The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[JeffHamm]

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881001.html#:~:text=A%20MAN%20PURSUED,subject%20of%20conversation.

Ripper Confidential provides this quote:

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

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- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. 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. Complaint is also made about the difficulty there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be called from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally this fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.

Ah, ok, that one. Sorry, I was familiar with that news story but hadn't recognized it as Wes (I take it he is the secretary of the club; it's hard to keep all the people in their places ). That story has always struck me as a weird conflation of the Schwartz story and the club's search for the police, not that that is evidence, just my own interpretation that makes me hesitant about it. I do see how it could mean Pipeman's name was obtained, but forgotten, though, which if that is the correct interpretation lends weight to Abberline's notion that Pipeman was not involved (as it implies Pipeman must have returned to the club and gave his name I guess?). On the other hand, Schwartz flees, and is possibly pursued by Pipeman, before Stride is murdered, so there's no way Pipeman would pursue Schwartz on the pretext of Schwartz being the murderer. This is why I think the story reflects some sort of weird mish-mash by the reporter, who perhaps was trying to piece things together and heard of the Schwartz tale, and of the club members running along Fairclough, and later going up Berner to Commercial where they find PC Lamb, etc. Obviously I could be wrong, but it doesn't quite fit right if viewed as the Fairclough bit is about Pipeman and Schwartz. I was hoping there was something else that I had missed.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you to change your view, just spelling out my own thoughts on that one. It's a bit of a dog's breakfast though, as they say. But thanks for letting me know. Much appreciated.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Ah, ok, that one. Sorry, I was familiar with that news story but hadn't recognized it as Wes (I take it he is the secretary of the club; it's hard to keep all the people in their places ). That story has always struck me as a weird conflation of the Schwartz story and the club's search for the police, not that that is evidence, just my own interpretation that makes me hesitant about it. I do see how it could mean Pipeman's name was obtained, but forgotten, though, which if that is the correct interpretation lends weight to Abberline's notion that Pipeman was not involved (as it implies Pipeman must have returned to the club and gave his name I guess?). On the other hand, Schwartz flees, and is possibly pursued by Pipeman, before Stride is murdered, so there's no way Pipeman would pursue Schwartz on the pretext of Schwartz being the murderer. This is why I think the story reflects some sort of weird mish-mash by the reporter, who perhaps was trying to piece things together and heard of the Schwartz tale, and of the club members running along Fairclough, and later going up Berner to Commercial where they find PC Lamb, etc. Obviously I could be wrong, but it doesn't quite fit right if viewed as the Fairclough bit is about Pipeman and Schwartz. I was hoping there was something else that I had missed.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you to change your view, just spelling out my own thoughts on that one. It's a bit of a dog's breakfast though, as they say. But thanks for letting me know. Much appreciated.

- Jeff

This is the paragraph immediately before the man pursued story...

The Club itself (proceeds the reporter), which is next door to the large gate, is now closed, but all this afternoon members and others who have special business there, are admitted after knocking at the door. The committee of the institution held a meeting this morning, at which the crime was talked over, and it was decided not to admit any stranger without the payment of a fee. The fee, the secretary explained, was to [???]. The committee, it seems, did not fix the amount to be charged; but, in reply to a question, the secretary said he thought that 5s. would not be too much. Considering there is nothing to be seen, this is rather an extortionate price to be paid by those whose curiosity leads them to Berner-street.

I get the sense that Wess was talking to the reporter about the meeting, which had been held in the morning, during the afternoon. This is a bit fascinating, because of what the Star says about the timing of Schwartz's visit to Leman St...

Information which may be important was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder.

So Wess seemingly knew about a ~12:45 incident before the police did. How? Did Schwartz pay his 5s and go into the club to tell his story? Did Schwartz know Pipeman's name?

[The Rookie Detective]

This is the paragraph immediately before the man pursued story...

The Club itself (proceeds the reporter), which is next door to the large gate, is now closed, but all this afternoon members and others who have special business there, are admitted after knocking at the door. The committee of the institution held a meeting this morning, at which the crime was talked over, and it was decided not to admit any stranger without the payment of a fee. The fee, the secretary explained, was to [???]. The committee, it seems, did not fix the amount to be charged; but, in reply to a question, the secretary said he thought that 5s. would not be too much. Considering there is nothing to be seen, this is rather an extortionate price to be paid by those whose curiosity leads them to Berner-street.

I get the sense that Wess was talking to the reporter about the meeting, which had been held in the morning, during the afternoon. This is a bit fascinating, because of what the Star says about the timing of Schwartz's visit to Leman St...

Information which may be important was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder.

So Wess seemingly knew about a ~12:45 incident before the police did. How? Did Schwartz pay his 5s and go into the club to tell his story? Did Schwartz know Pipeman's name?

Very interesting post indeed.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Very interesting post indeed.

The Echo report is the only evidence we have that can draw Schwartz's story into the real world. What is peculiar though, as you have no doubt noticed, is that rather than trumpeting this report as evidence for the authenticity of Schwartz's account, Schwartz loyalists either turn a blind eye to it or try to twist it into something else. Go figure!

[FISHY1118]

Again, There is nothing yet that has been produced that proves Schwartz lied or was mistaken about the assault he witnesses take place between B.S and Stride at 12.45am .

Its always the same thing, Speculation , Conjecture and Hypotheticals and what If's, all trying show a different alternative simply because Schwartz is in the way of a another supported theory, and some cant have that . . Its getting tiresome and boring . IMO.

[The Rookie Detective]

What i find intriguing is that; aside from Schwartz's statement, the only other reference to any kind of "chase" occurring in Berner Street was that of a man chasing the killer away from the scene.

So in a sense when Schwartz comes forward and says he ran because he thought Pipeman may have been chasing him as an accomplice to Bs Man; what he's effectively doing is changing the context of what was said to have occurred by the alleged killer having been chased.

And so ether...

Schwartz comes forward to give himself an alibi for having been seen running away from the scene and for being chased by BS Man, and he was infact the real murderer

OR

Schwartz comes forward to go give the correct context of what occurred and rather than the report of the killer being chased; it was instead Schwartz fleeing innocently from the scene for fear of his own life.


The issue is though...

How did that report of the killer being chased from the scene come about?
And WHO was the source of the story that the killer was chased from the scene?

Crucially; what came first?


The genuine statement by Schwartz, ollowed by an incorrect report that the killer was chased from the scene?

OR

A genuine account of the killer being chased from the scene and then a subsequent story given by Schwartz to EITHER explain his honest presence in the street, or to cover his back for having been the man who killed Stride?

I suggest the truth is right there.


If of course Schwartz gave his statement FIRST and then the report of the killer being "chased" from the scene of the murder came AFTER; then it would give more credence to Schwartz.

If however, Schwartz came forward only AFTER it was reported that the killer was chased from the scene...then I would suggest that the loyalty in Schwartz is somewhat misplaced.


Do we know what came first?

The report of the killer being chased OR Schwartz giving his statement?

The answer is perhaps the key to unlocking the mystery.

[FISHY1118]

What i find intriguing is that; aside from Schwartz's statement, the only other reference to any kind of "chase" occurring in Berner Street was that of a man chasing the killer away from the scene.

So in a sense when Schwartz comes forward and says he ran because he thought Pipeman may have been chasing him as an accomplice to Bs Man; what he's effectively doing is changing the context of what was said to have occurred by the alleged killer having been chased.

And so ether...

Schwartz comes forward to give himself an alibi for having been seen running away from the scene and for being chased by BS Man, and he was infact the real murderer

OR

Schwartz comes forward to go give the correct context of what occurred and rather than the report of the killer being chased; it was instead Schwartz fleeing innocently from the scene for fear of his own life.


The issue is though...

How did that report of the killer being chased from the scene come about?
And WHO was the source of the story that the killer was chased from the scene?

Crucially; what came first?


The genuine statement by Schwartz, ollowed by an incorrect report that the killer was chased from the scene?

OR

A genuine account of the killer being chased from the scene and then a subsequent story given by Schwartz to EITHER explain his honest presence in the street, or to cover his back for having been the man who killed Stride?

I suggest the truth is right there.


If of course Schwartz gave his statement FIRST and then the report of the killer being "chased" from the scene of the murder came AFTER; then it would give more credence to Schwartz.

If however, Schwartz came forward only AFTER it was reported that the killer was chased from the scene...then I would suggest that the loyalty in Schwartz is somewhat misplaced.


Do we know what came first?

The report of the killer being chased OR Schwartz giving his statement?

The answer is perhaps the key to unlocking the mystery.

What "other reference" would that be and by whom ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Echo report is the only evidence we have that can draw Schwartz's story into the real world. What is peculiar though, as you have no doubt noticed, is that rather than trumpeting this report as evidence for the authenticity of Schwartz's account, Schwartz loyalists either turn a blind eye to it or try to twist it into something else. Go figure!

This is the great tactic of the moment. It’s one used by Merchants of Woke. Label someone/ call them a name because you have no valid argument. So, to your list of Schwartz loyalists you would have to add Fred Abberline and Donald Swanson as they both believed him? Abberline met him. But what would they know huh? They were part of the ‘establishment’ after all.

So we have two ‘versions’ of what Schwartz said…..Swanson’s synthesis and a journalist.

Swanson version..

Motive - Swanson, Abberline and the police are desperate to catch the killer.
They are also mindful of their reputations and of how the public perceives them.
The interview with Schwartz was done at a police station.
The interpreter was chosen for the job.
Schwartz knew that he was going to be interviewed

Journalist..

Priority..an exciting and sensational story to sell papers.
Location…Schwartz’ house.
Interpreter…unknown, possibly someone at the location?
Schwartz might have been caught by surprise at a journalist turning up at his house. Maybe they slipped him a few coins for a bit of extra?

Now, just considering the above which would most people think more conducive to accuracy? Yes, obvious isn’t it. But those looking for plots the sensation-hungry journalist becomes the trustworthy one.

How?

[Wickerman]

...The genuine statement by Schwartz, ollowed by an incorrect report that the killer was chased from the scene?

OR

A genuine account of the killer being chased from the scene and then a subsequent story given by Schwartz to EITHER explain his honest presence in the street, or to cover his back for having been the man who killed Stride?

...The answer is perhaps the key to unlocking the mystery.

Ok, the source of the story must be someone, like Spooner, who thought the time was roughly 12:45 am, and was, also like Spooner, in Fairclough St. to see two men running.

Presumably, the two runners were not side-by-side, but one ahead of the other. The man behind being the one shouting 'murder, police', which gave the viewer the impression the 2nd runner was chasing the 1st runner. The viewer then assumed the 1st running man must be the killer.

Testimony shows Diemschutz & Kozebrodski ran east on Fairclough towards Grove St.
Spooner, at the corner of Christian St. gave chase?, caught up with them at Grove St. where the men returned, except Kozebrodski who either turned north up Grove, Christian, or Batty St. to head for Commercial Rd.
Diemschutz & Spooner returned to Berner St.

So, a third-party viewer saw two men running on Fairclough, the 2nd man shouting 'murder, police', as he ran behind the 1st man.
The viewer then saw the 2nd man return (Diemschutz), but not the first man - whom the viewer thought must the killer, so that he presumably escaped.

Who else was in the street that we have not heard from - Spooner's girlfriend?
The 'Sweetheart' couple on the corner?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What i find intriguing is that; aside from Schwartz's statement, the only other reference to any kind of "chase" occurring in Berner Street was that of a man chasing the killer away from the scene.

So in a sense when Schwartz comes forward and says he ran because he thought Pipeman may have been chasing him as an accomplice to Bs Man; what he's effectively doing is changing the context of what was said to have occurred by the alleged killer having been chased.

And so ether...

Schwartz comes forward to give himself an alibi for having been seen running away from the scene and for being chased by BS Man, and he was infact the real murderer

OR

Schwartz comes forward to go give the correct context of what occurred and rather than the report of the killer being chased; it was instead Schwartz fleeing innocently from the scene for fear of his own life.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the first is the truth. We should be able to see a huge problem - why didn't the man who chased Schwartz, regardless of him being correct in his belief that Schwartz was the murderer, come forward to the police? We can't use the excuse that he feared reprisals from Schwartz - he chased after him in the middle of the night. I can think of only one good reason - he was the man seen by Smith, with Stride. That is, he was Parcelman. Can you suggest a better reason?

The issue is though...

How did that report of the killer being chased from the scene come about?
And WHO was the source of the story that the killer was chased from the scene?

Crucially; what came first?


The genuine statement by Schwartz, [f]ollowed by an incorrect report that the killer was chased from the scene?

OR

A genuine account of the killer being chased from the scene and then a subsequent story given by Schwartz to EITHER explain his honest presence in the street, or to cover his back for having been the man who killed Stride?

I suggest the truth is right there.

Consider the Five Shillings per Visitor report.

The Club itself (proceeds the reporter), which is next door to the large gate, is now closed, but all this afternoon members and others who have special business there, are admitted after knocking at the door. The committee of the institution held a meeting this morning, at which the crime was talked over, and it was decided not to admit any stranger without the payment of a fee. The fee, the secretary explained, was to...

This immediately precedes the Man Pursued report. I would therefore suggest that Wess's comments regarding a 12:45 event, were made late in the afternoon (day of the murder). The Star, of Oct 1, tells us:

Information which may be important was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder.

The two accounts appear to have been given at roughly the same time.

As for who was the source of the story, Schwartz told Abberline that no other men (aside from 1st & 2nd man) were in the street at the time. Let's assume that true. Therefore, Pipeman was the source of the story.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Ok, the source of the story must be someone, like Spooner, who thought the time was roughly 12:45 am, and was, also like Spooner, in Fairclough St. to see two men running.

12:45 was not the time Spooner gave the coroner, so why would he have thought that was the time?

How did Spooner's story end up being retold by Wess? What contact did the two men have? Spooner was locked in the yard with everyone else, when Wess was at home. It's highly unlikely Spooner would have coughed up 5 shillings to go into the yard the following day. Wess would have had access to first-hand accounts from Diemschitz, Eagle, Kosbrodski and others. Why then, would Wess relate a second-hand story of a non-member?

Presumably, the two runners were not side-by-side, but one ahead of the other. The man behind being the one shouting 'murder, police', which gave the viewer the impression the 2nd runner was chasing the 1st runner. The viewer then assumed the 1st running man must be the killer.

These things can be assumed, to make the story work, but I see no reason to suppose that the men ran separated, or that only the man behind did the shouting. It's not even clear that no other men from the club went out in the same general direction.

MA, Oct 2: I did not touch the body, but went off at once for the police. We passed several streets without meeting a policeman, and we returned without one. All the men who were with me halloaed as loud as they could for the police, but no one came.

Testimony shows Diemschutz & Kozebrodski ran east on Fairclough towards Grove St.
Spooner, at the corner of Christian St. gave chase?, caught up with them at Grove St. where the men returned, except Kozebrodski who either turned north up Grove, Christian, or Batty St. to head for Commercial Rd.
Diemschutz & Spooner returned to Berner St.

Spooner: They ran as far as Grove-street and turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter. They said, "There's a woman murdered in Berner-street in the yard by No. 40." I went there and saw the body lying just inside the gate.

I see nothing in these quotes to suggest that Spooner chased and caught up to the men, or that Kozebrodski did not first return to Berner St before continuing up to Commercial Rd.

So, a third-party viewer saw two men running on Fairclough, the 2nd man shouting 'murder, police', as he ran behind the 1st man.
The viewer then saw the 2nd man return (Diemschutz), but not the first man - whom the viewer thought must the killer, so that he presumably escaped.

How could this viewer have seen Spooner stop and talk to the two men, and come to the conclusion that one of the two was the murderer?

Who else was in the street that we have not heard from - Spooner's girlfriend?
The 'Sweetheart' couple on the corner?

If we suppose this 3rd-part viewer was neither of the above, then we have more reason to suppose that the streets were not deserted at 12:45, and the therefore that the tail-end of what Schwartz claimed, should have been witnessed. So, where are these witnesses?

[New Waterloo]

I must confess I have not read all of this very carefully but is clearly a great thread. I will try to find time to have a slow read. I mentioned in the Broad shoulders thread that Wess and others probably got the approx 1245 time from speaking with each other. After such a killing in their club it would have been the main topic of conversation.

This in itself suggests that the 1245am (approx timing) has come about through people talking and listening and forming an opinion. In other words a cumulation of thoughts and evidence from several.

Somehow there is a strong suggestion that an incident occurred around 1245am

Most accept that either Stride was killed during or very shortly after the Schwarzt incident or slightly later by another person JTR? and disturbed by Diemschutz.

In both instances there are people running. Mostly it seems in the direction of Fairclough Street.

I think there is some considerable blurring of what happened in all of this and my head is saying to me was there just one incident.

The problem I have is I cant do timings its really difficult for me. I am trying to ignore timings (which I know I cant really) and come up with something.

Will keep reading. Probably haven't helped a lot

NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How did Spooner's story end up being retold by Wess? What contact did the two men have? Spooner was locked in the yard with everyone else, when Wess was at home. It's highly unlikely Spooner would have coughed up 5 shillings to go into the yard the following day. Wess would have had access to first-hand accounts from Diemschitz, Eagle, Kosbrodski and others. Why then, would Wess relate a second-hand story of a non-member?

While I think this reasoning is sound, would it not also apply here...?

As for who was the source of the story, Schwartz told Abberline that no other men (aside from 1st & 2nd man) were in the street at the time. Let's assume that true. Therefore, Pipeman was the source of the story.

Pipeman can reasonably be assumed a non-member of the club. Why tell his story once it was known - does not require much thought. Yet, how could his story have come to the attention of Wess? I've argued in this thread that Pipeman and Parcelman may have been one and the same individual. Assuming that, I would speculatively suggest the following.

The parcel was some sort of delivery for the club or Der Arbeter Fraint. Perhaps tobacco or paper. Stride negotiated with Parcelman to deliver the parcel, so she could introduce herself to the club, perhaps with a view to obtaining work there. Witnessing Eagle's unsuccessful attempt to go in through the front door, and his disappearance up the passageway, Stride decides that she too will have to go up the passageway. At some point, she has been perceived as a thief rather than as a deliverer. A quick scuffle occurs, and Stride is killed.

Dr Phillips: Some of the cachous were scattered about the yard.

Parcel/Pipeman must then at some point relate his story to a club member, who passes it on to Wess. This implies that a few club members possibly knew more about the murder than we are led to believe. This is hinted at in the next edition of Der Arbeter Fraint:

The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Everything occurred after Wess had gone home. He’s not important.

[Wickerman]

12:45 was not the time Spooner gave the coroner, so why would he have thought that was the time?

"...Between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse,..."

I just ball-parked that as 12:45, roughly.

How did Spooner's story end up being retold by Wess? What contact did the two men have? Spooner was locked in the yard with everyone else, when Wess was at home...

No, Spooner was in Fairclough, I just used him as an example. For the source to claim they had seen what they claimed, that source would have to have been in Fairclough - like Spooner.
Thats why I mentioned his girlfriend, and the 'sweetheart' couple - more potential sources from Fairclough. There was also a Mr. Harris who stepped out of his house, we had no statement from him.

"...I did not meet any one as I was hastening to Berner-street except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay,..."

... Wess would have had access to first-hand accounts from Diemschitz, Eagle, Kosbrodski and others. Why then, would Wess relate a second-hand story of a non-member?

Well, Diemschutz, Eagle & Kozebrodski make no mention of this other chase in their statements, either in or out of court. Besides, they knew what the correct time was.

If we suppose this 3rd-part viewer was neither of the above, then we have more reason to suppose that the streets were not deserted at 12:45, and the therefore that the tail-end of what Schwartz claimed, should have been witnessed. So, where are these witnesses?

Remember how Eagle described the streets?

"I came along by the small streets in this district, but noticed nothing unusual. There were a number of men and women about, as there always are about that time; but the streets were not more lively than usual, and I saw nothing suspicious."

The streets were not deserted.