Steps To The Nelson?

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

Thanks very much for your help, that's great!

As for exactly where Pipeman was, i'm glad that's been brought up, because when I wrote "A Matter Of Time" and it came out in Ripperologist in April, I had Pipeman on the opposite side of the street to the man attacking Liz, but rapidly got criticised for that and informed that they were actually on the same side of the street. To me it makes a lot more sense that they were standing on opposite sides of the street, but then there's the version where Pipeman came out of the public house - I don't suppose there were any similar sorts of establishments on the opposite side of Berner Street?

Cheers,
Adam.

[The Grave Maurice]

Geez, is nothing about this case straightforward? I have always imagined Pipeman coming out of the Nelson, on the same side of Berner as BSM, and opposite Schwartz (after Schwartz crossed to the east side). Now I have to go away and think about it.

[Jon Guy]

I know!! I`m trying to get my head around it this morning. I suppose Pipeman and Schwartz must have been on the same side of the road as each other, as the police kept asking Schwartz who BS Man was addressing.

But this conclusion is based only the police statement, ignoring the Star`s extra detail of the "public house".

Don`t think it changes much other than Schwartz walked right past Pipeman on the same side of the pavement and would have got a good view of him.

[Adam Went]

Hey GM and Jon,

Think of it this way though - if Pipeman was on the opposite side of the street to BS man, once Schwartz had crossed the street, his attention would have been focused on the attack rather than on Pipeman. Furthermore, it would also mean that Pipeman was standing further back because if he was still in front of Schwartz once he crossed the street, he would have had to walk around him first and then start following him in order for Schwartz to feel like he was being chased. Does that make sense? lol

On the other hand, it sounds more than a little odd to me that somebody would just be standing quietly smoking a pipe while there was quite clearly an assault happening a few metres up the street. It's a tough one....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

Swanson: On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing and lighting his pipe.

Abberline: There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was the man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting his pipe.

As Swanson notes, Schwartz was on the Board school side of the road when he saw Pipeman. As Abberline notes, Pipeman was on the opposite side of the road from Schwartz, which puts him on the Nelson side of the street, which is perfectly in line with what the Star report states.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rob Clack]

Swanson: On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing and lighting his pipe.

Abberline: There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was the man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting his pipe.

As Swanson notes, Schwartz was on the Board school side of the road when he saw Pipeman. As Abberline notes, Pipeman was on the opposite side of the road from Schwartz, which puts him on the Nelson side of the street, which is perfectly in line with what the Star report states.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I disagree. My reading of the Abberline line is:

There was only one other person to be seen in the street [other than B.S and Eizabeth Stride], and that was the man on the opposite side of the road [to B.S and Elizabeth Stride] in the act of lighting his pipe.

Rob

[The Grave Maurice]

Interesting. I read it as:

[Other than Stride and BS man] There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was the man on the opposite side of the road [to Schwartz, after he crossed to the Board School side] in the act of lighting his pipe.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Grave,

Thankfully the three other statements I mention makes the different interpretations on that one redundant. Specifically this one:

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,
Which makes it clear to me Pipe man was on the side of the Berner Street School.

Rob

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Grave,

Thankfully the three other statements I mention makes the different interpretations on that one redundant. Specifically this one:

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,
Which makes it clear to me Pipe man was on the side of the Berner Street School.

Except that Schwartz was on the board school side of the road when BS Man called out Lipski, so Pipeman would indeed have been on the other side of the road from Schwartz at this time. No one was on the 'same side' as Schwartz once he crossed.

The problem with Swanson's report is that it was hastily written from police reports he may not have fully understood himself. The result of this, as we've seen, is that two different and opposing interpretations can be placed on the words. We should thus be grateful that we possess a second source (albeit flawed in some respects) which is quite clear in its placement of Pipeman, this being in front of the Nelson.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rob Clack]

We will have to disagree on this one Tom as I don't agree with that.
I don't understand where you get "The problem with Swanson's report is that it was hastily written from police reports he may not have fully understood himself." from.

Rob

[Tom_Wescott]

I say that because that's how it appears to me. His wording is confused. It was a very long report, and it's clear he's referring to the police report because he says so. Even if we agree that his and Abberline's words can be interpreted equally either way, I feel the presence of a second source (The Star) giving Pipeman a very unambiguous location pushes the overall evidence to one direction, that being that Pipeman was in front of the Nelson.

Personally, I would prefer Pipeman be on the board school side as you say, because that would be easier to tie him to James Brown's man, but that's not what the evidence says to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GregBaron]

Graphic.........

Perhaps some clever soul can do an aerial graphic for us to see where the various players were..........

I'm not sure it really matters in how we interpret the scene since I don't think
it can resolve who Lipski what shouted to or if Pipeman and BS were a tag team or if Pipeman was a fabrication of Schwartz's..............


Greg

[Rob Clack]

Here you go.

All positions approximates.



Rob

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Greg. Sometimes we don't have a clear cut answer so we have to work with the best information we have, and even then we're not always in agreement. And you're 100% correct that we'll never know who 'Lipski!' was shouted at, since Schwartz didn't know himself. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Abberline that it was shouted at Schwartz himself, but who knows.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Even if we agree that his and Abberline's words can be interpreted equally either way ...

I don't think they can be interpreted equally either way, though. I'm afraid the interpretation you're suggesting is a very unnatural one.

To give another example, Swanson's report says:
"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" ..."

Your interpretation requires Swanson to have used "the opposite side of the street/road" in two completely contradictory senses in successive sentences. Surely he would not have done that.

But probably we shall have to agree to differ on this.