That's true, but as I understand it, Schwartz said that on the shout of "Lipski", the dude with the pipe started following him.
If Schwartz is telling the truth (and I'm not sure; I think it's possible, but I've not yet decided), then I think we only have a small number of scenarios...
1. Pipe dude is a random guy who, on being alerted to the presence of a Jewish person, goes after the Jewish person because he doesn't like them. It's certainly possible, given some of the views of the time. And this is backed up by the idea that if pipe dude is random, he's obviously weird/screwed up enough to watch a domestic incident/attempted murder without interfering, so - to generalise hugely - he'd presumably be the type of guy who'd be up for a fight with a Jewish person.
2. Pipe dude is not a random guy but in some way assisting the person fighting with Stride, which is why he "obeys" the fighter when he shouts "Lipski".
3. As (2), but pipe dude's name is actually Lipski...?
4. Pipe dude actually hadn't been seen by fighting man but assumed "Lipski" had identified him, so he walked off in the same direction as (hence "following") Schwartz.
Actually, now I'm typing all this up, none of it seems very likely. Which in turn casts doubt on Schwartz.
Joshua, when you say that Schwartz "followed the attacker down Berner Street", this is prior to the attacker fighting with Stride, right? If so, perhaps pipe dude could actually be the Ripper, about to get involved with Stride when interrupted by the person who randomly gets into a fight with her - so he goes after Schwartz, who gets away, so he returns, and there's Stride on the ground...?
However, I may well have totally misunderstood that last bit, so any clarification is welcomed!
I would very much like to hear from anyone who feels that Schwartz and Lawende were describing different people, and their reasons for thinking this.
Thanks in advance!
Its a subject I've given a lot of consideration to over some years..
I think they were describing the same man, and timing would suggest to me the same man seen in Whitchurch Lane at around 1.25 am.
Of course Lawende doesn't think he will recognise the man again but describes the red scarf. Schwartz enters Berner street and BSM is walking infront of him, so the majority of the time he doesn't see the mans face only his back, hence broad shouldered man, thats his view.
But as Schwartz crosses the road and BSM turns and shouts Lipski its possible Schwartz gets a good view of his face. The fact is we will never know for sure as the lighting is tight depending how close to the gate boundary BSM is stood.
So for what its worth I think they describe the same man from different perspectives. However I now think neither were Anderson/Swansons Seaside Home witness.
Last edited by Jeff Leahy : 12-11-2015 at 10:52 AM.
Yes, that's right Sirius. According to the Star 1st Oct report, the attacker was already walking South down Berner Street when Schwartz entered it from Commercial Road.
There's always option 5, of course....Pipeman was just a random dude about his own business who happened to go in the same direction as Schwartz for a short distance. Whether he walked off for the same reason - to avoid getting involved with the incident - or he was oblivious to the whole thing, who can say.
Personally, I've always thought there was a chance that this was James Brown, out getting his supper.
Welcome aboard Syrius. Just a forewarning - the sport here is rugby.
Lately i have been considering the idea that Jack the Ripper may have been accompliced. In 4 of the murders, a man and a woman are witnessed talking near the murder site:
1. [AC] the shabby genteel is first spotted talking with a woman 7 minutes after a body is heard against the backyard fence.
2. [ES] james brown overhears the "not tonite" woman talking with a man around the same time Schwartz see Elizabeth being attacked. There is some confusion surrounding the women on berner st that nite since some ppl see a woman wearing flowers on her dark-colored dress while others dont.
3. [CE] Lawende and crew see woman talking with the "will you?" man. She is not positively identified, but they do mention her wearing a dark dress.
4. [MJK] sara lewis sees the man who accosted her talking with a woman at the corner of Dorset around 2:45a.
In 2 of the reports, there is a man, 'lamping' across the street:
1. [ES] the pipe man
2. [MJK] george hutchinson
I only opened the aspect of accomplices because of the variation of descriptions. Most times i either read about a 5'5" stout man or a 5'8" slender(?) man.
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Thanks for the welcomes everyone - and Joshua, many thanks for clarifying about Schwartz actually following the BSM.
I'm not convinced about an accomplice largely because, as discussed on other threads, more people involved means more chance of a leak somewhere. But I'd not rule it out - especially as keeping an eye out for interruptions would presumably rule out someone engaging in mutilation at the same time - and also possibly rule in a rational and sane person, which probably isn't entirely in keeping with the Ripper's mental state (discuss...?) Against that, assuming that Stride was a Ripper victim, the fact that the killer was disturbed would suggest that the accomplice obviously wasn't particularly good. A horse and cart is a hard thing to miss.
I suppose one thing that may help decide whether Schwartz and Lawende are describing the same person is at what stage their descriptions became public - could one have read/heard one description before offering their own?
I'm still very much an amateur at this - but my strategy here is to try to examine it a bit at a time. At the moment, I'm leaning towards them both describing the same man...but I'm not certain if they're describing the killer or not...could be just some ridiculously coincidental thing where the same punter approaches Stride and Eddowes separately...
For me, the big issue with Schwartz as a witness is this "Lipski" incident; it could indicate that whoever was attacking Stride had an accomplice, which kind of goes against most perceived Ripper theories...
Or does it? Is there the suggestion that the Ripper could have worked as part of a team?
Let's not forget that we are talking about a man who spoke no English at all.
I'm not sure at all Lipski is what was said, but it sure was a word he knew.
Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
- Stanislaw Jerzy Lee
^ Yes, Schwartz identified her, Marshall too was 'almost certain' that Stride was the woman he had seen.
The one huge question mark over Schwartz's statements is that he wasn't called to give testimony at Stride's Inquest. Why not is one of the big mysteries of the Whitechapel killings. If the police did some further investigating and the man or the woman involved in the scuffle in Berner St were traced or came forward that would negate Schwartz's statements about what he saw completely.