Did jack kill liz stride?

[caz]

Ooh, 79 now!

That's unfortunate for you, Lynn.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes, I think that was the contemporary term used to describe pretty much every Whitechapel victim.

It could be used as a euphemism for prostitute, but it could also mean destitute. As far as I know, none of these women could have been described as 'fortunate' in any sense, even before they were murdered.

It does seem that you and Michael are the ones with prostitutes on the brain, while others only see the desperate poverty that caused these women to be out alone at all hours, with a nutter on the loose.

Stride had every reason to believe there was a homicidal maniac at large, yet still she left herself vulnerable that night. I don't suppose it would have been any comfort to her if it was somebody else who took advantage with his knife.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

unfortunately

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Unfortunates? (Yawn.)

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Or it could be that it provides a bump up for the thread and so all the beginners are now drawn in.

You cheeky sod!

Actually, I wonder if some of those who argue for several different killers have been looking at the case for so long they have lost perspective along with their initial instincts - which would probably have served them better.

The very worst, most pompous argument I so often see is the one that says because the case remains stubbornly unsolved after 125 years (completely unsurprising if it involves a lone serial murderer and no forensics), everyone who believed one man was responsible for more than about two of the murders must have been on the wrong track. They come along with their new brooms expecting to sweep clean and solve it their way, usually by introducing unsupported garbage about Spitalfields unfortunates being assassinated by bigwigs and terrorists to preserve 'secrets and careers'.

Not - a - clue.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

easy

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Could be a result of the musings here. After all, two people died on the same night. Easy.

Or it could be that it provides a bump up for the thread and so all the beginners are now drawn in.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

I don't think I'll bother, thanks Lynn. It doesn't interest me much. But out of curiosity, have the results there changed recently, as a result of arguments posted over the last few weeks?

I find it significant that the recent arguments made on this thread have not managed to generate a single new vote for the 'cause' of clearing Jack of Stride's murder, while 7 (no - it's now 8!) posters have decided to return a guilty verdict.

Remember, they appear to be going by our collective posts here, not published books from many years ago promoting a suspect for all they are worth. So be careful you are not insulting the intelligence of these 8 voters (heh-heh).

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

Maybrick

Hello Caroline. You should see the latest Maybrick poll.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Oh and before Michael comes back with any smart alec suggestions to wise up and accept that no ripping means no ripper, I'd just like to point out that his most recent efforts have resulted in the number of exclusionists remaining stubbornly at 35, while the number of inclusionists has risen from 70 to 74.

Ooh I see it's now crept up to 77/35 in my absence. Will catch up with the recent posts asap.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

If 'Pipeman' had been identified, I find it strange that Swanson didn't mention it in his HO report, especially since he did mention Goldstein's coming forward in the same report.

There's an explanation for that, but it's as speculative as is the idea that Pipeman was identified.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

I find it interesting that they didn't give the description of Pipeman as well. It could mean that he was identified as has been suggested by some. Wouldn't they have included that description even as a person of interest to the police if he wasn't identified?

Presenting the description of both men at the same scene would suggest a possible accomplice involved. Considering the heated debate already underway at the time over rewards and pardons, that would have opened a big can of worms for the Home Office. From Abberline's correspondences, there's indication that the police considered 'Pipeman' to be a simple bystander like Schwartz anyway. The police probably were still hoping that 'Pipeman' may come forward with information that might verify Schwartz's statement. Being publicly presented by the police as a possible suspect might not be much of an incentive for an individual to come forward and face a possible arrest.

If 'Pipeman' had been identified, I find it strange that Swanson didn't mention it in his HO report, especially since he did mention Goldstein's coming forward in the same report.

Before Vincent came along, the Police Gazette had been roundly criticized for being repetitive, dull and badly configured. Vincent queried various senior police officials for their opinions about the publication. The response was resoundingly negative. Dolly Williamson said, "It has seldom been found to be of any service." After Vincent overhauled the Police Gazette in 1883, the new format was 'keep it simple stupid' so to speak.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just for sake of interest, Edward Spooner was 29. He died 5 years later.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Observer]

Lets not forget that Spooner did not mention that he had saw Schwartz at any time during the time in question

[Observer]

You intend to put forward that Israel is corroborated by the fact that no one sees or hears anything of BSM or Pipeman or the alledged altercation? Even when we have a witness in the next street who would have had to have seen Schwartz had he been "fleeing incontinently" based on the timing of the story?
Cheers

You are referring to Spooner of course? "Have to had seen Schwartz"? It's no wonder that a poster recently referred to your "constantly getting into trouble" in this Forum.

Hers is a view looking down Fairclough Street I took recently, from it's junction with Christian Street.

Berner Street crosses where the car on the left side of the road in the distance,( not the one at immediate left of course) is viewed. Notice that I am standing in the middle of the road, Spooner would of course have been on the pavement. I attempted to take a photograph exactly where Spooner would have stood, but from that position Berner Street would have been difficult to point out. Spooner was canoodling with his young woman in the doorway of the Beehive Public House when he was alerted to the murder.

To say he would "have had to have seen Schwartz " fleeing across Fairclough Street in the distance, for a split second, at night in the lighting conditions available is ludicrous.

How can we know if Spooner, and girl, were pointed in the right direction to observe Schwartz? Even if they were, they would in all probability have been too engrossed in each other to take any notice.

Even if they were for some strange reason staring along Fairclough Street at the correct moment in time, considering the lighting conditions, and the distance, and the fact that it would have took Schwartz less than a second to clear Fairclough Street I doubt they would have made him out.

To include him as a witness who discredits Schwartz because he did not see him flee across Fairclough Street is grasping at straws, to say the least. You only deal in facts Mike is that right? Well you needs to get your facts right in this instance.

Regards

Observer

[DRoy]

The Oct. 19, 1888 edition carried the description provided by Schwartz of the man he alleged accosted the woman near the passageway of Dutfield's Yard.

Hunter,

I find it interesting that they didn't give the description of Pipeman as well. It could mean that he was identified as has been suggested by some. Wouldn't they have included that description even as a person of interest to the police if he wasn't identified?

Cheers
DRoy

[Hunter]

Hunter: That is incorrect. An inquest is conducted by the coroner, not by the police.
Since when did I say they conducted the Inquest Hunter? Where do you think all the evidence presented came from....elves?

And as for the rest of the comments, presenting evidence that appears in Police memos as actual fact is nonsense, as illustrated by my example.

That goes double for "support of Schwartz", since its clear to almost everyone apparently that he didn't appear at the Inquest, wasn't asked, and he didn't have his story entered as evidence at all.

What people prefer to believe and what is on the table as evidence are not the same thing. Never have been.

How about before you suggest someone has made an error you review the facts first.

The ignorance about the police and their investigation - and the role and function of the coroner's office - that is prevalent in much of Ripperology no longer surprises me.

Agendas come first. Historical study comes after.

If you believe I have not made a proper and objective study of this, then you will not want to read the next issue of RIP.

By the way though, just a little historical background pertaining to your claim that there's only Abberline's personal opinion regarding Israel Schwartz. Are you familiar with the Police Gazette? It was first published in 1772 and was also known as the Hue and Cry - its purpose, as it indicated in its title, being to alert various law enforcement and constabulary about criminals and post rewards. It was printed at Bow Street until Howard Vincent (you do know who he was?) revamped it during his term as director of CID and moved it to Scotland Yard. It operated under the auspices of the Home Office. The Oct. 19, 1888 edition carried the description provided by Schwartz of the man he alleged accosted the woman near the passageway of Dutfield's Yard.

The Police Gazette was not owned or controlled by Frederick Abberline.