Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That would be consistent with Schwartz's story still being investigated, as I believe was what Swanson was actually saying in his report.

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.

[JeffHamm]

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.

No, for Schwartz to believe that B.S. called to Pipeman only requires that Schwartz did not think "Lipski" was shouted at himself, and as Schwartz was aware of Pipeman, his natural assumption is that B.S. must be calling to him, and therefore Schwartz would also end up believing that B.S. was aware of Pipeman's presence. There is no need for B.S. to be able to see Pipeman, and in fact, if he couldn't then that would all the more convince Schwartz that B.S. and Pipeman were working together (how else would B.S. know of Pipeman's presence after all).

What matters is Schwartz's beliefs, not the accuracy of his beliefs. How he interprets all of these actions are entirely based upon what he believes the relationship was between B.S. and Pipeman, which in turn stem from his belief that "Lipski" was not shouted at himself. And taken as a whole, his statement indicates that he was, at least at the time, of the belief that B.S. and Pipeman were known to each other, and that their locations were known to each other, and they were working as a team of some sort (probably he believed they were a couple of thugs ruffing up people to rob them, although those sorts of things are not recorded for us to know, so that's just one idea).

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.

Making it all the more reasonable for Schwartz to presume B.S. already know Pipeman was in that location, given Schwartz believed (probably erroneously) that B.S. had not shouted Lipski at him but to the only other male Schwartz saw, namely Pipeman.

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.

No, because the premise that Schwartz could only believe that Pipeman was the intended recipient of the "Lipski" shout if B.S. could see Pipeman is false. And in fact, if Pipeman was indeed out of B.S.'s line of sight then it would make Schwartz all the more concerned that Pipeman and B.S. were working together.

All of Schwartz's "train of thought" that would follow once he believed Lipski was not for him but for this other fellow are simple to follow, and line up with the information we have. It doesn't make Schwartz's belief's accurate, though, as Abberline points out. And it seems that once Abberline pointed this out to Schwartz (through questioning him), Schwartz may have accepted that he could have been mistaken.

But still, that doesn't change the fact that at the time of the event there is no need for B.S. to be able to see Pipeman in order for Schwartz to believe that B.S. called to Pipeman. Humans are, after all, able to realise that someone can call to a person they cannot see - and if they do, then we realise that the caller must be aware of the other person's presence.

Of course, if Schwartz was incorrect in his belief, and Lipski was shouted at him and not Pipeman, then yes, it is quite probable that B.S. was just as surprised as Schwartz to see Pipeman emerge. But that's B.S.'s beliefs, not Schwartz's.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

I would firstly like to say that your arguments regarding Pipeman not being identified are quite reasonable.

I think I have a correct sequence in Schwartz reporting to Leman St PS via interpreter, then giving the interview, via interpreter, to The Star, and subsequently being questioned by Abberline.

I'm not sure when Abberline spoke to Schwartz. Was it before or after the Star interview? I've always assumed he gave his statement to someone like the duty manager at Leman St, who thought it important enough that Abberline was called in immediately. Perhaps Abberline was already at the station, conducting investigations and interviewing other witnesses.

Does your theory discard the Star interview entirely, apart from the comment regarding Schwartz's living arrangements?

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).

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.

Why the sudden change in the behaviour of the two men, in an otherwise similar story? I also think that the Star account is much closer to Anderson's reference to "the alleged accomplice", than the police account. We seem to be missing key elements of the puzzle.

I'm not clear on some of the details of your theory.
1. Where do you see Schwartz standing when he stopped to watch the incident, on the north side of the gateway facing the incident, or the south side of the gateway having passed the couple and turning around to watch the incident?

I envisage Schwartz catching up to the man as they walk down the street, with both men reaching the gateway at almost the same moment. I don't really have an opinion on Schwartz being a yard or two north or south of the man, however, had Schwartz started to overtake, BS cannot avoid seeing him. Having Schwartz almost in touching distance of either or both the man and woman while their interaction occurs, without becoming part of the incident, is something that stretches my imagination to near breaking point.

2. Swanson's report says that Schwartz crossed the street and saw Pipeman and THEN BSman shouted "Lipski". Abberline appears to suggest the shout of "Lipski" occurred when Schwartz stopped in the gateway to watch the incident, but that doesn't make sense. If Schwartz was that close to BSman, how could there be confusion as to whether the cry of "Lipski" was directed at Schwartz, who was only a yard away, or at Pipeman who was on the opposite side of the road?

I am of the opinion that when Abberline commented on the shout of Lipski, "I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman", he was referring to Schwartz stopping at the Fairclough intersection to look back at the man he had previously seen "ill-using the deceased woman". I also think that Abberline just overlooked mentioning that Schwartz had crossed the road as stated by both Swanson and The Star interview.

I don't think Abbeline's letter should be read so as to change the order of events from Swanson's summary, as it more concerns the Lipski issue. So, yes, Abberline has just left that detail out. Including it probably would have made his belief that Lipski was called to Schwartz, better understood.

[Lewis C]

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?

I wasn't aware that Abberline supposed that. I believe that the only witnesses that we know of that saw someone that might have been JtR, but only from behind, are Elizabeth Long and James Brown. So what it would suggest regarding this topic is that he didn't think that BS man was the Ripper. This doesn't fit with Abberline's statement about the peaked cap, because Schwartz' man wore one, as did Lawende's man, and both were seen from the front.

[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. 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?

Firstly, I’d be wary phrasing. ‘Stopped to look’ can be a bit of a throwaway phrase when there is an assumption being made. That said, even if Schwartz stopped at some point it’s likely to have been just as the incident occurred with Schwartz stopping because BSMan stopped. He did cross the road and saw Pipeman on the opposite side.

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?

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

So if Schwartz only saw BSMan from a position of standing behind him why the shout of Lipski.

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.

No, it’s very obviously correct.

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.

Don’t you get tired of this?

[Jon Guy]

The police had two official suspects; BS-man & Parcel-man. Swanson might have felt compelled to hi-lite the fact there was sufficient time after the assault by BS-man to justify the second suspect.

Yes, Swanson wrote that there was enough time for her to pick up someone else up and get attacked by 1am.

[Wickerman]

...

Also, Swanson is putting forward the possibility that Stride may have been attacked by someone else after her altercation with BS Man.

The police had two official suspects; BS-man & Parcel-man. Swanson might have felt compelled to hi-lite the fact there was sufficient time after the assault by BS-man to justify the second suspect.

[Wickerman]

...



The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.

If the jury did not agree with the coroner on this matter, which witness would be supposed could elucidate this mysterious case? Schwartz? Mortimer? Either way, why would the inquest have to be adjourned again? Has an important witness gone missing?

That would be consistent with Schwartz's story still being investigated, as I believe was what Swanson was actually saying in his report.

[GBinOz]

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.
c
A few points.

Schwartz said he stopped to watch. 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?

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?

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

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.

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.

Hi Andrew,

I would firstly like to say that your arguments regarding Pipeman not being identified are quite reasonable.

I think I have a correct sequence in Schwartz reporting to Leman St PS via interpreter, then giving the interview, via interpreter, to The Star, and subsequently being questioned by Abberline.

Does your theory discard the Star interview entirely, apart from the comment regarding Schwartz's living arrangements?

I'm not clear on some of the details of your theory.
1. Where do you see Schwartz standing when he stopped to watch the incident, on the north side of the gateway facing the incident, or the south side of the gateway having passed the couple and turning around to watch the incident?
2. Swanson's report says that Schwartz crossed the street and saw Pipeman and THEN BSman shouted "Lipski". Abberline appears to suggest the shout of "Lipski" occurred when Schwartz stopped in the gateway to watch the incident, but that doesn't make sense. If Schwartz was that close to BSman, how could there be confusion as to whether the cry of "Lipski" was directed at Schwartz, who was only a yard away, or at Pipeman who was on the opposite side of the road?

My analyse is based on Swanson's report with a little further detail from the Star interview:
As Schwartz turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian, who had just reached the gateway, saw him turn her around and throw her on the footway. The woman screamed three times, but not very loud. Schwartz, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, crossed to the other side of the street. When he reached the Fairclough intersection he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter. At that time a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house on the opposite corner, just a few doors from the gateway, and the man in the gateway shouted "Lipski" at the men at the intersection. Schwartz walked away noticing that the man with the pipe also walked away in the same direction.

I am of the opinion that when Abberline commented on the shout of Lipski, "I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman", he was referring to Schwartz stopping at the Fairclough intersection to look back at the man he had previously seen "ill-using the deceased woman". I also think that Abberline just overlooked mentioning that Schwartz had crossed the road as stated by both Swanson and The Star interview.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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. 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?

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?

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

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.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your argument is the old chestnut. The notion that Schwartz was irrelevant to the inquest, is preposterous.


Read the Coroners Act. You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

You're right, Pipeman is not going to come forward. Nor is he going to be found by the police. Ever.

Because he was an Illuminati shapeshifter. Yes we know.

The coroner said this case was mysterious. I agree. You don't.

Abberline and the rest of the people running the case believed Schwartz but you don’t.

You’ve misunderstood the Coroner. Hardly a surprise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, you use this as an excuse to move inconvenient witnesses out of the way.

The probability that Letchford was within +/- 5 minutes of his stated times, in well above zero. You have to deny this probability to make your latest scenario work.

What are you talking about? Letchford said 12.30. You have no way of knowing how his time compared to other times. Try reading the evidence instead of making it up to suit. Letchford said that he passed at 12.30 and he didn’t mention seeing a couple. Now, of course this doesn’t mean that there 100% wasn’t a couple there as he may have seen them and not mentioned it but if they weren’t there when he passed we have various possibilities. 1) They arrived very shortly after he passed in time for Smith to have seen them at 12.30-12.35, or 2) Smith passed before 12.30 and they moved on before Letchford showed up, or 3) Letchford passed after Smith had passed the couple and after the couple had left. Now, barring any suggestion that the couple had been beamed up by Scotty we can say that it’s at least possible that the couple moved on.

So, your defence of Schwartz has become so desperate that you're now seriously entertaining the notion that Smith saw another woman.

The alternative viewpoint (yours) is that the police were somehow infallible. Those poorly paid, barely trained guys trudging around dark and dangerous backstreets at all hours were all Holmes-like in their observation skills. And that these women were so fashion conscious that they all wore strikingly different garments. If you tried harder Andrew you might be able to come up with sillier notions but I doubt it. I’m not saying that Smith didn’t see Stride, he probably did see Stride, but why, when we know how fallible human beings can be do we not allow this fallibility in supercop Smith. You would rather accept a false witness than a piece of bog standard misidentification.

So, what explains the constant 'editing'?

I’m not going to waste the wear and take on my finger to respond that that. And never again tell me that you don’t try to suggest that all times should be adhered to rigidly because this is clearly what you believe.

It is, if one returns to stand alone at the entrance of dark yard in the middle of the night. See what I mean about stripping away specifics, to make your argument seem reasonable?

My argument is reasonable but then again, any old drivel would seem the height of reasoning when compared to the stuff that you keep wasting everyone’s time with.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The Coroner’s Act is an ‘old chestnut.’ There’s little point in continuing if you are going to make statements like that.

Your argument is the old chestnut. The notion that Schwartz was irrelevant to the inquest, is preposterous.

He appears to be saying that there would have been no point in adjourning in inquest in the hope of new evidence being uncovered ie new witnesses coming forward. So he ended it.

You're right, Pipeman is not going to come forward. Nor is he going to be found by the police. Ever.

Time after time….mystery created where none exists.

The coroner said this case was mysterious. I agree. You don't.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Again, you make the assumption that times were synchronised. Why?

Again, you use this as an excuse to move inconvenient witnesses out of the way.

The probability that Letchford was within +/- 5 minutes of his stated times, in well above zero. You have to deny this probability to make your latest scenario work.

So you know that Liz Stride was the only woman in the East End wearing a flower? Ok.

But have you suggested that the woman that he saw wasn’t Stride? If so, I haven’t seen the quote.

So, your defence of Schwartz has become so desperate that you're now seriously entertaining the notion that Smith saw another woman.

It can be taken literally.

So, what explains the constant 'editing'?

What a bizarre statement. You are saying that just because we can’t give a specific reason for those actions it makes them unlikely. Only unlikely actions can be considered unlikely and leaving a spot and returning shortly isn’t one of them.

It is, if one returns to stand alone at the entrance of dark yard in the middle of the night. See what I mean about stripping away specifics, to make your argument seem reasonable?