Two

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[perrymason]

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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[perrymason]

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

[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..