Schwartz and Brown

[harry]

Lynn,
How far and for how long Pipeman followed,is not known,but why should it be for any great distance or time?Forty or fifty yards would not have put him out of reckoning,and I see no reason why it should be more than that.

[lynn cates]

Abberline

Hello Mike. The story with which I am familiar is that Abberline was familiar with the racial slur "Lipski" and was perhaps the first to head the investigation in that direction.

The best.
LC

Hi Michael,

What is the basis for your conclusion that Abberline supported Schwartz's statement?

Im not sure that I can recall a quote that specifically backs the story as we do have in the case of Hutchinson cd, but we do know Abberline had strong opinions on what the "Lipski" remark likely inferred, which to me at least suggests he took the statement quite seriously.

Its an interesting thing to note is that Schwartz's "Lipski" element is discussed in later notations, some after the completion of the Inquest....yet we have no record that suggests or even in passing remarks that Schwartz gave his statement at those proceedings.

My feeling is that the reason Lipski is so enduring is because if it was as Abberline supposed, then the man seen with Liz was most probably not a Jew. Yet as we know, many senior investigators stated their belief was that the killer was a Polish or Eastern European Jew. Im sure they struggled to reconcile their beliefs with BSM as the probable killer of Liz, based on that story.

Cheers cd

[Fisherman]

"intelligent people usually steal ONLY things of value."

Brilliant point, Lynn - didnīt think of that.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

irony

Hello All. Does anyone find it ironic that, at various times, an advertisement pops up proclaiming, "This is how I got ripped in 4 weeks"?

A bit disconcerting?

LC

[lynn cates]

axiology

Hello Fish. Well, intelligent people usually steal ONLY things of value.

The best.

LC

[lynn cates]

pipe man

Hello Harry. That's true. But I was under the impression that pipe man followed Schwartz for some time.

Perhaps he returned and helped Liz?

Is there an implication that pipe man was her assailant later?

The best.

LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"Sorry, I just watched the Depp movie. What rubbish!"

That TOO is my argument! Why are everybody stealing my arguments this morning?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"Had no one died that night, he would have kept thinking he witnessed a domestic dispute."

Canīt believe you wrote that, Tom! Thatīs MY argument, you know...

At an rate, Tom; a good post there, just like Michael says.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Lynn,
There were reportedly two more males present in the immediate vicinity at the time,and there was,although I am not too taken with the idea,time enough for others to appear.Pipeman certainly seems in position to witness her fall,so I would suggest a compassionate approach the more likely.
Regards.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

What is the basis for your conclusion that Abberline supported Schwartz's statement?

I don't fault Abberline for his initial belief in Hutchinson's story. He came in of his own volition. I am assuming that he did not appear to be drunk or mentally unbalanced or immediately start talking about a reward. If Hutchinson's story was true, it could have been a major break in the case. I think Abberline took the best course of action -- accept the story at face value (for the time being) and see if Hutchinson could point out the man. It is easy to look back now and say that he should have been a little more skeptical but given the circumstance I am willing to cut old Fred some slack.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

ditto

Hello Tom and Mike. Ditto for me.

Perhaps he was having a drug induced vision. (Sorry, I just watched the Depp movie. What rubbish!)

The best chaps.
LC

Hi Lynn, Harry, Perry, et al,

The Stride case is a prime example of how many people can look at the same information and reach remarkably different conclusions. I personally don't think the evidence is as convoluted and confusing as we make it out to be. I think WE are the ones who make it confusing! But as regards Schwartz, we are severly handicapped not having his actual police statement. But even if we did, there would still be the issue that it was delivered to Abberline by way of a translator, potentially muddying the information. And of course since the statement was prepared by Abberline, we'd find his own biases and interpretations present. For instance, it's unlikely Schwartz ever used the term 'broad-shouldered'. This was a term preferred by Abberline himself and pops up in other statements taken by him to indicate someone who is stout but not rotund. And behind all this is the fact that the best Schwartz could give would be his interpretation of what he saw, and what he thought it meant. Had no one died that night, he would have kept thinking he witnessed a domestic dispute. Upon learning of the murder, he no doubt rethought what he saw and sought other interpretations, and this is what he delivered to Abberline. Who knows what little details were lost in this rethinking process. Or what details were exaggerated in his mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thats a well thought out and reasonable post Tom. I find it very interesting that the 2 witness accounts that Abberline sticks his neck out in support of are not presented at any Inquest, and one of them he clearly distances himself from within days.

Thats not to say he was easily mislead, perhaps that he more than any single officer drafted to the Ripper cases wanted some clues that might solve these cases. So he supports one that has a victim being assaulted just before her murder in the street in plain view of witnesses, and one that constructs a suspect that must have been embellished at the very least, he could not have seen the detail he stated he saw that night.

2 controversial accounts, and both supported by Fred.

Odd.

Best regards Tom

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn, Harry, Perry, et al,

The Stride case is a prime example of how many people can look at the same information and reach remarkably different conclusions. I personally don't think the evidence is as convoluted and confusing as we make it out to be. I think WE are the ones who make it confusing! But as regards Schwartz, we are severly handicapped not having his actual police statement. But even if we did, there would still be the issue that it was delivered to Abberline by way of a translator, potentially muddying the information. And of course since the statement was prepared by Abberline, we'd find his own biases and interpretations present. For instance, it's unlikely Schwartz ever used the term 'broad-shouldered'. This was a term preferred by Abberline himself and pops up in other statements taken by him to indicate someone who is stout but not rotund. And behind all this is the fact that the best Schwartz could give would be his interpretation of what he saw, and what he thought it meant. Had no one died that night, he would have kept thinking he witnessed a domestic dispute. Upon learning of the murder, he no doubt rethought what he saw and sought other interpretations, and this is what he delivered to Abberline. Who knows what little details were lost in this rethinking process. Or what details were exaggerated in his mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

enter man #2

Hello Harry.

"I would say that if we accept that there was no attack by BS,that that person has been misrepresented as having wilful intentions, and that he left on Stride falling to the ground, then someone other than BS entered the yard with Stride."

Good. I like this. Now, HOW shall we suppose man #2 entered and why?

1. Could be as a savior/comforter. "I see what that brute did. Are you alright?" Then perhaps he escorts her to the kitchen door to collect her date?

2. He could be waiting up the yard, beyond the kitchen door. Liz enters the yard and begins to pace. As she heads towards the gates, man #2 springs, etc.

3. He could be her date, and she has been waiting to meet him.

One of these?

The best.
LC