The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[Stewart P Evans]

Usually in full agreement...

It was 46 Berner Street.
Rob

Rob, I'm usually in full agreement with you on topographical questions and usually defer to your extensive knowledge in such matters. But doesn't the 1891 census show the Lord Nelson to be 29 Fairclough Street?

[Phil H]

Maria

thank you.

No - your post is certainly NOT self-promotion, you are (as I see it) simply directing me to sources (some of which I already have, by the way) that might inform me.

But because a theory has been published does not make it true. And by and large, authors do have a vested interest in promoting their work, protecting their view and reminding others of their research.

Where Tom's post is concerned, I was referring to such comments as: 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.

It is the "proved right at every turn" that made me make the comment I did. Maybe I was reacting too harshly - who can say.

Your own posts are ALWAYS a delight to read, Maria.

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Report

...
...
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?
...
Tom Wescott

It's a report, on proper headed report paper, first page attached. What's that at the top left of the page, oh, I see, 'Special Report'. Nothing to do with suspects of course, but everything to do with accurate description.

[Phil H]

There is a story that at during the Munich crisis in 1938, Hitler passed Neville Chamberlain a paper setting out his terms.

Chamberlain was appalled by the tenor and extent of these demands and replied, "Herr Chancellor! This is a Diktat!"

Hitler took the paper, looked at it rather blandly and then pointed to the heading - "No," he said, "It is a Memorandum! Look it says so."

In my experience terms change in organisations - civil service files used to be "ledgers" as I recall, and we wrote "Loose Minutes" (ones which were circulated apart from the file and were filed on the left, with enclosures on the right. I haven't heard the term used in years.

I have, of course, no knowledge of the police procedures or associated nomenclature used now or then.

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Interesting

...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...
...
Tom Wescott

Not inconvenient, most interesting actually.

I don't recall ever claiming that Kidney was Stride's killer, although I did suggest the possibility in my first book back in 1995. I have also never stated that Stride was not a Ripper victim, again merely suggested the possibility in 1995.

Stride's murderer was never caught or identified. Therefore she may or may not have been the victim of the same killer who murdered Eddowes and other Whitechapel victims.

In 1995 the 'canonical five' was a bit of a mantra and I was merely suggesting that it should not be accepted as gospel.

[mariab]

Rob, I'm usually in full agreement with you on topographical questions and usually defer to your extensive knowledge in such matters. But doesn't the 1891 census show the Lord Nelson to be 29 Fairclough Street?

It appears it was RIGHT on the corner of Berner and Fairclough, as many pubs seem to be on the corner of 2 streets, esp. in London. I've often wondered about this. A wish to attract maximum attention/patrons, perhaps?

By the way, I wish SPE (or Rob, or Hunter) could explain this to me:
"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 pp.141-142 of The Ultimate).

Phil, I saw Tom's complain about you, but in his case it's the truth that Ripperologists tend to know that his articles are generally backed up by solid evidence, and he's been building a reputation as a solid researcher and writer for over a decade. I wouldn't be endorsing any of his ideas if I hadn't seen the evidence and the way it was presented.

Your own posts are ALWAYS a delight to read, Maria.

Thank you. Considering that there are currently a couple old ladies complaining in the most whining and irrational (not to mention inelegant, bordering on hysterical) fashion about my posts over in the JTRForums.

[Stewart P Evans]

No Such Thing

...
...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.

I think no such thing, and have never suggested it.

Le Grand is no more 'inconvenient for anyone holding to another suspect' than several other theories.

[Stewart P Evans]

I think...

There is a story that at during the Munich crisis in 1938, Hitler passed Neville Chamberlain a paper setting out his terms.
Chamberlain was appalled by the tenor and extent of these demands and replied, "Herr Chancellor! This is a Diktat!"
Hitler took the paper, looked at it rather blandly and then pointed to the heading - "No," he said, "It is a Memorandum! Look it says so."
In my experience terms change in organisations - civil service files used to be "ledgers" as I recall, and we wrote "Loose Minutes" (ones which were circulated apart from the file and were filed on the left, with enclosures on the right. I haven't heard the term used in years.
I have, of course, no knowledge of the police procedures or associated nomenclature used now or then.
Phil

I think that Abberline's phrase 'I beg to report...' is actually a bit of a giveaway.

[Stewart P Evans]

Untrue

...
...
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.
...
Tom Wescott
...

It is simply untrue to state 'And no matter how sound my argument is, it will not be accepted by Stewart and many others.' That is paranoid.

I accept quite a bit of what you say, and always have done. I have always favoured the idea that the 'Lusk kidney' did not come from Eddowes. I believe that I have stated that in the past, more than once. And there are arguments to support the case for that contention.

[Stewart P Evans]

Tease

I LOVE the way SPE teases people.
...

Tease...moi???

[Monty]

"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."

Now Thomas. To label Rob Clack, John Bennett and Mark Ripper as lacking in imagination is, I assume, a humourless joke on your part.

These are repsected published authors, whereas your book has yet to see the light of day.

Also, we are both aware that you are not the pioneer in Le Grand research, you tread in the footsteps of others.

You don't want to make enemies of those who feed you.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Statement

...
...
By the way, I wish SPE (or Rob, or Hunter) could explain this to me:
"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 pp.141-142 of The Ultimate).
...

When Schwartz attended Leman Street Police Station his statement would have been written down, in English, via the medium of the intepreter.

We know that Abberline was present when Schwartz made the statement, and questioned him, but we do not know that Abberline actually wrote the statement down. It may have been written by an officer junior to Abberline. However, it would have been accompanied by a covering report, by Abberline or the statement taking officer (or both), when it was submitted to the divisional commander for onward transmission.

The statement by Schwartz and any accompanying report have not survived.

[tji]

Maria, Maria, Maria

Thank you. Considering that there are currently a couple old ladies complaining in the most whining and irrational (not to mention inelegant, bordering on hysterical) fashion about my posts over in the JTRForums

Ok you really want to start this again??!!! name names, I assume as the only females 'whining' on Jtr forums are myself, Debs and Caz, and none of us old, what a surprise, another mistake pointed out to yourself.

I would love for you to explain the whining, irrational, inelegant....unless you were referring to your own posts?
I suggest you re-read the posts and double check your fact, even checking them would be a bonus...or are you just going to apologise as your norm and say you were teasing?

Tracy

[Stewart P Evans]

On And On

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.
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.
Tom Wescott

This one is obviously going to go on and on.

Swanson was describing the incident in Berner Street from the sources at his disposal which included Schwartz's statement as well as the covering report. Once you get the fixed idea that everything is from Schwartz's perspective then an idea of ambiguity may arise. However, it should be viewed from a straightforward perspective and not be subjected to semantics and an unreliable newspaper report to cast doubt.

Swanson wrote, 'On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he [Schwartz] saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road "Lipski"...'

Thus we have Schwartz crossing the road where he saw the second man and the first man calling out to the man on the opposite side of the road. (And this is where the confusion arose as to whether he was calling out to Schwartz or the man with the pipe who were both on the same side of the road).

The Star report is completely at odds with this as it has the second man come 'out of the doorway of the public house' and then, 'shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman' and then, 'he rushed forward as if to attack' Schwartz. The Star report also has it that Schawartz stated 'positively' that the second man had a knife in his hand. These are major differences and must render The Star report unreliable.

Abberline stated, 'I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called out Lipski, but he was unable to say. There was only one other man to be seen in the street [who the first man could have called out to] and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.'

[mariab]

Tease...moi???

Et tu, Brutus?
(Probably quoting this wrong AND in the wrong context, where is Lynn?)

"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."
Now Thomas. To label Rob Clack, John Bennett and Mark Ripper as lacking in imagination is, I assume, a humourless joke on your part.

I suspect he refers to Observer and Jon Guy, who are VERY acquainted with London, but have demonstrated a lack of real acquaintance with the Stride case. Despite Jon Guy having produced some impressive articles on other Ripper cases, and Observer being an accomplished photographer.
No Ripperologist in his right mind would even dream of chacterizing Rob Clack, Neil Bell, John Bennett, and Mark “Ripper“ as “lacking in imagination“, as it would be the most laughable quote in Ripper history.

Also, we are both aware that you are not the pioneer in Le Grand research, you tread in the footsteps of others.

Does this refer to Gerry Nixon (I hope I've spelled him right, his disseration on Le Grand was one of the firsts I read as a lurker on casebook 2 year ago, but has disappeared from the dissertations section since) or to Debra Arif? This interests me historically, as I'm now involved in Le Grand research (without claiming to have come to conclusions pertaining to him as a Ripper suspect): Was Debs or Tom the first to research Le Grand? I'm just curious. Who first started thinking about this guy after Nixon?

The statement by Schwartz and any accompanying report have not survived.

Thank you so very much for corroborating, Mr. Evans. Pity for it not having survived, although I'd be willing to bet it would be as “incomplete“ as the Hutchinson one.

name names, I assume as the only females 'whining' on Jtr forums are myself, Debs and Caz, and none of us old

NOT Debs. Debs is the WonderWoman of research in Ripperology, and one of my heroes. But I'm trying to quit an embarrassing habit of “naming her name in vain“ on the boards – and quit pretty much cold turkey, which, as everyone knows, ain't easy.