Archive through May 3, 1999

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through May 3, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses: Israel Schwartz: Archive through May 3, 1999

Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 02:37 am
Hi Chris If I read you correctly I'm afraid that I wouldn't place Pipeman slightly to the right of the "d" but actually on the corner of Berner Street/Fairclough Street. Of course, as said, my opinion is based on the Pipeman having sheltered in the angled corner entrance to the pub to light his pipe. Either way, the map is incorrect, as Dave Yost has pointed out.
Author: Christopher T. George Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 08:06 am
Hi, Paul: Thanks for your input. I am trying to give the readers an idea of where the pub was since it is not marked on the graphic. I know what you mean, that the second man was emerging from doorway of the pub which was on the corner of Berner and Faircough Streets. What I meant was that the pub was in the vicinity of the "d" in "Yard" in the wording "Dutfield's Yard" shown on the map in the graphic. In reference to the photograph of Berner Street shown in your "The Jack the Ripper A to Z," the doorway to the pub was actually an angled doorway on the northwest corner of Berner and Fairclough Streets. Also in that interesting photograph, the entrance to the Yard is visible a few yards up the street marked by a wagonwheel high up on one of the buildings. As Bob Hinton pointed out to me in an e-mail, the entrance to the yard appears quite narrow, so that Schwartz, if walking at a normal pace, would have been past the entrance quite quickly and at the pub in a matter of seconds. I was also interested in the evidently later photograph of Berner Street in your 1988 "Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts" which seems to show a row of houses completely up the street and the pub modified into a shop. The yard in that photograph seems to have disappeared and replaced by houses. Am I correct? Chris George
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 12:47 pm
Hi Chris Sorry. I was being too literal. No. The photo in "The Uncensored Facts" is of Berner Street in the opposite direction (i.e. away from the murder scene) and I assume the shop will be the chandler's shop visited by witness James Brown for his supper (see pg. 105 p/back). At the time my book was published we didn't know about the "wagon wheel" photo, which was unearthed by Melvyn Fairclough and first used by him. Regarding Bob's observation, according to The StarSchwartz, following the tipsy man, was able to see Stride in the entrance as he approached. He saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her into the passage. At this point he crossed the street. He went a few yards - so was clearly behind the scene of the assalt when he crossed, when he heard sounds of the quarrel. He stepped from the kerb and turned back to look. At this point Pipeman appeared. The police statement differs, suggesting that the man pulled the woman onto the pavement and threw her to the ground. On the whole, I would guess that the assault happened on the pavement (how else could the first man have seen Pipeman and called out 'Lipski' or vice versa?) and could have been witnessed by Schwartz as he approached, passed and looked back. At no point was he very far from the scene until he crossed the intersection with Fairclough Street and began to run. I therefore feel that Schwartz could have seen more detail than Bob has argued. But at the end of the day, who knows for certain!
Author: Christopher T. George Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 02:23 pm
Hi, Paul: Thank you so much for the clarification in regard to the photographs of Berner Street. As you say, "at the end of the day, who knows for certain" what Schwartz saw. I just think, as I remarked to Bob Hinton, he was a brave immigrant--and a non-English-speaking one at that!--to have come forward and offer a statement knowing, as he must, that Jews were among the people suspected of the crimes. I wonder if religious principles might have made him come forth? Is anything further known about Israel Schwartz's life after the autumn of 1888? Incidentally, a clarification for our Stateside and other non-British viewers, when Paul says "pavement," he means what in the United States is known as the "sidewalk." In the U.S., Paul, you may not know, the term "pavement" for some reason is usually reserved for the roadbed. Chris George
Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 02:49 pm
Dear Chris, I totally concur with your assessment of Schwartz. The courage he showed in coming forward is practically unbelievable. I would certainly question whether I would have done the same in his place. Bob Hinton
Author: The Viper Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 05:39 pm
Hello Paul, Chris I am now more confused than ever by this! Having revisted the photograph in 'The Uncensored Facts' and tied it into Paul's information about looking away from the murder scene, I must conclude that this picture is viewing the S.E. intersection of Berner and Fairclough Streets. The chandler's shop which stood at the crossroads and was visited by Brown was, as far as I am aware, at number 48 on the S.W. side and was run by a man called Norris in 1888. The photograph appears to show a shop, but I am unable to trace it at present. If either of you can identify it, and also date the photograph I would be most grateful. I'm still unclear also about your earlier posting, Chris. You, Paul and Dave Yost all appear to concur that Pipeman was either standing in the pub doorway, or had possibly just emerged from the pub. Whilst I also side with that as a likely view, I believe that it is an assumption based on Schwartz's dramatic interview with The Star newspaper, rather than an interpretation of Swanson's comments which most of us would prefer to rely on. Or have I missed something important here? Regards, V.
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 30 April 1999 - 06:03 am
The Star's account of Schwartz's testimony may be the more interesting as it begins events perhaps a minute or two prior to the events at duttfields yard.Schwartz at that time has turned into Berner St,and notices the person in front of him. Schwartz believes the man,from the way he walks,to be under the influence of alcohol.there is no suggestion that the man in front is behaving suspiciously or acting in a furtive manner,and the fact that Schwartz continues to follow on the same side of the street,and at a pace which would soon bring him level,seems to imply that no danger threatened. The action then,coming when it did,would have taken Schwartz by surprise,and he must surely have been confused as to its nature and intensity.Also at that time he would have been either level or still slightly behind the action with his view partially blocked. Reacting as he did,by first crossing the road and then hurrying away,it may be that Scwhartz might have been not only shocked and confused,but frightened as well.Yet he is thought of as a competant and observing witness whose account should not be challenged.
Author: D. Radka Friday, 30 April 1999 - 03:50 pm
Harry, Do you think the man seen by Schwartz was a loiterer waiting for stimulation, i.e., for Schwartz to come walking along? Schwartz implied he somehow just began noticing the man at some point. Why didn't Schwartz notice him before? David
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 02:12 am
Hi Viper - disregard the photo in The Uncensored Facts and look instead at the photo in the A to Z, which is of a later vintage than the murders and shows the pub as a shop. Harry/David - I think the sequence is that Schwartz was some distance behind the man, sufficiently distanced for him to cross the road (probably diagonally as Bob Hinton has said) when he witnessed the altercation outside the Club. He walked past the couple, possibly stealing a look across the road (who wouldn't?) and had passed by when he heard noise of the struggle. He took a step off the curb and looked back, from which we may conclude that he was either curious or concerned or both and not hugely alarmed, shocked or confused. On turning to look back he saw a man either leaving or sheltering in the doorway of the pub, probably the angled doorway on the corner of Berner and Fairclough Street. Schwartz wouldn't have seen the man before because he would have been standing in the shadows of the doorway (or in the pub itself). It is now, when one of the two men called out Lipski (Schwartz didn't know which man called it out), that Schwartz became alarmed. We don't know why. Maybe it was simply because the cry 'Lipski!' was somehow threatening. Maybe Schwartz didn't know why he ran either and in looking to provide some justification converted the pipe to a knife. And if he did run off gripped by an inexplicable panic, maybe he was terrified by the altercation after all.
Author: Harry Mann Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 05:36 am
Hello David,Paul. It was as Schwartz turned the corner from Commercial Road into Berner St that he saw the other man walking some distance in front of him.It is stated that Schwartz reached the entrance to the yard when the incident occured,and then crossed the street.So it may be assumed that Schwartz followed on the same side as the first man and at a faster pace. What the first man was doing before seen by Schwartz is unknown,but the indications are that he was acting in a perfectly resonable way,although little unsteady on his feet. From my experiance people do get confused by a sudden unprepared for action,and the fact that Schwartz finaly ran from the scene,might indicate a build up of fear over a period of time which lasted perhaps just a minute or two. There is one person about whom little has been said,and that is the man seen with Stride in Fairclough St.The time given is the same as Schwartz entry into Berner St,although this cannot be so,but it must have been very close. Perhaps a minute or two for Stride to walk to Duttfield's yard,and it could leave the situation with THREE men in the immediate area and unidentified.
Author: D. Radka Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 01:25 pm
Harry, I've always been struck by the snippet of conversation overheard between Stride and the man in Fairclough Street you mention. "No, not tonight," she said to him. This is an extraordinary thing for a soliciting prostitute to say to a man, and I can't square it any better way than that Stride was working for a pimp that night, and that the man in question had walked up to her spontaneously, not having been approved by prearrangement or hand signal from her pimp for a walk back into Dutfield's Yard, and thus that Stride was putting the John off until some other night when she wouldn't be on the duty of the pimp in question. This has mondo implications all around for the case, as I'm well aware certain of those reading this can discern. (I usually don't speak this openly here, but I'm on my second Natural Light following mowing the spring lawn. Just remember all of this is Copyright David M. Radka, 1999.) What do you think of this theory, Mr. M? Paul, Thank you for your pertinent comment, and I hope you are feeling better still. I agree with you on the identity of the man walking in front of Schwartz. David
Author: Christopher T. George Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 01:55 pm
David: Just keep drinking the Natural Lite :-) First of all, I do not think these women had pimps. In any case, even if they did, the pimps would want them to encourage trade, not turn it away. I think the question, if it was asked of Stride, might have been not a question soliciting her but rather, "Have you seen. . . .?" to which Elizabeth Stride responded, "No, not tonight." In other words, the man may have been looking for another prostitute that he favored or a friend, perhaps. Make sense? Chris George
Author: Christopher T. George Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 02:23 pm
Hi, again, David and all: Apologies. Philip Sugden, in "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper," p. 206, gives the remark by Stride as 'Not tonight, some other night,' so it does sound like a reply to a soliciting enquiry. On the other hand, as reported by Sugden and A to Z, the witness, James Brown, a dock laborer of 35 Fairclough Street, was not totally certain of his identification that it was Stride he saw at 12:45 a.m. -- he was 'almost certain'. As reported by Sugden, his testimony at the inquest on Stride reveals that he apparently did not notice the solitary red rose and maidenhair fern Stride is known to have worn that night pinned to her jacket. So was it Stride? Chris George
Author: Harry Mann Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 05:42 am
Greetings once more. It ocured to me that the man Brown saw was similar in build to the person seen in the company of Chapman and Eddowes,and was adopting a similar pose.That is he was close to and facing the woman,with his back toward possible passer's by.In this position his features were hidden except perhaps from a sideways profile close up. Brown did not see his face,and Harris, the companion of Lawende and Levy,stated that it was his opinion that the three saw nothing more of the man with Eddowes,than the back of his head. It does seem a little more than coincidence that three near identical situtions happened a short while before the women were killed,and in two of those instances words were heard that seem to imply a suggestion to do something or go somewhere. Perhaps Dave it was Stride's pimp,but it could also have been someone with murder in mind.
Author: Bob Hinton Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 06:44 am
Dear Everyone, Very interesting, had anyone noticed that instead of anyone putting forward an idea and refusing to budge from it the correspondents here are more than willing to talk over and discuss theories and ideas even though they don't seem to fit in with their own? Stephen Ryder your work has not been in vain. Here's a few points to mull over. 1. Berner St was not a place normally associated with picking up prostitutes. 2. Stride was not what I term a hardened prostitute. One of the witnesses described her as doing sewing and charring for the Jews but when that wasn't available she did what she had to do. Which implies that when times were hard she did resort to prostitution. 3. Her actions that night do not really fit in with a prostitutes, she was seen with a man walking down the street, she was seen with a man walking up the street, she was coming out of the pub with a man etc etc. Prostitiutes don't spend any great length of time with a customer, they meet, a deal is struck the deed is done. Move on to the next one. None of the other victims were seen wandering around with men. Even Kelly was seen taking her men straight back to her room. So what can we make of the nights events. Let us not forget that Stride was in fairly high spirits that night. She had earned a sixpence, she had a present of some green velvet, she wanted to borrow a clothes brush. She was then seen with a man with whom she seemed to be having a good time. Take this out and look at it on its own. I think she was on a date that night. Try this sequence of events. Stride met her date and they went out for the night. She is seen leaving the pub with a man and is seen canoodling with him. Best & Gardiner even take the mickey out of the couple. Marshall sees them walking arm in arm peacefully down the street. They are thus engaged when she hears that Michael Kidney is looking for her. Possible conversation "Have you seen Michael?" "No not tonight,(I might see him some other night) She then realsises that if the violent Kidney catches her either she or her boyfriend (married?) possibly both are going to get hurt. They split up at the bottom end of Berner St. She starts to walk up Berner St when she sees Kidney drunkenly coming down the street. She ducks into the passageway into Dutfields Yard hoping he will walk by.......... the rest as they say is history.
Author: Stewart P Evans Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 04:25 pm
Regarding the above I thought it may be of interest to quote Brown's evidence from the Stride inquest:- James Brown stated, - I live at 35, Fairclough-street. I saw the deceased about a quarter to 1 on Sunday morning. At that time I was going from my own house to get some supper from a chandler's shop at the corner of Berner-street and Fairclough-street. As I was going across the road I saw a man and woman standing by the Board School in Fairclough-street. They were standing against the wall. As I passed them I heard the woman say, "No, not-tonight, some other night." That made me turn round, and I looked at them. I am certain the woman was the deceased. I did not notice any flowers in her dress. The man had his arm up against the wall, and the woman had her back to the wall facing him. I noticed the man had a long coat on, which came very nearly down to his heels. I believe it was an overcoat. I could not say what kind of cap he had on. The place where they were standing was rather dark. I saw nothing light in colour about either of them. I then went on and went indoors. I had nearly finished my supper when I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder." That was about a quarter of an hour after I got in. I do not think it was raining at the time. I should say the man was about 5 ft. 7 in. in height. He appeared to be stoutish built. Both the man and woman appeared to be sober. I did not notice any foreign accent about the woman's voice. When I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder" I opened the window, but could not see any one and the screams ceased. The cries were those of moving persons, and appeared to be going in the direction of Grove-street. Shortly afterwards I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian-street. I heard a man opoosite call out to the constable that he was wanted. I then saw the policeman run along to Berner-street. By the CORONER.- I am almost certain it was the deceased.
Author: Stewart P Evans Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 04:36 pm
Sorry, the source for the above evidence is The Times, Saturday October 6, 1888, page 6.
Author: Caz Monday, 03 May 1999 - 04:34 am
Hi Bob and all, I get the definite impression that, like in your scenario, Lizzie thought her luck was about to change that night. I also think some of the other victims felt the same at their own finales. Pretty new bonnets, flowers, pressies, a spring in their pre-menopausal steps, a bit of the old flattery, and promises of better lives, more money, no more abusive partners etc, etc. How could a 'girl' resist? Tragically, the change in their fortunes was quite the opposite of what they had been led to expect. Where I differ with your scenario is the endpiece. (I assume you are saying Kidney may have found his Long Liz and put an end to her 'cunning plan'.) I think it was the charming SK, who dealt in all the 'red' flannel, who orchestrated Lizzie's final moments, with a little help from his friend(s) (Ringo Starr or Marti Pellow version, it's your call). Love, Caz
Author: Bob_c Monday, 03 May 1999 - 09:06 am
Hi all, Some time ago, I posted thoughts on if Jack got to know his victims before the day or time of the murder (e.g. Topic 'Did Jack have sex') lulling them into safetey to go with him by e.g. giving presents, buying drinks, having 'normal' sexual acts with them and so on. As by Kelly, whom, it was reported, she met a man on the street who said something to her and they both laughed, it may be that Jack had some real special trick for attracting the Ladies (wish I did). If Kelly hadn't recognised him from before, she seems to have allowed herself to be picked up rather easily, even for a prostitute, by a stranger at the height of the ripper scare. Regards Bob
Author: Bob Hinton Monday, 03 May 1999 - 02:29 pm
Dear Caz, You make some very valid points about new bonnets etc. The reason I think it was more likely to be Kidney who killed Liz is the time between the man seen by Schwartz meeting Liz and the trouble starting, it was practically instantaneous. Now strangely enough usually the only people who can come to blows immediately on meeting are people who know each other quite well. The anger leading to the assault has happened previously. Even with the most obnoxious stranger you usually have to spend a few minutes with them before deciding to slap them. For example the husband who stays too long at the pub, wife enters with Sunday dinner on plate, walks up to hubby - bang "How do you like your steak, medium rare or straight in the face?" The other point is the lack of noise she made. Can you honestly see a woman at that time and place being attacked by a complete stranger, knocked to the floor and only making ' a scream but not very loud' She would have screamed loud enough to raise the dead. However it is unfortunately quite common that when a woman is assaulted by her husband or partner she quite often bears the blows in silence. This even extends to such women being very reluctant to press charges after the event. Of course I can't say for certain but if I was a betting man my money would be on the boyfriend. Bob Hinton PS Who is SK?