Two

[Tom_Wescott]

“The daring character of the murders is evident from the act that two people at least saw a man and the woman together in the 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”

New York Times, 2nd Oct 1888

The 'second witness' would have been the disreputed Matthew Packer who claimed to have sold grapes to a couple and spotted them standing across from the gateway for some time.

Regarding the men arrested, let's remember that only BS Man's description was circulated to other police stations. Pipeman's was not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi all,

Just to finish my response to you Archaic, for point 4 in the rebuttal the answer is no, there is no official explanation for Schwartz's absence at the Inquest.

I found Pirate jacks snippet very interesting in connection with my previous address of Arc Angels post....

"“In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts”

East London Advertiser, 15th Sept 1888.

I know there are lots of variations on a theme available to read, but doesnt that sound like the altercation witnessed took place inside the yard.... in what could be described as the "passage" between the cottages and the 2 storey wall opposite it.

Best regards all.

[Archaic]

Archaic,

Jeff, this Star article is very similar to the East London Advertiser one you mentioned.

They are not "very similar," they are identical, which would indicate a single source. And, unlike Homer Simpson's logic, the same person telling the same story two different times does not mean independent confirmation.
Don.

Hi, Don & Jeff.

Jeff, the date you gave for the East London Advertiser of Sept. 15th must be a mistake, because that's 2 weeks before Stride was even murdered.

The Star article I posted was dated October 2.

Don, when you say it "indicates a single source" do you mean a latter article was based upon an earlier one or that their similarities indicate the the reporters spoke to the same witness or official?

Thanks, Archaic

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry Don, I just don’t follow your banter.

However, I raised the possibility that ‘Pipeman’, was identified, and quoted references from the ‘Facts’ which support such theorizing…I except your counter argument, however these press reports do exist and a possibility he was spoken to, remains.

Pirate

PS they are not identical, But I must admit a single source did cross my mind.

[Supe]

Archaic,

Jeff, this Star article is very similar to the East London Advertiser one you mentioned.

They are not "very similar," they are identical, which would indicate a single source. And, unlike Homer Simpson's logic, the same person telling the same story two different times does not mean independent confirmation.

Don.

[Supe]

Jeff.

Just to confirm that what I meant was, that there are a number of press reports that indicate the possibility that the person we refer to as ‘Pipeman’ might possibly have been identified.

You have two conditionals in that sentence that, in tandem, do not strengthen the assertion but only vitiate it.

In any case, all the newpaper stories don't change the fact that well more than a month after the incident memoranda among the police, Home Office and others, continue to reflect a position that Pipeman was not identified or questioned.

Don.

[Archaic]

The Star October 2, 1888

Thanks, Don, Jeff & Tom.

Jeff, this Star article is very similar to the East London Advertiser one you mentioned. The ending is especially interesting:

The Star 2 October, 1888

SUNDAY MORNING'S CRIMES

"...but no two of the descriptions are alike, and none of the accompanying information has thus far been able to bear investigation. In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

If every man should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them.
There are many people in that district who volunteer information to the police on the principle of securing lenient treatment for their own offences, and there are others who turn in descriptions on the chance of coming near enough the mark to claim a portion of the reward if the man should be caught, just as one buys a ticket in a lottery.

Even where such information is given in good faith, it can rarely be looked upon in the light of a clue."

Best regards, Archaic

[Jeff Leahy]

“The daring character of the murders is evident from the act that two people at least saw a man and the woman together in the 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”

New York Times, 2nd Oct 1888
Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

“In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in he passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts”

East London Advertiser, 15th Sept 1888.

Just to confirm that what I meant was, that there are a number of press reports that indicate the possibility that the person we refer to as ‘Pipeman’ might possibly have been identified.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

(which one cretin town does call me).

You're more well known than I thought if an entire town knows your name and has passed a town ordinance to chide you with 'Supey'. At least you're not in 'Sales' as a profession.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Tommy,

Just remember, it is Supe not Soup. Sound the same but a lot of difference in how you spell it.

Supey (which one cretin town does call me).

[Supe]

Jeff,

One must ask why, if Pipeman had been identified and had given an account of his activity that night, as late as November internal drpartment memoranda make no reference to his identity or testimony and that these memoranda continue to say it was Stride's attacker and not Pipeman who shouted "Lipski"? In this instance I would certainly go with a journalist's error than a missing or suppressed witness statement.

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello all, I'm catching up with the posts over the weekend, so here goes. Good to see Chris back.

Pipeman: His identity was never discovered. This is made abundantly clear by Swanson's report and the exchanges following. The notion that he may have been known originated with Paul Begg in his book 'The Facts' and is not one of his more thought-out notions.

Michael Kidney's alibi: We do not know what it was but can reasonably infer he had one, since the police reports state that all of Stride's closest associates were investigated and their alibis confirmed. He obviously would have been at the top of that list.

Lipski/Lizzie: It has been suggested by many people over many years that Schwartz may have misheard 'Lipski'. Schwartz wasn't sure of many things, but he was sure about this, so we pretty much have to go with 'Lipski'. Besides, there's nothing to suggest Stride went by the name 'Lizzie' any more than I go by 'Tommy' or Don goes by 'Soupy'. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Archaic]

Pipeman

Hi, Jeff. I'm a bit confused as just now you said the

"The Pirate never said that the Pipeman had been identified"

but in your previous post you said you believe the Pipeman was traced and he confirmed Schhwartz's testimony:

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;96225]
I guess the story could also be made to fit if ‘Pipeman’ (who incidentally I believe was traced and did confirm Schwartz story) ....

I had never heard of Pipeman being found, traced, identified, interviewed, confirmed, or anything else, which is why I asked for clarification. As far as I know the only indication that he ever existed came from the statements of Schwartz.

Do you have any more details that might shed light on this point?

Thanks & best regards, Archaic

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,

Suggestion that the suspect may have been drunk would not be admissible to the police account because it is a subjective observation.

That is interesting, since the police witness reports are rife with subjective observations, most notably perhaps Mary Ann Cox saying that Kelly was "very drunk." Indeed, every witness statement in regard to mein and manner is subjective.

In any case, my point was simply how so many poster have turned suggestions of "partially intoxicated" and "half-tipsy" into indisputably drunk.

Don.
PS: Tell Paul there is no need to hunt up his reference to a "second witness" as I am quite familiar with it,

Its quite clearly referanced in the 'FACTS'

"What is important about this snippet is that it says two arrests had been made, one based on the description given by he Hungarian (Schwartz) and the other on a description 'furnished from another source', and, unless bad phrazing or some other mistake by a journalist had given a wrong impression, the context makes it beyond doubt that both sources were describing the assault. The other witness therefore has to be Pipeman' PB

So it is likely that the police spoke to pipeman and eliminated him. Thus Pieman shouting 'Lipski' at BSM seems a more likely explanation for what happened.

Pirate