The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[NotBlamedForNothing]

All I'm getting at is that when there isn't any evidence of another person, only a potential period of time for which we don't know what happened, one can creatively fill it with anything. The lack of restraints allows the imagination to run wild.

But, at the same time, such arguments are just that - imagination running wild due to our lack of sufficient information to draw conclusions as to what happened. They just point out possibilities that the void of ignorance we face cannot rule out, but that is a far cry from arguing "so someone must have come along". No, just because we can imagine how someone could have come along is not the same as demonstrating someone did come along.

I don't think we know enough to remove the possibility, but at the same time, I see nothing that demonstrates that possibility is anything more than that - a possibility we can't rule out, there's nothing to indicate someone actually did come along.

The problem then becomes that for some members, the BS man does not look at all like being the killer. Over to you, c.d...

It's like saying Schwartz lied - sure, people lie, it's possible, but from what we know everything points to Schwartz relating an actual incident. He went to the police, they questioned him carefully, they were not convinenced Schwartz got all the details right (with regards to whom Lipski was shouted at - Schwartz initially thinks it was shouted as a warning to Pipeman, but later concedes he may have been mistaken, etc), but the observable events themselves the police found no fault in. And, in attempting to rebuild the sequence of events, it looks to me that it isn't difficult for his events to have occurred between 12:45 and 1:00 in such a way that it doesn't conflict with other things we know. Given that I think we need direct evidence before concluding someone lied, I see nothing that indicates Schwartz lied - though I think there is good reason to suspect he was mistaken about some things (particularly the relationship between BS and Pipeman).

I believe the support of the police that is usually supposed for Schwartz, is an exaggeration. When someone went to the police, claiming knowledge of the murders, the police would be obliged to take their statement unless that person was an obvious prankster. The Star report that alludes to the Leman St police having doubts over the Hungarian's story, says:

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.

The duty officer who took Schwartz's original statement, would have been obliged to take the witness seriously, and then, given the nature of the witness's claims, he necessarily had to passed on to Aberline, for an interview. How low was the bar was set for incoming witnesses? Consider the following report - MA, Oct 2:

Yesterday morning a newspaper reporter, who had been on the look out for the murderer, thinking it quite possible that he might commit further atrocities yesterday morning shaved off his whiskers and moustache, and, dressing himself as a woman, walked from his home in Leytonstone to Whitechapel, and made the tour of the streets frequented by the assassin, passing several detectives and constables on the way. He was unmolested until after he had covered a good deal of ground. Upon getting into the Whitechapel-road again, however, he was pounced upon by Police-constable Ludwig, 278 H, who said, "Stop, you are a man." Seeing that it was useless to deny it, the reporter admitted the fact, upon which he was asked, "Are you one of us?" and was answered in the negative; and it was explained why the disguise had been adopted. The constable, however, said he must take the reporter to the station, and he was accordingly conveyed to Leman-street, where the inspector on duty, after several questions, said, "I must detain you until inquiries are made." After a delay of an hour and a half, the officer was satisfied of the reporter's bona fides, and he was liberated.

How seriously did the police regard Schwartz? I'd say slightly more so than this cross-dressing journalist.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Fanny's 4 minutes is just a reporter's notion, not what she said? You seem to have changed your position on this, considering #892:

I just listed the "4 minutes as a reporter thing" as one of the things someone could argue, and included that because you mentioned it before.

I have no idea if she said it, if the reporter shortened what she said, or if a reporter even just made it up, etc. None of us know as we weren't there, and we do know the press was a bit dodgy at times. All I know is that is what it says in the papers. Given that is one of the times that ends up furthest off the estimated interval (but within the acceptable margin of error), it looks like it could be some fudging by the reporter but not necessarily.

The ~4-minute gap is worth thinking about, especially given it a concreted-in element of the Berner St murder, for some of us. So, just for reference:

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. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

How does the reporter arrive at "about 4 minutes", other than supposing this is literally what Fanny said to him? It seems to me (and apparently to yourself) that the reporter has added 10 minutes to a time immediately after Smith has passed by her place - apparently 12:45/6. This time is then subtracted from 1am to arrive at the 4-minute interval. However, the report says nothing about the time 1am, so where does it come from? As the reporter goes on to imply that he is aware of Diemschitz story, should we necessarily assume that mention of 1am came from Fanny?

Assuming Fanny mentioned 1am to this reporter, then the situation is that her timings line up closely with that of Diemschitz. Therefore, if Diemschitz' timings are regarded as being close to the truth (as some of us do), then Fanny was at her doorstep from between the time of Smith's witnessing of Stride, and a few minutes prior to Diemschitz arrival. Apparently, nothing along the lines described by Schwartz was observed.

Alternatively, if Fanny did not mention hearing the pony and cart at 1am, to this reporter, then the 4-minutes determined by subtraction notion, goes out the window. The implications of this could be serious. For example, the ~4-minute interval could in reality have been ~30 seconds - that is, Mortimer may have heard the sound of the pony and cart entering Berner St, as she was locking-up. In Walter Dew's memoir, that is exactly what says occurred. When, in that case, did the murderer leave the yard?

Just to be clear, in your timeline, how much time are we talking about?

I forget exactly, but I know there's time still unaccounted for, and more than a minute or two, which would be enough for someone to argue that another person could show up. It wouldn't require a lot of time, so unless we can account for absolutely every minute, that idea can always be put forth as a possibility. Doesn't make it probable, and unaccounted for time isn't evidence anyone did show up, but the possibility being there will mean someone will argue for it. That's how things go.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

....

How seriously did the police regard Schwartz? I'd say slightly more so than this cross-dressing journalist.

Given the police set up a search of all the Lipski families in the area based upon Schwartz, and continued it at great expense for some time, I think we have pretty good evidence they took him pretty seriously.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Given the police set up a search of all the Lipski families in the area based upon Schwartz, and continued it at great expense for some time, I think we have pretty good evidence they took him pretty seriously.

- Jeff

Is that evidence for the police taking him seriously, or the police being under great pressure from the Home Office?

[JeffHamm]

Is that evidence for the police taking him seriously, or the police being under great pressure from the Home Office?

I would say it was the police taking him seriously. They had limited funds, and being under pressure, they wouldn't waste time and money on something they completely disbelieved. They followed up on his statement, both as he initially gave it, even though they also thought he was probably incorrect about Lipski being shouted as a warning to Pipeman, and along the lines of their reinterpretation (Lipski shouted at Schwartz himself, and Pipeman probably another witness). If they didn't take him seriously, they would have ignored him completely in my opinion, but they followed multiple options based on his statement.

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

It might be helpful to show Jeff's timeline in this thread, so here it is:

1:16: Dr. Blackwell arrives at scene

1:13:35: Johnson arrives at scene
PC Smith Leaves to fetch ambulance

1:05:30: PC Smith Arrives

1:04:45: PC Lamb Arrives

1:03:33: PC Lamb alerted by “runners”

1:02:21: Runners start heading from yard, north towards Commercial Road
Returned from Fairclough
Spooner arrives at Scene

1:00:34: Runners head out south toward Fairclough
This is heard by James Brown, whose testimony places this at 1o'clock (non BST)

12:58:24: Diemshutz’s arrival (based upon George’s 1m 50s recreation of pony shy->heading out

{ Time window for Schwartz Incident }

12:48:01: James Brown sees a man and woman (Stride?) by the board School;

12:47: Fanny Mortimer goes inside (FM estimated about 4 minutes later she heard a pony and cart go by. The recreation has an 11 m 24 gap. The range for 4 minute estimates span from 1m 15s to 12m 31s, so while on the long side, the recreation is still within acceptable limits).

{ Time window for Goldstein to walk down Berner Street }.

12:39: Fanny Mortimer goes outside

12:37:30: PC Smith’s previous patrol of Berner’s Street

[Mark J D]

Is that evidence for the police taking him seriously, or the police being under great pressure from the Home Office?

It's evidence of Diemschitz et al. wildly over-estimating the constabulary intellect. 'Schwartz' reporting that a scary guy shouted 'Lipski' -- "What does 'Lipski' mean, officer? I'm a Hungarian just off the boat. I couldn't possibly understand a frightening shout like that!" [*blink*]" -- was meant to drop a subtle clue that no Jews were involved in the murder of a woman on Jewish Anarchist Club premises. The police were supposed to put two and two together and see hostile antisemites in the street. Alas, that was asking too much of them -- and Plod went off looking for people actually called Lipski. It's absolutely pitiful to see...

Bests,

Mark D.

[JeffHamm]

It's evidence of Diemschitz et al. wildly over-estimating the constabulary intellect. 'Schwartz' reporting that a scary guy shouted 'Lipski' -- "What does 'Lipski' mean, officer? I'm a Hungarian just off the boat. I couldn't possibly understand a frightening shout like that!" [*blink*]" -- was meant to drop a subtle clue that no Jews were involved in the murder of a woman on Jewish Anarchist Club premises. The police were supposed to put two and two together and see hostile antisemites in the street. Alas, that was asking too much of them -- and Plod went off looking for people actually called Lipski. It's absolutely pitiful to see...

Bests,

Mark D.

Except the police didn't only go off looking for Lipski's, they also considered the possibility that Schwartz misinterpreted to whom Lipski was shouted (Abberline's view was that Schwartz was the target of the shout Lipski, and that it was hurled as an insult, etc; he quested Schwartz on this possibility, and in the end Schwartz admitted he couldn't be sure anymore as to whom Lipski was shouted). So, rather than Plod going off like some unthinking robot, the police followed both lines of inquiry, which demonstrates good police work. You both investigate based upon the witness' statement, and you consider reasonable alternatives to the witness' in case they've made errors of interpretation and/or memory. The police of 1888 didn't have the tools of modern policing, and had to work with what they did have. And under the circumstances it is clear they were far from the poor Plod but were following up every reasonable lead, and considering the various lines of inquiry that arose from the information given them.

There is even some news reports that suggest the possibility that Pipeman was located (I can't remember what paper it is found in, but it has been discussed a few times on the board). Mind you, the information that is based upon is not immune to other interpretations. Some have even suggested those news reports could point to Broad Shoulders being identified, and also cleared, but again it is certainly not a for sure thing. In my view, I think the argument that Pipeman may have been located is stronger than Broad Shoulders being located, but even then it is just one possibility that teases rather than clarifies things.

If Schwartz wanted to direct the police away from a Jewish offender, the idea that he would tell the police that he thought Lipski was shouted to Pipeman as an alerting call, indicating that Pipeman's name was (or at least may have been) Lipski, is simply implausible. That's not the type of thing one would concoct, rather his statement would clearly and unambiguously implicate a Gentile; something like "He shouted at me in what I took to be English, but I didn't understand what he said but it sounded angry", etc).

Stranger murders of this sort are still very difficult to solve even with all of the modern tools of investigation. Even DNA is of little use if the offender is not in the database - you would then have to find the offender first, and then compare DNA. As such, I think we can be overly harsh on the police at the time, who had very few investigative tools other than just put feet to the ground and seek information from the population. They did all they could, and used all the tools they had available. They started using photography, for example, which wasn't common - it was an innovation. They considered using bloodhounds (sure, probably would have been ineffective, but they at least were willing to try new ideas - not all new ideas work out, after all, they are new ideas). Hindsight may allow us to see where things didn't work, or to consider other options, but at the time they had all the possible options to select from and with limited resources, made their selection. We have the benefit of knowing those selections didn't work, but only because they tried them. Had they done something we now suggest instead of what they did do, but that too not worked, we might be suggesting they should have done something actually did, smug in our knowledge they didn't solve it and safe from shame because our idea can't actually be put to the test.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It's evidence of Diemschitz et al. wildly over-estimating the constabulary intellect. 'Schwartz' reporting that a scary guy shouted 'Lipski' -- "What does 'Lipski' mean, officer? I'm a Hungarian just off the boat. I couldn't possibly understand a frightening shout like that!" [*blink*]" -- was meant to drop a subtle clue that no Jews were involved in the murder of a woman on Jewish Anarchist Club premises. The police were supposed to put two and two together and see hostile antisemites in the street. Alas, that was asking too much of them -- and Plod went off looking for people actually called Lipski. It's absolutely pitiful to see...

Bests,

Mark D.

It does seem like a waste of time and resources, in hindsight, or even in foresight, given that Abberline knew 'Lipski' was a used as a slur.

How much faith do you think the police actually had in Schwartz? Leman St apparently did not believe him. Reid, who seems to have worked closer with Baxter than any other policeman, did not think the BS man was necessarily the killer, and it would seem Baxter did not call Schwartz to the inquest - or if he did, Schwartz was a no show. Swanson failed to personally endorse Schwartz in his report, in which he makes it clear that Pipeman has not been located, because he is not suspected. On Oct 23, Anderson says the police did not have a clue. Wait, wasn't the behaviour and description of the BS man an important clue? Apparently not. There is no known mention of Schwartz beyond November '88, making a strong contrast with Lawende. The police support for Schwartz has been exaggerated.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If Schwartz wanted to direct the police away from a Jewish offender, the idea that he would tell the police that he thought Lipski was shouted to Pipeman as an alerting call, indicating that Pipeman's name was (or at least may have been) Lipski, is simply implausible. That's not the type of thing one would concoct, rather his statement would clearly and unambiguously implicate a Gentile; something like "He shouted at me in what I took to be English, but I didn't understand what he said but it sounded angry", etc).

If the alerting call notion is simply implausible, can you explain why Pipeman began running toward Schwartz, and Schwartz felt he needed to run as far as one of railway arches? Did Pipeman casually watch the altercation, while lighting his pipe, and then bolt when the other man yelled an offensive word at him, which you seem to believe was actually directed at Schwartz? Meanwhile, Stride ends up in the passageway, without at any point making an audible sound.

Evidently, this is what believers in Schwartz seem to have signed up for. To me, it sounds cartoonish.

[JeffHamm]

If the alerting call notion is simply implausible, can you explain why Pipeman began running toward Schwartz, and Schwartz felt he needed to run as far as one of railway arches? Did Pipeman casually watch the altercation, while lighting his pipe, and then bolt when the other man yelled an offensive word at him, which you seem to believe was actually directed at Schwartz? Meanwhile, Stride ends up in the passageway, without at any point making an audible sound.

Evidently, this is what believers in Schwartz seem to have signed up for. To me, it sounds cartoonish.

Given you believe it sounds cartoonish, it's not surprising you draw different inferences from those who believe it sounds plausible.

As to explain why Pipeman runs towards Schwartz, from which starting point am I to work? The cartoonish one? How about: He ran because B.S. yelling out of Lipski frightened him, and he ran to Schwartz to seek safety in numbers.

Or, less cartoonish, we could go with "He lit his pipe, and then just headed on his way, not bothering to get involved in a common altercation up the road, and Schwartz already uncomfortable with things, erroneously thought Pipeman was coming at him when he was just heading on his own way.

Or do you mean you want an explanation based upon alerting? In which case he ran because he had been alerted to Schwartz's presence, and as a look out, that was his assigned role.

See, how one explains things tends to be based upon how one views that which came before, which is why I needed to clarify which preconception I had to start with before presenting my "explanation"(s).

In reality what we have, though, is insufficient information to determine which (if either) starting point is correct. Personally, while it is fun to pretend we know what the people were thinking, and ascribe motives to their actions, none of those things are facts, they're just hypotheses we present to justify coming to one or the other conclusion.

This is why, in my opinion that when viewed stripped of such things the evidence we have is simply not capable of guiding us to an unambiguous single explanation.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

"The police were supposed to put two and two together and see hostile antisemites in the street."

The hostile antisemites were in the club. People like Diemshitz made mockery of Jewish festivals. The club members regularly protested outside synagogues. They were actual practitioners of Marx's dictum, "Opium des Volkes".

If Schwartz was a practicing Jew he would have reason to dislike the club. For all we know he might have been in the crowd that stoned the premises.

What "Lipski" was meant to mean, if in fact it was the word "Lipski" that was used, is unclear, but the notion that that word distances the club from the murder simply doesn't make sense of the known facts.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Given you believe it sounds cartoonish, it's not surprising you draw different inferences from those who believe it sounds plausible.

As to explain why Pipeman runs towards Schwartz, from which starting point am I to work? The cartoonish one? How about: He ran because B.S. yelling out of Lipski frightened him, and he ran to Schwartz to seek safety in numbers.

Because BS yelled out 'Lipski' to who, Jeff?

Or, less cartoonish, we could go with "He lit his pipe, and then just headed on his way, not bothering to get involved in a common altercation up the road, and Schwartz already uncomfortable with things, erroneously thought Pipeman was coming at him when he was just heading on his own way.

Less cartoonish perhaps, but if Schwartz effectively hallucinated Pipeman running toward him, can we call him a reliable witness?

Or do you mean you want an explanation based upon alerting? In which case he ran because he had been alerted to Schwartz's presence, and as a look out, that was his assigned role.

I've never suggested that scenario. However, I have suggested multiple times that had there been any truth to the story, the two men might have been common street thieves, and Schwartz was pursued for his on-person possessions.

See, how one explains things tends to be based upon how one views that which came before, which is why I needed to clarify which preconception I had to start with before presenting my "explanation"(s).

So, what came before Stride stood in the gateway?

In reality what we have, though, is insufficient information to determine which (if either) starting point is correct. Personally, while it is fun to pretend we know what the people were thinking, and ascribe motives to their actions, none of those things are facts, they're just hypotheses we present to justify coming to one or the other conclusion.

This is why, in my opinion that when viewed stripped of such things the evidence we have is simply not capable of guiding us to an unambiguous single explanation.

- Jeff

I think a lot of people would claim to agree with this. In practice, they probably have settled on what they regard as an unambiguous single explanation.

[JeffHamm]

Because BS yelled out 'Lipski' to who, Jeff?

Again, that all depends upon which version we're considering. In the "ultra cartoonish", we could propose something outlandish like B.S. just yelled it out to nobody in particular. Or, we could go with how Schwartz suggested, that it was yelled out to Pipeman. Or as Abberline suggested, it was yelled at Schwartz. Who B.S. actually yelled Lipski to depends upon which scenerio one is considering. Once you choose your conclusion, you choose who the target was. But once we recognize we don't actually know, then we're left with considering the various possibilities.

For example, some have suggested that B.S. didn't even shout Lipski, but Lizzie, so in that line of thought B.S. was shouting at Liz. So we have some who think B.S. yelled at Pipeman (Schwartz), some who think he yelled at Schwartz (Abberline), and some modern suggestions that he yelled at the only remaining person there, Liz herself.

Less cartoonish perhaps, but if Schwartz effectively hallucinated Pipeman running toward him, can we call him a reliable witness?

I think hallucinated is a bit leading. If B.S. yelled Lipski at Schwartz, then that would suggest Schwartz misinterpreted Pipeman's intensions - Pipeman wasn't running "after" him, but simply moving from the area (for example), and his starting off at that time made an apparently already nervous Schwartz interpret that as Pipeman coming for him. It's not a hallucination, I'm suggesting he did see Pipeman move out into the street in this version, but his error was one of interpretation of Pipeman's intentions (an error that follows from his initial misinterpretation of Pipeman being the target of the Lipski shout - the errors compound together).

So is he reliable?

In terms of the events, probably, although we might want to be cautious about things like how far Pipeman followed him. If Schwartz ran off at the point he thinks Pipeman is chasing him, but in reality Pipeman isn't, then Schwartz is going to think he's being followed quite a bit longer than he was (since in reality he never was!). But in the more objective side of things, there's no reason to doubt him just because he interpreted the intensions for the actions incorrectly. We could consider him reliable for things like "B.S. shouted Lipski", there was another man there too (Pipeman). Pipeman moved away from where he was standing as Schwartz went by. We might question the idea that Pipeman actually chased Schwartz at all, and consider the possibility that Pipeman may even have gone off in a different direction with Schwartz not realising that until he later checks to see if he is being pursued and finds he isn't. We have to be careful not to throw out everything just because we doubt some of what he says. Witnesses always get some things wrong, that doesn't mean everything should be ignored.

I've never suggested that scenario. However, I have suggested multiple times that had there been any truth to the story, the two men might have been common street thieves, and Schwartz was pursued for his on-person possessions.



So, what came before Stride stood in the gateway?

Presumably before Stride stood in the gateway she made her way to the gateway from somewhere else.

I think a lot of people would claim to agree with this. In practice, they probably have settled on what they regard as an unambiguous single explanation.

I suspect most people have a version they find most probable as it fits best with their way of thinking. That's fine, it's part of interpreting things. Where I think one has to be careful, though, is going from thinking one notion is more likely than another to thinking "this is the only right one". It becomes more dangerous if one has chosen a particular solution and then because they can work back to find a way to explain the previous events with that solution in mind, that they have then worked out the only path through the events. I was sort of trying to demonstrate the error of that way of thinking by pointing out how, depending upon what conclusion I'm aiming for (ultra cartoonish, cartoonish, less cartoonish, etc) I can come up with a different story to explain things. All that tells me is that the information we have is insufficient to get me to any particular conclusion with certainty. That doesn't mean I don't find some paths more plausible than others, and I generally favour Abberline's suggestion that "Lipski" was shouted at Schwartz, and Pipeman was just a bystander, and Schwartz misinterpreted the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman. As such, I'm not sure it is safe to presume Pipeman followed Schwartz for any distance, but because Schwartz thought he was being chased, he ran off and it is not until he looks back after some time that he realises he is no longer being pursued. His error, though, is that he was probably never pursued in the first place.

No, I don't present that as the one and only interpretation. It's just the one that, to me, has the most plausible feel to it, as the errors seem to be very human, and very typical ones. That's not proof that is what happened by any means, but other explanations, that get to other conclusions, feel more artificial to me. Your own opinion may, of course, be different, but that is the nature of things. I'm not trying to convince you to "think like me", and only spell things out so you can understand why I think the way I do, and the reasoning that goes behind my thoughts, that's all.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Lave contradicts more than just Schwartz. He contradicts Mortimer, Goldstein, Brown, Eagle, Hershberg, Kozebrodsky, Spooner, and PC Smith.

I am a Russian, and have recently arrived in England from the United States. I am residing temporarily at the club. About twenty minutes before the alarm I went down into the yard to get a breath of fresh air. I walked about for five minutes or more, and went as far as the street. Everything was very quiet at the time, and I noticed nothing wrong.

This could be interpreted to mean that Lave was standing in the gateway, at 12:45. I can understand why people might be keen to dismiss him.