12:45 am

[Michael W Richards]

Re Fanny Mortimer: "I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual."

Notice the "NEARLY THE WHOLE TIME" in her statement. She had a sick husband and I believe it was five children to deal with. So clearly she was not at her door THE WHOLE TIME.

c.d.

There has never been any issue with accepting that Fanny was at her door "off and on" from 12:30 until 1am, nor is there any need to question whether she was at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1. She stated in both cases that was her position. We have corroboration of that with her seeing the young couple at some point, and between 12:55 and 1, with her sighting of Goldstein.

Now, contextually, what do you envision she meant by "nearly the whole time"? I think its clear that she wasn't at the door continuously, but also that she was at her door a large portion of that 30 minutes and also that she heard things from the street when she wasn't at the door. The boots, the cart. She saw only a deserted street save for a young couple during the intervals she was at her door, and she never saw or heard anything of Israel, Pipeman, or BSM. Neither did she see or hear Louis arrive while at her door, as he insisted, at promptly 1am.

So this is the story is it....3 people arrive and depart unseen, 2 engaged in a scuffle and with a yell to someone else across the street, 1 man pulls up unseen or heard at precisely 1am, all while Fanny is at her door the majority of the 30 minute period in question. This all happens just after someone else unseen somehow slips into the picture and cuts Liz, decides the empty street is too risky and forgoes any further actions, then slips away unseen and unheard by all, including Fanny or the invisible cart driver just coming up to the gates.

Now I see why you've stayed interested all this time, reads like a interesting fiction. The silent invisible threats.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

IF Cadosche is to be believed, and I see no reason why he shouldnt be, then Mrs Long simply made a misidentification.

[Joshua Rogan]

Doesn't that equate to 12:46-12:50 Josh?

Not exactly....your phrasing makes it sound like Blackwell was saying the murder definitely occurred between those times, whereas my reading has that window as the very earliest it could have happened but was more likely to have been later. I.e. It was more likely to have happened closer to Louis' time than Isaac's.

Having said that, some papers do indeed suggest he said that she had been dead "from 20 minutes to half an hour" when he arrived, so I can see your point.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Been seen doing what? According to Schwartz it was simply pushing a woman to the ground. So why go on to kill her after being seen?

c.d.

hi CD
Because he was pissed off and lost his temper. Ive always thought that Schwartz may have actually witnessed the throat cutting but didn't realize it-when he saw BS mans hands go up to her shoulder area. Or it could have happened shortly after he fled.

[Sam Flynn]

But think about giving someone the finger. You look directly at them and accompany the gesture with a curse word. Schwartz seemed to be saying that whatever the word was it was aimed at him.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Gareth

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.

yup. as what abberline thought.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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?

[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.