Money

[FISHY1118]

Thanks Dave, you got there just befor my post .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can we be sure that, in the Nichols murder for example,

1. The killer met Nichols on the street,
2. The killer paid,
3. They moved to the spot,
4. He killed her then retrieved the coin?

That certainly could have happened but could it also have been a case of,

1. The killer met Nichols on the street,
2. They moved a few feet to the spot,
3. At that point when she was expecting him to hand over the cash, he attacks and kills her?

Hence no coins.

As Eddowes was seen talking to a man it would be natural to assume that money changed hands at that point but again can we be sure of this? We can’t know what they talked about or for how long but couldn’t they simply have walked together to the spot where Eddowes expected him to cough up? She would still have been expecting cash before business.

Perhaps as an added cruelty his ‘trick’ was to pretend to put his hands into his pockets looking for the coin only to pull out his empty hands straight to the woman’s throat? Pure speculation of course.

[Elamarna]

12:45 AM (approximately): Quoting Home Office File:

"Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road, and having gotten as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, "Lipski", and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.

And of course Abbeline, who was at the interview, made it clear in an internal.memo to Anderson end of October that Schwartz was a) unclear who lipski was said to.

b) unsure if Pipeman followed him or not.


One needs to read and take account of all the documentatation, especially where translation is required.

It's all about interpretation Dave, we it seems disagree on that.

Steve

[Darryl Kenyon]

It would appear that JtR took any money he would have had to have given them (on the presumption one pays for things first of course), although one might wonder when he was supposed to have the time to do so in the Stride case.

If one goes with the "interrupted just as he kills her" idea (usually Diemshutz is suggested to be the interruption, but it could have been a noise in the club), she doesn't appear to have had her clothes searched in any manner. Perhaps they were and the evidence of it lost. Or, perhaps she didn't solicit JtR, or refused his advances, etc. That would tally with the description of the events Schwartz reports in that he says he followed along behind Broad Shoulders when he (BS) seems to suddenly attack Stride. It's not clear what, if anything, prompted that attack, but if we suppose for the moment that B.S. kills Stride then it doesn't appear there was any opportunity for money to have exchanged between them.

Hmmm, might this be an indirect (and certainly not conclusive) indication that B.S. was Stride's killer, and therefore potentially JtR? I've not fully thought all of this through, but thought I would share the idea nonetheless. More minds better thinking.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
Just a thought of mine that Liz may not have seen her killer . IE He was already in the yard came up behind her, pulled her backwards and down [ strangling her ] via her scarf, slit poor Liz's throat and then heard a noise , Diemschultz or otherwise.

Regards Darryl

[DJA]

And of course Abbeline, who was at the interview, made it clear in an internal.memo to Anderson end of October that Schwartz was a) unclear who lipski was said to.

b) unsure if Pipeman followed him or not.


One needs to read and take account of all the documentatation, especially where translation is required.

It's all about interpretation Dave, we it seems disagree on that.

Steve

We only disagree on Stride being pulled away from the alley.

[Losmandris]

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the money would be viewed as sort of a trophy, a reminder of what had taken place? Because I don't see how money could be traced to him so that he took it as a precaution.

c.d.

I suppose that is what I am getting at here. That the money could have been traced back to him. I totally get what you mean, in that I am not sure how. Paranoia on his part maybe or the fact he offered them over the odds or a coin shined up to look like it was of greater value. (I am sure I have read somewhere on the boards of this trick being used).

[Darryl Kenyon]

Just a few possibilities

Possibly the killer projected himself as having a few coins and a punter thus putting his victims at ease . Deerstalker hat with Annie [ fashionable at the time I believe ], plus perhaps with Kate putting himself across on the pretext he was a sailor. And if he was Blotchy he may have bought Mary her supper [ fish and potatoes ], and the can of ale with him for the couple to share.

With Polly its possible she led her killer to the stable yard gates hoping they were open before any money had been exchanged. When they were locked the killer attacked Polly outside in a blitz attack thinking he was safe in a darkened street.

With Annie it looks like the killer pillaged her pockets, hence the items at Annie's feet. Perhaps taking his fee back.

With Martha , no money was found on her I believe . An indicator that she was a victim of JTR ?

Finally the Suffolk Strangler, Steve Wright knew at least some of his victims I believe. And that he had been a regular user of sex workers for years. Maybe the same could be said about Jack ?

Regards Darryl

[FISHY1118]

And of course Abbeline, who was at the interview, made it clear in an internal.memo to Anderson end of October that Schwartz was a) unclear who lipski was said to.

b) unsure if Pipeman followed him or not.


One needs to read and take account of all the documentatation, especially where translation is required.

It's all about interpretation Dave, we it seems disagree on that.

Steve

Hi Steve , Swansons report of Schwartzs account actualy uses the word ''Apparently'' when the man called out lipski to the man on the other side of the road .

So yes, even he makes it uncertain as to which person schwartz might have ment by that comment, making what Abberline memo to Anderson somewhat correct. Schwartz may have been unclear on that part . I believe later offical reports confirm the man who shouted ''Lipski'' was indeed addressing Schwartz not he man on the other side of the street, but i cant as yet verify that .

But on the [b] point the wording is quite clear. But finding he ''was'' followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch. I cant interpret that any other way im afaide.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve , Swansons report of Schwartzs account actualy uses the word ''Apparently'' when the man called out lipski to the man on the other side of the road .

So yes, even he makes it uncertain as to which person schwartz might have ment by that comment, making what Abberline memo to Anderson somewhat correct. Schwartz may have been unclear on that part . I believe later offical reports confirm the man who shouted ''Lipski'' was indeed addressing Schwartz not he man on the other side of the street, but i cant as yet verify that .

But on the [b] point the wording is quite clear. But finding he ''was'' followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch. I cant interpret that any other way im afaide.

Again, Abberline who was present for the interview of Schwartz makes it clear in his memo that Schwartz was actually unclear if he was followed or note.

I suggest this is because of issues with translation.

So, if one looks at all of the documentation, I submit that a different interpretation is indeed possible Fishy.

However, such is just another of those impondrables we will I fear never be certain of( on current research).

[Elamarna]

We only disagree on Stride being pulled away from the alley.

Indeed, but that is very significant.
My position is the same as it was say 10 years ago.
BS man killed Stride, and was in all probability the Whitechapel murder.

But of course that's only MY opinion.

Steve

[Belloc]

I suppose that is what I am getting at here. That the money could have been traced back to him. I totally get what you mean, in that I am not sure how. Paranoia on his part maybe or the fact he offered them over the odds or a coin shined up to look like it was of greater value. (I am sure I have read somewhere on the boards of this trick being used).

Your recollection is correct, Losmandris. Several newspapers reported that 2 brightly polished farthings were found near the body of Annie Chapman. As an example, here’s what The Star reported in its September 10 edition:

In the pockets there were a handkerchief, two small combs, and an envelope with the seal of the Sussex Regiment. There were also found two farthings polished brightly, and, according to some, these coins had been passed off as half-sovereigns upon the deceased by her murderer.
BRIGHT FARTHINGS AND BRASS MEDALS.
With regard to the bright farthings, a woman has stated that a man accosted her on Saturday morning and gave her two "half-sovereigns," but that, when he became violent, she screamed and he ran off. She discovered afterwards that the "half-sovereigns" were two brass medals. It is said that this woman did accompany the man, who seemed as if he would kill her, to a house in Hanbury-street, possibly No. 29, at half-past two a.m.

There’s no reference to the farthings in the official inventory of Mrs Chapman’s possessions.

Best regards.

[Fiver]

According to Walter Dew, a "brightly polished farthing" was found under Alice Mackenzie's body

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff
Just a thought of mine that Liz may not have seen her killer . IE He was already in the yard came up behind her, pulled her backwards and down [ strangling her ] via her scarf, slit poor Liz's throat and then heard a noise , Diemschultz or otherwise.

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

I suppose that would implicate someone from the Club or one of the residences (though not necessarily, but would be the most likely explanation for why someone was in the yard). But sure, the idea I was playing with is that it doesn't look like Stride was searched, and no money was found on her. As such, it does not appear her killer gave her money before attacking her. So, either the attack on her followed a different sequence than for the other victims, where one might expect money to have changed hands prior to going to murder location, or as Herlock suggests, some sort of ruse was used such that JtR attacks at the point money is to be exchanged. In the first line of reasoning, one could view B.S. attack on Stride as an example of an attack where no money has been exchanged (B.S. just seems to go for her), and it occurs close to the time she was killed, making it fit. On the other hand, if JtR usually accompanies his victim to a location under the guise of being a customer, he either exchanges money first (and takes it back, as per Annie's pockets being searched and items placed at her feet) or does something like Herlock suggests. That doesn't fit with Stride's attack as described by Schwartz, which doesn't quite fit how other murders appear to go, so if Stride was killed by JtR and if B.S. = JtR, then the attack starting off "wrong" may in part account for his leaving without progressing to mutilation. Or, it may be that B.S. does leave the scene, and JtR comes along, but of that we have nothing to work with other than given she does not appear to have been searched for money, either the someone else got her into the alley and attacked her prior to making payment (which JtR may have done), or she enters the ally with her killer for reasons that do not require money (which would seem to point to a more domestic murder, but may work for those who want to evoke a conspiracy between the victims who all know JtR, and yet none of whom indicate to anyone that all their "friends" are being picked off).

- jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jeff
Just a thought of mine that Liz may not have seen her killer . IE He was already in the yard came up behind her, pulled her backwards and down [ strangling her ] via her scarf, slit poor Liz's throat and then heard a noise , Diemschultz or otherwise.

Regards Darryl

but were back to phantom rippers here DK, and no evidence this happened at all. There were plenty of real suspects about that night, ie BS man. No need for any phantom rippers IMHO.

[Darryl Kenyon]

but were back to phantom rippers here DK, and no evidence this happened at all. There were plenty of real suspects about that night, ie BS man. No need for any phantom rippers IMHO.

I am afraid we are going to have to disagree on this one Abby.

Swanson - Schwatrz man may not need be the murderer, Schwartz man may have left her where she was then accosted by another man.

The Star - The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted [ Schwartz ]

New York Times - The daring character of the murders is evident from the fact that two people at least saw a man and the woman together in the Berner-street gateway, and one saw him throw her down. He went away and left her there, but it was half an hour before it was known that she had been murdered.

Schwartz saw BS man pull Liz away from the entrance to the club, not into it. And would Liz then follow someone into the passageway who had just assaulted her ? I would say probably not.

Is BS mans actions consistent with Jack's ? I would have to say no.

Is Liz being a victim of Jack's consistent with his victimology, method of kill etc ? On the balance of probability I would say yes.

Regards Darryl