Elizabeth's murder and the double event

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How does anybody read the broad shouldered man as definitely not Jewish?

Definitely is a big claim, but probably isn't, given that Pipeman's name almost definitely was not Lipski.

[Lewis C]

'Didn't go into the club'? What I said was 'didn't attempt to go in the door'.

I'm not wasting time on this.

M.

How is one different from the other?

[drstrange169]

" ...definitely, definitely, definitely wasn't Jewish."

How does anybody read the broad shouldered man as definitely not Jewish?

[Mark J D]

The agenda, however, is the same in both cases.

-- Specifically: 'Schwartz' has the job of packaging for the police and the public 'witness reports' which establish by way of a confected mix of statement, hint and implication that Stride was attacked by a man who had been walking towards the club but wasn't going there; who hadn't come out of the club; who wasn't anything to do with the club, and definitely, definitely, definitely wasn't Jewish.

M.

[Mark J D]

The point is that whether or not the police and/or press version of Schwartz's statement accurately reflects Schwartz's words, nothing in either indicates that BS man didn't go into the club, other than that one would have reason to doubt that someone shouting "Lipsky" would then go into a Jewish club.

'Didn't go into the club'? What I said was 'didn't attempt to go in the door'.

I'm not wasting time on this.

M.

[Lewis C]

So when The Star prints that "The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand...", you're saying that they didn't just slip in a little word that their interviewee didn't say, but actually cranked it up to 11 wth a 'states positively'? And for no meaningful reason other than to give a foreign Jewish nobody an excuse for buggering off in panic as a woman was assaulted next to him? How uncharacteristically generous of yellow journalism to cut a guy so much slack!

This just won't wash. 'Schwartz' himself -- or the bilingual ventriloquist operating him -- went further and wilder with the press because he knew there'd be none of the repercussions there'd have been had he piled the horseshit that high in front of the police. The agenda, however, is the same in both cases.

M.

The point is that whether or not the police and/or press version of Schwartz's statement accurately reflects Schwartz's words, nothing in either indicates that BS man didn't go into the club, other than that one would have reason to doubt that someone shouting "Lipsky" would then go into a Jewish club.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So when The Star prints that "The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand...", you're saying that they didn't just slip in a little word that their interviewee didn't say, but actually cranked it up to 11 wth a 'states positively'? And for no meaningful reason other than to give a foreign Jewish nobody an excuse for buggering off in panic as a woman was assaulted next to him? How uncharacteristically generous of yellow journalism to cut a guy so much slack!

This just won't wash. 'Schwartz' himself -- or the bilingual ventriloquist operating him -- went further and wilder with the press because he knew there'd be none of the repercussions there'd have been had he piled the horseshit that high in front of the police. The agenda, however, is the same in both cases.

M.

I agree - it is far too convenient to blame the Star for the invention of the knife. The Star report's opening implies that the Hungarian's police account has been taken with a grain of salt...

INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder.

How could it not be important if Schwartz has claimed to identify the victim at the mortuary?

The evidence we have suggests that "the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police", is false. Blaming the Star for the discrepancies between their and the police account, is another example of fitting the facts to the theory.

[Mark J D]

There could be things in the Schwartz stories that Schwartz didn't really say. In fact, I think that probably is the case for the press version.

So when The Star prints that "The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand...", you're saying that they didn't just slip in a little word that their interviewee didn't say, but actually cranked it up to 11 wth a 'states positively'? And for no meaningful reason other than to give a foreign Jewish nobody an excuse for buggering off in panic as a woman was assaulted next to him? How uncharacteristically generous of yellow journalism to cut a guy so much slack!

This just won't wash. 'Schwartz' himself -- or the bilingual ventriloquist operating him -- went further and wilder with the press because he knew there'd be none of the repercussions there'd have been had he piled the horseshit that high in front of the police. The agenda, however, is the same in both cases.

M.

[Lewis C]

I didn't day 'Schwartz said'. I said 'both of the Schwartz stories indicate'.

M.

There could be things in the Schwartz stories that Schwartz didn't really say. In fact, I think that probably is the case for the press version. However, I don't see anything in the stories that indicate that.

[Mark J D]

Schwartz was following the man while the man was walking in the direction of the club, and doesn't say that the man didn't attempt to go in the door.

I didn't day 'Schwartz said'. I said 'both of the Schwartz stories indicate'.

M.

[Michael W Richards]

That always bothered me, too. While I don't outright discount Liz Stride as a Ripper victim, a strong argument can be made that she wasn't. It's a solid 15-20 minute walk from Berner Street (Henriques Street now) to Mitre Square. Doesn't give him much time to find a candidate....UNLESS....he had a choice of the prostitutes who used to mill about the nearby church (whose name has escaped me). If so, he knew where they gathered, and since he doubled BACK eastward after Mitre Square perhaps means he deliberately made the effort to seek his next victim there. I don't believe he had an accomplice simply for the tremendous risk it would incur. They would have to be very sure of each other, indeed. Having said that, we all know JTR took incredible risks and had the Devil's own luck.

If this killer is trawling for victims when he goes out, it seems to me that choosing to go the city at that time of night isnt really a great choice, and much less street traffic so it would be hard to slip away into the early morning mix. The way Kate is described with her hand on Sailor Mans chest...if the woman was perhaps out of breath and knew this fellow well, that might be an action she would take to steady herself. Presumably, since there is ample time, she went somewhere else before going there, perhaps to use a privy or splash some water on her face? That is of course using a premise that they had agreed to meet there, they didnt bump into one another. But it seems like a possibly sound overview of their demeanor. I dont believe she was out working. I believe she had something to do or someone to meet, and it may be connected to the people she got hammered with that afternoon.

I would think that if thats the case, then midnight would have been a more likely time to set a meeting up for. Is that gesture, hand on chest, a sign that she got there as fast as she could and appreciated his waiting. If any of this has truth attached to it, then she was targeted specifically. Not acquired at random, based on the circumstances at the moment. Which is I believe was "Jack's" methodology.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

One of the biggest problems I have with the idea that Stride was a "decoy" for the murder of Eddowes is that there could be little guarantee that another victim would be found so soon afterwards. Indeed, that's a problem with the concept of the "Double Event" in itself, whatever the motivation.

That always bothered me, too. While I don't outright discount Liz Stride as a Ripper victim, a strong argument can be made that she wasn't. It's a solid 15-20 minute walk from Berner Street (Henriques Street now) to Mitre Square. Doesn't give him much time to find a candidate....UNLESS....he had a choice of the prostitutes who used to mill about the nearby church (whose name has escaped me). If so, he knew where they gathered, and since he doubled BACK eastward after Mitre Square perhaps means he deliberately made the effort to seek his next victim there. I don't believe he had an accomplice simply for the tremendous risk it would incur. They would have to be very sure of each other, indeed. Having said that, we all know JTR took incredible risks and had the Devil's own luck.

[Michael W Richards]

I think not, old bean. Both of the Schwartz stories indicate that the man was walking down the street towards the club and didn't attempt to go in the door. The important thing, you see, is to prevent it seeming that BS man was anything at all to do with the club; that Stride was a significant distance up the club's passageway, or that the man with the pipe that became a knife came out of the club.

I'm sorry, but the Schwartz stories are 95% the club's self-protective hooey, minimum. My full analysis of them takes up quite a few words, and even accounts for the 'fine tuning' of the details between the police version and the Star version; but the above conveys the basic picture. What Schwartz said was actually very cleverly constructed -- but not all of it worked: the club members who produced it didn't realise they'd over-estimated the police.

Bests,

Mark D.

Bravo. I realize that Im also patting myself on the back, but what the hell. So nice to see someone gets it.

[Lewis C]

I think not, old bean. Both of the Schwartz stories indicate that the man was walking down the street towards the club and didn't attempt to go in the door. The important thing, you see, is to prevent it seeming that BS man was anything at all to do with the club; that Stride was a significant distance up the club's passageway, or that the man with the pipe that became a knife came out of the club.

I'm sorry, but the Schwartz stories are 95% the club's self-protective hooey, minimum. My full analysis of them takes up quite a few words, and even accounts for the 'fine tuning' of the details between the police version and the Star version; but the above conveys the basic picture. What Schwartz said was actually very cleverly constructed -- but not all of it worked: the club members who produced it didn't realise they'd over-estimated the police.

Bests,

Mark D.

Schwartz was following the man while the man was walking in the direction of the club, and doesn't say that the man didn't attempt to go in the door. Schwartz fled before the man would have gone into the club if that's what he was going to do. However, I'll grant that one would doubt that a man shouting "Lipsky" would then enter that club.

Pipeman only had a knife in the press account of the story, and I'm skeptical of that version of the story too, much more than I am of the police account. But if the press account is flawed, that isn't necessarily Schwartz' fault, and I believe it probably isn't.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

What if he wanted us to think that he probably wouldn't invent a detail that makes it appear less likely that BS man was her killer?

In that case, his motive for inventing the story would probably have been something other than the wish to make it look like BS man was the killer.