Two

[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]

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

[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".

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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]

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]

Pirate,

That doesn't mean he lied, it just opens up the possibility since his evidence conveniently has an anti-Semite and a clearly Anglo man as the only possible killers and moves the action outside the club yard and onto the pavement.
Having said that, Schwartz could just as easily have been been affiliated with the club and still been telling the truth.

Yours truly, Tom Wescott

Does Schwartz actually say that BSM or Pipeman were clearly Anglo men.

Surely he doesn't say that directly, and the cry of 'Lipski' can be interpreted in any number of different ways?

As I said, I dont think that you can draw a conclussion on pipeman and BSM's relationship from either of Schwartz accounts?

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate,

You don't have to believe in any conspiracy theory to accept that Schwartz might have frequented the Berner Street Club. After all, he lived on Berner Street and was a young Jewish immigrant. He would have been drawn to them like a magnet. That doesn't mean he lied, it just opens up the possibility since his evidence conveniently has an anti-Semite and a clearly Anglo man as the only possible killers and moves the action outside the club yard and onto the pavement.
Having said that, Schwartz could just as easily have been been affiliated with the club and still been telling the truth.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry Tom

I just don’t buy conspiracy theories, but if you found your link I guess it would be interesting. And while I agree not everything in Schwartz statement makes sense, it is on the whole quite believable, if a little muddled in the two tellings.

The fact that people’s timings don’t concur is what we would expect given the large number of accounts in this particular murder.

As a matter of interest, assuming that Schwartz statement is correct, surely it’s unlikely that BSM and Pipeman were together from Schwartz account.

Isn’t it more logical to assume that Pipeman was just another bye stander coming out the pub, rather than connected to BSM?

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

One Israel Schwartz is found living in the vicinity in following years, and while it's quite possible this is our man, we can be sure. London was a mere stopover for many of these immigrant Jews. Their final intended destination was America. Many of them would stay in London though. I don't believe Schwartz became a hairdresser named John.

Regarding Perry Mason's hope for some documentation proving Schwartz's affiliation with the club (something I also strongly suspect); while I'm certain we won't find anything showing him at the club on that particular Saturday, there is real hope we could find some registers relating to some of the tailor unions that the club and William Wess managed or were affiliated with. To find Schwartz's name on these registers would be a strong indicator that he was affiliated with the club.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

If you check out the witness thread then these guys already seemed to have discussed the matter. From what I can gather concencus seems to be that Schwartz changed his name to John and became a hairdresser.

But nothing particularly remarkable and nothing to confirm that he had anything to do with the club, as far as I can see.

Pirate

[Archaic]

Hi, Chris, you just raised a point that I've been meaning to ask about- is there any record of Israel Schwartz after the time of the murders, or does he simply fade into oblivion?

Did anybody ever interview him in later years?

Thanks, Arcahic