Two

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Perry,

Virtually no one, including the police, carried timepieces. Doctors were an exception which is why we know when Blackwell arrived.

Pirate,

Consider the following about Pipeman:

The Star - THE major source for these newspaper clippings - stated that Schwartz's story was not corroborated. That means they were unaware of any other witness, which would obviously include Pipeman.

Abberline - Following Swanson's report, Abberline replies that he questioned Schwartz thoroughly about whether or not BS Man and Pipeman were known to each other, but Schwartz didn't know. Had Pipeman come forth, Abberline would have certainly known about it and probably would have personally interrogated him. He would then know if he knew BS Man or not.

Swanson - he was compiling a summary of the most important witnesses in the Berner Street case. He mentions they looked for Pipeman under the name 'Lipski' and reports they failed. Had Pipeman been found or come forth, his witness testimony would have been huge and would have received the same summary treatment as Schwartz's.

At the risk of being called dogmatic again, I'd say we can call it a FACT that Pipeman had not been identified by the police as late as October and apparently at no time after.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

I am now confused Michael, are you suggesting Deimschutz timing was in fact late?

Pirate

Hi Perry. I don't recall this report. Who else might have read it and could tell us the source?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Im looking for it now Tom and I had forgotten what a wealth of reports there were in Mondays paper...Id forgotten that Kozebrodski is quoted in the Daily News on the 1st, and the report from a witness named Abraham Heshberg.....both he and Kozebrodski say it was 12:45am when they heard a woman had been killed....K says he went with Diemshutz to go see the body and at that time Diemshutz lit the match. I find it interesting that Spooner initially gives a time when he is there to see the body at around the same time,...which is when she is supposedly first being accosted by BSM.

Just thought that was interesting while Im looking for that quote about a red haired man. But this other stuff is quite interesting and distracting as well.

The Daily Telegraph of the 1st says that 10 minutes before she was found dead she was seen with a flower on her breast by a PC....which would make the time of her being found cut, once again, 12:45am. In the same article Diemshutz says he was there at 1am exactly though.

Ill keep looking Tom and try not to get sidetracked with these great stories Im coming across.

Cheers

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,

No banter, just asking logical questions and drawing logical inferences.

Anyway, the two accounts, beginning with "in the matter of the Hungarian . . ." and ending with ". . . without additional facts." are identical. We both know the source but not wanting to jump the gun on an upcoming Ripperologist article I will say nothing.

I know I have a reputation for sub-defuge but I really have know idea about a Ripperologist article you are talking about and have not spoken with Paul for some days. I've simply been trying to figure out angles and timings for Berner Street.

What I would like, Jeff, is not more newspaper clips but your thoughts on why the police were still communicating among themselves more than a month later as if Pipeman was not identified and and questioned. Don.

I will give it some thought. But as I said my main interest is what Schwartz saw. His timing. The angles and the lighting. And could the writen accounts, Police and Star, tally with actuality.

My comments on Pipeman are speculation on events not some undeclared inside information.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Pirate,

The general concensus regarding Pipeman's location is that he was at the corner, either in the doorway of the Nelson or just around its corner. Given the distance from there to the club gateway, he would not have seen much, other than dark figures moving around.

I agree that his view would have been limited by angle once the attack moved inside the gates. The question about lighting is another matter and another time.

Packer changed the timing of his account repeatedly. At one point he said it happened at 12:30, which fits in with what the reporter is saying.

I'm not convinced packers Story would have been confused with the Star account, its possible I guess.

Remember that the whole reason the police didn't believe fully in Schwartz is because there was no corroboration for his story. Had Pipeman come forward with his part, Schwartz would have been regarded as more important a witness than Lawende.

Yours truly, Tom Wescott

But surely what is being argued here is that the police did beleive Schwartz story for some time. I simply raised the possibility that, given some press reports, its possible that there was another witness in Pipeman.

Pirate

[Supe]

Jeff,

No banter, just asking logical questions and drawing logical inferences.

Anyway, the two accounts, beginning with "in the matter of the Hungarian . . ." and ending with ". . . without additional facts." are identical. We both know the source but not wanting to jump the gun on an upcoming Ripperologist article I will say nothing.

And Archaic, weeklies on both sides of the Atlantic at the time were wont to pick up stiries from other newspapers verbatim and without a by-line or a by-your-leave. Cutting and pasting is always easier than original thought.

What I would like, Jeff, is not more newspaper clips but your thoughts on why the police were still communicating among themselves more than a month later as if Pipeman was not identified and and questioned.

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate,

The general concensus regarding Pipeman's location is that he was at the corner, either in the doorway of the Nelson or just around its corner. Given the distance from there to the club gateway, he would not have seen much, other than dark figures moving around.

Packer changed the timing of his account repeatedly. At one point he said it happened at 12:30, which fits in with what the reporter is saying.

Remember that the whole reason the police didn't believe fully in Schwartz is because there was no corroboration for his story. Had Pipeman come forward with his part, Schwartz would have been regarded as more important a witness than Lawende.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Archaic]

No big deal about the news article, Jeff... this thread is kind of muddling me too.

Best regards, Archaic

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Perry. I don't recall this report. Who else might have read it and could tell us the source?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Packer didn't see anything, but that's a moot point. According to his tale, after the couple bought grapes, they hung around the area for some time. He's the only witness other than Schwartz to claim to have seen a couple in the close vicinity of the club within a half an hour of her death. The reporter has his facts wrong, but there's no second witness. And in any event, Pipeman would not have been ABLE to have seen the couple 'in the gateway'. He would only have been able to see them on the pavement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Also Packers account was far earlier in the evening.

If Pipeman had a veiw, and i'm speculating, then he had the same veiw Schwartz had on the East side of the road, but I totally agree with your piont,

He could not have witnessed the murder some six to nine feet inside Dutfeild yard..

Indeed, I'd add that depending on the lighting (which we know is very poor) its unlikely that Schwartz could have seen the actual murder...

If BSM grabbed Liz on the Street he is unlikely to have drawn a knife at this point...

The senerio for Pipeman and Schwartz witnessing the knife, would require BSM grabbing Liz by the scarf, raising the knife, pushing her inside Dutfeild Yard and cutting her throat..

What we have, at best, is BSM grabing Liz by the shoulders and Liz screaming, which is all Pipeman and probably Schwartz could have witnessed?

An interesting observation

Pirate

PS yes, I'm sorry Archiac, I made a simple mistake when turning to the back of book for the source...

PS PS ..Michael I'm fairly certain I have discussed other news paper accounts on other threads..

There is a report I can recall that said a man with red hair or a red moustache was found and questioned in connection with Schwartz's statement that night, and I believe in at least one report that is Pipemans basic description.

Best regards

[Archaic]

Bugger, my mistake, I do apologize, P158 source79, The Star, 2nd of October...

Hi, Jeff. So the report you quoted really was the same Star report I quoted from Oct 2 and not the East End Advertiser at all?

OK, then that must be why Don said the reports were not just similar but identical... I get it.

Thanks, Archaic

[Tom_Wescott]

Packer didn't see anything, but that's a moot point. According to his tale, after the couple bought grapes, they hung around the area for some time. He's the only witness other than Schwartz to claim to have seen a couple in the close vicinity of the club within a half an hour of her death. The reporter has his facts wrong, but there's no second witness. And in any event, Pipeman would not have been ABLE to have seen the couple 'in the gateway'. He would only have been able to see them on the pavement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

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

Packer didnt see two people inside the gateway he sold them grapes?

[Jeff Leahy]

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

Bugger, my mistake, I do apologize, P158 source79, The Star, 2nd of October...

I wont make excuses, I was in error

Pirate

P.S. I'm fairly certain I have come across other reports that suggest that pipeman may have been identified. I will do some checking and get back..yours P