Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[c.d.]

But if "Lipski" was shouted then it was shouted, period. Schwartz would have had no control over that. So no need to introduce some sort of fiendishly clever plot on his part.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Of course Abberline in an internal memo dated 1st November said

"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."

Steve

Hi Steve,

As I recall though, and don't have the memo at hand to double check, just before (or not long before) this statement he indicates/implies that Schwartz initially states that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman. Abberline, in the above statement, goes on to indicate he then questioned Schwartz on that particular detail, and it appears that due to this questioning Schwartz was no longer able to say. To me that seems to be indicating that it is Abberline's questioning that introduced Schwartz's change of confidence. That, of course, is just my take on it, and it has been awhile since I've looked closely at the wording and context. Abberline's memo, of course, is summarizing the Schwartz interview, so we have to "read through the memo to try and see the interview itself", always one of the problems with the documents we have. It is such a shame that transcripts of the interviews, or at least the signed statements of the witnesses, are no longer available to us. It would put to rest at least some of the issues we have to deal with when trying to get to the information we only see through the fog of summaries.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

But if "Lipski" was shouted then it was shouted, period. Schwartz would have had no control over that. So no need to introduce some sort of fiendishly clever plot on his part.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

True, but I like the Schwartz example discussed here in how it shows differ things to consider when reviewing witness statements. There are statements of "observable events", like the shouting of "Lipski", and then there is the witness' interpretation of "intent" (as in "B.S. intended to warn his accomplice Pipeman of my presence" type thing). A witness could be 100% accurate in their statement with regards to the observable event, but entirely on the wrong track with regards to the "intentional" side of things. After all, stating what another person's "intent" was is just our own "theory" of what that person was thinking, and a witness can be just as wrong in their idea as we can be today. However, when we question the more observable side of the statement, we are on far less solid ground to question things given the witness was there to make actual observations of such things, and we were not. To question a witness's observations would require a demonstration that what the witness reports to have observed was simply not possible under the known conditions.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

A sound heard, that to the listener "sounded like" something definable, isnt proof that what they envision made the sound actually did. Or whom. Its an interpretation of what was heard, not a verification of what that sound was. In Mortimers case its important to not limit what you think her actual time at her doorstep was that last half hour, it cannot be established by her statement. She does however say "nearly the whole time". We know she was at her door when Goldstein is seen, but thats really the extent of the "knowns" about her time viewing the street.

But we dont know she heard Smith passing, nor do we know that she heard Louis arriving. She heard sounds she interpreted.

Is it a leap of faith to suppose that Mortimer knew the sound of passing police boots, or a costermonger pony and cart?

Would it be fair to say that your theory requires Mortimer to have misinterpreted those sounds? Whose boots were they? Where was the pony and cart going?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But the key point is, it is not the police re-interpretation of Lipski as an antisimtic insult that Schwartz admits might have been the case that is important, but rather his initial belief that it was shouted at Pipeman as if it were Pipeman's name.

Based on what we know, his belief is that it was shouted at Pipeman. Period. We cannot conflate this with the police search for a Mr Lipski and conclude that Schwartz himself believed that Pipeman was of that name, or that the police did not allow for other possibilities. As Pipeman ends up running in the same direction as Schwartz, it would be at least as likely that Schwartz supposed the intention of BS Man shouting to Pipeman, was for him to "Go get that Lipski!".

This is important because if Schwartz went to the police to deflect suspicion away from the club members, it makes no sense for him to tell a story that points to a Jewish offender being involved! Schwartz's initial statement, before being influenced by the police interpretation, demonstrates he was not trying to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender, and therefore, was not trying to deflect attention away from the club members.

Given that BS Man does not come from the club, in Schwartz's account, what difference would his ethnicity make if Schwartz went to the police to deflect suspicion away from the club members? In the Echo report based on comments by Wess, the man doing the pursuing is said to not be a member of the club. As long as Schwartz indicates that BS Man did not exit or enter the club, and was therefore unlikely to have been a member, it's possible he has done his job.

Many arguments for Schwartz take the form; If Schwartz was attempting to do x, he would have said y, which he didn't, therefore...
This overlooks the possibility that Schwartz was "fiendishly clever", and in attempting to do x, he said y, but in a way that did not make it obvious that x was the goal.

[Michael W Richards]

Is it a leap of faith to suppose that Mortimer knew the sound of passing police boots, or a costermonger pony and cart?

Would it be fair to say that your theory requires Mortimer to have misinterpreted those sounds? Whose boots were they? Where was the pony and cart going?

I have no doubt that Fannys description of what she heard is accurately identified as bootsteps, and horse and cart on cobbles. I do not assume that her suggestion of what might have caused those sounds is anything more than a guess by her. I do believe that there was a man or 2 going past that door between 12:40 and 1am. And I do feel that the Diemshitz cart and horse, being stabled at another location, would have been led off by someone once the body was found. Which I think happened around 12:40ish.

[JeffHamm]

Based on what we know, his belief is that it was shouted at Pipeman. Period. We cannot conflate this with the police search for a Mr Lipski and conclude that Schwartz himself believed that Pipeman was of that name, or that the police did not allow for other possibilities. As Pipeman ends up running in the same direction as Schwartz, it would be at least as likely that Schwartz supposed the intention of BS Man shouting to Pipeman, was for him to "Go get that Lipski!".

Sure, we could suggest that Schwartz told the police something along the lines of "B.S. warned Pipeman by shouting out to tell him to get that Lipski", but if so, it removes the impetus for the police to search the Lipski families in the area (they have their "Lipski" in the interview room - it's Schwartz after all in this line of thought). We also know that the police, via Abberline, thought it more likely that "Lipski" was shouted directly at Schwartz, and did not think Schwartz was correct on the point as to whom Lipski was directed. The search of the Lipski families, however, only makes sense if Schwartz told the police in his statement that he believed Lipski was shouted to Pipeman, and at the time Schwartz believed it to be Pipeman's name. So, even though the police thought Schwartz was probably wrong on that point (as Abberline states was his own belief), they didn't presume that had to be the case and the followed up on what the witness actually said - and checked up on the Lipski families just in case Schwartz was correct and their own re-interpretation was in fact wrong. That's good police work - and also good research (police work is, after all, research in an applied setting).

Given that BS Man does not come from the club, in Schwartz's account, what difference would his ethnicity make if Schwartz went to the police to deflect suspicion away from the club members? In the Echo report based on comments by Wess, the man doing the pursuing is said to not be a member of the club. As long as Schwartz indicates that BS Man did not exit or enter the club, and was therefore unlikely to have been a member, it's possible he has done his job.

The idea under question is whether or not Schwartz's story was made up specifically to direct the police away from the Jewish club. Such a goal is not furthered by having a Jewish offender in the vicinity of the club. Pipeman, after all, could have been a club member who just left the building before Schwartz's arrival ... B.S. could be a club member returning to the club who gets angered by Stride's presence ... etc. To direct attention away from the club and its members, the offender has to be placed outside the club (as B.S. and Pipeman are) but also not be potential members, which implying at least one of them is Jewish, and therefore a potential member, does not accomplish. In a false story designed to misdirect away from the Jewish members of the club the authors of such a story would have to make the offenders Gentiles, otherwise the story just increases the probability that the club and its members would come under the spotlight of the investigation.

Many arguments for Schwartz take the form; If Schwartz was attempting to do x, he would have said y, which he didn't, therefore...
This overlooks the possibility that Schwartz was "fiendishly clever", and in attempting to do x, he said y, but in a way that did not make it obvious that x was the goal.

The idea that Schwartz would tell the police that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, and that he took that to be B.S. calling out Pipeman's name (implicating a Jewish offender) because Schwartz somehow was betting on the police re-interpreting his statement as Lipski was shouted at Schwartz (betting that the police would invert the implications of Schwartz's statement and implicate a Gentile offender), is such a risky tactic that it defeats the purpose of concocting a story to deflect the investigation. There was no way to know the police would do that (note, Abberline's memo is explaining that Lipski was unlikely to be Pipeman's name, and that Schwartz probably misinterpreted the situation - indicating that the use of "Lipski" as an antisemitic insult was not universally known. A less capable police officer conducting the interview may very well have not known, or at least overlooked, such a possibility). And we even see how the police, despite their misgivings as to the truth of Schwartz's interpretation, still did investigate along those lines. We also know the police investigated the club members who were present on the night; holding them there and looking for signs of blood, etc, before letting them leave. Presumably they collected names, addresses, and other such details of those present as well.

Personally, I think the idea that Schwartz's story was designed such that their purpose would be achieved if, and only if, the police reinterpreted what Schwartz initially tells them to be sufficiently implausible that it need not be entertained. Such complex explanations require complex evidence, which of course we lack. Moreover, the idea that Schwartz simply reported what he himself believed to be the case, combined with the very realistic idea that he may have misinterpreted the intended target of B.S.'s "Lipski", means a more complicated explanation is unnecessary.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

The problem with the above Jeff is that "Lipski" was already known to be used to refer to local Jews detrimentally at that time. Which is why Abberline thought Schwartz was the object of that slur. I think the broader point here is that Israels story touches on the pre-existing predjudice against local Jews and at the same time makes the probable bad guy in this story, BSM, the man who said "Lipski", a likely gentile. Since no-one ever sees BSM, or Pipeman, other than Israel claims to have done, his story is perhaps intended as a recognition of the ill feelings towards local Jews in general, a proposition that if accepted by the authorities, might dissuade them from assuming the worst about the Jews here. Because on the face of it, the ONLY men who we know were in close proximity to that passageway at around the time Liz was killed are the local Jews from that club.

You mentioned complexity a few times in your last paragraph, but for me, I dont see this case as very complex at all, just muddied by assumptives and the desire by many to see Jacks hand here. Liz was cut once and left to die. There is no Jewish or Gentile component to that. Nor is there a Rippers signature. The ethnicity issues are present because the investigations taken door to door in September had created a dialogue that the killer at large was a immigrant Jew. According to Anderson anyway. The club members knew this....they knew that no-one else was seen nearby, leaving just those Jewish men left after the meeting as the Suspect pool. Israel, though less than cleanly, creates a new storyline, that one of the prejudiced gentiles in the area might be trying to pin this murder on those club stragglers by killing a woman on their property. If nothing else, it does suggest that other men were in fact seen in that immediate area at that time.

The fact that BSM is seen off the property and that he makes an antisemitic slur...whomever he directed that at, allows the club to distance itself and the members onsite from what was found on their doorstep. Its a fairly clever misdirection actually. Although it appears it didnt stick.

[Fiver]

Something that is often repeated here is what Fanny says she heard. What isnt accompanying those remarks is the disclaimer that what Fanny believes the sounds represented isnt relevant. She heard "bootsteps", and characterized the type of sound she associated it with, and she heard a cart and pony, she did not see which direction it was headed or who was driving it. In the case of this murder investigation, seeing is believing. If one person sees something that seems important and no-one else does, it seems wiser to question the individual source rather than multiple accounts which to a large extent substantiate each other.

Fanny Mortimer heard a cart and pony arriving at the time Diemshutz said he was arriving.

Which leaves the following possibilities.
* Fanny Mortimer heard Diemshutz arriving with his cart and pony at the time he said he was arriving.
* Mortimer lied to support Diemshutz' story even though she had no possible motive for doing so.
* Mortimer heard another cart and pony that no one else could hear. By pure coincidence, it entered the street at the time Diemschutz claimed he arrived. This cart and pony stopped making any noise once it reached Dutfield's yard and drove silently the rest of the way down the street and disappeared into the night. Diemshutz' cart and pony were so quiet that Mortimer never heard them.

But you see the last option as the most credible.

[c.d.]

...I dont see this case as very complex at all, just muddied by assumptives and the desire by many to see Jacks hand here.

As Herlock correctly pointed out, there is no "team Jack" in play here trying to up his body count. Simply those (like myself) who believe Jack was the one who killed her.

c.d.

[GBinOz]

Hi c.d.,

True, but I like the Schwartz example discussed here in how it shows differ things to consider when reviewing witness statements. There are statements of "observable events", like the shouting of "Lipski", and then there is the witness' interpretation of "intent" (as in "B.S. intended to warn his accomplice Pipeman of my presence" type thing). A witness could be 100% accurate in their statement with regards to the observable event, but entirely on the wrong track with regards to the "intentional" side of things. After all, stating what another person's "intent" was is just our own "theory" of what that person was thinking, and a witness can be just as wrong in their idea as we can be today. However, when we question the more observable side of the statement, we are on far less solid ground to question things given the witness was there to make actual observations of such things, and we were not. To question a witness's observations would require a demonstration that what the witness reports to have observed was simply not possible under the known conditions.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

The idea that Schwartz heard BSman shout "Lipski" has to be tempered with the acknowledgement of Schwartz's limited grasp of the English language. Was he looking at BSman when the exclamation was made? I think not. This is why he was uncertain as to whom the words were directed. I retain the possibility that what he stated he heard was an interpretation of what he actually heard. Perhaps, as has been suggested, the exclamation was "Lizzie", and Schwartz, with his limited grasp on the English language, heard "Lipski".

Given Schwartz's account of events, I struggle to countenance the possibility that BSman had an accomplice. If we exclude Schwartz, there are three players in our murder scenario, BSman, Pipeman and Parcelman. At this stage, my money is on Pipeman.

Best regards,
George

[Filby]

...I dont see this case as very complex at all, just muddied by assumptives and the desire by many to see Jacks hand here.

As Herlock correctly pointed out, there is no "team Jack" in play here trying to up his body count. Simply those (like myself) who believe Jack was the one who killed her.

c.d.

Not to mention if we look at Eddowes/Stride cases within a reverse context, which most if not all believe JtR was responsible for the Eddowe's murder, it means JtR was out in WC that night with intention of murder. That in itself increases the odds that Stride was a victim since he was proven to be active and in the area.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

The idea that Schwartz heard BSman shout "Lipski" has to be tempered with the acknowledgement of Schwartz's limited grasp of the English language. Was he looking at BSman when the exclamation was made? I think not. This is why he was uncertain as to whom the words were directed. I retain the possibility that what he stated he heard was an interpretation of what he actually heard. Perhaps, as has been suggested, the exclamation was "Lizzie", and Schwartz, with his limited grasp on the English language, heard "Lipski".

Given Schwartz's account of events, I struggle to countenance the possibility that BSman had an accomplice. If we exclude Schwartz, there are three players in our murder scenario, BSman, Pipeman and Parcelman. At this stage, my money is on Pipeman.

Best regards,
George

Hi George,

I suppose that is possible, but given that "Lipski" was used as a local slur, and it would be a name he would recognize (which, as you say could open the door for the "Lizzie->Lipski" idea), I don't see any reason to follow "misheard" lines of investigation while "as heard" produces viable options. I suspect that Abberline was correct, though, and that Schwartz misinterpreted to whom it was shouted, and that it was directed at Schwartz, not at Pipeman. And if that is correct, it removes Pipeman from involvement but explains why Schwartz might interpret Pipeman's leaving the area as Pipeman chasing him. I think it more likely that after having received a bit of a fright seeing the attack on Stride and then, particuarly if he thought Pipeman was B.S.'s accomplice, seeing Pipeman coming into the street where he was, he felt further threatened and fled, thinking Pipeman was chasing him.

At the time of the Schwartz incident, there's only B.S. and Pipeman in the area that we know of, and the whereabouts of Parcelman are unknown. I don't think either B.S. or Pipeman are described as carrying anything similar to Parcelman's parcel, so there's nothing to link either of them to being that same person. I suppose one could argue that he's in the area, but there's nothing recorded to place him there. He could also be well on his way to home; it's a pick your story situation as there's nothing to constrain the choices. As you know, I tend to be reluctant to do that and tend to just point out "we don't know", and if we don't know, we shouldn't say. I think it best we try and see if we can make something sensible about of what information we have, without altering it if possible, and then stand back and see if what emerges makes sense. If it does, I would say that is the best working theory, and only then might one want to explore secondary ideas based upon dropping or modifying bits of information from what is recorded.

Due to the large number of different witnesses, and the many press reports (often conflicting), the Stride case is the most complicated as the information we do have varies depending upon which report one reads. That, I think, is the place to start though. Go through the sources and try to distill from them the "common thread" that the various versions seem based upon. Often, that "common thread" is closer to the truth than any of the individual tellings, but it will also be a bit less detailed, so "closer but fuzzier".


- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The problem with the above Jeff is that "Lipski" was already known to be used to refer to local Jews detrimentally at that time. Which is why Abberline thought Schwartz was the object of that slur. I think the broader point here is that Israels story touches on the pre-existing predjudice against local Jews and at the same time makes the probable bad guy in this story, BSM, the man who said "Lipski", a likely gentile. Since no-one ever sees BSM, or Pipeman, other than Israel claims to have done, his story is perhaps intended as a recognition of the ill feelings towards local Jews in general, a proposition that if accepted by the authorities, might dissuade them from assuming the worst about the Jews here. Because on the face of it, the ONLY men who we know were in close proximity to that passageway at around the time Liz was killed are the local Jews from that club.

You mentioned complexity a few times in your last paragraph, but for me, I dont see this case as very complex at all, just muddied by assumptives and the desire by many to see Jacks hand here. Liz was cut once and left to die. There is no Jewish or Gentile component to that. Nor is there a Rippers signature. The ethnicity issues are present because the investigations taken door to door in September had created a dialogue that the killer at large was a immigrant Jew. According to Anderson anyway. The club members knew this....they knew that no-one else was seen nearby, leaving just those Jewish men left after the meeting as the Suspect pool. Israel, though less than cleanly, creates a new storyline, that one of the prejudiced gentiles in the area might be trying to pin this murder on those club stragglers by killing a woman on their property. If nothing else, it does suggest that other men were in fact seen in that immediate area at that time.

The fact that BSM is seen off the property and that he makes an antisemitic slur...whomever he directed that at, allows the club to distance itself and the members onsite from what was found on their doorstep. Its a fairly clever misdirection actually. Although it appears it didnt stick.

Hi Michael,

That would all be fine if Schwartz had told Abberline that B.S. "called me Lipski", but he didn't. He told Abberline that B.S. called out "Lipski" to Pipeman, and given the police then started looking at talking to all the Lipski families in the area, it is clear that Schwartz's story was the Schwartz took it that "Lipski" was Pipeman's name. Therefore, Schwartz's story was that a Jewish offender was involved, which if anything would increase interest in the club and its members.

It was only when Abberline, knowing of how Lipski is used as a slur, questioned Schwartz on that detail, as to how sure was he that B.S. shouted it to Pipeman and not at Schwartz himself, does it appear that Schwartz realised that maybe he misinterpreted things and he then admits that could be possible, which in turn would leave him unsure of who the intended target of the Lipski was by the end of the interview, which Abberline's summary indicates was the case.

My personal view is that Abberline is probably right, which would make B.S. a gentile, and Pipeman uninvolved entirely. However, Schwartz's story as originally told implicates a Jewish offender (Pipeman) being part of a team, and therefore Schwartz cannot be said to have gone to the police to direct their attention away from the Jewish club members because Schwartz's original story directs the police to a Jewish offender being involved. Schwartz may have gotten it wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that Schwartz's statement directs the police to a Jewish offender, which increases the risk the club would be investigated.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

At the time of the Schwartz incident, there's only B.S. and Pipeman in the area that we know of, and the whereabouts of Parcelman are unknown. I don't think either B.S. or Pipeman are described as carrying anything similar to Parcelman's parcel, so there's nothing to link either of them to being that same person. I suppose one could argue that he's in the area, but there's nothing recorded to place him there. He could also be well on his way to home; it's a pick your story situation as there's nothing to constrain the choices. As you know, I tend to be reluctant to do that and tend to just point out "we don't know", and if we don't know, we shouldn't say. I think it best we try and see if we can make something sensible about of what information we have, without altering it if possible, and then stand back and see if what emerges makes sense. If it does, I would say that is the best working theory, and only then might one want to explore secondary ideas based upon dropping or modifying bits of information from what is recorded.

Hi Jeff,

I also cannot see any reason to link Parcelman with BSman or Pipeman, but Stride had the semblance of a person waiting for someone. Since she had likely been with Parcelman since being spotted by Best and Gardner in the doorway of the Bricklayers Arms at a little before 11pm, and again by Smith at 12:35, I believe it would be reasonable to suspect that it was he upon whom she was waiting. Had he gone home, I think that she would also have, and I have difficulty contemplating that she had started soliciting after his departure.

I consider the key questions to be, why was Stride standing in the gateway, and where was Parcelman. To me the most reasonable explanation is that Stride was waiting for Parcelman to return from the Loo, or the club, or the print shop.

Best regards,
George