Two

[Aristocles]

Archaic, I'm more than happy to teach as well as learn. But I'm surprised you were unfamiliar with the word 'Pirate'!

Jay,

I would imagine that Stride was very succeptable to bruising given not only her alcohol intake, but her age, weight, and nutrition. Her bruising (or lack thereof) could be very telling. As I've written elsewhere, there was no old bruising on her body, indicating that Michael Kidney was not the abusive brute many modern commentators would have us believe. Then there's the matter of no scuffing or bruising on her hands, hips, or tailbone area - something I'd expect to see if she were violently thrown down on the pavement. There was a bruise on her chest and over her shoulder. These occured either just before her murder or shortly thereafter. It's not impossible the shoulder bruising could have come from a zealous client earlier in the evening, so we can't say for sure it was her murderer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Greetings Tom:

Precisely! That is the crux of one of my questions. I do not note any mention of bruising, etc. on the rear side of her organism. I took the "over her shoulder" bruising to mean ~the anterior deltoid. Perhaps, I am wrong? I guess this all seems pedantic but there are certain logical inferences that follow. . .

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jay, I have absolutely no idea why I called you Barry in my last post. As for Stride, all we know is that marks indicitive of finger marks appeared over both shoulders following her death. If that means anterior deltoid in your book, run with it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Aristocles]

Hi Jay, I have absolutely no idea why I called you Barry in my last post. As for Stride, all we know is that marks indicitive of finger marks appeared over both shoulders following her death. If that means anterior deltoid in your book, run with it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

As I am running with this. . . finger marks kind of make the issue moot, since fingers are not footways.

[jmenges]

I was just bemoaning the fact that technology seems to have relieved many a webmaster/editor/writer of any feeling of responsibility in making sure the information they put out is as accurate as possible. There doesn't seem to be ANY check and balance with the podcasts. Also, many of the people I've read as appearing on there aren't particularly knowledgeable on the case, but a listener would assume they were experts.

Hi Tom, et al

A thread is started for each episode for discussion/criticism/correction once the show is uploaded. There is plenty of opportunity for listeners to correct mistakes made on the podcasts. We actually welcome corrections, guests often admit "on-air" when they are unsure of a particular point or are going from memory, and we have received from listeners many clarifications and corrections. It is an entirely unscripted show in a conversational format and so there are bound to be a few errors.

To my knowledge I've never referred to a single guest in the 50-odd episodes as a Ripperologist or an expert on these crimes (please correct me if I have ). It's up to the listener to investigate this subject further and make those judgments for themselves.

Lastly, as I'm enjoying this thread, I suggest we take all discussion of particular Rippercast episodes to their appropriate threads.

And surely for the lastly, Tom Wescott has been invited on the show more than once, and he would be a welcome guest anytime. One must realize that any perceived lack of expertise on the show is due to lack of participation. I cannot have "experts" if certain "experts" turn down requests to appear. But frankly, I'm totally satisfied being able to podcast the opinions of Ally Ryder, Gareth Williams, Ben Holme, Chris Scott, John Bennett, Philip Hutchinson, Paul Begg, AP Wolf, Robert Mclaughlin, Mike Covell, Howard Brown, and everyone else who has been on the show.

JM

[Jeff Leahy]

That's not necessarily the case. Consider what Swanson says: "12.45 a.m. 30th Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street [Ellen St], Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road & having gotten as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman..."

What this tells us is that Schwartz himself was at the gateway in which Stride stood. He could have gotten a decent look at Stride at this point. Personally, I think Schwartz lingered because he was intending to go INTO the club, and therefore got the good look that he claims to have had.

Keeping in mind that we're not reading Schwartz's actual statement, but a condensed version prepared by Swanson, we have to give a little leeway for the human element. Schwartz said he got a good look at Liz and there's nothing here to really suggest it wasn't possible, so assuming he didn't make up the entire encounter, we should accept that he saw what he says he saw.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ok, but off the top of my head, surely Schwartz claimed that as he turned into Berner Street, BSM was ahead of him, walking as if drunk?

So Schwartz followed BSM down Berner Street a distance of at least one hundred yards from Commercial Road to the Dutfeild yard Gate. Yet it seems he followed BSM quite closely if he was able to witness the conversation between Stride and BSM.

A distance behind BSM of even more than say 12 ft and Liz would have been out of site around the corner of Dutfield yard to the right. If Schwartz was indeed scared doesn’t that strike you a little odd that he walks so close?

If I walk back late at night in the Eastend and there is odd characters ahead, I drop back, move out of the way.

Yet as you observe Schwartz must have been actually fairly close to the incident to have witness what he claimed, within feet of the incident, surely?

As you say we have a condensed statement but it was only tonight having posted the statement that it struck home how odd what it says…means..

If it is the case, then Schwartz must have been practically on top of Stride and BSM when he witnessed the encounter, rather than the other side of the Street, which is what I had always assumed.

Pirate

PS. Another interesting thing to consider is whether Schwartz was much closer to BSM when he shouts 'Lipski' if Schwartz is on the opposite side of the road, we assume a loud shout. However Fanney Mortimer, only feet away, doesnt hear it. If Schwartz was close to BSM when he shouts the threat then perhaps that explains why Fanny hears nothing?

[perrymason]

If Schwartz was close to BSM when he shouts the threat then perhaps that explains why Fanny hears nothing?

Another take on the pertinent evidence is that she neednt have heard anything if Liz was talking quietly to a man by the school at 12:45am...with his arm blocking her passage....just like Brown said, at the Inquest.

Doesnt it seem advantageous for the Club that not only does Schwartz, a Hungarian Jew, provide an off site altercation just before she is found dead, but he also injects anti-semetic overtones in his statement?

Seems inflaming and threatening the Jews was a Ripper theme that night. Might do the Club well in the reporting spin on the events....silence some speculation that the killer was in fact a Jew....which was the number one speculation from the authorities at that time.

All the best.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Mike

Yes fair comment, although my use of the word ‘Threat’ is rather presumptuous reading it back. We don’t actually know the context or meaning of the shout ‘Lipski’

However sad though it may seem, I do intend to go outside with some wheel bins today and try and work out the angles, and how close Schwartz would actually have to be to see Stride to his right talk to BSM in Dutfeild yard.

I will report back

Pirate

I’m not certain if this is a little off topic, but I guess it’s relevant to the attack claimed by Schwartz between BSM and Liz

[Jon Guy]

A distance behind BSM of even more than say 12 ft and Liz would have been out of site around the corner of Dutfield yard to the right.

Stride was standing in the gateway not inside the yard, Jeff.

[Jon Guy]

Hello

Schwartz` translated account of the assault can be read two ways. BS either threw her down on the street pavement, or he threw her down on the footway just inside the gates where she would be found.

We know for a fact that she was thrown down on her left side as this was where her dress were plastered with mud, and she was held or forced down on her left side by someone behind her as the finger marks on her shoulder show, and her throat was exposed by pulling back her scarf from the left side.

[babybird67]

i'd just like to say...

i appreciate the hard work and commitment it takes to host the podcasts and edit them for everyone here, so thank you Jonathan.

I also appreciate the time and knowledge given by the guests, and i dont for one moment expect them to be infallible, or to have perfect recall of every fact about the Ripper murders.

For me, they stimulate debate, and encourage me to find out more about each particular subject.

And long may they continue!

[Aristocles]

Hello

Schwartz` translated account of the assault can be read two ways. BS either threw her down on the street pavement, or he threw her down on the footway just inside the gates where she would be found.

We know for a fact that she was thrown down on her left side as this was where her dress were plastered with mud, and she was held or forced down on her left side by someone behind her as the finger marks on her shoulder show, and her throat was exposed by pulling back her scarf from the left side.

Interesting. We know that "she was thrown down on her left side"? Phillips states she was placed on her left side and PC Lamb stated "She looked as if she had been laid quietly down". Baxter said "there were no marks of gagging, no bruises on the face". (Assuming the 'face' includes both sides) This gets at my original question.

JG

[Jon Guy]

Phillips states she was placed on her left side and PC Lamb stated "She looked as if she had been laid quietly down".

Perhaps, the finger marks on her shoulder were caused by gripping and forcing her down on her left side, as she was found?

Schwartz does say that BS pulled the woman towards him and then turned her around.

[Jeff Leahy]

Stride was standing in the gateway not inside the yard, Jeff.

Makes know difference Jon...I'm about to head outside with a camera and prove it.

Schwartz must have been practically on top of BSM and Stride to have witnessed what is claimed 'verbatum' in his statement.

Pirate

[Chris]

By the way, Schwartz, BS Man, Mortimer, Stride, and Pipeman were ALL on the same side of the road UNTIL Schwartz crossed over to the board school side to get away from BS Man. Pipeman then stepped out of the shadows of the Nelson beerhouse. Since Schwartz crossed the street, Pipeman was now on the opposite side from him, but the same side of the street as BS Man and Stride.

Certainly the Star report says that the second man "came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off", but I think this is another aspect of the story that's a bit difficult to reconcile in the different accounts.

Swanson says: "On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he [Schwartz] 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', and 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."

I think the natural interpretation of this is that the first man was shouting to a man on the opposite side of the road from him (not from Schwartz), and that the phrase "opposite side" refers to the east side both times it's used, not to the east side first and then in the following sentence to the west side.

Moreover, if the second man were standing on the corner of the west side of Berner Street, and Schwartz were more or less opposite him on the east side, how should we interpret what happened next?

(1) In Swanson's version, Schwartz "walks away" and then finds the second man is following him, and therefore runs to "the railway arch".

(2) In the Star version, the second man "rushed forward as if to attack the intruder [Schwartz]" and Schwartz "fled incontinently to his new lodgings". (These lodgings were nearly due south, near the junction of Berner Street and Ellen Street.)

And in just about the only piece of information about the incident from another source, we have a statement in the Echo about a man having been seen "being chased by another man along Fairclough-street".

If the second man were on the west side, and Schwartz on the east side, surely Schwartz must have fled eastward along Fairclough Street, away from the man, not westward, towards him. (Unless he walked past him first, and then fled in the same direction, but I can't see any hint of that in either account.)

But it that case, how would he end up at "the railway arch"? The only candidate I can see is the one near the south end of Back Church Lane, but that was to the south-west of the murder site.

On the other hand, if it wasn't for the mention of the pub in the Star report, I think everything would point to Schwartz having run westward along Fairclough Street, and then southward along Back Church Lane to the railway arch.

[Stephen Thomas]

And in just about the only piece of information about the incident from another source, we have a statement in the Echo about a man having been seen "being chased by another man along Fairclough-street". ............


I think everything would point to Schwartz having run westward along Fairclough Street, and then southward along Back Church Lane to the railway arch.

Thanks for that, Chris

I never knew that there was some sort of independant verification of the Schwartz/Pipeman chase and I always assumed that Schwartz headed due south. Here's the full article from the Press Reports here with the relevant bit under the heading 'A Man Pursued-Said To Be The Murderer'.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881001.html