Whistling on Berner Street

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It’s a difference of one word ...

As if to prove 'Fanny's' point.

If you don't mind, can I ask to to answer a few quiz questions? Actually one question with three parts ...

Relative to Fanny at her doorstep, where were the following situated ...?

* Commercial Road
* the board school
* the IWMEC

The man with the bag was of very obvious interest to them. So can we really imagine that Fanny Mortimer, who obviously wasn’t exactly a reluctant witness, wouldn’t have specifically mentioned to the police that she’d seen this suspicious looking bag carrying man twice passing the scene of the crime?

We don't have Fanny's statement, or any references to it (although it could be speculated that Walter Dew was implicitly referring to it in i caught Crippen). Therefore, how can you claim to know what Fanny specifically did or didn't mention, to the police?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I didn't mean to touch a nerve, George. But have you heard of the word 'nuance'?

It's difficult to interpret with 100% certainty anything said by someone who lived so long ago, without knowing how that person used and interpreted the English language.

When pretty much everything can be read in two or more ways, there is still a limit to how far the language should be stretched to accommodate a particular conclusion. It probably only matters if and when one's preferred conclusion becomes entrenched and is then used to argue for a preferred bigger picture regarding the murder itself.

In short, if anyone's preferred solution involves Goldstein behaving suspiciously, they should not be relying on their own subjective interpretation of ambiguous witness statements to make their case, or the argument will be a circular one.

Love,

Caz
X

What is your preferred solution regarding the following...?

Swanson: Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

It sort of seems to me that they were. The next day, Schwartz is telling the Star that one man shouted a warning to the man assaulting the woman. Schwartz also fled the scene, apparently with one man in pursuit. So the two men (or was it three?), do at least seem to know each other, and may have even been accomplices. Yet on the other hand, this scenario just does not sit well. Frankly, it is just not Jack the Ripperish enough for my liking, and therefore I've concluded that while Schwartz might have perceived the two men as having been together, I just know he was wrong about that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s a difference of one word and we can’t even be anything like sure that this wasn’t down to the way that the Reporter wrote up his notes. So how can we read into it? Especially when we consider the situation. The police believed that this was a ripper murder. They were under enormous pressure and so every lead or scrap of info was vital. The man with the bag was of very obvious interest to them. So can we really imagine that Fanny Mortimer, who obviously wasn’t exactly a reluctant witness, wouldn’t have specifically mentioned to the police that she’d seen this suspicious looking bag carrying man twice passing the scene of the crime? How can you think this and all on the strength of one word in a report which would have been written up from notes taken at the scene? Obviously I can’t stop you seeing the sinister in absolutely everything because you have form for it so I’m happy to leave it to others to draw their own conclusions. You might find someone who agrees with you but I suspect that will be a very small minority no doubt comprised of people so sentimentally attached to some kind of orthodoxy that they just can’t bring themselves to question it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Mortimer clearly and obviously saw Goldstein once. We know that she didn’t see him twice because she didn’t say that she saw him twice so that really should be an end of that one. ‘Up’ or ‘down’ is largely irrelevant especially when you factor in that she wasn’t writing this herself so we have a reporter to filter through. Slip of the pen, scribbled notes written up later, poor memory, mishearing. Take your pick. But if she’s seen someone that the police were undoubtedly interested in twice near the murder spot she’d have said so….but she didn’t.

This makes no attempt to acknowledge, let alone explain, why the two descriptions of black bag man's direction of travel, were so different. The first time, it ...

Fanny: ... was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

The second time was very different, yet to speak of it ...

Fanny: ... is akin to holding up a crucifix to a vampire, so I shall not say it again, as too many people find it distressing to hear.

Thankyou, Mrs. Mortimer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

It is quite a claim to suggest that Abberline determined that Schwartz didn't know what was going on, especially as you haven't quoted any supporting evidence. Unless Schwartz made up or was told his story, what we do know is:

* Schwartz was there at the scene
* Abberline was not at the scene, and other than Schwartz, knew no one who was

We also know:

* Schwartz gave a statement
* Abberline took that statement

Given the above, how could Abberline determine that Schwartz didn't know what was going on? Schwartz was the only person we know of who had first hand knowledge of the incident. Schwartz believed that 'Lipski' was directed at the second man. Was he wrong about that? Who is speculating now?

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.

She is not impressed

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.

So Schwartz could not have lied, because in theory that would have been too risky, if he had never been at the scene. Does that theory exclude the possibility that Schwartz was at the scene, but lied about some of what went on? You claimed above that there is no reason to suppose Schwartz didn't describe events as he perceived them. So please explain the following...

The Star, Oct 1: The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

The Star, Oct 2: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Apparently, Schwartz's story was wholly accepted, until it wasn't. So in theory, Schwartz could not have lied, yet in practice he seems to have done just that. Perhaps Schwartz was at the scene, as was the prisoner mentioned, but they gave very different and more to the point, conflicting statements.

And I don't believe the killer would have put himself in that position unless he had absolutely no choice.

Which should remind you of Goldstein, who according to Wess, had to be persuaded to go to the police. Was he given absolutely no choice?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mortimer clearly and obviously saw Goldstein once. We know that she didn’t see him twice because she didn’t say that she saw him twice so that really should be an end of that one. ‘Up’ or ‘down’ is largely irrelevant especially when you factor in that she wasn’t writing this herself so we have a reporter to filter through. Slip of the pen, scribbled notes written up later, poor memory, mishearing. Take your pick. But if she’s seen someone that the police were undoubtedly interested in twice near the murder spot she’d have said so….but she didn’t.

Artisan….can someone tell me what an artisan’s wife looks like? Is there an artisans wife’s uniform? Or a badge that they wear? The artisans wife was clearly Mortimer.

[caz]

I didn't mean to touch a nerve, George. But have you heard of the word 'nuance'?

It's difficult to interpret with 100% certainty anything said by someone who lived so long ago, without knowing how that person used and interpreted the English language.

When pretty much everything can be read in two or more ways, there is still a limit to how far the language should be stretched to accommodate a particular conclusion. It probably only matters if and when one's preferred conclusion becomes entrenched and is then used to argue for a preferred bigger picture regarding the murder itself.

In short, if anyone's preferred solution involves Goldstein behaving suspiciously, they should not be relying on their own subjective interpretation of ambiguous witness statements to make their case, or the argument will be a circular one.

Love,

Caz
X

[GBinOz]

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.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

It is your prerogative to dismiss reports, interpretations and speculations that don't conform to your own particular views. My command of the English language does not allow me to assign the same meaning to the words "up" ( adverb - towards a higher place or position) and "down" (adverb - towards or in a lower place or position, especially to or on the ground or another surface). Nor can I avail myself of the option to include within the definition of "Artisan" (noun - worker in a skilled trade, especially one that involves making things by hand), the occupation of cart driver. While I do not dispute your right to disagree with my "interpretation" (noun - the action of explaining the meaning of something), with all due respect, it is difficult for me to refrain from finding your comments to be somewhat condescending (adjective - having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority). You may well wish to allocate to words a meaning that, while suiting your purpose, does not appear in the dictionary, but then you are no longer utilising the English language.

Cheers, George

P.S. I aint nerly as unejekated as u fink. I nose lotsa big words.

[caz]

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[GBinOz]

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[GBinOz]

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[GBinOz]

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