Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Fisherman]

How far, Harry, did it travel into the yard? Pray, tell me, sir!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

So the pony was apt to shy.At what?,and why did it travel further into the yard before before it stopped and refused to go on.What was further in the yard that stopped it.

[DVV]

"Lipski" remains an very improbable insult in this kind of situation - unless uttered by a gentile.

Fisherman

A very reasonable view.
Otherwise it would sound too much like "*****z", in gangsta rap. But this ironical use of "*****z" came after a long use of the term by white racists.
In 1888, the Lipski affair was far too recent for such a mirror effect.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:
" I think it's important that he specifically said that his pony was apt to shy, to distinguish it from other city ponies"

..and I think, Mike, that he said nothing of the sort. What he said was something that distinguished his pony from other ponies IN GENERAL to some extent (it was a more apt to shy than ponies in general), and what he of course also said was something that points straight away from your supposition that the ponies of the East End were streetwise animals that would normally not shy away from things.
And to add good measure, Mike – Stride´s body never was in the pony´s way. There was ample space to walk past her by using the middle of the passageway, but the pony shied to the left anyway.

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Exactly my point. All horses shy when a body is in their path. I think it's important that he specifically said that his pony was apt to shy, to distinguish it from other city ponies.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

...and while I´m at it, and since there was a somewhat heated discussion on the topic of whether a streetwise pony was an animal that would shy at different situations or not, here´s a snippet from the Evening News, October 1:st 1888. It is the voice of Louis Diemshitz we are hearing:

"I am a traveller in the common jewellery trade, and work only for myself. I have also been the steward for the International Working Men's Club for between six and seven years, and I live on the premises of the club. For some time I have been in the habit of going to Westow Hill, at the Crystal Palace, every Saturday, in order to sell my goods at the market which is there. I got back this Sunday morning about one o'clock, and drove up to our club-room gate in my pony cart. My pony is frisky and apt to shy, though not much, and it struck me when I was passing through the double gates into the yard that he wanted to keep too much to the left side against the wall."

And there we are: "My pony is frisky and apt to shy". That says just about all there is to say on the matter of city ponies not being all that impressed by different occurences in the streets. Horses are and remain sensitive animals.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:

"this usually only holds when the witness feels to be under threat themselves (when the gun is pulled, when the shady character in a bulky jacket stands stock still on a crowded street). There's no real reason to suppose this was the case in our example."

I think that it has been showed a number of times that Schwartz feared for his own security, and we know that he crossed the street to get out of BS man´s way, Claire. Therefore it stands to reason to apply this sort of thinking here, I´d say.

The best, Claire!
Fisherman

[claire]

witness psychology dictates that the very moment when something suddenly erupts, someone hitting somebody, someone pulling out a gun etcetera, is the moment that will edge itself most efficiently into the mind of the witness. Before and after that, things may be more blurred in the memory, but - just to give an example - the split second when BS man grabbed hold of Stride and tried to drag her into the street, is the moment when the witness is most inclined to take in lots of information - and get much of it right.

Hi Fisherman,

To be fair, though, this usually only holds when the witness feels to be under threat themselves (when the gun is pulled, when the shady character in a bulky jacket stands stock still on a crowded street). There's no real reason to suppose this was the case in our example.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"Yes, if Schwartz is lying there were no BS Man or Pipeman. Unless he were paid to lie to put a twist on something that DID occur in case it were witnessed."

I´m slightly troubled by this, Tom. Do you mean that Schwartz would have been there, but told a story that differed from what happened, or do you mean that he was just a hired misinformant who was never even there?
In each case, but maybe mostly so in the last one, I think it would be a strange thing to hire a man who did not speak English, and then provide him with an interpreter. It would involve more risks that somebody got something terribly wrong. Just a thought.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:
"It is clear that from the account given,he was behind the initial action,and would have been taken by surprise at the suddeness of it."

Exactly so, Harry. And witness psychology dictates that the very moment when something suddenly erupts, someone hitting somebody, someone pulling out a gun etcetera, is the moment that will edge itself most efficiently into the mind of the witness. Before and after that, things may be more blurred in the memory, but - just to give an example - the split second when BS man grabbed hold of Stride and tried to drag her into the street, is the moment when the witness is most inclined to take in lots of information - and get much of it right.

The best,
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Tom,

I'm certianly not adverse to the idea of Schwartz being a pork pie salesman
with the profits going to the club, so to speak.

But...

"It would be utterly remarkable if he were neighbors with young men just like himself but did not enjoy an acquaintance and/or frequent the club."

Abraham Heshburg might not think it so "utterly remarkable".

Thanks for you time,

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, if Schwartz is lying there were no BS Man or Pipeman. Unless he were paid to lie to put a twist on something that DID occur in case it were witnessed. That's not too farfetched considering Charles Le Grand paid Matthew Packer to lie and Le Grand was the spitting image of Pipeman, traveled with ruffians who abused women on the street, and happened to be in that very area of the city at that very time. Hmmm.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

Well, if Schwartz is lying, there might be no BS Man, no Pipeman, and only a dead woman and a club member who escorted her. If Schwartz is a member, the club would have all its angle covered.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Mike,

Remember that Schwartz had lived on Berner Street until that very day. He was busy moving. He was a recent Jewish immigrant and from the Star reporter's description, was not Hassidic. He was also a young man. It would be utterly remarkable if he were neighbors with young men just like himself but did not enjoy an acquaintance and/or frequent the club. We don't know what all the police knew because we don't have the papers. What we do know is that they took Schwartz seriously at first, made a couple of arrests based on his information, and then came to the conclusion he might not be telling the truth. The ONLY police support we have for him is in Abberline's original (and no longer surviving) report. But then, Abberline expressed similar confidence in George Hutchinson in the beginning, only to see him fizzle out and be considered less than honest.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

Tom,

Schwartz doesn't seem to have been a club member as it wasn't mentioned, whereas several other members were named. It is somewhat suspicious, however that he was coming home on that particular route, and if he was giving a cover story for the club, I'm sure they wouldn't mention if he was a member.

I'm going to send an email to William Fishman and see if he can dig up any info on club members.

Mike