Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I can’t believe that you keep coming out with this kind of stuff. It’s nothing more than desperate nitpicking simply to try and win a point. Basically you are saying that Schwartz was enough of a buffoon to give two different versions of a very simply story just hours apart from each other.

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.

This is not 'coming out' with anything, it is quoting evidence. You may not appreciate this, but that's your problem.

In the Press account he adds the unimportant detail of the doorway. Why? Perhaps the reporter pressed him on where Pipeman came from but the police simply had no reason to add this entirely trivial detail.

The specific detail was that the man came out of the doorway. The Nelson doorway had closed at 11pm. You can all agree with each other that the man came out of the Nelson doorway, but the evidence remains that this would not have been possible. Therefore, the reference to the doorway is either false reporting, or refers to some other doorway or entrance that has been partly mistranslated.

Do you actually believe that every minor discrepancy in any account means that there was dirty work afoot?

No.

[Sunny Delight]

I think that one thing that we should remember and acknowledge tough when we talk about the ‘police report’ is that this was a ‘summary’ of events written by Donald Swanson three weeks after the murder. He was ‘rounding up.’ Whereas The Star would have been asking questions of Schwartz. Probably bombarding him via an interpreter of unknown competence.

What is peculiar about Swanson's report is that he states, almost as fact, that BS man had addressed Pipeman when Abberline specifically stated Schwartz could not tell who was addressed. Abberline even went as far too say he had questioned Schwartz very closely on the matter. I have a little extra to write on this and will do so when I get time(not easy with young kids sometimes, ha).

[Herlock Sholmes]

"......(Schwartz) 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."

You read this from Schwartz perspective because Swanson in the initial sentences refers to Schwartz movements. However I read this section differently. I read it that BS man is shouting in Schwartz and Pipemans direction on the opposite side of the road. For this reason Schwartz was unable to discern who 'Lipski' was directed at. Abberline questioned him closely on it.

But he clearly said that BSMan shouted at the man on the opposite side of the road. How could he have shouted at the man (singular) if there were two of them there and standing so close together that he wasn’t sure which one he was shouting at?

For me though what is more significant is that BS man had to have looked directly at Schwartz to decide he was rather Jewish looking. He then yells, 'Lipski'. So if he was looking in Schwartz direction how would Schwartz not immediately be able to tell the shout was directed at him. Pipeman would be further down the street on the opposite side. Schwartz not looking at BS man doesn't fit what Schwartz said. He crossed the street and saw Pipeman before the shout of Lipski. If we add in the Star version Schwartz looked back at the quarrel.

Even if a person is looking directly at a person it doesn’t follow that the other person must have been looking directly back. BSMan for example whilst manhandling Stride could have looked across and seen Schwartz (looking at the incident) crossing the road. Two seconds later he looks up again and Schwartz has seen Pipeman but is again caught looking the incident. He immediately averts his gaze. BSMan shouts ‘Lipski’ as Schwartz is looking away so can’t be sure who it was aimed at.

I think that one thing that we should remember and acknowledge tough when we talk about the ‘police report’ is that this was a ‘summary’ of events written by Donald Swanson three weeks after the murder. He was ‘rounding up.’ Whereas The Star would have been asking questions of Schwartz. Probably bombarding him via an interpreter of unknown competence.

[Sunny Delight]

"......(Schwartz) 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."

You read this from Schwartz perspective because Swanson in the initial sentences refers to Schwartz movements. However I read this section differently. I read it that BS man is shouting in Schwartz and Pipemans direction on the opposite side of the road. For this reason Schwartz was unable to discern who 'Lipski' was directed at. Abberline questioned him closely on it.

For me though what is more significant is that BS man had to have looked directly at Schwartz to decide he was rather Jewish looking. He then yells, 'Lipski'. So if he was looking in Schwartz direction how would Schwartz not immediately be able to tell the shout was directed at him. Pipeman would be further down the street on the opposite side. Schwartz not looking at BS man doesn't fit what Schwartz said. He crossed the street and saw Pipeman before the shout of Lipski. If we add in the Star version Schwartz looked back at the quarrel.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem is that you and others keep on feeding this clown.

Remember Pierre?

Who could forget Pierre.

[DJA]

I can’t believe that you keep coming out with this kind of stuff. It’s nothing more than desperate nitpicking simply to try and win a point. Basically you are saying that Schwartz was enough of a buffoon to give two different versions of a very simply story just hours apart from each other.

In the Press account he adds the unimportant detail of the doorway. Why? Perhaps the reporter pressed him on where Pipeman came from but the police simply had no reason to add this entirely trivial detail.

Do you actually believe that every minor discrepancy in any account means that there was dirty work afoot?

The problem is that you and others keep on feeding this clown.

Remember Pierre?

[Herlock Sholmes]

In my scenario, Pipeman is near Hampshire Court when first spotted by Schwartz. This results in Schwartz being followed south, to either Ellen St or one of the nearby rail arches. This is compatible with the evidence we have, and it unifies the witnessed location of Pipeman and Parcelman.

.

To quote John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!” The distance from Hampshire Court to the doors of The Nelson is close to 3 times the distance from the doors of The Nelson to the gateway.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All this irrelevant, because it does not correspond to the either the police account or press account. In the police account, we have:

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

The man is standing, therefore not moving, and there is no mention of a doorway. In the press account:

...a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off...

The man is moving, not standing.

The whole notion of a man standing in the doorway, sheltering from the wind that frustrates his efforts to light his pipe, is fiction. Someone offered this fiction here long ago, it's sounds reasonable to yourself and others, so you think of it as though it were evidence. It is not evidence, it is invention.

I can’t believe that you keep coming out with this kind of stuff. It’s nothing more than desperate nitpicking simply to try and win a point. Basically you are saying that Schwartz was enough of a buffoon to give two different versions of a very simply story just hours apart from each other.

In the Press account he adds the unimportant detail of the doorway. Why? Perhaps the reporter pressed him on where Pipeman came from but the police simply had no reason to add this entirely trivial detail.

Do you actually believe that every minor discrepancy in any account means that there was dirty work afoot?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

In Oz we do have windy days that would blow a brown dog off a chain.

Diemshitz said that he lit a match that the wind immediately extinguished, and Pipeman would have had the same problem. Since he had no access to your flamethrower he would have had to resort to huddling against a wall, or doorway to reduce the wind circulation.

I think your assessment in post #1255 is spot on.

Cheers, George

Thanks George.

“Blow a brown dog off a chain.”

Love it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’m not trying to make any theory work. You only have to look at the photograph that Dave recently posted to see that a man couldn’t conceal himself in the nearby doorways but there is probably enough of a gap to stop the wind blowing out a match. Lighting a pipe takes a little longer than lighting a cigarette. Most pipe smokers will light their pipes, tamp down the tobacco and then light again. But once Pipeman had got his pipe to ‘take’ he could have stepped away from the doorway still with his match to his pipe.

No one knows for certain exactly what happened but this is a reasonable explanation. If Pipeman was seen moving away from a doorway it would have been understandable that an onlooker might think that he’d just exited from that doorway.

All this irrelevant, because it does not correspond to the either the police account or press account. In the police account, we have:

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

The man is standing, therefore not moving, and there is no mention of a doorway. In the press account:

...a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off...

The man is moving, not standing.

The whole notion of a man standing in the doorway, sheltering from the wind that frustrates his efforts to light his pipe, is fiction. Someone offered this fiction here long ago, it's sounds reasonable to yourself and others, so you think of it as though it were evidence. It is not evidence, it is invention.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

When I originally read the accounts of Schwartz's statements I was puzzled at the apparent suggestion that Pipeman was on the school corner and Schwartz was running away towards the perceived threat of Pipeman. When I reconsidered Schwartz's statements from his perspective I realised that Pipeman was on the opposite corner, outside the Nelson. The critical information is "just as he stepped from the kerb". At this stage Schwartz has crossed the road and is headed south. The only kerb available for "stepping from" is the kerb on the north eastern side of the Fairclough intersection. From there, IMO, Schwartz made his exit south on Berner rather than east on Fairclough.

That's fine with me, it's just that at that critical point, the Nelson is not a few doors off. If the Star account is regarded as being important and it is told from the perspective of Schwartz, as we agree, this anomaly will need to be considered.

Without disparaging your theory, if Pipeman were near Hampshire Court then when Schwartz had crossed the road and was proceeding south, Pipeman was behind him and would not have been seen until Schwartz turned around in response to the sound of the argument. Furthermore, Pipeman would have been nowhere near a public house.

Disparage away, I encourage it.

Pipeman was seen as Schwartz crossed the road.

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

That doesn't seem difficult to me - he only need have looked to his left as his crosses.

As for the entrance to the court being nowhere near a public house, there was one at the other end of the court. I wouldn't call that nowhere nearby. However, I have to ask why you think this matters. There is no public house mentioned in Swanson's report, or any police correspondence that survives. A public house may be mentioned in the Star but remember that in #1221 you derided the Star for its sensationalism. If the Star is correct about the public house, was it correct about everything else, including the second man holding a knife? How should we go about determining what elements of the press account are legitimate and what parts are owing to sensationalism? By referencing against the police account, perhaps? Okay, so in that case we can forget about the doorway, and just suppose that Pipeman is on the street, somewhere.

When Schwartz heard the quarrel that prompted the cry of Lipski he was at the Fairclough intersection, and there could have been no doubt as to whom the cry was directed if Pipeman was near Hampshire Court.

So, Schwartz was correct about this, and Abberline should not have been suggesting alternatives to him.

[DJA]

Except the public house closed at midnight.

Never trust The Star!

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I’ve just got back from a cold and slightly windy 8 days in London where my friend and I spent some time trying to light pipes outside various pubs. I ended up buying a ‘windproof’ lighter which was like a flamethrower that I had to turn down to the lowest setting! I’ll take a guess that these aren’t problems that you have to deal with in Oz.

Hi Herlock,

In Oz we do have windy days that would blow a brown dog off a chain.

Diemshitz said that he lit a match that the wind immediately extinguished, and Pipeman would have had the same problem. Since he had no access to your flamethrower he would have had to resort to huddling against a wall, or doorway to reduce the wind circulation.

I think your assessment in post #1255 is spot on.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Andrew,

I am a pipe smoker, and so is Herlock. You don't try to light a pipe with matches in a breeze.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I’ve just got back from a cold and slightly windy 8 days in London where my friend and I spent some time trying to light pipes outside various pubs. I ended up buying a ‘windproof’ lighter which was like a flamethrower that I had to turn down to the lowest setting! I’ll take a guess that these aren’t problems that you have to deal with in Oz.

[DJA]

Close.