What did the copy-cat killer copy?

[Lechmere]

Particularly if one of the old dears had some cachou nuts placed in her hands by the killer, to mislead the police into thinking they were hers, as some vital aspect of the plot.

[curious4]

Cachous

I don't think it is possible to achieve the situation after she is dead. Hullo Mr. Cates?

Hello Dig,

One version of Schwartz' story, and I have read that this was also the police version, is that the man pulled or pushed Liz into the alley, not that he threw her to the ground. In that case he could have pulled and twisted her scarf and choked her, resulting in the clenched hand reflex. The cachous were said to be "tightly lodged between thumb and forefinger".

Also, regarding his story, if we can accept that it was changed in translation - he really said "she cried out three times, but not loudly" instead of "she screamed three times but not loudly", can we put another interpretation on the time? When he says "I got there at 12.45 (after his day out) it seems to me that he could have meant that he reached Whitechapel (perhaps by train) at 12.45, not Berner Street, and, then walked towards Berner street. This would make the time he saw the attack later and fit in better with the doctor's time of death, thus making it more likely that the man he saw was Jack (or an accomplice, if Jack was waiting in the alley).

Cheers,

Gwyneth/C4

[The Good Michael]

Particularly if one of the old dears had some cachou nuts placed in her hands by the killer, to mislead the police into thinking the were hers, as some vital aspect of the plot.

I am still waiting for something like a group of men from the Hellfire Club (or Berner Street Club) doing some one-upsmanship...a competition or an initiation. I mean... we've heard everything else.

Mike

[Lechmere]

curious4
The trouble with the lost in translation explanation is that you could end up rewriting all of Schwartz's statement to say what you want it to say.

[curious4]

Lost in translation

Hello Lechmere,

Very true, but I think that interpreting what he said could stretch to his meaning getting back to Whitechapel, not getting to Berner street at 12.45. Worked as a translator and occasional interpreter in another life, so know a little about these things. Presumably english wasn't the interpreter's first language, often the way, so things could have been distorted a little.

But I agree, it is a matter of "interpretation".

Best wishes,
C4

[curious4]

Translation

Hello Lechmere and all,

This is what Schwartz said, quoting from Sugden's Complete History: "When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner Sreet to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found.The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage...." From the Star, Oct 1st, 1888.

Sounds to me as though he arrived in Whitechapel at 12.45 but each to his/her own interpretation.

Best wishes,
C4

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Gwyneth

Unfortunately we don't have anywhere a record of what Schwartz said he saw...we have Swanson's paraphrasing of his statement, (which alas is lost), or the Star account, (which may have to be taken with a pinch of salt).

Nonetheless, (once more with feeling), in the LVP nearly all times quoted must be treated as approximate...you would contend he was slightly later than 1245 at the crimesceme, and it is probably only Mrs Mortimer, in truth, (another non-inquest witness) who could gainsay you...I could just as easily contend he meant he passed the crimescene at 1245 and it was actually round about that time, or even a tad earlier...

In truth, who knows? Except that we've drifted towards yet another Schwartz/Mortimer/Stride discussion and are hence now distinctly off-thread vis a vis copycats

All the best

Dave

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo C4.

Ha, no, I meant the placing of the cachous by the killer between the victims fingers. I don't think it is likely at all. Hence the request for Lynn Cates. He's kinda the cachous King. Now, if one was to suggest the killer handed them to her to draw her focus away so he could get her off guard before commencing with the attack, I am all about persuing that line.

[curious4]

Cachous

Hello Dig,

And I thought it was such a good theory too! Never mind, back to the drawing board - or rather the alley!

All good wishes,
Gwyneth/C4

[curious4]

Time after time

Sorry Gwyneth

Unfortunately we don't have anywhere a record of what Schwartz said he saw...we have Swanson's paraphrasing of his statement, (which alas is lost), or the Star account, (which may have to be taken with a pinch of salt).

Nonetheless, (once more with feeling), in the LVP nearly all times quoted must be treated as approximate...you would contend he was slightly later than 1245 at the crimesceme, and it is probably only Mrs Mortimer, in truth, (another non-inquest witness) who could gainsay you...I could just as easily contend he meant he passed the crimescene at 1245 and it was actually round about that time, or even a tad earlier...

In truth, who knows? Except that we've drifted towards yet another Schwartz/Mortimer/Stride discussion and are hence now distinctly off-thread vis a vis copycats

All the best

Dave

Hello Dave,

What I need is a time machine and a stopwatch! Mind you, if I were to be right, he would have been a very important witness indeed.

Apologies for wandering off thread again - it's just so easy to do! (for me, anyway) And conjecture as well! Oops! I crawl!

All good wishes,
Gwyneth

[harry]

What would the copycat be copying?Which crime or crimes.It would have to follow one or more previous murders.It would have to resemble a sequence of events that had gone before.It would have to convey the characteristics of a previous crime.Where does one start?What is the first consideration?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo C4.

Apologies. No, the theory is sound enough. Man my brain. I was just specifically talking about the killer placing them in her hand after she had been killed not being really viable. Yes, it seems the killer pulled her scarf and hence the clenched fist and grip on cachous with no spilling. I see that as a very good possibility. Sorry for poor relaying. Okay, I'm done. Moving on.

[Mr Lucky]

I don't think it is possible to achieve the situation after she is dead. Hullo Mr. Cates?

I meant the placing of the cachous by the killer between the victims fingers. I don't think it is likely at all.

I was just specifically talking about the killer placing them in her hand after she had been killed not being really viable.

Nether the less, despite what you 'think' - Stride was found dead, with cachous in her hand and that's all we know.

[Mr Lucky]

If they tried writing a script for Midsomer Murders, that involved five dear old ladies in twin sets and pearls getting beaten to death a few days or weeks apart, as each set off for a coffee morning in their little village, and the detective in charge of the case announced at the end that three of them had been murdered by imitators, for three completely separate motives, one can just imagine the howls of derision and disappointment, as "far-fetched drivel" was taken to an entirely new level.

I'm not sure that the whole Jack the Ripper story would be considered believable, if it wasn't actually true.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo harry.

What would the copycat be copying?Which crime or crimes.It would have to follow one or more previous murders.It would have to resemble a sequence of events that had gone before.It would have to convey the characteristics of a previous crime.Where does one start?What is the first consideration?

Well for "ripper" murders, probably start with Nichols. I believe there was at least one press report that stated something internally was missing. So Chapman on could be unrelated to the initial "ripper" murder. I would say Simon Wood might have a particular take on it. As I stated previously on this thread, I think anyways, I read what I swear was a dissertation that provide example , in press reports, of injuries that did not occur on a victim that did occur to the following. Nichols was missing something, but she wasn't, that Chapman did have removed. So forth and so on. Eddowes was missing her heart, but wasn't, then "MJK" was. So possibly persons could have been referencing the papers. I find it a funny idea that possibly they were providing the killer ideas about what to do on the next murder. Still can't find that dissertation. Anyone know what I'm talking about? I'm certain I didn't fabricate it.