Two

[Archaic]

I do think it's quite important to acknowledge that there are contradictions between these different accounts, and that while we can make conjectures to try to explain them, we really can't know what happened.

Chris, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Although we all have our own theories, it's best for the sake of any constructive discussion that we all bear this in mind.

Jeff, thanks for the Wheelie Bin History Lesson; I'm glad to see you don't believe in cinematic excess.

And Jon, thank you for the link to Jane's wonderful art.

Best regards, Archaic

[Jeff Leahy]

Cheers for that Link Jon , I’m printing it out and will study it tomorrow. Cheers for accepting my bizarre ‘wheelie bin’ video with humour. I’m afraid I have to be up early for work and must dash.

Just to clarify however that for once I agree with both Tom and Chris’s analysis. Tom in so far as the usually ‘accepted’ set of events. And Chris in as much as there are clearly anomalies that require, thought, consideration and deduction.

Pirate

[Chris]

BS Man - now ACROSS THE STREET FROM SCHWARTZ - yelled out 'Lipski'. Pipeman then emerged either from the entryway of the Nelson or from it's other side, lighting his pipe. At this time, Pipeman, BS Man, and Stride are all on the same side of the street. Schwartz is on the opposite side. Pipeman takes off running towards Schwartz and Schwartz takes off running down Berner Street.

Well, perhaps, but to my mind that's a very unnatural interpretation of what Swanson says, and I don't believe it would have occurred to anyone if it hadn't been for the statement about the pub in the Star report.

But what I really don't understand is why you're so convinced that the report in the Echo about the men running down Fairclough Street is wrong. After all, if Schwartz simply went straight home as the Star report suggests, then he wouldn't have gone anywhere near "the railway arch", which is where Swanson says he ended up.

I do think it's quite important to acknowledge that there are contradictions between these different accounts, and that while we can make conjectures to try to explain them, we really can't know what happened.

[Jon Guy]

Jenny, scroll down on this link to see some cool graphics by Jane Coram of where Pipeman was:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-sironi.html

[JennyL]

Pirate

As soon as I saw the wheelie-bin with "Liz" stuck on it I knew it was going be a classic. I agree with your conclusions. Can`t argue with science. Good sport.

I admit I had to fight off some Pythonesque thoughts when concentrating my attention on the representations for "Liz" and BSM".

But great video! I still have my troubles understanding from descriptions exactly where pipe man was when he(?--or BSM?) yelled "Lipski!", and the video didn't address that(darn!). Was the smoker on the same side as BSM & Liz, or the same side as Schwartz after he crossed the street? I assume from the various reports he was same side as Liz; but if so--further back from whence Schwartz had come, or up ahead as he walking, and then passed(I understand all the others wound up behind Schwartz as he hurried off--he being on the move all the time.

I'm sure this has been diagrammed somewhere, but so far in all the books ec. I've had an awful time picturing the setup of where exactly everyone was. This went a way towards helping enormously. Very interesting.

[Jon Guy]

Pirate

As soon as I saw the wheelie-bin with "Liz" stuck on it I knew it was going be a classic. I agree with your conclusions. Can`t argue with science. Good sport.

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate Jack, et al.

The "public house" referred to is the Nelson Beerhouse which stood directly on the corner, a few doors down from Matthew Packer's house. It was right across the street from the board school.

Schwartz was walking a bit behind BS Man. But when BS Man came to a stop to speak to Liz, Schwartz DID NOT stop, so inevitably ended up drawing in closer to the couple. Schwartz was himself at the gateway when the scene got ugly and BS Man pulled Stride out of the gateway and, upon her resistance, threw her down. Schwartz then crossed the road to the other side of the street.

BS Man - now ACROSS THE STREET FROM SCHWARTZ - yelled out 'Lipski'. Pipeman then emerged either from the entryway of the Nelson or from it's other side, lighting his pipe. At this time, Pipeman, BS Man, and Stride are all on the same side of the street. Schwartz is on the opposite side. Pipeman takes off running towards Schwartz and Schwartz takes off running down Berner Street.

The Echo account mentioned by Stephen Thomas a few posts ago is valuable, but not for it's muddled information. The source was William Wess of the IWEC. I suspect but cannot yet prove that he was Schwartz's translator for the police.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Morning All

Yes some interesting observation Chris. It has always puzzled me why Schwartz would run past his own front door down to a rather dodgy looking railway arch. However if he goes down Fairclough Street and turns left into church lane, it makes more sense. That said, Schwartz has to have crossed to the West side of the Street in order to see Liz Stride:

http://vimeo.com/6024071

This link shows at short film I made yesterday demonstrating the angles. As you can see if Schwartz is on the East side of the road as he heads down behind BSM he would have a very poor view of Liz Stride. He practically has to be on top of BSM, about eight feet away, before he can see Liz.

If he does cross to the west side, stop and look back however, as claimed in the Star, then he has a very good view indeed of the possible attack and murder.

My conclusion therefore is that Schwartz was fairly close to BSM and Liz when he crosses the road; he hears something, stops and looks back. Pipeman (outside pub) shouts ‘Lipski’ and Schwartz heads, south down Berner Street.

I’m afraid I can not find the Echo report you mention but here is the Star and New York Times.

Many thanks for your observations

Pirate

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.

[Chris]

Thanks for that, Chris

Thanks for the thanks. Though maybe I should just emphasise that there was a "... if it wasn't for the mention of the pub in the Star report ..." before the second part of my post that you quoted.

Maybe it's also worth mentioning that the Echo report describes Fairclough Street as "[running] across Berner-street close to the Club, and [being]intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter running] up into Commercial-road". Those intersections all lie to the east of Berner Street. That may indicate that the journalist understood Schwartz to have headed east, but it's not clear that his source said as much.

[Stephen Thomas]

And in just about the only piece of information about the incident from another source, we have a statement in the Echo about a man having been seen "being chased by another man along Fairclough-street". ............


I think everything would point to Schwartz having run westward along Fairclough Street, and then southward along Back Church Lane to the railway arch.

Thanks for that, Chris

I never knew that there was some sort of independant verification of the Schwartz/Pipeman chase and I always assumed that Schwartz headed due south. Here's the full article from the Press Reports here with the relevant bit under the heading 'A Man Pursued-Said To Be The Murderer'.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881001.html

[Chris]

By the way, Schwartz, BS Man, Mortimer, Stride, and Pipeman were ALL on the same side of the road UNTIL Schwartz crossed over to the board school side to get away from BS Man. Pipeman then stepped out of the shadows of the Nelson beerhouse. Since Schwartz crossed the street, Pipeman was now on the opposite side from him, but the same side of the street as BS Man and Stride.

Certainly the Star report says that the second man "came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off", but I think this is another aspect of the story that's a bit difficult to reconcile in the different accounts.

Swanson says: "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', 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."

I think the natural interpretation of this is that the first man was shouting to a man on the opposite side of the road from him (not from Schwartz), and that the phrase "opposite side" refers to the east side both times it's used, not to the east side first and then in the following sentence to the west side.

Moreover, if the second man were standing on the corner of the west side of Berner Street, and Schwartz were more or less opposite him on the east side, how should we interpret what happened next?

(1) In Swanson's version, Schwartz "walks away" and then finds the second man is following him, and therefore runs to "the railway arch".

(2) In the Star version, the second man "rushed forward as if to attack the intruder [Schwartz]" and Schwartz "fled incontinently to his new lodgings". (These lodgings were nearly due south, near the junction of Berner Street and Ellen Street.)

And in just about the only piece of information about the incident from another source, we have a statement in the Echo about a man having been seen "being chased by another man along Fairclough-street".

If the second man were on the west side, and Schwartz on the east side, surely Schwartz must have fled eastward along Fairclough Street, away from the man, not westward, towards him. (Unless he walked past him first, and then fled in the same direction, but I can't see any hint of that in either account.)

But it that case, how would he end up at "the railway arch"? The only candidate I can see is the one near the south end of Back Church Lane, but that was to the south-west of the murder site.

On the other hand, if it wasn't for the mention of the pub in the Star report, I think everything would point to Schwartz having run westward along Fairclough Street, and then southward along Back Church Lane to the railway arch.

[Jeff Leahy]

Stride was standing in the gateway not inside the yard, Jeff.

Makes know difference Jon...I'm about to head outside with a camera and prove it.

Schwartz must have been practically on top of BSM and Stride to have witnessed what is claimed 'verbatum' in his statement.

Pirate

[Jon Guy]

Phillips states she was placed on her left side and PC Lamb stated "She looked as if she had been laid quietly down".

Perhaps, the finger marks on her shoulder were caused by gripping and forcing her down on her left side, as she was found?

Schwartz does say that BS pulled the woman towards him and then turned her around.

[Aristocles]

Hello

Schwartz` translated account of the assault can be read two ways. BS either threw her down on the street pavement, or he threw her down on the footway just inside the gates where she would be found.

We know for a fact that she was thrown down on her left side as this was where her dress were plastered with mud, and she was held or forced down on her left side by someone behind her as the finger marks on her shoulder show, and her throat was exposed by pulling back her scarf from the left side.

Interesting. We know that "she was thrown down on her left side"? Phillips states she was placed on her left side and PC Lamb stated "She looked as if she had been laid quietly down". Baxter said "there were no marks of gagging, no bruises on the face". (Assuming the 'face' includes both sides) This gets at my original question.

JG

[babybird67]

i'd just like to say...

i appreciate the hard work and commitment it takes to host the podcasts and edit them for everyone here, so thank you Jonathan.

I also appreciate the time and knowledge given by the guests, and i dont for one moment expect them to be infallible, or to have perfect recall of every fact about the Ripper murders.

For me, they stimulate debate, and encourage me to find out more about each particular subject.

And long may they continue!