Thought experiment (with numbers!). Suggestions welcome.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Notblamedfornothing - I included the idea of JtR being comfortable talking to the people as there is at a decent possibility, I believe, that he was seen talking to some of the victims at least once, possibly more times, and that in at least three of the possible sightings the women were comfortable enough to go with him despite the potential danger. Granted, in the case of AC there was possibly less concern than if it was later in the series of events. If he was more of an ambush style attacker, this would not be as much of an issue, but that would reduce the importance of any of the witness sightings of someone talking to a victim.

I see. My point was that an ability to make women feel comfortable enough to go with him, cannot have been a unique or rare skill at the time. If it had, the prostitution market would have ground to a halt, unless that concern for comfort was put aside in favour of more pressing needs. In the later case could that skill have paradoxically had the opposite effect? That is; "This guy is a smooth talker who makes me feel at ease, unlike the rest of 'em. So I'm suspicious of him."

You didn't say anything about the broad-shouldered man, so let me ask you a simple question. Did that man put Liz Stride at ease and make her feel comfortable, the way JtR was able to do?

Your idea seems to work best in the case of Kate. Assuming she was seen by the three men (that is, it was her), why was she and the man having a conversation at all? Were they negotiating the fee for the service? If she had been acting as a prostitute, I would presume the conversation would be very brief. So what was going on?

[Hakeswill]

I recall seeing in a documentary somewhere that it was normal in these transactions for the sex worker to approach the man (possibly Donald Rumbelow claiming this?). If this was indeed the normal way for the transaction to proceed, then it would in my mind reduce the need for JtR to be particularly convincing. The victims were approaching him. Even with the atmosphere at the time, I’d guess the sheer economic desperation the women were suffering, along with alcohol to lower inhibitions and no doubt dull the emotional trauma, on reflection I would reduce this factor to being less important. Possibly even to the point were JtR would not require a good understanding of English to communicate in these situations.

That does contradict Lawende’s testimony, since he and Levy implied there was a conversation. I’ve always preferred them as witnesses compared to Schwartz, but I could be on the completely wrong track there.

[FISHY1118]

I recall seeing in a documentary somewhere that it was normal in these transactions for the sex worker to approach the man (possibly Donald Rumbelow claiming this?). If this was indeed the normal way for the transaction to proceed, then it would in my mind reduce the need for JtR to be particularly convincing. The victims were approaching him. Even with the atmosphere at the time, I’d guess the sheer economic desperation the women were suffering, along with alcohol to lower inhibitions and no doubt dull the emotional trauma, on reflection I would reduce this factor to being less important. Possibly even to the point were JtR would not require a good understanding of English to communicate in these situations.

That does contradict Lawende’s testimony, since he and Levy implied there was a conversation. I’ve always preferred them as witnesses compared to Schwartz, but I could be on the completely wrong track there.

I'm curious ,in what way do you prefer Lavender and Levy over Schwartz ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That does contradict Lawende’s testimony, since he and Levy implied there was a conversation.

Possibly the couple were aware of the constable on the square at the time, and agreed to wait for him to leave. Otherwise, it does seem odd that more than a brief conversation would occur. Perhaps the couple knew each other?

I’ve always preferred them as witnesses compared to Schwartz, but I could be on the completely wrong track there.

I think you're on the right track

[Scott Nelson]

Possibly the couple were aware of the constable on the square at the time, and agreed to wait for him to leave.

That's what the City Police seemed to think.

[Scott Nelson]

I recall another theory that the first victim of Commuters is usually the closest to their home.

Could apply to David Cohen if he was at 254 Whitechapel Road at the time of the Nichols murder.

[Hakeswill]

I'm curious ,in what way do you prefer Lavender and Levy over Schwartz ?

It may very well be that difficulties in the translation have not helped Schwartz's account, but it feels as as he is remembering a an incident from what he found a scary experience and from the police report it doesn't seem as flat and matter of fact as Lawende's. I'm less inclined to believe the Star's version of Schwartz's testimony since it appears to me to have been more inclined to sensationalise events. It feels intuitively more likely that a person seen at the scene of a crime in the presence of the victim fifteen minutes before the murder, and physically pushing them would put that person very much under suspicion, more than any other suspect. But, intuitive and likely are not the same thing. If this was JtR, it doesn't feel much like the known modus operandi from the other crimes: shouting, having the victim cry out multiple times, being in the view of someone else (assuming pipeman wasn't an accomplice, which if he was, I think he wasn't a very good one since he allowed someone to walk all the way down the street and witness part of the crime without apparently doing much until Schwartz was literally walking past). The slightly conflicting police views, although they clearly took Schwartz seriously, seem odd to me and could suggest they were so eager for a breakthrough that they were overconfident in Schwartz's statement.

In comparison, the Lawende parties statements seem more plausible to me but probably only because they seem not as sensational. Harris seemed quite neutral, Levy is potentially interesting but it is speculation as to why he assumed his 'knowing air'. Lawende's description, if it was indeed JtR, seems more plausible to me for what little is known about the murderer's behaviour (not drawing undue attention, quiet). But since the original point of my post was to challenge assumptions, I suppose I should really be looking for better corroborating evidence than my own feelings of plausibility.


What would improve my confidence here would be examples of reasonably comparable solved cases where behaviour was similar, for example cases where a murderer knew they had been seen at the scene of a crime and carried on to commit the murder anyway. If there are cases where this happened, this would for me improve the plausibility of Schwartz.

Incidentally, just looked at Schwart'z statement in Begg's Facts, where this statement is made about the statistical improbability of two assaults on the same person within 15 minutes at the same location. While not casting doubt on Mr Begg, I wonder if there are known cases where this has indeed happened? I would assume that for a sex worker who has to make multiple approaches to men the chance of this occurring would increase.

EDIT: Just thought of one - Jeffrey Dahmer was seen by a police officer with a victim he would later kill but it was done inside of his apartment. Still, it increases the plausibility that Broad shoulder man could have carried on with the assault.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It may very well be that difficulties in the translation have not helped Schwartz's account, but it feels as as he is remembering a an incident from what he found a scary experience and from the police report it doesn't seem as flat and matter of fact as Lawende's. I'm less inclined to believe the Star's version of Schwartz's testimony since it appears to me to have been more inclined to sensationalise events.

If the police report doesn't seem as flat and matter of fact as Lawende's, then how would you describe it? Is it sensational? I would suggest that a woman being thrown to the ground by the a man who uses a racial epithet outside a predominantly Jewish men's club, and an innocent by-passer who is seemingly chased away from the scene by another man, not long before the woman is found dead, could reasonably be described as sensational. In what sense are these events even more sensational, in the Star report?

Incidentally, just looked at Schwart'z statement in Begg's Facts, where this statement is made about the statistical improbability of two assaults on the same person within 15 minutes at the same location. While not casting doubt on Mr Begg, I wonder if there are known cases where this has indeed happened? I would assume that for a sex worker who has to make multiple approaches to men the chance of this occurring would increase.

If James Brown's timings are preferred over Schwartz's timing of the incident, then the hypothetical gap is less than 15 minutes. If PC Smith's timing is preferred over Diemschitz's timing, then the gap is less again. If the extent of the blood flow seen under candlelight is accounted for, then the gap is almost nothing. That would make BS man the killer of Stride. He kills her with the skills of Jack, while behaving very un-Jack like, on the street. Quite a conundrum for those who believe Schwartz.

[FISHY1118]

0r those who choose to believe in Brown .

[Hakeswill]

In what sense are these events even more sensational, in the Star report?

The Star had Schwartz seeing 'Pipeman' come out of the public house with a knife in his hand, rather than a pipe, and that ES was thrown into the yard rather than into the street. It could be noting, could be a misunderstanding due to language or it could be the press being a little more sensationalist in their approach.

My take on Broadshoulders (BS) then is this:

1) He killed LS
2) He did not kill LS
3) He was cooperating with Pipeman
4) He was not cooperating with PM
5) BS was JtR
6) BS was not JtR

If 5 is true then 1 becomes extremely likely. But the main reason for thinking this has to be not just his closeness to the scene of the crime but his use of violence at what would become the scene of the crime. For me, I find it less likely if he knew he had been seen to then continue to murder LS. It's possible, but is it likely? I find myself drawn here to looking for similar examples of a murderer being knowingly seen potentially in the act and still carrying on. Maybe there are examples, and if so that for me would increase the chances of Schwartz's testimony being accurate. I think there are plenty of examples of people attacking someone else in public but as to killing someone in the manner that we know JtR did - that seems to be a big jump.

I tend towards thinking that LS was a victim of JtR, but if BS was the killer then he was NOT JtR. I can't easily get the approaches to match up here, a potentially angry, violent disagreement viewed in a busyish street compared to the other killings which happened in relative quiet. And if BS was JtR, I don't see him being a cooperator with PM, it doesn't feel right. I think Schwartz was honest in his testimony, but perhaps mistaken in his interpretation, in other words truthful but not accurate. Of course, I'm prone to all kinds of bias in my thinking which is why I like people to point out where I could be going wrong.

H

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The Star had Schwartz seeing 'Pipeman' come out of the public house with a knife in his hand, rather than a pipe, and that ES was thrown into the yard rather than into the street. It could be noting, could be a misunderstanding due to language or it could be the press being a little more sensationalist in their approach.

I'm not sure what you mean by "It could be not[h]ing", H, but could it be that the second man brandishes a knife in the Star account, because that is what Schwartz claimed was the case, just as he claimed that the man pushed the woman back into the yard, rather than attempting to pull the (apparently very strong yet slight) woman, into the street?

I am not including yourself in the following generalization - your posts are very thoughtful - but many posters seem to be very sure of themselves in declaring that in comparing the police account to the press account, it is no contest in favor of the police account - the press account obviously cannot be trusted, especially given that this is the Star that we are talking about.

Let's frame the situation differently. Instead of a professional policeman versus an ethically dubious pressman, let's compare the interpreter involved in the each interview.

INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police. It is, in fact, to the effect that he SAW THE WHOLE THING.

Was the interpreter at hand, the friend who had accompanied Schwartz to Leman street, or someone else? If the same person on each occasion, had the interpreter and Schwartz discussed and clarified points, between interviews? If someone else, then who was the most accurate interpreter? More importantly, did Schwartz ever make reference to a knife, or did he say 'pipe' on each occasion? On the contrary, perhaps we should be asking; did Schwartz ever make reference to a pipe? I refer you to the following posts:

telos

Hello John.

"The "second man," for instance, might have returned ostensibly to comfort Stride after her attacker left, only to lure the unfortunate woman into Dutfield's Yard and then slit her throat."

But does such a sequence make sense? Lighting a pipe, fleeing from BS man, coming back to the scene and then killing a woman? To what purpose?

Cheers.
LC

I asked a native Yiddish speaker about this, and literally saying "lighting a pipe" is just not something you would say in Yiddish, because the word for tobacco pipe implies something that is lit, so using the verb "light" with it would be redundant, sort of. Anyway, according to this person (bearing in mind this is someone who was born in the late 1930s, and has never lived in England), it's more likely that the interpreter made a mistake, than that the person had a pipe. Assuming that the original language was Yiddish.

I suspect it probably was, though, and one of the reasons for the vastly different accounts was that one was given in Yiddish, and one was given in Hungarian. The police seem to have had plenty of Yiddish interpreters at their disposal, and the paper did note that the witness' Hungarian wasn't great, so it probably wasn't his first language.

Also, if the police were somehow unable to sort out which language was the witness' most reliable, or else knew that Yiddish was better, but were afraid that prejudice against Jews might force the witness to testify in less accurate Hungarian (because it was a shaky language for him), this could be the reason he didn't testify.

Hi Rivkah! Can you give me some idea how much difference there is between Hungarian and Yiddish? The record indicates that when Schwartz went to the police station to tell what he saw, he brought an interpreter with him. It doesn't indicate whether the interpreter spoke Hungarian or Yiddish. At any rate, thanks for the info on "lighting a pipe." That strengthens the Press version where it quotes Schwartz as stating the second man had a knife.

John

Hungarian and Yiddish are not even in the same family class. The only words they might share would be modern loan words, like "telephone." They are as different as modern Finnish and the English of Chaucer.

I'm thinking of Magyar, the most common language of modern Hungary, and what is generally what people mean when they say "Hungarian."

I'm afraid you have that a little confused:

" The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police."

I don't think that's what I read, but nonetheless, I may still have gotten it wrong.

It would be quite remarkable if Schwartz was an East European Jew who did not speak Yiddish. The few assimilated, non-religious Jews, on the other hand, who did exist, were usually well-placed in society, and unlikely to immigrate to England.

Clearly, he did not retell the story just as he had retold it to the police-- we have evidence of that before us.

I do, however, stick by my surmise that he said something along the lines of the knife being shiny, or even "catching the light," and that is how a knife became a pipe.

There is also a word in Yiddish, אָנצינדן (antzindn), which can mean to make a spark as if to light something, but can also mean to be very excited. So it's possible he said the man was very excited, and it got translated "was lighting a pipe."

Regarding the pushing in the yard, versus the attempt to pull the woman into the street, you say that this is an example of the Star account being more sensational that the police account. My question to anyone who supposes that BS man was Stride's assailant (irrespective of him also being the Ripper), is; is the pushing into the yard (versus pulling into the street) more sensational, or more accurate, than the police account? By 'accurate', I mean; at least what Schwartz claimed to have occurred, and quite possibly the truth of the matter.

Going right back to basics, Stride was killed in the passageway, not out on the footway. Why would the killer of Liz Stride - whether JtR or otherwise - want to pull her out onto the street? The police account of BS man, seems like we are dealing with Disapproving Man - some tut-tutting moralist who is angered by the (it would seem, penniless) woman soliciting in that location - and not a murderer, let alone Jack the Ripper.

My take on Broadshoulders (BS) then is this:

1) He killed LS
2) He did not kill LS
3) He was cooperating with Pipeman
4) He was not cooperating with PM
5) BS was JtR
6) BS was not JtR

If 5 is true then 1 becomes extremely likely. But the main reason for thinking this has to be not just his closeness to the scene of the crime but his use of violence at what would become the scene of the crime. For me, I find it less likely if he knew he had been seen to then continue to murder LS. It's possible, but is it likely? I find myself drawn here to looking for similar examples of a murderer being knowingly seen potentially in the act and still carrying on. Maybe there are examples, and if so that for me would increase the chances of Schwartz's testimony being accurate. I think there are plenty of examples of people attacking someone else in public but as to killing someone in the manner that we know JtR did - that seems to be a big jump.

I tend towards thinking that LS was a victim of JtR, but if BS was the killer then he was NOT JtR. I can't easily get the approaches to match up here, a potentially angry, violent disagreement viewed in a busyish street compared to the other killings which happened in relative quiet. And if BS was JtR, I don't see him being a cooperator with PM, it doesn't feel right. I think Schwartz was honest in his testimony, but perhaps mistaken in his interpretation, in other words truthful but not accurate. Of course, I'm prone to all kinds of bias in my thinking which is why I like people to point out where I could be going wrong.

H

I agree that BS does not seem like the picture we have of JtR. As for BS and Pipeman being cooperators, well that certainly seems to be the implication of the Star account. However, I agree that it doesn't feel right. Perhaps 'cooperator' is not the right word? Perhaps the right words is 'comrade'.

[FISHY1118]

The Star had Schwartz seeing 'Pipeman' come out of the public house with a knife in his hand, rather than a pipe, and that ES was thrown into the yard rather than into the street. It could be noting, could be a misunderstanding due to language or it could be the press being a little more sensationalist in their approach.

My take on Broadshoulders (BS) then is this:

1) He killed LS
2) He did not kill LS
3) He was cooperating with Pipeman
4) He was not cooperating with PM
5) BS was JtR
6) BS was not JtR

If 5 is true then 1 becomes extremely likely. But the main reason for thinking this has to be not just his closeness to the scene of the crime but his use of violence at what would become the scene of the crime. For me, I find it less likely if he knew he had been seen to then continue to murder LS. It's possible, but is it likely? I find myself drawn here to looking for similar examples of a murderer being knowingly seen potentially in the act and still carrying on. Maybe there are examples, and if so that for me would increase the chances of Schwartz's testimony being accurate. I think there are plenty of examples of people attacking someone else in public but as to killing someone in the manner that we know JtR did - that seems to be a big jump.

I tend towards thinking that LS was a victim of JtR, but if BS was the killer then he was NOT JtR. I can't easily get the approaches to match up here, a potentially angry, violent disagreement viewed in a busyish street compared to the other killings which happened in relative quiet. And if BS was JtR, I don't see him being a cooperator with PM, it doesn't feel right. I think Schwartz was honest in his testimony, but perhaps mistaken in his interpretation, in other words truthful but not accurate. Of course, I'm prone to all kinds of bias in my thinking which is why I like people to point out where I could be going wrong.

H

Schwartz's statement does not survive but the details are given by Chief Inspector Swanson in a report dated 19 October 1888, and are worth repeating here. ¹

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. [Here there is a marginal note. 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'.] Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.




''I'm not sure what you mean by "It could be not[h]ing", H, but could it be that the second man brandishes a knife in the Star account, because that is what Schwartz claimed was the case, just as he claimed that the man pushed the woman back into the yard, rather than attempting to pull the (apparently very strong yet slight) woman, into the street?''






Notice the difference between the official police record of schwartz statement and the press reports , which one would you rather believe .?






Everytime Schwartz is quoted from a press report ill just post the real thing .

[Kattrup]

Was the interpreter at hand, the friend who had accompanied Schwartz to Leman street, or someone else? If the same person on each occasion, had the interpreter and Schwartz discussed and clarified points, between interviews? If someone else, then who was the most accurate interpreter? More importantly, did Schwartz ever make reference to a knife, or did he say 'pipe' on each occasion? On the contrary, perhaps we should be asking; did Schwartz ever make reference to a pipe?

Yes he did, as summarized by Swanson he referred to a pipe not once, but twice: "On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe [...] second man [...] had a clay pipe in his hand"

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Notice the difference between the official police record of schwartz statement and the press reports , which one would you rather believe .?

It is the differences that I'm discussing. As I said, for anyone who believes that BS man was the murderer, the report they should suppose is closer to the truth, is probably the one that has BS man relocating Stride, closer to the position in which she was found dead. That would be the Star account.

Everytime Schwartz is quoted from a press report ill just post the real thing .

How do know either report, represents the 'real thing'?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes he did, as summarized by Swanson he referred to a pipe not once, but twice: "On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe [...] second man [...] had a clay pipe in his hand"

According to Abberline, Schwartz had no English. Therefore, not once did Schwartz use the English word 'pipe'.