Two

[Supe]

Jeff,

Suggestion that the suspect may have been drunk would not be admissible to the police account because it is a subjective observation.

That is interesting, since the police witness reports are rife with subjective observations, most notably perhaps Mary Ann Cox saying that Kelly was "very drunk." Indeed, every witness statement in regard to mein and manner is subjective.

In any case, my point was simply how so many poster have turned suggestions of "partially intoxicated" and "half-tipsy" into indisputably drunk.

Don.
PS: Tell Paul there is no need to hunt up his reference to a "second witness" as I am quite familiar with it,

[Jeff Leahy]

I am curious why so many consider it gospel that Broad-shoulders was drunk. In fact, the Star interview only describes him as "partially intoxicated" and "half-tipsy," both of which seem rather short of a delaration of being drunk.

As it is, the Star reporter clearly asked a number of leading question to elicit more sensational testimony from Schwartz. Indeed, one can see the Star man asking :
"Was there anything strange about the way he walked?"
"Uhm," through an interpreter, "maybe he rolled a biT."
"As if he was partially intoxicated?"
"Well maybe."
And, totally disregarding that the fellow may have been am old Jack Tar, had bad bunions, or didn't really walk that strangely anyway, we have someone half-tipsy. And from a possible slight tippsiness we now have a rip-roaring dtunk.

It is also interesting that while the idea of a drunken accoster (solely a Star stoiry) seems so widely accepted while other elements of the Star interview, such as Pipeman holding a knife and Pipeman crying "Lipdki", are not. Is there an evidentiary reason for this or does the notion of the man being drunk simply add extra spice to the now conventional wisdom?

Don.

Hi Don

The simple answer is, it is impossible to tell. Clearly there are differences between the Police report and the Star report.

However what makes the Star report interesting is that the report seems to have been in the right place at the right time and got the witness at very much the same time that he gave his police statement.

My view is both accounts would have been selective in what information they choose to include or exclude from there own perspectives, however I would have thought the police statement was the more factually focused of the two..

Suggestion that the suspect may have been drunk would not be admissible to the police account because it is a subjective observation.

Clearly the whole incident makes more sense if Pipeman shouts ‘Lipski’ at BSM. That’s assuming that BSM looked Jewish and was committing a murder.

With regards the ‘intoxication’ it’s a matter of interesting speculation, but anyone suffering from Schizophrenia might also give the appearance of being intoxicated…the two are sometimes confused.

Pirate

PS The pirate never said that pipeman had been identified. Just that there were press reports suggesting that another witness might have been identified, which might have been pipeman. I will dig the source out if required.

[Supe]

Archaic,

If Jeff knows who Pipeman was he has a scoop of monumental proportioms and space reserved in Ripperologist any time he wants.

Again, the idea that the police came to disregard Schwartz' story seems built upon an unsupported statement in the Star and the fact that he is not reported as appearing at the inquest. As it is, there are Metropolitan Police internal memos as late as November that strongly suggest they still took his story seriously.

As to why he might not have testified at the inqiest there are any number of proceedural reasons. Could be as simple as that he was unavailable: out of the country, in hospital and so on.

Don.

[Archaic]

Hi, Don.

Do you happen to know if 'Pipeman' was ever identified?
I don't recall that he was, but a few posts Jeff said he thought that was the case.

And do you know if the police ever specified why they were so dissatisfied with Schwartz's testimony?

Thanks, Archaic

[Supe]

I am curious why so many consider it gospel that Broad-shoulders was drunk. In fact, the Star interview only describes him as "partially intoxicated" and "half-tipsy," both of which seem rather short of a delaration of being drunk.

As it is, the Star reporter clearly asked a number of leading question to elicit more sensational testimony from Schwartz. Indeed, one can see the Star man asking :
"Was there anything strange about the way he walked?"
"Uhm," through an interpreter, "maybe he rolled a biT."
"As if he was partially intoxicated?"
"Well maybe."
And, totally disregarding that the fellow may have been am old Jack Tar, had bad bunions, or didn't really walk that strangely anyway, we have someone half-tipsy. And from a possible slight tippsiness we now have a rip-roaring dtunk.

It is also interesting that while the idea of a drunken accoster (solely a Star stoiry) seems so widely accepted while other elements of the Star interview, such as Pipeman holding a knife and Pipeman crying "Lipdki", are not. Is there an evidentiary reason for this or does the notion of the man being drunk simply add extra spice to the now conventional wisdom?

Don.

[Archaic]

Cheers, Michael; we all love a good cliff-hanger!



Best regards, Archaic

"1. So you think the man who yelled "Lipski!" did indeed yell Lipski and was a gentile? Well, i can't see a Jew calling another Jew that, so if anybody yelled it I would assume he was a gentile."

2. But if BS Man or some other gentile was in Dutfield's Yard, doesn't it strike you as INSANE for him to yell "Lipski!" of all things, and to be manhandling a lone woman at the same time? I would think a taunt like that in those circumstances could get him killed.

3. He has to know that the club is full of Jewish men having a meeting; there were signs on the building & he could probably hear noise coming from inside.


PS: 4. Did the police ever explain the precise reasons why they decided to forgo Schwarz's testimony?
Of course, it's rather garbled testimony, but so were many other eye-witness accounts.

Hi Archaic,

I hope you dont mind me itemizing the above....

1. So we agree that the use of "Lipski" would be by a gentile more probably. What do we know of the authorities opinions on the Ripper's ethnicity at that point in time? Could the use of this taunt be merely to suggest a gentile may have killed this woman? If Schwartz was fabricating at all, could he have just added that in to deflect suspicion from Jews in general, or more specifically on that night? Maybe this man was chosen for this because as we know, he was "theatrical in appearance"...maybe an onsite member but a decent actor too. Or maybe his interpreter was.

2. As I indicate above, there needn't have been an actual cry out. If there was, I can imagine a drunk gentile thug with broadshoulders snapping out a regrettable phrase, this man may have been physically intimidating by his description, maybe he scared them,...even if they hired him for security for example...what I dont see if them covering anything up if this thug was in no way affiliated with the club. If he wasnt, why not just toss him to the coppers?

3. If for example the yard was empty save for Liz, and Michael Kidney catches Liz in the yard and discovers that she is waiting for a new beau, a Socialist Jew inside the club..he loses it and chokes and cuts her as she turned away from him..there need be no actual exchange between he and Schwartz or even a sighting...but Schwartz could give his statement so that any altercation between man and Liz are off premises, and that the man is a gentile, reasonably ruling out everyone onsite at the time. Now, If Schwartz comes out the side door to the yard, sees Liz talking with a drunk thug inside the yard, a broadshouldered man they hired for security...a gentile....right about on the spot where she is found, she falls, Schwartz stares, Lipski is shouted knee jerk...there was much antisemitism at the time in that area,... and he and a man smoking a pipe in the yard split out the gates quickly both scared of the thug....then we have all that the story needs right there. The time, Blackwells timing, the blood flow issues, .....all thats needed there is to have the man be gentile when the police arrive, and to have the start of his altercation with Liz take place outside the gates and therefore having nothing at all to do with the club or its membership onsite. I favour a hired thug scenario....they had to protect him because he might know of illegal activities they undertook and he was on their property. That would shut the club for good that night.

I guess lucky for everyone I ran out of time tonight....sorry, Ill finish the thoughts later Arc, Cheers.

[Archaic]

Hi, Michael. So you think the man who yelled "Lipski!" did indeed yell Lipski and was a gentile? Well, i can't see a Jew calling another Jew that, so if anybody yelled it I would assume he was a gentile.

But if BS Man or some other gentile was in Dutfield's Yard, doesn't it strike you as INSANE for him to yell "Lipski!" of all things, and to be manhandling a lone woman at the same time? I would think a taunt like that in those circumstances could get him killed.

He has to know that the club is full of Jewish men having a meeting; there were signs on the building & he could probably hear noise coming from inside.

Even Schwartz's testimony about the woman screaming "three times, but not very loudly" is odd. Who in the world every screams 3 times quietly? Maybe as she was knocked down she made some exclamation like "Oh-oh-oh!" which was subsequently translated as a "scream"?

It's all very puzzling.

Best regards, Archaic

PS: Did the police ever explain the precise reasons why they decided to forgo Schwarz's testimony?
Of course, it's rather garbled testimony, but so were many other eye-witness accounts.

Hi, Michael. I read your post several times to make sure I understood what you were saying.

This is how I understood you: You seem to be implying that perhaps Schwartz saw something of even greater significance which occurred a bit later, such as the deadly attack upon Stride?

Do you think Schwartz might actually have been inside the yard at that time?

Whatever happened, I still can't understand why Schwartz wouldn't have gone into the club or banged on its doors & windows and alerted other to come to his aid and the aid of Liz Stride.

Schwartz is lucky enough to be right on the club's premises, and it's a building full of Jewish men who can speak his language- many of them immigrants as well- yet he runs off alone in the darkness.

>>What do you think of the possibility that BS Man might have actually yelled "Lizzie!", but that the nervous Schwartz mistakenly thought he heard "Lipski!!" directed at himself?

Best regards, Archaic

Hi Archaic,

On the above in bold, yes I do think thats possible.

I think the man he saw wasnt an active member though, and that man perhaps did yell "Lipski" at him. Suggesting that inside that yard at around 12:45 ish there was a gentile thug. Why would a gentile be in that yard after midnight?

Would the club hire security men for meetings?
Did Kidney show any antisemitism at anytime?
Do we know for a fact where Kidney was at around 12:45?

Cheers mate

[Archaic]

Hi, Michael. I read your post several times to make sure I understood what you were saying.

This is how I understood you: You seem to be implying that perhaps Schwartz saw something of even greater significance which occurred a bit later, such as the deadly attack upon Stride?

Do you think Schwartz might actually have been inside the yard at that time?

Whatever happened, I still can't understand why Schwartz wouldn't have gone into the club or banged on its doors & windows and alerted other to come to his aid and the aid of Liz Stride.

Schwartz is lucky enough to be right on the club's premises, and it's a building full of Jewish men who can speak his language- many of them immigrants as well- yet he runs off alone in the darkness.

>>What do you think of the possibility that BS Man might have actually yelled "Lizzie!", but that the nervous Schwartz mistakenly thought he heard "Lipski!!" directed at himself?

Best regards, Archaic

Hi, everyone. I have puzzled over many aspects of Schwartz's testimony, and here's another one:

Why would Broad-Shouldered Man yell "Lipski!" right after shoving a woman to the ground
when he is standing right outside the socialist's club full of dozens of Jewish men?

Of all the dumb things for a man in his position to yell, that strikes me as one of the very dumbest.

He's on their turf, he's manhandling some lone woman... it's too bad somebody inside didn't hear him;
I bet they'd have all come out and cleaned his clock!

Best regards, Archaic

PS: For that matter, why the hell didn't Lipski go into the club for reinforcements in order to come to the woman's assisstance instead of running away?

I think the word I highlighted above is pivotal to the question regarding Israel....."their"...did he see something while he was on his own turf? Maybe even from inside the empty yard that often held "low men" and women until after 1am on meeting nights.

Since Eagle returns to the club at 12:40, and some 28 men are still in attendance when Diemshutz finds the body....it would seem that on that night as usual there were many people still onsite after 1am......so....were any actually in the yard near 12:45am? Maybe Israel?

Cheers Archaic

[Archaic]

Why Yell "Lipski"???

Hi, everyone. I have puzzled over many aspects of Schwartz's testimony, and here's another one:

Why would Broad-Shouldered Man yell "Lipski!" right after shoving a woman to the ground
when he is standing right outside the socialist's club full of dozens of Jewish men?

Of all the dumb things for a man in his position to yell, that strikes me as one of the very dumbest.

He's on their turf, he's manhandling some lone woman... it's too bad somebody inside didn't hear him;
I bet they'd have all come out and cleaned his clock!

Best regards, Archaic

PS: For that matter, why the hell didn't Lipski go into the club for reinforcements in order to come to the woman's assisstance instead of running away?

Hi again,

This "struggle" that Schwartz reports does occur just within the period that Blackwell suggests the cut took place, but it also needs to culminate in one swift act that may have taken 2 seconds for her assailant in the street to be the same one inside the gates. And she wouldnt look as "if gently lain down", with her skirt hem still only exposing her boots as she lay on her side.

Does an altercation with the man on the street at approx 12:45am easily then translate to them staying in each others company still physically quarelling until the man finally just grabs her scarf, chokes her and slits her throat while she falls? Is that his "final word" on the matter?

Or isnt a man who was pestering her while drunk likely to be pretty easily brushed off by a street veteran of 20 years? Or perhaps its that she would leave the immediate area, or call for help?

I think people should be very interested in the fact that this altercation that the statement alleges did not cause Liz to call for help....or to stray away from the yard entrance.

I think its probable in the minute or 2 after she gets rid of Broadshouldered Man, while she is about to freshen her mouth, that she meets her killer.

Someone who perhaps was pissed off to find a woman he knows waiting with breath mints and a flower on her good evening wear inside the yard of Socialist Jews.

The circumstances, a possible late date.....and a relationship end that same week, are often ignored when assessing a potential killer.....and since she is cut in a way that does not suggest something only "Jack" would do....perhaps the circumstances of Liz Strides Life and Death have more to reveal than the story of a man who isnt given a pulpit to preach it from by the authorities.

Best regards all

[Jeff Leahy]

Morning Michael and Archaic

Firstly Mike you must excuse my sense of humour the above passage:

“ what seems more probable is that Stride was standing, possibly facing the wall, when her killer grabbed the back of the scarf and pulled her back, exposing the throat and at the same time causing Stride’s knees to buckle. Instinctively she raised her hand to her throat, while the left hand involuntarily tightened around the cachous. She was quickly pulled to the ground, the knife simultaneously slicing the throat. The bruising on the shoulders, if not old, could have been caused by the man seen by Schwartz- who actually told the Star that he saw the man ‘put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage. Where ever he pushed her, to the pavement or into the passage, he’s likely to have grabbed her shoulders, where the bruising was found. It seems reasonable to argue, therefore, that the bruising probably proves that Stride was indeed the woman whom Schwartz saw assaulted, and it is further reasonable to suppose that the man who assaulted her was the murderer.”

Is a quote from ‘FACTS’ by Paul Begg, not a humble Pirate.

What is puzzling me at present sort of ties in with what Archaic is saying, namely that something does not seem quite right about Schwartz testimony.

If we take Paul Begg’s above conclusion, which makes sense to me, then what we have is an attack and murder that takes just moments, maybe 15 to 30 seconds?

Yet if the police statement is correct Schwartz is on the East side of the road heading towards BSM and Stride when the attack starts and he has a poor view. As he crosses the road he gets a better view of Liz and BSM, however it must have taken several seconds to cross the road, so the only explanation for this time laps is that BSM and Stride are happily talking? Before the attack starts. If Liz screams three times, the first makes Schwartz stop and look across the road from wear he has an excellent view of the attack.

I guess the story could also be made to fit if ‘Pipeman’ (who incidentally I believe was traced and did confirm Schwartz story) also hears Liz scream and shouts ‘Lipski’ at the Jewish looking murderer ie BSM.

My problem is that, the whole thing would have to start on the street, move six to nine feet inside Dutfield yard before Stride is forced to her knees and her throat cut.

So if for some reason you were trying to reconstruct this incident you would have solved your ‘wheelie bin’ problem but inherited a large time frame problem. Also the other largely ‘unknown’ at present is the lighting problem.
Deimschutz says clearly he was unable to see Liz even when he lights a match. So I don’t think anyone could have seen anything inside Dutfields Yard. It was clearly by far the darkest of the JtR murder locations and I wonder if that effected Jacks ability to perform the mutilations? Perhaps it was just to dark when he got inside the yard and that’s what stopped his pleasure?

However without knowing the lighting configuration its impossible to tell at what point Schwartz was unable to see what was happening. Perhaps he could see them just inside the gateway but only heard the second and third screams? Its impossible to tell without the lighting. However he has a good view of BSM, while on the East side of the road, and a good look at Liz as he crosses the road. He doesn’t have a good view of BSM when the attack starts…that’s if he witnesses the murder of course.

But I’m again speculating, My main problem is placing Schwartz witnessing the ‘murder’ inside a realistic time frame based on the police statement.

Pirate

PS I’m off to see U2 with my sister at Wembley today, so I wont be about until tomorrow night….have to look after her so excuse the choice of music. But I’m interested in any views or thoughts on the time frame…

[Chris]

"perrymason"

Swanson was writing an official report summarising the evidence and the actions that had been taken by the police. Almost certainly he would have had a copy of Schwartz's statement in front of him.

It's quite misleading to describe the contents of the contemporaneous police reports as "police recollections", which makes them sound like the unreliable memoirs published decades later.