A Modern Day BS Man/Liz Encounter

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

The one crucial detail is the timing of Israel Schwartz's story–12.45 am. I believe it is the reason why he wasn't summoned to attend the inquest, for his evidence would have made mincemeat of the widely-accepted legend that the "Ripper" was interrupted by Diemschutz at 1.00 am and thus did not go on to mutilate Stride.

Read Swanson's 19th October report in which he attempts to square this evidential anomaly by offering up the suggestion that Schwartz's man may not have been her murderer and that lightning struck Stride twice that morning.

Thank goodness one of Swanson's superiors had his head screwed on and in a marginal note described this double-whammy scenario as "rather confused", a comment which wins my award for the understatement of the 19th Century.

For reasons as yet unknown the evidence that Stride was part of a double event was manipulated to fit the nascent Jack the Ripper phenomenon, for it's impossible to promote the concept of a lone assassin stalking the East End if it is known that on the same night another woman had her throat slit by a different hand. It takes the gilt off the gingerbread.

Oh. And just in case anyone at the time wasn't completely buying into the "double-event", to seal the deal along came the very timely Saucy Jacky postcard.

As I wrote on another thread, the Whitechapel murders feature many conspiratorial ingredients. For the open-minded they're all there for the looking. Stride being a "Ripper" victim is just one of them.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

The one crucial detail is the timing of Israel Schwartz's story–12.45 am. I believe it is the reason why he wasn't summoned to attend the inquest, for his evidence would have made mincemeat of the widely-accepted legend that the "Ripper" was interrupted by Diemschutz at 1.00 am and thus did not go on to mutilate Stride.

Except that doesn't explain why James Brown was called to the inquest, considering his timing was exactly the same, but his evidence wasn't nearly as compelling.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

For reasons as yet unknown the evidence that Stride was part of a double event was manipulated to fit the nascent Jack the Ripper phenomenon, for it's impossible to promote the concept of a lone assassin stalking the East End if it is known that on the same night another woman had her throat slit by a different hand.

You state that it was 'known' that Stride was killed by a different hand, which means you're saying the police knew who her slayer was. Pray tell, who was her slayer, where's the evidence - however small - that the police knew her identity, and was Abberline a part of this ruse or was the conspiracy happening over his head?

And if the police knew who killed Stride, but needed to keep that under wraps to promote the idea that Jack killed her, and Schwartz saw this man, then surely this is why Schwartz wasn't invited to the inquest?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Mr Wood, the crucial detail in Israel Schwartz' testimony (IF his testimony, whichever version of it, is to be taken at face value) is BS attacking Stride in public, and the fact that there might have been an associate (Pipeman).

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

James Brown's evidence didn't interfere with the concept of mutilatum interruptus which allegedly spurred the subsequent murder of Eddowes.

Schwartz's did.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Simon. But that was only a theory, so would have nothing directly to do with Schwartz's evidence. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and if the Met Police could have proved a case against Stride's killer, leaving the far more popular and press-friendly City Police standing their with nothing but a bloody apron in their hand, surely they would have done so. But you suggest they had the killer in their grasp and chose to let him go to perpetuate the idea of a lone killer, who may or may not even strike again. I consider myself a Ripperologist with a very open mind, but you must be careful that your mind isn't so open that your brain falls out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Simon Wood wrote:
James Brown's evidence didn't interfere with the concept of mutilatum interruptus which allegedly spurred the subsequent murder of Eddowes.
Schwartz's did.
I truly don't get it why people are so keen to take Victorian witnesses' time assertions at complete face value.

[c.d.]

Simon Wood wrote:
James Brown's evidence didn't interfere with the concept of mutilatum interruptus which allegedly spurred the subsequent murder of Eddowes.
Schwartz's did.
I truly don't get it why people are so keen to take Victorian witnesses' time assertions to complete face value.

Hi Maria,

I think it is because it supports their argument whatever it may be. But as Sugden, points out, most people in the East End at that time did not possess a watch and so relied on other means of "estimating" the time.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

James Brown estimated the time, Diemschitz used the clock on the corner, and we don't know about Schwartz.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

C.D. wrote:
But as Sugden, points out, most people in the East End at that time did not possess a watch and so relied on other means of "estimating" the time.
Precisely, C.D. And even if some of the churches' clocks chimed every 15' minutes, one should take the times given by Victorian witnesses at an estimate of at least 30' min. off.

[Tom_Wescott]

30 minutes off? Not in most cases. These people were not idiots and had learned to get by without time pieces. There were far more public clocks at that time and these clocks were NOT 30 minutes off.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Well, if not 30' min. off, then possibly 20', 15' min. off. And I never presumed that Victorians were stupid. Time and precision in time didn't have the same significance in Victorian Whitechapel as in our digital age.
Otherwise, how can we explain Elizabeth Long's testimony?

[c.d.]

Hi Maria,

I think maybe you mean that people's estimates of the correct time was off not that the clocks were off. Is that correct?

c.d.

[mariab]

Yes, C.D., exactly as you said, I meant that people's estimates of the correct time might have been off.
Now, it might also well be that some church clocks might have been a bit off, which might have complicated things.
What this reminds me of is last September, when I was in Durham for a conference which took place just behind the Durham cathedral. This church had a historic, restaured clock which chimed every 15' min., in the traditional British way, with different chords/sounds for every quarter of hour, supposedly with a specific chord for .15, .30, .45, and .00. Well so NOT! In reality it gave all kinds of different chords and sounds at all kinds of different times, and sometimes the bells would go off like for 20' minutes non stop! I remember we were laughing so hard during the plenary session, as it was impossible to hear a word from what the poor speaker was trying to say, and he had to wait for 20' minutes, until the church clock/bell decided to stop ringing. Some other times it would go off in the middle of the night, like forever, and our dorm was just opposite the church!

[c.d.]

Did Schwartz say how he came by his time estimate? Did he say he had a watch?

c.d.