Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whistling on Berner Street

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • As we agreed earlier, all most all of our theories are speculation, so just suppose for a moment that Leon was the killer, and that he was seen headed north by Mrs Artisan, and the footsteps heard by Mortimer were Leon's rather than Smith's. The police enquire at the Spectacle Cafe are are told "he rushed in, said he couldn't stay as he had to get back to his club but he had left something here". He is then seen returning south down Berner St by Mortimer. All the police have is proof that he was at the Spectacle Cafe as he said. Even if they ascertained that he had come from the club, as Mrs Artisan suggested, it doesn't amount to anything that could be pursued to a prosecution.

    Cheers, George
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

    Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      The animation places Schwartz's second man at the public house corner, and thus on the same side of the street as the altercating man and woman. So who was the man on opposite side of the street? Someone else, apparently. Did all three men appear to know each other?

      What should we think about witnesses who dramatically change their story? In the case of Schwartz, it seems he went a step further, and left a crucial witness out of his account, each time he told it.
      Hi Andrew,

      I was also confused by this apparent contradiction but it sorts itself out if it is considered that Schwartz's perspective changes after he crosses the street, at which stage Pipeman (and BS) is on the opposite side of the street to Schwartz, i.e. just outside the Nelson.

      Cheers, George
      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

      Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
        As we agreed earlier, all most all of our theories are speculation, so just suppose for a moment that Leon was the killer, and that he was seen headed north by Mrs Artisan, and the footsteps heard by Mortimer were Leon's rather than Smith's. The police enquire at the Spectacle Cafe are are told "he rushed in, said he couldn't stay as he had to get back to his club but he had left something here". He is then seen returning south down Berner St by Mortimer. All the police have is proof that he was at the Spectacle Cafe as he said. Even if they ascertained that he had come from the club, as Mrs Artisan suggested, it doesn't amount to anything that could be pursued to a prosecution.

        Cheers, George
        Hi George,

        So, in this story, do you mean that the murder occurred well before Goldstein is spotted by FM heading south? It sounds like you mean he goes to the coffee house after having murdered Stride in order to establish an alibi (so the northward journey is presented as him leaving the murder scene). Otherwise, if he's not already killed her, then establishing an alibi would be unnecessary as there's nothing to cover up. But, once he's got to the coffee house, wouldn't it make more sense to stay there? And upon leaving, to avoid going back to the scene of the murder since he's already got away from it?

        And I take it you're suggesting FM doesn't see his original northward journey as that's Mrs. Artisan, so that journey must have occurred before FM comes out on her step. Since PC Smith sees Stride, it can't be before he patrolled Berner Street.

        That only leaves the time between PC Smith's patrol and FM coming out on to her step for the murder to occur and for Goldstein to leave north, when he's spotted by Mrs. Artisan, and FM mistakes his footsteps for PC Smith's, whose footsteps she actually did not hear. Which allows for the gap between PC Smith's patrol and FM coming out to be as long as required.

        But if Goldstein has been seen by Mrs. Artisan, on her doorstep, which he would have to be aware of (he's going to be on alert, having just killed Stride after all), then we're back at him having all the more reason to establish a good strong alibi and just stay at the coffee house, and when he leaves, to head home along any street but Berner? Doesn't his returning along Berner Street sort of work against the idea that he's already killed her?

        Or do you mean he wants to establish the alibi first because he's spotted Stride and is planning on coming back to kill her?

        But Mrs. Artisan doesn't see Stride, despite seeing Goldstein heading up the street, so that doesn't seem to work either as far as I can tell as it doesn't look like Goldstein would have seen Stride in order to decide he needs to establish an alibi?

        Sorry, just trying to work out what you're envisioning here as I can't quite make out when the murder itself is supposed to happen.

        - Jeff




        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          Hi George,

          So, in this story, do you mean that the murder occurred well before Goldstein is spotted by FM heading south? It sounds like you mean he goes to the coffee house after having murdered Stride in order to establish an alibi (so the northward journey is presented as him leaving the murder scene). Otherwise, if he's not already killed her, then establishing an alibi would be unnecessary as there's nothing to cover up. But, once he's got to the coffee house, wouldn't it make more sense to stay there? And upon leaving, to avoid going back to the scene of the murder since he's already got away from it?

          And I take it you're suggesting FM doesn't see his original northward journey as that's Mrs. Artisan, so that journey must have occurred before FM comes out on her step. Since PC Smith sees Stride, it can't be before he patrolled Berner Street.

          That only leaves the time between PC Smith's patrol and FM coming out on to her step for the murder to occur and for Goldstein to leave north, when he's spotted by Mrs. Artisan, and FM mistakes his footsteps for PC Smith's, whose footsteps she actually did not hear. Which allows for the gap between PC Smith's patrol and FM coming out to be as long as required.

          But if Goldstein has been seen by Mrs. Artisan, on her doorstep, which he would have to be aware of (he's going to be on alert, having just killed Stride after all), then we're back at him having all the more reason to establish a good strong alibi and just stay at the coffee house, and when he leaves, to head home along any street but Berner? Doesn't his returning along Berner Street sort of work against the idea that he's already killed her?

          Or do you mean he wants to establish the alibi first because he's spotted Stride and is planning on coming back to kill her?

          But Mrs. Artisan doesn't see Stride, despite seeing Goldstein heading up the street, so that doesn't seem to work either as far as I can tell as it doesn't look like Goldstein would have seen Stride in order to decide he needs to establish an alibi?

          Sorry, just trying to work out what you're envisioning here as I can't quite make out when the murder itself is supposed to happen.

          - Jeff
          Hi Jeff,

          When I constructed my timeline I postulated that FM's clock was running 10 minutes fast. This was predicated on the footsteps she heard having been those of Smith on his round. In my current conjecture I would have the usual starting point of Smith observing Stride and Parcelman between 12:30 and 12:35 Police time, Stride crossing to the yard and being murdered by Goldstein, who then leaves the yard and is heard by FM and observed by Mrs Artisan at around 12:45. In this scenario the Schwartz incident, if it is to be believed, would have occurred a little before 12:45. There is a lot of speculation that can be indulged in from here. Was Goldstein actually Parcelman, with the parcel being his black bag, or was he attending the club that night and got into a heated dispute with Stride?

          I agree that he could have strengthened his alibi by just staying at the coffee shop, but maybe he thought he would establish an additional alibi at home. FM said he looked into the yard as he passed on his way home, perhaps to check if his crime had been discovered?

          I have no real investment in this fanciful speculation as a theory. I was following on from the discussion regarding most theories being largely speculation. I am sure that someone on these forums has at some time presented a theory that is absolutely correct, but will never know that they got it right.

          Cheers, George
          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

          Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            Hi Jeff,

            When I constructed my timeline I postulated that FM's clock was running 10 minutes fast. This was predicated on the footsteps she heard having been those of Smith on his round. In my current conjecture I would have the usual starting point of Smith observing Stride and Parcelman between 12:30 and 12:35 Police time, Stride crossing to the yard and being murdered by Goldstein, who then leaves the yard and is heard by FM and observed by Mrs Artisan at around 12:45. In this scenario the Schwartz incident, if it is to be believed, would have occurred a little before 12:45. There is a lot of speculation that can be indulged in from here. Was Goldstein actually Parcelman, with the parcel being his black bag, or was he attending the club that night and got into a heated dispute with Stride?

            I agree that he could have strengthened his alibi by just staying at the coffee shop, but maybe he thought he would establish an additional alibi at home. FM said he looked into the yard as he passed on his way home, perhaps to check if his crime had been discovered?

            I have no real investment in this fanciful speculation as a theory. I was following on from the discussion regarding most theories being largely speculation. I am sure that someone on these forums has at some time presented a theory that is absolutely correct, but will never know that they got it right.

            Cheers, George
            Thanks George.

            Yes, I agree if the footsteps aren't PC Smith's then that would adjust the time lines for some events. I was just going around in circles trying to consider the implications of where in the sequence the murder would occur (before or after his coffee house visit).

            As you say, it's a speculative idea, but I still wanted to get it straight in my head what it was being speculated and I overthought myself into confusion! Happens all the time

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              Hi Andrew,

              I was also confused by this apparent contradiction but it sorts itself out if it is considered that Schwartz's perspective changes after he crosses the street, at which stage Pipeman (and BS) is on the opposite side of the street to Schwartz, i.e. just outside the Nelson.

              Cheers, George
              Hi George. This is from a report by Abberline:

              I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.
              I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.
              There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.
              Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.
              A house to house inquiry was made in Berner Street with a view to ascertain whether any person was seen acting suspiciously or any noise heard on the night in question but without result.
              Inquiries have also been made in the neighbourhood but no person named Lipski could be found.


              Note that Schwartz "stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman". Apparently this was no walk-by observation. Schwartz stopped to observe. Evidently he didn't bother to offer the woman any assistance, so one wonders what his purpose was in stopping to get good look. Other than the man and woman, and Schwartz himself, "There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe." What side of the road was that - the club side, or the school side? I would suggest as way of cutting through the ambiguity, that if the man had been on the club/pub side, then it would have been fairly obvious who the call of Lipski had been directed at. Yet if Pipeman is on the school side, near where Schwartz had crossed over to, then who is the man who appears to come out of the Nelson?

              This 'third man' theory is probably going to go nowhere, but consider this. In Swanson's report, the second man is described thus:

              Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

              However, in the Star we get this:

              The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red.

              So other than the obvious change of pipe to knife, there is less detail in the description, and the brown moustache becomes red. Is this the same man? Compare the respective descriptions of the first man:

              ... he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

              He described THE MAN WITH THE WOMAN as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat.


              Quite similar. So how many men were really on the street at the time, that Schwartz was aware of?
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Hi Andrew,

                I am in no doubt that BSman, Stride, Schwartz and Pipeman were the only ones involved, with the possible exception of Parcelman who may have been concealed in the darkness of the yard.

                Cheers, George
                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                  Hi Andrew,

                  I am in no doubt that BSman, Stride, Schwartz and Pipeman were the only ones involved, with the possible exception of Parcelman who may have been concealed in the darkness of the yard.

                  Cheers, George
                  In that case (inclusive of #302), BS man called 'Lipski!' to the second man, who was at the Nelson corner, lighting and/or smoking a pipe. Whatever for? The second man then calls out a warning to BS man, and lunges toward Schwartz with a knife, who then flees. What was the nature of the warning? According to Abberline, Schwartz stopped to gawk at the incident at the gates. BS man must have already been aware of his presence.

                  It would seem that Schwartz is not only attempting to tie the men together, but also as the call of Lipski appears to be directed at a gentile, it's meaning in context must be a reference to murder, if we assume the second man was not a Mr Lipski. So either it means that BS is signaling to Pipeman that he is about to murder the woman - apparently caring not a wit that 'the intruder' Schwartz will also hear and possibly understand this - or that a murder is already known to have a occurred.

                  The second explanation would obviously mean sayonara for Schwartz, but if we assume his claim that Stride had been standing in the gateway, then how is it that the two men are together when they have arrived at the scene independently...?

                  As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her.

                  How could this be an accomplice to the second man, who comes out of the doorway of the (closed) Nelson? It doesn't make much sense. However, note that Schwartz appeared not to have seen the tipsy man until he turns into Berner street, suggesting the man had not necessarily come from another location - he was essentially loitering on Berner street. If the second man was doing likewise, then what are they up to? Perhaps they were patrolling the streets, for the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Hi Andrew,

                    Reading the comments by Aberline posted above, I can't see that he nominates where Schwartz was when he stopped to look at the man he saw ill using Stride. If Schwartz was opposite the gates when the verbal exchanges took place, and he became afraid, he would hardly have run away towards the perceived threat. In his interview with the Star reporter Schwartz says he had just stepped off the kerb when Pipeman advanced on him. My scenario would be that Schwartz notices BSman some way ahead as he turns into Berner St and gains on him as they walk down the street. When BSman stops to argue with Stride, Schwartz crosses the road and walks to the corner of Fairclough noticing a man standing outside the Nelson lighting a pipe. As Schwartz steps off the kerb to cross Fairclough he hears Stride's three not very loud screams and stops to see what is happening. At this stage Schwartz and Pipeman are on the opposite sides of Berner St and both about twenty yards from BSman. In my opinion, in the narrow street, twenty yards away in the dark, Schwartz would not have known at whom BSman's verbal was directed, which is what he said. Also, With Schwartz's language limitations he would not of know what was being said to anyone. I don't believe that BS and Pipeman were accomplices.

                    From this point no one knows what happened, so we have to resort to conjecture. One of my speculations is that Pipeman was JtR, and that he was shouting a warning at BS rather than to him. After a perfunctory pursuit of Schwartz he sees off BS an in a gracious gesture to Stride offers to escort her to the club and seizes the opportunity.

                    Cheers, George
                    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                    Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                      Hi Andrew,

                      Reading the comments by Aberline posted above, I can't see that he nominates where Schwartz was when he stopped to look at the man he saw ill using Stride. If Schwartz was opposite the gates when the verbal exchanges took place, and he became afraid, he would hardly have run away towards the perceived threat. In his interview with the Star reporter Schwartz says he had just stepped off the kerb when Pipeman advanced on him.
                      Swanson's report makes it obvious enough where the second man supposedly was...

                      On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, ...

                      All references to the opposite side of the street, mean the board school side. The man who appeared to exit the Nelson was obviously not then on the opposite side of the street. Ergo ...

                      Knifeman ≠ Pipeman

                      The man supposedly wielding a knife, seem to be a third man. Compared to Pipeman, his location is different, he looks different, he behaves differently, and he speaks (a warning to the first man). The only way the identities of Knifeman and Pipeman can possibly be fused, is to have Knifeman cross over to the board school corner of the B & F intersection, as you do in the following quote. Yet that means the most direct route away from Knifeman, is down Fairclough towards Grove street. In other words, down Fairclough toward Edward Spooner. Spooner of course did see two men running, but these were the 'wrong' men. Nonetheless, the men seen running did become part of Wess's version of the Schwartz incident.

                      My scenario would be that Schwartz notices BSman some way ahead as he turns into Berner St and gains on him as they walk down the street. When BSman stops to argue with Stride, Schwartz crosses the road and walks to the corner of Fairclough noticing a man standing outside the Nelson lighting a pipe. As Schwartz steps off the kerb to cross Fairclough he hears Stride's three not very loud screams and stops to see what is happening. At this stage Schwartz and Pipeman are on the opposite sides of Berner St and both about twenty yards from BSman. In my opinion, in the narrow street, twenty yards away in the dark, Schwartz would not have known at whom BSman's verbal was directed, which is what he said. Also, With Schwartz's language limitations he would not of know what was being said to anyone. I don't believe that BS and Pipeman were accomplices.
                      This is changing the story. The not very loud screams come first, while Schwartz has stopped to observe the incident. Only then does Schwartz cross the road (without lifting a finger to aid the woman in distress), see the man with the pipe, and head toward Fairclough street. That could be a reason for being confused about who 'Lipski' was directed at, but then the problem is that Knifeman is at the Nelson corner, so it becomes difficult to say that Schwartz was incorrect about who it was aimed at. So I don't agree on that point. Abberline might have wanted Schwartz to see things differently, because the alternate explanation of Lipski being aimed at Schwartz, made more sense to Abberline, but that is not what Schwartz was trying to convey. So in context, 'Lipski' refers to murder. Yet is that murder in the future, or the past? The alternative scenario - compatible with the notion that Schwartz and Pipeman were close enough for Schwartz to have been mistaken about the intended recipient of 'Lipski' - results in Knifeman becoming a third man at the scene.

                      If BS man and Knifeman aren't accomplices, then they certainly seem to be known to each other...

                      A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

                      If that man then ran after Schwartz as he fled, then 'accomplices' would seem to be the right word. Or as Anderson put it, 'supposed accomplices'. If you suppose the men were not accomplices, then you are contradicting Schwartz, while believing his story in general. If you don't mind me saying, this is the general attitude - Schwartz is to be believed, except for the bits that seem far-fetched, or don't make a lot of sense. Schwartz himself is rarely doubted. I guess it could it be argued that Knifeman believed it were Schwartz who had assaulted the woman, who then shouted a warning at Schwartz, who then flees. Yet how does Knifeman get that idea, and why doesn't he come forward, or at least be located by Reid's men? Perhaps he did come forward...

                      The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

                      No notice taken is rather different to rushing forward with a knife, and then pursuing a man so that he runs as far as one of the railway arches. Is that why...?

                      The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        Swanson's report makes it obvious enough where the second man supposedly was...

                        On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, ...

                        All references to the opposite side of the street, mean the board school side. The man who appeared to exit the Nelson was obviously not then on the opposite side of the street. Ergo ...

                        Knifeman ≠ Pipeman

                        The man supposedly wielding a knife, seem to be a third man. Compared to Pipeman, his location is different, he looks different, he behaves differently, and he speaks (a warning to the first man). The only way the identities of Knifeman and Pipeman can possibly be fused, is to have Knifeman cross over to the board school corner of the B & F intersection, as you do in the following quote. Yet that means the most direct route away from Knifeman, is down Fairclough towards Grove street. In other words, down Fairclough toward Edward Spooner. Spooner of course did see two men running, but these were the 'wrong' men. Nonetheless, the men seen running did become part of Wess's version of the Schwartz incident.



                        This is changing the story. The not very loud screams come first, while Schwartz has stopped to observe the incident. Only then does Schwartz cross the road (without lifting a finger to aid the woman in distress), see the man with the pipe, and head toward Fairclough street. That could be a reason for being confused about who 'Lipski' was directed at, but then the problem is that Knifeman is at the Nelson corner, so it becomes difficult to say that Schwartz was incorrect about who it was aimed at. So I don't agree on that point. Abberline might have wanted Schwartz to see things differently, because the alternate explanation of Lipski being aimed at Schwartz, made more sense to Abberline, but that is not what Schwartz was trying to convey. So in context, 'Lipski' refers to murder. Yet is that murder in the future, or the past? The alternative scenario - compatible with the notion that Schwartz and Pipeman were close enough for Schwartz to have been mistaken about the intended recipient of 'Lipski' - results in Knifeman becoming a third man at the scene.

                        If BS man and Knifeman aren't accomplices, then they certainly seem to be known to each other...

                        A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

                        If that man then ran after Schwartz as he fled, then 'accomplices' would seem to be the right word. Or as Anderson put it, 'supposed accomplices'. If you suppose the men were not accomplices, then you are contradicting Schwartz, while believing his story in general. If you don't mind me saying, this is the general attitude - Schwartz is to be believed, except for the bits that seem far-fetched, or don't make a lot of sense. Schwartz himself is rarely doubted. I guess it could it be argued that Knifeman believed it were Schwartz who had assaulted the woman, who then shouted a warning at Schwartz, who then flees. Yet how does Knifeman get that idea, and why doesn't he come forward, or at least be located by Reid's men? Perhaps he did come forward...

                        The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

                        No notice taken is rather different to rushing forward with a knife, and then pursuing a man so that he runs as far as one of the railway arches. Is that why...?

                        The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.
                        Hi Andrew,

                        "All references to the opposite side of the street, mean the board school side". From Schwartz's perspective, after he crosses the road the opposite side of the street is the Nelson side and he is telling the story.

                        You are correct with the timing of the three screams. My mistake.

                        Schwartz could only run away from Pipeman if he had passed him. Otherwise he would have been running toward him. I go on his statement to police rather than to the Star except for the clue that he was stepping off the kerb in Fairclough headed south when he felt threatened by Pipeman.

                        I was looking for the actual statement to police to refresh my memory and found it here:
                        https://www.testreligion.com/schwartz.html

                        Coincidently, their speculation of events matches my own.

                        Cheers, George
                        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                        Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                          Hi Andrew,

                          "All references to the opposite side of the street, mean the board school side". From Schwartz's perspective, after he crosses the road the opposite side of the street is the Nelson side and he is telling the story.
                          I've heard this claim before - that the incident is being told from Schwartz's perspective, and therefore the opposite side of the street 'switches sides' when Schwartz crosses over. However, I don't think that is true. The only 'opposite side' is the side opposite to the incident concerning the man and woman, which Schwartz stops to observe. Consider this bit ...

                          The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski'...

                          The man being called to (note it doesn't say 'at'), is on the opposite side to the man doing the calling. That is, he is on the board school side. The story is not being told from Schwartz's perspective, but more like a birds-eye view, and 'opposite side of the street' is always relative to the gateway. The police are describing the incident from a neutral perspective, not a biographical one.

                          Consequently, what are we to make of this man with a knife and a red moustache, at the doorway of the Nelson? Who is he, and how does the non-English speaking Schwartz come to suppose that the man is shouting a warning of some sort, to the man with the woman? To me, 'some sort of warning' suggests someone with partial English capability. If that is not Schwartz, then who is it?

                          You are correct with the timing of the three screams. My mistake.
                          Okay. I thought you might have been suggesting a reinterpretation.

                          Schwartz could only run away from Pipeman if he had passed him. Otherwise he would have been running toward him. I go on his statement to police rather than to the Star except for the clue that he was stepping off the kerb in Fairclough headed south when he felt threatened by Pipeman.
                          So Pipeman must have been on the opposite side of the street, who then follows Schwartz, just as the report of the police statement suggests. Otherwise, if Schwartz didn't pass him until reaching the intersection, why would he feel he was being followed? Furthermore, if he was being followed with intent, why didn't Pipeman pursue Schwartz straight back up Berner street? So to give the Pipeman pursuit story any credibility, Pipeman has to be situated very differently to Knifeman. Yet that means the police statement does not contain the full story, unless it is assumed that Knifeman is completely made up.

                          I was looking for the actual statement to police to refresh my memory and found it here:
                          https://www.testreligion.com/schwartz.html

                          Coincidently, their speculation of events matches my own.

                          Cheers, George
                          That's an interesting article. I'll comment on a few points.

                          Abberline claimed Schwartz felt the man could have called Lipski at him or the other man. So it was clearly not said to Liz Stride. But as he said at the start that it was shouted to the other man that recollection is the accurate one for the first memories carry more weight than later ones. Memory alters over time.

                          Why would the man call 'Lipski' at the other man? What is the point of it? As the article states...

                          Lipski was an insult meaning murdering Jew and referred to Israel Lipski who was put to death for murder recently.

                          Wouldn't the other way around make more sense - the second man calls 'Lipski' to the man doing the attacking? Does the second man even look Jewish? The article says:

                          The second man was very recognisable as a Jew and probably wanted to follow Schwartz to make him feel threatened and to get him off the scene. He was was trying to make sure Schwartz didn’t return for another look.

                          Where are we told that the second man looked Jewish? I'm not aware of it. Otherwise, the article is suggesting at this point that the second man was some sort of accomplice. I thought you didn't agree with that? It's interesting the article also states:

                          It is said that it was Schwartz that the first man was calling Lipski to. But the man was attacking a woman and was unlikely to notice that Schwartz was a Jew and why not shout to other people who must have been around even if a little distance away. And it was dark at the time.

                          Yet apparently the attacking man did recognize the second man as Jewish! So again, why call 'Lipski' to the second man? He was minding his own business. Was the first man trying to frighten off the second man, who in turn wants to frighten off Schwartz? Well apparently not...

                          The man was not going to kill her and had no reason to get Schwartz scared off. If you are going to murder and you are seen what it the point of scaring a witness away when he or she has seen you attacking the victim?

                          Perhaps you can make more sense of all this, than I can.
                          Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 01-13-2022, 10:21 PM.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                            Consequently, what are we to make of this man with a knife and a red moustache, at the doorway of the Nelson? Who is he, and how does the non-English speaking Schwartz come to suppose that the man is shouting a warning of some sort, to the man with the woman? To me, 'some sort of warning' suggests someone with partial English capability. If that is not Schwartz, then who is it?
                            Hi Andrew,

                            Who is he? I don't know, but Frederick Deeming comes to mind.

                            Schwartz's partial or nil English can explain a lot of anomalies. Was the man at the Nelson shouting a warning to BSman or at BSman. I don't believe Schwartz could have known which. Schwartz was heading south along Berner to his new home and I think he panicked as he stepped of the kerb and that the "chase" was nominal - just enough to see him off.

                            At the end of the day we are all just speculating based on contradictory and incomplete evidence.

                            Cheers, George
                            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                            Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Hi Andrew,

                              Who is he? I don't know, but Frederick Deeming comes to mind.
                              In other words, you think the second man was probably the Ripper, waiting opportunistically. Yet he could not have known the 'half-tipsy' man would come staggering along and start hassling a woman in an area that prostitutes had almost never been seen at (I'm not saying that was what Stride was doing), so evidently he must have been in the habit of hanging around places, waiting for an opportunity to eventuate. Or was it just by chance that he was there that night? Either way, he is not very inconspicuous with that pipe.

                              I prefer this explanation:
                              1. There seems to have been an early whistle
                              2. WVC patrolmen had whistles
                              3. A WVC patrolman probably blew the early whistle
                              4. Schwartz seemed to believe and/or indicate that the 1st & 2nd men were known to each other
                              5. Many of the patrolmen would have been acquainted or known to each other
                              6. Therefore, the 1st & 2nd men were likely WVC patrolmen

                              A fairly simple join the dots theory. Perhaps these patrolmen were 'bad eggs', or perhaps they were first responders, in which case Schwartz may have been the bad boy. As mentioned in post #1 of this thread, a group of WVC patrolmen were under the control of Grande and Batchelor, so plenty of scope for speculation there. In the other scenario, the use of the word 'Lipski', directed at Schwartz, is probably the best fit for that word as it was used at the time. This is also compatible with with the Echo report, that has Schwartz fleeing the scene as the murderer.

                              Schwartz's partial or nil English can explain a lot of anomalies. Was the man at the Nelson shouting a warning to BSman or at BSman. I don't believe Schwartz could have known which. Schwartz was heading south along Berner to his new home and I think he panicked as he stepped of the kerb and that the "chase" was nominal - just enough to see him off.
                              How did Schwartz know the shout consisted of a warning at all, let alone who it was directed at? He could not have known if he had zero English. My explanation of this anomaly is: The real name of the man who heard the warning, was Isaac Kozebrodsky.

                              Why would the second man want to see Schwartz off, rather than just letting him continue harmlessly on his way? Going after him would seem to be attracting undue attention, plus he is running way from the intended victim, who might not be keen to conveniently hang around.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                                How did Schwartz know the shout consisted of a warning at all, let alone who it was directed at? He could not have known if he had zero English.
                                Abberline established while closely questioning Schwartz that he didn't know what was going on, precisely because he had no English and the three people he saw - Stride, BS and Pipeman, were all strangers to him. Schwartz was speculating, just like you and others continue to do on this thread, but at least he had some body language to go by. There is no good reason to suspect that Schwartz wasn't simply describing what he thought he may have witnessed - no more, no less.

                                Anyone who can still interpret the English language in such a way as to have two women seeing Goldstein, or to have one of those women seeing Goldstein twice, is not going to impress me much with their speculation on other matters concerning the murder night.

                                Witnesses with no knowledge of who killed Stride would have been taking an unnecessary risk by putting themselves close to the scene and then proceeding to lie to the police about what they were doing there and who else was around. And I don't believe the killer would have put himself in that position unless he had absolutely no choice.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X

                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X