If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NBFN,

I don't have the full report in front of me, but we do know that HO received a report where the police interpretation of who "Lipski" was directed at (Schwartz himself, rather than Schwartz's interpretation it was shouted at pipeman) was explained, and that the police put more weight on their own interpretation than Schwartz's (which, I believe, is what is referred to when we see comments about Schwartz's statement not being entirely believed, the events were believed, just not Schwartz's interpretation of pipeman's involvement). Because it is Schwartz's statement that implicates pipeman as being a person of interest, but the police interpretation would mean there's no evidence to implicate pipeman, the footnote writer's comment would appear to be combining information from the body of information HO has available to them. That is, after all, one of the reasons why someone would make comments like this; highlighting information they have but which is not directly in this particular report.

- Jeff

I cannot see why the HO person would suppose that the police do not suspect the 2nd man, if Swanson's report refers to the 1st man calling Lipski, apparently to the 2nd man, who then follows Schwartz. That is why I suppose the note writer is drawing on external knowledge. However, let's suppose that I am entirely wrong, and Wickerman is entirely correct, and it's though the note writer is saying something like this...

Well the inspector gave no commentary on his thoughts about the 2nd man, or anything the police may have discovered about the 2nd man, so I guess the police just do not suspect this man.

If that interpretation is correct, then for me it begs the question; why does the note writer deem it appropriate to speculate on the situation with the 2nd man, in a marginal note, yet Swanson himself tells us nothing about the 2nd man, other than his description of the Schwartz incident? Swanson doesn't bother giving us a single sentence about the investigation of man. No wonder the note writer feels it necessary to fill in the gaps. So why didn't Swanson give us even a single clue? Is it because the news is bad, in the sense that Pipeman has been identified, and he contradicts Schwartz to the extent that Abberline could potentially be embarrassed?

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Hi Jeff,

I too have been ambivalent about Stride being a JtR victim. I have recently been reading evidence and considering the "From Hell" letter and now consider it likely that it was from JtR. If that idea is accepted then his wording that he took the kidney "from one woman" indicates that he had two victims that night, and I find myself swayed towards that opinion. If that is the case then Pipeman would fit into the category of opportunistic blitz attacker.

I find myself unable to share your opinion regarding the possility of Spooner plus one being the couple that Brown saw as Spooner said he was at the Beehive until joining Deimshitz on the latter's trip back to the yard. It does seem perculiar that he abandoned her under the circumstances, but there is no mention of her after the Beehive. Could be that he had decided that he didn't like her and just dumped her there and then.

Cheers, George

Yah, I waffle on Stride too, and have for years. It's all a matter of optics, and how we answer questions we don't have definitive answers to (like the authenticity of the From Hell letter). I view it like the Scottish verdict of "not proven", which more or less translates into "You may not have done it, but don't do it again".

I know Spooner says he was a bit further down Fairclough, but that's at the time of the search, which is almost 15 minutes later. If the two of them were strolling, they could have been at the board school for a brief while, turned and headed back, etc. I guess the part of me that thinks this is worth considering is that Spooner's description of what they were doing before he joined the search party seems to suggest he would have been in a position to see Stride and Overcoatman at the board school unless they were on the Berners Street side. But if they were on Berners Street, then Fanny Mortimer should have seen them. I think she says she saw a young man and his sweetheart, and that there is a news report that she spoke to them at the crime scene as well. So if she saw Overcoatman and Ms.SomeOtherNight, then Brown's sighting is probably not Stride. And if it's not Stride, but the young couple, and she spoke to them, either there's another young couple, who ends up at the crime scene but who saw nothing (so must have been on Fairclough with their backs towards Berner Street - i.e. heading towards the pub where Spooner is eventually located), and so forth.

I might have the location of the young couple wrong, though. I can't recall where they are mentioned, or the press report where it appeared that Fanny spoke to them after the body was found (I recall seeing it in a thread somewhere, but finding specific things like that can be a nightmare).

Anyway, I'm not suggesting it's a proven thing or anything like that, but I think there's enough indications that it's worth considering. But we all like our own ideas.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

So when do you suppose the parcel first made an appearance? Was it when Stride and Parcelman went to Packer's shop? According to the vigilance committee's hired detectives, "the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime...". If you suppose the crime occurred at about 12:50, then the grape sale would have occurred shortly after 12:10, if 'the professionals' are to be believed. What's interesting about that time, is that Wess said he left for home at 12:15, and mentioned seeing men and women in Fairclough street.

Do you suppose that story included running down Fairclough street, behind another man who was also running?

Hi Andrew,

My suspicion is that his parcel was the political literature that Wess spoke of leaving at the printing office.

I believe Schwartz ran down Berner St, if it is that to which you refer.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Yes, agreed, and as you point out that would mean JtR was not this 'blitz' killer he is believed to have been.
He couldn't have spent any length of time with Eddowes, thats true but both Nichols & Chapman were out of public view for some time, just over an hour with Nichols, but about 4 hours with Chapman, so can we truly describe him as a 'blitz' killer?
We can't be sure these victims were alone for most of the time leading up to their discovery.
Even Kelly's killer had to have spent some time with her, so perhaps if we gave him the benefit of the doubt this killer just may have preferred to get to know his victims, contrary to established beliefs?

Once he has decided on his victim an opportunistic killer must be patient, whether he must entertain his prey for an hour or two is perhaps all part of the challenge and excitement for him.

Hi Jon,

Four hours for Chapman would have to discount Long as a witness?

I am very interested in your theory that JtR was a man with "strange eyes" and according to Best and Gardner, Parcelman qualified on that point. I have also noted that perculiarity within descriptions of Britannia Man, the Bethnal Green Botherer, the man spotted by Bowyer, and more recently, descriptions of Deeming and Thompson. But with Parcelman, I would still have difficulty letting go of the traditional concept of an opportunistic blitz killer.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Yah, B.S. just suddenly attacking Stride does seem unlike JtR, but then I'm on the fence as to whether or not Stride is even a victim of JtR. The sudden attack out of the blue, rather than getting to a location with them first seems uncharacteristic. And tends to be a point against her inclusion. And she could be waiting for Parclmans return, but as you say, if she's been with him since 11, that too doesn't seem very JtR like.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I too have been ambivalent about Stride being a JtR victim. I have recently been reading evidence and considering the "From Hell" letter and now consider it likely that it was from JtR. If that idea is accepted then his wording that he took the kidney "from one woman" indicates that he had two victims that night, and I find myself swayed towards that opinion. If that is the case then Pipeman would fit into the category of opportunistic blitz attacker.

I find myself unable to share your opinion regarding the possility of Spooner plus one being the couple that Brown saw as Spooner said he was at the Beehive until joining Deimshitz on the latter's trip back to the yard. It does seem perculiar that he abandoned her under the circumstances, but there is no mention of her after the Beehive. Could be that he had decided that he didn't like her and just dumped her there and then.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

This was in another thread, but to keep it with the recreation analysis I presented, I'll post it here (removing the portions of the post not on topic here, or related to my comment).

...
DN: Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

EN: Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

...

Hmmm, These are interesting, and something has just occurred to me. From those press reports, it is entirely possible that the 4 minutes referred to is the interval between her completing her preparations for bed and hearing the cart, so there's some amount of time that starts with the doorlocking and ends upon completing her nighttime preparations (other "shutting down the house for the night routines" if you will) that is not specifically stated. That would mean the time between her coming inside and her hearing the pony and cart is some amount more than her estimated 4 minutes.

That would fit with the BST recreation I posted a few days ago, as that came out with quite a bit longer interval, although still within the margin of expected error. This was the largest error in the recreation, and while the results don't call for any further explanation, that doesn't mean some of the error may be in how I've interpreted what that 4 minutes refers to.

Anyway, didn't mean to side track, but this just popped into my head now as I read them. Obviously what I'm suggesting has been influenced by the recreation I worked on, so it should be viewed as a post-hoc explanation, but that can be a benefit of working on things like this. They can help make one consider ideas that were otherwise overlooked. One (i.e. me) just has to be careful not to get drawn too far into this, as one can easily shift from "making sense of the data" to "forcing the data to make sense". The former is good and is the purpose of analysis and research, the latter is bad and is the antithesis of analysis and research.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi NBFN,

Yes, that section is a reference to Swanson's report. The footnote writer is simply stating that he understands Swanson's reasoning. He also understands that the police do not suspect the 2nd man. He may not be privy to the actual investigation, but clearly he knows the situation. How can the footnote only be commenting on the report, if Swanson himself does not state that the 2nd man is not suspected? So the HO must know the situation. Arguably, The Star also seems to know the situation...

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

If one of those two men were Pipeman, then it would seem Pipeman is no longer regarded as a suspect. If neither of those men were Pipeman, then surely the police will be acting further on the same information, especially given Schwartz suggested that the two men may have been accomplices.

I don't have the full report in front of me, but we do know that HO received a report where the police interpretation of who "Lipski" was directed at (Schwartz himself, rather than Schwartz's interpretation it was shouted at pipeman) was explained, and that the police put more weight on their own interpretation than Schwartz's (which, I believe, is what is referred to when we see comments about Schwartz's statement not being entirely believed, the events were believed, just not Schwartz's interpretation of pipeman's involvement). Because it is Schwartz's statement that implicates pipeman as being a person of interest, but the police interpretation would mean there's no evidence to implicate pipeman, the footnote writer's comment would appear to be combining information from the body of information HO has available to them. That is, after all, one of the reasons why someone would make comments like this; highlighting information they have but which is not directly in this particular report.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The phrase that shows the intent of the footnote writer is "but I understand the Inspector to suggest...", indicating the comment is about Swanson's report (Swanson's report itself refers to the police investigation, but the footnote is in reference the report itself, and not the next step along, which is the investigation itself). Basically, the commenter may be unable to comment upon the actual investigation (because they are not privy to the actual investigation) and therefore they can only comment upon the "report of the investigation".

- Jeff

Yes, that section is a reference to Swanson's report. The footnote writer is simply stating that he understands Swanson's reasoning. He also understands that the police do not suspect the 2nd man. He may not be privy to the actual investigation, but clearly he knows the situation. How can the footnote only be commenting on the report, if Swanson himself does not state that the 2nd man is not suspected? So the HO must know the situation. Arguably, The Star also seems to know the situation...

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

If one of those two men were Pipeman, then it would seem Pipeman is no longer regarded as a suspect. If neither of those men were Pipeman, then surely the police will be acting further on the same information, especially given Schwartz suggested that the two men may have been accomplices.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I cannot see JtR in the role of an inebriated man assaulting a woman in front of two witnesses. I think that Parcelman is the man that has been with Stride since 11pm at the Bricklayer's and I do not see that as typical of JtR. I think that if Parcelman were going to leave the area then Stride would have gone with him so I think that Stride was in the yard alone because she was waiting for him. That leaves Pipeman, but the details are of course conjexture. JMO.

So when do you suppose the parcel first made an appearance? Was it when Stride and Parcelman went to Packer's shop? According to the vigilance committee's hired detectives, "the perpetrator of the Berner street crime was seen and spoken to whilst in the company of his victim, within forty minutes of the commission of the crime...". If you suppose the crime occurred at about 12:50, then the grape sale would have occurred shortly after 12:10, if 'the professionals' are to be believed. What's interesting about that time, is that Wess said he left for home at 12:15, and mentioned seeing men and women in Fairclough street.

I would not be surprised that the police questioned JtR at least once. He came up with a good story that the police could not disprove and which was good enough to put doubt in their minds as to the validity of Schwartz's story.

Do you suppose that story included running down Fairclough street, behind another man who was also running?

[JeffHamm]

This is a very strange interpretation of the footnote, and I do not share it. That comment has nothing to do with the 2nd man, and everything to do with the 1st man. The writer of the footnote is simply saying that although Schwartz' (1st) man was witnessed at a later time than Smith's man, and is therefore more likely to have been the murderer, he understands that Swanson need not necessarily suppose that he was, because the reported time was 12:45, not 1am. It's quite straightforward. Also, the reference to the police not suspecting the 2nd man, is unambiguous. It is a reference to the police investigation, and it is not there to explain that Swanson has supposedly excluded the man as a person of interest in the report. The only issue with it is what is left unexplained; how did the police determine the 2nd man was not a suspect?

The phrase that shows the intent of the footnote writer is "but I understand the Inspector to suggest...", indicating the comment is about Swanson's report (Swanson's report itself refers to the police investigation, but the footnote is in reference the report itself, and not the next step along, which is the investigation itself). Basically, the commenter may be unable to comment upon the actual investigation (because they are not privy to the actual investigation) and therefore they can only comment upon the "report of the investigation".

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That footnote is a comment on Swanson's report, likely from someone at the Home Office, it has been suggested to be Lushington.
The writer (Lushington?) also wrote: "....but I understand the Inspector to suggest that Schwartz' man need not have been the murderer....", which shows the footnote is not commenting on the police investigation, but remarking on the fact the '2nd man' is not included by Swanson as a person of interest in this report.

This is a very strange interpretation of the footnote, and I do not share it. That comment has nothing to do with the 2nd man, and everything to do with the 1st man. The writer of the footnote is simply saying that although Schwartz' (1st) man was witnessed at a later time than Smith's man, and is therefore more likely to have been the murderer, he understands that Swanson need not necessarily suppose that he was, because the reported time was 12:45, not 1am. It's quite straightforward. Also, the reference to the police not suspecting the 2nd man, is unambiguous. It is a reference to the police investigation, and it is not there to explain that Swanson has supposedly excluded the man as a person of interest in the report. The only issue with it is what is left unexplained; how did the police determine the 2nd man was not a suspect?

[Wickerman]

... I think that Parcelman is the man that has been with Stride since 11pm at the Bricklayer's and I do not see that as typical of JtR...

Yes, agreed, and as you point out that would mean JtR was not this 'blitz' killer he is believed to have been.
He couldn't have spent any length of time with Eddowes, thats true but both Nichols & Chapman were out of public view for some time, just over an hour with Nichols, but about 4 hours with Chapman, so can we truly describe him as a 'blitz' killer?
We can't be sure these victims were alone for most of the time leading up to their discovery.
Even Kelly's killer had to have spent some time with her, so perhaps if we gave him the benefit of the doubt this killer just may have preferred to get to know his victims, contrary to established beliefs?

Once he has decided on his victim an opportunistic killer must be patient, whether he must entertain his prey for an hour or two is perhaps all part of the challenge and excitement for him.

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Hi Jeff,
I agree that there is no evidence about what happens once Schwartz leaves, so we are all in the realm of speculation.

I cannot see JtR in the role of an inebriated man assaulting a woman in front of two witnesses. I think that Parcelman is the man that has been with Stride since 11pm at the Bricklayer's and I do not see that as typical of JtR. I think that if Parcelman were going to leave the area then Stride would have gone with him so I think that Stride was in the yard alone because she was waiting for him. That leaves Pipeman, but the details are of course conjexture. JMO.

Cheers, George

Yah, and there's "Overcoatman" too (the one spotted by James Brown), although there's debate about whether or not it was Stride he saw. I wish we had a better description of Spooner, as there is the possibility that Overcoatman and Ms.SomeOtherNight, were Spooner and his girlfriend. OCM and SON were spotted at the corner of Fairclough and Berner Street by the board school as James returned with his supper. Fanny doesn't see James Brown, but the more I think about it, that's not suprising as he doesn't walk past her place, he's not even on Bernes Street. And, if the couple he sees is on the Fairclough side of the building, Fanny wouldn't see them either. If it was Stride, though, it would suggest that after PC Smith patrols, she and parcelman move south to Fairclough, then parcelman exists, and Overcoat man shows up and she turns him down, Fanny has gone inside and Stride has wandered back up around the club, along comes B.S. If Stride is turning down men (i.e. Overcoatman), perhaps she turns down B.S. as well and that is what sparks his anger? We don't know what makes JtR go from punter to murderer, as I rather suspect JtR commonly used the services of prostitutes (common with serial killers of prostitutes). If, at some point, they refuse him a service of some sort, maybe that's what sets him off all of a sudden, which would make B.S. sudden attack on Stride fit JtR's behaviour.

But if Stride is not seeking customers and is turning down multiple men, I can't figure out what she is doing hanging out in the area, after the pubs have closed? But if she is seeking customers, why is she turning them down?

Anyway, I'm not sure Ms.Someothernight is Stride, and James Brown's sighting might be a mis-identification. There's also a "young couple" in the area, and this could be them, and of course the "young couple" could also be Spooner and his girlfriend. I think there are some press reports where Fanny appears to have spoken with the "young couple" at the crime scene, and since we know Spooner was there, and presumably his girlfriend comes along too (it seems odd if he ran off and just left her in the street when there's supposedly just been a murder).

- Jeff

P.S. Side note, I had confused myself, easy to do, at one point and thought JB was returning along Berners when he spotted this couple and at one point I got excited thinking his journey up Berners to get his supper, or his return journey with it (the one he mentions) could have been "the interruption", but re-reading his statement, it looks like he was returning along Fairclough to his residence on Fairclough so never passed by the yard at all.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,
I agree that there is no evidence about what happens once Schwartz leaves, so we are all in the realm of speculation.

I cannot see JtR in the role of an inebriated man assaulting a woman in front of two witnesses. I think that Parcelman is the man that has been with Stride since 11pm at the Bricklayer's and I do not see that as typical of JtR. I think that if Parcelman were going to leave the area then Stride would have gone with him so I think that Stride was in the yard alone because she was waiting for him. That leaves Pipeman, but the details are of course conjexture. JMO.

Cheers, George

Yah, B.S. just suddenly attacking Stride does seem unlike JtR, but then I'm on the fence as to whether or not Stride is even a victim of JtR. The sudden attack out of the blue, rather than getting to a location with them first seems uncharacteristic. And tends to be a point against her inclusion. And she could be waiting for Parclmans return, but as you say, if she's been with him since 11, that too doesn't seem very JtR like.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

George,
in Swanson's report, there is a marginal note that includes this:

The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

How do you suppose the police came to that conclusion, without speaking to the man?

I would not be surprised that the police questioned JtR at least once. He came up with a good story that the police could not disprove and which was good enough to put doubt in their minds as to the validity of Schwartz's story.

Cheers, George