|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 332
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 4:32 pm: | 
|
If I may say so Richard, I find that very convoluted reasoning, based on a selective approach to evidence and intuition rather than logical deduction from the sources.
No one ignores the reports of a woman running in Buck's Row area - the reports are there - but if the evidence is taken as a whole then they are unlikely in the extreme to be true. You take them as true and then ignore the rest that is inconvenient.
The resultant theory is thus unsoundly based, and the evidence is clearly being selected on the basis of what suits your purpose.
just my opinion of course,
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
My thesis has always been to remember we were not present in 1888, and the only evidence we can examine are the contempary newspaper reports.
Obviously I am not so blinded to realise that some reports are misleading but the Hunt 'Jack' game can only be played taking actual accounts relayed at the time, and using a knowledge of human nature, taking in acccount of the wording of the report and the percentage of possible truth in the actual statement.
Richard.
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
Hello Mr. Nunweek,
Thank you for your kind comments; they're much appreciated.
On Friday, April 08, 2005, at 4:00 am you wrote: "I disagree that Stride was not attacked and killed by the man known as BS". Unless I'm misinterpreting your meaning here, I don't think we disagree on this issue.
In my post of Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 7:22 pm, I suggested that Liz Stride was attacked by Shoulderman (a.k.a, BS) while she waited for her companion to return either from the loo at the rear of the yard, or from the side door of the International Working Man's Club.
In my post of Friday, March 25, 2005 - 7:51 am, I put forward the possibility that the level of light in the alleyway of Dutfield's Yard might have been sufficient to make Stride feel safe enough to walk to the spot where she was murdered; thus, it is feasible that she went willingly with Shoulderman into the yard. Then again, he might have pushed and shoved her along to a point, which was less visible from the street, i.e., just beyond the edge of the gate, approximately 6 to 7 feet into the yard (See Jane Coram's Dutfield's Yard graphics in the March 29 archive).
I have no doubt that we are in agreement vis-à-vis the aggressive nature of the killer(s) of all five of these women. The Whitechapel Murderer's signature and m. o. reveal that he saw himself as weak and malleable, the nature of these homicides expose his need to exert power and control over his victims. When we take into account the witness testimony–which described the passive behavior of the men last seen with Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly–and compare it with the physical power and malicious brutality manifest in the victims' wounds, we gain significant insight into the behavior of a man who controlled himself and his victims from the first moment of contact, to the place where he made clear his murderous intent. The sheer savagery of the murderer's initial onslaught was so physically overpowering, that the victims must have been frozen with terror, as they realized they were about to die at the hands of this vicious killer. The autopsy reports of Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman tell us that the post mortem surgeons believed that these women might have been strangled, presumably into unconsciousness, before their throats were cut. Looking at Stride's injuries from this perspective, it becomes apparent that the extent of her attack was no less ferocious than the other three.
According to Israel Schwartz, Stride was violently spun around and thrown to the sidewalk in front of the gates to Dutfield's Yard. Dr. Blackwell testified that he believed Stride's scarf was used as a ligature to subdue her; moreover, he said that it was very likely that her throat was cut as she fell. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that she did not expect to be garroted in the dimly lit alleyway, and was surprised by the onset of the attack. Like the other victims, as she lost consciousness, she must have been terrified by the sudden realization that her assailant might be the infamous Whitechapel Murderer. However, unlike the other victims, her corpse wasn't mutilated, but after her throat was cut, she either was dropped heavily to the ground, or was pushed to the ground with brute force as the killer drew his blade across her throat. Less than three quarters of an hour later, another murder, far more horrific, was unfolding. The extent of Catherine Eddowes mutilations would exceed anything anyone thought possible.
Considering Eddowes small stature, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that her killer may have incapacitated her with a quick powerful blow to the solar plexus, just below her sternum; he then pushed her down, and cut her throat as she lay helpless on the ground.
There was so little left of poor Mary Kelly, that it is impossible for me to properly speculate about the manner in which her killer subdued her. Unfortunately, the volume and distribution of arterial spray on the wall next to her bed, suggests that she might have been fully or partially conscious when the blood vessels on the right side of her neck were severed. However, I can state that she looked as if someone acquainted with butchering large farm animals had methodically dismembered her corpse.
I'm glade I finally got the opportunity to discuss something with you Mr. Nunweek, and I look forward to our next exchange of ideas.
Best regards,
Mephisto
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3363
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Hello Mephisto,
Since you refer to the killer's behaviour in the other killings and the medical evidence, then you most also note, that much points at Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes was quickly killed in blitz attacks, before they even had a chance to defend themselves.
Taken this in consideration -- as I have tried to put forward several times -- this is simply not what we see in the Berner Street case.
"According to Israel Schwartz, Stride was violently spun around and thrown to the sidewalk in front of the gates to Dutfield's Yard."
Exactly, and that is no blitz attack aimed to kill her in the same way as the others. What the Ripper probably did, was that he took them off guard by quickly strangling or suffocating them and then cut their throats.
I can't see the point in someone like the Ripper "turning her around" and throwing her to the ground. It is really a redundant and ineffective exercise if you want to take someone by surprise and kill her. Not to mention the risk of drawing unnecessary to attention to yourself.
If you study how the other murders were done, then Mr BS:s attack doesn't fit in any way. It is an attack made by a clumsy amateur, probably drunk, and nothing else.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Mephisto--This is a continuation of our earlier conversation which, unfortunately, I didn't have time to respond to at the length it deserves.
As historians, we only have two direct sources for what went on in Berner Street. The Oct. 1st Star report, and Swanson's 19 October memo. Ergo, they both have unique value.
I accept the historian Alex Chisholm's argument, ie., that 'it aint necessarily so' that Swanson's report is more accurate than the Star report.
The Star report appeared on Oct. 1...within hours of the murder. The only way the reporter could have secured the information was to have interviewed Schwartz directly. It is often implied that this interview wildly differs from Swanson's memo. It does not. There is enough similarity between the two to confirm that the reporter must have spoken at length to Schwartz through an interpretter. It's a mistake, therefore, to disregard what he is reporting.
A sophisticated argument is made that the Star was a paper published by a man with radical politics and thus its bias somehow influenced the way the reporter told the story. This is an extension of an idea that Martin Fido and other historians of the case have aired; that the 'radical' press of the East End used the murders for politcal aims. But our interpretations of individual articles--especially interviews--has to be examined on a case by case basis, with considerable common-sense, or else we are painting with a very broad brush. In regards to the Oct. 1 report this poses problems. I would ask: how? How does this particular Star report "radicalize" the events being portrayed? How does making the second man the aggressor somehow have a political motive? Or even the allegation that he was brandising a knife? Two women were violently murdered in the East End that night, I hardly think any "sensationalizing" was needed (!) I've read this report a dozen times; maybe I'm jaded but it doesn't strike me as outrageous in the least. As a matter of prinicipal, I would pose a question. When the conservative Times makes unconfirmed statements (for instance, it's version of the Dr. Holt affair on Nov 12), do we equally credit it to political motives....say, a 'reactionary'.... viewpoint? Or do we simply state that the reporter made very human errors? I tend to take a mor 'organic' approach to historic sources.
Further, I see no inherently incompatible elements between the Star report and the Swanson report--certainly nothing that couldn't be explained by the use of two different interpretters. For instance. In the Star report, Schwartz claims he is chased by the 2nd man, who has brandished a knife. Swanson in his report of 19 October states the man was smoking a pipe, but he certainly 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....the man who made him take off running. 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. But please consider what Swanson's reference to the railway arch must mean. Schwartz had recently moved to Ellen Street. The railway arch was beyond this. In othe words, Schwartz ran past his own street, which implicitly proves he thought he was being followed. Swanson's report doesn't so much contradict the Star report, it actually confirms Schwartz's state of mind as given by the initial reporter. It might be interesting to note that in a later MET memo, Sir Robert Anderson refers to the second man (the pipe-smoker) as "the supposed accomplice." This tells us three things. 1) The police took the 2ndman very seriously as a 'person of interest' 2) He wasn't identified...he didn't come forward. 3) The police didn't have any clearer idea of what was going on in Berner Street than anyone else.
Finally, although it's not particularly relevant to this discussion, I wouldn't think it would be entirely accurate to call G.B. Shaw of the 1880-90s an 'extremist.' He was a Fabian Socialist. They weren't Marxists; they didn't believe in violent revolution, but in a slow, inevitable change in society. But his odd views about Hitler and Stalin in his old age were certainly disturbing. Cheers, RP |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 333
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
I think G.B.S liked controversy and to stir things up. in 1888 he was still looking for a reputation - anything that got him attention was good news. I think, therefore, that anything he said at that time needs to be approached VERY cautiously. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 570
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Phil--GBS was a humorist and a rabble-rouser. Of course he said everything for attention. But personally, I don't really feel the need for having "caution" towards people who force me to think. I prefer to reserve caution for the tepid and the non-commital. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3368
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 5:39 pm: |
|
R.J.,
"I hardly think any "sensationalizing" was needed (!) I've read this report a dozen times; maybe I'm jaded but it doesn't strike me as outrageous in the least."
Well, for one thing it is more elaborate and contains more dramatic elements -- things we often see in paper accounts and tabloids.
We don't need any political agenda here; papers want to sell as many copies as possible and in my experience from papers from this time period, they were not especially careful about being accurate, and secondly no matter how spectacular the crime, they would still find ways to make it even more dramatic. The more, the better.
The Star report is quite different in many aspects from Swanson's summary. In the article Pipeman is drawing a knife (not, as in the police statement, holding a pipe) and is walking towards Schwartz in a menacing way.
Those are over-dramatic elements that we can't find a shred of in the police statement, and in my view those kind of elaborations are typical for how the papers (also ordinary news-papers)used a story -- and sometimes still do, if we're talking tabloid.
The two accounts differ quite much on several details that are important from an investigative point of view. The fact that Schwartz -- in the scene's introduction -- is walking behind Mr BS and sees him stop and talk to the woman, while he in his police statement more or less passes by and happens in the middle of it all.
But -- as pointed out above -- the important difference is that in the Star, the Pipeman has evolved from a bystander or passive accomplice (whatever you prefer) to a threatening violent character who picks up a knife and sets out for Schwartz. I'd say that's a hell of an elaboration which makes quite a lot of difference for the reading of the scene.
A paper article should never be taken seriously off hand -- too often they get the facts wrong and too often they twist statements beyond recognition for their most important purpose -- to sell as many copies as possible.
You say the events were dramatic enough as they were. True. But as we know, that seldom keeps the papers from stretching the truth even further and make it all even juicer as much as they can.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 571
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 8:51 pm: |
|
Glenn--It aint necessarily so. I could just as easily argue from a historical viewpoint that Schwartz, as a non-native immigrant, would be more cautious when speaking with the police than with a reporter with whom he might have felt comraderie. Mr. Mephisto and Mr. Radka seem to have accepted a similar scenerio in regards to Mr. Levy, should we sweep it aside in the more likely case of Mr. Schwartz? Alas, we don't get to pick and chose what sources are extant, we can only use our noggins. Swanson, like the newsreporter, was merely blood and bone.
"in the Star, the Pipeman has evolved from a bystander or passive accomplice (whatever you prefer) to a threatening violent character"--G.A.
Evolved? How so, 'evolved'? The Star has no antecedents in the press. The reporter chased Schwartz down after he had visited the police station, so it can't accurately be said that it 'evolved' from anything. Further, neither Swanson, nor Anderson, claim the 2nd man is passive. That he was an innocent by-stander was Abberline's theory; yet, the fact that Schwartz flees past his own street (implicit in Swanson's report) demonstrates that he at least, (ie., Schwartz), thought the 2nd man was aggressive. Anderson, who must have known about Abberline's initial report, still referred to the 2nd man as the 'supposed' accomplice. There was no agreement among the police.
"The two accounts differ quite much on several details that are important from an investigative point of view. The fact that Schwartz -- in the scene's introduction -- is walking behind Mr BS and sees him stop and talk to the woman, while he in his police statement more or less passes by and happens in the middle of it all."--G.A.
Again, I don't see this. How does Swanson's report supercede the Star's on this point? It's clear from Swanson's statement that he has Schwartz on the opposite side of the road from the Pipe-Smoker...why couldn't this be taken as confirmation that Schwartz did indeed cross the road after the initial jostling match?
Cheers, RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 09, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3369
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 10:14 pm: |
|
R.J.
"Glenn--It aint necessarily so."
Yes, it is. Heck, I have studied thousands of news-paper reports of criminal events, both here in Scandinavia and internationally, and this is a common trait through the large majority of crime reports in the papers of this period, and sometimes even today.
I give paper accounts very little credit as reliable sources -- if I give them any credit at all; they either gets their facts wrong or they elaborate deliberately with the truth simply because their motives are sensational.
This is really no news flash; as I have said previously on this matter, this is a well-known fact for those who have spent some time researching.
"Evolved? How so, 'evolved'? The Star has no antecedents in the press. The reporter chased Schwartz down after he had visited the police station, so it can't accurately be said that it 'evolved' from anything."
I have no idea what you're talking about here; you seem to miss my point. My point was that in Schwartz's police statement, Pipeman is a more or less passive bystander, until he himself decides to take off (if he runs after Schwartz is pretty unclear but it is true that Schwartz felt that the man could have been chasing him, but fact remains that in retrospect he wasn't prepared to swear on it) but in the Star report Pipeman is suddenly a criminal character who, on orders by Mr Broad Shoulders, comes towards Schwartz with a knife -- which is a rather important difference for the whole context.
I don't believe for a minute that this last elaboration in the Star came from Schwartz, but that it in fact was a creation by the paper itself, which usually is the case anyway. Those who hang up themselves on why Schwartz would change his story totally misses the point, because I am pretty certain that he didn't. But papers are papers and they have their own agenda. And there is a hell of a lot of difference between standing smoking a pipe and the person coming towards in a menacing manner with a drawn knife.
"How does Swanson's report supercede the Star's on this point? It's clear from Swanson's statement that he has Schwartz on the opposite side of the road from the Pipe-Smoker...why couldn't this be taken as confirmation that Schwartz did indeed cross the road after the initial jostling match?"
Once again, I have no clue of what you're talking about. I have never mentioned the crossing of the road or the placing of Pipeman -- or that the two sources don't corroborate each other on those specific point.
All I said was that the two sources differ to a large extent on the actual introduction to the whole event, among other things. As I said, in the Star report, Schwartz is walking behind Mr BS right from the beginning, and in the police statement he is not. I mentioned this as an example of how the two sources differ from one another and as a possible example of elaboration and guess-making on the paper's part.
But you apparently seems convinced of that it was Schwartz himself who changed his story -- for some vague reason -- and not the paper. Soon you'll probably tell me that it in fact was Schwartz himself who wrote the article and not a reporter, since you seems so convinced of its accuracy.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 2:49 am: |
|
Hello Mr. Andersson,
In your Friday, April 08, 6.49 pm post, you wrote: "much points at Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes was quickly killed in blitz attacks". I want to make sure we're on the same page as far as terminology is concerned. I understand blitz attack to mean: the sudden, quick, and violent physical assault that the killer used to overwhelm and subdue his victims. Or are you referring to the actual knife attack?
In my Friday, April 08, 5:48 pm reply to Mr. Nunweek, I described my impression of a blitz attack: "The sheer savagery of the murderer's initial onslaught was so physically overpowering, that the victims must have been frozen with terror, as they realized they were about to die at the hands of this vicious killer. The autopsy reports of Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman tell us that the post mortem surgeons believed that these women might have been strangled, presumably into unconsciousness, before their throats were cut".
I agree with your assessment that if you want to take a woman by surprise, then "'turning her around' and throwing her to the ground" is not the way to go. Personally, I like to surprise a woman by hiding a dozen long stem roses behind my back, and presenting them to her shortly after she opens her door. This approach tends to make a first date an evening of endless smiles and soto voce conversation. Evidently, Shoulderman wasn't interested in asking Liz out a second time.
Best regards,
Mephisto
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3370
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 7:29 am: |
|
Dear Mephisto,
I agree with you, that a dozen roses hidden behind your back is certainly a way to prefer.
"I understand blitz attack to mean: the sudden, quick, and violent physical assault that the killer used to overwhelm and subdue his victims."
Yes, that is what I mean with blitz attack as well and I also totally concur with your lines:
"The sheer savagery of the murderer's initial onslaught was so physically overpowering, that the victims must have been frozen with terror, as they realized they were about to die at the hands of this vicious killer. The autopsy reports of Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman tell us that the post mortem surgeons believed that these women might have been strangled, presumably into unconsciousness, before their throats were cut".
It is a very good description of his approach, I think.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 508
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
RJ,
In attempting to reconcile the police interview with Schwartz and that which the Star conducted it is important to understand that the police and the newspaper would have had different objectives. The police were seeking information and the reporter was looking for a story. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that latter goal, but it makes for a different kind of interview and may well account for the difference in details.
The police, if they are doing their job right (and don't have a hostile witness), will let a person tell what they saw and then seek to gain further information by asking questions as neutral as possible. On the other hand, a reporter will certainly ask leading questions (though they will call it "seeking added color") in order to elicit as many details as possible. An example might be where the Star says that the man who accosted Stride was walking as if he were "half-tipsy."
Now that might well be true and prodding by the reporter brought this out. But, it's just as possible the man may have had a slightly rolling normal gait and after repeated questions Schwartz was willing to concede the fellow looked partly the worse for drink (which makes for a more interesting story). I can certainly imagine the same thing occurring as a pipe changed into a knife. [And one more thought just came to me -- any Hungarian speakers out there who could answer whether any words for pipe and knife might be so similar as to be confused?]
Also, whether the police report supersedes that of the Star it should be remembered that the interview it is based on definitely precedes that in the newspaper, so it is quite correct to suggest an evolution of the story. Thus, the less sensational (and a man lighting a pipe changing into a knife-wielding pursuer is sensational even if fact) police interview does not reflect any calming down by Schwartz several days later.
And while it is doubtless true that the police interview would be off-putting to Schwartz, he did have a friend along to act as his interpreter. But then Schwartz seems to have been, by his own admission, easily put off and that provides further caveats when assessing his statements.
Israel Schwartz clearly had no desire to get mixed up in mayhem on the street (I can't really blame him) and as soon as he saw a man accost a woman he moved to the other side of the road (and almost assuredly averted his gaze), heard something, saw the woman thrown down, heard a shout, saw a man in a pub doorway and as the Star put it beat an incontinent retreat. Given his fright, I wonder just how much he really saw once he decided not to get involved.
As you said, we can't use anything more than the sources we have -- the police report and the Star story -- and unfortunately we can't pick our witnesses, so we are stuck with the seemingly flighty Mr. Schwartz. We can only interpret what we have as best we can.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 808
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
Don't quote me, but I think Hungarian for pipe is "pipa". Too bad Schwartz wasn't speaking German--"Pfeife" (fi-fa) does sound a little like knife.
Dave |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 572
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Don--Unfortuanately, the police procedure you describe for interviewing a witness is a 20th Century model. When I re-read Swanson's description of Berner Street for that subtle quality of 'tone' and compare it to the Star reporter's, I get a very different feel for who has allowed Schwartz to tell his own story... Actually, Swanson is only paraphrasing his own understanding of Schwartz from the reports he's previously read. Schwartz's original statement does not exist; it can only be discerned from the later statements of Swanson, Abberline, and Anderson. The point that seems to being glossed over is that the Star's report of the agressive 2nd man is confirmed by Swanson's report in significant details. Schwartz voted with his feet; he fled past the entrance of his own street. The Star report isn't so easily swept under the rug in this regard. I have no axe to grind; it just seems to me that the police interest in this 2nd man is being down-played by those who wish to indict Broad-shoulders as a lone attacker. It's obvious that the police had formed no coherent opinion about what had happened.
"I have no idea what you're talking about here."--Glenn Andersson.
Mr. Andersson, don't you read your own posts? You state that the Star report has 'evolved.' This is not proven. It was an interview conducted independently of any knowledge of Schwartz's police statement. It can't accurately be said to have evolved from anything...this is entirely your supposition. Yes, I've research hundreds of 19th Century newspaper articles. They're a mixed bag, and have to be approached on a case-by-case basis; to dismiss them all out of hand is a wildly sweeping generalization. This may come as an enormous shock to you, Glenn, but "official" reports are often just as erroneous. cheers. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 573
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
P.S. Recall that in a November report Abberline states that he questioned Schwartz "closely" about the 2nd man's intentions. (See Evans/Skinner). Abberline then opined that the 2nd man was merely a by-stander, and Schwartz was mistaken. But why did Abberline question him closely on this matter? Clearly, there must have been some doubt and confusion in Schwartz's mind. Yet, within hours of being questioned by police, Schwartz allegedly states that he "positively...saw a knife in this second man's hand." I don't see this revision as impossible if he had felt Abberline talked him out of the 2nd man's threatening behavior. Most of the emphasis in the posts above is on the 'intentions' of the police vs. the press, but it's not taking into consideration how a witness himself might react differently in speaking to a policeman as opposed to a newspaper reporter. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 10, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3372
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Mr. Palmer,
"Mr. Andersson, don't you read your own posts? You state that the Star report has 'evolved.' This is not proven. It was an interview conducted independently of any knowledge of Schwartz's police statement."
No, I said that the character Pipeman in the Star report (not the article as such) had "evolved" from being a suspicious, pipesmoking bystander to a knife-drawing character. I meant that he had changed and turned into something else. It might be that evolved was a wrong word, but what I meant was that Pipeman had evolved into a more dramatic and violent character in the paper article, compared to the police statement.
I didn't mean to imply that the paper article was based on the police interview and then changed from that deliberately. I have never said such a thing, and it was not at all a point I tried to stress. As usual, you choose to foucs on the wrong things.
"Yes, I've research hundreds of 19th Century newspaper articles. They're a mixed bag, and have to be approached on a case-by-case basis; to dismiss them all out of hand is a wildly sweeping generalization. This may come as an enormous shock to you, Glenn, but "official" reports are often just as erroneous."
Yes, they shall naturally be treated on a case-to-case basis, but if you believe that a paper article is more reliable than a police report, then you're dreaming. Police reports can contain errors and policemen are human, but they are a heck of a lot more independent and close to accuracy in their approach and are more focused on getting the facts straight than a paper article. It is within their natural character as source material that they have a more objective approach to the facts (and more careful with details) than a paper or tabloid.
A paper have a commercial motive and a completely different agenda and one can never automatically rely on the accuracy of the information in a paper article. Again, for a researcher this is really no news flash, unless one is on the same level as Patricia Cornwell.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 574
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Glenn--Well, I can only imagine from your view that Schwartz had a morbid fear of pipe-smoke to have kept running past his own house.
If it's all the same to you, I'd prefer you leave comparisons to Cornwell alone.
"Those who hang up themselves on why Schwartz would change his story totally misses the point, because I am pretty certain that he didn't."--Glenn Andersson.
That's sounds more Cornwellian, in my book. Not analysis, but opinion.
What I'm reacting to is a 'knee-jerk' sweeping belief that all news reports are inherently bogus. The internal evidence of the Star report proves the man spoke to Schwartz. I can only infer from your own strange and extreme view of journalism as mere commercialism that you only allow yourself to obtain news from official government releases. A scary thought. Regards, RP
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3374
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Palmer,
I have more news flashes for you:
A paper's main purpose is to sell as many copies as possible. I am sorry if you have missed that rather obvious point.
Not all 19th century papers accounts are bogus, although in my experience I'd say most of them are guilty of elaboration and dramatising, but they are more or less on a regular basis sloppy with the facts.
If you, as you say, have studied hundreds of paper articles, then you probably also are aware of that they seldom get their facts straight -- and this was especially more rule than exception during the 19th century. That alone is reason enough not to automatically take a newspaper report seriously if you already have a police statement.
In a police report they usually try to get the facts as correct as possible -- at least that is the main intention. For the papers this is rather secondary compared to delivering a good story.
I am not saying that all paper reports are beyond credibility, I am saying that taking a paper more seriously than -- or just as seriously as -- information in a police report, is less fortunate source evaluation.
As for the unfounded idea that Schwartz himself may have changed his story, I can't see any reason why he should deliver a less accurate story to the police than to a newspaper and so far you haven't managed to present a plausible one. Only speculations out of the blue.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 570
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Hi R.J.,
There are two things in the discussion about the 'Schwartz incident' that may be of some importance.
The first thing is that Schwartz seems to have come forward with his information of his own free will. He had undoubtedly heard about Stride's dead body having been discovered shortly after what he (thought he) had seen and must have thought that he might help the police by coming forward and telling his story. The Star article didn't come about like that. The reporter needed to track Schwartz down to get his story.
In other words, Schwartz was at the police station because he wanted to be there, he wanted to tell what he'd seen, whereas he may not really have wanted the Star reporter in his home at that particular time.
The second thing is that, regardless of whether they were right or not, according to Swanson's report the police apparently didn't suspect Mr Pipeman. His description wasn't given by the Illustrated Police News either, whereas that of Mr Broad Shoulders was. So, I don't think the police interest in Mr Pipeman is being down-played by those who wish to indict Mr Broad Shoulders as a lone attacker - the police rather did that themselves, or so it seems.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 576
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Frank-- Hi. Your points are well-taken. Unfortunately, I have no information that allows me to conclude that Schwartz was unwilling to talk to the reporter; his friend translated and the interview appeared. But of course, it is something to consider. I certainly agree that Abberline has discounted the pipe-man. But it is not at all certain that either Swanson or Anderson did. Swanson gives the 2nd man's description to the Home Office on Oct 19th--which I believe is after the Illustrated Police News covered the story; Swanson has no clear opinion, not even certain whether or not Broad-shoulders was involved in the murder of Stride.. As I tried to stress to Mr. Andersson above, the police didn't seem to have any clear consensus of opinon. I think it's fairly obvious from Abberline's Nov. 1st report that the Pipe-Smoker was never identified; unlike Schwartz, he wasn't willing to come forward, although one would think he would have been an important witness. Cheers, RP |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3376
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Frank,
Very good points indeed. As usual.
For the record, in Paul Begg's updated, partly excellent book The Facts, he actually suggests that Pipeman might have been questioned by the police, since one or several paper(s) [yes, I know -- papers!] claim that TWO witnesses from the Berner Street incident were brought in. One of them was obviously Schwartz, but the other one...?
Here is where Pipeman, according to Begg, might come into the picture.
I myself have no opinion on the matter, just wanted to make a note of it in context of this discussion.
The problem with this theory is of course, that there is no mention of this or no reference to a second witness being questioned in the police documentation at all.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 577
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Mr. Andersson--With all due respect, you're above statement (6:24 PM) is such a grotesque distortion of my previous posts that it hardly deserves a rebuttal. Any historian who has made it past the third-grade and has thought at all deeply about primary and secondary sources know that they need to be viewed critically. This is kindergarden stuff, and has no bearing on my discussion. You have offered no "news flashes." As I said from the outset, we don’t get to chose what sources survive, we have to "make do" with what we get, with all the standard precautions. But a historian can't afford to castrate himself in the manner you prescribe. In doing so, you embrace dogma, not critical thinking.
Above, you go to great lengths to make the following point.
"The two sources differ to a large extent on the actual introduction to the whole event, among other things"--Glenn Anderson
(By “introduction” Mr. A evidently means the moments before Schwartz approaches the alleged assault).
A careful reading of the two souces, however, does not bear this out.
"Israel Schwartz stated...that..on turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road & had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. " ---SWANSON
When...he [Schwartz] first... turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her’---STAR
Despite your insistance that these two accounts “DIFFER TO A LARGE EXTENT” they are, in fact, entirely compatible. The reports do not contradicts each other in the 'introduction' in any appreciable way. This is entirely your delusion, Mr. Anderrson. You have exaggerated the two source's alleged differences in an attempt to bolster your own theorizing, rather than accept the way two independent sources confirm each other. From your tone and free-flowing lectures, it’s clear I have nothing further to learn from you. Thanks for the history lesson. Good-bye and take care.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 10, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3377
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 8:16 pm: |
|
Palmer,
Well, the two sources differ at exactly the same point I addressed, if you read my post clearly.
Which your extracts perfectly illustrates.
It is not a world-rocking detail but it is a typical example of how the information in the papers could differ from the one in the official material. When you say they are "entirely compatible" you do the same mistakes as you claim that I do, because they are certainly not. I assume you can read the texts you yourself quote.
Then, that you don't seem to admit, that there is a huge difference between a pipe-smoking bystander and a person coming towards the witness with a drawn knife is of course your own problem. It is certainly not a delusion of mine and not an exaggeration -- it is all there in black and white. I'd say it's a vast difference for the meaning of the event. But oh well...
I have never said that papers should be totally dismissed off hand (who is twisting the other's words now?), only that they contain errors often enough and are based on commercial motives, to the extent that it is important to study them critically -- to put them up on the same level of credibility as a police report is not exactly what I call source evaluation.
I salute you for your uncritical confidence in paper accounts, but I don't think many historical researchers agree with you on that one. And I certainly don't.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 578
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Andersson--More grotesque games. Your Viking blood, I suppose. I never stated anything should be taken uncritically. I never even argued that the Star report was superior to the Swanson's. But, on the matter of uncritical thought, I really must address the error of your recent post.
"in Paul Begg's updated, partly excellent book The Facts, he actually suggests that Pipeman might have been questioned by the police, since one or several paper(s) [yes, I know -- papers!] claim that TWO witnesses from the Berner Street incident were brought in."
This is wrong. Ironically, one paper was the Star, the very paper you've been dismissing. But nowhere does it state that two witnesses were brought in. It states two suspects were brought in, one in regards to the Berner Street witness (Schwartz) and the other from an un-named source. It in no way implies this source was the Pipe Smoker.
The other paper was the New York Times. This also nowhere states anything about two witnesses being brought it. It speaks about the "daring" nature of the crime, since it was allegedly committed in front of what were believed to be two witnesses.
Both papers appeared on Oct. 2.
The later MEPO files of Oct 19th, Nov 1st, etc. disprove the hypothesis that the Pipe-Smoker ever came forward. The statements by Anderson, Swanson, and Abberline make this plain.
Thus, you've yet again inadvertantly proved the point about needing to take a multi-faceted approach to primary and secondary sources. Thank you! RP
P.S. Both my grand-mothers were Norwegian--The Viking Blood was a joke.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 10, 2005) |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 509
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 9:38 pm: |
|
RJ,
You seem to be dancing around a major point that must be considered when comparing the two versions of Mr. Schwartz's testimony. I repeat myself, by the police and a reporter have two different onjectives: the police seek information and a reporter wants a story. Those goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive but can be in varying degrees.
You have, you say, researched hundreds of 19th century newspaper articles and I don't doubt that in the least. I do, however, wonder how many newspaper articles you have written. I have written many thousands so I have some sense of the process. It is not the same thing as a police interview (in the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries) and that may account for some of the differences between the two versions of the Schwartz incident (and why has no one considered the detail in the police version but not the Star -- that Stride cried out thrice?).
The other differences between the two are the refrence to the first man being slightly tipsy in the Star; in which direction Stride was pulled; who called to whom, and the pipe/knife.
One may choose either version as one sees fit. Though, to suggest because Schwartz fled so precipitately the second man must have had a knife maybe a reach. With all due respect to Mr. Schwartz, I have a suspicion he would have fled as rapidly from a little match girl. And, even if he were ill at ease with the police, once it became clear he was under no suspicion and he thought he'd been chased by a knife-wielding accompolice I'd think he would have made that plain to the police so they would have more reason to run the fellow to earth.
And Glenn, since you have the advantage of me with Begg's book I have not yet seen that reference to a second witness but I still wonder if those "two" witnesses observed being taken in were not just Schwartz and his friend who interpreted.
Finally, when considering the two versions it might be worthwhile to consider that in the particulars that may be most important -- the descriptions of the two men -- Schwartz was quite consistent.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3378
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Palmer,
"This is wrong. Ironically, one paper was the Star, the very paper you've been dismissing. But nowhere does it state that two witnesses were brought in. It states two suspects were brought in, one in regards to the Berner Street witness (Schwartz) and the other from an un-named source. It in no way implies this source was the Pipe Smoker.
The other paper was the New York Times. This also nowhere states anything about two witnesses being brought it. It speaks about the "daring" nature of the crime, since it was allegedly committed in front of what were believed to be two witnesses."
I know all that. But don't tell me -- tell Paul Begg. What Begg refers to is this line in the Star: "Those who saw it thoght it was a woman and a man quarreling".
It is the word THOSE here that Begg is hung up on, since it in his view must refer to the only two persons we know saw the assault -- namely Schwartz and Pipeman. And that a second witness had expressed opinions about it, that is delivered a statement! He also says, however, that it could be a "slip of the pen".
I wasn't delivering a personal opinion; just forwarding pieces of information from his book, right or wrong.
Nowhere in my post do I imply that I myself believe in it or that the ideas Begg puts forward here are corroborated by the actual sources. I do not take his words for it, but you naturally assumed that I did.
Personally, I don't believe Pipeman came forward, because no such thing is ever mentioned in the police documentation. If you have read what I actually wrote, that is what I stated quite clearly. I did say that the problem with this theory is that it isn't corroborated by the police material -- I wasn't buying it!
I agree that very little supports such speculations, but they originate from Paul Begg, not me. Take it with him. I only forwarded it without having a subjective opinion about it. You obviously failed to see the difference there as well.
As usual, you read sloppily.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3379
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 10:23 pm: |
|
Don,
Could be that the papers have gotten things that much confused; wouldn't be the first time.
However, regarding the first suspect the police is supposed to have brought in, the Star says:
"The prisoner has not yet been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted."
Paul Begg comments:
"It isn't clear whether this man was the attacker or Pipeman, but elsewhere the newspaper referred to the incident witnessed by Schwartz and stated: 'Those who saw it thought it was a man and his wife quarreling, and no notice was taken of it.'
Unless 'Those' was a slip of the pen, the newspaper seems to be suggesting that more than one person witnessed the assault and had expressed opinions about it. The only person apart from Schwartz who witnessed the incident was Pipeman Had the police talked to him? Is this why, as the Home Office observed, the police 'apparently do not suspect the second man'?"
(Begg, The Facts, 2004, p. 157)
As one can expect when too much conclusions are drawn from a newspaper, those are the speculations one can construct and end up with. However, Begg does add, that none of this is corroborated by the police documentation.
And that is why I once again see this as a perfect example of sloppy and spectacular journalism. If any of this had any truth in it, we should have seen at least some of it mentioned in the police reports concerning the Stride investigation.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 579
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 1:19 am: |
|
Don--One needs to distinguish the subtle difference between a variant account, and two accounts that contradict each other. Despite Mr. Andersson's comments, I'm arguing for a careful reading, not a loose reading. Swanson is writing somewhat in the clipped style of a police report. It would be entirely inaccurate to imply that he contradicts, for instance, that the 1st man was drunk. He does not; he states nothing one way or the other; as it was 1 a.m. on a Saturday night in the East End, it's by no means a startling possibility that he was drunk, and since there is no known source that contradicts this (Swanson certainly doesn't) it's imprudent to dismiss the Star's claim out-of-hand. There is no credible evidence that it is inaccurate--that's all I'm saying. Is this really so radical? Strictly speaking, the theory that the pipe evolved into a knife is also suppositon; it is a form of literary criticism as it were--it might be brilliant, it might be commonplace, it might even be convincing, but it's not directly in the evidence. Having read my fair share of (American) inquest papers from the 19th Century, I'll say that the quality between police interviews and newspaper interviews (as far as they can be determined by comparing them with objective sources) is not always as enormous as some seem to believe. I do not dispute the fact that a reporter and policeman have different aims. It is, of course, something worth considering. The fact that a witness might react differently to a police interview and a newspaper interview is also something worth considering. Neither necessarily undermine the value of a newspaper source. Finally, I never really said anywhere above that I believe the 2nd man had a knife, only that nothing in the evidence allows me to state with any confidence the second man was an innocent bystander, or that, other than Abberline, the police even had an opinion on the matter. Swanson, quite clearly, had no strong opinion even about the 1st man. Schwartz obviously felt threatened, enough to have ran past his house. This deserves a certain amount of weight; I have no way of determining he was scared of match-girls. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 511
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
RJ,
Fair enough for the most part. Certainly the suggestion Stride's assailant was half-tipsy is simply an added detail and just the sort of thing someone seeking a story would elicit. The same holds for the direction in which Stride was pushed/pulled; that could have been (literally) a matter of interpretation.
The matter of Stride's three cries (as mentioned by the police but not the Star) is somewhat more interesting as it would also seem just the sort of detail that would flesh out a story. Perhaps it never came up, perhaps Schwartz misspoke to the police, perhaps upon reflection Schwartz felt to say he didn't respond to a woman calling for help cast him in a bad light, perhaps . . . well almost anything.
That still leaves two important contradictions. One, of course, involves the pipe/knife and the other whether it was the assailant or the man from the pub who called out.
Since the authorities got themselves in quite a twist about the use of the term "Lipski!" (even suggesting all those surnamed Lipski in Whitechapel be searched for) I am inclined to put more credence in the police version. Only a guess, but it would seem the police leapt upon that part of Schwartz's statement and would thus have been more likely to determine it was the assailant whom he claimed called out.
Incidentally, I may have misspoken myself -- there are rumors circulating that Mr. Schwartz was prone to proclaiming he could lick half his weight in wild match girls any day of the week. I apologize to surviving family members.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 571
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 6:38 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Of course you’re right in saying that there’s no information that allows any of us to conclude that Schwartz was unwilling to talk to the Star reporter. Absolutely true. Just as the available information doesn’t give Schwartz any reason why he should be more cautious when speaking with the police than with a reporter with whom he might have felt camaraderie.
One might even wonder why Schwartz would have come forward in the first place, if he didn’t trust the police or was afraid of them or anything like that - certainly when one considers that he didn’t (need to) come forward to clear himself of any suspicion; he just wanted to help. To me, the decision to go to the police to tell his story doesn’t go well with the notion of being cautious about giving the information to them once he's being interviewed. But of course that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have happened anyway.
Then, some of my thoughts on Mr Pipeman/Knifeman. Let’s just assume for a moment the Star report relayed exactly what Schwartz saw. In this scenario Mr Broad Shoulders enters Berner Street from Commercial Road, whereas Mr Knifeman emerges from a public house a few doors away from Dutfield’s Yard just as Schwartz steps from the kerb. According to Schwartz, Mr BS and Mr KM don’t have any contact before Mr KM comes into action by shouting some sort of warning to Mr BS.
If Mr BS and Mr KM are a team and the attack on Stride is supposed to be a planned thing, the whole situation seems rather awkward to me as a planned thing.
If it isn’t planned but the 2 men are nevertheless known to each other, Mr KM must have come out of the pub at exactly the right moment, but, more importantly, must have recognised his friend almost immediately and assessed the situation in the blink of an eye after which he came to his friend’s aid without hesitation.
Then there’s another strange thing in this scenario for me. Mr BS was near or in the entrance to the yard. Mr KM was just coming out of the public house, which must have been the beer house on the south east corner of Berner St. and Fairclough St. When Schwartz noticed Mr KM coming out of the pub, he was probably closer to the scene of the assault than to Fairclough Street.
The strange thing is that if Mr KM would have rushed towards Schwartz with a knife in his hand at that point or very soon afterwards, it seems unlikely that Schwartz would flee in a southern direction, which according to the article he did. Back to Commercial Road would seem the logical thing to do as his way south was cut off by Mr KM.
Cheers,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 26
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Hello RJ,
In your Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 2:46 pm post, you made a number of interesting arguments in defense of The Star's credibility as a reliable primary source of information. In this essay, I will explain why I agree or disagree with those points of view.
You surmise that part of the discrepancy between CI Swanson's summary, and the Star article might be attributed to "Schwartz settling down after a day or two", but that argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
In the 2003 edition of his book, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, Philip Sugden states that "Schwartz volunteered his information at Leman Street Police Station on the evening of Sunday, 30 September" (p 201). The Star article was published on 1 October, so the reporter either interviewed Schwartz Sunday night, or early Monday morning. I say early Monday morning, because The Star was an evening newspaper, and assuming that it hit the streets between 4 and 5 pm, copy had to be edited in time for the typesetter to lay out the sheets; therefore, it couldn't have gone to press any later than 1 pm, so the amount of time Schwartz had to reflect on his statement to DS Abberline was not days, but hours. I'm not trying to nit-pick RJ, but the time factor might have also played a role in the reporter writing the story, the copy editor doing his thing, and the chief editor approving or changing the piece, which means it might have gone to press containing factual errors.
The article states that after Schwartz crossed to the westside of Berner, "he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter"; just as Schwartz took a step toward the brawling pair, "a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand" (Sugden: 203, my emphasis). I analyzed the Star article, Swanson's summary, and the official documents and interagency memos from a social psychology perspective, and found that the difference between them is clear and unmistakable. Ernest Parke, the Star reporter who interviewed Schwartz, wrote the piece to evoke a vivid mental image of two men participating in an assault, i.e., an assailant and an accomplice. On 19 October, 1888, 18 days after The Star published the article, METPO officials and the Home Office received their copies of Swanson's summary. Afterwards, a series of notes and memos were exchanged between METPO and government officials, which discussed various aspects of Schwartz' statement, such as: insane medical students, the possible use of the name "Lipski" as an epithet, for whom the epithet was intended, or if someone named Lipski lived in the vicinity. The writers of these memos, notes, and official documents all have the same purpose, they seek to determine cause; there is nothing evocative in their writing. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Swanson's bureaucratic prose engendered a number of low key official documents. You wrote: "It is often implied that this interview wildly differs from Swanson's memo". When the evocative theme of Parke's article is compared with the rather bland premises of Swanson's summary, it becomes clear that the term "wildly differs" is an understatement. You suggested that the contrast between the two versions might be attributable to two translators differently interpreting the nuance of Schwartz' story. When I considered the dialog transposition together with the overall dramatic nature of the article, I found it unlikely that translator error would produce such broad discrepancies.
Somehow, the translator for Parke's interview turned Pipeman into Knifeman, and had him enter the scene from a barroom doorway to warn a "tipsy" Shoulderman–who was so intensely focused on molesting Liz Stride that he failed to notice Schwartz at the gateway–that a dangerous looking Lipski type was across the street. After he alerted Shoulderman of Schwartz' presence, and Schwartz of his presence, Knifeman rushed forward, blade in hand, "to attack the intruder" (ibid). RJ, regardless of how one chose to translate the core elements of this account, there are too many realistic variables working against Parke's version of Schwartz' story. The following arguments diminish the likelihood that this scenario unfolded the way he claims it did.
To begin with, there just doesn't seem to be anything street savvy about Knifeman's actions. Let's assume for a moment that Parke's account is accurate, i.e., Knifeman was Shoulderman's accomplice, and he shouted Lipski to warn his chum. Why did Knifeman need to warn Shoulderman of an impending threat from the only other person on the street. Why didn't he just walk up to Schwartz and stab him?
Secondly, if Morris Eagle heard the singing from outside the International Working Men's Club, then Knifeman must have heard it too. The singing covered the sounds of Shoulderman's assault and Knifeman's shout, but unless Knifeman knew the tune, he had no idea when the singing would stop, making his shouts audible. Why would a street-wise accomplice risk exposure by shouting an anti-Jewish epithet outside of a Jewish social club during an assault? At the least, the club members would have looked out the windows and doors to see what was the matter; at the most, they might have come out as a group to deal with the insult.
Third, the most glaring error in Parke's story, is his reversal of the dialog. No one, not Abberline, Swanson, Anderson, Home Secretary Matthews, or any of the bureaucrats who commented on Swanson's summary, attribute the shouting of Lipski to anyone but Shoulderman.
Fourth, if the doorway to the pub Knifeman emerges from was south of Dutfield's Yard, on the westside of Berner St., and Schwartz was walking south to get home, then Knifeman is between him and his destination. Let's suppose that Shoulderman assaulted Stride near the hinge side of the south gate, and Schwartz crossed the street near the hinge side of the north gate, a ten foot distance. Schwartz has taken a step or two on the opposite sidewalk when hears a commotion and turns to see what's going on. If Knifeman is only "a few doors off", and is close enough to watch this development and shout a warning, then he couldn't have been more than 25 feet away from Schwartz. How did Schwartz manage to evade Knifeman's grasp? Either he had the moves of Michael Jordan and the speed of Ben Johnson, or Knifeman was a lumbering three toed sloth. Furthermore, what kind of street-wise lookout lets a witness, whose testimony can put a rope around his neck, get away from him, and then, to make matters worse, gives up the chase?
Fifth, You wrote: "Swanson in his report of 19 October states the man was smoking a pipe, but he certainly 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". Swanson stated that Schwartz only began to run after he realized that Pipeman was following him; what's more, Schwartz wasn't even sure if "the two men were together or known to each other" (Evans and Skinner 2001 :137). In a document dated 1 November, 1888, F.G. Abberline wrote: "There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe. […] The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away" (Evans and Skinner :141). In sum, if Schwartz was unable to confirm to Abberline that Pipeman and Shoulderman "were together or known to each other", then he did not know for a fact that Shoulderman's accomplice was chasing him. Therefore, it does not follow that Swanson would find it necessary to dispute Schwartz' uncertain intuition in an official document. Unlike Ernest Parke, Swanson focused his discussion on written evidence, and as I've stated elsewhere, Swanson was tasked with writing a summary of the investigation for senior METPO officials, and members of Her Majesty's government. He wrote almost exclusively from very unexciting primary source material, which brings us to the issue of "the inherent incompatibility between the Star article and the Swanson report".
You wrote: "How does this particular Star report "radicalize" the events being portrayed? How does making the second man the aggressor somehow have a political motive? Or even the allegation that he was brandising a knife? Two women were violently murdered in the East End that night, I hardly think any "sensationalizing" was needed. […] As a matter of prinicipal, I would pose a question. When the conservative Times makes unconfirmed statements […] do we equally credit it to political motives....say, a 'reactionary'.... viewpoint? Or do we simply state that the reporter made very human errors?".
As the theme of your argument suggests, there is a certain degree of interchangeability between the terms "radicalize" and "sensationalizing" when comparing Swanson's summary, and Parke's newspaper article. The very idea of interchangeability implies that there exists a single event or condition that is adequately described by either expression. In this case, however, the event or condition that satisfies either of these terms, is found in the purpose why each version was written. In Part 2 of this essay, I will discuss the conditions of Chief Inspector Donald Swanson's working environment, and the working environment that I believe contributed to reporter Ernest Parke's perspective, and how those factors ultimately lead to the divergence between his and Swanson's description of what Israel Schwartz saw the morning of 30 September, 1888.
My arguments are informed by my research into the Star's radical publisher and editor-in-chief, Thomas Power O'Connor. My present understanding of how conservative ideology influenced and the reliability of the London Times, and how the convergence of these elements lend themselves to the professional ethics of the reporters who worked for each newspaper, is incomplete as of this writing, so Part 2 might not be ready until later in the week.
Best regards,
Mephisto
(Message edited by mephisto on April 11, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 10:48 pm: |
|
Frank--As I got a bit over-the-top in my responses to Mr. Andersson, I think I'll be a good little boy and keep a low-profile for awhile. I did want to briefly respond to you and Don, however; mere suggestions...no ranting and raging intended(!)
Technically, the only source that I know of for Schwartz coming forward to the police on his own is the Star report. The Met file states simply:
"From enquires made it was found that:
12:45 30th Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [Sic] Street, etc. etc... "
So, if we take the extreme position that the Star report is simply unreliable garbage, then we're actually stuck with the possibility that Mr. Schwartz didn't come forward, but might have been run-down during a house-to-house, etc. which somewhat (or entirely) weakens the argument.
I accept Don's point about the cry of 'Lipski.' The police reports seem to be unanimous in their opposition to the Star version. But things quickly become a bit murky.
In Abberline's version (Nov 1) he is discussing the cry of 'Lipski'. He then states:
"Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away."
It seems to me this significantly differs from Swanson's statement. For Abberline, Schwartz is running in reaction to the 1st man's cry. (If a man is following you it doesn't matter a twit if you don't speak English). Further, Abberline even suggests that the 2nd man is merely running, too... in the same direction as Schwartz.
But Swanson (Oct 19) states:
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 away as the railway arch..."
Swanson is clearly much close to the Star report than Abberline is. He specifically contradicts Abberline's suggestion that Schwartz ran in reaction to the 1st man's cry of 'Lipski.' He only started running when followed by Man #2. In Swanson, Man #2 becomes the potential threat, not the innocent bystander of Abberline's version.
Question. We know that all reports hit Swanson's desk. We know the Oct 19 report is a summary of the investigation for the benefit of the Home Office. If Swanson is working strictly from Abberline's report, why does he differ so much in key points? Is he a sloppy reader? It seems to me that the Star report is at least tentative evidence that someone took the 2nd man more seriously as a threat than Abberline; why else the difference in Swanson? We don't really know that Abberline made the initial interview. Ergo, I still hold that the 'Star' has some value. Cheers.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 11, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 582
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:17 pm: |
|
Mephisto--Small suggestions. To make your argument credible from what Mr. Andersson calls an "investigative" point of view, rather than a quasi-politcal one, you're going to need to show specifically how making man #2 a potential aggressor serves some dark radical purpose. You're further going to need to touch upon the difference between Swanson & Abberline's versions of the 2nd man's intentions in reference to my above post, since they are not in agreement. Swanson, it needs to be noted, describes a complex event in one sentence. He has divested it of its emotional content to make it as objective as possible; ie., not to draw the same conclusions from the sequence that Abberline or the Star did. But I suggest it's an over-symplification to dismiss the emotional impact described by the Star reporter who visited Schwartz in his home; it tells the historian something potentially significant. Finally, if you're going to research the reliability of the London Times be sure to study the Parnell/Piggot affair at considerable length, and the ensuing disclosures by Parliment. Indeed, there's a myriad of very fruitful possibilites that touch upon your promised research. All the best. RP |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1960
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
So much argument and so much sleep.
I've decided to sleep another ten years now and then wake up to see if anyone out there is honestly doing something to 'look'.
Night, night. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
Dear Memphisto,
The scenario you suggested goes some way to answer the seemingly 'unintelligibility' one can discern in the Schwartz encounter and his subsequent recounting(s) of the event.
I have been puzzled by that statement: "She screamed three times but NOT LOUDLY." Indeed, allowing for his poor grasp of English did he intend the meaning "scream"?
When he witnessed BS manhandling Stride he felt concerned enough for his own safety to avoid becoming embroiled in what looked to him a common domestic argument and took evasive action by crossing to the opposite side of the street.
But upon realising that there was another person involved he must have began to suspect that he could be in greater danger than he had initially thought. The BIOS of fear kicks in, his thoughts are now concentrated on this SECOND presence..."Is he following me?" "Why is he following me?""I must get away quickly." At some point in his processing of information he is aware of the "screams" + ("but")+ "not loudly".
Can we perceive the intelligibility of this seemingly contradictory remembrance in the following 'input' into your scenario: That as soon as the second personage had called out "Lipsky!", BS quickly ascertained his immediate danger, grabbed Stride by the neckerchief/scarf and literally dragged her into Dutfield Yard.
Therefore, what Schwartz meant when recounting the incident was he heard a series of "STRANGULATED CRIES"? This would go some way to explain a perplexing statement.
As Ever, RoseyO'Ryan :-)) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 584
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Mephisto: In reference to Swanson's intrinsic reliability as a 'primary' source', which you are just now so vigorously defending, (in contrast to the unreliability of the Star), the following is worth considering:
A draft copy of a Home Office letter written to the Met, undated, but from internal evidence composed after 19 October but before 31 October reads:
"A statement has been made by a man named Schwartz to the effect that he heard a person who was PULLING about a woman identified as Elizabeth Stride 15 minutes before the murder off Berner Street took place, called out "Lipski" TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROAD....It does not appear....whether he was calling to a man across the road by his PROPER NAME, [if] the latter case....the MURDERER MUST HAVE AN ACQUINTANCE ...NAMED LIPSKI." (The letter then goes on to state that Henry Matthews at the Home Office wants this 'clue' followed up). See Evans/Skinner p. 127-128.
Finally! A break in the case!! The murderer had an accomplice named Lipski!!
This communication causes a flurry of activity at the Met. Abberline is called back to in examine this possibility. He then files a report on November 1st.
"Since a jew named Lipski was hanged...in 1887...the name has very frequently been used...by way of endevouring to insult the Jew. As Schwartz has a strong Jewish appearance I am of the opinion it was ADDRESSED TO HIM." Abberline then goes on to state his suggestion that the Pipe-smoker might have been alarmed the same as [Schwartz] and ran away."1. (See Evans, Skinner, p. 126-127)
Nor does it end here. In lieu of this communication, Sir Robert Anderson writes a draft letter for the benefit of Sir Charles Warren who is corresponding with the Home Office. It is dated Nov. 5th
"The opinion ARRIVED AT IN THIS DEPT...is that...the name Lipski...was used by a man whom [Schwartz] saw assaulting the woman in Berner St...WAS NOT ADDRESSED TO THE SUPPOSED ACCOMPLICE BUT TO SCHWARTZ HIMSELF." (E/S, p. 127)
The next day(Nov 6, Sir Charles Warren} now springs into action, and sends his letter to the Home Office, aping Anderson's words:
"The opinion arrived at...is that the name "Lipski"..was not addressed to the supposed accomplice..but to Schwartz himself." (Ibid., p. 136)
And there it ends. All's well that end's well.
But hold the phone, my droogies.
Why had the Home Office so "radically" misunderstood the situation? Why had they failed to fathom Abberline, and considered the possibility that the 2nd man was an accomplice named Lipski??
Answer: It can all be traced back to Donald Swanson and his report to them on October 19th:
"The Man tried to PULL the woman into the street...ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET [Schwartz] saw a second man... 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...ran as far as the railway arch, &tc...." (Ibid. p. 122)
Taking the way Swanson described the events, the Home Office's suspicions were ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED.
If, for the moment I had bowed to Mr. Andersson and my other peers, and disregarded the 'Star' as muckracking offal, where, pray tell, would this have left your friend Swanson? Has this point really been fully considered?? It appears there is now a very clear crack in his reliability to write an accurate report. Without question, the confusion at the Home Office--their belief that the 2nd Man is possibly an accomplice named "Lipski"--is entirely traceable to Swanson's own version of events which can be proven to contradict Abberline's. Accepting for the moment that Abberline's interpretation of the event in Berner Street is the CORRECT one, it is now demonstrated that Swanson's misunderstanding of both the event and his dearth of knowledge of the people and the social conditions of the East End, led him to mislead the Home Office. Swanson's reliability as a primary source is disproven, and your rigorous defence of his preference as a primary source is not made out.
But are things really so simple? Might Swanson not be redeemed a little? The fact of the matter is that two, (possibly three) people independently interviewed Schwartz. The Star reporter and Abberline we know for certain. There is no denying that their descriptions of the event (as implied through Abberline's later report) differed ENORMOUSLY. This is not in dispute. But as I've argued, I suspect that it is both simplistic and sheepish to utterly disregard newspaper reports when there is a convenient police reports lying about. This won't do. Always, something can always be learned. And what is learned?? The Star stressed that Schwartz was scared of the 2nd man. After careful study, it becomes increasingly clear that Swanson's report {does not} conclusively resolve the differences between the sequence of events described by the Star report and those described (or implied) by Abberline, unless, of course, we simply disregard him as a careful writer of reports. I however, suggest that might not be the case. Since Swanson's report was based on his access to all reports filed, we can't be confident that Abberline's (which eventually won the day) was the only opinion floating around the Met, and thus we can be certain about the intentions of man #2.
1 Note: this would seem to pose a problem for your sloth/Ben Johnson analogy.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Hi Rosey.
I'm sorry, but I can't go along with the "strangulated cries" translation. Swanson's report is quite clear, that the three "screams" occurred at the woman being thrown down on the footway(pavement).
The likelier translation is three "angry squeals" at being manhandled by the tipsy B.S. I've seen and heard similar squeals from women in drink, when being given unwanted attention by "tipsy" men outside pubs.
There were reportedly several incidents of this nature that night, and there is NO rock-solid proof that it was even Stride that Schwartz saw.
Taking into account the poor light as well, I think that the frightened Schwartz's attention would have been rivetted on the man who shouted in his direction, and the other who emerged from the pub.
I lean 60/40 in favour of Stride being a Ripper victim, but totally agree, 100% with Glenn Andersson that B.S. was NOT Jack the Ripper.
Best wishes Rosey.
DAVID C. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Hi Glen
Your reply to my last post is much appreciated, and although you provided an admirable case for why Mr BS could not have been JTR, I am still unconvinced.
One thing though, I was totally unaware that you had defended your argument in an earlier post, so you see I wasn't choosing to ignore you, (re Mr BS) I genuinely had not seen your earlier post.
You see I only enter into the Casebook periodically, and to read all the posts after a lengthy absence would be impossible for me.
There is one thing I would like to ask you however, which is.
Do you think that the man seen with Liz Stride by PC Smith (and it was undoubtedly Liz Stride) at 12:35 a.m. and the man seen by Brown with Liz Stride, at 12:45 a.m. were one and the same as Schwartz's broad shouldered assailant?
I have very good reasons for asking this question, and all will be revealed when I hear your reply.
Regards Cludgy
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 573
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Good post, your last one, taking the sequence of correspondence as a basis. However, I don’t agree that Swanson's version of events necessarily contradicts Abberline's.
For those who aren’t familiar with Abberline’s report of 1 November, here’s what he wrote:
“…, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it (the ‘Lipski’ cry) was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.
I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.
There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the street in the act of lighting a pipe.
Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.”
Although I admit the impression this gives is that Schwartz became alarmed and run away as a direct result of the cry of ‘Lipski’, this is not what is actually written down by Abberline. The moment Schwartz became alarmed and run away in Abberline’s report may still correspond exactly with the moment Schwartz ran away in Swanson’s report. Another explanation for the possible difference between Swanson's and Abberline's reports is that Abberline may have written his report from memory. After all, he was present at the interview and his report was focusing on whom the shout was addressed to, not on other details. So, maybe it was Abberline who was being inaccurate, not Swanson.
There seems to be no doubt that the police reports have the 2nd man on the eastern side of Berner Street. Schwartz may only have been a couple of yards from him the moment the first man shouted ‘Lipski’, which would perfectly explain why the Jew was unable to say to whom the shout was addressed exactly. Had the 2nd man been some 7 or 8 yards from Schwartz at that point and had he actually been an accomplice, one might have expected some action from him the moment the shout was uttered. Yet, no action was mentioned. So, the notion that Schwartz was close to Mr Pipeman when the shout came would also explain why there’s no mention of any action from Mr Pipeman (other than the lighting of his pipe).
So, what actually may have happened is this: Schwartz sees the first man assault the woman, which causes him to feel very uneasy. In order to avoid getting involved, he decides to cross the street. On doing so, he notices a second man lighting his pipe on the other side of the street. When he’s just about reached the other side, he stops to cast another glance at the couple, which doesn’t go unnoticed by the first man who then shouts ‘Lipski’ at him or the 2nd man. This really frightens him, so he quickly walks away, within seconds passing the second man, who fortunately doesn’t do anything. Before he has gone many yards, however, he hears the second man turn to come in his direction. Now he’s really alarmed and starts running. He then hears the second man has also started running, which scares the living daylights out of him and causes him to run past his new lodgings.
Both Swanson’s and Abberline’s reports would fit this scenario.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3386
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
Hi Cludgy,
Thanks for your reply.
I am not at all sure things will be revealed in my answers; I wish they were.
I am going to stay out of the discussions now for a longer period of time, except for some occasional posts.
As I've just posted on the Pub Thread: I'll be rather busy from now on -- I have a lot of projects going on at the moment that will be taking up most of my time this coming year, so I'll have to leave the debating and the discussions up to others from now on, unless it has to do with research or occasional interesting issues.
I'll be popping in now and then, but hardly involve myself in any larger or more heated debates anymore. Most of it has been said already and there's been enough theorising here to keep me going for the next fifty years.
Finally, to answer your question...
"Do you think that the man seen with Liz Stride by PC Smith (and it was undoubtedly Liz Stride) at 12:35 a.m. and the man seen by Brown with Liz Stride, at 12:45 a.m. were one and the same as Schwartz's broad shouldered assailant?"
To be frank, I have no idea. Personally I think there are very little corroborations and similarities between those descriptions.
But then again, I am not prepared to draw any conclusions whatsoever based on witness descriptions -- that kind of base is just simply too subjective and unreliable. So to tell you the truth, I really can't answer that question.
David C.,
Thanks for the support.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
Dear David Cartwright,
"Swanson's report is quite clear..." Gosh, there I am under the impression that as many as three persons in an interview room, trying to make sense of a fourth person's account, can possibly lead me to believe it is or could be..."quite clear.":-)
We must run with the little we have, in this instance.
For example, did Schwarzt actually hear the word, "LIPSKI"? Perhaps he heard another word which to his ear sounded like "LIPSKI"?
Mephisto's post of April 11, 2005, questions the likelihood of Schwarzt's assertion that he heard the word "LIPSKI".
"Why would a stree-wise accomplice risk exposure by shouting an anti-Jewish epithet outside a Jewish social club during an assault?"
In the argot/cant of the 'street-wise' late- Victorian English proletariat, the word "NIKSI" was used by the person on point-duty, an accomplice, to signal danger to the other(s)involved in illicit street activities. My research shows that this word "NIKSI" is from the 'secret language' termed 'BACKSLANG' often used by members of crime gangs to communicate over the heads of police officers and tthe general public, and, in this instance, it is literally a warning sounded by the accomplice whose most solemn duty was to 'SKIN OUT' for danger: "to keep one's eyes peeled", hence, "I SKIN" = "NIKSI". (Don't ask how I know this!)
[See, EDOC INCNIV AD, etc.]
Rosey :-)
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
Hi Glen
It is a great pity that you find yourself unable to post with the usual gusto, as you have done in the past.
And despite our verbal in fighting I have enjoyed our little chinwags
You said, upon me asking you about the various sightings of Liz Stride just prior to her death.
"To be frank, I have no idea. Personally I think there are very little corroborations and similarities between those descriptions."
The fact is Glen it's all we have, and I'm sure that with carefully analyses a lot can be learned from these sightings.
Regards Cludgy
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 519
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Rosey,
We must run with the little we have
In this instance we have even less than what you and Mephisto suggest. That is, while your suggestion might make sense if pipe-/knife-man were "street savvy," what reason do we have to think that? It is but one of many possibilities and for all we know he might have been a foreign sailor making his first visit to the Big Smoke and was so scared by the events of that night he returned immediately to his vessel and never again ventured more than 50 yards from its mooring.
That said, I do agree with you that we can't put a whole lot of reliance on Schwartz's claim he heard "Lipski."
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3396
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Hi Cludgy,
Unfortunately, witness descriptions are too unreliable in order to draw in any conclusions from whatsoever. It is simply too subjective and uncertain, and tells us very little. I prefer to rely on other facts in the case.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Hi Cludgy.
I'm afraid that Glenn's right.
There are four witnesses who each saw a man with a woman, and all within a few minutes of each other. Three of the four later identified Stride as the woman they saw. Yet their descriptions of the men they saw did NOT tally. Now it's very unlikely that Stride had three clients in the space of those few minutes, so it's pretty obvious that one or maybe two of those witnesses did NOT see Stride.
If I was going to rely on any of those witnesses, it would have to be PC Smith. As a policeman on patrol duty, and fully conscious of the series of murders, he would seem to be the most reliable witness. But the man Smith saw did not fit the description of Mr.B.S., Schwartz's man.
I think that Glenn hit the nail on the head. There's too much unreliability with these descriptions, and the whole issue is contrary and uncertain. Without new and concrete evidence coming to light, no amount of analysis is going to make the events of that night in Berner St. any clearer.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
Dear Don,
Gosh, I did'nt mean to SUGGEST ANYTHING! Just passin'da time, so to speak. But let me take you up on your suggestion that he was a sailor. I will except that when Scwarzt described a "tipsy" BS, in fact, BS had the ROLLING-GAIT of a sailor home from the sea.
As for the reliance of Scwarzt's evidence concerning the LIPSKI warning...I believe he heard SOMETHING...if only his heart-beating!
Rosey :-)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 577
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 8:06 am: |
|
Hi Cludgy & David,
For what it's worth, I have doubts about Brown having seen Stride at all and I don't think Smith's man and Mr Broad Shoulders were one and the same. But this is not because of their descriptions (as Cludgy knows, I don't put much faith in them), it's because of the situations described. Smith described a couple standing together, talking quietly, whereas Schwartz describes a man apparently walking over to a woman and rather quickly starting some sort of fight.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Hi Frank.
I couldn't agree more. Brown is definitely the odd man out. The other three apparently later identified Stride as the woman they saw, but as you say, the difference in attitude and approach between Smith's man & Schwartz's man, clearly speaks of two different individuals.
There is also the newspaper-wrapped parcel carried by Smith's man. Estimated at about eighteen inches long, it would surely have been noticed by any other witness too
Best wishes Frank
DAVID C.
|
Jack_curious
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
Hi
I'm currently writing a novel, of which some is set in Victorian London during the time of the JTR murders.
Although I've always been interested in JTR and have read some of the more populist books on the subject, I have never been convinced that Stride was a victim. It has always seemed implausible to me that the murderer should be disturbed during the killing and then, presumably in some frenzied bloodlust, race across London to murder and mutilate Catherine Eddowes without anyone else noticing his odd behaviour.
In my novel, with great artistic licence and not based on much research at all, the Stride killing is a coincidence. However, to get details of the killings right, I endeavoured to look on this very website for the correct timings.
It would appear that the time of killing for each of the victims (based on last reported sighting and eventual discovery of body) is thus:
MN 2:30 - 3:15
AC 1:35 - 4:45
ES 0:40 - 1:00
CE 1:35 - 1:45
MK 2:00 - 10:00
If one bases the Catherine Eddowes murder as the most accurate time (due to the obvious shortened timescale), one gets the impression that JTR was a man who killed from 1:30 to 2:30 (if we also assume that a homicidal maniac is likely to kill as soon as possible rather than there be a lengthly preamble). On this basis, the murder of Liz Stride seems a little too early (psychopaths are, I believe, creatures of habit.. which is why they are so often caught).
I don't know whether this sort of argument has been suggested before... I also appreciate that the timings have quite a narrow margin...
Incidentally in my proposed book, the murder of Mary Kelly is carried out by a different murderer entirely.. (again, artistic licence). Yet, the possibility of multiple JTRs cannot be ruled out by the available evidence, can it ? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
