A closer look at Eagle and Lave

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[Wickerman]

All very true, F.M.

[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]

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




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

Those pieces of artwork are really terrific.

Although, Mortimer doesn't say she saw no-one, she says she saw nothing unusual, which is not the same.

If we take her statements verbatim, she claims in one account she was at her door about 12:30 am.
In another statement she says she heard the heavy tramp of footsteps just before quarter to one. Which means she was not at her door, she must have gone inside for a moment.
So for arguments sake, lets say she was at her door between 12:30 - 12:40?
She goes inside and hears footsteps pass her house, she then returns to the door (12:45?) intending to lock it, but stands there for 10 minutes (12:55?).
The street is quiet (except she mentions seeing Goldstein about this time), she locks the door and about 4 minutes later (12:59?) she hears Diemschutz cart come home.
On preparing to go to bed she hears a commotion and returns to the street....this was "just after 1 O'clock", by her estimates.

Given we have sporadic, yet normal activity in the street between 12:30 and 01:00, we can't say the street was empty of people, so the artwork, as good as it is, may not reflect reality.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Those pieces of artwork are really terrific.

Although, Mortimer doesn't say she saw no-one, she says she saw nothing unusual, which is not the same.

Agreed. In the EN interview, she says "... there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club", which is not the same as saying there was nobody moving about.

If we take her statements verbatim, she claims in one account she was at her door about 12:30 am.
In another statement she says she heard the heavy tramp of footsteps just before quarter to one. Which means she was not at her door, she must have gone inside for a moment.
So for arguments sake, lets say she was at her door between 12:30 - 12:40?
She goes inside and hears footsteps pass her house, she then returns to the door (12:45?) intending to lock it, but stands there for 10 minutes (12:55?).
The street is quiet (except she mentions seeing Goldstein about this time), she locks the door and about 4 minutes later (12:59?) she hears Diemschutz cart come home.
On preparing to go to bed she hears a commotion and returns to the street....this was "just after 1 O'clock", by her estimates.

Taken literally, the heavy tramp report suggests that the Schwartz incident never happened. At least, not at around 12:45 on Berner St. However, it is worth considering how the timings in that report were arrived at, as I can't imagine Fanny saying it was about 4 minutes from locking up to hearing the cart.

Imagine she had told the reporter she heard the footsteps and then went to the door shortly before 12:45, and then stayed there for about 10 minutes. Now assume the reporter knows Louis' story (he does mention him), and therefore he 'knows' the sound of pony and cart was at 1am. Consequently, the reporter 'knows' there must have been a 4 minute gap between lockup and Diemschitz. Yet Fanny may have not thought the same. Alternatively, Fanny may have mentioned the gap, and the 10 minute vigil, and then starting at 1am the reporter works backward to conclude the time of the footsteps.

So, that report is not good news for Schwartz, but it is not conclusive either.

Given we have sporadic, yet normal activity in the street between 12:30 and 01:00, we can't say the street was empty of people, so the artwork, as good as it is, may not reflect reality.

That artwork is interesting as it seems to depict Stride at the gates prior to anyone else entering Berner St. How long had she been standing there? If the story reflects reality, why not suppose that she could have been there for 5 minutes or more?

[Wickerman]

...Taken literally, the heavy tramp report suggests that the Schwartz incident never happened. At least, not at around 12:45 on Berner St. However, it is worth considering how the timings in that report were arrived at, as I can't imagine Fanny saying it was about 4 minutes from locking up to hearing the cart.

It comes across as a little too precise, yes, but you've heard how people give estimates, like "it was two or three minutes later", or "three or four minutes after..."
I see the editor cutting the story down to save space by abbreviating her words without losing the intent, he only writes, "two minutes after", or "four minutes later".

That artwork is interesting as it seems to depict Stride at the gates prior to anyone else entering Berner St. How long had she been standing there? If the story reflects reality, why not suppose that she could have been there for 5 minutes or more?

I misunderstood you with that picture, I thought you were posting Mortimer in her doorway, but had posted the picture the wrong way round
If that was Stride then I would ask why the artist shows her alone, even if it was intended to be seconds before BS-man comes along, he should be in the distance.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It comes across as a little too precise, yes, but you've heard how people give estimates, like "it was two or three minutes later", or "three or four minutes after..."
I see the editor cutting the story down to save space by abbreviating her words without losing the intent, he only writes, "two minutes after", or "four minutes later".

Quite possible, but I still think that report should be approached with caution.

It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.

It appears? Did Fanny say that or not?

I misunderstood you with that picture, I thought you were posting Mortimer in her doorway, but had posted the picture the wrong way round
If that was Stride then I would ask why the artist shows her alone, even if it was intended to be seconds before BS-man comes along, he should be in the distance.

I see. Presumably Jeff Leahy understood that Stride cannot be supposed to have arrived at that spot the moment Schwartz enters the street.

Here's Fanny ...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/9509-packer-and-schwartz?p=498192#post498192

Here's the incident ...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/9509-packer-and-schwartz?p=498253#post498253

Smith, Stride and Parcelman ...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/9509-packer-and-schwartz?p=498416#post498416

[Wickerman]

It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat.

It appears? Did Fanny say that or not?

I would say not. We have numerous examples of press statements given in the third-person. Some begin in a first-person narrative, but, presumably in order to save space the editor condenses the interview into paraphrase. It is relatively common, here is another example, in my view.
We have to trust the editor has captured the correct intent of the interviewee.

As good as Luukanen's artwork is, it needs an update.
At any given moment between 12:30-12:50 we can place several people in the street, all minding their own business, all being quiet, nothing happening out of the ordinary. The artwork doesn't reflect this.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I would say not. We have numerous examples of press statements given in the third-person. Some begin in a first-person narrative, but, presumably in order to save space the editor condenses the interview into paraphrase. It is relatively common, here is another example, in my view.
We have to trust the editor has captured the correct intent of the interviewee.

Sorry, I meant is that a paraphrase, and one faithful to anything Fanny said? Did Fanny just happen to glance at her clock when Smith passed and remembered doing so, or do we have a journalist working with a combination of witness comments, assumptions, and arithmetic?

As good as Luukanen's artwork is, it needs an update.
At any given moment between 12:30-12:50 we can place several people in the street, all minding their own business, all being quiet, nothing happening out of the ordinary. The artwork doesn't reflect this.

Apologies - the artwork is by Jaakko Luukanen. Where was it originally published?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How well does Joseph Lave 'work' as Parcelman?

Consider, once again ...

It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so.

Had Mortimer heard Smith's footsteps pass and then immediately afterwards gone to her door, she would have seen Elizabeth with Parcelman. So, presumably it wasn't immediately afterwards, but more like "not long after". Even so, the pair must have moved off the street quite quickly to have avoided being seen by Fanny. Dutfield's Yard seems like a good guess.

A Russian named Joseph Lave - feeling oppressed by the smoke in the large room, went down into the court about twenty minutes before the body was discovered, and walked about in the open air for five minutes or more. He strolled into the street, which was very quiet at the time, and returned to the concert room without having encountered anything unusual.

Does encountering "Long Liz" count as something unusual?

Baxter: Smith was very precise, and stated that he was carrying a parcel, done up in a newspaper, about 18in. in length and 6in. to 8in. in width.

Did Lave go outside not just for fresh air, but with the intention of selling some merchandise? Was the parcel "done up in a newspaper" because it had advertising on it, designed and printed in the Arbeter Fraint offices?

Cachous for sale!