Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

[Curious Cat]

I didn't say 'say'.
The claim comes via CI Swanson's report, of Oct 19, in a section I'm sure you've read more than once...

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

If you don't agree with '12:45', go ahead and have a crack at answering the question I posed in #31...

It's not a matter of agreeing or not agreeing with the time. It's about the source for the time given. Nothing appears to corroborate Schwartz's account.

No-one in the club apparently hears any shouts or screams from outside around that time.

Joseph Love apparently doesn't see or hear anything similar while being in the yard around that time.

Fanny Mortimer here's no shouts of "Lipski!" or screams while she's stood at her door around that time.

Edward Spooner doesn't mention hearing shouts of "Lipski!" while still just round the corner around that time.


If what Israel Schwartz was the case at that time then there should be at least one of those corroborating what he claims.

We have to put Schwartz in a separate bubble, both for lack of corroboration and not appearing at the inquest.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Where does Israel Schwartz say he was there at 12:45am?

I didn't say 'say'.
The claim comes via CI Swanson's report, of Oct 19, in a section I'm sure you've read more than once...

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

If you don't agree with '12:45', go ahead and have a crack at answering the question I posed in #31...

[Curious Cat]

Is that the book the claims the 'small oblong clots on the back of the hand', observed by Dr Phillips at the mortuary, were perceived as grapes removed from the hand, in Dutfield's Yard?

Is that the book that claims, without evidence, that Joseph Koster and Edward Spooner were one and the same person?

Is that the book that has a timeline with PC Lamb arriving at ~1:10, and thus (implicitly) PC Smith after that time - consequently putting Smith last on Berner street at close to 12:45 - when Israel Schwartz claimed to be there?
Is it therefore also the book that implies that at the same time or just after being assaulted by BS Man, Stride is seen by Smith as he walks by her as she talks quietly to the man with the parcel?
Is it also the book that quietly omits PC Smith from said timeline, even though he...

• witnessed the victim talking to a man, shortly before her death
• witnessed the deceased in Dutfield's Yard
• was called to the inquest

…presumably because he cannot be made to fit into the story?

No, that book does not have the answer to my question.
Nor do you.
Nor does anyone else.

Your six words are not enough.

Where does Israel Schwartz say he was there at 12:45am?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Six words:

Read 'Ripper Confidential' by Tom Wescott.

Is that the book the claims the 'small oblong clots on the back of the hand', observed by Dr Phillips at the mortuary, were perceived as grapes removed from the hand, in Dutfield's Yard?

Is that the book that claims, without evidence, that Joseph Koster and Edward Spooner were one and the same person?

Is that the book that has a timeline with PC Lamb arriving at ~1:10, and thus (implicitly) PC Smith after that time - consequently putting Smith last on Berner street at close to 12:45 - when Israel Schwartz claimed to be there?
Is it therefore also the book that implies that at the same time or just after being assaulted by BS Man, Stride is seen by Smith as he walks by her as she talks quietly to the man with the parcel?
Is it also the book that quietly omits PC Smith from said timeline, even though he...

• witnessed the victim talking to a man, shortly before her death
• witnessed the deceased in Dutfield's Yard
• was called to the inquest

…presumably because he cannot be made to fit into the story?

No, that book does not have the answer to my question.
Nor do you.
Nor does anyone else.

Your six words are not enough.

[Aelric]

At what approximate time did Israel Schwartz see BS Man throw Liz Stride to the ground, outside Dutfield's Yard?

Your answer must be coherent with the following:

• PC Smith's traversal time along Berner street
• Fanny Mortimer's period(s) on her front doorstep
• Louis Diemschitz' arrival time to Dutfield's Yard
• Claimed arrival times of policemen and doctors

Don't be embarrassed if you find this overly difficult though - no one else in the world has yet worked it out.

Six words:

Read 'Ripper Confidential' by Tom Wescott.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats because you don't go deep enough with your ideas, and simply/usually stop at your first impression.

You speak of the added risk of being recognised, but then, will he keep killing at the same area, again and again and again and again and....... ?

You see, thats where your 'logic' turns against you.

And whether you struggle or not, you like it or not, the killer WAS in Whitechapel, he walked there, he talked there, he met women there, he killed there, and this is the only fact you would have!



The Baron

Keeping up your usual standard I see Any excuse to disagree with me or insult me.

Its not a ‘first impression’ it’s called common sense. A killer who wishes to avoid capture would be taking a greater risk in a area where he was known, for very obvious reasons. I’m not saying that he wasn’t an Eastender or from the Whitechapel area just that imo he would have been unlikely to have lived right next to Mitre Square for eg or somewhere which meant that he was in Berner Street every day.

And so yet again, I’m your rush to have a dig at me you’ve got it wrong.

[The Baron]

I struggle with the idea of the killer being too familiar with the locations though as this would introduce the added risk of being recognised.

Thats because you don't go deep enough with your ideas, and simply/usually stop at your first impression.

You speak of the added risk of being recognised, but then, will he keep killing at the same area, again and again and again and again and....... ?

You see, thats where your 'logic' turns against you.

And whether you struggle or not, you like it or not, the killer WAS in Whitechapel, he walked there, he talked there, he met women there, he killed there, and this is the only fact you would have!



The Baron

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The fact that Stride was located outside her murder site confirms that their (1) bs man is the killer (2) she was waiting for her killer there.
It was a designated meeting. Agreed by both parties, suggested by the killer (the degree of correlation that two consecutive victims each and independently suggested two Jewish-related sites of their murders is extremely unlikely), and both victims agreed, because they knew the man, at least they knew him well enough to agree upon meetings in "public places" (as a club is supposed to be), amidst the "autumn of terror"/leather apron scare.

I see you start with the assumption that BS man was definitely real, and that he was Stride's killer.
Okay, if you're so sure on these points, can you answer this one simple but critical question:

At what approximate time did Israel Schwartz see BS Man throw Liz Stride to the ground, outside Dutfield's Yard?

Your answer must be coherent with the following:

• PC Smith's traversal time along Berner street
• Fanny Mortimer's period(s) on her front doorstep
• Louis Diemschitz' arrival time to Dutfield's Yard
• Claimed arrival times of policemen and doctors

Don't be embarrassed if you find this overly difficult though - no one else in the world has yet worked it out.
However, that doesn't seem to stop people from wondering what BS man might have had for breakfast.

I do not know what he was thinking. But it makes sense if he wanted to create a scapegoat, and put a "scary" face on that faceless leaher apron, to employ Antisemitism. Not for political reasons, but for decoy reasons. Jews were always a target of the uneducated mob -- the roots of Antisemitism in Europe and Russia were deeply sowed by many different reasons (that is not the present topic of discussion), amids the lower classes and the wretched unfortunates.

If he wanted to scapegoat the Jews, the graffito means; I did this but the Jews are to blame
How could that be, though? You seem to be saying that this explanation makes sense 'because Antisemitism'.
As for the 'uneducated mob', have you noticed that even though the Berner street club membership was mostly Jewish, and that there was a Jewish synagogue near Mitre Square, and that the text of the graffito was printed in the papers, the lower classes did not respond by rioting?

The killer got to know the victims so as to infiltrate and exterminate. This was a brutal "clearing house" process. 'conspiracy' in this cased is used for the royal family bollocks and is usually reserved for flat-earthers and such scum, so i wouldnt like it related to what i am suggesting -- lets call it a scheme. As a retaliation to another (blackmail) scheme.

You make a good point - it is both far too common and easy to dismiss any sort of claims of scheming or nefarious activity as a 'conspiracy theory'.
Supporters of Charles Lechmere as the Ripper were recently referred to in this forum as 'Lechmere conspiracy theorists'.
Who knew a belief in a lone serial killer who told a few convenient lies, amounts to a conspiracy?
Probably someone who needs to keep a dictionary at hand.
At the other end of the spectrum however, there are wild conspiracy theories, and the crossover point seems to be when a large and possibly intricate web of secrecy needs to exist, to maintain the operation.
How close are you going to that with your blackmailers, landlords, hired-hand killer, and hand picked victims who all knew each other?

120 years later, suggestions, and speculations are what we can offer.
At least let's make em cohesive.

Awaiting your answer to the highlighted question...

[Damaso Marte]

The murder sites were not all similar. Nichols is killed on the street, Chapman and Stride in yards, Eddowes in a square, Kelly indoors. Martha, if you include her, was killed in an even more fundamentally different kind of location.

If the killer were selecting the scene of the crime, would you expect them to be more similar to each other?

[c.d.]

The fact that Stride was located outside her murder site confirms that their (1) bs man is the killer (2) she was waiting for her killer there.
It was a designated meeting.

Sorry, Lipski but we have no way of knowing what Stride was doing there at the murder site. So no confirmation of what you suggest.

c.d.

[Lipsky]

Carried on, or commenced?
Maybe 'would have commenced', is what we're supposed to think would have happened - so that we also think he must have been interrupted. The purpose being to take suspicion off the club, as it was one of the club members who (supposedly) did the interrupting, and therefore the club cannot have been responsible for the crime.
However, you apparently just know what he was thinking, though. Okay.
You tell us. You're the one that knows what he intended to do and just about everything else of relevance.
If the sites of the DE were designed to arouse antisemitism, are you effectively saying that these murders were politically motivated?
What about the other murders - were Nichols and Chapman killed and mutilated with politics in mind?
On what basis?
How did he choose Kelly? Her good looks? What about (respectfully) Chapman?
You make it sound like it was one big conspiracy!

It has been suggested and discussed thoroughly that all of the victims knew each other. They shared the streets and .. the landlords?
But let us say that Eddowes giving the "Mary Kelly" alias was a coincidence (amidst the many in this case...if you choose to regard them as such).

In the murder of MJK you have a self-proclaimed eye witness who claims to have seen MJK with someone of her acquaintance.
They eye witness himself maintains he knew the victim. There's no other way round it - the eye-witness is making things up, therefore is related to the murder, or is actually telling the truth , which means he witnessed MJK talking to someone she knew.
I wont go into the shady aspects of Hutchinson's description of the man he (allegedly) saw, the far-too-detailed ornaments etc.
We have two scenarios: she was talking to the killer and they seem acquainted according to the last eye witness or he is somehow involved in the killing and making things up, while admitting he knew her.

Addresses, shared landlords and other circumstancial evidence provides a degree of correlation that renders the possibility of the women knowing each other more likely than not. It's as simple as that.

The fact that Stride was located outside her murder site confirms that their (1) bs man is the killer (2) she was waiting for her killer there.
It was a designated meeting. Agreed by both parties, suggested by the killer (the degree of correlation that two consecutive victims each and independently suggested two Jewish-related sites of their murders is extremely unlikely), and both victims agreed, because they knew the man, at least they knew him well enough to agree upon meetings in "public places" (as a club is supposed to be), amidst the "autumn of terror"/leather apron scare.

I do not know what he was thinking. But it makes sense if he wanted to create a scapegoat, and put a "scary" face on that faceless leaher apron, to employ Antisemitism. Not for political reasons, but for decoy reasons. Jews were always a target of the uneducated mob -- the roots of Antisemitism in Europe and Russia were deeply sowed by many different reasons (that is not the present topic of discussion), amids the lower classes and the wretched unfortunates.

The killer got to know the victims so as to infiltrate and exterminate. This was a brutal "clearing house" process. 'conspiracy' in this cased is used for the royal family bollocks and is usually reserved for flat-earthers and such scum, so i wouldnt like it related to what i am suggesting -- lets call it a scheme. As a retaliation to another (blackmail) scheme.

120 years later, suggestions, and speculations are what we can offer.
At least let's make em cohesive.

[Abby Normal]

I understand your point. And I think it's entirely possible that the victims self-selected in that way--leading the killer through narrow passageways into broader and sometimes enclosed locations. The Freudian implications of that are very hard to miss. But I don't think I made myself clear. I don't believe he selected a location; chose a likely night; hung out there and waited to get lucky. I think it's more that he may have scouted numerous locations very carefully. So at any given time he picks a woman up he knows exactly where he is and how to get out of there quickly. I think he is a very prepared & focussed killer.

Abby, who is 'BS man?' Are you a Mr Blotchy fan as I am?

bs man is the broad shouldered man seen assaulting stride by schwartz.

yes i think blotchy along with a handful of other suspects are the least weak.

[spyglass]

I've always wondered just how safe was murdering MJK in her own room.
I always got the impression that people would come and go as they please, even in the early hours....or at least, likely to turn up unannounced.
Unless of course the murderer knew his victim, her surroundings and circumstances quite well.

Regards

[Chava]

I believe that the evidence here suggests that the man who is identified as Jack the Ripper "scoped" out slightly less than 1 square mile in the East End. The most heavily populated segment of the city, the portion of the greater Met with the most street people out at night, not any particular location within that area. He was a wolf looking for unaccompanied weak sheep.

And if he didn't know the area really well, he runs the risk of being apprehended by the police if he was lucky or by a lot of very angry citizens if he wasn't. Our Boy knows how to disappear. And even in that part of the East End it's not as easy it it might appear.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that the evidence here suggests that the man who is identified as Jack the Ripper "scoped" out slightly less than 1 square mile in the East End. The most heavily populated segment of the city, the portion of the greater Met with the most street people out at night, not any particular location within that area. He was a wolf looking for unaccompanied weak sheep.