Why Did the BS Man Try to Pull Liz into the Street?

[DVV]

One problem with Schwartz is that he couldn't speak English. The translator might have made some mistakes.
So it's difficult to choose between his police statement and The Star.
On old boards, for example (and if I remember well), there was a suggestion about Hungarian language, which could explain why the original pipe became a knife in the press report.

[perrymason]

One problem with Schwartz is that he couldn't speak English. The translator might have made some mistakes.So it's difficult to choose between his police statement and The Star.
On old boards, for example (and if I remember well), there was a suggestion about Hungarian language, which could explain why the original pipe became a knife in the press report.

Hi David,

It wasnt a problem for Schwartz at all....its a problem for us in that we have to wonder whether he is translated exactly as he conveyed the details to the interpreter in Hungarian, and whether the interpreter accurately, intentionally or non-intentionally, mis-represented any content.

I think you can rightfully assume something regarding the translated testimony in the Berner Street murder investigation....none of it reflected suspiciously or poorly on the International Club or the Arbeter Fraint. Its likely both Goldstein and Schwartz were translated for by Wess...I believe Tom Wescott mentioned that in fact Goldstein was.

Best regards.

[Haskins]

Yes i think Schwartz is a big problem for us. How reliable is he? Was he mistaken in any respect (about the time, the day, the persons he saw?). His witness testimony is uncorroborated by anyone else. Personally i've always thought that his testimony has to be treated with caution.

If we put all our faith in Schwartz, then the BS man was most likely the killer, but his behaviour was unsubtle and unwise, given that he was intending to slaughter her. Doesn't sound like someone who would get away with a string of murders. So maybe he was not JtR.

That's the thing with this case, there are lots of baffling questions that can not now be answered and lots of problems that we will probably never solve.

[Mrs Darrell]

If Schwartz is telling the truth (or Brown for that matter) and it was Elizabeth Stride they saw with the killer at 12.45, then surelythat is plenty of time for the killer to do whatever damage to the woman as he wanted before the arrival of the pony and cart at 1am?

Unless the man seen with her was not her killer and she had the misfortune to meet JtR after that?

[Mitch Rowe]

Almost anything could have happened. I watched a case the other day where a witness answered a knock on the door in wich Police were pretty it was the killer who had hoped it was the victim answering. a few minutes later there was another knock at the door. This time victim answered. Vicitm was shot and killed.

Now police had found out that the victim had stolen the killers drugs that were hidden in an alley because the kiler was a drug dealer who would hide his drugs there till a deal was made.

All is looking good for the case. All they need is the witness to identify the killer and the case is sealed. They show the witness a photo line up with the killers picture.

The witness picks a random person from the line up and swears on his life that the person is the one who knocked on the door!! There was nothing they could do. The witness was absolutely sure of himself yet absolutely wrong.

In another case a female witness who lived in an apt in wich a murder had occured outside nearly in the front yard told police she had dropped her keys on the ground outside when the shooting started and she wanted to retrieve them. I dont recall if they gave them to her. I dont think so. Where they were laying made them part of the crimescene.

Anyway they found out later the "witness" was actually the killers girlfriend and the keys belonged to the killer who had dropped them while running away.

Soo.. If you are a detective and stuff like that happens to you how reliable can you consider a witness to be?

[Howard Brown]

Pardon the intrusion here...

The observations we make of Schwartz' statement regarding BSMan pulling,dragging,or moving Stride into or toward the street might need to seen in this light as well. Its irrelevant in the scheme of things but let me spiel...

If on one side...the other side of Stride's body in relation to the layout, there was a gate or wall, would we maintain that BSMan tried to "put her through a wall or gate" or throw her into the gate? I don't think so. Its almost an either/or situation since she most likely would have fallen in one of two directions at best.

I mention this solely in contrast to a previous "belief" I once held,that someone from the IWMEC came outside and tried to give the woman the heave ho from the front of the premises since she had attracted a little attention from the fellers....

Haskins, the poster, mentioned

"If we put all our faith in Schwartz, then the BS man was most likely the killer, but his behaviour was unsubtle and unwise, given that he was intending to slaughter her. Doesn't sound like someone who would get away with a string of murders. So maybe he was not JtR.

It might be worth contemplating that we don't know whether Nichols' killer or Eddowes' killer displayed any subtlety at all in those cases either. Just a thought.

[Mitch Rowe]

But Nichols was the first. Eddowes was a stand in. Most likely JTR walked into the yard with Stride without incident.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Mitch:

Plausible idea you have for sure. Thanks for mentioning the sequence of events....

I just happen to be of the "school of thought" that doesn't believe the Ripper necessarily was definitely stealthy or definitely sheepish about being spotted.

I also lean towards the possibility/likelihood that he, JTR/BSMan, blitzed the victims without the slightest inhibition at all...whether on the street on Bucks Row..in Mitre Square..or in a yard on Berner Street. I should have explained that.

[Lord-z]

I just happen to be of the "school of thought" that doesn't believe the Ripper necessarily was definitely stealthy or definitely sheepish about being spotted.

I dunno, I think that he would have to be reasonably stealthy once the Ripperscare began. I am not saying that he crawled through the shadows like some sort of cockney ninja, just that he had to be calm and collected and generally try to draw as little attention as he could. The ladies of the night in Whitechapel probably wouldn't bring him into alleys if they sensed danger and if he ran from the scene he might be noticed by a cop or a vigilante.

[Howard Brown]

Hello, Lord-Z...thanks for the reply.

Allow me to do some 'splaining here...

1. Tabram's murder ( regardless of whether it was a Ripper murder or not) didn't require any degree of caution on a street level,since it obviously didn't occur on the street. My view,since I tend to think less of the Guardsman-As-Killer theory that many fellow Ripperologists believe in, is that had the killer/Ripper been interrupted during the Tabram atrocity, he would have dispatched them should they have intervened. I think that Pearly Poll's saga of being with her the night preceding her murder was patently untrue and the subsequent 42 day investigation by Inspector Reid that followed based on her, and her's alone, testimony of being with two chaps out pubcrawling that came up fruitless demonstrates the saga of being a fiction on Poll's part. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Tabram was either in the act of prossing or perhaps,sleeping, on the landing when attacked by someone other than a Guardsman.

2. I likewise am not convinced that Nichols was in the act of prostitution at the time she was killed, although I certainly think she intended to obtain doss money or would have certainly acquiesced to a proposition between the time she was last seen alive and up to the eventual assault that ended her life. I base this notion or theory on the location of her murder,which was on the pavement...not in an alley.

3. Chapman is a tough one to include in my "Blitz" theory. I've still gotta work on that one a bit. Any ideas?

4. Eddowes may have been with the man who Lawende,Harris,& Levy walked past and then again she may not have been. As you and I know, most "kneetremblers" occurred in alleyways or at least not in the open. To my mind, if Eddowes was cognizant of the 3 men who passed her with the man she was seen with ( and we are assuming that it was Eddowes that was seen for the time being ) that she would have likewise been aware of any other men, notably policemen, who could just as easily have walked through the open square and intervened, possibly re-arresting her.

She had just spent some time in jail and unless I'm wrong, the first thing someone who has just gotten out of a jail cell wants is to go right back into one. Again, the location seems to be a little unusual for one, in this case me, to accept and ordinarily a liasing between pross and client finds the pross doing the steering,not the other way around.

....which leads me back to Stride.

In my view, its unlikely that someone who would commit a domestic murder would do so in such a brazen fashion. I hear Glenn Andersson grinding his teeth....

I lean towards the BSMan wanting to take her into Dutfield's Yard, but before Pipeman arrived on the scene and before Schwartz made his way down Berner Street. Sometimes,I think people assume that both Pipeman and BSMan were associated in some way or at least on Berner Street at the exact same time. I'm someone who doesn't feel that thats etched in stone.

After his initial attempt at seducing her into the Yard failed, I envision that the Pipeman then made his appearance and then Schwartz came on the scene. Faced with "failure" for the first time ( theoretically ) he reacts in a way we assume the stealthy,slithering Ripper would not have and that is by shoving her down, waiting for the two fellows to leave the street, taking her in to the yard and simply killing her. Any attempts at mutilation are for one reason or the other stymied by some unknown factor.

Thats my story and I'm stickin' to it,Lord Z

[Mitch Rowe]

What I think was happening is that JTR needed his victims as much as they needed him. 29 Hanbury was right around the corner from where Annie lived. Annies bed # was 29. She may have used #29 to signify to the other working girls that she was going to stake a claim to 29 Hanbury as her own private boudoir.

Whatever happened Jack and Annie made it to the backyard without alerting anyone when nearly as soon as the body is discovered the "trampling" awakes Harriett Hardiman and causes Amelia Richardson to send her grandson down to see what the fuss was about.

It must have been Baileys men in the passage then. So this indicates to me that there was at least some sort of stealth going on concerning Annie and Jack through the passage. Perhaps even during Jacks escape. He probably didnt run into any walls or trip or make any untoward noises during his escape. That kind of stuff does happen. The Ripper unfamiliar with the hallway having just killed and mutilated Annie is now going to have to walk down the hall in the dark. He probably had been down the hallway a few times with Annie prior. He was probably aware enough after what he did to Annie to quietly walk down the hall and escape.

With MJK we know she leads him to her room. We know she must be terrified as everyone else is of JTR. Yet JTR is able to fool her until the very last second.

[Mrs Darrell]

Hi all.

I think on the whole I'm leaning to Liz not being a victim of the Ripper. Though obviously none of us can ever say for sure.

I first read about the Ripper in the late 90's after working at The Royal London Hospital. Like many others I expect, the nickname JTR was familiar to me, though I knew nothing of the crimes. I can't remember the book I read but it didn't question the possibility of Liz not being a ripper victim, so neither did I. After reading all the contributions on here, i am now sceptical. I think If Catherine Eddowes hadn't been murdered on the same night, then her candidacy as ripper victim may have not even arisen.

For Jack to use a different MO on Liz and then return to type for Catherine seems a bit unlikely for me. Plus, I think Jack was probably hanging around on the fringes of the city as he knew there was a higher police and viglilante prescence in the Whitechapel are. Plus he knew there were plenty of prostitues around St Botolph's anyway. I think he may have also gone out earlier as he expected police etc for him to strike later.

All this is speculation of course, but I think it's more likely that Liz wasn't a Ripper victim


One question though- if Kidney was Liz's killer, I presume he is a gentile, so that makes it likely that Schwartz wasn't Anderson's witness doesn't it?

[Tom_Wescott]

Michael Kidney wasn't Liz's killer. He in no way resembled BS Man or Pipeman (assuming one of them killed Liz), had an alibi for the murder, was clearly devastated by her death, and had no qualms about appearing in public (in front of potential witnesses) at the inquest. How one can overcome all of this and say he is more likely to have killed Liz than a man we KNOW to have been in the area killing women THAT SAME HOUR will never make sense to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Had she been murdered on a different night than Eddowes, she likely would have been mutilated. Having said that, even without mutilations, she would have been investigated as a potential Ripper victim.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes, about Michael Kidney: "He in no way resembled BS Man"

...and I think it is only fair to point out that Tom has been very ungenerous to the rest of us, since he obviously has a photo of BS man stacked away, showing exactly how he looked, just as he has another photo of Kidney, providing the same services.

Without these assets, it is of course kind of daft to make the sort of assertion that Tom did in that post of his. But I think we can rely on him coming up with the goods, showing that he has known all along - eh, Tom?

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

We have a description of both men and a good drawing of Kidney from the inquest. He sported a giant moustache, whereas BS Man did not. Even Sy Sperling couldn't grow a moustache that fast.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott