|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jim DiPalma
Police Constable
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 12:25 pm: | 
|
Hi All,
Chris, Monty, I've read somewhere (Sugden, I think) that Schwartz's wife had gone looking for new lodgings that same morning, i.e., the morning of the 29th. As he was in the process of moving, he may not have been aware that 22 Ellen St was his new address.
Something else about this report that I've wondered about is Schwartz's statement that Pipeman did not follow as far as the railway arch. If Pipeman was an accomplice, he must have been aware that Schwartz had gotten a good look at him and could possibly identify him. Yet, he seems to have given up the chase after only a few blocks. Could Pipeman have simply been a bystander who was frightened off as Schartz was??
Cheers, 
Jim |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 20
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Hello Jim,
You posted: "If Pipeman was an accomplice, he must have been aware that Schwartz had gotten a good look at him and could possibly identify him. Yet, he seems to have given up the chase after only a few blocks."
Well, I would think that a 'good' accomplice would stay relatively near his partner in crime, particularly if he's mainly acting as a lookout for said partner.
Perhaps he didn't want to chase Schwartz for a very long distance, and stray too far from the murder scene. Particularly if they had a planned route out of there, or somewhere else they had planned to go directly afterward.
After all, they couldn't be sure that Schwartz was going to go to the police, perhaps they thought that chasing him would have been enough of a scare. |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 103
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 3:41 pm: |
|
G'day all,
Schwartz said he ran as far as the railway arch. Maybe he was just using the 'railway arch' as a familiar landmark in his statement to police, to describe distance. Maybe he just waited and since 2nd man didn't follow as far, he went home?
LEANNE
|
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 7:59 am: |
|
Hi Jim
I found the reference you referred to which is indeed in Sugden, in the Star account of the events witnessed by Schwartz. Their account says: "his wife had expected to move during his absence from their lodgings in Berner Street to others in Backchurch lane." However,at the end of the same paragraph it states: "He (Schwartz) fled incontinently to his new lodgings."
However, there are so many embellishments and discrepancies in the Star account that it should be treated with great caution. for example:
1) IN his police statement, Schwartz says the assailant tried to pull the woman into the street and threw her on the footway. IN the Star account the man pushes her back into the passage.
2) The police statement strongly implies that Schwartz saw the second man as soon as he crossed the street. IN the Star account, Schwartz crosses, goes on some yards and then looks back and the second man stepped out of a doorway.
3) IN the police account, the second is described simply as lighting a pipe. IN the Star version he is brandishing a knife.
4) The crucial matter of the shout is completely changed. In the police statement it says: "the man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road "Lipski"". IN the Star version it says: "a second man came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.."
The whole account in the Star - not surprisingly for a press account - has been dramatised but we must not overlook that there are also important variances of fact, as above.
As Schwartz has been put forward in various versions of the murders as a crucial, even pivotal witness, I think we must take these caveats into account. Of course, one always treats press accounts (then as now!) with a certain amount of caution but it is only when we can directly compare two accounts as above that we see how alarming the differences can be.
Of course there is no way of knowing at this stage how much of the embellishment came from Scwartz and how much from the reporter.
Another thing we always have to bear in mind with Schwartz's testimony is that even his original statement was given to the police through an interpreter, apparently a friend of his who accompanied him to Leman Street station. Again we have no way of knowing how competent his friend was in his translation.
I hope these thoughts are of interest. I am not dismissing Schwartz as a witness - in fact, I think he is one of the more important witnesses in the case. Buit I do think his testimony, like that of all other witnesses, must be treated with a reasonable amount of caution
Chris S |
Jim DiPalma
Police Constable
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Hi Chris, All,
Thanks for digging out that reference, that was indeed the one I had in mind. It does offer an an additional explanation for Schwatz's seemingly puzzling behavior.
I agree with just about everything else you wrote, you're quite right to point out the important differences between Swanson's report and the account that appeared in the Star. A bystander innocently lighting his pipe suddenly becomes a knife-wielding accomplice. That is a significant difference, one which, 114 years on, we are at odds to explain. We have no way of assessing the quality of the translation of the account Schwartz gave to the police. We don't even know if the same translater was used for the interview with the Star reporter. And we have no way of knowing to what degree the Star reporter may have embellished the story.
As with so many other aspects of this case, ya pays yer money and takes yer pick. Some newspapers were more likely to embellish a story than others. Given the Star's reputation as one of the former, my personal belief is that the details contained in Swanson's report are likely to be closer to what really happened, and that there's no real basis for believing that Stride's killer had an accomplice.
Cheers,
Jim
|
Robert Charles Linford
Police Constable
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 11:08 am: |
|
Hallo everybody. Glad to be joining you all.
Could I ask, does anyone know whether there were any Lipskis living near Berner Street in 1888? Perhaps the pipe smoker seemingly addressed by Stride's attacker was actually called Lipski.
After all, Israel Lipski had lived just one road along. Maybe he had relatives. Families in those days seem to have lived fairly close by one another.
Robert. |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 6:02 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
I believe that police did consider this point and made inquiries, I'm still looking for the source of this information!
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Police Constable
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 10:25 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
Yes, it almost certainly was a racial taunt, but there was just the outside chance of an alternative. Even if various Lipskis were questioned by the police, I wouldn't have blamed them if they'd chosen to sit out this murder, after the trouble their namesake brought down on their heads!
There again, maybe the pipe smoker needn't have been Jewish at all. If the first man took Liz for a Jewish woman, because she was standing in the gateway of a Jewish club, then his shout to the second man could have meant "It's OK, I'm only attacking a Lipski."
Robert |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 10:15 am: |
|
Hi Robert
There ws one Lipski family living in London (in the east End) in 1881 census. But we also have to bear in mind that LIPSKI was not Israel's original surname.
regards
Chris S |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Robert
I hope the info below is of use:
1881 LIPSKI
Only one LIPSKI family in London at time of census
Living at 11 Sandy's Row which ran north from the end of Middlesex Street
Head
Moses Lipski aged 52 born Poland FURRIER
Wife
Deborah Lipski aged 50 born Poland
Children
Lewis Aged 19 born Poland MACHINIST
Fanny aged 17 born Poland SERVANT
Ruben aged 14 born Poland
Isaac aged 11 born Poland
Anne aged 4 born Spitalfields
|
Robert Charles Linford
Police Constable
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
Thanks for the information. If I'd attempted the research, Mr Masters would have got his scanner before I found the answer!
Thanks again.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 3:32 pm: |
|
G'day,
In November 1888, Inspector Abberline wrote a report regarding an interview with Schwartz in which he told of house to house inquiries police made in and around Berner Street: 'Inquiries have also been made in the neighbourhood but no person named Lipski could be found'.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Police Constable
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne
Thanks for the info. You're right of course, it's in the Ultimate Sourcebook. Abberline concluded that the remark had been aimed at Schwartz.
Could you put on the Barnett board whether you think the first man was Barnett?
Thanks
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 12:34 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
At the time of the murders, Joseph Barnett was 30 years old, 5ft 7ins tall, of medium build, with a fair complexion and he had a moustache. His eyes were blue, and I read somewhere that his hair was fair or light brown.
He developed a 'speech impediment' at some time during his traumatic childhood, that caused him to echoe the last few words spoken to him. I read a report in the 17th of November 'Police News', that said he stuttered at the Kelly inquest.
So I can't argue that Barnett was 1st man or 2nd man, but Bruce Paley has pointed out that Barnett's height, colouring and moustache exactly match Joseph Lawende's sighting and P.C. william Smith's.
I wish I could find a straight path towards proving the identity of '1st' and '2nd man'. Maybe neither of them were 'Jack the Ripper'!
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Police Constable
Username: Robert
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 6:59 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
I'm not sure when I'll have a chance to re-read my Paley, but I've made a start by re-reading his chapter in "The Mammoth Book of JTR". There's also a piece by Paul Harrison which I'll have to go through again.
If I understand it correctly, Bruce Paley's theory suggests that Barnett used his personal acquaintanceship with the victims to gain their trust, so I suppose he would have been deviating from his preferred method by assaulting Stride. Maybe he posed as a "good Samaritan" after the first man left.
In any case, I tend to doubt whether the first man could have been Stride's killer. I can't see her willingly going into a dark yard with a man who'd just attacked her, even if - or perhaps especially if - the man was Kidney.
So I imagine that the first man, if he WAS her killer, must have suddenly seized her and dragged her into the yard.
But then, how come she was clutching a packet of cachous in her left hand when she was found? If they were in her hand before she was grabbed, she surely must have dropped them? If on the other hand they were in the pocket of her dress, then when would she have had the chance to take them out?
Robert |
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 8:46 pm: |
|
I am a special education teacher who has worked with autistics. They frequently resort to echolalia, repeating what is said to them, even when it is a question. EX: "What is your name?" "Your name." |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 3:04 am: |
|
Hi Everyone,
Regarding Strides murder ,and the packet of cachous found in her hand.
I believe that Stride was waiting at the yard for somebody to return proberly the man she left the Bricklayers arms with, on returning her killer said lets go into the club, and she led the way with, her cachous in her hand, as they entered the darkness of the yard he attacked her swiftly from behind, which made her grasp the packet tightly.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 5:54 am: |
|
G'day,
Bruce Paley's book tells me that Stride lived on and off with Michael Kidney at 38 Dorset Street, no more than a couple of dozen yards from where Barnett and Kelly were then living.
Barnett did blame Kelly's friends for influencing her return to prostitution, and reading newspapers to her about the murders of women she may have met, would help to fuel his attempts to keep her to himself and clinging to him for support. He was no longer able to guarantee financial support because of the loss of his job.
Bruce Paley showed no interest in the Ripper case, then he wrote to Colin Wilson in the late 1970s with his theory about the Ripper's identity. He had read Tom Cullen's book: 'Autumn of Terror' and was struck by how much the final murder differed from the others. After publishing 'The Simple Truth', Paley appears to have vanished back into his main interest of music. I don't believe his theories 100%, he never studied the case long enough. For instance, he believed that 'Saucy Jacky' was probably penned by Barnett, but it's obvious to me that it was hoaxed. Anyhow, he certainly identified a very interesting suspect that was never before considered, and that alot of enthusiasts still ignore!
When I was writing to the old 'Casebook' message boards, I was 'stuck' on Mary Kelly's murder, but now I have moved on to the murders of Stride & Eddowes!
I too, doubt that Schwartz's 1st man killed Stride, which is one thing that lead the police 'down the wrong street'. I am not even convinced that 2nd man killed her. He may have been just an innocent man walking out of a pub. As 2nd man was apparently "5ft 11ins", I can't imagine it to have been Joseph Barnett either.
Some other 'Good Samaritan" could have rescued Liz - someone unseen!
If Stride was holding on to the packet of Cachous when the killer grabbed her by the scarf, I'd say her back was turned and she was walking back into the club.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Police Constable
Username: Robert
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 8:19 am: |
|
Hallo everyone
Diana, could you expand on that? When you say "resort to echolalia" do you mean that it's a deliberate tactic, to buy themselves time to think what they're going to say next, or is it more like an automatic reaction which they can't control?
Richard, yes, maybe Liz was waiting for the man seen by Best and Gardner. That would be one explanation for her not screaming very loudly when she was thrown to the pavement - her client was due back soon and attracting a crowd might scare off a good customer. She just hoped the attacker would clear off quickly.
Maybe it was Liz who suggested using the yard, and the killer just had to make the best of it. Although it was dark, the yard might have seemed a bit busy for his purpose, with the club next door. He'd probably have preferred a lonelier spot.
If the killer was the man from the pub, I suppose that would tend to downgrade Lawende's sighting, as the two men seem to have been dressed differently.
Leanne, I suppose Barnett could have been the Ripper, but why would he kill Eddowes if he was intending to concoct an alibi for Stride's murder? If he did kill Eddowes, then he couldn't afterwards have gone in to work at the fruit market, because the piece of apron was found in Goulston Street and (if Smith is to be trusted) the trail led all the way back to Dorset Street.
Robert |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 33
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 11:04 am: |
|
I think I'm in the minority here, in thinking that Stride's attacker was her killer. Occam's razor advises us not to invent unecessary entities to explain something, and I've been trying to stick by that (though I've certainly been guilty of violating it!)
I don't think that 15 mins elapsed between the time Schwartz witnessed the attack, and the time she was found murdered- I think it was in fact less, due to the fact that all the times we have are approximations.
The question of the cachous is interesting, though, and does give me pause for thought. My guess is that she didn't think he was actually going to kill her. Perhaps that's why she didn't scream very loudly, and was still clutching the cachous when he slit her throat. |
Jack Traisson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 6:26 am: |
|
If Stride is correct in relaying what he saw to the police an interesting possibility arises. He said that Stride was being pulled into the street by her assailant. It is possible he did this because they had a dispute over money, maybe she even tried to rob him while in Dutfield's Yard. Annoyed, he pulls her back into the street, throwing her to the ground. She says "no" three times but not very loudly, perhaps in an attempt to say that she wasn't robbing him. At that moment, he may also have directed his temper at Schwartz and shouted "Lipski" as if to say "stay out of this, Jew, it is none of your business." After Schwartz and the man with the pipe flee the scene, he and Liz settle their difference and return to Dutfield's Yard where she is murdered. Taking this scenario further: it may even be the he was looking for sex only that night but felt provoked by Stride's actions and ended up killing her.
The Met were actively searching for anyone named Lipski. In Abberline's report of November 1, no person named Lipski could be found.
Israel Lipski, real name Lobulsk, changed his surname after arriving in England. His landlords at 16 Batty Street were named Lipski. He may have taken their name out of resepect or convenience. He may have even thought Lipski sounded less Jewish. 16 Batty Street was demolished in 1888, and perhaps due to the notoriety of Miriam Angel's murder in 1887 the Lipski's appear to have moved out of the neighbourhood. A full account of the Lipski case can be found in The Trials of Israel Lipski by Martin L. Friedland.
One more thing: We only have Schwartz' word that he was followed or chased. It is just as likely that the man with the pipe was fleeing the scene in exactly the same manner as Schwartz, and was scared off by the assault on Stride and the shout of "Lipski" in front of the IWEC, a Jewish Socialist club. Abberline himself offered this as a possible scenario but many writers and readers overlook this perfectly plausible expanation in favour of something more sinister; placing too much weight on Schwartz' words.
Stride's assailant did have some nerve though, to utter the word "Lipski" (if that was indeed was was said) in a busy Jewish neighbourhood.
Cheers, |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 8:44 pm: |
|
Robert -- they have trouble processing language. Wernicke's area of the brain is where "the dictionary" is stored. It is the center of what we call receptive language. Receptive language is the ability to understand what others are saying and know what the words mean. Autistics have trouble understanding meaning. When we want to say something we go to Wernicke's area and select the meaning words we need (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs). Then the unfinished message is passed on to Broca's area (the expressive area of the brain) which contains the grammar rules and the function words (articles, prepositions, conjunctions). Broca's area finishes putting the sentence together and is responsible for the motor control of the tongue teeth lips, etc. for the actual sound generation. If I stutter or have an articulation problem then the locus of the difficulty is Broca's area. Autistics have trouble labelling people, things, and actions. They have trouble understanding describing words. They do not understand what is said or they have to strain to understand and so they mindlessly repeat it in an effort to communicate. Interestingly enough, because they can't communicate their needs, desires and problems to others they often become very frustrated and it is not unusual for them to lose control and become violent. Barnett said he read the paper to Kelly. This is not impossible. Autistics are best at learning visually. This trait is so extreme that there are some autistics who have learned to read before learning to speak. Their inablity to learn well auditorially may be tied to their trouble mastering language. |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 11:05 pm: |
|
G'day,
Thanks for that explaination Diana. It has been suggested that Barnett could have been autistic. I don't think he used it as a tactic! It was something that he couldn't control, especially under moments of high stress and whether he murdered Kelly or not, her inquest would have been very stressful.
Paley points out that this may have attracted Kelly to him in the first place. He was a gentle, stuttering fish-porter at rough Billingsgate, who promised to look after her.
Liz not screaming very loudly, indicates that she had no fear for her life.
ROBERT: If it was Barnett who killed Eddowes and he was about to concoct an alibi for the killing of Stride, he could have given in to his tense emotion caused by failing to mutilate her. He was almost caught too, and had to prove to the world that he wasn't defeated!
Eddowes wasn't normally a prostitute, but if she was offering herself to earn a quick buck, then he probably wanted to teach her a lesson that she could never repeat!
MARIE: Good on you, for sticking by your beliefs! It may have been less time between Stride's attack and her death, but why would a killer, who was into attacking where no one could see, begin the job out in the street? Then if he was spotted by a walker-by, why didn't he just move on and find someone else? And did she say: "Hang on a minute while I have a sweet!" If I was 1st man, and the police thought I could have killed her, I wouldn't have come forward to claim my innocence either.
JACK: (Great name!), Only Liz and 1st man, knew what the fight was over. What you say about "Lipski" could have been right, if it was shouted as soon as he stopped to look, but he was on his way across the street.
If 1st man and Stride had settled their differences and were about to 'do-the-job', why would 1st man suddenly start thinking about their differences all over again and slice her throat in anger, missing a good opportunity?
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 39
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 5:53 am: |
|
Hi Leanne, you posted: "but why would a killer, who was into attacking where no one could see, begin the job out in the street? Then if he was spotted by a walker-by, why didn't he just move on and find someone else? And did she say: "Hang on a minute while I have a sweet!"
Well, I must admit that I don't know why Stride's killer started her attack in the street. But I think my best guess would be that perhaps this attack did NOT go the way he planned it.
I don't think that he could have moved on to another victim after Schwartz witnessed him, because he would be afraid that Stride would go to the police and say she was attacked by him. Perhaps she even knew who he was- if that was the case, he definitely couldn't leave her alive to tell stories.
I don't think she said "hang on a minute while I have a sweet" (this made me smile  ).
But I do think (like you posted) that she wasn't actually afraid for her life, and that's why she didn't scream very loudly. Perhaps that's why she didn't let go of the cachous. |
Robert Charles Linford
Police Constable
Username: Robert
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 6:49 am: |
|
Hi Diana
Many thanks for that. If I understand you correctly, echolalia (or at least the autistic variety) is caused by physical irregularities in the brain. Could I ask, can echolalia ever be due entirely to outside factors (e.g. troubled childhood), or is it purely physical, or is it a combination of both? Also, from the point of view of genetics, what are the chances of its showing up in siblings?
What you said about Barnett reading to Kelly was very interesting, because I wondered why a woman who could probably read for herself, should permit someone with a speech impediment to read to her.
Thanks again
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Police Constable
Username: Robert
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne and Marie
I'm still juggling the pros and cons concerning Barnett.....and probably still will be in five years' time. But that's par for the course with every suspect I've heard of - except Queen Victoria.
Yes, Kelly may have felt protective towards Barnett. That might explain why the room was in her name. And what Diana said explains the newspaper-reading sessions.
On the other hand, Bruce Paley says that Barnett found work as an orange hawker. That doesn't make his stammer and echolalia sound all that disabling. I can't really gauge the level of frustration his condition might have aroused in him.
And suppose Barnett was innocent : he splits up with his girlfriend, learns she's been butchered, has to identify the body, is grilled by Abberline, and then has to attend an inquest where he is probably cast in the role of "star turn"......no wonder he was a bit jittery!
But then again, I'm not too sure how close he and Kelly actually were. It seems odd that they can have lived together for a year and a half, and he still knew next to nothing of her family or past. Maybe whenever she spoke to him, he had his nose stuck in a paper!
Robert |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 8:43 pm: |
|
We don't know the cause of autism yet, let alone echolalia. Autism is somehow related to a brain problem and it can run in families. To be honest, in spite of my profession I'm not sure if other disorders can result in echolalia. Orange hawking would not be a problem as he would only have to repeat a few stock phrases again and again. Autistics are born without the ability to read body language, facial expression, or tone of voice. This results in many deficits in the social skills area. Their feedback system is nonexistent so they don't relate well to other people. I'm not totally sold on Barnett but if he was autistic it would explain some things. Nevertheless the only way autism would cause those mutilations would be if the person was in a towering rage. However we often see comorbidities in Special Ed. That is, a child will frequently have more than one disorder. Once the brain is damaged it can be damaged in more than one way. |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 3:18 am: |
|
G'day,
ROBERT: Bruce Paley, who studied Joseph Barnett for 15 years to write his book, says that from the time they met, Kelly probably judged that she would be the dominant half of the relationship.
About echolalia, he wrote: 'Common to autistics, echolalia may also be symptomatic of schizophrenia, and can occur as a personality mannerism or in anxious individuals'.
Reporting of Kelly's inquest, one newspaper saw fit to include in it's report Barnett's habbit of begining each of his answers by repeating the last word of every question asked. ('South Wales Weekly News' 17 November). Sounds like he was more than a 'bit jittery'.
Maybe he was so 'spooked', that he quit murdering. If he just couldn't stop, he could have just changed his modus operandi and left out the Ripper 'signatures'.
It was from Barnett's words that the police were able to piece together Kelly's past life: where she was born, when, how many brothers and sisters she had, how she married a local collier at age 16. He told of a brother who visited her once and how she met Joseph Flemming, how this was a serious relationship and how she often went out drinking with friends.
If Barnett had to be at Billingsgate market before the whistle blew for the start of trade, at 5:00 a.m., then came home about midday, when did he sleep? I'd say that Kelly went out drinking at nighttime without him.
LEANNE |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 8:51 pm: |
|
Autistics sometimes can perform amazing feats of visual memory and perception. Readers Digest had an article a couple of years ago about a man who works for the Chicago MTA. He answers the phone when someone calls asking how to get from point A to point B. Though he has all sorts of maps and computer programs at his disposal he rarely uses them. He has memorized the entire Chicago metropolitan area.
Someone like that would find it easy to thread their way through the labyrinth of Whitechapel and with very little exploration and experimentation they could master the intricate and complex topography of the human interior. |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 13
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 4:55 am: |
|
Hi Diana
Yes, it's astonishing, and you can sometimes get the mirror image. I read of a man who'd suffered some sort of accident during birth. He had uncanny linguistic abilities, and collected languages the way other people collect CDs. Yet his spatial ability was zero. He literally couldn't tie his own shoelaces.
I remember hearing somewhere that when one pathway in the brain is blocked, the brain can improvise alternatives. I saw a programme about a man who baffled all the doctors, because with his amount of nerve damage, he just shouldn't have been able to walk. But he managed it by watching himself putting one foot in front of the other. If the light went out, he fell down. When he did some experiments for them in the lab, they found he was utilising areas normally associated with a juggler.
Robert |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 8:11 am: |
|
We are getting into the area of what is called multiple intelligences here. The idea is that the brain is many units, and has many functions. The concept of IQ is becoming outdated because it is too generalized. Some of the functions are: long term memory, short term memory, language (and there are subdivisions of this),social skills, motor control, spatial perception, cognitive (pure reason), emotions, and sensory processing (there are divisions of this one). For many years scientists puzzled over the phenomenon of the "idiot-savant" (a term which is also on its way out but has not got a viable replacement yet). This kind of person seems to have massive deficits in all areas of function except one, and in that one area they seem to function at genious level. Once the brain is understood to have many separate functions it is easier to comprehend.
We are all a mixture of abilities in various areas. I am strong in language, weak in motor control and spatial relationships. My husband is stronger at spatial relationships and logic than I am and weaker in language. If we play Scrabble I always win. If we play chess he always wins. We don't bother with either anymore because we both know the outcome before we start. Jack was a mixture too. (We all are.) I think I can definitively say his spatial skills were excellent. |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Leanne,
How can you possibly translate "Barnett stuttered at the inquest" INTO "Must have developed this disorder in his traumatic childhood"? You are engaging in what we call CREEATIVE WRITING, rather than real evidence. Maybe he developed it a day before the inquest!
Also, according to the Ultimate JTR Companion on page 124 in the report by Swanson in his report of Oct 19, 1888 "The Scwartz description matched the Lawende description far closer than that of the PC" So how is it that you can say that Paley said that PC Smith and Lawende's description exactly match Barnett but Scwartz's doesn't? I didn't realize that Paley had somehow taken a time machine and somehow managed to garner more information about the description than the actual police investigators of the time. How can you dispute Swanson's opinion?
Tim |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Here's a possible naturalisation for Schwartz:
UK National Archives:
HO 144/1134/207084
Nationality and Naturalisation:
Schwartz, Israel, from Austria. Resident in London. Certificate 21074 issued 14 October 1911.
1911
I presume "Austria" would cover Hungary as well in 1911.
If it's the right man, the document could be quite informative about his whereabouts subsequent to 1888. Unfortunately, it won't be open for inspection for another 6 years. 
Chris Phillips
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page