Two

[Chris]

Now, if Pipeman were really standing up against the board school as you suggest, this makes no sense. Why would Schwartz "walk away" in the direction of Pipeman, and how could Pipeman "follow him" if he was already in front of him?

What's more important is that in the official exchange prompted by Swanson's report, Abberline wrote that Schwartz didn't run UNTIL Pipeman started running. I just can't make sense of Schwartz attempting to escape someone by running TOWARD them.

Nor can I, but I don't understand why you think the man being on the east side of the road would imply that Schwartz either walked or ran towards him.

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris,

The police apparently held no suspicion against Pipeman at all. Aside from a quick check to see if there was anyone in the neighborhood named 'Lipski', nothing was done. However, if they felt BS Man was calling out to Pipeman, who then chased Schwartz, I imagine the investigation would have been different. And maybe it should have been, but I digress.

Consider the following excert from Swanson's report:

The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the oppos- ite side of the road, 'Lipski', and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran so far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.

Now, if Pipeman were really standing up against the board school as you suggest, this makes no sense. Why would Schwartz "walk away" in the direction of Pipeman, and how could Pipeman "follow him" if he was already in front of him?

What's more important is that in the official exchange prompted by Swanson's report, Abberline wrote that Schwartz didn't run UNTIL Pipeman started running. I just can't make sense of Schwartz attempting to escape someone by running TOWARD them.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. If Schwartz was "the" man on the opposite side of the road from BS Man, then that's singular. Thus Pipeman was on the same side. I personally don't enjoy semantics, but I understand how you play.

[Cap'n Jack]

as you'll be well aware, Tom, two women were attacked by a man with a knife the night before the double event... your shaking ground a swamp

[Chris]

Schwartz wasn't certain if the two men were 'working' together, but seems to have thought that BS Man was yelling at him, because he then turned and walked off. Abberline felt it most likely that BS Man was calling out an epithet to Schwartz. So, when Swanson says that BS Man yelled at the man on the opposite side of the road to him, he meant Schwartz, differentiating him from Pipeman.

But Abberline says:
"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."

Of course Abberline suggested the comment was addressed to Schwartz, but do you really think that's what Swanson was trying to convey? If so, why on earth would he say "apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road" rather than simply "apparently to Schwartz"? Surely Swanson didn't mean Schwartz, but meant the man with a pipe - whom Abberline described precisely as "a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe".

Of course, the other thing is that if Swanson didn't mean the man with a pipe, then there is no indication at all in Swanson's report of where that man was standing ...

[Tom_Wescott]

Just to reiterate my post above to Chris, in case there's any confusion:

1) Schwartz and BS Man started on the club side of Berner Street.
2) Upon reaching the gate, Schwartz crossed to the other side of the road.
3) Upon reaching the other side of the road, Schwartz saw Pipeman. BS Man called out 'Lipski' to "the man on the opposite side of the road" (Swanson).

I don't think anyone would disagree with the above series of events, since they are not ambiguous in any way. The question is WHO was the man on the opposite side of the road? Consider the following:

1) We know for a fact that Schwartz was on the opposite side of the road from BS Man.
2) We know that Schwartz felt BS Man was calling out to him. Certainly Abberline felt this way.

If Schwartz and Abberline felt that BS Man was yelling at Schwartz, then we can reasonably conclude that Swanson (who was working from Abberline's report) was referring to Schwartz as "the man on the opposite side of the road" simply to differentiate him from Pipeman, who must therefore have been on the same side of the road as BS Man.

To support this, the Star's interview with Schwartz puts Pipeman at the "pub" which could only have been the Nelson Beerhouse, which was at the corner of the club side of Berner Street. This means that both Pipeman and BS Man were on the same side of the street.

This is not dogmatism. The evidence is simple enough that one does not need dogmatism to proclaim where each character stood during this brief exchange.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

This interpretation is only 'natural' if you dispose of all other official correspondence regarding this very matter, and the Star interview with Schwartz.

Swanson prepared his notes from Abberline's report. Schwartz wasn't certain if the two men were 'working' together, but seems to have thought that BS Man was yelling at him, because he then turned and walked off. Abberline felt it most likely that BS Man was calling out an epithet to Schwartz. So, when Swanson says that BS Man yelled at the man on the opposite side of the road to him, he meant Schwartz, differentiating him from Pipeman.

Had Pipeman been on the same side of the road as Schwartz, Schwartz would have had to run PAST Pipeman to go the direction he did. I think in that scenario, Schwartz would likely have ran BACK towards Commercial Road.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

While I agree with your analysis Tom, we must consider that if pipeman were on the west side of the road, that Schwartz best escape may have been to the right down fairclough street. This route would at least make more sense with regard to the railway arch down church lane...

However then the shout of 'Lipski' doesnt make any sense...

Where as, if Pipeman shouts 'Lipski' from the side (from pub) at BSM?????

Well then that makes a whole lot of sense at least to me

Pirate

PS Your thoughts and comments are always welcome Michael.

Thanks for addressing the comments I made Pirate Jack,... I dont agree with many of your answers and assert that logical speculation often beats the illogical kind,... but I respect that you you did address them thoughtfully.

Ill let you get on with the bruises and save my replies for another time.

Cheers Mate

[Tom_Wescott]

I repeat, I think the natural interpretation of that is that the man with a pipe was on the "opposite side" of the street to which Schwartz had just crossed -the side opposite to the man who shouted.

This interpretation is only 'natural' if you dispose of all other official correspondence regarding this very matter, and the Star interview with Schwartz.

Swanson prepared his notes from Abberline's report. Schwartz wasn't certain if the two men were 'working' together, but seems to have thought that BS Man was yelling at him, because he then turned and walked off. Abberline felt it most likely that BS Man was calling out an epithet to Schwartz. So, when Swanson says that BS Man yelled at the man on the opposite side of the road to him, he meant Schwartz, differentiating him from Pipeman.

Had Pipeman been on the same side of the road as Schwartz, Schwartz would have had to run PAST Pipeman to go the direction he did. I think in that scenario, Schwartz would likely have ran BACK towards Commercial Road.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

He then has Pipeman emerge from across the street, which would be the club side.

What Swanson says is this:
"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he [Schwartz] saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, 'Lipski', ..."

I repeat, I think the natural interpretation of that is that the man with a pipe was on the "opposite side" of the street to which Schwartz had just crossed -the side opposite to the man who shouted.

[Jeff Leahy]

Ok for what its worth, much though it sticks in the throat, I’m basically in agreement with Tom here, though I think I’d say ‘given what is known’ this is the most ‘probable’ set of events. Although having recently paced out Schwartz flee to the rail way arch I still find this action most curious.

However I thought I’d tackle Michael’s observations.

M: a) What amounts to be a ridiculous excuse for being at that location at that time of night?

P: Is it really that ridiculous? If you were making a story up, surely you come up with ‘I was visiting a friend’. It actually seems quite plausible to me.

M: b) No-one else corroborates it, and BSM and Pipeman were not found

P:Well that’s not true. If the accounts are to be believed then it would appear that they did find Pipeman who must have backed up Schwartz statement. In Fact some have argued that Pipeman might have been Swanson and Andersons witness. (although not the Pirate)

M: c) Its supposedly been translated, but who knows how literally

P: Yes I agree, the translation problem is BIG. However there is NO proof of a translation connection to the Club. That is just speculation on your part.

M: d) His so-called Witness statement is in effect just reminiscences by Swanson. Abberlines staunch support of Hutchinson at first should be a cautionary tale, retrospectively.

P: Again that is highly speculative. What we have is the statement, which we must stick too.

M: e) He was not invited to provide his story at the Inquest

P: Again we do NOT know this. I believe PaulB speculates that he may have given evidence ‘in camera’ in his book ‘the Facts’

M: f) Without this statement the obvious and most probable spot for the killer to have been waiting for Liz, was inside the yard.

P: Again this is incorrect. If Liz was a JtR victim, it is most probable that she picked him up and took him to the place of death. NOT the other way around.

Michael: “Fanny Mortimer is at her door off an on until almost 1am, she sees or hears none of what Schwartz describes, nor does Brown, whose Inquest statement clearly shows Liz to be in a much different location, and in much different circumstances, than Israels statement.:

P: Ah! Now we are getting to the interesting bit. Actually if you go back to the ‘Wheel bins’ not only did Schwartz not have a view of LIZ Stride but neither did Fanny Mortimer. Infact she could have been stood only a few feet from Liz in the gate way and seen NOTHING…Because Liz was clearly deliberately 'Out of Site'.

If Liz was about her business, just inside the gate way, she would have been waiting for clients to pass bye and invite them in for a ‘quickie’. Which is what I expect she did to BSM.

Micheal: “Brown is not a Jewish Immigrant, but Schwartz is...as are the members of The International Club. Whose necks were on the chopping block without that witnessed altercation off premises just before Strides murder.”

P: Again this is all supposition, clearly you make an interesting point, but at the end of the day we are left with the police statement and press reports. You have nothing factual to substantiate what you are saying.

Michael: “Perhaps the most likely answer as to why Israel wasn’t called to give his story isn’t his inability to speak English, its perhaps his inability to provide a story that doesn’t seem remarkably like an alibi for the Club members”.

P: Interesting Speculation. When you have something to back it up please let us know. However I think this thread has two questions the knife? and the bruising? We have established and agreed that there is NO proof that a different knife was used on Stride to Eddow’s, although given the length of knife used on Eddow’s, it is possible.

I think we are now largely concentrated on the attack and bruises.

Pirate

PS working on a reply Jon

Place Schwartz at that location within a reasonable and believable context....say, that he attended the meeting and was hanging around afterward, as we are led to believe many attendees did after Saturday night meetings until past 1am...as per the neighbors including Fanny,......account for the fact no-one, Brown or Mortimer, corroborates one single aspect of his story, .....factor in that the club was thought by local authorities to contain Socialist anarchists, and that the key club witnesses that night will attack policemen with clubs in just a few months in that same yard,.....factor in that as of Liz's murder, most authorities thought Jack was a Jewish Immigrant from Europe.......

Now look at his statement in terms of its potential benefit for the Club.

Off site attacker...so not a club man, anti-semetic....so probably not a Jew. Add in Eagle and Lave saying they both were in that yard at 12:40am and it was empty,....apparently a contradiction because clearly 2 men said they were in the yard at the same time,.... and clearly different than what is portrayed by the neighbors about usual after meeting Saturday nights.......

You have an immigrant Jew being implausibly concerned about his wife moving their belongings over the previous 12 hours.....(how much could they have had?), outside an anarchist club for Socialist Jews after a meeting,...with an uncharacteristically empty yard despite the fact the meeting had been broken up between 11 and 11:30 and the rain had ended around then...... and he happens to come along at just the right moment to see a non-club member, non-Jew.... probably a gentile by the remark he later makes, ..assault a woman just outside the club gates, who is found minutes later, just inside the yard, murdered.

If I took his statement, the first thing that I would want to know is if he was in any way associated with that Club.

Has anyone read anything that categorically addresses that question by the Police? If they did look into that angle, and found he was in some way connected even if for only that one night.....maybe that might explain his absence at the Inquest.

Potentially tainted, prejudicial and sounding too much like the International Club official alibi.

If the police thought they had reason to suspect a club member, the club would have closed that night. With an empty yard...and an outside assailant.....they didnt.

Best regards all.

[Tom_Wescott]

What I disagree with most in your post is the dogmatism.

I don't believe I was being dogmatic about anything. Swanson has Schwartz walking behind BS Man and arriving at the gate. He then has Schwartz cross the street, which puts him on the board school side of the road. He then has Pipeman emerge from across the street, which would be the club side. The Star account supports this and adds the detail that Pipeman emerged from the 'pub', which could only be the Nelson beerhouse, a location that makes sense because it's on the corner. The beerhouse was closed at this hour, but Pipeman likely emerged from around it's side or from the encaved entryway; the only such spot he COULD have emerged from without having previously been seen by Schwartz.

Perhaps Schwartz did run down Fairclough Street, but I don't believe either of the primary accounts say that. In any event, I'm more concerned with the events that transpired prior to his running from the scene.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

It seems that lots of people are content to continue to plough this barren field of Schwartz's statement despite;

a) What amounts to be a ridiculous excuse for being at that location at that time of night
b) No-one else corroborates it, and BSM and Pipeman were not found
c) Its supposedly been translated, but who knows how literally
d) His so-called Witness statement is in effect just reminiscences by Swanson. Abberlines staunch support of Hutchinson at first should be a cautionary tale, retrospectively.
e) He was not invited to provide his story at the Inquest
f) Without this statement the obvious and most probable spot for the killer to have been waiting for Liz, was inside the yard.

Fanny Mortimer is at her door off an on until almost 1am, she sees or hears none of what Schwartz describes, nor does Brown, whose Inquest statement clearly shows Liz to be in a much different location, and in much different circumstances, than Israels statement.

Brown is not a Jewish Immigrant, but Schwartz is...as are the members of The International Club. Whose necks were on the chopping block without that witnessed altercation off premises just before Strides murder.

Perhaps the most likely answer as to why Israel wasnt called to give his story isnt his inability to speak English, its perhaps his inability to provide a story that doesnt seem remarkably like an alibi for the Club members.

Best regards all.

[Chris]

Tom

What I disagree with most in your post is the dogmatism. The evidence is contradictory, so it's no good simply asserting "A, B and C happened". If you said something like "I think Source 1 rather than Source 2 is correct about where Knifeman stood, because ..." it would be more useful and interesting.

Regarding the route Schwartz took, it's not so much that I think he had to go down Fairclough Street to hit any arches. It's more that the only explicit statement we have is that he did go down Fairclough Street, so the question arises as to why it should instead be asserted that he went down Berner Street. The only piece of evidence I can see to suggest that he went down Berner Street is the Star's statement that he "fled incontinently to his new lodgings". But the difficulty is that fleeing directly to his lodgings doesn't take him anywhere near a railway arch, as far as I can see.

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris,

What precisely are you disagreeing with in my sequence of events? You weren't clear on that. As far as the Echo report that I'm cautioning people about, it's because it basically has Schwartz as the would-be Ripper and Pipeman as the hero chasing him. Why is it you feel Schwartz HAD to have gone down Fairclough Street to have hit any arches?
Of course I'm aware of discrepancies between the Swanson report and the Star report. I've published on here a decent-sized list of these discrepancies. Some are likely errors (or omissions) on the part of Swanson, not the Star, which should also be kept in mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott