The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[lynn cates]

Helter Skelter

Hello C4.

" . . . it does seem very far-fetched."

So did Manson and Helter Skelter.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Frrrench spyes

Hello Wickerman,
my geographical acquaintance with Berner Street is still extremely limited bordering on inexistant, but I hope to correct this at some point. There's a possibility I go to London in October, and I was very much hoping to see the sights, until now I've only visited Miller's Court (where it used to be).
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??

Curious, these are not French anarchists, :-) but the French secret police spying on the London Whitechapel anarchists. Der Arbeter Fraint was circulating in Paris too. I just happen to research this as I'm frequently in Paris. By the by, a former member of the IWEC (named Eyge) states in his book that the IWEC anarchists “had a reputation for murder“. This might refer to the campaign against them, in which Stride's death got instrumentalized. Another thing often advertized in the IWEC's pamphlets was “free chemistry lessons for the public“, in which they were taught how to build bombs. There's evidence of this also in some speeches anarchist Rudolph Rocker gave. Lynn knows TONS about all this.
In 1889 there was a bit of a conflict within the IWEC between the socialists and the anarchists, and they were becoming progressively more radical. Even William Wess came to identify himself as an anarchist.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying I'm suspecting any members of the IWEC to have killed Stride. :-)

Lynn, thank you for responding. Something unrelated I was thinking about your disbelieving Wess and Diemshitz. Lynn, how about Ms. Mortimer having heard Diemshitz cart and poney arriving shortly before 1.00 a.m. – do you have reservations about that too?

[Phil H]

I'm "keeping my powder dry" on secret agents and/or informers until we see whether more information emerges from Mr Marriott's machinations.

I can see two possible scenarios without stretching credibility too far:

a) that an agent or informer ran amok and killed, thus meaning he had to be covered up by the authorities;

b) that MJK was somehow involved with the Fenians or those chasing them (I base this possibility on her mysterious/seemingly untracable past).

I put no emphasis on either, they are just possibilities I keep n play.

Without much more evidence, I certainly reject suggestions of JtR having some anti-semitic agenda. The locations and the clues proposed are just too loose and too frail. I don't believe in conspiracies much (outside JFK) - cover-ups are something different (see (a) above), and if there were one they'd have found much more obvious ways to make their point.

Phil

[curious4]

Hello C4.

"Can someone explain in simple terms . . . just why the french anarchists would be involved?"

The simplest answer comes from Sir Charles in his October 12 memorandum. He thought that the "Double Event" was intended to cast aspersions on the Socialist Jews. Since Pyotr Rachkovski was just then opening up an Okhrana agentura in London and desperately needed the Jewish Anarchists to "misbehave," naturally a few of us raise our eyebrows at the prospect.

"Were the victims perhaps secret agents? (very well disguised if so)"

Not impossible in some cases. Have you seen the depiction of the mouchard in, I think, Porter's book? Regarding MJK, were you aware that she was EXACTLY the kind of girl employed by Sir Edward Jenkinson?

"The club at Berner street doesn´t appear to be very radical as far as I can tell."

Actually, they seem to have been the mainstay for Russian Jewish Anarchic Socialism in London. If the Okhrana could have shut down one establishment, that would have been it.

" . . . bet most of them went along for the sing-song."

I daresay. But all it takes is one, or one who wishes to implicate the many.

Cheers.
LC

Sorry Lynn,

With the best will in the world it does seem very far-fetched. Why murder "unfortunates" to draw attention to any agenda? And less likely candidates for secret agents I cannot imagine. Given to drinking bouts, often without money and not select in their company - a few drinks or a handout and they would, I feel, have betrayed anyone.

Cheers,
C4

[lynn cates]

answers

Hello C4.

"Can someone explain in simple terms . . . just why the french anarchists would be involved?"

The simplest answer comes from Sir Charles in his October 12 memorandum. He thought that the "Double Event" was intended to cast aspersions on the Socialist Jews. Since Pyotr Rachkovski was just then opening up an Okhrana agentura in London and desperately needed the Jewish Anarchists to "misbehave," naturally a few of us raise our eyebrows at the prospect.

"Were the victims perhaps secret agents? (very well disguised if so)"

Not impossible in some cases. Have you seen the depiction of the mouchard in, I think, Porter's book? Regarding MJK, were you aware that she was EXACTLY the kind of girl employed by Sir Edward Jenkinson?

"The club at Berner street doesn´t appear to be very radical as far as I can tell."

Actually, they seem to have been the mainstay for Russian Jewish Anarchic Socialism in London. If the Okhrana could have shut down one establishment, that would have been it.

" . . . bet most of them went along for the sing-song."

I daresay. But all it takes is one, or one who wishes to implicate the many.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Stupid mistake of mine, and many apologies. I actually KNEW this important detail, but I'm currently very tired and about to go to sleep (after working on polishing a long manuscript), with an eye leaking tears. (Not that any of this is a valiant enough excuse.)
Technically Schwartz would have been too new and unimportant to have (yet?) been a full-fledged member of the IWEC in 1888.
It appears suspicious to me that Wess chose to give the Echo an interview while pretending to ignore the name of the witness, as if he was covering for him, while at the same time directing the information leaking to the press. How the mistake of Schwartz supposedly having chased Pipeman came to be, I don't know. It reminds me a bit of the alleged knife in Pipeman's hands in the Star report, both as a possible augmentaion of “heroics“ supposedly displayed by Schwartz.

Oh dear, off sick a few days and we´re back on the french anarchists again! Can someone explain in simple terms for my obviously weak little brain just why the french anarchists would be involved? Were the victims perhaps secret agents? (very well disguised if so) The club at Berner street doesn´t appear to be very radical as far as I can tell: Discuss: "Why should Jews be socialists"? - not exactly earth-shattering! I bet most of them went along for the sing-song.

Regards,
C4

[Wickerman]

Ms. Mortimer DIDN'T see that other couple on the night of September 30, she ONLY heard about them from the neighbors. That couple documentedly went indoors around 00.30 already. Newspaper reports document Ms. Mortimer commenting on how quiet and empty the street was that night.
The Daily News from October 1:
[SIZE="1"]....... though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact.

Hi Maria.
I wasn't talking about the entrance to Dutfields Yard (where you show emphasis above), this couple were over on the corner by the Board School.
Actually, I don't think that is the same couple to which you refer.

The couple who were standing on the corner are possibly different to the girl who walked up Berner St. to meet her sweetheart. She doesn't claim to have stood at the corner of Fairclough St.

However, Morris Eagle commented on how busy the streets were:
"On my way I saw nothing to excite my attention. There were numbers of persons about of both sexes, and several prostitutes; but there are always a lot of people in the streets, and they are generally very lively at this time of night. I can swear that there was nothing in the streets to arouse my suspicions or the suspicions of any other man in his senses."

Regardless, as I was pointing out, if Mortimer could see all the way from No. 36 to the corner by Fairclough St. and watch Goldstein cross and turn the corner then there were no visibility issues that night.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

Any person entering Berner St. from Commercial Rd. will automatically see any people on both sides of the street at the distance of Dutfields Yard.

If I manage to get to London in early October, I'll definitely go to Berner Street. So far I was only on Miller's Court (where it used to be), and was astonished to see that MJK's bed was just a few steps from The Queen's head pub. As in, to walk to the pub from one's bed in one's pyjamas. :-)

Also, Mortimer said that a young couple had been standing over on the same corner "20 yards away" across the street, likely the same corner.This being the case we might need to ask why Schwartz only noticed Pipeman after he stepped into the road, or after he reached the other side?

Ms. Mortimer DIDN'T see that other couple on the night of September 30, she ONLY heard about them from the neighbors. That couple documentedly went indoors around 00.30 already. Newspaper reports document Ms. Mortimer commenting on how quiet and empty the street was that night.
The Daily News from October 1:
A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact.

[Wickerman]

..."On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe..."[/I] In other words, "after" he crossed the street he saw a second man lighting his pipe.

Hi Hunter.
I recall some debate as to whether "On crossing" meant "after crossing" or "while crossing". The question was, has Schwartz already arrived at the other side or is he half-way across the street?

What must be remembered is Berner St. is not a wide street. Any person entering Berner St. from Commercial Rd. will automatically see any people on both sides of the street at the distance of Dutfields Yard.

Likewise, Schwartz, when crossing this street about Dutfields Yard will naturally have already seen anyone standing just a few feet away on the opposite side. The weather was not foggy, neither was it too dark. Mrs Mortimer was able to watch Goldstein cross Berner street and walk around the corner by the Board school into Fairclough St.
Also, Mortimer said that a young couple had been standing over on the same corner "20 yards away" across the street, likely the same corner.

This being the case we might need to ask why Schwartz only noticed Pipeman after he stepped into the road, or after he reached the other side?
Distraction will not be the answer because Pipeman, if standing directly opposite to Dutfields Yard will have been seen by Schwartz as he approached the Yard, before the fracass began.
In fact Schwartz would have seen him long before this. Pipeman should have been in Schwartz field of vision long before he stepped off the footpath.
So what is it we are not understanding?

But the clincher is, in my opinion, that Abberline states that Schwartz could not determine who the word "Lipski" was being directed at- he or Pipeman. The two were likely in very close proximity to each other, maybe both in line with BS Man and thus, it was indistinguishable as to who was being shouted at.

Unless the cry of Lipski came from behind Schwartz, while he was crossing the road, or walking along the other footpath southward, after he had crossed. Only if the cry of Lipski had come from behind he might not have realized who it was shouted by, or to!

If Pipeman was at the Nelson and Schwartz across the road at the Board School, it would likely be more obvious as to whom BS Man was addressing as they would each require a different angle of vision for BS Man.

As the road was only a few yards wide Pipeman & Schwartz would have been in reasonably close proximity anyway, perhaps closer to each other than either of them were to BS-man back at Dutfields Yard.

The idea, presented by many Ripperologist for years, that Pipeman/Knifeman was at the Nelson is a myth....

It's a loose end, because if it is a myth, then somebody lied. I don't feel good about dismissing witness statements by calling them liars, especially when their statement is open to interpretation.
Besides, if Schwartz had made it to the other side of Berner St. when (according to the Star), another man (Pipeman) stepped out of the doorway of the Nelson pub, then here we have good reason for Schwartz not seeing Pipeman.
So, certainly the first use of "On crossing to the opposite side of the street" referred to Schwartz crossing Berner St. opposite the fracass in Dutfields Yard.
However, when Swanson uses the term a second time, "called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road “Lipski”.." then we have a debatable point.
I had always thought that this was written from the perspective of Dutfields Yard, but on reflection, I am not so sure anymore.

I understand you are attempting to tie it up, but I am not so sure it is tied up at all. The meaning is still open to debate.
If you are correct then we are left questioning why Schwartz was unable to see Pipeman standing just a few yards across Berner St. before he stepped into the road.
And if you are wrong we have the solution to that problem, Pipeman was inside the doorway out of the breeze(?) lighting his pipe?, and the second use of "opposite" is from Schwartz's perspective.

If it was not for the Star changing a pipe for a knife this might not be such a contensious issue. The boogyman in this debate is 'the knife'.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

Hello Hunter. Thank you so much for the analysis of Swanson's writing style (and yesterday I was thinking that Swanson might have needed an editor, where is Don Souden?), for reconstructing the events, and for the link the Rob Clack's diagram. When I have some time, I'll read that entire thread.

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement cast no doubt upon it..." from the Swanson report has made me wonder many times. Does the “police report of Schwartz' statement“ mentioned above refer to a report by Abberline submitted to Swanson along with Schwartz' statement which did not survive? It doesn't appear to me that this refers to Abberline's report from November 1 (MEPO 52983, transcribed on p.141-142 of The Ultimate).

[Hunter]

Here is a link to a diagram presented by Rob Clack, who actually got the discussion on this subject started.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=133266&postcount=550

[Hunter]

Not to steal Stewart's thunder here, as he is presenting his points quite succinctly, but there is something that can be added to the astute observation that Maria made.

Yes, Maria, the police did keep track of the press reports and several official documents like the one from Abberline you noted had press reports included with them. Now, lets take a look at this statement from Chief Inspector Swanson, once again from his Oct. 19 report to the Home Office on the murder of Elizabeth Stride.

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement cast no doubt upon it..."

Now, why would Swanson phrase it that way?... As opposed to what other report?... Maybe the Star? He makes a distinction that he gives credibility to Schwartz's statement made to the police. He is aware of the press report and sees the conflict therein and makes a distinction here, I believe. That is telling.

As to why Swanson phrased his statement in regards to the actions of the people in Berner Street... He is trying to be concise while still conveying the movements of Israel Schwartz. It is the way he wrote (as conveyed in several other documents by his hand). He wrote in setting up the sequence of events, "... on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Rd. & had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway." He could have said "after turning into Berner St." as that is what he meant. Instead of breaking it up in more lengthy sentences, he is choosing a one sentence line for the sake of brevity. It is the way a policeman writes.

"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe..." In other words, "after" he crossed the street he saw a second man lighting his pipe. Its more concise than saying "He did this; then did that: then saw this...etc"

Lets look at what Swanson wrote years later on the end page of his copy of Anderson's book (the marginalia), " On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night." Old habits are hard to break. He means after the suspect's return to his brother's house, but he is setting up the conveyance and the conclusion in one sentence. He does the same in his report on the Chapman murder.

Also, it is apparent that Schwartz did not notice Pipeman until he had, at least, started across the street or maybe didn't notice him until he was upon him. Put yourself in Schwartz's shoes. Your attention would be on the altercation at the gate until you suddenly became aware of another presence. People cause automobile accidents all of the time by diverting their attention somewhere else than directly in front of them, until its too late.

But the clincher is, in my opinion, that Abberline states that Schwartz could not determine who the word "Lipski" was being directed at- he or Pipeman. The two were likely in very close proximity to each other, maybe both in line with BS Man and thus, it was indistinguishable as to who was being shouted at. If Pipeman was at the Nelson and Schwartz across the road at the Board School, it would likely be more obvious as to whom BS Man was addressing as they would each require a different angle of vision for BS Man.

The idea, presented by many Ripperologist for years, that Pipeman/Knifeman was at the Nelson is a myth promulgated by a belief in a sensationalist tabloid's report and a lack of understanding of Swanson's method of phrasing.

Thanks to a real cop as Swanson was, Stewart Evans, that myth can be put to rest.

[mariab]

(...) the wording in Swanson's report is not 'lacking precision in its description', nor is it ambiguous. It's only when the dodgy Star report is introduced and you get people over-analysing it, engaging in semantics and trying to put their own 'spin' on it that any 'confusion' arises and that confusion is 'manufactured'.

Absolutely. The so-called confusion has been added by the contrasting Star report AND by so many Ripperologists having analyzed this to death.
What I'm mainly saying is that it's very fortunate that we also have Abberline's report confirming the side of the street Pipeman stand on, esp. since Abberline was the person who interviewed Schwartz several times and knew the details first hand.
Still, it would have been even more clear if Swanson had chosen to write:
On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he [Schwartz] saw a second man standing {on his side of the street} lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road {i.e., to Schwartz} “Lipski“
What I've noticed only yesterday (I'm a newbie) is that Abberline added a Star report as an attachment to Sergt. White's report from October 4 (MEPO 52983, transcribed on p. 145 of The Ultimate). Would you consider this being the Star of October 1 rather than of October 2, Mr. Evans? At any rate, this constitutes additional proof that the police was monitoring the press reports about the witnesses.

If Pipeman is some sort of look out, or even the killer, then why does Schwartz cross the road, on the same side as Pipeman, only for Pipeman to let him pass and then follow him? Seems pointless.

Is this question for real? Schwartz would have had to chose between walking past Scylla, i.e. the BS-Stride ongoing interaction, and Charybdis, i.e., the bystander/possible accessory Pipeman. :-)

[Chris]

By his own admission, Schwartz isn't looking back to see what happens to Stride.

Schwartz said no such thing, as far as I can see. On the contrary, the Star's account explicitly says he did look back to see what was happening.

[lynn cates]

high class poll

Hello Mac.

"Of all the witness statements, this one is unsurpassed in terms of being riddled with holes."

Indeed? Have you looked at John Kelly's testimony of late?

Say, there's an idea for a new thread. Whose testimony is most egregiously false?

A. John Kelly
B. Israel Schwartz
C. Joseph Barnett
D. George Hutchinson
E. Another

Cheers.
LC