The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

I’m sure you are, so what do these have to do with me being ‘fixated’ on Le Grand to the extent that it clouds my judgement, relieves me of my common sense, and makes me a tireless lost cause? You weren’t calling me these things when I was ‘touting’ these same ideas pre-Le Grand?

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

Very well. I already conceded to your expertise that if you say it’s a report, it is a report. Still, what has that to do with my suspect preference?

You seem upset?

Ya think? Now, how about that 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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

You seem upset?

I LOVE the way SPE teases people.

as Stewart is well-aware that only I can accurately represent my viewpoints.

I hope that this doesn't imply in any fashion that I'm representing your viewpoints. I agree with TONS of your ideas, I agreed to conduct some research for you (which I would be doing anyway, as I'm gonna write about this too), and I find your blood-stains-mixed-for-grapes-after-contamination-by-Dr-Johnston epiphany and your Schwartz-connected-to-the-IWEC suspicion SUPER brilliant ideas. On some other things we might disagree, as discussed below.

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.

Hey, SPE is one of the very few, if not the sole Ripperologist reacting with extreme coolness pertaining to his own suspect and new evidence.

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.

And who provided a super brilliant suspicion/explanation of how come “Pipeman's“ physical description ended up in Schwartz' testimony even IF the testimony was fake – connected to the interactions and conflicts occurring between Le Grand, the WVC, and the IWEC? Yours truly. So Tom, even if Schwartz lied (which I'm currently researching as a possibility), the Le Grand suspicion (at least for Berner Street) is not fuc*ed. The Le Grand connection to Berner Street makes too much sense and contains too much evidence to be abandoned as an idea, it just needs further research.
Pertaining to further contributions to Berner Street research, I was the one to have located a Jewish translator, and Lynn is the one who incidentally pays (and not cheap) for the AF translation project, which is an important contribution to Ripperology. I'm trying to get a few more people interested in this project, esp. editors with an interest in the Jewish anarchists, such as Chris George and Eduardo Zinna.

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.

I know what you're saying, but to me the idea of 2 different kidneys appears a bit preposterous, esp. the logistics of someone searching for another kidney (through grave robbing rather than a hospital connection/morgue connection?) despite of the Eddowes kidney having been available. You should be REALLY careful of how to present this though, unless you want to end up along Trevor Marriott and his organs-stealing-at-the-morgue theory! But I know that the recent thing we've discovered will help, plus I intend to research Aarons at some point. (If there's anything left to be found is another story.)

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.

The number for the Nelson doesn't appear to be in there Tom, in your text and especially not on the map. No worries though, I'll ask around. No lack of map specialists in Ripperology.
And don't be pissed off. You know how they say, “don't go to bed hungry or angry“... While I'm about to get up, and, before that, to eat, in bed, like a pig (a huge quiche with salmon, yum).

[Rob Clack]

The number for the Nelson doesn't appear to be in there Tom, in your text and especially not on the map. No worries though, I'll ask around. No lack of map specialists in Ripperology.

It was 46 Berner Street.

Rob

[mariab]

It was 46 Berner Street.
Rob

Wow, thank you so much, Rob, I was precisely thinking of you but didn't feel like bothering you with an email for just a house number. I'll look up Nr. 46 on the map.

PS.: I'm trying to figure out a way to consult the Lyon Medical Museum's materials at the same time as the Library's, but the problem is, the people attending to these Museum will be all away on holiday in July. I'll email the Library curator and see if something can be done (like transfering the Museum materials to the library as a loan), but I doubt it'll work. :-(

[Phil H]

...I expect such nonsense from posters who haven’t been around to see me proved right at every turn, such as Phil H,

Hubris is never pretty Tom, and self-promotion (at least to my English mind) repugnant.

Have you been proved right at EVERY turn or is that just your elistist side showing? besides, what has the length of time I have been around got to do with anything - you know NOTHING about me, and this is not a virility contest as far as i am aware.

I have great respect for your research and views, but don't push it. Otherwise that respect might turn into something else. I recognise you have a vested interst in promotiong your own theory, but that does not mean we all have to accept it.

Phil

[mariab]

I recognise you have a vested interst in promotiong your own theory, but that does not mean we all have to accept it.

Phil, the ongoing discussion between Tom Wescott and SPE had NOTHING whatsoever to do with “self-promotion“.
Incidentally, this refers to NOT just a theory, and at least 4 people are researching the different evidence turning up every week.
You'll be reading about this in the late fall/winter magazines' issues.

[Phil H]

Noted Maria, but until publication I can only take what you say on trust.

My comment was a direct reference to Tom's mention of me in his post - nothing remotely to do with SPE.

Phil

[mariab]

Phil, if you can get hold of the Casebook Examiner 2 issue, it features a very long article (62 pages, if I'm not mistaken) which presents a lot of evidence pertaining to Le Grand's involvement on Berner Street, particularly to his coordinated attempts (involving others) at obstructing the police investigation. The article presents additional evidence of the SY having suspected Le Grand for the Ripper murders. I'm currently researching this in France, with findings, but still inconclusive results.
There's also an old issue of Ripper Notes (#25) discussing the same evidence, at an earlier state of research, but nevertheless in a very interesting presentation. You can read this online at GoogleBooks or order it on amazon.uk for 4-pounds (at least that's what I payed last summer).
Is this self-promotion? ;-)