Stride..a victim?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's just not cricket!

No. It's not possible. We can say "if X happened then possibly...." We can't say " X is the case because Y might have happened."

I don't see why this is an issue.

....

I don't see why you posted the quote about the possibility that the killer hid behind the gate and for the life of me I can't see why you have an issue with it? It's beyond basic.

[Bridewell]

Who originally asserted that Schwartz spoke no English,

Abberline - in a report dated 1st November 1888. (I've done the research for you because I'm good like that).

[QUOTE=NotBlamedForNothing;n746289]and how did that person know it to be the case?

I know how I would have tested him but I won't speak for Abberline.

The most likely candidate for this Israel Schwartz arrived in the UK sometime after 1885. You may conclude that he spoke English like a native but the likely scenario is that he spoke little or none. Of course, if you know of another candidate from the right era with a degree in modern languages or who studied at the Dolmetsch Institute in Vienna then we'll go with that one.

Was the translator a friend or associate of Schwartz,

Almost certainly.

in which case their claim that he spoke no English, is dubious at best.

If your starting point is that Schwartz - and his interpreter - were both liars then, of course, that will be a natural conclusion.

If the the translator were a neutral person, supplied by the police, then the claim must have come from Schwartz himself, and is therefore dubious at best.

Ah, so now you're backing the same horse both ways, are you not? But again, your starting point - that Schwartz was lying - will inevitably bring you to that conclusion.

I think it worth considering what a tremendous advantage it would have been to Schwartz, to be able to speak to Abberline via a translator.

Well of course it would be an advantage. It would be his only means of communicating with Abberline!

Sorry - forgot that we're starting with an assumption that Schwartz was lying about that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I gave reasons when estimating the chance of interruption having a occurred, and both the reasons and numbers are up for debate.
In other words - I offered something. You made the arbitrary claim that I had pulled a figure out of thin air, and then just asserted your own number as being much more reasonable.
And that's your style - [I]almost purely reactive[/I].
When was the last time you quoted something from the press reports, and built an argument around it?

I tend to be 'reactive' when I'm responding to a post as opposed to responding to a post before you've posted it.

To answer your last question, i'd only try and build a case around something if I felt there was a point. You seem to think that I'm in some way against looking at various options/scenarios but I'm not. I just wary of overconfidence when making inferences. I also accept that there are some things that we can never get to the bottom of no matter how frustrating it is.

[Michael W Richards]

So if I understand you correctly you are saying that the police could have believed her even though she did not testify. Is that correct?

c.d.

I know full well what youd like to do with that comment, but again, remember Fanny didnt see anyone but Goldstein and the young couple, and she has been verified by their statements. Israel claimed to see 3 people on the street, 1 the soon to be victim, and just feet from where she is found. His story is important to how Liz dies...if believed, or provable, of course.

[Michael W Richards]

To address this continuing nonsense about interruptions, if there are any indicators that suggest one, then its open territory. In this case there are none, which means the absence of mutilations is intentional. Not accidental. If anyone thinks Annies killer would go out again and not mutilate his victim, they really dont belong on a site that tries to deal with the facts. Maybe there is a sandbox semi-equivalent out there for them, one where wild imagination and fantasy are welcome. They arent here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Back from your drawing board already, ready to continue on with your reactive posting style I see.

Here's an idea; why don't you go ahead and quote both Best and Gardner, gives us your thoughts on the situation, and let everyone decide for themselves whether at least one of the men had serious concerns regarding Stride and the man she was with.

The situation is, Liz Stride ends up dead a couple of hours later, and one or men are responsible for that death. If one or more of those 3 men at the pub had concerns about what they were seeing, trivialising their words is not going to help determine what happened.

It's very simple. Absolutely nothing can be read into what Best and Gardner said. Zero.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To address this continuing nonsense about interruptions, if there are any indicators that suggest one, then its open territory. In this case there are none, which means the absence of mutilations is intentional. Not accidental. If anyone thinks Annies killer would go out again and not mutilate his victim, they really dont belong on a site that tries to deal with the facts. Maybe there is a sandbox semi-equivalent out there for them, one where wild imagination and fantasy are welcome. They arent here.

What would be evidence of the intention to mutilate Michael? Surely we would have to be mind readers to claim to know the killers intention? I'd take a guess that a considerable majority of Ripperologists would say that the killer was indeed interrupted and went on to kill Eddowes. It doesn't make it a fact of course.

[c.d.]

To address this continuing nonsense about interruptions, if there are any indicators that suggest one, then its open territory. In this case there are none, which means the absence of mutilations is intentional. Not accidental. If anyone thinks Annies killer would go out again and not mutilate his victim, they really dont belong on a site that tries to deal with the facts. Maybe there is a sandbox semi-equivalent out there for them, one where wild imagination and fantasy are welcome. They arent here.

Thanks so much for another snarky and condescending post. But be careful what you wish for. If you convince all other posters to come over to your point of view there will be no one to feel superior to. Just sayin'.

But don't give up just yet. Maybe post number 5,461 from you will do the trick. You never know.

c.d. (from the sandbox)

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

To address this continuing nonsense about interruptions, if there are any indicators that suggest one, then its open territory. In this case there are none, which means the absence of mutilations is intentional. Not accidental. If anyone thinks Annies killer would go out again and not mutilate his victim, they really dont belong on a site that tries to deal with the facts. Maybe there is a sandbox semi-equivalent out there for them, one where wild imagination and fantasy are welcome. They arent here.

I feel reasonably confident in saying that people are allowed to disagree with you. It's an open forum. Imagine if Steve Ryder took that attitude when starting the site, 'anyone who disagrees with my opinion is barred'. It'd be a lonely place.

Lots of people consider the interruption theory. It stands to reason that after consideration, some people lean towards it. Some whole heartedly believe it. Many on here don't include Stride. Some believe in 4 or 5 active killers. Some think 1. Lots of different ideas.

But, if what your saying is that different opinions are fine across the board, just not specifically on the interruption matter, then I'd question what exactly is it about this particular area that gets your ire up to such a point?

We'd all like to deal in 'facts'. Unfortunately, there's precious little of them in this case.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

[QUOTE=Bridewell;n746524]

Abberline - in a report dated 1st November 1888. (I've done the research for you because I'm good like that).

and how did that person know it to be the case?

I know how I would have tested him but I won't speak for Abberline.

The most likely candidate for this Israel Schwartz arrived in the UK sometime after 1885. You may conclude that he spoke English like a native but the likely scenario is that he spoke little or none. Of course, if you know of another candidate from the right era with a degree in modern languages or who studied at the Dolmetsch Institute in Vienna then we'll go with that one.



Almost certainly.



If your starting point is that Schwartz - and his interpreter - were both liars then, of course, that will be a natural conclusion.



Ah, so now you're backing the same horse both ways, are you not? But again, your starting point - that Schwartz was lying - will inevitably bring you to that conclusion.



Well of course it would be an advantage. It would be his only means of communicating with Abberline!

Sorry - forgot that we're starting with an assumption that Schwartz was lying about that.

It's not quite that simple.

Multiple members of the club spoke to the press, in English, and some of those with perfect English. For example, Joseph Lave was a Russian, recently arrived from America. Presumably he must have been in the States for a few years? Seventeen year old Isaac Kozebrodsky could speak English, passably well. So he must have been in England a few years at that stage.

Speaking in a foreign language would mean that Abberline would have missed all the nuances and hesitations in Schwartz' speech, as well as the opportunity the translator had for 'fine-tuning'. I'm surprised you seem to be ignoring this.

If the translator were Wess, we have a possible conflict of interest. Being offended at the suggestion that both he and Schwartz lied, isn't going to remove that possibility.

Why do you suppose the Leman street police had doubts about Schwartz' story by Oct 2? Surely there was no reason to give up on identifying either man (BS & pipeman) that early, and yet they seem to have done just that! Their doubts must have been more fundamental. Why?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It's very simple. Absolutely nothing can be read into what Best and Gardner said. Zero.

It's very simple to quote from the press reports section, but as you're unwilling or unable to do so, or both, allow me...

Best: The man was about 5ft. 5in. in height. He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat. He had rather weak eyes. I mean he had sore eyes without any eyelashes. I should know the man again amongst a hundred. He had a thick black moustache and no beard. He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie. I said to the woman "that's Leather Apron getting round you." The man was no foreigner; he was an Englishman right enough.

Does this man wearing a black morning suit, collar and tie, and a billycock hat, sound like a man who might be referred to by the locals as 'Leather Apron'?
Does "I should know the man again amongst a hundred", sound like this a man Best both recognizes, and knows as 'Leather Apron'?
What is this Englishman's social class? What is he doing with Stride?

I was in the Bricklayers' Arms, Settles-street, about two hundred yards from the scene of the murder on Saturday night, shortly before eleven, and saw a man and woman in the doorway. They had been served in the public house, and went out when me and my friends came in. It was raining very fast, and they did not appear willing to go out.

Why would they want to go out, if they had just been served, regardless of the rain?
Are they each holding drinks? Did these drinks get discarded when they finally left?
Does "Why don't you bring the woman in and treat her?", sound like the man has bought Stride a drink, that she is now consuming?
When did Stride eat her meal that evening? Was it at the pub?

He was hugging her and kissing her, and as he seemed a respectably dressed man, we were rather astonished at the way he was going on with the woman, who was poorly dressed. We "chipped" him, but he paid no attention. As he stood in the doorway he always threw sidelong glances into the bar, but would look nobody in the face. I said to him, "Why don't you bring the woman in and treat her?" but he made no answer. If he had been a straight fellow he would have told us to mind our own business, or he would have gone away. I was so certain that there was something up that I would have charged him if I could have seen a policeman. When the man could not stand the chaffing any longer he and the woman went off like a shot soon after eleven.

The man is all over Liz, and yet he also wants to avoid attention - thus Best is clearly and rightly suspicious.
If you can't see that suspicion in "I was so certain that there was something up that I would have charged him if I could have seen a policeman", there is something up with you.
What an incredible coincidence that Stride is then murdered 2 hours later.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's very simple to quote from the press reports section, but as you're unwilling or unable to do so, or both, allow me...

Best: The man was about 5ft. 5in. in height. He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat. He had rather weak eyes. I mean he had sore eyes without any eyelashes. I should know the man again amongst a hundred. He had a thick black moustache and no beard. He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie. I said to the woman "that's Leather Apron getting round you." The man was no foreigner; he was an Englishman right enough.

Does this man wearing a black morning suit, collar and tie, and a billycock hat, sound like a man who might be referred to by the locals as 'Leather Apron'?
Does "I should know the man again amongst a hundred", sound like this a man Best both recognizes, and knows as 'Leather Apron'?
What is this Englishman's social class? What is he doing with Stride?

I was in the Bricklayers' Arms, Settles-street, about two hundred yards from the scene of the murder on Saturday night, shortly before eleven, and saw a man and woman in the doorway. They had been served in the public house, and went out when me and my friends came in. It was raining very fast, and they did not appear willing to go out.

Why would they want to go out, if they had just been served, regardless of the rain?
Are they each holding drinks? Did these drinks get discarded when they finally left?
Does "Why don't you bring the woman in and treat her?", sound like the man has bought Stride a drink, that she is now consuming?
When did Stride eat her meal that evening? Was it at the pub?

He was hugging her and kissing her, and as he seemed a respectably dressed man, we were rather astonished at the way he was going on with the woman, who was poorly dressed. We "chipped" him, but he paid no attention. As he stood in the doorway he always threw sidelong glances into the bar, but would look nobody in the face. I said to him, "Why don't you bring the woman in and treat her?" but he made no answer. If he had been a straight fellow he would have told us to mind our own business, or he would have gone away. I was so certain that there was something up that I would have charged him if I could have seen a policeman. When the man could not stand the chaffing any longer he and the woman went off like a shot soon after eleven.

The man is all over Liz, and yet he also wants to avoid attention - thus Best is clearly and rightly suspicious.
If you can't see that suspicion in "I was so certain that there was something up that I would have charged him if I could have seen a policeman", there is something up with you.
What an incredible coincidence that Stride is then murdered 2 hours later.

It's interesting that other witnesses in this case are dismissed as liars and yet two blokes in a pub who are hassling a couple after consuming God knows how many pints are treated as vital and having Holmes-like character assessment.

. to go out.[/I]

Why would they want to go out, if they had just been served, regardless of the rain?

We can't know whether their drinks had been consumed but they stood in the doorway waiting to see if the rain would stop before they left. They were obviously being hassled by Best and Gardener so it's entirely natural that they would want to leave.

The fact that the man probably didn't look like 'Leather Apron' is irrelevant. I bet Schwartz didn't look like Israel Lipsky. If someone does something clever and I say "well done Sherlock," it doesn't mean that that person will be wearing a deerstalker and smoking a pipe.

.
The man is all over Liz, and yet he also wants to avoid attention - thus Best is clearly and rightly suspicious

Maybe the guy is married? Maybe he just doesn't want to be seen with a prostitute? Maybe he and Liz are simply uncomfortable about being harangued by drunks in a pub?

We might also add the possibility of Best exaggerating; hoping for a few drinks for his retelling of "when I saw Jack The Ripper."

The statement is obviously worth noting but as ever your trying to read more into it than exists.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Talking of strange statements I'm sure that this one has been discussed before and I've missed it but why did Diemschutz say, when talking about Stride:

"She was a little bit better dressed, I should say, than the woman who was last murdered."

I haven't checked any press reports lately so I'm assuming that he's just comparing Stride's clothing to a description he'd heard of Annie Chapman's? I wonder if the police said " and how do you know the state of Annie Chapman's clothes?"

[Michael W Richards]

So if I understand you correctly you are saying that the police could have believed her even though she did not testify. Is that correct?

c.d.

Yes, thats what I intend to say. I dont see any reason for them questioning her account, its not in the least bit controversial, its validated, and it revealed to the investigators that the killer and Liz werent visible during that last 25 min. She is at her door "off and on nearly the whole time" referring to 12:30 and 1, we know she spent the last 10 minutes of the hour at her door. Goldstein is our insurance.

She doesnt see either Liz or a killer in that half hour. Israel, on the other hand, claimed to see the victim being assaulted on the road in front of the club, and in view of at least one other witness. We do not have names for BSM, nor Pipeman, presumably had they checked Israels story out they would have used names to do so. None are provided. Which to me suggests protecting the privacy of some individuals that happen to get caught up in sensational events, or they couldnt find these men.....so they couldnt validate Israels story, so he wasnt called to testify.

Thats the main difference between Fanny and Israel, 1 has corroboration and the other does not. 1 has the victim being in peril on the street minutes before she will be killed, 1 saw nothing save a few stragglers. But they could verify the stragglers, by Goldsteins admission and Browns sighting of the young couple...the ONLY 3 people seen on the road by Fanny between 12:35 and 1am.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

She doesnt see either Liz or a killer in that half hour. Israel, on the other hand, claimed to see the victim being assaulted on the road in front of the club, and in view of at least one other witness. We do not have names for BSM, nor Pipeman, presumably had they checked Israels story out they would have used names to do so. None are provided. Which to me suggests protecting the privacy of some individuals that happen to get caught up in sensational events, or they couldnt find these men.....so they couldnt validate Israels story, so he wasnt called to testify.

Good post MWR, but with respect, you're not getting right to the heart of the matter.

The Star, Oct 2: 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.

Stride died early on the Sunday morning, yet before the Tuesday edition of the Star went to press, the Leman street police had already stopped looking for Schwartz' first and second man, because they did not believe Schwartz.
It is a misconstrual of the situation to suppose 'they couldn't find these men', if they are not looking for them!
And let's be clear on this - it could not be the failure to locate the men by that early stage that is the causing doubts - rather it is Schwartz' story itself that is doubted.
Yes it's true - the Leman street police regarded Schwartz' story a lie, and thus the men in the story as non-existent.
Yet here we are in 2020, and most students of the case believe the opposite!

In contrast to Leman street, the senior investigators never stopped believing in Schwartz, but also never succeeded in identifying the Ripper/murderers.
That is why all the years spent scouring the post-1888 words of the senior investigators has only resulted in weak candidates being proposed.

The senior investigators failed, and they do not hold any secrets to the Ripper's identity.
However, the real clue from the police might just be found in considering the huge difference in opinion that is evident between the police 'on the ground', and that of the Scotland Yard 'suits'.

I'm with the former, and the mysterious, elusive Israel Schwartz is the best candidate for Jack the Ripper.