Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

All good points showing that Pipeman would have been easily visible.

Thanks Mike, but we should not get too hung up about Pipeman. The police obviously saw him for what he was - just a bystander. They were confident that the Lipski insult was being hurled at the very Jewish looking Schwartz. Whether pipeman was by the Nelson or the Board School wall, he was just a bystander.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi RD,

Didn't Mortimer just say that she didn't see anything unusual? If correct and if she was indeed on her doorstep for the bigger of half an hour before 1 am, then she might very well have seen Letchford, Smith, Lave and Eagle at least.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Or, she wasn’t there for as long as she’d thought

The point that you’ve made is an important one though imo, in that just because a witness doesn’t mention seeing someone we shouldn’t assume that the witness hadn’t seen them. Letchford is perhaps a case in point:

“I passed through the street at half-past 12, and everything seemed to me to be going on as usual…”

So a man quietly talking to a woman on the East side of the road would have seemed entirely ‘usual.’ He saw nothing that stood out, no conflict, no one acting suspiciously, no one loitering in the club gateway. So perhaps we shouldn’t assume that he didn’t see the two people that PC Smith saw? And he and Smith must have narrowly missed each other too.

Then we have Joseph Lave (accepted that we have different times attributed to him in different reports) who said:

“So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."

So he didn’t see anyone moving around in such a way as to make him suspicious, which isn’t the same as saying that he saw no one.

Morris Eagle too:

“It was very dark, too dark to see if anybody was lying there and he did not remember seeing anybody in Berner Street.“

He didn’t remember seeing anyone. It’s not conclusive.

So for all that we know both Letchford and Lave may have seen the couple and Eagle might have seen someone in the street.

What we wouldn’t give to see the full police interviews.

[Sunny Delight]

Which side of the road was Pipeman on?


In the Swanson version we have Schwartz seeing Pipeman: “On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away…”


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

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


In The Star version we get: “he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.”


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

I think Jon is right when he says it doesn't really matter where Pipeman was standing, as he was after all just an innocent bystander. One thing that seems somewhat puzzling however is that if Schwartz and Pipeman were on opposite sides of the street then how could Schwartz not discern who the call 'Lipski' was directed at? It would have been obvious as he turned to look at BS man who he was shouting at. If Pipeman was just further down the street to BS man then Schwartz could not have been confused as BS man would have been facing in the opposite direction to Schwartz. If however they were on the same side then BS man shouting in their direction would have meant it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to tell who BS man was shouting at.

That means it is far more likely Schwartz and Pipeman were on the same side of the road, or at least Schwartz had not fully crossed over and was possibly in the middle of the road.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Jon is right when he says it doesn't really matter where Pipeman was standing, as he was after all just an innocent bystander. One thing that seems somewhat puzzling however is that if Schwartz and Pipeman were on opposite sides of the street then how could Schwartz not discern who the call 'Lipski' was directed at? It would have been obvious as he turned to look at BS man who he was shouting at. If Pipeman was just further down the street to BS man then Schwartz could not have been confused as BS man would have been facing in the opposite direction to Schwartz. If however they were on the same side then BS man shouting in their direction would have meant it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to tell who BS man was shouting at.

That means it is far more likely Schwartz and Pipeman were on the same side of the road, or at least Schwartz had not fully crossed over and was possibly in the middle of the road.

It’s unlikely that Schwartz would have been continuously staring at BSMan as he passed the incident so if he wasn’t looking in his direction at the split second of the call ‘Lipski’ then how could he have known who it was aimed at?

[Sunny Delight]

"......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.”

"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away…”

From these two versions it appears to me at least that Schwartz was in the act of crossing the road, when he turned to look at what was happening and as he looked back Lipski was yelled in his direction. It only works if Pipeman is on the other side of the road- Schwartz is in the middle of the road and BS man is beside the club. Schwartz couldn't tell who BS man was shouting at because they were both in the direction in which the shout was aimed.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Mike, but we should not get too hung up about Pipeman. The police obviously saw him for what he was - just a bystander. They were confident that the Lipski insult was being hurled at the very Jewish looking Schwartz. Whether pipeman was by the Nelson or the Board School wall, he was just a bystander.

totally agree with this. and the last we hear of him hes leaving the scene just like schwartz.

[Abby Normal]

Why did Schwartz cross the road?

Because he was chicken

lol

alternatively...

Why did Schwartz cross the road? because he was a chicken

[DJA]

lol

alternatively...

Why did Schwartz cross the road? because he was a chicken

350 × 549500 × 500S

Schwartz and BS Man

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is from a Home Office letter:

A statement has been made by a man named Schwartz to the effect that he had heard a person who was pulling about a woman identified as Elizabeth Stride 15 minutes before the murder off Berner Street took place, call out “Lipski” to an individual who was on the opposite side of the road. 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. Mr Matthews presumes that this clue has been one of the suggestions with regard to which searching enquiries have been made: although no tangible results have been obtained as regards the detection of the murderer; but he will be glad if he can be furnished with a report as to any investigations made to trace the man Lipski."

The woman was being pulled about. As with Abberline's reference to the woman being "ill-used", it would seem that the abuse lasted for much longer than a few seconds. Presumably her screams were cries for help. If only these screams had not been not very loud.

The man abusing the woman called out “Lipski” to an individual who was on the opposite side of the road. Relative to the man calling out, was the man being called to:

A) On the opposite side of the road
B) On the same side of the road

It is unclear if the word 'Lipski' was used as slang or as a proper name. Whatever the case, where was the man being called to in relation to the man calling out? Was he:

A) Across the road
B) On the same side of the road

Now I know these questions aren't easy, so take your time answering, and feel free to PM me if you need help.

[Lewis C]

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

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

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

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

I am suggesting it was all one sequence.

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

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

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

Press accounts are the only accounts that we have for what Fanny said, and according the Evening News, a woman, who we assume was Fanny, made a statement. It then says, "It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured heavy stamp of a policeman passing the house on his beat." So this account is saying that she said this. There's always a chance that a press account could be wrong, but if Fanny never actually said it sounded like a policeman, that would be a pretty big error.

[GBinOz]

This is from a Home Office letter:

A statement has been made by a man named Schwartz to the effect that he had heard a person who was pulling about a woman identified as Elizabeth Stride 15 minutes before the murder off Berner Street took place, call out “Lipski” to an individual who was on the opposite side of the road. 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. Mr Matthews presumes that this clue has been one of the suggestions with regard to which searching enquiries have been made: although no tangible results have been obtained as regards the detection of the murderer; but he will be glad if he can be furnished with a report as to any investigations made to trace the man Lipski."

The woman was being pulled about. As with Abberline's reference to the woman being "ill-used", it would seem that the abuse lasted for much longer than a few seconds. Presumably her screams were cries for help. If only these screams had not been not very loud.

The man abusing the woman called out “Lipski” to an individual who was on the opposite side of the road. Relative to the man calling out, was the man being called to:

A) On the opposite side of the road
B) On the same side of the road

It is unclear if the word 'Lipski' was used as slang or as a proper name. Whatever the case, where was the man being called to in relation to the man calling out? Was he:

A) Across the road
B) On the same side of the road

Now I know these questions aren't easy, so take your time answering, and feel free to PM me if you need help.

Hi Andrew,

The answers are easy. The questions aren't because they are phrased from the wrong perspective.

The statement was made by Schwartz, not the man calling out, so the locations are from the perspective of the man making the statement - Schwartz. So the answers to your questions are both B), which is consistent with both the original police statement and The Star interview also made from the perspective of Schwartz.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Press accounts are the only accounts that we have for what Fanny said, and according the Evening News, a woman, who we assume was Fanny, made a statement. It then says, "It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured heavy stamp of a policeman passing the house on his beat." So this account is saying that she said this. There's always a chance that a press account could be wrong, but if Fanny never actually said it sounded like a policeman, that would be a pretty big error.

Hi Lewis C,

This is the account, which was one of three that appeared in the Evening News Oct 1:
. A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact.. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.


This is another account from the same newspaper on Oct 1:
Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy, says: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gate with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went around the corner by the Board School. I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.


It can be noticed that 36 Berner St was 2 doors from the club, as stated in the first account, not 4 doors as in the second. The first account has a woman hearing footsteps from inside her home at about 12:45, going to the door as a response, and staying at the door for ten minutes. The second account has no mention of the footsteps that bought the woman to the door, but claims that she was at the door for 30 minutes from 12:30 to 1 o'clock.

The third account published in the Evening News Oct 1 was quite different to the above.
INTERVIEW WITH A NEIGHBOUR.
Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her. I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot.
TEN INCHES OF COLD STEEL.
"I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.' I hurried out, and saw some two or three people standing in the gateway. Lewis, the man who looks after the Socialist Club at No. 40, was there, and his wife.
"Then I see a sight that turned me all sick and cold. There was the murdered woman a-lying on her side, with her throat cut across till her head seemed to be hanging by a bit of skin. Her legs was drawn up under her, and her head and the upper part of her body was soaked in blood. She was dressed in black as if she was in mourning for somebody.
MURDERED WITHIN SOUND OF MUSIC AND DANCING.
"Did you hear no sound of quarrelling, no cry for help?" I asked.
"Nothing of the sort, sir. I should think I must have heard it if the poor creature screamed at all, for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police. But that was from the people as found the body. Mr. Lewis, who travels in cheap drapery things a bit now and again, had just drove into the yard when his horse shied at something that was lying in the corner. He thought 'twas a bundle of some kind till he got down from his cart and struck a light. Then he saw what it was and gave the alarm."
"Was the street quiet at the time?"
"Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club. There was music and dancing going on there at the very time that that poor creature was being murdered at their very door, as one may say."
A MAN WITH A BLACK BAG!
" I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"
"No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand."
"Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?"
"No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially."
That was all that my informant had to tell me. I wonder will the detectives think it worth while to satisfy themselves about that black bag?

I have previously proposed that these interviews were with different women, a proposition which was vigorously opposed. Can Fanny have made three such differing statements on the same day to between one and three reporters?

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

A couple of yards from the Fairclough intersection is not a few doors off from the Nelson. In #1208 you said:

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

Presumably you meant that at this point (when Schwartz first sees Pipe/Knifeman), he is a few doors from the kerb, when counting doors on the opposite side of the road to which Schwartz is now on. Now you're saying that Schwartz sees the man a couple of yards prior to reaching Fairclough. Therefore "the doorway of the public house a few doors off" cannot refer to the Nelson.

Also, from #1208:

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.

Let's consider either scenario.

Firstly, that Pipe/Knifeman heads to the gateway and attacks BS Man. Schwartz continues to walk away from the scene. This is not compatible with Schwartz fleeing to either Ellen St or a railway arch.

Second scenario. Pipe/Knifeman heads toward Schwartz, possibly in a menacing manner, and holding a pipe or a knife. If P/K man moves in Schwartz's direction starting from the Nelson corner, and Schwartz is still a few doors from Fairclough, what happens? Schwartz is followed straight back up the street, toward Commercial Rd. There is nothing in either account to suggest this occurred. The alternative is to suppose that P/K man moves toward Schwartz when Schwartz is stepping onto Fairclough. That is, just as is depicted in the Star. Once again, we are back to the issue of the Nelson not being a few doors off, rather it's a few yards across the road. Another issue would be that this particular scenario could easily result in Schwartz being followed east along Fairclough, yet seemingly Ed Spooner must remain oblivious.

In my scenario, Pipeman is near Hampshire Court when first spotted by Schwartz. This results in Schwartz being followed south, to either Ellen St or one of the nearby rail arches. This is compatible with the evidence we have, and it unifies the witnessed location of Pipeman and Parcelman.

Another issue with the Nelson theory concerns this...

As the noise of a quarrel attracted Schwartz's attention, and he turned to see what was happeneing, Pipeman also heard the noise of the quarrel and stepped out to gain a view of what was happening.

The Star refers to this quarrelling, Swanson's report does not. Which report do we prefer? The police report says, "he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe". There is no mention of a doorway or a man pivoting around to find out what's going on. As Schwartz has already crossed the road to avoid the quarrel (in the Star), I'm wondering why P/K man does not notice what's going on until Schwartz is nearly at the kerb. Had he already swung around by the time Schwartz sees him, why would Schwartz suppose the man had come from the doorway of the Nelson?

Hi Andrew,

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

Cheers, George

So, remove the sensationalism. The point remains, and it is a point that came out of your question - in what order did Schwartz speak to the duty manager, Abberline, and the Star man? I gave an answer that allowed me to make sense of comments on Schwartz by Anderson, and the 'doubts' report in the Star. I thought both your question and my answer were pretty interesting. It seems I'm alone in that regard.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

FM: It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial road.

Had she seen the man walk from Commerical Rd, or just presumed that he had?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Previously, you said...

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.

Was he in the doorway, but visible to BS, or did he step out of the doorway to make the theory work?

Swanson: ...he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

Did he light his pipe in the supposed shelter of the doorway, or did he step into the breeze, but kept trying?