Schwartz and Brown

[harry]

Fisherman,
If we can assume that Liz was a targeted person that night,then I agree with you that the same person was seen with her at different times in different places,and it was at Duffield yard that the killer decided an opportunity had presented itself.If it were the case,I cannot understand the approach of BS at that time,or accept him as being the stalker.That such patience shown, migh signal to many too great a variation in method as shown by the Ripper on previous occasions,who is to say what variation he was capable of.
Regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Not being picky here but it is c-a-c-h-o-u-s

Bless you!

[lynn cates]

green eyed monster

Hello Fish. It suggests HE was her big date. If he were well educated/well off, that would explain her ebullience and her "sprucing up" earlier that afternoon. It might also explain why a former boyfriend was jealous.

Am I heading in the right direction?

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates writes:

"If they are the same, she spent some time in this one chap's company."

Exactly so, Lynn - and if they are NOT the same, it would seem she within the space of two hours met with three different men of the approximate same age, the same height, the same clothing more or less, possibly (confirmed in two instances and left uncommented on in instance number three) the same stature, and all of them making a respectable impression. Furthermore, she was very affectionate towards guy number one and two, and there is ample reason to believe that she was aquainted to the third man too. And all three men were seen with her in a very restricted area.

I know what it tells me - what does it tell you...? Surely not a story of a vicious eviscerator!?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Sugden

Hello Fish. The likelihood is there. Sugden makes nearly that same point. If they are the same, she spent some time in this one chap's company.

Significant?

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Actually, Lynn, when you take a closer look at what Best tells about the couple, it goes like this:

"I was in the Bricklayers' Arms, Settles-street, about two hundred yards from the scene of the murder on Saturday night, shortly before eleven, and saw a man and a woman in the doorway. They had been served in the public house, and went out when me and my friends came in. It was raining very fast, and they did not appear willing to go out."

So all we know is that the couple had seemingly been inside the Bricklayers Arms - but Bests assertion that they had been served there seems nothing but an educated guess. All things considered, though, they may just as well have popped in to ask for directions somewhere! No need, thus, to accept as a fact that Stride had had anything to drink there at all; alcoholic or non-alcoholic.

The description of the man, though, is of course much interesting: 5 ft 5, dark or black trousers and a "morning coat" - that was a garment that in the 1870:s came in a variety that was a shortish cutaway jacket, which would make it tally quite well with what Marshalls man and BS man were wearing.
He also sported a "thick black moustache", whereas Schwartz spoke of a small brown ditto. The colour is not much of an obstacle, and as for the size, Best says "thick" - not large! Moreover, since Schwartz came from another country, maybe what was considered a small moustace there would make more of an impression on an Englishman?
The last obstacle is the hat; Best spoke of a billycock hat, and one may have to allow for a mistake on that point. As for the rest, we once again have a pointing out of the man as being of "respectable appearance".
So, what may well be a matching attire, the right height, the right age and the right general apearance! It would seem Stride had a flair for respectably looking men of a certain size and shape - or could it be that all three were one and the same?
Well, it certainly cannot be ruled out!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates writes:

"I think you are right about a possible favourite pub. But if I recall, Liz was said to have no alcohol (well, at least malted liquor) in her stomach. And yet she was seen in a pub less than 2 hours before. Baffling!"

If you are referring to the Best and Gardner incident, it has to be said that she was there in the company of a man. Maybe he did the drinking himself ...
Moreover, Stride was of course not a woman of great means. Maybe that meant that she saved her money - or that she drank something non-alcoholic.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

pub

Hello Fish. Your dictum:

"It was, by appearances, not a regular beat for prostitutes."

was precisely what I was driving at.

With the others, they seemed to be on fairly familiar (to them) ground for soliciting.

I think you are right about a possible favourite pub. But if I recall, Liz was said to have no alcohol (well, at least malted liquor) in her stomach. And yet she was seen in a pub less than 2 hours before. Baffling!

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates writes:

"that would help explain why Liz was there in the first place"

Perhaps it would, Lynn. Then again, why was Kate in Mitre Square? What was Polly doing outside Essex Wharf? Why would Annie pick the backyard of 29 Hanbury?

I think we may have to concentrate on a somewhat larger area than the IWMEC. We know that she was standing in the doorway of 58 Berner Street earlier that evening, that PC Smith saw her at another location of that same street and maybe it is the street as a whole we should take an interest in, not just the club.
It was, by appearances, not a regular beat for prostitutes. That seems to point to Stride having had other reasons for her visiting Berner Street. She may have had a favourite pub in the vicinity, the preference dating back to earlier days when she stayed not far from Berner Street. Or somebody else may have had a reason to fix an appointment to the address. Whichever way, if we judge by the witness reports, she did not choose the IWMEC until late in her movements, so the more credible thing to believe is that it was at least not her goal from the outset.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

the club

Hello Fish. Thanks. Of course, that would help explain why Liz was there in the first place.

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates writes:

"She had been "working among the Jews"--perhaps it was a club member?

Is that congruent with your scenario, Fish?"

I cannot name the man, of course - and, consequently, nor can I name his religion or club preferences!

A couple of things point away from a club membership on behalf of "my" killer, of course - BS man does not come out through the club doors; he is en route through Berner Street. And he may have yelled "Lipski" - which would reasonably not be the first insult that would spring to a jewish mind.

Apart from these objections, the man may of course have belonged to the IWMEC. Once again, it is anybodys guess. My guess is a "No, probably not" for what itīs worth.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

excising a Kidney

Hello Tom and Fish. I have no problem excising Kidney here. But then, who was Liz's hot date? She had been "working among the Jews"--perhaps it was a club member?

Is that congruent with your scenario, Fish?

The best, lads.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

I readily accept that estimations of height may be wrong. The problem I am having in this particular case, though, is that we know that Schwartz walked behind BS man down Berner Street, and we know that he passed him outside the yard. My guess is that he would not have been far off the mark assessing this mans height.

If we try to reconcile things, and if we accept that Brown was more or less spot on when judging his manīs height, then we need to pin a height of about 5 ft 7 on Pipeman.

We know that Schwartz thought that Pipeman was a full six inches taller than BS man. That means that if Pipeman WAS 5 ft 7, then BS man would have been around 5 ft 1 , meaning that he would have been four inches shorter than Liz, who stood 5 ft 5. Schwartz had him down as 5 ft 5, though, and I think it is reasonable to assume that the police double-checked by asking Schwartz to compare BS mans length to his approximation of Lizīditto. After that, they would know.

I have a hard time believing that Schwartz would have seen a difference of a mere two inches as being six inches, whichever way we look at things. Of course, Brown could have underestimated and Schwartz overestimated things. But it is equally true that Brown could have OVERestimated and Schwartz UNDERestimated the height.

And so, without ruling out your suggestion and without forgetting how wrong people sometimes get things, I mean that we are in all probability speaking of two different men here.

The best, Harry!
Fisherman

[harry]

While I do not entertain the idea that Schwartz would be conciously making a comparison of the difference in height of either BS or Pipeman with himself,as he became aware of their persons,I do agree there would be an impression left on his memory of such.However impressions,even in good light,often leave a lot to be desired,and have been proven in many cases to be innacurate to the extreme.This may have also been the case in other descriptions given that night,and to base any arguement on the exactness of such sightings,would I think be going too far.So I have no difficulty in believing that the man Brown saw and the person referred to as pipeman,were one and the same.Not that it,by itself ,proves anything.It does at the most limit the known number of persons present in that small area,at 1245 or thereabouts.
I did in a previous post mention of the conditions in Duffield yard,as told by a witness.This person was Joseph Lave.He was not summoned to the inquest,but gave an account to reporters,or so it is claimed.He says that about twenty minutes(1240AM?) before the body was discovered,he left the club into the yard.It was so dark he had been forced to feel his way along the club wall.He had gone as far as the gate and remained there about five(5)minutes.During that time he had not observed any one or any activity in Berner Street.He had not encountered a body,or been aware of anything unusual in the yard.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"By no means do I consider your theory outrageous, just unlikely."

Tell you what, Tom; domestic affairs are actually slightly LESS unlikely than stumbling upon eviscerating serial killers who botch their jobs. Take my word for it!

"I argue vehemently against Kidney as Stride's killer, because I'm pretty much convinced he didn't do it. But I'm more convinced Kidney didn't kill Stride than I am convinced the Ripper did kill Stride, if that makes sense."

It does, Tom. And Kidney is not the guy I pin for the Stride killing either. I am just more reluctant than you are to write him off. Statistics tells us that he is viable.

"If anything, it's refreshing to follow a different line of inquiry than the tire old Kidney line for once. Nevertheless, I think you might be seeing things that aren't there."

That may of course be true. But if so, I can at least pride myself of having found a suggestable scenario that holds water in each and every detail - the pulling Stride out into the street, the crying out in a lowered voice, the cachous, the exiting the yard on Lizībehalf, the strange coincidence of Marshalls man and BS man answering to the exact same description, the bloodied right hand - you name it, and I have plausibe explanations to offer on each point. And yes, that might be coincidental - but itīs a chain of things that will not break anywhere. I kind of like that.

"Yes, it was quite common for 'punters' to entertain these women and buy them drinks before having sex, if they did at all. You'll remember that Pearly Poll and her friends spent hours pub crawling with their soldiers before finally pairing off to get the job done. The papers are full of this stuff. Men weren't paying by the hour then, girls needed the money, and more often then not, they needed the drink."

I think, Tom, that Marthas and Pearly Pollīs explorations were exactly what you are saying - pub crawling. Loud, drunken pub crawling.
What we see with Marshalls man, though, makes for another picture altogether. At the inquest, Marshall describes the meeting between Liz and her man as a very affectionate encounter. Marshall cannot make out what is said, but for the one meaning, a meaning interpreted by you as rather a slippery one - BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT MARSHALL SEES AND HEARS! He speaks of a man who expresses himself in an educated manner, a respectable, soft spoken character. There is nothing in the meeting that even remotely suggests any drunken escapade on his behalf. Instead we are dealing with an apparently thoughtful, mild-mannered encounter.
You point out that there was a pub nearby, Tom - but in them days, there was ALWAYS a pub nearby, more or less - and we have absolutely no indication that the man was ever in there. Nor does his behaviour suggest that he ever was. The differences, comparing with Tabram and Poll, are completely blatant.

"While I don't argue that Marshall's man is relatively consistent with the description of BS Man, it's a rather generic description, and there can be no doubt that Stride was seen with different men that night, most of them AFTER she was seen walking away with Marshall's man."

It is not only "relatively consistent", Tom. There is nothing arguing against it being a perfect match, actually. The stoutness, the height, the peaked cap, the dark clothes, the respectable appearance (as per the Star) - it would be much of a coincidence if two men in the company of Stride within the odd hour both answered to this description without being one and the same if you ask me.

"I agree that an 'acquaintance' theory would be nice, but we can't force one on the facts."

Oh yes, we can. Easily, in fact. And it fits like a glove!
If we ought to do it, well that is another thing altogether. But it CAN certainly be done with no effort at all.

"The facts do not indicate any of these men as being serious lovers of Liz, and certainly not one so serious they'd kill over her."

Nor do they indicate the opposite, Tom. There is too little in it to make the call either way. All we can do is to pick up on the details and try and find a complete scenario where all the bits and pieces fit together, and where all the built-in riddles find explanations that are as little outlandish as possible.

The best, Tom! Itīs good to discuss this with you!
Fisherman