If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If Pipeman, or BSMan for that matter, were innocent, why didn't they come forward?

Because the assumptions that are implicit in this question, are false.

There seems little point in me asking this, but what proof can you provide these these men existed? Since when is a story provided by an uncorroborated witness, regarded as being interchangeable with reality?

Assuming these men did exist, by now my answer should be entirely predictable; Schwartz's story bore so little resemblance to reality, that neither man realised that he needed to come forward, because nether realised that they were the first or second man in the story. This is similar to the reason why no one heard this 'incident'. Whatever friction occurred at the gateway after the discovery, became part of the general commotion.

As no one seems to believe that these men were together, then the question of Pipeman not coming forward is applicable to everyone. Presumably the answer is either "you'll have to ask him that", or crickets.

To me, the critical questions are, where was Parcelman, and why was Stride standing in the gateway?

Cheers, George

I agree these are critical questions. If Parcelman had left Stride to stand in the gateway, and then headed off, why didn't he come forward?

As for why Stride was standing in the gateway, I will again ask; where's the proof that she did?

The usual answers to the question of why she stood in the gateway, are that she was soliciting or waiting for someone. The first answer flounders when it's pointed out that she had zero money on her, and hadn't been seen at a pub since 11pm. The waiting for someone theory turns out to be someone who decided to kill her just after they meet up, which sounds arbitrary, or that the person never came forward, due to him having an extra-marital affair with Stride. What is the evidence for that scenario?

Seems there is no good reason to suppose that Stride ever stood in that gateway, and I don't believe she did.

Now a question for you!

The Star: 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.

Without a name and address, how did the Star man manage to run Schwartz to earth in Backchurch Lane?

If you asked me that question, my answer would be:

The police gave the Star enough details, that they could find him. The reason for doing so was that the police wanted to see if Schwartz would tell the same story twice. This seems evident from the Star's comment that "... the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police." This is a good reason for supposing that the substantial change we see in the second man, when compared to the police statement, was owing Schwartz and not the paper.

[GBinOz]

GUT has a bridge to sell you

We've already completed that sale. Got it for a good price too.

[DJA]

Ahh, I was expecting an actual name. That report is a little vague.

Cheers, George

GUT has a bridge to sell you

[DJA]

Pipeman was found.

Stride was waiting for ..... Sutton,who was watching from upstairs.

BS Man was muscle for Stride.
It was not until he left,after pulling Stride out of the yard,that Sutton went downstairs with the cachous.

[GBinOz]

No, I'm asking you; if Pipeman simply walked away, he is an entirely innocent man, so why wasn't he located by the biggest manhunt in history? Schwartz places this man on the street at the time of the assault. At some point Schwartz has to be held accountable for his claims.

If Pipeman, or BSMan for that matter, were innocent, why didn't they come forward? To me, the critical questions are, where was Parcelman, and why was Stride standing in the gateway?

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

...
His pursuit is a mistaken belief? That is conjecture masquerading as fact.
...

I was correcting your description of what I have been presenting as my interpretations, and so clearly speculation. I was not presenting them as fact. I wasn't there, nor were you. I, like everyone else, can only try to make sense of the information we have. You look to see if you can come up with stories that do not fit what people describe and presume they are wrong if you can, while I take the approach of trying to work out a plausible scenerio that fits what they describe, and then see if those plausible statements from different people spanning different times of the night go together and build an overall coherent story.

I won't restate it, but simply ask; what were those slightly different wordings found in the press?

So you're suggesting Fanny gave her accounts using the exact same words every time?

No, I'm asking you; if Pipeman simply walked away, he is an entirely innocent man, so why wasn't he located by the biggest manhunt in history? Schwartz places this man on the street at the time of the assault. At some point Schwartz has to be held accountable for his claims.

And I answered. I have no idea what Pipeman thought, I didn't know the man.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Well I could tell you who Pipeman was.

Ahh, I was expecting an actual name. That report is a little vague.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Third point: you now have Kozebrodski acting as a lookout while Diemshitz is in the yard with the body. You said you could name Pipeman if "that would get me off your back". Please do so....but let me guess...Samuel Friedman?

Cheers, George

I forgot to answer your last question. No, not him. Perhaps consider the 'garbled' Echo report ...

The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

According to your theory, Stride is on the ground before Schwartz crosses the road, so the kerb he refers to in the Star interview is the kerb on the western side of Berner St, north of the gateway. Pipeman/Knifeman then appears to the south at the intersection of Berner and Fairclough and Schwartz takes fright and runs towards him???? If Schwartz is near the gateway and Pipeman is near the Nelson, how could there be any doubt as to whom "Lipski" was directed?

George,
there are two things here. No, make that three. There is my interpretation of the police account, and of the press account. Then there is what I think really happened. What you're asking me here, is what I see as a mix of all three. So I can't really answer your question. I'll only say that, if you suppose Pipeman/Knifeman came from the same spot (the pub doorway), then for me we are dealing with the Star account, and in that case Schwartz steps off the kerb onto Fairclough street, on the board school side of the road.

Second point: Schwartz gave the police the description of two men. There were arrests made on those descriptions but the arrested prisoners were released so they were not considered to be the men Schwartz saw. There is nowhere indicated which descriptions was being used to briefly detain said persons of interest.

Not considered to be the men Schwartz saw? If BS and Pipeman were not together (as everyone believes), then why wouldn't they have let Pipeman go? What's his crime?

No, we can't say for certain which description was being used, but a BS lookalike, who's story was not wholly accepted, would not be released in a hurry.

Third point: you now have Kozebrodski acting as a lookout while Diemshitz is in the yard with the body. You said you could name Pipeman if "that would get me off your back". Please do so....but let me guess...Samuel Friedman?

Cheers, George

I don't actually see Koz as acting lookout. Just that, as the discovery or some inkling of it became known on the street, there was an attempt to get closer to the victim, that certain members didn't appreciate. What do you really think is going on here ...?

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.

If a broad-shouldered man got hold of Liz, he could have pulled her anywhere he wanted to. There is no 'try', to quota Yoda.

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski'...

There was a dead or dying woman on the ground, next to a club full of Jewish immigrants, and someone on the street called 'Lipski'. Don't believe that conman Schwartz, that the word was uttered before the murder. That is bullshit.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Whos more likely to get schwartzs story right, a cheif inspector or a newspaper reporter? , or what possible reason would schwartz have for telling two different verions of that sentence ?

A clue is that the Star account is actually milder than the police account, except for the considerable 'amping-up' of the second man. Evidence that that was owing to Schwartz and not the Star, includes the Star making it very plain that they did not believe the Hungarian's story.

I think you need to forget about what you read in the newspapers back then ,as jeff has stated many times just to unrelieable a sourse

The Star account gives us Schwartz's rather far-fetched excuse for being alone on the streets at that time. Should we all forget about that?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We are evaluating Abberline's belief in Schwartz, as that is the evidence we have. It is Abberline's belief that Schwartz was mistaken about the relationship between Pipeman and B.S. Abberline interviewed Schwartz, so he was in a far better position to evaluate Schwartz and his account than any of us. Moreover, as an investigating police officer, his objective is to get at the truth and not to sell papers, so he is not concerned about how sensational a story he can get out of Schwartz. All we can do is look at the situation and see if there are any problems, if not, given we have no way to interview Schwartz ourselves and ask our own questions (which Abberline could do, and did, but we don't have a transcript of that interview, just his summary where he states the conclusions he's drawn, not all the questions and statements made that led him to that conclusion). From that, we attempt to piece together the events and see if a plausible scenerio can be constructed. And it can, quite easily, and therefore we have no evidence to indicate that Abberline's conclusion was incorrect.

Apparently we do have evidence that Abberline's conclusion was incorrect, as he was under the impression that Pipeman ran, following Schwartz. Generations of Ripperologists have supposed likewise. All of them incorrect, it would seem.

Again, you can point to The Star, but as I say, the information in The Star is not reliable. The press at the time, and still today, is motivated by the desire to sell papers, and stories are written towards that goal. We know the press even fabricated some stories (there's a complete fictional attack reported somewhere, for example. I forget the exact details though, but some reporter made up a story about an attack on a woman and it appears in the press). As such, your attack on Abberline's conclusions are based upon very questionable and unreliable sources of information. I do not see such arguments as bearing weight, hence, you've not convinced me that I should place your opinion over that of Abberline's.

You're misrepresenting my position, by claiming that I am pointing to the Star. I don't believe Schwartz's story, so I don't regard either account as having anything more than a vague resemblance to the truth. However, what I am saying is that the specific change we see in the second man, across the accounts, is reflective of the changing situation at Leman street. I'm hoping that argument isn't too subtle for others to understand.

Regarding Abberline's conclusion regarding the Lipski thing, well it was I who pointed out that without any prompting from BS man, Pipeman had no reason to run, and as a consequence you came to the conclusion that he didn't. Yet Abberline did not also come to that conclusion himself. So I guess we could say that, unlike myself, you are not attacking Abberline's conclusions, you just don't agree with some of them.

So, if anything, I suppose I'm defending Abberline not Schwartz, but the better description is that Abberline's argument is more convincing that those being offered as alternatives.

Except for Schwartz stopping to watch at the gateway, and Pipeman running. In those cases, your arguments are to be preferred.

No, hallucination is not the correct word. His pursuit is a mistaken belief. It is probable he saw Pipeman moving towards him, and he misinterpreted this as Pipeman starting to pursue him. That's not hallucination that is misinterpretation.

His pursuit is a mistaken belief? That is conjecture masquerading as fact.

Fanny Mortimer didn't see Goldstein heading north on Berner Street, that's your misinterpretation of slightly different wordings found in the press. I've seen your posts on that and your arguments she saw him twice have not convinced me that is true. You can restate that you think it is true, but I fear we'll just turn into a parody of a Monty Python sketch if I reply.

I won't restate it, but simply ask; what were those slightly different wordings found in the press?

You'll have to ask Pipeman his reasons, there's no way for me to know his thoughts. What I do know is that a lot of people who witness events do not come forward.

No, I'm asking you; if Pipeman simply walked away, he is an entirely innocent man, so why wasn't he located by the biggest manhunt in history? Schwartz places this man on the street at the time of the assault. At some point Schwartz has to be held accountable for his claims.

[JeffHamm]

You place so much faith in Abberline's judgement, but only when it suits. Swanson's report tells us that Schwartz was right at the gateway when he saw the man stop and speak to the woman ...

... 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 person who is stopping here is B.S., not Schwartz.

He stopped and watched while ...

You are implying this happened when B.S. stopped, but that is not what it says, it is what you are imposing on the statement without justification. All we have Abberline's comment that Lipski was shouted when Schwartz stopped, we do not have a statement as to when Schwartz stopped and looked relative to when B.S. stopped and spoke to Stride. That is something we have to try and piece together in the sequence - and we know you don't do sequences.

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.

Then he crosses the road. We know he claimed to stop and watch, because Abberline tells us exactly that ...

I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

Claiming that Schwartz first crosses the road and only then looked back, is changing the story. This begs the question; if Schwartz is to be believed, then why does the story need to be changed? The answer of course, is that without modifications it just doesn't sound realistic. Who's problem is that?

No, it is putting the story together from the bits we have. Changing the story is turning Stride into a man, and inserting non-existent knifeman, or claiming Schwartz doesn't exist, making it a curiosity how you explain the fact that Abberline says he interviewed him.

Actually, this is not even a question of Abberline's judgement. It's just a matter of Abberline's ability to take a statement. In other words, Abberline says that Schwartz stopped to look at the man ill-using the woman, because that is what Schwartz told him he did.

Yes, and as I've said a couple times now, Abberline does indicate that Schwartz stopped. What we don't have, however, is Schwartz's actual statement. From Abberline's account, we get Schwartz starting off behind B.S., whom he sees stop and talk to Stride. Schwartz also says he saw B.S. manhandle Stride, and she fell after that point, but it does not say how much time has passed, you are assuming it is immediate, but that is not stated. The man yells out Lipski, and at that point Schwartz sees Pipeman coming towards him. Later, Abberline also mentions that Schwartz had stopped to look, but he doesn't detail when that happened. You've chosen to place that stopping right at the gate, but to me that doesn't make sense. It makes more sense if he stopped a bit further down, when he hears Stride yell out the first of her 3 yells, and B.S. reacts to Schwartz's stopping, and Pipeman reacts to B.S. shouts, which Schwartz then thinks Pipeman is coming for him.

That to me starts to paint a picutre that is consistent with what has been said, makes sense of Schwartz's misinterpretation of Pipeman's connection to B.S., and also of B.S. yelling at him in the first place.

You are looking for ways to make Schwartz's statement look false, but the only way to do that is to show that it cannot be true. There are always ways to tell a story that doesn't fit someone's statement - like change Stride into a man and clearly Schwartz has lied because it wasn't a woman. The difference is the idea it was a man is unfounded.

Anyway, you can approach things this way if you want, but it does not appeal to me. To each their own.

---

Having agreed in some sense that Schwartz did claim to look at the man and what he was doing, this leads on to another issue. This is Schwartz's description of the first man, given to the police:

age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

The 'full face' tells us that Schwartz did get a frontal view of this man. That seems a little strange, given what Abberline said in 1903:

Abberline is referencing Long and/or Lawende below, not Schwartz. The two L's both say they saw their man from the back (unless I'm misremembering Lawende; maybe he said he saw Eddowes from the back? If so, just omit Lawende when I mention him). Moreover, statements made 15 years later are hardly considered reliable. But again, you may set aside the police accounts made at the time to favour the press and memoirs if that is more suited to your approach.

"There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious, and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him. All agree, too, that he was a foreign- looking man,--but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel. One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view."

The peaked cap tallies, but there were many of those in Whitechapel. The age does not quite match, and there is no indication from Schwartz that the man was a foreigner. These could be ignored as being due to the vagaries of eyewitness descriptions. That leaves one big issue - Schwartz clearly did not only see the man's back. So by this stage, did Abberline not include Schwartz with "the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another"? Why wouldn't he? Was it because at some point, Abberline had come to the conclusion that Israel Schwartz was a fraud?

Just because Long saw her man's back, and Lawende saw his man's back, doesn't mean when Schwartz stopped and looked back towards the gate, or as he passed B.S. when B.S. stopped to talk to Stride, that he didn't see his face. That's an invalid and unfounded inference.

Anyway, I really don't think we're going to get anywhere on this, and as you won't present everything in one, it's just becoming a repetition of you saying you don't agree with something, but at the same time you refuse to spell out a clear picture of what you think happened as an alternative. As such, it's time to just agree that we disagree.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

You place so much faith in Abberline's judgement, but only when it suits. Swanson's report tells us that Schwartz was right at the gateway when he saw the man stop and speak to the woman ...

... 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.

He stopped and watched while ...

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.

Then he crosses the road. We know he claimed to stop and watch, because Abberline tells us exactly that ...

I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

Claiming that Schwartz first crosses the road and only then looked back, is changing the story. This begs the question; if Schwartz is to be believed, then why does the story need to be changed? The answer of course, is that without modifications it just doesn't sound realistic. Who's problem is that?

Actually, this is not even a question of Abberline's judgement. It's just a matter of Abberline's ability to take a statement. In other words, Abberline says that Schwartz stopped to look at the man ill-using the woman, because that is what Schwartz told him he did.

---

Hi Andrew,

According to your theory, Stride is on the ground before Schwartz crosses the road, so the kerb he refers to in the Star interview is the kerb on the western side of Berner St, north of the gateway. Pipeman/Knifeman then appears to the south at the intersection of Berner and Fairclough and Schwartz takes fright and runs towards him???? If Schwartz is near the gateway and Pipeman is near the Nelson, how could there be any doubt as to whom "Lipski" was directed?

Second point: Schwartz gave the police the description of two men. There were arrests made on those descriptions but the arrested prisoners were released so they were not considered to be the men Schwartz saw. There is nowhere indicated which descriptions was being used to briefly detain said persons of interest.

Third point: you now have Kozebrodski acting as a lookout while Diemshitz is in the yard with the body. You said you could name Pipeman if "that would get me off your back". Please do so....but let me guess...Samuel Friedman?

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

You place so much faith in Abberline's judgement, but only when it suits. Swanson's report tells us that Schwartz was right at the gateway when he saw the man stop and speak to the woman ...

... 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.

He stopped and watched while ...

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.

Then he crosses the road. We know he claimed to stop and watch, because Abberline tells us exactly that ...

I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

Claiming that Schwartz first crosses the road and only then looked back, is changing the story. This begs the question; if Schwartz is to be believed, then why does the story need to be changed? The answer of course, is that without modifications it just doesn't sound realistic. Who's problem is that?

Actually, this is not even a question of Abberline's judgement. It's just a matter of Abberline's ability to take a statement. In other words, Abberline says that Schwartz stopped to look at the man ill-using the woman, because that is what Schwartz told him he did.

---

Having agreed in some sense that Schwartz did claim to look at the man and what he was doing, this leads on to another issue. This is Schwartz's description of the first man, given to the police:

age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

The 'full face' tells us that Schwartz did get a frontal view of this man. That seems a little strange, given what Abberline said in 1903:

"There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious, and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him. All agree, too, that he was a foreign- looking man,--but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel. One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view."

The peaked cap tallies, but there were many of those in Whitechapel. The age does not quite match, and there is no indication from Schwartz that the man was a foreigner. These could be ignored as being due to the vagaries of eyewitness descriptions. That leaves one big issue - Schwartz clearly did not only see the man's back. So by this stage, did Abberline not include Schwartz with "the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another"? Why wouldn't he? Was it because at some point, Abberline had come to the conclusion that Israel Schwartz was a fraud?

[FISHY1118]

Well given that the stories come from Israel Schwartz and not myself, you may want to ask him about the apparent conflict. Failing that, anyone here who believes Schwartz's story. I will admit to poor wording though. What I meant was, Schwartz made it clear that the two men in his story, were known to each other, when he spoke to the Star. I didn't meant that his interpretation was or is incontestable, although I can see how it would come across that way.

What we have then, is Schwartz being unsure on the situation with the two men, one day, and so clear the next that he sails dangerously close to the partial understanding of English wind ...

... 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.

How did he know it was a warning for the man?

It is the second man, and the second man only, who is 'sexed-up' in the Star account. Meanwhile, we have that fascinating situation with the prisoner going on, at Leman street. I would suggest that this was not just a coincidence. Instead it gives tantalising clues as to what really happened.

Whos more likely to get schwartzs story right, a cheif inspector or a newspaper reporter? , or what possible reason would schwartz have for telling two different verions of that sentence ?

I think you need to forget about what you read in the newspapers back then ,as jeff has stated many times just to unrelieable a sourse