Schwartz and Brown

[harry]

Fisherman,
I do not mean stalked in the sense that the stalker kept his distance at all times.In Strides case it seems that if there was the one man theory to account for the persons seen in her company,then he was never far away.As for the signs of affection shown,it doesn't mean anymore than that for a one night stand today.Just something to further a sense of security and promise of a good time.A small price to pay if an end result was to be achieved.
I believe in one notorious case,that of Neville Heath,he went through a similar process,and I have an idea there have been many other cases showing the same techniques.

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"I do not mean stalked in the sense that the stalker kept his distance at all times.In Strides case it seems that if there was the one man theory to account for the persons seen in her company,then he was never far away.As for the signs of affection shown,it doesn't mean anymore than that for a one night stand today.Just something to further a sense of security and promise of a good time.A small price to pay if an end result was to be achieved."

So, Harry, what are you saying here? That this man was the Ripper? If so, he employed a radically different tactic than in the other cases, where it would seem he did not spend the same amount of time grooming his victims at all.
And if so, he was not opposed to being spotted at this one isolated occasion.

Moreover, his respecatble appearance does not tally in the least with Lawendes man - who, arguably, would be the best bet for the Ripperīs role.

Or are you suggesting that Strides man was NOT the Ripper - but ANOTHER sinister character, bent on killing?

Whichever track out of these two you choose, I feel certain that you will be travelling on the wrong train. I feel equally certain that the affection shown inbetween Stride and this man was something more than the equivalent of a one night stand. It would seem, Harry, that at least for the man we are discussing, he may have been prepared to kill over it.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

alcohol

Hello CD. You say:

"[L]et's not forget the role alcohol might play[.]"

Very well. But her post mortem did not indicate any.

Curious.

With regard to screaming. Well, in her supposed altercation with BS, did she scream?

The best.
CD

[lynn cates]

company

Hello Fish. Thanks. I am sure I will enjoy that company.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. You say:

"[L]et's not forget the role alcohol might play[.]"

Very well. But her post mortem did not indicate any.

Curious.

With regard to screaming. Well, in her supposed altercation with BS, did she scream?

The best.
CD

Hi Lynn,

With regards to alcohol, I was referring to her killer be it Kidney or some other jealous lover. Kidney was apparently a heavy drinker and it is not a great leap to imagine him or someone else who felt left out to start hitting the bottle. As for Liz, if someone starts an argument and they start yelling, it would be natural to raise your own voice in response whether they had been drinking or not.

I am not sure what you mean with regard to her altercation with the BS man. The point that I was making is that I would expect a loud argument back in the yard if in fact it was a domestic. Liz's lack of a scream (or actually three small screams) is very puzzling. If she felt threatened by the BS man, why didn't she appeal to Schwartz or the Pipe Man for help? To say that this was because she knew the BS man (Kidney or her lover) is an acceptable answer but then you have (to me anyway) a number of questions that pop up:

1. Why is it necessary to go back into the yard to discuss things? Why not just do it on the street?

2. Why does no one hear any argument?

3. If it was Kidney, why does he stick around Whitechapel after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man?

4. Why no marks on Liz's face indicating that she had been slapped as the argument escalated?

To me, the domestic angle is pure speculation.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

If you accept the premise that this was simply a case of domestic violence, then I think you are going to see everything in that light. Now you have gone so far as to even speculate that her killer wanted to marry her! We KNOW absolutely nothing about any relationship that Liz might have had and so to assign motives and create scenarios and attempt to provide expantions for what took place is pure speculation.

Also consider this. Might Liz have mentioned to any of her friends that she was seeing somebody and that he was pushing for a serious relationship and he was quite jealous? Might she have mentioned his name or where he works? I think that is quite possible. I would expect that this information would have been passed on to the police and they would have followed up on it. Speculation of course, but I think quite reasonable.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"If you accept the premise that this was simply a case of domestic violence, then I think you are going to see everything in that light. Now you have gone so far as to even speculate that her killer wanted to marry her!"

I did? Really? When did that come about?

My suggestion is that he did not want their relationship to end, and that he did not want anybody to take his place. And of course it is a suggestion only! What else could it be?
The fact is, though, that I can make the details fit with such a suggestion. And, if I may be so bold as to remind you, c.d, what you do is ALSO to suggest - in fact to suggest that an eviscerating serial killer did away with Liz. And true or false, I think you need to realize that such a scenario will not readily lend itself to the existing evidence! Up til the time - at the very least - that happens, you too, my friend, are dealing with what you aptly call "pure speculation".

"Might Liz have mentioned to any of her friends that she was seeing somebody and that he was pushing for a serious relationship and he was quite jealous? Might she have mentioned his name or where he works? I think that is quite possible."

Taking it from the beginning:
-She may have mentioned him and she may not. If the relationship was a fresh one, she need not have known about any jealousy on his behalf. If, however, she did know of jealousy on KIDNEYS behalf, that may have prompted her to keep the affair to herself.

There is also the possibility that her new friend thought the relationship a lot more serious than Liz did - we know her to be a dodgy character, telling all sorts of colourful stories to gain from it herself. Please remember that if this man killed her, then it only took jealousy from HIS side to do so!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

While Iīm at it, c.d, Iīll have a go at the questions you ask Lynn too:

"1. Why is it necessary to go back into the yard to discuss things? Why not just do it on the street?"

The yard offered seclusion and privacy - once again, cd, people do not take their domestic quarrels to the street if they can avoid it.

"2. Why does no one hear any argument?"

Schwartz certainly did. As for the rest, if they took their issues into the yard to get some seclusion and privacy, it would be a strange thing to do to start shouting once they were inside. The rest could well have drowned in the singing from the club.

"3. If it was Kidney, why does he stick around Whitechapel after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man?"

Good question. And one of the reasons that I donīt hold Kidney as the top candidate.

"4. Why no marks on Liz's face indicating that she had been slapped as the argument escalated?"

Simple! Beacuse she was never slapped in the face.

"To me, the domestic angle is pure speculation."

Agreed! But it is good, fruitful speculation, built on a chain of evidence that will not break no matter where it is tested.

Can you say the same for the suggestion that Jack cut her?

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

With respect to marriage, in your post #119 you state "...a man with aspirations of becoming her wife." If I misinterpreted that, my aplogies.

Where did Schwartz state that he had heard an argument between the BS man and Liz? He didn't speak English so how could he testify as to what he overheard?

Easy with the chain of evidence argument there, Fish. You'll strain your rotator cuff patting yourself on the back. (insert smiley face). Of course it won't break since it is based on speculation and any perceived weak link will be bolstered by more speculation.

As for Jack, yes, that argument is based on speculation as well. But at least if you believe that he killed Kate that night then we know he was out and nearby. That seems to put him in the lead over some imagined jealous lover.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"With respect to marriage, in your post #119 you state "...a man with aspirations of becoming her wife." If I misinterpreted that, my aplogies"

A man with aspirations of becoming her ... wife??


You should have grown suspicious at that stage, c.d, really you should!

Once again - the level of his commitment is something we cannot know at this stage. He may have been married already for all we know, and just wanted an affair on the side. Who can say?
But I do think that people who are ready to kill for love are people who are seriously commited, c.d!

"Where did Schwartz state that he had heard an argument between the BS man and Liz? He didn't speak English so how could he testify as to what he overheard?"

Itīs a good thing there are interpretors then, c.d! And Schwartz stated that the two struck up some form of conversation, resulting in BS man grabbing her and subsequently throwing her to the ground. It would, I think, be a fair assumption to say that they were having an argument when this occurred.

"Easy with the chain of evidence argument there, Fish. You'll strain your rotator cuff patting yourself on the back. (insert smiley face). Of course it won't break since it is based on speculation and any perceived weak link will be bolstered by more speculation."

C.d, unless you have realized this, any murder investigation where the killer is absent is a chain of speculation, based on the evidence.

If a man is found with a hole in his forehead, we can speculate that he was stabbed. Or we can speculate that he was shot. But based on what we have before us, we speculate.
And the beauty of the scenario I am suggesting, is that it offers credible explanations to all the details involved - which is exactly what any investigator is looking for.

If Javk killed her, jumping her from behind; why was she preparing to munch on some cachous?? Would she not have other things on her mind?

If Jack was the one who pulled her into the street, why would he do such a thing?

If it was Jack, why was he up and about so early? If the oblong clots of blood on the back of her right hand corresponded to fingerprints - what was Jack doing with that hand of hers? If it was Jack throwing her to the ground, why would she keep her voice lowered when crying out? And why would she go with him into the yard afterwards? How did she manage to stay un-eviscerated? What was Jack doing in a district not known for itīs feeble prostitutes?
Why?
How?
What?
When?

My suggestion can only be a theory, lacking all sorts of tangible proof. But that does not tell it apart from any other suggestion. It does, however, offer credible explanations to all of the above points - if we believe in an aquainted killer.

If it is so easy to produce any sort of credible scenario, then tell me how you see Jack killing her? How do you explain all of these details without having to settle for some pretty wild speculating? Iīll tell you - you canīt, quite simply. But be my guest and try, c.d!

"As for Jack, yes, that argument is based on speculation as well. But at least if you believe that he killed Kate that night then we know he was out and nearby. That seems to put him in the lead over some imagined jealous lover."

How could it possibly do that, c.d - when we both know that none of the typical traits of a Ripper killing was about, and when we know that no law stated that only Jack was allowed to kill that night? Letīs just realize that this is all you have to nail Jack for the Stride killing - he was active that night at that approximate time and in that apprximate area. And BEFORE Stride is killed, you lay down the rules: No matter WHERE in Whitechapel/Spitalfields it happens, no matter WHEN it happens, no matter HOW it happens - if a woman is killed by way of knife, then it HAS to be Jacks work.
Itīs having the answer ready before the question is asked. It is doing it the wrong way. It is interesting - but not enough at any stretch.

The very best, c.d. You put up a brave and stylish fight, all other things aside, and I respect you for that!
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Sorry, Fish I did misquote you. Actually you said "a man with aspirations of becoming her spouse." But I think we can let that go.

Schwartz may have told the interpreter that he thought they were arguing but that is all he could say because he didn't understand English and he was only there for a few seconds. And even if it was an argument (which it probably was), it doesn't necessarily indicate that the two knew each other.

We also don't know if Liz had a lover at the time. If not, the whole domestic argument would seem to lose a little steam.

I have NEVER argued that every killing in the East End was Jack's work. I have been on the boards for quite some time and I have NEVER heard anybody making that argument. It is a quite ludicrous argument and a total straw man. The only people who make it are the anti-Jack crowd who try to put words in other people's mouths. But when you have a prostitute with her throat cut during this time period, it would seem reasonable to think Jack for starters.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

fit

Hello CD. Permit me.

1. Why is it necessary to go back into the yard to discuss things? Why not just do it on the street?

Indeed. it seems that Liz should not even be in the yard unless she were a club member. But she was. Does it make sense that she was soliciting at the gate and then went in AND came out before her contract was fulfilled? Nearly every scenario defies logic with Liz being in the yard, but soliciting and exiting?

2. Why does no one hear any argument?

Well, Schwartz did and I suppose pipe man did. Same with BS. Inside the club? Perhaps the music was loud.

3. If it was Kidney, why does he stick around Whitechapel after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man?

Kidney? Not a good suspect, at least, not after questioning,

4. Why no marks on Liz's face indicating that she had been slapped as the argument escalated?

I don't mean to sound sexist, but I think the lady slapped the gentlemen in LV times.

[5.]To me, the domestic angle is pure speculation.

Absolutely. And it has its holes. But I cannot get to square 1 on the Ripper theory with Liz soliciting.

CD, I think you would do invaluable service if you could do a forensic reconstruction of Liz's murder from the point of view of the pro-Jack camp. Please take account of at least some of the items that Fisherman does, and see if you can wangle a fit. I swear I cannot.

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"I did misquote you. Actually you said "a man with aspirations of becoming her spouse." But I think we can let that go."

We can, c.d!

"even if it was an argument (which it probably was), it doesn't necessarily indicate that the two knew each other.

True -and true again. It is not the argument bit that is the better pointer to this; itīs the dragging of Stride into the street and the cachous.


"We also don't know if Liz had a lover at the time. If not, the whole domestic argument would seem to lose a little steam."

To say the least, c.d! But this is much a matter of which order we recognize. To my mind, it is not as if we have to prove that she had a lover before we can go looking for confirmation of it - it is instead the built-in details of the case that seem to imply that she knew her killer well!

"I have NEVER argued that every killing in the East End was Jack's work ... But when you have a prostitute with her throat cut during this time period, it would seem reasonable to think Jack for starters."

It would. And it was. And they should. And they did. All rational thinking tells us not to dismiss Jack out of hand. But when we take the case on itīs own, when we learn about the respectable 5 ft 5 man, when we get aquainted with what happened in the yard, then we can clearly see that out of the five so called canonical cases, more or less ALL the deviations belong to one case and one case only - Stride.
When this insight sinks in, we need to ask ourselves: "Right - is there anything that conclusively points to the serial killer at loose? And both you and me know, c.d, that such a thing was never there in Dutfieldīs Yard.

So, a case full of deviations from the laid-down rules supplied by Jack in all other cases, and not a single shred of evidence about that tallies with his earlier work. Even the type of cut to the neck - the one thing that seems to tally on the surface - is different!

The conclusion is an inevitable one, c.d, Stride was in all probability not Jackīs. And as if this was not enough of a disappointment to those who follow the Ripper line of inquiry, an alternative scenario is written on the wall in BIG letters.

The best, c.d!
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
What I do say is that the man Brown saw,is the more likely to be the person fitting a description that could classed as in a friendly situation,inspiring confidence and trust.Brown states this person was in shadow with face turned away,and leaning on the wall,much the same as reported by Long and Lawende of the persons they saw.So Brown was not ,as he himself states,in a position to give any helpfull information of the person.However this person was in the vicinity,could have walked with,or followed Stride to Berner Street.Could have been Pipeman.Could,for those who fancy a killer already in the yard,have been there whenBS man came by.The opportunities existed.He could have been the Ripper.
Regards.

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

I don't understand why you have trouble with the idea of Liz soliciting that night. Could you elaborate?

Here's something that occurred to me and for what it is worth -- Liz was allegedly seen in the company of men earlier in the evening. It seems a bit strange therefore that no alcohol was found in her body. I can't remember but she was a drinker was she not? Could she have had an upset stomach and therefore didn't want to make it worse by consuming alcohol? Dutfield's Yard had a privy. Do the math.

c.d.