Money

[Fleetwood Mac]

I suspect what we see is a mixture of press selling a story( the knife) and translation issues.
Given that Abberline was at the interview, I think in this case, his comments are very significant.

His opinion amounts to who the shout was aimed at.
He says Schwartz was unsure, and that Schwartz was not sure if he was actually chased, that is presented by Abberline as fact rather than opinion.

Steve

Aye, I agree that Abberline was not really in a position to say whom: "Lipski" was aimed at, beyond a guess.

I personally would be surprised in the event two men ran away from a quarrel given the nature of the East End at that time. Quarrels were part and parcel of existence.

In the event this happened, which I don't believe it did, I would say the best bet is that the two were working together, "Lispki" was aimed at Pipeman to let him know someone was approaching and Pipeman chased off Schwartz.

[Elamarna]

Aye, I agree that Abberline was not really in a position to say whom: "Lipski" was aimed at, beyond a guess.

I personally would be surprised in the event two men ran away from a quarrel given the nature of the East End at that time. Quarrels were part and parcel of existence.

In the event this happened, which I don't believe it did, I would say the best bet is that the two were working together, "Lispki" was aimed at Pipeman to let him know someone was approaching and Pipeman chased off Schwartz.

We will disagree, I see no reason to think Pipeman was connected to BS man.

It wasn't a quarrel, they had apparently witnessed a violent attack.on a women, during the height of the Ripper scare.

Running off seems very reasonable and sensible.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

We will disagree, I see no reason to think Pipeman was connected to BS man.

It wasn't a quarrel, they had apparently witnessed a violent attack.on a women, during the height of the Ripper scare.

Running off seems very reasonable and sensible.

Steve

We'll disagree, aye.

Although I would say that a man throwing a woman down is hardly good reason for two men to run away.

Frances Coles' mate was given a crack in the face and she didn't run away.

'All sounds a bit suspect to me.

[JeffHamm]

Assuming this event actually happened, I'm not sure what would be gained from shouting 'Lispki' at a man watching an attack take place.

I think warning an accomplice that a man was approaching makes more sense.

Hi FM,

Lipski was used as an insulit, or a slurr, so shouting it at Schwartz would be both an insult but also a way of saying "mind your own business" type thing. In the context of aggression, it makes sense and is fairly typical behaviour.

And yes, shouting it as a warning to an accomplice also makes sense too, that's the problem. We have two interpretations of whom B.S. was shouting at, was it as Schwartz initially presumed a call to an accomplice (and therefore Pipeman is the intended reciever), or was it an insult/mind your own business threat shouted at Schwartz himself (Pipeman being uninvolved), as the police believed?

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi FM,

Lipski was used as an insulit, or a slurr, so shouting it at Schwartz would be both an insult but also a way of saying "mind your own business" type thing. In the context of aggression, it makes sense and is fairly typical behaviour.

And yes, shouting it as a warning to an accomplice also makes sense too, that's the problem. We have two interpretations of whom B.S. was shouting at, was it as Schwartz initially presumed a call to an accomplice (and therefore Pipeman is the intended reciever), or was it an insult/mind your own business threat shouted at Schwartz himself (Pipeman being uninvolved), as the police believed?

- Jeff

Well summed up Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

Lipski was used as an insulit, or a slurr, so shouting it at Schwartz would be both an insult but also a way of saying "mind your own business" type thing. In the context of aggression, it makes sense and is fairly typical behaviour.

And yes, shouting it as a warning to an accomplice also makes sense too, that's the problem. We have two interpretations of whom B.S. was shouting at, was it as Schwartz initially presumed a call to an accomplice (and therefore Pipeman is the intended reciever), or was it an insult/mind your own business threat shouted at Schwartz himself (Pipeman being uninvolved), as the police believed?

- Jeff

Well, I come from a part of England that is characterised by casual violence more than most other parts of England, in the modern age that is. The idea that two men, in an area associated with casual violence, would run up the street, doesn't make a lot of sense.

You could argue maybe Schwarz but then there's no reason to think he wasn't used to violence in his part of Hungary.

If anything, people who live in communities with an epidemic of casual violence are desensitised to it as opposed to being frightened, and are much more likely to want to have a look to see what's going on.

I can't believe Pipeman ran up the street in fear given he must have seen violence on an almost daily basis.

I've seen a lot of fights in my time. I've never seen bystanders run up the street out of fear.

[Elamarna]

Well, I come from a part of England that is characterised by casual violence more than most other parts of England, in the modern age that is. The idea that two men, in an area associated with casual violence, would run up the street, doesn't make a lot of sense.

You could argue maybe Schwarz but then there's no reason to think he wasn't used to violence in his part of Hungary.

If anything, people who live in communities with an epidemic of casual violence are desensitised to it as opposed to being frightened, and are much more likely to want to have a look to see what's going on.

I can't believe Pipeman ran up the street in fear given he must have seen violence on an almost daily basis.

I've seen a lot of fights in my time. I've never seen bystanders run up the street out of fear.

So Many assumptions/speculation in that post.
Trying to imagine ourselves in the place of Schwartz or Pipeman is pointless in my view, it's where we so often go wrong, the how would I behave scenero.
And while such often sounds engaging and reasoned, it flawed.
We have no idea what type of person either Schwartz or pipeman were, nor do we know how they may respond to what may well have been the start of the murders of Stride.

Stece

[JeffHamm]

So Many assumptions/speculation in that post.
Trying to imagine ourselves in the place of Schwartz or Pipeman is pointless in my view, it's where we so often go wrong, the how would I behave scenero.
And while such often sounds engaging and reasoned, it flawed.
We have no idea what type of person either Schwartz or pipeman were, nor do we know how they may respond to what may well have been the start of the murders of Stride.

Stece

We also have to be careful with regards to Pipeman's actual "mode of departure". We get that only from Schwartz's statement that Pipeman followed him, but as we know, Schwartz's interpretation of the situation may very well be mistaken. We do not know if Pipeman actually followed him for any meaningful distance, and it is quite possible that all Schwartz actually saw was Pipeman moving in a direction that was towards him, so Schwartz fled and all we know is that at some point near the arches he realises Pipeman is no longer behind him. It is entirely reasonable to consider the possibility that Pipeman was simply walking away, having no interest in either Schwartz or the commotion at the club, and when Schwartz headed down Fairclough Pipeman actually walked in the other direction, and so never really "followed" Schwartz in any meaningful sense of the word (that's sort of the situation I decided to show in the simulation I did of the Stride crime, simply to illustrate this one possible idea).

Or, of course, Pipeman may have decided he didn't want to get involved, and so he too fled the scene, that's another possible reality we can't discount.

Or Pipeman went up to B.S. and chased him away and kills Stride (which I've seen some people suggest), and while I think that is a lower probability, I can't say there's anything evidential against it, so it too needs consideration.

And obviously, maybe Schwartz was correct, and Pipeman did chase him, because he was a lookout for B.S. (I think that unlikely though, as B.S. seems to have entered the scene from the north, while Pipeman appears to have been just standing at the south end of the street. It doesn't seem like they were initially together in any sense.

But I agree that we shouldn't impart our own sense of "I would do X" ..., mostly because how we think we will react in a situation is not always how we do react, so if we can't predict our own actions all that well we have even less chance of predicting someoneelse's. Some people are more timid than others, and Schwartz appears to be very uncomfortable with the confrontational nature of the events around him and that put him in the mind to get out of there. He may have had some nasty experiences in the past that made him decide this was not a situation he was going to put himself into if he could avoid it. Even the police were unconcerned about domestic violence (think of the police admitting to Eddowes that it would serve her right if she got a hiding for coming home so late etc), so to expect Schwartz or any citizen to show more concern is not seeing things within the context of the times.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

All that being said Jeff, i still dont see any good overiding reason why we should not accept Schwartz version of events

After the ''Lipski'' was called out, ''Then finding he was Followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway way arch but the second man did not follow.'' .

There is little doubt that Swanson would have at least clarified this with Schwartz /Abberline as to confirm if the details were correct , dont forget it was an official report, not some newspaper article . I dont see anything out of the ordinary that should require a different turn of events where Schwartz is concerned.

Edit . Granted , Abberline does say in his memo that... ''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''' which may also imply one or the other .

[JeffHamm]

All that being said Jeff, i still dont see any good overiding reason why we should not accept Schwartz version of events

After the ''Lipski'' was called out, ''Then finding he was Followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway way arch but the second man did not follow.'' .

There is little doubt that Swanson would have at least clarified this with Schwartz /Abberline as to confirm if the details were correct , dont forget it was an official report, not some newspaper article . I dont see anything out of the ordinary that should require a different turn of events where Schwartz is concerned.

Edit . Granted , Abberline does say in his memo that... ''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''' which may also imply one or the other .

Yah, that's the thing, we only have information filtered through different people's views and writing styles with their idiosyncratic wording choices. We are quite far removed from Schwartz's own words already. Moreover, we only have summary reports, not the complete interview transcripts, so again, while Abberline and Swanson would have had more information than we do, we only see their summarization of it, which blurr out the details they had and leave us guessing what they may have been. We have to double-check our guesses, and see if other guesses might also fit (even the ones we might not personally lean towards). Sometimes we can rule out some interpretations simply because they are too tortured or convoluted, but often, there are a couple of reasonable ways in which a report could be read. At the time, any ambiguity could be clarified by further inquiry, but that option is lost to us.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

So Many assumptions/speculation in that post.
Trying to imagine ourselves in the place of Schwartz or Pipeman is pointless in my view, it's where we so often go wrong, the how would I behave scenero.
And while such often sounds engaging and reasoned, it flawed.
We have no idea what type of person either Schwartz or pipeman were, nor do we know how they may respond to what may well have been the start of the murders of Stride.

Stece

It's all underpinned by one assumption, which in turn is underpinned by experience.

I have never seen bystanders run up the street due to a fight breaking out. It just doesn't happen.

Human beings being human beings: we tend to want to see what is going on.

I think it's a safe bet that two men wouldn't take flight due to a fight between two strangers.

[JeffHamm]

It's all underpinned by one assumption, which in turn is underpinned by experience.

I have never seen bystanders run up the street due to a fight breaking out. It just doesn't happen.

Human beings being human beings: we tend to want to see what is going on.

I think it's a safe bet that two men wouldn't take flight due to a fight between two strangers.

But, I presume you have experienced one man, who feels threatened, take to their heels. So you can't have issue with Schwartz fleeing, given his interpretation of the situation (that he was possibly about to get attacked by Pipeman and/or B.S.)

We cannot be sure that Pipeman did "flee" per se, so in the end, your suggestion is that it would be harder to imagine Pipeman fleeing. Ok, let's go with that.

So if Pipeman didn't flee, and he didn't chase Schwartz (who, as far as we can ascertain, only comes to realise this after running some distance), then either Pipeman simply headed on his way because he wasn't interested in seeing yet another domestic, or you might argue he would be more apt to head up to see what's going on. And, given in this situation B.S. and Pipeman are not known to each other, B.S.'s "Lipski" must have been directed at Schwartz (as per Anderson's interpretation). Therefore, it would be reasonable to suggest that B.S. would likewise challenge Pipeman for his even more overt interference.

From that point, either Pipeman chooses, like Schwartz, to vacate the area as it is not in his interest to get involved and risk B.S. starting a fight with him over it, or he heads up to see what's going on and ends up getting involved somehow. It sounds to me like you favour the latter (your "human beings being human beings: we tend to want to see what is going on" statement is the basis for me thinking that). So, presuming that is the case, then it is at that point Pipeman either chases off B.S. or he himself gets "chased off". In either case, Stride moves into the darkness of the ally. Now, either B.S. (if he chased off Pipeman), even more angry, or Pipeman (if he chased off B.S. but is now angry at having gotten into a fight of some sort to get rid of B.S.), takes it out on Stride and kills her. Both of these options might allow for the concern some people have with regards to the cachous to get resolved; she takes them out while B.S. and Pipeman are having some sort of altercation, etc. Note, however, this is another altercation that apparently goes unheard by anyone.

Is that the sort of thing that you are more prone to imagine as likely? None of it is contained within the evidence we have of course (although all are possible lines of speculation that one could follow), but is that the sort of speculation that seems more probable to you? Compared with either Schwartz fleeing and Pipeman just moving off and leaving B.S. and Stride to sort things out between them or Schwart fleeing with Pipeman the accomplice chasing him off or Schwartz and Pipeman both fleeing?

Or are you saying that you can see no situation involving Schwartz fleeing and there being another man present as being plausible, and therefore conclude that Schwartz just made up his story?

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Or are you saying that you can see no situation involving Schwartz fleeing and there being another man present as being plausible, and therefore conclude that Schwartz just made up his story?

- Jeff

I'm saying that the experience of what I have seen throughout my life suggests to me that two men wouldn't run up the street simply because a fight broke out. Schwartz maybe due to being unacquainted with the area, but I have serious reservations over Pipeman running up the street in fear.

I don't think it's sufficient to say: "we just don't know" because we could apply that to any possible situation in this case and just call it a day. In such a situation you're left to make a judgement, and the experience of human behaviour is at least something underpinning that judgement.

I am willing to bet that just about everyone on this board has never seen two men run up in the street in fear simply because a fight broke out. That must count for something, i.e. the experience of human behaviour.

In terms of what this means for Schwartz's story, it means that in the event this did take place then I'm confident Pipeman would not have been running from a fight.

I'm not convinced with Schwartz, but not for the reasons laid out above. I'm more inclined to go with the other witnesses and I don't think Schwartz's event would have taken place unheard and unseen given that which the other witnesses stated. And then we have Pipeman in The Nelson doorway which I believe was open at the time (although not in line with licencing hours). This supposed attack, visible to anyone in the street, supposedly took place outside of an open club and not far from an open pub, with known witnesses going into the street (never mind unknown people walking up and down the street) and another witness stood at her door for some period and was able to hear footsteps walk past and a cart go past but not Schwartz's supposed attack and cry of: "Lipski". And of course, Pipeman didn't come forward as a witness.

On balance, I'd say it didn't happen. In fact, I'd say it sounds like a load of rubbish. I mean: "screamed three times but not very loudly", what does this even mean? Does this actually happen in the real world? Convenient for Schwartz and his tall tale, but a woman screams to attract attention because she is threatened, there's not much use in a muffled scream that nobody in the club or anywhere nearby can hear.

[Elamarna]

It's all underpinned by one assumption, which in turn is underpinned by experience.

I have never seen bystanders run up the street due to a fight breaking out. It just doesn't happen.

Human beings being human beings: we tend to want to see what is going on.

I think it's a safe bet that two men wouldn't take flight due to a fight between two strangers.

But it's not a fight, or an argument is it?
It's a violent attack on a women, during the height of the Ripper attacks.

This is like the thousands who say, if my partner had done x , I would turn them in.

Until we are actually in that exact situation , none of us know how we will react.

We clearly disagree, no problem


Steve

[Ms Diddles]

I am willing to bet that just about everyone on this board has never seen two men run up in the street in fear simply because a fight broke out. That must count for something, i.e. the experience of human behaviour.

Hi FM,

You're quite right in that I have never witnessed two men running up a street, in fear of a fight which has broken out involving other unrelated people.

I have however spent many years working with both asylum seekers and refugees.

In my experience they can be disproportionately frightened by acts of violence, drunkeness or just general weird stuff that happens on the streets of Glasgow.

It actually makes perfect sense.

Lack of English or cultural familiarity can make things appear more threatening than they actually are.

All too frequently they will have had first hand experience of racism and abuse, so there's a not entirely unjustified fear that someone commitimg violent acts may turn on them.

It can also call to mind violent acts encountered in their country of origin or during their journey to the UK.

Schwarz running makes perfect sense to me.

Pipeline fleeing doesn't.