accounts (Swanson) suggests there should be evidence (bruised arms, scathed hands) where there wasn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[SirRobertAnderson]

Neither account is consistent with the evidence.

I agree with you , unless Stride had a 'light' fall .

Lemme ask you this, Tom . Do you think BS was mugging her , or do you think something more sinister was up ?

[Tom_Wescott]

It may have been a mugging, may have been a prelude to murder, or it may have been something as simple as a drunk clubmen who ran into Stride as he was turning to walk into the yard and roughly moved her out of the way, telling her to scram. Or it may never have happened at all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris Phillips]

I didn't need to mention it since you did, but I addressed it when I stated that Stride may reasonably have been trying to get away and thus what Schwartz took to be the man turning her around and throwing her down may have been her turning, breaking lose, and falling from the momentum.
Oh I see. I'm puzzled, though - why do you assume it must have been some other action, which Schwartz misinterpreted as turning her round and throwing her down?

Neither account is consistent with the evidence. Neither the Star nor Swanson's report explains the physical evidence, though that doesn't discount what may have occurred after Schwartz fled.
I really can't see what in the Star account is inconsistent with the physical evidence. If you don't think the marks on the shoulders are relevant, then what is there in the physical evidence that's inconsistent with "The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage"?

On the other hand, the more reliable of the two accounts (Swanson) suggests there should be evidence (bruised arms, scathed hands) where there wasn't.
In my initial post I was questioning whether the Swanson account was necessarily more reliable than the Star account. Maybe you think the woman Schwartz saw wasn't Stride, or even that he was making the whole thing up. But otherwise, doesn't the fact you've pointed out yourself - that there are no marks of Stride having been thrown down on the ground - argue that the Swanson account wasn't reliable?

In general, do you think there's any objective evidence that the Swanson version is more reliable than the Star version, other than the expectation that a police statement will be more reliable than a newspaper report?

Chris Phillips

[Tom_Wescott]

why do you assume it must have been some other action, which Schwartz misinterpreted as turning her round and throwing her down?

I don't 'assume' that, but merely offer it as a possible alternative to what Schwartz described. After all, what he's relaying is his interpretation of what he saw. His original assessment of the scene was that he was witnessing a domestic dispute, and this incorrect assessment would have informed how he interpreted what he saw.

I really can't see what in the Star account is inconsistent with the physical evidence.

The Star account isn't so much inconsistent (as the Swanson is) but it does not account for the injuries Stride had. But as I already mentioned, there's no telling what may have occurred after Stride fled the scene.

In my initial post I was questioning whether the Swanson account was necessarily more reliable than the Star account. Maybe you think the woman Schwartz saw wasn't Stride,

I don't think that at all. If Schwartz in fact saw what he saw, then it was probably Stride. There's an outside chance it was a girl named Molly, but I'd say it was Stride.

or even that he was making the whole thing up.

That's possible. In fact, I'm the only one who seriously argues this theory.

But otherwise, doesn't the fact you've pointed out yourself - that there are no marks of Stride having been thrown down on the ground - argue that the Swanson account wasn't reliable?

It suggests the possibility that Schwartz was reliable, but it doesn't reflect at all on Abberline or Swanson.

In general, do you think there's any objective evidence that the Swanson version is more reliable than the Star version, other than the expectation that a police statement will be more reliable than a newspaper report?

Yes, in that Abberline questioned Schwartz repeatedly on the same points (unlike the Star reporter) and used a professional interpreter (unlike the Star reporter who relied on a friend of Schwartz). There's little doubt but that Man #2 was lighting a pipe (Schwart) and not carrying a knife (Star). As I remember, the Star also had Man #2 yelling out instead of Man #1, and there's no question from the official correspondence that it was Man #1 who yelled out Lipski.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris Phillips]

Yes, in that Abberline questioned Schwartz repeatedly on the same points (unlike the Star reporter) and used a professional interpreter (unlike the Star reporter who relied on a friend of Schwartz).
As I said in my initial post, it's the quality of the interpreters that I wonder about. Other things being equal, obviously the police statement should be preferable.

What's the source of that information about the police using a professional interpreter? The Star report says: "He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter."

Chris Phillips

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris,

The source is the knowledge that the police indeed had professional interpreters to hand. The one used for Schwartz would have likely spoke Yiddish as opposed to Hungarian. I know the police had a 'Mr. Strange' on their payroll who spoke German, but I don't know who they might have used for Hungarian or Yiddish.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris Phillips]

The source is the knowledge that the police indeed had professional interpreters to hand.
It's a big step from knowing that in general the police had access to professional interpreters to saying "Abberline ... used a professional interpreter" on this occasion, particularly in the face of an explicit statement that a friend of his acted as an interpreter.

I do worry that so often in these discussions things get put forward as established facts, when in reality they're no more than subjective opinions.

Chris Phillips

[Tom_Wescott]

I've no doubt that Schwartz went to the station with a friend for that purpose, but the Star reporter wasn't in the room with them. It's absurd to think that Abberline would grill a witness via his own friend and an untested interpreter. It's a very, very small jump to assume the police would have used a true interpeter for such an important witness, particularly when we know that was their common practice.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[SirRobertAnderson]

Or it may never have happened at all.



Certainly that is a possibility, Tom. And not far fetched at all, IMHO.

Lemme ask you this, then : IF it didn't happen, what would Schwartz's motive have been for coming forward with a fabricated story ?

[A.P. Wolf]

It is true to say that the courts of the LVP often had recourse to employ 'professional interpreters', but even then I would hesitate in calling them 'professional', for they were often friends of friends, dragged in off the street because they had a smattering of English.
But I would be very surprised indeed to find that any police station in the Whitechapel district had a body of professional interpreters to call upon, given the polyglot nature of Whitechapel in the LVP, they would have needed a powerful lot of men to translate the bewildering array of languages being used in the Metropolis then.
Just like Chris, I am keen to see arguments based on proven facts here, and not subjective opinion.
The press of the LVP certainly seemed to have had better access to, and then a better understanding of, the many non-English speaking witnesses' involved in the Whitechapel Murders.
It seems obvious to me that much of the foreign population of Whitechapel would have viewed the police as their enemy, and the press as their friend; and this surely would have influenced the varying witness statements we see when made to the police and then to the press.

[Tom_Wescott]

Lemme ask you this, then : IF it didn't happen, what would Schwartz's motive have been for coming forward with a fabricated story ?

Either to protect the club or because Le Grand paid him to.

AP and Chris,

30% of the East End was Jewish. I'd be amazed if some of the officers standing to Abberline's left and right when Schwartz walked in didn't speak fluent Yiddish. At least one was bound to speak Hungarian. The stations were being flooded with would-be witnesses. For this reason, they would have had interpreters to hand. There's absolutely no way they wouldn't have. We're not talking one witnesses, we're talking dozens a week. Not to mention the suspects being pulled in. Part of the task when interviewing a witness is to determine their credibility, and it would be rather hard to do that if their own friend was the interpreter.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris Phillips]

I've no doubt that Schwartz went to the station with a friend for that purpose, but the Star reporter wasn't in the room with them.
The Star reporter wasn't sitting outside the station, watching Schwartz go inside with his friend, and speculating about what was happening inside!

Clearly whatever information the reporter had, came from Schwartz himself, when he "ran him to earth in Backchurch Lane".

It's absurd to think that Abberline would grill a witness via his own friend and an untested interpreter. It's a very, very small jump to assume the police would have used a true interpeter for such an important witness, particularly when we know that was their common practice.
That may be your opinion, but it runs contrary to the only direct evidence we have on the question. If we can't distinguish clearly between facts and opinions in these discussions, they become pointless.

Chris Phillips

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris,

All of us here are capable of distinguishing fact from opinion. Where the line blurs, such as in this matter, is where logic comes in. As I've pointed out my "opinion" that Abberline used a professional interpreter is based on the "fact" that they were receiving many witnesses and suspects that would have required a translator, particularly in Yiddish, considering where Leman Station was located. Also I base my conclusion on the "fact" that the police had a German translator, so it's reasonable to suspect they had a number of Yiddish translators as well, since that was a far more commonly spoken language in the East End.

Schwartz was a man who believed he saw the murderer at work and got a good look at him. You're welcome to believe that the police were happy to leave such a matter up to Israel's buddy, Rosenstern, but I think it far, far more likely that a trusted and tested interpreter would have been used. If - as you suggest - the Star and Abberline used the 'friend' interpreter, I wouldn't expect to find such differences between the accounts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris Phillips]

All of us here are capable of distinguishing fact from opinion.

No we aren't, if the writer doesn't give any indication that he's dealing in opinion, rather than fact!

When someone writes "Abberline ... used a professional interpreter" the natural interpretation is that there's some document somewhere that says so, not that the only contemporary statement says the opposite, but that the writer thinks he knows better.

All I'm asking is that people say "I think it's likely that", or even "I find it inconceivable that ... not ..." - preferably with the addition "even though X says the opposite".

You're welcome to believe that the police were happy to leave such a matter up to Israel's buddy, Rosenstern, but I think it far, far more likely that a trusted and tested interpreter would have been used. If - as you suggest - the Star and Abberline used the 'friend' interpreter, I wouldn't expect to find such differences between the accounts.

While I'm complaining about things, the other thing I dislike is people responding to my questioning their assertions by claiming that I'm asserting the opposite.

I haven't said I believe the police used a friend of Schwartz as an interpreter. I've simply pointed out that this is what the only direct contemporary statement says.

And I haven't suggested the Star used the same interpreter as the police. Quite the opposite - I am questioning which account is more accurate, and I've said I think the main determinant of accuracy is likely to be the quality of the interpretation.

Chris Phillips

[R.J.Palmer]

Years ago, there used to be a thread at Ryder’s forum called ‘knitting fog’; it wasn’t about the crime scene in Berner Street, but it should have been.

Tom-- It’s a bit off-topic now, but thanks for the response. It helped to clarify some of my own thinking. I agree now that Mortimer has been misread. Nice spot. I’m not quite as convinced about your dismissal of James Brown, though. I see what you’re up to; you’re using Mortimer’s conversation with a ‘couple’ (she states the couple was ‘twenty yards away’) in order to imply that this was Brown’s couple, thus discreditting his value as a witness. The trouble is, this mythical couple appears nowhere else. They suddenly vanish in the ether, and neither show up at the inquest, nor are mentioned elsewhere. Yet, there was a couple around the corner ---Spooner & his girl --- at Christian Street-- and we know that Spooner did show up at Dutfield’s Yard, and was, indeed, a prominent feature at that scene. To my way of thinking, it is likely that Mortimer spoke to Spooner --that he was part of the ‘couple;’ in question--- and the ‘’twenty yards away’ bit was either Mortimer’s mistake or journalistic liscense. Thus, I dont’ think Brown goes away so easily. He was a witness at the inquest, and surely this indicates that he wasn't seeing an innocent & identified couple that was known to have conversed with Mrs. Mortimer. The mythical couple was, in fact, an on-going confusion between 1) Stride & punter, and 2) Spooner and girl. Or so I reckon.

[Tom_Wescott]

RJ,

Spooner and his girl were not 'right around the corner'. There's not even any mention that Spooner's girl accompanied him to the yard. Mrs. Mortimer referenced Spooner in the same interview and did not indicate it was the same young man. As for Brown, it seems the police and coroner discredited him as having seen Stride. Not me. So if he didn't see Stride, who did he see? The same couple that Mortimer places at that very spot at that very moment. It just makes sense. When I'm at home and have a minute (I'm still at work) I'll post Mrs. Mortimer's statement here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[R.J.Palmer]

Tom- Nothing the least bit outlandish in your interpretation, but I'm still here to give a little resistance. No offense, but I never said Spooner was just around the corner. I stated quite clearly that Spooner was up by Christian Street with his girl (at the Beehive). I admit this.

As for Mortimer, she does state that at the crime scene ‘a man touched her face’ (ie, Stride’s, and from inquest testimony we know this was Spooner) but it’s a little too literal of a reading to be certain that this means that this was a different man from the one referred to later in her interview. That’s an inferential leap that I don’t think is warranted.

Let’s backtrack slightly. You're own interpretation is that Mortimer learned of the alleged board-school couple based on a conversation she had in Dutfield’s Yard. This comes from the Daily News, Oct 1st.


Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street says: “A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.”



This is the whole of it. From this you glean that Mortimer didn’t actually see the couple, but only spoke to them after-the-fact. I agree. But where there is speech, there is a chance for confusion, particularly when it is repeated in the newspapers.

I submit that Spooner was one half of the couple in question, because no one can produce a credible second couple. And surely if they were standing where Mortimer claims they were standing, they would have been the prime witnesses to everything. Yet, seemingly, they vanish into the ether.


Here is Spooner’s statement, the version from the Daily Telegraph Oct. 3

Edward Spooner, in reply to the coroner, said: I live at No. 26, Fairclough-street, and am a horse-keeper with Messrs. Meredith, biscuit bakers. On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public-house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public-house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." They ran as far as Grove-street, and then turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter, and they replied that a woman had been murdered. I thereupon proceeded down Berner-street and into Dutfield's-yard, adjoining the International Workmen's Club-house, and there saw a woman lying just inside the gate...”

True, Spooner never states what happened to his girl. You argue that she was never at Dutfield’s. Yes, I suppose she could have had a very high resistance to curiosity and thus remained standing at the Beehive, but frankly I find it hard to believe that, with all the hubbub, she didn’t eventually wander down to Berner Street with the rest of the neighborhood. Beats the heck out of standing alone while a knife wielding man is on the prowl.

That leaves open the strong possibility that Spooner & sweeite were the couple that Mortimer spoke to. In my scenerio, her claim that they were ‘twenty yards away’ is a mistake or an exaggeration. (Mortimer also claims that Stride was clutching grapes). No other couple can be produced or identified --lest it be Stride and a punter-- and if James Brown’s couple by the board-school was the same innocent couple that had went on to be at the crime scene, and even held a conversation with Mrs. Mortimer, than those who had invited Brown to the inquest must surely have been highly incompetent not to realize that fact.

Finally, what is your source for believeing the coroner and the police dismissed Brown’s statement? I don't see it.

And thanks again for the input. Very useful, whether we ultimately go on to agree or not. RP

[Tom_Wescott]

Let’s backtrack slightly. You're own interpretation is that Mortimer learned of the alleged board-school couple based on a conversation she had in Dutfield’s Yard. This comes from the Daily News, Oct 1st.

No, it comes from a press agency report that was published in numerous papers, one of which was the Daily News.

True, Spooner never states what happened to his girl. You argue that she was never at Dutfield’s. Yes, I suppose she could have had a very high resistance to curiosity and thus remained standing at the Beehive, but frankly I find it hard to believe that

Since it appears they were at the end of their night, and since none of the parties involved mention her accompanying them back, my guess is that Spooner told her to go home, not wishing to take her into a kill zone and expose her to a corpse.


and if James Brown’s couple by the board-school was the same innocent couple that had went on to be at the crime scene, and even held a conversation with Mrs. Mortimer, than those who had invited Brown to the inquest must surely have been highly incompetent not to realize that fact.

Not given Brown's insistence that it was Stride he saw, which only downgrade to "almost" certainty upon being questioned hard by Baxter. Rather similar to Caroline Maxwell's testimony - a clearly honest witness, with conviction, whom the authorites did not believe and who was probably mistaken. And let's not forget that Brown's inquest testimony occurred only three days following the murder so it was rather soon into the investigation. It's possible that Baxter was so hard on Brown because it was supposed that another couple was standing there and it's probable the couple did in fact talk to the police.

As for Mortimer, she does state that at the crime scene ‘a man touched her face’ (ie, Stride’s, and from inquest testimony we know this was Spooner) but it’s a little too literal of a reading to be certain that this means that this was a different man from the one referred to later in her interview. That’s an inferential leap that I don’t think is warranted.

I don't think this debate is warranted, based on the evidence. And I was only pointing out what was and was not mentioned.

This is the whole of it. From this you glean that Mortimer didn’t actually see the couple, but only spoke to them after-the-fact. I agree. But where there is speech, there is a chance for confusion, particularly when it is repeated in the newspapers.

No, that's not the whole of it. The Evening News scored their own exclusive interview not only with Mrs. Mortimer, but also the female half of the couple. Here's what they reported:

'When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.'

Now, the street that bisects Berner Street is Fairclough. The spot where Brown saw his couple is not much more than 20 yards from Dutfield's Yard, so Mortimer's estimate is more accurate than the girl's "not fifty yards", but I'm sure we can agree that the difference in distance estimate isn't what's important here. I can assure you the Beehive was well more than 50 yards from Dutfield's Yard. Moreover, Anyway standing in Christian Street would not be expected to have heard anything at all, so there' d be no point to emphasize that fact.

So, we have a couple standing 20 or so yards from the murder site, near the Fairclough/Berner Street intersection, who were there for 20 to 30 minutes prior to the discovery of the body. An Evening News reporter and Mrs. Mortimer spoke with the girl in question. James Brown saw a couple at that very spot and at that very time and could not be certain the woman was Liz Stride, so there's eye witness corroboration of this couple standing at that spot. Meanwhile, Spooner and his girl are further down Fairclough Street at the corner of Christian.

They are not the same couple.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange]

Just when I thought this thread wasn’t going anywhere, it’s started popping out some interesting stuff.

“… I know the police had a 'Mr. Strange' on their payroll who spoke German …”

Arzt, danke, Arzt Strange ;-)


“… Abberline questioned Schwartz repeatedly on the same points (unlike the Star reporter) and used a professional interpreter (unlike the Star reporter who relied on a friend of Schwartz).”

According to The Star it was the other way round.

Schwartz’s friend translated for the police and “an interpreter” was used by The Star. Presumably, the source of the "friend" story was Schwartz himself. If the police had refused the “friend’s” help, I’m sure Schwartz’s would have bitched about it to The Star.

If the police were happy for Goldstien’s friend, Wess to translate, there shouldn’t really have been a problem in using Schwartz’s friend. From a police point of view, an non-English speaking foreigner, almost certainly scared, and uneasy of police officials, was more likely to have opened up to Abberline with his friend at his side, rather than some strange police translator.

“…the one used for Schwartz would have likely spoke Yiddish as opposed to Hungarian.”

We should be careful of using Yiddish as a Tumberty-type cure all. In the 19th century Yiddish had at least four varying dialects. Whilst it could useful for general communication, its differing dialects were not ideal for the subtleties of the legal profession.

[drstrange]

Re: Swanson being more reliable than The Star.
Swanson’s report was riddled with mistakes.

[R.J.Palmer]

O my, it looks like I’ve been Wescotted. I’m starting to remember why I try to stay out of these discussions.

Look, Tom, I try to avoid the quote/counter quote jive. It seems ungentlemanly, and can easily turn into a boring slinging match. Let me give you an example.

No, it comes from a press agency report that was published in numerous papers, one of which was the Daily News.

I’m quite aware of that. Nonetheless, sometime these dispatches have small differences, and the one I used came exactly from where I said it came: Daily News, Oct 1st.

my guess is that Spooner told her to go home, not wishing to take her into a kill zone and expose her to a corpse.

Well, at least you’re admitting it is a guess. So a murder has just been committed up the road, and Spooner tells his girl to walk home alone in the dark, and she obliges him.

No, that's not the whole of it. The Evening News scored their own exclusive interview not only with Mrs. Mortimer, but also the female half of the couple. Here's what they reported:

'When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.'


Uh, Tom, that quote is in the same article I had previously used: Daily News, Oct. 1st.

Are you really going to glorify that statment by calling it “scoring” an “exclusive interview”??

It is not an interview. The girl is not quoted, and her name is not given. In the context of the article, it was included to illustrate the alleged silece of the attack, and appears directly below the melodramatic title “THE SILENCE OF THE MURDERER.” By contrast, there are numerous legitimate inteviews in the body of the same article, which actually state names and address: Abraham Hoshburg, 28 Berner-street; Barnett Kentorrich, No. 38; Charles Letchford, No. 30, etc.etc

The statement about the young girl and her sweet-heart comes immediately before a reference to the importance of Mrs. Mortimer’s statement, which makes it fairly certain that Mortimore’s interview (which is given in full later) is the source for it to begin with. So it’s circular, and not corroborative. Or at least that's my reading of it.

And let's not forget that Brown's inquest testimony occurred only three days following the murder so it was rather soon into the investigation.

Brown’s inquest testimony was on Oct 5th. Five days. And a half. (Afternoon session)

(See the various accounts of the inquest depositions reprinted in various newspapers on Oct. 6th or shortly thereafter, many of which came from the same dispatch offered by the Central News Agency, though I wont’ offend you by naming a specific newspaper’s title).

James Brown saw a couple at that very spot and at that very time and could not be certain the woman was Liz Stride, so there's eye witness corroboration of this couple standing at that spot.

You see, being the reasonable guy that I am, I admit, as I always have, that this is your strongest argument. But it’s hardly corroboration if Brown believed that the woman he saw was Stride. Spooner was at the same session of the inquest as Brown was at, so no doubt Brown was fully aware that Spooner wasn’t part of the couple he had seen. But where is this other couple? Why do they vanish? Where have they gone? Hint: one half of ‘em is buried in a pauper’s grave in East London Cemetery, clutching a Swedish Bible.

I’m still not seeing a credible explanation as to why this couple who were in a position to gaze around the corner at the shouts of Stride, Schartz, Pipeman, Broadshoulder’s, etc. suddenly vanish from the historical record and are never to be mentioned again. I suppose they could be a blip on the radar like Mortimer (who is, however, mentioned later in some newsreports) but why, if the existance of this couple is so blindingly obvious, was Brown brought to the mortuary to view Stride, and then on to the inquest to befuddle the jury and the public.

My belief --and that’s all I’m saying it is--is because it’s a cock-up. One couple was Stride and her punter, and the other couple was Spooner & Forksie up by Christian Street.

But I'm here to be civilized, so all the best, and thanks again. I don't like echo chambers, and you've set me to thinking, and I mean that sincerely.

[Chris Phillips]

We should be careful of using Yiddish as a Tumberty-type cure all. In the 19th century Yiddish had at least four varying dialects. Whilst it could useful for general communication, its differing dialects were not ideal for the subtleties of the legal profession.
Indeed, the report in the Star clearly implies that Schwartz spoke Hungarian, not Yiddish. One would hope that any newspaper reporter worth his salt working in the East End of London would recognise Yiddish when he heard it spoken.

Of course, if the police had insisted on interviewing him through their own Yiddish interpreter, and if he spoke through a Hungarian interpreter to the Star reporter, that would open up a whole new layer of uncertainty.

Chris Phillips

[Tom_Wescott]

According to The Star it was the other way round.

Schwartz’s friend translated for the police and “an interpreter” was used by The Star.

Anyone interpreting is an 'interpreter'. In the case of the Star reporter he may no such statement. He clearly stated that upon finding Schwartz they could not communicate, but fortunately someone was nearby who could translate. Far cry from the interpreters that helped out the police.

If the police were happy for Goldstien’s friend, Wess to translate, there shouldn’t really have been a problem in using Schwartz’s friend.

Wess "accompanied" Goldstein to the police. There's nothing to suggest that Goldstein couldn't speak English or needed an interpreter. In the event he did, there's nothing to suggest that interpreter was Wess. In the event that, like Schwartz, he could not speak English well, it makes sense he'd have an English speaking friend accompany him to the station, if for no other reason than to explain the purpose of his visit to the desk sergeant. In this instance, the "friend" would indeed have to explain what occurred to prompt the visit, so the Star wouldn't be entirely incorrect in stating that the friend acted as interpreter. But from that point forward, for interrogation purposes, the police would have used their own man. If anyone would like to challenge that simple logic using more than a line from a newspaper report, I'd love to hear it.

Indeed, the report in the Star clearly implies that Schwartz spoke Hungarian, not Yiddish.

Yiddish is a language shared by Jews of all countries (that's not to say every Jew can speak it though). Russian Jews, Polish Jews, Hungarian Jews, German Jews, English Jews. They'd communicate through Yiddish. How do you think they were all able to read Der Arbeter Fraint? Why do you think it was published in Yiddish?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

RJ,

I'm the only one who utilizes quotes to stay organize and make it clear what I'm responding to? I'd hardly call that being 'Wescotted'. Considering every other post of mine on a Stride thread is me having to repeat or explain myself because I wasn't read properly, I would like to encourage others to PLEASE use the quote mechanism more. It's not there to be ungentlemanly, it's there to be accurate. As you might have notice, at any time I have two or three individuals coming at me at once so I find it very useful.

No, the interview with the girl that appears in the Evening News does not appear in the Daily News, nor any other paper I'm aware of. Nor does their exclusive interview with Mrs. Mortimer. I don't know why you would say different. The details that Mortimer gives the EN are more detailed and accurate than what appears in the jumbled press circular.

Bottom line is, we have a quote from the girl herself stating exactly where she was standing and why it is significant. She was standing on Fairclough Street just off Berner Street, very close to the murder scene, and was surprised not to have heard a thing. She was not standing in Christian street, nor Pall Mall, nor in Bermondsey. And her boyfriend was clearly not Edward Spooner, who was in Christian Street.

As for the fact there aren't any other records of her, why should there be? Need I remind you that Israel Schwartz was not known to us until the 1970's, and he claimed to have actually seen the Ripper! If not for the short paragraph afforded him in Swanson's summary, he'd be just another unbelievable Star report, quickly dismissed. Much like you're trying to do here with a confirmed witness, interviewed within a few hours of discovery of the body and at the murder site itself and whose story would later be corroborated independently by James Brown. With all due respect, RJ, you were not aware of the Evening News interview with the girl. Neither was Paul Begg. You are aware now and can see this girl did exist and she was on Berner Street, not Christian Street. She and her boyfriend are the couple that James Brown saw by the schoolboard which is off Berner Street not Christian Street. Myths and errors like these, new and old, are precisely the reason I decided to make a particular study of the Berner Street affair. Those who prefer familiar fairy tales over the truth would do well to put me on ignore and not read what I publish. I sincerely hope you're not among that small but rather voiceterous crowd.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

I'm into biffing myths as well.
Like the one that Liz Stride was in the company of various men in the hours leading up to her death.
Let the ghosts speak I say.

'It might be thought that the frequency of the occurrence of men and women being seen together under similar circumstances might have led to mistaken identity; but the police stated, and several of the witnesses corroborated the statement, that although many couples are to be seen at night in the Commercial Road, it was exceptional to meet them in Berner Street.
With regard to the man seen, there were many points of similarity, but some of dissimilarity, in the description of the three witnesses; but these discrepancies did not conclusively prove that there was more than one man in the company of the deceased, for every day's experience showed how facts were differently observed and differently described by honest and intelligent witnesses.'

Wynne E. Baxter, the Coroner.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

With all due respect to coroner Baxter, who'd probably never stepped foot in Berner Street in his life, I'd say his argument that there was some invisible shield not allowing couples into Berner Street is rendered moot time and again by the evidence. You inadverently acknowledge this every time you point out that Stride was seen in Berner street with a man. Did Morris Eagle not walk his girl home? Another couple in Berner street. What about the couple I've been discussing who remained 20 or so yards from the crime scene for a half an hour? I can also site an interview with a girl who walked up and down Berner Street with her boyfriend from about 12 to 12:30. Need more? About all the couples who attended the club? Alas, I'm afraid that Berner Street was like any other and couples could and did walk together on the street.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris Phillips]

Yiddish is a language shared by Jews of all countries (that's not to say every Jew can speak it though). Russian Jews, Polish Jews, Hungarian Jews, German Jews, English Jews. They'd communicate through Yiddish. How do you think they were all able to read Der Arbeter Fraint? Why do you think it was published in Yiddish?
I didn't say the Star implied he couldn't speak Yiddish. But clearly the Star report implies he spoke Hungarian, not Yiddish, during their interview.

If he had spoken Yiddish to the police and Hungarian to the reporter, then obviously that would introduce still more uncertainty. It would be a question not only of which interpreter was more proficient, but also of which language Schwartz himself was more fluent in.

But as far as I'm concerned, that's all speculation. The only contemporary evidence we have is that a friend of Schwartz interpreted for the police, and that Schwartz spoke Hungarian to the Star reporter.

Chris Phillips

[A.P. Wolf]

Coroner Baxter probably spent something like 300 hours listening to and then acutely digesting the witness testimony of every single attested witness in the murder of Liz Stride; and then he made his statement based on that witness testimony.
Baxter may have never set foot in Berner Street, but then he didn't need to.
I would say, but I'd be happy for more learned posters to confirm or disallow this thought, that it was really very unusual for a Coroner of the time to dwell on the singular point of a prostitute being in the company of only one man in the hours leading up to her death, and for this reason I do believe Baxter was deliberately labouring this point, perhaps in an effort to show that Stride was not employed in prostitution that night.
But whatever, I'll stick with Baxter's thoughts on the circumstances of Stride's murder.
I would say that he knew a great deal more than we do.

[Tom_Wescott]

And you're welcome to do so, AP, even if ignoring the evidence is required. While you're at it, you might also take up the cause of Baxter universally panned theory that a medical man wanted to purchase uteri at outrageous sums to offer along with his monograph. I'm sure you'll get far with that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Maybe Baxter actually meant Christian Street? Hmmm....

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris,

It's very possible that Schwartz was interrogated in Hungarian by the police. I only suggest Yiddish as the most likely because the police would have had Yiddish translators in the office to handle the influx of witnesses coming in. But since we know they had a German translator handy, they may also have had a Hungarian speaker there, although I'd be impressed if they did. In the case of the Star interview, it does seem that it was done in Hungarian. I never considered it wasn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

Well Tom, well met, I'd advise you to talk to Tumblety's fans as regards uteri, apparently he had a collection of 'em in jars.
Christ knows what the US customs would have made of them when he shipped back into New York with all his baggage.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

The author of the single press blurb that suggested Tumblety kept uteri in jars (in the 1860's, mind you) has been shown to be a crank and bold-faced liar, so the credibility of that tale is now about on par with Le Queux's Rasputin/Ripper story. You really must keep up on case advances, old chap.

As for what US Customs would have made of them? They'd have been fine with the uteri as long as he didn't try to slip a cork screw through. :)

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

Not keeping up with case advances has always been my forte, Tom, simply because there have not been any.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, you have that half right. :D

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Working for the Malay dollar

[Gavin]

Wow, I don't recall Paul Begg ever suggesting that Brown saw Spooner. This wouldn't have been possible since Spooner and his girl were some streets up and nowhere near the board school.


Tom,

Distance is relative of course, but they wouldn't have been all that far away. Spooner was outside the public house on the corner of Christian and Fairclough Street. Christian St. was the next street along from Batty Street away from Berner St. so it was only two streets up from where the couple were. Say the couple Brown saw were situated about halfway between Berner St and Batty St., that would be about 60m away from the pub at the corner of Christian St.

Spooner said they'd been at another beerhouse beforehand (not sure if he said they were 'inside' or by it). He said something like it being at the 'top of the road' suggesting it was at the end of Christian or Fairclough St. but could he have meant the Nelson at the corner of Berner and Fairclough? The couple Brown saw could have moved about. Spooner said they were at the pub from about 12:30 to 1 for about 25 mins, but his times could have been somewhat askew.

edit: Could he have meant the Nelson? - No! Just read the Telegraph account of his testimony and he clearly refers to a pub in Commercial Road (in The Times it says 'a beerhouse at the top of the street'). As he says he and his girlfriend were there until he saw Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky run past, they couldn't have been the couple seen by Brown.

Gavin

[Tom_Wescott]

Gavin,

That still puts Spooner and the girl two streets away. The whole reason the witness who spoke to the EN reporter and Fanny Mortimer had for speaking up was that she was standing at the end of Berner Street the whole time and heard nothing. Not that she was standing two streets away. Huge difference. Only RJ argues that Spooner was Mortimer's couple and he argued this because he wasn't aware there was an independent interview with this girl who flat out told a reporter where she was, and it wasn't two streets away, it was (according to her) less than 50 yards away from Dutfield's Yard. Mortimer corrected this to 20 yards (probably because the girl pointed specifically to where she'd been) which puts her smack dab on the spot that James Brown saw his couple, so we have eyewitness corroboration. What part of this are you people not getting? What good comes from turning 'not even 50 yards and '20 yards' into '140 yards' away? It's pure nonsense. It reminds me of the reaction I got on Casebook when I proved that Diemschutz's last name is actually 'Diemshitz'. Nobody wanted to accept it, no matter the evidence. Obviously that's not gonna change until I get it in book form. That's the only form of written word people seem to take seriously.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[SirRobertAnderson]

Obviously that's not gonna change until I get it in book form.

On a completely serious note, I hope you finish that pup this year. I'd love to read it. You're a great writer, based on your Ripper Note contributions. A Murder in the Neighborhood is top notch.

[R.J.Palmer]

Sigh.

No, the interview with the girl that appears in the Evening News does not appear in the Daily News, nor any other paper I'm aware of. Nor does their exclusive interview with Mrs. Mortimer. I don't know why you would say different.

Tom, -- When you have a moment, punch the words “bisecting thoroughfare” into the press report section at Ryder’s site and see what you come up with. Or Google it for that matter. The Daily News published fundamentally the same account. I believe the same man cranked out both papers. The Daily News also published the same interview with Mrs. Mortimer. If you still think I'm lying, see October 1st, towards the end of the article.


= With all due respect, RJ, you were not aware of the Evening News interview with the girl. Neither was Paul Begg.

You’re still going to glorify this by calling it an interview? See below.

.Myths and errors like these, new and old, are precisely the reason I decided to make a particular study of the Berner Street affair. Those who prefer familiar fairy tales over the truth would do well to put me on ignore and not read what I publish.

Lol. I like the sanctimonious tone, except that this couple by the board school IS the ‘myth’ that is repeated in numerous books on the Whitechapel murders. I'm challening that myth. By your own admissions (if you’d merely be willing to rethink it) this couple almost certainly sprang solely from a reporters chat with Mrs. Mortimer, which I firmly believe was misreported. And dear me, the woman was commenting on the location of a couple that she had never seen in ‘real time’ but chatted with well after-the-fact.

I don’t wish to take up too much band length, but by way of illustration, let me show the context of the comment, and the readers of this thread can decide whether or not it deserves the title of an ‘exclusive interview with the girl.’ All the best.


A LUNATIC AT WORK.

Dr. Gordon, speaking of the Mitre-square murder, assured our representative that he was sure it was the work of a lunatic. Dr. Gordon has made his post-mortem of the Mitre-square body without waiting for the coroner's order. He knows that is out of the rule, but he thought under the circumstances that it was necessary, and he hopes he will be backed up by public opinion.

THE SILENCE OF THE MURDERER.

When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises. A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. . ....


As I previously noted, this is in the main body of the article. Further down, it DOES feature interviews with various residents, giving their names & addresses, but this girl remarkably doesn’t reappear! She remains a mystery.

You, Tom Wescott, are saying the reporter spoke to the girl.

I, R.J. Pamer, am saying the reporter spoke to Mortimer, and is repeating second-hand information. I am NOT ignoring some "interview" as you are calling it.

Mortimer's account of Goldstein (who she actually saw) was later confirmed. This couple is confirmed nowhere, and I still submit they never existed--unless they are a garbled retelling of Spooner & his girl. James Brown had genuinely witnessed Stride. This is important, for the man he describes could quite well be the Pipe Smoker.

[Gavin]

Gavin,

That still puts Spooner and the girl two streets away. The whole reason the witness who spoke to the EN reporter and Fanny Mortimer had for speaking up was that she was standing at the end of Berner Street the whole time and heard nothing. Not that she was standing two streets away. Huge difference.

Well you'll have seen my edit by now
http://www.jtrforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
My point is two streets away could be anything from 20m to a couple of miles! That's why I put a fixed distance on it. 60m is still some way away, and though people can exaggerate how close to events they were, I think you are right.


What part of this are you people not getting?


Er, steady on there Tom. I'm not a big fan of that attitude. http://www.jtrforums.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

I saw this idea just for the first time, and thought through it to see if there was anything in it. I posted before I'd checked my facts (note to self, don't rely on memory). When I did check I realised it wasn't a goer and edited my post.


What good comes from turning 'not even 50 yards and '20 yards' into '140 yards' away? It's pure nonsense.


As I say people are known to exaggerate. e.g. 20 yards isn't 50 yards. However it's unlikely and I would say that Spooner and his girl were not the couple who Brown saw by the board school; but it's not nonsense to suggest it, it's just very unlikely.


It reminds me of the reaction I got on Casebook when I proved that Diemschutz's last name is actually 'Diemshitz'. Nobody wanted to accept it, no matter the evidence.


Note my spelling in the edit (I did add the 'c' as I didn't know if it would '****' it out - but since you got away with it...)http://www.jtrforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Gavin

[Gavin]

I saw this idea just for the first time, and thought through it to see if there was anything in it. I posted before I'd checked my facts (note to self, don't rely on memory). When I did check I realised it wasn't a goer and edited my post.


Actually, thinking about it, I did consider Spooner and his girlfriend for Brown's couple when I was reading through the inquest reports for Smith's Beat, but rejected it. Doesn't hurt to go through it again, though. http://www.jtrforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Gavin

[R.J.Palmer]

Gavin - Something to consider. Why did Mortimer not appear at the inquest? And why does this most strategically located couple, who must have witnessed Schwartz running away, etc., not mentioned in the MEPO files? Nor appears at the inquest?

My suggestion? Because the Evening News report is a cock-up, and Mortimer spoke to Spooner and either exaggerated it or was misreported. In short, the couple was nowhere near the board-school, and one half of that couple DOES appear at the inquest, in the form of Spooner.

[R.J.Palmer]

I think there may be some confusion, so I just want to make my position very clear. Tom is attempting to muddle me with Paul Begg.

I am NOT saying that James Brown ever saw Spooner and his girl. (That's merely a suggestion Begg made in passing)

My position is that James Brown saw Stride & a punter at the board-school, a few minutes before she was killed.

My other position is that Mrs. Mortimer spoke to Spooner at the crime scene, and this was misported as there being a couple at the board-school, which was later confounded with Brown's genuine sighting. The couple in the street that night was actually clear up the road by Christian Street.

Finis.

[Tom_Wescott]

RJ,

Would it do any good at all if I explained why the Evening News interview with Mortimer, and thus the girl, is an exclusive, and therefore relevant? If you've closed your mind to anything I have to say on the matter, then I'd prefer not to waste my time doing so. And I see you've taken to using quotes now, so I'm delighted you've paid attention to something I've had to say. :)

Er, steady on there Tom. I'm not a big fan of that attitude.

What can I say, I'm an American. :)

However it's unlikely and I would say that Spooner and his girl were not the couple who Brown saw by the board school; but it's not nonsense to suggest it, it's just very unlikely.

I only said it was nonsense because there's two sources regarding the young couple on top of James Brown having spotted a couple there. In order to make this Spooner we have to discard an awful lot. Plus, James Brown's spotting occurred approx. 5 minutes after PC Smith saw Stride further down talking to a different man holding a parcel. Just taking everything into equation is all.

The couple in the street that night was actually clear up the road by Christian Street.

Then explain why the couple would have expected to hear something, or why anyone would be shocked that a couple two streets away didn't hear anything?

James Brown had genuinely witnessed Stride. This is important, for the man he describes could quite well be the Pipe Smoker.

With Charles Le Grand being the leading contender for Pipeman, I'd love to twist everything around to bolster the case. But I just don't have it in me to do that. I'm after the truth here. So, I'm exploring the Schwartz scenario from the angle that it happened like he said AND the angle that he made it up. Both are possible. And I HAVE NOT accused you of lying, RJ.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange]

Hello Tom,

“Anyone interpreting is an 'interpreter'. In the case of the Star reporter he may no such statement.”

“..an interpreter..” is pretty much, a statement in my book as opposed to
“… a friend, who acted as an interpreter” which a qualification of a statement.
Ergo, “a friend” interpreted for the police, whilst “an interpreter” translated for the reporter.

“He clearly stated that upon finding Schwartz they could not communicate, but fortunately someone was nearby who could translate.”

Think about it, a reporter seeks out a man he already knows can’t speak English, do you think he might just have enough forethought to take someone along who could translate?

“Wess "accompanied" Goldstein to the police. There's nothing to suggest that Goldstein couldn't speak English or needed an interpreter.”

Fair enough.

“If anyone would like to challenge that simple logic using more than a line from a newspaper report, I'd love to hear it.”

Well, simple line from a newspaper report written by someone on the spot and who had spoken to the people concerned may not be a hard fact but it holds more weight than your logic.
(That’s not to decry your logic per se, Tom but as I’ve already pointed out in this post, other logical explanations can be offered.)


Hello APW,

Hang on while I jump the fence!
I’m with Tom on this one. The problem with Baxter is that he didn’t hear all the witnesses.

“I would say that he knew a great deal more than we do.”

Possibly, quite true but he didn’t know more than the police.
According to their records, they felt Ms Stride was probably soliciting clients. Unlike Baxter, they knew the area and the habits of its people from a practical day by day point of view. They also had access to all the witnesses.


Hello RJP,

“You, Tom Wescott, are saying the reporter spoke to the girl.
I, R.J. Pamer, am saying the reporter spoke to Mortimer, and is repeating second-hand information.”

Back on the other side of the fence! I’m with you on this point RJ.

“Mortimer's account of Goldstein (who she actually saw) was later confirmed.”

Mortimer seems to have changed her story about Goldstein in later editions instead of passing her ...
“He (Goldstein) might ha’ been coming from the Socialist Club”

[Gavin]

I only said it was nonsense because there's two sources regarding the young couple on top of James Brown having spotted a couple there. In order to make this Spooner we have to discard an awful lot. Plus, James Brown's spotting occurred approx. 5 minutes after PC Smith saw Stride further down talking to a different man holding a parcel. Just taking everything into equation is all.

Fair enough, but you seemed to be singling out the part of the argument where their distance (Spooner & girlfriend) of over 100 yards from the murder scene was exaggerated down to 20 yards as nonsense.

Such exaggerations or, perhaps, underestimations do occur, e.g Diemshitz said that when he and Spooner got back to the yard, Lamb turned up immediately after, whereas Spooner said it was five mins later. One (or both) of them is exaggerating (or under/overestimating) and it wouldn't be 'nonsense' in this case to suggest 'immediately' or '5 mins' actually meant, say, 2 minutes.

Where I used to live, some new people moved in next door. I was talking to the guy who’d moved in. We got onto the subject of the previous owners. The bloke who used to live there had moved in with his girlfriend, they’d then split up, the girlfriend moving out and he’d started seeing someone else. This had resulted in a few interesting incidents shall we say. Anyway, I’d just finished telling the new guy this, when his wife came out. He turned to her and said “The bloke who used to live here used to bring a different girl back each night” !! That was not what I'd said at all !!
So it’s easy to see how a story can be exaggerated beyond all recognition quite quickly.
It’s possible that it could have been Spooner’s girlfriend who said they were just 50 yards round the corner – when in reality it was over 100 yards. This then gets reduced to ‘just round the corner – 20 yards’.

I, myself, don’t think this is the case when other factors are considered though, such as the fact Spooner said he'd been to a pub on Commercial Rd at the top of Christian St and then walked down to the pub on the corner of Christian and Fairclough and stayed there for about 25 mins. From this we can see that they couldn't be the couple Brown saw.

Also, as RJ said, I think the reporters got the story of the couple and the statement of the girl from Mrs. Mortimer. Actually I thought that was what you believed, Tom from when we have had exchanges before on this.


Hi RJ,

I take your point that's not what you are suggesting (that Spooner & girlfriend were the couple seen by Brown). I can't recall any mention of what happened to Spooner's girlfriend after Spooner spoke with Diemshitz and Kozebrodsky. Spooner just says he went to the yard with Diemshitz. However she would surely not have been left on her own with a killer about. So what you suggest is possible, as she would have then gone to the yard, but possibly stayed in the street if she didn’t want to look at the body, and spoke with Mrs. Mortimer.

But I don’t believe it was Stride that Brown saw, and for me there was another couple there. Another point is that the time PC Smith saw Stride with a man was likely 1:40-1:45 (rather than 1:30 - 1:35) as Smith was up to about 10 minutes out for his return to Berner Street at ‘1:00’.

Gavin

[Tom_Wescott]

Think about it, a reporter seeks out a man he already knows can’t speak English, do you think he might just have enough forethought to take someone along who could translate?

And yet when my logic isn't good when I suggest that a police station in the Jewish East End might employ experienced translators? In any event, the Star report says the reporter tracked Schwartz down to Backchurch Lane and THEN discovered Schwartz's English was as bad as his Hungarian, but thankfully there was an interpreter (i.e. someone who could speak both) nearby. From the way the reporter described it, the interpreter was an associate of Schwartz, not the reporter.


Back on the other side of the fence! I’m with you on this point RJ.

You probably won't be once you step back and look at the statements. The Evening News reporter did in fact have an exclusive interview with Mrs. Mortimer. This is presented alongside an interview with the girl. Neither of these brief interviews appear in any other newspaper, regardless of what RJ Palmer says to the contrary. Consider what that means - the very girl who stood on the corner spoke with and EN reporter who reported what she said. Therefore, we do not only have Mrs. Mortimer's second hand account.


Mortimer seems to have changed her story about Goldstein in later editions instead of passing her ...
“He (Goldstein) might ha’ been coming from the Socialist Club”

What is your source for this. To my knowledge Mrs. Mortimer never changed her story, although I am aware that a few 20th Century authors changed her testimony around to suit their needs, among them Robin Odell and Walter Dew. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a contemporary paper did as well, but as far as I'm aware, Mrs. Mortimer told only the one story.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Gavin,

It's understandable that people without watches would get the time wrong. But the girl interviewed by the Evening News didn't just state her estimated distance she stated she was standing at the end of Berner Street. The whole point of her saying this was to illustrate that she'd heard nothing. People two streets away wouldn't be pondering at how they heard nothing, because it's too far. Regarding this idea that Mrs. Mortimer is the only person to have spoken to the girl, consider this:

There are two independent sources on Fanny Mortimer - the first is the press agency report where Mortimer describes Goldstein and his black bag and then goes on to recount what the young couple had told her. The second is the exclusive Evening News interview which is less garbled and more specific in its details as to what she heard and when. The details found in this interview do not appear in the press circular and could only have come from Mrs. Mortimer herself. This and other interview that appear in the same edition prove beyond a doubt that the Evening News had a reporter on the scene working for them. So, we know there was a girl in the vicinity of Mrs. Mortimer claiming to have been around the corner of Berner Street on Fairclough Street before the murder and after discovrey of the body. We also know there was an Evening News reporter there who also talked to Mrs. Mortimer. There then appears in their paper a statement attributed to this girl and not to Mrs. Mortimer. From this it's pretty clear that this reporter spoke to the girl, who was not Edward Spooner's girlfriend.
What's confusing the issue is the press circular and the fact that Mrs. Mortimer reported what the girl had personally told her, or what she overheard the girl telling to the Evening News reporter. But the fact that Mortimer told one reporter a hearsay story (and not the only one she reiterated in her statement) does not negate that a different reporter spoke to the girl personally. The report appears as thus:

'When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.'

Now, not only does this report attribute the story to the girl (as opposed to Mortimer) but it presents details that Mortimer did not reveal in the press circular, perhaps because she was not aware of the specifics, such as that they'd stood there "for about 20 minutes". Also, the girl's estimation of distance is different from that of Mortimer. Also consider that Evening News ran the press circular seperately. This interview came in from a separate source, that being their on-the-spot reporter. Also, this was published before the interview with Mrs. Mortimer and not as a part of it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Gavin]

Gavin,

It's understandable that people without watches would get the time wrong.


I'm talking about one person saying the police arrived as soon as they got back, and another saying it was five minutes. Fair enough the person saying five minutes may need a watch if there was some gap between the events but why is one saying immediately and the other 5 minutes. I don't need a watch to tell me when someone arrives immediately after me. One of them is underestimating and/or the other overestimating.


But the girl interviewed by the Evening News didn't just state her estimated distance she stated she was standing at the end of Berner Street.

Where is 'Berner Street' explicitly stated? In the Evening News it says as you quoted (and pretty much the same appears in the Daily News though not then linking into Mrs. Mortimer's (unnamed) account.):
"When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises. A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement..."

Fifty yards, incidentally, taken literally would be just less than 35 yards from Berner Street.


The whole point of her saying this was to illustrate that she'd heard nothing. People two streets away wouldn't be pondering at how they heard nothing, because it's too far.


But if someone immediately misinterpreted what someone had said, they may have thought that couple were nearer than they were.

To be honest, I actually agree with you over this couple not being Spooner and his girl so I don't know why I'm arguing http://www.jtrforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The reports of Mrs. Mortimer's statement are conflicting, I agree, but though I agree with you, I do not share your certainty about the interpretation of the reports and I don't think the girl was interviewed directly, which seems a reversal of our stances when we last discussed this I believe. http://www.jtrforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The 'fifty yards' report could just as easily have come from Mortimer as the '20 yards' report, which certainly did come from Mortimer. In the same way that jumbled reports in the same paper credited her as being on her doorstep for half an hour, and for just ten minutes. The reference to 'she said' which you highlighted could just as well have been from a third person source. There's no indication of any other details from the part that could indicate the girl was interviewed (the 50 yards section) than that section in the report where Mortimer relates what the girl said - other than the distance being different. This doesn't suggest a different source. And this report in the Evening News funnily enough links straight into the bit on Mortimer...

all the best
Gavin

[Tom_Wescott]

Where is 'Berner Street' explicitly stated? In the Evening News it says as you quoted (and pretty much the same appears in the Daily News though not then linking into Mrs. Mortimer's (unnamed) account.):
"When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found.

I would say "where the body was found" is pretty explicit. And it does not say 'fifty yards' it says 'not fifty yards', meaning less than. And where the body was located means Dutfield's Yard. So, the girl could only have been standing in one of two places - just around the corner of the Nelson or just around the corner of the Board School.

There's no indication of any other details from the part that could indicate the girl was interviewed (the 50 yards section) than that section in the report where Mortimer relates what the girl said - other than the distance being different.

You mean no other indications other than details NOT provided by Mortimer (i.e. how long they stood there) or the fact that the reporter attributed the statements TO the girl and not to Mortimer? What other indications do you need?

Yes, the report preceeds Mortimer's statements, which would be expected as the same reporter interviewed both and no doubt would have turned in his notes at the same time. Not only that, but both of the witnesses were attesting to how silent the murder was - all the more reason to accept that the girl could ONLY have meant she was standing off Berner STreet, not Christian Street. What were you expecting, a Mitre Square report sandwiched inbetween these two Berner Street accounts?
The bottom line is, if you're not willing to accept that the EN reporter interviewed the girl, then you can't accept that he interviewed Mortimer, and thus the whole report is utter rubbish that by sheer luck managed to be factually sound.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. You seem to recall a lot more of our Mortimer exchange than I do.

[Gavin]

I would say "where the body was found" is pretty explicit.


Naughty, naughty, Tom. You said:
"But the girl interviewed by the Evening News didn't just state her estimated distance she stated she was standing at the end of Berner Street."

You said that she said she was "at the end of Berner Street" and nowhere is that stated.


And it does not say 'fifty yards' it says 'not fifty yards', meaning less than. And where the body was located means Dutfield's Yard. So, the girl could only have been standing in one of two places - just around the corner of the Nelson or just around the corner of the Board School.


OK, it said 'not fifty yards'. But it was only about 14 yards from Dutfields Yard to Fairclough Street, and about 17 yards from Dutfield's Yard to the Board School. Even allowing for it being less than 50 yards that's still some way from the 'end of Berner Street'.
If the argument here is that this cannot have been the girl with Spooner, then you're probably right and I don't think it is. However exaggeration, or chinese whispers cannot be discounted.

You mean no other indications other than details NOT provided by Mortimer (i.e. how long they stood there) or the fact that the reporter attributed the statements TO the girl and not to Mortimer? What other indications do you need?

Well there's one extra detail, and it's a vague reference to the statements being attributed to the girl, not one of the 'we spoke to the girl' type statements that you get for instance with some of the other witnesses. You may well be right, but I'm not convinced that the details didn't come second hand from Mrs. Mortimer. The 'twenty yards' as well could be a combination of 'twenty minutes' and 'fifty yards'. The reporting was very sloppy at times. Look at the different features of Mortimer's story in the same paper. So you may be right, but I need other indications. I'm picky that way.


Yes, the report preceeds Mortimer's statements, which would be expected as the same reporter interviewed both and no doubt would have turned in his notes at the same time. Not only that, but both of the witnesses were attesting to how silent the murder was - all the more reason to accept that the girl could ONLY have meant she was standing off Berner STreet, not Christian Street. What were you expecting, a Mitre Square report sandwiched inbetween these two Berner Street accounts?


No, but the fact that Mortimer was reported next could mean the information was obtained from her, and a hastily put together report left a misleading impression. Maybe not, but I don't see any concrete proof at all that you seem to think is there. If you want to believe it, fine, but don't expect everyone else to.


The bottom line is, if you're not willing to accept that the EN reporter interviewed the girl, then you can't accept that he interviewed Mortimer, and thus the whole report is utter rubbish that by sheer luck managed to be factually sound.


I'm sorry but that does not follow at all. There is a factual element of the reports but come on Tom, the differences in the accounts of Mortimer's statement tells us there's some sloppy reporting going on, and I wouldn't like to say which bits we can completely trust and which bits we can't. If you want to, go ahead.


P.S. You seem to recall a lot more of our Mortimer exchange than I do.

Fair enough, maybe I remembered it incorrectly.

Gavin

[A.P. Wolf]

This exchange puts me in mind of the report I found a year or two ago from a chaplain in Brixton prison who was in the prison at about the same time that Thomas Cutbush was remanded in custody - you'll all remember the term 'remanded in custody', applying to prisoners who were placed in custody prior to their court appearance - and he described a young man who was held there, on very serious charges, suffering from delusions that he was a medical student, with a blotchy red face from the application of mercury to cure his imagined pox... and by all that is holy I thought to myself that is Thomas Cutbush.
But I never claimed it was Thomas Cutbush.
You see some folk want to see things that aren't really there because they are committed to a certain cant and dogma.
And that is the one thing I absolutely detest in this quest.
For facts are facts and everything else is pants.
Stick to the facts.
Please.
Let's make this site factual... and damn respect, and cant and dogma.
Please.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well there's one extra detail, and it's a vague reference to the statements being attributed to the girl, not one of the 'we spoke to the girl' type statements that you get for instance with some of the other witnesses. You may well be right, but I'm not convinced that the details didn't come second hand from Mrs. Mortimer. The 'twenty yards' as well could be a combination of 'twenty minutes' and 'fifty yards'. The reporting was very sloppy at times. Look at the different features of Mortimer's story in the same paper. So you may be right, but I need other indications. I'm picky that way.

The fact is that the only reason anyone would suggest that Mortimer was the uncredited source for the Evening News report on the girl is because the Mortimer report is more well-known and more cited, therefore more familiar. You and RJ cite the similar between the EN blurb and the press circular in reference to the girl's story as evidence Mortimer was the same source. That makes little sense to me because I would expect that if Mortimer heard the same story as the reporter that the two versions would be quite similar. The fact that there are minor differences indicate a change in perspective - i.e. the girls' very general 'not fifty yards' and Mortimers more specific and accurate '20 yards away'. Also in the EN blurb, we are told how long the girl and her boyfriend were standing there. Understandably, Mortimer was not so specific. Had the EN reporter not scored an exclusive interview with Mortimer - which is obvious and undeniable - as well as other people on Berner Street at the same time, I could probably agree with you. But he did and he attributed this statement to the girl, not to Mortimer, although it's quite possible that Mortimer led him to the girl herself. Why you would expect the girl to tell her important story to Mrs. Mortimer but refuse to believe she did so to a reporter I cannot understand, but it's your prerogative to believe so.


Fair enough, maybe I remembered it incorrectly.

No, I'm just saying I don't remember the conversation at all or what I did and didn't tell you. But that's normal for me. You're probably remembering it correctly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Let's make this site factual... and damn respect, and cant and dogma.
Please.

You're suggesting Howard ban you? Don't you think that's a bit extreme? Well, perhaps not.

As for your indirect attack on me, AP, I'll remind you that I AM the one sticking to the facts as they're being reporter. It's others who are changing a reporters words around to read something other than what they say.

The reporter says a girl told him she stood on Fairclough Street at the corner of Berner Street. RJ wants to make this Christian Street. Gavin wants to change the source from the girl to Mrs. Mortimer. I'm taking the reports to mean what they say for want of any reason to do otherwise. Having said that, this IS a discussion forum, and part of discussing means trying out alternate perspectives and tossing theories and ideas out to get feedback, and I support RJ and Gavin's right to do so, even if the results occassionally bring me frustration. And I'm sure they support my right to do so even if my ideas occassionally frustrate them.

What I don't support are people who use argument as a weapon only to attack and divert an honest discussion. I'm not pointing any fingers here, though I imagine everyone will know who I'm talking about.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

Get your finger off that red button, Tom.
The world doesn't have to end right now, especially when I just got given a full bottle of Jameson's Irish moon mist.
We serve different purposes and masters, Tom.
You have your rag, and I have my tatters.
But who shall supply the new emperor with his clothes?

[SirRobertAnderson]

Gentlemen: please don't go in this direction. And I am using the plural .

My mod knife is nise and sharp and I'd rather not use it.

This has been a great thread; let's all work to keep it this way.

Thanks.



You're suggesting Howard ban you? Don't you think that's a bit extreme? Well, perhaps not.

As for your indirect attack on me, AP, I'll remind you that I AM the one sticking to the facts as they're being reporter.

What I don't support are people who use argument as a weapon only to attack and divert an honest discussion. I'm not pointing any fingers here, though I imagine everyone will know who I'm talking about.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[admin tim]

Yes, please keep it civil. Even if it hurts.

[How Brown]

..and do it for my daughter Valerie....who broke her arm this afternoon while driving a mini-car at her Mom's.

Gracias,amigos.

[drstrange]

“And yet when my logic isn't good when I suggest that a police station in the Jewish East End might employ experienced translators?”

I’d say it’s a guaranteed certainty that Leman St. had access to Yiddish interpreters. Whitechapel Station had signs in English and Yiddish. The London Hospital had Jewish wards with “Menuzah’s over the door lintels” and dedicated, kosher cooks. As I said previously, I don’t have problem with your logic per sec, just in reference to specific points.


“… the Star report says the reporter tracked Schwartz down to Backchurch Lane and THEN discovered Schwartz's English was as bad as his Hungarian …”

The Star reporter says Schwartz took a friend to the police to translate for him “because he couldn’t speak a word of English”. He also knew he was Hungarian but not necessarily Jewish.
Hence the reporter went looking for Schwartz knowing he couldn’t speak a “word of English” but did speak Hungarian. Knowing he himself didn't speak Hungarian, why would he set off without taking the precaution of bringing a Hungarian translator? That’s where logic comes in.


Re the young girl.
You, RJP and Gavin all make good points, I’m still tending to favour their version but I can’t dismiss yours. Definite fence sitter here!


“What is your source for this. To my knowledge Mrs. Mortimer never changed her story…”

Evening News Special 1st Oct.


“… "where the body was found" is pretty explicit. And it does not say 'fifty yards' it says 'not fifty yards', meaning less than.”

Ah ha! Good illustration of my point about the dangers of believing Yiddish was a cure all. In the 19th century it had different dialects, whilst each dialect speaker could understand and communicate reasonably well with each other, the differences could lead to mistakes. therefore a Hungarian translator was preferable to everybody when it came to Schwartz.

As a modern day American you read “not fifty yards” literally, as under fifty yards.
Contemporary East End Victorian readers (some of us old fellas) recognised it as a verbal expression. Translated it actually means, “I was a mere fifty yards away.” A lot of the “popular” newspapers wrote to their target audiences and that should always be factored in when we read there reports.


(Probably more obvious to you is the expression, “five minutes”. It might mean literally that amount of time or it could, and more often does, mean “a short time later”. E.g. the old shop signs that used to say “back in five minutes”, wives, when asked how long before their ready … ‘just another five minutes;-)

[SirRobertAnderson]

“And yet when my logic isn't good when I suggest that a police station in the Jewish East End might employ experienced translators?”

I’d say it’s a guaranteed certainty that Leman St. had access to Yiddish interpreters.

Question for folks : was there any effort made to hire local residents as constables ? I realize how dangerous it is to look at the case from 21st century eyes, but I have in mind today's NYC policies ,where they do indeed try to have some Oriental cops in Chinatown, etc etc.

[Tom_Wescott]

The Star reporter says Schwartz took a friend to the police to translate for him “because he couldn’t speak a word of English”. He also knew he was Hungarian but not necessarily Jewish.

Well, of course the reporter may not have discovered that Schwartz couldn't speak English until he found him. But on the other hand, I see your point. The reporter may have called upon the Berner Street Club and been led to Schwartz that way, and the reporter's informant could have been the person who took him to Schwartz and thus the interpreter. As I've noted elsewhere, the Star and the Berner Street Club had a relationship, so if Schwartz were a member of the club, it's no real surprise that they got the scoop. Schwartz may also have been Polish as opposed to Hungarian. The Star reporter was careful not to mention Schwartz's name and gave only a general address (Backchurch Lane as opposed to Ellen Street, Backchurch Lane). This may have been at the bequest of Schwartz or the interpreter. But if anyone made any inquiries about a new Hungarian resident in Backchurch Lane, they wouldn't be led to Schwartz. The "Israel Schwartz" listed in the 1891 census, in the same general area, is described as Polish.

“What is your source for this. To my knowledge Mrs. Mortimer never changed her story…”

Evening News Special 1st Oct.

Please quote what you're talking about.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Sir Bob,

That's a good question, and Grey Hunter or Bernie Brown would be the most suited to answer. But it's probable the police did hire Jews at a date later than 1888, when the anarchist problem was in full swing. But I'm not aware of them having done so on any particular scale in 1888 or prior.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[SirRobertAnderson]

Sir Bob,

That's a good question, and Grey Hunter or Bernie Brown would be the most suited to answer. But it's probable the police did hire Jews at a date later than 1888, when the anarchist problem was in full swing. But I'm not aware of them having done so on any particular scale in 1888 or prior.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

It'd be one way to address the translator issue....in fact, if it was the case, you could very well have the police records showing they had no official interpreters when in fact they had something better.

[Chris Phillips]

Schwartz may also have been Polish as opposed to Hungarian. The Star reporter was careful not to mention Schwartz's name and gave only a general address (Backchurch Lane as opposed to Ellen Street, Backchurch Lane). This may have been at the bequest of Schwartz or the interpreter. But if anyone made any inquiries about a new Hungarian resident in Backchurch Lane, they wouldn't be led to Schwartz. The "Israel Schwartz" listed in the 1891 census, in the same general area, is described as Polish.
I'm puzzled - do you think there's any reason to suppose that Schwartz may have been Polish rather than Hungarian, other than the fact that no one has managed to find a Hungarian Israel Schwartz in the census records? It would be a strange mistake for the Star reporter to make, particularly as there were so many more Poles than Hungarians in the area.

Chris Phillips

[Gavin]

Gavin wants to change the source from the girl to Mrs. Mortimer. I'm taking the reports to mean what they say for want of any reason to do otherwise.

Tom,
I don't want to change the source, I just don't think we have enough information to definitely conclude the source is the girl. I feel the source is Mrs. Mortimer. I'll give another explanation below.


Having said that, this IS a discussion forum, and part of discussing means trying out alternate perspectives and tossing theories and ideas out to get feedback, and I support RJ and Gavin's right to do so, even if the results occassionally bring me frustration. And I'm sure they support my right to do so even if my ideas occassionally frustrate them.

Yes, it's frustrating on this side of the fence too. http://www.jtrforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

OK, I'm about to babble on a bit here, so I'll first mention my thoughts on the use of 'she said' in reference to the girl and her boyfriend stood fifty yards away.
This could mean the reporter spoke directly to the girl, or it could mean that the reporter spoke to another source who had been told this information by the girl – hence the ‘she said’. If the other source had actually seen the couple standing there, there would be no need for the ‘she said’, as the source would be passing on information they knew for a fact from what they had seen. However if the source hadn’t actually seen where the couple were, but had spoken to the girl afterwards and had been told where this girl and her boyfriend were, this could explain why the report included ‘she said’, as this is what the other source would have stated in reference to the girl that he or she had spoken to.

Regarding the reliability of the reports and the problems of drawing definite conclusions from them, let's look at the three separate reports of Mrs. Mortimer's statements in the Evening News. Although plenty of people probably know them off by heart, I thought I'd put them all in. I've included the reference to the girl's statement in 2) not to necessarily link it in with Mortimer's account, but as it's directly before in the report, I thought I'd put it in context.

1)

INTERVIEW WITH A NEIGHBOUR.

Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her. I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot.

TEN INCHES OF COLD STEEL.

"I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife.
"Then I see a sight that turned me all sick and cold. There was the murdered woman a-lying on her side, with her throat cut across till her head seemed to be hanging by a bit of skin. Her legs was drawn up under her, and her head and the upper part of her body was soaked in blood. She was dressed in black as if she was in mourning for somebody.

MURDERED WITHIN SOUND OF MUSIC AND DANCING.

"Did you hear no sound of quarrelling, no cry for help?" I asked.
"Nothing of the sort, sir. I should think I must have heard it if the poor creature screamed at all, for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police. But that was from the people as found the body. Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again, had just drove into the yard when his horse shied at something that was lying in the corner. He thought 'twas a bundle of some kind till he got down from his cart and struck a light. Then he saw what it was and gave the alarm."
"Was the street quiet at the time?"
"Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club. There was music and dancing going on there at the very time that that poor creature was being murdered at their very door, as one may say."

A MAN WITH A BLACK BAG!

" I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"
"No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand."
"Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?"
"No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially."
That was all that my informant had to tell me. I wonder will the detectives think it worth while to satisfy themselves about that black bag?

2)

THE SILENCE OF THE MURDERER.

When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises. A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

3)
Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy, says: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gate with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went around the corner by the BoardSchool. I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

There are 3 separate accounts which all look like they come from the same person

‘Interview with a neighbour’. Here we have quotes and it is clear the EN reporter spoke with the woman. She is not named and said to live 3 doors from the gateway – as it says ‘from the gateway’ that would mean the door to the club itself would be included and so 3 doors away is No. 36. The essential parts here are that the woman was disturbed by the noises on discovery of the body as she was about to go to bed. She hadn’t come in from her doorstep long when this occurred. She said a man and woman hadn’t passed but made reference to man passing with a black bag ‘up’ the street and he had possibly come from the club. She made no mention of the ‘couple’ round the corner and "that's all the information she had".
a) ‘Silence of the murderer’ – part 1. No quotes here, this mentions the girl who had been stood ‘not 50 yards’ from the spot with her boyfriend for about 20 minutes. The report does include the words ‘she said’, which means the information came from the girl. This could mean the reporter spoke directly to the girl, or it could mean that the reporter spoke to another source who had been told this information by the girl – hence the ‘she said’. If the other source had actually seen the couple standing there, there would be no need for the ‘she said’, as the source would be passing on information they knew for a fact from what they had seen. However if the source hadn’t actually seen where the couple were, but had spoken to the girl afterwards and had been told where this girl and her boyfriend were, this could explain why the report included ‘she said’, as this is what the other source would have stated in reference to the girl he or she had spoken to. b) ‘Silence of the murderer’ – part 2. Again no quotes, this then refers to a woman living two doors from the club (so No. 36). At shortly before 12:45 she heard the beat constable pass and went to her door looking into the street. She was there for 10 minutes then came in. She had seen no-one in the street. No reference to the man with the black bag. About 4 minutes later she heard Diemshitz’s pony and cart pass and then heard the commotion on discovery of the body.
Here (3), Mrs. Mortimer is mentioned by name and is said to live at No. 36 – four doors from club (since the club was no. 40 this was an incorrect inference from the numbering, as no. 36 was just 2 doors away). Here Mrs. Mortimer is quoted – in that it is written in the first person. She said she had stood on her doorstep for virtually the whole time between 12:30 and 1:00. This differs from 2b) but could 12:30 have been a mistake for 12:45 (it says 'half past twelve' in the report)? She’d just gone in and was preparing for bed when she heard the commotion. She said she had seen only one person, a man walking very quickly ‘down’ the street from Commercial Road, who looked up at the club but continued round the corner. This differs from 1) which said he walked ‘up’ the street and may have come from the club. She refers to a young man and his sweetheart stood at the corner of the street about 20 yards away, who had told her they did not hear a sound. 3 different accounts of Mortimer’s testimony and differences in each. 1) and 3) are connected by reference to the man with the black bag, though even with this there are clear differences. In the less well-know section (1) it is stated by the woman that he could have come from the club and was walking ‘up’ the street. From the inference he may have come from the club this would suggest he was heading towards Commercial Road, which contradicts the direction in 3).

All this suggests that, though deductions can be made from various bits of information in newspapers and cross referencing other accounts, it is hard to pick out which parts accurately report what happened and exactly what was said, when there are clear contradictions even in the same newspaper when the same person is apparently quoted in two different places. There are omissions / changed details in all 3 different sections reporting Mrs. Mortimer's statement. So to say that because one reference to the girl's story has them 50 yards away, rather than 20 and also mentions the time period is not proof that there is a different source for the info. E.g. No mention of the man with the black bag is made in report 2b), but the source is still clearly Mrs. Mortimer.

Sorry for rambling (and the bizarre formatting at times - it looks fine when I edit it) ...

all the best
Gavin

[Gavin]

..and do it for my daughter Valerie....who broke her arm this afternoon while driving a mini-car at her Mom's.

Gracias,amigos.

Sorry to hear that, How. Hope she's on the mend soon.

all the best
Gavin

Thank you Gavin...she will be.

Extraordinary post there on your part...well done,as per usual !!

[A.P. Wolf]

Yes, a great post indeed, Gavin.
It made me think that perhaps these two items are not unrelated.

1) The unknown girl witness is quoted as saying that she was talking to her boyfriend for about 20 minutes.
2) Edward Spooner is quoted as saying he was 'with a young woman... talking for about 25 minutes'.

[Tom_Wescott]

Gavin,

Yes, that was a good post, and I appreciate you taking the time to create it. I also appreciate you posting in full the '10 inches of cold steel' interview which reads like bad melodrama. Safe to say Mortimer didn't say much of what appeared in that interview, since we know her earlier descriptions of Goldstein's movements tallied at least generally with how Goldstein remembered it himself - he'd left a coffee house in Spectacle Alley and walked through Berner Street, taking a left at Fairclough, to head to his house at 22 Christian Street.
I understand your point about Mortimer, but boiled down, what you're saying is that because Mortimer repeated the girl's story once, she must have done so twice. But another perspective is that had Mortimer NOT echoed the girls' story to the press agency reporter, leaving the only source to be the EN 'she said' blurb, we'd all be in agreement now that the reporter spoke to the girl herself.
Even the 'cold steel' interview mentions that Mortimer was standing outside with a couple of neighbors. Is it not likely that a reporter would talk to all in the circle and does not the EN blurb suggests the girl on the corner was one of those nearby to Mrs. Mortimer?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

p.s. Fanny Mortimer's husband, William, was a carman, not a well-to-do artisan.

[Gavin]

I understand your point about Mortimer, but boiled down, what you're saying is that because Mortimer repeated the girl's story once, she must have done so twice.

Hi Tom,

I just want to clarify what I'm saying because that is not what it boils down to. It doesn't follow she must have repeated the story twice (though I guess since it's reported twice it was only actually repeated once http://www.jtrforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif).
It could be that what she said was reported twice, in differing degrees of detail / accuracy, as with the rest of her story in the same paper.

I would also repeat that you may be right and it is a direct quote from the girl. My point is there's no must about either side of the argument. But to me the lack of any substantial further detail, the fact that Mrs. Mortimer is definitely the source for the location of this couple in one report and is obviously misquoted (or was giving an inconsistent story) to account for the differences / contradictions in her main story suggests to me that this snippet did come from Mortimer.

But there is no must about it. http://www.jtrforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Gavin

[Gavin]

Safe to say Mortimer didn't say much of what appeared in that interview, since we know her earlier descriptions of Goldstein's movements tallied at least generally with how Goldstein remembered it himself - he'd left a coffee house in Spectacle Alley and walked through Berner Street, taking a left at Fairclough, to head to his house at 22 Christian Street.


Hi Tom,

Good point. And that highlights that it is possible sometimes to sort out which of the details in the papers that are accurate by cross referencing other details we do know. Which is why we know that Goldstein did walk from Commercial Road down Berner Street and went past the club, rather than possibly coming out of the club past Mortimer towards Commercial Road.
Nonetheless, despite more accurate renderings of her story appearing in the same paper, we still have this misleading report there. We have other details from other sources to sort this one out, but aren't so lucky with other reports.

Had we just this report of Mortimer's story to go on we'd all be looking for a man with a black bag who left the club and headed towards Commercial Road just prior to the body being discovered.http://www.jtrforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Gavin

[Tom_Wescott]

You make good points, Gavin. So I guess it's a draw and we can't be 100% certain either way if a reporter spoke to the girl or not.

On a different matter, it appears from the press circular that William Wess went to a news agency to publicly clear Goldstein's name. This tells us a) Wess knew what a press agency was and where to find it, and b) Suggests that Goldstein may not have spoken English as he had Wess accompany him to the police station, and Wess went alone to the news agency.

I just wish I knew which agency it was that circulated that report. I need to look a little closer at this matter soon when I have time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[R.J.Palmer]

The following interesting comment was made by Tom Wescott on another thread:

"Regarding James Brown, the fact that he wasn't certain that he saw Stride was a knock against. Why wasn't it a knock against Lawende? Because Lawende was supported by 2 witnesses and there was no conflicting evidence. Because of Schwartz and Mortimer's 'couple on the corner', the police may have had reason to believe Brown saw a different couple."

I look at this somewhat differently. For one, I do not see Schwartz as supporting the idea of a couple by the board school, but flying in the face of it. For this couple to exist, they need to appear and disappear like blips on a screen. They are at the corner for twenty minutes, but are nowhere about when Schwartz and Pipeman come rushing along. If the EW can be believe, they then inexplicably reappear at Dufield's Yard, only to disappear again from both the inquest and any discussion of these events in the MEPO files. It's easier for me to believe they were nowhere near the board school, and are a cock-up for Spooner and his girl. Brown's appearance at the inquest, in itself, strongly suggests the couple was never identified---as they surely would have been, if they had been questioned and interviewed in Dutfield's Yard. Only one man's opinion.
As for Lawende, he was very weak in regards to a positive identification of the victim, having identifyied Eddowes only by the rather generic clothing she was wearing. If he botched it, then his man is not likely to have been connected to the murder. Brown, as I said elsewhere, has been largely ignored by historians of the case, but to me he is just an honest bloke who went out for his dinner and thought he saw the victim. He's credible. His identification of Stride was certainly more positive than Lawende's identification of Eddowes. He was 'almost certain' it was the same woman. Many have focused on the 'almost,' but to me, this just shows Brown's inherent honesty; he makes no fancy claims. And without this other couple being positively identified, the possibility must exist than he did indeed see Liz Stride with a suspect very shortly before she was found dead. The reason I think Brown was largely ignored is that he couldn't supply a useful description of the man he had seen, whereas Lawende could. Afterall, the police need a description.

[Tom_Wescott]

RJ,

First of all, I never suggested that Mortimer's couple in any way helped Schwartz. Quite the contrary, in fact. What I said was that the couple AND Schwartz conflict to some degree with Brown having seen Stride standing there. On top of that, we have the statement of PC Smith (assumed to have been 12:35) placing Stride across the street from Dutfield's Yard. Consider the police perspective:

* PC gives certain identification of man with Stride at 12:35am just across from the yard she was killed in.

* Israel Schwartz gives certain identification of man with Stride at about 12:45am at the gateway to yard she was killed in. Stride was alone until approached by a man looking nothing like Brown's.

* James Brown gives almost certain identification of victim with man at the corner of Berner Street at about 12:45am. He is honest, but his lack of detail suggests he didn't pay close attention.

* Mrs. Mortimer, whom the police certainly spoke with as a Berner Street resident, tells them of a couple she met who stood at the very spot Brown says they stood at and at the very same time. Mrs. Mortimer apparently did not know the couple personally and they likely didn't live on Berner Street, so they may never have been discovered. But that raises a question mark as to Brown's testimony.

The above is why I believe Brown's evidence didn't have a big impact on the investigation. If the police believed he had seen Liz Stride they almost certainly would have connected Brown's man with Pipeman, both of whom wore a dark overcoat and were found standing in close to the same place at the same time. Don't let my arguing the Mortimer case make you think I've discarded Brown as a witness to Stride. I haven't. Just considering all sides.

Brown and Schwartz are always thought of by authors to be conflicting accounts, because they describe different scenarios occuring at the same time. But when the times are broken down, it seems to me that the Schwartz scenario occurred a bit later than 12:45am (after Mortimer went inside) and we have two independent witnesses describing a man in a dark overcoat standing at the intersection of Fairclough and Berner Street. He is not the same man as seen by PC Smith at approx. 12:40. So, following this line of inquiry, at some point shortly after PC Smith exists the scene, Stride leaves Paper Parcel Man and heads away from the club towards Fairclough Street, at the corner of which she meets Dark Overcoat Man. James Brown {whom Mortimer would not have been able to see from her doorway) walks by the couple to hear Stride say 'Not tonight, some other night'. The body language of the couple suggests they might know each other, or else he's a prospective client. Brown walks on. A few minutes later, Stride is in Dutfield's Yard and 'Dark Overcoat' man has stepped across the street, perhaps to use the Nelson's doorway to shield the wind so he can light his pipe. BS Man and Schwartz enter the scene.

The above is what likely happened IF both Brown and Schwartz were correct in their evidence and IF Brown and Schwartz saw the same man in a dark overcoat. Now, why did Stride walk towards Fairclough Street only to turn back and go into the club yard a few minutes later? The time frame does not give us enough time to presume she serviced Pipeman and he'd made it down to the corner by the time Schwartz came on the scene. So, what happened?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange]

Hello Tom,

“… William Wess went to a news agency to publicly clear Goldstein's name. This tells us a) Wess knew what a press agency was and where to find it…”

No real surprises there. Wess worked for a newspaper, collected newspaper reports and worked on press releases. I would image him to have been a familular figure around the agencies.

“… and b) Suggests that Goldstein may not have spoken English as he had Wess accompany him to the police station …”

Wess spoke fluent Russian, Yiddish, Hebrew and of course English. His sister spoke fluent German so there’s a fair chance Wess did too. He was a very interesting character.

Congratulations to all on an interesting thread so far.
(How, I hope your daughter's arm is plastered up and out of pain by now)

[Tom_Wescott]

Strange,

Yes I know Wess was well educated and probably well known in the area. That he was well known with press agencies is open for debate as I haven't yet seen that Der Arbeter Fraint used them, either as a source for news or to submit to. They were a 'newspaper' only in the sense of their newsprint. Really, they were a weekly propaganda rag written in Yiddish.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

I knew that the business with Spooner, standing outside the Bee Hive public house, chatting with a young woman struck a chord with me somewhere.
If one looks at the later murder of Frances Coles, there are the police statements of Thomas Fowles and Kate McCarthy.
Thomas Fowles:
'To her home in Mint Street, next to the Seven Stars, public house, we stood talking together at the front door for about an hour.'
Kate McCarthy:
'We stood talking together at the front door for about half an hour.'

What this suggests to me is that Spooner, as a respectable young man in good employment, was probably talking to his young lady outside of her own front door, rather than the public house; and for that very reason had no compunction about leaving the young lady there while he departed to see what was going on in Berner Street.
Secondly, it does show how two witnesses sharing exactly the same intimate experience can qualify the time, and timing with as much difference as half an hour.

[Tom_Wescott]

What this suggests to me is that Spooner, as a respectable young man in good employment, was probably talking to his young lady outside of her own front door, rather than the public house; and for that very reason had no compunction about leaving the young lady there while he departed to see what was going on in Berner Street.

This is almost what I suggested and was ridiculed by RJ. I say "almost" because they were, in fact, standing in front of the Beehive pub and I doubt the girl lived there. But she may have lived quite near and Spooner sent her home when he went to accompany the men back to Berner Street.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'd like to submit the following to get some feedback. This is an interview with a girl published in the Echo of Oct. 1st. It may not be the same girl that Mortimer spoke to, because the timings are quite off and the girl doesn't claim to have been in the area at the time Diemschutz raised the alarm. However, the phrases 'sweetheart' and '20 yards' set off alarms.

"THE HOUR OF HER DEATH.

It is established almost beyond doubt that the poor creature met her death some time between twelve and one o'clock. And yet no one seems to have heard a struggle, or a groan, or the slightest indication of what was going on. From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.

"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Just giving this thread a bump up hoping RJ, Gavin, et al will come along and see my last post.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Gavin]

Just giving this thread a bump up hoping RJ, Gavin, et al will come along and see my last post.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Yes I've seen that report before (after you highlighted the report in the same paper pertaining to Schwartz) and did a double take for the same reasons. I wouldn't reject the possibility totally that it was Mortimer's couple, but for the reasons you give it seems unlikely. Also she talks of parting from her boyfriend just after seeing a man in Commercial Road heading towards Aldgate, which doesn't tie in with what Mortimer says of the couple or what the other report says of them (standing together in Fairclough Street at the time the body was discovered).

However of course it could be that Mortimer's account got confused with this one by a pressman to attribute '20 yards' to Mortimer's couple.
There were probably a few couples in the area. This one, Mortimer's couple, Brown's couple, Spooner and girlfriend, and Stride and companion(s) - though of course two of these are possibly the same couple - though which two?
http://www.jtrforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But another interesting report. Thanks for bringing it up, Tom.
Also neither of these couples (the Echo couple and Mortimer's couple) seem to have seen Stride between Marshall and PC Smith's sightings. Marshall saw her in lower Berner St, so maybe she was too far away for the Echo couple to see her, or to take much notice - though both this couple and Stride seem to have been wandering up and down Berner St.

Gavin

[drstrange]

A prostitute soliciting I understand but why were "sweethearts" wandering around in the rain? The only person this couple snugly fits seems to be Packer!

[Donald Souden]

Dr. Strange,

why were "sweethearts" wandering around in the rain?

Have you no romance in your soul? I leave the specifics of the evening to those who have studied it in depth, but if the couple truly were "sweethearts" and the only opportunity for them to be together that evening was wandering around in the rain, then that is what they would do. When you're with the one you love there is no rain--or any other distraction.

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

The rain was over by 11:30pm. This couple was out from 12 to 12:30pm.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

According to one witness the rain was over by 11.30 but according to the weather reports it wasn't.
Just a small matter.
And do we think that Stride had that copy of the newspaper in her bonnet to make it fit better, or to keep her head dry?
And could the grapes have been wrapped in that newspaper before Stride used it to keep her head dry?
Life, and death, is really not as simple as you, Lord Tom, would have it.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

There were no grapes. As for the rain, William Marshall was standing outside before midnight and it was not raining. Prior to that, PC Smith passed through Berner Street and it was not raining. The man he saw was holding a newspaper parcel out in the open. Why? Cuz it wasn't raining. So, it had stopped raining in that area by 11:30pm. This is one of the details that gives the lie to Packer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

Lord Tom, I'm quite sure the weather will do whatever you want it to do on the night of 30th September 1888.
As one of my favourite songs avows:
'The sun always shines on TV'.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

Instead of being mad at others when you're mistaken or wrong, how about you divert that energy towards simple fact-checking and research so you can converse with others on their level.

Yours truly,

Lord Tom

[A.P. Wolf]

My dear Lord Tom, it is not the facts and research I have a problem with... it is the level.
I rarely find anyone who can reduce a bottle of brandy to the same level as me in the same time span.
I walk in glue while everyone speeds around the planet, but hey Lord Tom, the glue sticks.

[Tom_Wescott]

Maybe your glue sticks, but your posts don't make sense.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[SirRobertAnderson]

According to one witness the rain was over by 11.30 but according to the weather reports it wasn't.


A.P., I remember a few years back you posted the actual weather reports from the Times for the nights of the C5. If you have that handy, it'd be nice to see here.

[drstrange]

Hello Tom,

“That he was well known with press agencies is open for debate as I haven't yet seen that Der Arbeter Fraint used them, either as a source for news or to submit to. They were a 'newspaper' only in the sense of their newsprint. Really, they were a weekly propaganda rag written in Yiddish.”

The enduring fascination of this case is that everything is debatable, so know argument there. A few things I’m finding out about Wess do point in that direction. Hopefully over the next few months I should have some hard evidence but I’ve learnt not to expect too much until you’ve actually things in your hand.

Hello Don,

“Have you no romance in your soul?”

Have you been talking to my wife? Gee you forget one anniversary and ….;-)
Actually it was meant to be a light-hearted post but it seems to have sparked a bit of controversy.

[Sam Flynn]

The rain was over by 11:30pm. This couple was out from 12 to 12:30pm.
Perhaps her escort suffered from Cumulonimbus interruptus?

[Robert Linford]

I don't know whether folks have seen this site :

http://libcom.org/history/mowbray-charles-wilfred-185-1910 (http://libcom.org/history/mowbray-charles-wilfred-185-1910)

[Tom_Wescott]

Dr Strange,

If you're ordering facsimiles from Warwick U I can save you some money.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange]

Hello Tom,
It’s certainly on my list of things to do. You don’t think it’s worth it?

[drstrange]

Hello Robert,
One of the things I love about the whitechapel research is the new things you learn. I've become quite distracted lately looking at the East End anarchists. Fascinating stuff!

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,
It’s certainly on my list of things to do. You don’t think it’s worth it?

It depends on what you're hoping to find. If you're looking for hard answers they're not there. The collection is quite bareboned and like most anarchist collections, friends and family would have removed anything controversial before handing the collection over. I ordered a number of facsimiles from the collection, and while they were interesting, I can't say I learned much. There's hardly anything relating to the IWEC in there. But it was interesting nonetheless. I have some copies of Der Arbeter Fraint (not from the Wess collection) but, frustratingly, have not been able to find a Yiddish translator for them.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

So my Lord Tom, I meant to ask you ages ago, what you thought of Stewart Evan's dismissal of Liz Stride as a victim of Jack the Ripper back in the middle 1990's... and Mary Kelly too.
Something to do with Littlechild and Tumblety I suppose?

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

This might come as a shock to you, but Stewart's book was a bestseller and has been on the market for 12 years now. Therefore, the news of his views is news only to you. And I think I've been pretty clear on my opinions regarding the victims. Of the C5 the only one of whom I feel it's possible was not a Ripper victim is Stride and that's only because there's not enough medical evidence to conclusively rule her in. I have not been all that moved by any of the arguments I've read to take Kelly out of the picture.
I know what you're trying to do here. You're trying to stir mud by getting me to say I disagree with Stewart on these points, though you seem to forget that we both have for years known each other's opinions on the victims and haven't yet found reason to hate each other for it. I hope the admins are following and observing your behavior on these boards since they seem to hold decorum as a priority.
It Tumblety were proved a) to have been the Batty Street Lodger, and b) to have been the Ripper, then I believe that would cement Stride as a Ripper victim in the minds of most people, as the lodger lived only a minute's jog from Dutfield's Yard. Conversely, Stewart seems to believe that Tumblety may have been the lodger and may have been the Ripper but that Stride was not a Ripper victim. I don't understand or agree with this theory, but I respect the thought processes behind it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

And Lord Tom, I respect your thought processes in claiming Le Grand as a reasonable suspect in the murder of Liz Stride, but then postulating that Liz Stride was not a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer.
Somewhere along the line here I'm sure there are some grapes, probably sour by now though.

[Tom_Wescott]

I did not 'postulate that Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim', I merely acknowledge that it's a possibility, as it's always been, although not far from the probability some commentators suggest. The likelihood was, is, and will remain that she was a Ripper victim. But since the medical evidence does not conclusively show that she was a Ripper victim, there must always be that shadow of doubt, and therefore it's possible she was not. By contrast, the idea that Mary Kelly was not a Ripper victim was born in the 1990's and seems to have arisen out of necessity rather than new insight or information.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[SirRobertAnderson]

I hope the admins are following and observing your behavior on these boards since they seem to hold decorum as a priority.
t

I can assure you we read all the posts, and there ain't no "seem" about it.

We dearly appreciate lively debate, and realize that it's a fine line sometimes between deriding someone's theories and ideas, and insulting the person postulating said theories and ideas.

But the one overriding rule is NO PERSONAL INSULTS.

Very simple, and very straight forward.

I don't enjoy chastizing offenders; I don't enjoy banning nor threatening to ban folks whose research I admire. I realize how much hard work goes behind many posters' work on the case, and in this respect I am ultimately a fan first, a moderator second.

But we're going to keep the discussions serious and civil, one way or another.

Take this to heart.

[A.P. Wolf]

Tom, by 'necessity' in regard to Mary Kelly as a victim, I assume you are referring to the uncomfortable fact that Tumblety was in police custody at the time of her murder, so she was thrown out of the window as a victim by the researchers and writers of the time?

[A.P. Wolf]

This encounter sounds so much like what happened to Stride that I felt duty bound to post it.
An interesting sideline is that the killer gave his age as '40' to the police, when he was in fact 29; and I would assume this was to escape previous.

'HERBERT REUBEN EVERY . I live at 49, Alma Road, Brixton—on the early morning of June 27th I got out of a tramcar at Brixton Station, and walked down Alma Road—I was smoking, and to finish my smoking, I walked along Jelf Road, across Rattray Road, and in the direction of Dalberg Road—when I was near the end of Jelf Road, where it goes into Dalberg Road, I saw a man and woman on the right-hand side of the road as I was proceeding up; they were walking together very slowly—I cannot describe the man; he seemed to be rather tall, in dark clothes; she was shorter than he was, and rather stout—they were going towards Rattray Road, in the opposite direction to myself, but on the opposite side of the road—I walked on, and went up Dalberg Road; I got into Barnwell Road, and turned to the right, then to the right again, up Water Lane—I turned into Effra Road, Brixton, as far as Morval Road; I turned again to my right, and got into Rattray Road again—at the corner of Rattray Road I heard some terrible screams from the direction of Jelf
See original (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/images.jsp?doc=190107220091) http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/i/genericThumb.jpg (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/images.jsp?doc=190107220091)
Road—when I got to Jelf Road I did not see anything except a dark stream on the pavement—I ran into Dalberg Road, and saw a woman standing on the pavement near the kerb, slightly swaying—I went up to her and asked her what was the matter—she said, "Sir, he has cut my throat"—I saw dark stains on her dress and coat—she half turned, and fell full length in the road—I bent over her, to ask who had done it; she did not answer—I went back to the corner of Jelf Road, and saw a man in his shirtsleeves—he went for a doctor—I went and knocked at the first house for help, and then, when I went out at the gate, I saw Mr. Edwards at his window—he came out with a towel or something of that description—we went to the woman and lifted her up between us, and Mr. Edwards wrapped the towel round her throat—I left him with her, and went to the police-station—I returned with an ambulance, and found a doctor attending to her—as I first ran round the corner to the woman I looked round to see if I could see anybody, but I could not.
WILLIAM EDWARDS . I am a civil engineer, of 60, Dalberg Road, Brixton—on the early morning of June 27th I was in bed—I was awakened about 1.45 or 1.50 a.m. by someone calling "Help!" several times—I went to the window, which opens on to Dalberg Road—I saw a woman turn the corner from Jelf Road and come down Dalberg Road—after they got about 10 yards down, a tall man came after her—he went up to her and caught hold of her left arm and said, "What are you shouting for? hold your tongue"—he then put his left hand up to her throat and said, "What is this, blood?"—he turned round and walked in the opposite direction, and she shouted out, "My throat is cut"—she was then walking in the direction of Brixton Road, down Dalberg Road—she walked about 10 yards, and then fell right on her face on the pavement, and her feet in the gutter—I slipped on some clothes, and, taking a towel, went to where she was lying—I unbuttoned her dress, and found her throat was cut—I bound the towel round her neck, and remained with her till the police came, and I despatched my wife for Dr. Dunster—the woman's throat still continued to bleed profusely—I cannot identify the tall man; I am too near-sighted, and it was too dark to see his features.
Cross-examined. My house is 10 or 12 yards from the corner of Jelf Road—my window was wide open—it was about three minutes from the time I first heard cries of "Help!" till the woman came round the corner—she seemed to walk all right before the man went up to her, and after he walked away she continued to walk in the same direction for about 10 yards—just before she fell she wavered.
ROBERT MOYE (394 W). I was on duty in Mervan Road on the early morning of June 27th—I heard shouts of "Police!" coming from Dalberg Road—I went there, and found a woman lying on the ground near No. 60—William Edwards was there—the woman was dead when I first saw her—Dr. Dunster and another doctor came, and the body was taken to the mortuary—I noticed that her skirt pocket was turned inside out—there was nothing lying on the ground near her—I noticed some tracks of blood starting from Jelf Road about half way between Rattray Road and Dalberg Road—I followed the track; it went along Rattray Road, along Probert Road and Alma Road into Kerrick Road,
See original (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/images.jsp?doc=190107220092) http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/i/genericThumb.jpg (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/images.jsp?doc=190107220092)
and then into Atlantic Road, down to the corner of Electric Avenue—in consequence of something that was said to me I ceased to follow the track, and went at once to the police-station.
ROBERT DUNSTER . I am surgeon and physician, of 90, Kerrick Road, Brixton—about 2 a.m. on June 27th I was called by the police to Dalberg Road, where I saw the dead body of a woman lying in the gutter beside the kerb; Dr. Niall was there before me—she had a severe wound on the right side of her throat; by the time I arrived she was dead—her clothes were blood-stained—under my direction, the body was moved to the mortuary, where I made a complete examination of it—the wound on her throat started on the left side just over the middle line, in a skin-cut, and then passed to the right and ended deeply—it was 4in. or 5in. in length, and cut the deep and superficial vessels of the neck—it would require considerable force to inflict, and, in my opinion, was inflicted by some sharp instrument, such as a razor—below it, and running parallel with it there was a skin cut about 3in. long—in my opinion it was inflicted distinctly from the other, upon some other occasion—on the left fore arm I found another subcutaneous wound about 2in. long—there was a cut on each of the first and second fingers of the left hand—I think they reached to the bone—all these other wounds were such as would be inflicted by a sharp instrument like a razor—I did not make a postmortem examination; that was unnecessary, as I was able to arrive at the cause of death—it was caused by hemorrhage from the cut in the throat.
Cross-examined. The skin cut on the throat was quite superficial—the slightest drawing of a razor past the throat would produce such a cut as that—the wounds on the hands would, no doubt, be caused by a struggle—I did not see a wound on the prisoner's hands—I heard they were cut—it was the pulp on the woman's hand which was cut—it is difficult to say if the second wound in the throat was inflicted in a struggle.'

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello all, I thought I'd resurrect this thread as a 'Mike Richards-free zone' for any discussion related to Stride and her murder that does not pertain to Mike's theory currently being discussed on the IWMEC thread. I know Adam Went has some ideas, since he has an essay coming out next month. What are some areas of the case that pique YOUR curiosity?

[How Brown]

Tom:

Believe it or not, I had considered setting up Individual Forums for people in a similar vein that we have Maybrick threads set up. Not that the Forums has an agenda either way on her status...but you know what I mean.

Me ? Thats easy. I am rather surprised that BSMan gets as little consideration in our time...modern Ripperology...despite him being the only man who laid a finger on a woman that we know of. Academic,I know, but it seems people try to move hell and high water to avoid BSMan altogether.

Good idea of rejuvenating the thread,Tom.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Howard. I'm not sure how the individual forums work, but I like an all-encompassing thread like this where the talk can veer off into any avenue. And let me say that my wording in my last post was poor...I didn't mean to suggest that Mike Richards shouldn't post here, only that his theory shouldn't be discussed here, since it has it's own thread.

[SirRobertAnderson]

I am rather surprised that BSMan gets as little consideration in our time...modern Ripperology...despite him being the only man who laid a finger on a woman that we know of. Academic,I know, but it seems people try to move hell and high water to avoid BSMan altogether.

Hey, not only BS Man but the mere suggestion that what was yelled out might not have been "Lipski" but "Lippy" or "Lizzy" or the like. Suggesting that is like howling in the wind. You'd think the anti-Striders would clutch it for all its worth.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Robert, discussion that BS Man might have yelled out something other than Lipski has been going on for years, but to no avail. Abberline questioned Schwartz very closely on this point and there can be no doubt that Schwartz heard 'Lipski'. What I mean by 'there can be no doubt' is that to argue otherwise would be futile because it's not supported, and is even contradicted, by the historical record, in this case a memo from the very Inspector who interviewed him.

[How Brown]

Hi Howard. I'm not sure how the individual forums work, but I like an all-encompassing thread like this where the talk can veer off into any avenue. And let me say that my wording in my last post was poor...I didn't mean to suggest that Mike Richards shouldn't post here, only that his theory shouldn't be discussed here, since it has it's own thread. --Tom

Ditto to what I said myself Tom, since I didn't mean that either in regard to Mike or anyone else who has a different take on the Stride murder. I apologize if that might have been taken that way.

[Tom_Wescott]

Regarding BS Man, I see him as one of the most oft-discussed characters in the saga, so its interesting to note that you have a differen perspective. What is your take on him?

[How Brown]

Tom:

I think more people than you and I think dismiss Stride from the canon ( although we don't )...and as a result of that exclusion, more Ripperologists attempt to find one of the suspects who do not suffer from anonymity who "could" fit into the shoes of the Ripper...encompassing all the 1888 murders,save Berner Street.

Of course,the testimony provided by Long and Lawende doesn't help BSMan's "cause"....since BSMan was not envisioned as a foreigner based on the description by Schwartz.

The fact that Stride had a boyfriend also, in my view, is inspirational to many people in chalking the murder off to Michael Kidney. That Stride did little more than whelp when being jostled encourages people to presume that familiarity existed between Stride and her attacker. If Stride had actually screamed, she may have been spared that evening. Who knows ?

When people discuss BSMan...and you have a few more miles on you than I do in regard to the Berner Street murder, so you may have seen some very good pro-arguments I've overlooked....I find that most of the discussion is focused on BSMan as being a "walk on" who jostled her and slit her throat....a walk on who jostled her and didn't kill her....or Michael Kidney.

I think the Ripper was something other than what a lot of folks think, Tom. I don't see him being particularly troubled with being seen or heard to the extent that we assume him to have been. Thats one reason why, I guess, its easier for me to see BSMan as being the Ripper...when I think of where he killed Nichols and the situation in the back yard of Hanbury Street, both murders preceding the Berner Street crime.

Back to you...

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Howard, interesting stuff. You're absolutely correct in that a misunderstanding of BS Man and the Ripper is a primary reason people are inclined to dismiss Stride as a Ripper victim. This is unfortunate, and I hope to see that rectified in the future. The argument goes like this: BS Man behaved in a way that doesn't fit with our conceptions of the Ripper, therefore he wasn't the Ripper, but he must have been Stride's killer, and since Michael Kidney was abusive, he must have been Stride's killer, but couldn't be the Ripper. Of course, this presupposes that Kidney was as habitually abusive as many authors suggest (he was not), or that BS Man behaved any differently from Chapman's killer (he did not) or that BS Man was Stride's murderer (this is not known). An awful lot of presupposition that leads to one very erroneous conclusion (that Kidney killed Stride) and one very questionable conclusion (that Stride was not a Ripper victim). Of course,the testimony provided by Long and Lawende doesn't help BSMan's "cause"....since BSMan was not envisioned as a foreigner based on the description by Schwartz.Actually, Lawende's man was a gentile and very similar in appearance to BS Man. As for Mrs. Long, she didn't see her man's face and likely assumed he was Jewish because of the street she was on (remember she didn't live there), the way the man was dressed, and the fact that he was dark-haired.

[A.P. Wolf]

How, you appear to be isolating Stride because she had a boyfriend, Michael Kidney, but as you'll know Eddowes had a boyfriend as well, so what is the distinction you are making there?

[Tom_Wescott]

How, you appear to be isolating Stride because she had a boyfriend, Michael Kidney, but as you'll know Eddowes had a boyfriend as well, so what is the distinction you are making there? That's correct, a boyfriend she feared would give her a 'hiding' that night, only an hour before she received one! But I think what Howard means is that in Stride's case, many people feel that Stride's not yelling louder suggested she was familiar with her attacker (BS Man), and although I feel that's a faulty conclusion in itself, people then take the quantum leap to the idea that the only man on the planet she was 'familiar' with was Kidney, therefore BS Man must have been him.

[A.P. Wolf]

'Hi Howard, interesting stuff. You're absolutely correct in that a misunderstanding of BS Man and the Ripper is a primary reason people are inclined to dismiss Stride as a Ripper victim. This is unfortunate, and I hope to see that rectified in the future. The argument goes like this: BS Man behaved in a way that doesn't fit with our conceptions of the Ripper, therefore he wasn't the Ripper, but he must have been Stride's killer, and since Michael Kidney was abusive, he must have been Stride's killer, but couldn't be the Ripper. Of course, this presupposes that Kidney was as habitually abusive as many authors suggest (he was not), or that BS Man behaved any differently from Chapman's killer (he did not) or that BS Man was Stride's murderer (this is not known). An awful lot of presupposition that leads to one very erroneous conclusion (that Kidney killed Stride) and one very questionable conclusion (that Stride was not a Ripper victim). '

Tom, bless you, I didn't realise that crap could be piled as high as this, but you done it, so kudos to you, boy... you get my award of the month for the biggest pile of crap that has come my way this month.
It should be a year, but hell, I don't control time like you control crap.

[How Brown]

How, you appear to be isolating Stride because she had a boyfriend, Michael Kidney, but as you'll know Eddowes had a boyfriend as well, so what is the distinction you are making there?

A.P...Add me in on that pile pilin' cadre...because what Tom says strikes true in virtually every if not every way.

Kidney, as we both well know, mon ami...had been accused of and with domestic abuse by Stride prior to her murder the year before and was not living with her at the time of her death. In our community to many, thats like having four fingers on the knife that smote Stride. In the outside world, it means far less. That he had to have been queried sufficiently by the police seems to be disregarded...but thats what makes Ripperology what it is to some....a chance to cast common sense to the wind.

Kelly, on the other hand, is not a bigger ,younger man and cuts ( rightfully so ) a sympathetic figure at her inquest. There were no domestic issues in his resume as relates to Stride.

This same sort of thinking permeates the Kelly murder as well...but thats for another day.

Good post Tom..

[Adam Went]

Looks like it's stacks on in the crap department, then....

We can safely say that domestic violence and abuse was common place in the Victorian era - and it still is to a degree, it just gets a lot more attention these days and there are many more avenues for women to take to deal with it. In the Victorian era, it seems to have almost been considered a normality.

I definitely do agree that BS man does not fit the profile at all of Jack the Ripper, it's just a world away from all the other descriptions we have of him. The most likely scenario, in my view, is that following his attack, somebody else approached Liz, and THAT was Jack....

I deal with this, and several other topics, in my article that Tom mentioned, so I'll say no more than that at this stage, as I don't want to give too much away. I've got no doubt that there'll be plenty of comment on it after it comes out.....I mentioned to Chris George that it was a good time for it to come out at the moment, given the hefty discussions we've been having on the subject....

Cheers,
Adam.

[How Brown]

I definitely do agree that BS man does not fit the profile at all of Jack the Ripper

Perdoneme,senor...

The profile of Jack The Ripper also includes physical assault.
Got someone else who fits those jammies,buddy ?
I'll start a thread for your comments immediately,old bean.

[Cris Malone]

Hello everyone,

Since this is my first post here, I want to thank How for his hospitality and say Hi to my old friends from the other boards who know me by another name.

Much about Schwartz's statement is a mystery but I believe that all we have to do is examine Swanson's report of Oct. 19 to get and idea as to what the police thought. After summarizing the list of witnesses, Swanson compares the last two, PC Smith and Schwartz, and their relevance:

If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw and described is the man probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered. At the same time account must be taken of the fact that the throat only of the victim was cut in this instance which measured by time, considering meeting ( if with a man other than Schwartz saw) the time for the Agreement the murderous action would I think be a question of so many minutes, five at least, ten at most, so that I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer...

In the margin of the report is written ( Probably by Lushington):

But if I understand the inspector to suggest that Schwartz's man need not have been the murderer for only 15 minutes elapsed between 12:45 when Schwartz saw the man and 1:00 when the woman was found murdered on the same spot. But the suggestion is that Schwartz's man may have left her, she being a prostitute then accosted or was accosted by another man, as there was time enough for this to take place and for the other man to murder her before 1:00...

Since Swanson's report was likely influenced by Abberline, I believe the police knew what activity placed these women in harms' way and because of that, it would be hard to identify the murderer unless he was literally caught in the act. They believed Schwartz, but they certainly didn't believe Liz was standing outside the IWMEC for any other reason than soliciting.

[Tom_Wescott]

I've got no doubt that there'll be plenty of comment on it after it comes out.....I hope so, but there's usually very little discussion about the essays. I'm surprised at the number of people who call themselves Ripperologists who don't read the journals. I mentioned to Chris George that it was a good time for it to come out at the moment, given the hefty discussions we've been having on the subject....I don't think there's ever a bad time for a well-researched article. I also have a Stride piece being published in April, so we shall be duelling, good sir. I hope you'll do me the honor of giving honest feedback as well.

[A.P. Wolf]

But, folks, Kidney was not questioned or interviewed by the police in connection with the murder of Stride. He took himself off to the local lock up, drunk if you please, in horse and carriage, to soundly berate the police officers there for failing to apprehend the killer of his woman.
But she wasn't 'his' woman, at all. They had parted company some time before.
The local police took his statement, drunken as it was, and this then required his attendance at the inquest, where he spouted the sort of nonsense that really should have led to his arrest in connection with the crime.
You know, sometimes I think the absolutely obvious escapes us because we make things oh so complicated.
But think about it.
Kidney claims to be in a position where if he was given some 'tecs' he would be able to catch the killer just like that.
Kidney is ferried to the local nick in a horse and carriage.
Kidney is drunk and rambling, indicating that someone had supplied him with good alcohol.
Reminding anyone of anything yet?
Remember that a certain Le Grand was fond of ferrying witnesses to the police, fuelled up on something, when not mostly confusion.
Remember that Le Grand was a 'tec' employed by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, and 'would' catch the killer.
Remember that Eddowes was fuelled up on confusion and alcohol prior to her murder.
Do we see the hand of Le Grand in the sudden and unexpected arrival of Kidney at the police station?
I think we just might do.

[Tom_Wescott]

But think about it.Kidney claims to be in a position where if he was given some 'tecs' he would be able to catch the killer just like that.Kidney is ferried to the local nick in a horse and carriage.Kidney is drunk and rambling, indicating that someone had supplied him with good alcohol.Reminding anyone of anything yet?Remember that a certain Le Grand was fond of ferrying witnesses to the police, fuelled up on something, when not mostly confusion.Remember that Le Grand was a 'tec' employed by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, and 'would' catch the killer.That's funny, when I pointed all this out to you, you told me I as nuts. Now it's gospel. And Kidney had already given his statement to police earlier on the day and went back to the station to make his complaint and ask for a 'strange, young detective'.

[How Brown]

First of all....

Dear Cris Malone...thanks for the fine post and welcome to Hell:target:.... Permit me to add something to the following...

"Since Swanson's report was likely influenced by Abberline, I believe the police knew what activity placed these women in harms' way and because of that, it would be hard to identify the murderer unless he was literally caught in the act. They believed Schwartz, but they certainly didn't believe Liz was standing outside the IWMEC for any other reason than soliciting. -C.Malone

A simple yet succinct statement sir. One bone of contention I personally find debatable is why Stride was out front of the Club if a witness saw her rebuke a prospective client. The police might have overlooked the possibility that she was waiting for someone special...and of course, that might have been a special client. The police wouldn't be expected to consider alternatives to her presence on Berner Street even on the night in question. I would suppose they "sized her up" as a street pross on the spot ( the teeth, the "look", the whole nine yards) and after positive identification which confirmed that she was, that was that.

[How Brown]

Second of all....

Dear A.P.

"But, folks, Kidney was not questioned or interviewed by the police in connection with the murder of Stride"

And we know that from what,A.P. ?
Because we don't have a document with MEPO or CLRO with affirmation to satisfy us ? ?
Do you or anyone else mean to suggest that someone as ostentatious as Kidney was at the police station....upon being found as her boyfriend....wouldn't be queried ?
When they found out who Kidney was in relation to her, someone sat his ass down and questioned him. Just because we don't have a document with the minutes of that chit chat doesn't mean they didn't question him.
What you are suggesting is what some might think if we didn't have knowledge of Barnett's interrogation by Abberline.

[A.P. Wolf]

No, Tom, I told you that you were nuts when you claimed that Le Grand had beaten up prostitutes, when in fact he had beaten up an 'unfortunate'. You agreed with me at the time.
As did Debs and Nats.
I have never been shy of the conception of Le Grand 'manufacturing' the entire Berner Street incident, and the Mitre Square incident, to his own benefit and good, as the imagined protector of the poor and 'unfortunate' of Whitechapel, but that is a long and hard march from your claim that Le Grand was the killer.
It is difficult for me to say, Tom, but you do sometimes appear to be unable to grasp the true character and history of Le Grand, and then apply that in a useful fashion to the Whitechapel Murders.
You go for the 'Grand', and I go for the 'le'.
I guess that is because you have a vast and vested interest in the material you are publishing on the subject.
I'll just keep flicking elastic rubbers at the sun in the hope of conception.
Leaving you and many others to deception in deceptive regard for publication.
It is a sin to type even one more letter after you get to 'pub'.

[SirRobertAnderson]

the teeth, .

It has been expressed several times that since Stride was clutching cachous as she died, she must have been anticipating a date or a romantic rendezvous.

She happens to be the only victim where we have a bit of knowledge regarding her dental issues.

I'm not trying to be gross for the sake of being offensive, but isn't it reasonable to think that perhaps Stride had halitosis to the extent that she HAD to use breath fresheners to have hope of a successful solicitation ?

[How Brown]

Bob:

She could have been waiting for someone to crash over at their crib or in the act of selective soliciting or just liked to eat cachous...I dunno.

I want to know whether A.P. thinks the Met Police were that stupid to not question Kidney.

[A.P. Wolf]

'I want to know whether A.P. thinks the Met Police were that stupid to not question Kidney. '

Yes.

[How Brown]

Dear A.P.

...But if the police were not smart enough to question Kidney as you suggest...how did they all of a sudden get smartened up and interrogate Barnett for hours ?

[SirRobertAnderson]

Bob:

She could have been waiting for someone to crash over at their crib or in the act of selective soliciting or just liked to eat cachous...I dunno.

It's not a trivial matter as the cachous have factored into more than a few theories as to what happened that night.

Anyone have a friend that's a dentist ?

I want to know whether A.P. thinks the Met Police were that stupid to not question Kidney.

I do not doubt for a minute that he will say they were. It's funny, because suspecting friends, lovers and relatives would be the first thing they would do, having little conception of the existence of SKs. (It's still SOP to this day.)

[How Brown]

I do not doubt for a minute that he will say they were. It's funny, because suspecting friends, lovers and relatives would be the first thing they would do, having little conception of the existence of SKs.--Sir Bob

Of course they would. In this case, what's different than in any other case ?

Thats right. Nothing. Only the desire to pin the murder on Kidney in order to remove Stride from the string of Ripper related murders,as far as I can see.

Although the same "stupid" Met Police force are found interrogating Barnett just 40 days later...one account has them at him for 4 hours....the cops handling Stride's murder are all single digit I.Q. and couldn't concieve of questioning Kidney...even when he entered the police station.

Next....

[Cris Malone]

One bone of contention I personally find debatable is why Stride was out front of the Club if a witness saw her rebuke a prospective client. The police might have overlooked the possibility that she was waiting for someone special...and of course, that might have been a special client. The police wouldn't be expected to consider alternatives to her presence on Berner Street even on the night in question. I would suppose they "sized her up" as a street pross on the spot ( the teeth, the "look", the whole nine yards) and after positive identification which confirmed that she was, that was that.

Hello How,

If you're talking about Brown's statement in regards to the rebuke, I'm not so sure that it was Stride he saw, as there may have been another couple at that location and Brown didn't remember seeing any flowers on the woman's lapel. He also said that he was "almost certain" that it was Stride when he saw her at the mortuary... And if it was Liz, what she said could mean anything.

The most credible witness we have, in my humble opinion, is PC Smith, who did see a woman with a flower on her lapel at app. 12:35, most likely Stride talking to the man with the parcel. She is apparently seen from 11:45 on ( Garner and Best) with different men ( unless someone took a hat rack with them) . Of all of the canonical victims, Elizabeth Stride has more witnesses than any of the rest( good or bad). I believe the police sized up a pattern and determined that they had to find a witness who saw a victim with someone as near to the time they were killed as possible because they thought that a prostitute would "accost" or be "accosted" by many different men on a given night... Hence their interpretation of Schwartz's testimony. If one reads through Swanson's report, he mentions Lawende's sighting of Eddowes and a man very close to the time she was killed. He even writes that it was a shame that Lawende only identified her by her clothes because he wanted a more positive identification of the victim, realizing the significance of Lawende's sighting... and look how the police ended up using Lawende in the future.

I appreciate your welcome "to Hell", LOL. I know what you mean but I am more than willing to jump in the fire and I just might have a few jabs with a pitchfork as well.

[How Brown]

He even writes that it was a shame that Lawende only identified her by her clothes because he wanted a more positive identification of the victim, realizing the significance of Lawende's sighting... and look how the police ended up using Lawende in the future.- C.Malone

Good points pardner.

[Adam Went]

Tom:

Pleased to hear that there will be another Stride article appearing along with mine.....might I ask what the subject of yours is?

I will be happy to provide some comments on yours as well.

Anyway, as for the cachous..... some would say that Liz had dressed up more than usual that night, so if that was the case, it might not have been a dental issue, it simply might have been her trying to make herself as attractive as possible to any potential clients.

I would suggest that the general state of breath freshness and dental perfection were quite low amongst both male and female unfortunates in the Victorian era....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Cris Malone]

Hello How,

I realize this thread's been all over the place... What's new?, LOL... but my point about BS man, and Schwartz's statement in particular was that the police gave him creedence but still thought his evidence was open ended. Given the habits of street prostitutes, as they perceived them, they figured that these women would come in contact with many men in a short period of time and that Liz could very well have met her killer after her encounter with BS man. That, in my opinion, is why they valued Lawende's testimony, and evidently used him later, instead of Schwartz as Lawende's man was seen near the closest time of death of one of the victims. They still, circulated BS man's description around in the immediate days following the murders, although Schwartz appears to eventually fall off their radar, so to speak, unlike Lawende.

Though there is no documented proof of this, I suspect that Abberline, being "street wise", concluded that an altercation like Schwartz described would not have been uncommon between a prostitute and a drunk in the street at that time of night. Liz was probably used to it. Abberline had to be smart enough to look at the evidence and deduce that Liz's death was the result of an unexpected attack, instead of an altercation of some kind. Swanson obviously coresponded with Abberline before he made his report and I believe Abberline's knowledge of the people of the east end, just like his deduction of the use of the word "Lipski", is the reason Swanson offered a cautionary notation in respect to Schwartz's statement.

I might add that if Schwartz didn't testify at the inquest, this could be due to the police as well, for at times they seemed to hold coroner's inquests with the same "esteem" as they did the press.

Anyway, that's just my take on the whole Schwartz, BS man episode.

OK, fellers, yall can go back to the important discussion of which one is full of the most crap. I'll pop open a beer and watch the show... at least its more fun than cuttin' your toenails.:party:

[How Brown]

Another good one,Cris. Thanks for that;)


I'll ask it again.

Dear A.P.

...But if the police were not smart enough to question Kidney as you suggest...how did they all of a sudden get smartened up and interrogate Barnett for hours ?

[How Brown]

One possible reason to consider Stride's presence on Berner Street that night as not being one of intent to solicit....might be the comment offered by either a policeman who worked that beat before or a local resident( Damned if I can remember without going and looking it up...) that solicitation was uncommon there.

Anyone with thoughts on this ?

[Mike Richards]

Hello all,

There has been some suspect conclusions made regarding Liz's appearance, demeanor and those darned cachous....so just to ensure that everyone realizes what the average client of an East End Unfortunate at midnight might look and smell like....at that time Dockers reported the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases among the working classes, followed by various labour positions across the area including Slaughterhouse workers, railway workers, and warehousemen. Since virtually no-one in that area brushed their teeth regularly or at all...and since many would be on the street late at night working or just having finished work, most would have dirt, blood, sweat and odors related to their work on them.

So...to suggest that Liz Stride put on her "good evening wear", wanted to brush lint from her skirt, added a flower arrangement to her ensemble and was preparing to freshen her mouth in order to become more attractive to that group of potential clients is... at best....dreaming...and its contrary to what every other Unfortunate when faced with the prospect of having to solicit clients one night would or could do in preparation. Few would even have an option to wear good evening wear vs the clothing they would wear day in and out. Look at Kate for example.

There are very few reasons for Liz to have gussied up like she did that night....and some just dont want to face that fact. And none would have any relationship whatsoever with a plan to have sex with dirty strange men in dark corners.

She had the money for her bed before she left the lodging house and stated at that time she would not be returning...not that she would pay later.

So...she had no need to solicit for a bed, ....just like Mary Kelly in that regard,...and she died without alcohol in her system, so it would seem she didnt need it for drink either.

Time to accept the facts that only 1 Canonical is a full time prostitute to our knowledge, and that all the remaining women earned money as best they could before they would resorttodoing that. Some had booze issues that made them earn their bed doss multiple times, but Mary Ann, Annie, Liz and Kate were NOT....100%...full time prostitutes.

Anyone who believes an Unfortunate is a synonym for Prostitute should go back to reading up on the cases, the residents of the area and the period. They clearly are separate terms....and different lifestyles.

If anyone suggests that an Unfortunate would dress up and get flowers and cachous to look smell nice for clients of the East End after midnight you can be certain that they have obviously skipped some historical reading or ignored it.

My best regards all.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Mike - you are going to have to learn how to post in the Forums without insulting your "opponents". The Forums are moderated and they are moderated for a reason. Don't force me to start editing your posts. I hate that above all else.

OK mod hat off. Poster hat on.

Stride is the only victim where we have a good idea of her dental challenges. I am not an expert, nor to I pretend to be. "Stride was a 45-year-old.... missing her front teeth and the roof of her mouth." From what I have gleaned from the Net, halitosis comes (mainly) from the back of the tongue and the roof of the mouth. Does missing your palate create an even bigger food trap? I think it might.

Stride might very well have been a habitual user of breath fresheners.

All I am saying is that the presence of the cachous in her hands tells us nothing about her intentions for the evening, other than she was killed with no warning of an impending attack.

I will end by saying that our opinion of what Stride was up to that evening does not really matter. Jack's opinion is the one that counts.



So...to suggest that Liz Stride put on her "good evening wear", wanted to brush lint from her skirt, added a flower arrangement to her ensemble and was preparing to freshen her mouth in order to become more attractive to that group of potential clients is... at best....dreaming...

If anyone suggests that an Unfortunate would dress up and get flowers and cachous to look smell nice for clients of the East End after midnight you can be certain that they have obviously skipped some historical reading or ignored it.

.

[Mike Richards]

Hi Sir Robert,

I hear your complaint and will only add that when I read something that is blatantly incorrect I feel it does far more to damage the site and its credibility to leave it unchallenged than a correction would. But point taken.

I would agree that perhaps Liz did have poor breath from her ailment, but I dont know that I would agree that she would buy those sweetmeats regularly...not if faced with only money for eating or sleeping as a regular income.

My point was that she would almost certainly not buy them so she might attract clients easier...the kinds of men she serviced when forced to would care less about her breath and be in no state themselves to expect cleanliness and fresh smells from another poverty stricken resident.

I also agree, we dont know what her killer thought she was doing there, but we do know what we can see evidence for.

My best regards SRA

[Adam Went]

SirBob makes a good point.

We know little about the activities of any of these women, and we can't know how Liz normally behaved when she was out soliciting. We DO know that she was rather a clean and tidy lady, so it's not a huge stretch to suggest that she also liked to look her best when out and about. She might have had the packet of cachous for ages, and took them out with her whenever she went out soliciting....

I mean, as a client, if you have the choice between a woman with decent appearance and fresh breath, or a scraggly old woman that smells like she hasn't showered in a month, you're going to take the former option, right?

So to say that Liz was making any special effort that night is an assumption in itself.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mike Richards]

SirBob makes a good point.

We know little about the activities of any of these women, and we can't know how Liz normally behaved when she was out soliciting. We DO know that she was rather a clean and tidy lady, so it's not a huge stretch to suggest that she also liked to look her best when out and about. She might have had the packet of cachous for ages, and took them out with her whenever she went out soliciting....

I mean, as a client, if you have the choice between a woman with decent appearance and fresh breath, or a scraggly old woman that smells like she hasn't showered in a month, you're going to take the former option, right?

So to say that Liz was making any special effort that night is an assumption in itself.

Cheers,
Adam.

We do know for a fact that Liz Stride had work clothing that she used when cleaning rooms or working for clients...which included at that time Adam Jewish families....and that she wore instead her "good evening wear".

As I said, find one account of a homeless Unfortunate preening so she can go solicit business on the street from poor local men, then we might look to see if Liz Stride fits in that "model". As it is now though, that model exists only in words on this site...not in any evidence of any Unfortunate Ive read about.

Best regards

[Cris Malone]

Who's to say what her preferred clients were? She had been around the block long enough to learn some tricks of the trade. Her appearance would likely become more important to her as she was getting older and would need to remain desirable. She may have intentionally sought clients other than dock workers and labourers. The IWMEC at that time of night would have been a good spot in comparison to say... Tiger Bay.

[A.P. Wolf]

The pressure point in this thread appears to be whether Stride was an 'unfortunate' or a working prostitute, with a group claiming she was without a doubt a working prostitute, but that group appears to be basing their evidence on the long accepted fact that Jack the Ripper killed prostitutes so anyone he killed must have been a prostitute.
The other group, which includes little ol' me, are countering that claim by arguing that Jack the Ripper killed 'unfortunates' and not working prostitutes. In other words women who had no choice but to prostitute themselves when other avenues of employment were not open to them. Again in other words they were not professional prostitutes, they were just normal folks like you and me, and when down on their luck had to resort to doing things that they would rather not do, but they did those things just to stay alive.
I think there is an element of masculine miscalculation here, in that the entire saga of Jack the Ripper remains simple when he murdered prostitutes; but it becomes enormously complicated, and perhaps beyond the common male comprehension of these events, if he murdered 'unfortunates'.
If Stride had been an accomplished prostitute she would have walked the West End as a Gay Lady of the night; if Stride had dressed herself well to attract and entertain clients as an accomplished prostitute she would have taken herself off to the numerous West End clubs and pubs where the Gay girls earnt powerful money. She would not be stood outside of a working man's club in the East End of London.
Stride was a frikking mess. She straightened herself out and made the effort to get out of the vicious cycle of male violence from her partner and seek new avenues to explore as an 'unfortunate' seeking to be a 'fortunate'.
It suits many here to see Stride as a prostitute.
But give the unfortunate girl a break you greedy bastards.

[Tom_Wescott]

As I said, find one account of a homeless Unfortunate preening so she can go solicit business on the street from poor local men, then we might look to see if Liz Stride fits in that "model". 'Jolly bonnet' ring a bell? If Polly can buy a bonnet and a dress without raising your eyebrows, why can't Liz ask to borrow a lint brush? Keep in mind that Stride had enjoyed a regular residence for 3 years so it should be expected she'd have better clothes and habits than girls sleeping in Itchy Park and so forth. I'm struck by how Nichols and Chapman could not get their doss, but Stride got her lodging house keeper to pay HER to clean. That's resourcefulness. As for the cachous, they were cheap and she had money, as did the men she was with. Two of her clients were seen kissing on her, so it might be reasonable to suppose they gave the packet to her.

[Tom_Wescott]

The pressure point in this thread appears to be whether Stride was an 'unfortunate' or a working prostitute, with a group claiming she was without a doubt a working prostitute, but that group appears to be basing their evidence on the long accepted fact that Jack the Ripper killed prostitutes so anyone he killed must have been a prostitute.This 'group' includes the Metropolitan Police and people who personally knew her. Your 'group' includes Mike Richards. Have fun with that.

[Tom_Wescott]

Stride is the only victim where we have a good idea of her dental challenges. I am not an expert, nor to I pretend to be. "Stride was a 45-year-old.... missing her front teeth and the roof of her mouth." Actually, the roof of her mouth was fine. This was one of her many lies to explain her speech impediment, which may have been the remnants of her Swedish accent. She had the money for her bed before she left the lodging house and stated at that time she would not be returning.This is not at all true, in case anyone read it and was wondering.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom:Pleased to hear that there will be another Stride article appearing along with mine.....might I ask what the subject of yours is?Thanks for your interest, Adam. It's called 'Exonerating Michael Kidney', and does just that. Also it follows the Kidney myths back to AP Wolf's book, which I quote liberally from. It also traces the idea that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim back and considers how it evolved over the years and the many myths associated with this popular train of thought. Also I show that Stride visited the Berner Street area in the days before her murder and possibly also Hanbury Street.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Stride was a frikking mess. She straightened herself out and made the effort to get out of the vicious cycle of male violence from her partner and seek new avenues to explore as an 'unfortunate' seeking to be a 'fortunate'.
It suits many here to see Stride as a prostitute.
But give the unfortunate girl a break you greedy bastards.

If the younger and prettier Mary Kelly was just one rung up on the social scale, how could Stride possibly hope to up-market herself ?

Stride, BTW, became a prostitute back in Sweden long before she came to England.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Actually, the roof of her mouth was fine.

Thanks for the correction. I see that several sources state different things about her missing teeth, with one saying she was missing all her lower left teeth.

What was the real state of things dental for Ms. Stride ?

[How Brown]

Masculine miscalculation ? What does this mean ? Women in the LVP saw these sorts of ladies in the same light,A.P.

"The other group, which includes little ol' me, are countering that claim by arguing that Jack the Ripper killed 'unfortunates' and not working prostitutes. In other words women who had no choice but to prostitute themselves when other avenues of employment were not open to them. Again in other words they were not professional prostitutes, they were just normal folks like you and me, and when down on their luck had to resort to doing things that they would rather not do, but they did those things just to stay alive.."--A.P.

You being serious ? Nichols made her money two or three times that night,blew it like an idiot, went out and tried to make it the same way she got it the first two or three times. Gimme a break. You seem to always look for scapegoats for these women's lack of willpower. Try them themselves. She was also a thief who blew ( pun intended ) a good chance at not being a prostitute earlier on.


If Stride had been an accomplished prostitute she would have walked the West End as a Gay Lady of the night; if Stride had dressed herself well to attract and entertain clients as an accomplished prostitute she would have taken herself off to the numerous West End clubs and pubs where the Gay girls earnt powerful money. She would not be stood outside of a working man's club in the East End of London.

....And if my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle. Stride was a prostitute... no, make that a registered prostitute in her native Sweden before she came to Britain. Whats with this "if she was an accomplished prostitute" jazz ? She was.

Stride was a frikking mess. She straightened herself out and made the effort to get out of the vicious cycle of male violence from her partner and seek new avenues to explore as an 'unfortunate' seeking to be a 'fortunate'.

By doing what ? Prostitution ? Great career move in the midst of the Ripper scare.
By the way, how do we know Stride was a mess ? We do know she was a bullshit artist who lied in order to gain sympathy regarding the Princess Alice disaster and her imaginary losses.

It suits many here to see Stride as a prostitute.
But give the unfortunate girl a break you greedy bastards.

I'm in the midst of making a dashboard figurine out of breath mints and crazy glue, of St. Liz, sans teeth, as we speak.

[Mike Richards]

This is not at all true, in case anyone read it and was wondering.

According to Catherine Lane it was, she was told to hold the velvet piece until she might return for it, but also left the clear impression that she did not intend to reclaim it that night. Some Press plus Inquest accounts. When she left Catherine Lane would have no reason to suspect that Liz would return that night....only at some future point for her fabric.

Since she left Kidney without saying goodbye on Tuesday, she is free to go and do anything she likes....and we already know when on decent terms with Kidney she was gone at times for weeks over the course of their time together. To my knowledge no-one has ever found records of her being in public lodging houses or work houses during those periods....nor hospitals, so its probable she was about to find a new bed that didnt cost 4d, as she had likely done a few times before.. for the foreseeable future.

Sounds to me the only thing she wondered about was whether her new arrangements would work out for any length of time...hence, Catherine Lane becomes the velvet keeper.

Cheers Tom

[Tom_Wescott]

Mike, you stated that Stride intimated she would not be returning that night. That means she told someone she would not be coming back, but this is not at all the case. She likely did intend to return to the doss house that night. Sir Robert, as for Stride's teeth, she was missing some upper teeth, but I can't recall offhand the specifics.

[Mike Richards]

Mike, you stated that Stride intimated she would not be returning that night. That means she told someone she would not be coming back, but this is not at all the case. She likely did intend to return to the doss house that night. Sir Robert, as for Stride's teeth, she was missing some upper teeth, but I can't recall offhand the specifics.

I assume youve read all Catherine Lanes remarks...press and Inquest?

She does say Liz said she would not return that evening...which is the very reason for the velvet handover.

Cheers Tom

[Tom_Wescott]

She does say Liz said she would not return that evening...which is the very reason for the velvet handover.Please quote your source, without changing so much as a letter, please.

[How Brown]

Tommy...Mike....

Let me save everyone the wait:

The Times Inquest report from the 4th states:

"Deceased did not tell me she was coming back." (Page 171 from the Ultimate for quick reference/source)

Thats different than

"She does say Liz said she would not return that evening..."- Mike

Bottom line, Stride did not tell Lane whether she was or wasn't returning.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, Howard. Of course, I knew what it said, but I thought it would be fun to see Mike wrestle with it. LOL. It's a good thing for him he never puts money on his challenges.

[Cris Malone]

The important thing in the testimonies is that no one took notice of Stride not returning because it was considered normal. In other words, Stride's behavior that night was considered no different than any other night; except the end results were different- likely as a result of her normal behavior.

[How Brown]

Exactly Cris...
Charles Preston said that "(she) never mentioned what time she was getting back..." Times,October 4th

[Adam Went]

Tom:

Sounds like yours will be an excellent article. Looking forward to it. And probably a good companion to mine, actually. We work well together Tom....we should collaborate.... ;)

Cris:

Yes you're right, and you wouldn't imagine that in a lodging house crammed full of people that it would be common for them to state publicly whether they were going to be returning that night or not. Partially because nobody else there really cared, partially because the woman herself wouldn't know whether she was going to be back or not - it all depended on whether she earned and kept enough money for her doss, or whether she blew it all on alcohol before she had a chance to get back to the lodging house.

Mike:

A clear case of mis-quoting the actual evidence....but I've already mentioned that same thing on another thread, so let's leave it at that here.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Cris Malone]

Hi Adam,

Its hard for us to imagine, in our comfortable world, what life was like for many people back then, even though we read about it. People like Stride, and the other women for that matter, didn't live from one day to the next; they lived from minute to minute- no yesterday; no tommorow. They learned to adjust to the moment; and the moment was all that was relevant.

Alcohol, in some form, was part of nearly everyone's diet, as the water was often contaminated. Some people were able to adjust their intake so they wouldn't become inebriated and some obviously didn't. Remember Mrs. Prater, on the morning of Mary Kelly's murder, went to the pub soon after awakening; had a bit of "the hair of the dog", then went back to bed.

For many of these "unfortunates" drink took priority over lodging, hence, the practice of only paying for a bed at the last minute. This is why they often found themselves out on the street, late at night when the need for a bed finally took precedent over their earlier activities. Yes, some of them worked odd jobs during the day, as Stride did, but that money was now gone. Their only option at this point was panhandling or prostitution and with the pubs closing and many men walking the streets these women would position themselves along major thoroughfares like Commercial St. or Whitechapel High St. to solicit the men leaving the pubs. The pub owners were leary about soliciting inside their establishments because of the police- unless the woman could make herself look reasonably respectable. Some would drift into the side streets like Tiger Bay, which was near Berner St.

Now, Dr. Phillips stated that he found no malt in Stride's stomach, leaving the impression that she had not been drinking. He said the same about Chapman as well, but I've always wondered just how accuarate such diagnosis was. Alcohol is absorbed quickly into the blood stream and the traces of such a beverage would vanish in probably less than an hour. Though Stride didn't appear inebriated to the witnesses, I find it difficult to believe that she hadn't been drinking at some point earlier. With the rain lasting half of the night and Liz's clothes being found dry, she likely had been inside somewhere until the rain stopped.

Nevertheless, by 1 a.m. her sixpence and whatever else she may have earned was gone. She may have been waiting on someone in particular; I don't know, but it was a strange circumstance that she was in if that was the case. Perhaps the men at the club could have offered a clue; but they didn't. She had resorted to prostitution before, when she and Kidney had separated- her friends admitted that and I just don't see any evidence that her behaviour would have changed.

[How Brown]

Dear Cris:

Again,a typically fine post.
Allow me to simply mention that October 5th Inquest testimony & determination of Dr. Phillips when asked about alcohol in relation to Stride. By the way,for what its worth, I also find it difficult to believe Stride had not been drinking during the day...but this is what Phillips said:

"Was there any sign of liquor in the stomach?
"There was no trace of it."

This is a doctor with many an autopsy under his belt. Why would we doubt his assertion ?
If we do it here,Cris....then why not everywhere else, if you see my drift.

Thanks again.

[Adam Went]

G'day Chris,

To be honest with you, I would like to agree with you about Liz having been drinking, as it would certainly explain where the sixpence had gone to. But, unfortunately, the medical and witness statements all seem to disagree with that.

We know that she had been drinking much earlier that night with her lodging house lady, Elizabeth Tanner. I can only assume that Tanner payed for the drinks as Liz still had her sixpence that Tanner had given her earlier when she left the lodging house again, after returning from the pub.

Now, I think all of us here would know that if you've been drinking earlier in the day, and then you have a break, you don't particularly feel like drinking again later that same day. Once you stop, you generally stop for good. Some people would disagree, but if you try it, you often end up very sick indeed - yet no witnesses saw Liz leaning over a fence bringing it all back up again either.

If she had planned on drinking later that night, maybe then she simply didn't feel like it. As for the sixpence, part of it could have gone on the flower she was wearing and the cachous she was clutching. I've stated before that I wouldn't think this would cost sixpence, but there are about 6 hours which are unaccounted for, so she could have done anything during that time. I mentioned before the possibility that she lost the money she had when BS man wrestled her to the street just before her murder. A possibility, perhaps?

In any case, no matter how much of an immunity she had built up to alcohol, the autopsy would surely have shown it up - but it didn't, and we have the multiple witness statements - so while it would indeed be a good, probably obvious, explanation, we have to work with what we have.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mike Richards]

Hello all,

It would seem after searching for a quote I believed I had read that there is not one quoted precisely as I had stated, therefore, I apologize for the error.

However, most of you who are gloating a catching me in an error have misrepresented what was said in your state of glee....

"She did not tell me where she was going on the Saturday evening when she left the kitchen of the lodging-house, but she gave me a piece of velvet, and asked me to mind it until she came back. Supposing I wanted to leave anything at the lodging-house the deputy would mind it. I do not know why she asked me to look after the velvet, as the deputy would have done the same for her. - [Witness produced the velvet, and stated that she had seen the deceased with it on Friday.] I know deceased has sixpence when she left the lodgings. She showed me the sixpence, and said, that the deputy gave it to her. She did not say when she was coming back. She did not say she was coming back that evening."

Clearly suggesting that she intended it for safe keeping until she returned....which she did not indicate would be later that night. And of course, she left with her doss in her pocket.

Best regards all.

[Cris Malone]

"Was there any sign of liquor in the stomach?
"There was no trace of it."

This is a doctor with many an autopsy under his belt. Why would we doubt his assertion ?
If we do it here,Cris....then why not everywhere else, if you see my drift.


Hello How,

I don't doubt that Phillips found no liquor in Elizabeth's stomach. From what I understand from a friend in the medical field, the way they used to determine that was actually smelling the stomach contents and looking for residue of malt ( if the person had been drinking beer or ale). But I was also told that these ingredients would not linger long. While some foods are broken down in the stomach and then passed on to the small intestines to complete digestion, alchohol is absorbed by the stomach fairly quicky- entering the bloodstream. Many of us have probably "shotguned" a beer in our younger days and remember the effect. Chapman's witnesses did testify that she was drunk when she was tossed out of the lodging house, yet Phillips found no alcohol in her stomach as well. However, it should be noted that she was probably ill and may have appeared tipsy.

Anyway, this was something I brought up because, given the nature of these women, it seemed like a paradox. In the scheme of things it really doesn't matter as the nature of their demise is what concerns us. My main point was that all of the canonical victims were evidently penniless when they were killed- including Stride- and may explain why they recklessly exposed themselves to danger.

[How Brown]

It would seem after searching for a quote I believed I had read that there is not one quoted precisely as I had stated, therefore, I apologize for the error.

No need to apologize. Everyone makes mistakes.

However, most of you who are gloating a catching me in an error have misrepresented what was said in your state of glee....

No Mike..."they" haven't. I brought up the direct quote from the Inquest in the Times and what you provided ( below) is not found anywhere in the Times account.

""She did not tell me where she was going on the Saturday evening when she left the kitchen of the lodging-house, but she gave me a piece of velvet, and asked me to mind it until she came back. Supposing I wanted to leave anything at the lodging-house the deputy would mind it. I do not know why she asked me to look after the velvet, as the deputy would have done the same for her. - [Witness produced the velvet, and stated that she had seen the deceased with it on Friday.] I know deceased has sixpence when she left the lodgings. She showed me the sixpence, and said, that the deputy gave it to her. She did not say when she was coming back. She did not say she was coming back that evening."

"...She did not say she was coming back that evening." does not appear anywhere in the Times inquest report of October 4th.

It would be most appreciated if you would provide the source for the version you've placed on the boards.
Thanks Mike.

[Tom_Wescott]

Was there any sign of liquor in the stomach?"There was no trace of it."I believe that should read 'malt' liquor, as that is all Phillips did or could test for. As Adam pointed out, there's no question that Stride was drinking around 7pm that evening, and considering she was later seen inside the Bricklayer's Arms, then outside the George IV pub, then outside the Berner Street club, we can feel pretty secure that this alcoholic was drinking. It would seem after searching for a quote I believed I had read that there is not one quoted precisely as I had stated, therefore, I apologize for the error.However, most of you who are gloating a catching me in an error have misrepresented what was said in your state of glee....Not gloating, Mike. I've had to correct a thousand of your errors, so at this point it's more frustration that you have so little respect for myself, the evidence, and the case that you continually filter everything you read through the silly theory in your head. The truth is that it was assumed Stride would be returning that evening.

[How Brown]

Thanks again Cris.
My original post on the matter in question was in regard to the methodology of Phillips ( in this case) in determining post mortem alcohol content on a deceased person. I'm hip to the fact they used to smell the stomach. Thanks for mentioning it in your post.
It seems that this method of ascertaining alcohol content at the time was a "hit or miss" deal.
There's a wide margin for error in this practice as I am sure you can see.
It makes me also wonder what else in terms of how medicos ascertained "evidence" is in need of reexamination as it relates to the WM.

[How Brown]

I believe that should read 'malt' liquor, as that is all Phillips did or could test for.-TW

Tom...if thats a fact...that the doctors conducting post mortems couldn't detect anything other than liquor containing malt, then thats a new one on me.

I never knew that. Thanks..

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Howard. I'm no expert on the Victorian autopsy and don't know Phillips' methods. I just meant that most or all of the inquest testimonies I've read had Phillips specifically say she had consumed no 'malt' liquor.

[A.P. Wolf]

'and may explain why they recklessly exposed themselves to danger.'

Cris, that is another one of these very dangerous assumptions, for you do not know that, and I do not know that, especially when one of the supposed victims was murdered in her own home, which is not a reckless place but a safe place... supposedly.
I'm assuming that you are aware that the churches in Whitechapel held an early morning service for the worn out and weary of Whitechapel, where they could go to find some kind of solace from the ills of the streets, and it is likely that many of the victims may well have been heading to a church for some kind of sanctuary.
That is just as reasonable as your assertion that a few homeless women were being reckless by wandering the streets because they were homeless.
You will note that one of the 'unfortunate' witenesses in Kelly's case was returning from church very early in the morning.
I know it easy to make such assumptions, but trust me it is much more fun to find the truth.

[How Brown]

Personally, I would think it took little more than an IQ in the range of 5 to realize after Smith,Tabram,Nichols, & Chapman...women who were prostituting themselves were in more danger than ever before and they knew it.

Although we do not know if Nichols was in the act of solicitation when she was killed and neither do we know that about Tabram or Smith....the newspapers made it known that these women had been engaged "in the life".

Are we to assume that "homeless" women weren't aware of the same stories circulating that the street prosses did ? The neighborhood scuttlebutt was that women in the life ( which is why we have reports of them going out in pairs...not sure how many or for how long...) were being taken out for keeps.

"and it is likely that many of the victims may well have been heading to a church for some kind of sanctuary.--A.P.

A.P old bean.....please name just one who might have been heading to church that morning.

[A.P. Wolf]

How, I just find it a tad strange to describe homeless women as being reckless about their homeless behaviour when they were perhaps just attempting to find a home for the night.
Especially when that is being used as an indicator of a killer's profile and behaviour when he supposedly killed a woman in her home.

[Adam Went]

The statement that "She did not say she was coming back that evening" does not translate as "She said she wasn't going to be back that evening", and should not be misconstrued as such.

When these women headed out, they themselves probably didn't know when or if they would be back - it's like going fishing, the more you catch, the longer you're going to stay. If you don't catch anything, you might change your tactics, and failing that, give up altogether.

Tom:

I am by no means a doctor, but would have thought that it would have been easier to notice alcohol of any sort in a stomach which was almost empty?

Even so, we have the witness statements saying that Liz was sober that night....whatever happened from 7 PM until 12.30 AM, she didn't go out and get "smashed", as her fellow victim Kate Eddowes did that night....

Cheers,
Adam.

[How Brown]

Dear Old Bean..

How, I just find it a tad strange to describe homeless women as being reckless about their homeless behaviour when they were perhaps just attempting to find a home for the night.

Which is why I asked you which of the victims might have been in seek of a local church for sanctuary. That they were without doss..at least in three circumstances (Nichols,Chapman, and Eddowes...Smith is alleged to have been robbed...Tabram's presence on the landing is up for grabs...and Stride was stationary ) was in fact mostly if not all their fault.
If they were of the mindset that a church or alternate lodging was an immediate necessity, they had ample time to at least try to enter one on the nights in question.

Especially when that is being used as an indicator of a killer's profile and behaviour when he supposedly killed a woman in her home.

To me, A.P., Kelly's murder, if not a copycat effort to be objective here, might have been the result of a few factors not present in the other street murders. One,being the weather. Two, being the presence of pairs of men or the police in areas the killer had hoped to strike. Three, possibly being the first opportunity the killer had with someone with their own digs. All speculative, to be sure, and I'm sure others have better speculative suggestions too.
I'm with you that to try and connect the street murders with Kelly's (indoor) requires speculation in terms of the location that the murders occurred and has a little/lot less in common with the murders prior to Nov. 9th.

[A.P. Wolf]

How, being homeless is a condition you cannot fix without a home, but to suggest that the victims were blatantly looking for a sexual encounter to secure that home is a mind set away from simply being homeless. It is giving motivation to the motivelessness. We seek a killer here, and I do get the awful feeling that folks here are still looking for victims, and giving them motive rather than the killer, and then deliberately obscuring the very real purpose of this site with their... ran out of steam there.
Give the victims a chance and they will speak.

[How Brown]

How, being homeless is a condition you cannot fix without a home, but to suggest that the victims were blatantly looking for a sexual encounter to secure that home is a mind set away from simply being homeless.

Fair enough A.P.
If that were the case...that the victims weren't determined to find or in the act of looking for a sexual encounter...then in your judgment, do you contend that:
1. Tabram was sleeping in George Yard
2. Nichols might have been simply en route to a location to nod out
3. Chapman may have been using the loo in 29 Hanbury Street or nodding in the backyard
4. Eddowes may have been attempting to snooze in the corner of Mitre Square
????

Or do you have a different interpretation of the matter ?

I will set up a thread in order to not derail the thread with this discussion.
Sorry about that folks...back to Stride.

[Cris Malone]

Cris, that is another one of these very dangerous assumptions, for you do not know that, and I do not know that, especially when one of the supposed victims was murdered in her own home, which is not a reckless place but a safe place... supposedly.


Hello AP,

I'm not assuming anything except as a historian, I've learned that the people at that time knew the people at that time better than we do- Hence the quote from the Daily News.

As far as Kelly was concerned, she was behind on the rent, her "man" wasn't helping her and she was a prostitute . Hell, most of the women in Miller's Court seemed to be prostitutes. Kelly just took the wrong customer. I know that's simple minded, but I'm a simple minded feller.

[Adam Went]

Kelly was well and truly behind on her rent! 29 shillings behind infact - that is a lot of money by 1888 standards. John McCarthy was on the verge of having to kick her out. It must have been a difficult time for Mary, slipping further into debt, having her arguments with Joe Barnett, etc....

We must remember as well that these women weren't soliciting, or didn't solicit just solely for a bed for the night - they all enjoyed a drink perhaps a little too much, and money often went to this. Plus they had to eat in order to survive of course, and that was just another expense....

We know that all of these women were at least part time prostitutes and had been for a long time. There's no credible reason to believe that they were doing anything other than this on the nights that they were killed.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mike Richards]

Hello again,

Thought Id let the insults and skewed perceptions settle for a day.

The quote I used Howard is from the Morning Advertiser of Thursday October 4th, 1888, and the only thing I did was highlight the last sentences....because she says both that Liz did not say when she would be "coming back", and that she did not say she would be coming back "that evening".

Technically I apologized even though there is within that quote the possibility I was correct.

What she also said was that she found it odd that Liz left the velvet with her, as her experience at the lodging house taught her that she could leave anything of value with the manager. That would of course lead to the assumption that Liz would seek out the manager when she returned and gather her velvet and pay for her bed. Its the lodginghouse manager who says people often check in late at night so the fact Liz didnt pay in advance wasnt odd, and she is not referring specifically to Liz Stride when she says it...who had not established any obvious patterns in the 2 consecutive nights there that week.

But as Catherine stated, with some puzzlement, Liz didnt leave it with the manager but instead left it with her....and left her no indications when she might be returning for it. That seems to indicate that when Liz did return, she would seek out Catherine for her velvet first....and if she desired a bed, the manager second. Heres a question....if she had not paid for her bed and it was after midnight, could she just walk in and go to wake Catherine for her fabric? Would only paid-up clients get access to the rooms at that time?

I noted that a while back some discussion concerning alcohol is mentioned, like whether thats yet another official opinion that should be discarded. She had none in her system, neither Schwartz or Brown indicated the woman they saw was intoxicated, and she has 2 things with her that were not mentioned by any of the witnesses from the lodging house when Liz left....but the 6d was, and was absent when she was examined.

So it appears she didnt pay in advance for the bed while having the doss on her, she cannot be proven to have been soliciting clients because she has no money on her when found and there's no evidence of it anyway, and she wasnt drinking any proceeds away.

That leaves her standing there with a flower on her jacket, according to Club witness, on private property... 2-3 yards from the street, without any potential clients that she might solicit. Holding breath mints.

Thats almost surely soliciting? Seems she didnt know that she would need some clients in order to be successful.

Kind regards

[Mike Richards]

I was wondering if anyone had ever seen this before, its from TheGeneaologist.co.uk.....

"It all began with Jack the Ripper
by Ken & Barbara Stride

"We had a skeleton in our family cupboard which was connected to Jack the Ripper."

Many years ago, when I was only fourteen years of age, my grandmother sowed the seeds of curiosity in me by hinting that we had a skeleton in our family cupboard, which was in some way connected to "Jack The Ripper".

At that age I was not interested in family history and so it was many years later before my curiosity surfaced.

I was looking for a book to read on a flight home from Singapore and spotted "The Complete Jack The Ripper", by Donald Rumbelow, and could hear the bones in our cupboard rattling. "How could we be related to Elizabeth Stride, third victim of the Ripper?" The third victim of the Ripper as most readers will know, was Elizabeth Stride, (LongLiz),nee GUSTAFSDOTTER, and was the only victim that escaped being disembowelled. She was also the first of two murders that took place on the same night.


Her husband was John Thomas Stride (b1827), but he came from Sheerness and we all came from the east end of London, so how could we be related?

By now I was hooked and felt I just had to research my family tree. Unfortunately at that time I was still earning a living in our own business and could spare very little time for such a time consuming hobby.

A further six years went by before I could start in earnest, and only then because I was forced to retire early through ill health.

I now enjoy family history research enormously and feel I have progressed quite well in the short time we have been researching. I say "we" because my wife and I both work together as we have done for many years.



John Thomas Stride was the second son of my 3x great grandfather, William Stride. John was supposed to have drowned together with two of their children when the "Princess Alice" went down after a collision on the Thames.
http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/featuredarticles/images/jun07_stairs2.jpg Donald Rumbelow, in the first edition of his book, indicated that he had doubts about the veracity of that and in view of his very thorough research, especially in the case of Elizabeth, I had to agree with him.
I obtained first John and Elizabeth's Marriage Certificate, which took place 7th March 1869. In 1861 he was still single age 30 living in Sheerness with his parents and other siblings.

On the 1871 census they were living as husband and wife at Tower Hamlets, Poplar. She was born in Sweden, so I next sent for her Birth Record.

In the 1881 census, three years after the "Alice" disaster, I found John and Elizabeth supposedly living together at 69 Usher road. However, there was no sign of any children some twelve years after their Marriage in 1869.

I have obtained the Death Certificate of John Thomas, which took place on 24th October 1884 in the Union workhouse sick asylum, age 63. This was 4 years prior to Elizabeth's untimely death on the 30th September 1888.

It was said by a few that Elizabeth had said she had children in order to obtain money from both the Swedish authorities as well as others in London."


Just wondered if anyone had followed the Stride side of things.


Best regards

[How Brown]

Mike:

Thanks for the Geneaologist link and the response to the October 4th inquest statement.

[How Brown]

This has no real value to the thread at large but I thought I would just mention it anyway....
Could Stride have been approached previously by the man who eventually assaulted her .......( assuming that Brown was as certain as he claims to to have been about the comment..."Not tonight,some other night")...for sex, been rejected as well, and because she was still standing there when he came back around, took umbrage at this, and then acted out of anger ? We'll never know...but its just a thought.

[Adam Went]

Mike:

Well if you believe the statements of William Marshall, PC Smith, James Brown and Israel Schwartz.....she had atleast one man (and possibly up to 4, considering that there is 4 witnesses!) during the hour of 11.45 - 12.45.

It's not like she had just been standing in the one spot doing nothing for that hour. She had been around other men. Perhaps she was just waiting for her next target, or simply taking a break? We won't ever know.

As for the article you posted....interesting stuff....although I'm not quite sure how there could still be any confusion over whether her husband died on the Princess Alice or not. I thought everybody knew he actually died in 1884....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mike Richards]

Mike:

Well if you believe the statements of William Marshall, PC Smith, James Brown and Israel Schwartz.....she had atleast one man (and possibly up to 4, considering that there is 4 witnesses!) during the hour of 11.45 - 12.45.

It's not like she had just been standing in the one spot doing nothing for that hour. She had been around other men. Perhaps she was just waiting for her next target, or simply taking a break? We won't ever know.


Cheers,
Adam.

Hi Adam,

I believe the witnesses that you mentioned give stories that suggest Liz was in the company of several men, not in any of their employ,...as the only activities that we know of between her any any of them take place in public and do not involve sexual congress. I prefer to understand the immediate circumstances of the women in question before assuming they were actively soliciting, and in fact as Ive said, only 2 Ripper victims acknowledged to a witness that was what they were doing on the night they are murdered. Since we have no such acknowledgment by Liz to anyone, a noted fastidious concern with her appearance, and no evidence to suggest she was alone in a dark place with any man that she was stated as being seen with....

..I would think the prudent conclusion must be that we have no evidence that allows for an assertion that she was soliciting on that night...only.. at this time, the speculation as to what she might have done with any of the men she is seen with...if she went somewhere private with any of them.

If we cant know by what weve been given that she was soliciting at that moment...or even see valid reasons for speculating it....then its possible she wasnt.....and thats where this story should start. And then factor in all we do know about her that last evening. And if she wasnt there to prostitute herself that is the first indication that at the commencement of the attack,as he identifies his target...the killer may not have selected the victim based on the certainty that the 2 of them would go somewhere alone and dark....key components of Ripper kills.

For me that would be murder investigation 101. "Just the facts m'am".

Best regards

[A.P. Wolf]

And also, Mike, one has to carefully consider the behaviour of Stride, and the men - or man, as I'm still not convinced that she was seen with three different men on the night - she was witnessed with. What comes across is a degree of intimacy and personal attention that I would suggest is foreign to a normal encounter between a prostitute and client, which by its very nature exchanges intimacy for urgency, and personal attention for personal purpose.
I'd happily suggest that the observations made of the couple that night lead to the conclusion that there was intimacy and personal attention involved in their behaviour and this seems to indicate that they were not prostitute and client.

[SirRobertAnderson]

What comes across is a degree of intimacy and personal attention that I would suggest is foreign to a normal encounter between a prostitute and client,

Lemme try again. None of this suggests warmth or intimacy.

Let us look at three comments made that evening.

The first was made by men at the Bricklayer's Arms, who saw Stride necking and getting groped by some fellow in the doorway of the Pub. (Notice Stride and the man didn't go in.) One of the men said "That's Leather Apron getting 'round you."

The second, made to Stride by a DIFFERENT young man she was 'carrying on' with on Berner Street, hugging and kissing quite openly: "You would say anything but your prayers." (Again, she's outside.)

And last but not least we have her saying to YET ANOTHER MAN "No, not tonight, some other night." and YET AGAIN SHE'S OUTSIDE. She's turning him down, at least for that evening. Perhaps he gave off a creepy vibe; we'll never know.

So.....we have three different men interacting with Stride in a relatively short time frame, none of them remotely romantic, and all outside. No signs of a date, no signs of romance, just very public carrying on.

She wasn't dressed up for a beau; she was dressed up to get a better class of customer. Are any of these encounters and overheard conversations consistent with romance in the air ?

[A.P. Wolf]

I know ya all liv in Noo Yawk, Sir Robert, an all that, an I liv in shed, an all that, but even I know ya don't kiss or cuddle a woman of the night, ya shag her right? An give er a yankee dollar.

[Mike Richards]

The Breath mints alone suggest intimacy SRA. She wouldnt need to worry about that when she is presenting her rear to a man who just got off work scaling fish, or slaughtering sheep...or cleaning sewers. Lets face it, there were no "better types" of customers available to her on Berner Street at 1am...in fact, it would seem most of any potential customer base one might assume could be interested in street sex with a woman with no front upper teeth left when the meeting ended over an hour before she is seen loitering near the Club.

Which is good for Liz on this night, because she would have had difficulty servicing many clients in a skirt that went to the top of her boots, and she may have had her flower arrangement crushed when slammed into a fence from behind....so much so she may have even dropped her cachous.

My best regards

[SirRobertAnderson]

I know ya all liv in Noo Yawk, Sir Robert, an all that, an I liv in shed, an all that, but even I know ya don't kiss or cuddle a woman of the night, ya shag her right? An give er a yankee dollar.

I'd have to defer to Howard on that matter. Years ago, we agreed to divvy up our research efforts to avoid duplication of effort. I was assigned high end escorts in Manhattan and Dubai, and How has concentrated on Philly crack whores and homes for the elderly where for $5 the nurses aides will let you have an hour with any patient you wish.

So far, we have concluded that these two groups provide very different experiences.

[Cris Malone]

Which is good for Liz on this night, because she would have had difficulty servicing many clients in a skirt that went to the top of her boots, and she may have had her flower arrangement crushed when slammed into a fence from behind....so much so she may have even dropped her cachous.


Hello Mike,

All grown women of that period wore long dresses, petticoats( sometimes multiple), chemise, stays or corsets, bodice and even a jacket. Only girls were allowed to show their limbs- they didn't even say legs. Look at what all of the other women who were murdered ( except Kelly) were wearing. One other thing you may not know is that women of that time didn't always wear drawers ( look at the inventory of clothing of the victims) . If I remember correctly only Nichols had drawers on...and when they did they were slit in the crotch so they didn't have to pull anything down when nature called, or when anything else called for that matter.

[A.P. Wolf]

'All grown women of that period wore long dresses, petticoats( sometimes multiple), chemise, stays or corsets, bodice and even a jacket. Only girls were allowed to show their limbs- they didn't even say legs.'

Would you please let George Hutchinson know that as a matter of immediacy, cheers, and thanks.

[Cris Malone]

Hello A.P.

Are we talking about the historical George Hutchinson or Phil Hutchinson who goes by the former name on the forums?