If Schwartz Lied ...

[JeffHamm]

Quick enough for what? For the street to be cleared of witnesses to what he is intending to do? Then why not start yelling at both men? Perhaps this is where Schwartz got the idea of an accomplice. Whatever the case, Schwartz is now walking away from the scene - he apparently never uttered a word of protest - and has now reached Fairclough street. Only then does BS say something to him? Best to let him go, I should think.

Not quick enough for B.S. You will have to ask B.S. why he didn't yell at both men. Or maybe he did but Schwartz had left by that time.
Perhaps it is where Schwartz got his idea, but you'll have to ask him. And he never indicates he said anything, so I agree, he apparently hasn't. What you think is best and what B.S. thinks is best might be very different though, so you'll need to ask him.

It appears you are going with the Star's location for 'Pipeman'. Yet you reject the Star's Knifeman, as being fictitious. What elements of Knifeman did the Star make up, presumably because the actual story was a bit boring?

I was following on from one of George's posts, and used the location George had mentioned. Knifeman is fictitious in the sense than he was Pipeman, only garbled in the presentation to become Knifeman instead of Pipeman. You can go with The Star's account if you wish and reject the account given to the police, but personally, I lean the other way. We're not going to get anywhere it appears as we can't agree on the data.

This is very different to the police account.

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

So the police account, which you rate so highly, particularly in comparison to the Star report, couldn't even manage to get the location of Pipeman right, but the supposedly sensationalised Star report could?

As I say, I was responding to George's post and using the location he mentioned. We could explore the location of Pipeman in detail, but for the purpose of the post we're discussing it is for the most part neither here nor there. The general principle is that Pipeman is further along, and at some point after B.S. shouts Lipski, Pipeman moves in a direction that Schwartz interprets as "coming for him", resulting in his fleeing the scene under the belief he is being chased.

I find it a little amusing that the near universal belief in Schwartz's story, does not include agreement with any of his interpretations. Instead, the interpretations of a man who was not there, are preferred. One problem with this is that, unless BS called out to Pipeman, prompting him to deal with the 'intruding Jew', or perhaps giving him an "on ya bike", there is no reason for him to run. Apparently this little dilemma has now been solved - it was The Phantom Menace chasing Schwartz, not Pipeman. So about how far do you suppose The Phantom Menace ran, before giving up on the pursuit? Also, how reliable should we regard Schwartz as a witness, if he imagined being run after for a considerable distance, by a phantom?

Again, Abberline's suggestion is generally considered a good one. Abberline questioned Schwartz closely on these points and Schwartz was unable to be sure that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman and appears to have conceded that Abberline's idea was indeed possible. While that doesn't mean Schwartz's initial idea can't be correct, he appears to accept that he may have been the person B.S. shouted at (suggesting he may not have considered that possibility before, because being afraid, he had already come to his conclusion, etc). Abberline was also very familiar with the area, and was aware that Lipski was used as a slur towards the Jewish. Finally, given that Schwartz initially sees B.S. walking along Berner and Pipeman is not with him, they do not appear to be together, making Schwartz's interpretation less probable.
As a result, most people believe that Schwartz was probably wrong. And if Pipeman is not working with B.S. there seems little reason for Pipeman to chase Schwartz, again, suggesting that Schwartz's belief he was chased is probably incorrect. His mistaken beliefs, however, are easy to understand how he could have formed them despite them being incorrect.

However, if you wish to believe Schwartz, then by all means do. I disagree with that, for reasons above, but go for it if you wish.

I wasn't intending that to be taken literally. My mistake, not sounding sarcastic enough.

Ah, well, sarcasm, especially in written form, does often lead to miscommunications. In my experience, it's generally not helpful though, but again, to each their own.

Does it really? To me it reads like someone who is considering intervening, but is feeling a bit shy about speaking up. Perhaps a bit intimidated by those broad shoulders. If the whole situation had been unsettling for Schwartz, he would never have stopped to take it in. Instead he would have walked by on the opposite side of the street, keeping his head down. Rather like Leon, when he left Dutfield's Yard.

Maybe, but it doesn't fit the overall picture.

That Schwartz claimed to stop and and watch, can pretty much be ascertained from Swanson's summary.

... having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

At this point Schwartz is at the gateway, as are the man and woman. Then things get nasty ...

B.S. stops, but there is nothing in this that hints at Schwartz stopping at all, and from Schwartz's statement he just keeps walking and crosses the street and continues on. Schwartz is behind B.S. prior to B.S. stopping, so he can easily see all the above while continuing to be in motion. There is nothing to support the idea that Schwartz stopped and watched, rather, given his statement that he was nervous about the confrontation that started, it makes no sense that he would stop at that point.

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

Only then does Schwartz move away from the scene ...

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

There is only a small amount of ambiguity here.

There is no ambiguity, it will take some amount of time, while continuing to walk, for Schwartz to catch up to B.S. and pass the gates. What he describes would all happen quickly, during which he is still walking.

Abberline: I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

What is wrong with the notion of Schwartz stopping to look, while at the gateway? Does it sound totally unrealistic? Yet that must have been what Schwartz told Abberline that he did do. However, if it assumed that Schwartz did not say this, and the stopping was just a huge and unjustified assumption by Abberline, then again we have to consider the police report of Schwartz's statement. Were the lack of doubts as indicated by Swanson, partly owing to assumptions that you do not share?

Interesting, the bolded statement I didn't recall.

Given Schwartz says Stride screamed, though not very loudly, it would make sense if what is happening here is that after having passed B.S. and Stride at the gates and getting further along Berner Street he hears the first yell. Schwartz being startled stops and looks back (remember, he's some distance past the gate by this point), and sees B.S. put her to the ground. It is at that point that B.S. yells at him, and about that time when Pipeman starts to move also (maybe to see what the fuss is about, either in response to Stride's yells or B.S.'s, we would have to ask him to know). And those are the events that induce Schwartz to believe Pipeman is coming for him, and that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, etc.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Echo report was for Diemshitz & Co.

Of course it was. There can be no doubt that when searching for police, that little bugger Isaacs escaped, and that other bloke Diemschitz was not even a member of the club.

Knifeman is a figment of the Star's imagination. There is only Pipeman.

Was Pipeman at the doorway of the pub (Star), or on the opposite side of the street (police)?

What prompted the Star to imagine Knifeman into existence? Was the story a bit dull until he came along? Strange that the Star said the story was a priori incredible, and that they apparently supposed that it needed sexing up.

Why would the Star state "The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand ...", and express total scepticism of Schwartz, in it's editorial?

Why is it impossible to conceive that Schwartz would have told the Star that a man rushed him with a knife?

Schwartz was endeavouring to make his escape only in the perception of Pipeman. The fact that Schwartz wouldn't have understood what was being said is part of the point being made. Are you trying to be deliberately contrary? There is no cause to be intrigued on a scenario that was qualified as being conjecture.

If there is no cause to be intrigued by the scenario, then why bother putting it forward? Regarding your other question, what I am trying to do is work out if your scenario makes any sense. You said ...

My speculation is that Pipeman, on hearing the commotion from the gateway, emerges from the door way of the Nelson and sees a woman on the ground with a man near her yelling "Lipski" at a person of Jewish appearance on the opposite corner of the intersection. Pipeman mistakes Schwartz for an "intruder" that has assaulted the woman but has been interrupted by BSMan, and that Scwartz is endeavouring to make his escape. Pipeman says "What's going on here" and makes a move towards Schwartz, who bolts, and Pipeman follows him briefly, but then decides to find out what actually happened instead of pursuing him further. This is all pure conjecture of course, but it does fit the evidence and Schwartz's statement rather well.

Rather well? How did Pipeman make that error, given this ...

... 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 that second man somehow came to the conclusion that it was not the man quarrelling with the woman who was the problem, rather it was the dude walking innocently by the board school!

Hi Andrew,

Once again you are resorting to sniping at other opinions without ever having presented an orderly layout of your own theories. I am looking forward to your dissertation on a drunken broad shouldered 30 year old beating up Kozebrodski and trying to pull him out of the gateway for purposes that you are yet to explain.

Cheers, George

George,
why don't you stop trying to dig Schwartz out of the very deep whole he dug for himself? That's his problem, not ours.

Regarding Koz, I didn't suggest he was beaten up, just as there is no suggestion that Stride was beaten up. However, there are few things to consider here.

Firstly, why on earth would the murderer have wanted to pull Stride out onto the street? Absolutely no way JtR would have wanted to do so. So that part of the story makes as little sense as the rest of it.

Secondly, when Diemschitz first went into the club and found Koz, what had Koz seen of the crime at that point? Please explain this glitch in the matrix.

As for why Koz might not want some unknown member of the public walking into the yard, witnessing a murdered woman at first hand, and possibly coming to a false conclusion, I will leave to your imagination.

[DJA]

Louis Diemschutz - Jack the Ripper Wiki

[GBinOz]

Was Pipeman at the doorway of the pub (Star), or on the opposite side of the street (police)?
Same place. The opposite side of the street from the perspective of the man (Schwartz) who had just crossed the street. Schwartz was at that stage on the eastern side of Berner St which is on the opposite side to the Nelson which was on the NW corner of Berner and Fairclough.

What prompted the Star to imagine Knifeman into existence? Was the story a bit dull until he came along? Strange that the Star said the story was a priori incredible, and that they apparently supposed that it needed sexing up.

Why would the Star state "The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand ...", and express total scepticism of Schwartz, in it's editorial?

Why is it impossible to conceive that Schwartz would have told the Star that a man rushed him with a knife?
I think that Schwartz did say exactly that, to excuse his failure to aid a woman being attacked. My previous comment of a figment of the Star's imagination was badly worded.


If there is no cause to be intrigued by the scenario, then why bother putting it forward? Regarding your other question, what I am trying to do is work out if your scenario makes any sense. You said ...

Rather well? How did Pipeman make that error, given this ...

... 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 that second man somehow came to the conclusion that it was not the man quarrelling with the woman who was the problem, rather it was the dude walking innocently by the board school!
After Schwartz crossed Berner St, it was not many yards to the intersection with Fairclough (about 14-15 yards, 7-8 seconds at average walking speed, less if he was hurrying away). Pipeman emerges and sees a woman on the ground and a man next to her shouting the name of an executed murderer at another man who is leaving the scene. Perfectly plausible conclusion to draw IMO.


George,
why don't you stop trying to dig Schwartz out of the very deep whole he dug for himself? That's his problem, not ours.

Regarding Koz, I didn't suggest he was beaten up, just as there is no suggestion that Stride was beaten up. However, there are few things to consider here.

Firstly, why on earth would the murderer have wanted to pull Stride out onto the street? Absolutely no way JtR would have wanted to do so. So that part of the story makes as little sense as the rest of it.
It makes perfect sense if BSman knew Stride, and thought she was soliciting, and he was not JtR. Your assertion only makes sense if BSMan was JtR or the murderer.

Secondly, when Diemschitz first went into the club and found Koz, what had Koz seen of the crime at that point? Please explain this glitch in the matrix.
I don't understand what you think needs to be explained.

As for why Koz might not want some unknown member of the public walking into the yard, witnessing a murdered woman at first hand, and possibly coming to a false conclusion, I will leave to your imagination.

Hi Andrew,

The only digging I am doing is trying to dig a cogent sequence of events from your good self. Only now are we learning that in your scenario the Schwartz incident takes place after Diemshitz discovers the body of Stride. So was Koz dressed in drag, or was Schwartz in severe need of spectacles?

Cheers, George

[DJA]

[GBinOz]

Almost too subtle Dave.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

George,
''why don't you stop trying to dig Schwartz out of the very deep whole he dug for himself? That's his problem, not ours.
Firstly, why on earth would the murderer have wanted to pull Stride out onto the street? Absolutely no way JtR would have wanted to do so. So that part of the story makes as little sense as the rest of it''.

Your talking about a man who was there at the time, saw another man trying to drag Stride into the street ,who gave his statement to the police the that same evening ,and you think he dug himself into a hole?!!!!. jesus ...

The problem dear sir is not Schwartzs, it is clearly yours , try working with the fact that Schwartzs version of events is tru then try figuring out the other participants parts around that instead . You might be suprized

Just for good measure ,show me another witness that gave an official statement to the police that claimed what Schwartz saw didnt happen. .

[DJA]

May the Schwartz be with us.... - YouTube

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Andrew,

You have said that you don't need a sequence line because if I ask a question you will answer. I have quoted evidence from the Star interview that Schwartz stated that he was "stepping off the kerb" when Pipeman moved towards him. Without any further dodging and weaving, please present your evidence for your claim that Schwartz was opposite the gateway when Pipeman approached him. You may also care to proffer your interpretation for "stepping off the kerb" when Pipeman moved towards him

Cheers, George

If you or either of the likers of this comment can quote me making this claim, I'll pick it up from there ...

[JeffHamm]

If you or either of the likers of this comment can quote me making this claim, I'll pick it up from there ...

Ok,

Bottom of post 2961 you say "I understand about ideas conflicting, but if George or anyone else wants to know what my position or best guess is on x, y, or z, they only need ask me. ..."

and in post 2955 you say "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..." place Schwartz in the vicinity of the gateway (just passed is similar to opposite, but technically you could argue not the same, but the differences are minimal in a practical, if not literal, sense).


- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Not quick enough for B.S. You will have to ask B.S. why he didn't yell at both men. Or maybe he did but Schwartz had left by that time.
Perhaps it is where Schwartz got his idea, but you'll have to ask him. And he never indicates he said anything, so I agree, he apparently hasn't. What you think is best and what B.S. thinks is best might be very different though, so you'll need to ask him.

Not quick enough for BS? Did he tell you that?

Do you suppose that if I do ask BS man those questions, that I'll be reminded that there are two sides (at least) to every story? That is one of life's simplest lessons, but Ripperologist's seem to have forgotten to apply it in this context.

I was following on from one of George's posts, and used the location George had mentioned. Knifeman is fictitious in the sense than he was Pipeman, only garbled in the presentation to become Knifeman instead of Pipeman. You can go with The Star's account if you wish and reject the account given to the police, but personally, I lean the other way. We're not going to get anywhere it appears as we can't agree on the data.

The location George had mentioned, was the location the Star mentions. What is the point of following on from one of George's posts, if his assumptions are totally different to your own?

As for me going with the Star's account - well you might have noticed that I'm not a Schwartz believer. However, the Star's account provides more context to the story, and I think it gets closer to whatever vague resemblance Schwartz's story had with reality.

To expand on that point, I think it worth considering the following. The Star account is actually less 'sensational' that the police account, with one big exception. Obviously that is the changeover from Pipeman to Knifeman. The common explanation for this, which you share, is that Knifeman is fictitious, and that a sensible person would wisely chose the police account over the Star account. I would suggest instead, considering what might be going on behind the scenes. That is, evidence that is now lost, that may explain the change we see in the second man, from the police to press account. That evidence may now be lost, except for one remaining clue ...

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.

So one man was arrested on Schwartz's description, was not wholly believed, and this situation appears to reverse the following day, so that Schwartz becomes the man with the story lacking factual support. Apparently the prisoner's story was sharply in conflict with that of Schwartz. Is it just a coincidence that the next day, Pipeman has lost his pipe in favour of a knife, and that knife is wielded aggressively in Schwartz's direction, after a warning shout to BS man, makes it unambiguous that the two men were regarded as being together?

What I perceive we have is not a calm choice between a professionally produced police document on one hand, and a sensationalised press account of the same incident on the other, but rather a rapidly changing situation, hints of which we can see in those reports when considered chronologically. The 'arms race' (for want of a much better term) that I see evidence for in the Star report, suggests that Pipeman was indeed identified.

As I say, I was responding to George's post and using the location he mentioned. We could explore the location of Pipeman in detail, but for the purpose of the post we're discussing it is for the most part neither here nor there. The general principle is that Pipeman is further along, and at some point after B.S. shouts Lipski, Pipeman moves in a direction that Schwartz interprets as "coming for him", resulting in his fleeing the scene under the belief he is being chased.

A man being chased would hear the footfall behind him. If Schwartz heard footfall that was not there, could he also have seen a knife that was not there? Your preference for the police account is a comparison of police vs press, but consideration has to be taken of the possible unsoundness of Schwartz's mind. A nutty Schwartz would render both accounts unreliable.

Again, Abberline's suggestion is generally considered a good one. Abberline questioned Schwartz closely on these points and Schwartz was unable to be sure that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman and appears to have conceded that Abberline's idea was indeed possible. While that doesn't mean Schwartz's initial idea can't be correct, he appears to accept that he may have been the person B.S. shouted at (suggesting he may not have considered that possibility before, because being afraid, he had already come to his conclusion, etc). Abberline was also very familiar with the area, and was aware that Lipski was used as a slur towards the Jewish.

Again, this goes back to my point about changing one element of a story, having knock-on effects. Abberline's suggestion may be considered a good one by everyone who agrees that it is, but it leaves Pipeman no reason to run off. I predict that your suggestion that Pipeman did not actually run, will rapidly become popular with those same people.

Finally, given that Schwartz initially sees B.S. walking along Berner and Pipeman is not with him, they do not appear to be together, making Schwartz's interpretation less probable.
As a result, most people believe that Schwartz was probably wrong. And if Pipeman is not working with B.S. there seems little reason for Pipeman to chase Schwartz, again, suggesting that Schwartz's belief he was chased is probably incorrect. His mistaken beliefs, however, are easy to understand how he could have formed them despite them being incorrect.

Schwartz made it clear that the two men were known to each other, when he spoke to the Star. That it is indeed unlikely that a man walking out of a pub would just happen to know and provide support to some drunk who had come down from the other end of the street, is not a reason to suggest alternative interpretations, rather it is a reason to be suspicious of the storyteller.

However, if you wish to believe Schwartz, then by all means do. I disagree with that, for reasons above, but go for it if you wish.

Actually, I don't think I will.

Maybe, but it doesn't fit the overall picture.

I agree. So yet another reason to doubt Schwartz.

B.S. stops, but there is nothing in this that hints at Schwartz stopping at all, and from Schwartz's statement he just keeps walking and crosses the street and continues on. Schwartz is behind B.S. prior to B.S. stopping, so he can easily see all the above while continuing to be in motion. There is nothing to support the idea that Schwartz stopped and watched, rather, given his statement that he was nervous about the confrontation that started, it makes no sense that he would stop at that point.

There is no ambiguity, it will take some amount of time, while continuing to walk, for Schwartz to catch up to B.S. and pass the gates. What he describes would all happen quickly, during which he is still walking.

If you do not accept Abberline's statement that Schwartz stopped to watch, then you cannot claim to support the police report of Schwartz's statement. If Schwartz's story can only be made believable by changing it, then Schwartz is not to be believed.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Same place. The opposite side of the street from the perspective of the man (Schwartz) who had just crossed the street. Schwartz was at that stage on the eastern side of Berner St which is on the opposite side to the Nelson which was on the NW corner of Berner and Fairclough.

Swanson's use of the term 'opposite side of the street', follows Abberline's ...

There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

There is only one opposite side of the road. Abberline is dealing with and discussing a crime scene, and locations are referred to in an absolute, not relative sense.

I think that Schwartz did say exactly that, to excuse his failure to aid a woman being attacked. My previous comment of a figment of the Star's imagination was badly worded.

That does not fit with the report, as already suggested.

It makes perfect sense if BSman knew Stride, and thought she was soliciting, and he was not JtR.

So BS Man should possibly be renamed to Moralising Man. Why would this man come along and start moralising with Stride? If she is out soliciting, for which there is very little evidence, how would he know where to find her? On the other hand, if she is meeting him or anyone else there, then she would not be soliciting.

Your assertion only makes sense if BSMan was JtR or the murderer.

So I guess there's not much chance that my assertion makes sense.

I don't understand what you think needs to be explained.

Okay

Hi Andrew,

The only digging I am doing is trying to dig a cogent sequence of events from your good self. Only now are we learning that in your scenario the Schwartz incident takes place after Diemshitz discovers the body of Stride.

Only now?

So was Koz dressed in drag, or was Schwartz in severe need of spectacles?

Cheers, George

Neither. Things look very different, from outside the Schwartzian Square.

[JeffHamm]

Not quick enough for BS? Did he tell you that?

In a way by his actions, yes. He shouted at Schwartz, which indicates that he felt Schwartz was not moving on sufficiently quickly.

Do you suppose that if I do ask BS man those questions, that I'll be reminded that there are two sides (at least) to every story? That is one of life's simplest lessons, but Ripperologist's seem to have forgotten to apply it in this context.

I make no assumptions about what you will and would be be reminded of.

The location George had mentioned, was the location the Star mentions. What is the point of following on from one of George's posts, if his assumptions are totally different to your own?

To have a conversation and explore the implications of a set of assumptions. We have to make assumptions in this case because the information we have is minimal. I have no problem with exploring ideas to see if they make sense. In order to have such a conversation the two people have to agree on the starting point. Otherwise, the discussion doesn't progress beyond arguing over starting conditions and the implications of those conditions never get explored.

As for me going with the Star's account - well you might have noticed that I'm not a Schwartz believer.

To be quite honest, I find it hard to make out what you believe. At times you seem to believe Schwartz, at times you have even said he didn't exist (this was a post from some weeks ago).

However, the Star's account provides more context to the story, and I think it gets closer to whatever vague resemblance Schwartz's story had with reality.

To expand on that point, I think it worth considering the following. The Star account is actually less 'sensational' that the police account, with one big exception. Obviously that is the changeover from Pipeman to Knifeman. The common explanation for this, which you share, is that Knifeman is fictitious, and that a sensible person would wisely chose the police account over the Star account. I would suggest instead, considering what might be going on behind the scenes. That is, evidence that is now lost, that may explain the change we see in the second man, from the police to press account. That evidence may now be lost, except for one remaining clue ...

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.

So one man was arrested on Schwartz's description, was not wholly believed, and this situation appears to reverse the following day, so that Schwartz becomes the man with the story lacking factual support. Apparently the prisoner's story was sharply in conflict with that of Schwartz. Is it just a coincidence that the next day, Pipeman has lost his pipe in favour of a knife, and that knife is wielded aggressively in Schwartz's direction, after a warning shout to BS man, makes it unambiguous that the two men were regarded as being together?

What I perceive we have is not a calm choice between a professionally produced police document on one hand, and a sensationalised press account of the same incident on the other, but rather a rapidly changing situation, hints of which we can see in those reports when considered chronologically. The 'arms race' (for want of a much better term) that I see evidence for in the Star report, suggests that Pipeman was indeed identified.

And as I've said, I believe the Star has a story loosely based upon Schwartz's account, but it has somehow become mangled in the details. George believes Schwartz may have changed his story when talking to the press due, I think, to Schwartz being a bit embarrassed after talking with Abberline and realising that maybe Pipeman wasn't chasing him at all and his running would make him look a coward. I suspect the reporter just asked some leading questions to get Schwartz to at least say "it could have been a knife", so that he could write a more sensational story. You put more faith in The Star, as such, we have no common ground because you are drawing your inferences from what I believe to be an unreliable source, and you view me as doing the same.

A man being chased would hear the footfall behind him. If Schwartz heard footfall that was not there, could he also have seen a knife that was not there? Your preference for the police account is a comparison of police vs press, but consideration has to be taken of the possible unsoundness of Schwartz's mind. A nutty Schwartz would render both accounts unreliable.

He would not necessarily hear the footfalls of a pursuer, that would depend upon how close the pursuer was, the volume of his own footsteps (which will be louder than that of someone behind him), and also whether or not his attention is directed to sounds behind him or just on the escape route in front of him.

Again, this goes back to my point about changing one element of a story, having knock-on effects. Abberline's suggestion may be considered a good one by everyone who agrees that it is, but it leaves Pipeman no reason to run off. I predict that your suggestion that Pipeman did not actually run, will rapidly become popular with those same people.

We don't know that Pipeman ran anywhere if Schwartz was mistaken as Abberline suggests. Rather, Pipeman could have:
A) walked away
B) walked into the street to better see what was happening at the club, and then went back to his original position
C) walked up to the club and confronted B.S.
D) something else

Schwartz made it clear that the two men were known to each other, when he spoke to the Star.

Schwartz also told the police he believed the two men were known to each other. Schwartz, like any other human, is capable of holding a false belief.

That it is indeed unlikely that a man walking out of a pub would just happen to know and provide support to some drunk who had come down from the other end of the street, is not a reason to suggest alternative interpretations, rather it is a reason to be suspicious of the storyteller.

Which may have been part of Abberline's reasons for doubting Schwartz's interpretations, but not doubting that Schwartz saw Pipeman. You are basically coming to the same conclusion that Abberline did.

Actually, I don't think I will.

Well, look at that, we do have some common ground. I don't believe Schwartz's interpretations either, but I do believe he saw B.S. assault Stride, and that he saw Pipeman. Although I don't believe his interpretations, I believe the events that happened have to be things that could have led him to come to that belief.

I agree. So yet another reason to doubt Schwartz.

As you may not have noticed I'll try and be more explicit, I do not believe everything Schwartz said, and so you can say that I too doubt Schwartz.

If you do not accept Abberline's statement that Schwartz stopped to watch, then you cannot claim to support the police report of Schwartz's statement. If Schwartz's story can only be made believable by changing it, then Schwartz is not to be believed.

You've not read my other post yet I take it, where I admit I had forgotten or overlooked that part of Abberline's statement. But in a way, that actually makes Schwartz's account easier to understand. If after passing by B.S. and Stride Schwartz did at some point stop and look back at what was going on, that could very well be what prompted B.S. to shout Lipski at him. That, to me, makes more sense than B.S. calling out if Schwartz is past him and walking away. And furthermore, it means that Schwartz may indeed have walked far enough that he is now getting close to where Pipeman is standing on the opposite side of the street (which would be the same side as the club, because Schwartz has crossed over to the side across from the club). Basically, that ends up making Schartz's overall account much easier to understand, particularly if it was the shout of Lipski that Pipeman took notice of, and then moved out into the street to get a better look at what was going on "up there" (or is it down there?) and Schwartz took that movement to be Pipeman coming for him.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Your talking about a man who was there at the time, saw another man trying to drag Stride into the street ,who gave his statement to the police the that same evening ,and you think he dug himself into a hole?!!!!. jesus ...

The problem dear sir is not Schwartzs, it is clearly yours , try working with the fact that Schwartzs version of events is tru then try figuring out the other participants parts around that instead . You might be suprized

As I suggested recently, Ripperology proceeds on the basis that there is a shared basic story for each murder, and witnesses that are part of these stories are regarded as non-suspicious. No basic story may ever implicate a witness. This post is a classic example of that philosophy - "try working with the fact that Schwartzs version of events is tru then try figuring out the other participants parts around that instead". In other words, just assume Schwartz to have been an honest and reliable witness, then proceed to manipulate all relevant witness evidence as necessary, to maintain the validity of that assumption. What would the general public make of this attitude, if they became aware of it?

Just for good measure ,show me another witness that gave an official statement to the police that claimed what Schwartz saw didnt happen. .

Well James Brown goes close. The couple that stood at the board school corner and spoke to both the press and Fanny Mortimer are significant, and Ed Spooner witnessed no man chasing another man, along Fairclough street. Then we have witnesses who state that they would have heard screams, had there been any. Several of the people who were locked into Dutfield's yard, when the gates were closed, gave statements to the police before leaving. I can't say who those were, of course, but as you know, Brown and Spooner both testified at the inquest.

[FISHY1118]

''In other words, just assume Schwartz to have been an honest and reliable witness, then proceed to manipulate all relevant witness evidence as necessary, to maintain the validity of that assumption. What would the general public make of this attitude, if they became aware of it?''

Which what your doing to schwartz in reverse if you like .



12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times,'' but not very loudly''


The witnesses might not have heard the screams where as schartz did,


''''The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ''

I dont see anywhere where spooner or brown say this didnt happen.