The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[Fleetwood Mac]

Does anyone see the parallels between Schwartz and Hutchison?

Schwartz places himself at the scene of a crime just prior to her death (a point held against Hutchinson).

Schwartz alone witnesses a barney in the street, despite there being several people milling about (a barely credible account, often held against Hutchinson).

Is/was Schwartz Jack the Ripper? if not Schwartz, then was it Maxwell who again places herself in the vicinity and relays a barely credible account?

[Tom_Wescott]

With all the weird ideas being bandied about lately regarding the Berner Street cast, for all I know the latest interpretation puts Pipeman across from Dutfield's Yard with a semi-blind Schwartz not seeing him until his hat caught fire in the match flame.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi Tom.

Hi Wick, by "opposite Dutfield's Yard", do you mean on the opposite side of the street,

In the above post?, Yes.

or literally opposite the club, which would have put him lighting his pipe in Schwartz's face?

Which makes me wonder why you would ask?

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick, by "opposite Dutfield's Yard", do you mean on the opposite side of the street, or literally opposite the club, which would have put him lighting his pipe in Schwartz's face?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Surely that's not a surprising conclusion to come to, if you argue from what's in the Star report?

Well Chris, I expected to open myself up to a degree of criticism here, as I have always been an ardent supporter of Swanson's summary that appears to place Pipeman opposite Dutfields Yard.

However, the caveat I have always held has been that Berner St. is too narrow 'not' to see a man standing opposite Dutfields Yard, long before you get to that point. So, although I accepted the report I tended to put my caveat down to a confusion in translation. Perhaps, instead of "where he saw a man lighting his pipe", the intended wording might have been, "where he had seen a man lighting his pipe.

Which has always left me wondering what was meant by the line in the Star report saying, "but just as he stepped from the kerb", Schwartz had already left the (westside) kerb.
Was it intended to mean, "just as he was steps from the kerb"?, referring to being almost at the eastside kerb?
Or, as I offered earlier, perhaps this subsequent kerb was that in Fairclough St. as he was walking southward on the eastside footpath of Berner St.?
Schwartz stepped from the kerb and noticed another man emerge from the 'diagonal' doorway, partially hidden from view.

I understand Abberline also mentioned those same words, "and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe".
But, once again the perspective can be called into question. Did Abberline mean, "opposite" Dutfields Yard, or "opposite" from Schwartz new location?
Abberline made no mention of Dutfields Yard so perspective from that point is only assumed. Therefore, because the subject of Abberline's referrence was Schwartz himself, then Abberline just might have written from Schwartz' perspective.

Chris, this is a debate which will never close.

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

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

Surely that's not a surprising conclusion to come to, if you argue from what's in the Star report?

[curious4]

Ah Liz Stride, Liz Stride, Liz Stride.

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

She īd probably say Jack dunnit - but would she be telling the truth?
Cheers,
C4

[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.

[Hunter]

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Fisherman]

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

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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.