Schwartz - New Revelations

[Tom_Wescott]

On the morning of October 1st, William Wess addressed a meeting at the International Workingmen's Educational Club. His main concern was the flock of curiosity-seekers coming to the club wanting to see the yard where Stride's body had been found not even 30 hours earlier. It was decided that a hefty sum of 5 shillings per head would do the trick. A reporter from the Echo happened to be present and was no doubt shocked to have heard the following announcement, mentioned by Wess almost as an aside. It was published later that day in the Oct. 1st edition:


A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

The significance of this can not be undervalued, as it is unquestionably a recounting of the Schwartz story, and the first to be discovered since the Star account two decades ago. Wess' source could not have been the Star report, though possibly the Star reporter. As I've pointed out on other threads, it's quite possible that Schwartz himself was a member of the IWEC, so it's not at all unlikely that he would have made William Wess aware of his experience as quickly as possible. Leon Goldstein (black bag man) certainly did and it was Wess who accompanied him to the police station to clear his name.

How did Wess know about Schwartz and his story before anyone else save the police? I would like to suggest that William Wess was the "friend" who accompanied Schwartz to the police station, just as he did Goldstein. As well, Wess may have been the interpreter for the Star. Consider that both Wess' truncated version above and the Star report have Pipeman (now brandishing a knife) chasing after BS Man, whereas the police report has Pipeman chasing after Schwartz.

What is equally (if not moreso) remarkable is the statement that 'the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.' The man 'who gave chase' is Pipeman. For Wess to have forgotten his name, his name must have been known. Paul Begg speculated as much in his book 'The Facts', and received a bit of ribbing from myself on these boards if I remember correctly. Had he published this account in his book I doubt I would have felt like giving him a ribbing.

It is worth noting that Wess pointed out that the pursuer was not a member of their club, but he did not say as much about the witness - Schwartz.

William Wess, possibly THE top dog of the IWEC, was on damage control mode that week. Could the vast discrepancies between Schwartz's account to the police (for which they would have used their own interpreter), and the accounts given to the Star reporter and his own brotherhood be attributed to William Wess himself and his agenda to save the club?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

That's a fascinating find, Tom!

Thanks for sharing it!

[Tom_Wescott]

As I was writing the above post I misremembered the Star version of Schwartz's story, but a poster to the Casebook reminded me that in that version Pipeman brandished a knife and chased Schwartz, not BS Man as I had stated. But that embarrassing error aside, the main points remain:

* Likelihood that Wess was the man who accompanied Schwartz to the station, and therefore that Schwartz was, in fact, a member of the IWEC.
* Wess was likely the interpreter for the Star
* Wess changed details of Schwartz' story, intentionally or not
* Pipeman's identity may have been known

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

Tom
this could just be a jumbled and garbled version of the events that took place after the murder with a number of men runnning off in different directions to find a policeman.
It may well have appeared to other witnesses that they were running away from the murder scene - which they were of course - and that one of these men was chasing the other - which they weren't of course.
But it may have looked that way.
I just love the way you are so positive when you find a garbled story like this, with not a lot to back it up, but when I find a Nathan Shine on the scene that night you come over all negative, mount your soapbox, fluff your petticoats and start banging your toy drum.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

It's an account of three parties (the witness, a pursuer, and the alleged killer) running along the street at 12:45am on the morning of the murder. It's clearly an jumbled retelling of the Schwartz account. Wess clearly knows the identity of both the witness and the pursuer, and thereby would know if these were the men running for the police, since the men who ran for the police were his fellow clubmen.
The sad thing is that if Chris Scott or Robert had posted this you'd break your arm patting their back. But since it was I who posted it you feel you must find ways to shoot holes in it instead of accepting it on it's own merits. You're currently in a very exclusive club with only Spiro (who's pulling the same crap over at the Casebook). Surely that's not what you want? But if you persist with this nonsense I'll just ask Howard to take this thread down, because frankly if no one else gives a phuck about such evidence, then I don't give a phuck about telling them about it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Howard Brown]

Tom:

Thanks very much for sharing this information on Wess....a name I have never heard of before now. Not to be an ahole,but it definitely is "Wess",correct? It couldn't be a typo for "Weiss" could it?

Mr.Begg infers,indeed,that Pipeman may have chased a man in The Facts . This may be found in the footnotes of Chapter 9 and on page 158.

Don't you,Tom....or anyone else....feel that now in light of this terrific find...that there was only man involved in Stride's murder....that no one else approached Stride after the man who stated..." Lipski !"...and that that man definitely was the Ripper or at least Stride's murderer?

This was an illuminating post,Tom. Thanks very much.

[A.P. Wolf]

Tom
if you want some slack then you just cut a bit of the same stuff.
I appreciated your post, and found it thoughtful and provoking.
Sometimes I think that both you and me do share something.
Haste.
And that's a lot better than hate.
We both run down the road with the latest candy and then trip over the grate, fall on it and cut our own throats.
But hey Tom, I'm better at doing that than you.
And for your information Tom, I take no prisoners in this business, so it's just not you, it is everyone.
Including Robert. He just never makes candy from crap.
But I understand he makes a good cup of tea.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

I appreciate the softer tone of this response, but say you're better than me at evaluating information? Sure, I make mistakes, but I see things others don't that eventually end up being corroborated by other evidence. That's evaluation. I'd say this article goes a LONG way in corroborating my notion that Schwartz was a member of the IWEC.
Robert is, hands down, a far superior researcher than me. He finds raw data others have not found and posts it, or sells it to Dan Norder for huge stacks of cash. As much as I hope to get better at the culmination of raw data from various sources, I will never find it as much fun as making sense out of what's already collected.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Don't you,Tom....or anyone else....feel that now in light of this terrific find...that there was only man involved in Stride's murder....that no one else approached Stride after the man who stated..." Lipski !"...and that that man definitely was the Ripper or at least Stride's murderer?

I'd say if this report is to be taken literally, it strengthens the argument for Pipeman as the Ripper. Otherwise, it changes nothing in that regard.

And yes, Wess is his name. He was a witness at Stride's inquest. I have his membership card to the club and various other items from his personal archives.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Howard Brown]

Tom:

It sure does look like Schwartz was a member of the organization. Not claiming to be a member of the IWMEC to the press to me would be the smart thing to do...and thats what Schwartz apparently never did.

One ( for once ) smart Hungarian.

[A.P. Wolf]

Cheers Tom
What I said was that I'm much better at cutting my own throat than you.
You'll agree with that.
And that I'm better at drinking brandy than you, or anyone else for that matter.

[Howard Brown]

Tom:

I'm a little confused here buddy...

I'd say if this report is to be taken literally, it strengthens the argument for Pipeman as the Ripper. -Tom

You believe that Pipeman chased BS man,correct?

Chased him after HE assaulted/killed Stride....or after BS pushed her to the street,yelled Lipski,and then left her...so Pipeman could whack her and then he chases BS or runs in the direction of BS man,and is actually not chasing him?

Thanks in advance.

[Tom_Wescott]

Ugh, no I don't believe Pipeman chased BS Man. I believe BS Man may have chased Pipemen, though. But in each of these versions of Schwartz's story, Schwartz is running from Pipeman, NOT BS Man. This point seems to get lost a lot. There's still absolutely no reason to state BS Man was Stride's killer.

What this Echo story DOES do is firm up my argument that Schwartz was a member of the IWEC and therefore could lend further support to my theory that the whole tale was hogwash, which frankly is rather inconvenient for me. But I can't ignore it either.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Howard Brown]

"therefore could lend further support to my theory that the whole tale was hogwash, which frankly is rather inconvenient for me...But I can't ignore it either." Tom

Hey...at least you're very honest. A lot of people might have seen what you saw...and "overlooked" it out of having to go back to the drawing board for a previously held conviction.

[Tom_Wescott]

"The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it."

The following might be relevant regarding BS Man:

"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

P.S. For those who followed a thread sometime back on the Casebook where I showed that Diemschutz's name was actually spelled 'Diem$hitz', you'll be interested to know this is how the Echo rendered it as well.

[R.J.Palmer]

Hi Tom - As interesting as the Echo article is, I’m sorry to say that I read it completely differently. You seem to think that Wess is referring to Broadshoulders (?) when, in fact, I don't’ think he even yet knows that Broadshoulders exists and he’s really referring to Schwartz.

The secretary is clearly stating his belief that the man who had been chased up the street that morning (Schwartz) was the killer, who had been disturbed in the act. In other words, Wess is speculating based on his own ignorance of the event. His statement is a lot like Mrs. Mortimer wondering about Goldstein before Goldstein came forward to clear his name. Taken at face value, Wess demonstrates no knowledge of Schwartz, doesn’t’ know who he was, and certainly didn’t act as his interpreter. He had simply heard (possibly from someone in the neighborhood who knew pipeman) that a man had been chased up the street earlier that morning at about the time the body was discovered and concluded (wrongly) that it was the murderer. It was, in fact Schwartz, who didn’t come forward until much later on the afternoon of the 30th (see Star, Oct. 1) and thus Wess had no knowledge of him yet, nor could have realized that he had came forward by his own volition to clear himself (much as Goldstein did). So the answer to your question about how Wess knew about this strange event before Schwartz came forward is --he didn’t--not from Schwartz anyway. His informant must have been some witness who knew that a pipe-smoker chase a man up the street.
Thus, without a lot of unwarranted extrapolation I honestly see nothing in the article that supports the idea that Wess knew Schwartz, nor that Schwartz was a member of the IWMC.
It is, however, damn interesting in that it shows that the members of the IWMC were evidently aware of the pipesmoker, though, strangely, there is nothing in the evidence to show that the police ever discovered his identity. Indeed, as late as Oct 19, (Swanson’s report) the police are still seemingly unaware of who pipeman (or broadshoulders) were.
Like you, I’ve long believed Schwartz may have been full of it, but, sadly, I see this article as actually supporting Schwartz’s story...not discrediting it. The article clearly implies that someoe else had knowledge of a chase having occurred in the street that night. Or at least that's the way I read it. RP

[Tom_Wescott]

RJ,

Thanks for responding, RJ. Very little intelligent discussion has been afforded this article on the Casebook and here since I put it up, so I was delighted to see your name appear in the thread. You'll notice the tired and just plain loopy notion that Pearly Poll was a man attracts more interest and discussion than new information regarding a leading witness. I've never understood that, but such is Ripperology. Also I'm glad to see you're no longer ignoring my posts.

Naturally, I considered the Echo article from the 'literal' viewpoint, such as you're doing here. We didn't read it differently at all, but as I stated before Wess apparently gave a brief statement, from which the reporter took notes, and possibly a third party at the paper wrote up this piece about it. It's a confusing tale of three men on a street. It remains confusing to some, such as Glenn Andersson who only today is posting adamantly that Pipeman was by the board school instead of by the Nelson. My point is that there's clearly errors in the article, but absolutely none of it suggests a mystery third witness nor does it suggest that Wess thought Schwartz to have been the murderer. Schwartz was a young Jewish man who resided on Berner Street. He was probably a member of the club or at least would have been known to the men as a neighbor. I've long suspected he was a member of the club. Now, here we have Wess relating a version of his tale (which may have been much more accurate than what was recorded in the Echo) only HOURS after Schwartz went with a friend to the police station - the same police station Wess would later escort Goldstein to.

The signifance of this report is not in the brief jumbled description of the chase, but in that it further supports the idea that Schwartz was a member of the IWEC and suggests that Pipeman's identity was known.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tracy Ianson]

Hi all

Not sure if it is common knowledge my apologies if it is - I have had a quick look to see if it is on the boards but couldn't see it.

I thought I would post Israel Schwartz through the census from 1891 - 1901.

In 1891 at 22 Great Samuel Street lived

Israel Schwartz Head 27 Tailor's Presser Born in Poland.
Eva Schwartz Wife 27 Born in Poland
Dinah E Schwartz Dau 6 Scholar Born in Poland.
Louis Schawrtz son 6mt Born in St George's East London


In 1901 at 21 Jubilee Street, Stepney lived

Israel Schwartz Head 36 Provisions dealer o/a Born in Russia
Esther Schwartz Wife 36 Born in Russia
Esther Schwartz Dau 16 Dress maker Born in Russia
Louis Schwartz Son 12 Scholar St George's East London
Daniel Schwartz Son 6 Scholar St George's East London
Edward Schwartz Son 3 St George's east London
Abraham Schwartz Son 1 St George's East London

In 1911 at 26 Prince's Square, Cable Street St George's East

Israel Schwartz Head 48 Tailor Worker Born in Poland and Jewish
Eva Schwartz Wife 48 Born in Poland and Jewish
Etta Schwartz dau 25 Dressmaker worker Born in Poland and Jewish
Lionel Schwartz son 21 Fur cutter worker Born in Middlesex St George East
Daniel Schwartz son 17 Watchmaker worker Born in Middlesex St GeorgeEast
Judah Schwartz son 13 Born in Middlesex St George East
Abie Schwartz son 11 Born in Middlesex St George East
Monte Schwartz 9 Born in Middlesex St George in East

The couple have been married for 28 years with a total of 11 children 6 still living and 5 who have died. They are all living in a 4 roomed house (you count the Kitchen as a room but not bathroom, scullery, landing, lobby or closet)

Tracy

[Maria Birbili]

This is a sweet little prehistoric thread. Thanks for resuscitating it, Tracy, as I had never seen it before.

These census results are well-known, already researched by Chris Phillips. There are also other results, such as documentation for the naturalisation of an Austrian (read: Hungarian) Schwartz in 1911. Personally I suspect that Schwartz changed his first name at some point after the Whitechapel murders, but I'm not ready to come to conclusions yet until the AF search and numerous other searches are finalized.

By the by, I've always found the following press report intruiging. Could it be referring to the BS incident? First time I heard of this is very recently, when Don Rumbelow mentioned this report in his recent talk at the Whitechapel conference in October 2011.
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.

[Tracy Ianson]

Maria


These census results are well-known, already researched by Chris Phillips. There are also other results, such as documentation for the naturalisation of an Austrian (read: Hungarian) Schwartz in 1911.

Chris has never put the census to the boards, although I have no doubt that he had them. What he has done is expanded on the children's information that Gavin Bromley found out in his excellent dissertation.

Personally I suspect that Schwartz changed his first name at some point after the Whitechapel murders, but I'm not ready to come to conclusions yet until the AF search and numerous other searches are finalized.

I can't see how 'our' Israel Schwartz would change his name when in all the reports we do have of him (spanning over 30 years with census and school intake reports).

We know that his wife and daughters name varied over the years so he didn't have an aversion to doing it and putting different names on the census forms yet his stayed the same.


Tracy

[Debra Arif]

Ah, I wasn't the only one to think this article also made sense when taken literally then!

[Rob House]

Hello Tom et al.

I do indeed appreciate your posting this article as it is most interesting, and I had not seen it before. I posted a comment on casebook as well, which received no comment, so I am essentially re-posting a few thoughts here.

1. "Chasing" - "the police report has Pipeman chasing after Schwartz." - there is a lot of talk about a chase being reported in the Police report and in the Star. In fact, neither source really supports the idea that Schwartz was chased. Indeed, Schwartz ran away, which is not the same thing.

Police report: Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran so far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.

Star: "a second man came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in the second man’s hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently to his new lodgings."

These reports seem to suggest that Schwartz was more or less intimidated and threatened... but not chased.

2. The Echo report can be interpreted in different ways. It may be accurate, in which case, the person chasing may indeed be Pipeman chasing BS. Or it may be a garbled interpretation of the Schwartz incident. However, we must recall that the police report and the Star report are quite similar. The Echo report is quite different. So if Schwartz told Wess about this, Wess was quite confused in relating it to the reporter. Or the reporter was quite confused. Someone was confused.

It seems possible to me that Wess may have been relating something told him by Pipeman... who may have chased BS man away after he (BS man) committed the murder.

3. Schwartz's account has him running toward his lodgings (on Backchurch Lane) or toward the railway arches—in other words either west or south. The Echo report implies a chase East along Fairlough Street, as suggested by the wording:

"chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street."

So in short, I am wondering if the Echo report is describing something other than Schwartz running away.

Rob H

[Jeff Leahy]

I dont know if I'm just being my usual dumb self but I dont seem to be able to find the report you are all refering to?

Is it possible to re-post it or redirect me?

Many thanks Jeff

Ah..forget that..in a bizarre twist of fate my post pushed the thread to number 3 and the post was revealed...many thanks

[Jeff Leahy]

"In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body."

I'm assuming this is the relivant new news paper find? Correct me if I'm wrong

But well done Tom it gives a great new perspective indeed. Congratulations.

Is it not possible that the chase refered to is Pipeman chasing Schwartz? This would make some sense of his claimed route to teh railway arch?

Yours Jeff

[Rob House]

"I'm assuming this is the relivant new news paper find?"

I don't think it is a new find exactly... seems Chris Scott posted this several years ago.

http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-889.html

RH

[Stephen Thomas]

Is it not possible that the chase referred to is Pipeman chasing Schwartz? This would make some sense of his claimed route to the railway arch?



Well it's pretty obvious to me that this report describes Pipeman chasing Schwartz and backs up the Schwartz story but the question that is begged is why was Pipeman chasing him?

The implication is that JTR had a partner in crime.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Stephen

How could Pipeman have been an accomplice of BS? Isn't an accomplice supposed to keep watch?

[Jeff Leahy]

Well it's pretty obvious to me that this report describes Pipeman chasing Schwartz and backs up the Schwartz story but the question that is begged is why was Pipeman chasing him?

The implication is that JTR had a partner in crime.

I dont Know? We do have another differnet version..

I think sometimes not knowing is a great starting point..

Perhaps I've spend to much time with the Begg

Jx

[Stephen Thomas]

How could Pipeman have been an accomplice of BS? Isn't an accomplice supposed to keep watch?

Among other things I suppose, Robert, but the question remains ie if Pipeman was actually chasing Schwartz why on earth would he want to do that if he wasn't an accomplice of BS Man?

[Howard Brown]

Pardon the interruption...but is anyone having difficulty reading the posts or finding posts you've contributed to the thread ? Please contact me if so...

[Robert Linford]

How, I had difficulty reading your last post. Letters too small.:happy:

Stephen, I think that Pipeman may just have been fleeing, same as Schwarz, but giving the idea that he was chasing him.

[Jeff Leahy]

How, I had difficulty reading your last post. Letters too small.:happy:

Stephen, I think that Pipeman may just have been fleeing, same as Schwarz, but giving the idea that he was chasing him.


Its an interresting theory, and would suport Evans and Clacks arguement that only the home Office report can be trusted

Yours Jeff

[admin tim]

If anyone has a problem posting to this thread, please PM me about it.

[Rob House]

How, I had difficulty reading your last post. Letters too small.:happy:

Stephen, I think that Pipeman may just have been fleeing, same as Schwarz, but giving the idea that he was chasing him.

Hello Robert,

I have always leaned in that direction myself.

Rob H

[Wicker Man]

Among other things I suppose, Robert, but the question remains ie if Pipeman was actually chasing Schwartz why on earth would he want to do that if he wasn't an accomplice of BS Man?

Well, if you believe the Schwartz version, that he ran as far as the railway arch, and we all know that there was no railway arch along Fairclough St. then this has nothing to do with the Schwartz story.

The only two men who ran eastward along Fairclough St. were Diemschitz & Kozebrodski.
The Echo story has no value, it is confused/corrupt.

Regards Jon S.

[Jeff Leahy]

The quickest way to the Railway arch would be down fairclough Street and turn Left...it would then be straight infront of you.

Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

THere is of course gome support for Schwartz going down Fairclough Street, which also means he does not run past his own front door,,,and thats Browns statement:

Brown leaves the chandler shop at 12.45. His gaze is forward on a couple standing by the board school in Fairclough Street. He does not see BSM, Liz or Schwartz who are hard to his left down Berner Street. His view of them would only be for teh three or four seconds it takes to cross the road.

He passes the couple and heres them parting 'not to night some othre night'

As he leaves the couple he has is back to them and does not see the woman walk away or the man stand and light his pipe (This man is out of sight from BSM, Liz and Schwartz) This man hears three screams (but not loud screams) and walks around the corner to see what is happening.

As he does so he bumps almost straight into Schwartz. He looks over the road and sees a woman lying on the ground by a thick set man. That man looks up and shouts in his direction 'Lipski' (Meaning Murder)

The man with the Pipe asumes the nervous looking Schwartz was responcible. Schwartz then has to routes of escape. Back the way he came, or diagonally across the road towards the pub and down Faorclough Street.

Pipeman gives chase thinking Schwartz is the man responsible for the woman on the ground.

BSM grabs Liz left arm pulls her three paices into the ally, she turns slightly as she does so. He pulls her back by her scarf. Cuts her throat and leaves quickly out the gate turning left passed Fanny Mortimers door towards Commercial road.

Thus the only piece of incorrect information would be Pipeman standing in the door way of teh pub as in the Star report...

So actually Schwartz being chased down Fairclough Street makes perfect sense of Browns couple?

I know its 5 in the morning but couldnt sleep....Yours Jeff

PS in this version of events it would also make sense if BSM grabbed Liz while she had her back to him and he used a cord or garot. Hence she fainted and was white in colour not red. Would also put Rose Mylett back as a possible ripper attack Jx

[Nemo]

Testing...

(I couldn't see Deb's post for a couple of days...)

[Nemo]

That seems OK

Jeff - Although it's quite a good theory as to why Schwartz was chased, if indeed he was, if Pipeman, or anyone else for that matter, chased Schwartz because they thought they were chasing the attacker of Stride, why was the chaser not more vocal about it? why did they cease the chase? why did they not return to Berner St to report that the miscreant had escaped or see what had happened to Stride? Why did they not come forward as a witness later? etc etc

In your scenario you also have BS man drawing attention to himself by shouting, minutes before he has actually cut someone's throat - the person/people he shouted to could just as well have approached him to see what the problem was

There is no evidence of garotting in any of the Whitechapel murders, including Rose Mylett

The nearest to garotting would be Stride being held tightly by her scarf

I think the evidence points away from BS man and Pipeman being connected in any way, and I also cannot see why Pipeman would "chase" Schwartz or otherwise leave the scene and then return to cut Stride's throat

[Jeff Leahy]

That seems OKt

Hi Nemo, obviously the points you raise are the same as if Pipeman appeared on the pub side of teh road and Schwartz went down Berner street but I will attempt to give logical scenarios to your questions.

Jeff - Although it's quite a good theory as to why Schwartz was chased, if indeed he was, if Pipeman, or anyone else for that matter, chased Schwartz because they thought they were chasing the attacker of Stride, why was the chaser not more vocal about it?

We dont know that they were not. Indeed if this report is to be beleived someone did here something. Are we to assume they simply heard running? You wouldnt notice that so I would suggest Pipeman did shout something..'stop that man?" of course I dont know how much nioce but enough to be noticed.

why did they cease the chase?

Schwartz was a young fit man twenty two years old...he ran like hell.

why did they not return to Berner St to report that the miscreant had escaped or see what had happened to Stride? Why did they not come forward as a witness later? etc etc

If you check Tom wescotts post earlier in the thread he supports Paul Beggs observation that Pipeman my have come forward as referenced 'the FACTS' It would also make Pipeman another possible witness at the seaside home.

In your scenario you also have BS man drawing attention to himself by shouting, minutes before he has actually cut someone's throat - the person/people he shouted to could just as well have approached him to see what the problem was

Yep sounds like a complete lunatic to me?

There is no evidence of garotting in any of the Whitechapel murders, including Rose Mylett

Yes there is a little. All the other victims appeared red in the face, some showing signs of tongue pretruding, bruising to neck, probably attacked from the front. Stride however was described as white /pale, suggesting she fainted. Unless you think a hard strett woman would faint I suggest she passed out due to lack of blood supply...Garot. But yes this could have been the killer grabbing her scarf (or rose Myletts colar) But certainly Strides attack was different from other cannon suggesting 'Jack' changed his MO. Something I also believe Jack the Stripper did.

The nearest to garotting would be Stride being held tightly by her scarf

Yes agreed that could have happened. Stride turned her back killer grabs her scarf. she colapses forward right hand behind her back. If the killer grabs her left arm and takes three large steps into the ally, Strides body ends in the exact position she is found in..I no as I practiced this on my freind Cat.

I think the evidence points away from BS man and Pipeman being connected in any way,

I agree. But my theory doesnt require them to do so, although I'm sure Tom might suggest they did, which is again possible.

and I also cannot see why Pipeman would "chase" Schwartz or otherwise leave the scene and then return to cut Stride's throat

My serario was clear on that. Pipeman walks around the corner into Schwartz, who is freightened and terrified. Schwartz moves away BSM shouts Lipski (Murder) Schwartz runs, he looks guilty and Pipeman chases.

He does return and is a witness as claimed in later press reports. Like you I dont think he is the killer. But simply the scorned lover witnessed by Brown.

Yours Jeff

[Robert Linford]

Jeff, when precisely in your scenario is Stride supposed to have felt like taking a packet of cachous from her pocket? Or are the cachous supposed to have been in her hand from start to finish?

[Nemo]

Thanks for the clarification Jeff

I find it interesting that even with quite clear witness statements and a very short timeline, there is still much ambiguity in identifying even the sequence of events

I never thought it likely that Pipeman would just run. Him chasing Schwartz is an intriguing possibility which I will consider further

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff, when precisely in your scenario is Stride supposed to have felt like taking a packet of cachous from her pocket? Or are the cachous supposed to have been in her hand from start to finish?

THe Cachous would be in her hand from start to finish the sudden-ness and farocity of teh attack taking her completely off guard.

My understanding of teh Garot theory is that a victim passes out very quickly and the fist squeezing the cachous would be a reflex response.

So yes I have the cachous in her hand the whole time

Yours Jeff

PS Thanks Nemo..enjoy the day and sun shine

[Robert Linford]

Hi Jeff

You mean, the cachous stayed in her hand even while she was being roughed up and thrown to the ground by BS, before Schwarz crossed the street?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff

You mean, the cachous stayed in her hand even while she was being roughed up and thrown to the ground by BS, before Schwarz crossed the street?

Yes.

The cachos were in her hand. "Allo love you fancy a quickie?"

BSM 'Dont you 'love' me bitch'

Liz 'dont talk to me like that'

Liz turns her back on him...she is grabbed before she has time to think he strikes she passes out..

Yours Jeff

[Robert Linford]

Sorry Jeff, maybe I'm not following you. You seem to be suggesting that :

1. Liz has the cachous in her hand.
2. BS man pulls her into the street and throws her to the ground.
3. Schwarz has seen this and crosses over. At this point Liz is still alive.
4. BS man grabs hold of Liz, pulling her up and into the yard, where he kills her.
And throughout all this the cachous stay in her hand?

[Paul]

Sorry Jeff, maybe I'm not following you. You seem to be suggesting that :

1. Liz has the cachous in her hand.
2. BS man pulls her into the street and throws her to the ground.
3. Schwarz has seen this and crosses over. At this point Liz is still alive.
4. BS man grabs hold of Liz, pulling her up and into the yard, where he kills her.
And throughout all this the cachous stay in her hand?

Hi Robert,
If she didn't hold onto the cachous throughout the assault then she must have taken them from her pocket or been given them afterwards, either by BS Man, as an apologetic peace-offering perhaps, or by someone else. However, isn't it fairly well-established that it is not uncommon for people to grasp what they are holding when attacked, especially if the attack is sudden and unexpected, as, indeed, was the case when she her throat was cut. And she was holding them quite tightly, I seem to recall, so that the doctor caused them to scatter on the ground as he released the packet from her grasp.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Paul

Yes, I suppose she was holding the cachous at the moment of death. I just can't understand why, if she'd taken out the cachous after the first attack (the one witnessed by Schwarz), she'd hang around sucking cachous with a man who'd just attacked her. I think it's more likely that someone else came on the scene after BS man left.

I suppose BS man could have given her the cachous (though he doesn't sound like the cachou-carrying kind :dizzy: ). If his aim all along was to kill her, he seems to have changed his attitude pretty quickly, at one moment throwing her around in front of witnesses, the next giving her the cachous to allay her suspicions.

[Paul]

Hi Paul

Yes, I suppose she was holding the cachous at the moment of death. I just can't understand why, if she'd taken out the cachous after the first attack (the one witnessed by Schwarz), she'd hang around sucking cachous with a man who'd just attacked her. I think it's more likely that someone else came on the scene after BS man left.

I suppose BS man could have given her the cachous (though he doesn't sound like the cachou-carrying kind :dizzy: ). If his aim all along was to kill her, he seems to have changed his attitude pretty quickly, at one moment throwing her around in front of witnesses, the next giving her the cachous to allay her suspicions.

We're assuming that the cachous were given to her by BS Man, whereas they could have been hers, maybe bought by the chap she'd been kissing and cuddling earlier (if that was indeed her). And if BS Man didn't leg it, but hung around being apologetic or conciliatory, then I guess she wouldn't have had much alternative but to keep him pacified by hanging around too. She may even have gone into the passage for sex - Coles went off with a man who she had seen hit a friends of hers, so I guess money could overcome anxiety.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Paul

But this makes BS a bit mercurial, doesn't it? First he pulls her out of the yard, instead of pushing her into it, and he throws her down. Then he calms down sufficiently for her to take out her cachous and maybe go into the yard with him. Then he changes again, and kills her. BS man knew that he'd been seen, so IF he was the Ripper he was taking a big chance - Schwarz might have been on his way to fetch a policeman. Anyway, whether BS man killed her or not, and whether he was the Ripper or not, it seems to me very odd that he should first attack her, in front of witnesses, and shout across the street to one of them, but then suddenly go all cunning and adopt an apologetic attitude.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

I find Jeff's scenario intriguing and wish I'd thought of it. :) A lot of things seem to fall into place if BS deliberately led Pipeman to think he had stepped in to help Stride after seeing Schwartz in the process of assaulting her. Shouting out "Lipski" in an accusing manner would have had the desired effect, making Schwartz look like a murderous scumbag and himself the hero of the hour. She wasn't dead at that point and Pipeman would have had no reason to think she would not be safe in BS man's hands while he went off after Schwartz, who was by now thoroughly confused and frightened, and managed to shake off Pipeman while 'fleeing incontinently'.

We don't know what Pipeman would have done next, but he would have realised his mistake as soon as he learned that Stride had been found murdered. Yes, he may well have gone to the police at that point and they would have been wise not to broadcast the fact. But he could not have been sure that BS man had actually killed Stride unless he had gone straight back to the scene and witnessed something else. If he had simply given up the chase and gone home, assuming Stride had come to no harm, he'd have been as confused as Schwartz!

But from BS man's point of view, how could he leave Stride alive now, or linger at the scene after killing her? She knew it was BS man who had assaulted her then sent two innocent witnesses packing, leaving her at his mercy. He could hardly pretend he was there for her health, so she had to die, swiftly and efficiently, so he could get away from the scene before inviting any more trouble. If either of the two witnesses decided to come back and poke their noses in further, or get a copper involved, he would be done for.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert Linford]

Hi Caz

Pipeman must have been much more interested in getting his pipe going than in looking at what was happening across the road - which is entirely possible.:) But why should BS man kill Stride? Why try to hide a bit of argy-bargy on the pavement, by putting his neck in the noose for murder?

[Paul]

Hi Paul

But this makes BS a bit mercurial, doesn't it? First he pulls her out of the yard, instead of pushing her into it, and he throws her down. Then he calms down sufficiently for her to take out her cachous and maybe go into the yard with him. Then he changes again, and kills her. BS man knew that he'd been seen, so IF he was the Ripper he was taking a big chance - Schwarz might have been on his way to fetch a policeman. Anyway, whether BS man killed her or not, and whether he was the Ripper or not, it seems to me very odd that he should first attack her, in front of witnesses, and shout across the street to one of them, but then suddenly go all cunning and adopt an apologetic attitude.

Well, we can't know what was going on, and we can't even be sure BS killed Stride, so we're simply trying to explain the facts within the context of one possible scenario. BS man, be he the Ripper or not, acted rashly when he assaulted Stride in front of witnesses like Schwartz and the suddenly appearing Pipeman, and as he can't kill her in front of those people he really has no alternative but to leg it or stay, and as Stride was the only one who probably had a good look at him, it would have made sense to stay and attempt to pacify her and/or to kill her. Because he didn't know if either Pipeman of Schwartz would return with a policeman, he cut Stride's throat but did not linger to inflict mutilations.

Or it was simply a domestic, Stride saying something which provoked BS into a spontaneous act of violence, he sought reconciliation, then Stride, thinking she had the emotional upper hand, repeated what she'd said and this time the provocation was fatal.

I'm afraid I don't really think a temperamental flare up, followed by an attempted reconciliation, then for the argument to re-ignite is necessarily all that strange.

[Paul]

Hi Caz

Pipeman must have been much more interested in getting his pipe going than in looking at what was happening across the road - which is entirely possible.:) But why should BS man kill Stride? Why try to hide a bit of argy-bargy on the pavement, by putting his neck in the noose for murder?

Why does anybody? Most murders are horrendously mundane affairs, illogical, irrational, avoidable, done for pathetically silly reasons.

[Robert Linford]

Paul - domestic? You haven't got Kidney in the frame, have you?

I find the idea of a man killing a woman so that she shouldn't, at some point in the future, identify him as the man who pushed her over, rather unlikely, Paul.

[Rob House]

I think pipeman left the scene for the same basic reason as Schwartz... he was a bit scared and intimidated by a rough looking character assaulting a woman. My current wonder is if pipeman perhaps had second thoughts and returned to the scene after a few minutes reflection... perhaps realizing that he may have seen the Ripper in action, and feeling a duty to do something.

RH

[Paul]

Paul - domestic? You haven't got Kidney in the frame, have you?

I find the idea of a man killing a woman so that she shouldn't, at some point in the future, identify him as the man who pushed her over, rather unlikely, Paul.

No, I don't have Kidney in the frame, but the attack on the woman was very sudden and apparently spontaneous, almost as if BS was possibly offended by the women or by something she said, or was already angry with her and in the heat of the moment was uncaring whether anyone witnessed the assault or not. That scenario smacks of a domestic of some sort.

Of course, the idea of a man killing for something so banal, especially in that time and place, is extremely silly. But the murderer did have a reason and if he wasn't Jack the Ripper then what was that reason? It was a domestic or somethng similar that got out of hand? BS was so proud of the IWMC that he was angered by a prostitute accosting him outside it? He didn't like her brand of cachou? WHatever it was it's likely to have been pretty silly don't you think?

On the other hand, of course, if BS was Jack the Ripper then the last thing he'd have wanted was a prostitute identifying him to the police and for them to start asking awkward questions and looking in place BS didn't want them looking in.

Equally, he may have intended mutilating Stride but thought better of it when it occurred to him that Schwartz might return with the police, or when he heard the singing inside the club, or was prevent by the arrival of Diemshutz.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Paul

I suspect that if the Ripper killed Stride (whether the Ripper was BS or not) the best bet would be the Diemschutz interruption. This is because her throat was cut so inefficiently - not like JTR, unless he was interrupted by Diemschutz and slightly put off his stroke, as it were. I'm 60-40 on Stride being a Ripper killing, and I think that the Ripper was probably not BS. I have difficulty imagining the Ripper commencing an attack on a woman without looking round to see if anyone was watching. Even if BS failed to see or hear Schwarz behind him, he might have been expected to notice Pipeman. The reckless way the putative BS-JTR attacked Stride, doesn't seem to mesh with the apparent efficiency of the Mitre Square murder where not a sound was heard. Of course it could be that BS-JTR was drunk when he attacked Stride and had sobered up by the time he killed Eddowes.

You're right, if the Ripper did not kill Stride, then we have to find a reason why anyone else should kill her, and I suppose that would point to someone who knew her. But it's a bit of a coincidence that such a person would just bump into her. It's not as though Stride was in her normal haunts. The best bet might be one of the men she was seen with earlier. In that case, the couple must have separated at some point and then BS
must have returned in search of Stride. It seems a bit unlikely, but there you go.

[Wicker Man]

The quickest way to the Railway arch would be down fairclough Street and turn Left...it would then be straight infront of you.

Jeff

Anyone running east down Fairclough St., then turning left, is heading back up to Commercial Rd.
Schwartz was headed south to Backchurch Lane.

The railway arches are either Cable St. or Pinchin St., so far as I can tell.

Are you thinking of them running west on Fairclough St.?

Thats not possible, is it, as "pipeman" came out of the Nelson doorway, Schwartz would have had to run past him, instead he ran away from him.

Sorry Jeff, that won't do.

[Wicker Man]

Hi Paul

Yes, I suppose she was holding the cachous at the moment of death. I just can't understand why, if she'd taken out the cachous after the first attack (the one witnessed by Schwarz), she'd hang around sucking cachous with a man who'd just attacked her. I think it's more likely that someone else came on the scene after BS man left.

You're pretty much on the same wavelength as I with respect to the "why".
Yes, I can see BS-man having to depart and another man arriving on the scene, hence Stride pulls out her packet of breath mints (new client?).
Given the posture of her body so close to and apparently facing the wall, I suspect she was indeed facing the wall when the fatal assault began

No, I'm sure BS-man did not kill her, but I'm not so sure about Pipeman.

We really do not know how far Pipeman chased Schwartz, if indeed that is what happened. Schwarts only said;
" he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

The railway arches were down by Cable/Pinchin St. but Schwartz does not say that Pipeman chased him that far. He may have returned to Dutfields Yard, the potential hero of the night, only to slay the unprepared Stride.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Jon

But what if Schwarz came back with a policeman?

[Paul]

Hi Jon

But what if Schwarz came back with a policeman?

We'd be somewhere else, discussing something different!

[Paul]

You're pretty much on the same wavelength as I with respect to the "why".
Yes, I can see BS-man having to depart and another man arriving on the scene, hence Stride pulls out her packet of breath mints (new client?).
Given the posture of her body so close to and apparently facing the wall, I suspect she was indeed facing the wall when the fatal assault began

No, I'm sure BS-man did not kill her, but I'm not so sure about Pipeman.

We really do not know how far Pipeman chased Schwartz, if indeed that is what happened. Schwarts only said;
" he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

The railway arches were down by Cable/Pinchin St. but Schwartz does not say that Pipeman chased him that far. He may have returned to Dutfields Yard, the potential hero of the night, only to slay the unprepared Stride.

Regards, Jon S.

Apart from being less certain than you that BS man wasn't Stride's murderer, if he wasn't then the scenario has to be as you describe it - somebody, though not necessarily Pipeman, came along and seized the opportunity to kill the unprepared Stride. My only reason for thinking it wasn't Pipeman is that he would have known, as BS did, that Schwartz could come back with a policeman. And, unless he knew that BS man had vanished into the night, he'd not have known he wouldn't be walking into a potentially violent confrontation with BS. However....

[Jeff Leahy]

Anyone running east down Fairclough St., then turning left, is heading back up to Commercial Rd.
Schwartz was headed south to Backchurch Lane.

The railway arches are either Cable St. or Pinchin St., so far as I can tell.

Are you thinking of them running west on Fairclough St.?

Thats not possible, is it, as "pipeman" came out of the Nelson doorway, Schwartz would have had to run past him, instead he ran away from him.

Sorry Jeff, that won't do.

Hi Wicker Man, I sorry but your incorrect. I've done this walk hundreds of times. If your standing at the Berner Street Fairclough Street junction...you head down Fairclough Street to church Lane and turn LEFT towards railway arche next to Pinchin Street on Map.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/oldmap.srf?x=534250&y=181250&z=110&sv=534250,181250&st=4&ar=N&mapp=oldmap.srf&searchp=oldsearch.srf&ax=536233&ay=181129&lm=0

Actually I think this walk is on the conference Video I made so I've probly edited it more times than any tour guide has walked it

Yours Jeff

[Rob Clack]

Anyone running east down Fairclough St., then turning left, is heading back up to Commercial Rd.
Schwartz was headed south to Backchurch Lane.

The railway arches are either Cable St. or Pinchin St., so far as I can tell.

Are you thinking of them running west on Fairclough St.?

Thats not possible, is it, as "pipeman" came out of the Nelson doorway, Schwartz would have had to run past him, instead he ran away from him.

Sorry Jeff, that won't do.

Schwartz's likely route was either east down Fairclough Street and then South down Christian Street towards Pinchin Street or straight down Berner Street and then either left or right towards Back Church Lane or Christian Street where he could turn South towards Pinchin Street.
There are several other roads on the route he could have gone down, what I have mentioned are just the main roads. It's very unlikely he would have gone west along Fairclough Street towards Back Church Lane, he was, going by his movements, going away from that end of Fairclough Street.

Also Pipeman was not outside 'The Nelson' he was across the road by the board School.

Rob

[Robert Linford]

I don't get involved in the geographical discussions, but I remember a few years ago on Casebook there was some discussion about Schwarz's route, and it was said that the route took him past his own house. Some said that he should have ducked into his house, so why had he gone past it? Others said that if Schwarz was being chased, he wouldn't want his pursuer to see where he lived, so he'd go past it and return to it later.

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry Jeff, maybe I'm not following you. You seem to be suggesting that :

1. Liz has the cachous in her hand.
2. BS man pulls her into the street and throws her to the ground.
3. Schwarz has seen this and crosses over. At this point Liz is still alive.
4. BS man grabs hold of Liz, pulling her up and into the yard, where he kills her.
And throughout all this the cachous stay in her hand?

Hi Robert OK lets have another go. And perhaps everyone can think like a camera Director. Line of sight what does everyone see?

Brown leaves the Chandler shop at the same time as Schwartz enters Berner street. Brown is looking at the couple opposite , not left where the distant BSM is approaching him down Berner street. Brown would only have a 3-4 sec window down Berner street anyway and his attension is drawn by the couple 'Not tonight some other night' they part as Brown passes them lets say 12:45 and 15 seconds...she walks off either following Brown (He has his back to her) or even possibly down Berner strreet or Fairclough Street in teh opposite direction. Pipeman (Spurned lover) has around 45 secs a minute to light his pipe.

Schwart is behind BSM, he only sees his back. If Stride is just inside the gate she is out of veiw of approaching BSM and Schwartz. She hears approaching customer, takes cachous from her pocket and freshens her breath. She step out of the Gateway and says 'Allo sir want the business?'

At this point Schwartz sees BSM back but has a reasonable view of Strides Face, depending on exact position of BSM. Schwartz is approaching as they start to argue. Stride still holds the Cahous. BSM faces Stride just inside gateway but on path, so schwartz might have profile of the right side of his face.

As he approaches the nervous Schwartz decides to cross the road. He does so at an angle as he is still making his way home and wishes to avoid BSM and Stride. Now the import thing to consider here is what Schwartz can now see or rather not see as he makes that crossing...He sees the back of BSM's head...BUT CAN NOT SEE STRIDE as BSM is between him and Stride. He can not see BSM's hands as BSM has his back to Schwartz.

As Schwartz crosses he can here them argue (Cachous still in hand) then Stride turns to make her escape back into Dutfield Yard her only escape route. BSM would still block Schwart view of Stride.

Now concider the comment: The man through her to the ground and she screamed three times but not very loudly.

What does this mean?

Well if BSM grabbed Stride by the scarf and pulled tight and she screamed, would not the screams be muffled by the strangulation. I dont know how many screams one could make if someone pulled your scarf very tight but I would think you could amit some sought of sound. BSM would be blocking Schwartz veiw of Stride so he would see nothing only hear the womans torchered gurgles..very freightening..but could be desribed in translation as three screams not very loudly.

Stride passes out after third scream falling to her knees. Possibly even being lowered to teh ground as she makes the screams, it would still fit, 'the man through her to the ground and she screamed three times but not loudly'

Or perhaps BSM let go of the ligature, grabbed her shoulders and pushed her forward explaining the bruising on the shoulders , remember Schwartz veiw of Stride is blocked the whole time by BSM.

As Paul says holding on to the cachous during this process would be instinctive the actual attack lasting only 20-30-40 se3conds before she becomes unconcious?

Schwartz turns stops and faces BSM hunched over strides body. BSM then comes back from his wroth and turns. As he does so Pipeman who was just around the corner comes to investigate the gurgled screams. He sees BSM , a woman on the ground and Schwartz infront of him.

BSM then shouts 'LIPSKI' murder

Schwartz thinks two men together and terrifified makes the only possible exit away from both men, down Fairclough street towards Church Lane.

Pipemans motives for chasing Schwart could be he thinks the man running is guilty or he himself is afraid even afraid for his recently parted lover.

They leave the scene of crime.

BSM grabs Stides left arm and pulls her into teh ally with three large paces. Pulls her head back, she is face down hence the less them deep usual cut he makes, cuts her throat and exits passed Fanny's door around 12:47-8

The exact estimate time of death by Dr Brown. Remember he gives time of death not the time that Stride passed out ie the attack not the throat cut.

Fanny heres a man pass her door 'the measured stamp of a policeman' This is BSM heading back to Commercial Road.

She comes to her door 12:50 shortly after BSM passes but does not see Stride inside the Ally and out of her eye Sight. Fanny see's no one. Except Goldstein. She goes back inside shortly before one oclock. Deimshitz Cart enters the street as she does so..around one oclock..it takes a minute or so to find teh body...

The rest as they say is History..

Of course that means Rob Clack was correct and Definitive story is in error (git), however I acted with the best information at that time, not being aware of Toms Fairclough report. And that was because the Star report had Pipeman out side the pub..

Once Pipeman is on the other side then he is likely the same man seen by Brown..And Schwartz taking the Church lane pinchin street route NOT running past his front door makes sense....

Hopefully that helps. Remeber think eye line and what everyone can or can not see.

Its another fab sunny day here in Kent and I'm off out for the day

Yours Jeff

[Robert Linford]

Hi Jeff

But according to Schwarz's statement, the throwing down and the screams occurred before Schwarz crossed over. Also, he noticed Pipeman lighting his Pipe when he had crossed. Now, if Pipeman had come to investigate the commotion, he must have been a very dedicated smoker, for the first thing he does on arrival is to light his pipe! Isn't it more likely that Pipeman was already standing there before Schwarz crossed?

[Wicker Man]

Jeff, Rob.
If we look at a direct line of flight from Dutfields Yard (Red X) to 22 Ellen St. (Blue X) then where does "running the length of Fairclough St." even come into it?

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h246/drifter_03/Schwartz_Pipeman.jpg

And Rob, Pipeman stepped out of the doorway of the Nelson (Green X), Schwartz was either halfway diagonal across Berner St. or already on the east side when he began to run. We cannot know his exact placement, but, how can we interpret Schwartz running west on Fairclough, passed or around the advancing Pipeman?

I can't see any reason to argue Schwartz ran east or west on Fairclough St. for any reason, where would he have been going when his address was directly south down Berner St.?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wicker Man]

Others said that if Schwarz was being chased, he wouldn't want his pursuer to see where he lived, so he'd go past it and return to it later.

I'll bet the safety of his own house would far outweigh any desire to attempt to outrun a man who might be after killing him in any one of those dark streets.
People just don't think that far ahead when their life is being threatened. That excuse is what modern theorists might propose when they have time to create an attractive plot. Not a real life practical move.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wicker Man]

Hi Jon

But what if Schwarz came back with a policeman?

True.
But if Pipeman saw him off, even saw him enter his house?, then he could walk back reasonably certain that this Jew will not bother him further.

I'm not arguing Pipeman "was" the killer, anyone could have approached Stride in the meantime, I only mentioned Pipeman because he is just one of those "anyone's".
I'm saying, Pipeman is not out of the picture just because he chased the Jew off, we don't know what he did after that.

There isn't a great deal of difference between the man Packer saw with Stride, & Pipeman. They could easily have been the same one.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rob Clack]

Jeff, Rob.
If we look at a direct line of flight from Dutfields Yard (Red X) to 22 Ellen St. (Blue X) then where does "running the length of Fairclough St." even come into it?

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h246/drifter_03/Schwartz_Pipeman.jpg

And Rob, Pipeman stepped out of the doorway of the Nelson (Green X), Schwartz was either halfway diagonal across Berner St. or already on the east side when he began to run. We cannot know his exact placement, but, how can we interpret Schwartz running west on Fairclough, passed or around the advancing Pipeman?

I can't see any reason to argue Schwartz ran east or west on Fairclough St. for any reason, where would he have been going when his address was directly south down Berner St.?

Regards, Jon S.

I've never suggested Schwartz ran the entire length of Fairclough Street, I put it as a possibility that he went east along Fairclough Street to Christian Street.
I have marked on the map three likely routes he may have took. Personally speaking I think the red route is the most likely.

10275

I think you will find pipeman was opposite Dutfields Yard. There is no evidence to suggest (other than 'The Star' which is worthless in my opinion) Pipeman was outside 'The Nelson'

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Of course that means Rob Clack was correct and Definitive story is in error (git), however I acted with the best information at that time, not being aware of Toms Fairclough report. And that was because the Star report had Pipeman out side the pub..


Well I was available to you if you needed any help or advice.

Rob

[Wicker Man]

Thankyou Rob.
I was not aware that you thought Schwartz did not head home. I would have thought that was the most likely direction a chased man would head for.
Schwartz, if dressed in theatrical garb might not be the type of man who thinks he can outrun an attacker, who knows where he might catch up with him?
Schwartz likely was not the athletic type, from the way he was dressed & the fact he took off so fast.
A scared man will run home.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rob Clack]

Thankyou Rob.
I was not aware that you thought Schwartz did not head home. I would have thought that was the most likely direction a chased man would head for.
Schwartz, if dressed in theatrical garb might not be the type of man who thinks he can outrun an attacker, who knows where he might catch up with him?
Schwartz likely was not the athletic type, from the way he was dressed & the fact he took off so fast.
A scared man will run home.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

I don't think Pipeman was chasing after Schwartz. I think BS scared him off as well as Schwartz. Schwartz didn't see pipe man when he got to the arches so I think it is safe to assume pipeman wasn't after Schwartz, but was scared of by BS man. That's my take on things.

regards

Rob

[Rob House]

Hi Jon,

I don't think Pipeman was chasing after Schwartz. I think BS scared him off as well as Schwartz. Schwartz didn't see pipe man when he got to the arches so I think it is safe to assume pipeman wasn't after Schwartz, but was scared of by BS man. That's my take on things.

regards

Rob

I agree with you Rob. Cheers to you.

RH

[Wicker Man]

Hi Jon,

I don't think Pipeman was chasing after Schwartz.

Hi Rob.
I tend to think anyone who does read it that way must also believe that Pipeman was an accomplice to BS-man.
The more important question is, did Schwartz think he was being chased?

I find it hard to believe anyone would run all that distance if they didn't think they were being chased. The next question is, why run so far away when, refuge, your house, is so near?


I think BS scared him off as well as Schwartz.

That I'm not so sure about, I would accept BS-man also turned and left the scene the minute Schwartz began to run. No evidence I know, but now there is a disturbance spreading from street to street and might catch the attention of a passing beat policeman. Maybe the prudent thing for BS-man to do was also take off.
Maybe this next story reflects such an event?

"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."
Echo, 1st Oct.

So, did BS-man leave, and, exactly what did Pipeman do next?


None of which helps to identify precisely who those two men were who ran eastward down Fairclough St., one perhaps shouting "murder", "police", and some passer-by thinking that one man was chasing the other, when in fact it may have been nothing more than Diemschitz & Kozebrodski running for a policeman.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob.
I tend to think anyone who does read it that way must also believe that Pipeman was an accomplice to BS-man.
The more important question is, did Schwartz think he was being chased?

I find it hard to believe anyone would run all that distance if they didn't think they were being chased. The next question is, why run so far away when, refuge, your house, is so near?

Hi Jon

Schwartz believed he was being followed by Pipeman. I think people will act differently in this scenario. Some would run to the safety of there own home and some would not. I don't think I would run home in this situation as I wouldn't want someone I believed was following me to know where I lived and possibly putting me or my family in danger.



That I'm not so sure about, I would accept BS-man also turned and left the scene the minute Schwartz began to run. No evidence I know, but now there is a disturbance spreading from street to street and might catch the attention of a passing beat policeman. Maybe the prudent thing for BS-man to do was also take off.
Maybe this next story reflects such an event?

"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."
Echo, 1st Oct.

So, did BS-man leave, and, exactly what did Pipeman do next?


None of which helps to identify precisely who those two men were who ran eastward down Fairclough St., one perhaps shouting "murder", "police", and some passer-by thinking that one man was chasing the other, when in fact it may have been nothing more than Diemschitz & Kozebrodski running for a policeman.

Regards, Jon S.

I don't believe Pipeman was an accomplace, so he either didn't want to get involved and left, or he was scared off.

It was most likely Dimshitz and Kozebrodski who ran east along Fairclough Street, Everything happened in a 15 minute spell so it was most likely them.

Regards

Rob

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Robert sorry about delay I'm working on other stuff at present but this is interesting as I've clearly changed my view of events and switched camps on which side of the street Pipeman was stood.

Hi Jeff

But according to Schwarz's statement, the throwing down and the screams occurred before Schwarz crossed over.

No. Lets just be clear: The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her around and threw her on the footway and the woman screamed three times but not very loudly. On crossing to the other side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

I think this clearly indicates the attack stated happened while Schwartz was crossing the street. It says "On crossing to the other side" ie he had reached his destination and reached the other side. It would have taken several seconds for stride to pass out 20-30-40? If he was walking towards them do the maths? he would have ended up bumping into them unless he crossed.

So my interpreation is that he crosses to avoid the arguement and during the process of crossing the event takes place. A similtainious event.

I again remind you of the strange wording 'Screams three times but not very loudly' why would anyone be scared by that unless they were trying to describe the gurgles of a woman choaking then being thrown to the floor?

I suggest that BSM pulled strides right arm behind her into a lock and strangled her by the scarf with his left hand. Her left hand useless for defence while holding the cachous, clutching them tightly threw pain. When she passed out he threw her to teh floor , hence the bruises and turned. Seeing the two men he shouts 'Lipski'..they run away.

It would also make sense that the exposed killer then dragged her into the shadows by her strangely out stretched left arm, twisting her body slightly as she was pulled her right arm still behind her...

(Thanks to Cat for demonstrating, it hurt :clap2:)

Also, he noticed Pipeman lighting his Pipe when he had crossed. Now, if Pipeman had come to investigate the commotion, he must have been a very dedicated smoker, for the first thing he does on arrival is to light his pipe! Isn't it more likely that Pipeman was already standing there before Schwarz crossed?

Yes I agree.Which is why I've always gone with the Star version of events. However this new article clearly suggests a chase in Fairclough Street at 12.45

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

If the chase was in Fairclough street it suggests that Schwartz crossed the road diagonally pass the Nelson and ran towards Church lane , Pinchin street then home. Which makes sense but why..

Well I have to eat my words but I think Rob Clack must be correct . The Star report is confused...

Standing lighting his pipe is a problem I agree...but not impossible that the the scorned lover seen by Brown is the same man as Pipeman and that he was in the process of lighting a pipe while he came around the corner leaving Schwartz only one escape route....Diagonally past the Nelson pub persued by Pipeman of one of several reasons down Fairclough Street...

So I think it does all fit and I now beleive Rob Clacks and SPE's version of events more probable..

Yours Jeff

PS anyone ever checked if the theatrical Schwartz might have worked in the Tailoring industry?

[Robert Linford]

"I think this clearly indicates the attack stated happened while Schwartz was crossing the street. It says "On crossing to the other side" ie he had reached his destination and reached the other side. It would have taken several seconds for stride to pass out 20-30-40? If he was walking towards them do the maths? he would have ended up bumping into them unless he crossed."

Jeff this assumes that Stride passed out - which is the very point you're trying to prove.

To me, it seems that Schwarz witnesses an assault which results in a woman lying on the pavement, possibly blocking his path. Either to avoid the unpleasantness, or the woman, or both, he crosses to the other side of the street.

We don't know that Schwarz was scared by the screams. He may have been, and he may have been scared by the "Lipski," too.

However the wording of the report (I'm going by the transcription on Casebook - my Sourcebook is packed away) does seem very strange. If taken literally, the whole thing only happened once Schwarz had reached the gateway! Taken literally, the report seems to suggest :
Schwarz reaches the gateway and simultaneously BS reaches it too. BS stops and speaks to Stride. Schwarz stands there watching as BS pulls Stride out of the alley and throws her down. Schwarz then crosses over and sees Pipeman. While Schwarz is standing there, BS calls out "Lipski." Schwarz then walks away, and finding that Pipeman is following, he breaks into a run. Schwarz only walks away once "Lipski" has been called out. The literal
sense of the passage seems to have Schwarz doing more standing around and observing and less time walking and trying not to get involved. Maybe that was why he was able to give quite reasonable descriptions of the men. It's a hard passage to make sense of, because we can see that it wasn't very well worded, e.g.
"He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway..." Well, the footway is the street, unless it's the "footway" inside the yard that's meant. If the footway is the street pavement, then why the words "tried" and "but"?

[Jeff Leahy]

"I think this clearly indicates the attack stated happened while Schwartz was crossing the street. It says "On crossing to the other side" ie he had reached his destination and reached the other side. It would have taken several seconds for stride to pass out 20-30-40? If he was walking towards them do the maths? he would have ended up bumping into them unless he crossed."

Jeff this assumes that Stride passed out - which is the very point you're trying to prove.

To me, it seems that Schwarz witnesses an assault which results in a woman lying on the pavement, possibly blocking his path. Either to avoid the unpleasantness, or the woman, or both, he crosses to the other side of the street.

We don't know that Schwarz was scared by the screams. He may have been, and he may have been scared by the "Lipski," too.

Hi Robert

Hopefully I'm making a more '360' claim (as we annoying TV types use).

What I'm saying is the position of Strides body suggests an attack which I describe..

And is supported by the source evidence as it is known

So I'm trying to combine the attack with Schwartz to the final position of Strides body...I think thats very new...never been done before.

However the wording of the report (I'm going by the transcription on Casebook - my Sourcebook is packed away) does seem very strange. If taken literally, the whole thing only happened once Schwarz had reached the gateway! Taken literally, the report seems to suggest :
Schwarz reaches the gateway and simultaneously BS reaches it too. BS stops and speaks to Stride. Schwarz stands there watching as BS pulls Stride out of the alley and throws her down. Schwarz then crosses over and sees Pipeman. While Schwarz is standing there, BS calls out "Lipski." Schwarz then walks away, and finding that Pipeman is following, he breaks into a run. Schwarz only walks away once "Lipski" has been called out. The literal
sense of the passage seems to have Schwarz doing more standing around and observing and less time walking and trying not to get involved. Maybe that was why he was able to give quite reasonable descriptions of the men. It's a hard passage to make sense of, because we can see that it wasn't very well worded, e.g.
"He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway..." Well, the footway is the street, unless it's the "footway" inside the yard that's meant. If the footway is the street pavement, then why the words "tried" and "but"?

Well I think the Home Office report can be taken literally...

Wish I had a camera to demonstrate...but my friend Cat who has worked on Self defence with Dangerous people showed me how the right arm would be pulled behind the back, behind her back and the left arm of killer used to hold the sarf or rapped around her throat to cut blood supply...Stride would appear to be pulled backwards....as described (in swanson's report)..she would hold the cachous in left hand but be unable to hit her attacker with her free left hand..(Which I've just done with Cat and I was unable to hit her in this hold)

But this does depend on Stride turning to her left and the killer being right handed..

But then Stride being dragged into the ally by her left arm (3 Paces) and her throat cut...well that adds up and explains the odd position in which the body was found...

So its strange how the finding of a new press report has finally aloud me to figure out how Stride was killed...something that had always puzzled me until now..

Yours jeff

[Robert Linford]

Hi Jeff

Well, I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of Cat so I'll :tape:

[Debra Arif]

This isn't a new article. Tom's first post about it at the beginning of the thread was back in 2007.

[Jeff Leahy]

This isn't a new article. Tom's first post about it at the beginning of the thread was back in 2007.

Hi Debra

Yes I am aware of this, and someone has also pointed out that Chris Philips had highlighted the article before that..

I'm simply saying I personally was unaware of this article. It Had not been considered in books I studied. And I had not calculated this into my accessment..

If I had then I think my balance of the 'Sources' might have been different

Yours Jeff

PS Robert ..these are wise words..

[Debra Arif]

Hi Debra

Yes I am aware of this, and someone has also pointed out that Chris Philips had highlighted the article before that..

I'm simply saying I personally was unaware of this article. It Had not been considered in books I studied. And I had not calculated this into my accessment..

If I had then I think my balance of the 'Sources' might have been different

Yours Jeff

PS Robert ..these are wise words..


Oh, I missed it first time round too, Jeff. Mind you it's about timings and geography, two things I'm rubbish at...I always turn up late in the wrong place!
We obviously don't give Tom enough credit as his earlier whine that we would be all over it if it was posted by someone else seems to be justified this time, and if we'd all seen it sooner Rob might have a tad bit more hair now. :)

I haven't seen anyone agree with Tom over the Wess as Schwartz' interpreter thing yet though.

[Rob Clack]

Oh, I missed it first time round too, Jeff. Mind you it's about timings and geography, two things I'm rubbish at...I always turn up late in the wrong place!
We obviously don't give Tom enough credit as his earlier whine that we would be all over it if it was posted by someone else seems to be justified this time, and if we'd all seen it sooner Rob might have a tad bit more hair now. :)


To be perfectly honest, I think I look quite sexy bald :)

Rob

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh, I missed it first time round too, Jeff. Mind you it's about timings and geography, two things I'm rubbish at...I always turn up late in the wrong place!
We obviously don't give Tom enough credit as his earlier whine that we would be all over it if it was posted by someone else seems to be justified this time, and if we'd all seen it sooner Rob might have a tad bit more hair now. :)

I haven't seen anyone agree with Tom over the Wess as Schwartz' interpreter thing yet though.

Ah I confess sources and information not my strong point...spacial geography and over all balance rather than specifics being my stronger aptitudes..

But at least I still have my hair :bowdown:

But I think it does us all good to rethink and reavaluate what we took as given from time to time...

To be honest I'm still not 100% on the Brown-couple-pipeman connection..

But if any body wishes to book me on how Stride died...then I think I've finally figured it out...

But I'm open to anyone with an alternative opinion

And I agree anoying though Tom sometimes is, his uses seem to out way his sometimes annoying posts

Thanks Debs

Jx

[Debra Arif]

To be perfectly honest, I think I look quite sexy bald :)

Rob

and if we'd all seen it sooner Rob might have a tad bit more hair now....but be a lot less sexy :)

[Rob Clack]

and if we'd all seen it sooner Rob might have a tad bit more hair now....but be a lot less sexy :)

God works in mysterious ways :)

[Debra Arif]

But the boards work the same old, same old. You were right in what you said about 'notes'!
...want to buy a book? :becky:

[Rob Clack]

But the boards work the same old, same old. You were right in what you said about 'notes'!
...want to buy a book? :becky:

Only if it's got pictures :)

[Monty]

To be perfectly honest, I think I look quite sexy bald :)

Rob

:tape2:

Monty
:)

[Maria Birbili]

I haven't seen anyone agree with Tom over the Wess as Schwartz' interpreter thing yet though.
Hey, standing right here!

To be perfectly honest, I think I look quite sexy bald :)
Maybe. :photo:

And I agree anoying though Tom sometimes is
Agree, and not just sometimes.

[Debra Arif]

Hey, standing right here!




Oh, ok...apart from the organ grinder and the monkey then, who else? ;)

[Maria Birbili]

Marriott's the organ(s) grinder, but who's the monkey? ;-)

[Wicker Man]

Oh, ok...apart from the organ grinder and the monkey then, who else? ;)

Typical Yorkshire attitude, you know you're just asking for trouble, don'tcha!

:)

[Wicker Man]

Wish I had a camera to demonstrate...but my friend Cat who has worked on Self defence with Dangerous people showed me how the right arm would be pulled behind the back, behind her back and the left arm of killer used to hold the sarf or rapped around her throat to cut blood supply...


Jeff.
A few people have suggested the killer use this so-called sleeper hold, wrapping the arm around her neck.
We saw this become popular in recent years as a wrestling hold on TV, I'm not sure if this is what you are suggesting?

Stride wore a black jacket, being October it was probably a thicker material, and trimmed with fur.
The killer had to be wearing a jacket or an overcoat.

Have you tried this 'sleeper' move fully clothed?
We often see demonstrations done where the woman has an exposed, bare, neck, and the man has bare arms. Naturally this allows for maximim contact therefore maximum pressure.
Try it with the woman wearing a thick jacket and the man an overcoat.

See how much pressure can be accurately applied, I'd be surprised if it worked at all. Too much padding between the arm & her neck and too awkward for the man.

Regards, Jon S.

[Debra Arif]

Typical Yorkshire attitude, you know you're just asking for trouble, don'tcha!

:)

Well, as any decent minimalist ripperologist will tell you- our time on the boards is dull, sterile, and un-creative. I have to fill in the long days between reading and finding boring old facts with anything I can don't I?
After all, when Maria is not digging deep into facts or enormous holes, she has her music...blowing her own trumpet. :)

[Maria Birbili]

Scientific research often requires to be conducted in a :painkiller:sterile environment.
And I'm indeed very busy digging my own hole.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff.
A few people have suggested the killer use this so-called sleeper hold, wrapping the arm around her neck.
We saw this become popular in recent years as a wrestling hold on TV, I'm not sure if this is what you are suggesting?

Stride wore a black jacket, being October it was probably a thicker material, and trimmed with fur.
The killer had to be wearing a jacket or an overcoat.

Have you tried this 'sleeper' move fully clothed?
We often see demonstrations done where the woman has an exposed, bare, neck, and the man has bare arms. Naturally this allows for maximim contact therefore maximum pressure.
Try it with the woman wearing a thick jacket and the man an overcoat.

See how much pressure can be accurately applied, I'd be surprised if it worked at all. Too much padding between the arm & her neck and too awkward for the man.

Regards, Jon S.

Ah good point, I confess we were fully Skyclad while attempting this manuvere :eyebrows:

Luckily however I'm the only person in the world with a fully stocked Jack teh Ripper waldrobe with over fourty verious costumes..

I'll dig out Strides outfit now, find BSM and get Cat dressed when she is out of the bath...

Will report back later

However the extensive padding in Strides outfit would certainly explain the lack of bruising as she hit the floor...back soon :plane:jeff

PS Its just occured to me this also explains why Stride didnt fall on her hands and didnt let go of the cachous. She passed out before she hit the floor other wise its a simple reflex to try and stop yourself falling!

[Jeff Leahy]

OK I'm a fat bastard and the frock didnt fit..

But i still maintain that the Hold I described would have been possible in the clothes of the period..

Actually i think i have this sussed so if anyone at conference wishes a demonstration..well possibly that could be arranged..

The key piont here is that Tom Wescott...yes I know a sicophantc love in (lol).. has raised some interesting new evidence and that is a game changer on how we review the evidence perhaps you should use tom not the Marriott at the conference?

YOurs Jeff

[Wicker Man]

OK I'm a fat bastard and the frock didnt fit..

But i still maintain that the Hold I described would have been possible in the clothes of the period..

Actually i think i have this sussed so if anyone at conference wishes a demonstration..well possibly that could be arranged..

The key piont here is that Tom Wescott...yes I know a sicophantc love in (lol).. has raised some interesting new evidence and that is a game changer on how we review the evidence perhaps you should use tom not the Marriott at the conference?

YOurs Jeff

Use Tom for what?, to demonstrate the choke hold?

Jon

[Jeff Leahy]

Use Tom for what?, to demonstrate the choke hold?

Jon

Its an idea :second:

But two men chasing down Fairclough Street at 12.45 does seem to indicate that Schwartz story was correct and that Pipeman was not stood outside the Nelson Pub as claimed in the Star report.

Yours Jeff

[Wicker Man]

Its an idea :second:

But two men chasing down Fairclough Street at 12.45 does seem to indicate that Schwartz story was correct and that Pipeman was not stood outside the Nelson Pub as claimed in the Star report.

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff.
I can't for the life of me see why Schwartz should have anything to do with it.
We all know who the only two people were who ran eastward down Fairclough St. shouting "police", "murder", it was Diemschitz & Kozebrodski.

We know Wess did not witness this because he had left for home before the murder. So, whoever witnessed these two men running down the street just assumed one was chasing the other.
Wess likely received the story on the grapevine and passed it on to the press.

There is nothing compatible between the story Schwartz told and the story published in the Echo, nothing.

Regards, Jon S.

[Paul]

Hi Jeff.
I can't for the life of me see why Schwartz should have anything to do with it.
We all know who the only two people were who ran eastward down Fairclough St. shouting "police", "murder", it was Diemschitz & Kozebrodski.

We know Wess did not witness this because he had left for home before the murder. So, whoever witnessed these two men running down the street just assumed one was chasing the other.
Wess likely received the story on the grapevine and passed it on to the press.

There is nothing compatible between the story Schwartz told and the story published in the Echo, nothing.

Regards, Jon S.

I haven't followed this thread very closely and I thought the same as you, Jon, but assumed there was some reason why Diemshutz and Kozebrodski had been discounted.

[Monty]

Well, as any decent minimalist ripperologist will tell you- our time on the boards is dull, sterile, and un-creative. I have to fill in the long days between reading and finding boring old facts with anything I can don't I?
After all, when Maria is not digging deep into facts or enormous holes, she has her music...blowing her own trumpet. :)

What have the minimalists ever given us?

Monty
:)

[Paul]

What have the minimalists ever given us?

Monty
:)

A lot of a little. Or, on reflection, would it be a little of a lot?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff.
I can't for the life of me see why Schwartz should have anything to do with it.
We all know who the only two people were who ran eastward down Fairclough St. shouting "police", "murder", it was Diemschitz & Kozebrodski.

We know Wess did not witness this because he had left for home before the murder. So, whoever witnessed these two men running down the street just assumed one was chasing the other.
Wess likely received the story on the grapevine and passed it on to the press.

There is nothing compatible between the story Schwartz told and the story published in the Echo, nothing.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon I dont think that the report sys anything other than two men chased each other at 12.45?

Anything else is speculation

Yours jeff

[Wicker Man]

Hi Jon I dont think that the report sys anything other than two men chased each other at 12.45?

Anything else is speculation

Yours jeff

Yes, and its the lavish speculation surrounding this article that caused this thread to be created, not what it actually tells us.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi all

Not sure if it is common knowledge my apologies if it is - I have had a quick look to see if it is on the boards but couldn't see it.

I thought I would post Israel Schwartz through the census from 1891 - 1901.

In 1891 at 22 Great Samuel Street lived

Israel Schwartz Head 27 Tailor's Presser Born in Poland.
Eva Schwartz Wife 27 Born in Poland
Dinah E Schwartz Dau 6 Scholar Born in Poland.
Louis Schawrtz son 6mt Born in St George's East London


In 1901 at 21 Jubilee Street, Stepney lived

Israel Schwartz Head 36 Provisions dealer o/a Born in Russia
Esther Schwartz Wife 36 Born in Russia
Esther Schwartz Dau 16 Dress maker Born in Russia
Louis Schwartz Son 12 Scholar St George's East London
Daniel Schwartz Son 6 Scholar St George's East London
Edward Schwartz Son 3 St George's east London
Abraham Schwartz Son 1 St George's East London

In 1911 at 26 Prince's Square, Cable Street St George's East

Israel Schwartz Head 48 Tailor Worker Born in Poland and Jewish
Eva Schwartz Wife 48 Born in Poland and Jewish
Etta Schwartz dau 25 Dressmaker worker Born in Poland and Jewish
Lionel Schwartz son 21 Fur cutter worker Born in Middlesex St George East
Daniel Schwartz son 17 Watchmaker worker Born in Middlesex St GeorgeEast
Judah Schwartz son 13 Born in Middlesex St George East
Abie Schwartz son 11 Born in Middlesex St George East
Monte Schwartz 9 Born in Middlesex St George in East

The couple have been married for 28 years with a total of 11 children 6 still living and 5 who have died. They are all living in a 4 roomed house (you count the Kitchen as a room but not bathroom, scullery, landing, lobby or closet)

Tracy

Thanks for those Tracey

Intresting that we have Schwaz's connected to Tailoring

And Israil described as 'Theatrical appearance'.

Cant get a connection between the Kosminski's and Schwartz out of my head?

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, and its the lavish speculation surrounding this article that caused this thread to be created, not what it actually tells us.

Regards, Jon S.

Just to be clear Jon I think the Echo article changes the balance of probability.

The Home Office report is the most credible source and I think it suggests that Pipeman was opposite BSM..However it is ambigous and could be read the other way..

The Star report places Pipeman out side the pub. So on balance I've always gone with that probability..

However the Echo Story has a chase down Fairclough Street at 12.45.

The balance of probabilty is tipped back to Pipeman being on teh same side as Schwartz and Schwartz running at a diagonal away from BSM and Pipeman.

This explains why Schwartz runs to the railway Arch. So thats why I've changed my view and admit Definitive is wrong though I think my reasoning was correct at that time.

The moment they leave his sight BSM grabs the left arm of the unconcious Stride laying on teh pavement pulls her into teh Ally, three steps, her body twisting slightly as he does so right hand behind the back.

He pulls her back by the Scarf. Cuts her throat with a less than perfect angle , hence shallower cut and leaves by 12.47-8

Heads past Fanies Door

The rest is History.

I also think Schwartz new who BSM was

Yours Jeff

PS Am i reading correctly Debra that you have confirmed that Schwartz was a Tailor? Louis Schwitz: Father Israil , Tailor

[Debra Arif]

PS Am i reading correctly Debra that you have confirmed that Schwartz was a Tailor? Louis Schwitz: Father Israil , Tailor

Jeff, do you mean the info from the school records I posted on CB? The 1892 entry says tailor, yeah.
I will post them here too:

Here are a couple of bits of extra information on Israel's different addresses on different dates, from school registers,that may or may not be useful for someone:

Firstly this is for a Rose Schwatz, her year of birth and address show that this is probably Israel's oldest child, Dinah.


Name: Rose Schwatz
Age: 6
Birth Date: Nov 1884
School: Berner Street School
Borough: Tower Hamlets
Admission Date: 12 May 1891
Parent: Israel
Address 22 Samuel Street

While some children's entries say the child cannot speak English, Rose's does not, suggesting she may have been in the country a few years? It also says she had previously attended Infants school.

This is for Louis


Name: Louis Schwitz
Age: 4
Birth Date: 3 Mar 1892
School: Berner Street School
Borough: Tower Hamlets
Admission Date: 31 Aug 1896
Parent: Israel, tailor
Address 143 B C [Back church] Lane

This is for Daniel

Name: Daniel Schwartz
Age: 5
Birth Date: 24 Jun 1895
School: Dempsey Street School
Borough: Tower Hamlets
Admission Date: 4 Mar 1901
Parent: Israel

Address 121 Jubilee street [I double checked and it definitely says 121 as opposed to 21 but may be in error]
__________________

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff, do you mean the info from the school records I posted on CB? The 1892 entry says tailor, yeah.
I will post them here too:

If thats true Debra

Then I think its the most brilliant discovery this year :yo:

Another piece of the jigsaw added to..

I think you research chaps and chapessess deserve more recognition:thumb:

Many many congratulations..

Yours Jeff

PS Just checked the A to Z which just says Probably of Jewish extraction. No mention of Trade.

[Debra Arif]

Doesn't the fact he was a tailor's presser in 1891 count?

Great, I can just bum around for the rest of the year now! Thanks Jeff!

[Jeff Leahy]

Doesn't the fact he was a tailor's presser in 1891 count?

Great, I can just bum around for the rest of the year now! Thanks Jeff!

Sorry Debra But where are you getting 'presser' 1891? or am I missing something?

I cant sleep with excitement about this. The potential ramifications are enormous..

Firstly it sort of quashes the arguement that police might have lost contact or where abouts of Schwartz.

Secondly, how many Tailoring premises would have been in the area? And could Schwartz have known the Kosminski's?

Seaside Home: Could Schwartz have recognised BSM as Aaron and told his family? Could Schwartz have known who BSM was?

Seaside Home: Could Aaron have NOT been BSM but have been recognised by Schwartz? "He new he was recognised" IF they worked together this would have lots of potential ramifications and possibilities .

Try this as an outsider what if Schwartz and Kosminski were in the same gang? They were both 22 years old?

Anyway Debs I hope you dont stop your doing a wonderful job, who knows perhaps theres a photo of Schwartz out there waiting to be discovered.

Thanks you so much. Best new info in ages.

Yours not sleeping Jeffx

[Rob Clack]

Sorry Debra But where are you getting 'presser' 1891? or am I missing something?


1891 Census.

Rob

[Cris Malone]

Yours not sleeping Jeffx

Maybe some folks who are on some type of medication need to get off of it and some folks who are not on medication need to get on it.

[Jeff Leahy]

1891 Census.

Rob

Seems like I missed something somewhere. I try to keep as up to date on developments as possible..

Like Toms Echo article sometimes it takes a little time to catch up..

But having on several occassions speculated that Schwartz night be a Tailor it was great to know a hunch proved correct for once..

When did the Cenus discovery happen? or should I just pay more attention in class?:first:

Jeff

[Robert Linford]

Jeff, you read the census returns yesterday on this thread. You even commented on the tailoring.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff, you read the census returns yesterday on this thread. You even commented on the tailoring.

I dont know if I'm being thick here Robert but its the word 'Presser' I seem to have missed.

Besides I thought I was commenting on the school registers?

YOurs Jeff

[Robert Linford]

Jeff, post 110, page 11.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff, post 110, page 11.

Ok smart ass, I found it on *18 Tracy..

So I'm late to the party on occassions:cry:

I still think this has some interesting ramifications

We have the leading suspect age 22 living in a Tailoring workshop.

And a witness who is also a Tailor aged 22

So whats the odds on them knowing each other?

Someone must have an idea on how many workshops were in the vercinity?

Yours Jeff

[Adam Went]

Apologies for randomly jumping in on the discussion like this, but surely the idea that Schwartz was the Seaside Home witness is an outdated one.

Personally I think it's very unlikely - Schwartz never even appeared at the original inquest into Stride's murder (the reasons for this have been debated numerous times before), so why on earth would he suddenly be called up years later to identify a man? Especially if the killer was Pipeman rather than the first man, as Schwartz did not get a particularly good look at Pipeman and his description is more vague than that of the first man.

And yet Pipeman makes a far better candidate from the killer based on the varying actions of the two.....hell he was even brandishing a knife if you believe one press report. Nobody ever witnessed the first man with a knife. But maybe i'm reading too much into all of this.

The Seaside Home witness......potentially somebody who hasn't been looked at fully yet, somebody known to the police......possibly Joseph Lawende....probably Joseph Hyam Levy? ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jeff Leahy]

Apologies for randomly jumping in on the discussion like this, but surely the idea that Schwartz was the Seaside Home witness is an outdated one.

Its a public message board Adam. Besides some times sifting over teh facts with someone of a different veiw piont helps something new to click. I've certainly reaccessed since starting discussion on this thread.

Personally I think it's very unlikely - Schwartz never even appeared at the original inquest into Stride's murder (the reasons for this have been debated numerous times before), so why on earth would he suddenly be called up years later to identify a man? Especially if the killer was Pipeman rather than the first man, as Schwartz did not get a particularly good look at Pipeman and his description is more vague than that of the first man. .

OK. I think your looking at it the wrong way around. Spec: Anderson asked Swanson of arrange the ID. Swanson had teh information on the suspect. He new what the suspect looked like and he new where he lived. Swanson took the original statement from Schwartz and must have put two and two together deciding the Berner Street event the best fit he called in Schwartz, who we now know stayed in the area and would have been easy to track down.

And yet Pipeman makes a far better candidate from the killer based on the varying actions of the two.....hell he was even brandishing a knife if you believe one press report. Nobody ever witnessed the first man with a knife. But maybe i'm reading too much into all of this..

I cant agree with that. BSM clearly grabbed Stride as she turned, right arm behind her back, his left hand on her scarf or colar. "She screamed three times but not very loudly" Because she was being choaked. She fainted and fell to teh ground forward on the pavement. He turns shout 'Lipski' and Pipeman (Probably teh man seen by Brown) chased Schwartz. BSM grals Strides left hand (still holding cachou) pulls her three steps into teh ally (Hence possition of body) pulls her head back by scarf cuts her once and walks off 12.48 past Fannies door.

If teh Echo report on this thread is correct it shows that the Star report is indeed in error.

The Seaside Home witness......potentially somebody who hasn't been looked at fully yet, somebody known to the police......possibly Joseph Lawende....probably Joseph Hyam Levy? ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

Possibly. however if it wre Lawende why ask him to ID Sadler teh following week? Doesnt seem very likely

And we now know PC HArvey new Brighton well.. Not that he was Jewish but perhaps there was more than one witness.

Yours Jeff

[Adam Went]

Hi Jeff,

OK. I think your looking at it the wrong way around. Spec: Anderson asked Swanson of arrange the ID. Swanson had teh information on the suspect. He new what the suspect looked like and he new where he lived. Swanson took the original statement from Schwartz and must have put two and two together deciding the Berner Street event the best fit he called in Schwartz, who we now know stayed in the area and would have been easy to track down.

The difficulty with that is that, as I alluded to previously, if the attacker was in fact not the killer, then whether the Seaside Home witness was Schwartz or not, the identification becomes a moot point. If the killer was in fact Pipeman or somebody else, then they were barking up the wrong tree all along.

Furthermore, Schwartz was following the attacker down Berner Street. When he grabbed Stride, Schwartz crossed the street and made an effort to basically stay out of the way of trouble. It's not unreasonable to suggest that his sighting of the attacker might not have been as clear as some people thing. Can his testimony be relied upon to the extent of a positive identification? Surely there are other witnesses who could provide a more trustworthy identification?

I cant agree with that. BSM clearly grabbed Stride as she turned, right arm behind her back, his left hand on her scarf or colar. "She screamed three times but not very loudly" Because she was being choaked. She fainted and fell to teh ground forward on the pavement. He turns shout 'Lipski' and Pipeman (Probably teh man seen by Brown) chased Schwartz. BSM grals Strides left hand (still holding cachou) pulls her three steps into teh ally (Hence possition of body) pulls her head back by scarf cuts her once and walks off 12.48 past Fannies door.

There's a lot of supposition in that. The attack on Stride was completely at odds with what we know of Jack's method of approaching his victim. Compare the sudden approach and attack on Stride with the calm, friendly conversation witnessed by Lawende, Harris and Levy outside Mitre Square less than an hour later.

Compare the very public assault of Stride with the other clean, little or no noise attacks. Not to mention that to Schwartz, the man appeared to be somewhat intoxicated, again not something which would seem to have afflicted Jack.

As for Mortimer, I get a shiver up my spine just thinking about it....

Possibly. however if it wre Lawende why ask him to ID Sadler teh following week? Doesnt seem very likely

Perhaps to test his honesty? Who knows. But Joseph Hyam Levy is a very interesting and shady character for mine, needs a lot closer examination...

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,
The difficulty with that is that, as I alluded to previously, if the attacker was in fact not the killer, then whether the Seaside Home witness was Schwartz or not, the identification becomes a moot point. If the killer was in fact Pipeman or somebody else, then they were barking up the wrong tree all along.

Hi Adam, well yes but that could also be argued about the man seen by Lawende or Mrs Long. And Swanson would have known that.

However the time of Death given by Dr Blackwell and the probability of being attacked by two different men, which seems unlikely, all point to BSM being the most probable killer.

Furthermore, Schwartz was following the attacker down Berner Street. When he grabbed Stride, Schwartz crossed the street and made an effort to basically stay out of the way of trouble. It's not unreasonable to suggest that his sighting of the attacker might not have been as clear as some people thing. Can his testimony be relied upon to the extent of a positive identification? Surely there are other witnesses who could provide a more trustworthy identification?

Schwartz would have had a clear veiw of BSM's face when he shouted 'Lipski' so of all the witnesses he had the best view. I agree that Schwartz ran off scared at teh time but perhaps when he got home his wife persuaded him to go to the police or perhaps with hind sight he thought he should have done something? He did however go to the police volutentary.

There's a lot of supposition in that.

Theres a lot of suposition in all JtR theories, its the nature of the game. But I've tried to stick as close to the 'knowns' as its possible to do.

The attack on Stride was completely at odds with what we know of Jack's method of approaching his victim. Compare the sudden approach and attack on Stride with the calm, friendly conversation witnessed by Lawende, Harris and Levy outside Mitre Square less than an hour later.

Well having looked at the statistical probability, I personally add around seven or eight ripper victims. And if you do that you have to except that JtR varied his MO considerably (As did Jack the Stripper) Stride was attacked from behind and Chapman from the front.

My personal view is that Jack was a Psychotic serial killer and therefore the attack described by Schwartz becomes a possibility in my book..

The freindly conversation would also fit psychotic behaviour pattern.

Compare the very public assault of Stride with the other clean, little or no noise attacks. Not to mention that to Schwartz, the man appeared to be somewhat intoxicated, again not something which would seem to have afflicted Jack.

"She screamed three times but not vary loudly" The more I think about that phraze the more it sounds like someone being choaked...Harriot Lilly "I heard a gurling sound followed by whispering (Someone talking to themselves?)

The Star report does say walking as if intoxicated. Its interesting to note that someone suffering schizophrenia is sometime misstaken for someone being drunk.

Perhaps to test his honesty? Who knows. But Joseph Hyam Levy is a very interesting and shady character for mine, needs a lot closer examination..

Yes I'd agree..

I think it also fair to point out the possibility that Aaron Kosminski could have been the witness ID'd or known to Schwartz but not BSM.

Both Schwartz and Aaron were the same age and worked in the Tailoring business....

Schwartz describes a man older than Aaron..

Of course the other possibility is that Schwartz didnt know Aaron (If he were BSM) at the time but later recognised him as the same man who lived were he Schwartz worked...

So perhaps it was Schwartz who went to Swanson?

YOurs Jeff

[Robert Linford]

There's an animation here:

http://casebook.org/witnesses/schwartz.html

[Jeff Leahy]

There's an animation here:

http://casebook.org/witnesses/schwartz.html

I'm aware of it Robert. Its teh classic animation and the one I used for Definitve Story.

However if the Echo report is correct and Schwartz was chased down Fairclough street it must be wrong..

Pipeman would thus have been on the same side as Schwartz when he crossed the road. Which makes more sense of teh Home Office wording.

Also the animation doesnt show Brown who left the Chandler shop at teh same time Schwartz entered Berner street. If brown did see Stride and a man, then Stride wasnt stood in the gate way at all..

She left Pipeman "Not to night some other night' crossed the street and bumped into BSM at the gateway..

However teh only way that Stride could have ended in her final position is if she was attacked and passed out in teh street. And was then dragged by her left arm into teh Ally way, then had her throat cut.

Yours Jeff

[Wicker Man]

However if the Echo report is correct and Schwartz was chased down Fairclough street it must be wrong..


Jeff.
Thats a classic case of jumping to conclusions.
There need not be anything wrong with the Echo report, it can easily be true because it doesn't mention Schwartz.
You're problem, if there is one, is self created by you assuming the story refers to the Schwartz chase.
We shouldn't replace a bonafide witness statement with an unreferenced story which mentions no names. Thats just poor research :)

All the best, Jon S.

[Cris Malone]

At the risk of appearing to be 'piling on' here... but since it was incorrectly mentioned on this thread and in the CB article... There is no evidence that Swanson interviewed Israel Schwartz. Schwartz appeared at the Leman St. Station on Sunday night and was interrogated by Inspector Abberline, who says such in his own report involving the word 'LIpski'. Swanson was writing a Home Office report summarizing the investigation up to Oct. 19, relying on the reports submitted to him. Swanson never mentioned personally interveiwing Schwartz, which I'm sure he would have if he did; as he did when he interrogated Thomas Sadler.

And I'm not so sure that the position of 'Pipeman' is correct in the animation either... but that's been debated here before.

[Tom_Wescott]

However teh only way that Stride could have ended in her final position is if she was attacked and passed out in teh street. And was then dragged by her left arm into teh Ally way, then had her throat cut.

It didn't happen this way at all, Jeff.

As for Pipeman's position, the clumsy digest version by Swanson leaves it open to equal interpretation for his either having been on the Nelson side of the street, or the board school. To me, the Star report is the tie-breaker here. Did this report concur with Swanson in everything? Not at all, but it did it did in many things. People are too quick to throw out the baby with the bath water where the Star report is concerned.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff.
Thats a classic case of jumping to conclusions.
There need not be anything wrong with the Echo report, it can easily be true because it doesn't mention Schwartz.
You're problem, if there is one, is self created by you assuming the story refers to the Schwartz chase.
We shouldn't replace a bonafide witness statement with an unreferenced story which mentions no names. Thats just poor research :)

All the best, Jon S.

Hi Jon

My point is that we should stick as closely as possible to what the sources tell us and try and make a logical balance where they contredict each other.

The Echo gives the chase at 12.45 the same approximate time as Schwartz claims he was chased by Pipeman.

Of course the timing could be wrong, everything could be wrong.

However if we assume the Echo report is correct then it contradicts the Star version of events..

My agruement is simple the weight of probability s thus swung back towards the Home Office report being correct also..

So where I argued with SPE and Rob Clack about Pipeman being outside the pub last year...

THIS NEW EVIDENCE HAS CHANGED MY VEIW

I think Schwartz made his exit down Fairclough Street...

This means that Browns timing and sighting also fits and can be taken litterally...

ie Stride and Pipeman where in Fairclough Street opposite the chandler shop..They parted. Stride closed the road and met BSM at Dutfeild Yard..

Yours Jeff

PS Chris Yes thats a fair observation Swanson probably read the statement from Schwartz I don't think he took it himself either another slight error in Definitive Story..doah.

[Jeff Leahy]

It didn't happen this way at all, Jeff.

Hi Tom. Its all very well making this statement but how else do you explain the position of Strides body?

What I've managed to do is demonstrate repeatedly Why she did end in the position found..

Indeed if anyone is interested I will demonstrate how at this years conference, it works every time I've tried it..

Actually it was you pionting out some years ago that Stride 'fainted' that set me on track to figuring it out, so many thanks..

As for Pipeman's position, the clumsy digest version by Swanson leaves it open to equal interpretation for his either having been on the Nelson side of the street, or the board school. To me, the Star report is the tie-breaker here. Did this report concur with Swanson in everything? Not at all, but it did it did in many things. People are too quick to throw out the baby with the bath water where the Star report is concerned. Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well I'm certainly not throwing the baby out with the bath water. As I've explained its about balance of probablity.

Most of us agree that the Home Office report is the most repliable source.

It places Pipeman on teh same side as Schwartz (however its wording is ambiguous)

So we consult the second source which places Pipeman outside the pub. (Its clear in that)

So on balance I dont think the Star report can be ignored so hes outside teh pub on balance..

The Echo report changes the balance back towards the Home Office version. The chase at 12.45 putting pipeman on teh same side as Schwartz with Schwartz making a diagonal get away..

THus SPE was right all along, I was wrong..

I thus conclude that Pipeman was exactly where Brown put him

Yours Jeff

[Paul]

Hi Tom. Its all very well making this statement but how else do you explain the position of Strides body?

What I've managed to do is demonstrate repeatedly Why she did end in the position found..

Indeed if anyone is interested I will demonstrate how at this years conference, it works every time I've tried it..

Actually it was you pionting out some years ago that Stride 'fainted' that set me on track to figuring it out, so many thanks..



Well I'm certainly not throwing the baby out with the bath water. As I've explained its about balance of probablity.

Most of us agree that the Home Office report is the most repliable source.

It places Pipeman on teh same side as Schwartz (however its wording is ambiguous)

So we consult the second source which places Pipeman outside the pub. (Its clear in that)

So on balance I dont think the Star report can be ignored so hes outside teh pub on balance..

The Echo report changes the balance back towards the Home Office version. The chase at 12.45 putting pipeman on teh same side as Schwartz with Schwartz making a diagonal get away..

THus SPE was right all along, I was wrong..

I thus conclude that Pipeman was exactly where Brown put him

Yours Jeff

Sorry, but I am falling well behind here. Why does the Echo story put Pipeman on the same side of the street as Schwartz?

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry, but I am falling well behind here. Why does the Echo story put Pipeman on the same side of the street as Schwartz?

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.


Hi Paul

Just to follow my logic here. The new Echo report places a chase down Fairclough Street at 12.45. The same time as Schwartz claimed that he ran from Pipeman.

If Pipeman were on the Pub side, then Schwartz would not have run that way as it would have taken him directly towards Pipeman.

However if Pipeman was on the same side of the road as Schwartz , then Schwartz escape would be diagonally between Pipeman and BSM towards the pub and down Fairclough Street as described in the Echo report..

So I'm suggesting that this new report swings the favour back in Pipeman being on the same side as Schwartz..It also has teh added advantage of explaining why Schwartz ran to teh railway arch, and gives some support to Browns suggestion that he saw STRIDE with a man (Possibly pipeman) at 12.45.. as the whole story would still fit together..

Plus this would quickly have Schwartz and Pipeman out of sight of BSM, free to drag Stride into the Ally cut her throat and make a fast get away..

Trusting this clarifies

Yours Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom. Its all very well making this statement but how else do you explain the position of Strides body?

Before I answer that, let me make sure that I understand your stance. You believe that Stride fainted after being knocked down by BS Man and uttering her meager ‘no, no’. BS Man then dragged Stride inside the gate by her left arm and into her final position, where he proceeded to cut her throat. Is that correct?

Actually it was you pionting out some years ago that Stride 'fainted' that set me on track to figuring it out, so many thanks..

Thank you for noticing and bothering to consider some of my little side ideas. However, let me point out that I only offered the fainting hypothesis as one of many possibilities, and not necessarily the most likely one. While I think it possible she fainted, I by no means believe that she did, per se.

The Echo report changes the balance back towards the Home Office version. The chase at 12.45 putting pipeman on teh same side as Schwartz with Schwartz making a diagonal get away..

The Echo reporter so garbled Wess’ account that I don’t believe it can be used as any sort of reliable evidence on par with the Swanson version or even the Star account.

I thus conclude that Pipeman was exactly where Brown put him

I assume you’re referring to witness James Brown and not Howard Brown? If so, Brown didn’t put ‘Pipeman’ anywhere. He simply described witnessing a woman who may have been Stride with a man who myself and a few others, such as Harry Mann, believe might have been Pipeman. But following that line of thinking for a moment, Pipeman was not smoking a pipe when Brown saw him and was in the process of lighting one when Schwartz saw him. There was no place to shield oneself from the wind on the board school side, so I see no problem with him hopping across the narrow street to take advantage of the encave offered by the Nelson entrance in order to light his pipe.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Maria Birbili]

Sorry, but I am falling well behind here. Why does the Echo story put Pipeman on the same side of the street as Schwartz?
For whatever's worth, it mentions 2 people chasing each other.

By the by, Mr. Begg, do you today still suspect that Pipeman was known to the police during the investigation?
With most best regards from Bavaria during a storm,
Maria Birbili

[Jeff Leahy]

Before I answer that, let me make sure that I understand your stance. You believe that Stride fainted after being knocked down by BS Man and uttering her meager ‘no, no’. BS Man then dragged Stride inside the gate by her left arm and into her final position, where he proceeded to cut her throat. Is that correct?

No. I'll re-out-line my earlier discussion.

I think Stride and BSM faced each other on the pavement (Angle BSM more facing gateway) I think Stride turned to her left to go into the gateway. I think BSM grabbed her right wriste with his right hand pulling it hard up behind her and grabbed the back of her collar or scarf with his left hand. He pulled her back onto the street as described by Schwartz.

She would be unable to struggle or hit BSM in this position, instinct would make her squeeze the cahous in her free left hand. BSM pulled very tight and she screamed three times, but its very hard to scream loudly when being thoatled..Rather than choaking pulling the scarf or colar cut the blood supply to the brain and she fainted..hence her white, pale appearance. As she passed out she would fall forward onto her knees, right hand still behind her back left arm free..

She would slump forward with her knees under her, right arm behind back, face forward..as BSM lowered her and let go

BSM then turns and shouts 'Lipski' at Schwartz, Pipeman appears around the corner lighting his pipe to see what is happening almost bumping into Schwartz who freaks and runs away passed the pub down Fairclough street, persued by Pipeman who beleives Schwartz was the attacker..

Pipeman crosses the road and is out of BSM's sight in 3-4 Seconds.

Now its important to remember Strides position slumped forward her knees under her her right arm behind her, left arm loose. Fainted. On the pathway.

BSM Grabs her left arm (wrist) and takes three big steps into the yard.

As he does so the body twists onto its left side, the right arm still behind her, the legs start to staighten a little as she is pulled.

Threee steps and she is left arm out (holding cachous) on left side facing wall right arm still behind her back, legs unfolding but not completely ie the position she was found..

BSM then pulls her back by the scarf and cuts her throat but doesnt get a great angle..hence the shallower cut..she slowly bleeds to death dying around 12.50

He walks off passing Fannies door around 12.47-48 the whole incident from Scwartz entering Berner st and Brown leaving the chandler shop taking around 90 secs to two half minutes depending on walking speeds.


Thank you for noticing and bothering to consider some of my little side ideas. However, let me point out that I only offered the fainting hypothesis as one of many possibilities, and not necessarily the most likely one. While I think it possible she fainted, I by no means believe that she did, per se.

The key piont you made is that Stide appeared Pale while Chapman appears red and swollen. Suggesting Stride passed out due to lack of blood supply?

The Echo reporter so garbled Wess’ account that I don’t believe it can be used as any sort of reliable evidence on par with the Swanson version or even the Star account.

What I'm suggesting is the balance of probabilty as argued by SPE and Rob C
, is shifted by this discovery.

I'm simply balancing the evidence. It actually makes little difference to BSM killing Stride which way Pipeman or Schwartz run.

I assume you’re referring to witness James Brown and not Howard Brown? If so, Brown didn’t put ‘Pipeman’ anywhere. He simply described witnessing a woman who may have been Stride with a man who myself and a few others, such as Harry Mann, believe might have been Pipeman. But following that line of thinking for a moment, Pipeman was not smoking a pipe when Brown saw him and was in the process of lighting one when Schwartz saw him. There was no place to shield oneself from the wind on the board school side, so I see no problem with him hopping across the narrow street to take advantage of the encave offered by the Nelson entrance in order to light his pipe.

Yours truly, Tom Wescott

Yes James Brown see's a couple at 12.45. I'm saying if it was Stride then that would mean she left "not tonight some other night' crossed the road meeting BSM at Dutfeild yard..thus we have a lone man left having a condor moment exactly where SPE and Rob claim he should be...on the same side of teh road as Schwartz but out of Sight of BSM and Schwartz until he comes around teh corner to investigate.

Trust that helps

Yours Jeff

[Maria Birbili]

The key piont you made is that Stide appeared Pale while Chapman appears red and swollen. Suggesting Stride passed out due to lack of blood supply?
Hi Mr. Leahy,
Why would you say that Chapman “appears red“? Do we have any (doctors') testimonies to that? The swollen face part looks indeed like the results of manual strangulation, but she appears to have been “stout“ IRL as well (though not as “stout“ as Tabram).

Medicinally speaking, Stride died due to lack of oxygen supply a couple minutes after her throat was cut, LONG before her blood emptied out. She cannot have fainted during the initial attack (and I'm talking inside of Dutfield's Yard now, not during the witnessed attack outside on the pavement by BS), otherwise her hands would have relaxed and she would have let the cachous fall. Most plausibly (according to what the evidence in situ tells us) she was incapacitated by a stranglehold, pushed down to the ground, and her throat was cut, all in one shift move. That's what the cachous held in her hand tell us, that she got attacked unawares and didn't have time to react.

And by the by, I personally see it as a plausible possibility that the assailant learned to attack “swifter“ from Chapman to Stride.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Mr. Leahy,
Why would you say that Chapman “appears red“? Do we have any (doctors') testimonies to that? The swollen face part looks indeed like the results of manual strangulation, but she appears to have been “stout“ IRL as well (though not as “stout“ as Tabram).

Medicinally speaking, Stride died due to lack of oxygen supply a couple minutes after her throat was cut, LONG before her blood emptied out. She cannot have fainted during the initial attack (and I'm talking inside of Dutfield's Yard now, not during the witnessed attack outside on the pavement by BS), otherwise her hands would have relaxed and she would have let the cachous fall. Most plausibly (according to what the evidence in situ tells us) she was incapacitated by a stranglehold, pushed down to the ground, and her throat was cut, all in one shift move. That's what the cachous held in her hand tell us, that she got attacked unawares and didn't have time to react.

And by the by, I personally see it as a plausible possibility that the assailant learned to attack “swifter“ from Chapman to Stride.

My understanding is that the reflex action would be to grip the cachous especially if she was in considerable pain from her right arm being pulled up behind her back.

Yes Chapmans tongue protrudes she shows signs of manual strangulation from the front. I think Stride passed out in the street shortly after her last scream.

Yours Jeff

PS we have a storm here to

PS PS I think were haggling over seconds here..if her throat was cut at 12.47-48 then time of death by your own estimate is 12.50ish

[Paul]

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.


Hi Paul

Just to follow my logic here. The new Echo report places a chase down Fairclough Street at 12.45. The same time as Schwartz claimed that he ran from Pipeman.

If Pipeman were on the Pub side, then Schwartz would not have run that way as it would have taken him directly towards Pipeman.

However if Pipeman was on the same side of the road as Schwartz , then Schwartz escape would be diagonally between Pipeman and BSM towards the pub and down Fairclough Street as described in the Echo report..

So I'm suggesting that this new report swings the favour back in Pipeman being on the same side as Schwartz..It also has teh added advantage of explaining why Schwartz ran to teh railway arch, and gives some support to Browns suggestion that he saw STRIDE with a man (Possibly pipeman) at 12.45.. as the whole story would still fit together..

Plus this would quickly have Schwartz and Pipeman out of sight of BSM, free to drag Stride into the Ally cut her throat and make a fast get away..

Trusting this clarifies

Yours Jeff

Where was Pipeman standing, outside the corner entrance to the pub or the side entrance? If the former, would he have been visible to BS man? If not, then he was presumably outside the side entrance or had moved into Berner Street. Either way, Schwartz could have passed him and crossed diagonally to the far side of Fairclough Street. Schwartz was not alarmed by Pipeman until he found himself or thought himself followed, at which point he began to run.

I hate to ask the impossible-to-answer "why didn't..." questions, but if Pipeman was on the board school side of the road, wouldn't he have been visible to both BS man and Schwartz as they walked towards him? If so, why didn't they see him.

Schwartz sees Pipeman only when he tries to light his pipe, presumably attracted by the flare of the match, but he'd have to have been pretty close to him to have already walked past him when BS man shouted out. Why didn't he see him earlier?

I'm really not sure about this. The police summary has it that Pipeman was only seen after Schwartz had crossed the road, so whereabouts was he?

[Robert Linford]

It's interesting, because Pipeman stood there calmly lighting his pipe and obviously wasn't scared of BS man at that point. So why did Pipeman leave the scene? Bit odd if he suddenly gets the wind up when he'd been happy to stand there lighting his pipe. So was he following Schwarz to warn him off? Why would he, when Schwarz was leaving anyway? Very confusing!

[Maria Birbili]

Precisely, Robert.

[Wicker Man]

Hi Jon

My point is that we should stick as closely as possible to what the sources tell us and try and make a logical balance where they contredict each other.

Hi Jeff.
I entirely agree with that. I'm just concerned about assigning identifications to these people then on the strength of this, suggesting an already established sequence of events must be wrong.

I understand you wrote this to Paul, but you lost me..
If Pipeman were on the Pub side, then Schwartz would not have run that way as it would have taken him directly towards Pipeman.

However if Pipeman was on the same side of the road as Schwartz , then Schwartz escape would be diagonally between Pipeman and BSM towards the pub and down Fairclough Street as described in the Echo report..

So I'm suggesting that this new report swings the favour back in Pipeman being on the same side as Schwartz..It also has teh added advantage of explaining why Schwartz ran to teh railway arch, and gives some support to Browns suggestion that he saw STRIDE with a man (Possibly pipeman) at 12.45.. as the whole story would still fit together..

So you place Pipeman on the corner by the Board School (opposite the Nelson), so Schwartz is heading directly towards him diagonally away from Dutfields Yard. Then, you have Schwartz turn to his right again and run past the Nelson and west along Fairclough St.
What reason would there be for Pipeman to run in the same direction?

Assuming, Pipeman was also running away from BSM his best course of action is to run eastward down Fairclough St., or away from BSM and southward down Berner St.
You have placed him on the east side of Berner St. to begin with, so why have him run west?

If you present a scenario where Pipeman follows Schwartz, then the easiest conclusion to come up with is that he was actually chasing Schwartz away.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

The key piont you made is that Stide appeared Pale while Chapman appears red and swollen. Suggesting Stride passed out due to lack of blood supply?

I’ve never made a ‘point’ out Stride’s corpse being pale, and I certainly have never written that Chapman appeared red and swollen. I believe you have me confused with Bill Beadle. Best and Gardner said that the corpse they saw in the mortuary looked like the woman they’d seen at the pub but was paler. The very imaginative Beadle ran with this in an essay published in the Whitechapel Society Journal some years back. Personally, I attribute the paleness to the fact that she had become a corpse in the interim from when the men saw her at the pub and saw her at the mortuary. You seem to think paleness is the effect of fainting, which might be true, but it also happens when you’re bled out until you’re dead.

Where was Pipeman standing, outside the corner entrance to the pub or the side entrance? If the former, would he have been visible to BS man?

I'm really not sure about this. The police summary has it that Pipeman was only seen after Schwartz had crossed the road, so whereabouts was he?

Pipeman would have been standing ‘inside’ the doorway of the pub. Only after Schwartz cross the street did Pipeman step out from the doorway. This is how the Star has it.

It's interesting, because Pipeman stood there calmly lighting his pipe and obviously wasn't scared of BS man at that point. So why did Pipeman leave the scene? Bit odd if he suddenly gets the wind up when he'd been happy to stand there lighting his pipe. So was he following Schwarz to warn him off? Why would he, when Schwarz was leaving anyway? Very confusing!

Pipeman and BS Man couldn’t see each other, because they were on the same side of the street and Pipeman was lounging in the doorway to the Nelson. For this same reason, Schwartz could not see him UNTIL he crossed the road and Pipeman stepped out from the doorway. Also, Pipeman took into a run BEFORE Schwartz did, compelling Schwartz to take flight.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Jeff. Remind me to get back to you on your post about BS Man dragging Stride. Or perhaps repost your post in a better suited thread. This thread at the moment seems most concerned with Pipeman and I don't want to clutter it up with off-topic posts. Some would argue that my on-topic posts are clutter enough.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wicker Man]

Hi Jeff.


BSM Grabs her left arm (wrist) and takes three big steps into the yard.

As he does so the body twists onto its left side, the right arm still behind her, the legs start to staighten a little as she is pulled.

Threee steps and she is left arm out (holding cachous) on left side facing wall right arm still behind her back, legs unfolding but not completely ie the position she was found..


So how does her left arm (shoulder to elbow) end up underneath her body, if he was dragging her by the wrist?

Also, I think Stride's jacket would have had pockets.
I can't see a woman carrying breathmints while on a date, they would be in her pocket.
The reason she held anything in her hands right at the moment of her murder is, I suspect, because her killer had just handed them to her to hold.
The posture of her body, facing & close to the wall suggests to me she had her back to him, she turned to face the wall momentarily, then was attacked.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jeff Leahy]

Where was Pipeman standing, outside the corner entrance to the pub or the side entrance? If the former, would he have been visible to BS man? If not, then he was presumably outside the side entrance or had moved into Berner Street. Either way, Schwartz could have passed him and crossed diagonally to the far side of Fairclough Street. Schwartz was not alarmed by Pipeman until he found himself or thought himself followed, at which point he began to run.

I hate to ask the impossible-to-answer "why didn't..." questions, but if Pipeman was on the board school side of the road, wouldn't he have been visible to both BS man and Schwartz as they walked towards him? If so, why didn't they see him.

Schwartz sees Pipeman only when he tries to light his pipe, presumably attracted by the flare of the match, but he'd have to have been pretty close to him to have already walked past him when BS man shouted out. Why didn't he see him earlier?

I'm really not sure about this. The police summary has it that Pipeman was only seen after Schwartz had crossed the road, so whereabouts was he?

Hi Paul, I've been thinking about this and re-read the original text:

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, Lipski, and then Schwartz walked away.

It actually strikes me that not only is it ambiguous, but if the man lighting his pipe is stood still almost physically impossible.

I agree that Pipeman can not be opposite Dutfield Yard. If he was Schwatz would be standing in the same place, not possible. Of course Pipeman could be further North down Berner Street and Schwartz walked passed him but this seems unlikely.

So Pipeman is in one of four positions on the cross roads:

Hes on the Boardschool side of Fairclough street, North west corner

He's on the other Western corner to the South.

He's out side the Pub on the Eastern side, North East

Or by the chandlers shop South Eastern corner.

As Schwartz crossess he has a clear view of the Pub side if Pipeman light his pipe.. But actually BSM would probably NOT be able to see Pipeman if he stands still.

BSM has a clear view of the South-Western Corner but Schwartz can only see the pipeman if he steps forward or comes around the corner.

Both BSM and Schwartz have views of anyone stood on the South -Western Corner or the South-Eastern corner but then Pipeman is further away.

So if Pipeman is stood still on either the probable corners he cant be seen by one or other of them which sort of contradicts the Home Office wording.

What it is reasonable to suppose is that Schwartz direction was South back to his house and that running to the railway arch took him out of his way...

The Echo report places the chase going East down Fairclough Street.

Of course your senario Paul of Schwartz taking the South Eastern side passed the pub is possible but you have to ask yourself why? When Schwartz was heading in a Southernly direction home?

So I now think that the Pipeman being on the North-western corner of Fairclough and Berner Street the most likely to send schwartz East. BSM would have a clear view of him here...Perhaps if the wind was in an easternly direction as he lite his pipe the smoke drifted out into Schwartz eye-line illuminated from behind and he became aware of his presence as he approached the corner...

As he crossed back in the diagonal I've suggested he would then have a veiw of Pipeman stood on the North-western corner..

Pipeman starts to follow and Schwartz is forced East...

But I agree its speculation I'm only trying to re-balance the new Echo report into the probability of what we understand about the incident.

Yours Jeff

PS If Pipeman was stood on the Board school North -western corner he would be out of view for most of Schwartz and BSM's journey down Berner street from Commercial road...Angle of view coming into sight about Dutfeild Yard...

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff.
Assuming, Pipeman was also running away from BSM his best course of action is to run eastward down Fairclough St., or away from BSM and southward down Berner St.
You have placed him on the east side of Berner St. to begin with, so why have him run west?

If you present a scenario where Pipeman follows Schwartz, then the easiest conclusion to come up with is that he was actually chasing Schwartz away.

Regards, Jon S.


I dont know if I'm getting confused..But my Geography has me looking up Berner AStreet from Dutfeild Yard to Commercial Road...as NORTH

Standing in Commercial Road looking down Berner Street past Dutfeild to Crossroads Fairclough st ..South

Fairclough Street - PUB & Chandler Shop side- To the EAST

Fairclough Street Board school side direction of Brown- to WEST

Down Berner Street from Commercial road, heading home for Schwartz (Past Marsal sighting) SOUTH.

YOurs Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff. Remind me to get back to you on your post about BS Man dragging Stride. Or perhaps repost your post in a better suited thread. This thread at the moment seems most concerned with Pipeman and I don't want to clutter it up with off-topic posts. Some would argue that my on-topic posts are clutter enough.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Fair comment, both descussions have developed from the Echo itom you posted. But I'm happy to discuss my theory that Stride was pulled into her position by her left arm else ware..

I wasnt saying that you said Annie was red faced... This came out of another conversation about Strangulation Asphixiation and Garrotting cutting blood supply to head, I think with Bob Hinton?

But someone garrotted, faints.. pulling the scarf or collar tight might do this.

I'm sure you gave two descriptions of Stride looking Pale and white faced, I think from a mortuary description?

But I'm happy to pick this up when I have a little time rather busy today

Yours Jeff

[Robert Linford]

Hi Tom

The way you describe it, you think that the Nelson had a porch in front of the door and that Pipeman was standing in this porch. Is that right? Or do you think that Pipeman was actually just inside the pub?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Robert, there was no porch and as the Nelson closed at 9pm, I wouldn't expect him to be inside. Perhaps I don't now how to properly describe it, but if you stood at the door, there'd be a bit of a wind block as you'd be protected from an average wind from all directions but one. Perfect place to duck into if you wanted to light your pipe.

Jeff,

I won't go so far as to say it wouldn't have been possible to garrot a woman with the kind of scarf Stride would have been wearing, but it would have been very unlikely, not to mention extremely clumsy, and probably not successful.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Paul]

Hi Robert, there was no porch and as the Nelson closed at 9pm, I wouldn't expect him to be inside. Perhaps I don't now how to properly describe it, but if you stood at the door, there'd be a bit of a wind block as you'd be protected from an average wind from all directions but one. Perfect place to duck into if you wanted to light your pipe.

Jeff,

I won't go so far as to say it wouldn't have been possible to garrot a woman with the kind of scarf Stride would have been wearing, but it would have been very unlikely, not to mention extremely clumsy, and probably not successful.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Both the 'front' door (the angled entrance) and the side entrance in Berner Street would have provided shelter enough to prevent the match being blown out. Pipeman could have been inside the pub - landlord, barman, potman, cellerman, lockin drinker, guest or family friend... I don't think any of those are likely, but its possible.

[Robert Linford]

Well, if the scenario which has Pipeman on the same side of the road as BS is correct, then I'm wondering if Schwarz even knew that "Lipski" was a racial slur. Schwarz says that he cannot tell whether the two men are together. If Schwarz believed that BS directed a racial slur at Pipeman, the man on the opposite side from Schwarz, then he would have been unlikely to think that they were together. The alternative, that Schwarz believed that BS hurled the insult at Schwarz, would seem unlikely, since Schwarz would have described himself as the man on the opposite side, which seems an odd way to describe oneself, even making allowances for the fact that the statement ended up in reported speech.There would have been only the one man on the opposite side from BS, and that man would be Schwarz, and surely this would have been made clear in the police report. So the way I see it, if Pipeman was on the same side as BS, maybe Schwarz didn't know that "Lipski" was a term of abuse.

[Jeff Leahy]

High View of Berner Street

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Forums%202012/ABernerHighveiw.jpg

[Jeff Leahy]

View looking north up Berner Street

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Forums%202012/ABernerLookingNorthupBerner.jpg

[Robert Linford]

Bloody hell, Jeff, it was dark in Berner St!

[Jeff Leahy]

Berner Street looking South...Sorry if these are a little dark they have been heavily compressed..Dont know if Howard can assist?

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Forums%202012/ABernersouthtoCrossroads.jpg

[Wicker Man]

Fairclough Street - PUB & Chandler Shop side- To the EAST

Fairclough Street Board school side direction of Brown- to WEST

Ah, the Nelson & Dutfields is on the west side, the Board School is on the east side.

The Echo story has two people running east, like Diemschitz & Kozebrodski did, whereas Schwartz is deemed to have run south, directly home.
You must admit, to have him run in any other direction requires some colourful reasoning. If you are being chased through dark streets you will not run the risk of the stranger catching you, you'll head straight home.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wicker Man]

I won't go so far as to say it wouldn't have been possible to garrot a woman with the kind of scarf Stride would have been wearing, but it would have been very unlikely, not to mention extremely clumsy, and probably not successful.


Interesting you should bring this up Tom. Although we've discussed the use of a ligature with other victims, not yet with Stride. Though, given the description by Blackwell, that it was pulled very tight, it is a quite reasonable proposal.

Stride apparently yelped or complained when thrown down by BS-man, so if she was manhandled inside the yard by anyone she must have screamed or objected loudly, yet no-one heard anything over the singing.

Phillips noted that he cannot account for no noise being heard, that she would not casually lay down in he mud, and her throat was cut while she was layed out.
It is very reasonable that her killer turned her to face the club wall, then grabbed both ends of her scarf and pulled tight till she began to relax, slip unconscious. This could account for her not crying out.
Then, cast her down on her left side, and cut her throat.

Given that mud was under the body, had she been dragged any length (Jeff), they would have seen scrape marks from her shoes on the wet stones & in the mud.

A silk scarf will be very strong, like nylon. Its a built-in garrott and there is no adequate explanation for it being "very tight".
Even if the killer had grabbed her scarf to pull her backwards, or downwards, this would not tighten up the scarf. That would only occur if you pull both loose ends away from each other. Like a garrott/ligature.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick. I'll say you're much closer to the truth than Jeff here, as Stride was indeed facing the wall when she was felled, but not by the scarf, which was pulled tight TO THE SIDE. You can't choke a woman that way, and again, choking a woman with a scarf like that would not properly cut off her air and you'd have one loud screaming, scratching cat fight on your hands.

There's only one practical explanation for the scarf that I can see, and that lies in the fact that Stride's neck was lying across a large, jagged rock which was part of the make-shift gutter. In order to get his knife under her neck, he had to raise her neck from the stone, and the easiest way to do that with one hand was to grab the scarf and pull up. This scenario is not something I dreamed up and is strongly supported by the evidence, namely the fact that the knife blade followed along the line of the scarfs edge, which was pulled so tight at the moment of cutting that it nicked the scarf and continued on that track. This means that the killer MUST have been pulling tight on the scarf at the moment he cut, and we know for a fact that her neck was in position over the large stone (which held the largest pool of blood) at the moment of the cutting.

I must point out that my research into this murder in no way reflects any suspect bias and, in fact, was completed by me prior to finding any suspect I considered worthy of research. It's a simple explanation that accounts for all the facts.

It is still a great mystery to me HOW Stride found herself in that position. Clearly she was not conscious when the knife cut her. Perhaps she did indeed faint? Perhaps she was strangled and no marks were left (this happens, particularly if does not take too much to render a victim unconscious)? For the moment, I lean towards the latter, but unfortunately, there's nothing in the evidence that will tell us for sure.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, if the scenario which has Pipeman on the same side of the road as BS is correct, then I'm wondering if Schwarz even knew that "Lipski" was a racial slur. Schwarz says that he cannot tell whether the two men are together. If Schwarz believed that BS directed a racial slur at Pipeman, the man on the opposite side from Schwarz, then he would have been unlikely to think that they were together. The alternative, that Schwarz believed that BS hurled the insult at Schwarz, would seem unlikely, since Schwarz would have described himself as the man on the opposite side, which seems an odd way to describe oneself, even making allowances for the fact that the statement ended up in reported speech.There would have been only the one man on the opposite side from BS, and that man would be Schwarz, and surely this would have been made clear in the police report. So the way I see it, if Pipeman was on the same side as BS, maybe Schwarz didn't know that "Lipski" was a term of abuse.

Hi Robert. Schwartz didn't actually use any of those words. That''s a truncated version, composed rather quickly by Swanson, based on a report by Abberline, who took it from a translator, who was listening to Schwartz. That information passed a lot of hands before it got to us.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Ah, the Nelson & Dutfields is on the west side, the Board School is on the east side.

The Echo story has two people running east, like Diemschitz & Kozebrodski did, whereas Schwartz is deemed to have run south, directly home.
You must admit, to have him run in any other direction requires some colourful reasoning. If you are being chased through dark streets you will not run the risk of the stranger catching you, you'll head straight home.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon

If you look at the first picyure I supplied you will see the lay out and you appear to have it backwards.

Dutfeild yard in this picture is on the Eastern side of the street. To the Right of picture.

I know they are a little dark, might have to turn your computer luminance up..

But you can clearly see the the top of the board school on the Western side (LEFT) of the Street. The Chandler shop is also clearly visable in the first picture on the South Eastern corner.

You can quite clearly see the line of fairclough street running East or from LEFT to RIGHT of teh computer screen or picture. So LEFT to Right of screen.

Actually you might be right I'm mixing my East and Wests up arnt I..anyway if you use the bottom picture Schwartz ran to the RIGHT..

Must dash out all day. Might be easier if I draw on the pics and post as diagrams..

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Wick. I'll say you're much closer to the truth than Jeff here, as Stride was indeed facing the wall when she was felled, but not by the scarf, which was pulled tight TO THE SIDE. You can't choke a woman that way, and again, choking a woman with a scarf like that would not properly cut off her air and you'd have one loud screaming, scratching cat fight on your hands.

Well I cant agree. Stride had her left arm behind her back pulled tight which would have inflicted alot of Pain. She was pulled by her scarf or collar with the killers left hand. She was facing into teh yard..

There's only one practical explanation for the scarf that I can see, and that lies in the fact that Stride's neck was lying across a large, jagged rock which was part of the make-shift gutter. In order to get his knife under her neck, he had to raise her neck from the stone, and the easiest way to do that with one hand was to grab the scarf and pull up. This scenario is not something I dreamed up and is strongly supported by the evidence, namely the fact that the knife blade followed along the line of the scarfs edge, which was pulled so tight at the moment of cutting that it nicked the scarf and continued on that track. This means that the killer MUST have been pulling tight on the scarf at the moment he cut, and we know for a fact that her neck was in position over the large stone (which held the largest pool of blood) at the moment of the cutting. t

Yes. Here I agree with you 100%. However I reason that she was already unconcous and dragged to that position before this happened.

I must point out that my research into this murder in no way reflects any suspect bias and, in fact, was completed by me prior to finding any suspect I considered worthy of research. It's a simple explanation that accounts for all the facts.

It is still a great mystery to me HOW Stride found herself in that position. Clearly she was not conscious when the knife cut her. Perhaps she did indeed faint? Perhaps she was strangled and no marks were left (this happens, particularly if does not take too much to render a victim unconscious)? For the moment, I lean towards the latter, but unfortunately, there's nothing in the evidence that will tell us for sure.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I spent alot of time two years ago with an independant effacts expert trying to figure out how the body ended up in this position and we were unable to do so. Which is why Definitive Story is vague on the subject.

Having spend some time working on the problem since I can assure you all that having dragged various people in various ways as closely to the demensions and spaces given..the explanation I'm giving you all is the only possible answer..

Of course I understanding that no drag marks were seen but having spent some time filming on cobbles in the rain I can assume you all they dry remarkably quickly, the top surface dry and shiney and Stride was wearing a thick layer of clothes..

With people walking in and out of the gate way I think any evidence of teh drag would be VERY LIMITED indeed..

I understand that understand the position of teh body is difficult but try getting a partner to fold forward, knees under them right arm back and then pull their left arm...they will naturally twist onto their left side and after two three pulls end up roughly in the position they found Stride..Then cut throat as Tom describes

Yours Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jeff,

You're agreeing with me about the scarf, yet you're disagreeing with me? I don't get it. As for your research here, you're not the only one who has researched this case, and I'm starting to think you might not really know WHAT position Stride's body was in. You don't seem to have been aware that her neck was positioned over a large stone that had a pool of blood in it, and you clearly aren't aware that her face was closer to the wall than her knees, which alone proves she was not dragged to the spot. Then there's the simple matter than an unconscious or dead person, when dragged, will shift to their front or back and will not be dragged on their side, particularly UP a slant and across a pavement of bumpy and mislaid rocks. And all the while Stride is keeping solid hold of her cachous?

Then there's the matter of simple logic. Why on earth would someone spend the time to drag her body away only to give her throat a simple slice and run off? He could have done that on the pavement. Or, more than likely, he would have said 'forget it' and taken off, leaving her on the pavement. Stride was conscious when she re-entered Dutfield's Yard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wicker Man]

Hi Tom.
Hi Wick. I'll say you're much closer to the truth than Jeff here, as Stride was indeed facing the wall when she was felled, but not by the scarf, which was pulled tight TO THE SIDE.

To the LEFT side actually, her left side. Which means the 'bow' was under her body.
So when you suggest:

In order to get his knife under her neck, he had to raise her neck from the stone, and the easiest way to do that with one hand was to grab the scarf and pull up.

The knot, or 'bow' would need to be on her upper side, her right side, assuming he grabbed her scarf by the 'bow'. So, I'm not clear on how you see this.

If he just pulled her head up by inserting two fingers under the scarf and pulls, then once he lets her drop the scarf will no longer be tight, in fact it might be more loose than it was originally.

I think it was tight because he pulled both loose ends of the scarf away from each other. The 'bow' or knot was only where the scarf was folded, under & over, in a loose fashion. But if someone takes both ends and pulls them in opposite directions you effectively strangle the woman, which is possibly how she was rendered unconscious.

just a point of interest, when you say..
...the fact that Stride's neck was lying across a large, jagged rock which was part of the make-shift gutter.

I understand the yard, or as they call it, the "passage", was irregularly paved if we can call it that. Though I have yet to read of an adequate description of how this gutter worked. There's no need for a drainage gutter if you have exposed soil. So I suspect this gutter was from the house to the 'sink' (drain), not for rain.

There was also wagon wheel ruts mentioned, so I had wondered if her neck was laid across one of these, which actually does look the same as a drainage gutter. They were carved from sandstone and sunk into the ground, so you have a channel for the wagon wheels, and also carries rainwater. Problem! her head was about 6"? from the wall, too close for a wagonwheel channel.

In the old town where I grew up there were still a few cobbled streets with wagon wheel channels, a design left over from the 18th-19th century. These were often used by small shops to sweep refuse from the pathway into these channels to let the rain carry it away.
So they kind of doubled as drainage gutters.

Regards, Jon S.

[Maria Birbili]

Though I have yet to read of an adequate description of how this gutter worked. There's no need for a drainage gutter if you have exposed soil. So I suspect this gutter was from the house to the 'sink' (drain), not for rain.
Interesting. I've been wondering about similar things too, esp. after recently experiencing a similar drainage gutter in my bathroom in Chicago (which featured a VERY absorbant floor).

There was also wagon wheel ruts mentioned, so I had wondered if her neck was laid across one of these {...} Problem! her head was about 6"? from the wall, too close for a wagonwheel channel.
The “head laying over a wheel“ is a misconception. You're getting all Jon Guy on us now. ;-)

In the old town where I grew up there were still a few cobbled streets with wagon wheel channels, a design left over from the 18th-19th century. These were often used by small shops to sweep refuse from the pathway into these channels to let the rain carry it away. So they kind of doubled as drainage gutters.
Fascinating. Never seen a street with wheel channels before, though I've seen my fare share of cobbled streets, esp. in Italy. But I think someone would have mentioned it if Dutfield's Yard spotted wheel channels?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick,

Thanks for that. You're correct and that the scarf was pulled on her left side, which mean he pulled FROM the right. I don't suspect it was grabbed and held tight by the knot, but rather he put his fingers under the scarf, pulled, and twisted. Imagine how you yourself would do this while cutting a throat. When you add it all together, it's inescapable that the scarf was tightened at the time her throat was cut, therefore was used to lift her head to facilitate the knife. The doctors missed this and erroneously mused that the knife might have been a small one, because it would have been difficult to get a knife under her throat. I also believe these unusual circumstances under which the killer was working explain why her neck would wasn't as severe as with other victims, though certainly it got the job done.

As for the yard, there were no wheel ruts. This is a misreporting. The entranceway was poorly paved with stones. It was NOT cobbled. Along the side of the house, from the steps to just about the gate, was a gutter made with large, jagged stones. I'm not sure why they were there either, but they were, and are very well documented.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Guys

I've looked at all the available sketches. And also Philip Hutchinsons Photograph of the yard (Obviously I cant post that). As far as I can see it was 'Slats' from the pavement through into the yard. There would have been a recessed guttering.

I have about six sketches in all which seem to confirm this.

What I am arguing is three seperate moves by the killer..

a) He stranged her in the street pushing her right hand behind her back and choaking with the scarf or Collar, or both..in which she fainted. He lowered her forward

b) He dragged the body two three paces into the yard. As the street was bright and had been detected by two men. The yard offered darkness and seclusion. Looked around.

c) He then cut the throat by pulling back Strides head pretty much as Tom described by using the scarf again.

Trust that clarifies

Yours Jeff

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Forums%202012/34_furniss.jpg

[Jeff Leahy]

Stride in gate way

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Forums%202012/STRIDEGATEWAY.jpg

[Cris Malone]

Imagine how you yourself would do this while cutting a throat.


This wouldn't be something a 'Fanboy' would do... would it?

[Cris Malone]

Jeff,

In your depiction of Stride in Dutfield's Yard... you wouldn't mind turning on your bullseye lantern for us, would you?

[Wicker Man]

As for the yard, there were no wheel ruts. This is a misreporting. The entranceway was poorly paved with stones.

Thanks, yes I envisage it similar to how the backyard in Hanbury St. was equally poorly paved.


Along the side of the house, from the steps to just about the gate, was a gutter made with large, jagged stones. I'm not sure why they were there either, but they were, and are very well documented.

Ok, thats a matter I would be interested to see. I mention it because I see there is no extension of this gutter exiting to the street. This is a missing feature in photographs. That being the case, where did the gutter empty to if it was not the street?
On the other hand, if this gutter emptied into the drain where the stalk was found, where was this drain (sink) located?

As you already imagine a gutter installed parallel to the clubhouse wall, then the drain must also be along this same wall or, this gutter must turn at some point to empty into a drain built in the middle of the yard/passage?
This would be the most likely location for a drain, the centre of the passage would be depressed somewhat to allow water to run away from the establishments on either side.

The drain should be in the middle, essentially under the cart wheels as Diemshitz entered into the yard.
Therefore, a gutter must come from the house/club perpendicular from the house wall to this drain.
Although the drain is not drawn in that sketch posted by Jeff, we do see two parallel lines coming away from the clubhouse towards the centre of the yard.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h246/drifter_03/Dutfields_Yard2.jpg

This is what I considered Stride's neck was laid across. Not a gutter running parallel to the club, but a gutter running perpendicular away from the club, perhaps carrying kitchen waste water to the yard?
I suggest that because there does not appear to be a downspout for rainwater from the roof.
I don't expect any degree of accuracy in a sketch but it does reflect a detail I expected to see, correct or not.
Although, if you say some of these details are well documented I should be able to clear up this issue.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert Linford]

"In your depiction of Stride in Dutfield's Yard... you wouldn't mind turning on your bullseye lantern for us, would you?"

On crossing the road Schwarz noticed a man lighting his pictures. Description : appearance of a sailor.

[Adam Went]

Hi Jeff,

My apologies for the delayed response.

However the time of Death given by Dr Blackwell and the probability of being attacked by two different men, which seems unlikely, all point to BSM being the most probable killer.

The theory that I personally believe in is that the murder of Stride was opportunistic rather than planned. In the other murders, there was a small degree of on the spot planning by the killer as far as the safest area to go, the best way to approach the victim, etc etc. In Stride's case, if we presume Pipeman was the killer, what happens is that he's just having a quiet smoke in a doorway when he sees a woman across the street being attacked by a random stranger. Schwartz passes him by. Sensing an opportunity, he 'follows' Schwartz away, returns to the scene where eventually the man who attacked Liz stumbles away from the scene, leaving her on the ground and of course quite shaken. He approaches her in a fake attempt at being concerned for her, helps her into the passageway and here he commits the deed.

I know it's a lot to take in but IMO it makes more sense than BSM being the killer. Schwartz claimed that Pipeman either followed or chased him away, but he did not follow too far. So where did he go? Schwartz was heading to his new lodgings, so he has an excuse. If Pipeman was also running for safety, why would you not run in the opposite direction, towards Commercial Road where there's more safety in numbers?

Furthermore, there was nothing to indicate that Liz had been forced into the passageway, certainly nobody heard or saw anything from the IWMEC or the street. Why else would she go into passageway on her own accord?

Schwartz would have had a clear veiw of BSM's face when he shouted 'Lipski' so of all the witnesses he had the best view.

That probably depends on whether you believe George Hutchinson or not, and if so, whether or not it was the killer he saw.

See that in itself is a real issue, it's all well and good that we trust a witness and believe their descriptions, but can we be certain that their man was actually the killer?

Well having looked at the statistical probability, I personally add around seven or eight ripper victims. And if you do that you have to except that JtR varied his MO considerably (As did Jack the Stripper) Stride was attacked from behind and Chapman from the front.

My personal view is that Jack was a Psychotic serial killer and therefore the attack described by Schwartz becomes a possibility in my book..

The freindly conversation would also fit psychotic behaviour pattern.

I agree that Jack could have and probably did change his MO, but that doesn't necessarily require him to change his approach to his victim. There are witnesses in at least 3 of the canonical murders (Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly) who describe a friendly, even jovial conversation taking place between victim and probable killer just before they were led to the scene of their death.....even for a psychotic killer, Stride's case just does not 'match'.

As for Kosminski, he's a decent suspect, but given the fact that he lived for another 30 odd years after the murders and never exhibited behaviour which could really be considered psychotic, i'm afraid I find myself in the group of people who see him as a harmless loony.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jeff Leahy]

Thanks, yes I envisage it similar to how the backyard in Hanbury St. was equally poorly paved.

Ok, thats a matter I would be interested to see. I mention it because I see there is no extension of this gutter exiting to the street. This is a missing feature in photographs. That being the case, where did the gutter empty to if it was not the street?
On the other hand, if this gutter emptied into the drain where the stalk was found, where was this drain (sink) located?

As you already imagine a gutter installed parallel to the clubhouse wall, then the drain must also be along this same wall or, this gutter must turn at some point to empty into a drain built in the middle of the yard/passage?
This would be the most likely location for a drain, the centre of the passage would be depressed somewhat to allow water to run away from the establishments on either side.

The drain should be in the middle, essentially under the cart wheels as Diemshitz entered into the yard.
Therefore, a gutter must come from the house/club perpendicular from the house wall to this drain.
Although the drain is not drawn in that sketch posted by Jeff, we do see two parallel lines coming away from the clubhouse towards the centre of the yard.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h246/drifter_03/Dutfields_Yard2.jpg

This is what I considered Stride's neck was laid across. Not a gutter running parallel to the club, but a gutter running perpendicular away from the club, perhaps carrying kitchen waste water to the yard?
I suggest that because there does not appear to be a downspout for rainwater from the roof.
I don't expect any degree of accuracy in a sketch but it does reflect a detail I expected to see, correct or not.
Although, if you say some of these details are well documented I should be able to clear up this issue.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi All

Obviously I cant post it. But the murder spot is clearly shown in Philip Hutchinson's photograph 1900. Only twelve years after the murder teh slats look in pritty good shape to me.

The two inside lines of slats are vertical. The inside (to the wall) indeed look raged. The lay of the central slats are horizontal..

Obviously Philip Hutchinson would be the best person to advise or perhaps Rob Clack. But my feeling is that these are the original slats, they look worn..

http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Location-Photographs-Philip-Hutchinson/9781848687844

cost £8.42

The man stood on the cover in Hanbury street is the man actually stood on teh stride murder sight..

Yours Jeff

PS having just blown this picture up I'd say there is a horizontal line of large slats between the two virtical lines. The left I presume is the gutter. The ragged stones against the wall...so if her head was on these she was very close to the wall..the wall would have hampered the person cutting her throat if he indeed pulled her back by the scarf as suggested by Tom but also Don Rumblow.

[Cris Malone]

Obviously I cant post it. But the murder spot is clearly shown in Philip Hutchinson's photograph [from] 1900. Only twelve years after the murder teh [the] slats look in pritty [pretty] good shape to me.


Dutfield's Yard was not as well paved in 1888 as it was at the time of the photo taken in 1900. You can't go by the shape of the setts in the picture.

[Wicker Man]

Obviously Philip Hutchinson would be the best person to advise or perhaps Rob Clack. But my feeling is that these are the original slats, they look worn..

That is much appreciated Jeff, I'll have this in my hands in about a week or so.


The man stood on the cover in Hanbury street is the man actually stood on teh stride murder sight..

So the photo is a composite?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wicker Man]

Dutfield's Yard was not as well paved in 1888 as it was at the time of the photo taken in 1900. You can't go by the shape of the setts in the picture.

Quite, and those rocks along the foot of the house wall do not constitute a drainage channel, but I'll get an enlarged view in a week or so.

Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

I believe Berner Street was re worked in the mid 1890s.

We know Winthrop St was at the time of Nichols murder and we also know the rear of the Pinchin Street arch was a storage depot of sorts for WBC and held paving slabs.

I'm sure Philip will confirm Berner Street when he spots this thread.

Monty
:)

[Maria Birbili]

What's WBC, if I may?

[Monty]

Apologies, I meant WBMW, Whitechapel Board of Metropolitan Works.

Monty
:)

[George Hutchinson]

Hi all

The cover shot is a deliberate montage of one of the photos from The Whitby Collection and the Dutfield's Yard shot. It is not meant to be a confusing blend purporting to be one site.

I believe it was 1892 that the Buildings Inspector deemed Dutfield's Yard unsafe and the buildings were shorn up. The assumption is that the iron gates and repaving also date from that time, but we can't be sure.

Thanks, Monty, for the heads-up on the thread.

PHILIP

[Wicker Man]

Hi all

The cover shot is a deliberate montage of one of the photos from The Whitby Collection and the Dutfield's Yard shot. It is not meant to be a confusing blend purporting to be one site.


Thankyou Philip.
Anyone not familiar with the locations might have been confused. Is the man part of the Dutfields Yard scene, or was he stucco'd on afterwards?

I only ask because I can't see the mans legs...
:)

All the best, Jon S.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi all

The cover shot is a deliberate montage of one of the photos from The Whitby Collection and the Dutfield's Yard shot. It is not meant to be a confusing blend purporting to be one site.

I believe it was 1892 that the Buildings Inspector deemed Dutfield's Yard unsafe and the buildings were shorn up. The assumption is that the iron gates and repaving also date from that time, but we can't be sure.

Thanks, Monty, for the heads-up on the thread.

PHILIP

Hi Philip

Many thanks for that input.

I guess my next question is going to be unknown so please excuse me asking it..

Is there any idea if the slats and layout of the ground was different in 1888 or would they have had a similar lay out?

The jagged stones in the 1900 photo were close to the wall. The slats seem in good order here..

Any idea of teh 1888 layout?

Trust you well and thanks again

Yours Jeff

[George Hutchinson]

Hi Jon.

He is a significant, actual part of the photograph.

Jeff - we can't know. The assumption would be the drainage channel we see in the 1900 shot, made of stones, reflects the aforementioned gully. I don't think there's any perpendicular feeder into it. I'm guessing that the probable 1892 restoration simply re-instated the fragmentary remains.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by slats - are you referring to the basement window?

PHILIP

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jon.

He is a significant, actual part of the photograph.

Jeff - we can't know. The assumption would be the drainage channel we see in the 1900 shot, made of stones, reflects the aforementioned gully. I don't think there's any perpendicular feeder into it. I'm guessing that the probable 1892 restoration simply re-instated the fragmentary remains.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by slats - are you referring to the basement window?

PHILIP

Hi Philip

Ah the old we just dont know...yes I thought as much. Sort of leaves it open a little.

By 'slats' I was refering to the oblong shaped cobbles as different to round shaped cobbles.

Many thanks for your help comments and assistance

Yours Jeff

[George Hutchinson]

Hi Jeff.

As a particular bugbear of mine that will have many people laughing - rectangular flat stones lain as path/roadways are called SETTS. Most places have these. Cobbles (round stones) are very scarce, not least because they're so blasted difficult to walk/travel on.

PHILIP

[Maria Birbili]

Cobbles (round stones) are very scarce, not least because they're so blasted difficult to walk/travel on.
I can attest to this for some towns in Italy. They feature these round but kinda pointy cobble stones and even in one's old Nikes it feels so weird walking on them, like they're gonna puncture the soles of your feet, lol. Real bad for bike tires too.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff.

As a particular bugbear of mine that will have many people laughing - rectangular flat stones lain as path/roadways are called SETTS. Most places have these. Cobbles (round stones) are very scarce, not least because they're so blasted difficult to walk/travel on.

PHILIP

SETTS! my error . Of course your right..thanks Jeff

PS At least I new there was a different word even if i got it confussed

[Chris G.]

Hi Jeff.

As a particular bugbear of mine that will have many people laughing - rectangular flat stones lain as path/roadways are called SETTS. Most places have these. Cobbles (round stones) are very scarce, not least because they're so blasted difficult to walk/travel on.

PHILIP

Yes, as Philip said, although they are generally erroneously referred to as "cobblestones", those flat, oblong stones are technically stone setts (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clairey_ross/3513955864/). We even have them here in Baltimore in Fell's Point (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/202743027/), the old seaport area of the city.

Chris

[Wicker Man]

Hi Jeff.

As a particular bugbear of mine that will have many people laughing - rectangular flat stones lain as path/roadways are called SETTS. Most places have these. Cobbles (round stones) are very scarce, not least because they're so blasted difficult to walk/travel on.

PHILIP

Interesting.
So does "Setts" refer to their arrangement, ie; paving stones or flagstones arranged in "setts"?
I grew up knowing them as flagstones, and we did have a few cobblestone streets when I was a kid. Women in stiletto heels avoided them, as you can imagine.
The marketplace in my home town is still cobbled.
http://www.ilkleygazette.co.uk/resources/images/1395361/?type=display

Regards, Jon S.

[Phillip Walton]

Setts are normally about 6" X 6" X 9" or a bit smaller and are usually of granite or other hard wearing stone but there are even wooden ones as well. (The passage way of the 'Golden Lion' inn in Romford is paved with wooden setts.) A flagstone is generally 3" thick or sometimes less but at least a foot square, quite often 2' X 18" and generally of a softer stone such as sandstone although they can also be of slate.

[Paul]

A quick question, probably in the wrong place, but I recall it being said, I think by Maria, that William Wess took Leon Goldstein to the police station and acted as his interpreter. Can anyone recall what the source for this was?

Ta.
Paul

[Chris G.]

Interesting.
So does "Setts" refer to their arrangement, ie; paving stones or flagstones arranged in "setts"?
I grew up knowing them as flagstones, and we did have a few cobblestone streets when I was a kid. Women in stiletto heels avoided them, as you can imagine.
The marketplace in my home town is still cobbled.


Hi Jon

A flagstone is generally bigger than a stone sett. The sett is the actual block of stone not the arrangement and they are all the same shape. Flagstones can be any shape and can fit together like crazy paving. See here (https://www.google.com/search?q=flagstone&hl=en&prmd=imvnsa&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=gNyOT66ADsPf0QGZuqiVDw&ved=0CIMBELAE&biw=1024&bih=670).

Cheers

Chris

[Maria Birbili]

A quick question, probably in the wrong place, but I recall it being said, I think by Maria, that William Wess took Leon Goldstein to the police station and acted as his interpreter. Can anyone recall what the source for this was?
I'm afraid this is a piece of info that has been perpetrated by Tom. Apparently based on a newspaper report. Real hope Tom still can cite the paper in question! Was planning to ask him about it in due time. (Sorry, right now Ripperology is not the first thing on my mind.)

Can I use this space to ask you, Mr. Begg, if you today still suspect that the identity of Pipeman might have been known to the police?

[Paul]

I'm afraid this is a piece of info that has been perpetrated by Tom. Apparently based on a newspaper report. Real hope Tom still can cite the paper in question! Was planning to ask him about it in due time. (Sorry, right now Ripperology is not the first thing on my mind.)

Can I use this space to ask you, Mr. Begg, if you today still suspect that the identity of Pipeman might have been known to the police?

Hi Maria,
No, I don't. Tom disabused and abused me of that idea some time ago. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they did. After all, we only know about Schwartz and Goldstein through a few chance newspaper reports and MEPO documents, so it's perfectly possible that Pipeman came forward.

Apropos of Goldstein, I am aware of the Morning Advertiser story that on learning that Goldstein was a member of the IWMC Wess persuaded him to go to the police and accompanied him to Leman Street Police Station. I don't appear to have the source for him having acted as interpreter, or that Goldstein needed one.

Cheers
Paul

[Maria Birbili]

On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they did. After all, we only know about Schwartz and Goldstein through a few chance newspaper reports and MEPO documents, so it's perfectly possible that Pipeman came forward.
There are a few things that I'd like to discuss with experienced people on the boards in due time, prior to structuring that part of my article. Specifically I was wondering if anybody in the contemporary investigation noticed that Pipeman's physical description fitted a person majorly engaged in said investigation.

Apropos of Goldstein, I am aware of the Morning Advertiser story that on learning that Goldstein was a member of the IWMC Wess persuaded him to go to the police and accompanied him to Leman Street Police Station. I don't appear to have the source for him having acted as interpreter, or that Goldstein needed one.
Maybe the Morning Advertiser story and its eventual repetitions in other newspapers is the original source in question, and there was no interpreter part? Do hope Tom can clarify this, as he's notorious for losing his data.


Pertaining to data lost from a computer, might I be permitted a short highjack? Just solved a serious problem pertaining to locating a spare battery charge cable for my old iBook, after the original charge cable caught fire this winter in the middle of the night (spitting flames like a barbecue, no joke) and I was lucky enough to find the LAST used spare one on American soil in downtown Chicago, but it looking real old and frail I've been in search for a spare one, and to my great distress and frustration the Germans only sell one from a generic manufacturer that's a total piece of sh*t – stupidly constructed in 3 pieces and it came up defect TWICE. So today I'm calling Paris and yep, the French are still selling the original charge cable manufactured by Apple and I've ordered two pieces. Thus essentially it's :thumb:France: 2, :caked:Germany: 0.

(Without a charge cable a comp goes to hell in a basket real quick, not just goes dead, but in my comp the date automatically changes back to 1945 and data gets lost. I wish unkown data from 1945 would appear on it, but no chance. :-))

[Wicker Man]

Hi Jon

.... The sett is the actual block of stone not the arrangement and they are all the same shape.
Cheers

Chris

Ok Chris, gotcha!
So what I call a "cobble" is actually a "sett", funny I've never heard them called that, still, up in Yorkshire we have our own language :)

Yes, I'm quite familiar with flagstones, I had a yard full of them. Ann wanted a garden so I tore them all up, and with a stone chisel I cut them into brick-size sections and built a stone fireplace with a bookcase at one side & bar at the other.
I was quite popular with the neighbours for some two weeks (tap, tap, tap, tap) :)

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Paul]

Ok Chris, gotcha!
So what I call a "cobble" is actually a "sett", funny I've never heard them called that, still, up in Yorkshire we have our own language :)
Best Wishes, Jon S.

Yes, one doesn't often hear someone says that a carriage rattled over the setts.

[Stephen Thomas]

Cobbles are round and setts are rectangular.

[Paul]

What views does group have on the following:

'The daring character of the murders is evident from the fact that two people at least saw a man and the woman together in the Berner-street gateway, and one sawhim throw her down. He went away and left her there, but it was half an hour before it was known that she had been murdered.' (New York Times, 2 October 1888)

Only Schwartz and Pipeman saw a man and a woman in the gateway. Only one of them, Schwartz, saw the woman thrown to the ground. This detail isn't given in The Star, and (without checking) is only in the police report, which means the New York Times is presumably citing itw own source.

Unfortunately the 'he went away' is ambiguous and presumably means Schwartz. But if the 'he' is BS man then the only person who could have seen him go away is Pipeman.

[Jeff Leahy]

What views does group have on the following:

'The daring character of the murders is evident from the fact that two people at least saw a man and the woman together in the Berner-street gateway, and one sawhim throw her down. He went away and left her there, but it was half an hour before it was known that she had been murdered.' (New York Times, 2 October 1888)

Only Schwartz and Pipeman saw a man and a woman in the gateway. Only one of them, Schwartz, saw the woman thrown to the ground. This detail isn't given in The Star, and (without checking) is only in the police report, which means the New York Times is presumably citing itw own source.

Unfortunately the 'he went away' is ambiguous and presumably means Schwartz. But if the 'he' is BS man then the only person who could have seen him go away is Pipeman.

Sort of raises more questions than answers, as usual. But I will give it some thought and respond. Many thanks Jeff

[Rob House]

Hi Paul,

This detail isn't given in The Star, and (without checking) is only in the police report, which means the New York Times is presumably citing itw own source.

That is an interesting point.

Unfortunately the 'he went away' is ambiguous and presumably means Schwartz. But if the 'he' is BS man then the only person who could have seen him go away is Pipeman.

The way I read this, I assume that "he" refers to Schwartz.

Rob

[Paul]

Hi Paul,

That is an interesting point.

The way I read this, I assume that "he" refers to Schwartz.

Rob

Hi Rob
The Manchester Guardian, 2 October, says: ‘Another story was to the effect that a man of light complexion had been struggling with the woman Stride in Berner Street and that he threw her down, but it being thought that it was a man and wife quarrelling nobody interfered with them.’ So the woman being thrown down isn't only mentioned in the police report, but it isn't mentioned in The Star.

One feeling I have is that Schwartz behaved in a rather cowardly fashion and may have tried to lessen this when giving his story to The Star by downplaying the seriousness of the assault and giving Pipeman a knife instead of a clay pipe. If this is the case then one must assume, I suppose, that the Guardian and New York Times got their info from the police.

One thing, though, is that if only Schwartz saw the woman being thrown down, doesn't that make it unlikely that Pipeman was opposite or nearly opposite the gates? As absorbed in lighting his pipe, he could hardly have been oblivious to the approach of BS man and the assault on the woman. On the other hand, standing in the doorway of the pub, or coming out of the pub, or having just turned into Berner Street and sheltered in the pub doorway to light his pipe...

Yes, I take it that it does refer to Schwartz leaving the scene, not BS man, although if it does mean that BS Man left, then the informant has to have been Pipeman. But, as said, I think it refers to Schwartz.

[Cris Malone]

It is press items like these that one has to be careful about reading too much into them. Its just as possible that the first man (Schwartz?) was found or his story leaked out by a police official, telling of himself and another unidentified man; while the other (Pipeman?) had not been located and could offer no verification as to what he saw.

It should be remembered that Swanson gives the description of this second man in his Oct. 19th HO report - two days shy of 3 weeks after the murder - and yet, he's giving a description of the man as if they are still trying to locate him, even at that time. 'Pipeman's' description is included on Swanson's witness sighting chart as well.

Two men may have been present and even witnessed the altercation taking place, but only one may have been found to describe what he saw. If Schwartz's testimony is to be believed - and I mean his police testimony, not the embellished story in the Star - 'Pipeman' left in a hurry for some reason; either he was chasing Schwartz away - doubtful to me - or he witnessed the same thing that Schwartz did and was gettin' the Hell out of there too.

None of this would verify where 'Pipeman' was standing at the time.

While Swanson's report is cited in the discussions about the position of 'Pipeman'... What he writes in that chart has not been. He states 'opposite side of the street' in that statement, also, and he does not refer to this in relation to Schwartz's position after crossing the street and neither is it implied.

The relevant part of Swanson's chart reads like this:
------------------------------------------------
First man seen............. Man seen on the
by Schwartz................. opposite side of
with woman.................. the street by
at 12:45....................... Schwartz

[Paul]

It is press items like these that one has to be careful about reading too much into them. Its just as possible that the first man (Schwartz?) was found or his story leaked out by a police official, telling of himself and another unidentified man; while the other (Pipeman?) had not been located and could offer no verification as to what he saw.

It should be remembered that Swanson gives the description of this second man in his Oct. 19th HO report - two days shy of 3 weeks after the murder - and yet, he's giving a description of the man as if they are still trying to locate him, even at that time. 'Pipeman's' description is included on Swanson's witness sighting chart as well.

Two men may have been present and even witnessed the altercation taking place, but only one may have been found to describe what he saw. If Schwartz's testimony is to be believed - and I mean his police testimony, not the embellished story in the Star - 'Pipeman' left in a hurry for some reason; either he was chasing Schwartz away - doubtful to me - or he witnessed the same thing that Schwartz did and was gettin' the Hell out of there too.

None of this would verify where 'Pipeman' was standing at the time.

While Swanson's report is cited in the discussions about the position of 'Pipeman'... What he writes in that chart has not been. He states 'opposite side of the street' in that statement, also, and he does not refer to this in relation to Schwartz's position after crossing the street and neither is it implied.

The relevant part of Swanson's chart reads like this:
------------------------------------------------
First man seen............. Man seen on the
by Schwartz................. opposite side of
with woman.................. the street by
at 12:45....................... Schwartz

All true.

What interested me, however, was that the New York Times and Manchester Guardian both stated that the woman was seen to be thrown to the ground, which is what Schwartz told the police but which isn't reported in The Star. So either this information came (a) from the police, (b) from an interview with Schwartz given to someone other than The Star journalist, or (c) was also given to The Star journalist who for some reason left it out, which I doubt a journalist worth his salt would have done as it far and away enhanced the seriousness of the assault.

As for The Star report, I wouldn't say it embellishes the story Schwartz told the police. On the contrary, it plays it down. In the police story Schwartz sees a woman violently assaulted (thrown to the ground), he crosses the road, sees for the first time a second man lighting his pipe and walks past him, hears something called out, thinks he's being followed, and runs off. In the newspaper story he sees the man push the woman, he crosses the road, he hears more of the altercation and turns back to look, stepping from the pavement (presumably to intervene), at which point he notices the second man for the first time, sees a knife in his hand, and decides to excercise discretion rather than valour.

What Schwartz told the police could be seen as cowardly. He saw a violent altercation, didn't make any attempt to intervene, but avoided it altogether, and he ran off when he thought he was being followed. To The Star he saw a very mild everyday domestic, understandably crossed the road, then turned back to see what was happening and stepped from the pavement, seeing a man with a knife coming towards him. He's not Chuck Norris, so he runs. Who wouldn't?

The secondary point is that if - and it is a big if, but if - the second man did not see the woman thrown to the ground, then he is unlikely to have been standing opposite the Club, directly across the road from where the assault was happening. And if the information that the second man didn't see the assault came from a police source, as I think is likely, then it is entirely possible that Pipeman was in fact on the pub side.

Unfortunately, whilst the police report is obviously the preferred source, it is a summary by Swanson, is subject to his interpretation of what the original said, and it is none too clear whether he meant on the opposite side of the road to Schwartz or to BS Man. The newspaper story has clearly been modified, I suggest by Schwartz to make his actions look less cowardly, and we have absolutely no idea under what conditions the journalist took down the story and how liable he was to misunderstand the interpreter.

[Jeff Leahy]

All true.

What interested me, however, was that the New York Times and Manchester Guardian both stated that the woman was seen to be thrown to the ground, which is what Schwartz told the police but which isn't reported in The Star. So either this information came (a) from the police, (b) from an interview with Schwartz given to someone other than The Star journalist, or (c) was also given to The Star journalist who for some reason left it out, which I doubt a journalist worth his salt would have done as it far and away enhanced the seriousness of the assault.

There is another possibility ' It might have come from the same place as teh echo report if Schwartz enterpreter were the source?

As for The Star report, I wouldn't say it embellishes the story Schwartz told the police. On the contrary, it plays it down. In the police story Schwartz sees a woman violently assaulted (thrown to the ground), he crosses the road, sees for the first time a second man lighting his pipe and walks past him, hears something called out, thinks he's being followed, and runs off. In the newspaper story he sees the man push the woman, he crosses the road, he hears more of the altercation and turns back to look, stepping from the pavement (presumably to intervene), at which point he notices the second man for the first time, sees a knife in his hand, and decides to excercise discretion rather than valour.

What Schwartz told the police could be seen as cowardly. He saw a violent altercation, didn't make any attempt to intervene, but avoided it altogether, and he ran off when he thought he was being followed. To The Star he saw a very mild everyday domestic, understandably crossed the road, then turned back to see what was happening and stepped from the pavement, seeing a man with a knife coming towards him. He's not Chuck Norris, so he runs. Who wouldn't?

The secondary point is that if - and it is a big if, but if - the second man did not see the woman thrown to the ground, then he is unlikely to have been standing opposite the Club, directly across the road from where the assault was happening. And if the information that the second man didn't see the assault came from a police source, as I think is likely, then it is entirely possible that Pipeman was in fact on the pub side.

Unfortunately, whilst the police report is obviously the preferred source, it is a summary by Swanson, is subject to his interpretation of what the original said, and it is none too clear whether he meant on the opposite side of the road to Schwartz or to BS Man. The newspaper story has clearly been modified, I suggest by Schwartz to make his actions look less cowardly, and we have absolutely no idea under what conditions the journalist took down the story and how liable he was to misunderstand the interpreter.

I dont see that Pipeman would have had a better view on the pubside than if he had been on the opposite corner?

Also if Pipeman was the same couple seen by Brown and Brown witnessed Stride soliciting, then Pipeman would know Stride was a prostitute and not involved in a domestic arguement like Schwartz. So he might have a good reason for getting out of there...perhaps he was married?

Yours Jeff

[Paul]

There is another possibility ' It might have come from the same place as teh echo report if Schwartz enterpreter were the source?

You'll have to explain this more clearly.

I dont see that Pipeman would have had a better view on the pubside than if he had been on the opposite corner?

Nobody is saying he had a better view. Precisely the opposite.

Also if Pipeman was the same couple seen by Brown and Brown witnessed Stride soliciting, then Pipeman would know Stride was a prostitute and not involved in a domestic arguement like Schwartz. So he might have a good reason for getting out of there...perhaps he was married?

Yours Jeff

Yes, if...

I am not actually very concerned about where Pipeman was standing. As said, the police report is a summary by Swanson of a report by Abberline, is therefore Swanson's interpretation of what Abberline wrote, and is none too clear about where Piepman was standing, and I can't see any plausible reason why Schwartz would have told The Star's journalist that Pipeman was outside the pub if he wasn't, especially as I don't see The Star story as an embellishment of the story told to the police, but rather Schwartz trying to make his actions look less cowardly (I am open to alternative readings, of course). Newspaper accounts are fraught with problems, and, as said, we don't know the circumstances under which the journalist interviewed Schwartz, but prima facie the journalist is simply reporting what Schwartz told him. Arguing that the journalist played up the story is too easy, and it isn't supported by a careful reading of the story (as far as I am concerned anyway). If the police documents weren't ambiguous, we'd have no problems, but they are. However, it is all slightly academic. Schwartz walked away and on thinking himself followed he ran away. He'd therefore passed Pipeman at some point, or was passing him. All that I'm actually intrigued by is that the cited newspapers report the woman being thrown to the ground, which The Star doesn't, and says that this was witnessed by one of the two men, which raises the question why the other didn't see it or was thought not to have seen it?

[Jeff Leahy]

You'll have to explain this more clearly.

Hi Paul. Yes I'm saying that we know that Schwartz had an interpreter. Probably for the police statement, possibly same or different for the press statement.

I think what Tom Wescott was arguing (and I'm probably wrong as usual) is the Echo statement came from the club, and that the Interpretor used by Schwartz was either Wess or a club member?

Although I dont believe anyone has actually provide a connection between Schwartz and the club.



Yes, if...

I am not actually very concerned about where Pipeman was standing. As said, the police report is a summary by Swanson of a report by Abberline, is therefore Swanson's interpretation of what Abberline wrote, and is none too clear about where Piepman was standing, and I can't see any plausible reason why Schwartz would have told The Star's journalist that Pipeman was outside the pub if he wasn't, especially as I don't see The Star story as an embellishment of the story told to the police, but rather Schwartz trying to make his actions look less cowardly (I am open to alternative readings, of course). Newspaper accounts are fraught with problems, and, as said, we don't know the circumstances under which the journalist interviewed Schwartz, but prima facie the journalist is simply reporting what Schwartz told him. Arguing that the journalist played up the story is too easy, and it isn't supported by a careful reading of the story (as far as I am concerned anyway). If the police documents weren't ambiguous, we'd have no problems, but they are. However, it is all slightly academic. Schwartz walked away and on thinking himself followed he ran away. He'd therefore passed Pipeman at some point, or was passing him. All that I'm actually intrigued by is that the cited newspapers report the woman being thrown to the ground, which The Star doesn't, and says that this was witnessed by one of the two men, which raises the question why the other didn't see it or was thought not to have seen it?

Yes. Most interesting. We have two seperate accounts confirming a woman was thrown to the floor. I agree this is actually more important than teh direction of Schwartz and Pipeman.

My only interest in that is creating a whole'istic set of events that makes sense of everybodies statements and placing Pipeman opposite makes Brown fit with Schwartz set of events.

I now think I know exactly how Stride was murdered, remind me to demonstrate on Cat next time were at the Style and Winch :heh:

But as always I think you have raised some very interesting points. It reminds us all to keep an open mind and keep considering the evidence.

Better get on now still havnt finished this job

Jeff

[Jennifer Shelden]

As a very unserious aside someone once commented to me what did BS man mean (broad shoulder man) was it bull shit man - so anytime you guys mention BS men i read it as bull shit which means i cant follow what is being siad on threads like this. :biggrin1:

[Robert Linford]

That's a very good point Jenni, if considered in relation to Facebook. If Ripperologists start going on there and using abbreviations, there'll be a lot of confused outsiders. They might even think that "Juwes" is an acronym, especially if the "GSG" is mentioned.

MJD and MJK
JTR and Mr A
BS, Pipeman, DSS
Who they are I cannot guess

:lol:

[Tom_Wescott]

I've never understood the appeal of Facebook, though it has proved handy to see the crap people talk behind your back if they don't know you can see what they're saying.

Hi Big Jon.

For the life of me, I can't see how Facebook could be used for Ripper discussion, or WHY such a thing would be necessary with two forums to use for that purpose. Does Facebook offer any advantages over the forums or Casebook? Or is it just being discussed in these terms because of its fad status? I'm honestly rather ignorant of most of it's features.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert Linford]

Isn't Facebook that site that keeps pestering people to acquire "friends"?
I must say that both Facebook and Twitter have passed me by. In fact, when I hear about people making tweets, my reaction is, could not a cat be introduced to the site?

[Wicker Man]

What views does group have on the following:

'The daring character of the murders is evident from the fact that two people at least saw a man and the woman together in the Berner-street gateway, and one sawhim throw her down. He went away and left her there, but it was half an hour before it was known that she had been murdered.' (New York Times, 2 October 1888)

Interesting find, and more ambiguity to boot!

So is the "He" that went away the same as the "One" who saw, or the same as the "Him" who threw her down?

Just the way this is worded, to say, one who "left her there", tends to imply some responsibility for her being there.

A passer-by might be said to leave her there if she was alone and in need of assistance, but as the passer-by left a man and woman still involved in an altercation I'm not sure it is as easy to assign the identity of the one who "left her there" to the passer-by (Schwartz).
Certainly it could apply to him leaving her in the hands of the assailant, but would this then imply some responsibility from the passer-by towards the victim?

It would appear to me that the one who cast her down is the one who "left her there". This because the intent is more applicable to the one who caused her to be on the ground in the first place.

He cast her down and He (subsequently) left her there, tends to be a better fit than to say, He saw her cast down but regardless, He left her there. If it means "there" as in the hands of the assailant, the report implies responsibility which I think is unwarranted.
Also, even though only one person saw her cast down, both actually left her there (presumably Pipeman & Schwartz), but it only says He not They left her there.

Ambiguous yes, but not a clear 50/50 case.
Though the implication that BS-man might be the one who left her there is revolutionary in view of the existing paradigm and will no doubt be resisted by many.

One wonders why this is not found in British papers?

Regards, Jon S.

[Jeff Leahy]

As a very unserious aside someone once commented to me what did BS man mean (broad shoulder man) was it bull shit man - so anytime you guys mention BS men i read it as bull shit which means i cant follow what is being siad on threads like this. :biggrin1:

No BS..:eyebrows:

[Jeff Leahy]

I've never understood the appeal of Facebook, though it has proved handy to see the crap people talk behind your back if they don't know you can see what they're saying.

Hi Big Jon.

For the life of me, I can't see how Facebook could be used for Ripper discussion, or WHY such a thing would be necessary with two forums to use for that purpose. Does Facebook offer any advantages over the forums or Casebook? Or is it just being discussed in these terms because of its fad status? I'm honestly rather ignorant of most of it's features.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yeah you dont get banned on facebook for saying someone is talking 'Twaddle' when they are...which incidently is a Jonsonism not a sware word..

[Stephen Thomas]

Though the implication that BS-man might be the one who left her there is revolutionary in view of the existing paradigm and will no doubt be resisted by many.




Yes, Jon. The possibility that BS man was simply a local man who didn't like Jews and being accosted by prostitutes and who was staggering home from the pub and threw Stride to the ground and simply kept on walking doesn't get discussed, does it?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Stephen and Wick. It gets discussed occasionally. I've suggested BS Man and Morris Eagle might be one and the same. If you consider that Eagle returned home at approximately 12:40am and was witnessed coming in the side door, I'd say it puts him in a spot to consider. I would think most men accustomed to the late-night East End Streets would just keep walking when a prostitute spoke to them, but BS Man stopped at the gateway, spoke briefly with her and pulled her OUT to the street, as though to get her out of his way. If we are to consider the possibility that BS Man was a clubman, then we have two suspects - Eagle and Joseph Lave.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wicker Man]

Hi Tom.
If we are to consider the possibility that BS Man was a clubman, then we have two suspects - Eagle and Joseph Lave.


Didn't someone suggest that Schwartz might be a member also?
If so, wouldn't he likely know them?

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick. That someone was me. And not a member per se (in the paying sense), but a friend of the club, such as Joseph Lave (visiting from America) was. I think Schwartz had likely been living at the club up until the day of Stride's murder. Alas, I cannot prove that, though I could give you a somewhat persuasive argument for it.

And yes, IF Schwartz had been living at the club and IF BS Man were Lave or Eagle, he would likely have known as much and recognized the man. Which means one or both of these scenarios is not accurate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Just a quick point here, in the Star report Schwartz claims he follows a man 'as if intoxicated' from commercial road.

I dont think this would fit with Morris Eagle who I beleive came from a different direction..Does anyone know his, Morris Eagles probable course and direction if he had been home?

Yours Jeff

[Paul]

Just a quick point here, in the Star report Schwartz claims he follows a man 'as if intoxicated' from commercial road.

I dont think this would fit with Morris Eagle who I beleive came from a different direction..Does anyone know his, Morris Eagles probable course and direction if he had been home?

Yours Jeff

He took his young lady home, so it's would be where she lived.

[Jeff Leahy]

He took his young lady home, so it's would be where she lived.

Is that Known or are we back in the field of guess work?

The intoxicated BS man doesnt seem to tie with what Schwartz says and what about Brown would he not have seen Morris Eagle if he were coming from another direction?

Yours Jeff

[Wicker Man]

Does anyone know his, Morris Eagles probable course and direction if he had been home?



"Our next informant was Joseph Lave, a man just arrived in England from the United states. Lave is now living at the club, till such time as he can find permanent lodgings".

Regards, Jon S.

[Jeff Leahy]

"Our next informant was Joseph Lave, a man just arrived in England from the United states. Lave is now living at the club, till such time as he can find permanent lodgings".

Regards, Jon S.

Dont reveal much about Eagles course and direction:confused:

[Paul]

Probably towards Commercial Road.

[Jeff Leahy]

Probably towards Commercial Road.

Ah..at least we got it right in 'Definitive' then but I still dont see Schwartz miss taking Eagle

But its always possible I guess

Yours Jeff

[Rob House]

What views does group have on the following:

'The daring character of the murders is evident from the fact that two people at least saw a man and the woman together in the Berner-street gateway, and one sawhim throw her down. He went away and left her there, but it was half an hour before it was known that she had been murdered.' (New York Times, 2 October 1888)

Only Schwartz and Pipeman saw a man and a woman in the gateway. Only one of them, Schwartz, saw the woman thrown to the ground. This detail isn't given in The Star, and (without checking) is only in the police report, which means the New York Times is presumably citing itw own source.

Hello Paul,

The Echo on Oct 1 printed the following:

"The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it."

Presumably this is the Schwartz incident, although the age of the BS man does not match the estimate in Swanson's report.

Rob H

[Paul]

Hello Paul,

The Echo on Oct 1 printed the following:

"The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it."

Presumably this is the Schwartz incident, although the age of the BS man does not match the estimate in Swanson's report.

Rob H

Excellent, yes I had forgotten about that, although we refer to it in the A to Z. It's almost certainly the same incident. And presumably comes from the police.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jeff. There's no reason to suppose that Eagle didn't walk in the same direction as BS Man would. Nor should we assume that Eagle - a young man who spent the evening at a party with his girl and beer - would have been stone sober. Of course neither of these make him BS Man.

Regarding Lave, he left the building alone to take a walk. We only have his word that he went no further than the street. He might just as well have walked to the end of the street and turned around, at which point Schwartz rounded the corner and saw him. After all, Schwartz did not see BS Man turn on to Berner Street ahead of him while on Commercial Road.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff. There's no reason to suppose that Eagle didn't walk in the same direction as BS Man would. Nor should we assume that Eagle - a young man who spent the evening at a party with his girl and beer - would have been stone sober. Of course neither of these make him BS Man.

Regarding Lave, he left the building alone to take a walk. We only have his word that he went no further than the street. He might just as well have walked to the end of the street and turned around, at which point Schwartz rounded the corner and saw him. After all, Schwartz did not see BS Man turn on to Berner Street ahead of him while on Commercial Road.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Its possible. Five minutes out in the scheme of things isnt pushing the bounds of possibility.

But what it doesnt do is fit particularly well with other Statements Browns 12.45 siting forinstance, which fits rather well with Schwartz 12.45 estimate.

But I guess if Schwartz did see Liz pulled out of the ally by Eagle, the question is why did Stride continue to hang around? And why would Eagle deliberately lie saying 'He saw nothing unusual' ?

For me Schwartz witnessing the murder best fits Blackwells time of death and thus BS remains an unknown assailant..

Yours jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jeff. I suppose I don't understand your meaning. Someone had to be BS Man, so if that person happened to be Morris Eagle, Joseph Lave, or Debra Arif, what's the difference in regards to James Brown's evidence? As for why she'd stay around, that would because the guy was a prick who called her names, told her to get lost, and went inside. Something she'd dealt with daily for years.

Regarding Schwartz, he may very well have seen the onset of her murder. But it's important to remember he DID not see a murder, which leaves it open for other scenarios.

Just for the record, I do not believe BS Man was Eagle or Lave. These are just two of many, many different scenarios I've explored over the years to test against the evidence. I think more than likely BS Man and Pipeman were known to each other, as Schwartz's instincts told him. I'm still not sure how Debra Arif fits in.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Paul]

a young man who spent the evening at a party with his girl and beer...

A lecture on why Jews should be socialists - some party! And did they serve beer?

[Paul]

Hi Jeff. I suppose I don't understand your meaning. Someone had to be BS Man, so if that person happened to be Morris Eagle, Joseph Lave, or Debra Arif, what's the difference in regards to James Brown's evidence? As for why she'd stay around, that would because the guy was a prick who called her names, told her to get lost, and went inside. Something she'd dealt with daily for years.

Regarding Schwartz, he may very well have seen the onset of her murder. But it's important to remember he DID not see a murder, which leaves it open for other scenarios.

Just for the record, I do not believe BS Man was Eagle or Lave. These are just two of many, many different scenarios I've explored over the years to test against the evidence. I think more than likely BS Man and Pipeman were known to each other, as Schwartz's instincts told him. I'm still not sure how Debra Arif fits in.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom
All the timings are very tight and to a great extent estimated, so isn't it possible that the incident witnessed by Schwartz happened in the five minutes or thereabouts between Mrs Mortimer going indoors and Diemshitz entering the street? We're told that blood was still flowing from Stride's neck even when Edward Spooner arrived on the scene, which, if true, suggests that the murder wasn't committed up to 20 minutes before the arrival of Diemshitz.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff. I suppose I don't understand your meaning. Someone had to be BS Man, so if that person happened to be Morris Eagle, Joseph Lave, or Debra Arif, what's the difference in regards to James Brown's evidence? As for why she'd stay around, that would because the guy was a prick who called her names, told her to get lost, and went inside. Something she'd dealt with daily for years.

Regarding Schwartz, he may very well have seen the onset of her murder. But it's important to remember he DID not see a murder, which leaves it open for other scenarios.

Just for the record, I do not believe BS Man was Eagle or Lave. These are just two of many, many different scenarios I've explored over the years to test against the evidence. I think more than likely BS Man and Pipeman were known to each other, as Schwartz's instincts told him. I'm still not sure how Debra Arif fits in.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

OK. I guess i'm not disagreeing that it's fair when considering anybodies statements that you give a leaway of say 5 Minutes. It is. The problem then starts that if you do so you start bumping into other peoples statements.

What I'm saying and have always said is you don't actually have to move any of the keywitness statements anywhere for everything to work out.

Lets just assume that they all tell the truth as far as they known and give the best estimate of time they can..

In which senario Morris Eagle enters the gateway at 12.40 and see's nothing unusual..

Brown leaves the chandlers shop at 12.45 and sees Stride with a man at the same time Schwartz enters Berner Street from teh Commercial road end..

Browns couple split and Stride meets BSM about Dutfeild yard followed by Scwartz.

The problem with Pipeman being known to BSM is they come from completely different directions. Theres no reason that they should be known to each other unless they had fomulated a long complecated pincer agreement.

So my arguement would be keep it simple and stick as closely to the timings given and assume everyone basically told the truth.

Paul: As Blackwell is a medical professional shouldn't his estimate of 12.50 be taken more seriously?

Thanks for your input guys

Yours Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Paul,

I suppose anything is possible, so yes, the Schwartz incident could have happened between approx. 12:56 (when I estimate Mortimer went in) and 1am (when Stride was discovered), but that is a drastic change in times. I would presume that Abberline asked Schwartz how he fixed the time and was satisfied with his answer, or else note would have been made of it. Yet Swanson, who read the report and was working to make sense of the times, kept the time fixed at 12:45am. A few minutes either way must be given, but 15 to 20 minutes might be a little too much.

Jeff,

With all due respect, you seem to be doing anything but 'keeping it simple', and I'm sure my tossing around of different ideas isn't helping much, but that's what discussion forums are for, are they not? There are a number of scenarios that are possible, though viable to different degrees. To my mind, a couple of the more viable - going solely by the evidence, is the conclusion that BS Man was either a clubman returning home and not the killer, or that BS Man and Pipeman were known to each other and each implicit in the murder of Stride. These two scenarios leave the fewest unanswered question. But again, that's just to my mind, so I'm by no means stating that either is the correct answer. If you'd like me to expound on why I think this, I'd be happy to do so.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Paul]

Hi Paul,

I suppose anything is possible, so yes, the Schwartz incident could have happened between approx. 12:56 (when I estimate Mortimer went in) and 1am (when Stride was discovered), but that is a drastic change in times. I would presume that Abberline asked Schwartz how he fixed the time and was satisfied with his answer, or else note would have been made of it. Yet Swanson, who read the report and was working to make sense of the times, kept the time fixed at 12:45am. A few minutes either way must be given, but 15 to 20 minutes might be a little too much.


Yes, but that flowing blood worries me.

[Paul]

As Blackwell is a medical professional shouldn't his estimate of 12.50 be taken more seriously?

Dr Blackwell consulted his watch when he arrived in the passage, it was 1:16a.m., and he believed that Stride had been dead for "twenty minutes to half an hour" by that time. At the low end he's putting death at about !:00a.m., which would be entirely consistent with still flowing blood.

[Maria Birbili]

Dr Blackwell consulted his watch when he arrived in the passage, it was 1:16a.m., and he believed that Stride had been dead for "twenty minutes to half an hour" by that time. At the low end he's putting death at about !:00a.m., which would be entirely consistent with still flowing blood.
And also consistent with the killer/the Ripper having been interrupted by Diemshitz and his poney around 1.00 am.

Yes, but that flowing blood worries me.
Am I to understand that you believe (like Jeff Leahy seems to be doing currently) that the attack on Stride already happened with BS as witnessed by Schwartz, Mr. Begg?
To me the timing makes complete sense if Pipeman by himself or Pipeman together with BS was/were the assailants, and made a walk around the block between the assault witnessed by Schwartz and the final assault on Stride inside of Dutfield's Yard.
On the other hand, I have an explanation for Schwartz' testimony EVEN in case BS was an IWEC member throwing Stride out of the Yard. Will discuss this in my article.
I don't subscribe to the possibility of the BS attack having been a random drunk or a domestic. That would have included too many coincidences.

[Stephen Thomas]

Does anybody know why the Schwartz police statement was classified and not intended to be seen for 100 years?

[Maria Birbili]

Does anybody know why the Schwartz police statement was classified and not intended to be seen for 100 years?
Do you know this for a fact? Schwartz' statement VERY unfortunately has not survived. (Hutch's has.) Or do you mean to say that it HAD survived and got scarce at some point in the mid 20th century??!

[Stephen Thomas]

Do you know this for a fact? Schwartz' statement VERY unfortunately has not survived. (Hutch's has.) Or do you mean to say that it HAD survived and got scarce at some point in the mid 20th century??!

Hello Maria

Well, in 1976 (when I was young and handsome and virile and slim :violin:) I read the Stephen Knight book and there was a chapter called ' The Secrets of the Files' where the Schwartz story first emerged into the

light of day, being previously totally unknown.

[Maria Birbili]

Well, in 1976 (when I was young and handsome and virile and slim :violin:)
Well, that always helps. Though there are lots of men who get better with age, like a good wine. :-p

I read the Stephen Knight book and there was a chapter called ' The Secrets of the Files' where the Schwartz story first emerged into the light of day, being previously totally unknown.
Now you're making me wanna buy Knight's book (about the Royal Conspiracy), which ain't gonna happen. Can it simply be that Knight only saw the Swanson report?

[Jeff Leahy]

Dr Blackwell consulted his watch when he arrived in the passage, it was 1:16a.m., and he believed that Stride had been dead for "twenty minutes to half an hour" by that time. At the low end he's putting death at about !:00a.m., which would be entirely consistent with still flowing blood.

I dont know if I'm getting my maths wrong, but that makes Blackwell's estimate: 12.46 to 12.56 am

I therefore conclude she left this mortal coil approx 12.51

Given that Schwartz took at least 90 seconds to reach Dutfeild yard and then the incident in which he ran off chased by Pipeman,

And given that BSM would of had to drag Stride into the Ally and pull her head back by her scarf, cut her throat and flee..

And given that death would not have been instant...well that could easily add up to 12.51 ? So thats the best Maths as far as I can see

Yours Jeff

[Paul]

I dont know if I'm getting my maths wrong, but that makes Blackwell's estimate: 12.46 to 12.56 am

I therefore conclude she left this mortal coil approx 12.51

Given that Schwartz took at least 90 seconds to reach Dutfeild yard and then the incident in which he ran off chased by Pipeman,

And given that BSM would of had to drag Stride into the Ally and pull her head back by her scarf, cut her throat and flee..

And given that death would not have been instant...well that could easily add up to 12.51 ? So thats the best Maths as far as I can see

Yours Jeff

Well, if you're going in for precisian accuracy, 1:16 minus 20 minutes gives us 1:56, and given that blood appears to have been flowing when she was discovered, you are looking at the throat being cut nearer to 1:00 than some ten minutes or more earlier.

But remember we are talking estimates here. All I am saying is that if blood was still flowing, it seems likely that the low end of Blackwell's estimated time of death is more likely to be correct

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Stephen,

Don't you mean the files in general and not the Swanson report specifically? It's because most or all of the people would be presumed dead after 100 years. Same concept as the census.

Jeff and Paul,

Trying to use an estimated time of death to argue the time of a murder victim is pointless. A guess is not a fact. As for Spooner's flowing blood, keep in mind that Stride had been lying with her neck essentially in a pool of her own blood, and given her position, I'm sure some blood pooled inside her neck under the tightened scarf. When her head was moved, this would have loosened and come out. Add to that the wet blood that would have been dripping off her neck from the small pool collected on the large rock under her neck, and you have more drippage. But more than anything, I'd say it's the tight scarf. And let's remember it was very dark and Spooner, who was young, probably inebriated, and certainly not a medical man, didn't examine her that closely.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rob House]

Well, if you're going in for precisian accuracy, 1:16 minus 20 minutes gives us 1:56, and given that blood appears to have been flowing when she was discovered, you are looking at the throat being cut nearer to 1:00 than some ten minutes or more earlier.

But remember we are talking estimates here. All I am saying is that if blood was still flowing, it seems likely that the low end of Blackwell's estimated time of death is more likely to be correct

I think I agree with you Paul. It does seem to me likely that Stride was killed closer to 1 AM. Of course, I believe that the broad shouldered man was the Ripper, so to me that means that Schwartz was likely inaccurate in his estimate of the time. I think it is likely that the Schwartz incident took pace closer to 12:55 or so, give or take a few minutes. Then Diemshutz came along a few minutes later.

[Paul]

Hi Stephen,

Don't you mean the files in general and not the Swanson report specifically? It's because most or all of the people would be presumed dead after 100 years. Same concept as the census.

Jeff and Paul,

Trying to use an estimated time of death to argue the time of a murder victim is pointless. A guess is not a fact. As for Spooner's flowing blood, keep in mind that Stride had been lying with her neck essentially in a pool of her own blood, and given her position, I'm sure some blood pooled inside her neck under the tightened scarf. When her head was moved, this would have loosened and come out. Add to that the wet blood that would have been dripping off her neck from the small pool collected on the large rock under her neck, and you have more drippage. But more than anything, I'd say it's the tight scarf. And let's remember it was very dark and Spooner, who was young, probably inebriated, and certainly not a medical man, didn't examine her that closely.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Estimating the time of death was problematic, so none of the timings are more than guesses, and the accuracy of witness descriptions is likewise uncertain, but the murder could have been committed nearer to 1:00a.m. than is being supposed.

[Jeff Leahy]

I can only point out to everyone that FAnny Mortimer was stood in her doorway, most probably, between 12.50 and 1.00. She came to that door after hearing the measured stamp of a policeman on his beat'

I would suggest that this was the killer leaving Stride approx 12.49.

As it would take Srtide around 90 seconds to actually die. I'd estimate she died at approx 12.51.

If the gutting she laid in was blocked it could have contained small puddles or rain water that might exaggerate the blood flow a little. But my instinct is that Blackwell was best qualified to call the time of death.

Also we have a witness at 12.55 who saw nothing.

Yours Jeff