|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 13, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Elizabeth Stride:
Archive through March 13, 1999
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 27 January 1999 - 06:10 pm |        | Chief Inspector Swanson (quoted in Anonymous's first paragraph) and Philip Sugden themselves couldn't have said it better. But I believe one of them actually did do better.
Sugden actually finds more discrepencies between James Brown and the trio of Marshall ("small, black, cutaway coat"), PC Smith ("black diagonal cutaway coat"), and Schwartz's ("dark jacket") -- all quotes from Sugden, page 207, paperback edition.
On page 206, Sugden writes: "Marshall's evidence is intriguing because the man he described was similar in appearance to those seen by PC Smith and Israel Schwartz. All three witnesses could easily have observed the same man." (Emphasis mine)
Personally, I don't know what we're supposed to do with eyewitness testimony regarding what a person looked like or how they dressed (good old Schwartz with his plain old dark jacket...what's this diagonal coat and cutaway coat foppery, says the savage) at this stage.
Actions are a different story. Schwartz saw a man attack a woman, the woman go to the ground, and she did not get up while Schwartz rather cooly walked by. A woman was found less than 15 minutes later (no way to judge how long the action Schwartz witnessed took, including his sudden flight), dead, and she was identified as Elizabeth Stride.
Conclusion? Schwartz saw the murder and the murderer. The others may have seen the same man; or they may not -- what they did not see was a man in the act of murdering Stride.
The only alternatives are that both the man who attacked Stride and the man with the pipe and Schwartz ran away, leaving Stride alive, and somebody else came along and killed her. Or -- everybody runs away, Stride arrives, and her murderer comes along and kills her. All this must occur in well under 15 minutes -- you now have to subtract the time it takes for the other participants to arrive, even if Stride stays to be attacked a second time.
Reasonable conclusion? Schwartz saw the murder and the murderer. The others may have seen the same man; or they may not -- what they did not see was a man in the act of murdering Stride.
Is it "proof?" I don't know. But I think that interpretation would hold up in court.
Yaz |
Author: Edana
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 01:13 pm | | About coats.... I have sketched a 'cutaway coat' and a 'frockcoat', and my interpretation of a 'diagonal coat'. I know the cutaway is accurate. It was also called a morning coat, or a riding coat. The frockcoat is also accurate, but the diagonal coat is conjecture on my part, since I'm here at work away from my reference books.
The idea that the ripper wore a 'cutaway' coat is just too, too appropriate in a sick way. |
Author: Caroline
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 01:46 pm | | Hi Edana!
Great drawings! They appeared while I was composing this next post.
Hi Yaz and ‘Nice’ Anonymous!
Thanks for the info.
Yaz,
Can I take you through your first scenario one more time, I think it agrees more with mine than you realised (my own bad description probably!):
A man (my JtR2) is seen meeting Stride. Our mystery man, Schwartz, sees the same man attacking her. So far so good?
My JtR 1 (pipe-man) is not involved in the attack, which is confirmed by Schwartz, but I think it is he who appears on the scene and shouts out. (Abberline reported that Schwartz was unable to say for certain to whom the ‘L’ word was addressed).
The point about Schwartz knowing the name Lipski is exactly what I was trying to get at. He cannot understand a word of English. The name ‘Lizzie’ would mean zilch to him. He is faced with giving as detailed a statement to the police as he possibly can, to be translated into coherent English. The only word he hears and ‘recognises’ is something which sounds to him like ‘Lipski’. Recognising this topical anti-Semitic slur themselves, the police understandably grab this word and take it at face value, like we all have ever since. That doesn’t prove 100% that ‘Lipski’ was what JtR1 actually uttered, just the obvious interpretation at that time.
Digressing a little, Schwartz is indeed a mystery ‘witness’. He makes conflicting statements to the police and the press, his own friend interprets for him, and we do not know for definite if he was called to testify at Stride’s inquest. Intriguingly, the Star’s description of Schwartz as a well dressed ‘foreigner’ in the theatrical line, would appear to match my English suspect for JtR1, who does indeed have a penchant for diguises! (Sounds too Sherlock Holmes for words!). It would be interesting to see if a description of his friend, the interpreter, were to match that of my suspect for JtR2!
Anyway, back to my charming pipe-man, JtR1: he may think his cry of ‘Lizzie!’ will be enough to assure Schwartz that his intervention is not required, and at the same time will give Liz a similarly false sense of security, expecting her sweet-talking, witty ‘friend’ to leap to her aid. (This also assumes they were already acquainted as I said before).
Chillingly, Liz is unaware of the fact that her attacker and potential saviour are in cahoots. Far from coming to her rescue, JtR1 then walks (okay, not runs) after Schwartz, making sure he won’t be interfering again. No wonder Schwartz is as confused as hell! (If he is for real!).
JtR2 is now free to get on with the job in hand, while JtR1 goes off to find Eddowes.
Is that an improvement?
Love, Caroline |
Author: Edana
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 02:53 pm | | Thanks Caroline.
What if JTR1 wasn't yelling either 'Lizzie!' or 'Lipski', but JTR2's name (which would sound like "Lizzie' or 'Lipski') to get his attention. |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 04:47 pm | | Hey All!
Nice work, Edana. I can never visualize this stuff.
Caroline, in reviewing Abberline's statement regarding the "Lipski" cry, I also found that Abberline says that the man with the pipe ran after Schwartz -- not at all apparent from Swanson's summary. But to your points, and I hate to be a pest...
Lipski is unsure who the attacker is addressing with his cry of "Lipski." There doesn't seem to be any question of whether the cry was "Lipski" at all...only what it meant and to whom it was addressed. Abberline seems to focus on the possibility of collaboration between the two men Schwartz saw.
So, as far as I can see, there is little doubt that "Lipski" is what Schwartz heard. Now you can get into a philosophical debate on whether, since Schwartz was a European Jew he would immediately recognize that word OR -- and for the same reasons -- he mistook an English name for a European-Jewish(?) one. I think it's the former case for several reason:
1) Calling out Lizzie to Stride implies her attackers knew her name. No proof of that if Schwartz saw them meet for the first time.
2) Again, calling to Stride overlooks that Stride has already been tossed around and thrown to the ground. I also believe her throat and windpipe has been cut before Schwartz walks past. There is no reason to reassure a woman you've just attacked, possibly having cut her throat.
3) Schwartz went over his testimony with Abberline and probably other policemen. The name called is constantly reasserted -- the question is always to whom it was addressed; did it implicate the man with the pipe?
4) It's too late to warn either JtR1 or JtR2 by calling out "Lizzie" (or even "Lipski") since Schwartz has already seen what he has seen.
5) The only sense any cry makes is to scare the witness -- and Schwartz, in Swanson's summary, keeps remarkably cool-headed for a long time during these events. It was a very stupid -- or very impulsive (angry, uncontrollably angry) -- thing to do. It could have brought more witnesses. If the two JtRs were as cool as one scenario implies, they would never have said a word...warning, reassuring, or otherwise.
There's also no doubt in the police reports/summaries who shlouted -- this was the attacker, not the man with the pipe. English-speaking or no, there's little or no reason to suppose it was the man with the pipe who shouted -- at least according to the police records.
Alex will clobber me, but it's not clear if Schwartz made conflicting statements to the police and press. As Paul once pointed out, the police interviews would have been conducted under opitmal conditions -- best translator, time to go over the whole story and details again and again. The press might have innocently or purposely interpreted Schwartz's statements as is seen in the article. The on-hand translator may have added his/her own color to Schwartz's story to the reporter. We just aren't at all sure of the conditions of the press interview, or who is providing the content, and how accurate it is according to Schwartz. That's why I'd rather stick to Swanson, and now the detail of the man with the pipe actually running after Schwartz provided by Abberline.
Sorry to be such a pest. Ignore what I think the records say if you read it a different way.
Yaz |
Author: Caroline
Friday, 29 January 1999 - 10:43 am | | Hi yaz!
You drive a hard bargain!
It's really important for you to come back at me like this to check and double check what was likely.
Most people have theories to begin with, and then look for supporting evidence. I think I'm doing it the right way round by using the best of my own pieces of 'evidence' (still in the process of being checked out), then finding the best of the theories which fit.
I may be wrong but, as far as I can see, the known suspects for JtR seem to be based on theory or the loosest of circumstancial evidence, with no hard facts to connect killer to crime. My evidence may prove to be unverifiable in 1999, but if not.....I am building up a mass of circumstantial evidence, which is increasing daily with regard to my suspects. I may eventually have the knowledge and courage to reveal all and risk the men in white coats!
I believe Schwartz, and everything he said in 'Hungarian' (did the police have their own Hungarian translator I wonder?), may turn out to be immaterial, or another red herring, time will tell.
Love,
Caroline
PS you give pests a good name! |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 29 January 1999 - 12:40 pm | | Hey, Caroline!
I won't pester you any more about Schwartz or the Stride murder now that you know what my ideas are. I've said what I think I know -- which ain't much. I'd like to hear other ideas on it.
I hope you aren't interpreting what I say as an attack. I admit I got a little out of hand with David -- I ALWAYS end up regretting something I say to him -- but I only resent his special circumstances of possibly accusing others of evils deeds and what not Darth Vader-type behavior.
You always have something interesting and pertinent to say.
Yaz |
Author: Caroline
Saturday, 30 January 1999 - 04:56 am | | Hi Yaz,
Just a quickie before I go off to enjoy my weekend! I never interpret anything you say to me as an attack! I was saying the opposite, that, as pests go, you don't remotely get under my skin!
My bank balance is slowly going down, thanks to all the reference books I am accumulating. I find my library books soooo interesting and pertinent that I am trying to buy them all as souvenirs!
See you next week,
Caroline |
Author: Rotter
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 05:17 am | | | I don't know anything about forensics, much less 19th century forensics, so I have a question. Could the doctors at that time tell the difference between woulds cut in one direction or another, and between different kinds of knives, or is it the case that the doctor only thought he knew? I bring this up because I remember the "expert witness" in the Lizzie Borden case claiming that the axe produced in court was the exact axe that killed old Mr.Borden, when he could have known no such thing. |
Author: Paul Ingerson
Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 10:50 am | | I'm sorry if this is one of those obvious questions that everyone's always asking, but I'm brand new to Ripperology. I only discovered the Casebook website yesterday, and I was very interested to read that Liz Stride knew Dr Barnardo.
I vaguely remember reading a letter in the London Evening Standard around 5 years ago, which suggested that Barnardo might be the Ripper.
I think the argument went that after one of the killings, the police stopped a strange man who was hanging around near the scene. They let him go because they didn't have any evidence to connect him with the murder. He said he was a doctor but didn't give his real name.
Later that night, a witness saw Barnardo arrive home late. He never told anyone where he'd been.
Of course, even if Barnardo was man the police stopped, it doesn't automatically mean that he was also the Ripper.
Unfortunately, I don't remember which night this allegedly happened. Does anyone know if it was the night that Stride was killed? Or if Barnardo fits the description of any of the men seen with her that night?
If he was the Ripper, then maybe he killed Stride because he was afraid that she knew his secret. He wouldn't have mutilated her because he was killing for necessity, not for fun. But the murder could have sparked off his blood-lust, so he went and killed again that same night, this time for pleasure.
Any comments?
PI. |
Author: Difranco27
Friday, 12 March 1999 - 06:56 pm | | | I have been "studying" this case for only a year, and it amazes me how alluring this mystery is. What's even more amazing is how many people are doomed to continue trying to solve it, when we all know in the backs of our heads that it is unsolveable! No one from that time is alive and there is hardly any evidence left. Ther was hardly any evidence to begin with. The case was doomed from the start. But here we are, unable to let go. My husband finds me rather ghoulish in my interest. Are we all hoping that some tell all piece of evidence or a confession is going to surface in some highly unlikely place if we just keep searching? err, umm, that's what I hope for, beacause I know that I am not clever enough to solve it with what we have today. I wish us all luck. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Friday, 12 March 1999 - 07:20 pm | | Difranco27
What a spoil sport !!!!!
Jayzez woman !
Do you specialize in dishing out healthy samples of reality ????
Here we are totally immersed in our own surrealistic world of murder and mayhem, and along comes someone with 20-20 vision and sober as the day is long. Taking sadistic pleasure in waking us all up to the realistic world of practical logic !!!
.....what a spoil sport !
:-) :-) :-)
ok, then now you've spoiled my day :-)
Let me say;
Welcome to the Casebook Madam !!
I hope we can hear more from you and maybe you'll join us in our secluded little world of Jack the Ripper, - your very welcome, Difranco27
:-) |
Author: D. Radka
Friday, 12 March 1999 - 11:02 pm | | DiFranco27,
The case is totally solvable. I believe I have solved it, and will write about it someday. Try to determine the one thing that has to be true about all the murders, and follow it through all the evidence. It will point, reliably I think, to the murderer. His name is not strange.
Good Luck!
David |
Author: Difranco27
Saturday, 13 March 1999 - 12:05 am | | Dear Jon,
I always wanted the opportunity to write that! Anyhow, I'm sorry for spoiling your day. I hope I didn't spoil your weekend as well! ;-) Everything that I wrote was mostly out of hoplessness and frustration. Did you see the letter after yours? Posted by David. It just kills me when people say that they are sure they have solved the mystery, because it just seems so unlikely, and I hate getting my hopes up and being let down. I guess it sounds like I'm giving up? I haven't completely, otherwise I wouldn't stay up till 3:00 am on ocassion perusing the casebook! Thanks for the response! I'll be around... |
Author: Difranco27
Saturday, 13 March 1999 - 12:10 am | | Dear David,
Very interesting. You do realize that you have now put a bug up my butt, and I'm going to go nuts trying to figure out your clues! Do you have anymore hints?? |
Author: Karoline
Saturday, 13 March 1999 - 08:12 am | | 'His name is not strange' - That seems to rule out almost every suspect on the board - apart from Joseph Barnett.
We've certainly seen the last of Francis Tumblety and Rosslyn Donston Thingy, whatever his name is - and Weedon Grossmith is looking more of an outsider than ever, even to those of us who haven't got to p. 33 of his autobiography.
And what is it about people who think they've solved the case that makes them start dropping all these heavy hints? It's madly improvident of them. David, take care - if you've really worked it out then you're sitting on a potential fortune. The press would pay five figure sums for this kind of exclusive. Get your material together and get a contract before you start tapping the side of your nose and winking all the time. What if someone takes you at your word and decides to look for the 'one thing that has to be true', and announce it publicly on the board before you write your book? Newspaper contracts and a fortune in royalties go out the window. A large personal tragedy for you.
Personally, I can think of an almost infinite number of things that 'have to be true' about all the cases, like - all the victims were dead; all the victims were women; all the victims were lying down; all the victims were living in London; all the victims had hair etc....etc.
Am I working this the wrong way? Go on - give us a tiny little additional clue...
Not that I'm trying to get in first - honest!
Karoline |
Author: Caroline
Saturday, 13 March 1999 - 11:06 am | | Okay, Karoline, how do I get a contract?
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Saturday, 13 March 1999 - 01:03 pm | | OK, let's have a go at this one.
Firstly: the suspect has to be visible through secodary sources because David is away and gone on the other side of the Atlantic and presumably doesn't have much access to intensive and extensive primary research.
Secondly, the suspect is male.
Thirdly: "...the one thing that has to be true about all of the murders..." Tricky. There are, as Karoline rightly says,"an almost infinite number of things that 'have to be true' about all the cases," A knife, maybe? Perhaps it really is Frank Cater the Demon Cheesecutter. A misogynist? Well George Grossmith was married with two children but how about Weedon?
Fourthly "His name is not Strange." Well, I'm sure that Doc. Strange, wherever he is, is glad to know that. but does David mean that he's a suspect who has come up before? A name that is common like STEPHENSON!?
Now does any one else want to contribute to the merriment by introducing a suspect whose name is given in Babylonic Cuneiform or by hints in the coded works of Gilbert O'Sullivan? The world waits.
Peter. |
Author: Steven
Saturday, 13 March 1999 - 01:17 pm | | | Karoline, I didn't realise that we have seen the last of Dr Tumblety and Robert Stepehenson, do you know something I don't? They are two of the few genuine suspects. |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Saturday, 13 March 1999 - 02:52 pm | | | Testing automatic archiving mechanism. |
|
|
|
|
