|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 March 14, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
Israel Schwartz:
Archive through March 14, 2001
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 02:47 pm |        | Bob:
To answer the query at the bottom of your post about what Caz meant by "SK," I believe she was referring to our friendly neighborhood serial killer. I think though that your reasons for your belief that the Stride killing was the outcome of a domestic dispute are good ones. Thanks.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 06:49 pm | | Hi Two Bobs and Chris!
Yep, I did mean our Jack the serial killer. And I also think he (JtR1, and possibly also his dimmer second-in-command, JtR2) had already made the acquaintance of Lizzie, to an extent where she was expecting to meet Jack for a very special date that night. The reason she did not scream loudly was that she was completely taken by surprise at the attack (by JtR2). This was not what she was hoping for in her wildest nightmares. A serial killer would not necessarily be trying to provoke an argument, surely? Just following his exact agenda, which has yet to be ascertained (different for each victim, I'll wager).
I'll say it again. Thank God Kidney was not convicted for Stride's murder if he was innocent. The police nowadays would have done him up like a kipper. (Food on the brain again, sorry, grin.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 07:57 am | | Hi all,
Bob, I have also had this idea of Lizzie not screaming loudly indicating that she knew her attacker well. Indeed I am also certain she would have screamed her head off if her attacker were a stranger.
She was, however, a prostitute. Used to the harder side of life, she had certainly suffered enough knocks (The medical report indicating that after the body had been washed, bruises could be seen. Ugh!) It must therefore not absolutely have been Kidney, but another person she seemed to know.
Now we come to the fact that Jack seemed to be able to get the women to lead him to secluded spots at the height of the scare without problem, if the time scales handed down to us are half-way accurate. The question raises it's head again, did Jack get to know the women before attacking? The presents of bonnet, flower etc. may be a clue.
The remarks about women suffering violence in silence at the hands of their men is regrettably all too true. I add, however, that we should also not forget the poor men who suffer just as nasty a violence (this time mental violence), or worse, at the hands of their women. Both types are reprehensible and should be punishable with the hardest measure. I have had professional contact with both types in my life and have had difficulty sometimes not to get emotionally involved. It is unfortunately the smaller, bodily or mentally, who always suffer. A big good'n always beats a little good'n, says VP.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 08:48 am | | Hey all. I think there may be something in this 'gift' thing. Actually after getting through Wallace's 'Light Hearted Friend' book, it was just about the only thing he proposed that struck a chord with me. He said that perhaps the women were tempted with gifts..like the bonnet, the cachous...etc. He was proposing that it was a technique which Carrol used to make friends with little girls...that he always carried a bag (a Gladstone?) full of little trinkets to give to little girls on the trains he was traveling in, etc. Was JTR's bag (if he had one)full of little gifts for older girls?
Edana |
Author: Leonard
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 06:30 pm | | Two versions of the same tale. Schwartz's comments vs. The Star account.
Schwartz account: saw man stop to speak to woman standing in gateway. man tries to pull woman into street. throws her down into street. woman screams three times but not loudly.swa second man on opposite side of street lighting pipe. assailant calls out "Lipski". Schwartz walks away, second man follows.
A brief description but apparently what occured.
The Star account: man walking partially intoxicated. woman standing in entrance to alleyway. half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. put his hand on her shoulder and pushed her back into passage. sound of a quarrel. second man comes out of doorway of public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushes forward as if to attack the intruder. Second man has knife in his hand. This second account was reported by an unknown Hungarian who states positively that he saw a knife in the second man's hand.
The Star reported further that the truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.
A-Z page 388. Also find on the page, nest paragraph: The Star was wrong. There is every sign in the files that his story was "wholly accepted" both on 30th sept. when it was taken and in november when exchange memos discussed the cry "Lipski".
Abberline states that{A-Z page 392} Lipksi was a term of anti-semitic abuse.
I am of the opinion that the statement of the hungarian better fits the scenario of events and sounds like a "pimp" rushing to the aid of his charge. So far I have not encountered any info as to whether or not Stride had a pimp but I do not discount it. If the second man was in fact a pimp, he would have been close to Stride, saw that she was in trouble, shouted a slur at the man, pulled a knife and ran towards him to fighten him off. If this be the case, he might have also thought that Schwartz was involved and after securing Strides safety, could have followed Schwartz a small distance to insure that he did not return also.
If this was what happened, he make a mistake in abandoning Stride, because the ripper apparently observed the whole incident and took advantage of the situation to murder Stride. |
Author: RLeen
Monday, 10 May 1999 - 08:09 am | | Hello All,
The question of Lizzie's apparent lack of volume after being assaulted is, like so many other aspects of the JTR case, open to a multitude of interpretations. The first notion, that she kept schtum because she knew her attacker, does have an element of logic to it. However, it falls down when looked at practically. Let's assume that Lizzie had partaken of more than one G&T that night, similarly the man seen exiting from the pub. Were they known to each other, well that is the question. In my experience within the community I have yet to see two intoxicated persons meet quietly! For some reason, drunks love the sound of their own voices so much that they are bound to share their wit to all in their immediate vicinity. Therefore, if it was indeed someone that Lizzie knew, an irate Kidney perhaps, surely an argument, a greeting, some profanity would have commenced prior to any physical assault.
No, to me the actual reason for Lizzie's meek acceptance of her lot is that the initial attack, when she was "thrown down to the street" is redolent of some terminal action having already been carried out against the unfortunate woman. This scenario means that, rather than three quiet screams being heard, was in actuality whimpers, sobs from a mortally wounded human.
Therefore, Schwartz' testimony is now all the more interesting because if it is accepted that Lizzie was a genuine Ripper victim, the whole ethos of identifying the culprit has been downgraded from impossible to difficult.
Regards
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 10 May 1999 - 10:58 am | | Greetings, Rabbi Leen:
Thank you for your interesting observations. You stated that if Stride was a Ripper victim and Schwartz's testimony is accepted "the whole ethos of identifying the culprit has been downgraded from impossible to difficult." I agree that if Schwartz witnessed the assault, his testimony, if true, improves the chances of identifying her killer, at least marginally. One other point in your post interested me. You state, "In my experience within the community I have yet to see two intoxicated persons meet quietly!" Does this mean that you are located in the East End or in Whitechapel itself?
Thanks
Chris George |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 10 May 1999 - 03:20 pm | | Dear Rabbi,
Very good but I'm afraid no cocoanut.
Your idea of her three screams being the whimpers of a mortally wounded person is original but doesn't fit the facts of the case.
If she had been mortally wounded at this point it means her neck had already been attacked with a knife and she would be spraying blood. In this state a person who is highly excited and or terrified would have a higher than normal heart beat and this would project the blood with greater than normal velocity.
Blood would be sprayed over the pavement over the street and over the walls. This was not so it was flowing from the gas in her neck which suggests most strongly that she was lying down when her throat was cut.
As for your point about two drunks meeting, I agree. However all the witnesses didn't mention anything about Stride being well under the influence, in fact they all report her talking clearly.
I would suspect her assailant was though and this would account for their meeting being described by Schwartz as a 'quarrel' instead of a discussion.
Bob Hinton |
Author: RLeen
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 10:12 am | | Hello to Messrs. Hinton & George
My initial assertion that some terminal activity had occurred to Stride at the moment she was thrown to the ground does not neccessarily constitute a stabbing. I was, perhaps, being wilfully vague and should have specified that the attack may have been in the nature of Lizzie, for talkings sake, having eaten a poisoned cachou. Otherwise I am probably guilty of over-emphasis and should have just said that Lizzie received a surprise blow which winded, and consequently silenced, her. Bruises were found on her shoulder and chest, though there were no facial contusions, which certainly indicates a great deal of coercion prior to the actual murder.
With regards to Mr George's interest in my observation, concerning the behaviour of drunks, my assumption is based upon some years experience of seeing drunks interact in various regions around the U.K. If geographical locale adds credibility to my notion then I must point out that I was resident for some time in Mile End!
Trusting you are well,
Rabbi Leen |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 25 February 2000 - 12:19 am | | I'd like to pose this question, if I may. I'm looking at the map in the front of the A-Z, and since it doesn't have a compass, I'm assuming that the top is north, the left is west, etc.
Exactly how did Schwartz enter Berner Street? The best I can make out is he had been walking on the south side of Commercial Road headed east, then made a sharp right turn onto the west side of Berner. Is this correct? Or, might he have been heading south on Plumber's Row, and crossed Commercial into Berner? Or west on Commercial, then kitty-corner onto the west side of Berner near the corner?
Any help appreciated and recognized. Thank you!
David |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 25 February 2000 - 01:39 am | | From the police report: - "...on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road, and had got as far as the gateway..."
and from the report in the Star: - "As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking..."
Neither report states the direction from which Schwartz came along Commercial Road, but the indication is that he was walking along Commercial Road, probably from the direction of the City, (i.e. in an easterly direction), and turned immediately right into Berner Street walking, as you say, along the west side of the road in a southerly direction. I presume this as the wording indicates that he was on the same side as the attacker of Stride (the west side of Berner Street), and he had "turned the corner from Commercial-road..."
I hope this helps David, I think that Dave Yost has made an especial study of the Schwartz incident and he may have some thoughts on this. |
Author: Diana Louise Comer
Friday, 25 February 2000 - 09:10 pm | | I have been wondering about the identification of Kosminski by Anderson's witness whom many think is Schwartz. I wonder how exactly it went down. Apparently you have a witness at one of the murders. He sees someone in such a compromising situation that this person must be the Ripper. Witness must have gone to the police with his information. How else would they know what he had seen? If he knew Kosminski he would have said, "Kosminski did it, I saw him." Later the witness refused to identify Kosminski under oath. This seems at the outset to be a conflict, until you realize that witness did not want Kosminski executed. An intelligent person would realize that if he did not come forward Kosminski would commit more murders and eventually be caught and hanged. A sensitive person would not want the death of more women on his conscience and if hypersensitive he would blame himself for not preventing Kosminski's execution. So such a person would tip the wink to the police but not follow through with a sworn identification. The other possibility is that witness did not know Kosminski. In that case he would not have become aware that Kos. was a fellow Jew until the identification, unless of course Kos. had a distinctively Jewish appearance.
Finally,if he did not know Kos. he could have only described his appearance to the police. Why, then, was this description so much more fruitful than say, Mrs. Long's description? Could witness have noticed some physical feature which was so outstanding and unique as to make the eventual identification of Kos. a certainty? The possibility of some deformity leaps to mind. The third possibility, besides the witness knowing Kos. by name, or spotting some peculiar physical feature, would be that he tailed him. After spotting Kos. at the crime scene he surreptitiously follows him home and then gives the address to the police. |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 25 February 2000 - 11:38 pm | | Thank you very much, Stewart. I will look up Mr. Y.
David |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 26 February 2000 - 04:07 am | | | There is nothing to suggest that Schwartz was the witness referred to in the 'identification' story, but there is ample evidence to suggest it was Joseph Lawende. I have discussed this in my dissertation 'Kosminski and the Seaside Home' on the Casebook, and also in our new book The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper, for those who may wish to know my reasons for saying this. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 26 February 2000 - 07:49 pm | | Hi, Stewart and all:
I also see that John Richardson was evidently Jewish--the Chapman inquest testimony reveals that he took the Hebrew oath when he testified. There are therefore a number of Jewish witnesses associated with the enquiries, although Richardson is not known to have admitted seeing the killer.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 26 February 2000 - 09:52 pm | | | Is it possible that the "Jewish Witness" is someone none of us has ever heard of? After all a lot of records have been lost and Anderson says the witness got a good look at JTR and that doesn't fit Lawende who according to Sugden said he would not recognize JTR if he saw him again. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 27 February 2000 - 02:37 am | | The existing records, which are quite extensive, do contain overall summaries of the police enquiries for the relevant period and list all the witnesses. It is clear that no witness of any importance has been omitted. Of course what is missing are nearly all the original statements, notebooks, station occurrence books, detention records and such like.
To further complicate matters it is clear that the attempted identification was made well over a year after 1888 and as such would be of limited value as evidence anyway. This would be because any witness who tried to identify someone after such a lengthy period having had only a momentary look at a suspect in less than ideal conditions would be subject to question. Add to this the fact that no-one can be proved to have seen the actual killer anyway, to do this the witness would have to have seen the murder committed and no-one did, then we can see that Anderson's claims for identification must be questionable.
With regard to Lawende's value as a witness we have to refer to Swanson's report of 6th November 1888 [HO 144/221/A49301C ff 184-194, wherein he states: -
1.35 a.m. Three Jews, one of whom is named Mr. Lamende [sic] saw a man talking to a woman in Church Passage which leads directly to Mitre Square. The other two took but little notice and state they could not identify the man or woman, and even Mr. Lamende states that he could not identify the man, but also the woman stood with her back to him, with her hand on the man's breast, he could not identify the body mutilated as it was, as that of the woman whose back he had seen, but to the best of his belief the clothing of the deceased, which was black was similar to that worn by the woman whom he had seen. and that was the full extent of his identity.
Going forward to Macnaghten's report of 1894, [Aberconway version] he says this of witnesses: -
No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was a beat [sic] near Mitre Square) and no proof could be brought against anyone... and, with regard to 'Kosminski' : - ...this man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square.
Much theorising has taken place as to what he meant but eventually it boils down to the probability that Macnaghten was referring to the aforesaid City Police witness Lawende. The only police constable who saw a suspect that night was Pc 452H Smith (and that in relation to the Berner Street murder), and we know he was not the witness Macnaghten is referring to.
Anderson, in his book, stated: -
...the only person who ever saw the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him...
which is annotated in Swanson's copy of the book as follows: -
...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged, which he did not want left on his mind...
I again refer anyone interested in this witness debate to my dissertation 'Kosminski and the Seaside Home' on the Casebook which covers this aspect in much greater depth. However, on 14 February, 1891, James Thomas Sadler was arrested on suspicion for the murder of Frances Coles the day before. This was the last of the 'Whitechapel murders' and there can be no doubt that, for a while, Sadler was regarded as possibly being 'Jack the Ripper.' And, whilst in police custody, Sadler was submitted to an attempted identification by the witness described as - "Probably the only trustworthy description of the assassin was that given by a gentleman who, on the night of the Mitre-square murder, noticed in Duke-street, Aldgate, a couple standing under the lamp at the corner of the passage leading to Mitre-square. The woman was identified as one victim of that night, Sept. 30..." [Daily Telegraph 18 February 1891]. "...The witness has confronted Sadler but has failed to identify him."
Now, in my opinion, it is here we have the genesis of both Anderson's and Swanson's later stories of the failed identification, but told in a simplified fashion. Therefore, in my opinion again, there can be no doubt that Anderson's witness must be Lawende and not Schwartz. I am fully aware of all the convoluted theorising and supposition surrounding this whole question (such as perhaps the witness was not Lawende but Levy etc., etc.), but sorry, I have to go with the facts indicated by what material has survived and that gives a much simpler answer than all the unfounded theorising.
In my humble opinion there is little more to be said on this highly controversial aspect of the story. That is unless you belong to the 'What if...' or 'Just suppose...' turn of mind. |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Sunday, 27 February 2000 - 02:57 am | | Stewart,
I don't want to drag this witness thread out any further than necessary, but I am curious:
What is your opinion on the significance (or lack thereof) of the man who appeared to one of the witnesses, saying, "Old man, I think someone is murdered in the street," or something to that effect.
Begg mentions it but I don't believe Sugden did. Your thought? |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 27 February 2000 - 04:15 am | | Before anyone picks up on the dichotomy of my conclusions as to the origins of the 'Anderson's witness/suspect' argument contained in my dissertation and here may I clarify my position. In the dissertation I make allowance for optimum accuracy in all the statements made by the senior police officers (Anderson, Macnaghten, Swanson) and thus reach my conclusions on that basis. Here I allow for my more controversial opinion that Anderson and Swanson were probably 'cobbling together' the best result scenario for their failure to convict the killer.
Obviously it cannot be proved either way (such is the appeal of this case) and they remain the most likely answers in my opinion.
Michael, as to your query I feel there is very little significance to the passerby who spoke to the witness Patrick Mulshaw who was the night porter at the back of Working Lads' Institute (in Winthrop Street) and was awake between 3 and 4 o'clock and saw and heard nothing. The murder was committed between 3.15 a.m. and 3.45 a.m. (probably nearer to 3.45 a.m.) and the passerby spoke to Mulshaw some time after 4.00 a.m.
The man, who passed by in Winthrop Street, said to Mulshaw, "Watchman, old man, I believe somebody is murdered down the street." as a result of which Mulshaw went to the scene of the murder to find the body still there (it was removed between 4.20 a.m. and 4.30 a.m.) and there were three or four policemen and five or six working men there. These 'working men' would have included the slaughtermen from Barber's.
As the facts indicate that the man who made this statement did so after 4.20 am. and at least 35 minutes after the body was found then the great proabability is that he was merely what he was referred to by Mulshaw, a man who passed by, and not, as some have claimed, the murderer.
I hope this helps. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 27 February 2000 - 07:45 am | | | In my last post I see that the word 'and' in the first sentence should have been a comma for the sentence to make sense, sorry. |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Sunday, 27 February 2000 - 10:24 am | | Stewart,
Thanks for clearing that up.
By the way, will you be joining us in April? |
Author: mark.coldwell
Tuesday, 29 February 2000 - 12:16 pm | | after reading stewart evans excellent dissertation 'Kosminski and the seaside home'i thought that it all made sense i.e schwartz not being the witness and aaron kosminski being the suspect,that was until i suddenly realised that there was a 20 month gap between the last canological murder and kosminski's commital,so what was he doing in that time?
i've only recently looked at the subject of jtr and decided that the best way to approach the understanding, of this subject, was to read the inquests and read fact based info.then relate all this info to the suspects.i can see why people choose kosminski, but it seems strange why some cling to the idea that there were no more murders after his commital,so what about this 20 month gap where there was a distinct lack of mutilated bodies littering the streets? i can understand his motive to start murdering, his madness and possible aural hallucinations "instincts that inform his mind"(a la 'the yorkshire ripper'who claimed he was guided by voices in his head telling him to kill prostitutes)but my understanding of serial killers is that they carry on killing until either caught or physically incapable to carry on. |
Author: peter martin
Sunday, 24 December 2000 - 12:50 pm | | Hi I'm new to this but know the story roughly but have a couple of questions.
1. Did Israel Schwartz identify the man he saw in an altercation to the police?
2.Does anyone know if Tumblety was a smoker and how tall he was?
2. Where did he aquire his collection of body parts?
3. I've read differing accounts of Mary Kelly's time of death could you clear this up please. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 24 December 2000 - 11:25 pm | | Hello, Peter:
Welcome to the boards. Some of your questions unfortunately cannot be answered definitively, but here goes:
1. You say, "Did Israel Schwartz identify the man he saw in an altercation to the police?" As far as we can tell, Israel Schwartz did not positively identify the man he saw in an altercation with Elizabeth Stride. On the other hand, if as some think Schwartz may be the reluctant witness who refused to identify the suspect in Anderson's story, perhaps he did know who her killer was.
2. You ask, "Does anyone know if Tumblety was a smoker and how tall he was?" Tumblety was about 5 feet 11 inches tall, taller than most suspect descriptions. I do not know if he smoked but most men of that day did, so it is a pretty good guess that he probably did.
3. "Where did he aquire his collection of body parts?" The origin of his collection is not known. The possible implication that he may have got his collection, which he was known to have in the United States decades before coming to Whitechapel, from women he murdered (I don't believe Evans and Gainey suggest this, but some may think it) is probably not so--he probably bought the specimens for display in his doctor's office to give him the cachet of a medical man.
4. Your final question is the most nettlesome of the lot. Sorry! "I've read differing accounts of Mary Kelly's time of death could you clear this up please." I'm sorry to say this question can't be cleared up definitively, because there is a big debate about when she died. Depending who you listen to, you will hear times varying from 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. In fact, there have been heated arguments on these boards on this very question. There are at least witness statements that say that MJK was up and walking about about 9:00 a.m., and observers who believe these statements will either tell you she was killed after that, or they may hold to the view that this shows she escaped death and it was someone else killed in her place. Keep reading and keep an open mind on the different theories, Peter! Again, welcome to the boards. There is a lot of great information to be learned here and a lot to discuss. Perhaps too much! Enough to last you a lifetime. ha ha 
Chris George |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 25 December 2000 - 08:31 pm | | ...Continuing along on the subject of the time of Mary Jane Kelly's death, I used to accept the earlier hour, but of late have some reason to believe Mrs. Maxwell might have been correct. I am up for a discussion on this, if anyone else is.
David |
Author: Diana
Monday, 25 December 2000 - 09:57 pm | | Copied from the Casebook:
8:30 AM: Caroline Maxwell, a witness at the inquest and acquaintance of Kelly's, claims to have seen the deceased at around 8:30 AM, several hours after the time given by Phillips as time of death. She described her clothing and appearance in depth, and adamantly stated that she was not mistaken about the date, although she admitted she did not know Kelly very well.
10:00 AM: Maurice Lewis, a tailor who resided in Dorset Street, told newspapers he had seen Kelly and Barnett in the Horn of Plenty public house on the night of the murder, but more importantly, that he saw her about 10:00 AM the next day. Like Maxwell, this time is several hours from the time of death, and because of this discrepancy, he was not called to the inquest and virtually ignored by police.
Bowyer and McCarthy discover the body of Mary Jane Kelly.
10:45 AM: John McCarthy, owner of "McCarthy's Rents," as Miller's Court was known, sends Thomas Bowyer to collect past due rent money from Mary Kelly. After Bowyer receives no response from knocking (and because the door was locked) he pushes aside the curtain and peers inside, seeing the body. He informs McCarthy, who, after seeing the mutilated remains of Kelly for himself, ran to Commercial Road Police Station, where he spoke with Inspector Walter Beck, who returned to the Court with McCarthy.
I have cut up chickens in the process of cooking. I have cut up cuts of beef. I guarantee you that the damage done to Mary Kelly was not done in under an hour. (Lewis) Maxwell is a little more problematic but unless Jack glommed onto her two minutes after Maxwell spotted her, rushed her home and commenced immediately I think there is a time problem. Would a prostitute pick up a customer mid-morning or would that be more likely to happen in the evening? |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 26 December 2000 - 03:46 pm | | David, Diana,
The value of Maurice Lewis as a witness was discussed in detail here about two years ago. The conclusions reached still hold good in my view and you can read them on these boards.
Caroline Maxwell cannot be swept away quite so easily, yet her evidence did conflict with the other witnesses at the inquest and she was cautioned by the coroner prior to testifying. Though she claimed to know Kelly well it must have been by sight only, since it transpired that the two rarely spoke. If she was wrong we can only speculate as to the reason, but my suspicion is that she was something of a publicity seeker who embellished her original story and then felt she had to persevere with it. It cannot be correct, as some people have argued, that she got the events right but the day wrong. Her statement was dated 9th November – the same day of the murder – and the inquest was held only three days later.
Obviously a long time elapsed between the murder and the examination of the body by Dr. Phillips, and coupled with the gross mutilations there is endless scope for debate about the time of death. However, two witnesses stated that they heard a cry of "Murder" at or slightly before 4 a.m. and this would seem the most likely time. Any other theory needs to explain the testimony of those witnesses.
This is being discussed under Israel Schwartz. Any further debate on this topic should transfer to a more appropriate board.
Regards, V. |
Author: peter martin
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 01:22 pm | | Hi Chris
I've thought of a couple of other things
What happened to the bloodstained shirt that a landlady in Batty street informed the police about? Is it still in the hands of the police as it obviously could give up quite a bit of information like DNA, size of owner etc.
Is the graffiti still regarded as a clue or a coincidence.
Sorry if you get this twice I might have sent it already with other questions.
Pete |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 02:11 pm | | Hi Peter:
To the knowledge of the top experts in the case, none of the evidence has survived in terms of, for example, the bloody piece of apron from Catherine Eddowes in Goulston Street or the bloody shirt belonging to the lodger in Batty Street, or the possessions of the victims. It is always possible that these artifacts might turn up, as did for example, the photographs of Mary Jane Kelly, which were found by Donald Rumbelow in the Scotland Yard files, or the sketches of Mitre Square and of Eddowes by Frederick William Foster which were actually found in a drain at the London Hospital! These finds were, I understand, all within the last thirty years.
In terms of the Goulston Street graffito, Stewart P. Evans has expressed the view that this chalked writing on a door jamb in an entranceway leading into Wentworth Model Dwellings just happened to be near the piece of Eddowes's apron but was not, in his view, written by the murderer. Because the tenements were largely inhabited by Jews, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren ordered the inscription to be scrubbed off the wall to avoid any anti-Jewish rioting, rather than for any more sinister reason as is sometimes claimed by the more sensational writers on the Ripper case.
Not very helpful, Peter, but you wanted to know the facts!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: peter martin
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 07:42 pm | | Thanks Chris, the whole case seems to be a mass of peaks and pitfalls.
My initial theory was based around Tumblety being the second man Schwartz saw with the pipe. I thought maybe Tumblety had hired a local to aquire some women for him. I reasoned that Tumblety had followed Schwartz home, I think it's only about 300 metres from the scene of the crime and maybe Schwartz had thought he hadn't been followed so far. This to me would account for one of the letters received by a witness threatening to mutilate them.
But now I think Tumblety was not JTR, and I think it was a loner. Tumblety was in his fifties and this seems not to fit in with witness accounts.
I did find the technique on JTR's method of killing interesting, it seems possible that the first man Israel Schwartz saw throwing his victim to the ground could have been going for the kill having failed in initialising a strangulation. This leads me to thinking it could have been Wiliam Bury.
I am curious about the double murder though, if the the time between the first and the second murder is about half an hour and the distance covered is about half a mile then wouldn't the second victim become aware that the man approaching her was (must have been) sweating, agitated or hyper having just killed someone and on the verge of doing it again!? Plus he must have had some blood on him. But isn't the witness accounts of the men seen talking with the second victim, it's more of a general conversation taking place.
I don't know what to make of this, also he must have made his way home in an odd direction having left the apron fragment in Goulston street maybe writing the graffito, maybe not, then maybe dropping the knife in Whitechapel.
Tough stuff!
I did read somewhere of a couple of women talking to a man washing his hands of blood at a stand pipe. Do you know anything about this?
Thanks, there is an endless parade of possible murderers, I thumbed through an A-Z of JTR suspects a while back and it seemed like 1 in 10 residents were a suspect (Well an exageration, but I didn't know there were so many possibilities).
Pete |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 08:41 pm | | | Tumblety is what is know in the 'trade' as a "red herring". Another man with a black dog, it seems. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 12:05 am | | Question...
Does anybody really give Schwartz's testimony any credence? Martin Fido pointed out on the Goulston Street Graffito board that the writer wouldn't have been able to see what he was writing two inches from his face. If this is so, how did Schwartz see Liz Stride's face from the distance he was at, which was considerable when taking into account the gas lighting. Also, I'm sure everyone on this board is aware of the studied done on the accuracy of eyewitness accounts and how the attention of the witness is generally turned towards whatever is threatening, usually a weapon. In this case it would have been the attacker, who was partially obscuring Stride. How could Schwartz be so sure it was her upon viewing the corpse? By his own testimony he was shaken by the ordeal, and even frightened after the man with the pipe emerged seconds later. Also, and this is just thinking aloud, but the poor of the East End, being generally malnourished and unquestionably poor, would not have been able to afford proper eyewear should it be needed, and it often is, particularly for people over the age of 30. How can we be sure that Schwartz's eyesight was 20/20? Then, let's also take into account that Schwartz told a different story to the press. You could blame that on the journalist or his editor, but you don't know that.
I'm not saying that Schwartz lied about what he saw, but I am suggesting that perhaps the woman he saw being attacked was not Liz Stride. What do you think?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 06:02 am | | | It is perfectly possible that the woman he saw was not Liz Stride. What makes it likely that it was Stride though is the timing and general improbability of two women being assaulted in the same place within minutes of one another. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 07:43 am | | NB, too, Tom, Lawende's ID-ing Katherine Eddowes by her clothes. That sort of general appearance, rather than a face, is likely to lie behind these night-time IDs, unless a gas lamp was just above the person observed.
Martin F |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 11:29 am | | Martin,
I've always thought that Schwarz was a witness in your favour as only the raving lunatic (or the conspirators) would persist in killing Liz Stride after clearly having been seen in the early stages of an assault upon her.
Matt |
Author: Diana
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 01:26 pm | | | Frightening or stunning events tend to get burned into our brains. There is a phenomena here in the U.S. Everyone who was alive and old enough in 1963 to register the event can tell you exactly where they were and what they were doing when they got the news that President Kennedy had been shot, no matter how trivial that activity was. I realize that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable but I believe that when the witness experiences a strong emotion in connection with the event it tends to intensify memory. Most of the policeman who viewed MK's remains at Miller's court said they couldn't get the image out of their minds, precisely because it was so disturbing. Schwartz got scared enough to run. So there was a strong emotional context to his view of events. Memories that I have of early childhood (patchy at best) tend to revolve around emotionally intense events: a birthday party, being hit by a car (I ran out into the street at age 5), etc. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 04:20 pm | | Matthew
- If the Ripper was in a state of raving mania by September 30, I do not believe he could have remained at large for the whole of October and the first week of November. My conjecture is that while in some sense always insane, he was preserved from slipping into downright raving as long as he could alleviate his building inner tension by the outbursts of savagery in his murders. When the district was so swamped with police patrols that it became harder and harder for him to achieve this (as we observe the intervals between murders growing longer) he finally exploded and was quickly picked up and committed to the asylum.
Martin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 04:09 pm | | Diana,
Although I was nowhere near born when Kennedy was shot, I am aware from people who were alive at the time that you are correct in what you say regading their memory of what they were doing when they heard the news. However, you should keep in mind the confusion as to what happened by those who were actually there and witnessed the event. Hearing about something and actually witnessing something horrifying are two totally separate occurences. One can even influence the other. Those who see something can hear further ideas of what may have happened, or hear what others saw and these can become confused in their minds with what they actually saw and can become hard to differentiate. As to what the officers saw in Mary's room, I do not doubt it became permanently etched in their minds, however the mind's eye can be very biased when one's personal safety is threatened, as Mr. Schwartz thought his was. You zero in on what's threatening you and it's like everything outside of that disappears.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 04:31 pm | | Diana and Tom,
I can second Tom's observation that,
"the mind's eye can be very biased when one's personal safety is threatened, as Mr. Schwartz thought his was. You zero in on what's threatening you and it's like everything outside of that disappears."
Once, in my life, I had the unfortunate experience of being, as they say, "stalked" by someone who for personal reasons over a period of time was threatening harm. It is psychologically devastating and you think of nothing else and your perception of all things, including memories of the past and fears of the future are undeniably altered.
I am not exactly certain if this would apply in this case, but I do think Tom is quite right, given my own unpleasant experience.
--John (I know, I know, you're all saying, "Well, I can see why *he* was stalked, the annoying bastard..." But it was nothing like that, I promise...) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 07:21 am | | Hi All,
I can relate to that, but in a much smaller way. My daughter went through a few experiences at school, in which one jealous fellow pupil would hide or take some item of her equipment, such as her science goggles or, in the worst case, she ripped a whole essay out of her English exercise book. My daughter actually made very little outward fuss (apart from being understandably upset at losing her hard work), and felt sorry for the person, assuming she must have the bigger problem. But the other day my daughter couldn't find her pursebelt while changing from her PE kit, and the sick feeling started again in the pit of her stomach. After a lot of miserable searching around, she discovered she was wearing the bloody thing all the time! What made it worse was that the teacher, unaware of the unhappy experiences that taught her to fear the worst, gave her a real mouthful for being stupid, unobservant and not thinking what she was doing.
Lessons in life I guess - none wasted.
Sorry for digressing, but Tom and John both made excellent points IMO.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
