Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which side of the road was Pipeman on?


In the Swanson version we have Schwartz seeing Pipeman: “On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. 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…”


Of course this isn’t the most helpfully worded piece of descriptive writing but it’s what we have. So was Pipeman ‘on the opposite side of the road..’to BSMan or to Schwartz? A case has been made for both sides but I’m confident that the stronger argument is that Pipeman was on the club side of the road. One small point is that if Pipeman was on the opposite side of the club why would Schwartz only have seen him ‘on crossing…’ ‘Surely he couldn’t have failed to see him by simply looking straight ahead and before he’d even stepped from the pavement?

The clincher for me though is that if BSMan called out to the ‘man on the opposite’ then it’s clearly being stated that there was only one man on that side of the road. Therefore Schwartz and Pipeman must have been on opposite sides of the road.


In The Star version we get: “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 ‘public house’ was clearly The Nelson beer house on the corner. So for me both versions clearly align on this point. At the moment that BSMan called out “Lipski” Schwartz was across the road and Pipeman was on the club side.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the man was using the doorway as a shelter, he would be mostly or totally invisible to BS man.

If you look at the doorways in question you will see that they are only indented from the pavement by a very few inches. Not enough to provide any concealment for a man but enough perhaps to provide a break against the wind to allow a pipe but be lit or re-lit.

[The Rookie Detective]

I doubt that the footsteps that Fanny heard before she went to the door were those of Goldstein. If they had been, surely she would have known that the footsteps she heard weren't those of a policeman.

Your argument for Mortimer not being at her door prior to 12:47 seems to be based on the assumption that the Schwartz incident occurred at precisely 12:45. However, we don't know that. Maybe it occurred at 12:41, and she came to her door at 12:43. Or maybe she came to her door at 12:41, closed the door at 12:50, and the Schwartz incident happened after that. There are other possibilities too.

I thought Mortimer never mentioned about hearing the sound of a man walk past her door and that it was written in the 3rd person by a newspaper reporter.

She does however state herself about sering a man walk down Berner St with a black bag.

My suggestion is that the reporter attempted to combine Mortimer's sighting, with the sound of the man passing by her door, but incorrectly suggests himself that it was a Policeman.

In other words, because Mortimer didn't say about a Policeman passing her door, the reporter has assumed she meant a policeman, when she may have meant she heard someone walking past, went to her door and then saw the man with the bag.

I am suggesting it was all one sequence.

She goes to lock her door to go to bed, but hears someone walk past her door. Being a curious neighbour she then immediately opens her door and looks out to see a man walking hurriedly with a black bag.

The difference in pace is then significant because there's a change between "measured" footsteps to walking "hurriedly"...ergo, once Mortimer opens her door, there's a change of pace from Goldstein.

The clue being that at no point does Mortimer mention a Policeman.
The confusion being that the sequence is fragmented and the footsteps heard are never associated with Goldstein

[DJA]

Hence "priori incredible".

[GBinOz]

We are told that when Schwartz first sees Pipeman, the man is lighting his pipe. If the man was using the doorway as a shelter, he would be mostly or totally invisible to BS man. For Schwartz to have supposed Lipski was called at Pipeman, means that Pipeman was visible to BS, or we need to make the heroic assumption that Schwartz didn't have the nous to realize that the two men were not visible to each other.

I find myself at a loss to understand how this is changing the story. When Schwartz was within a couple of yards of the Fairclough intersection he would have had an uninterrupted view of the doorway of the Nelson, an Pipeman sheltering there to light his pipe. As the noise of a quarrel attracted Schwartz's attention, and he turned to see what was happeneing, Pipeman also heard the noise of the quarrel and stepped out to gain a view of what was happening. At that time both Schwartz and Pipemn would have been visible to BSman, but it would be difficult to determine at whom a shout might have been directed.

The whole thing? Is that why the Star editorial says...?

...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.

What did Schwartz tell the police, when he first arrived at the station?

Hi Andrew,

I submit that contrary to the Star report, in the incident described by Schwartz, no-one was seen butchered while another man watched. Press sensationalisation. Schwartz saw what he thought was a domestic.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

Ah, allow me to rephrase my statement.


I meant to say that Mortimer couldn't have been at her door BEFORE 12.47am, because she didn't see, Letchford, Smith, Stride, Parcelman, Lave, Eagle, Bs Man, Schwartz or Pipeman.

All of the above were in the street BEFORE 12.47am.

Which means that Goldstein had to have walked down Berner Street AFTER 12.47am.


Mortimer heard 1 man walk past her door, if she came to her door immediately afterwards, then it was Goldstein who she heard and as she opened her door, he hurriedly increased his pace and she saw him just as he glimpsed up towards the club.

That is consistent with the time between her hearing him, to the point she saw him.

Note that he doesn't see her, which means he was already past her door when she saw him.

Sturdy may have been already dead in the dark of the yard, but Mortimer couldn't have been at her door prior to everyone else (excluding Goldstein) being in the street.

If she was there any earlier, then she would have heard or seen the assault on Stride IF it happened.

I doubt that the footsteps that Fanny heard before she went to the door were those of Goldstein. If they had been, surely she would have known that the footsteps she heard weren't those of a policeman.

Your argument for Mortimer not being at her door prior to 12:47 seems to be based on the assumption that the Schwartz incident occurred at precisely 12:45. However, we don't know that. Maybe it occurred at 12:41, and she came to her door at 12:43. Or maybe she came to her door at 12:41, closed the door at 12:50, and the Schwartz incident happened after that. There are other possibilities too.

[DJA]

Anyone who persists in quoting The Star is "suss".

[NotBlamedForNothing]

BS Man returns and pulls Stride out of the lane and leaves after yelling "Lips,see!"

Sutton slips out the front door and into the dark lane.

He holds out cachous,medicine for her lips,on white tissues which were just visible in the dark.

Or was it Sutton who yelled, after getting into an argument with Stride over the best treatment? She insisted on using cachous, but he wanted her to start using his "lips cream!".

[NotBlamedForNothing]

WADR, the reference is to Schwartz's perspective after he had crossed the street.

To be precise, as he was stepping off the kerb (onto Fairclough St). There is no public house a few doors off from that point.

I cannot see what difference it makes as to which side of the street he was on, but am resolute that Pipeman was on the north western corner of the intersection of Berner and Fairclough.

As you say, the Star account is from Schwartz's perspective. Those who accept the Nelson was the public house in question, should think about that. In contrast, the police account is a scene perspective. The opposite side of the street has a fixed relationship to the gateway. The incident at the gateway is the primary concern of the police, not Schwartz. The man across the road from the man calling 'Lipski', was ... across the road from the man calling 'Lipski'.

The difference it makes concerns how similar the accounts we have are, and therefore how confident we can be as to Pipeman's location. More below.

Pipeman was sheltering in the doorway lighting his pipe when Schwartz first spotted him. He emerged in response to the same sounds of the quarrel that prompted Schwartz to turn to see what was the matter. At that stage Schwartz and Pipeman were on the opposite corners, both about equidistant from BSman and both clearly visible.

This is changing the story. We are told that when Schwartz first sees Pipeman, the man is lighting his pipe. If the man was using the doorway as a shelter, he would be mostly or totally invisible to BS man. For Schwartz to have supposed Lipski was called at Pipeman, means that Pipeman was visible to BS, or we need to make the heroic assumption that Schwartz didn't have the nous to realize that the two men were not visible to each other.

Now having said that, I'll add that I accept everyone's right to change the story to smooth off the rough edges.

WADR, I think that Pipeman emerged from the doorway to see a man with a woman in distress and another man attempting to leave the scene. I don't believe that he had sufficient information at that stage to determine who had attacked whom. Schwartz's conflicting stories do not assist us in this regard.

This scenario could be the basis for the Echo report. I appreciate your willingness to consider that report and not sweep it under the carpet. The Star tells us that the 2nd man shouted some sort of warning to the 1st man. If Pipeman did not have enough understanding of the situation at that point, what are we to make of this, especially given Schwartz's lack of English?

Hi Andrew,

There is no doubt that Schwartz changed his story. Why, we don't know, but perhaps he was trying to look less cowardly?

Interesting that you place Pipeman to the north east of Schwartz. This would have him perhaps in the region of the Hampshire Ct passageway. That would be an alternative if not for the designation that he was outside a public house.

As always, I appreciate your out of the box thinking, even if I find myself unpersuaded.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

Not only why but when did he change his story, is a crucial question. Consider the following.

The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.

What if this is the truth?

It is, in fact, to the effect that he saw the whole thing.

The whole thing? Is that why the Star editorial says...?

...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.

What did Schwartz tell the police, when he first arrived at the station?

As for Pipeman being near Hampshire Court passageway, I've explained several times why I think that is compatible with the Star account.

Coroner: Was she on the pavement?
Smith: Yes, a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.

So, Stride and Parcelman stood near enough to the entrance to Hampshire Court. I think this is no coincidence.

[FISHY1118]

A theory .

[Sunny Delight]

Reckon BS Man was muscle from a well known gang close to The Bricklayers Arms.

Stride was to meet with JtR/Sutton in the lane sometime after 11.30pm.

BS Man left,doubting he would be paid from any blackmail money.Let's face it,Sutton was watching from upstairs,waiting for him to leave.

BS Man returns and pulls Stride out of the lane and leaves after yelling "Lips,see!"

Sutton slips out the front door and into the dark lane.

He holds out cachous,medicine for her lips,on white tissues which were just visible in the dark.

Liz picks them out of his outstretched palm and Sutton knows where she is and attacks.

His method of attack has been described several years ago by Prosector.

Forget Schwartz and Hagens.

The identity of BS Man is important and what he was doing with Stride loitering near the club.

Is this for real?

[DJA]

Pipe knife.

[DJA]

Reckon BS Man was muscle from a well known gang close to The Bricklayers Arms.

Stride was to meet with JtR/Sutton in the lane sometime after 11.30pm.

BS Man left,doubting he would be paid from any blackmail money.Let's face it,Sutton was watching from upstairs,waiting for him to leave.

BS Man returns and pulls Stride out of the lane and leaves after yelling "Lips,see!"

Sutton slips out the front door and into the dark lane.

He holds out cachous,medicine for her lips,on white tissues which were just visible in the dark.

Liz picks them out of his outstretched palm and Sutton knows where she is and attacks.

His method of attack has been described several years ago by Prosector.

Forget Schwartz and Hagens.

The identity of BS Man is important and what he was doing with Stride loitering near the club.

[DJA]

Why did Schwartz cross the road?

Because he was chicken

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Don't you think that the difference between the Swanson synthesis and The Star article might be down to translation? I’d have thought it unlikely that the same interpreter was used and so this would appear to be fertile ground for translation errors. I’d have thought it unlikely that The Star would have retained a Hungarian interpreter? There’s also the question of incentive. A bit of added sensationalism would certainly have helped to sell a few more papers.

Schwartz saw this incident in passing with an increasing desire on his part to be elsewhere so I’m wondering if the reporter might have said something like..

“you say that you saw him light his pipe and then you looked again and it was in his hand as he called to the attacker. Can you be sure that this wasn’t a knife?”

”well…it could have been a knife I suppose, I wasn’t looking closely and I assumed that it was the pipe that he’d just lit.”

” perhaps he was trying to frighten the attacker off by waving a knife at him?”

”it’s possible. It could have been a knife.”

That kind of thing. Speculation of course.

Hi Herlock,

I agree that translation probably played a substantial part in the disparity between reports. Many years ago I read a post that suggested that there was an acoustical similarity between the word for a smoking pipe and a knife in the language that was being translated. It is also the case that statements to the police are usually more guarded than those to the popular press. Looking at your posts, there doesn't seem to be significant differences in our viewpoints of what happened.

Cheers, George