Pub or Street?

[Leather_Apron]

My opinion is he met them in the street. Thats not to say he didnt "scope" a few out at the pubs. If he had left with any of them from the pubs I feel someone would have remembered such a thing. Im pretty sure things went quickly with Eddowes. Jtr must have known a quick "corner" to find a willing participant. Eddowes must have known the same "corner".

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We need new evidence is what I mean, not just new theories and ideas. Those, of course, are interesting and useful, but without more evidence to further constrain our ideas, we just get more suggestions to file. Still, it's always interesting to read and consider the ideas people come up with.

As I see it, it's not so much a question of obtaining more evidence, but of how existing evidence is interpreted.
Perhaps that's what a theory is, but whatever, I believe there is already enough evidence to ascertain the probable identity of JtR.
That is something for another thread, though.

[DJA]

Once again ..... pipeman was prolly the prop of the bottleshop having a knockoff pipe,the other being Schwartz.

Blitz attack my ....

[JeffHamm]

The Star Oct 2, indicates that two men were arrested in relation to Schwartz' evidence - one based on description, the other 'on that furnished from another source'.
If the first man is Pipeman, and this man was cleared, what was the other man cleared of?

The fact that both men were cleared tells us nothing about their possible identity.
They may have both had watertight alibis, which had them well away from Berner St that night.
These men were not cleared as Pipeman, they were cleared, in effect, from being Pipeman.

That certainly is possible. Like I said, it may or may not have been that pipeman was identified. The fact that two were arrested and cleared doesn't mean neither could have been pipeman. We don't know enough about these arrests, which is what is so frustrating.

Now we have to ask what 'another source' refers to.

The Star Oct 1:

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.


Some sort of incident may well have occurred, quite possibly involving Liz Stride, but very different in detail to that described (inconsistently) by Schwartz.
I would suggest that Schwartz has used this incident in creating his own story.
Schwartz' story is a sort of blend of real and fake details, which accounts for its instability.
It must be of concern to Schwartz believers, that the pipe turns into a knife within 24 hours, and that the aggressive behavior of both men in the Star account, makes it unclear who would be the likely murderer.

I think that sounds very much like what Schwartz describes in many ways, though it suggests there was more than one witness to this, and that no notice was taken. The papers get a lot of things wrong, but the gist of the encounter between the man and women sounds like what Schwartz described. The papers are not great with respect to their accuracy, so I wouldn't put too much stock in every detail, and focus on the ones that are corroborated from the investigation notes and documents. Even those must be viewed carefully.

We both know that's not what I'm suggesting.

I know, I was just having a bit of fun.

Given how seriously Scotland Yard (as opposed to Leman St) seems to have taken Schwartz' statement, we surely would have heard something from someone, at some time, if Schwartz' story has been corroborated. It would have created a minor sensation. We hear nothing, though.

Yes, that is a reasonable expectation. But there's a lot of information missing now. We don't even know why Schwartz didn't testify at the inquest, and there doesn't appear to be any further mention of him in the police files at all. If he had been shown to be telling fibs, I'm sure the police would have informed home office (who took Schartz's statements very seriously), but we just get a big vanishing act. It's another frustrating aspect of the case, the lack of information about how people were cleared, and why witnesses appear to stop being of interest.

I'm not sure 'noisy' is an accurate description of the club that night.
I think the acoustics of Berner St and the quietness of the street, would suggest that any screams or cries for help, would have been heard. Yet nothing was.

The club members were singing and socialising at the time. It might not have been so loud as to cause a disturbance, but I would think that to someone in the ally it was loud enough that they would be aware there were people up and active within the building.

As for the notion of a blitz attack, let's compare the thuggish behavior of BS Man, with part of the description of the victim's general state, given by PC Lamb:

Morning Advertiser, Oct 3:

Her face was not more than five or six inches from the wall. Her clothes were not disturbed. No part of her legs was visible, and the boots could scarcely be seen excepting the soles. She looked as if she had lain quietly down. There was no appearance of her having struggled in any way. Her dress was not crumpled.

Does that sound remotely like BS Man?

No, that sounds like Liz Stride!

Blitz attack just means sudden and unexpectedly. That's what Schwartz describes, BS just stumbles down the street, speaks for a second or two to Liz, then attacks her and throws her to the ground. That would be a blitz attack. It doesn't have to be a frenzied all out assault.

So we need something new and fresh. Let me see what I can come up with ...

We need new evidence is what I mean, not just new theories and ideas. Those, of course, are interesting and useful, but without more evidence to further constrain our ideas, we just get more suggestions to file. Still, it's always interesting to read and consider the ideas people come up with.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well, if they've identified and cleared pipeman then there would be no need to follow up on him further.

The Star Oct 2, indicates that two men were arrested in relation to Schwartz' evidence - one based on description, the other 'on that furnished from another source'.
If the first man is Pipeman, and this man was cleared, what was the other man cleared of?

The fact that both men were cleared tells us nothing about their possible identity.
They may have both had watertight alibis, which had them well away from Berner St that night.
These men were not cleared as Pipeman, they were cleared, in effect, from being Pipeman.

Now we have to ask what 'another source' refers to.

The Star Oct 1:

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Some sort of incident may well have occurred, quite possibly involving Liz Stride, but very different in detail to that described (inconsistently) by Schwartz.
I would suggest that Schwartz has used this incident in creating his own story.
Schwartz' story is a sort of blend of real and fake details, which accounts for its instability.
It must be of concern to Schwartz believers, that the pipe turns into a knife within 24 hours, and that the aggressive behavior of both men in the Star account, makes it unclear who would be the likely murderer.

I'm sure they're not saying they're not going to investigate the murder itself after all.

We both know that's not what I'm suggesting.

I would think that yes, if pipeman had been located and cleared, he would have also added details, or at least corroborated Schwartz's story. Unfortunately, we do not know what information he provided, and so do not know to what extent his description of the night corroborates Schwartz. There's certainly nothing that says Schwartz's story was found to be completely untrue and a total fantasy, but at the same time, we do not have a second witness who's testimony corroborates him either.

Given how seriously Scotland Yard (as opposed to Leman St) seems to have taken Schwartz' statement, we surely would have heard something from someone, at some time, if Schwartz' story has been corroborated. It would have created a minor sensation. We hear nothing, though.

Schwartz's testimony, if one decides it is a true event but goes with Abberline's suggestion that BS was insulting Schwartz, and goes with the notion that pipeman was not involved, would provide a description of JtR (though not overly specific). It also would provide insight into how JtR might sometimes operate (sudden blitz attack, with little actual interaction with the victim). We also have a direction from which he was coming. We also have to wonder why Stride was not mutilated, though a murderer leaving the scene quickly is not entirely surprising and sticking around to mutilate someone might even require JtR to feel safe enough to do so; something about the noisy club might have indicated to him this was not a safe place to continue. The other locations were all at least fairly quiet places, even if they were out in the open.

I'm not sure 'noisy' is an accurate description of the club that night.
I think the acoustics of Berner St and the quietness of the street, would suggest that any screams or cries for help, would have been heard. Yet nothing was.
As for the notion of a blitz attack, let's compare the thuggish behavior of BS Man, with part of the description of the victim's general state, given by PC Lamb:

Morning Advertiser, Oct 3:

Her face was not more than five or six inches from the wall. Her clothes were not disturbed. No part of her legs was visible, and the boots could scarcely be seen excepting the soles. She looked as if she had lain quietly down. There was no appearance of her having struggled in any way. Her dress was not crumpled.

Does that sound remotely like BS Man?

That's not going to solve things, of course, but there's information there that could help understand events at other murders. But no, Schwartz's testimony is not going to solve the case. If it was, it would be by now since his testimony has been available since 1888. Personally, I don't think there's enough evidence and information currently available to solve the case, and until something new and fresh is discovered, the best we can do is try and sort out the more probable from the less probable, given that at the moment pretty much anything could be possible.

So we need something new and fresh. Let me see what I can come up with ...

[drstrange169]

To bring this thread back on topic, I was reading one of Montague Williams's book about his East End experiences this morning. He claimed Lodging houses sold alcohol under the counter so to speak.

[DJA]

Packer also ran a costemongers cart and had returned home due to the earlier rain.

[Wickerman]

Are you suggesting that Packer was in the habit of wrapping grapes in newspaper, in such a way as to make it look to the uninitiated, like a parcel (relatively flat and evenly so), who's dimensions just happen to match that of the publication printed next door?

Packer was a poor backstreet resident who sold a few paltry fruits & veg through a window in his home.

No, he certainly did not go out and purchase bags to package his cheap fruit, he used newspaper, folded into packages, saches, like everyone else of his class.
Flowers were wrapped in newspaper, butchers wrapped their produce in newspaper; kidneys, sausages, mince, and all cuts of beef, etc. Hot and cold food street vendors used newspaper, we still bought Fish & Chips wrapped in newspaper when I was a kid.
In the Victorian era newspaper was used by the poorer classes to wrap their produce, it was free and readily available.

.....who's dimensions just happen to match that of the publication printed next door

Says who?
PC Smith was estimating, Tom has adopted an estimate as if it was a factual statement, it wasn't.

[JeffHamm]

If 'the truth of the story' simply refers to a disputed interpretation of the behavior of one the stories characters, why is Leman St station 'not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts'?

How could Pipeman have been identified and cleared, as you suggest, without having at least partially corroborated Schwartz' story?
Did Pipeman miss the whole thing too, even though he walked out of the pub when Stride was down on hands and knees, screaming 3 times at a moderate volume, and then himself quickly lighting his pipe, before hearing a man near the woman, call out 'Lipski', then with lit pipe in hand, proceeding to walk towards Schwartz, who sprinted off into the darkness for no apparent reason?

I wonder if he bothered going back to check on the woman, before leaving her at the mercy of BS Man, instead of just running away too, for no good reason?
This is a perfectly reasonable thing to ponder, if both men a real, but not accomplices.

No doubt Leman St knew the answers to all these questions, thanks in part to Abberline's insightful interpretation.
Or maybe not.

A more general question; at what point will a belief in Schwartz' tale start paying off? That is, taking us closer to discovering the identity of JtR?

Hi NBFN,

Well, if they've identified and cleared pipeman then there would be no need to follow up on him further. I'm sure they're not saying they're not going to investigate the murder itself after all.

I would think that yes, if pipeman had been located and cleared, he would have also added details, or at least corroborated Schwartz's story. Unfortunately, we do not know what information he provided, and so do not know to what extent his description of the night corroborates Schwartz. There's certainly nothing that says Schwartz's story was found to be completely untrue and a total fantasy, but at the same time, we do not have a second witness who's testimony corroborates him either.

Schwartz's testimony, if one decides it is a true event but goes with Abberline's suggestion that BS was insulting Schwartz, and goes with the notion that pipeman was not involved, would provide a description of JtR (though not overly specific). It also would provide insight into how JtR might sometimes operate (sudden blitz attack, with little actual interaction with the victim). We also have a direction from which he was coming. We also have to wonder why Stride was not mutilated, though a murderer leaving the scene quickly is not entirely surprising and sticking around to mutilate someone might even require JtR to feel safe enough to do so; something about the noisy club might have indicated to him this was not a safe place to continue. The other locations were all at least fairly quiet places, even if they were out in the open.

That's not going to solve things, of course, but there's information there that could help understand events at other murders. But no, Schwartz's testimony is not going to solve the case. If it was, it would be by now since his testimony has been available since 1888. Personally, I don't think there's enough evidence and information currently available to solve the case, and until something new and fresh is discovered, the best we can do is try and sort out the more probable from the less probable, given that at the moment pretty much anything could be possible.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Given we know Abberline believed that Schwartz was wrong in his statement suggesting Pipeman was an accomplice of BS through the Lipski shouting, that would account for the police doubting the truth of the story (Particularly if pipeman had been identified and cleared, adding weight to Abberline's interpretation), then that would be entirely consistent with the Star reporting the police have reason to doubt Schwartz's story. In fact, we already know the police doubted Schwartz's interpretation. But that doesn't mean they thought the entire event was a fabrication, or that Schwartz was a liar, rather we already know the police believe Schwartz was mistaken in his interpretation that pipeman was connected to BS. In other words, we know what it is quite specifically that would lead the police to doubt the truth of Schwartz's statement, the pipeman/broad shouldered man team aspect of it.

- Jeff

If 'the truth of the story' simply refers to a disputed interpretation of the behavior of one the stories characters, why is Leman St station 'not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts'?

How could Pipeman have been identified and cleared, as you suggest, without having at least partially corroborated Schwartz' story?
Did Pipeman miss the whole thing too, even though he walked out of the pub when Stride was down on hands and knees, screaming 3 times at a moderate volume, and then himself quickly lighting his pipe, before hearing a man near the woman, call out 'Lipski', then with lit pipe in hand, proceeding to walk towards Schwartz, who sprinted off into the darkness for no apparent reason?

I wonder if he bothered going back to check on the woman, before leaving her at the mercy of BS Man, instead of just running away too, for no good reason?
This is a perfectly reasonable thing to ponder, if both men a real, but not accomplices.

No doubt Leman St knew the answers to all these questions, thanks in part to Abberline's insightful interpretation.
Or maybe not.

A more general question; at what point will a belief in Schwartz' tale start paying off? That is, taking us closer to discovering the identity of JtR?

[Michael W Richards]

Where did JtR approach his victims? In the pub on the street? Did he buy them a few drinks first or did he simply proposition them on the street? Is there any evidence in favour of one over the other?

Tristan

I think the times that most of the pubs would have closed is the relevant factor here Tristan. In Pollys case and Annies I don't believe any public houses were still open and one would wonder what they did for the time since their closure until the killing happened. In Stride case, she hadn't been drinking, and Kate hadn't been drinking since just after dinner time. Mary may fit that pattern, if Blotchy bought her drinks at a pub, then got invited in and killed her.

I believe in the case of the murders of Polly and Annie we have one killer posing as a client then when he feels he has the opportunity, he strikes with commitment. He goes to work quickly. The only significant difference in these 2 murders is the degree of mutilations, almost certainly due to his venue choice in the first killing, but the abdominal focus after the killing cuts does seem to indicate a desire to cut further. He chose weaker prey, Polly dizzied by booze, and Annie by illness. I think he let them lead, in Pollys case he got too anxious. But I don't think he had a premeditated escape plan. He wouldn't know ahead of time which prospect he would choose, nor where he would end up with them. I think thats the key to his being a local man. No matter where he killed, he felt he could manage his way out of there.

I think he liked being thought of as some kind of ghost.

[JeffHamm]

The Star, Oct 2 '88:



So the Leman Street police had 'reason to doubt the truth of the story' - a polite way of saying they thought Schwartz was liar, who made the whole thing up.
The sentiment of the writer appears to indicate that he is of a similar opinion.

Given we know Abberline believed that Schwartz was wrong in his statement suggesting Pipeman was an accomplice of BS through the Lipski shouting, that would account for the police doubting the truth of the story (Particularly if pipeman had been identified and cleared, adding weight to Abberline's interpretation), then that would be entirely consistent with the Star reporting the police have reason to doubt Schwartz's story. In fact, we already know the police doubted Schwartz's interpretation. But that doesn't mean they thought the entire event was a fabrication, or that Schwartz was a liar, rather we already know the police believe Schwartz was mistaken in his interpretation that pipeman was connected to BS. In other words, we know what it is quite specifically that would lead the police to doubt the truth of Schwartz's statement, the pipeman/broad shouldered man team aspect of it.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There are reports of people being brought in and questioned by the police that suggest that Pipeman was, in fact, identified, questioned, and presumably cleared. It's not definitive, as with much of what we have, and the reports could of course be referring to something/someone else (we don't know for sure - that's the annoying thing, is there's a lot of suggestive evidence that appears to be more specific than it really is). However, the fact remains that the reports are consistent with Pipeman being a real, and identified, individual so to assert there's not the slightest evidence that these men actually existed is incorrect. There is some evidence to suggest pipeman may have existed, and was indeed identified.

I'll apologize now for not having the source of those reports at hand, but they're mentioned in a few threads so you'll come across it eventually.

- Jeff

The Star, Oct 2 '88:

The threads that had been taken up on the possible chance of their leading to something tangible have been laid down again. It is but fair to say that the police have clutched eagerly at every straw that promised to help them out, but there is nothing left to work on. People have come forward by scores to furnish the description of a man they had seen with some woman near the scene, and not a great while before the commission of one or the other of Sunday morning's crimes, but no two of the descriptions are alike, and none of the accompanying information has thus far been able to bear investigation. In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts. If every man should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them. There are many people in that district who volunteer information to the police on the principle of securing lenient treatment for their own offences, and there are others who turn in descriptions on the chance of coming near enough the mark to claim a portion of the reward if the man should be caught, just as one buys a ticket in a lottery. Even where such information is given in good faith, it can rarely be looked upon in the light of a clue.

So the Leman Street police had 'reason to doubt the truth of the story' - a polite way of saying they thought Schwartz was liar, who made the whole thing up.
The sentiment of the writer appears to indicate that he is of a similar opinion.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

On the subject of a good old fashioned "lock in" down the local, these were, in my experience, limited to small numbers of regulars. It would seem unlikely that he would have gone unnoticed or unrecognised. Unless? Has anyone got a Pub Landlord theory? Suits the timings, provides a local safe house. Knowledge of the victims. Hmm?
I'll just grab my business directory for 1888 and my shoehorn...

[DJA]

>> Are you suggesting that Packer was in the habit of wrapping grapes in newspaper ... <<

How does your post relate to the topic in this thread?

It doesn't.

Meh,the paper bag manufacturing machine was patented in 1852 and used 17 years later in USA,