Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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,

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As suggested, if Schwartz's initial Lemam St statement did not match Abberline's report in terms of essentials, and Swanson's report was an attempt to "put the best foot forward", it makes perfect sense. Very kind of Donald to leave us that very big hint, though.

George's excellent question regarding the order of events - initial statement, Star interview, and Abberline interview, at a stroke answers my question as to what Anderson was going on about in referring to "the alleged accomplice". There was no subsequent statement in which Schwartz made that claim. Rather, it was in reference to Schwartz's initial police statement to the duty manager. As Anderson's reference sounds very like what we see in the Star, with the 2nd man calling a warning to the 1st man and rushing at Schwartz with a knife, we could suppose that the initial police statement refers to Knifeman, not Pipeman. When the contradiction between the initial statement and Abberline's report became evident to the police at Leman St, doubts arose.

It all fits neatly together, and it becomes evident that the notion that the police believed Schwartz, either generally or exclusively speaking, is false.

As ever you are trying to push an agenda. The Swanson Synthesis and the Abberline report are essentially the same in detail. Pipeman was without a shadow of a doubt on the east side of Berner Street and Schwartz saw him from across the road. The only point that we can’t explain is the pipe/knife thing. Maybe it’s possible that this man was first lighting his pipe and then as the incident occurred he took out a knife (some men carried knives for protection) and this caused confusion in translation unless the translation error occurred without the actual presence of a knife. I think that we also have to bear in mind the police vs press issue. Who would we trust to give an accurate account? Who was trying to sell newspapers? Who benefitted from a more sensational version of events?

That the officers in charge of the case believed Schwartz is proven beyond all doubt and is only ever questioned when someone is trying to press a theory. All of this endlessly revolving farce around Berner Street originates from one entirely unimportant point - that, in one version, Fanny Mortimer said that she went onto her doorstep just before 12.45 and Isreal Schwartz said that he’d seen the incident at 12.45. Instant conspiracy fodder - whoopie! If anyone believes that this is a problem then, by definition, they cannot accept the fact that all clocks and watches weren’t synchronised. That the event occurred unseen and unheard isn’t worthy of a sentence of debate. The witness tells us that not much noise was heard. And yet 136 years later you second guess him with no reason or evidence for doing so.

Let’s not forget..the police at the time had the facts that we have and much more and do we have one single police officer at any time in any report say or hint that they didn’t believe that Schwartz was there? No, not once. Do we think that they didn’t spot this alleged clash of times? Of course not. The saw it, investigated it, and came to the calm, common sense and very obvious conclusion that the Schwartz incident simply occurred with no one seeing it or hearing it. Perhaps we should again remind ourselves of all of the information, interviews, reports etc that we aren’t privy too. That none of us sat in front of Israel Schwartz and heard the full interview. Fred Abberline did.

Short of a few details which we are never going to know, we know what occurred in Berner Street. BSMan walked along Berner Street with Schwartz behind him. The incident occurred. Schwartz crossed the road to avoid them and saw Pipeman. BSMan called out ‘Lipski’ but Schwartz couldn’t be sure who to. Schwartz went down Fairclough Street believing that Pipeman was following him (or just going the same way) He looked and saw no one following him which makes it possible that Pipeman lived in Fairclough Street or he ducked into a doorway.

[GBinOz]

When Schwartz stepped from the kerb, there was no doorway a few doors off. There is no mention of this doorway in the police account. Which account do we prefer? Home Office correspondence suggests it was universally understood that all references to the "opposite side of the street" refer to opposite the gateway.

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

Home Office memo: It does not appear whether the man used the word "Lipski" as a mere ejaculation, meaning in mockery I am going to "Lipski" the woman, or whether he was calling to a man across the road by his proper name. In the latter case, assuming that the man using the word was the murderer, the murderer must have an acquaintance in Whitechapel named Lipski.

The man who called Lipski, did so to a man across the road. It cannot reasonably be supposed that this means he was calling to a man on the same side of the road.

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.


The police account says that when Schwartz first sees Pipeman, he is lighting his pipe. Was Pipeman sheltering in the doorway to light his pipe, or stepping forward from it and lighting his pipe at the same time? I await your response, but I think it fair to point out now that the former of these two scenarios has been suggested by many members. Now that I have pointed out the BS/Pipeman line-of-vision problem, we suddenly have Pipeman forgoing the supposed shelter of the doorway, for a better view of the action.

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.

In the press account, it is clearly Schwartz intruding on the man with the woman, and Knifeman is seemingly alerting BS to Schwartz's presence. Why on earth Knifeman behaves in this manner given that BS has entered the street alone, is beyond my imagination, but I think Schwartz was attempting to portray the two men as being known to each other. This was of course walked back when Schwartz spoke to Abberline.

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.

As I now believe that Schwartz changed his story, my theory of what happened versus what I think Schwartz was trying to convey on each occasion, doesn't necessarily line up. However, I'll say that Pipeman was to the north-east of Schwartz when Schwartz is at the gateway, and the initial following is south to Fairclough, then ... it depends on why Schwartz crossed the road. As far as I know, there were few if any residences on the east side of Berner, south of Fairclough. Therefore, Schwartz's reason for crossing the road, having already reached the gateway, is a mystery. Had he been living in Berner St, as per the Star report, he should have just continued south on Berner, remaining on the west/club side.

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

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi RD,

There were three cut throat murders on this night, and there were three interviews quoted by The Evening News on 1 Oct that are purported to be of the same woman. Did The Evening News commit three reporters to this one event? If you read the three different interviews, do they contain sufficient consistencies to have been three reporters interviewing the same person?

Every person in the street was interviewed after the murders, but none of the door stoop snoopers were called to the inquest. Why not? Did they tell police that nothing unusual happened that night, and those who saw the Schwartz incident thought it was just a quarrel between man and wife, and therefore nothing out of the ordinary?

I suspect that people tend to be more sober in their interviews with police than when being interviewed by the popular press.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

The Star account was quite different to Swanson's statement, but both confirm that Schwartz was on the eastern side of the road. The Star account contains the following:

"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 Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings".

When Schwartz stepped from the kerb, there was no doorway a few doors off. There is no mention of this doorway in the police account. Which account do we prefer? Home Office correspondence suggests it was universally understood that all references to the "opposite side of the street" refer to opposite the gateway.

Home Office memo: It does not appear whether the man used the word "Lipski" as a mere ejaculation, meaning in mockery I am going to "Lipski" the woman, or whether he was calling to a man across the road by his proper name. In the latter case, assuming that the man using the word was the murderer, the murderer must have an acquaintance in Whitechapel named Lipski.

The man who called Lipski, did so to a man across the road. It cannot reasonably be supposed that this means he was calling to a man on the same side of the road.

So, to address your later post, Pipeman stepped out of the doorway when he also heard the sound of the quarrel that attracted Schwartz's attention, and would have been as visible as Schwartz. Who do you consider to have been "the intruder"? Considering that in this version Pipeman was shouting a warning to (or at?) BSman and he "rushed forward" rather than "lurched at" the said intruder, it seems that Pipeman was headed towards BSman rather than following Schwartz, contrary to his other accounts.

The police account says that when Schwartz first sees Pipeman, he is lighting his pipe. Was Pipeman sheltering in the doorway to light his pipe, or stepping forward from it and lighting his pipe at the same time? I await your response, but I think it fair to point out now that the former of these two scenarios has been suggested by many members. Now that I have pointed out the BS/Pipeman line-of-vision problem, we suddenly have Pipeman forgoing the supposed shelter of the doorway, for a better view of the action.

In the press account, it is clearly Schwartz intruding on the man with the woman, and Knifeman is seemingly alerting BS to Schwartz's presence. Why on earth Knifeman behaves in this manner given that BS has entered the street alone, is beyond my imagination, but I think Schwartz was attempting to portray the two men as being known to each other. This was of course walked back when Schwartz spoke to Abberline.

In your theory, if Pipeman was on the eastern side of the street, did Pipeman step into view after Schwartz had passed him, or did he run away towards Pipeman?

As I now believe that Schwartz changed his story, my theory of what happened versus what I think Schwartz was trying to convey on each occasion, doesn't necessarily line up. However, I'll say that Pipeman was to the north-east of Schwartz when Schwartz is at the gateway, and the initial following is south to Fairclough, then ... it depends on why Schwartz crossed the road. As far as I know, there were few if any residences on the east side of Berner, south of Fairclough. Therefore, Schwartz's reason for crossing the road, having already reached the gateway, is a mystery. Had he been living in Berner St, as per the Star report, he should have just continued south on Berner, remaining on the west/club side.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If the police report existed, then there was no cause to begin the sentence with a question.

As suggested, if Schwartz's initial Lemam St statement did not match Abberline's report in terms of essentials, and Swanson's report was an attempt to "put the best foot forward", it makes perfect sense. Very kind of Donald to leave us that very big hint, though.

George's excellent question regarding the order of events - initial statement, Star interview, and Abberline interview, at a stroke answers my question as to what Anderson was going on about in referring to "the alleged accomplice". There was no subsequent statement in which Schwartz made that claim. Rather, it was in reference to Schwartz's initial police statement to the duty manager. As Anderson's reference sounds very like what we see in the Star, with the 2nd man calling a warning to the 1st man and rushing at Schwartz with a knife, we could suppose that the initial police statement refers to Knifeman, not Pipeman. When the contradiction between the initial statement and Abberline's report became evident to the police at Leman St, doubts arose.

It all fits neatly together, and it becomes evident that the notion that the police believed Schwartz, either generally or exclusively speaking, is false.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

I don't know how you conclude from this that the Schwartz incident couldn't have happened after Fanny was at her door, or that she couldn't have been at her door before 12:47.

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.

[Lewis C]

Interesting how Mortimer's door is approximately the same distance from the yard, as the Nelson beer house.

Mortimer's bedroom at the front of the house is even closer.

Her door can be seen at the far right of the photo.



Mortimer would have had a perfect view of anyone standing on the opposite side of the road directly across from the yard; ergo, where PC Smith saw Stride with Parcel man talking quietly.

So at least we can be assured Mortimer wasn't at her door when Stride was talking to Parcelman and saw nobody enter the yard, meaning she also wasn't there when Stride walked across the road at some point.

Mortimer also wasn't there when Schwartz or Pipeman were there

Or when Eagle went into the yard

Or when Lave went into the yard.

But she did see Goldstein

Which means that Goldstein had to have passed when none of the above were in the street.

Based on all the above Mortimer couldn't have been at her door until AFTER all the above had gone, ergo, from 12.47am.

That means that the person who she heard pass her door is likely to have witnessed the assault on Stride.

...

Unless of course, Parcelman didn't exist, Smith was a bent copper and Stride was an informant, and Smith killed her and Schwartz was paid and sent in to make up a story...blah blah blah

Haha!

Half joking of course.

Hi RD,

I don't know how you conclude from this that the Schwartz incident couldn't have happened after Fanny was at her door, or that she couldn't have been at her door before 12:47.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From a report by Abberline, dated November 1:

I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.
I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.
There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.
Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.
A house to house inquiry was made in Berner Street with a view to ascertain whether any person was seen acting suspiciously or any noise heard on the night in question but without result.
Inquiries have also been made in the neighbourhood but no person named Lipski could be found.

A few points.

Schwartz said he stopped to watch.

No, a month or so later Abberline said Schwartz had stopped to look. Schwartz might have simply said that he stopped because the man in front of him stopped, blocking the narrow pavement. Stopping would have been to be expected. Then as the incident begin Schwartz, as per his statement, crossed the road to avoid the incident. The stop would have been a natural hesitation but no doubt you’ll want to frame it as Schwartz pulling up a chair and then pulling out a flask of tea and sandwiches

He did not cross the road prior, to avoid the incident. From Swanson's report we know that he stopped at the gateway. As Schwartz claimed (according to the Star) to have been living on Berner St, what was his purpose in crossing? Were there any residences on the east side of Berner St, south of Fairclough St?

There is nothing here to suggest that he didn’t cross over. You’ve invented that.

More specifically, Schwartz stopped to look at the man. In 1903, Abberline seems to suppose that witnesses to JtR only saw him from behind. What does that suggest?

Different witness?

The man was ill-using the woman. A minor street hassle? I don't think so.

No reason for you to deduce that apart from agenda.

The only other person seen on the street was opposite to where Schwartz had stopped to watch the man ill-using the woman. Ergo, that person was on the board school side. The notion of a man standing at the doorway of the Nelson to light his pipe, would therefore seem to be incorrect.

Baffling how you’ve managed to arrive at that. But you’re clearly wrong. Pipeman was on the same side as the club.


It is still unclear to Abberline why the man with the pipe ran in Schwartz's direction. Had Pipeman been identified by the police, his reason for running would have been determined. Ergo, Pipeman has not been identified as of Nov 1.

Why? Abberline was talking about Pipeman’s actions from Schwartz viewpoint.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Abberline statement and the Swanson synthesis don’t contradict each other. There is no mystery here. Only invented ones.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For Schwartz to have believed that 'Lipski' was called to Pipeman (rather than himself), implies that the broad-shouldered man must be able to see Pipeman. For those who believe that Pipeman was sheltering in the doorway of the Nelson public house to light his pipe, please explain how the man at the gateway has line-of-sight vision of him.



On that dark street and in the heat of the moment, he is hardly likely to notice Pipeman's presence. At best he might see his left elbow.

So, Pipeman must have been across the street, relative to the gateway. What then, is the 1st man's purpose in calling out to him? Why does he then follow Schwartz and then run in his direction? It makes little sense. Had Schwartz been the perpetrator of a crime, and the 1st man was alerting the 2nd man to that crime, his reason for running in Schwartz's direction becomes obvious.

A distance of just 20 feet or so. Pipeman stepping out from the doorway. BSMan on the pavement. Yet again you see a problem which doesn’t exist. They couldn’t have missed each other.

[The Rookie Detective]

Interesting how Mortimer's door is approximately the same distance from the yard, as the Nelson beer house.

Mortimer's bedroom at the front of the house is even closer.

Her door can be seen at the far right of the photo.



Mortimer would have had a perfect view of anyone standing on the opposite side of the road directly across from the yard; ergo, where PC Smith saw Stride with Parcel man talking quietly.

So at least we can be assured Mortimer wasn't at her door when Stride was talking to Parcelman and saw nobody enter the yard, meaning she also wasn't there when Stride walked across the road at some point.

Mortimer also wasn't there when Schwartz or Pipeman were there

Or when Eagle went into the yard

Or when Lave went into the yard.

But she did see Goldstein

Which means that Goldstein had to have passed when none of the above were in the street.

Based on all the above Mortimer couldn't have been at her door until AFTER all the above had gone, ergo, from 12.47am.

That means that the person who she heard pass her door is likely to have witnessed the assault on Stride.

...

Unless of course, Parcelman didn't exist, Smith was a bent copper and Stride was an informant, and Smith killed her and Schwartz was paid and sent in to make up a story...blah blah blah

Haha!

Half joking of course.

[GBinOz]

Perhaps Schwartz did not take the press interview completely seriously. Hence a man with a knife instead of a pipe. I think, though, that what we see in the Star account is more interesting than a simple falsehood attributable to either Schwartz or the paper. In the Star account, the first man is much milder. There is no throwing down of the woman and no Lipski call. On the contrary it is the second man doing the calling out. He also lurches at "the intruder" with a knife, causing Schwartz to flee. It's almost as though he (the 2nd man) is the real bad guy, and the 1st man is just a bit of an arsehole. This is in striking contrast to the police account, where the 1st man is a violent, probably antisemitic thug, and the 2nd man is an innocent bystander who seemingly gets scared.

Hi Andrew,

The Star account was quite different to Swanson's statement, but both confirm that Schwartz was on the eastern side of the road. The Star account contains the following:

"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 Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings".

So, to address your later post, Pipeman stepped out of the doorway when he also heard the sound of the quarrel that attracted Schwartz's attention, and would have been as visible as Schwartz. Who do you consider to have been "the intruder"? Considering that in this version Pipeman was shouting a warning to (or at?) BSman and he "rushed forward" rather than "lurched at" the said intruder, it seems that Pipeman was headed towards BSman rather than following Schwartz, contrary to his other accounts.

In your theory, if Pipeman was on the eastern side of the street, did Pipeman step into view after Schwartz had passed him, or did he run away towards Pipeman?

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Was Swanson's report meant to give the best possible impression to the Home Office, as to how the investigation was preceding?

If yes, then Swanson's comments could be interpreted as meaning that an exclusive focus on the (existing) police report would give no reason to doubt Schwartz.

If the police report existed, then there was no cause to begin the sentence with a question.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Your question about the correct sequence is a good one, because the accuracy of the Star account will seem to be less if Schwartz speaks to Abberline subsequently. That is because we would seemingly have Schwartz telling a Pipeman story (to the duty manager), then a Knifeman story (to the Star), and then back to Pipeman (to Abberline).

This contains the implicit assumption that the statement given to the duty manager matched what Schwartz told Abberline, in terms of essentials. Had there been a significant mismatch, the Leman St police would have reason to doubt the truth of the story.