The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[Tom_Wescott]

Like I've already apologized a few days ago, it's probably my mistake for recently having talked too much on the boards about Le Grand-research.

I surely hope that’s not the case as Stewart is well-aware that only I can accurately represent my viewpoints. Perhaps my section entitled ‘Batty Street Lodger’ in my Le Grand essay proved inconvenient. Or how I referenced his work (along with that of many other) in demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt how his preferred suspect in the Stride murder (Michael Kidney) was not her killer. Or maybe he thinks I outright fabricated my evidence. I would love to be accused of that in public. It’s about the only thing I haven’t been accused of yet. One this is for absolute certain though, and that is that Le Grand most definitely IS inconvenient for anyone holding to another suspect. Another certainty is that I’m perfectly capable of separating myself from Le Grand in discussing the Stride murder. After all, who is the father of the ‘Schwartz was an attendee of the Berner Street club’ hypothesis? Who got the discussion going on the possibility that Schwartz lied? Yours truly. But how does this help my argument against Le Grand? If Schwartz lied and there was no Pipeman, I’m f****d. But I’m willing to consider those possibilities, because I’m trying to get to the truth. Anyone else had anything new and viable to add to the Berner Street murder in the last decade? Don’t think so. Anyway, rant over. LOL.

Tom, perhaps Mr. Evans is worried that you might be overdoing it with the Mitre Square ramification and the "From Hell" letter/WVC connection. Especially since he might yet NOT know about the newest, solid discovery (“the Emperor's new clothes“, wink wink). I was thinking about how much this thing requires an article (a bit later, when it's fully researched). The way people will start reacting to the revelations with shock, reservations, and even anger, it would perhaps be a good idea if you published an article on the Mitre Square part and let it sink for a year or two, before your book comes out. The book's gonna reach a wider audience that just Ripperologists anyway, so it'll be read all from scratch by most people.

I’m not comfortable with your use of ‘Mitre Square’ in connection with my evidence for Le Grand and the Lusk kidney. I at no time have stated that the kidney received by Lusk was Eddowes’. That’s how you see it, and maybe that’s correct. The medical evidence for it having been Eddowes’ is not at all satisfying to me. And no matter how sound my argument is, it will not be accepted by Stewart and many others. Some simply because it bears my name, others simply because they don’t believe any new idea of such magnitude could be true. Others because it’s inconvenient. But outside of that small group, it will be another matter.

As for writing it up as an article, I can’t be arsed. However perhaps I should put to bed this nonsense of a couple (now two couples!) having been in Berner Street at the same time as Stride. Or Adam Went’s totally misguided interpretation of Mortimer’s evidence. Maybe I’ll write up ‘The Berner Street Mystery Part 7’ (I think that’s where I’m at?) for whatever journal is still in existence a few months from now. However, it doesn’t seem to matter. The Berner Street murder is the least confusing and conflicting of all the crimes, and by far has the most witness evidence, but for some reason everybody wants to make a concerted effort to hold on to the myths and mistakes. Even the A-Z chose to continue to identity Diemshitz as ‘Diemschutz’ in spite of the irrefutable evidence I provided for the former having been his correct name. Old habits die hard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I'm too pissed off right now to recall what the number was for the Nelson, but it would be in my Berner Street Mystery 2 in Ripper Notes, which I believe you have.

[Stewart P Evans]

Upset?

...
...
As for my fixation on Le Grand, it led to my ‘wild theories’ that he paid witnesses to lie in order to save his own arse, as we see with Packer. Another fantasy of mine was that he was involved in the Batty Street Lodger nonsense. And yet another is that he was suspected by the police for the Ripper murders. I postulated all this long ago and…guess what…further research confirmed every damn bit of it. I’d love anyone to name another Ripper researcher who let the evidence alone lead him to a suspect only to find out that he actually WAS a police suspect who had his hand in damn near every sensational event that occurred in the murder series. I expect such nonsense from posters who haven’t been around to see me proved right at every turn, such as Phil H, or the little gaggle that walk the London streets, frustrated at their own lack of imagination. But from the author of a suspect book who has himself been wrongly dismissed as fixated and biased more times than he can count? I’m bewildered. I’m also curious to hear of ONE SINGLE example involving my posts on Le Grand where I exhibited some sort of obsessive fixation that reached beyond the realm of fact or reasonable supposition. Just one. Anybody.
...
Tom Wescott

You seem upset?

[Stewart P Evans]

Report

...
Maria is 62 and an ex-cop? I believe I was directly replying to her that ‘memo’ was a word I was using and wasn’t comfortable with. But certainly if you say that any slip of paper in Abberline’s handwriting is to be called a ‘report’, then I will defer to your experience, as I usually do. However, I don’t see what my ignorance in what constitutes a ‘police report’ in England has to do with my suspect preference?
...
Tom Wescott

I was not referring to 'any slip of paper', I was referring to a report by Abberline.

[Stewart P Evans]

Aware

We must not “go back” as far as you think if you believe that my research into Le Grand has led me to conclude that a) Stride was a Ripper victim, b) Pipeman was outside the Nelson, or c) that the one paragraph replies that Abberline was asked to provide in responses to questions about Schwartz was not what I would consider a ‘report’. I was touting all of these ideas for YEARS before I knew anything about Le Grand.
...
Tom Wescott

I am well aware of what ideas you have 'touted' over the years.

[mariab]

the one paragraph replies that Abberline was asked to provide in responses to questions about Schwartz was not what I would consider a ‘report’.

Tom, Abberline's letter is much longer than just one paragraph, it's over 1 page long as transcribed in The Ultimate. The original source might easily be 2 pages long, if written on a small piece of paper. It's actually my own mistake for talking on the boards about police reports and calling them “memos“, which is too modern a term.

I’m also curious to hear of ONE SINGLE example involving my posts on Le Grand where I exhibited some sort of obsessive fixation that reached beyond the realm of fact or reasonable supposition.

Like I've already apologized a few days ago, it's probably my mistake for recently having talked too much on the boards about Le Grand-research. Pertaining to which, later today I'm FINALLY going to the library, consult the Danish lexicon of diplomats. I'd have taken care of this since weeks, but the library stupidly won't let me borrow the book at home (new silly rule in intra-library loans), I can only consult it on the premises. Does this suck or what? :-(

But from the author of a suspect book who has himself been wrongly dismissed as fixated and biased more times than he can count? I’m bewildered.

Tom, perhaps Mr. Evans is worried that you might be overdoing it with the Mitre Square ramification and the "From Hell" letter/WVC connection. Especially since he might yet NOT know about the newest, solid discovery (“the Emperor's new clothes“, wink wink). I was thinking about how much this thing requires an article (a bit later, when it's fully researched). The way people will start reacting to the revelations with shock, reservations, and even anger, it would perhaps be a good idea if you published an article on the Mitre Square part and let it sink for a year or two, before your book comes out. The book's gonna reach a wider audience that just Ripperologists anyway, so it'll be read all from scratch by most people.

Hi Maria.
Yes, we seem to have one couple standing on the corner of Berner & Fairclough, no time given, but about the time of the murder. And another couple walking up and down Commercial Rd. & Berner st.

Hi Wickerman. Maybe Tom, Hunter, and SPE would answer about the 2-other-different-couples-than-Stride-with-a-client-walking-around question pertaining to your post #315, as I'm not sure of who is who at this point? I promise I'll think about this, but in the next 3 days I have to be taking care of some stuff.

Where was Schwartz when he saw Pipeman? On the board school side of the street. That’s beyond debate. If Pipeman was on the “opposite side of the road”, where does that put him? In front of the Nelson. These are the official sources here. The one other source we have – the Star – clearly places Pipeman near the Nelson.

Tom, if someone could clear this up for me it would be nice. The Nelson was on the corner of Berner Street and Fairclough Street, a few yards south of Dutfield's Yard and Packer's shop. But can you state me the EXACT house number for the Nelson? Darn map from 1894 in your Berner Street Part 2 article spots tons of house numbers for the different places of interest, but it DOESN'T spot the Nelson.

[Tom_Wescott]

The Swanson report is indeed a bit unfortunate, lacking precision in its description:
On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing, lighting his pipe. The man who threw Stride down called apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road “Lipski“

At the time ‘Lipski’ was yelled, Schwartz was on the opposite side of the street. Swanson’s source was Abberline’s report, and Abberline’s conclusion was that BS Man was calling it out as a slur against the Jewish appearing Schwartz. As such, Schwartz would be the man (singular) who was across the street from BS Man.

The Abberline report states it completely unambiguously, and corroborates what Mr. Evans said:
There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man in the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

It is unambiguous, but hardly corroborates what “Mr. Evans” said. Where was Schwartz when he saw Pipeman? On the board school side of the street. That’s beyond debate. If Pipeman was on the “opposite side of the road”, where does that put him? In front of the Nelson. These are the official sources here. The one other source we have – the Star – clearly places Pipeman near the Nelson.

I have no idea what the long debate at the forums had to say on the matter, but if it didn’t include these observations, then it wasn’t much of a debate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Stewart P Evans & the Tiresome Lost Cause

Those who opt for a specific suspect that then becomes an idee fixe tend to become lost causes. You certainly used to be a lot more logical and exhibited more common sense before.

We must not “go back” as far as you think if you believe that my research into Le Grand has led me to conclude that a) Stride was a Ripper victim, b) Pipeman was outside the Nelson, or c) that the one paragraph replies that Abberline was asked to provide in responses to questions about Schwartz was not what I would consider a ‘report’. I was touting all of these ideas for YEARS before I knew anything about Le Grand.

They certainly are reports that Abberline wrote, or are you telling me, a 62-year-old ex-police officer with nearly 30 years police service, what a police report is? Those with pet theories really do become tiresome at times.

Maria is 62 and an ex-cop? I believe I was directly replying to her that ‘memo’ was a word I was using and wasn’t comfortable with. But certainly if you say that any slip of paper in Abberline’s handwriting is to be called a ‘report’, then I will defer to your experience, as I usually do. However, I don’t see what my ignorance in what constitutes a ‘police report’ in England has to do with my suspect preference?

As for my fixation on Le Grand, it led to my ‘wild theories’ that he paid witnesses to lie in order to save his own arse, as we see with Packer. Another fantasy of mine was that he was involved in the Batty Street Lodger nonsense. And yet another is that he was suspected by the police for the Ripper murders. I postulated all this long ago and…guess what…further research confirmed every damn bit of it. I’d love anyone to name another Ripper researcher who let the evidence alone lead him to a suspect only to find out that he actually WAS a police suspect who had his hand in damn near every sensational event that occurred in the murder series. I expect such nonsense from posters who haven’t been around to see me proved right at every turn, such as Phil H, or the little gaggle that walk the London streets, frustrated at their own lack of imagination. But from the author of a suspect book who has himself been wrongly dismissed as fixated and biased more times than he can count? I’m bewildered. I’m also curious to hear of ONE SINGLE example involving my posts on Le Grand where I exhibited some sort of obsessive fixation that reached beyond the realm of fact or reasonable supposition. Just one. Anybody.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

...Tom has located a newspaper report in which the girl who was walking around with her boyfriend said they went indoors by 00.30, rising the possibility that the couple that William Marshall saw might have been Stride – perhaps even with Pipeman??

Hi Maria.
Yes, we seem to have one couple standing on the corner of Berner & Fairclough, no time given, but about the time of the murder. And another couple walking up and down Commercial Rd. & Berner st.

"A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises".
Daily News, 1 Oct. 1888.


While the next girl only met her boyfriend in Commercial Rd., and was out a total of 30 minutes.

" From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.

"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."
Echo, 1 Oct. 1888.

Possibly not the same couple, no claim to have stood on the corner of Berner & Fairclough for any length of time.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

Hello Lynn.
Well, I hope it reaches you soon so you can go through it. Could you remind me again for which years we're talking? Are there lots of boxes with photographs in the Stanford collection? Are these just photographs with names, or does it also contain files with more substantial info about the anarchists under surveillance? I've been through a couple boxes including photos (like the ones you posted on the Kaufmann thread) at the Paris Police Museum's archives, where I've finished with the anarchists, as they didn't have too many materials. The real enchilada is at the Archives Nationales, still 10 boxes to go. Gonna order 3 of them in a minute, unfortunately the system doesn't let one order more than 3. :-( Hope to be going through them on Friday afternoon/Saturday morning. And I REALLY hope the boxes go on further with files on the anarchists listed alphabetically, while it's totally possible that the files suddenly stop and what follows is 8 boxes of Russian newspapers! I've stopped at letter “D“, so if you have any anarchists on your mind with a name starting from “D“ to "Z", please let me know, Lynn...
By the by, I slept for a whole 7 hours. Just woke up.

[lynn cates]

hope springs eternal

Hello Maria. I know the feeling.

I hope to be able to post the inventory when it arrives.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Hmmm, capricious lass.
Lynn, your post title totally cracked me up.
And do you want to hear something scary? Haven't slept for almost 40 hours (editing the manuscript for 11 hours straight).

[lynn cates]

you ought to be in pictures

Hello Maria. Yup. She's the same lass but this looks a bit more promising. Love to see a photo of the anarchists they were eying.

Good luck on Paris.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Lynn,
As in Palo Alto? For real? This is HUGE! Did you send one of your students there?
I have 3 days before Paris and still polishing the book manuscript, did about 80 p. last night, changed a chapter a bit, and haven't slept since. And still have about 200 p. to go.

[lynn cates]

inventory

Hello Maria. Thanks. I wonder if it is at all possible that she heard him leaving?

Nice work on the anarchists. Good luck on your next round. My student is now making an inventory for the Okhrana photos. Wish me luck.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

timing

Hello Phil. I like your b, but I base it on the fact that Sir Edward sat down with his old adversary, Michael Davitt, in Paris, mid-October 1888, and spilled his guts. Apparently, Davitt was shocked when he found out that some of his Clan-na-Gael colleagues had been in British pay for many years.

3 weeks later . . . .

Cheers.
LC