The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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?

[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? ;-)

[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]

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]

...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]

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. :-(

[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]

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).