If Schwartz Lied ...

[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 ...

[DJA]

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

[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. .

[GBinOz]

Almost too subtle Dave.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

[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]

Louis Diemschutz - Jack the Ripper Wiki

[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.

[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]

The timing isn't mentioned, all it takes is for B.S. to decide that Schwartz hasn't moved on quick enough.

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.

So Schwartz gets closer, Pipeman's emergence isn't immediate, etc. I was presenting a quick general idea, not a moment by moment presentation. As you say, Schwartz needs to be far enough along, and Pipeman's emerging around the time Schwartz passes the club.

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?

B.S. could yell Lipski while Schwartz is near the club. Perhaps Pipeman is not in the doorway, but leaning against the wall so Schwartz can see him and Pipeman looks up at the shout, making Schwartz think the call was to him. As he passes Pipeman, Pipeman starts his own journey home, and Schwartz thinks he's coming for him and runs off. etc.

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?

You have to ask B.S. to know who he intended the shout for. Schwartz thought it was Pipeman. Abberline thinks Schartz was the more likely.

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?

This report has been discussed a few times and the thought is that the phrase "at the inquest" is referring to his statement which was part of the inquiry into the Stride murder, and not to testimony he gave at the inquest proper because he did not give testimony at the inquest proper.

However, if I understand you, you're saying Schwartz testified at the inquest proper. You're now saying the police did believe him. So why did the press make no mention of his testimony when the printed all the rest? Why do they make no mention of testimony given in camera? Why does the summing up not point the jury to consider the information that is not being published?

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

Why would you think that? The phrase "feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels" describes someone who is clearly unsettled.

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.

Also, Schwartz never stood and watched her get assaulted, he was walking behind B.S. and continues on while crossing the street. At no point does he say he "stopped and watched" for awhile.

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 ...

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.

First, Schwartz didn't stop at the gateway, and I don't know where you're getting that from. Schwartz didn't speak English, though, so B.S. may have said more, but Schwartz can't repeat it because to him it would be gibberish. All he might recognize would be the name Lipski.

- Jeff

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?

[GBinOz]

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

[GBinOz]

As stated in #2965, I was interpreting Jeff's scenario as I understood it, not the Star account.

#2965 was after my post.

The Echo report of course has the chase going along Fairclough street. I see that also needs to be 'corrected', even though the Star account makes it just as likely.

Echo report was for Diemshitz & Co.

How does one determine which parts of the Star account were more or less real? Was the knife fake, but everything else about 'Knifeman', more or less true?

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

So Schwartz was endeavouring to make his escape by walking away, then Pipeman speaks words that no-English Schwartz incorrectly interprets as a warning to the man with the woman (who is now presumably being nice to her), and so Pipeman make a move on Schwartz who then bolts. This is sounding a lot like the Echo report, apart from the man pursued being the murderer. I'm intrigued about Pipeman, who gives up on the pursuit, "but then decides to find out what actually happened"...

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.

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

"just after Schwartz passes the gateway" is not when Pipeman came toward Schwartz from the pub. I was also initially confused as to why Schwartz would try to make his escape towards the perceived threat (Pipeman). The clue is in his statement to the Star. Schwartz had already crossed the road to the footpath on the eastern side of Berner St, away from BSman and Stride, and was proceeding south on that footpath.

As stated in #2965, I was interpreting Jeff's scenario as I understood it, not the Star account.

He told the Star that he had "just stepped off the kerb" when Pipeman made his move towards him. Since he was on the footpath on the eastern side of Berner St, the only kerb available for stepping off was when he was about to cross Fairclough St on his journey south. When Pipeman moved towards him he then bolted across Fairclough and south down Berner street with the threat of Pipeman/Knifeman behind him.

The Echo report of course has the chase going along Fairclough street. I see that also needs to be 'corrected', even though the Star account makes it just as likely.

There is no alternative that would not have him bolting toward the threat, and he confirmed this with his statement to the Star.

How does one determine which parts of the Star account were more or less real? Was the knife fake, but everything else about 'Knifeman', more or less true?

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.

Cheers, George

So Schwartz was endeavouring to make his escape by walking away, then Pipeman speaks words that no-English Schwartz incorrectly interprets as a warning to the man with the woman (who is now presumably being nice to her), and so Pipeman make a move on Schwartz who then bolts. This is sounding a lot like the Echo report, apart from the man pursued being the murderer. I'm intrigued about Pipeman, who gives up on the pursuit, "but then decides to find out what actually happened"...

[JeffHamm]

I was commenting on this scenario ...



Where is Schwartz when he spots Pipeman? It seems to me that Schwartz hears Lipski just after passing the club, Pipeman shuffles forward and is seen by Schwartz. So at that moment, Pipeman could only come toward Schwartz by walking up/north along Berner street, which would have sent Schwartz fleeing in the same direction.

The timing isn't mentioned, all it takes is for B.S. to decide that Schwartz hasn't moved on quick enough. So Schwartz gets closer, Pipeman's emergence isn't immediate, etc. I was presenting a quick general idea, not a moment by moment presentation. As you say, Schwartz needs to be far enough along, and Pipeman's emerging around the time Schwartz passes the club.

B.S. could yell Lipski while Schwartz is near the club. Perhaps Pipeman is not in the doorway, but leaning against the wall so Schwartz can see him and Pipeman looks up at the shout, making Schwartz think the call was to him. As he passes Pipeman, Pipeman starts his own journey home, and Schwartz thinks he's coming for him and runs off. etc.

Further along than the doorway? So who did BS yell Lipski to? The man at the doorway, or the man even further down the street, who seconds earlier had been standing almost right in front of him?

You have to ask B.S. to know who he intended the shout for. Schwartz thought it was Pipeman. Abberline thinks Schartz was the more likely.

So the police never found Pipeman, and yet as of Oct 19, they do not appear to be searching for "the supposed accomplice". If lack of mention of Knifeman by the police is so convincing, then what about what they do mention ...?

Robert Anderson: I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.

Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest. The police said so, so that's the end of that debate.

This report has been discussed a few times and the thought is that the phrase "at the inquest" is referring to his statement which was part of the inquiry into the Stride murder, and not to testimony he gave at the inquest proper because he did not give testimony at the inquest proper.

However, if I understand you, you're saying Schwartz testified at the inquest proper. You're now saying the police did believe him. So why did the press make no mention of his testimony when the printed all the rest? Why do they make no mention of testimony given in camera? Why does the summing up not point the jury to consider the information that is not being published?

Clearly unsettled? So the when Star referred to the Hungarian crossing the street, due to "feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels", they were completely underestimating how shaken up Schwartz must have been, having stood watching an assault on a woman that he felt it better he not get involved in. Clearly Schwartz was damn near incontinent!

Why would you think that? The phrase "feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels" describes someone who is clearly unsettled. Also, Schwartz never stood and watched her get assaulted, he was walking behind B.S. and continues on while crossing the street. At no point does he say he "stopped and watched" for awhile.

BS man had an extremely good opportunity to say anything he liked to Schwartz, when Schwartz stopped at the gateway. Why didn't he? Why wait until it was ambiguous who he would be speaking to? Schwartz's claimed observation of the assault, at close range, gives the impression that he watched it all from behind a one-way mirror.

First, Schwartz didn't stop at the gateway, and I don't know where you're getting that from. Schwartz didn't speak English, though, so B.S. may have said more, but Schwartz can't repeat it because to him it would be gibberish. All he might recognize would be the name Lipski.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But nowhere does it say that Pipeman comes towards Schwartz "just after Schwartz passes the gateway", and since Schwartz didn't do what you presume he would have, you're just rejecting something that hasn't been put forth.

I was commenting on this scenario ...

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

Where is Schwartz when he spots Pipeman? It seems to me that Schwartz hears Lipski just after passing the club, Pipeman shuffles forward and is seen by Schwartz. So at that moment, Pipeman could only come toward Schwartz by walking up/north along Berner street, which would have sent Schwartz fleeing in the same direction.

Moreover, it doesn't address the options that Schwartz is further along, etc.

Further along than the doorway? So who did BS yell Lipski to? The man at the doorway, or the man even further down the street, who seconds earlier had been standing almost right in front of him?

None of this leads to there being "knifeman", and nowhere other than the Star report is there any evidence of knifeman. None of the police records ever mention knifeman, and the Star version that includes knifeman reads like a distorted version of what Schwartz told the police, except the pipe becomes a knife, and a few other details get altered. Knifeman is pipeman with distortion and so far there's no support or evidence to the contrary.

So the police never found Pipeman, and yet as of Oct 19, they do not appear to be searching for "the supposed accomplice". If lack of mention of Knifeman by the police is so convincing, then what about what they do mention ...?

Robert Anderson: I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.

Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest. The police said so, so that's the end of that debate.

And Pipeman may never have actually followed Schwartz anywhere. Schwartz was clearly unsettled by the events, and he presumed pipeman was coming after him. He may never actually have checked until he was well away from the area, at which point he would then think "ok, he didn't follow me this far", failing to realise that pipeman never followed him at all.

Clearly unsettled? So the when Star referred to the Hungarian crossing the street, due to "feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels", they were completely underestimating how shaken up Schwartz must have been, having stood watching an assault on a woman that he felt it better he not get involved in. Clearly Schwartz was damn near incontinent!

Look, if Schwartz actually saw Pipeman running behind him for some distance, then when Abberline asked if Lipski could have been shouted at Schwartz, then Schwartz would have said No, he was clearly calling to the fellow who chased me half way down Fairclough (or where ever) before he finally gave up chase. But Schwartz backs down, and becomes unsure, because when confronted with the idea that maybe pipeman was just a bystander, Schwartz appears to realise he hadn't considered that but admitted it was entirely possible.

- Jeff

BS man had an extremely good opportunity to say anything he liked to Schwartz, when Schwartz stopped at the gateway. Why didn't he? Why wait until it was ambiguous who he would be speaking to? Schwartz's claimed observation of the assault, at close range, gives the impression that he watched it all from behind a one-way mirror.