Two

[perrymason]

Hi, Michael. I read your post several times to make sure I understood what you were saying.

This is how I understood you: You seem to be implying that perhaps Schwartz saw something of even greater significance which occurred a bit later, such as the deadly attack upon Stride?

Do you think Schwartz might actually have been inside the yard at that time?

Whatever happened, I still can't understand why Schwartz wouldn't have gone into the club or banged on its doors & windows and alerted other to come to his aid and the aid of Liz Stride.

Schwartz is lucky enough to be right on the club's premises, and it's a building full of Jewish men who can speak his language- many of them immigrants as well- yet he runs off alone in the darkness.

>>What do you think of the possibility that BS Man might have actually yelled "Lizzie!", but that the nervous Schwartz mistakenly thought he heard "Lipski!!" directed at himself?

Best regards, Archaic

Hi Archaic,

On the above in bold, yes I do think thats possible.

I think the man he saw wasnt an active member though, and that man perhaps did yell "Lipski" at him. Suggesting that inside that yard at around 12:45 ish there was a gentile thug. Why would a gentile be in that yard after midnight?

Would the club hire security men for meetings?
Did Kidney show any antisemitism at anytime?
Do we know for a fact where Kidney was at around 12:45?

Cheers mate

[Archaic]

Hi, Michael. So you think the man who yelled "Lipski!" did indeed yell Lipski and was a gentile? Well, i can't see a Jew calling another Jew that, so if anybody yelled it I would assume he was a gentile.

But if BS Man or some other gentile was in Dutfield's Yard, doesn't it strike you as INSANE for him to yell "Lipski!" of all things, and to be manhandling a lone woman at the same time? I would think a taunt like that in those circumstances could get him killed.

He has to know that the club is full of Jewish men having a meeting; there were signs on the building & he could probably hear noise coming from inside.

Even Schwartz's testimony about the woman screaming "three times, but not very loudly" is odd. Who in the world every screams 3 times quietly? Maybe as she was knocked down she made some exclamation like "Oh-oh-oh!" which was subsequently translated as a "scream"?

It's all very puzzling.

Best regards, Archaic

PS: Did the police ever explain the precise reasons why they decided to forgo Schwarz's testimony?
Of course, it's rather garbled testimony, but so were many other eye-witness accounts.

[perrymason]

"1. So you think the man who yelled "Lipski!" did indeed yell Lipski and was a gentile? Well, i can't see a Jew calling another Jew that, so if anybody yelled it I would assume he was a gentile."

2. But if BS Man or some other gentile was in Dutfield's Yard, doesn't it strike you as INSANE for him to yell "Lipski!" of all things, and to be manhandling a lone woman at the same time? I would think a taunt like that in those circumstances could get him killed.

3. He has to know that the club is full of Jewish men having a meeting; there were signs on the building & he could probably hear noise coming from inside.


PS: 4. Did the police ever explain the precise reasons why they decided to forgo Schwarz's testimony?
Of course, it's rather garbled testimony, but so were many other eye-witness accounts.

Hi Archaic,

I hope you dont mind me itemizing the above....

1. So we agree that the use of "Lipski" would be by a gentile more probably. What do we know of the authorities opinions on the Ripper's ethnicity at that point in time? Could the use of this taunt be merely to suggest a gentile may have killed this woman? If Schwartz was fabricating at all, could he have just added that in to deflect suspicion from Jews in general, or more specifically on that night? Maybe this man was chosen for this because as we know, he was "theatrical in appearance"...maybe an onsite member but a decent actor too. Or maybe his interpreter was.

2. As I indicate above, there needn't have been an actual cry out. If there was, I can imagine a drunk gentile thug with broadshoulders snapping out a regrettable phrase, this man may have been physically intimidating by his description, maybe he scared them,...even if they hired him for security for example...what I dont see if them covering anything up if this thug was in no way affiliated with the club. If he wasnt, why not just toss him to the coppers?

3. If for example the yard was empty save for Liz, and Michael Kidney catches Liz in the yard and discovers that she is waiting for a new beau, a Socialist Jew inside the club..he loses it and chokes and cuts her as she turned away from him..there need be no actual exchange between he and Schwartz or even a sighting...but Schwartz could give his statement so that any altercation between man and Liz are off premises, and that the man is a gentile, reasonably ruling out everyone onsite at the time. Now, If Schwartz comes out the side door to the yard, sees Liz talking with a drunk thug inside the yard, a broadshouldered man they hired for security...a gentile....right about on the spot where she is found, she falls, Schwartz stares, Lipski is shouted knee jerk...there was much antisemitism at the time in that area,... and he and a man smoking a pipe in the yard split out the gates quickly both scared of the thug....then we have all that the story needs right there. The time, Blackwells timing, the blood flow issues, .....all thats needed there is to have the man be gentile when the police arrive, and to have the start of his altercation with Liz take place outside the gates and therefore having nothing at all to do with the club or its membership onsite. I favour a hired thug scenario....they had to protect him because he might know of illegal activities they undertook and he was on their property. That would shut the club for good that night.

I guess lucky for everyone I ran out of time tonight....sorry, Ill finish the thoughts later Arc, Cheers.

[Archaic]

Cheers, Michael; we all love a good cliff-hanger!



Best regards, Archaic

[Supe]

I am curious why so many consider it gospel that Broad-shoulders was drunk. In fact, the Star interview only describes him as "partially intoxicated" and "half-tipsy," both of which seem rather short of a delaration of being drunk.

As it is, the Star reporter clearly asked a number of leading question to elicit more sensational testimony from Schwartz. Indeed, one can see the Star man asking :
"Was there anything strange about the way he walked?"
"Uhm," through an interpreter, "maybe he rolled a biT."
"As if he was partially intoxicated?"
"Well maybe."
And, totally disregarding that the fellow may have been am old Jack Tar, had bad bunions, or didn't really walk that strangely anyway, we have someone half-tipsy. And from a possible slight tippsiness we now have a rip-roaring dtunk.

It is also interesting that while the idea of a drunken accoster (solely a Star stoiry) seems so widely accepted while other elements of the Star interview, such as Pipeman holding a knife and Pipeman crying "Lipdki", are not. Is there an evidentiary reason for this or does the notion of the man being drunk simply add extra spice to the now conventional wisdom?

Don.

[Archaic]

Hi, Don.

Do you happen to know if 'Pipeman' was ever identified?
I don't recall that he was, but a few posts Jeff said he thought that was the case.

And do you know if the police ever specified why they were so dissatisfied with Schwartz's testimony?

Thanks, Archaic

[Supe]

Archaic,

If Jeff knows who Pipeman was he has a scoop of monumental proportioms and space reserved in Ripperologist any time he wants.

Again, the idea that the police came to disregard Schwartz' story seems built upon an unsupported statement in the Star and the fact that he is not reported as appearing at the inquest. As it is, there are Metropolitan Police internal memos as late as November that strongly suggest they still took his story seriously.

As to why he might not have testified at the inqiest there are any number of proceedural reasons. Could be as simple as that he was unavailable: out of the country, in hospital and so on.

Don.

[Jeff Leahy]

I am curious why so many consider it gospel that Broad-shoulders was drunk. In fact, the Star interview only describes him as "partially intoxicated" and "half-tipsy," both of which seem rather short of a delaration of being drunk.

As it is, the Star reporter clearly asked a number of leading question to elicit more sensational testimony from Schwartz. Indeed, one can see the Star man asking :
"Was there anything strange about the way he walked?"
"Uhm," through an interpreter, "maybe he rolled a biT."
"As if he was partially intoxicated?"
"Well maybe."
And, totally disregarding that the fellow may have been am old Jack Tar, had bad bunions, or didn't really walk that strangely anyway, we have someone half-tipsy. And from a possible slight tippsiness we now have a rip-roaring dtunk.

It is also interesting that while the idea of a drunken accoster (solely a Star stoiry) seems so widely accepted while other elements of the Star interview, such as Pipeman holding a knife and Pipeman crying "Lipdki", are not. Is there an evidentiary reason for this or does the notion of the man being drunk simply add extra spice to the now conventional wisdom?

Don.

Hi Don

The simple answer is, it is impossible to tell. Clearly there are differences between the Police report and the Star report.

However what makes the Star report interesting is that the report seems to have been in the right place at the right time and got the witness at very much the same time that he gave his police statement.

My view is both accounts would have been selective in what information they choose to include or exclude from there own perspectives, however I would have thought the police statement was the more factually focused of the two..

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

Clearly the whole incident makes more sense if Pipeman shouts ‘Lipski’ at BSM. That’s assuming that BSM looked Jewish and was committing a murder.

With regards the ‘intoxication’ it’s a matter of interesting speculation, but anyone suffering from Schizophrenia might also give the appearance of being intoxicated…the two are sometimes confused.

Pirate

PS The pirate never said that pipeman had been identified. Just that there were press reports suggesting that another witness might have been identified, which might have been pipeman. I will dig the source out if required.

[Supe]

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,

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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).

[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