|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 9:54 am: |       |
At the time of the schwartz sighting, several other witnesses say they saw Stride with a man, the couple appeared to be ay peace with each other no hint of trouble. If my memory serves me well i remember reading that at the time of the Schwartz sighting a woman was standing at her doorstep just a little way up the road in Berner st.a short distance from the entrace to Dutfields yard, she neither heard nor saw anything unusual. Didn't a week or so pass before Schwartz was interviewed by the police? could he have seen Stride being attacked, but on another night? a week is a long time to remember on which night different things happened. Stride might have used Duttfields yard on a regular basis, i'll bet Annie Chapman used the back of 29 Hanbury st. on a regular basis. Could Schwartz have seen Stride being attacked on the previous night to her murder? What do you think? |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 3:28 am: | |
G'day Tom,
Schwartz voluntarily gave his statements to Police on the 30th of September, which was the day that her body was discovered.
LEANNE. |
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 10:41 am: | |
My apoligies Leanne, i thought Schwartz had delayed his statements by a week. I am posting suggestions to this message board, from memories i have, of books that i read about the Ripper 20 years ago. These of course were library books, which have since been withdrawn from the shelves many years ago. not much now in my local library in the way of the Ripper. But one thing i do remember, a Mrs Mortimer stood a couple of doors up from the entrace to Dutfields yard at the time of the Schwartz sighting, she niether saw, nor heard anthing all the while she stood outside her door. Someone, either she, or Schwartz must be mistaken about what really did happen that night. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 5:18 pm: | |
G'day Tom,
Don't worry mate! As AP Wolf mentions in the introduction to his book, we are today further away from the truth because the majority of Ripper writers have researched: 'Jack the Myth', and not: 'Jack the Truth'.
If you want to read a book that sticks to the facts, try 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion', (I believe it is also has a slightly different title in the U.K.). This book presents the full, factual history of the Whitechapel Murders from 1888 to 1891 as per the 'Home Office' records on file.
LEANNE PERRY
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 181
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 5:22 pm: | |
G'day,
In the U.K. it is titled: 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook'
LEANNE. |
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 9:34 am: | |
Thanks for the info regading "the Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook" Leanne, will try to get a copy, although after nigh on a hundered and five years of speculation, i think the bird fled the coop in November 1888. All we can do now is pad out the available information we have on the case, go into the fine detail. For example, Annie Chapmans two rings were taken from her fingers, now all kinds of theories have been put forward for this theft some of them a bit far fetched as you know, but hey everyone's entitled to his or her opinions, but was the taking of those rings simply theft. If it was, and i strongly think it was, not only do we have a mass murdered on our hands here, but also a common tea leaf. Has anyone looked into Magistrate court records in that vicinity for that period, i know its a tall order, for there would have been many thieves knocking around there at that time but it would narrow things down a bit. If JTR was a common thief, he took those rings because he probably belonged to one of the poorer classes of the community, but low what is that i hear, he took those rings as a ritualistic gesture, he wanted to posses a trophy from his victim. You see all the speculation can obliterate the real reasons for his actions. I read a very good book on JTR, over 20 yrs ago, and at the end of the book the author envisaged the end of time, with us all there standing before God waiting to be judged, God looked in his big book and got to the point in time of the ripper murders. All the Ripperologists waited in anticipation for the Rippers name to be anounced, and upon announcing the name, they all turned to each other and said, "Who?".
Tommy. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 5:30 pm: | |
G'day Tom,
'The Ultimate Companion/Sourcebook' says: 'The deceased was in the habbit of wearing two brass rings (a wedding and keeper) these were missing when the body was found and the finger bore marks of their having been removed by force. Special inquiries were also made at all places where they may be offered for pledge or for sale by a person believing them to be gold, but nothing has has resulted therefrom.'
She was seen wearing them when she left the lodging house, so I'd say it's beyond doubt that her killer took them.
Legend has two farthings and two rings arranged on the ground near her body. The truth is Dr. Phillips said at her inquest that he: "searched the yard, and in doing so found a small piece of course muslin and a pocket comb in a paper case lying at the feet of the woman near the paling; and they apparently had been placed there in order or arranged there." The wording: '"arranged there", has lead to the creation of myths and wild theories.
As her uterus had been taken from her abdomen, I'd say that her killer didn't need another 'trophy', and since the rings weren't pawned, I'd say he had someone to give those rings to. The removal of her uterus, suggests a hatred of his mother!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 5:33 pm: | |
G'day,
I'll repeat the above post on the 'Annie Chapman' board to move this conversation there, where it belongs!
LEANNE |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1017
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
Folks,
I need someones view. Now I do not think this means anything but its really bugging me today.
According to Schwartz’s statement taken by Swanson he saw a man talk to a woman outside the gates of Dutfields yard.
Schwartz then saw the woman attacked by this man at which point he crossed over the road.
Upon arriving at the other side of the road Schwartz noticed ‘Pipeman’.
Womans attacker then calls out ‘Lipski’ (according to Schwartz, this call was made to the Pipeman).
Schwartz then states that upon hearing ‘Lipski’ he then walked away.
This indicates to me that Schwartz actually stopped to watch this attack.
Does this alter somes view of a meek, not wanting any trouble kinda guy?
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 549
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 9:48 am: | |
Monty
By my reckoning (based on Schwartz's words and the size of the gate), Schwartz was about 9 or 10 feet behind the assailant when the attack started. He then crossed to the other side of the road. In my experience violent assaults tend to happen very quickly so I see no reason why the attack necessarily took any longer than the time it took for Schwartz to cross the road. Furthermore if a woman was being attacked approximately 10 feet away from me and I was disinclined to help (which I hope I wouldn't be) I would think it likely that I would not be able to ignore the fact that it was happening.
Thus I see nothing in Schwartz statement to make me think Schwartz was anything other than a bit of a wimp who took fright easily. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 10:02 am: | |
Alan,
But would you stop and look ?
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 550
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
Two parts to the answer.
Part one - personally no, but many would. How often have you crawled along the motorway in a traffic tail back for several miles only to find at the front of it that it is caused by cars slowing down to gawp at an accident that occurred on the other carriageway.
Part two - the point to my answer was that I see no evidence to suggest that Schwartz did stop and look. The incident could easily have occurred and been over in the time it took him to pass by. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:36 am: | |
Alan,
I am now about to type one of the most annoying sentences one can type...
...I do hear what you are saying but.....
The passage that gets me in Schwartz's statement, taken by Swanson, is...
... The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her around and threw her down onto the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the other side of the street he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, 'Lipski', and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran so far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.
And then Schwartz walked away ? That, to me, indicates he stopped to look. Carried on walking away would have been more accurate. No?
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
Hi all,
Monty, Schwartz's statement was taken through an interpreter, as he reportedly spoke no English. Under that circumstance, I would be wary of drawing conclusions based on nuances of the language.
Even if he did stop to look, I wouldn't necessarily read anything sinister into it. IMO, Alan's point one above is spot on - many of us seem to have a bit of morbid curiosity.
My .02, FWIW,
Jim |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
Jim,
Fair comment that.
Im not reading anything sinister into it really. I do honestly agree with both you and Alan.
Its just that Im trying to figure out how Schwartz managed to get decent descriptions, at night, of two men (even down to who did or did not have items in their hand) whilst still on the move, both the attacker and him. A brief pause in his promenading may explain this.
That said, I guess a) the descriptions schwartz give could have been taken in whilst he was on the move and b) does it really matter ? I think not.
Thanks guys anyway.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 304
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
Guys,
I really have to agree with Monty. Having seen the transcriptions of MANY witness descriptions and then seeing the perp, I just don't think we can put much acceptance into the description. Specific things like a bright colored piece of clothing lend more credence to a description. But most of all, I think it matters not. We are not going to catch JTR alive and be able to compare him to any description anyway.
Mikey |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 215
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
Monty & Alan,
I think you are both right and are just getting hung up on words. The actions between the man and Stride would have taken, as Alan suggests, almost no time. But, it is also likely, as Monty would have it, that Schwartz slackened his pace perceptibly as the drama ensued, without perhaps actually coming to a dead stop.
Because, as Alan bluntly put it, Schwartz was a wimp I've always been inclined to accept his statement until the point where he felt threatened. After that, though, I am chary.
Don. |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 153
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 7:38 pm: | |
Hey Guys.
Just to throw in a few cents worth...Regarding Schwartz, he spoke no English...or very little.
When "Lipsky" was shouted...I doubt that this is all that was said by the "killer". Schwartz probably took that one word out of context. It was the only word that he could remember. Something like....."blah,blah,blah..Lipsky..Blah,blah,blah.
That would make more sense to me than someone just shouting one word. Its just a theory, but it makes sense to me.
Paul
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 5:53 am: | |
Monty,
I do not think Swanson took the statement himself.He was interpreting a statement taken by another officer.It is a pity the police statement does not seem to exist.
As to the hand on shoulder,as described by Schwartz to the press or as reported by the press,it is an old jesture,akin to a handshake.Not used so much these days,but it was used as a sign of good intentions.Sometimes objected to,it nevertheless put the offender in an awkward position,in so much as the receipient had both arms free.
I am sure if an intent to attack had occupied the drunk,s mind,he would have started punching straight away,or carried out intentions in a manner that,to Schwartz appeared more than a hand placed on the shoulder.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:39 pm: | |
The problem with the above dialogue is that it trails off skeptically in whatever direction the participants fancy at the moment. Socrates wouldn't let things get away like this--he'd refocus matters back to his elenchus in order to avoid unnecessary guessing. You can readily see in the above that Ripperlogical skepticism, myth-making and futility are really the reults of social dissonance, laziness, disappointment, and personal arbitrariness.
If you want to really make progress in Ripperology, you have to let the evidence be the evidence. The coolest word on what Schwartz said about the cry "Lipski!" was (1) That this was not ALL the tipsy young man said, but it was all that he said OUTRIGHT, to his three listeners (Schwartz, the Pipe man, and Stride all together. He prior spoke to Stride personally, which Schwartz could not hear.) and (2) That Schwartz COULD NOT BE SURE who the tipsy young man was addresing in his cry "Lipski!"
That is the evidence. Try to control yourselves from changing or embellishing it when it won't give you what you want. Maybe you need to consider whether you need give IT something.
B.
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 5:29 am: | |
Bullwinkle,
There is no evidence value attached to the words,as they were not understood.Words did not assault the body,did not cut the throat,did not place the body in the yard.
You sure the drunk was not singing?.
H.M. |
Florian Petzold
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 10:30 pm: | |
Good evening,
being new to this board, and having read only one (Sugden's) book on the case, I'm driven to post here because that question intrigues me:
In my opinion, Israel Schwartz should be discarded as a witness. The man he saw attacking a woman, wasn't the Ripper. The woman he saw attacked wasn't Liz Stride.
Why so? Because Liz Stride was killed on the spot where she was found. Because she went of her own free accord to that spot and wasn't dragged there. Because that spot was eighteen yard from the street, and because that spot was p-i-t-c-h-d-a-r-k -- please reread the accounts of the witnesses who found and saw the body at the crime scene: what was it they were obliged to do before they could recognize anything?
(Sorry if this is no news; I didn't read much on this board.)
Thanks for listening
FP |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1268
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
Florian,
No such thing a p-i-t-c-h-d-a-r-k.
The guys coming out of the club came from a lighted room into a non lighted, shadowy area (and Louis came from a lit street). Their eyes had to adjust but seeing as time was the optimum matches had to be struck.
18 yards ? That right? I shall have to check that one out.
As for Liz being dragged, the position of her scarf indicates to me that she was dragged or pulled backward or upwards at some stage. The question is how far. Is this on the spot or from a distance?
Either way, what Louis saw was an assault and Liz was assaulted.
Monty
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five ! |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 628
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
Not 18 yards. Her feet were approximately six feet from the gateway. If we assume that the spot she was attacked at was about where the centre of her body lay that would make it around 9 feet back from the road. Schwartz's description of the attack suggests that it took place on the opposite side of the gateway, which was nine feet wide. My trigonometry ain't great but I think that makes it about 15 feet distant? (or 5 yards in other words).
I agree that the tightness of the scarf suggests she was pulled backward by it, and I would presume that this was not post-mortem, therefore if she was dragged from one spot to the other there would not have been any trail of blood to indicate this. The ground was cobbled and was wet from the rain which would also cover up other sign of her being dragged.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 141
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 12:33 am: | |
Hello,
Florian was correct about one thing - the man Schwartz saw attacking Liz (and it WAS Liz he saw) was probably not her killer. As for the pulled scarf, that most likely occured when he slit her throat. It was pulled to the left to keep it out of the way of the knife. She was not dragged or moved, as only her left side (the side she was lying on) was soiled. Who suggested she was dragged? Is this a misinterpretation of Schwartz's observation that the attacker tried to pull her into the road?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1269
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 4:08 am: | |
Tom,
"She was not dragged or moved, as only her left side (the side she was lying on) was soiled"
Good point......but !
I think drag may be the wrong word here. Maybe 'pull' would be a better one. Liz could still be pulled backwards by the scarf and stay on her feet, thus not getting soiled.
This scenario (obviously, if correct...which Im honestly not sure of) would indicate to me that the murderer was taller than Liz.
Monty
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five ! |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:31 pm: | |
Hi all,
The times are odd in my opinion. If Schwartz did see the ripper attacking Stride then I believe he scared the ripper off the scene and not Diemschutz as the police speculated. I dont think the ripper would have hung around long after being scene attacking Stride. He would of had no way of knowing if Schwartz would go find the nearest policeman. If Schwartz did see the ripper and if it was indeed Diemschutz who disturbed the ripper then I believe there would have been more mutilation done to stride. He would of had 15 miniutes to mutilate the body from the time that Schwartz saw him attack Stride and Diemschutz found the body. In the case of the Eddowes murder he needed less time then he would of had to mutilate Stride to totally do a number on Eddowes. I guess there is no real point except there is something wrong with the scenario that Schwartz saw the ripper and Diemschutz scared him away because I believe that there would have been typical ripper mutilations.
All the best,CB |
Florian Petzold
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 9:03 pm: | |
Sorry to all. I haven't got that much free time to send long postings to this forum, but after having carefully reread Sugden, this topic is the one I'm going to insist on, and if called upon I'll even give you a looooong dissertation (since people seem so unwilling to look things up in the appropriate books).
There are only two possibilities, namely:
a) Israel Schwartz was mistaken, or,
b) Israel Schwartz was a liar.
Tertium non datur (since philosophy in the guise of Socrates has already been introduced here); and as to Ockham's claims, we'll cut a lot of useless entities out of that completely messed up evidence, e.g. a second Ripper, and three cries that nobody apart from Israel Schwartz ever heard.
Let's look at the thing flaw after flaw. Here's my first point:
THE LIGHT
Oh yes, Monty, that spot was p-i-t-c-h-d-a-r-k:
'Anyone entering the yard had to pass between the dead walls of Nos. 40 and 42. Here, after sunset, the darkness was almost absolute' (Sugden, p. 166 omc). -- 'The site of the murder was in the passage between Nos. 40 and 42, where it was too dark to enable Eagle to swear positively at the inquest that the body had not been there' (p. 167) [expl.: Morris Eagle returned to the club, using the passage at 12.40 a.m.].
'Peering down to the right, Diemschutz thought that he could discern a dark object on the ground by the club wall but it was too dark for him to see what it was. He prodded it and tried to lift it with the handle of his whip. Then he jumped down from his barrow and struck a match. It was windy but before his feeble flame was extinguished the steward could make out the shape of a prone figure. And the dim outline of a dress told him that the figure was that of a woman.' (p.167 f. omc). That much information gathered, Diemschutz -- who seems to have been a husband of quite a different mettle from Israel Schwartz -- panicked, and rushed into the kitchen to make sure his wife was alife and well. Which means to say that, standing directly above the body, he couldn't discern the woman's features!
Next enters Mrs Diemschutz, looking from the kitchen door, who assures us: 'When my husband struck a light, I noticed a dark heap lying under the wall'. (p. 169)
Then the spot gets more populated: 'Upon reaching the yard they found a small crowd already clustered around the body. Someone struck a match....' (ibd.)
It goes on and on. '"I went down in a second and struck a match", [Morris Eagle] would tell the inquest' (ibd.) Etc. etc.
And yet, in the midst of all this darkness, Israel Schwartz could recognize enough to describe an assault on which he immediately turned his back, as well as the assailant, and a bystander! And last not least he was able to identify the dead woman at the mortuary!
This identification seems to be the main proof of his sincerity. But I don't see why it should. Next to everyone "identified" Long Liz, even that story-telling grape-seller! There can hardly have been a line-up of dead women with their throats cut at the mortuary, and the question can hardly have been more difficult to answer than the everlasting, 'And do you perceive that man here in this court room?', which has sent a lot of innocents to prison (and worse).
Israel Schwartz' testimony is flawed throughout with improbabilities, and assertions that fly in the face of evidence. This is only the beginning. I shall go on, if I find the time. Let me just state that I have no favourite Ripper candidate to push, but that I wouldn't believe one word of Schwartz' deposition, even if he greatly supported a favourite candidate of mine.
All the best, FP |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 287
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 1:41 pm: | |
Hi Florian,
Yeah, the passage where Stride's body was found was pitch black. Israel Schwartz, on the other hand, describes an apparent attack that happened in the street a short distance away. As there are a number of reasonable explanations for why someone in the street earlier could be found in that passageway an estimated 15 minutes later, I'm not sure how this would show that Schwartz was mistaken.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 200
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 10:25 pm: | |
Hello all,
Schwartz did not witness the 'attack' in the passage or on the street. It was on the sidewalk (pavement). When he turned onto Berner Street from Commercial Road he found himself following another man who stopped and spoke with Stride. When Schwartz got within a very short distance of them is when the man began pulling her into the street (not pushing her into the passage). He then either pushed her down or she fell down (she had a deformed leg) as Schwartz began crossing the road. At the point in time when he was only a couple yards behind the couple, and the action broke out, they would have had his full attention, and he'd have a good view of both. There's not reason to believe that Schwartz was either lying or mistaken in what he saw.
As for the darkness of the passage, Florian is absolutely correct. It was about 9' 2" wide, and was 18' from the street to the side door of the club that led into the kitchen (the door Diemschutz took when running in). It was so dark that Dr. Blackwell was unable to notice if there were blood stains on the wall, citing that he had 'only a policeman's lamp' to work by. So, he had a lamp and still couldn't see well! However, all the action Schwartz witnessed was out on Berner Street which, according to the witnesses at the inquest, was as well lit as any London sidestreet (of course, they also noted that London as a whole was not as well-lit as other capitals).
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 935
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 9:14 am: | |
Hi Florian et al.
As Dan and Tom have pointed out, it appears that the incident Schwartz witnessed occurred in the street not in Dutfield's Yard where Liz Stride's body was found. I don't think there is any reason to doubt Schwartz's testimony, but there is room to wonder how the assault he witnessed fits with the murder of Stride. It is natural to assume the man Schwartz assaulting Stride was her murderer, but that might not be the case and it could have been two different men, one that roughed her up and tried to pull her into the street and another who went with her in the yard and killed her.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1361
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 9:30 am: | |
Florian,
'Peering down to the right, Diemschutz thought that he could discern a dark object on the ground by the club wall but it was too dark for him to see what it was. He prodded it and tried to lift it with the handle of his whip. Then he jumped down from his barrow and struck a match. It was windy but before his feeble flame was extinguished the steward could make out the shape of a prone figure. And the dim outline of a dress told him that the figure was that of a woman.'
So p-i-t-c-h-d-a-r-k Louis couldnt detect a dark object on the ground?.
Monty
Ow, Ive just been doin time Sha-mone....It aint so bad !...I aint no Jack da Ripper - Dr Thomas Neill Cream |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 9:09 pm: | |
Florian wrote:
"In my opinion, Israel Schwartz should be discarded as a witness. The man he saw attacking a woman, wasn't the Ripper. The woman he saw attacked wasn't Liz Stride. Why so? Because Liz Stride was killed on the spot where she was found. Because she went of her own free accord to that spot and wasn't dragged there."
>>Florian,
You may wish to read the Summary of my Thesis "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders" in the Dissertations section of this web site. I have an explanation in it of why Liz would have willingly walked behind the green gates with the man who had attacked her in the street.
Best wishes,
David
|
Florian Petzold
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 8:34 pm: | |
Thanks to all who have replied. This is great --- and more than I dared to hope for! As it seems, we all agree that the attack Schwartz claimed to have witnessed cannot have been the actual killing of Liz Stride. Since, however, he told his story ‘to the effect that he saw the whole thing’ (Star-interview, Sugden p.203 omc), we can now safely answer the title question of this thread: if nothing worse, Schwartz was mistaken.
Just to make sure.
As to place, the ‘footway’ cannot have been the crime scene, for in that case Liz’ blood (not to mention her cachous) would have been spilled in the street. And as to time, 12.46 a.m. cannot have been the moment of the murder, for Liz’ blood would have been clotted before Diemschutz found her at 1.00 a.m. (ten minutes being the average of blood coagulation).
That leaves us with ten minutes and three yards to account for. As for those ‘reasonable explanations’ (you’ve failed to provide any, Dan!), by far the most reasonable are without a doubt that
a) either the persons involved in that ‘street brawl’ were neither the killer nor his victim, or,
b) the incident didn’t take place at all.
There’s still a long way ahead, so let’s continue with my second point.
THE EVENT
‘…& 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…’
The police account doesn’t tell where that man came from. However, it’s hardly believable that he came from the opposite direction. For if his intent was to kill the woman, he wouldn’t have accosted her under the very nose of a witness. But even if he was walking in the same direction as Schwartz, it would have been wise on his part to look round and make sure he wasn’t watched, … and then at least to wait until Schwartz had passed him, and was out of earshot. Which couldn’t have been much of a delay, since Schwartz must have been hard on his heels, if he really ‘had got as far as the gateway’. But no, our prospective killer plunges directly into action:
‘…The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway…’
‘He tried to pull’ means that he didn’t succeed. Which implies, further, that the woman offered some resistance.
‘But he turned her round’ is far from clear (and may be Swanson’s fault). Which direction was the woman facing when she was flung down? Did she fall backwards or forward?
No matter, though. For anyhow, ‘threw her down on the footpath’ is inconceivable, if the woman concerned was indeed Liz Stride.
-- Where were the bruises? --
It is generally overlooked that the murder of Liz Stride, for being the least gruesome, was the most mysterious. She clearly hasn’t been strangled or choked like the other victims (with the exception of indoors victim Mary Kelly, of course), and the question what made her quietly lie down in the mud, without letting go of her packet of cachous, so much puzzled the coroner that the probability of a suicide had to be expressly discussed and refuted at the inquest. Therefore, Liz Stride’s body was very carefully inspected at the mortuary, and it is absolutely certain that she bore no marks of any violent encounter or heavy fall on the pavement. The medical report would gladly have listed anything of the sort, since it might have offered a clue. But there was nothing apart from those pressure marks on both shoulders; and don’t tell me that being flung on the pavement doesn’t leave any traces: ‘Frances [Coles] may have been thrown down violently because there were wounds to the back of her head’ (Sugden, p. 352 omc).
’… & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.’
It gets more odd by the letter. The notion of noisiness is forcibly attached to the word “scream”, and a low key scream is about the same thing as a thundering sigh. Either you scream at the top of your voice, or you don’t scream at all. And if you scream, you do it because you are frightened. And if you scream because you are frightened, after someone has thrown you down, you’ll also do your utmost to escape: you’ll try to get to your feet again, you’ll fight your aggressor, kick at him etc. There’s plenty of space for action in the time you need to utter three screams. But oddly enough, the woman who has resisted the aggressor’s first approach, now seems content to lie on the street and do a bit of screaming, since…
<i>’The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road “Lipski”…’
Indeed! Aforesaid man didn’t bother to ascertain whether he was seen, before entering on his attack. Now, when the action has developed, and he has a screaming, and probably struggling, woman on his hands, he is at leisure to look round, to spot the bystanders, take in their appearance --- it was Abberline’s theory that ‘Lipski’ was aimed at Schwartz, since he ‘has a strong Jewish appearance’ (Sugden, p.217) ---, to feel disturbed by, and fling the appropriate insult at them. Never mind that there was no way for him of guessing beforehand whether this might not be taken amiss, turning himself into a victim of violence.
Remember that the scene described allegedly took place under the illuminated, and partly open, windows of the Working Men’s Club. There was singing at the club, and everything indicated that at least a handful of wide awake, vigorous and not altogether peacefully disposed young men were at hand to ‘go down in a moment’ and take the right side of any arising quarrel. Yet, from beginning to end, Schwartz’ protagonist behaved in that risky neighbourhood like a heedless, clumsy, belligerent fool. “Courting disaster” is the only appropriate term to classify his MO, which might easily have led to his being lynched at the hands of an infuriated mob, then and there; after all, this was Whitechapel in the grip of wrath and terror, wasn’t it. (A year later, William Brodie, acting in a similar manner, would be duly paid for such foolhardiness!)
’…& then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch…’
& in the light of the club’s shining windows, it is a doubly absurd claim that Israel Schwartz ran away because he felt frightened of a man with a clay pipe in his hands. Having lived in Berner Street up to that very day (by his account to the Star), he must have known of the club’s existence, and that its members were likely to understand him if he cried for help. For as to his speaking only Hungarian: a former subject of the Danube Monarchy would no doubt master plenty of German; and, being ‘in the theatrical line’ (if the Star was right), it’s more than just probable that Schwartz spoke a good deal of Yiddish, too -- which was, at the time, the preferred language of the international Jewish community. Anyhow, crying out aloud in any idiom whatever, would have attracted enough attention to scare one or even two attacker/s away. BTB, Schwartz can’t have lived in ignorance of the murder series: however bad his English, the news of the Berner Street killing reached him within hours. And then, he wasn’t afraid of contacting the police at once. So, on seeing a woman attacked, why did he leave her to her fate, since it would have been such a simple matter to --- at least --- raise the alarm?
’Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together…’
Let me answer that question for him. They weren’t. Unless the three of them had an appointment to meet on that spot at that given moment --- the attacker walking down from Commercial Road, the clay pipe man to rise out of the ground, and the victim to wait in the passage until they materialized, there can have been no connection between the two men. Things might look much different, of course, if the attacker had been the one waiting in the gateway, and the woman the one to pass along ; but as it is, it would have been a highly singular coincidence, if the killer’s lookout had been just in place, arriving from nobody knows where, when the killer was stumbling on a victim.
If you’re indeed able to find ‘a number of reasonable explanations’ for that heap of rubbish told by Israel Schwartz, I’d be curious to know them. But please don’t tell me that after the bystanders departed, the foolish brute Schwartz described suddenly grew avuncular and honey-mouthed --- helping poor Liz to her feet, persuading her to accompany him to the dark spot of his choice (“Here’s some sweetmeats for you, now be a good gal and stop cryin’”). What for should he ill-use her at first, if it needed a lot of coaxing to bring her round afterwards? And why should he take the trouble to linger around in the street cajoling her, being sure now that he had been watched by at least one witness? Incurring the danger of attracting the attention of more people still? Such silly behaviour is not consistent with the man who managed to silently escape from Dutfield’s Yard.
For this once I’ve said my say. So fare ye well till next merry meeting, and have a nice time in between!
FP
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
