What's the compelling feature?

[Fisherman]

Natalie Severn writes:

"On the other hand Fisherman,if I was told that there were two women killed within a ten minute walk of one another and the killings were on the same morning, 40 minutes apart and both by throat slitting,I would consider very seriously them to be related."

...which is exactly what I am saying - if you start looking for common features, that - and that only - is what you come up with! Same approximate area, same aproximate time.
If I lived in them days, and felt a sudden urge to rid myself of a woman I disliked, I would have taken her to the East end and slit her throat at that very evening, and voilà; the triple event! And only a West End confession that night would have saved us from a quadruple one.


"This idea that the doctors and the police were all half wits is ridiculous."

Didn´t hear myself promoting that one, Natalie ...? Could you please concentrate your criticism to bits and pieces where I have actually made a statement?

Myself, I will be tucking in for the night now, so whatever answers I have to give on whatever follows, follow tomorrow. How´s that for semantics?

The best, Natalie!
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Natalie,

If we take the BS man out of the picture by assuming that what Schwartz saw was the end of his interaction with Liz rather than the beginning, it opens the door for another killer. For all we know, he might have cursed her out and walked away. Enter Jack or another killer.

c.d.

[Roy Corduroy]

Israel Schwartz

Good Evening,

Perry, I think you have done a great job of framing the question and enunciating the totality of the situation. All except the part about Israel Schwartz.

Schwartz saw Liz Stride with Jack the Ripper shortly before her death. His description of the suspect is consistent with that of Lawende who saw the same man with Eddowes shortly before her death.

Schwartz saw the man push Liz down. How un-Ripperlike is that? None, that’s what he does. Once Schwartz and Pipeman left he murdered her. The police sifted through all this. They had his statement in writing, so there was no need to call him at the inquest, what with the language barrier. Stick with the certified version and disregard the newspaper version and you will have no problem.

The Schwartz statement does not lead away from Jack the Ripper. Not in the description, or what he saw him do, or in the fact that there were people around. Not in any way. He saw JtR in the beginning of the act of bold murder.

Roy

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Natalie,

If we take the BS man out of the picture by assuming that what Schwartz saw was the end of his interaction with Liz rather than the beginning, it opens the door for another killer. For all we know, he might have cursed her out and walked away. Enter Jack or another killer.

c.d.

I find it extremely unlikely that Stride would be attacked twice during a time period of a few minutes on the same spot.
Some people talk about 'coincidences' when it comes to Stride and Eddowes being killed by two different men the same night, but Stride being assaulted twice in five to fifteen minutes on the same location is indeed a 'coincidence' that boggles the mind.

All the best

[c.d.]

Hi Glenn,

Yes, but do we really know that she was "attacked?" or was it merely a matter of a drunk client or potential client pushing and harassing a street prostitute. In other words, something that was pretty much par for the course in the life of a prostitute.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

I think it's pretty obvious that what Schwartz saw was a little bit of dirty dancing. He spun his partner, went in for the dip, and let her slip to the ground. Last time they danced the Lipski!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Schwartz saw the man push Liz down. How un-Ripperlike is that? None, that’s what he does. Once Schwartz and Pipeman left he murdered her. The police sifted through all this. They had his statement in writing, so there was no need to call him at the inquest, what with the language barrier. Stick with the certified version and disregard the newspaper version and you will have no problem.

The Schwartz statement does not lead away from Jack the Ripper. Not in the description, or what he saw him do, or in the fact that there were people around. Not in any way. He saw JtR in the beginning of the act of bold murder.

Then your analysis of the Ripper's modus operandi is strange to say the least, because the behaviour of Broadshoulders most certainly differ on several points from what one would expect from the Ripper.

The Ripper worked silently and very efficient. Apparently careful about not being seen under or after a murder. These are one of the reasons why he wasn't captured.
Broadshoulders, on the other hand, seems not very careful or efficient at all. Instead of launching a blitz-style attack in order to quickly silence the victim (as we have evidence of in connection with the Ripper), he throws her to the ground while she still can resist and scream out; he performs this act in front of at least two other people without caring one bit about the fact that he is observed. Not to mention the fact that he shouts insults one of the witnesses.

I would expect the Ripper to do neither of those stupid things, and if he had, he most likely would have been captured.
The behaviour of the man seen by Schwartz rather reminds me of a drunkard or a violent bully - and most importantly, a complete amatuer.

In short, if Broadshoulders was her killer, then he most likely was not the Ripper.
The other option is that she was killed by the Ripper and that Schwartz's statement simply is untrue and the incident he witnessed never happened.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn,

Yes, but do we really know that she was "attacked?" or was it merely a matter of a drunk client or potential client pushing and harassing a street prostitute. In other words, something that was pretty much par for the course in the life of a prostitute.

c.d.

Doesn't matter how you label it, c.d.,

I still find it a bit hard to swallow.

[c.d.]

Doesn't matter how you label it, c.d.,

I still find it a bit hard to swallow.

I have to disagree, Glenn. I think how it is labeled is extremely significant. All we have is Schwartz's version of events filtered through an interpreter. BS man's actions could have been extremely sinister of just another instance of what street prostitutes had to put up with on a regular basis.

c.d.

[Ben]

Some people talk about 'coincidences' when it comes to Stride and Eddowes being killed by two different men the same night, but Stride being assaulted twice in five to fifteen minutes on the same location is indeed a 'coincidence' that boggles the mind

Exactly, Glenn.

The premise that "BS" killed Stride and was the ripper is, to me, perfectly acceptable. The premise that BS killed Stride and wasn't the ripper is also acceptable. You could also just about get away with dismissing Schwartz' sighting altogether. The only argument that doesn't work on any level is the one that decides from the outset that JTR killed Stride but dismisses the Schwartz BS man because his actions don't seem ripperish enough. It's silly, because it starts with a preconception and then tries to force-fit the evidence into it.

Best,

Ben

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

It's not silly at all, Ben.
There is no way I would ever believe the Ripper to assault a victim in full view of two witnesses and shout insults to one of them.
It's a noisy and clumsy behaviour that directly speaks against all we know of how at least Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were killed. The crime scene and medical evidence speaks from those murders of a blitz style attack where the victims have been taken by surprised and killed quickly by the cutting of the throat, presumably first silenced by smothering or anything similar.
It's million miles away from the actions and behaviour of Mr BS, and I don't give the idea of BS being the Ripper any credence at all. On the contrary, I find that idea silly.

As for Schwartz statement might be a load of bollocks, this is something I have just recently pondered on, and I can't rule out the possibility that the incident he 'witnessed' never happened, simply because his timing clashes with other witness sigtings and his story isn't supported by other witnesses at the scene. People like Mrs Mortimer and Charles Letchford's sister - that is, if we can rely on their statements - were standing outside around the time of the BS incident but didn't see anything suspicious on Berner Street.

All the best

[Ben]

No, no.

I'm saying it's silly to decide from the outset that Jack the Ripper killed Stride and then rule out Schwartz's first man because you don't think JTR would behave that way (introducing a subsequent attacker in so doing). That's not what you're saying, I hope. I think you're saying that a perceived dissimilarity between BS's behaviour and that of "the ripper" introduces the possibility that Stride wasn't a ripper victim, in which case fair enough - that's not silly. I personally disagree on the grounds that most serial killers vary their approach rather than being robot-like, but I don't think it's silly.

All the best Glenn.

Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

Roundneck or Sailor Man

Thank you Glenn for responding to my post. You have begun to give me some idea of what all the controversy is about and for that I am grateful.

But consider the similarity of the descriptions given by Schwartz and Lawende as stated in excerpts of the Police Report.

Met Police CID 19 Oct, 1888, Swanson, Ch. Insp. From Page 122 to 124 of Ultimate JtR Companion, Evan & Skinner, New York 2000.

(1) Schwartz

“Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man who threw the woman down:-age about 30 ht. 5 ft 5in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.”

(2) Lawende

“...the description of a man seen with a woman in Church passage close to Mitre Square at 1:35 a.m. 30th by two men coming out of a club close by:-age 30 ht. 5 ft 7 or 8 in. comp. fair, fair moustache, medium build, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, round neck, appearance of a sailor. In this case I understand from City Police that Mr. Lewin [sic – Lawende] one of the men identified the clothes only of the murdered woman Eddowes,…”

Everyone calls Schwartz’s man Broadshoulders, why don’t we call Lawende’s man Sailor Man, or Roundneck? Because wouldn’t that have the same connotation?

Roy

PS I dislike excerpting, there’s so much more there. I just did it anyway. But it appears the word “Broadshoulders’ has been excerpted and Capitalized until it takes on a special life of it’s own.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Roy,

As you will see if you take a closer look at the two descriptions, apart from the peaked cap, they really contain no similarities in their important elements.

Schwartz speak of a man with black jacket and with what seems like a more respectaple apparence, while Lawende's description points at a shabby character, with a loose salt-and-pepper jacket (which is quite different from an ordinary black jacket).
But more importantly, the 'sailor's' most important element - the red neckerchief - is non-existing on Broadshoulders. Lawende didn't see the man very well, but still managed to make a reference to 'a sailor', so that particular feature must have been striking enough.

Fact is, that the other features, like moustache and dark clothes could fit hundreds, if not thousands in East End in those days. Peaked cap - in addition - was one of the most common hats among the working class all over the world in those days.

Add that to the fact, that witness descriptions alone should be treated with caution as evidence, since they are not often reliable.
As I see it, Schwartz and Lawende was not describing the same man, since Sailor Man's most distinctive elements - the red neckerchief and the loose salt and pepper jacker - is not mentioned by Schwartz.
The other features could fit anyone.
In essence, in my opinion, they are two different persons.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

PS I dislike excerpting, there’s so much more there. I just did it anyway. But it appears the word “Broadshoulders’ has been excerpted and Capitalized until it takes on a special life of it’s own.

Well, the man seen by Schwartz has been called Mr BS or Broadshoulders for a long time, probably for pure convenience and because it's a funny name.
The first time I saw if officially in a book and capitalized was in Paul Begg's The Facts, but I can't rule out that it has been done before.

I actually think I've seen 'Sailor Man' on a number of occasions, but often he has been called 'The Man seen by Lawende'. Don't know why.

All the best