The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Spill the beans NBFN. Who do you think was Pipeman?

The secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, and neither can I ha ha

I seem to recall another poster naming a candidate somewhere but I can’t recall the details.

Perhaps? Was the pipe man at the crime scene ever officially identified as Samuel Friedman? - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

[Wickerman]

Jon,
do really think the police are still banging on with their Schwartz report as late as Oct 23 (the last day of the inquest)? No way!

No, the inquest was basically over on the 5th, all the details required by the coroner had been established. The final sitting on the 23rd was just to wind everything up with the coroner's summary.
I'm satisfied that Schwartz's story was still under investigation until perhaps the 4th or 5th, whether the subsequent report verified his story or discredited it, we can't say. Except, as pointed out above, internally the police were still debating the Lipski encounter in early November. So, it's possible his story was not entirely dismissed, if at all.

My position has two main components.
Firstly, the apparent contradiction between Swanson and Baxter's assessments of Schwartz is more apparent than real.
If Schwartz is to be believed... refers specifically to BS man, whereas Baxter's rejection of Schwartz was on account of the whole story not adding up (in his eyes).
I believe there was controversy at the inquest regarding Baxter's summoning decisions - people not called who arguably should have been - which he dealt with in his summing up. However, to the critical point as to whether Schwartz was believed by the police who wrote the Schwartz report, my simplified answer is...

BS man - yes
Pipeman - no

Secondly, and this is something you haven't directly responded to as yet; why is a (pipe)man who's behaviour strongly suggests he could be an accomplice to the other (BS) man, not on the police's wanted list, yet the other man is?
BS man was on the list - therefore Schwartz was either totally believed, or at least was given the benefit of any (very early) doubts. Yet to do so obliges one to believe in the existence of Pipeman - but the wanted list is sans Pipeman. This is illogical, except if...

The police know the (pipe)man's identity, and have investigated him already.

Wess and others club members knew who this character was. How could they possibly know, admit to knowing publicly, but the police never worked out who he was? No way!

The police didn't include Pipeman's description (along with BS-man & Red-neckerchief-man) because he was not seen with the victim. But, according to the press it does appear they found him based on Schwartz's description.

It's a matter of slowly putting the pieces together.

They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source...

Another source? Other than Schwartz, BS, Pipeman, & Stride, wasn't the street otherwise empty?

Yes, who was that "other source"?

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Those who saw it? WTF?

What is your source for that?

I ask because in the Echo the wording is different.
The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.
Echo, 1 Oct. 1888.

Is it, "those who saw it", or "the person who witnessed it"?
In the Echo version the "important statement" clearly refers to Schwartz, but he didn't take no notice of it, so that last line is a puzzle.

[Wickerman]

One of the troubles I have with the Stride murder is the fact that the suspects seen by Schwartz appear similar to the two men seen in company with Rose Mylett just before she was murdered.

The witness in that case was Charles Ptolomey, who gave this description:

"I noticed two sailors. The shorter one was speaking to the deceased, and the tall one was walking up and down. So strange did it seem that I stopped and 'took account' of them. Then I heard the woman say several times "No! no! no!" and the short sailor spoke in a low tone. The tall one was about 5ft 11in. He looked like a Yankee. The shorter one was about 5ft 7in. It struck me that they were there for no purpose, and that was the reason I took so much notice of their movements. I shall always remember their faces, and could, as I say, pick them out of a thousand."
Evening News, 29 Dec. 1888.

As with Stride, the shorter suspect talking with the victim, while the taller one hovered close by.
Stride was heard to "scream three times, but not very loudly" (an odd coincidence?).
So was the Stride murder really a Ripper crime, or are these two actually responsible for all the so-called Ripper murders?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, the inquest was basically over on the 5th, all the details required by the coroner had been established. The final sitting on the 23rd was just to wind everything up with the coroner's summary.
I'm satisfied that Schwartz's story was still under investigation until perhaps the 4th or 5th, whether the subsequent report verified his story or discredited it, we can't say. Except, as pointed out above, internally the police were still debating the Lipski encounter in early November. So, it's possible his story was not entirely dismissed, if at all.

Just to be clear; other than Leman street, I don't think the police ever entirely dismissed Schwartz. Even Leman may have only had reason to doubt, without being entirely dismissive. It's not as though IS was ever arrested for giving false evidence.

The police didn't include Pipeman's description (along with BS-man & Red-neckerchief-man) because he was not seen with the victim. But, according to the press it does appear they found him based on Schwartz's description.

Pipeman was possibly an accomplice, based on Schwartz' info alone. That would be enough to make him wanted - obviously because as an accomplice he is acquainted with the possible murderer. That he was not on the wanted list is telling.

But then how does Wess know of this individual? Who told him if not Israel?

Yes, who was that "other source"?

The person who witnessed this? So who was that?

In the Star account, "Pipeman" seems to initially pursue Schwartz along Fairclough, before Schwartz ending up at the new premises.
So there was one person who may have seen more than he cares to admit; Edward Spooner.

What is your source for that?

I ask because in the Echo the wording is different.

The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.
Echo, 1 Oct. 1888.

Is it, "those who saw it", or "the person who witnessed it"?
In the Echo version the "important statement" clearly refers to Schwartz, but he didn't take no notice of it, so that last line is a puzzle.

The Star, Oct 1.

The People, Oct 7: The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

It is like the 'first half' of the Schwartz incident. This is fascinating for me, given my arguments about the Pipeman part of Schwartz' story being doubted. It is though the Pipeman part of the story has been surgically attached to the assault incident. But why? Because Schwartz needs a reason to not be around when the murder occurs. But what is the point? To take the murderer out of the club. Who was? A man with a black bag.

There is a problem in assuming that these reports are just due to Schwartz fronting up to Leman street with an interpreter. That is because the man described is aged 35 to 40, whereas in the Swanson report...

... he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30

But if not Schwartz, then who the hell?
Who is behind all these funny stories? I'll have a wild guess ... Charles Le Grande

[Wickerman]

The story of the interview with the club secretary as reported in the Echo & the Scotsman, contains details that raise further questions.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer-...

As we all are aware, there are no stories in the press concerning the murderer being seen escaping by anyone.
What is Wess talking about?

being chased by another man along Fairclough-street,....... The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

Here we are led to believe Wess knew who the chaser was, he even knew his name - how could he know that?
Who is the witness who recognised the chaser and gave Wess his name?
Alternately, has Wess spoken to the chaser himself, but cannot remember his name?

So, part of this tale appear to suit the search by Diemschitz & Kozebrodski eastward along Fairclough St., yet some of the details also appear to suit the story given by Schwartz.
Either way, there are also further questions that needed clarification.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Either way, there are also further questions that needed clarification.

Things start to become a lot clearer when one considers all this in relation to ...

The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee

[NotBlamedForNothing]

One of the troubles I have with the Stride murder is the fact that the suspects seen by Schwartz appear similar to the two men seen in company with Rose Mylett just before she was murdered.

The witness in that case was Charles Ptolomey, who gave this description:

"I noticed two sailors. The shorter one was speaking to the deceased, and the tall one was walking up and down. So strange did it seem that I stopped and 'took account' of them. Then I heard the woman say several times "No! no! no!" and the short sailor spoke in a low tone. The tall one was about 5ft 11in. He looked like a Yankee. The shorter one was about 5ft 7in. It struck me that they were there for no purpose, and that was the reason I took so much notice of their movements. I shall always remember their faces, and could, as I say, pick them out of a thousand."
Evening News, 29 Dec. 1888.

As with Stride, the shorter suspect talking with the victim, while the taller one hovered close by.
Stride was heard to "scream three times, but not very loudly" (an odd coincidence?).
So was the Stride murder really a Ripper crime, or are these two actually responsible for all the so-called Ripper murders?

The similarities are uncanny, and your suggestion is an interesting one!

I don't suppose Charles Ptolomey was known by any other name?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The story of the interview with the club secretary as reported in the Echo & the Scotsman, contains details that raise further questions.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer-...

As we all are aware, there are no stories in the press concerning the murderer being seen escaping by anyone.
What is Wess talking about?

the public = committee members

being chased by another man along Fairclough-street,....... The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

Here we are led to believe Wess knew who the chaser was, he even knew his name - how could he know that?

A committee member told him

Who is the witness who recognised the chaser and gave Wess his name?

A committee member. Probably this one...

Wess: From nine to half-past ten at night I was away seeing an English friend home, but I was in the club again till a quarter-past midnight.

Alternately, has Wess spoken to the chaser himself, but cannot remember his name?

Accidently on purpose

So, part of this tale appear to suit the search by Diemschitz & Kozebrodski eastward along Fairclough St., yet some of the details also appear to suit the story given by Schwartz.
Either way, there are also further questions that needed clarification.

The person responsible for the chase and escape tale, may well have also been responsible for this one...

The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.

How could this person have known that the assaulted woman was the subsequently murdered woman?
It must have been someone who ended up in the yard when the gates were locked.
So who do we know who was out on the street but in the vicinity that night, who could have therefore witnessed an assault on Stride, and ended up witnessing the deceased at close range?
Yeah ... him.

[caz]

One of the troubles I have with the Stride murder is the fact that the suspects seen by Schwartz appear similar to the two men seen in company with Rose Mylett just before she was murdered.

The witness in that case was Charles Ptolomey, who gave this description:

"I noticed two sailors. The shorter one was speaking to the deceased, and the tall one was walking up and down. So strange did it seem that I stopped and 'took account' of them. Then I heard the woman say several times "No! no! no!" and the short sailor spoke in a low tone. The tall one was about 5ft 11in. He looked like a Yankee. The shorter one was about 5ft 7in. It struck me that they were there for no purpose, and that was the reason I took so much notice of their movements. I shall always remember their faces, and could, as I say, pick them out of a thousand."
Evening News, 29 Dec. 1888.

As with Stride, the shorter suspect talking with the victim, while the taller one hovered close by.
Stride was heard to "scream three times, but not very loudly" (an odd coincidence?).
So was the Stride murder really a Ripper crime, or are these two actually responsible for all the so-called Ripper murders?

Hi Jon,

I have always had Rose Mylett's murder down as a possible ripper crime, and I wouldn't completely rule out a two-man ripper 'team' either, possibly just for one or two of the murders, although my instincts tell me a lone predator would be more likely. I used to wonder if it was a case of a main man, who sometimes took an apprentice - a close buddy or relative - along for the ride. It's not like it never happens, and it could actually explain quite a lot!

Love,

Caz
X

[MrTwibbs]

A bit off topic (sorry) but is it possible that the belief that the broad shouldered man being a non jew is incorrect?
I read in the Star that the members of the club were secular types and indifferent to the jewish religion so is it possible that the BS man was jewish? and shouted "lipski" because he was referring to an overtly jewish /non-secular man (Israel Schwartz)?

[Greenway]

A bit off topic (sorry) but is it possible that the belief that the broad shouldered man being a non jew is incorrect?
I read in the Star that the members of the club were secular types and indifferent to the jewish religion so is it possible that the BS man was jewish? and shouted "lipski" because he was referring to an overtly jewish /non-secular man (Israel Schwartz)?

As I understand it, there were a lot of more or less secular jews who wouldn't have dressed or spoke (2nd+ generation) any differently than the rest of the population, many of whom were from eastern Europe. I think to say someone looked 'jewish' often just meant they looked 'foreign'.

Pretty sure Schwartz didn't get a 'definitive' view of the 'gentleman'.

All the best.

[Michael W Richards]

A bit off topic (sorry) but is it possible that the belief that the broad shouldered man being a non jew is incorrect?
I read in the Star that the members of the club were secular types and indifferent to the jewish religion so is it possible that the BS man was jewish? and shouted "lipski" because he was referring to an overtly jewish /non-secular man (Israel Schwartz)?

The name Lipski isnt related to a particular division of Judaic faith. At that time it was commonly used as an antisemetic remark by gentiles based on the murder case in 1887 when Jewish local Israel Lipski was convicted of killing the then pregnant Miriam Angel. Acid had been poured down her throat after she had been assaulted.

Its most probable that the story Israel Schwartz gives includes the Lispki remark to show that the assailant was a gentile. Since Jews were the ones whose houses were searched door to door in the area during September, and since Anderson remarked on his return that those investigations had revealed that the killer at large was an Immigrant Jew, suggesting Liz's assailant was a gentile might be an intentional deflection of the suspicions local Jews were facing.

[JeffHamm]

The name Lipski isnt related to a particular division of Judaic faith. At that time it was commonly used as an antisemetic remark by gentiles based on the murder case in 1887 when Jewish local Israel Lipski was convicted of killing the then pregnant Miriam Angel. Acid had been poured down her throat after she had been assaulted.

Its most probable that the story Israel Schwartz gives includes the Lispki remark to show that the assailant was a gentile. Since Jews were the ones whose houses were searched door to door in the area during September, and since Anderson remarked on his return that those investigations had revealed that the killer at large was an Immigrant Jew, suggesting Liz's assailant was a gentile might be an intentional deflection of the suspicions local Jews were facing.

Except initially Schwartz told the police that Lipski was shouted at pipeman, and Schwartz took it to be B.S. alerting a partner, suggesting that Pipeman's name was Lipski, and so Schwartz was implicating a Jewish offender.

The alternative explanation you've mentioned here is the one the police came up with because they were aware of how Lipski was used as you point out. So, unless it was the police trying to implicate a gentile despite their witness implicating a Jewish offender.

In short, Schwartz did not "include the Lipski remark" to show the assailant was a gentile, but the polar opposite, that the offender, or at least his accomplice (in Schwartz's mind) was Jewish.

Of course, Schwartz was probably wrong on that, but it's not about the truth of his statement, but the content of his belief we must examine here - and his belief conveyed in his statement as he gave it was that the offender was Jewish. It was the police who thought the offender was a gentile, not Scwartz.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Except initially Schwartz told the police that Lipski was shouted at pipeman, and Schwartz took it to be B.S. alerting a partner, suggesting that Pipeman's name was Lipski, and so Schwartz was implicating a Jewish offender.

The alternative explanation you've mentioned here is the one the police came up with because they were aware of how Lipski was used as you point out. So, unless it was the police trying to implicate a gentile despite their witness implicating a Jewish offender.

In short, Schwartz did not "include the Lipski remark" to show the assailant was a gentile, but the polar opposite, that the offender, or at least his accomplice (in Schwartz's mind) was Jewish.

Of course, Schwartz was probably wrong on that, but it's not about the truth of his statement, but the content of his belief we must examine here - and his belief conveyed in his statement as he gave it was that the offender was Jewish. It was the police who thought the offender was a gentile, not Scwartz.

- Jeff

It could also be construed as Israel hearing BSM alerting his cohort that a "Lipski" was on the scene in the form of one Israel Schwartz. Israel to my knowledge never suggested that he believed Pipemans name was Lipski specifically. His belief was that BSM was communicating with Pipeman, what he thought was being exchanged can easily be interpreted as a warning to Pipeman, not calling him by his given name.

In effect Israel could have been suggesting he was a victim of antisemitism.

[JeffHamm]

It could also be construed as Israel hearing BSM alerting his cohort that a "Lipski" was on the scene in the form of one Israel Schwartz. Israel to my knowledge never suggested that he believed Pipemans name was Lipski specifically. His belief was that BSM was communicating with Pipeman, what he thought was being exchanged can easily be interpreted as a warning to Pipeman, not calling him by his given name.

In effect Israel could have been suggesting he was a victim of antisemitism.

That's why the police thought Schwartz was mistaken.

If Schwartz didn't believe Lipski was shouted at Pipeman as Pipeman's name, then the police would not have searched for Lipski families based upon Schwartz telling them what he believed. If Schwartz believed it was an insult at him, he would have said so, and the police would not have subsequently searched for all the Lipski's in the area.

It is clear, therefore, Schwartz implicated a Jewish offender when he first spoke to the police. Therefore, his initial story cannot be construed as him trying to divert attention away from Jewish offenders.

- Jeff