Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[Abby Normal]

Hello Jeff ,


But Still , Browns description ( Broad shouldered & five and half (ish) feet tall ) bares a stronger resemblance to Schwartz BSM than it does PM .

Your timetable also allows for the possibility of Browns man , a (BSM) to walk across to the yard with Liz .. get rejected ( again ) then head up Berners St towards CR , before turning back around mid way , to take out his aggression on Liz , who is still stood by the club . ( this is also the point that Schwartz , turns into the street ) witnessing the man in front of him , who is in fact now walking back down Berners towards his recent rejection .

moonbegger .

Hi moon
I have always felt that the most probable scenario is one where bsm is the peaked cap man seen by several witnesses with stride that night and that after spending considerable time and perhaps money on her and unable to get her to willingly go or lead him to a secluded spot he leaves her in frustration only to lose his temper turn around a few moments later and return to her where he assaults her. It is when he turns around and is headed back to her that schwartz then enters the scene and sees/ is following him.

[moonbegger]

Hi moon
I have always felt that the most probable scenario is one where bsm is the peaked cap man seen by several witnesses with stride that night and that after spending considerable time and perhaps money on her and unable to get her to willingly go or lead him to a secluded spot he leaves her in frustration only to lose his temper turn around a few moments later and return to her where he assaults her. It is when he turns around and is headed back to her that schwartz then enters the scene and sees/ is following him.

Hello Abby , Yes that is also my take on it .

Jeff ,

Possibly Moonbegger, but Schwartz describes turning into berner street and following a man walking as if drunk..Star report

So it seems more probable that both men were heading in the same direction Commercial street to Dutfield yard.

Browns BSM had his arm against the wall supporting himself .. like any self respecting drunk wishing to stabilize himself , and dismissing any automatic appearance of being drunk .

Also , Both Schwartz statements describe ..

on turning into Berner Street from Commercial Street and having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman

As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.

Which for my mind describes him only noticing BSM ( some distance ahead )
when he has turned the corner from Commercial road into Berners st .

And one final point that leaps back to the original topic of the thread , which was who had the best , accurate interpreter , Police or Press ?

The fact that the police interpreter claimed wrongly it was Commercial Street .. whereas the Press had it right with Commercial road
A small somewhat insignificant fact but a telling one .

cheers

moonbegger

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Abby , Yes that is also my take on it .
Jeff ,

Browns BSM had his arm against the wall supporting himself .. like any self respecting drunk wishing to stabilize himself , and dismissing any automatic appearance of being drunk .

Also , Both Schwartz statements describe ..

Which for my mind describes him only noticing BSM ( some distance ahead )
when he has turned the corner from Commercial road into Berners st .

And one final point that leaps back to the original topic of the thread , which was who had the best , accurate interpreter , Police or Press ?

The fact that the police interpreter claimed wrongly it was Commercial Street .. whereas the Press had it right with Commercial road
A small somewhat insignificant fact but a telling one .

cheers moonbegger

Hi Moonbegger. Yes you make good points.

However to me the time frame seems to tight to realistically support your arguemnet.

Its an arguement I've made, and incidentally lost, with Rob Clack about the timings in Berner Street and the various distances and claims made by each individual.

It is as always with Ripperology an argument between what might be possible (and lets face it almost anything is possible) and what is probable given the various witness statements.

A long debate was had about the Star report of events and Swanson report to the home office, by stewart Evans and Paul Begg on JTrforums.

Stewarts claim (supported by Clack) was that the news Paper reports are un-relyable compared to official police reports and that only official reports should be considered.

Begg accepted that police reports were more important, however claimed that press reports must be considered and judged on their merit and be balanced against police reports to provide a WHOLE.

I think its fairly well known that I support and admire Begg as a historian. However I give equal respect to arguments being put foreward by Evans and Clack.

As a ripperologist we must each listen and respect these arguements which are well formed and enlighten our understanding of what is clearly not only a difficult subject, but one that comes down to individual opinion.

On balance my opinion is that Schwartz turned into Berner street following BSM who had also just turned into berner street. Thus BSM and Pipeman were not known to each other.

This would also fit my own theories about the random, psychological nature of the crimes i have..

But then I've never met a ripperologist that doesnt figure out the various problems ascociated to the Jtr Murders without doing just that. We all have opinion which influences what we believe.

So what you say is not impossible. My personal belief is that its unlikely

I hope that answers your question?

Yours Jeff

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger. Yes you make good points.

However to me the time frame seems to tight to realistically support your arguemnet.

Its an arguement I've made, and incidentally lost, with Rob Clack about the timings in Berner Street and the various distances and claims made by each individual.

It is as always with Ripperology an argument between what might be possible (and lets face it almost anything is possible) and what is probable given the various witness statements.

A long debate was had about the Star report of events and Swanson report to the home office, by stewart Evans and Paul Begg on JTrforums.

Stewarts claim (supported by Clack) was that the news Paper reports are un-relyable compared to official police reports and that only official reports should be considered.

Begg accepted that police reports were more important, however claimed that press reports must be considered and judged on their merit and be balanced against police reports to provide a WHOLE.

I think its fairly well known that I support and admire Begg as a historian. However I give equal respect to arguments being put foreward by Evans and Clack.

As a ripperologist we must each listen and respect these arguements which are well formed and enlighten our understanding of what is clearly not only a difficult subject, but one that comes down to individual opinion.

On balance my opinion is that Schwartz turned into Berner street following BSM who had also just turned into berner street. Thus BSM and Pipeman were not known to each other.

This would also fit my own theories about the random, psychological nature of the crimes i have..

But then I've never met a ripperologist that doesnt figure out the various problems ascociated to the Jtr Murders without doing just that. We all have opinion which influences what we believe.

So what you say is not impossible. My personal belief is that its unlikely

I hope that answers your question?

Yours Jeff

Hello Jeff , and thank you for your background history on the discussion at hand .. I do however have a question or two ..

However to me the time frame seems to tight to realistically support your arguemnet.

If Browns BSM was indeed with Liz and walked across the street with her , I don't see how it would have to stretch any time frame , for we know liz got there , and we have no evidence either way to suggest if she got there unaccompanied or with BSM , apart from Schwartz , who may well have only seen half the picture , when he entered the scene .

Also ..

On balance my opinion is that Schwartz turned into Berner street following BSM who had also just turned into berner street.

Just curious Jeff , looking at both Schwartz reports , what is it that sways your opinion that BSM did actually turn into Berners St from Commercial Rd ?

cheers

moonbegger .

[Dr. John Watson]

Originally Posted by Dr. John Watson
Jeff, could you give me your source for the information that Goldstein passed at 12:55?

Hi Dr Watson

My source would obviously be the documentary Jack the Ripper the Definitive Story which highlights the event in detail . . . The documentary was based on the updated information of Paul Beggs, Martin Fido's and Keith Skinners most recent A to Z . . . But I would suggest looking up Gouldstein, who went to the police the following day, will give you precise source information.

Trust that helps

Yours Jeff

Thanks Jeff, but I was hoping you had discovered some new evidence on the question of what time Goldstein passed up Berner Street. Unfortunately, the sources you mention, and others I've seen, offer only conjecture, based largely on extrapolating Goldstein's time from the various times Mortimer is claimed to have been looking out her door, none of which incidently have been confirmed. Mortimer never gave a statement to police. Goldstein did give a statement the following day, which unfortunately is among those police files which have "gone missing." Thus the only primary document we have reflecting Goldstein's statement is a brief summary contained in Inspector Swanson's report dated 19 October, 1888. His entire reference to Goldstein is contained in one sentence, thus:

"about 1 a.m. 30th. Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street Commercial Road, called at Leman St. and stated that he was the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag at that hour, the the bag contained empty cigarette boxes & that he had left a coffee house in Spectacle Alley a short time before."

The inference that Goldstein called at the police station at 1:00 a.m. is misleading. In his report, Swanson inserts Goldstein's statement among others which he has listed in chronological order of events, starting with 12:35 a.m. 30th, PC Smith's sighting of a man and woman; then 12:45 a.m. 30th, Schwartz's sighting of a woman being thrown down; then about 1 a.m. 30th, Goldstein's statement. It's placement in the report leaves no doubt that Swanson intended the record to reflect that Goldstein was on Berner St. at about 1:00 a.m. on the 30th; in fact he states that specifically, " . . . passed down Berner St. at that hour." There is no indication Goldstein heard any shouting or saw people gathering at Dutfield's Yard, or that he stopped at the club for any reason, facts that Swanson would likely have included in his summary. Nor did Goldstein mention seeing a woman being assaulted at that location, or a man and woman at the corner of Berner and Fairclough, indicating that he passed that corner after 12:45 and before 1:00 a.m. This would put him at the scene of the crime, at or near the time of the murder! Of course, if we shade the time a little, it's possible that Goldstein passed Dutfield's seconds before Diemschutz discovered Stride's body. It's also possible that Goldstein gave police the wrong times and/or that witnessed more than he was telling.

Now how does Goldstein's story jibe with Mortimer's sighting of him? If she came to her door just after the policeman passed by and stayed there for about 10 minutes (which is what I believe), she would have seen Goldstein closer to 12:30-12:40 a.m., much earlier than Goldstein says he was there. However, if she observed him when she came out to see what all the excitement was, at say 1:03-1:05 a.m., it's a much closer fit. Right now, that seems more likely than her seeing him between 12:30 and 12:45. At any rate, we are left with yet another unknown - and perhaps yet another suspect for JTR - Leon Goldstein!

Dr. John

[harry]

If BS was the man seen by Brown,and was returning to where Stride was,he must have been walking very slowly, to have been so far in front of Schwartz, and for that individual to have almost caught up to him by the time the yard was reached.Was Berner street that long?
Papers only convey information,as do reports.When judging the contents,we are judging the honesty and competence of the persons writing.It is true that police do have more power in acting than do journalists,but in the case of Schwartz,what we have is an equal balance of two people,interviewing the same individual,with the same level of compliance,albeit two different interpreters.More likely, any difference in the result,can be put down to the interpretation.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff , and thank you for your background history on the discussion at hand .. I do however have a question or two ..

If Browns BSM was indeed with Liz and walked across the street with her , I don't see how it would have to stretch any time frame , for we know liz got there , and we have no evidence either way to suggest if she got there unaccompanied or with BSM , apart from Schwartz , who may well have only seen half the picture , when he entered the scene .

Also ..

Just curious Jeff , looking at both Schwartz reports , what is it that sways your opinion that BSM did actually turn into Berners St from Commercial Rd ?

cheers moonbegger .

Hi Moonbegger

As you may know we gave serious consideration to the Layout of Berner street and the POV of each witness while making Defintive Story documentary.

Originally I estimated that when Schwartz turned into Berner street it would take two or three minutes to reach Dutfeild yard. Actually when I went to the location and paced it out, depending on walk pace, and these guys were used to walking, it takes only about 60 seconds or so to reach the estimated point of the Dutfeild entrance.

As Brown left the shop at 12.45, Schwartz turned into Berner street.

Browns POV was looking straight ahead at the couple in Fairclough street not to the left back up Berner street so its unlikely he would have seen Schwartz turning the corner. He would only have a view time of about 5-6 seconds. Its unlikely Schwartz would notice someone crossing the Fairclough street cross road.

This leaves the possibility that Stride might have said 'Not tonight some other night' crossed the road to Dutfield yard and met BSM coming down the road, at the entrance.

But I don't believe their is enough time in the 'known' time frame for the man to walk up Berner street stop, turn around and go back while Schwartz is on his known course and speed.

Of course you can speculate that the timings given were out. Its cedible to move timings five minutes either way, but as soon as you start doing this you create all sots of extra problems, so i find it easier to stick to the times given.

As Dr Watson correctly points out many of these timings are estimated. The original statement given by Schwartz doesnt exist, only Swanson's report. And the Star report clearly has problems and an agenda.

So at best we can only estimate a rough conclusion of events in Berner street.

However I dont think we can conclude that Schwartz wasnt telling the truth. We must accept he gave his story via an interpreter.

But its realistic from all the knowns (And of course unknowns, what people dont see is as important as what they do see) that Schwartz probably witnessed Stride 'murder' and if his account in both the star and swansons report of crossing the road when he did 'Lipski' would have had the best veiw of Jack the Ripper of any of teh witnesses.

That said of course many respected authorities have argued Stride may not have been a ripper victim. For me, she was.

I trust that clarifies a little, all the best

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

obliging

Hello John. Does not Goldstein strike you as extremely obliging for a bona fide suspect?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Hi Jeff, gret post, particulrly this section.

"Browns POV was looking straight ahead at the couple in Fairclough street not to the left back up Berner street so its unlikely he would have seen Schwartz turning the corner. He would only have a view time of about 5-6 seconds."

I'm pleased you pointed out the fact that when dealing with certain witnesses it's important to take stock that we re dealing with very small packets of time. Certain posters to this forum seem to think that the inhabitants of Late Victorian London passed along the streets somewhat slower than the average snail.

They also believe that each witness was equipped with an atomic wristwatch.

Thus, this witness, or that witness, could not possibly have been in that place at that time because this witness was also in that place at that time and they did not observe said witness.

Pissing against the wind is the term they use for such nonsense I believe. Apparently it's a good tactic to use when faced with the complexities of the Jack The Ripper series of murders.

Best regards

Observer

[Dr. John Watson]

Hello John. Does not Goldstein strike you as extremely obliging for a bona fide suspect?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn. If Goldstein was the killer, having read that he was spotted at the scene of the crime and fearing others might recognize him from the description, wouldn't it be smart to immediately contact police, identify himself, and give a reasonable explanation for his presence in the area, thereby eliminating any need for further investigation? Of course I don't consider Goldstein a bona fide Ripper suspect, but he's certainly more suited for the designation than many others identified in the past as legitimate suspects! I might add that Swanson's summary of Goldstein's statement concentrates solely on his identifying himself as the man with the black bag, with nothing to indicate whether he volunteered any additional information about what he saw or heard - or whether he was even asked. Surely if his time estimate is correct, Goldstein likely found himself at or near the scene where the murder took place, at about the time of the murder. That certainly would raise suspicion in my mind that he did not tell police all he knew.

John

[moonbegger]

Hello Jeff ,

As Brown left the shop at 12.45, Schwartz turned into Berner street.

Browns POV was looking straight ahead at the couple in Fairclough street not to the left back up Berner street so its unlikely he would have seen Schwartz turning the corner. He would only have a view time of about 5-6 seconds. Its unlikely Schwartz would notice someone crossing the Fairclough street cross road.

We know the shop was situated on the corner Jeff , across Fairclough , opposite the Nelson pub , leaving the shop , Berners st would have stretched out in front ( slightly to the left ) of Brown's POV . although I do agree its hardly unlikely Brown would have paid any attention towards Berners st as he crossed fairclough, and past the couple . Also we must remember 12.45 is by Browns own admission an estimate .

But I don't believe their is enough time in the 'known' time frame for the man to walk up Berner street stop, turn around and go back while Schwartz is on his known course and speed.

Very good point Jeff , and almost checkmate , but we know factually that Brown estimated his time as "About quarter to 1" , leaving a small albeit highly probable window of opportunity , especially when allowing into the equation a slight flexibility regarding the actual time itself . for example if Brown was a mere two minutes off ( 12.43) and Schwartz just a minute off the other way (12.46) This gives us a window of three minutes to play with , not that three minutes is even the time that would have been needed for my scenario to play out .. A maximum of Two mins is roughly the amount of time it would have taken for Liz & Co to casually walk to the yard , and for BSM to get midway up the street before turning back .. which still gives us an extra minute in which to tighten up the timing even more .

Of course you can speculate that the timings given were out. Its cedible to move timings five minutes either way, but as soon as you start doing this you create all sots of extra problems, so i find it easier to stick to the times given.

Whilst I agree with you Jeff , insomuch as it becomes detrimental to the to case to introduce too much flexibility to the timings , I also see it as equally detrimental to allow none at all .

This leaves the possibility that Stride might have said 'Not tonight some other night' crossed the road to Dutfield yard and met BSM coming down the road, at the entrance.

Yes of course it does Jeff , but as you correctly point out , it is just a possibility . There also remains the unacceptable possibility, that as Schwartz turns the corner on his way down Berners , he notices BSM "some distance off " who has just turned around and is readying himself to reap revenge on the Harlot who just lead him on .

And one final point Jeff .. what would induce two strangers to strike up an instantly hostile confrontation, if there was nothing that went before to lead up to it ?

cheers

moonbegger

[DRoy]

And one final point that leaps back to the original topic of the thread , which was who had the best , accurate interpreter , Police or Press ?

The fact that the police interpreter claimed wrongly it was Commercial Street .. whereas the Press had it right with Commercial road
A small somewhat insignificant fact but a telling one .

Moonbegger,

Actually I think it shows that the pressman knew it was road and so corrected the statement on behalf of the witness...suggesting once again that they didn't even interview Schwartz and got this from the police.

Cheers
DRoy

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff ,

We know the shop was situated on the corner Jeff , across Fairclough , opposite the Nelson pub , leaving the shop , Berners st would have stretched out in front ( slightly to the left ) of Brown's POV . although I do agree its hardly unlikely Brown would have paid any attention towards Berners st as he crossed fairclough, and past the couple . Also we must remember 12.45 is by Browns own admission an estimate .

Very good point Jeff , and almost checkmate , but we know factually that Brown estimated his time as "About quarter to 1" , leaving a small albeit highly probable window of opportunity , especially when allowing into the equation a slight flexibility regarding the actual time itself . for example if Brown was a mere two minutes off ( 12.43) and Schwartz just a minute off the other way (12.46) This gives us a window of three minutes to play with , not that three minutes is even the time that would have been needed for my scenario to play out .. A maximum of Two mins is roughly the amount of time it would have taken for Liz & Co to casually walk to the yard , and for BSM to get midway up the street before turning back .. which still gives us an extra minute in which to tighten up the timing even more .

Whilst I agree with you Jeff , insomuch as it becomes detrimental to the to case to introduce too much flexibility to the timings , I also see it as equally detrimental to allow none at all .

Yes of course it does Jeff , but as you correctly point out , it is just a possibility . There also remains the unacceptable possibility, that as Schwartz turns the corner on his way down Berners , he notices BSM "some distance off " who has just turned around and is readying himself to reap revenge on the Harlot who just lead him on .

And one final point Jeff .. what would induce two strangers to strike up an instantly hostile confrontation, if there was nothing that went before to lead up to it ?

cheers moonbegger

Hi Moonbegger on the pionts you raise I don't disagree. Its perfectly acceptable to argue timings can be out. They probably were.

Its just impossible to know whose or why.. Its just impossible to know.

So i argue stick basically to the timings given.

What you argue is of course possible. Stride with BSM...he walks up the street.. Schwartz timing is out.. It could happen.

I simply argue its not necessary, as the account works perfectly well without creating an aside to the known timings.

But on your last point I think you make a statement that should be answered.

Why does a stranger stop speak to another stranger and suddenly attack and kill them without reason?

Hear I think greater understanding of schizophrenia is required.

Psychotic attacks are without explanation but there are well recorded incidents of such attacks. Its a phenomina today I would argue that is more akin to Spree killings. Multiple random attacks cause large loss of life.

But in 1888, the world was different. I believe a spree killer could operate under certain conditions for several weeks undetected.

And an 19th Century Spree killing explains more rasionally the murders attributed to Jack the Ripper.

This kind of sudden, unexplained attack looked at the other victims and how savie street women were over powder without putting up a fight?

I've always felt the answer lays in Berner Street, the sudden attack...unexplained. I believe Jack was an opportunist, psychotic killer, who killed without reason. He was deeply and psycologically disturbed. Somewhere on the schizophrenic spectrum (Could include bi-polar)

Add to this he was 'high' on the psycopathic sale and had a deeply disturbed childhood. A pathological hatred of women for some reason.

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

waiting

Hello John. Thanks.

His description seems vague enough--more people than he carried black bags. So IF he were guilty, he might have sat tight and waited.

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

Hello Jeff , Thanks again.

So i argue stick basically to the timings given.

What you argue is of course possible. Stride with BSM...he walks up the street.. Schwartz timing is out.. It could happen.

I simply argue its not necessary, as the account works perfectly well without creating an aside to the known timings.

The thing is Jeff , I am not necessarily creating an "aside to the known timings" . Even if we allow Schwartz to be bang on the money with his 12.45 and put Brown at his estimation of about quarter to 1 , which by definition, would allow for a very eventful couple of minutes at the very least . Plus it still ties together With Schwartz 12.45 , especially as Liz is not as of yet at her position outside the club where Schwartz will witness her .. The loose two minutes that Brown almost good as swears by is more than enough time for the scenario to play out .

Why does a stranger stop speak to another stranger and suddenly attack and kill them without reason?

Hear I think greater understanding of schizophrenia is required.

I thank you for your chilling insight into the world of Schizophrenia Jeff , although I must admit I am not convinced Jack was part of that club .. Liz's killer on the other hand may well have been .

Jacks MO was always , gain confidence and put his victim at ease . Something I think he was very accomplished at .. The same MO that would charm and reassure Annie into a dark back yard , and lure Kate to the darkest corner of a deserted square at the height of the murders .. Also convince Polly to lead him to a quiet spot .. None of these women were dragged kicking and screaming to the places where they were found murdered .. they were all willing accomplices to their own demise . The killer of these women was always in control of the situation and none of them would have suspected a thing until it was too late . Then we have Liz and her all too public street fight with BSM !

cheers

moonbegger