Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Yes, there was some use of Lipski by Jewish people whose family had been in the UK for a long time (or at least those who considered themselves English) as an insult towards immigrant Jews. In an earlier post I had acknowledged that (...most probably a gentile), but I got lazy in this post and overlooked that point. So thanks, I should have said that Abberline's re-interpretation tips the balance towards a gentile rather than the more conclusive phrasing that I used (...which would make B.S. a gentile,).

But either way, Schwartz's statement, as he originally gives it, directly implies a Jewish offender is involved. That is not a story designed to deflect suspicion away from the club's Jewish members - the murder happened in the club's location, and Schwartz indicates a Jewish offender is involved, that would point a line of investigation to include the club's members. It is only Abberline's reinterpretation of Schwartz's statement that can be said to divert the focus away from the club. I am sure we all agree that it would be a bit of a stretch to suggest that Abberline was working with the club to divert attention.

- Jeff

I agree that the quote of Schwartz's own interpretation suggests that he thought BSM was speaking to Pipeman, that doesnt eliminate the possibility that Pipeman was Jewish and BSM was dissing him for hanging around watching, not calling over to him.

Im debating this with you even though I do not believe that anything happened on that street in front of the gates at 12:45, beacause If as I suspect the view Israel actually had was one coming out the side door from the club, then Pipeman might just have been on the opposite side of the passageway rather than with BSM and Liz, close to the club wall. Men came out to that passageway to smoke and talk after meetings, often until past 1am. I find it less than convincing that not even one man did that on that particular night. Maybe Pipeman is that 1 man.

[Michael W Richards]

I will say this....I think its far more probable that a BSM type did kill Liz rather than a Ripper, I just wish I could accept Israels statement as is. I do know that the possibility of some people not affilated with the club might have been there that night, security was originally booked for that night when threats came in based on who was scheduled to speak that night. William Morris. Could they cancel them when Morris is cancelled, and if not, Is it possible BSM is one of those men?

[JeffHamm]

I agree that the quote of Schwartz's own interpretation suggests that he thought BSM was speaking to Pipeman, that doesnt eliminate the possibility that Pipeman was Jewish and BSM was dissing him for hanging around watching, not calling over to him.

Im debating this with you even though I do not believe that anything happened on that street in front of the gates at 12:45, beacause If as I suspect the view Israel actually had was one coming out the side door from the club, then Pipeman might just have been on the opposite side of the passageway rather than with BSM and Liz, close to the club wall. Men came out to that passageway to smoke and talk after meetings, often until past 1am. I find it less than convincing that not even one man did that on that particular night. Maybe Pipeman is that 1 man.

Hi Michael,

Sure, one could consider the idea that B.S. was dissing Pipeman, but Schwartz's account seems to imply that Pipeman wasn't easily visible (or at least he himself didn't notice Pipeman), until after Schwartz had passed B.S. If so, it seems odd that B.S. would hurl an insult at Pipeman rather than Schwartz, the latter being the one more "interfering" after all. But even if so, we have again ventured into a reinterpretation of Schwartz's original statement, where his presentation of the "intention" of B.S. is re-evaluated (as Abberline had done - and I think Schwartz probably did get that wrong).

However, my main point is that with regards to the idea that Schwartz goes to the police to provide a false story that was designed to deflect attention away from the club has to be evaluated based upon Schwartz's original statement even if we think he's got the intention wrong because that's the one he went to the police with after all. And give we agree that Schwartz initially believed B.S. was calling out/speaking to Pipeman, then the story cannot be designed to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender, and therefore does not deflect away from the club given the members were Jewish and the murder happened right on their doorstep (so to speak).

I'm not a big fan of altering the more "factual" details in testimony unless there is evidence to back it up, or the given details simply cannot work. There is nothing to indicate that Schwartz didn't simply walk down Berner's Street a bit behind B.S., as he said, so I see no reason to alter things such that he's coming out of the club side door. His statement, as told, is plausible and nothing out of the ordinary so as stated it is not suspicious or unworkable. I have no doubt some of his details will be off the mark to some extent, particularly aspects of his statement that refer to the intentions of B.S. and Pipeman (such as the shouting of Lipski as a call out to Pipeman, and Pipeman then "chasing" him). The incident between B.S. and Stride seems to have alarmed, or frightened him (he crosses the street to avoid the confrontation), and as such his interpretations of the intentions of B.S. and subsequently Pipeman will be influenced by that emotional state. As for the observable physical details, while they won't be 100% exactly right (that's never the case, we're human, and memory and language are crude forms of information retention and transfer), I see nothing to indicate that what he reports to the police is widely off the mark on those sorts of things.

I'm not saying it's wrong to explore such ideas, but for me, I find it starts to become too easy to tailor the changes in the recorded statements to suit our preconceptions rather than tailor our understanding of the events to the information we have. Some trimming, and judgement calls, are of course always necessary due to the nature of the information sources we have. I just favour as little trimming as I can manage.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

I think that 2 main points are being overlooked, 1, the introduction of BSM brings a person not from the club or its grounds onto the scene as an assilant of Strides...antisemetic calls aside for the moment, and that in and of itself is of benefit to the club. On the record prior to Israel, ONLY club attendees are near that location at that time. Secondly, we have absolutely no reason to assume that Israel Schwartz account is accurate, honest or truthful. Why? Beacuse we cannot even say for certain that he was there at all. There are no corroboratives, no verifications, no validations, and no witnesses at all that saw or heard anything Israel says he saw happening. Accepting his story because you feel it seems plausible is all well and good, but using his story to discount other stories or timings made by people we know were there, isnt so good. His story takes place just after Eagle has gone in the passageway, as Lave is in it, as Fanny is either at her door or just inside, as the young couple are on the street, and as 3 witnesses statements say they were by the dying woman,....and none of them saw him, or BSM, or Pipeman, or Liz Stride on the street. Very shaky foundations to put any faith into.

[JeffHamm]

I think that 2 main points are being overlooked, 1, the introduction of BSM brings a person not from the club or its grounds onto the scene as an assilant of Strides...antisemetic calls aside for the moment, and that in and of itself is of benefit to the club. On the record prior to Israel, ONLY club attendees are near that location at that time. Secondly, we have absolutely no reason to assume that Israel Schwartz account is accurate, honest or truthful. Why? Beacuse we cannot even say for certain that he was there at all. There are no corroboratives, no verifications, no validations, and no witnesses at all that saw or heard anything Israel says he saw happening. Accepting his story because you feel it seems plausible is all well and good, but using his story to discount other stories or timings made by people we know were there, isnt so good. His story takes place just after Eagle has gone in the passageway, as Lave is in it, as Fanny is either at her door or just inside, as the young couple are on the street, and as 3 witnesses statements say they were by the dying woman,....and none of them saw him, or BSM, or Pipeman, or Liz Stride on the street. Very shaky foundations to put any faith into.

Hi Michael,

Well, we know club members left and returned, so B.S. coming down the street and towards the club doesn't mean he wasn't going back to the club - meaning, the story, while introducing B.S., in no way introduces him in a way that would result in the police concluding that B.S. couldn't be associated with the club. Moreover, Pipeman, being outside nearby and having a pipe, could also have been a club member who stepped out for a smoke, and had been just meandering about as he did so. By Schwartz presenting a story to the police that also suggests that Pipeman, at the very least, may have been Jewish (given the name), then that story as told - be it true or not - is one that would raise, rather than lower, suspicions on the club.

That point is in no way reliant on Schwartz's tale being true, rather, it is an evaluation of what he told the police with regards to the notion that Schwartz went there with the intention of directing attention away from the club and its members. The statement he gave directly contradicts that intention because the statement as he gave it, even if it is entirely poppycock, is a story that directs attention towards a Jewish offender and therefore the club and its members where the crime occurred.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What I think is that the cart and horse she heard may have been THE cart and horse in question, but being led off to stabling in George Yard. Because as Ive stated, from my perspective I see an earlier arrival than is currently believed. And I dont recall anyone discussing getting the cart and horse out of the way when quite a few men were gathered there. Seems to me its likely that when it became crowded there someone would have thought of moving that obstacle.

If Fanny heard the horse and cart being led off to George Yard, after she locked up, why didn't she see it arrive while at her doorstep, or at least hear it during that period?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If Wess translated for Israel, as he does Tuesday for Goldstein, and the research that uncovered that Wess and Schwartz knew each other prior to that night reveals a kinship or something like it, then perhaps the details might be shaped to favour an innocent club. And maybe for good measure, a probable gentile killer.

Can you point me to that research? I'd love to read it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well, we know club members left and returned, so B.S. coming down the street and towards the club doesn't mean he wasn't going back to the club - meaning, the story, while introducing B.S., in no way introduces him in a way that would result in the police concluding that B.S. couldn't be associated with the club. Moreover, Pipeman, being outside nearby and having a pipe, could also have been a club member who stepped out for a smoke, and had been just meandering about as he did so.

The police aren't going to conclude, one way or another. Even if they did suspect he was going back to the club, there are problems in doing so. By that time the club event was well over, and most of the members and guests had gone home. There must have been very few men who left and returned that night, but we know of two, and they both attended the inquest - Wess and Eagle. I'm sure they got at least their fair share of scrutiny from the police. That would leave the police believing in an anonymous club member as BS Man, and as far as Schwartz is concerned, that might be good enough. The same might be true of Pipeman - suspect him all you like of being a club member - but if he is anonymous, his supposed ethnicity cannot be a threat to the club.

By Schwartz presenting a story to the police that also suggests that Pipeman, at the very least, may have been Jewish (given the name), then that story as told - be it true or not - is one that would raise, rather than lower, suspicions on the club.

The search for a Mr Lipski failed, so why suppose Pipeman to be Jewish at that point?

That point is in no way reliant on Schwartz's tale being true, rather, it is an evaluation of what he told the police with regards to the notion that Schwartz went there with the intention of directing attention away from the club and its members. The statement he gave directly contradicts that intention because the statement as he gave it, even if it is entirely poppycock, is a story that directs attention towards a Jewish offender and therefore the club and its members where the crime occurred.

It only directs attention towards a Jewish offender if you suppose Pipeman to be named Lipski - a notion that seems to have come from the Home Office, and then only as a possibility ...

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Well, we know club members left and returned, so B.S. coming down the street and towards the club doesn't mean he wasn't going back to the club - meaning, the story, while introducing B.S., in no way introduces him in a way that would result in the police concluding that B.S. couldn't be associated with the club. Moreover, Pipeman, being outside nearby and having a pipe, could also have been a club member who stepped out for a smoke, and had been just meandering about as he did so. By Schwartz presenting a story to the police that also suggests that Pipeman, at the very least, may have been Jewish (given the name), then that story as told - be it true or not - is one that would raise, rather than lower, suspicions on the club.

That point is in no way reliant on Schwartz's tale being true, rather, it is an evaluation of what he told the police with regards to the notion that Schwartz went there with the intention of directing attention away from the club and its members. The statement he gave directly contradicts that intention because the statement as he gave it, even if it is entirely poppycock, is a story that directs attention towards a Jewish offender and therefore the club and its members where the crime occurred.

- Jeff

You know I could see a situation where this character is said to have yelled an antisemetic remark AT Pipeman, not yelled a name TO him, but I think its really sematics a bit. The real kicker is that the man isnt from the club, which by all the other evidence available, is contrary to appearances. Thats why they needed him to come in. I personally think that Abberlines understanding of the slang being used in the area would be fairly solid, and rightly recognized that its far more likely that was something being said derogatorily to a immigrant jew by a Bigot, than it was anyone's legitimate surname.

[Michael W Richards]

If Fanny heard the horse and cart being led off to George Yard, after she locked up, why didn't she see it arrive while at her doorstep, or at least hear it during that period?

Good question, I think she wasnt at her door when it arrived, which I believe was actually shortly after PC Smith departs.

[Michael W Richards]

Can you point me to that research? I'd love to read it.

I hope Im remembering this correctly..the credit should go to where its due, but I believe it was research revealed by a long standing member and contributor here at Casebook, Debra A.

As I recall she discussed finding Israel and Wess had a prior connection from a few years earlier in Paris I think. Also, It does seem like the friend who accompanied Israel to the station that night and translated for him was Wess.

If I remember this incorrectly then apologies to Debra and to whom I should have remembered, but I do claim entitlement to an old mans occasional memory blip.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Can you point me to that research? I'd love to read it.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/general-discussion/6409-the-jewish-anarchists-of-whitechapel-spied-by-the-french-secret-police#post6409

[JeffHamm]

The police aren't going to conclude, one way or another. Even if they did suspect he was going back to the club, there are problems in doing so. By that time the club event was well over, and most of the members and guests had gone home. There must have been very few men who left and returned that night, but we know of two, and they both attended the inquest - Wess and Eagle. I'm sure they got at least their fair share of scrutiny from the police. That would leave the police believing in an anonymous club member as BS Man, and as far as Schwartz is concerned, that might be good enough. The same might be true of Pipeman - suspect him all you like of being a club member - but if he is anonymous, his supposed ethnicity cannot be a threat to the club.

Well, let's hope they wouldn't conclude, as that would be unwarrented at the time of Schwartz's statement. However, Schwartz's statement would open a line of inquiry, one of which would be to further investigate the club and it's members. And given the club's members were Jewish, the suggestion that one of the offenders might have been Jewish, would indeed pose a threat to the club (in the sense that the club becomes an obvious place to investigate).

The search for a Mr Lipski failed, so why suppose Pipeman to be Jewish at that point?

The search of the Lipski families took awhile to complete. By the end of the search, the police may have ended up thinking that line of inquiry was getting them nowhere. Also, given Abberline's idea that Lipski wasn't even shouted at Pipeman, he at least probably had doubts that such a search would produce anything in the first place. Today, most people tend to presume that Abberline's explanation was correct, but that's not the point. When examining Schwartz's statement, if we want to understand Schwartz's intentions, we have to examine what Schwartz believed, even if we think Schwartz was wrong in his beliefs.

It only directs attention towards a Jewish offender if you suppose Pipeman to be named Lipski - a notion that seems to have come from the Home Office, and then only as a possibility ...

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.

Showing how that notion is not particularly difficult to come up with. Given the police were already searching for the Lipski families in the area, clearly the police thought of that too, and Schwartz himself seems to originally have had the same notion. The above demonstrates how easily it is for Schwartz's statement to be viewed as suggesting a Jewish offender was involved, which in turn would place the club and its members under scrutiny.

Remember, I'm not arguing that Schwartz was correct! I tend to think Abberline's explanation makes more sense, and it appears that by the end of the interview, Schwartz also thought Abberline's explanation was plausible (hence he no longer could say who Lipski was shouted to/at). But what I believe isn't the topic here, it's what Schwartz believed and the implications of his belief.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

You know I could see a situation where this character is said to have yelled an antisemetic remark AT Pipeman, not yelled a name TO him, but I think its really sematics a bit. The real kicker is that the man isnt from the club, which by all the other evidence available, is contrary to appearances. Thats why they needed him to come in. I personally think that Abberlines understanding of the slang being used in the area would be fairly solid, and rightly recognized that its far more likely that was something being said derogatorily to a immigrant jew by a Bigot, than it was anyone's legitimate surname.

Well, we don't know who Pipeman was, so we can't really be sure he wasn't from the club. I suspect he wasn't, but I can't say for certain he wasn't given we don't know who he was in the first place.

Regardless of that, though, I agree. I think Schwartz got it wrong, and Lipski was shouted at him as an insult. But it is Schwartz's initial belief that tells us about his intentions of giving his statement. And given Schwartz's belief that Lipski was shouted to Pipeman, sparking a search of the Lipski families in the area by the police, then we can be pretty sure Schwartz's intention was not to direct police away from Jewish offenders, which in turn, places the club and its members under potential police interest.

Given Schwartz was probably wrong, though, leads based upon Schwartz's interpretation of the events would go nowhere, as indeed appears to be the case in the search of the Lipski families.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...olice#post6409

Thanks ABE. I have read many of Maria's posts while reading old threads. In the first of this one she says ...

I've just finished going through the French Secret Police reports on the Whitechapel Jewish anarchists having survived in Paris (at the Archives Nationales and at the Archives of the Paris Police Museum), and I've got some interesting information pertaining to a Jewish/Polish/Hungarian anarchist named Schwartz, connected to William Wess in 1902-1905. The Schwartz connection requires additional research and will be discussed in a future publication ...

So, where is that publication?

Later down, she says ...

One additional problem is that the Paris Archives Nationales have LOST the one document which stated that the anarchist in question spoke both Polish and Hungarian. It appears that this file (along some other files) got misplaced during the process of the Archives Nationales making copies for me a few months ago (an incident which has happened before with other sources in Paris, I must add). I've gone through the relevant 2 boxes of reports thrice and was unable to re-locate the document in question. Very unfortunately I haven't shot pics of these early spy reports, as at the time my (shitty) camera was at the repairs shop.

That is unfortunate, but what happened later, I wonder? Did Maria's dog eat her photocopies?