Steps To The Nelson?

[GregBaron]

Pipeman.........

Thanks Rob for the graphic, that helps those of us who are visually inclined.....

Tom, I agree, we can't know alot of things hence the intrigue and frustration of this case.............what' s interesting to me is if he shouted Lipski to Schwartz I guess it's like saying 'hey Jew get out of here'......I suppose he could also be yelling the same warning to Pipeman but if he's yelling Lipski to Pipeman that might also mean.........'Hey my good accomplice there's a Jew coming...get rid of him'......which is exactly what he did according to Schwartz.....in other words follow him away from the area.......if indeed Pipeman is your Le Grand did he have time to follow Schwartz then return and commit the murder or did he allow his accomplice to off this one..?....Ah the endless speculation...............

Greg

[The Grave Maurice]

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" ..."

I'm beginning to detect a whiff of dead horse in the air, but why couldn't this sentence mean that, when Schwartz crossed the street, he noticed Pipeman standing outside the Nelson, and BS man then apparently called out "Lipski" to Pipeman, who was on the opposite side of the street to Schwartz?

My head is starting to hurt.

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Chris;138038]

"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" ..."

Seems to me that.....

a) In the first instance....Pipe Man is positioned relative to Schwarz....reason being Schwarz is the subject matter in that part of the quote.

b) In the second part of the quote.....'the man who threw the woman down' is the subject matter....and so it follows Pipe Man is on the opposite side of the road to BS i.e. here the quote is positioning Pipe Man in relation to BS Man.

It seems clear to me that Schwarz began on the same side of the road as BS Man...and as he crossed to the same side of the road as Pipe Man....he then saw Pipe Man in the shadows......and following that BS Man called out to the side of the road occupied by Schwarz and Pipe Man.

So...I would disagree with Chris's assessment that both men are spoken of in relation to Schwarz's position.....although I would agree with the conclusion as to which side of the road they were positioned.

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Hi Chris. Unlike some others, I respect the fact that you choose your battles carefully and are rather mistaken when you do speak up, so I'll tread carefully, but again I interpret this differently..

Swanson was working from the police report, which was prepared by Abberline, who had reached the conclusion that BS Man was likely calling out to Schwartz. This should not be forgotten. Therefore I suggest that the words 'opposite side of the street/road' are here referring to the same man - Schwartz. In this case there's nothing contradictory. An alternative explanation is that Swanson meant the man on the opposite side of the road from Schwartz, who was the key figure here, not BS Man. Either interpretation puts Pipeman on the Nelson side of the street.

Unfortunately, Swanson is at no time clear where Pipeman was standing, and what few mentions he makes can be construed to mean either side of the street. At such a time we should feel fortunate to possess a second source in the Star, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If there was something in the files that clearly contradicted the Star report, that would be another matter, but there isn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

An alternative explanation is that Swanson meant the man on the opposite side of the road from Schwartz, who was the key figure here, not BS Man. Either interpretation puts Pipeman on the Nelson side of the street.

I'd disagree with that. It seems clear to me that Pipe Man is being positioned in relation to BS Man. And BS Man is the key figure in that part of the statement...'the man who threw the woman down called out to the man on the opposite side of the road'.

The alternative doesn't make sense. Schwarz spots Pipe Man as he's crossing the road.....in your alternative you have two men on the same side of the road and one man (Schwarz) making his way over to the other side of the road....which would mean that no one is on the other/opposite side of the road in relation to all three men.

[Chris]

Hi Chris. Unlike some others, I respect the fact that you choose your battles carefully and are rather mistaken when you do speak up, so I'll tread carefully, but again I interpret this differently..

I hope you meant to write a different word there, not "rather"...

I must admit I had forgotten that bit of your argument where you suggested that Swanson's "man on the opposite side of the road" was Schwartz. But I'm really not convinced by that. Why wouldn't he just say "Schwartz" if that's what he meant? Surely Swanson's "man on the opposite side of the road" is the same as Abberline's "man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting his pipe".

But I think we will have to agree to differ.

I'll just say to Fleetwood Mac that I think s/he may have misunderstood what I was saying. I'm really arguing that neither man is spoken of in relation to Schwartz's position, but that in both cases the opposite side of the road/street means the side opposite to that where the attack on Stride was taking place.

[Tom_Wescott]

Schwarz spots Pipe Man as he's crossing the road.

No, it's after he's crossed.

hope you meant to write a different word there, not "rather"...

Ha ha. I meant to write 'rarely'!

Why wouldn't he just say "Schwartz" if that's what he meant?

I did an exhaustive study of the entire Oct. 19th report a couple of years ago (never published) and that's what really led me to believe Swanson was writing fast and made some grammatical errors that could lead to confusion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Tom_Wescott;138058]No, it's after he's crossed.


On what basis?

[Tom_Wescott]

My awesome and infallible memory.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Hope I'm right.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

'On crossing' suggests he hasn't actually crossed but is making his way over to that side. Both you and Tom used the terms 'after he had crossed' to make your point - why does the quote state 'on crossing' rather than 'after he had crossed'.

[Adam Went]

Some interesting points being made on here.

What about.....if Pipeman really was standing on the Nelson side of the street, Schwartz might not have seen him initially because his view was blocked by BS Man and Liz up ahead (or he just didn't notice him), plus the fact that the lighting was poor and he may not have been able to make him out in the distance?

As I said before, in "A Matter Of Time" I had BS Man and Pipeman on opposite sides of the street, but both circumstances have good cases to be made for them. I think it makes more sense though that they were on opposite sides of the street - because Schwartz stated that Pipeman started to follow him, and in order for him to do that, he must have crossed to the other side of the street as well? So Schwartz crosses, then Pipeman crosses, then they follow each other off? ...What? It also makes little sense if Schwartz was standing further up in Berner Street while Pipeman was almost down at the junction to Fairclough Street, yet he still started to follow him.....

It's a tough one to follow, will have to look out for a report which has a more clear wording of it.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Adam. You're correct in that both sides DO have good arguments, when working from Swanson's notes and Abberline's brief comments. But the tie breaker must be the Star which puts our boy firmly by the Nelson.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

But the tie breaker must be the Star which puts our boy firmly by the Nelson.

But a "tie-breaker" would be needed only if there were a genuine ambiguity in the official records. On the contrary, I think there is a natural interpretation of those records on the one hand - and on the other a very convoluted interpretation, which I don't think anyone would even have thought of if it hadn't been for the Star account.

I think what we have is essentially a conflict between the official records and the newpaper account. My inclination is that the official records are more likely to be accurate.

[The Grave Maurice]

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?

[Chris]

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?

It may be fun, but one could equally well speculate in a hundred and one other ways about what happened.

For example, what if Schwartz crossed diagonally between the man attacking Stride on the west and Pipeman on the east? To my mind that makes better sense of things than any other scenario. But it's still largely speculation.