A closer look at Eagle and Lave

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Star, Oct 2:

THERE is one wretched thought about the Whitechapel murders, and that is the ease with which murder may be done when it is contrived with an average amount of skill and forethought. It is the appalling clumsiness of most murders which puts authority on the trail. Murders done in passion or from greed or by a robber caught out in theft usually leave a broad track behind them. Here there are not only murders, but a murder plan thought out and executed by that most dangerous of assassins, a cunning maniac.

MOREOVER, the assassin has chosen the easiest form of crime by picking on victims who become his accomplices. The murdered women have been as anxious to avoid the eye of the constable as the murderer. Both have conspired together to watch him out of sight and hearing, and so diminish the chances both of interruption or rescue.

[Wickerman]

All very true, F.M.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That's just the reality of it, this killer was not the Hollywood super sleuth that modern theorists have inadvertently created. He was just a regular man who could just as easily hide in plain sight, partly because the media of the time would portray this killer as a visually identifiable monster, not the shy, reserved, polite, uncle Gerald who nobody notices.

True regarding modern theorists, and Victorian culture also with a penchant for Sensationalism and a willing press putting over this 'cunning fiend', thereby embellishing the murders in order to sell newspapers.

We know better through the experience and studies of serial killers. They're generally not intelligent men. They get away with it because they have no connection to the victims, thereby offering no lead in that respect, and in that age they pretty much needed to be caught red-handed.

You hear conversations about the like of Kosminski, Cohen and so on; and who was and wasn't violent when locked up in an asylum. It's of no consequence whatsoever. Serial killers generally do not display violence when locked up and that's because on the outside they have preyed on weaker victims and used ambush as the technique: they cannot do that in prison and nor are they people generally displaying random acts of violence. They have targets, on the outside, weaker targets, and they ambush those targets.

These people simply get lucky and by that I mean that the times when they could have been visible in a situation that would have made them a probability or a certainty, nobody passed at that point. 5 minutes, even 2 minutes either way; and these people and Jack get caught.

So, with Liz, the murderer has gotten lucky in that he went in and out of that yard when nobody was in viewing distance, or he was spotted and the witness didn't connect it, or somebody didn't come forward to the authorities. 'Nothing intelligent or special about it.

Peter Sutcliffe picked a woman up outside of a pub (in a residential area) at half seven. Nobody remembered seeing this event. It would only have taken someone to come up out of that pub for smoke at that time, or someone to turn the corner either going to the pub or past the pub. On the other hand, maybe somebody did see Sutcliffe pick her up but simply did not remember it because there was no reason to take notice. That's the luck they get in order to carry on killing.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I would think the Bricklayer's Arms man was yes, but that is based on his dress & the reference to his eyes. It's a detail that has been raised before, so not proof by any means, but it makes me suspect he might be the one.
Marshall's suspect walked south away from the murder site, so if it was Stride she would need to turn around at some point. The man apparently wore a cap not a hat so he may not be the same man, or indeed the same couple, as were at the Bricklayer's Arms 45 minutes previous.

I'd be happy to put the different hats down to the vagaries of eyewitness accounts.

Yes, I see the parallel.

So, where's Parcelman? He had been right where she's looking.

I'm aware of that report.
Are you suggesting 'everybody' trusted the police?

In some countries if you don't cooperate, they can make life really difficult for you & your family.
Don't confuse 'cooperation' with 'trust'.

Fair point

[Wickerman]

Do you think Bricklayers' Arms Man was the Ripper? What about the man seen by Marshall near to 64 Berner St?

I would think the Bricklayer's Arms man was yes, but that is based on his dress & the reference to his eyes. It's a detail that has been raised before, so not proof by any means, but it makes me suspect he might be the one.
Marshall's suspect walked south away from the murder site, so if it was Stride she would need to turn around at some point. The man apparently wore a cap not a hat so he may not be the same man, or indeed the same couple, as were at the Bricklayer's Arms 45 minutes previous.

The irony of this seemingly insignificant detail is that we could both be wrong. Consider this hypothetical exchange ...

Abberline: Where was the woman when you first saw her?
Schwartz: She was standing where the gateway is.

Where was Charles Cross when Robert Paul first saw him?

Paul: It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was.

As you know, this has been depicted as Cross standing over the body, whereas the reality was a little different. Perhaps what Schwartz meant is that Stride was standing on the footway, in line with the gateway.

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ...

... where she had been standing. Makes sense?

Yes, I see the parallel.

No, Pipeman should not have come forward, because I don't believe he ran off in fright. He ran with intent. Only if Pipeman did no running at all and was just casually preparing to have a smoke, should he admit to being there.

As for the public not trusting the police in general, wasn't it stated that the public had been cooperative with the police investigation, including allowing the police to search their homes?

I'm aware of that report.
Are you suggesting 'everybody' trusted the police?

In some countries if you don't cooperate, they can make life really difficult for you & your family.
Don't confuse 'cooperation' with 'trust'.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That's just the reality of it, this killer was not the Hollywood super sleuth that modern theorists have inadvertently created. He was just a regular man who could just as easily hide in plain sight, partly because the media of the time would portray this killer as a visually identifiable monster, not the shy, reserved, polite, uncle Gerald who nobody notices.

Do you think Bricklayers' Arms Man was the Ripper? What about the man seen by Marshall near to 64 Berner St?

But this might have been Parcel-man's intention, maybe not Stride's. She has to be coaxed, he can't force her or she might be suspicious.
Why does it matter that they were seen momentarily on the edge of the shadows?
We don't know if they had just walked across the road, Schwartz couldn't see them ahead of BS-man. What brought them to Schwartz's attention was the sudden altercation, we can't say what took place seconds before that.
I think you're picking on a detail that is not relevant, they were passing from the street to the darkness of the yard and BS-man reached out at the woman to pull her back and this is where Schwartz first noticed something...

The irony of this seemingly insignificant detail is that we could both be wrong. Consider this hypothetical exchange ...

Abberline: Where was the woman when you first saw her?
Schwartz: She was standing where the gateway is.

Where was Charles Cross when Robert Paul first saw him?

Paul: It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was.

As you know, this has been depicted as Cross standing over the body, whereas the reality was a little different. Perhaps what Schwartz meant is that Stride was standing on the footway, in line with the gateway.

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ...

... where she had been standing. Makes sense?

Pipeman should have come forward?
We don't know these people, how can we suggest what they should or shouldn't have done, we don't know their life and what their relationship was with the police.
You do realize, the public on the whole did not trust the police. Effectively policing the streets was only a generation old, it was still new to many people. Also, the authorities couldn't be trusted in foreign countries, Jews, Europeans, Asians were often governed by corrupt authorities - we can't expect these people to go running to the police every time they witness an incident.

No, Pipeman should not have come forward, because I don't believe he ran off in fright. He ran with intent. Only if Pipeman did no running at all and was just casually preparing to have a smoke, should he admit to being there.

As for the public not trusting the police in general, wasn't it stated that the public had been cooperative with the police investigation, including allowing the police to search their homes?

[Wickerman]

Assuming this Jack the Dater theory is correct, it would have been the case that many people got a good view of the Ripper in the company of one of his victims, but just didn't realise who they were looking at. Best, Gardener and friend, being possible exceptions.

That's just the reality of it, this killer was not the Hollywood super sleuth that modern theorists have inadvertently created. He was just a regular man who could just as easily hide in plain sight, partly because the media of the time would portray this killer as a visually identifiable monster, not the shy, reserved, polite, uncle Gerald who nobody notices.

I'm just saying that had Stride and companion wanted to go into the darkness, they would go all the way, and be barely visible on the street.

But this might have been Parcel-man's intention, maybe not Stride's. She has to be coaxed, he can't force her or she might be suspicious.
Why does it matter that they were seen momentarily on the edge of the shadows?
We don't know if they had just walked across the road, Schwartz couldn't see them ahead of BS-man. What brought them to Schwartz's attention was the sudden altercation, we can't say what took place seconds before that.
I think you're picking on a detail that is not relevant, they were passing from the street to the darkness of the yard and BS-man reached out at the woman to pull her back and this is where Schwartz first noticed something...

A couple of men doing street robberies are not going to come forward to the police, unlike an innocent man just standing around having a smoke, who should have at least admitted to Reid's men that he was on Berner St that night.

Pipeman should have come forward?
We don't know these people, how can we suggest what they should or shouldn't have done, we don't know their life and what their relationship was with the police.
You do realize, the public on the whole did not trust the police. Effectively policing the streets was only a generation old, it was still new to many people. Also, the authorities couldn't be trusted in foreign countries, Jews, Europeans, Asians were often governed by corrupt authorities - we can't expect these people to go running to the police every time they witness an incident.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I believe that is all part of the thrill for him.
Even today some killers like to get to know their victims, I think we have been led towards the wrong assumption with this killer.
Most authors have portrayed Jack as a blitz-type killer, who jumps out of the shadows to strike them down. Yet, this can only be argued with one victim, that of Eddowes, but with her he could be all 'dated out'. He had just spent nearly two hours with Stride, then was interrupted, so whoever he comes across now is going to be slaughtered straight away, as his compensation for Stride.
We seem to have adopted the swift killing of Eddowes as the standard when in fact it may have been the exception.

With all the rest we have no idea how many hours he spent with his victim.
Even with Kelly it is a debatable issue, depending on whether we see Blotchy, or Astrachan, or Britannia-man as her killer. Even with the last one he could have spent an hour with Kelly before killing her.
If I'm right then Stride first hooked up with her killer at the Bricklayers Arms, so he 'dated' her for just short of two hours.

I mentioned one remark before, it was in a book I read some years ago. This prostitute said they considered it a good night when the client pays for their drink & food for the evening leading up to the inevitable conclusion (sex). So, it may have been considered normal for a hooker to spend a few hours being wined and dined before they had a 'quicky' in some dark alley.

Assuming this Jack the Dater theory is correct, it would have been the case that many people got a good view of the Ripper in the company of one of his victims, but just didn't realise who they were looking at. Best, Gardener and friend, being possible exceptions.

Yes, I agree with the 'Schwartz' problems, none are satisfactory.

Nor are the proposed identifications in the census records. This being a possible exception.

I'm not following what it is you object to. A shadow has a definite beginning to it, we don't know how close the light source was, from which direction, or how strong it was. If she is on the edge of the gateway with her back to the street, her companion will be in the shadows even though he is barely an arms length, or less, away from her. Schwartz was concerned about the man grabbing this woman, not whether there was anyone with her inside the yard.
But if it happened in front of Schwartz, on the sidewalk, then he didn't look into the yard, he stepped to his left into the road with his eyes fixed on the altercation in front of him.
Schwartz didn't understand English, he doesn't say if he heard voices. Though he did tell the press he heard the sound of a quarrel.

I'm just saying that had Stride and companion wanted to go into the darkness, they would go all the way, and be barely visible on the street. This actually accords with the press account ...

... he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter ...

Before he had gone many yards, Stride should be picking herself off the footway, but it seems neither she nor the man are visible at this point.

Packer's story doesn't preclude her assault, it's just that if it took place before 12:15, then it has nothing to do with her murder.

In theory, the assault had something to do with the murder. In practice, it did not.

I thought they had, others have mentioned it, I wasn't aware of any suitable conclusion - meaning, one that fits.
However, if the assault did happen to Stride before 12:15, it had nothing to do with her murder. She must have picked herself up and the man she was with then took her for a walk around the block, coming up towards Packers shop from the south end (as was claimed), then her story continues.

A couple of men doing street robberies are not going to come forward to the police, unlike an innocent man just standing around having a smoke, who should have at least admitted to Reid's men that he was on Berner St that night.

[Wickerman]

Just a streetwalker he picked up? Then why all the chatting, especially the chatting in the dark? If he killed Stride, why didn't he get on with it and do it while BS and Schwartz are approaching the gates, or even before? How much chatting did JtR do in Mitre Square?

I believe that is all part of the thrill for him.
Even today some killers like to get to know their victims, I think we have been led towards the wrong assumption with this killer.
Most authors have portrayed Jack as a blitz-type killer, who jumps out of the shadows to strike them down. Yet, this can only be argued with one victim, that of Eddowes, but with her he could be all 'dated out'. He had just spent nearly two hours with Stride, then was interrupted, so whoever he comes across now is going to be slaughtered straight away, as his compensation for Stride.
We seem to have adopted the swift killing of Eddowes as the standard when in fact it may have been the exception.

With all the rest we have no idea how many hours he spent with his victim.
Even with Kelly it is a debatable issue, depending on whether we see Blotchy, or Astrachan, or Britannia-man as her killer. Even with the last one he could have spent an hour with Kelly before killing her.
If I'm right then Stride first hooked up with her killer at the Bricklayers Arms, so he 'dated' her for just short of two hours.

I mentioned one remark before, it was in a book I read some years ago. This prostitute said they considered it a good night when the client pays for their drink & food for the evening leading up to the inevitable conclusion (sex). So, it may have been considered normal for a hooker to spend a few hours being wined and dined before they had a 'quicky' in some dark alley.

The problem with Schwartz theorising is that it mostly amounts to efforts at shoehorning. Shoehorning the incident onto a quiet street with witnesses about. Shoehorning the broad-shouldered man into the Ripper. Shoehorning Pipeman man into the Ripper, or through a closed door. Shoehorning Parcelman into the incident. None of it is convincing.

On the other hand, I think Leon Goldstein's shoes will fit Israel Schwartz's feet, just fine.

Yes, I agree with the 'Schwartz' problems, none are satisfactory.

Are we back in Berner St, now?

Yes, because if this was Batty St. the woman being assaulted was not Stride.
If we omit Schwartz's evidence then Stride was with Parcel-man the whole time up until he coaxed her into the yard shortly after PC Smith walked past. Packer does say they came back towards the club to stand outside as he closed his shutters.

It matters where she stood in the sense that, had she been talking to a man (with parcel or not), they must have moved into the darkness for some reason. So let them go all the way into the gloom. Now, why can Schwartz detect the presence of Stride, but not her temporary companion? Why is it that a possibly drunk man can hear this conversation, which he immediately finds highly offensive to the point that he gets violent, but Schwartz does not hear it? Was Schwartz just a few feet too far away to hear them talking, but not too far to hear Stride's unloud screams, which were too soft to be heard in the kitchen even with the door partially open?

I'm not following what it is you object to. A shadow has a definite beginning to it, we don't know how close the light source was, from which direction, or how strong it was. If she is on the edge of the gateway with her back to the street, her companion will be in the shadows even though he is barely an arms length, or less, away from her. Schwartz was concerned about the man grabbing this woman, not whether there was anyone with her inside the yard.
But if it happened in front of Schwartz, on the sidewalk, then he didn't look into the yard, he stepped to his left into the road with his eyes fixed on the altercation in front of him.
Schwartz didn't understand English, he doesn't say if he heard voices. Though he did tell the press he heard the sound of a quarrel.

It also matters where she stood in regard to what one of the neighbours might have seen from her doorstep.

Only if Mortimer was on her doorstep at the right moment, and right now we cannot be sure she was.

So, the reliable memory of Matthew Packer precludes the possibility of the incident occurring before 12:15?

Packer's story doesn't preclude her assault, it's just that if it took place before 12:15, then it has nothing to do with her murder.

Half the issue with Schwartz's story comes down to one thing - the time of the incident. So perhaps try moving it to before the club event wrapped up, and see if it works.

I thought they had, others have mentioned it, I wasn't aware of any suitable conclusion - meaning, one that fits.
However, if the assault did happen to Stride before 12:15, it had nothing to do with her murder. She must have picked herself up and the man she was with then took her for a walk around the block, coming up towards Packers shop from the south end (as was claimed), then her story continues.

I don't understand how the running to earth occurred, without the help of someone like Wess. So, as you said, why didn't the Star mention the club's help in finding Schwartz, and why didn't they name him in the report? It hints that a deal was done, but that notion could be wide of the mark.

I've no idea.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That tells me you couldn't be Parcel-man.
Here is a man who doesn't care if the woman gets assaulted in front of him, he owes her nothing, she's just a streetwalker he picked up. What he does care about is being seen, being remembered, getting involved in some altercation, that he cannot allow to happen.

Just a streetwalker he picked up? Then why all the chatting, especially the chatting in the dark? If he killed Stride, why didn't he get on with it and do it while BS and Schwartz are approaching the gates, or even before? How much chatting did JtR do in Mitre Square?

Funny you never asked what the couple seen by Mrs Long were talking about, or what Eddowes was talking about with her man.
Why does it matter?
Some people thought streetwalkers were despicable creatures, not worthy of sentiment. Selling their body's in the open street.
You can't imagine that?

Those examples (assuming they involved Jack) occurred prior to reaching the murder location. Once in the backyard or the square, I presume it would have been over for the victims, very quickly.

The problem with Schwartz theorising is that it mostly amounts to efforts at shoehorning. Shoehorning the incident onto a quiet street with witnesses about. Shoehorning the broad-shouldered man into the Ripper. Shoehorning Pipeman man into the Ripper, or through a closed door. Shoehorning Parcelman into the incident. None of it is convincing.

On the other hand, I think Leon Goldstein's shoes will fit Israel Schwartz's feet, just fine.

One step forward, or one step back?
Is she on the edge of the yard, one foot in and one foot out? Why does this matter, Schwartz said she fell down on the footway after he spun her around. Sp maybe he pulled her towards him as he spun her around?
The point is she was in the yard with another man, BS-man heard something that caused him to rebuke the woman and thrown her down on the cobbles.
That could be one argument in favour of BS-man being drunk, it's a fact drunks do irrational things, they get themselves involved in situations they normally wouldn't when sober.
Physical violence against women, even in the streets, was common place in the late 19th century.

Are we back in Berner St, now?

It matters where she stood in the sense that, had she been talking to a man (with parcel or not), they must have moved into the darkness for some reason. So let them go all the way into the gloom. Now, why can Schwartz detect the presence of Stride, but not her temporary companion? Why is it that a possibly drunk man can hear this conversation, which he immediately finds highly offensive to the point that he gets violent, but Schwartz does not hear it? Was Schwartz just a few feet too far away to hear them talking, but not too far to hear Stride's unloud screams, which were too soft to be heard in the kitchen even with the door partially open?

It also matters where she stood in regard to what one of the neighbours might have seen from her doorstep.

If the incident happened before 12:15 or after 1:00 am, the incident didn't involve Stride.

So, the reliable memory of Matthew Packer precludes the possibility of the incident occurring before 12:15?
Half the issue with Schwartz's story comes down to one thing - the time of the incident. So perhaps try moving it to before the club event wrapped up, and see if it works.

So how could the Star have done a deal with Wess, maybe you could explain what you meant by that?

I don't understand how the running to earth occurred, without the help of someone like Wess. So, as you said, why didn't the Star mention the club's help in finding Schwartz, and why didn't they name him in the report? It hints that a deal was done, but that notion could be wide of the mark.

You must have someone in mind?

I've no idea who it could have been, but it probably wasn't Leon Goldstein.

[New Waterloo]

I am trying not to make circumstances fit any personal theory. Wickerman is correct about not assuming things and then stating them as fact. We do have comments made by Michael Kidney at the Inquest suggesting he knows more about who the killer of Stride was or he is saying that there are people who know who the killer was and that a fresh faced (as in new to area) officer could make discreet inquiries and find out the name of the killer. I dont think there is any other way of interpreting what he said. Was he BS man. Evidentially (rather than opinion) the case for this seems strong. Violent, separated from Stride after 'having words'. She has entered his locked room etc. He was known to drink. We will never achieve any more evidence that he was the BS man that Schwartz allegedly saw. But there is real evidence suggesting he may have had a motif for looking for Stride and considering his past behavior coupled with alcohol could be aggressive or at least there could be heightened tension if he came across her. There is evidence (yes circumstantial) to suggest Kidney was BS man. We have evidence of others being at or around the location but little evidence of any motif for them to assault Stride.

It is interesting that Schwartz sees BS man walking in front of him and makes no mention of any heated argument before the assault. I would suggest that in most confrontations (excluding mugging) there would be at least some communication over a period of at least a few seconds before any punch up. BS man goes straight for pulling at Stride. There must have been a significant spark otherwise he would be walking around pulling at everybody he sees talking in any doorway or alley way. The location is significant. Is this where she worked and this agitated him. There was no particular controlled communication prior to the assault. Just goes for the pulling. If there was any meaningful communication between BS man and Stride. Schwartz doesn't comment on this (There was probably some but it soon escalates into physical contact)

Like a lot of bullies they soon back off when confronted with a stronger opposition. Perhaps Parcel man or someone else frightened him off. Licking his wounds he seeks his revenge through the police but holds back from telling them all he knows fearing for his own safety.

[Wickerman]

I don't understand how there could be no interaction between the two men, or why Stride would be unconcerned about Parcelman's passivity, while she was being assaulted....

That tells me you couldn't be Parcel-man.
Here is a man who doesn't care if the woman gets assaulted in front of him, he owes her nothing, she's just a streetwalker he picked up. What he does care about is being seen, being remembered, getting involved in some altercation, that he cannot allow to happen.

What on earth could Stride and Parcelman have been quietly talking about that so angered BS-man, that he got violent?

Funny you never asked what the couple seen by Mrs Long were talking about, or what Eddowes was talking about with her man.
Why does it matter?
Some people thought streetwalkers were despicable creatures, not worthy of sentiment. Selling their body's in the open street.
You can't imagine that?

Another point about this scenario, is that if Stride is talking to a man in the shadows and with her back to the street, she would be in the passageway and not right at the gateway. She would not be visible to BS or Schwartz until they reached the gateway. She would not be visible to Fanny, at all, which could be significant.

One step forward, or one step back?
Is she on the edge of the yard, one foot in and one foot out? Why does this matter, Schwartz said she fell down on the footway after he spun her around. Sp maybe he pulled her towards him as he spun her around?
The point is she was in the yard with another man, BS-man heard something that caused him to rebuke the woman and thrown her down on the cobbles.
That could be one argument in favour of BS-man being drunk, it's a fact drunks do irrational things, they get themselves involved in situations they normally wouldn't when sober.
Physical violence against women, even in the streets, was common place in the late 19th century.

That almost sounds like a moral judgement.

As you wish.

Someone witnessed an incident that evening. When reporting the incident, the details were more or less kept, but the time of the incident was shifted.

If the incident happened before 12:15 or after 1:00 am, the incident didn't involve Stride.

No one at the club could have known anything, unless they witnessed the incident. Otherwise, everyone got the story second hand.

So how could the Star have done a deal with Wess, maybe you could explain what you meant by that?

Perhaps, but I'm inclined to think the interpreter friend was not Wess.

You must have someone in mind?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Did he have to have a consistent style?

No, but I'm guessing he had a style that avoided drawing attention to himself and the intended victim.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In my view no, the BS-man was not the Ripper.
Even though in other cases I have suggested the Ripper 'may' have been someone with an awkward gait. In this instance BS-man appears to have approached Stride (if we go with Schwartz's story), so he was not with her when he met her.
If I had to suggest "what was going on", it would be that as BS-man passed the gate and overheard some conversation between Stride and a man in the shadows (Parcel-man?), she had her back to the street, if we accept Schwartz's police statement. BS-man had to turn her around before assaulting her - she was facing, and talking to another man. BS-man did not like what he heard and assumed she was soliciting. He grabbed at her, spun her around and threw her down on the footway. Which means this assault took place outside the gate on the sidewalk.
BS-man didn't kill Stride, after he threw her down he may have noticed the man behind her, not wishing to continue the assault he staggered off.
Parcel-man was her killer.

I don't understand how there could be no interaction between the two men, or why Stride would be unconcerned about Parcelman's passivity, while she was being assaulted. What on earth could Stride and Parcelman have been quietly talking about that so angered BS-man, that he got violent?

Another point about this scenario, is that if Stride is talking to a man in the shadows and with her back to the street, she would be in the passageway and not right at the gateway. She would not be visible to BS or Schwartz until they reached the gateway. She would not be visible to Fanny, at all, which could be significant.

In my view they are equally uncalled for.

That almost sounds like a moral judgement.

It's a matter of two choices; we either dismiss Schwartz's entire story & all the players - because it's all lies - for whatever reason(s), or it did happen in similar gateway, to a different woman, in another street.
No matter how we look at it, most of the witness testimony give overlapping times so there's no opening for Schwartz's assault story to have happened at a different time.

Stride was with a man in Berner St. from about 12:15 (Packer) until about 12:30, club members (Wess, Eagle, Lave), passed in and out of the club between 12:15-12:45 roughly), PC Smith saw Stride with a man about 12:35. Mortimer was at her doorway on and off between 12:30 - 01:00 am.

Someone witnessed an incident that evening. When reporting the incident, the details were more or less kept, but the time of the incident was shifted.

Wess didn't know anything, he left about 12:15, anything he knew was what others had told him.

No one at the club could have known anything, unless they witnessed the incident. Otherwise, everyone got the story second hand.

I wouldn't rule out Wess being the interpreter mentioned by the press in retelling Schwartz's story.
I would imagine those Jews who run the club knew almost every Jew in the immediate vicinity of the club. Someone at the club might have known Schwartz, whether he was a member or not. Though the most likely one must be Wess himself.

Perhaps, but I'm inclined to think the interpreter friend was not Wess.

[Scott Nelson]

What was going on? Was she quarrelling with the Ripper? Surely that wasn't his style.

Did he have to have a consistent style?