The Absence Of Evidence

[Wickerman]

This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

Bizarre! Did Bram Stoker have the appearance of being in the theatrical line, or just that of a regular middle-class man?
So what is going on Schwartz? Was he a particularly flamboyant character, or had he perhaps come straight from stage rehearsals, with no time to take his stage dress and makeup off?
Or maybe something else entirely; it was a deliberate attempt to disguise his normal appearance.

It wouldn't simply be that he was well dressed. There would be something he wore that gave a theatrical appearance.
Victorian society was very class rigid, you were expected to dress according to your station in life. Doctors, Lawyers, Gentry, tradesmen, all had a type of dress-code to observe.
In most cases the younger generation always had someone to look up to. Like a junior Doctor or Lawyer would have a senior partner, someone who would expect him to look the part, and dress accordingly. Not bring any kind of ill repute to the profession, etc.
As for looking theatrical, it need not be much, his hat or the style of collar & cuffs, the colour or style of tie, the type of jacket - knee-length or shorter, or tailed coat perhaps.

One poster speculated that perhaps Israel Schwartz was the illusive Mr Astrachan.

[Wickerman]

The Jewish day begins at sunset. So Shabbat (Sabbath) is from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday.

Right, thanks Fiver.
So, the end result is the same then, the Sabbath ran from roughly 5:40 pm Friday to 5:40 pm Saturday, with just over 6 hrs of the day left.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It wouldn't simply be that he was well dressed. There would be something he wore that gave a theatrical appearance.
Victorian society was very class rigid, you were expected to dress according to your station in life. Doctors, Lawyers, Gentry, tradesmen, all had a type of dress-code to observe.
In most cases the younger generation always had someone to look up to. Like a junior Doctor or Lawyer would have a senior partner, someone who would expect him to look the part, and dress accordingly. Not bring any kind of ill repute to the profession, etc.
As for looking theatrical, it need not be much, his hat or the style of collar & cuffs, the colour or style of tie, the type of jacket - knee-length or shorter, or tailed coat perhaps.

So would it be reasonable to suppose that Israel Schwartz was a professional actor?

One poster speculated that perhaps Israel Schwartz was the illusive Mr Astrachan.

Only on the basis of dress? Seems there are no public records of Schwartz, beyond the Star interview. So he too seems quite an illusive character.

[caz]

I feel sorry for the Jewish community of that time. Just normal men and women going about their business, trying to carve out new lives for themselves through industry and endeavour. Only to be treated with suspicion and outright anti-semitism. And that’s just the police!

After the Stride murder every man and his dog in the club were interviewed for hours. If I was part of that community I might feel peeved off enough to try and protect my community. At this stage everyone believes Jack was a Jew thanks to the Leather Apron nonsense and demonising of Jews in the papers.

I would feel compelled to potentially file a false witness account. Use details that are near impossible to verify but sound real enough to be taken seriously. Make it look like the Jewish man was simply walking by and witnessing the attack, but it was gentiles that committed it. Throw in a Lipski to show they were being anti-semitic, then they can focus on the killer being a drunk Englishman. I’d be angry enough to do that. Maybe one of the many theatrical types in the Jewish drama society could become ‘Israel Schwartz’.

Abberline being the diligent detective he was, took down the statement as intended. Except, his superiors were not buying it. They could smell a rat. Things did not add up. But they might yet still be able to use it to their advantage.

The fact that later Anderson, and I believe also Warren, both tried to insinuate Schwartz testified at the inquest is puzzling and confusing.

Hi erobitha,

Abberline questioned Schwartz closely at the time he made his statement, because he had doubts about the suggestion that "Lipski" was addressed to Pipeman, who then appeared to chase after Schwartz, as if he was intruding on an assault involving the two men, BS man and an accomplice with a Jewish name. It was Abberline who believed that BS man had used the name as an insult directed at Schwartz himself, due to his strong Jewish appearance. Schwartz himself could not be certain either way, and conceded that Pipeman may have been equally alarmed by the situation and merely went off in the same direction.

There is no evidence that Schwartz was attempting to put a drunk Englishman at the scene to protect members of his own community. Quite the opposite would appear to have been the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

Hi erobitha,

Abberline questioned Schwartz closely at the time he made his statement, because he had doubts about the suggestion that "Lipski" was addressed to Pipeman, who then appeared to chase after Schwartz, as if he was intruding on an assault involving the two men, BS man and an accomplice with a Jewish name. It was Abberline who believed that BS man had used the name as an insult directed at Schwartz himself, due to his strong Jewish appearance. Schwartz himself could not be certain either way, and conceded that Pipeman may have been equally alarmed by the situation and merely went off in the same direction.

There is no evidence that Schwartz was attempting to put a drunk Englishman at the scene to protect members of his own community. Quite the opposite would appear to have been the case.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I guess it can be interpreted in numerous ways.

The description Schwartz gave of BS man would conjure up a drunk Englishman. However, the whole Lipski thing I believe back fired. I believe Schwartz TRIED to insinuate there was anti-semitism being used by the killer. Whether it was aimed at him or pipeman the intention was to show this racial slur was used by the killer.

Swanson went out of his way to add a note on his 19th October letter to define as follows. “The use of ‘Lipski’ increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew”.

Would it not seem odd a Jew would abuse another Jew with such terminology? If you were alerting your mate that they had company would you have chosen a slur against someone of your own creed? I just don’t understand how that makes any sense.

If pipeman’s name was Lipski and BS man was simply alerting his pal, then okay fair enough.

My theory is Schwartz wanted to demonstrate anti-semitism which would suggest a gentile, but it somehow got muddled up in the killer being Jewish. Accidentally or by design.

Just my thought.

[rjpalmer]

Swanson went out of his way to add a note on his 19th October letter to define as follows. “The use of ‘Lipski’ increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew”.

My apologies for butting in, but you may want to confirm this. Most of the notations on the Home Office reports have been traced to various bureaucrats, known or unknown, and were not in the hand of Swanson or Warren or Anderson, etc.

It is an important point, because this would suggest that it was someone at the Home Office who felt the cry of 'Lipsky' suggested a Jewish killer--that is, until Abberline showed him the lay of the land.

It doesn't necessarily mean that Swanson had already suspected the Jews as early as October 1888.

Kindest regards,

RP

[erobitha]

My apologies for butting in, but you may want to confirm this. Most of the notations on the Home Office reports have been traced to various bureaucrats, known or unknown, and were not in the hand of Swanson or Warren or Anderson, etc.

It is an important point, because this would suggest that it was someone at the Home Office who felt the cry of 'Lipsky' suggested a Jewish killer--that is, until Abberline showed him the lay of the land.

It doesn't necessarily mean that Swanson had already suspected the Jews as early as October 1888.

Kindest regards,

RP

I took it directly from sourcebook RJ. The letter is printed in full by Swanson to the Home Office. Are you saying Swanson did not write the marginalia on this and that some clerk did?

[rjpalmer]

I don't know if you're in contact with Keith Skinner, but I think you'd want to run it by him. Unfortunately, I only have a few facsimiles of original reports, and this isn't one of the ones I have, but I always assumed that it was a note by someone at the Home Office, and not Swanson himself.

You'll notice that sometimes Keith and Stewart will be able to identify the scribbler in the margin--particularly if they had left their initials. 'G.L.' is Godfrey Lushington, for instance. Other times it is less certain. It certainly could be the writer of report--in this case, Swanson.

It's an interesting aspect of the official reports, and I hope you find a definitive answer. I'll let you know if I can track it down.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Caz,

I guess it can be interpreted in numerous ways.

The description Schwartz gave of BS man would conjure up a drunk Englishman. However, the whole Lipski thing I believe back fired. I believe Schwartz TRIED to insinuate there was anti-semitism being used by the killer. Whether it was aimed at him or pipeman the intention was to show this racial slur was used by the killer.

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?

Swanson went out of his way to add a note on his 19th October letter to define as follows. “The use of ‘Lipski’ increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew”.

Would it not seem odd a Jew would abuse another Jew with such terminology? If you were alerting your mate that they had company would you have chosen a slur against someone of your own creed? I just don’t understand how that makes any sense.

Neither do I

If pipeman’s name was Lipski and BS man was simply alerting his pal, then okay fair enough.

My theory is Schwartz wanted to demonstrate anti-semitism which would suggest a gentile, but it somehow got muddled up in the killer being Jewish. Accidentally or by design.

Just my thought.

Schwartz wanted to demonstrate two things.

One: That the two men were working together.

Two: An answer to the question; did the first man enter Dutfield's Yard from the club, or the street?

The use of the word 'Lipski', whatever its purpose, does not make this clear. The following does ...

Swanson: ... on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

The Star: 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.

This man being Jewish or Gentile is of far less importance than where he came from to arrive at the gateway.

[erobitha]

How can pipeman be eliminated from enquiries so quickly? Surely his account of events would only go to strengthen the Schwartz account and was part of the murder team, or he himself was witnessing the murder, albeit from a slight distance.

To simply be cleared with no rhyme or reason means one of two things. The police did not believe Schwartz at all and pipeman may have been held back as a witness against Schwartz. Or pipeman never existed.

[erobitha]

I don't know if you're in contact with Keith Skinner, but I think you'd want to run it by him. Unfortunately, I only have a few facsimiles of original reports, and this isn't one of the ones I have, but I always assumed that it was a note by someone at the Home Office, and not Swanson himself.

You'll notice that sometimes Keith and Stewart will be able to identify the scribbler in the margin--particularly if they had left their initials. 'G.L.' is Godfrey Lushington, for instance. Other times it is less certain. It certainly could be the writer of report--in this case, Swanson.

It's an interesting aspect of the official reports, and I hope you find a definitive answer. I'll let you know if I can track it down.

I don’t have contact with Keith Skinner, it may surprise you.

I believe Caz does and if she wouldn’t mind asking on my behalf? Does he have any indication of who may have written the marginalia in the 19th October letter? Could it have been Swanson?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
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 problem with this is that from those that were around at the time we know that ‘Lipski’ was used as an insult to Jews.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As an aside, when we talk of alternative interpretations for the word Lipski I’ve often thought that the suggestion ‘Lizzie’, is one that can’t be entirely dismissed no matter how remote the possibility might be. I can’t recall who first made this suggestion but it was years ago. The fact that Stride apparently called out but not very loudly might indicate that she knew BS Man. Maybe they were having an argument and Schwartz was watching in glances, not wanting to appear to be staring, and as BS Man said ‘Lizzie’ he and Schwartz made eye contact and Schwartz assumed he was using the insult ‘Lipski?’

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How can pipeman be eliminated from enquiries so quickly?

Well for a start, don't assume any of this ...

Surely his account of events would only go to strengthen the Schwartz account and was part of the murder team, or he himself was witnessing the murder, albeit from a slight distance.

Pipeman's account was evidently very different to that given by Schwartz. So different in fact, that initially he were only partly believed ...

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.

To simply be cleared with no rhyme or reason means one of two things. The police did not believe Schwartz at all and pipeman may have been held back as a witness against Schwartz. Or pipeman never existed.

At Leman street, they sort of believed Schwartz, but also disbelieved at the same time. It was no more than about 50/50.
Investigations related to the Schwartz incident were therefore not going to continue there, until new information could clarify the contradictions ...

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.

Those additional facts had to come to them - they weren't otherwise going to put any resources into the matter.

Now back to your initial question. Tracing through the logic of the two Star quotes, we have...

Oct 1:
One arrest, 'answering the description' given by Schwartz.
Is the man's statement accepted? Not wholly.
What does that imply? That he was at the scene of the Schwartz incident, but his side of the story is very different - perhaps radically so - and as Schwartz has spoken to Abberline without generating any suspicion, the prisoner's story is doubted, or partly so.
So who was it? Was it BS or Pipeman? Well one clue comes from who is the Police Gazette report ... and who isn't.

So at this stage it looks like Schwartz is fully believed, and arrests are starting to occur as a consequence of his statement.

Oct 2:
Another arrest, 'furnished from another source'.
Who could this other source be? Well BS assaulted Stride, and Pipeman chased away Schwartz, and there was no one else on the street - so hard to say!
Two arrests, so why does Leman street have reason to doubt the truth of Schwartz' story? Who could have contradicted it? Well unlikely they would take the word of BS Man over Schwartz - that would have to go to trial - so maybe the arrested prisoner was actually Pipeman, and they have come to believe his side of the story is the truth. Consequently, the doubts are now regarding Schwartz.
But how could Pipeman's story have been so thoroughly validated, that they are letting him go? I think there are enough clues in press report and inquest transcripts, to work out both that, and the actual identity of Pipeman.

Pipeman definitely existed, but have you any thoughts on why Wess knows something about the chase along Fairclough street, but Edward Spooner - standing on that street at a quarter to one - apparently does not?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The problem with this is that from those that were around at the time we know that ‘Lipski’ was used as an insult to Jews.

Which I am aware of, but it's not a problem if you don't miss the point - two in fact.

Other than as an alert, shouting 'Lipski' on its own, is rather meaningless. Contrast this to the word being used as a verb - I'm going to Lipski you! - which is meaningful.

Secondly, although the word when used as a proper noun carries negative connotations, the purpose of shouting 'Lipski' as an alert, is to warn the recipient of the alert, not to insult the subject of the alert. Time is of the essence.