Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stride's three squeals would have caught Pipeman's attention.
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Sequence of comings & goings - Stride - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

      P
      rolly Louis Hagens.
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
        Just to add to my previous scenario, Pipeman is sheltering in the doorway of the Nelson lighting his pipe when he hears a commotion. He emerges to see a man in the gateway and a woman on the ground. The man in the gateway shouts Lipski at a Jewish looking man who is walking away from the scene and Pipeman deduces that he has attacked the woman and is making his escape having been interrupted by BSman. Pipeman makes a move towards Schwartz but Schwartz bolts so Pipeman walks down to the gateway to find out what happened. BSman declines to continue his altercation in front of a large male witness and leaves. This would remove the accomplice theory and explain why Schwartz thought that Pipeman rushed at him.

        So based on Schwartz's descriptions, the police arrest a couple of men who they interview and release, presumably cleared. Is there any evidence to say they were tall men rather than broad shouldered men?

        I know that it is accepted that Schwartz was not called to the inquest, but both Anderson and Warren referred to evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest. The inquest took place on Oct 1,2,3,5 and 23. Why the gap on the 4th? Did Schwartz give in camera evidence on the 4th?

        Cheers, George
        Hi George,

        Sure, Pipeman may have just been sheltering out of any slight breeze in order to light his pipe. He may have stepped out upon hearing some commotion as you suggest, after Schwartz runs off, he also may have just left the area entirely not wanting to get involved (which is very common).

        But let's start with Pipeman in the doorway, so he can't see up (or is it down?) Berner Street where the gateway is. Schwartz moves passed the club, and B.S. shouts Lipski. Pipeman moves to the edge of the doorway, and is spotted by Schwartz, who takes this as Pipeman coming towards him (because Schwartz is on the other side of the road) so Schwartz exits the scene.

        Pipeman watches Schwartz running off before turning to look towards the club.

        Now what if, during that admittedly brief period, is when B.S. shoves Stride into the alley, so when Pipeman looks he doesn't see B.S. or Stride, so he just heads off.

        Anything can be placed in there because we don't know enough; we don't know how much time passes between Schwartz passing B.S. and the Lipski shout, we presume it was right away, but it might have been after enough seconds had passed that Schwartz was further along (just not moving fast enough for B.S.). We don't actually know much at all about Pipeman's movements, other than Schwartz thought Pipeman was coming at him, but there's reason to believe Schwartz might have interpreted any movement towards him as being "coming to get him" by that point.

        We're left with Pipeman being able to do anything from nothing much at all to being Stride's rescuer come murderer to JtR, etc. We can all produce theories, but we are devoid of any evidence by which to test our conjectures.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • BS Man dragged Stride OUT OF THE ALLEY.

          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment


          • Schwartz crossed the street rather than approaching BS Man.

            Around 11.30 pm scores of singing radicals left the club,just three doors away.

            Louis Hagens would have felt like it was Xmas Eve or sumfin' for the next hour.

            Really would have enjoyed a knock off pipe.
            Last edited by DJA; 04-03-2022, 10:20 PM.
            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

            Comment


            • Why did Schwartz cross the road?

              Because he was chicken
              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                Why did Schwartz cross the road?

                Because he was chicken
                It would seem that the Covid has not diminished your sense of humour Dave. All the best for a speedy recovery.

                Cheers, George
                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                  If they did locate Pipeman. We don't know they did for sure, but there are some suggestions of it. But because we don't know, we reach the end of what we can conclude with any confidence, after that we have to consider things with both options open and consider the implications of which guess we choose.

                  So, if they did locate Pipeman they didn't arrest him and appear to have cleared him. Moreover, as we do not see him in any report, it appears he had nothing to add other than being able to satisfy the police he wasn't connected to B.S.

                  But we know the police were looking for Lipski families, which would, as you pointed out, only make sense if they didn't locate Pipeman. But I'm not sure of the timings of when Pipeman was supposed to be identified, although it appears the police were looking for Lipskis for at least a few weeks. That would suggest they hadn't identified Pipeman. If they were no longer looking for him "unless they got further information", then either the description Schwartz was able to give them of Pipeman was deemed insufficient information (not detailed enough), or perhaps they interviewed Schwartz again and he was not confident in his ability to describe Pipeman and was becoming less, rather than more, detailed. I don't know, of course, and I'm just making up options here because we have no information to work with. That's the thing with these cases, we have no information. I make stuff up to try to illustrate examples of things that might have happened, but I don't for a moment pretend they are real or facts. I try to phase it that Pipeman may have been identified to emphasize that we do not know as a certainty he was. Given the search for Lipskis went on for a while, it suggests Pipeman hadn't been found, unless locating him coincides with them stopping that search as well.
                  I find it odd that no one else seems to have any thoughts on this subject, that they feel are worth sharing.

                  They don't say who the other source was, so I don't know.
                  More to the point is not who it was, but how there could be another source. If they arrested one man based on Schwartz's description (the prisoner), then the only other source could be Pipeman, unless ...

                  The "going around arresting tall men" was just my way of pointing out that the description of Pipeman that we have is pretty generic other than he was 5'11", which was tall for the time. Maybe Schwartz was able to give the police a more detailed description that we don't have, but really, based upon what we have of Pipeman there's not a lot to base an arrest on.
                  It's a little more detailed than 5'11''.

                  Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

                  Interestingly, Schwartz seems to have pulled back on the description of Knifeman.

                  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.

                  Based on the descriptions, does Pipeman = Knifeman, and why doesn't Schwartz want the public to have a fuller description of the man's age and appearance? Any chance it's because he doesn't want this man coming forward and contradicting him?

                  The Pipeman description may not be a lot to go on, but amazingly (from our PoV), it was ...!

                  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.

                  This apparent ease in finding a man who is not wholly believed, suggests to me that the police had more to go on than we are aware of. Regarding this and the unidentified "other source", I would again point to the vigilance committee as being part of the puzzle. Did the WVC leave their fingerprints on Berner street, and perhaps Batty street also?

                  Well, neither did Abberline, but since Schwartz thought the name Lipski was addressed to Pipeman, Schwartz must have thought that Pipeman could have been Jewish.
                  That leaves Abberline's Lipski thinking, unexplained. If Schwartz thought Pipeman could have been Jewish, then Abberline could have too.

                  I don't see anything in Abberline's quote where he says anything about what Pipeman looked like, only that because Schwartz looked strongly Jewish that Lipski could have been directed at him. Pipeman might also have looked Jewish (see above) but since Schwartz definately did, that means the intended target of "Lipski" could have been Schwartz (leaving Pipeman to look like anything you want, but nowhere does it say he looked like that).
                  I'll leave this for others to comment on. After all, this is not a private conversation between yourself and myself.

                  I just don't follow this at all? Given that Schwartz's statement was that B.S. shouted Lipski to another man, who seemed to come to his aid (this was how Schwartz described things), it follows that the other man's name may very well have been Lipski, which was a Jewish name. So how doesn't the note writer's comment make sense? He's just reiterating what Schwartz said? (It's Abberline who offers the alternative explanation, which you appear to agree with, which is fine, but based upon what Schwartz says the note writer makes perfect sense).
                  It doesn't make sense if one buys-into Schwartz's story.

                  We don't know Schwartz wasn't called to the inquest. We know he wasn't there, but we do not know if he was called or not. We do not know why he doesn't show if he was called. We have no evidence that tells us what Baxter's view of Schwartz was, so there's no way for us to know if Baxter was or was not interested in Schwartz.
                  It goes without saying that if Schwartz was called and didn't show, it is not a good look at all. Whatever the case, the foreman's question to Phillips, suggests that at least several people at the inquest were aware of Schwartz's police statement. I don't understand how, though.

                  Actually, that's misinterpreting my position. The information we have about what Fanny did is contained only in newspaper reports that contradict each other. We have no reliable source for what it was she is supposed to have done. Whether or not Fanny herself was unreliable we cannot know because we do not know if she told her story consitently each time but the papers spun it differently (the reporters introduced the errors) or if she was the source of the variablity. What we do know is that there is no record of her statements from a source where reliably capturing what the person says, under conditions where they know there are consequences for stretching the truth and embellishments. As such, our version of Fanny's information is unreliable.
                  The time Swanson gave for Goldstein, should go some way toward clearing up any contradictions. Unless that is, it is supposed Mortimer and Goldstein's sense of the time was about 15 minutes ahead of GMT, in both cases.

                  As I've said before, I don't believe knifeman existed, so if they're still looking that would suggest it wasn't pipeman they found.
                  Knifeman actually speaks and behaves aggressively to warn off 'the intruder' - giving Schwartz an actual reason to run - whereas Pipeman says nothing and his behaviour seems arbitrary. Schwartz also held back on Knifeman's description. For whatever slight resemblance Schwartz's bizarre stories had to reality, I would say that Knifeman was the character that matched someone real, and that Pipeman was the creation.

                  Abberline gets the information from Schwartz, and that's how Schwartz interpreted it. But if Abberline is correct, and Pipeman is not connected to B.S, then it is unlikely Pipeman chased Schwartz anywhere despite how Schwartz may have interpreted things.
                  Why did Abberline suppose that, if Schwartz didn't? Was it because it just seemed so unlikely that it couldn't be true? Without the two men being a pair, though, Pipeman had no reason to suddenly run off like a startled rabbit. I agree with the Star editorialist, that the story is just unbelievable.

                  Well, you're at odds with Abberline, who actually interviewed Schwartz. Moreover, there is no evidence to support your WVC notion, or to even hint at it.
                  Not even a hint?

                  And to conclude that Stride did not call out as Schwartz stated is to make an unfounded assumption to overturn a statement. Unless you can present a clear reason why you, rather than Schwartz, should be believed, then I suspect you'll not convince many of that idea. Remember, if Pipeman was indeed located, then he may very well have said she called out and that's what got him moving towards the scene to see what was going on.
                  It is not me vs Schwartz, rather it's Schwartz vs the witnesses who said they would have heard screams had there been any, but didn't. These witnesses are another terrible blow to Schwartz's credibility.

                  As for your suggestion that Stride was already dead when Schwartz witnessed his events, then who was the woman he saw being pushed down? Also, don't forget, Schwartz was taken to the mortuary and identified Stride as the woman he saw.

                  - Jeff
                  I think it was Isaac Kozebrodsky.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                    Why did Schwartz cross the road?

                    Because he was chicken
                    Why did Schwartz leave his wife to move house, while he went out all day and deep into the night?

                    Why was Schwartz roaming the streets at night time?

                    Why did Schwartz expect us to believe that he only ducked down Berner street, to see if his wife had finished the "expected" move, and just happen to bump into JtR, who was abusing a woman in full view of anyone observing the street, and name calling randoms as though he didn't care?

                    Why did Schwartz claim to stop and watch this incident at close range, like he was some weird pervert?

                    Why did Schwartz suppose we wouldn't wonder WTF this didn't illicit some response from either the man or the woman?

                    Why did Schwartz claim that the woman screamed three times, but none of the people a short distance away heard it?

                    Why did Schwartz claim to run all the way to a railway arch, simply because a pipe-smoking man began walking in his direction?

                    Why did Schwartz claim that this man also ran in his direction, for no apparent reason?

                    Why did Schwartz turn up to Leman street police station, looking like he had just walked off stage at the Lyceum?

                    Why did Schwartz claim that a man walked out of pub that had been closed for near on 4 hours, and rush him with a knife?

                    Same answer for all; Because Israel Schwartz was a nutjob.
                    Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 04-05-2022, 12:19 PM.
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      Why did Schwartz leave his wife to move house, while he went out all day and deep into the night?

                      Why was Schwartz roaming the streets at night time?

                      Why did Schwartz expect us to believe that he only ducked down Berner street, to see if his wife had finished the "expected" move, and just happen to bump into JtR, who was abusing a woman in full view of anyone observing the street, and name calling randoms as though he didn't care?

                      Why did Schwartz claim to stop and watch this incident at close range, like he was some weird pervert?

                      Why did Schwartz suppose we wouldn't wonder WTF this didn't illicit some response from either the man or the woman?

                      Why did Schwartz claim that the woman screamed three times, but none of the people a short distance away heard it?

                      Why did Schwartz claim to run all the way to a railway arch, simply because a pipe-smoking man began walking in his direction?

                      Why did Schwartz claim that this man also ran in his direction, for no apparent reason?

                      Why did Schwartz turn up to Leman street police station, looking like he had just walked off stage at the Lyceum?

                      Why did Schwartz claim that a man walked out of pub that had been closed for near on 4 hours, and rush him with a knife?

                      Same answer for all; Because Israel Schwartz was a nutjob.
                      Hi Andrew,

                      As always you have plenty of questions. When will you provide a narrative to explain your theories in a logical sequence?

                      Cheers, George
                      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                      “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                        Hi Andrew,

                        As always you have plenty of questions. When will you provide a narrative to explain your theories in a logical sequence?

                        Cheers, George
                        Sequences are for Schwartzists ha-ha

                        Well I could tell you who Pipeman was. Would that be enough to get you off my back for a while?
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          Sequences are for Schwartzists ha-ha

                          Well I could tell you who Pipeman was. Would that be enough to get you off my back for a while?
                          I wasn't aware that I had been on your back, but no, you have been commenting in bits and pieces for too long. Time to present your theory in full for peer appraisal.

                          Cheers, George
                          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                          “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            ...
                            It doesn't make sense if one buys-into Schwartz's story.
                            It is the Schwartz story so I don't understand this? It's like if I said I had a sandwich for lunch, and someone says "Jeff ate a sandwhich", to then say their statement doesn't make sense if you believe me?


                            It goes without saying that if Schwartz was called and didn't show, it is not a good look at all. Whatever the case, the foreman's question to Phillips, suggests that at least several people at the inquest were aware of Schwartz's police statement. I don't understand how, though.
                            Shortly before that the Dr is giving his opinion that Stride was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, so the question from the foreman could easily have been prompted by that as well.


                            Knifeman actually speaks and behaves aggressively to warn off 'the intruder' - giving Schwartz an actual reason to run - whereas Pipeman says nothing and his behaviour seems arbitrary. Schwartz also held back on Knifeman's description. For whatever slight resemblance Schwartz's bizarre stories had to reality, I would say that Knifeman was the character that matched someone real, and that Pipeman was the creation.
                            We disagree on that. I put more credence in the statement Schwartz gave to the police, which involves Pipeman, than the story reported in the press involving knifeman.


                            Why did Abberline suppose that, if Schwartz didn't? Was it because it just seemed so unlikely that it couldn't be true? Without the two men being a pair, though, Pipeman had no reason to suddenly run off like a startled rabbit. I agree with the Star editorialist, that the story is just unbelievable.
                            You would have to ask Abberline why he supposed that, all I know is that he did.


                            Not even a hint?

                            It is not me vs Schwartz, rather it's Schwartz vs the witnesses who said they would have heard screams had there been any, but didn't. These witnesses are another terrible blow to Schwartz's credibility.
                            I think I can drink 50 pints in an hour. I can think anything I want, but that doesn't make it true. People thinking they would have heard a sound doesn't mean they really should have. There was singing and so forth going on the club, so lots of reasons why their belief about what they would or would not have heard is a far cry from a "terrible blow" to anything.


                            I think it was Isaac Kozebrodsky.
                            So you think the woman Schwartz sees was Isaac Zozebrodsky? This is really getting fascinating as I admit, I didn't see that one coming.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              Sequences are for Schwartzists ha-ha

                              Well I could tell you who Pipeman was. Would that be enough to get you off my back for a while?
                              ?? The fact that events happen in sequence is entirely independent on whether or not the events involve Schwartz or not - Schwartz is not the "all being master of time space and dimension" after all.

                              Any proposed theory about the events that happened on Berner Street must, therefore, have happened in a sequence. If a theory has a chance of being true, it must produce a coherent sequence. In order to examine a theory properly, the sequence of events needs to be evaluated.

                              Now, you have previously said that you do not have a big picture idea of what happened, and you appear to be focusing on isolated points in time and the events involved in those devoid of any connection to events that are not directly involved. That's fine, examining the details of the pieces that need to be arranged in sequence to produce a bigger picture is certainly something that needs to be done. However, given the limited amount of information we actually have to work with, examining individual pieces of the puzzle results in arguing ideas that become contradictory with ideas from other parts of the puzzle. The big picture sequence that George is asking for creates a structure which acts to introduce further constraints upon the details. Admittedly, this leaves less room for maneuvering, but that is actually a good thing not a bad thing. The more constraints upon our imaginations, which can find all sorts of amazing possibilities when left to its own devices, the better. It is the constraints upon our imaginations that funnel the flow of our thinking towards the true events. Our problem is that the minimal information we have may still be insufficient to guide that flow of thinking towards only one overall story, which means there may be multiple structures that emerge. Comparing the sequences that FrankO, George, and myself have put forth tend to result in very similar structures and order of events, with differences tending to reflect the details of the exact time. Those differences are either because Frank chose to be agnostic about the exact times and focused on the order, and George and I used different testimonies by which to attempt to synchronize the testified time, otherwise the orders we've come to independently tend to line up very well.

                              It is unclear what it is you are proposing though. As I've mentioned, sometimes Schwartz doesn't even exist (meaning he wasn't there on the night and the events he relays were fabricated), other times he does (so he was there and did see an altercation of some sort), and most recently you've suggested Stride was already dead when Schwartz arrives on the scene and the woman Schwartz saw was actually a man. Clearly Schwartz cannot both be and not be there, and the idea that if he was there he saw a man being thrown to the ground by B.S. is untenable. You've got Goldstein traversing along Berner Street twice, and at times you say Fanny was on her doorstep the whole time and at others she wasn't, and so forth. The various scattered posts and arguments you've presented do not seem to be connected with ideas and posts that come before and after, suggesting they are "ideas of the moment only". This makes it difficult to have a discussion over a period of time because it's always starting anew, and what was before now isn't. It's very Orwellian, with history changing in the present.

                              I think George's request is a fair one as all he's asking for is clarification of your ideas. It may be that you do not see the conflict between things that we do because you've got them organized in a way that we are not picking up on. By describing the totality of the events as you see them to have occurred will require they be ordered temporally, which is by definition, a sequence of events. Whether or not you choose to include Schwartz doesn't change the fact that a sequence has to emerge when you put all of your ideas together. And by doing that, it may help identify which of your ideas become mutually exclusive - where you can have one or the other but not both.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                Hi George,

                                Sure, Pipeman may have just been sheltering out of any slight breeze in order to light his pipe. He may have stepped out upon hearing some commotion as you suggest, after Schwartz runs off, he also may have just left the area entirely not wanting to get involved (which is very common).

                                But let's start with Pipeman in the doorway, so he can't see up (or is it down?) Berner Street where the gateway is. Schwartz moves passed the club, and B.S. shouts Lipski. Pipeman moves to the edge of the doorway, and is spotted by Schwartz, who takes this as Pipeman coming towards him (because Schwartz is on the other side of the road) so Schwartz exits the scene.
                                If Pipeman came toward Schwartz from the pub, just after Schwartz passes the gateway, then Schwartz would have 'exited the scene' by doing a U-turn and heading straight back up Berner street. That is the opposite of what he claimed, and so this is possibly another reason for doubting that Pipeman = Knifeman.

                                Pipeman watches Schwartz running off before turning to look towards the club.

                                Now what if, during that admittedly brief period, is when B.S. shoves Stride into the alley, so when Pipeman looks he doesn't see B.S. or Stride, so he just heads off.
                                If he just heads off, there is no man to run behind Schwartz - apparently following him - who ends his run prior to Schwartz reaching the railway arch. If this is correct, then Pipeman never followed behind Schwartz, and yet, according to Schwartz there was no other man on the street who was in a position to do this. So who was following Schwartz, as far as he was concerned? Was it The Phantom Menace?
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X