Two

[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.

[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

[perrymason]

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

[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.

[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

[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 ...

[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

[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.

[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]

Because Schwartz would have seen the man earlier if he'd been north of him after crossing the road. And what pub do you suggest he stepped from if not the Nelson?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Because Schwartz would have seen the man earlier if he'd been north of him after crossing the road.

Why would he? I mean, you're surely not suggesting the reason he didn't see the man initially was because he was too far away to see, are you? Remember what small distances we're talking about.

And what pub do you suggest he stepped from if not the Nelson?

I'm not suggesting there was another pub - I'm suggesting there is a contradiction between the sources. It's no way round that contradiction to keep repeating "but the Star says so-and-so".

[Jeff Leahy]

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

Hi Jon

I’ve been taking a closer look at Jane Coram’s article which contains some interesting observations. I am much in agreement about witness memory. Human beings are interpretation machines. We are selective in what we see and remember and the discrepancy in timings is what we would expect given the large number of accounts and witnesses.

I think the following part of her paper, is the part most relevant to the current thread:

JC: Schwartz was not called to the inquest. We can only speculate why. There are, at any rate, reasons to doubt his evidence. He was on his way home when he turned in Berner Street, reached Dutfield’s Yard gates and noticed a man stopping and then talking to a woman. Looking carefully at his statement, as reflected in Swanson’s report, we see that the man ‘tried to pull the woman into the street’ and not into the yard, where Stride’s body would be found 15 minutes later. Then the man ‘turned her round & threw her down on the footway’. This was not typical of the Whitechapel Murderer, who attacked his victims from behind and left them no escape.

PIRATE: I think that we have established that taking Schwartz statement ‘verbatim’ creates a number of problems, as there are obvious contradictions between the police statement and the Star report. The question is did Schwartz witness the murder? And can that tally with the two accounts? Or did he witness something else? (or as Michaels suggestion is it a ‘fabrication?)

JC: We don’t know what the woman did after being thrown to the ground because Schwartz, feeling his life was in danger, left the scene followed by the pipe smoker. The broad-shouldered man may have been able to grab her again, pull her into the yard and cut her throat within the space of 15 minutes. The evidence available, however, appears to disprove this hypothesis. Doctors at the scene of the crime stated that there were no signs of struggle and Stride’s clothes were not creased. When found, she still held a packet of cachous in her left hand. This suggests that the attack on her was so sudden as to afford her no possibility to fight for her life. Her attacker must have cut her throat so unexpectedly and so swiftly that she collapsed to the ground in shock. This seems to be inconsistent with the struggle witnessed by Schwartz.

Pirate: We have established that the accounts we have are probably flawed. This could be for a number of reasons not least the translation problem. However something scared Schwartz enough to panic him and make him run a long way. If he did actually witness BSM kill Stride, that makes more sense to me.
However, the three screams seem to be inconsistent with someone suddenly having their throat cut in a sudden attack. Are there sufficient signs of a struggle, as accounted by Schwartz, to match the slight bruising and clothes?

JC: In addition, anyone being thrown to the ground would almost inevitably suffer injuries in the palms of the hands or in the knees. There were no indications of such injuries in the post-mortem report on Stride prepared by Dr George Bagster Phillips which could be regarded as consistent with her having been thrown to the ground a few minutes earlier. (11) It is true that Dr Phillips said at the subsequent inquest that ‘Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under the collar bones and in front of the chest there is a bluish discolouration...’ (12) which could be bruising to the shoulders consistent with being grabbed there. But it is possible that it was the Ripper who caused that bruising when seizing Stride prior to cutting her throat. It has also been argued that Stride’s clothing could have protected her knees when she was thrown down to the ground and that she might not have fallen on her hands with sufficient force to sustain grazing in them.

Pirate: AS there is no sign of a struggle I think we can conclude either Schwartz witnessed the murder or he witnessed something completely different. The evidence seems to suggest that it is unlikely that Stride was attacked in a separate incidence 10 or 15 minutes before her murder, otherwise there would be evidence of a previous attack.

JC:The packet of cachous found in Stride’s hand also points to the possibility that Schwartz did not see her but another woman. In effect, if the woman seen by Schwartz had been Stride, she would most likely have dropped the cachous when thrown to the ground. Yet no cachous were found scattered about the yard or in the street. Furthermore, the behavior of the woman seen by Schwartz was not that of someone who felt her life in imminent danger. She ‘screamed three times, but not very loudly’. (13) If she had really feared for her safety, she would have tried as best as she could to attract attention to herself and her attacker, possibly even seeking help from Schwartz. She didn’t call out and she didn’t try to escape, react or defend herself. The behavior of this woman and the broad-shouldered man looks more like a simple quarrel than like a murder attempt.
Pirate: Again, I simply see no evidence that Stride was involved in a separate incident minutes before her murder. Either Schwartz is lying as suggested by Michael or he witnessed the murder and the police report is inaccurate.

JC: Again, it is possible that the broad-shouldered man refrained from further violence after he realized Schwartz had witnessed his attack on the woman. Prostitutes were often used to domestic violence and probably to being treated roughly by their customers as well. If the woman was Stride, she may have accepted the broad-shouldered man’s outburst of anger, whatever its cause may have been, as an occupational hazard, and unwarily followed her killer into the darkness of the passage. Be it as it may, it cannot be ascertained from Schwartz’s testimony that the woman he saw being thrown to the ground was indeed Stride and that her attacker was Jack the Ripper.

PIRATE: As we know if Schwartz did witness something, rather than making it all up, which seems more logical to me. Then he was actually very close to BSM and Stride when their argument starts and he crosses the road. Schwartz unhesitatingly identified Strides body which I feel is important. Had he witnessed someone else would he have been so positive?

JC: It is worth noting that Schwartz was on his way home when he witnessed the attack. When he heard the man cry out ‘Lipski’ he ‘walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, ran as far as the railway arch’. (14) I find odd that he didn’t continue along Berner Street, turn in Helen Street and reach the safety of his home but instead preferred to stay on the streets until he reached the railway arch. For all we know this was never explained. Schwartz gave his statement at the Leman Street Police Station through an interpreter and inevitably details of what he said were lost in translation.

Pirate: Yes I agree with both Jane’s conclusions here. Its odd Schwartz ran so far, translation is a unique unknown?

JC: When violence is implied, witnesses are likely to devote virtually all of their attention to the perpetrators of the crime and what they are doing. Stress leads to a narrowing of focus. The implication of this is that, since attention is concentrated on the perpetrators and what they do, accounts of them and their actions are likely to be both detailed and accurate. However, this will also mean that other more peripheral information, such as the activities of other persons involved, might not be noticed and will, as a consequence, be remembered less well. Reading again Schwartz’s evidence we can see that he was able to recollect and remember almost everything about the attacker including height, build, complexion, moustache, hair, clothes, cap and behavior, but said nothing about Stride. Even though he positively identified the body as the woman he had seen, the intriguing possibility remains that what he saw had nothing to do with her murder. Israel Schwartz may have been witness to nothing more that a street brawl.

Pirate: I think this final conclusion most unlikely. There is no evidence that Stride was involved in a separate incidence shortly before her murder. It seems more reasonable to conclude that the wording of the statement is inaccurate and some confusion happened in translation. If Stride were involved in a street brawl then we would have some evidence, which we do not…Just to add that Mrs. Mortimer statement is completely consistent with not seeing Liz who was almost certainly doing business just inside the gate of Dutfield Yard, most probably popping in and out of the shadows, as she would not want to be seen by anyone other than potential customers.

Well there it is Jon…trusting you are well

Pirate

[m_w_r]

The source was William Wess of the IWEC. I suspect but cannot yet prove that he was Schwartz's translator for the police.

Tom -

This seems likely. In 1889, Wess was the secretary of the Strike Committee of East-End Tailors. We can infer he had labour sympathies and some command of English, including written English. This would make him the sort of person who could advocate for less (ahem) integrated members of the Jewish community when they came up against the language-rich machinery of the state, eg, police officers asking "What's all this 'ere, then?"

Regards,

Mark

[Stewart P Evans]

'ello

Tom -
This seems likely. In 1889, Wess was the secretary of the Strike Committee of East-End Tailors. We can infer he had labour sympathies and some command of English, including written English. This would make him the sort of person who could advocate for less (ahem) integrated members of the Jewish community when they came up against the language-rich machinery of the state, eg, police officers asking "What's all this 'ere, then?"
Regards,
Mark

Mark, you forgot the "'ello, 'ello, 'ello..." that inevitably precedes the "What's all this then?"

[Jeff Leahy]

The potential involvement of Wess and a connection between Schwartz and the Club has also been raised by Michael.

Is there any actual evidence for this? Are there any other examples of Wess ‘helping the police in their enquiries at this time?

Also I’m curious about the Star statement mentioning BSM walking as if ‘intoxicated’? This is not mentioned in the police report. Would there have been a logical explanation for this, might Abberline and Swanson considered this guess work on Schwartz behalf and chosen not to put speculation into the account but just the FACTS of what he witnessed, as they saw it?

I guess what I’m wondering is ‘would the police statement’ by its nature and what they considered admissible, make it different from an account written by a newspaper man..

Pirate