Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Absence Of Evidence

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

  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


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

    The ol' double-bluff. Brilliant!

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    Pipeman is an interesting detail in the story, but only the police seem to know categorically who he is apparently. And we hear no more about him. He isn't used as another witness. He isn't used in a case again Schwartz. He isn't used beyond a detail in Schwartz's story.
    I haven't worked out why Pipeman was never used, but there is a clue to his identity, in Swanson's report

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    I'm open to ideas on how they can be proven to actually exist. Focusing in on Schwartz, why do we keep hitting dead ends with him do you think?

    Some records somewhere must exist, yet talented researchers such as yourself cannot identify him categorically. A bit similar to MJK. We knew as a person she existed, yet research thus far has hit brick walls.
    I think there are a couple of clues to Schwartz' real identity, in Swanson's report

    Leave a comment:


  • Pcdunn
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

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



    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.



    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?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    It goes on ...

    Yet the surprises do not stop there. How is that the actor known by the name of Israel Schwartz, could manage to fool a first class inspector with such an unlikely story? A story with no corroborating witnesses, and one that certainly did not fool either Coroner Wynne Baxter, or lower ranking police. In this instalment, I'm going to seriously consider the question; did Frederick George Abberline even exist?
    Reality check time....

    Where is the proof the Schwartz was an actor?

    Where is the proof that Baxter didn’t believe Schwartz or even held any opinion on him?

    Why is it so improbable that the Schwartz incident wasn’t seen when it would have taken around 30 seconds at most (and probably less) and occurred in the early hours of the morning in a largely deserted street?

    Why is a disturbance in the street such an outlandish occurrence?

    ......

    What happened was.... Elizabeth Stride was killed between 12.45 and 12.55ish.....Louis Diemschutz discovered her body at 1.00 (possibly 1.01).....He and others went looking for a Constable....Lamb was found and returned to the yard around 1.05ish.

    No mystery and certainly no cover up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Not another one who 'never existed'?
    So now we have Schwartz - who never existed, who invented Pipeman - who never existed?
    Are you real Wick?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Fer f'k sake!

    It goes on ...

    Yet the surprises do not stop there. How is that the actor known by the name of Israel Schwartz, could manage to fool a first class inspector with such an unlikely story? A story with no corroborating witnesses, and one that certainly did not fool either Coroner Wynne Baxter, or lower ranking police. In this instalment, I'm going to seriously consider the question; did Frederick George Abberline even exist?

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Not another one who 'never existed'?
    So now we have Schwartz - who never existed, who invented Pipeman - who never existed?
    Keep up Jon

    Schwartz was someone. Just not Israel Schwartz. He was an actor hired by someone to tell a story to deliberately muddle and confuse the investigation. Throw the scent off the jews, or to throw the scent on them - depends on who hired him. Not being able to speak English meant he could be talking absolute gibberish. His handy interpreter did all the talking in English.

    Pipeman is an interesting detail in the story, but only the police seem to know categorically who he is apparently. And we hear no more about him. He isn't used as another witness. He isn't used in a case again Schwartz. He isn't used beyond a detail in Schwartz's story.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Schwartz and Astrakhan Collar might be elusive, not they're not illusive. At least, I don't think so.
    I'm open to ideas on how they can be proven to actually exist. Focusing in on Schwartz, why do we keep hitting dead ends with him do you think?

    Some records somewhere must exist, yet talented researchers such as yourself cannot identify him categorically. A bit similar to MJK. We knew as a person she existed, yet research thus far has hit brick walls.

    Not everyone was honest in giving details accurately or truthfully.

    I believe it is so muddled, that someone is lying somehwere. The fact his story cannot be corroborated whereas there are branches of possible corroboration with others, leaves me to believe Shcwartz is the odd one out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Thanks. I have started writing the next part ...

    After carefully studying the testimony of Edward Spooner, I have come to a rather startling conclusion. Edward Spooner's lady friend, didn't exist!
    Fer f'k sake!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X