Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Absence Of Evidence

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

  • Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post

    What if Pipeman was an undercover policeman? That would tie in with his attitude of standing and watching the street. Perhaps actually interested in observing the Workers' Club, due to worries about anarchists and such.

    Akin to today's police dramas where a man who is arrested turns out to be a government agent on another operation.
    I think that a strong possibility
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post

      What if Pipeman was an undercover policeman? That would tie in with his attitude of standing and watching the street. Perhaps actually interested in observing the Workers' Club, due to worries about anarchists and such.

      Akin to today's police dramas where a man who is arrested turns out to be a government agent on another operation.
      It’s possible. If that is true then the police must have been satisfied that either Schwartz was telling the truth and therefore push his story to forefront on all their reports. But the language Swanson’s report for example expressed doubt. Three weeks later.

      Or they could dismiss his story completely, yet it hangs around like an unsavoury smell.
      "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
      - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

      Comment


      • An actor who is going to play the part of a Jewish bystander dresses like...an actor.

        The ol' double-bluff. Brilliant!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
          An actor who is going to play the part of a Jewish bystander dresses like...an actor.

          The ol' double-bluff. Brilliant!
          "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
          - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
            An actor who is going to play the part of a Jewish bystander dresses like...an actor.

            The ol' double-bluff. Brilliant!
            I’d have expected him to either have been dressed in a toga with a Laurel wreath on his head or to have been holding a skull in his hand.
            Regards

            Herlock



            “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

            ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              The use of the single word 'Lipski' as a slur, makes little sense. It would be like yelling 'Jew', or at the same time in the USA, a man yelling 'Negro'.

              Yes, what? Can I be of assistance?

              The use of the single word 'Lipski' as a verb, also makes little sense. It would be like yelling 'assault', or 'murder'.

              Really? Can I aid in assisting the victim?

              However, it does make sense in two ways.

              One: As a name. Pipeman was a Mr Lipski.

              Two: As an alert to Pipeman.

              A Mr Lipski was never identified, leaving an alert as the only reasonable explanation.
              This reasoning can be easily tested. Does it match what we see in Swanson's report...?

              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, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

              Evidently the second man also ran, and towards Schwartz, else why would Schwartz have thought it necessary to run so far?
              Schwartz was implying that the second man was an accomplice to the first. We see something similar in the Star account, in which ...

              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.

              Schwartz was the intruder. Note that this time, the alert or warning goes in the opposite direction - Pipeman/Knifeman warns BS Man, whereas in the Met account, BS Man sends the warning to Pipeman.

              The two men are described in a way that clearly suggests they are working together. Yet, for some reason, the police do not suspect the second man. How could they not suspect him, without speaking to the man himself? So where does that leave the mysterious chase, and thus the authenticity of Schwartz' account?
              Aside from the mystery of the chase, there is an element to the whole Schwartz issue that deserves more discussion.
              That is; how definite a link did Schwartz want it to be supposed existed, between the two men?
              As Abberline saw it, the existence of a relationship between BS & Pm was unclear.
              Here's a chunk of a letter from FCA to the Home Office ...

              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 a 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.


              See entire letter

              Not only can Abberline not see a link between the two men, but he actually suggests that Pipeman may have become alarmed and run off like Schwartz did. Note also that he supposes a lot of the reason for Schwartz' own alarm was due to him "being a foreigner and unable to speak English". So what did he suppose might have caused similar alarm to Pipeman?

              Contrast this interpretation, with that of the Star:

              ... the story of a man who is said to have seen the Berner-street tragedy, and declares that one man butchered and another man watched, is, we think, a priori incredible.

              So the Star was not even buying the idea that two men watched an assault (or worse), without intervening, whereas Abberline has imagined the two men scurrying off like frightened rabbits, while the woman went into the yard without a thing being heard.

              Two very different interpretations! However, the critical interpretation belongs to Israel Schwartz himself.
              The relationship between BS and Pm (now Km), is made very clear in the Star ...

              The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, 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, but just as he stepped from the kerb 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. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

              Jumping straight to the conclusion to keep this post to a reasonable length; the whole raison d'Ítre of the Star interview was to make the relationship between the two men, absolutely clear.
              This raises an obvious question; why did Schwartz and friend care so much about precisely how his account had been interpreted, to the point that they wanted to go public with Israel's story?
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment

              Working...
              X