Schwartz, a fraud?

[Observer]

Oberservations????? hahaha. I'll blame the jungle juice.

The wikipedia article explains the term "taking the Micheal" as I intended it to be understood

Oberserver

[Errata]

I'm not so sure about the “Jew on stage factor“ which Errata's suggesting, but in my understanding “theatrical appearance“ might have meant everything from overdressed (which supposedly Schwartz is supposed to have been), to exaggerated speak and gestures, which also kind of fits with Schwartz's not a little convoluted and unstable testimony.

It was just an idea. A possible explanation for a mysterious sentence. I'm not wedded to it. Personally, the more I think about it, the more I am in favor of the idea that the reporter never even laid eyes on the guy. But that's just me.

[Scott Nelson]

What a crazy thread. And I don't mean the title.

[Cogidubnus]

I thought, bearing in mind the minor contretemps elsewhere regarding the Schwartz testimony, that this might be a more appropriate place to raise the matter...hence the resurrection of this ancient thread, which contains much of interest...

One aspect I immediately discount is speculation about left or right-handedness based on the pinning of the flower and backing on Liz Strides right side...British custom is that gentlemen always wear a "buttonhole" on the left (in fact suits always used to come ready-made with a slot in the left lapel - some still do) whilst ladies always wear a corsage on the right...

However, that aside, herewith the venue, or am I sadistic necrophiliac with equine bestial tendencies?

Dave

[Bridewell]

Hi Dave,

This thread has got a few cobwebs on it, although I confess to not having read much of it. I was just wondering, if Liz Stride is under attack, whether by her eventual murderer or by another why, when she sees an obviously Jewish man approaching, does she not cry out to him in Yiddish? (But perhaps she did).
Speculation: She called to him for help and he ran away. He then invented Pipeman to justify having done so.
(That should lure a few people across, if only to shoot me down in flames!)

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin

It really is worth taking the trouble to read through the thread though!

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bridewell. Interesting and unique thought. I don't believe I've seen anyone question why Stride didn't yell out to Schwartz in Yiddish, since she's alleged to have spoken it. I would say the answer is that she didn't feel she was in any real danger. As far as she knew, she was just be man handled a bit by a drunk. She had absolutely no reason to suspect she was going to be murdered.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[moonbegger]

Evening All

So Why didn't pipe man ever come forward ? And If he wasn't part of Team ripper why did he not help Liz ? Surly they could have both ( he and Schwartz ) teamed up to secure liz's safty .. Unless of course , he was part of Team Ripper

Moonbegger .

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Moon. Pipeman was either a coward or he was involved in killing Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Lets not run away with the idea that everybody seen on the street were all honest law abiding citizens, this was the East end afterall, Pipeman may have had his own peccadillo's to conceal...

Regards, Jon S.

[Archaic]

Why Not One Very Loud Scream?

Hi Dave,

This thread has got a few cobwebs on it, although I confess to not having read much of it. I was just wondering, if Liz Stride is under attack, whether by her eventual murderer or by another why, when she sees an obviously Jewish man approaching, does she not cry out to him in Yiddish? (But perhaps she did).
Speculation: She called to him for help and he ran away. He then invented Pipeman to justify having done so.
(That should lure a few people across, if only to shoot me down in flames!)

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell.

First of all, do we know that Liz saw Schwartz approaching? Perhaps she was facing the other way or was too distracted with her own situation to notice him.

If she did see him coming and thought he looked Jewish, would it have been natural for her to assume he didn't speak any English? After all, there were many English-speaking Jews in the neighborhood. I think it would require some real presence of mind to spontaneously scream something in a language that is not one's native tongue.

I've always wondered if Liz screamed in words, like "No, no, no", or if she just emitted three wordless 'scream' sounds? Does anyone know if this was ever established?

What baffles me is why Liz didn't scream much more loudly if she was in a state of fear- why not one really loud scream instead of 3 not very loud ones? Do three small shrieks indicate something more like surprise and offense rather than terror?

Best regards,
Archaic

[Jonathan H]

I agree with Tom.

The bizarre 'Pipeman' was more likely to have really been 'Knifeman'; since this was a crime involving a murderer with a knife, and who worked within a very narrow timeline:

The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. MONDAY, 1 OCTOBER, 1888.

'INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT
was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police. It is, in fact, to the effect that he

SAW THE WHOLE THING.
It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb

A SECOND MAN CAME OUT
of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings. He described

THE MAN WITH THE WOMAN
as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society. The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.'


The story Schwartz tells in the newspaper version, though lacking the official status of the police report, nevertheless, makes more sense, as it is less self-servingly 1) a tale of racial persecution because it is isn't, and 2) Schwartz did shamefully know and he fearfully fled.

The witness, furthermore, describes an armed man who generically resembles the figure later seen chatting with Eddowes, as described by Lawende.

Is that really just a coincidence?

[Wickerman]

What baffles me is why Liz didn't scream much more loudly if she was in a state of fear- why not one really loud scream instead of 3 not very loud ones? Do three small shrieks indicate something more like surprise and offense rather than terror?

It might also indicate familiarity, that she has received this kind of treatment from him before. There's no need to scream for help, she knows what to expect, that he uses these rough tactics when he gets drunk, nothing to cry about. Yes she yelped or whimpered but did not feel that her life was in danger.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

I agree with Tom.

The bizarre 'Pipeman' was more likely to have really been 'Knifeman'; since this was a crime involving a murderer with a knife, and who worked within a very narrow timeline.

Just for the record, I didn't say this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

If Stride was hanging around hoping to lure a club member or two into the darkness of the yard for a spot of business, she might well have been reluctant to draw the wrong kind of attention to herself and end up being escorted from the premises. So I doubt that uttering a piercing scream would have been her first thought, assuming BS man merely came across as the kind of Saturday night oaf she was long used to dealing with.

I imagine it would have taken a very clear sense of imminent peril before Stride would have tried to scream the clubhouse down.

Love,

Caz
X