Steps To The Nelson?

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

Yes, there are any number of possibilities, but IMO there's a lot more to be said in favour of Pipeman being on on Mrs. Mortimer's side of the street rather than on Dutfield's Yard side. Maybe "Pipeman", after all, was Leon Goldstein.

But seriously, it should be obvious that Pipeman didn't come at Schwartz from ahead of him, or else Schwartz would have walked/ran back up Berner Street towards Commercial Road....he must only have noticed that he was being followed AFTER he was past Pipeman, regardless of what side he was standing on. Schwartz would have been standing somewhere close to opposite Dutfield's in order to witness the attack - if Pipeman was already standing at The Nelson, which is down at the corner of Fairclough, that doesn't make any sense. Whereas if he was standing on the other side, further up and closer to parallel with the attack, this would make much more sense.

Also, if Pipeman was standing at the Nelson and Schwartz on the opposite side, it would have been quite clear who "Lipski!" was being aimed at by the direction BS man was facing when he said it. If the two of them were on the same side of the street, however, it would be less clear to whom he was referring. Anyway, it's all getting quite confusing!

Tom: Are you, who criticised me for putting faith in a Star report before, now preferring what that newspaper had to say, as opposed to reports from Abberline and Swanson? Please explain?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, there are any number of possibilities, but IMO there's a lot more to be said in favour of Pipeman being on on Mrs. Mortimer's side of the street rather than on Dutfield's Yard side.

Mortimer and Dutfield's Yard were on the same side of the street.

Tom: Are you, who criticised me for putting faith in a Star report before, now preferring what that newspaper had to say, as opposed to reports from Abberline and Swanson? Please explain?

I never criticized you for 'putting faith' in the Star report. I criticized you for stating in your essay that the Star report is untrustworthy and shouldn't be taken seriously, then proceeding to call BS Man 'half-drunk' as though it were an ascertained fact, when the only source for that nugget was the Star report. It seems a bit contradictory to me.

I don't know why you feel you have to ask me this. I've published and posted a lot on the Berner Street murder, Schwartz, and the sources, and have said countless times, including on this thread, that Swanson and Abberline trump the Star report every time when there's a clear contradiction. But the Star report is a legitimate, if flawed, source, and is accurate on most accounts. I think it provides additional, valuable detail. For instance, the Star has BS Man grabbing Stride by the shoulders, which does not seem like a detail someone would make up. And this was before the post mortem which revealed fresh shoulder bruising.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Tom:

Mortimer and Dutfield's Yard were on the same side of the street.

Of course they were, Mrs. Mortimer at No. 36. I must stop making posts late at night.

Wait a minute though....*light bulb above head moment*....if Mrs. Mortimer was standing at her door at No. 36, and Pipeman was standing at The Nelson, wouldn't they have been more or less standing right next to each other? Or did the numbers run the opposite way?

Hmm.....both the cases for Pipeman standing outside the Nelson and Mrs. Mortimer's statement being accurate look graver by the minute, Tom!

But the Star report is a legitimate, if flawed, source, and is accurate on most accounts. I think it provides additional, valuable detail. For instance, the Star has BS Man grabbing Stride by the shoulders, which does not seem like a detail someone would make up. And this was before the post mortem which revealed fresh shoulder bruising.

In many cases it's actually just about the only source we have, so unless there's some outside information to refute it, we have to put some faith in what it has to say. I've never been a big believer in taking newspaper reports at face value, but sometimes that's all we've got - you'd know that by now.

Cheers,
Adam.

[The Grave Maurice]

...if Mrs. Mortimer was standing at her door at No. 36, and Pipeman was standing at The Nelson, wouldn't they have been more or less standing right next to each other? Or did the numbers run the opposite way?

You must still be posting too late at night, Adam. Have a look at the map that Rob was kind enough to supply in post #28.

[Monty]

A Pipeman's perspective.

Guys,

Just to give you an opinion of a Pipeman,

I would never light a pipe on a street corner. Mainly because of the breeze. Id always, if it was too breezy in the open, seek shelter against a wall or in a doorway. This may, stress may, help us pinpoint him.

Also the act of lighting a pipe isnt a swift one. Theres correct packing, temper lighting and lighting. Sometimes it takes, sometimes not.

The actual report states lighting of pipe, indicating the prelims had been completed. Question is where? Had he packed the pipe on the spot, or elsewhere? If the spot then he would have been there a little while, watching all about him.

Theres no real point to this post other that to point out that there is more to lighting a pipe than merely striking a match.

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

It would make sense for Schwartz to cross Berner on an angle. If he started crossing Berner just north of Liz and BSM, he would have ended up near the corner of Fairclough. If Pipeman were standing just outside the Nelson, and Schwartz kept moving at a brisk pace, by the time Pipeman crossed Berner, he would have been behind Schwartz and, therefore, following him.

Ain't this fun?

The problem with this is as follows......

Assuming Lipski was shouted to Pipe Man and was a warning that someone was coming (Schwartz)......then neither Pipe Man nor BS Man see Schwartz until he has passed BS Man....otherwise the call would have been made earlier.....seems unlikely.....and Schwartz was followed even though he is clearly hurrying down the street away from the scene and has no intention of hanging around.....seems pointless. Also....you would have to believe that Pipe Man has positioned himself in a place where he can't see who's coming from the other side of the street.....which would be pretty much useless for a double act.

I don't think Schwartz's testimony fits at all......unless Pipe Man is nothing whatsoever to do with BS Man and Schwartz is simply mistaken in that he is being followed and Pipe Man.....coincidentally.....just happens to walk the same way...but then you have two men leaving the scene of a crime.....seems unlikely.....also you would have to believe that BS Man decides to shout insults at a passer-by while he's killing someone.....seems unlikely....

Alternatively......assuming they are a double act and Pipe Man is on the board school side.....then they wait until he passes and then follow.....they allow Schwartz to witness a murder and then chase him off.....there wouldn't be much point as he's already seen what's going on and he's hurrying away from the scene anyway....what's the point in a lookout who allows a passer-by to witness the crime...waits until he's passed the scene...and then follows? useless really.

So at this point I'm left with three options.....Schwartz is telling a massive lie in that he didn't see anything of the sort and the whole thing had been contrived to place BS Man and an accomplice outside of the club....Schwartz saw BS Man and Stride on the street but Pipe Man is a spot of invention...again to create an impression that the crux of the matter lies outside of the club.......or Schwartz left out one small detail....he was intending to hang around i.e. he was going into the club which is why BS Man shouted to Pipe Man to make clear they had a problem..........that being Schwartz was right on top of BS Man and Stride as he was entering the gates.

So to me Schwartz hasn't told the whole story.....which is probably more to do with the type of club it was i.e. socialist/anarchist...whose ideas were a concern for the authorities at the time....and nothing to do with some of the members being Jewish. And when pushed I'd go with the whole story being an invention to place the crime outside of the club.

[harry]

The only sensible way to treat the evidence of Schwartz,is not to take his statement literally,whether it be that of the police or of the paper,but accept that there was an incident.
That he did follow a person on berner street,that this person did accost a female or she him.That Schwartz crossed the road and hurried off and while doing so became aware of another male.The detail,including a near full description of the two men seen,seem too much for a person to observe and commit to memory in the short space of time he was present.

[protohistorian]

maybe this will help

Thanks to the map in post 28 by Mr. Clack I can estimate distances in ge. Between the two dots labeled pm and lying roughly 45 degrees apart is 38 ft. Between the 2 dots on the left hand side is 45 feet and change. Dave

[Adam Went]

GM:

Indeed, I had the numbers around the wrong way - just thinking out loud....overall it's probably fair to say it's just a shame that the reports weren't more detailed on this point and left it open for interpretation.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Hunter]

I believe if one reads Swanson's report of the 19th of October and Abberline's of the 1st of November, without any predispositions, one would conclude that Pipeman was on the Board School side of the street. Both mention that Pipeman was on the opposite side of the street, with the inference that he was on the opposite side of BS man and Liz, as that was where the focus of attention was taking place. The capper, in my opinion (which has previously been mentioned) is that Schwartz wasn't sure who BS man called 'Lipski' to; which would place Schwartz and Pipeman in close proximity to each other. In others words, both gentlemen were in the same field of view. Schwartz probably walked right by Pipeman and then, noticing that he was right on his tail... took off.

[The Grave Maurice]

The smell of dead horse has now become overpowering so I guess we should just leave this topic. Let's just remember that Berner was a very narrow street. If Schwartz heard someone call "Lipski" from behind or even opposite him, he'd have a hard time telling if the shout was directed at him, someone on the same side of the street, or someone about six strides (no pun) away on the other side of the street. Would Schwartz, in attempting to avoid a confrontation between two strangers in front of him, head toward a rather tall stranger on the other side of the road? I doubt it, but who knows?

I also like Monty's point about the difficulties of lighting a pipe. The doorway of the Nelson beer shop sounds like the perfect place to do that.

[Adam Went]

Schwartz could not be sure himself whether the two men were in league or not, but in the heat of the moment, that was not a chance he could possibly take if he felt in danger - the obvious and sensible solution is, if he's going to run away, it's going to be away from Pipeman, not towards him. Put yourself in his shoes and it's not difficult to understand that much - bearing that in mind, it makes the case for Pipeman standing at The Nelson even more unlikely.

As you said though GM, dead horse now....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm glad Monty pointed out about the pipe. Pipeman would have ducked into the somewhat enclosed entryway of the Nelson to light his pipe.

There's also the matter of Schwartz's flight. If Chris and company are correct that Pipeman was on the board school side of the street, then Schwartz reacted to being frightened by Pipeman by running straight into him? Not the most likely scenario. But if Pipeman was on the Nelson side of the street, it makes perfect sence that Pipeman tears after Schwartz who in turn runs down Fairclough street, which would put him running away from Pipeman, not towards him.

In short, when we take the ambiguous words of Swanson and Abberline, the completely unambiguous placement of Pipeman by the Star, and a little common sense based on the sequence of events, the only reasonable placement for Pipeman is in front of the Nelson.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

It seems to me that the only argument in favor of pipeman being on the same side of the road as Dutfield's Yard is the Star report. I think it would be good to quote the full context here:

"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 a 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."

Hence the same sentence that contains the phrase "a second man came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off" also claims that:

1. this second man (i.e pipeman) "shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman"
2. pipeman "rushed forward as if to attack the intruder."

Since neither of these details is consistent with what apparently actually happened, or with Swanson's official report... I think we should assume that the Star bungled the report, and we should not take it as being 100% accurate.

RH

[Chris]

There's also the matter of Schwartz's flight. If Chris and company are correct that Pipeman was on the board school side of the street, then Schwartz reacted to being frightened by Pipeman by running straight into him? Not the most likely scenario. But if Pipeman was on the Nelson side of the street, it makes perfect sence that Pipeman tears after Schwartz who in turn runs down Fairclough street, which would put him running away from Pipeman, not towards him.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I know which side of the street he was on. I'm saying there is a contradiction between the official documents on one hand, and the Star report on the other.

On the point about which direction Schwartz ran in, I'm puzzled. When we discussed this previously, you seemed to be arguing that he ran away down Berner Street, not along Fairclough Street. I was arguing, on the contrary, that the natural interpretation of Swanson's report, in conjunction with the Echo report, is that he ran west along Fairclough Street and then south along Backchurch Lane. Are you now saying you think he ran east along Fairclough Street?