Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[lynn cates]

ripping yarn

Hello Jeff. Thanks. Of course, Mozart did not write inventions. The two and three part inventions are amongst Bach's work.

I agree with much that you say. An extra man is a fabrication.

But if Schwartz did see the ripper, then BSM is he. But BSM clearly did no ripping.

Love's labour lost?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Of course, the only inventions for which I have a taste are Bach's--and those for the harpsichord.

Cheers.
LC

Ah, I do understand your reservations, but without a dabble of creative thinking (invention?), how can you place Issenschmid at any murder scene?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Of course, the only inventions for which I have a taste are Bach's--and those for the harpsichord.

Cheers.
LC

I'd stick with the Mozart if I were you Lynn..

Of course the Fourth man is NOT completely Impossible. Hes just unlikely for the following:

Fanny Mortimer said she was at her door between 12.30 and 1.00 for no more than ten minutes. And the only person she saw was Goldstien. Goldstein passed at 12.55. So it places Fanny at her door approx 12.50-1 am

She came out having heard someone pass her door. She thought a policeman but none were passing at this time so its possible she heard the killer.

Strides body was a few feet inside the ally and thus not vissable to Fanny or Goldstein.

Blackwell estimates Strides time of death as 12.50. So the most probable conclusion is that Stride was attacked before Fanny came to the door.

Stride was probably not killed before 12.45 as Brown saw her with a man (Possibly pipeman)

As Schwartz enters Berner Street the same time as Brown leaves the shop, both mens estimates are possible as it takes Schwartz 45 seconds or so for schwartz, to walk to Dutfield yard.

ANd neither man would see each other due to their POV even though they give the same time 12.45

There is thus a 3 or 4minute window for BSM to attack Stride cut her throat and walk back up past Fannys door before she comes to the door.

None of the witness see anyone else so a FOUTH man is simply invention.

That doesnt mean he does NOT exist. Just that its improbable as all the pieces of the Jig Saw fit together without having to invent him.

Its what FAnny doesnt see rather than what she does see that makes her such an important witness. She doesn't see Stride. She doesn't see Brown, Schawartz or Pipeman. Yet she is at her door for almost the entire window suggested for events.

The only other possibility is someone inside the club or going into Dutfield yard.

The reason so many theorists don't like to face the FACTS is that it leaves one person who definately had a good view of Jack the Ripper. Schwartz.

Lawende after all claims he would not recognise the man again.

So we have to face the possiblity that "Unsolved crimes in London are rare and the Jack teh Ripper murders are not within that catigory"

And thats the really hard beef for so many ripperologist to swallow.

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

inventions

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Of course, the only inventions for which I have a taste are Bach's--and those for the harpsichord.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

party

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"It's hardly a theory, Lynn, short of magicking Schwartz from history. If you take him out of your own equation as an unreliable source, what are you left with but a swift, silent and efficient murder by someone who knew what he was doing, but had no apparent motive to do it?'

Same as when we leave him in?

"Why not? Just down from the main Commercial Rd, any woman hanging around a club entrance at that time of night could have been subjected to criticism, insult, abuse or ill-use, if not lewd comments or propositions. And we know Stride was there, alone. How would any passing male or club attendee know if her reasons were entirely respectable?"

Testimony made Berner look a bit deserted. Perhaps the testimonies were false?

"We don't know that PM 'bolted', nor how far."

Agreed. That was merely Schwartz's story.

"If he was the killer he could have seen his opportunity when BSM manhandled Stride, but had to make sure Schwartz was spooked before sending BSM packing and going in for the kill himself."

But Israel did not even linger. He was leaving the scene of action. Why not just hold your ground and wait a few more seconds?

"I don't see why a fourth man could not have been lurking, perhaps inside the club entrance, out of sight of Schwartz, BSM and PM. After all, if you don't believe Schwartz was there, or that BSM or PM existed, then the fourth man simply becomes the first and only for you."

Put that way, fine.

"So how is it 'contrived' for others to consider the possibility of 'yet another party', when that's exactly what you are proposing by rejecting BSM, PM and JtR? Your killer must be 'yet another party', mustn't he?"

Again, that's fine. Just not comfortable with the "party" atmosphere which Schwartz's story, in conjunction with unknown others, conjures up.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

Hello GUT. Thanks.

Possibly because it is so contrived. There is absolutely no evidence that yet another party was involved.

Cheers.
LC

Which is the same situation in all the murders.
Whoever the killer was he left not a trace, 'we' have to invent this mysterious killer in every murder.

[FrankO]

And if we assume they did , ( would they ? ) the fact that Swanson still concluded it was a pipe in his Oct 19 summary , must add weight to the pipe theory .. Wish I never opened this particular Pandora's box

In fact, Moonbegger, Abberline still stuck to the "lighting of a pipe" in a report he wrote on 1 November.

All the best,
Frank

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi DRoy,

I think 'mistaken' would be more likely than 'full of it' myself. Schwartz doesn't come out of it all that well by identifying Stride and admitting he bolted rather than making sure BSM wasn't doing her serious harm.

But yes, it's always possible that he saw another woman being shoved a bit, and afterwards put two and two together and made five.

Love,

Caz
X

Its an interesting idea Caz if we look at the individual components of what happened in Berner street that night...But we are not

We are looking at the sum of all the accounts and the most probable and likely senarios..

Blackwell places the time of death most probably at 12.50

And Schwartz witness the attack at 12.45-6

If you add in the factor of Stride bleeding to death its almost impossible that the event described by Schwartz was NOT her murder.

I admire your defence for another killer but really...its an outside, out there senario, at best if you take into account the actual sequence of events listed by the known witnesses

Trust you both cool

Jeff

[caz]

Caz,

I agree, so what do you think of the theory that Schwartz was actually mistaken when he identified Stride as the one he saw being assulted?

How likely is it that what he witnessed was an assult on someone else other than Stride, with Stride being killed in roughly the same spot within 15 minutes?

In my opinion either Schwartz is full of it or he was mistaken when he identified Stride. Being mistaken at least could fit with the police opinions written in their reports.

Cheers
DRoy

Hi DRoy,

I think 'mistaken' would be more likely than 'full of it' myself. Schwartz doesn't come out of it all that well by identifying Stride and admitting he bolted rather than making sure BSM wasn't doing her serious harm.

But yes, it's always possible that he saw another woman being shoved a bit, and afterwards put two and two together and made five.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Of course, I'm not a big fan of ANY accosting theory. And the only reason I discussed chances was that I was replying in kind.

It's hardly a theory, Lynn, short of magicking Schwartz from history. If you take him out of your own equation as an unreliable source, what are you left with but a swift, silent and efficient murder by someone who knew what he was doing, but had no apparent motive to do it?

"Try to think of it this way. It would have been far, far more common for unaccompanied East End women out late on a Saturday night, to find themselves accosted in some way (and for several likely reasons) than to be knifed to death in cold blood (for no apparent reason)."

Whilst we are discussing likelihood, NONE was nearly so likely on Berner.

Why not? Just down from the main Commercial Rd, any woman hanging around a club entrance at that time of night could have been subjected to criticism, insult, abuse or ill-use, if not lewd comments or propositions. And we know Stride was there, alone. How would any passing male or club attendee know if her reasons were entirely respectable?

So BSM was not the killer nor yet PM, who bolted. I presume, then, that you posit yet another bloke who was hidden and who saw the original fracas?

I didn't say that, Lynn. I'm completely open to any or none of the above committing the actual murder, which was not witnessed by a living soul.

We don't know that PM 'bolted', nor how far. If he was the killer he could have seen his opportunity when BSM manhandled Stride, but had to make sure Schwartz was spooked before sending BSM packing and going in for the kill himself.

I don't see why a fourth man could not have been lurking, perhaps inside the club entrance, out of sight of Schwartz, BSM and PM. After all, if you don't believe Schwartz was there, or that BSM or PM existed, then the fourth man simply becomes the first and only for you.

So how is it 'contrived' for others to consider the possibility of 'yet another party', when that's exactly what you are proposing by rejecting BSM, PM and JtR? Your killer must be 'yet another party', mustn't he?

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

contrived

Hello GUT. Thanks.

Possibly because it is so contrived. There is absolutely no evidence that yet another party was involved.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

G'day Lynn

Fair enough. So BSM was not the killer nor yet PM, who bolted. I presume, then, that you posit yet another bloke who was hidden and who saw the original fracas?

I have never understood why everyone seems to rule that out in relation to all the murders.

[GUT]

G'day DRoy

How likely is it that what he witnessed was an assult on someone else other than Stride, with Stride being killed in roughly the same spot within 15 minutes?

I guess I'm in a minority, but I wouldn't rule it out.

[DRoy]

Try to think of it this way. It would have been far, far more common for unaccompanied East End women out late on a Saturday night, to find themselves accosted in some way (and for several likely reasons) than to be knifed to death in cold blood (for no apparent reason).

If you ask what were the chances of any woman being accosted whenever she walked those streets alone, it would be much the same for the tiny few who were murdered as for the vast majority who weren't - fairly high I would have thought.

Caz,

I agree, so what do you think of the theory that Schwartz was actually mistaken when he identified Stride as the one he saw being assulted?

How likely is it that what he witnessed was an assult on someone else other than Stride, with Stride being killed in roughly the same spot within 15 minutes?

In my opinion either Schwartz is full of it or he was mistaken when he identified Stride. Being mistaken at least could fit with the police opinions written in their reports.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

yet another bloke

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"If we allow for two men, BSM and her killer, I'm not sure you can really count the actual murder as a second instance of 'accosting'."

Of course, I'm not a big fan of ANY accosting theory. And the only reason I discussed chances was that I was replying in kind.

"Try to think of it this way. It would have been far, far more common for unaccompanied East End women out late on a Saturday night, to find themselves accosted in some way (and for several likely reasons) than to be knifed to death in cold blood (for no apparent reason)."

Whilst we are discussing likelihood, NONE was nearly so likely on Berner.

"If you ask what were the chances of any woman being accosted whenever she walked those streets alone, it would be much the same for the tiny few who were murdered as for the vast majority who weren't - fairly high I would have thought."

If by "accosted" you mean ogled or propositioned, fair enough. But Schwartz's convoluted story does not seem to include such.

"I would also put the chances quite high that a man on the prowl for potential victims would see women being accosted on occasion. Stride's killer may even have taken advantage of such a situation, by wading in to the rescue. In that case it would have been no coincidence at all. An opportunist makes his own chances."

Fair enough. So BSM was not the killer nor yet PM, who bolted. I presume, then, that you posit yet another bloke who was hidden and who saw the original fracas?

Cheers.
LC