A Modern Day BS Man/Liz Encounter

[Garza]

Hi Garza. her feet weren't near the wall. That's where Blackwell mispoke. It's physically impossible and not supported by any other witnesses.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

How far were they away from the wall tom, did anyone say?

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, not read a Rip. yet, tried google books, but its limited access and it pisses me off lol, don't like reading bits and pieces of things.

But you do read Casebook Examiner, right?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garza]

A subsequent press interview with this woman revealed that she had been outside no later than 12:30am (if memory serves).

Was this interview with the woman around the corner? If so I have not read it !

[Garza]

But you do read Casebook Examiner, right?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yes lol, I subscribed and I have read Fisherman's essay on Stride positioning in the dissertation section.

[mariab]

Fleetwood Mac wrote:
On a related note.....I've just read a book by a chap who states that Pipe Man was traced by the police and discounted. I've half a mind to e-mail the author asking him how he knows this as well as the identity of Pipe Man.
The book in question possibly quotes Paul Begg's The (uncensored) facts, where Begg mistakenly claims that Pipeman might have been questioned. Abberline's reports show that they never questioned Pipeman and thought of him as an accomplice, not a witness.

To Hunter and Lynn Cates:
I need to correct myself for having claimed that Stride was at some point lying on her stomach. Obviously, she must have been lying more on her side vs. on her stomach when her throat was cut to not have been covered in mud and probably also horse manure in front.
(I just can't believe the stuff that comes out of my mouth. Like, “Dude, I'm, like, SOOO covered in mud and horse manure in front!“)

Tom Wescott wrote:
Adam actually published an essay in Rip that, in part, went over his feelings regarding Mortimer. I, in turn, wrote Rip a 'Letter to the Editor' that was published in the subsequent issue. Adam responded in kind. We have also discussed this a lot on the boards
Have to confess that (being a very good researcher) I'm kinda aware of all that, he he he.

[Adam Went]

Hi Maria, Garza, Fleetwood, Tom, etc:

Since all your posts are pretty much singing the same tune, I figured I might as well respond to you all collectively regarding Fanny Mortimer….

It’s true that Goldstein backs her story up and nobody backs Schwartz’s story up – BUT, likewise, there is nobody who clearly refutes Schwartz’s version of events, whereas there are in effect for Fanny Mortimer because of men such as Morris Eagle who passed through the street and into the club without her having seen them.

We also seem to be forgetting that Liz and her killer MUST have walked along the street and entered the passageway at some point during this half hour – both were missed by her. Likewise, the comment from Fleetwood earlier that she heard the footsteps of PC Smith at 12.35 AM – can you please clarify the source for this, as I don’t recall hearing it?

Tom mistakenly argued in his response to my article (“A Matter Of Time: The Elizabeth Stride Murder” – Ripperologist #113, April 2010, and our letters in the two subsequent issues for anybody interested to read in greater depth), that I had chosen deliberately to use one unreliable source for the “I was standing at my door almost the whole time between 12.30 and 1 AM” comment from Mortimer to suit the angle that I was aiming for – on the contrary. There are several newspapers which reported exactly the same thing.

The whole 12.46 to 12.56 AM thing is used only because they are literally the only times during which it is possible for Mortimer to have been standing at her door without any of the several other witnesses seeing her, or vice versa. None of them claimed to have seen a woman at or near her door. A simple mathematical equation combined with other witness times will show anybody who cares to research it that this is the only plausible “10 minute gap”, though it doesn’t fit with Mortimer’s own testimony.

So it is only with a great deal of twisting the facts to suit the theory that her testimony becomes viable, and as such she should not be looked at with any degree of believability. I can only repeat that I don’t believe her to be a liar, just mistaken.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

The Mortimer Factor

It’s true that Goldstein backs her story up and nobody backs Schwartz’s story up – BUT, likewise, there is nobody who clearly refutes Schwartz’s version of events, whereas there are in effect for Fanny Mortimer because of men such as Morris Eagle who passed through the street and into the club without her having seen them.

Both Goldstein and Mortimer have Goldstein passing down the street just a few minutes before the body was discovered at 1am. I'm being conservative in placing this time at 12:56am. Mortimer said she was standing in her doorway only 'about 10 minutes' prior to Goldstein's passing, so we place her coming to her doorway at approx. 12:46am. Likewise, it could have been 12:48 to 12:58am, though not likely to have been much earlier since both she and Goldstein said it was 'just before 1am'. Considering this evidence, why on earth should we expect Mortimer to have seen Eagle pass through at 12:40am? Her testimony conflicts with no one, including Schwartz. Mortimer also reflected that the streets were particularly quiet that night, so maybe the idea of Berner Street emptying out for the Schwartz episode isn't so impossible.

Tom mistakenly argued in his response to my article

I rarely make mistakes when discussing Berner Street, Adam, although it sometimes happens. However, any mistakes made in our exchange were not my own.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

a few thoughts on Berner Street

Tom Wescott wrote:
I rarely make mistakes when discussing Berner Street, Adam, although it sometimes happens.
There are just 2 “mistakes“ that Tom might be making pertaining to Berner Street. If one could call them “mistakes“, since it's just points where I strongly disagree with him:
1) That Stride might have encountered a robbery as a ruse, hence she got out the cachous by accident, as they were sticking to her money. I don't buy this. There were still buttons intact in Stride's pocket. On the other side, the scenario of robbery as a ruse (so that the intended victims keep mum initially) appears plausible with Nichols and Eddowes, as the evidence of their belongings thrown around them shows.
2) If Tom still hypothesizes that the Ripper might have gone out on the night of September 30, 1888 with the intention to kill 2, and that he left Stride with no attempt at evisceration on purpose, so that he keeps clean of blood, to approach the second intended victim, I'm not buying this. I simply can't fathom that the killer at this stage would have gone for “quantity over quality". What I actually believe is that, had Diemshitz walked inside Dutfield's Yard WITHOUT his pony and carriage, Stride might have ended up disemboweled too. Because apart from the nervous poney and carriage, the situation with Diemshitz in Dutfield's Yard is very reminiscent of Cadosh at Hanbury Street.
On the other side, I think that Tom's interpretation of the “grapes“ as blood stains' contamination left over by Dr. Johnston is ingenious. The same about the so-called “Lynn-Cates-stolen-theory“ (), i.e., that Schwartz might have been manipulated by the IWEC, due to the fact that William Wess covered Schwartz in the press reports and that William Wess is documented as having translated for the police in another, earlier case. If my own findings about a Schwartz no-first-name in French spy reports end up corroborating that we're dealing with the same Schwartz (as I highly anticipate), then we'll see what we should do about Pipeman and BS. At any rate, even if Pipeman never existed, Le Grand's involvement in the Berner Street events are thoroughly documented (even if they require to be researched further).

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria. As you noted, those are by no means 'mistakes' on my part, merely theories you don't buy into. As for this 'Lynn Cates stolen idea', again that derives from my research and speculation. I'm not aware of anyone other than myself who has offered anything new and viable regarding Berner Street in the last few years, but there sure are plenty of critics.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Hi Tom.
I KNOW that the so-called Lynn-Cates-stolen-theory is essentially your own hypothesis (pertaining to Schwartz and his possible ties with the IWEC), and Lynn too is the first to admit it!
Do you still believe today that the Ripper might have intended to kill 2 on the night of September 30, 1888? Because I'd most definitely say that the evidence speaks against this (as it's clear that the eviscerations were essential to his MO). Also, I was expecting of you to agree that Hanbury Street and Dutfield's Yard offer many parallels...
Tom Wescott wrote:
I'm not aware of anyone other than myself who has offered anything new and viable regarding Berner Street in the last few years, but there sure are plenty of critics.
I'm aware of the critics, and most of them are uninformed, as I've been noticing since the very first weeks of joining casebook.
There might be ONE important single piece of totally NEW information pertaining to Berner Street, offered by Lynn Cates, as in the fact that the Okhrana used to hire local detective agencies to help with the anti-socialist agenda. I'm sure you'll agree that this is information requiring to be further researched ASAP.
As for my own contribution, I'm the first to admit that the Schwartz-having possibly-had-ties-to-the-IWEC scenario is not new, but originating from your own hypothesis. Still, I have a few NEW ideas of how to research a few things, and I solemny promise, I'm gonna get results out of most of this. It'll just take a few months.

[Tom_Wescott]

Mike Covell syndrome

I KNOW that the so-called Lynn-Cates-stolen-theory is essentially your own hypothesis (pertaining to Schwartz and his possible ties with the IWEC), and Lynn too is the first to admit it!

I know you know, yet only you calls my theories 'Lynn Cates theories', which makes absolutely no sense. It's bad enough everyone assumes all my research comes from Debs, and my writing is done by Don, now all my theories come from Lynn. But hey, as long as all the checks/cheques say Tom Wescott, it's all gravy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[sleekviper]

Tom, you in the double kill theory also? Well cool, got a minute to read a thought?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Sleek. Double kill theory? I'll let you know if I'm in it after I read about it. Sure, show me what you got.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Wow Tom, chill! I said Lynn-Cates'-STOLEN-theory, and maybe it was of bad taste, but it was intended as a joke. Everybody knows that you're more than capable of doing your own research, as several articles published in Ripper Notes (particularly Ripper Notes #25, and this particular one, quite brilliantly) prove. The fact that Debra Arif is a very experienced researcher incidentally located in the UK does not diminish any of your self-worth as a researcher. In fact, I've said before in another thread that I consider the way that you're currently conducting Ripperology, with reduced internet access only at work, as truly heroic. As for your writing capabilities, we all make the occasional typo. Anyone with good sighting and half a brain sees that you're completely gifted, accurate, and nicely creative with the “written word“, just by reading your (important) contributions to the casebook threads. OK, so you happen to be located thousands of miles from London Whitechapel, but that's what makes it even more interesting and a challenge. Don't spoil this by becoming a whiner now, please!
(And I just love your claims about the cheques. It's priceless, pun intended, while please let me admit that my own earnings from royalties in 2010 are expected to reach the unprecedented, impressive sum of...200-€?)

[corey123]

Maria,

I have a question, did you come to this forum in hopes of studying the ripper, or the ripperologists? Just woundering.