|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 64
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 10:14 pm: | 
|
Paul,
The attacker was attempting to pull Stride across the street; Pipeman was standing across the street. Directly across the street? No, but darn-tootin' close to it. The attacker screams something, Schwartz takes off, also does the Pipeman. Schwartz felt the Pipeman was following him. Where his intuitions correct? Who knows, but that was his feeling at the moment. As for the Star article, it should be dismissed. I've often thought that whoever wrote that 'report' was a friend of LeQueaux, and part of his 'one-upsman' group during the run of the Ripper murders, as LeQueaux describes a fictional scenario very reminiscent of the Schwartz/Stride scene, and names of his Russian suspects 'Levitski', which sounds an awful lot like 'Lipski'. Yet, Ripper researchers wouldn't know about Schwartz and the 'Lipski' connection until Knight's book in the '70's. Interesting that LeQueaux remembered this obscure article in a newspaper he (apparently) didn't write for, all those years after the murders. I suppose this is off-topic, but an observation that, to my knowledge, has never been made, and perhaps another reason to dismiss the Star article as sensationalistic balderdash.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 243
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 9:41 am: |
|
Hi Tom,
I am in favor of dismissing the Star article.
The Levitski thing is interesting..Ive never heard of him. Ive got to get ready for work, but we can continue this discussion later on.
Nice talking to ya.
Paul
Paul
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 12:37 pm: |
|
As long as we are discussing the Schwartz testimony we might as well quote it:
"he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway."
Note that this is not the original statement, but rather its "substance" to use Sugden's phrase, written as a sort of summary of the evidence by Swanson.
In any case it seems unclear what is happening here. If he was trying to pull her across the street, why would he turn her round and throw her down on the footway?
Glenn,
I disagree with your statement that "Those characteristics could fit any man in Whitechapel in the late 19th century". The descriptions are essentially identical in age (both said 30), height (5' 5" and 5' 7"), fair complexion (both), moustache (both), peaked cap (both), and dark jacket (both).
Also in reference to the earlier post by Scott about lighting and a "black point". He said: "To put this practically it means that something which might appear as a visible object at a certain exposure disappears to black as the iris is closed." I think this also means that in a dark environment, where less light reflects off surfaces which might be either gray or even colored, these will also appear to be black. Thus the "salt & pepper" (ie gray) jacket and "grey" cloth cap in Lawende's statement, might have appeared to be "dark" and "black" respectively to Schwartz on Berner St. I do not know which scenario would have been observed in more or less light.... perhaps the Berner St incident was darker. This might also explain why Schwartz did not notice the reddish hankercheif... it may have been too dark and appeared black or not noticeable at all.
I think the similarities in these two descriptions narrow the field considerably from fitting "any man in Whitechapel".
So does anyone know which of the incidents was more brightly lit?
Rob H |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1830
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Rob,
"I disagree with your statement that "Those characteristics could fit any man in Whitechapel in the late 19th century". The descriptions are essentially identical in age (both said 30), height (5' 5" and 5' 7"), fair complexion (both), moustache (both), peaked cap (both), and dark jacket (both)."
Yeah. And it's still very common features for most men in the East End at the time.
Dark jacket -- uninteresting; nearly all men had this.
Moustache -- extremely unimportant; look at old photos of men at the time, 98 percent had moustache.
Age -- worthless, especially seen in context that it was dark on all occasion. Age is one of the absolute hardest things to determine for a witness, based on our personal preferences. Means nothing.
Height -- combined with no other important feature this clue is of little value. Too many people have the same height, unless the person is extremely tall or short.
Peaked cap -- the only moderately interesting feature, but doesen't really say that much either. As I've pointed out; this was a very common headgear among the working class, and still is among the older generation. Not conclusive.
So what do we have, as far as the so called witness descriptions are concerned? Nothing -- even if we put them all together.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1831
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Regarding which incidents that were lit up or not, I would say none -- even if there were light.
Even considering the light from one or more windows on some site or a gas lamp nearby, this would mean very little. Gas light doesen't lit up anything, with today's standards. That includes the paraffin light indoors.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 866
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Donald Rumbelow states that lights were blazing from the upstairs windows of the International Working Mens club in Berner Street at the time of the murder.He also implies that this intense light caused the street level dark to appear darker by contrast.So yes it looks as though it was very dark around the gates but above and at the end of the yard where the printers were busy preparing "Arbeter fraint"["worker"s Friend"] there was also strong light coming from the windows.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1832
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 6:07 pm: |
|
Natalie,
I don't know about the "contrast", but you can't get an "intense" or "strong" light from gas light or petroleum illumination -- I have seen such kind of illumination many times. It just does not create enough light, and it is very questionable if the street lamps or indoor light in 1888 really was as efficient as we think it is -- with todays standards it would be considered useless. If Rumbelow talks about "intense" light, he is quite mistaken.
Try and lit a petroulem or gas lamp (I had a couple of petroleum lamps for many years that I used just for the look of it) -- it creates atmosphere, but efficient light? No.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 27, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 68
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Robert,
I'm going to have to side with Glenn on this: the descriptions you've mentioned could've fit a LOT of men at that time. Just to illustrate the point, Lawende and Levy fit the description pretty well themselves. And keep in mind that if the man they saw with Eddowes was not the killer, or if the woman they saw wasn't even Eddowes, then the comparison means nothing.
Glenn,
As for why the man would try to pull her into the street, then turn her around and throw her down, I've already addressed a very possible scenario; that being that the killer was trying to get her to cross the street, she resisted, turning around, and fell. That could have easily appeared to Schwartz, given the attacker's general attitude at the time, that he was throwing her down. And don't forget she had a gimp leg.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1833
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 8:45 pm: |
|
Tom,
That scenario of yours, regarding the course of events in connection with the assault, seem very much plausible indeed -- I have never questioned it, as far as I know.
I don't think it was Jack the Ripper, though. The man who committed the other murders would, as I see it, most likely run away if he met with too much resistance, and more importantly, if other people arrived at the scene. I can't really picture Jack the Ripper (who during the other killings has been quite careful about not being spotted during the murder and mutilation act) as someone who makes a rumble out of it and shouts across the street to a bystander and with another one present. To me it just doesen't add up.
If Mr Broad Shoulders were her killer (which I can't dispute with certainty), then it was probably a drunken, violent client, a pimp or maybe even Michael Kidney (who we know were abusive and she had a troublesome relationship with). But I can't with all the will in the world picture this rather careless brute as Jack the Ripper.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 73
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 9:38 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Mr. Broad-shoulders isn't likely to have been Michael Kidney, as Schwartz would have pointed him out at the inquest. And, likely, the police paraded Mr. Kidney in front of him in private very early on. As for Mr. B-S having been the Ripper, I'm not suggesting he was, but what about Pipeman?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 11:49 am: |
|
I approached the witness accounts with the full knowledge that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. But I thought that if any two of them had really remembered right, they would corroborate each other. So I started looking at all the accounts and comparing them. I would have been suspicious if any two had tallied exactly or used exactly the same words, but none did. The fact that all the other eyewitness accounts differ significantly from the Schwartz/Lawende sightings indicates that there were other ways people could dress in whitechapel at that time.
Scott -- your info about light was fascinating. One question, does this vary from one individual to another? Might you and I confronted with the same amount of light be able to perceive at different levels? Things like DNA, age, disease or disability -- would they have an effect? Are there people who have developed more acuity in the dark due to their occupation (ie coal miners)? |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1834
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 12:08 pm: |
|
Tom,
Regarding the Pipe-Man: I know, that has been on my mind as well. Some people say we should totally disregard him, but I am not sure that would have been done in a modern police investigation. If Schwartz' story is true, I think it's a problem that this man never was identified.
It could be that he was just an innocent bystander, but it is also possible that he could have been JtR (if we consider a Stride a ripper victim) or in some sort of corroboration with Mr B-S. The latter option (which I personally feel to be a bit more convincing), could open up to the possibility that Stride was a victim of some kind of pimp or prostitute territorial business -- we know there were such gangs in East End.
What disputes this, is Schwartz testimony in the Star, where Mr B-S is walking unsteadily (like he was drunk) and that he didn't come together with the Pipe-Man -- Pipe Man didn't arrive until later and came out of a pub. On the other hand, I would not place to much stocks in a newspaper story, so the question is if that is relevant.
Regarding Kidney, that's probably true. Still, I think Kidney's testimony is so strange and contradictory -- and his conduct so arrogant and bizarre -- that he raises suspicions in me. Furthermore, There could have been reasons to why Schwartz didn't point him out -- fear for his own safety, could be one (since he knew the assailant had had a good look at him). But OK, your point can't be disregarded. It was just a suggestion among others. Once again, I agree on that the Pipe-Man is somewhat of a dark horse in this context.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 77
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Glenn,
The Star account doesn't dispute anything, because it is too riddled with errors to be of any value. If the Pipe-man chased Schwartz not because he was after him, but because he too was scared, then why did he not simply turn around and go back inside the place from which he'd just exited?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Wasnt it a pub, and werent the pubs closing up at that hour? |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 395
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 3:53 pm: |
|
I believe Diana is right. The pubs were closing so that would not have been an option. I have always wondered who pipe man was and what real relationship he had with this crime. The least of which being he was a witness in the moments prior the crime.
Mikey |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 9:35 pm: |
|
Hey Everybody,
Ya'll all bring up some interesting points. For me, it doenst seem likely that someone else besides Mr.BS killed Stride. Schwartz statement clearly points out that Mr. Bs was throwing her around, attacking, trying to beat her up....whatever. The chances that someone else came along after he finished his alleged attack and sliced her throat is very remote. So the chances that Stride was killed by Mr. BS are very good.
As far as pipeman goes...he was apparently walking away from the scene too. It just doenst make sense that he would have chased Schwartz off and turned around and went back to Dutfields yard and helped or killed Stride. That scenario just doenst feel right. The Pipeman, however,
is an interesting witness. It seems like he would have told someone what he had seen and the word got out and so on. But for now we dont have any info regarding that.
So, unfortunately for now, we should regard pipeman as nothing other than a witness that was just coming out of a pub.
That brings up another question....If the pubs were closing about that time, doesnt it seem likely that other people would have been coming out as well? But we hear of none. That, I think, is kinda strange.
And what about the other couple that was leaning against the board school around this time? The couple that James Brown and allegedly Fanny Mortimer saw as well.....why were they never tracked down? Or if they were, there is no report of it. Everytime I try to figure out the Berner Street scenario my head starts hurting.
But I love it. Its my favorite of all the murder scenes....I guess because its so damn confusing.
Paul
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 82
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 12:15 am: |
|
A few things had better be made clear before this discussion continues any further and more misinformation seeps in.
From Swanson's report of Oct, 19, 1888:
'On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he (Schwartz-TW)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" & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.'
As you'll see, there's no mention of a pub, so why such a thing is being taken for granted in the above posts is beyond me. There's nothing to suggest the man was standing in front of a pub, though he was standing across the street from where Stride and the man were struggling. Now, AFTER Schwartz became frightened by the BS man he crossed the road where the pipeman, only then, was lighting his pipe. So, if the man were witnessing this brutality and calmly lighting his pipe all the while, he was clearly not frightened by the scene, and likely did not flee in fright. What else does Swanson tell us? That BS man tried to pull the woman into the street. Why? To get her hit by a hansom cab should one drive by? Or, just perhaps, to bring her to the pipeman?
Paul Jackson writes: "As far as pipeman goes...he was apparently walking away from the scene too." But such a thing was not apparent to Schwartz, who was there. The Pipeman frightened him. And just to reiterate, there's NOTHING in Swanson's report to indicate that the pipeman was coming out of a bar. He was simply standing, lighting a pipe, and watching a woman be horribly mistreated. And his action following the cry of what was perceived by Schwartz to have been 'Lipski!', the pipeman's actions were as such to make Schwartz believe that he meant him harm. Could Schwartz have been wrong? Yes. Is it possible that the pipeman was not connected to the murder of Stride? Absolutely. Is it fact? Absolutely not. Is it possible that Pipeman and not our broad-shouldered friend was the killer? Indeed.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2489
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 4:05 am: |
|
Hi Tom
Let's suppose you're right, and that Broad Shoulders was trying to drag Stride across the street:
R.J.Palmer once suggested that the man seen by Brown was a friend of Kidney's trying to persuade Stride to meet Kidney, and that after Stride refused, the friend went off to find Kidney (Broad Shoulders).
If we change this scenario a little, we could have Brown's man as a client propositioning Stride. When she rejects him, he goes off to find her pimp (Kidney or whoever) and complains that she won't play ball. Broad Shoulders then comes to sort her out, trying to drag her across the street to the client (Brown's man/Pipeman). When things start to turn nasty, Pipeman has had enough and exits.
There are several problems with this, e.g. Brown's description of his man and Schwartz's description of Pipeman don't seem to tally, and there doesn't seem enough time for Brown's man to go off, find the pimp, and get back in time for Schwartz. I only offer it as a suggestion.
If Pipeman was a would-be client, that might explain his reluctance to come forward (particularly if he was married).
Personally I feel that Liz was killed by someone who appeared after Broad Shoulkders. Pipeman and Schwartz had all cleared off.
Robert |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 88
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Robert,
There's nothing at all to suggest that Stride had a pimp. The little money they made went to doss and drink. I think in the situation Schwartz describes there are four possible scenarios:
1) B-S Man killed Stride after Schwartz and Pipeman went away.
2) Pipeman killed Stride after Schwartz and B-S Man went away
3) B-S Man and Pipeman worked in unison, and were together responsible for Stride's death.
4) Someone other than Pipeman and B-S Man was responsible for Stride's death.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 400
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 1:15 pm: |
|
The trouble is, Swanson is ambiguous.
"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" & then Schwartz walked away...etc."
On the opposite side of the road from whom?? Since the orientation is Schwartz having crossed the road, its unclear whether Swanson means that the Pipesmoker is opposite Schwartz or opposite the man assaulting Stride. It can be read either way. I tend to think he means the former. Swanson can be confusing and marginal notes in this very report admonish him for it.
Looking at it in a different light, Swanson doesn't directly contradict the Star interview. When you're on the same side of the sidewalk, you can't see someone standing back in the recess of a doorway. So if the man was standing in the doorway of the Nelson, Schwartz wouldn't necessarily have seen him until he crossed to the opposite side of the street.
Finally, I have to agree with Alex Chisholm. I've read the Star report a dozen times or more and have yet to feel the 'sensation.' I must be doing it wrong. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Two further points.
1. No evidence Schwartz was at the inquest, so it's unclear that he could ever have identified Kidney.
2. Act of pulling=ownership. They're quarrelling and he's pulling her away (Kidney kept her locked in a room, for heaven's sake) |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 90
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:04 pm: |
|
R.J. Palmer writes: "No evidence Schwartz was at the inquest, so it's unclear that he could ever have identified Kidney."
Sir Robert Anderson, in a Nov. 5, '88 letter to Home Office writes: "...upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride's case." Schwartz didn't speak at the inquest, or perhaps he did, but with the aid of an interpreter. Even if only his statement were to be read, he would have been present, in the event of further questioning. As we know from too many sources, the police were being very secretive about their evidence, particularly potential witnesses (the hushing of Lawende lays testament to this), and Schwartz was favored over Lawende, so it stands to reason he would have been kept away from the press at all costs (alas, only one reporter seems to have reported on him).
As for Swanson's ambiguity, I don't see it. He clearly refers to the Pipeman as 'the man' or 'second man' and Schwartz as 'Schwartz', so when he says 'the man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road..', he clearly intends 'man on opposite side of the road' to mean Pipeman.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 402
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 7:35 pm: |
|
Tom--This sounds like a whopping contradiction. "We know the Police were very secretive".. Yes, and how were they going to keep Schwartz's testimony secret if he appeared at the Inquest? The answer is that they weren't. Yes, I'm very well aware of Anderson's statement, but nowhere is it corroborated. The Times, for one, gave an extremely extensive coverage of the Inquest (as did the Telegraph) running many dozens of columns in length-- and there is no peep whatsoever of Schwartz being there. Pretty remarkable considering he would have been the prime witness. So any speculation that he ever had a chance to identify Michael Kidney is simply that...speculation.
I would agree with your last paragraph, if it wasn't preceded by another sentence.
"On crossing to the opposite side of the street....the man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road...(ie.,from where Schwartz was now standing). It's clumsily written, but then, like I said, a marginal note later on in the report reads "this is rather confused."
I admit there is nothing wrong with your reading other than it insists on the inaccuracy of the Star report---which still aint necessarily so. (This is one of the few interpetations where I agree with David Radka, so enjoy it or dismiss it while you can).
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 94
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 9:20 pm: |
|
R.J.,
There's no contradiction at all. It's quite likely that Schwartz was allowed, or made, to give his testimony to the inquest jury with only the police present. It needn't have been public. If allowed by the coroner, this practice is acceptable (at it undoubtedly would have been, at police insistence). Even sponteneously, and without prior notification, the room could be clear so a witness could give evidence, as in the time all women and children were cleared so a doctor could give the grisly details.
As for your defense of the Star report; if the Pipeman were actually the Knifeman, and pulled a knife on Schwartz (which is what the Star report claims), then why was he so quickly dismissed as a suspect by the police? Simple. He didn't pull out a knife (at least not in Schwartz's presence), and the Star report was faulty. Was there some truth in it? Undoubtedly - after all, it gets the characters right - but due to its fallacies it is useless as evidence.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 279
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 9:04 am: |
|
Hi Tom,
You wrote: “So, if the man were witnessing this brutality and calmly lighting his pipe all the while, he was clearly not frightened by the scene, and likely did not flee in fright.”
As I’ve suggested some time ago, Pipeman could have been coming from around the corner or out of 'The Nelson' focusing on lighting his pipe so much that he didn’t become aware of the scene in front of the gates leading to Dutfield’s Yard until BS called out “Lipski”. And when he saw a panicking Schwartz walking away he got scared too and walked away as well. In other words, the fact that Pipeman was calmly lighting his pipe doesn’t mean that he wasn’t frightened by the scene.
You also wrote: “But such a thing was not apparent to Schwartz, who was there. The Pipeman frightened him.”
I agree that Pipeman frightened Schwartz, but not necessarily in an active way. It’s clear that Schwartz was already frightened by the brutal attack and the moment he thought Pipeman was an accomplice he became even more scared and took off. The fact that Schwartz noticed he was being followed by Pipeman even made things worse. In fact, the fact that Schwartz ran as far as the railway arch probably some 200 yards further south and - if I remember correctly – that in his flight he passed the place where he lived (Ellen Street?) tells us something about how very scared he was when he left the crime scene. In the same report of October 19, Swanson even wrote, immediately after the quote you posted: “Schwartz cannot say whether the two men (BS and Pipeman – FvO) were together or known to each other.” In other words, Schwartz, having come to his senses again, couldn’t tell if BS and Pipeman were connected.
My impression is that Pipeman wasn’t connected to BS. Why would he have needed to scare Schwartz away when the man was already walking away from the scene? As an accomplice that wouldn’t have been very smart, because the following of Schwartz, certainly when running, could have attracted attention to him and the developing scene and furthermore, he would have left his post as a look-out for BS.
Let’s suppose for a moment that Pipeman was Stride’s killer, but didn’t have anything to do with BS. If he was someone who wanted to harm Stride or see her get harmed, whether he knew her or not, he would most probably not have walked away. If he was Kidney, I doubt if he would have walked away. If Pipeman was someone who knew Stride but didn’t want to see her get harmed, he would have tried to help her directly or he would have fetched the police. If he was someone who didn’t know her and didn’t intend to kill her but only did in the spur of the moment, it seems quite a coincidence that he would have walked away from the scene – knowing he was capable of murder the attack perhaps would have interested him rather than make him walk away – only to return very shortly afterwards to end up killing exactly Stride. I can imagine that Stride would have been cautious, she would probably not have been in a provocative mood after the attack by BS.
Although he could have been an interesting witness and can't be completely dismissed as a suspect, all in all to me, the fact that according to Schwartz Pipeman got away from the scene as well diminishes the chance that he had anything to do with Stride’s murder.
All the best,
Frank
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 96
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 11:53 am: |
|
Frank,
You make some interesting points and a good argument. However, keep in mind that Schwartz's intuition was that Pipeman was following him to do him hard. Swanson's comments, and Abberline's, to the contrary merely state that Schwartz had to concede that Pipeman did not behave in such an outwardly abrasive fashion as to put no doubt into Schwartz's mind that harm was meant him. In other words, Schwartz conceded to the possibility that Pipeman was fleeing as well.
Schwartz was also under the impression that B-S man was yelling to Pipeman, and not himself. So, if what you say is true, that Pipeman had only stepped out when Schwartz crossed the street, how would B-S man even known of his presence, since Schwartz hadn't seen him until he was practically on top of him?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 11:55 am: |
|
Hi Everybody,
Frank...you summed up all my previous posts in one. Very well done! Obviously, I agree with Frank here. Why would Pipeman run after Schwartz when he was already fleeing from the scene?
Does anyone know for certain how far the "railway arch" actually was from Dutfield's yard? I know Frank said about 200 yds, but can anyone else confirm that?
Paul
|
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 103
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Evening all
Harping back to the Schwartz at inquest thingy, while it is certainly possible that Schwartz gave evidence at a closed session of Stride’s inquest, I think it far more likely that Anderson simply made a mistake in his 5 Nov. ’88 draft reply to HO questions on the use of the word Lipski.
If the room had been cleared for secret disclosures during an open session of the inquest, I believe this would almost certainly have been noted by the press. We only know of the clearing of women and children at Chapman’s inquest because it was reported in the press. Even if an additional secret session had been convened, I doubt that such a session could have been kept under wraps, and not leaked to the press.
I don’t really see Baxter as the type to allow his strings to be pulled by the police without making some comment. And, in his summing-up, there is no hint that additional evidence was given in camera. Indeed, in summing-up Baxter specifically states: “three witnesses spoke to having seen a woman that they identified as the deceased with more or less certainty, and at times within an hour and a quarter of the period when, and at places within 100 yards of the spot where she was ultimately found.” (Times 24 Oct. 1888 page 3) These three he then listed as, William Marshall, PC William Smith, and James Brown, all of whose evidence appears in inquest reports. There is not even a hint of evidence being taken from other witnesses claiming to have seen deceased.
On top of this there is the following extract from the Daily Telegraph, 12 Nov. 1888, page 5: “Statements not taken in evidence were made by Matthew Packer, a shopkeeper, of Berner-street, and other persons, as to the identity of the man seen with Stride in Berner-street.” This formed part of a report lamenting the fact that the police were circulating secret witness descriptions of the supposed murderer. The police notice is reproduced by the DT and includes the following summary of Schwartz’s description: “At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.” So, although not specifically mentioned, I think it likely that Schwartz was one of those whose statements, according to the DT, were “not taken in evidence.”
In view of this, while I accept that it is possible Schwartz was compelled to give evidence at a closed session of Stride’s inquest, I think, on balance, it is more likely that Anderson simply got it wrong.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 281
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
On his flight from Dutfield’s Yard to the railway, which must have been in Pinchin Street and so perhaps even as much as 250 yards south of the crime scene, Schwartz did indeed pass the place where he lived (22 Ellen Street) or at least, he didn’t go there. What I’m saying is that from his testimony as written down by Swanson, we can draw the conclusion that Schwartz was a very scared man. And a frightened man is not a good observer.
I doubt if Schwartz would have conceded to the possibility that Pipeman had been fleeing as well if he had been certain that Pipeman meant him harm.
If what I’m saying is true, that Pipeman only entered the scene seconds before BS shouted “Lipski”, then it seems logical that these two men weren’t known to each other and that BS didn’t shout at Pipeman, but at Schwartz. As you may know, by September 1888 the name Lipski had become an insult to Jews and Schwartz had a strong Jewish appearance, so this fits the story where Pipeman and BS aren’t connected.
To me there are a couple of odd things about BS and Pipeman being a team. First, if they were actually a team Pipeman would have known what to do if trouble, in this case Schwartz, came their way. There would have been no need for BS to shout to his accomplice to alert him to Schwartz’s presence in order for the Pipeman to see him off, because Pipeman was probably only some 30 yards away from the scene. Certainly as a look-out he would have seen Schwartz coming.
Secondly, as I said in my earlier post, Schwartz started to get away by himself when BS shouted “Lipski”, so Pipeman didn’t need to scare Schwartz off any more. He would have fled anyway. Furthermore, running away from the scene, which is what Pipeman did according to Aberline, wasn’t very smart for the two reasons I put forward in my earlier post.
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 282
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Hey there Paul,
As Schwartz seems to have fled southward, the logical place to find a railway arch is in Pinchin Street. I have taken a modern map of London to find out the approximate distance from where Dutfield’s Yard was to Pinchin Street and came to 245 meters, which is about 260 yards.
All the best,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 873
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Its just possible that Shwartz misheard "lipski".He could not speak English at this point and had to have an interpreter.A common feature of people just beginning to understand English is a tendency to confuse the sound order in words so that he could in fact have heard something quite different.I have often wondered if he heard "spy" shouted or "police spy" or some such.This is because the club was known by and watched by the police as were most
political hotspots at the time including the imperial club in Mitre Square by some accounts.
Its possible they were unhappy to have Liz Stride hanging around the club and someone who had had a bit too much to drink went to tell her to clear off.What happened afterwards is still anyone"s guess but at least it might clear BS and pipeman of their role.
Natalie |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 250
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Hi Everyone,
Natalie...I agree that "Lipsky" was either misunderstood or taken out of context of a sentence. Like you said, Schwartz didnt speak English, so if the killer were speaking in English which is probably the case, then Schwartz probably just heard...."Blah,Blah,Blah,LIPSKY,Blah,Blah,blah."
I dont think that he necessarily misunderstood the word "Lipsky", but I think the killer said a few other things too and thats what stuck in his mind. Best regards.
Paul
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 11:57 pm: |
|
Alex--Thanks for the detailed analysis. Very nicely reasoned. RP |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 48
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 3:10 am: |
|
Diana,
Yes of course other factors can determine how well a person can see in low light, i'm no medical expert but my understanding is that (i'm generalising) people start with the same ability to see in low light and then other factors can diminish it. I don't think however that people can actually become better at seeing in the dark by working or spending a lot of time in low light. In fact most people believe the exact opposite is the case and that working in low light adversely effects vision. Let me be clear on this though, what I am referring to is that in everyone there is a mechanical change that needs to occur when changing light conditions in the form of our iris opening or closing. This change does not happen instantaneously in anyone. The larger the change in light level the longer it takes for the iris to adjust. I just think it's worth keeping in mind.
In reply to someone elses comment regarding colours in the dark, in a real lack of light, unless there is ambient light of a particular colour, we see all objects as shades of blue. Our brain often interprets things as a colour even under these conditions, especially if we know the colour of an object we are looking at. It of course is illogical that in almost no light someone could designate the colour of a neckerchief as red.
Food for thought. (I am not prejudging the lighting conditions in Berner Street, I have no opinion myself, just think it's useful to know.)
Scotty.
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 9:34 am: |
|
Paul you wrote
"Why would Pipeman run after Schwartz when he was already fleeing from the scene?"
And Frank you wrote,
"My impression is that Pipeman wasn’t connected to BS. Why would he have needed to scare Schwartz away when the man was already walking away from the scene? As an accomplice that wouldn’t have been very smart, because the following of Schwartz, certainly when running, could have attracted attention to him and the developing scene and furthermore, he would have left his post as a look-out for BS."
Do you not both agree, that it is possible that Pipeman was an accomplise of attacker, and merely ran a short way after Schwartz, to make absolutely sure that he didn't look back, in short, to see him off.
Regarding it not being a smart move for Pipeman to attract attention to himself by running after Schwartz.
Do you think that this thought (had he been an accomplise) would have even crossed his mind?
I don't.
Surely his running after Schwartz (if he was an accomplice) was a spur of the moment thing.
As regards leaving his post as a look out. How long would he absent from the scene?
A couple of minutes
It is my opinion that he only chased Schwartz a short way, to see him off.
A short while ago on this thread, I described a scenario which included the possibility that Schwartz's 12:45 attacker could have been a local man who resented Stride soliciting in his area, and that Pipeman was his drinking partner.
Giving the matter some more thought, has now lead me to believe that the attack could have been a mugging.
Prior to the attack, Stride had serviced one possibly two clients, yet after her death no money was found in her possession.
Where did the money go?
Regards, Cludgy.
Regards, Cludgy
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 111
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 11:22 pm: |
|
Hello all,
I'd like to make clear that I'm merely playing advocate with the idea of Pipeman and B-S man being in league with one another. It's worth exploring. Now, it would appear that you're looking at this as a B-S Man is the killer/Pipeman is the accomplice scenario, but what I'm suggesting is the other way around. WHAT IF Pipeman is the Ripper, and B-S Man his stooge?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Alex, thanks for the illuminating info. What an odd error for Anderson to make, and no one to correct him on. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1838
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 4:49 am: |
|
Cludgy,
I completely agree with your last post.
These are all just speculations, of course, but that is what I personally see as a possible interpretation of things as well.
Tom,
If Stride was a Ripper victim, yes, we can't exclude the Pipeman from being the Ripper. But the obvious reason for at least myself to speak about that character in terms of an accomplice, is because I think that is much more probable, seen in the light of his conduct. To me it seems very probable that these two individuals (BS and Pipeman) interact with each other in some way.
Schwartz interpreted it, as the Pipeman ran after him to chase him away and that absolutely makes more sense, since Schwartz found him threatening. And there would be no obvious reason for him to chase him away, unless he was some sort of accomplice to the assailant.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 251
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 7:00 pm: |
|
Hey Everybody?
Glenn, whats up ol' boy? When did you start thinking that the pipeman might be connected?
Just curious.
Why couldnt pipeman just have been fleeing from the scene just like Schwartz? He could have simply been going the same direction. When Schwartz said that he didnt follow him as far as the arch...the pipeman could have just turned on one of the side streets and went that way.
As far as the theory being that pipeman was the ripper. The only thing about that is his height. Schwartz said he was what? 5'10 or so..this would have been a little taller than the other witnesses description of the alleged
killer. To me, pipeman was just some guy that happened to be near the scene and took off when the killing went down. I could be wrong, of course, but...then again...we all could be.
Best regards.
Paul
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Not to be a johnny one note here but the man who threw Stride down matched the description of the man seen by Lawende. Pipeman did not. |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 10:08 am: |
|
Diana,
Thank you. I agree! ok..maybe we sound like a two note. haha
Paul
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 112
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Diana,
I would imagine it'd be hard for a chick to be a johnny-anything. Ha ha. And you're right, Pipeman doesn't look like the man seen by Lawende, but that wouldn't be a big shocker if the man seen by Lawende weren't the killer, which is quite possible. He couldn't positively identify the victim, and said he wouldn't recognize the man again if he saw him. Not a very good witness at all. As for B-S man, he MAY have been an accomplice, but he certainly wasn't Jack the Ripper. Pipeman, or some man that came along after Schwartz, are far more likely contenders.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 253
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Hey Everybody,
Tom...How are you? I would like to cordially disagree with you about Lawende being a not so good witness. The chances that another lady besides Eddowes, wearing almost the same clothing, almost the same size, etc....was hanging out in mitre square within 10 minutes of her death are not very good. Lawende saw enough of the man to describe his clothing, his build,
his height, his age, his hat, and his red neckerchief. I would say that was a pretty fair description...if, that was the killer. Chances are that it was. Best regards.
Paul
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 116
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 10:34 pm: |
|
Paul,
I would like to cordially state that you're taking an awful lot for granted. Lawende, admittedly, got only a glimpse of the man and woman, and in not very good lighting. This was in an area where pubs were releasing their patrons, and it's doubtful Eddowes was the only prostitute nearby, also extremely doubtful she'd be the only one wearing dark clothing. As for this woman having been 'almost the same size as Eddowes', we don't know this. When Lawende next saw Eddowes she was lying in a box. He was asked to guess at her height, because that was all he could do. He was asked to guess at the occupation of the man and came up with 'sailor'. 10 minutes is a long time to linger where they did and, in fact, couldn't have lingered so long. This particular couple would've had to have left the spot, because the cop on the beat didn't see them, then return to the spot for their 'encounter', this makes no sense. Odds are this couple DID split and either went home (assuming the girl was his woman and not a whore) or found a spot further away from the foot traffic passing them to do their thing. Then, 10 minutes later, Jack and Kate showed up. Or, the woman COULD have been Kate, and this guys split, only for Jack to find her next.
Let me state that I'm not accusing Lawende of lying at all. His coming forth was a brave thing. But I don't believe he saw Jack the Ripper. If one is, based on the reasons you gave, to believe Lawende saw Jack with Kate, then one must also believe Mrs. Long saw Chapman with Jack, albeit quite differently dressed, and shorter. But I love a good debate, so make me eat my words! 
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
So debate we will....Jack and Kate couldnt have showed up 10 minutes later, because she was dead 10 minutes later. I guess we could go back and forth all day about this, but that will get us nowhere. As for Mrs. Long....Im all for the idea that she did see Annie Chapman with Jack.
She didnt see his face, so its hard to tell exactly how old someone is by looking at them from the back. Let me ask you this? and maybe this is not the proper thread for this debate, but what do you think the scenario is for Eddowes murder? Best regards
Paul
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 289
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 10:27 am: |
|
Sorry to interfere with your discussion, Tom and Paul, but I have a late reaction to Cludgy.
Hi Cludgy,
Earlier on I was arguing from the viewpoint where BS and Pipeman were a team and that whatever it was they were there for was a planned thing. From this angle, certainly if their plan was to kill the woman, I would expect them both to try and attract as little attention as they could and to have waited with the attack until the coast was clear. Which really wasn’t the case with Schwartz approaching the scene.
BS clearly didn’t try to act as inconspicuously as possible, if we are to believe Schwartz’s ‘official’ story. And as I see it, neither did Pipeman if he actually ran after Schwartz to see him off, his boots clapping quite loudly on the surface of the narrow streets. And according to Aberline, running is what he did and which wasn’t really necessary because Schwartz was already scared s**tless. Besides, in the event of a planned attack, Pipeman would in my view not make much of a look-out if he would run away from the scene at what seems a crucial moment, even if it was for only half a minute.
If the attack on Stride was a spontaneous thing in which BS and Pipeman were connected, most of what you say fits. For instance, I can imagine BS and Pipeman sitting at a table in the Nelson, having a few pints. At some point BS starts to complain about this woman, who has done him wrong or who irritates him. Not long before closing time I can see Pipeman leaving the pub, but just as he has turned to his left into Berner Street he sees the woman BS was talking about in front of Dutfield’s Yard, some 10 yards ahead. So, he walks back into the Nelson to alert his friend to the woman’s presence. Then, BS angrily walks out fast to have a ‘talk’ with her and Pipeman slowly follows, enjoying the prospect. When Pipeman is outside again, about halfway to Dutfield’s Yard, he sees his buddy stop and talk to the woman. He feels like smoking. Behind BS, who’s just throwing the woman on the footway, Pipeman sees what appears to be a Jew approaching the scene. This could be a laugh. When he takes out his pipe, the Jew, who’s clearly afraid, crosses the street. Pipeman calmly lights his pipe, meanwhile watching the scared Jew. As his friend doesn’t need any nosy bystanders he snarls “Lipski” at the Jew. Pipeman is going to fuel the Jew’s fear a little more and runs after him, seeing him off.
So Cludgy,
In case it was a spur of the moment thing I do agree that it’s possible Pipeman was some sort of accomplice who ran after Schwartz to make sure he didn’t come back and that the thought of not attracting any attention wouldn’t have crossed his mind. In case it was a planned thing I doubt it.
As to where Stride’s money went, I don’t know, but not having any money on her doesn’t necessarily mean that she was robbed. Unlike what you’re saying, there’s no evidence that she serviced any clients, not even strong indications. At about 11 pm she was seen by two men in the Bricklayer’s Arms pub in the company of a ‘respectably dressed’ man. They were hugging and kissing. At about 11:45 pm William Marshall saw Stride with a ‘decently dressed’ man. The man was kissing Stride and later put his arm around her. The couple remained in Marshall’s view for about 10 minutes. At about 12:30 PC Smith saw Stride with a man of ‘respectable’ appearance. By then, Stride was wearing a flower in her coat. Earlier, between 6 and 7 pm of 29 September, in the lodging house she stayed at, Charles Preston noticed Elizabeth Stride was dressed to go out. It might be that these men all saw one and the same man in Stride’s company and that the couple was on a romantic date. Finally, at about 12:45 James Brown saw a man and a woman standing together near the crime scene. He was ‘almost certain’ that the woman was Stride and he heard her say: “Not tonight, some other night.”, which might indicate a rejection of the man as a client.
After having given the whole BS-Pipeman business some more thought I’m quite sure the attack on Stride wasn’t something they planned, if they actually were partners in crime. It may have been a spur of the moment thing they cooked up together, but then again, it just as well may have been the case that Pipeman was someone who unintentionally walked into the scene, even unaware of it until BS shouted “Lipski”.
My gut-feeling tells me that it was the latter, but that isn’t based on anything solid, maybe only on the fact that scared people usually make bad observers and on the fact that the respectable Inspector Aberline, who had spent 14 years in the slums of Whitechapel had questioned Schwartz very closely and had come to the conclusion that BS might not have shouted at Pipeman, but at Schwartz, and that Pipeman might just have been alarmed as Schwartz and subsequently run away like him.
All the best,
Frank
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 118
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Paul,
What do I think the scenario was for Eddowes' murder? Well, for starters, I DON'T feel that it began with the Ripper casually loitering at the edge of a passage facing a street where there was much foot-traffic. What Lawende described is a couple who'd apparently already warmed to each other, and were enjoying a moment. Who's to say how long they were there BEFORE Lawende and crew passed by? I have difficulty believing the Ripper would spend more time than necessary in his 'picking up' of a victim. As I've already noted, Lawende's couple were already cozy, and you're of the belief that they remained this way for some minutes after Lawende passed by, before entering into the passage and getting down to business. Unlikely. Thus, I feel that Jack met Eddowes somewhere very near Mitre Square, led her through Church Passage, and proceeded to do his thang on her. As to the details of what that thang might have been, that should be reserved for another thread.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 889
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 8:54 am: |
|
Hi,
I do not believe that the man seen standing with Eddowes was her killer, his manner does not fit the approaches of the madman.
In the case of Nichols, she appeared to have been manhandled in Brady street, and caught up with in Bucks row,
In the case of Chapman, we should remember that she was seen soliciting with a man, who appeared calm, however it was getting light, and Hanbury street at that time of the morning was a busy street.
In the case of Stride , she was manhandled, and in the case of Kelly there is evidence her killer was pulling her to her room in a impatient manner.
I believe Eddowes was trying to get rid of a randy sailor, and after succeeding cut through mitre square, when she was grapped by her left hand and muffled by the killers right, and pulled to the corner of the square , where she was despatched.
I have never believed that 'Jack' was a charmer, that foreplayed with his victims, I believe he was a sadistic brute, that once he came upon a likely victim, was quick to make his move.
Regards Richard. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 119
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Richard,
What evidence are you going by that suggests Kelly was pulled to her room in an "impatient manner"? As for Nichols, the idea that she was chased or attacked prior to her murder is a myth given fuel by faulty journalism of the day. Stride was in fact manhandled publicly, but quite likely not by her killer.
As for Chapman, Hanbury Street was not busy at the time Mrs. Long passed by, hence she was the only one on the street other than the couple she saw. It was still dark.
As for Jack being a brute who just attacked upon site, you have the awful silence of the murders to contend with, the complete lack of struggling on the part of the victims, the fact that Kelly came home, got undressed, put on a chemise, and laid herself down on the bed. And, in your own words, you have the Ripper soliciting from Chapman, loitering on a public sidewalk, then calmly and quietly walking to the back of the house where she was murdered. You might want to reconsider the evidence before you commit yourself to this ideology.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 891
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
A few points to mention.
Regarding Nichols, what evidence is there that the press mis-reported the statements from various witnesses at the scene?.
Several people claimed to have heard a woman being attacked in Brady street, so much so that they were out in the street the following morning, and claimed to have discovered spots of blood[ not substanciated]
Regarding Chapman,
At 530am that morning it was light, 1t infact was getting light some 45 minutes earlier , when Richardson sat on the steps of the yard,Mrs long mentioned that couples in the street at that time were the norm, also at that time of the morning people were constantly on their way to the markets,
Hardly likely the killer would have behaved in the aggressive manner, he was accustomed to.
we agree that Stride was manhandled by some one ,with a vicious streak.
As for kelly according to Dan Farsons interview with Mrs coxs neice, she claimed her Aunt said Kelly remarked to the man[ cox saw] 'All right my love dont pull me along'
Oral history mayby, but That quotation was given to Farson.
As for Kelly undressing to her chemise, you are right, however, as it has been stressed upon before, a few minutes of composure by her killer, would make it much easier for him to complete such aweful mutalation.
I am fully aware of the facts of the case Tom, I just feel that with the exception of Chapman, which I have explained, the rest of the victims were killed by a monster who had very little self control.
Have you considered how the circular bruise was caused by on the left hand of eddowes [ between the thumb and forefinger, of recent origin] this was obviously caused by her killer, grasping hold of her left hand, with his thumb pressed hard on the fleshy part.
Regards Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 292
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
First of all, when I think of a madman, I think of a man who doesn’t give anything for the consequences of his actions, I see a man who’s not in contact with reality and so, doesn’t even really know what he’s doing. Are we now to believe that Barnett was a madman, is that what you’re saying?
Maybe Jack the Ripper suffered from a mild form of mental illness, but I’m quite sure he was not a madman. If he was, he wouldn’t have lasted 4, 5 or even more murders without getting buckled.
Like Tom said, the silent onslaught, the absence of physical signs of a struggle, the fact that most of the attacks took place uncomfortably close to inhabited tenements, the presence of constables and other people close by in the streets and the fact that he got away without attracting attention all don’t fit a scenario involving a madman.
As for the sadistic brute you believe him to have been, if he really was, he would not have killed his victims as quickly as he most probably did.
The only thing I agree with is that Jack most probably was’t a charmer, who liked some ‘foreplay’ with his victims, but that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t able to have some superficial conversation with his victims. He didn’t even need to say much because these women didn’t need to be charmed in any way to get to a spot and do business. They simply didn’t have much of a choice.
All the best,
Frank
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
