The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[mariab]

People will excuse me hopefully, but I simply HAD to look this up.

Swanson's report does specifically state that the man lighting his pipe was on the opposite side of the road to 'the man who threw the woman down'. This was thrashed out on JTRForums and is backed by Abberline's later report. I do not intend to get into another lengthy debate about semantics.

Swanson's report does not specifically state that Pipeman was on the board school side. Due to Swanson's rather rushed writing, it's ambiguous.

The Swanson report is indeed a bit unfortunate, lacking precision in its description:
On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing, lighting his pipe. The man who threw Stride down called apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road “Lipski“

The Abberline report states it completely unambiguously, and corroborates what Mr. Evans said:
There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man in the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

[lynn cates]

sweating

Hello Maria.

"Isolated individuals doing what, Lynn, if I might inquire?"

Mostly complaining about the sweating system and complaining of the firm, Maples.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

...The Star report has the second man 'rushing forward as if to attack' Schwartz with 'a knife in his hand', not a pipe.

Good morning Stewart (well, it is in Canada) :-)

This last point is the only one you bring up that I have reservations about.

- In the article Schwartz is typically referred to as 'the Hungarian'.

- Schwartz did follow the 'first-man' (BS-man) down from the direction of Commercial Rd., so both the BS-man & Schwartz 'intruded' on the scene.

- As the Star's Pipeman=Knifeman is said to have stepped out of the doorway of the Nelson pub, while Schwartz was crossing the road, and rushed up towards the disturbance in the yard, then he was running in the general direction of Schwartz (being off to 'his' right) but directly towards Dutfields Yard. Schwartz, by this time was likely in the middle of the road.

I cannot see why Schwartz would continue south passed this knifeman if the knifeman was running at Schwartz. Surely Schwartz would turn tail and run back up Berner St. away from this knifeman?

The fact that the story still has Schwatrz continuing south towards the junction with Fairclough St. suggests to me that Schwartz anticipated the disturbance in Dutfields Yard was about to get bloody, not that he percieved a threat to himself directly.

Hence, Schwartz broke into a "I don't want to get involved - type" sprint.

And, like I mentioned before, I cannot see anything in the police version of events that would make Schwartz break into a run anyway.

If I have interpreted the events correctly then the 'intruder' referred to in the Star must have been this first-man, BS-man, not Schwartz.

My two-penneth.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Hungarian

...
This last point is the only one you bring up that I have reservations about.
- In the article Schwartz is typically referred to as 'the Hungarian'.
- Schwartz did follow the 'first-man' (BS-man) down from the direction of Commercial Rd., so both the BS-man & Schwartz 'intruded' on the scene.
- As the Star's Pipeman=Knifeman is said to have stepped out of the doorway of the Nelson pub, while Schwartz was crossing the road, and rushed up towards the disturbance in the yard, then he was running in the general direction of Schwartz (being off to 'his' right) but directly towards Dutfields Yard. Schwartz, by this time was likely in the middle of the road.
I cannot see why Schwartz would continue south passed this knifeman if the knifeman was running at Schwartz. Surely Schwartz would turn tail and run back up Berner St. away from this knifeman?
The fact that the story still has Schwatrz continuing south towards the junction with Fairclough St. suggests to me that Schwartz anticipated the disturbance in Dutfields Yard was about to get bloody, not that he percieved a threat to himself directly.
Hence, Schwartz broke into a "I don't want to get involved - type" sprint.
And, like I mentioned before, I cannot see anything in the police version of events that would make Schwartz break into a run anyway.
If I have interpreted the events correctly then the 'intruder' referred to in the Star must have been this first-man, BS-man, not Schwartz.
...

The Star extract reads 'Before he [Schwartz] 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 man's hand...'

In my opinion it seems pretty clear that it is being suggested that the 'man with the knife' was some sort of accomplice of the man attacking the woman and that he was calling out to warn the attacker of Schwartz's presence. Schwartz then ran off as he feared the man with the pipe (knife in the Star vesrion) was after him. In other words the Hungarian (Schwartz) was intruding on the scene of the attacker and his accomplice. I thought that this was the generally accepted scenario, especially as the police report clearly states that the second man (with the pipe) followed Schwartz.

In the Star report the first suspect is referred to variously as 'a man walking as if partially intoxicated', 'the half tipsy man', 'the man who was with the woman' and 'the man with the woman'.

The second man (suspect) is described as 'a second man' and 'the man who came at him with a knife'. Indeed as the report goes on to give the descriptions furnished by Schwartz of the two suspects and states clearly, 'The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail' which makes it pretty obvious that earlier the Star report is referring to Schwartz as 'the intruder'.

It is also worth noting that the description of the second man given by the Star is, '...taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red'. Which is another difference to the police report which describes the second man as 'age 35 ht. 5ft. 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.'

[Stewart P Evans]

What about...

...
And, like I mentioned before, I cannot see anything in the police version of events that would make Schwartz break into a run anyway.
...

What about - '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'. - Chief Inspector Swanson, and

'Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.' - Inspector Abberline.

[Stewart P Evans]

Wording...

...
...
The Swanson report is indeed a bit unfortunate, lacking precision in its description:
On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing, lighting his pipe. The man who threw Stride down called apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road “Lipski“
...

With all due respect, the wording in Swanson's report is not 'lacking precision in its description', nor is it ambigious. It's only when the dodgy Star report is introduced and you get people over-analysing it, engaging in semantics and trying to put their own 'spin' on it that any 'confusion' arises and that confusion is 'manufactured'.

If it is read straightforwardly and with common sense it really does have only one meaning. For we can see that everyone else involved in reading it at the time, Abberline and Home Office, referred to it in exactly the same way. Swanson wrote, 'On crossing to the opposite side of the street [i.e. Schwartz had crossed to the opposite side], he [Schwartz] saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road [i.e. the man lighting the pipe who was on the opposite side to the man who threw the woman down] 'Lipski'...'

[Fleetwood Mac]

Swanson's report does specifically state that the man lighting his pipe was on the opposite side of the road to 'the man who threw the woman down'. This was thrashed out on JTRForums and is backed by Abberline's later report. I do not intend to get into another lengthy debate about semantics. The Star and Swanson do conflict on several points.

So Pipeman followed him down the road.

a) If Pipeman is some sort of look out, or even the killer, then why does Schwartz cross the road, on the same side as Pipeman, only for Pipeman to let him pass and then follow him? Seems pointless.

b) If Pipeman is an innocent bystander, then Schwartz crosses the road to the same side as Pipeman, who, once Schwartz has passed him, decides to run off in the same direction. How does Schwartz know this? By his own admission, Schwartz isn't looking back to see what happens to Stride.

Of all the witness statements, this one is unsurpassed in terms of being riddled with holes.

[lynn cates]

high class poll

Hello Mac.

"Of all the witness statements, this one is unsurpassed in terms of being riddled with holes."

Indeed? Have you looked at John Kelly's testimony of late?

Say, there's an idea for a new thread. Whose testimony is most egregiously false?

A. John Kelly
B. Israel Schwartz
C. Joseph Barnett
D. George Hutchinson
E. Another

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

By his own admission, Schwartz isn't looking back to see what happens to Stride.

Schwartz said no such thing, as far as I can see. On the contrary, the Star's account explicitly says he did look back to see what was happening.

[mariab]

(...) the wording in Swanson's report is not 'lacking precision in its description', nor is it ambiguous. It's only when the dodgy Star report is introduced and you get people over-analysing it, engaging in semantics and trying to put their own 'spin' on it that any 'confusion' arises and that confusion is 'manufactured'.

Absolutely. The so-called confusion has been added by the contrasting Star report AND by so many Ripperologists having analyzed this to death.
What I'm mainly saying is that it's very fortunate that we also have Abberline's report confirming the side of the street Pipeman stand on, esp. since Abberline was the person who interviewed Schwartz several times and knew the details first hand.
Still, it would have been even more clear if Swanson had chosen to write:
On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he [Schwartz] saw a second man standing {on his side of the street} lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road {i.e., to Schwartz} “Lipski“
What I've noticed only yesterday (I'm a newbie) is that Abberline added a Star report as an attachment to Sergt. White's report from October 4 (MEPO 52983, transcribed on p. 145 of The Ultimate). Would you consider this being the Star of October 1 rather than of October 2, Mr. Evans? At any rate, this constitutes additional proof that the police was monitoring the press reports about the witnesses.

If Pipeman is some sort of look out, or even the killer, then why does Schwartz cross the road, on the same side as Pipeman, only for Pipeman to let him pass and then follow him? Seems pointless.

Is this question for real? Schwartz would have had to chose between walking past Scylla, i.e. the BS-Stride ongoing interaction, and Charybdis, i.e., the bystander/possible accessory Pipeman. :-)

[Hunter]

Not to steal Stewart's thunder here, as he is presenting his points quite succinctly, but there is something that can be added to the astute observation that Maria made.

Yes, Maria, the police did keep track of the press reports and several official documents like the one from Abberline you noted had press reports included with them. Now, lets take a look at this statement from Chief Inspector Swanson, once again from his Oct. 19 report to the Home Office on the murder of Elizabeth Stride.

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement cast no doubt upon it..."

Now, why would Swanson phrase it that way?... As opposed to what other report?... Maybe the Star? He makes a distinction that he gives credibility to Schwartz's statement made to the police. He is aware of the press report and sees the conflict therein and makes a distinction here, I believe. That is telling.

As to why Swanson phrased his statement in regards to the actions of the people in Berner Street... He is trying to be concise while still conveying the movements of Israel Schwartz. It is the way he wrote (as conveyed in several other documents by his hand). He wrote in setting up the sequence of events, "... on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Rd. & had got 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 could have said "after turning into Berner St." as that is what he meant. Instead of breaking it up in more lengthy sentences, he is choosing a one sentence line for the sake of brevity. It is the way a policeman writes.

"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe..." In other words, "after" he crossed the street he saw a second man lighting his pipe. Its more concise than saying "He did this; then did that: then saw this...etc"

Lets look at what Swanson wrote years later on the end page of his copy of Anderson's book (the marginalia), " On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night." Old habits are hard to break. He means after the suspect's return to his brother's house, but he is setting up the conveyance and the conclusion in one sentence. He does the same in his report on the Chapman murder.

Also, it is apparent that Schwartz did not notice Pipeman until he had, at least, started across the street or maybe didn't notice him until he was upon him. Put yourself in Schwartz's shoes. Your attention would be on the altercation at the gate until you suddenly became aware of another presence. People cause automobile accidents all of the time by diverting their attention somewhere else than directly in front of them, until its too late.

But the clincher is, in my opinion, that Abberline states that Schwartz could not determine who the word "Lipski" was being directed at- he or Pipeman. The two were likely in very close proximity to each other, maybe both in line with BS Man and thus, it was indistinguishable as to who was being shouted at. If Pipeman was at the Nelson and Schwartz across the road at the Board School, it would likely be more obvious as to whom BS Man was addressing as they would each require a different angle of vision for BS Man.

The idea, presented by many Ripperologist for years, that Pipeman/Knifeman was at the Nelson is a myth promulgated by a belief in a sensationalist tabloid's report and a lack of understanding of Swanson's method of phrasing.

Thanks to a real cop as Swanson was, Stewart Evans, that myth can be put to rest.

[Hunter]

Here is a link to a diagram presented by Rob Clack, who actually got the discussion on this subject started.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=133266&postcount=550

[mariab]

Hello Hunter. Thank you so much for the analysis of Swanson's writing style (and yesterday I was thinking that Swanson might have needed an editor, where is Don Souden?), for reconstructing the events, and for the link the Rob Clack's diagram. When I have some time, I'll read that entire thread.

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement cast no doubt upon it..." from the Swanson report has made me wonder many times. Does the “police report of Schwartz' statement“ mentioned above refer to a report by Abberline submitted to Swanson along with Schwartz' statement which did not survive? It doesn't appear to me that this refers to Abberline's report from November 1 (MEPO 52983, transcribed on p.141-142 of The Ultimate).

[Wickerman]

..."On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe..."[/I] In other words, "after" he crossed the street he saw a second man lighting his pipe.

Hi Hunter.
I recall some debate as to whether "On crossing" meant "after crossing" or "while crossing". The question was, has Schwartz already arrived at the other side or is he half-way across the street?

What must be remembered is Berner St. is not a wide street. Any person entering Berner St. from Commercial Rd. will automatically see any people on both sides of the street at the distance of Dutfields Yard.

Likewise, Schwartz, when crossing this street about Dutfields Yard will naturally have already seen anyone standing just a few feet away on the opposite side. The weather was not foggy, neither was it too dark. Mrs Mortimer was able to watch Goldstein cross Berner street and walk around the corner by the Board school into Fairclough St.
Also, Mortimer said that a young couple had been standing over on the same corner "20 yards away" across the street, likely the same corner.

This being the case we might need to ask why Schwartz only noticed Pipeman after he stepped into the road, or after he reached the other side?
Distraction will not be the answer because Pipeman, if standing directly opposite to Dutfields Yard will have been seen by Schwartz as he approached the Yard, before the fracass began.
In fact Schwartz would have seen him long before this. Pipeman should have been in Schwartz field of vision long before he stepped off the footpath.
So what is it we are not understanding?

But the clincher is, in my opinion, that Abberline states that Schwartz could not determine who the word "Lipski" was being directed at- he or Pipeman. The two were likely in very close proximity to each other, maybe both in line with BS Man and thus, it was indistinguishable as to who was being shouted at.

Unless the cry of Lipski came from behind Schwartz, while he was crossing the road, or walking along the other footpath southward, after he had crossed. Only if the cry of Lipski had come from behind he might not have realized who it was shouted by, or to!

If Pipeman was at the Nelson and Schwartz across the road at the Board School, it would likely be more obvious as to whom BS Man was addressing as they would each require a different angle of vision for BS Man.

As the road was only a few yards wide Pipeman & Schwartz would have been in reasonably close proximity anyway, perhaps closer to each other than either of them were to BS-man back at Dutfields Yard.

The idea, presented by many Ripperologist for years, that Pipeman/Knifeman was at the Nelson is a myth....

It's a loose end, because if it is a myth, then somebody lied. I don't feel good about dismissing witness statements by calling them liars, especially when their statement is open to interpretation.
Besides, if Schwartz had made it to the other side of Berner St. when (according to the Star), another man (Pipeman) stepped out of the doorway of the Nelson pub, then here we have good reason for Schwartz not seeing Pipeman.
So, certainly the first use of "On crossing to the opposite side of the street" referred to Schwartz crossing Berner St. opposite the fracass in Dutfields Yard.
However, when Swanson uses the term a second time, "called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road “Lipski”.." then we have a debatable point.
I had always thought that this was written from the perspective of Dutfields Yard, but on reflection, I am not so sure anymore.

I understand you are attempting to tie it up, but I am not so sure it is tied up at all. The meaning is still open to debate.
If you are correct then we are left questioning why Schwartz was unable to see Pipeman standing just a few yards across Berner St. before he stepped into the road.
And if you are wrong we have the solution to that problem, Pipeman was inside the doorway out of the breeze(?) lighting his pipe?, and the second use of "opposite" is from Schwartz's perspective.

If it was not for the Star changing a pipe for a knife this might not be such a contensious issue. The boogyman in this debate is 'the knife'.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

Any person entering Berner St. from Commercial Rd. will automatically see any people on both sides of the street at the distance of Dutfields Yard.

If I manage to get to London in early October, I'll definitely go to Berner Street. So far I was only on Miller's Court (where it used to be), and was astonished to see that MJK's bed was just a few steps from The Queen's head pub. As in, to walk to the pub from one's bed in one's pyjamas. :-)

Also, Mortimer said that a young couple had been standing over on the same corner "20 yards away" across the street, likely the same corner.This being the case we might need to ask why Schwartz only noticed Pipeman after he stepped into the road, or after he reached the other side?

Ms. Mortimer DIDN'T see that other couple on the night of September 30, she ONLY heard about them from the neighbors. That couple documentedly went indoors around 00.30 already. Newspaper reports document Ms. Mortimer commenting on how quiet and empty the street was that night.
The Daily News from October 1:
A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact.