Two

[Tom_Wescott]

His description of Pipeman leaves little doubt, and having BS Man calling out Lipski is like a man calling people 'kyke' outside a synagogue today. It would be inferred that man wasn't a member of the synagogue.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

His description of Pipeman leaves little doubt,

Second man: age, 35; ht., 5ft 11 in[s]; comp., fresh; hair, light brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat, wide brim; had a clay pipe in his hand.

I must disagree, this description could be of someone from almost any religious calling.

and having BS Man calling out Lipski is like a man calling people 'kyke' outside a synagogue today. It would be inferred that man wasn't a member of the synagogue.

Yours truly, Tom Wescott

Possibly Tom, but without knowing the conext or whether it deffinately was BSM who called out 'Lipski' its almost impossible to tell the context in which it was used..

Perhaps Pipeman called it out at BSM having thought BSM was Jewish and seeing a knife in his hand?

If we go by the usual interpretation of BSM shouting an insult at Schwartz or warning Pipeman. Then I must agree with Chris's interpretation that Pipeman was on the same side of street as Schwartz.

"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, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far."

However I dont think there is any logic in connecting Pipeman to BSM. Schwartz walked behind BSM who was heading down Berner Street from Commercial Road. Pipeman was either already ahead in the doorway of the pub on the same (East) side or ahead on the other side of the road.

How could they know each other?

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

I must disagree, this description could be of someone from almost any religious calling.

Not Hari Krishna! And I must disagree with your disagreement. Not many Jews walking around the East End almost 6 feet tall with light brown hair in 1888. Or now, I'd wager.

Possibly Tom, but without knowing the conext or whether it deffinately was BSM who called out 'Lipski' its almost impossible to tell the context in which it was used..

To my knowledge, there's no debate over who yelled 'Lipski'. It was BS Man. The only question is to whom he yelled it. General consensus then and now is that he yelled it at Schwartz.

Then I must agree with Chris's interpretation that Pipeman was on the same side of street as Schwartz.

Chris would enjoy the company. It must be lonely having no one to share that interpretation with.

However I dont think there is any logic in connecting Pipeman to BSM.

There's logic in it, since Schwartz initially thought the two were out to get him and wasn't sure if they were together or not. Logically, he didn't know, but his instincts told him they were together. It doesn't mean they were, but it's not a pie in the sky idea.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Chris would enjoy the company. It must be lonely having no one to share that interpretation with.

On the contrary, I've read nothing at all here to change my view that the natural interpretation of Swanson's statement is that the broad-shouldered man called out to the man with a pipe, on the opposite (east) side of the road.

Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't think anyone has expressed support for your suggestion that "the man on the opposite side of the road" was Swanson's roundabout way of saying "Schwartz".

Quite obviously the man at the Home Office understood Swanson's report in the same way I do: "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 ... call out "Lipski" to an individual who was on the opposite side of the road."
[Ultimate Source Book, p. 142]

In responding, Abberline suggests instead that he was calling out to Schwartz, but doesn't say anything to correct the notion that the other man was on the opposite side of the road. Indeed, he describes the other man thus: "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".
[Ultimate Source Book, p. 141]

In Abberline's response, he has said nothing about which side of the road Schwartz was standing on. So the only interpretation of this open to the reader is that Abberline was using the phrase "opposite side" in the same sense in which it's used in Swanson's report, and in the Home Office letter Abberline was responding to - that the man with a pipe was on the opposite side of the road from Stride's attacker.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chris, thanks for reminding me of that. I haven't had my Ultimate in months, and I don't do myself justice debating from memory. BS Man yelled 'Lipski' after Schwartz crossed the street. Schwartz was on the school board side when Abberline puts Pipeman on 'the other side of the street'.

Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't think anyone has expressed support for your suggestion that "the man on the opposite side of the road" was Swanson's roundabout way of saying "Schwartz".

Dave Yost, Jane Coram, Ripperologist Magazine, Ivor Edwards. Those are just a few who have published and put Pipeman at the Nelson.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Regarding the Holborn hairdresser John Schwartz, I think after further discussion it was agreed that his original name was Jacob, not Israel (just like Jacob/John Pizer), that he had been in the Holborn area since 1881, and that he married in late 1889:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=804&page=5

I think the Israel Schwartz who is known to have lived in the immediate neighbourhood from at least 1890 onwards (until his death in 1936) - his earliest known address being in Brunswick Street - is a strong candidate. Particularly as he is the only Israel Schwartz in Ancestry's index of the whole 1891 census. He also fits the bill in one other respect - according to family information he spoke Yiddish all his life, and in his old age he was barely able to communicate with his English-speaking grandson. (But unfortunately there seems to be no family tradition that he witnessed a Ripper murder.)

The only definite discrepancy is that he was born in Poland/Russia, not Hungary.

The problem is that it's going to be very difficult to prove beyond doubt that any candidate is the right Israel Schwartz. The only really tangible thing we know about the witness is that he lived at 22 Ellen Street immediately after the Stride murder. The hope would have to be that he stayed there for a year or two, and left some record that would identify him with the known Israel Schwartz (d. 1936) or someone else. Several people have looked for such a record without success, and I think it's fair to say there is none in any of the obvious places. But maybe with luck one may turn up in the future.

[Chris]

Dave Yost, Jane Coram, Ripperologist Magazine, Ivor Edwards. Those are just a few who have published and put Pipeman at the Nelson.

I realise there's a danger of subtleties being lost in these online discussions. I am not saying I believe the man with the pipe was on the east side of the road. I'm saying I think there is clearly a contradiction between the different accounts of what Schwartz saw. How that is best resolved is another question.

So it doesn't surprise me that some people come down on the Star's side and put him outside the Nelson. But it would surprise me (a bit) if they agreed that when Swanson said "the man on the opposite side of the road" he meant "Schwartz".

[Jeff Leahy]

SCHWARTZ STATEMENT.

12.45 a.m. 30th Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street [Ellen St], Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road & having gotten as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. 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, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.
Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen. He thus describes the first man who threw the woman down:- age, about 30; ht, 5ft 5in[s]; comp., fair; hair, dark; small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, and nothing in his hands.
Second man: age, 35; ht., 5ft 11 in[s]; comp., fresh; hair, light brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat, wide brim; had a clay pipe in his hand.

The Star

As he turned the corner of 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 ally way where the body was afterwards found. Half-tipsy man haulted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and pushed her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, 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 Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second mans hand, but, he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings. He described the man with the Woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other , but not so stout , that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society. The police have arrested one man answering the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for enquiries to be made. The truth of the mans statement is not wholly accepted.

New York Times

The daring character of the murders is evident from the fact that two people at least saw a man and a woman together in Berner Street gateway, and one saw him throw her down. He went away and left her there, but it was half an hour before it was known that she had been murdered.

Hi Tom and Chris

The problem is that we have two different accounts the logical conclusion being two completely different interpretations of what happened. And I think when trying to rationalize the two together that confusion starts.

In the Police statement it is clear that BSM shouts to Pipeman on the opposite side of the road, In the Star we have Pipeman outside the pub shouting at BSM.

They are two different accounts.

Normally of course we would except the police statement and ignore the more sensational star account. However we know that the reporter stumbled across the story almost by accident and follow Schwartz home and pressed him for his story and that Schwartz spoke little English which could have created confusion. So the Star is a good source.

However both accounts have Schwartz behind BSM, walking in the same direction. BSM stops and talks, Schwartz crosses the road. Logically this suggests to me NO connection between BSM and Pipeman.

As for the appearance of Jewish people, I think we should be very careful about jumping to too many stereo types. The cult of the arc is practiced in Ethiopia, and there are many people of Jewish decent with fairer complexion types. I noticed somewhere someone had posted that Hungarian Jews did not get on with Jews from other European descents. And remember Jews had been in Britain for centuries, they were first persecuted by King John back in the twelfth century.

Yours Pirate

[smezenen]

Aristocles,
please forgive me if someone has already posted any of what follows. I dont have time tonight to read this entire thread. My post is in regards to the question you asked about bruising. here are a few thoughts.

Bruising occurs due to the rupture of capillaries and veins. This leads to the escape of blood in the tissues under the skin and causes the discoloration.

While bruising that occurs from injuries at the time of death is common it takes longer for the bruise to develop. An examination within the first few hours may not detect any bruising that was caused within a few moments of death because there would be no blood flow to cause leakage from the capillaries or veins.

Also if the bruising where on the back and the body is lying on that side, it may be more difficult to see the bruising due to Hypostasis, the settling of the red blood cells in the body due to gravity. Hypostatis causes the redish discoloration seen on dead bodies and may cover any recent bruising.

Bruising was noted on the front side but we do not know if this was from recent injury or injury at the time of death.

I dont see anywhere that describes the size ofthe bruise with enough detail to determine actual cause. (once again I dont have the time to look hard tonight)

They are described as bluish in color and there isn’t mention of fading or other coloration such as the yellowish ring around an older bruise so we can assume that they are fairly recent.

Having looked at the post mortem report and the inquest testimony and see no mention of bruising on the back side of the body. In fact that part of the body isn’t ever mentioned as far as I can see.

So the only short conclusions I can draw are that if the back side of the body was examined the doctor found nothing out of the ordinary. Or that part of the body was not examined.

The fact that no report of bruising is made by the doctor cannot be used to determine whether Stride was thrown to the ground because we don’t know how she landed. For instance landing on a shoulder would cause more immediate and severe bruising than landing on ones buttocks. Also take into account the thickness of any clothing that would cushion the fall. We must unfortunately assume that if she was thrown to the ground it may not have been with enough force to overcome these negating factors and cause a noticeable bruise.

I am in no way an expert but these seem to be fairly logical thoughts and conclusions, they are however my thoughts and conclusions so they are subject to debate and will probably be discounted rather quickly.

SM

[Jeff Leahy]

Welcome aboard Smezenen

I don’t see why anyone would dismiss your conclusion. Not enough information to be certain, seems a very reasonable statement and one only to often faced when examining this case.

I would however be interest in your opinion. Is it possible, given both accounts above (Star and police), that Schwartz witnessed a brief struggle between BSM and Stride. And in your opinion could BSM have been Strides murderer?

Many thanks for a well considered and interesting post.

Yours Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

The Bruising to the shoulders

Hi Pirate,

I was not aware of the presence of white Jews in Ethiopia. However, these were not the immigrants one found in the East End, so it really doesn't apply here.
If you read your copy of 'Ultimate', you'll see not only Swanson's summary (we don't have a police statement) but also an exchange with Abberline (who interrogated Schwartz and composed the actual police report) that makes it very clear that BS Man was the person who yelled 'Lipski'. Certainly you'd agree this overwrites the Star report of Pipeman yelling?

Smezenen (Gazundheit!),

We do not know what caused the single bruise to Stride's chest, but I can't see it coming from a fall to the ground. We do know what caused the bruising to her shoulders because the doctors were able to make out finger marks. What is interesting here is that the Star report has BS Man grabbing Stride by the shoulder, which fits in with the bruising. Swanson's summary gives us no detail of where she was grabbed. The bruising was over both shoulders, so BS Man would have had to turn Stride around, grab her by both shoulders, squeeze very tightly for a period of time before throwing her to the ground. This is not impossible, as Stride was older and weak and would have bruised relatively easily, so a good tight squeeze for a few seconds might have done the trick.
When reading Swanson's report, most of us probably imagine BS Man grabbing Stride by the arm, because that's the most normal method. But Schwartz specifically told the Star that she was grabbed by the shoulder, and later the doctors would discover this distinct bruising. It could be coincidence, but since the bruising occurred right around the time of death, I'd say there's a decent change BS Man afflicted it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Tom

The important thing here is that it’s possible for Schwartz description of BSM to be of a Jewish person. Then the cry by pipeman ‘Lipski”, made in the Star account, could have a totally different interpretation to that given in the police statement.

Clearly as you say the Police statement is the one that we must give president too.

However there are a number of things that worry me about this:

Firstly: If BSM shouted to Pipeman, it clearly suggests that they were working together. However both accounts (Star and Police) have BSM walking from a totally different direction before talking to Stride..Which is far more consistent with Stride approaching BSM for business. If there was a connection between BSM and Pipeman, then BSM wound have had to of done a fairly big circuit around the bloke having left Pipeman..Plus Schwartz clearly says he can not be sure they were together, was he pushed into saying something he did not mean?

It just does NOT make sense.

The Star account on the other hand makes far more sense if you have Pipeman also witness the attack but from the public House. Which as we know is on the same side of the road as BSM and Liz. He sees BSM (Of Jewish origin) grab LIZ, see’s the knife drawn from a pocket and shouts ‘Murder!’ by a ‘Jew” or simply ‘Lipski!”

Something certainly spooked Schwartz enough to make him run a long way and the above scenario not only makes some sense but accounts, as you correctly suggest, for the bruising…

It would also leave a very good witness for Anderson and Swanson to use in a later ID. And a witness that may not be keen on dobbing in a fellow Jew…

Just a thought,

of course as you say it doesn’t fit the police version of events.

Yours Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate,

Whether or not it makes more sense to you to have Pipeman yelling, the fact is that it was BS Man. Schwartz told this to Abberline repeatedly. Schwartz was taken off guard by BS Man's treatment of Stride, but what 'spooked' him was Pipeman's sudden emergence immediately followed by the yelling of 'Lipski' by BS Man and then Pipeman running towards him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

The police statement clearly states:

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

Why or how could BSM shout to someone? if he doesnt know them or know that they are there...It's that that does not make sense.

And if they do indeed know each other...HOW?

BSM, comes from an unrelated totally different direction from pipeman.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

How could Schwartz know if they knew each other? They may have, they may not have. Nothing occurred on the street to allow Schwartz to say without reservation that they knew each other.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott