|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 5:48 pm: |       |
1) How many people believe that JTR had an accomplice rather than working alone?
2) If there were two killers it would explain a lot about how the killer was able to get away, but it would also change the motive around, it would no longer be a single disturbed psycho, but two men with some master plan, what would their motive(s) be?
3) I think that Schwartz very likely told the truth, and the man he saw was very likely JTR, but it is difficult to tell who the second man was. However, some have suggested that when Schwartz began to run, the second man was also running from the killer. It seems odd that the tall (2nd man) would have stopped to light his pipe and then decided he was scared and ready to run. If he was scared he would have been hurrying out of there without concern for his pipe (why light a pipe before you are ready to run). Also, why light a pipe at a crime scene. It seems possible that he may have lit his pipe to get Schwartz's attention so that he would go in a different direction. It's difficult to tell.
4) Has anybody taken into account the Dear Boss letter saying "The first one squealed a bit" being connected to the three screams from Stride? After all Schwartz specifically said that she screamed 3 times BUT NOT VERY LOUD. The letter said that she squealed A BIT. NOT VERY LOUD and A BIT seem to both mean the same thing. The letter didn't say that she screamed her head off. Or was the Schwartz testimony publicized enough to where a hoaxer wouyld know what he said?
5) Schwartz is a very important witness, it seems likely that his description is very likely that of JTR. He witnessed violence towards Stride and she was found dead within the next 15 minutes, that is pretty strong evidence that he saw the killer. It is unusual that the would-be killer would have thrown Stride down, this implies that if he had pulled out a knife she would have a had a real chance to scream her head off because she was already aware of her assailant's presence. So, the question is, why didn't Stride scream her head off once she saw the knife?
I think that the answer to finding the killer lies in Israel Schwartz. He saw the killer.
Tim |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 10:44 pm: | |
Hello Tim,
Let me start by saying that I do not believe that there were two men involved in the murders.
I think the "pipe man" was just standing there or walking along lighting his pipe when he saw the incident. When schwartz took off...he was just going the same way. I dont feel as though he was involved.
Schwartz also stated in his description that he did not see anything in the guys hands that was
attacking Stride, so I dont believe he had pulled the knife yet. I dont necessarily think that her "screams" were "aaaahhhhhhhhh" screams. Schwartz didnt speak english, so its hard to say what she was screaming. It could have been "get your hands OFF me" or something like that. We just dont know. Schwartz wouldnt have been able to understand her words. Just a thought. Best regards
Paul |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 240
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 9:02 pm: | |
Hi Tim,
According to his own statement Schwartz crossed the street when he saw the man throw Stride down. On crossing the street he saw the second man lighting his pipe. It isn’t clear where this man was standing. He might have just come from around the corner and might have been so occupied with lighting his pipe that he didn’t immediately see what was going on in front of the gates to Dutfield’s Yard. Perhaps he only became aware when the assaulting man called out ‘Lipski’ and when Schwartz started to run, which also made him run. Like Paul, I don’t feel the ‘pipe man’ was involved either.
You wrote: “I think that the answer to finding the killer lies in Israel Schwartz. He saw the killer.”
He might have seen a killer, but I don’t think it was Jack the Ripper. In none of the other cases Jack drew any attention to him, he probably didn’t even act suspiciously right until the moment that he struck. If we believe Mrs. Long and Joseph Lawende indeed saw the Ripper with Chapman and Eddowes, this man was rather quietly engaged in conversation (however short perhaps) with his intended victims. And we all know that Eddowes was killed about an hour after Stride, perhaps even less.
So, if the aggressive man seen by Schwartz was Jack the Ripper who didn’t get to finish Stride in the way that he wanted and out of frustration went looking for another victim he could mutilate, then I think it’s strange that the man seen by Lawende seemed so at ease, considering Lawende probably did see Jack the Ripper.
All the best,
Frank
|
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
Hey Everybody,
Just a little tidbit of info....
It seems the "public house" in question that the pipeman was seen in front of or exiting was located at 26 Berner St. and was named the "Nelson". It seemed to be at the corner of Fairclough and Berner. Whether he was exiting the club or just standing in front...we dont know. I found this in a footnote in Paul Begg's
Definitive History.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1552
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
Frank!
You talk like a book. I see that we agree on the Schwartz matter almost entirely.
I don't believe Mr Broad Shoulders was the Ripper either, although he could very well have been Stride's murderer.
I think that at least Elizabeth Long saw the Ripper. What she saw was without question Chapman's last client.
I am not so 100% sure that Lawende saw Eddowes' murderer, though. He probably did, but it is possible that Eddowes and the man parted before the murderer arrived. I personally find it a bit of a stretch, but we can't disregard that possibility entirely. Let's not forhet that Long's and Lawende's descriptions of the man they saw are quite different from one another on several points. It may not mean nothing, but still...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
It is, in theory, possible that Lawende's man was not the Ripper, but not probable. Lawende was quite sure about the time...1:35. Ok, if the man Lawende saw was not the killer, then he would have had to move on. Since she had her hand on his chest, it would seem that it took more than a simple "get lost" to make him leave.
So, lets say...it took her 3 minutes to get rid
of him. it would be 1:39 or 1:40. The new killer would have had to subdue Eddowes, strangle her, slit her throat, disembowel her, find her kidney, cut it out, and then take the time to mutilate her face....then escape...without being seen or heard. She was found at 1:44. He would have had about 3 minutes to do all of his deeds. I guess, if he was a fast worker, he could have pulled it off, but that would be pushing it.
I believe he needed the extra 4 or 5 minutes to do all of this. Which would seem to fit in with the original man seen with Eddowes. This of course, is just an opinion. Best regards.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1558
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
I agree Paul.
At least, the hand on his chest does not indicate to me that she wanted to get rid of him. However, we don't know. Maybe they were about to say good-bye?
But I agree that the time limits offer very few alternatives.
I think it's curious that Schwartz didn't mention the red neckerchief, which would have stood out against the dark clothes rather well -- and at least Lawende saw it, especially considering that he didn't look that closely. OK, both wore a peaked cap, but that was a common headgear among the working class and the sailors anyway.
If the man seen by Lawende was Eddowes' murderer -- and Jack the Ripper -- as I believe, then I don't necessarily think Lawende's man and the assaulting man on Berner Street was one and the same, therefore implying that the latter wasn't Jack the Ripper (while Lawende's man probably was).
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
Yea, I dont know about the red neckerchief either. Its curious that Hutchinson's man offered Kelly a red neckerchief. Not that Hutch didnt make that up(which would be a huge coincidence). Maybe Schwartz just didnt make note of it (if it was the same guy). Maybe it wasnt. We dont know.
What about the 2 reports that refer to the man
similiar to Schwartz and Lawende's man that was seen in (Church Lane...I think) that was sitting on the steps cleaning his hands, shortly after Stride was killed. This report was made before a description of the killer was released. There might be nothing to it, but then again, there might be. Best Regards.
Paul
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 5:21 am: | |
Schwartz,in his interview with the reporter,does not describe an assault by the person accosting Stride.He said he saw a hand placed on her shoulder.That she fell might well have been her twisting away from an unwelcome intrusion.As Schartz hurried away ,he said he heard raised voices,not unatural on her part.
If both Brown and Schwartz are correct as to time,then the second person seen by Schwartz,is unlikely to have been at the corner or indeed in Fairclough St,as Brown would surely have seen him.He would also have been seen by Schwartz if he was ahead of both Schwartz and the accoster.
So he either came from the Berner St extension across Fairclough,and Brown missed him,or he was the person seen by Brown with Stride in Fairclough St.No reason why he sholdn't have been the latter. |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
Harry,
For one thing, Brown wasnt even sure it was Stride that he saw. In reference to Schwartz statement....Im assuming you are referring to the one in the Star....It could be that this report was "juiced up" a bit, because it varies greatly from what he told police.
We dont know how it went down, but I am apt to believe police reports a little more than the newspaper.
Regarding Brown....the man he described wore a coat almost to his heels. This doesnt sound like any other witness description. At the morgue, when asked if Stride was the lady he saw, he said he was "almost sure". Whatever... I dont count him as a reliable witness, but thats just my opinion.
And why would an innocent man yell out "Lipsky" or whatever he yelled, when a women had just fallen down? The second man was allegedly coming out of a pub at 26 Berner St. called the
"Nelson". Whether this is true or not, we dont know. But, I think that maybe Schwartz and Brown were incorrect about the time. It makes a little more sense if it was little closer to 1:00. Regards.
Paul
(Message edited by paulj on April 18, 2004) |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 5:25 am: | |
Paul,
Except for Arnolds account,there is no police report that tells us anything,so we can not say it differs greatly.
A man in a nervous state,as Schwartz undoubtably was,might easily mistake the height of a man with a long coat,as being taller than the description furnished by Brown.
Stride and her companion in Fairclough St,were in the immediate vicinity,and at a time that could easily put them in Berner St at the same time as Schwartz.
The second man was not seen leaving any premises,and there is no reason to believe that any one of them,Brown or Schwartz,was far out as to time.
If you find Schwartz unreliable,why do you accept that the word 'lipsky'was uttered.
Now I am not saying that Schwartz was a hundred per cent correct in all that he said,but I think the initial contact between the man and the woman was as he reported.A hand placed on a shoulder,very much the same as many contacts between males and females,even today.And that is all he said he saw,given the information available.
H.Mann. |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 7:30 pm: | |
No Harry,
I said BROWN was not reliable! Please re-read my post. It wasnt Arnolds report, it was Swanson's, by the way. And also, you can throw in Fanny Mortimer in too, she told the press that she saw the couple that Brown allegedly saw
near the Board school. What I meant by Brown not being reliable is that he wasnt even sure that the lady at the morgue was the woman he saw.
Best regards.
Paul |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 6:18 am: | |
Paul,
You are correct,it was Brown you said was unreliabe.But why should he be regarded as unreliable.He did not in fact say very much,just that on his way home he saw a couple in Fairclogh street,and that the time was 1245.He testified that the woman was Stride.His remarks on the body at the morgue seem to indicate reliability,in so much as he was not willing to say it was the same woman,A dead person does appear different.
You are also correct that it was Swanson who spoke of an assault,but that in itself does not detract from the story told to the reporter by Schwartz.The reporter was speaking of a personnel interview with Scwhartz,Swanson was not.
As to Mrs Mortimer's sighting,How can anyone be sure she is talking of the same couple as Brown.
Mortimer is reported as standing outside her house in Berner St,and in the book I have beside me,there is no mention of her seeing a couple.The couple Brown saw were in Fairclough St.
H.Mann. |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
Harry,
The only reason I am not sure how reliable Brown is, is because he wasnt absolutely sure it was Stride he saw, he didnt see her flower, it was dark though. Schwartz testimony to the police would be, to me at least, a bit more reliable than the Star version. Even if the police report was a summary written a few days later,
doesnt it seem logical that if the second man that Schwartz saw (pipeman) had a knife and threatened Schwartz with it...the police wouldnt have included that detail in their report. I think the Star just juiced it up a bit to make it sound better. Also, I will try and find the info regarding Fanny and who she saw. I have it in a book somewhere, but I'll have to think about which one it was. But, that too, could have just been B.S. too. I'll get back to you.
Regards.
Paul |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 274
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 3:46 pm: | |
Tjena Glenn,
I didn’t notice your post addressed to me until just now.
“You talk like a book.”, you wrote. Is that good or bad? It sounds a bit bad…
Personally, I don’t think witness descriptions of people are worth much and so, I don’t think it matters much that those of Long and Lawende differed on several points.
For instance, Lawende stated that the man he had seen was about 5’7” or 5’8”, while one of his companions, Joseph Hyam Levy, deposed he was about 3 inches taller than Eddowes, who was 5 feet tall. These two witnesses saw the same man, but still they differed in opinion as to how tall Catherine’s companion was. By the way, Levy’s description as to height was about the same as that of Long.
I don’t think the similarities in the descriptions of Lawende’s man and that Schwartz’ man mean much, if anything.
Like Paul, I tend to think there was too little time between Lawende’s sighting and the discovery of Eddowes’ dead body for Lawende’s man to leave and for the Ripper to appear on the scene and do his bloody deeds. So, I think Lawende most probably did see the Ripper.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1583
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
Tjena Frank,
"“You talk like a book.”, you wrote. Is that good or bad? It sounds a bit bad…"
Aaaaah... No, no, no. no... it was meant as compliment. Sorry, in Sweden it's a common expression when you want to acknowledge someone's great retorical efforts; like implying that the person is wise. I though it was used elsewhere. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
As you know, I am not that keen on witness descriptions either. But I think the red neckerchief is important, since it would have stood out rather well against the black clothes -- and Lawende did obviously notice it, in spit of the fact that he didn't carefully examine the man.
I think it's different from information concerning height, hair color or if it's a jacket or a coat. Schwartz was a scared witness, OK, but he should have seen the red neckerchief, in my view, if it was the same man. This was a very special and outstanding detail.
We only have one real corroborating item regarding the two sightings; the peaked cap, but that was such a common headgear that it's absolutely useless to base anything on.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 275
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Hi Paul & Harry,
I hope you don’t mind my butting in, but I have found a reference to the sighting of the couple by Fanny Mortimer. It is in Sugden’s The Complete History on page 207 (paperback) and it reads as follows: “Mrs. Fanny Mortimer of 36 Berner Street saw them and mentioned them in a statement to the press on the day of the tragedy: ‘A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.’ ”
Considering that Brown saw the couple at the corner of the board school, which was situated at the junction of Fairclough and Berner Streets, it is possible that Brown and Mortimer saw the same couple, but it’s perhaps evenly possible that they didn’t, as we don’t know the exact timing of both sightings (and we have to be a little cautious about Mortimer’s statement, as it was made to the press and not the police).
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 276
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
Tjena again Glenn,
Although you’re implying that I’m wise, I didn’t know of a similar expression here in Holland. So, I’ve looked it up in a dictionary and it says: to speak like a book = to speak unnaturally. No wonder it sounded a bit bad…
Thanks for the compliment!
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1586
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 6:27 pm: | |
Hallå, Frank.
Interesting; seems like another one of those expressions that mean completely the opposite in different countries.
Thanks for letting me know, so I'll not use that one again. "Speak unnaturally" doesen't sound good, I agree... 
Anyway, I just wanted to state that I liked that particular post of yours.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 144
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
Hello intelligent guys,
How's that? Thank you Frank for saving me the trouble of finding that info(even though, it would have been no trouble). Frank....the 5'3 description does make Levy's man pretty short.
It could also have been possible that Lawende and Levy saw the suspect from different angles, which would get into mathematics and all that.
Other than that, I have no explaination for the difference in height. I know from personal
experience that when I have been engaged in a romantic conversation with a short female that I tend to part my feet rather farther apart than normal to make myself shorter so I can talk more face to face. But that wouldnt really explain why Lawende thought he was 5 inces taller that Levy.
Glenn....Whats up man? Regarding the Neckerchief...I dont know why Schwartz didnt
mention it.(If it was the same man). Is it a coincidence that Hutchinsons man also had a red neckerchief? If we are to believe him....Im not sure if I do or not...but just a thought.
Paul |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 8:43 pm: | |
I just wanted to add this thought. Regarding the eyewitness testimony issue that Glenn and Frank were discussing....Its funny that when
PC Smith gave his description in his report, the suspect had a mustache. At the inquest, Smith said that he was clean shaven. No whiskers.
SO thats a perfect example of how generally unreliable Eyewitness testimony can be. Not all the time, but sometimes.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1589
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 11:44 pm: | |
Indeed they are, Paul. (What's up, man? ). Indeed they are.
However, can we be sure of that PC Smith saw the same man as Schwartz or/and Lawende?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 152
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:05 am: | |
Glenn,
No we cant be sure, at all. One question though.
Isnt a deerstalker hat one that has a bill on the front as well as the back...like Sherlock Holmes wore? If it is, then that doesnt sound much like a cloth cap with a peak. If thats the case, then they probably are describing
two different men. Talk to ya later.
Paul |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 4:48 am: | |
Frank,
Thanks for that information.My information came from the AtoZ book,and that was to the effect that mortimer is reported as saying she saw no one except a man with a black bag.
Whatever the truth,both Stride and the second man Scwhartz reports as seeing,must have been in the near vicinity to berner street at the time stated,and they could very well be the couple Brown admits to seeing.
H.Mann. |
Busy Beaver
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 5:14 am: | |
I am confident there was only one Ripper. If there had been two, then very likely one of them would not have been so strong in the mind about keeping it secret and would have ultimately gone to the police or spoke to friends and family- again out of fear. For those that believe there are two Rippers- the murders' would have left the country pretty quickly after the murder of MJK. Do we know of suspects who left in a hurry- Montague Durritt committed suicide- anyone else? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
