If Schwartz Lied ...

[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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I would just point out again that there is no indication of whether the prisoners, or the men arrested, were tall, or broad shouldered, or a selection from each category.

Cheers, George

No indication?

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.

Do you suppose this man, who had evidently been released by the next day, could have been BS? If not, then presumably he looked something like this:

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.

Consider the situation. Leman street has arrested one man, with apparently nothing more to go on than this description, and yet the man's statement is not wholly accepted. It was about a quarter to one in the morning - was he there or not? If he was, then in what regard was his statement only partly believed? Which part did they not believe one day, and did believe the next, and based on what new information?

The apparent ease in locating this man, tells me that Leman street had a bit more to go on than just a description. It's as though they had another source of information. Next day ...

They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

According to Schwartz, other than himself and BS, the only other man on the street was Pipeman. So once again, if Pipeman was the other source, why the continued search for Mr Lipski? That question is obvious enough, but there is another; if Schwartz was believed about who had been on the street at the time, then why was this other source apparently taken seriously? Was it because the other source was the vigilance committee?

[JeffHamm]

Are these positions mutually exclusive?

Pretty much by definition, yes they are.

That is not your best interpretation of what I'm suggesting in #2981, but whatever.

Schwartz: The man had a clay pipe in his hand.
Star man: Could it have been a knife?
Schwartz: Yeah, I guess so.

Is Schwartz to be believed because he is so believable, or because you guys help him out so much?

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.

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.

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.

If Schwartz neither heard nor saw the man running, then his 'pursuit' virtually amounts to an hallucination. To be fair though, Fanny Mortimer's witnessing of black bag man walking north on Berner street, was also an hallucination.

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.

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.

If any of these are true, then why didn't Pipeman come forward, or at least become identified? Either scenario suggests there is no need to continue looking for Mr Lipski. On the other hand (he did come forward or was identified), then there is an apparent conflict between Schwartz's story - who claimed that the man ran, and the man's story, who (given A, B, C, or D), says he only walked. Isn't that right ...?

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.

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.

In that case, why did Leman street apparently come down on the side of the prisoner? Was it because ...?

E) He was in Dutfield's Yard when the gates were closed, so ended up on Reid's list of 28, and as consequence had a cast iron alibi, and as a consequence of that

I don't know, we do not have a record of their reasoning, only their final decision, and a pretty cryptic one at that. We also do not know for sure that the prisoner being referred to here is indeed Pipeman. It could be Goldstein, who wasn't actually arrested but was spoken to by the police. The press, again, often gets details wrong because they have to write a story and often do not have all the facts. So if the description came from FM and not Schwartz, we know that Goldstein was spoken to by the police, in which case the press could have presumed he had been arrested and presented it as such. Now, there may be information within the dates of this story and the Goldstein coming forth story that preclude the above, but even if so it still doesn't mean the prisoner has to be Pipeman. If the press's is incorrect by implying Schwartz was the source of the description, always a possibility to consider, that could mean the description that resulted in an arrest and later release could come from any number of people who gave descriptions that night.

...

... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

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.

In that case, why did Leman street apparently come down on the side of the prisoner? Was it because ...?

E) He was in Dutfield's Yard when the gates were closed, so ended up on Reid's list of 28, and as consequence had a cast iron alibi, and as a consequence of that ...

... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

I would just point out again that there is no indication of whether the prisoners, or the men arrested, were tall, or broad shouldered, or a selection from each category.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

''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.



Schwartz's statement does not survive but the details are given by Chief Inspector Swanson in a report dated 19 October 1888, and are worth repeating here. ¹

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. 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. [Here there is a marginal note. 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'.]'' Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other''. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: 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.

So which is it ?

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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).

Are these positions mutually exclusive?

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.

That is not your best interpretation of what I'm suggesting in #2981, but whatever.

Schwartz: The man had a clay pipe in his hand.
Star man: Could it have been a knife?
Schwartz: Yeah, I guess so.

Is Schwartz to be believed because he is so believable, or because you guys help him out so much?

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.

If Schwartz neither heard nor saw the man running, then his 'pursuit' virtually amounts to an hallucination. To be fair though, Fanny Mortimer's witnessing of black bag man walking north on Berner street, was also an hallucination.

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

If any of these are true, then why didn't Pipeman come forward, or at least become identified? Either scenario suggests there is no need to continue looking for Mr Lipski. On the other hand (he did come forward or was identified), then there is an apparent conflict between Schwartz's story - who claimed that the man ran, and the man's story, who (given A, B, C, or D), says he only walked. Isn't that right ...?

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.

In that case, why did Leman street apparently come down on the side of the prisoner? Was it because ...?

E) He was in Dutfield's Yard when the gates were closed, so ended up on Reid's list of 28, and as consequence had a cast iron alibi, and as a consequence of that ...

... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

[JeffHamm]

#2955 is responding to a scenario that you suggested, which is quoted in the post. It is not my scenario, so it cannot be claimed that I suppose that that is what occurred. It's simple Jeff - you provided an 'if', and in response I suggested a 'then'.

I guess George will have to take that as your answer then.

This actually points to a larger issue. Any discussion of a Schwartz incident scenario, almost has to pre-suppose that the incident was true. Not necessarily all the details we have, but the gist of it. So those who do not believe Schwartz, but choose to get involved with the discussion of scenarios, are inadvertently solidifying Schwartz's general reputation as a witness. So Schwartz wins, by default.

Schwartz isn't in a competition, the concept of "winning" doesn't apply. Abberline, who interviewed Schwartz came to the conclusion that the events described happened, and that Schwartz made some errors about who Lipski was shouted at. Given that erroneous belief, then Pipeman chasing Schwartz doesn't make sense, but Schwartz believing he was chased does. Basically, the account is coherant and sounds like the type of errors people make, so there's nothing to suggest it is wrong. You've offered a couple of alternatives, that the event happened after Stride was found dead, and that the woman Schwartz saw was a man. None of those have any basis in evidence, nor have you presented a convincing argument to back those up. In addition, as both George and I have said a few times, it is hard to make sense out of the many varied posts you've made, and so we've both requested you to present in one post a description of how you think the night unfolded. But you've explicitly refused to do that, so we are still in the dark as to what it is you think happened. From the scattershot presentation, I can see no coherent story, which I think reflects your reliance on the news, which is known to be unreliable, and therefore will be more noise than signal. So if you want to see it in terms of winning and losing, then a plausible and coherent story (and yes, suggesting Schwartz got some things wrong can still mean the story is coherant) beats an implausible, chaotic, and quite possibly self contradictory one. it's hard to tell, though, because you won't actually tell us what your story is.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post



''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.



Schwartz's statement does not survive but the details are given by Chief Inspector Swanson in a report dated 19 October 1888, and are worth repeating here. ¹

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. 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. [Here there is a marginal note. 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'.]'' Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other''. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: 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.




So which is it ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Unless, unless ... it is supposed that the two men were known to each other, because they were both associated with the vigilance committee.

The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand ...

What was that shiny thing, really?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

#2955 is responding to a scenario that you suggested, which is quoted in the post. It is not my scenario, so it cannot be claimed that I suppose that that is what occurred. It's simple Jeff - you provided an 'if', and in response I suggested a 'then'.

This actually points to a larger issue. Any discussion of a Schwartz incident scenario, almost has to pre-suppose that the incident was true. Not necessarily all the details we have, but the gist of it. So those who do not believe Schwartz, but choose to get involved with the discussion of scenarios, are inadvertently solidifying Schwartz's general reputation as a witness. So Schwartz wins, by default.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.