Stride - no strangulation.small knife ?

[FrankO]

I am quite sure in my own mind that the man seen by Best and Gardiner, the man seen by Marshall, and Schwartz's man are one and the same.

Hi Observer,

If I may chime in for a moment, I can see how Best & Gardner, Marshall and PC Smith may have seen the same man (decently/respectably dressed, calm, sober, kissing, quietly talking), but not Schwatz's man.

All the best,
Frank

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Observer,

If I may chime in for a moment, I can see how Best & Gardner, Marshall and PC Smith may have seen the same man (decently/respectably dressed, calm, sober, kissing, quietly talking), but not Schwatz's man.

All the best,
Frank

I agree, Frank.
I don't see much connection with Schwartz's man either.

[Observer]

Hi Gentlemen

For what it's worth, I think you'll see I ended my post with "best wishes from cloud cuckoo land", I wrote the post with my tongue firmly in my cheek.

However there are similarities in the description given by the three parties in question, namely Best and Gardner, Marshall and Schwartz. All described a stout man of medium height, Best Gardner, and Schwartz described a dark mustache. Middle aged man described by Best Gardner and Marshall, Schwartz judging his age as 30, so nearing middle age. It's obvious that Best, Gardner, and Marshall described the same man, and yet Best, Gardner had him wearing a billycock hat, while Marshall descibed a peaked cap, the point being that it's easy to see a peaked cap when in fact the culprit is wearing a billycock. Schwartz had him wearing a felt rimmed hat. The coat the four witnesses describe is the hardest to explain away, Best Gardener, and Marshall describe a short coat, while Schwartz describes an overcoat. All in all the descriptions are not that dissimilar.

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

Of course, it's not often I'm right but I'm wrong again. Schwartz described the Pipeman as wearing an overcoat, and a felt rimmed hat. The stout chappy he described as wearing a short coat and a peaked cap. This is in my favour however, as Best, Gardner, and Marshall Marshal described a cap and a short coat.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Observer!

I thought this one was done to death...

You write:
"Felt comfortable with a man who had thrown her to the ground, a man who was enraged enough to hurl an anti Semitic insult at a Jew who mererly tried to skirt around them?"

Thus you involve two elements in this question of yours. I will reverse them chronologically, and start by saying that what the Hungarian-speaking Schwartz THOUGHT he heard was the outcry "Lipsky". But I´m afraid we have no way of knowing that "Lipsky" was the expression used. As I have pointed out, "Lizzie" may have been what was shouted, and if it was, then your suggestion is no longer valid.
My feeling about the whole thing is that "Lizzie" is an expression that would be perfectly logical, whereas "Lipsky" lacks something. If an enraged man was to shout out a threat, then surely he would add something to make it a little bit more understandable. "I´ll kick, your butt, you Lipsky", "Get out of here, Lipsky" or something like that. Can you envisage somebody shouting "Hitler" or "Hussein" or "Bundy", with no further explanations, to scare someone off? I can´t.
As for your notion that she could not have felt comfortable with a man who had thrown her to the ground, I think you must have missed out on how domestic violence works, Observer. It is not always a relationship where the man is the aggressor and the woman scared stiff! In very many relationships where the man is violent to a woman, she becomes extremely wary of his moods (a necessity), and she awaits the right moment to get her revenge, which is almost always verbal. She may well have been the part that took the decision to go into the yard, she may well have thrashed him verbally once inside - and she may have done so numerous times before, finding out exactly to what lengths she could go. Until the moment he struck, she could have been top dog in that yard, Observer, and when you realize that, I´m sure you will see that there is no need to go to extreme lenghts to explain the cachous!

The best, Observer!

Fisherman

[FrankO]

But I´m afraid we have no way of knowing that "Lipsky" was the expression used. As I have pointed out, "Lizzie" may have been what was shouted, and if it was, then your suggestion is no longer valid.
My feeling about the whole thing is that "Lizzie" is an expression that would be perfectly logical, whereas "Lipsky" lacks something. If an enraged man was to shout out a threat, then surely he would add something to make it a little bit more understandable. "I´ll kick, your butt, you Lipsky", "Get out of here, Lipsky" or something like that. Can you envisage somebody shouting "Hitler" or "Hussein" or "Bundy", with no further explanations, to scare someone off? I can´t.

Hi Fisherman,

We obviously have no way of knowing if 'Lipski' was indeed the term shouted by Mr BS. However, it ended up in the police reports, and, according to a report of 6 November by Warren, "it appears that since the Lipski case it ('Lipski') has come to be used as an epiphet in addressing or speaking of Jews." That's only one thing why 'Lipski' addressed to Schwartz, who was obviously a Jew, would make perfect sense. Another thing is that if you'd consider the movements of the persons involved during this short episode, a shout of 'Lizzie' wouldn't make sense if shouted in the general direction of Schwartz or Mr Pipeman, and not in Stride's direction, which seems to have been the case.

Stride was standing in the gateway. Mr BS walks over to her, talks to her, tries to pull her into the street and then some altercation starts. I imagine Mr BS is focused on Stride during this thing - he more or less faces her, his back more or less towards the street. Before Schwartz reaches the couple, he crosses the street, and while doing so, Mr BS shouts 'Lipski', either at Schwartz or at Mr Pipeman.

So, to some extent at least, he needs to turn around in order to do so. There's no hint that the shout was directed at Stride, and Mr BS's demeanor must have been such that it gave Schwartz the impression that it might have been directed at him, regardless of whether he was scared or not. He never mentions the possibility that it was directed at Stride. Abberline questioned Schwartz 'very closely' when he made his statement.

I see it as perfectly feasible that Mr BS did say something like: "Get out of here, you stupid LIPSKI!", ending with only 'Lipski' as a shout, and that only this last bit was loud enough for the Jew, who didn't understand English, to make anything of it and, moreover, it sounded sort of familiar to him.

All the best,
Frank

[Observer]

Hi Fisherman

No it was Stride who was done to death, although this thread is running a close second. I think you misinterpret the insult "Lipski", it dosn't need any extra emphesis. It's quite clear the use this solitary word covers everything, from "you Jewish *****" to "you Jewish *****" use your imagination to fill in the missing words.

And Schwartz quite clearly stated that the man in question used the word Lipski.

Why would Stride's assailant shout the one word "Lizzie" anyway? Surely if he wished to use her name in the assault he would have needed to add other words to make sense?

"Lizzie, give me back my cachous"

"Lizzie you Swedish *******"

"You'll be the death of me Lizzie"

I think you must have missed out on how domestic violence works, Observer. It is not always a relationship where the man is the aggressor and the woman scared stiff! In very many relationships where the man is violent to a woman, she becomes extremely wary of his moods (a necessity), and she awaits the right moment to get her revenge, which is almost always verbal. She may well have been the part that took the decision to go into the yard, she may well have thrashed him verbally once inside - and she may have done so numerous times before, The best, Observer!

Fisherman

Who is this stranger? Stride lived with Kidney for quite some time before her death, if she knew someone as well as you describe above, then why was he not traced? Surely someone would have named him.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank!

You think that the Schwartz evidence points to him directing his cry of "Lipski" to either Schwartz or Pipeman, and you mention that Schwartz did not at any time hint that the cry could have been directed at Stride. Furthermore, you implicate that the fact that Abberline questioned Schwarz thoroughly reinforces the improbability that Stride was the address of the cry.

So let´s look at what Abberline said!

Abberline's report (MEPO 3/140/221/A49301C) states "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say."

Now, that means that Abberline was none the wiser after his interrogation - the cry could have been directed at anybody.

For good measure, let´s add the fact that what Schwartz thought he heard (and, of course, may have heard) was Lipsky. That in itself would of course NOT lead him to believe that the woman involved was the address, since the Lipski behind the expression was a male murderer.
Also, Schwartz had no idea what Stride was named, and so he could not make the same clever guess that we can: that it could have been "Lizzie" that was cried out.

Finally, although we normally look at the people we speak (or shout) to, there is no need to believe that it must always be so. Imagine a quarreling couple, let´s call them Fisherman and Observer, where Observer stands facing the back of Fisherman. He (Observer) keeps on saying "Beaten women are always afraid of their assailants, beaten women are always afraid of their assailants, beaten wo..." until the moment that Fisherman gets very angry with him since he thinks he is wrong, and shouts out :"Observer!!!", NOT turning round.

This example will do nicely to show what I mean, and I think you will see the relevance of it. Not to say that we do know exactly in what direction BS man was looking when he cried out, for we do not!

Moreover, I think that Schwartz´evinced confusion on who was shouted out may well have come from the fact that he could not logically explain that someone shouted Lipski seemingly in the direction of Stride, since he would have thought that such an expression must have a male address.

Observer!

Since I have already commented on the issue of what was shouted and towards whom, I will settle for answering only the remaining point you make - that if Stride had had another lover than Kidney, somebody would have known and named him.

That, Observer, is the same as saying that no love affairs are ever successfully kept secret from the world. It is the same as saying that cheating husbands and wifes are always revealed by somebody, who is also able to name the parties they cheat with.

Such a supposition on your behalf actually makes me wonder why you chose the name "Observer" in the first place. At the very least, I fish ...

All the best,

Fisherman

[FrankO]

So let´s look at what Abberline said!

Abberline's report (MEPO 3/140/221/A49301C) states "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say."

Now, that means that Abberline was none the wiser after his interrogation - the cry could have been directed at anybody.

Hi Fisherman!

Obviously, if you read Abberline's report in isolation, you might get the idea that he must have been none the wiser as to whom the shout was addressed: Schwartz, Mr Pipeman or Stride.

However, you should first read Swanson's report of 19 October. Regarding the shout, Swanson wrote: "On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road "Lipski" & then Schwartz walked away, ... Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other." It's clear from this report that because the shout appeared to have been directed at Mr Pipeman, Schwartz was asked if he thought they were together or known to each other.

Abberline, in the report mentioned above, offers an alternative to Swanson's report: that the shout was addressed at Schwartz (instead of Mr Pipeman). Abberline's remark "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.", now becomes quite clear. He means that Schwartz was unable to say whether the shout was addressed to Mr Pipeman or Schwartz. Stride doesn't enter into the equation.

The best, Fisherman!
Frank

[Observer]

Hi Fisherman

That, Observer, is the same as saying that no love affairs are ever successfully kept secret from the world. It is the same as saying that cheating husbands and wifes are always revealed by somebody, who is also able to name the parties they cheat with.

Such a supposition on your behalf actually makes me wonder why you chose the name "Observer" in the first place. At the very least, I fish ...

All the best,

Fisherman

But Stride wasn't doing a very good job of concealing her affair was she? If indeed this is what our clerkly companion and Stride were up to. She drank quite openly with him in the Bricklayers Arms on the night of her murder. Sam has already revealed that Stride and Kidney had lived in the immediate vicinity of the Bricklayers Arms. Are you saying that Stride would have flaunted her clerkly friend in an area where she was known? If so the affair would not have remained secret for long would it?

You certainly fish, fish, but this time I fear you are wide of the mark, instead of trying to trap Jack the Ripper, why don't you use your fishing skills to catch Jack the Kipper, although on second thoughts no, you're not exactly smokin at the moment




all the best my friend

Observer

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank!

You write:

"Obviously, if you read Abberline's report in isolation, you might get the idea that he must have been none the wiser as to whom the shout was addressed"

Absolutely, Frank! Whenever I read a wording like "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say", it does have a tendency to make me jump to the conclusion that Abberline was not able to milk the goods out of Schwartz.

As for Swansons report, I know how it looks and what is said in it. But Swanson was not the guy who handled the interrogations, was he? He was the man in the middle, Andersons spider in the web, and thus no first hand source. If you take a look at what is said about Schwartz´reaction to the Lipsky cry and what followed, Swanson has Schwartz "walking" away from the scene...

Any way you look at it, Frank, I would say that the confusion about who the cry was directed to remains. Like you say yourself, Abberline came to believe that Schwartz was the address himself, on account of his jewish appearance. It is all constructions reached after some pondering behind a desk, I believe.

You write: "Stride doesn't enter into the equation", but that should not be too much of a surprise, should it; if you work from an assumption that "Lipski" was the word cried out, how COULD she enter that equation? Exactly - she couldn´t.

And the very fact that she could not do so, may well be the explanation to Schwartz´s, Abberlines and Swansons ramblings - something was wrong, and nobody could put a finger on what it was.

All the best, Frank!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Observer (!?)

This is what you offer:
"But Stride wasn't doing a very good job of concealing her affair was she? If indeed this is what our clerkly companion and Stride were up to. She drank quite openly with him in the Bricklayers Arms on the night of her murder. Sam has already revealed that Stride and Kidney had lived in the immediate vicinity of the Bricklayers Arms. Are you saying that Stride would have flaunted her clerkly friend in an area where she was known? If so the affair would not have remained secret for long would it?
You certainly fish, fish, but this time I fear you are wide of the mark, instead of trying to trap Jack the Ripper, why don't you use your fishing skills to catch Jack the Kipper, although on second thoughts no, you're not exactly smokin at the moment "

If you´ll be Jack the Lipper, I´ll be Jack the Kipper, Observer! There is no way I can defend a perfectly plausible theory against an opponent who claims that love affairs are always detected from the very moment they start. I can only say that all - ALL - love affairs that start out secretely will have a certain amount of time where the affair is KEPT a secret. That space of time may range from a second to eternity, but it is always there, Observer. I can´t be any clearer than that.
And if you accept this inevitable and universal truth, you must also allow for the possibility that either
A/ the affair (if it existed) may have been secret, or
B/ He/she/those who knew about it chose not to come forward and tell.

To say that it must have been known by somebody apart from the two parts involved, is simply not viable. It must not.

The rest of your post has some serious flaws to it too, I´m afraid. The Bricklayers Arms affair was not brought to the inquest for some reason - and that reason may have been that it was not thought to be completely truthful. We don´t know.

Next: What I am saying, and have always been saying, is that the identity of BS man is to be found in EITHER Michael Kidney or in an aquaintance of Liz´s. Who he was is somewhat secondary as long as we have no more information to go on, the primary thing is that they were not merely prostitute and punter, if I am correct. And therefore the scenario differs very much from the ones involving Jack.

"You certainly fish, fish, but this time I fear you are wide of the mark"

No I´m not. I always use spot on GPS navigation when I fish, Observer. I never was one who left things to destiny. That way I maximize my chances of getting it right!

On the other hand, you have adamantly proven that even lost causes can be fought for with grandeur. There´s no taking that away from you!

All the best, Observer!

Fisherman

[FrankO]

But Swanson was not the guy who handled the interrogations, was he?

Hi Fisherman,

No, not the interrogations themselves, but he certainly did handle & read the actual statements when he summarized them in his reports to Anderson. And it wouldn't surprise me if he talked about the case with Abberline, too. So, I don't think the remark about Mr BS calling out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road was plucked out of the air. I think it was copied from Schwartz's original statement.

Regardless of what was shouted, based on the reports as they've survived, it seems clear that it was shouted not in the direction of Stride, but to the other side of the street, the side Schwartz was walking towards.

Furthermore, if Mr BS shouted in frustration at a non-complying Stride, I wouldn't expect him to shout out 'Lizzie!' to her. That's something you'd shout at a child when (s)he does something bad, but not something you'd expect from the aggressive bully that Mr BS seems to have been in that situation. I'd rather expect something like 'Do as I say, you b*tch!'. But maybe he actually shouted: "B*tchy!", that would sound about right, too eh...

All in all, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. But that's not too bad since we agree on most of the rest regarding Stride's murder.

The best, Fisherman!

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Frank!

Yep, I am well aware that we see the Stride killing in quite similar ways. The fact that we may also disagree is not something that I will let annoy me - it would be boring if we all agreed on everything, would it not?

Still, I will try to clarify exactly how I think on the matter.

First off, I am not saying that "Lizzie" must have been BS mans expression. If it was in fact "Lipski", that does not change my wiew to any extent, since Kidney/the aquaintance may well have just wanted to rid themselves of onlookers, the way people who are going to quarrel with their spouses mostly want it.

If I have to favour one interpretation, though, I would go for "Lizzie". You write "I wouldn't expect him to shout out 'Lizzie!' to her. That's something you'd shout at a child when (s)he does something bad, but not something you'd expect from the aggressive bully that Mr BS seems to have been in that situation", but I disagree, Frank.
To begin with, I think that BS man only became a bully when Liz turned out not to comply with his wish to leave the scene. If she had followed him when he tried to drag her into the street, we would probably speak of the canonical four today.
BS mans aggression came from Stride being non-compliant, if you ask me, and the breakout was what caused him to throw her to the ground and shout out "Lizzie!". I think we can assume that this was not the first word exchanged between them. BS man will probably have started out by telling her in a lowered voice that he wanted her to come along with him, and thereafter he tried to drag her with him, something that failed.

As for Swanson, I will stand by my notion that he offers secondary information. And even if he DID copy the wording about the outcry from Abberlines papers, he also seems to have copied a note saying that Schwartz left the scene walking. That he did NOT - he fleed running, and dared not look back during his dash.
And, of course, whichever way we look upon it, we do have differing opinions inbetween Abberline and Swanson. In fact, if you are right, we have differing opinions inbetween Abberline and Abberline ...

Be that as it may, Frank. I fully realize that there lies extensive pondering behind your position, as indeed it seems there always is. I respect that, but I opt for another way here, which means that I accept your offer to agree - to disagree!

The best, Frank!

Fisherman

[FrankO]

If it was in fact "Lipski", that does not change my wiew to any extent, since Kidney/the aquaintance may well have just wanted to rid themselves of onlookers, the way people who are going to quarrel with their spouses mostly want it.

Hi Fisherman!

That’s exactly the way I see it too.

To begin with, I think that BS man only became a bully when Liz turned out not to comply with his wish to leave the scene. If she had followed him when he tried to drag her into the street, we would probably speak of the canonical four today.
BS mans aggression came from Stride being non-compliant, if you ask me, and the breakout was what caused him to throw her to the ground and shout out "Lizzie!". I think we can assume that this was not the first word exchanged between them. BS man will probably have started out by telling her in a lowered voice that he wanted her to come along with him, and thereafter he tried to drag her with him, something that failed.

Again, I agree with you, except for the part about the shout. Mr BS walks over to Stride, talks to her, she doesn’t comply or says something he doesn’t like, so he grabs her, tries to pull her into the street and than throws her down on the footway. So, he’s angry with her and rather aggressive too, and then he shouts a rather friendly “Lizzie!”?? That just doesn’t fit the way I see it before me.

As for Swanson, I will stand by my notion that he offers secondary information. And even if he DID copy the wording about the outcry from Abberlines papers, he also seems to have copied a note saying that Schwartz left the scene walking. That he did NOT - he fleed running, and dared not look back during his dash.
And, of course, whichever way we look upon it, we do have differing opinions inbetween Abberline and Swanson. In fact, if you are right, we have differing opinions inbetween Abberline and Abberline ...

Again, I agree with you in that it would sure have made things easier if, in their reports, they had elaborated a little more about certain aspects of the case and if they had done so in unequivocal terms. That would have spared Casebook quite a bit of bandwidth, I imagine.

One last thing about the ‘walking’ bit in Swanson’s report, though. I have to say that that particular term doesn’t strike me as odd. According to Abberline’s report, Schwartz ‘stopped’ to look at the couple again while he was crossing the street. At that point Mr BS shouted his shout and then Schwartz came into motion again – or, in other words, he walked away from the scene. Nothing all that odd about that. Schwartz only became alarmed & started running when he thought he was being followed by Mr PM.

Be that as it may, Frank. I fully realize that there lies extensive pondering behind your position, as indeed it seems there always is. I respect that, but I opt for another way here, which means that I accept your offer to agree - to disagree!

No worries, Fisherman! It’s clear to me that a lot of thinking goes on inside that head of yours too - at least as far as the whole Ripper case is concerned , and, like you said, it would be incredibly dull if everybody agreed on everything.


The best, Fisherman!