12:45 am

[Abby Normal]

That's why he's called BS Man.

I knew that was coming.LOL!

[Abby Normal]

That's what we've been led to believe, but I've never been particularly convinced by the suggestion. I still feel that the name on its own, minus an "Eff off" or whatever, seems rather underpowered. Perhaps there was an "Eff off" originally, and it got lost in the telling.

actually the more I think about it yelling just lipski in those circumstances seems more reasonable than just yelling Lizzie. especially since lipski is a powerful insult word. and why do you just yell the persons name-Lizzie- in a fight or argument? that to me makes no sense.

but of course Lipski is what the witness heard so obviously it couldn't be that.

good grief.

[Abby Normal]

I'm not so sure, Jon. Mrs Long seems to have walked into Hanbury Street and saw him already talking with Annie, likewise Lawende and co appear to have caught Eddowes and her man in mid-conversation. In either case, I don't get the impression that the killer suddenly changed into a smoothie just because he realised he'd been seen.

what difference does it make what the victim and suspect were doing when they were spotted. Bs man, sailor man, Longs man all became suspects or persons of interest anyway.

the point is the killer didn't seem to care if hed been seen with the victim, no matter what he was doing with them, as long as the witnesses didn't know him.

and besides, as Jon correctly pointed out, BS man didn't realize he had been spotted until after he started assaulting stride.

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed Sam, but in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, the man is aware he is being observed.

I'm not so sure, Jon. Mrs Long seems to have walked into Hanbury Street and saw him already talking with Annie, likewise Lawende and co appear to have caught Eddowes and her man in mid-conversation. In either case, I don't get the impression that the killer suddenly changed into a smoothie just because he realised he'd been seen.

[Sam Flynn]

Lipski could be perceived as an insult or threat in itself, so perhaps that was all was needed.

That's what we've been led to believe, but I've never been particularly convinced by the suggestion. I still feel that the name on its own, minus an "Eff off" or whatever, seems rather underpowered. Perhaps there was an "Eff off" originally, and it got lost in the telling.

[Simon Wood]

That's why he's called BS Man.

[Harry D]

Nor does the B.S. man killing her after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man fit the scenario.

c.d.

Exactly. That's why I doubt there even was a "BS Man" in the first place.

[Abby Normal]

True, CD, but Schwarz's evidence comes to us reflected through different prisms which, even at first hand, evidently needed an interpreter. The potential for confusion is rather high, so what Schwarz seemed to have said, and what he actually said, cannot be ascertained precisely.

Having said that, I'm not too hung up on the "Lizzie!" idea, interesting though it is. Even without it, what Schwarz reports has all the flavour of a violent quarrel between two (possibly acquainted) parties, as opposed to anything more exotic.

right so how does that exclude BS man as her killer and or the ripper?

[Abby Normal]

Indeed, Jon, although it's always bugged me that it was apparently only "Lipski!" that was shouted, as opposed to "Bugger off, Lipski!", "Mind your own business, Lipski!" or "Wot you lookin' at, Lipski?" (etc). Shouting the name "Lipski!" on its own just seems inadequate, and seems to have been perceived as such from the get-go, with various investigators attempting to fill in the blanks and/or explaining what BS might have meant - the contemporary police suggestion of "I'm going to Lipski you" (or whatever it was) being a prime example.

Of course, this could be another example of our being let down by inadequate source evidence, but I would observe that, with "Lizzie!", the problem disappears.

not really. in your scenario you would think he would also say something like-your coming home with me, what whoring again?, you cheating cow, Ill teach you a lesson etc

[Jon Guy]

exactly. as long as the killer knew that the people who saw him were strangers and didn't know him.

Yes, and perhaps someone who was confident that he wouldn`t be seen, identified or pointed out by these witnesses at a later date.

[Jon Guy]

Indeed, Jon, although it's always bugged me that it was apparently only "Lipski!" that was shouted, as opposed to "Bugger off, Lipski!", "Mind your own business, Lipski!" or "Wot you lookin' at, Lipski?" (etc). Shouting the name "Lipski!" on its own just seems inadequate, and seems to have been perceived as such from the get-go, with various investigators attempting to fill in the blanks and/or explaining what BS might have meant - the contemporary police suggestion of "I'm going to Lipski you" (or whatever it was) being a prime example.

Of course, this could be another example of our being let down by inadequate source evidence, but I would observe that, with "Lizzie!", the problem disappears.

Lipski could be perceived as an insult or threat in itself, so perhaps that was all was needed.

[Jon Guy]

The difference is that, with both Chapman and Eddowes, the victims appeared to have been transacting with the alleged killer in a relaxed manner. Indeed, in Eddowes' case, they were practically lovey-dovey.

Indeed Sam, but in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, the man is aware he is being observed.
When he was throwing Stride about, he didn't know anyone was watching him.

[Sam Flynn]

It was most certainly Lipski that was shouted by BS Man, as it was at that point that BS Man realised Schwartz, a Jewish looking guy, was watching him.

Indeed, Jon, although it's always bugged me that it was apparently only "Lipski!" that was shouted, as opposed to "Bugger off, Lipski!", "Mind your own business, Lipski!" or "Wot you lookin' at, Lipski?" (etc). Shouting the name "Lipski!" on its own just seems inadequate, and seems to have been perceived as such from the get-go, with various investigators attempting to fill in the blanks and/or explaining what BS might have meant - the contemporary police suggestion of "I'm going to Lipski you" (or whatever it was) being a prime example.

Of course, this could be another example of our being let down by inadequate source evidence, but I would observe that, with "Lizzie!", the problem disappears.

[Sam Flynn]

Church Pasage Man still went on to kill Eddowes after been seen by 3 men, and Annie Chapman`s killer still went on to kill Chapman despite Mrs Long witnessing him approaching a victim.

The difference is that, with both Chapman and Eddowes, the victims appeared to have been transacting with the alleged killer in a relaxed manner. Indeed, in Eddowes' case, they were practically lovey-dovey.

[Abby Normal]

Hi CD

Church Pasage Man still went on to kill Eddowes after been seen by 3 men, and Annie Chapman`s killer still went on to kill Chapman despite Mrs Long witnessing him approaching a victim.

exactly. as long as the killer knew that the people who saw him were strangers and didn't know him.