|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:39 am: |       |
Sarah,
I know very well that these things happen -- it has even happened to a couple of female friends of mine. So that is not the point.
The point is that this situation has nothing to do with that. Once again, why should she go into the yard with him (which would indicate that she was murdered by a customer). Let's not forget that this was in the middle of the Ripper scare and that Stride herself had expressed great worries about it.
A customer she had to lead or follow into the yard -- because, in spite of the Ripper scare, that was what she was there for, it was her intention with her being there and she probably would have no other option. But why should she follow someone who just had assaulted her into the yard and accept to perform sexual activities with the man, considering the risk with the Ripper? It doesen't make sense.
"If we don't believe Schwartz's account then what do we have? Nothing. We would have to guess from scratch what had happened that night and I don't think that Schwartz would have lied and even if he had been mistaken in some ways then at least we have some of the truth."
Just because it is the only thing we have, doesen't make it more sacred from criticism. On the contrary, since it is unverified I would treat it with even more caution. I am not asking to dismiss it, but I am reacting to that his statement has been transformed into some general truth about what happened on Berner Street and that really frustrates me.
Then, what one personally believes regarding the credibility of the Schwartz' account is of course a matter of opinion. I think it is a load of garbage and crap, but I can't prove it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi Sarah
Sorry, my mistake. I see you meant strong (in character). I'm not sure you're right about the working class folk like this, though - many east end families were very matriarchical. My mother's family were from the east end, and in my youth I met some fearsome old ladies who must have been born about Jacky's time.
But anyway I agree with you - the Stride attack sounds very like a domestic if Schwartz is accurate - actually that's why I think the real killer came along afterwards.
I think that the attacker Schwartz saw hit her hard a couple of times and stormed off after Schwartz hurried on down the street - I have actually seen something similar occur myself at a party when a bloke encountered a former girlfriend.
Regards
Pete |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Hi Pete
"...the Stride attack sounds very like a domestic if Schwartz is accurate - actually that's why I think the real killer came along afterwards.
I think that the attacker Schwartz saw hit her hard a couple of times and stormed off after Schwartz hurried on down the street..."
I absolutely agree with you. That is what I personally believe happened as well, if the scene Schwartz witnessed really is correct.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
Glenn wrote:
"But why should she follow someone who just had assaulted her into the yard and accept to perform sexual activities with the man, considering the risk with the Ripper? It doesen't make sense. "
Of course that bit doesn't make sense, but I haven't seen anyone put that forth as an potential scenario so arguing against it is rather pointless.
There are any number of reasons why she ended up in that yard after what Schwartz reported. It could have been Kidney, and she went to discuss things in private (and here you say that that's stupid and nobody would do it and yet, for the umpteenth time, people DO do it all the time) and had no reason to believe he'd fly into a murderous rage. It could have been a stranger who then dragged her by the scarf into the yard. Schwartz's description is sufficiently vague that the "attack" could have been playful rough housing from someone she knew. It could have been someone extremely drunk and doing the "come on, letch go have a drink, oops, didn't mean to pull your arm so hard, why you on the ground? hey, dat guy's watching, what's your problem mishter? Lipski! I'm shorry, I just wanna make it up to you. Friends? Good. Hey, you know where's I can find some action?"
Heck, according to Schwartz's description, she was already in the yard when attacked, so making a big deal about why she would have chosen to accompany this man into the yard is a complete non-issue. I mean, pretty much any scenario can get someone one meter or less through a gateway out of public sight.
It never ceases to amaze me how people look at the facts in the case and jump to an extremely narrow possible interpretation of the evidence and automatically rule out all other potential scenarios.
I don't know if Kidney killed her. I don't know if Jack killed her. I don't know if Schwartz was right (though he seems to be the most reliable witness we have, barring the translation problems) or what happened in general that night.
I do know that the reasons offered for why Jack supposedly couldn't be the guy Schwartz reported sound rather flimsy to me. I agree it's possible, but to go from saying it's not only possible but highly probable is a pretty large leap that doesn't seem to be supported by anything other than hunches.
(And, for the record, someone I used to date just told me out of the blue without hearing about this conversation that she might have to go to court to testify about how a friend of hers kept going back to a physically abusive boyfriend in scenarios just like this and how she's afraid the guy will come after her if she testifies that he was an abuser.) |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 12:18 pm: | |
Dan once again, I agree with you completely. There are any number of reasons why Stride could have gone into the alley. She could have been coerced, pulled, or just going out of fear. Or she could have been used to obeying instructions or suggestions from men, not willing to resist. The list goes on and on. And her body was found what, 10 feet away? That is hardly any distance at all.
"But why should she follow someone who just had assaulted her into the yard and accept to perform sexual activities with the man, considering the risk with the Ripper? It doesen't make sense."
Again, this is full of supposition. You say she followed him... these are your words. Entirely speculation. How about he walks away, she thinks "thank god that guy left." Steps into the alley to pull herself together, pulls out cachous to freshen up, and the suddenly he returns. So you see, there is any number of ways she could end up in that alley but you say "she follows" him into the yard. Next you say, "accept to perform sexual activities with the man"... again, this is just speculation.
I have said this time and time again... the facts or little tidbits of evidence surrounding this incident are mere fragments of what happened, yet we are trying to create a "logical" narrative based on these tiny fragments. There are infinite possible scenarios which could explain even the most unlikely or contradictory pieces of "evidence". Again, I do not say that Schwartz's assaulting man is JTR, but simply that we cannot dismiss a suspect who is seen attacking a victim within minutes of the supposed time of death, and within yards of where the body was discovered.
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 1:24 pm: | |
Dan,
"Heck, according to Schwartz's description, she was already in the yard when attacked, so making a big deal about why she would have chosen to accompany this man into the yard is a complete non-issue."
No, they were not, they were standing in the "gate-way", but OK I can agree on that that is playing with words. Fact remains that they were in full view on the street and were not inside the yard.
I can't exclude that there are a number of scenarios that could be the reason for why she was found murdered inside the gates, but everything we suggest here is speculations.
I have said it over and over again, we have really nothing at all showing what happened after Schwartz witnessed the scene. No one saw the assaulting man murder Stride, no one except Schwartz himself saw the man and the pipe smoking bystander. No one except Schwartz heard anything whatsoever that would indicate a scene similar to the one he suggested.
Tell me, Dan, who is turning "facts" into speculations here?
"Of course that bit doesn't make sense, but I haven't seen anyone put that forth as an potential scenario so arguing against it is rather pointless."
That is nonsense. The alternative scenario is simple and has been put forward a number of times: the assaulting man (if he existed) leaves -- most logically disturbed by the fact that he's been spotted -- Stride gets herself together and a new man, the killer, enters the scene. That is not more speculative than grasping at straws from a testimony that don't really show what happened at the moment the murder was performed!
"It could have been Kidney, and she went to discuss things in private (and here you say that that's stupid and nobody would do it and yet, for the umpteenth time, people DO do it all the time) and had no reason to believe he'd fly into a murderous rage."
Now who's doing the speculations? I am very well aware of that "domestic quarrels" thing, but as I said, it is not the same thing and the metaphor is haltering.
Rob House,
I am not speculating more than you do. There are many open doors here -- too many, unfortunately. I agree on your suggestions in the first passage of your posts, naturally they are possible. But, like my own thoughts on the matter they are speculations nevertheless.
When I say that she followed or lead someone into the yard and accepted to sexual activities, it is simply because that I am of the strong opinion that she was murdered by a customer. That is why she stood there in the first place, so that is really not that much of a long shot.
"Again, I do not say that Schwartz's assaulting man is JTR, but simply that we cannot dismiss a suspect who is seen attacking a victim within minutes of the supposed time of death, and within yards of where the body was discovered."
Well, I am not the one here who tries to build a case on an unverified witness testimony, and that don't with certainty really show us what happened during the murder itself but some time prior to it (if we are to believe Schwartz's own time estimations). Give me another statement that supports Schwartz's over-rated ramblings, and who also includes some minutes after the scene in question, and I'll be willing to reconsider.
Until then, I claim my right to push my own opinions on the matter -- if Mr Norder and Mr House can take it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 46
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 2:33 pm: | |
Glenn,
I think you misinterpreted what Dan said. When he said "I haven't seen anyone put that forth as an potential scenario", I think he was talking about the scenario where she "she follows someone who just had assaulted her into the yard and accepts to perform sexual activities..." You seem to have thought he meant that nobody suggested an alternative to that.
As far as the Schwartz evidence... as far as I can tell, you are the only person who seems to be questioning his credibility as a witness. Most writers I am familiar with seem to regard him as a very important and credible witness. Certainly the police thought he was credible. How do you suppose that you have more insight on his credibility than the police who were working the case? Because what you keep suggesting over and over again is that Schwartz's assaulting man may have not even existed.
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1135
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
No, Robert,
I am not suggesting it -- I am merely taken such a possibility in consideration, which must be done in each witness statement that is unverified. It is really quite simple.
And the notion, that all authors find him credible is a fallacy; several have mentioned him as important -- yes -- but have also raised question marks regarding him (one of those is Sugden), although not in the same way as the con man Packer (who had clear motives for his appearences in the media). I am not saying that Schwartz was a hoaxer, but that his statements must be treated with caution, like everyone elses.
To me it is not that strange that the police -- very much like many here -- found him interesting, since he was the only one who produced information regarding a violent-looking event connected to a woman who was murdered a short amount of time later. That is understandable. But that does not automatically mean that his testimony shall be read as the ultimate true account of what really happened -- and more importantly, we can't really be sure that what Schwartz saw was the fore-play to Stride's murder. That is just something that has been assumed without questioning.
I have made my points clear enough on the matter and I really can't do anymore at this instant without even further come out as repetitious.
I think it is very problematic, that Schwartz can't seem to be criticized without people banging their heads against the wall in sheer frustration. But I'll be perfectly willing to let you and others here to not bother about source evaluation at all and continue to hail Schwartz as one of the most credible witnesses in history, although just a few minutes of error in his time estimations would be enough to seriously damage him as an important witness. Best of luck.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 147
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 6:00 pm: | |
Robert,
I think that most researchers consider Schwartz to be a fairly credible witness; he certainly seems to have had little to gain by coming forward with his information. Nonetheless, certain caveats are in order when considering his statement.
The first is one that applies to all the witnesses at this far a remove in time. We know very little about any of them, Schwartz included, and can only rely on what the police felt about individual witnesses. In this case, the police seemed to think him credible.
Second, there would seem to have been a real language problem with Mr. Schwartz and it is likely a translator was used. And, even with a first-rate translator, the questions and answers will be filtered and certain nuances possibly lost.
Third and most important is the fact that soon after he began observing, Schwartz thought he was in peril of his life. If I read what he said correctly, he came upon a confrontation between a man and woman and then crossed to the other side of the street to get away from the scene (and if his reaction was anything like that which is praticed now on New York subways, he didn't stare and probably averted his eyes). As soon as he crossed the street he noticed another man, heard a cry ("Lipski"?)walked away and then, fearing he was being followed, began to run for many blocks.
Clearly, he was in a highly agitated state and that would bring into some question his credibility. My feeling is that he would be quite dependable until he began to cross the street and then. . . . So, his description of the man and woman may have been very good (he seemingly had no difficulty recognizing Stride) and after that his recollections are problematic.
Don. |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:33 pm: | |
Glenn,
I will try one last time. You seem to think that I think "Schwartz is one of the most credible witnesses in history." It is also clear that you assume I think Schwartz's assaulting man is JTR. Neither is true. In fact I agree with many of your ideas in a sense. Yes, it is possible that another guy came on the scene after the assault. Possibly pipe man, possibly someone else. Also, I am fully aware that Schwartz was in an agitated state, and that his recollection of events may have been clouded by fear, panic etc.
I have no fixed interpretation of the events surrounding Stride's murder. The evidence is fragmentary... we are just trying to string it all together in a narrative that is logical. But this can be dangerous.
My objection is that you seem convinced that Schwartz's assaulting man could not possibly have been JTR. I think you have stated or implied this dozens of times on this thread. You have suggested that Schwartz's assaulting man may have never existed.
Here is what I believe: Schwartz saw an assault taking place. He reported the assault to police, and did not probably intentionally lie about it, although his memory may have been clouded. After that, any interpretation is fair game. But I do not "assume without questioning" that Schwartz's assaulting man was JTR. All I do is consider it to be a possibility.
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1138
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
Rob,
I wont indulge myself much in this thread for a period of time, because I am really exhausted and I am also preparing myself for a London trip.
However, in reference to your last post I better clarify one thing or two.
Firstly, I just want to state that I am by no means certain of that Stride was a victim of JtR, there are too many question marks regarding that detail. I think she was, but it is just a hunch and I can't prove it -- I admit that there are some points speaking against it as well.
So we really have two questions to answer as far as Schwartz's assaulting man is concerned (and yes -- if he existed; note that I'm just questioning it, not stating that he didn't existed for sure, because I personally think he did -- I just want to point out that we can't be sure).
These two questions are:
1) Was the assaulting man JtR?
2) Was the assaulting man Stride's murderer (JtR or not)?
In my view it is the second question that is relevant here, because the first one is too tough to answer, even speculate about.
Yes, you are correct, I do not believe that the assaulting man was JtR (and I don't even see that as a possibility; I don't care how cocky that sounds). That I have stated and will continue to state, and I have also explained why. Whether one buys that or not, is another question. And I don't think he was her killer anyway, regardless if he was JtR or not.
I have never said that you have assumed that the man was JtR (although there are some who does), but you seem to have assumed that he was her killer! Let's not mix these two questions up with one another.
As for Schwartz credibility, I do think that Schwartz did see something, since he was able to identify Stride -- I agree with Don Souden on that. The problem is what he saw and when he saw it.
My problem is that Schwartz continues to be regarded as a truthful source, given a correct account that all facts depend on -- although his testimony is completely unverified. In my view his statements have been given far too much importance in the case, and I really can't see why. I agree that he had no intention or motive to lie, but he was a scared witness and we don't know how much he elaborated (just look at the Star report!). Therefore, to depend on Schwartz solely regarding the murder of Stride, I believe is dangerous and a dead-end.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 14, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 11:59 am: | |
Well Glenn,
I am glad to see that we finally both understand on at least our basic positions. At least almost. But you are wrong, I do not believe the assaulting man was her killer, simply that he MAY have been. I thought I had said this many times already.
So just to clarify, you do not believe assaulting man was her killer, I believe he MAY have been. Not saying he was, just that he MAY have been. That in a nutshell is where we differ. I simply do not see that there is enough evidence to discount the possibility...
But we have been over this countless times, so what is the point in continuing back and forth like this.
I do believe however that Stride's murderer was JTR, whether he was assaulting man or not. So you got that one backwards I think, because I assume her killer was JTR, but I do not assume her killer was Schwartz's assaulting man.
So now we are clear on it. I will not bring it up again, because I know we disagree, so lets just drop it.
RH |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 1:06 am: | |
Here's something to consider:
Maybe the man attacking Stride was her killer, but they were just acting out some domination scene that JTR liked. Remember, in the Chapman and Kelly killings, witnesses say that the suspect obviously is requesting something unusual. He ask Chapman if she's willing to do something and he says something to Kelly that she finds funny, but agrees to. Perhaps JTR was into domination. That would explain why Stride would yell, but not loudly. From readings I've done, many sexual serial killers like to dominate their victims or their sex partners. JTR could be no different. If Stride and JTR were acting, the street scene would make sense. Then JTR takes Stride into the yard for more private domination and WHACK! Game over.
Anyone care to comment on my theory? I'd like to know what others think. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
Glenn wrote:
"Now who's doing the speculations? "
The difference here is that you are speculating and claiming that your one opinion is the most likely. I am speculating several possible scenarios, any one of which I think could fit the facts.
It seems rather backwards to chide me for having an open mind.
"I am very well aware of that "domestic quarrels" thing, but as I said, it is not the same thing and the metaphor is haltering. "
But you have given no reason for anyone to believe that it's not the same thing except your repetitive statements that it just can't be. How do you know it wasn't a domestic quarrel? The sketchy details we have fit with a domestic quarrel. Of course they also fit with other scenarios.
Now if Stride had ended up mutilated I'd agree that that would make a domestic quarrel extremely unlikely (contrary to the position of the Barnett believers who think more mutilations means more domestic, for some strange reason). But she had her throat slit, which happens in domestic quarrels and seemed to be the favored killing method of lots of victims in that area over the years that aren't automatically assumed to be Jack's work.
All in all it looks like I mostly agree with Rob. I don't think Schwartz was the most credible witness we could have had, but I do think he's the most believable in a long string of witness who either don't sound like they should be trusted (Packer, Hutchinson, etc.) or report people who have no compelling reason to be thought of as anything but innocent bystanders (Long, Lawende). Of course the possibility that he might not have seen the Ripper (either because he showed up later or never was there at all) can't be ignored either. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 2:03 pm: | |
(Concerning the description given by Schwartz) "I think it is a load of garbage and crap, but I can't prove it."
>>This kind of statement exhibits a certain kind of Ripperologist, and I'm of a different class. It is very difficult for me to simply throw out significant testimony based on my opinion, unless I've got some kind of strong evidence to put the reliability of the testimony into doubt. Its the same with the statements made by Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson--some key thinkers of the case, like Evans and Sugden, do not hesitate to call these men fantasy-makers or even liars.
Let me tell you why I feel this way. I don't like being arrogant. I've got too many problems of my own to call some other person a liar and a cheat, unless I've got the goods on him. Reality is very complex, and is seen differently by everyone. It seems more likely that I've got some work to do to try to understand the meaning of what's said before I say it isn't true.
Bullwinkle |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 8:18 pm: | |
Dear David--By an odd coincidence, I was reading a night or two ago an old thread about one of our favorite subjects---Aaron Kosminski. A post of yours caught my eye--unfortunately I can only quote from memory. Something along the lines of "one of the problems I have with mainstream Ripperology is they never consider the possibility that Anderson was lying." I'll drum it up again if I can find it. Hmm. Is it fairer to say that your beef with Sugden isn't so much that he is calling Anderson a liar, or is it only that he isn't calling him a liar in the same way that you are?
Technically, Sugden was merely quoting Churchill and Major Smith, and comparing Anderson's contemporary statements of 'non-detection' with his latter-day pronouncements of 'ascertained facts.' Hardly what I'd call flippant opinions, but, rather, historically sound observations that require resolution.
As for Schwartz, I agree. No viable reason to dismiss him. Insert also general cautionary advice about babies & bathwater &tc... RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on February 19, 2004) |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 452
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 5:29 am: | |
David
I would actually agree with that whole post (with the possible exception of the words I don't like being arrogant!!!)
However I don't think it is a matter of calling Schwartz a liar. I personally am convinced that he saw exactly what he says he saw, or at least something very similar to it within the boundaries of the tricks memory can play on a man and the fact that his statement was being channelled through an interpreter. I take the Star story with more of a pinch of salt as this has been further channelled through the fervid imagination of a Star reporter which had a tendency to do strange things to the facts, to "sex them up" as we would say today.
What I question is whether what Schwartz saw means what it has thus far been interpreted to mean. And I think it is important to ask such questions because otherwise we are like the old story of the blind people feeling the various parts of the elephant. It may well be that Schwartz saw the beginning of a Ripper attack. But it is also possible that he did not, and if we rule out that possibility then we close off an entire line of enquiry for no reason other than our own arbitrary decision. |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 11:22 pm: | |
Good evening folks. While catching up on two weeks' posts, including this thread, I had this odd thought.
Does anyone know where the "jakes" were located for the Int'l Workingman's Educational Club? I imagine that they were outside facilities but were they within Dutfield's Yard or in another location?
The following is speculation but to me the only difference that it would make is if the killer was Jack, he would have gone about the slaying with the expectation of being interupted considering there were still several people visiting the club. It doesn't rule out an impulse killing by anyone either.
My books are upstairs and I don't remember what the autopsy report said about liquid in her bladder, but also, it may offer a reason for Liz to have been in the Yard on her own volation rather than being dragged or enticed.
Viper, man we miss you!!!
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:42 am: | |
Personally, I don't find the Star report particularly sensationalized. I've read it many times and it reads rather straight-forward. Swanson in his report of 19 October doesn't dispute that Schwartz was chased by the second man; indeed, he writes: "The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road "Lipski" & then Schwartz walked away, but finding he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man didn not follow so far." (my emphasis). Clearly Swanson's view is that it was the second man who put the fear of God into Schwartz. No mention of a knife, of course, but this could be the result of Schwartz settling down after a day or two, or a difference in the skill of the interpreters who questioned him. It's not uncommon for witnesses to change details on reflection. It's interesting to note that at one point Sir Robert Anderson refers to the second man at "the supposed accomplice." It's only with Abberline (reporting 1 Nov) that we hear the suggestion that Schwartz was confused and the second man was merely an innocent pedestrian, and might "have been alarmed the same as himself." It seems the police were as much at odds about what happened in Berner Street as everyone else. |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 64
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:10 pm: | |
Billy.
Constable Henry Lamb, (252 H division): "I did not see any person leave. I did not try the front door of the club to see if it was locked. I afterwards went over the cottages, the occupants of which were in bed. I was admitted by men, who came down partly dressed; all the other people were undressed. As to the waterclosets in the yard, one was locked and the other unlocked, but no one was there. There is a recess near the dust-bin.
Coroner: Did you go there?
Constable Henry Lamb: Yes, afterwards, with Dr. Phillips.
Wolf. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1170
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 11:15 am: | |
David,
I was only putting forward a personal opinion. I hope that is allowed.
I have never said that Schwartz was a liar; he had no legitimate reason to make the story up. However, he was a scared witness, his testimony is unverified, no other residents on Berner Street watched or heard something similar to what he experienced, he himself was never seen by other witnesses on the spot, Schwartz English was bad, etc. etc. That is all I've been asking people to consider and those are question marks we shouldn't disregard. Just because he was the only one who had any relevant information to deliver in connection regarding the time of the murder, doesen't automatically make him more credible.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1171
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 11:20 am: | |
I really do believe Schwartz saw something -- the problem is that we can't be sure of exactly what, since we can't verify his statements with another source, and the fact that his testimony for the police is incomplete and what we have is just a post-compilation of the real statement that has been lost, doesen't make it easier. If we then add to it, that the Sun interview displays a quite different and more elaborated version of events, I feel like leaning too heavily upon Schwartz is to indulge in the game "the blind leading the blind".
But I do not think he was a liar (like I believe Packer probably was).
I agree with Palmer, that the police themselves seemed to be much at odd at what really happened at Berner Street. And so are we.
However, after some honest reconsidering and re-evaluation of the facts and circumstances I can say and admit this:
If Stride wasn't a Ripper victim and if Schwartz rambling is correct, then it actually may be possible that the assaulting man was her killer. Yes, you read right! If that really was the case, then his rather irrational behaviour probably was a result of drink or lunacy -- Schwartz had indicated in the Sun report that he followed an intoxicated man. But if that man was Kidney or just another street hooligan, we will never know.
What speaks against Kidney (or in favour of his guilt) is his strange and arrogant behaviour at the inquest.
I still want to raise a word of warning about treating the Schwartz incident too uncritically, but it is of course a possibility.
And still, we don't know who the pipe-man and his role in the drama was.
Now, I totally disagree on that the Star report couldn'r show signs of being sensionalized. I have during studies of other cases read numerous paper accounts and compared them with the original material, and they have all turned out to be attempts to sell news-papers. The Star report is more dramatic and elaborated in an equally dramatic fashion.
However, there could also be another explanation for some of the discrepancies between the two sources, like the knife and the pipe. As we know, the pipe has in the paper suddenly become a knife, and it has been put forward earlier -- since Schwartz obviously couldn't handle English very well -- that the paper and the police used different interpretators with various quality, and that the words for knife and pipe in Schwartz's native language could be relatively the same, which would be the reason for why the paper "misunderstood" the whole thing. If this was the case, then the second man actually (in the paper report) came towards Schwartz with a pipe in his hand, not a knife. I myself have no idea about the matter, but the suggestion is interesting.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 26, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Mara
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
On this site, there is a long and detailed description of Catherine Eddowes' funeral and I was wondering if anyone knows if there is a similar detailed description of Elizabeth's funeral. Did she have as lavish and well attended a funeral as Catherine? I was also wondering what time of day Elizabeth's funeral was. It was on a Saturday? Thanks. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1663
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hi Mara,
As far as I recollect, Stride's funeral was quite a small and unpretentious affair, nothing like Eddowes' at all.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 8:39 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
Whats up? Ive got a question about Kidney.
What about his testimony makes his behavior suspicious? Are you referring to him saying that he could catch the killer and all that?
If this is so, then we must remember that someone just cut up his ol' lady and he was probably a little beyond pissed off and hurt.
I know I would be if my girl, who Ive been with for 3 yrs, was found with her throat gashed wide open. What do you think about that? Just curious. Talk to ya later.
Paul
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
