The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[Natalie Severn]

Lynn, I mustn't derail Stride with off topic posts, but here's a quick anecdote I remember (not sure whether it's apocryphal) :

Wittgenstein was present when Russell and Moore were arguing a point of philosophy. Suddenly Russell broke off from the philosophy and said, "You don't like me, do you, Moore?" Moore thought for a moment and said, "No." And then they continued their discussion as if nothing had happened, leaving Wittgenstein scratching his head.

Russell had probably nicked one of his babe's Robert! [like Lady Ottoline Morrell-Private Eye's Lady Utterly Immoral]

[lynn cates]

invention

Hello Jon.

"what was the point of inventing him?"

I have often wondered why, if Schwartz's story were made up, Pipe Man should be included in the cast.

It seems the least bad answer is that, without PM, the SY rejoinder in the midst of the tale would be to stop Schwartz and ask, "If this lad is attacking the lady, why did you not help her out?" But with PM present AND a possible accomplice, there is a ready answer.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

I don't know, Nats, but apparently Moore had a habit of continuing his philosophical arguments while lighting his pipe, with the result that his fingers kept getting burnt and his pipe never got lit. I like to think of Moore as Pipeman, standing there in Berner St muttering to himself about philosophy and never getting to light his pipe. Inevitably he runs out of matches and follows Schwartz with the innocent purpose of cadging a light.

[lynn cates]

limerick

Hello Robert, Natalie.

Reminds me of a limerick concerning Lord Russell and his tryst with a young co-ed--but I shan't reproduce it here. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Natalie Severn]

Robert and Lynn-I think Moore had a great mop of flaming red hair and a big red beard so I bet he set fire to it once or twice if he was that absent minded!
Oh No-that was his brother Sturge!

[Robert]

Moore on fire? Russell rushes up and says, "You're going to love this, Moore. Here is one bucket of water. (SPLASH) And here is a second. (SPLASH)"

[Chris]

Wittgenstein was present when Russell and Moore were arguing a point of philosophy. Suddenly Russell broke off from the philosophy and said, "You don't like me, do you, Moore?" Moore thought for a moment and said, "No." And then they continued their discussion as if nothing had happened, leaving Wittgenstein scratching his head.

Funnily enough, Bertrand Russell may have been the first person to have been pestered by a Ripperologist (Dan Farson, in the 1950s) with a letter along the lines of "Did you know a member of your family had been suspected of being Jack the Ripper?" Apparently Russell replied on a postcard: "I am astonished by your suggestion ... and I most emphatically deny it."

[Robert]

Hi Chris

I remember typing a passage from Russell's autobiography years ago on the old boards, so probably someone had brought this up then. It seems one of Russell's uncles went insane, became amnesic, and was picked up wandering and placed in a workhouse infirmary, his identity being unknown. He then murdered the tramp in the next bed. Russell says he lived to over 80. No mention of JTR though.

[Chris]

I remember typing a passage from Russell's autobiography years ago on the old boards, so probably someone had brought this up then. It seems one of Russell's uncles went insane, became amnesic, and was picked up wandering and placed in a workhouse infirmary, his identity being unknown. He then murdered the tramp in the next bed. Russell says he lived to over 80. No mention of JTR though.

Yes - I was the one who had brought it up that time too (my posts numbered 47, 48; yours 72):

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4924/6487.html

[Fisherman]

Could anybody tell me how a thread assigned to discuss the murder of a prostitute in London´s East end back in 1888 has come to revolve around Wittgenstein and Russell ...???

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fisherman, I think the answer is : the spirit of Radka.

Chris, by coincidence Dave O'Flaherty, John Savage and myself have some info on the Duke of Bedford (not JTR info) which we'll be including in an article at some point in the future.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Well here is an attempt to get back on thread, and not addressed to you alone.If Pipeman felt a need to follow Schwartz,why didn't he attempt to prevent his(Schwartz)departure in the first place.It is evident that Schwartz crossed the road before reacing the yard gates,or at least in line with the gate.Did he cross at right angles or on a slight diagonal?.No matter which,it is stated he crossed to the other side immediately,and presumably reached that side opposite or slightly beyond Dutfield yard.So for Pipeman to follow Schwartz,Pipeman must have been near to,or opposite the yard gates.I do not see it that way,Pipeman seemingly is placed much nearer to Fairclough Street,and would have been in a position to interupt the passage of Schwartz.Berner Street was a narrow street,and Duffield yard was perhaps about 15 to 20 yards from the junction of Berner and Fairclough streets.As Schwartz was hurrying away when he first sees Pipeman,I surmise Pipeman was to his front,that is,near the junction.Yes I have seen the diagram by another poster,but it doesn't fit my reasoning.Perhaps I am wrong.

[Garza]

Ah Liz Stride, Liz Stride, Liz Stride.

Do you reckon she will be laughing, that after 100 years we would be discussing her life?

[Hunter]

I think she would have been happy that we didn't have to.

[Wickerman]

Fisherman,
Well here is an attempt to get back on thread, and not addressed to you alone.If Pipeman felt a need to follow Schwartz,why didn't he attempt to prevent his(Schwartz)departure in the first place.It is evident that Schwartz crossed the road before reacing the yard gates,or at least in line with the gate.Did he cross at right angles or on a slight diagonal?.No matter which,it is stated he crossed to the other side immediately,and presumably reached that side opposite or slightly beyond Dutfield yard.

Hi Harry.
To arrive at a complete picture we prettymuch have to merge both the Police statement & the Star report.
We cannot tell at what point Schwartz crossed the road in his police account, but in the Star where we read:

"...feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street."

Tends to suggest Schwartz stepped off the kerb to cross before he passed the scuffle, so as not to get involved.
Then we read:

"Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back ..."

So Schwartz is now some distance across a very narrow street, but whether he is on the opposite footpath or not is not clear.
Which makes this subsequent line all the more obscure:

"...but just as he stepped from the kerb ".

This almost reads like backtracking, as if "stepping from the kerb at Dutfields Yard", yet the previous line suggests he is already across the street at some point.

What I think is meant here is that Schwartz has indeed already crossed Berner St., and is walking down the east side of Berner St. at the junction with Fairclough St.
Therefore, "just as he stepped from the kerb", might mean as he begins to cross Fairclough St southward.

Because the doorway of the Nelson is on the diagonal (not actually on Berner or Fairclough, but the corner of the building is sliced off on the diagonal), Schwartz might not see a man emerge from this doorway until he was on the same level at Fairclough, stepping from the kerb.

This suggests to me that there was no Pipeman "opposite" Dutfields Yard, contrary to what I previously understood.

Regards, Jon S.