Money

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

The J-Curve springs eternal, in this case at around 8 bystanders, but of course they are not available. You have mentioned Pipeman as a bystander, but where is Parcelman? My current thinking is that Pipeman was more of a predator watching the situation unfold than an innocent bystander. I have observed that in many of the proposed scenarios that arise from these discussions, the location and involvement of Parcelman is completely overlooked. An important omission, IMHO.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Schwartz's account is that Stride is alone, and B.S. is walking ahead of him when he assaults Stride seemingly with little interaction, but as some have suggested, it may have been in response to some exchange between them. Also, it is possible they interacted earlier in the evening, etc. No mention is made of anyone else, other than Pipeman (who gets noticed after he has passed B.S. and Stride). I suppose Parcelman and Pipeman could be one in the same, though where his parcel has gotten to would have to be explained. Otherwise, it seems like Parcel man has left the scene but I suppose one could argue he went unnoticed by Schwartz. I am not a fan of such lines if they can be avoided, though, as it makes up for missing evidence by just finding a way to fill it in. When there's a fairly simple explanation for Parcelman not being seen, like "he left", or even "he's Pipeman" (though the descriptions there don't match well if I recall), then I don't see the need to fall back on "he was there but isn't reported". Obviously I can't "prove" he wasn't there, just it's not my preference in terms of how I stack up the explanations. Others may arrange things in a different order.

- Jeff

[Aethelwulf]

Hi George,

Schwartz's account is that Stride is alone, and B.S. is walking ahead of him when he assaults Stride seemingly with little interaction, but as some have suggested, it may have been in response to some exchange between them. Also, it is possible they interacted earlier in the evening, etc. No mention is made of anyone else, other than Pipeman (who gets noticed after he has passed B.S. and Stride). I suppose Parcelman and Pipeman could be one in the same, though where his parcel has gotten to would have to be explained. Otherwise, it seems like Parcel man has left the scene but I suppose one could argue he went unnoticed by Schwartz. I am not a fan of such lines if they can be avoided, though, as it makes up for missing evidence by just finding a way to fill it in. When there's a fairly simple explanation for Parcelman not being seen, like "he left", or even "he's Pipeman" (though the descriptions there don't match well if I recall), then I don't see the need to fall back on "he was there but isn't reported". Obviously I can't "prove" he wasn't there, just it's not my preference in terms of how I stack up the explanations. Others may arrange things in a different order.

- Jeff

The two options I think plausible are:

1. Schwartz perhaps misread the seriousness of the argument (BS & Stride knew each other/were vaguely acquainted, perhaps earlier in the evening, and just had a bit of a scuffle) and the Stride willingly accompanied BS into the yard, where he attacked her;
2. The scuffle was as Schwartz reported, Stride left her attacker for the apparent safety of the yard, where BS then walked silently up behind her, strangled with the scarf, cut her throat.

I wouldn't rule out Pipeman being BS's friend either. In both cases I think the disturbance was probably Schwartz, not D and his cart, and JtR was already gone when D arrives. There was only one man being aggressive towards Stride at the right time and I see no reason to assume anyone other than BS was the killer.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Schwartz's account is that Stride is alone, and B.S. is walking ahead of him when he assaults Stride seemingly with little interaction, but as some have suggested, it may have been in response to some exchange between them. Also, it is possible they interacted earlier in the evening, etc. No mention is made of anyone else, other than Pipeman (who gets noticed after he has passed B.S. and Stride). I suppose Parcelman and Pipeman could be one in the same, though where his parcel has gotten to would have to be explained. Otherwise, it seems like Parcel man has left the scene but I suppose one could argue he went unnoticed by Schwartz. I am not a fan of such lines if they can be avoided, though, as it makes up for missing evidence by just finding a way to fill it in. When there's a fairly simple explanation for Parcelman not being seen, like "he left", or even "he's Pipeman" (though the descriptions there don't match well if I recall), then I don't see the need to fall back on "he was there but isn't reported". Obviously I can't "prove" he wasn't there, just it's not my preference in terms of how I stack up the explanations. Others may arrange things in a different order.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Parcelman and Stride had probably been together since 11PM, last being seen at about 12:35 by Smith on the opposite side of the road to the club. The fact that Stride was next seen standing alone in the gateway suggests to me that she was waiting for someone, possibly for Parcelman to return from within the club or the WC. Alternatively, she may have got a job as a cleaner in the club for after the meeting, in which case Parcelman would have departed.

Schwartz reported that Pipeman shouted a warning to BSman but, with the translation factor, he could very well have been shouting a warning at BSman. The fact that Strides protests against BSman were "not very loud" suggests to me that Schwartz was correct in his assessment of it being a domestic, not an attack. My current theory is that Pipeman was Jack and after warning off BSman he offers to escort Stride to the club door, kills her and is interrupted by the return of Parcelman who pursues him down Fairclough St as per the Echo report. I think he failed to come forward because he was a married man (rumoured to be an ex-employer).

Coming back to the topic, my theory doesn't explain why no money was found on Stride's body. She was known to have earned sixpence, and if she had been with Parcelman all evening it would be reasonable to conclude that he would have paid for their drinks and food (and grapes?). However, mine is a variation of the interruption theory and the Diemshitz interruption theory doesn't explain the missing money either. The viable answer is that the murderer was not Jack and the motive was purely robbery.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Parcelman and Stride had probably been together since 11PM, last being seen at about 12:35 by Smith on the opposite side of the road to the club. The fact that Stride was next seen standing alone in the gateway suggests to me that she was waiting for someone, possibly for Parcelman to return from within the club or the WC. Alternatively, she may have got a job as a cleaner in the club for after the meeting, in which case Parcelman would have departed.

Schwartz reported that Pipeman shouted a warning to BSman but, with the translation factor, he could very well have been shouting a warning at BSman. The fact that Strides protests against BSman were "not very loud" suggests to me that Schwartz was correct in his assessment of it being a domestic, not an attack. My current theory is that Pipeman was Jack and after warning off BSman he offers to escort Stride to the club door, kills her and is interrupted by the return of Parcelman who pursues him down Fairclough St as per the Echo report. I think he failed to come forward because he was a married man (rumoured to be an ex-employer).

Coming back to the topic, my theory doesn't explain why no money was found on Stride's body. She was known to have earned sixpence, and if she had been with Parcelman all evening it would be reasonable to conclude that he would have paid for their drinks and food (and grapes?). However, mine is a variation of the interruption theory and the Diemshitz interruption theory doesn't explain the missing money either. The viable answer is that the murderer was not Jack and the motive was purely robbery.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I'm not sure Parcelman was the man seen with Stride earlier in the evening, but if he was, then that would be a long time for them to be together. If we go with that situation, then I think your idea that Stride was waiting for Parcelman to return makes sense, but whether he did or not we can only speculate. He may have returned at the time the crowd was around the yard, and if he was married, may have decided against going down to see what was going on (alternative to him showing up to chase off B.S.).

The version where Pipeman shouts to B.S. is in the paper, and that's where Pipeman becomes Knifeman, and I think that report is less reliable than the police report, where it is B.S. who shouts at Pipeman (according to Schwartz). Given the two conflict on so many details, and the unreliability of the press in terms of details, I focus on the police summary of Schwartz's account myself. I also think the report about the chase is some mash up of the fellows from the club running off looking for the police, which got twisted into a tale of someone chasing the murderer. It sounds too much like the club members that ran down Fairclough (when they pick up Spooner) to me. The press can only report what someone says to them (in theory), but that doesn't mean what they were told is accurate and it could just be a rumour that circulated. Rumours, like the size of a fish, become less connected to reality the longer the time since the event.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The two options I think plausible are:

1. Schwartz perhaps misread the seriousness of the argument (BS & Stride knew each other/were vaguely acquainted, perhaps earlier in the evening, and just had a bit of a scuffle) and the Stride willingly accompanied BS into the yard, where he attacked her;
2. The scuffle was as Schwartz reported, Stride left her attacker for the apparent safety of the yard, where BS then walked silently up behind her, strangled with the scarf, cut her throat.

I wouldn't rule out Pipeman being BS's friend either. In both cases I think the disturbance was probably Schwartz, not D and his cart, and JtR was already gone when D arrives. There was only one man being aggressive towards Stride at the right time and I see no reason to assume anyone other than BS was the killer.

Hi Aethelwulf,

I think from what we have available, B.S. is the most plausible killer of Stride, with Pipeman a fairly distant second in my view. I think it may be possible that B.S. and Stride had spent some time together at a pub earlier, and either she disappeared on him or they had an earlier disagreement and she left (hence his anger towards her when he finds her outside the club). From what Schwartz relates, there was very little interaction between B.S. and Stride before he starts throwing her about, and it would make more sense to me if they had some prior interaction that put them in a "mood" towards each other.

I can't see Pipeman and B.S. being known to each other. B.S. enters the area from the other direction, and Pipeman is already there. I see no reason to see why they should be acquainted myself.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Aethelwulf,

I think from what we have available, B.S. is the most plausible killer of Stride, with Pipeman a fairly distant second in my view. I think it may be possible that B.S. and Stride had spent some time together at a pub earlier, and either she disappeared on him or they had an earlier disagreement and she left (hence his anger towards her when he finds her outside the club). From what Schwartz relates, there was very little interaction between B.S. and Stride before he starts throwing her about, and it would make more sense to me if they had some prior interaction that put them in a "mood" towards each other.

I can't see Pipeman and B.S. being known to each other. B.S. enters the area from the other direction, and Pipeman is already there. I see no reason to see why they should be acquainted myself.

- Jeff

hi jeff
totally agree with this and your previous post. good analysis

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

I am on the fence as to Stride being a JtR victim, but if she was my suspect would be Pipeman. I can't see Jack allowing himself to be seen by two witnesses or pursuing a murder while under the influence. IMO, if BSman was the murderer, he wasn't Jack. I have long thought that, in this circumstance, he could have been Kosminski. I am halfway through Rob House's book and he makes a strong case for this possibility. He cites recent evidence that "Lipski" was used as an insult by jews as well as gentiles, and Aaron would fit the Anderson/Swanson suspect that was identified but not pursued because he was a fellow jew. Aaron is thought to have been living in this area at the time so your theory that he may have been drinking with her earlier has merit. At this stage I have Kosminski as a possible for Stride alone, but I may modify that opinion when I have finished Rob House's book (thanks for the recommendation Abby).

Best regards, George

[c.d.]

I can't see Jack allowing himself to be seen by two witnesses or pursuing a murder while under the influence. IMO, if BSman was the murderer, he wasn't Jack.

Hello George,

I agree with your line of thinking here. But if that applies to Jack, wouldn't it apply to the B.S. man as well or any murderer for that matter? Now it seems that the B.S. man was her killer camp says well he was in a rage and that trumped anything else. Ok. Let's go with that. But if so, are we to assume that Stride didn't pick up on his rage? Was she so naive that she couldn't see that? Because remember, the B.S man has to get her back to where she was killed. Does she go voluntarily with a man in a rage? Maybe, but that seems unlikely to me. If she realizes her situation, and tries to fight him off and fight for her life, she does so with the cachous (only wrapped in tissue in her hand) not spilling and scattering. Possible, but to me unlikely. So how do we resolve this conundrum? The B.S. man departs and the Ripper comes along and kills her with no witnesses present.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I am on the fence as to Stride being a JtR victim, but if she was my suspect would be Pipeman. I can't see Jack allowing himself to be seen by two witnesses or pursuing a murder while under the influence. IMO, if BSman was the murderer, he wasn't Jack. I have long thought that, in this circumstance, he could have been Kosminski. I am halfway through Rob House's book and he makes a strong case for this possibility. He cites recent evidence that "Lipski" was used as an insult by jews as well as gentiles, and Aaron would fit the Anderson/Swanson suspect that was identified but not pursued because he was a fellow jew. Aaron is thought to have been living in this area at the time so your theory that he may have been drinking with her earlier has merit. At this stage I have Kosminski as a possible for Stride alone, but I may modify that opinion when I have finished Rob House's book (thanks for the recommendation Abby).

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I am also on the fence with regards to Stride, though I don't think JtR being intoxicated and/or continuing after being spotted is out of the question. It is not uncommon for serial killers to be under the influence, and despite the differences in modern and Victorian times, JtR's crimes are not really so different from others that I don't see any reason to believe he too might have been prone to alcohol abuse. If anything, given that alcohol abuse was a major issue in the area, one might even argue he was more, rather than less, likely to have had a few pints. Also, being spotted didn't deter him from going on to murder Chapman (if you consider Long's evidence as reliable) or Eddowes (if Lawende, Levey, and Harris did see JtR and Eddowes) or Kelly (if Hutchinson's man is JtR, or even Blotchy, etc). I accept the circumstances are different, in that the other potential sightings do not involve an altercation, but then in Stride's case he does leave without engaging in any post-mortem activity - perhaps that's why?

All I'm getting at is that there are things to consider that could point to JtR being willing to murder despite having been seen with a victim. And, or perhaps particularly so, that would also suggest a bit of poor judgement which in turn could point to him being a bit into his cups as well.

No, it's not a rock solid argument, and I'm not suggesting it as being such, only that it is one that I think needs a bit more consideration than being relegated to the "out of the question" box. Obviously that's only my opinion, and you may not agree.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

I can't see Jack allowing himself to be seen by two witnesses or pursuing a murder while under the influence. IMO, if BSman was the murderer, he wasn't Jack.

Hello George,

I agree with your line of thinking here. But if that applies to Jack, wouldn't it apply to the B.S. man as well or any murderer for that matter? Now it seems that the B.S. man was her killer camp says well he was in a rage and that trumped anything else. Ok. Let's go with that. But if so, are we to assume that Stride didn't pick up on his rage? Was she so naive that she couldn't see that? Because remember, the B.S man has to get her back to where she was killed. Does she go voluntarily with a man in a rage? Maybe, but that seems unlikely to me. If she realizes her situation, and tries to fight him off and fight for her life, she does so with the cachous (only wrapped in tissue in her hand) not spilling and scattering. Possible, but to me unlikely. So how do we resolve this conundrum? The B.S. man departs and the Ripper comes along and kills her with no witnesses present.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

I think it would apply to anyone planning a murder. I think BSman knew Stride, and was possibly with her earlier as suggested by Jeff. I think he was trying to persuade her to come with him and she pulled away just as he released her and she overbalanced and fell down and then protested at him, rather than screaming. That's how I interpret Schwartz's description.

From there either:
Schwartz and Pipeman depart, Stride decides to end the discussion by walking away, taking out her cachous as she does, and in a sudden outburst of anger and aggression (schizophrenia) at a perceived disrespect, BSman (Kosminski?) grabs her scarf and cuts her throat in a blitz attack
OR
Pipeman (Jack) sees Schwartz off and warns off BSman, offers to escort Stride to the club door and takes the opportunity to claim a victim with someone else being seen as the perpetrator, but is interrupted by the return of Parcelman.

All speculation of course, but we can only weigh our own perception of the probabilities to determine our own opinions.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I am also on the fence with regards to Stride, though I don't think JtR being intoxicated and/or continuing after being spotted is out of the question. It is not uncommon for serial killers to be under the influence, and despite the differences in modern and Victorian times, JtR's crimes are not really so different from others that I don't see any reason to believe he too might have been prone to alcohol abuse. If anything, given that alcohol abuse was a major issue in the area, one might even argue he was more, rather than less, likely to have had a few pints. Also, being spotted didn't deter him from going on to murder Chapman (if you consider Long's evidence as reliable) or Eddowes (if Lawende, Levey, and Harris did see JtR and Eddowes) or Kelly (if Hutchinson's man is JtR, or even Blotchy, etc). I accept the circumstances are different, in that the other potential sightings do not involve an altercation, but then in Stride's case he does leave without engaging in any post-mortem activity - perhaps that's why?

All I'm getting at is that there are things to consider that could point to JtR being willing to murder despite having been seen with a victim. And, or perhaps particularly so, that would also suggest a bit of poor judgement which in turn could point to him being a bit into his cups as well.

No, it's not a rock solid argument, and I'm not suggesting it as being such, only that it is one that I think needs a bit more consideration than being relegated to the "out of the question" box. Obviously that's only my opinion, and you may not agree.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

While our opinions may not coincide, I would be the last person to relegate your opinions to the "out of the question" box.

I give no weight to Long's testimony, IMO Lawende was identifying clothing rather that a person and I'm inclined to agree with Christer's conclusion in the Examiner (http://www.rippercast.com/mp3/EXAMINER%20Issue%205.pdf) that Hutchinson got his day wrong. I also look at the police statements, years after the events, saying that no-one ever saw Jack (except perhaps one PC). To commit his crimes without being seen or heard by witnesses in close proximity indicates to me a cool clear head, so if he was triggered by alcohol I think he must have had the ability to hold his liquor very well. JMO.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

While our opinions may not coincide, I would be the last person to relegate your opinions to the "out of the question" box.

I give no weight to Long's testimony, IMO Lawende was identifying clothing rather that a person and I'm inclined to agree with Christer's conclusion in the Examiner (http://www.rippercast.com/mp3/EXAMINER%20Issue%205.pdf) that Hutchinson got his day wrong. I also look at the police statements, years after the events, saying that no-one ever saw Jack (except perhaps one PC). To commit his crimes without being seen or heard by witnesses in close proximity indicates to me a cool clear head, so if he was triggered by alcohol I think he must have had the ability to hold his liquor very well. JMO.

Best regards, George

Fair enough George. All of the sightings could be mistaken. Certainly Hutchinson's seems suspect given the level of detail he includes. Even if he saw Kelly with someone on the night I don't think his description could be reliable.

I think Long probably did see Chapman, but as the man was viewed from behind she wouldn't be able to identify him and he may have been aware of that.

Anyway, it comes down to where such information falls on our possibility line, and given you do not put stock in the sightings your view makes sense.

That is the thing with JtR, so much of our "conclusions" are determined in how we deal with information we really don't know; and with each guess we make we head down a different path, sometimes not realizing just how many other roads there were to travel.

Always good exchanging ideas with you.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Fair enough George. All of the sightings could be mistaken. Certainly Hutchinson's seems suspect given the level of detail he includes. Even if he saw Kelly with someone on the night I don't think his description could be reliable.

I think Long probably did see Chapman, but as the man was viewed from behind she wouldn't be able to identify him and he may have been aware of that.

Anyway, it comes down to where such information falls on our possibility line, and given you do not put stock in the sightings your view makes sense.

That is the thing with JtR, so much of our "conclusions" are determined in how we deal with information we really don't know; and with each guess we make we head down a different path, sometimes not realizing just how many other roads there were to travel.

Always good exchanging ideas with you.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff , Of all the witnesses testimonies its Mrs Longs that baffles me the most , for this reason . She obviously walked that route many times, probably id say on a daily or perhaps at least every second day . Surely she would know with a degree of certainty the time of the clock that chimed at 5.30 am as she claimed .? Making the whole Cadoush testimony difficult to reconcile . Could she have been mistaken and heard the 5.15am chime ?[doubtful imo] did that clock even chime at 15 mins intervals?

I dont believe that in their cases we can use the timing mistake, or clocks being fast or slow by mins . One of them has to be wrong/mistaken in what they heard and or saw . Imo. Perhaps even both. Having said that, i agree with this part of your post below ,well put. Pay heed P.I .



''That is the thing with JtR, so much of our "conclusions" are determined in how we deal with information we really don't know; and with each guess we make we head down a different path, sometimes not realizing just how many other roads there were to travel.''

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff , Of all the witnesses testimonies its Mrs Longs that baffles me the most , for this reason . She obviously walked that route many times, probably id say on a daily or perhaps at least every second day . Surely she would know with a degree of certainty the time of the clock that chimed at 5.30 am as she claimed .? Making the whole Cadoush testimony difficult to reconcile . Could she have been mistaken and heard the 5.15am chime ?[doubtful imo] did that clock even chime at 15 mins intervals?

I dont believe that in their cases we can use the timing mistake, or clocks being fast or slow by mins . One of them has to be wrong/mistaken in what they heard and or saw . Imo. Perhaps even both. Having said that, i agree with this part of your post below ,well put. Pay heed P.I .



''That is the thing with JtR, so much of our "conclusions" are determined in how we deal with information we really don't know; and with each guess we make we head down a different path, sometimes not realizing just how many other roads there were to travel.''

Hi Fishy,

I am less concerned about the clocks than the fact that Long waited 3 days before deciding that she might like to become part of the news by concluding that she had seen the killer with the victim. Mrs Richardson commented on the bustle in the street that morning due to market day so Long has picked one couple out of many, she told the coroner, to be Chapman and Jack. We don't know how many bodies she was shown to make an identification, but I don't buy her story.

That comment of Jeff's that you boldened is the truest statement I have seen on this forum in a long time. Jeff, perhaps you should use it as your signature.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

I am less concerned about the clocks than the fact that Long waited 3 days before deciding that she might like to become part of the news by concluding that she had seen the killer with the victim. Mrs Richardson commented on the bustle in the street that morning due to market day so Long has picked one couple out of many, she told the coroner, to be Chapman and Jack. We don't know how many bodies she was shown to make an identification, but I don't buy her story.

That comment of Jeff's that you boldened is the truest statement I have seen on this forum in a long time. Jeff, perhaps you should use it as your signature.

Cheers, George

Yes that statement by Jeff is indeed a cracker I agree with you, probably the best comment I've seen that should be used to remind us all just how uncertain and fallible each theory is with so many unknowns to chose from.

Again well done Jeff.