If Schwartz Lied ...

[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.

[JeffHamm]

Neither had I seen a good account, until I came across the sitting down before attacked theory
Placing the hands close to the ground, sort of side-steps the cachous problem. A brilliant bit of lateral thinking, IMHO.

Well, it doesn't really solve the problem because there's no evidence to suggest she was sitting down. The killer placing them there after she's dead also solves the problem, but I don't think that's it either.

So at the railway arch, Schwartz finally realised that no man had been chasing him? Interesting that you suppose that not to be far-fetched, and yet also suppose that Knifeman was fictitious - a pure invention of the Star - and yet Knifeman does not chase Schwartz. We are only told by the Star, that the Hungarian fled.

No, that would be a misinterpretation of what I've said about what Schwartz thought. It appears Schwartz believed he was being chased, so at some point, when he looks, he realises Pipeman is not there. So he would then think that Pipeman has stopped chasing him, but he still thinks Pipeman was initially chasing him. It doesn't matter if in reality Pipeman never actually chased Schwartz because we're talking about a belief, and beliefs can be false.

From that perspective it is, but the funny thing is is that I've never once heard anyone actually agree with Schwartz's Pipeman and BS were together interpretation. On the other hand, I've heard plenty of times that Pipeman was identified, but now that the ongoing search for a man named Lipski anomaly is out front and centre of this discussion, the 'Pipeman was found' people seem to have gone quiet.

No, agreeing with Schartz is not commonly held. Abberline's arguments are considered to be convincing by most. Feel free to argue the other side though.

It means something when multiple people who were there, come to the same conclusion, and I don't imagine we are dealing with a bunch of dummies.

What bunch of people? We don't have statements from the entire club, and the Fanny Mortimer statement is irrelevant as she wasn't at the club so her commenting on where people were is not based upon fact, just gossip and hearsay. And given the statement is that Stride didn't yell very loud, why would they expect to hear anything?

A broad-shoulder man would not have failed to pull Liz Stride out onto the street, had he wanted to. Jack the Ripper would not have wanted to pull the woman out onto the street, at all.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Presumably I'm more of a bottom-up than top-down thinker. Regarding the impact of constraints, I had half hoped that the constraint of supposing that the search for a man named Lipski meant that Pipeman was never located, would have resulted in someone walking through the implications. So while my thinking may be somewhat unconstrained, it also seems that I'm in good company.

Except, as I've said many times, there is only suggestions that Pipeman was actually identified, and I agreed with you that if he was then one would expect the search for Lipski families to cease shortly there after (obviously they would not stop until they were fully satisfied that Pipeman wasn't an accomplice, etc). I've mentioned that it depends upon the dates when Pipeman was supposed to be identified. I don't know when that was supposed to have happened, but if it corresponds to the cessation of the Lipski search then it may be that all the evidence aligns as expected. But without having that information I don't know if it does.

I don't recall ever saying "Schwartz was not there!". No doubt I've been accused of that more than once, but that doesn't mean I agree.

A while back you posted a conclusion that was something like "Simple, Schwartz didn't exist"! I took that to mean that he wasn't there rather than he didn't exist literally since Abberline interviewed him.

Fanny doesn't even say that herself, so why would I say it?

Fanny's statements range from being out on her doorstep nearly the whole time, to those sounding like she was in and out for a number of brief periods. You've referenced both possibilities at times.

It probably does seem like I'm often starting anew, but that is because the last idea did not generate any discussion. So I guess it often seems like I'm talking about things without sufficient context. In other words, it's everyone's fault but mine. LOL

It must be very difficult for you.

That's probably it!

I agree. You're not presenting your ideas in a way that can be understood, hence nobody is following you.

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. Except for my own benefit, I don't see why I need to write a thesis.

He has asked, he's asked that you simply walk through the events of that night from beginning to end so we can see the sequence of events as you imagine them. I've asked as well. So despite being asked, you've made it clear you're not going to answer with content, simply a refusal. That's fine, you don't need to answer, it's not an assignment, it was just a request.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

He agrees it is an inference that could be drawn, but he doesn't actually say he himself agrees with it. That being said, he doesn't point away from that conclusion in any way either so I agree it probably was his opinion. That leaves us with the odd situation that the Doctor does indicate she was put to the ground roughly enough to leave bruises, but he cannot account for the cachous. They are strange, so either they were placed there by the killer after she was dead, or she somehow held on to them despite that being hard to imagine. Murder scenes do sometimes have weird anomalies to them and this may be one of those. So far, however, I've not seen a good account for how she can be killed on the ground (also the opinion of the doctors at the time due to the lack of blood on her clothes and the lack of spurting higher up the wall) and yet be holding the cachous.

Neither had I seen a good account, until I came across the sitting down before attacked theory
Placing the hands close to the ground, sort of side-steps the cachous problem. A brilliant bit of lateral thinking, IMHO.

No, it means Pipeman may never have actually chased Schwartz. The chasing was Schwartz's interpretation, that Pipeman was coming after him, leading to him interpreting Pipeman's movements as him chasing. The reality may simply have been Pipeman was heading away from the scene in the same direction, and Schwartz ran off without making a full assessment of the situation until he finally stops and notices Pipeman is no longer behind him. He then concludes Pipeman hadn't chased him all the way, rather than Pipeman hadn't chased him at all.

So at the railway arch, Schwartz finally realised that no man had been chasing him? Interesting that you suppose that not to be far-fetched, and yet also suppose that Knifeman was fictitious - a pure invention of the Star - and yet Knifeman does not chase Schwartz. We are only told by the Star, that the Hungarian fled.

The events described are still important (who was the man assaulting Stride; who was pipeman as he's a potential witness or a potential suspect, etc) even if Schwartz's interpretations of the relationship between Pipeman and B.S. are wrong. Moreover, given the police did search for Lipski families, Abberline recognized his idea was simply an alternative to Schwartz's, he didn't dismiss Schwartz entirely and followed up the lead as given, and also followed up his own alternative idea. This is good police work.

From that perspective it is, but the funny thing is is that I've never once heard anyone actually agree with Schwartz's Pipeman and BS were together interpretation. On the other hand, I've heard plenty of times that Pipeman was identified, but now that the ongoing search for a man named Lipski anomaly is out front and centre of this discussion, the 'Pipeman was found' people seem to have gone quiet.

Again, people's opinions about what they think they could or should have heard are just that, opinions. They didn't hear anything apparently, so despite their thinking they should have, the fact remains they didn't. It's not a problem, it just goes to show that people often have little idea about what they would have heard, or seen, or done. It's certainly not evidence against Schwartz's story no matter how strongly, or how many, believe they should have heard it.

It means something when multiple people who were there, come to the same conclusion, and I don't imagine we are dealing with a bunch of dummies.

I think I'll just leave it at that.

- Jeff

A broad-shoulder man would not have failed to pull Liz Stride out onto the street, had he wanted to. Jack the Ripper would not have wanted to pull the woman out onto the street, at all.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

?? The fact that events happen in sequence is entirely independent on whether or not the events involve Schwartz or not - Schwartz is not the "all being master of time space and dimension" after all.

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

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

Presumably I'm more of a bottom-up than top-down thinker. Regarding the impact of constraints, I had half hoped that the constraint of supposing that the search for a man named Lipski meant that Pipeman was never located, would have resulted in someone walking through the implications. So while my thinking may be somewhat unconstrained, it also seems that I'm in good company.

It is unclear what it is you are proposing though. As I've mentioned, sometimes Schwartz doesn't even exist (meaning he wasn't there on the night and the events he relays were fabricated), other times he does (so he was there and did see an altercation of some sort), and most recently you've suggested Stride was already dead when Schwartz arrives on the scene and the woman Schwartz saw was actually a man. Clearly Schwartz cannot both be and not be there, and the idea that if he was there he saw a man being thrown to the ground by B.S. is untenable.

I don't recall ever saying "Schwartz was not there!". No doubt I've been accused of that more than once, but that doesn't mean I agree.

You've got Goldstein traversing along Berner Street twice, and at times you say Fanny was on her doorstep the whole time and at others she wasn't, and so forth.

Fanny doesn't even say that herself, so why would I say it?

The various scattered posts and arguments you've presented do not seem to be connected with ideas and posts that come before and after, suggesting they are "ideas of the moment only". This makes it difficult to have a discussion over a period of time because it's always starting anew, and what was before now isn't. It's very Orwellian, with history changing in the present.

It probably does seem like I'm often starting anew, but that is because the last idea did not generate any discussion. So I guess it often seems like I'm talking about things without sufficient context. In other words, it's everyone's fault but mine. LOL

I think George's request is a fair one as all he's asking for is clarification of your ideas. It may be that you do not see the conflict between things that we do because you've got them organized in a way that we are not picking up on.

That's probably it!

By describing the totality of the events as you see them to have occurred will require they be ordered temporally, which is by definition, a sequence of events. Whether or not you choose to include Schwartz doesn't change the fact that a sequence has to emerge when you put all of your ideas together. And by doing that, it may help identify which of your ideas become mutually exclusive - where you can have one or the other but not both.

- Jeff

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. Except for my own benefit, I don't see why I need to write a thesis.

[GBinOz]

If Pipeman came toward Schwartz from the pub, just after Schwartz passes the gateway, then Schwartz would have 'exited the scene' by doing a U-turn and heading straight back up Berner street. That is the opposite of what he claimed, and so this is possibly another reason for doubting that Pipeman = Knifeman.

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

[JeffHamm]

We must be on different pages with this. All I'm saying is that the marginal note writer had his own opinion on the Berner street murderer, and having read Swanson's report, he wasn't about to change that opinion to make it work with Schwartz's story. On the contrary, the mention of Lipski only reinforced his belief, which pre-dated any knowledge of Schwartz.

The note writer commented that calling of Lipski to pipeman reinforced his belief the offender was jewish - And Schwartz is the one that suggested Lipski was directed at Pipeman implying that at least one, and by implication probably both, offenders were Jewish. Therefore, the note writer is agreeing with Schwartz, and clearly it all post-dates Schwartz.

Even if it were just a coincidence that it sounds just like Schwartz's throw-down claim, the result is that Phillips believed it reasonable to suppose that the cachous would not have remained in the hand, had she been thrown to the ground.

He agrees it is an inference that could be drawn, but he doesn't actually say he himself agrees with it. That being said, he doesn't point away from that conclusion in any way either so I agree it probably was his opinion. That leaves us with the odd situation that the Doctor does indicate she was put to the ground roughly enough to leave bruises, but he cannot account for the cachous. They are strange, so either they were placed there by the killer after she was dead, or she somehow held on to them despite that being hard to imagine. Murder scenes do sometimes have weird anomalies to them and this may be one of those. So far, however, I've not seen a good account for how she can be killed on the ground (also the opinion of the doctors at the time due to the lack of blood on her clothes and the lack of spurting higher up the wall) and yet be holding the cachous.

As most people do. However, that means supposing that Pipeman ran along behind Schwartz, for whatever reason, but no one witnessed that either. Either that, or Pipeman just strolled off, and Schwartz was followed by The Phantom Menace. The later would arguably suggest that Schwartz was not of sound mind. The other issue with belief in Pipeman, is that Wess claimed to have been given the name of the man who did the chasing. Accepting Wess at his word, that he couldn't remember that man's name, arguably suggests that Pipeman believers are being naive.

No, it means Pipeman may never have actually chased Schwartz. The chasing was Schwartz's interpretation, that Pipeman was coming after him, leading to him interpreting Pipeman's movements as him chasing. The reality may simply have been Pipeman was heading away from the scene in the same direction, and Schwartz ran off without making a full assessment of the situation until he finally stops and notices Pipeman is no longer behind him. He then concludes Pipeman hadn't chased him all the way, rather than Pipeman hadn't chased him at all.

What I would ask Abberline, is why he believed the story he was given, if so much interpretation was involved in making sense of it.

The events described are still important (who was the man assaulting Stride; who was pipeman as he's a potential witness or a potential suspect, etc) even if Schwartz's interpretations of the relationship between Pipeman and B.S. are wrong. Moreover, given the police did search for Lipski families, Abberline recognized his idea was simply an alternative to Schwartz's, he didn't dismiss Schwartz entirely and followed up the lead as given, and also followed up his own alternative idea. This is good police work.

These witnesses would have taken the singing and talking into account, when coming to the conclusion that they would have heard any screams or cries for help. Also, these are people who would have been well attuned to the acoustics of the area.

FM: It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found.

Again, people's opinions about what they think they could or should have heard are just that, opinions. They didn't hear anything apparently, so despite their thinking they should have, the fact remains they didn't. It's not a problem, it just goes to show that people often have little idea about what they would have heard, or seen, or done. It's certainly not evidence against Schwartz's story no matter how strongly, or how many, believe they should have heard it.

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 reason the man tried to pull the 'woman' into the street, is that 'she' was blocking the entrance to the yard. The reason the man apparently failed to pull the woman into the street, is that the 'woman' had balls.

I think I'll just leave it at that.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

We must be on different pages with this. All I'm saying is that the marginal note writer had his own opinion on the Berner street murderer, and having read Swanson's report, he wasn't about to change that opinion to make it work with Schwartz's story. On the contrary, the mention of Lipski only reinforced his belief, which pre-dated any knowledge of Schwartz.

Shortly before that the Dr is giving his opinion that Stride was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, so the question from the foreman could easily have been prompted by that as well.

Even if it were just a coincidence that it sounds just like Schwartz's throw-down claim, the result is that Phillips believed it reasonable to suppose that the cachous would not have remained in the hand, had she been thrown to the ground.

We disagree on that. I put more credence in the statement Schwartz gave to the police, which involves Pipeman, than the story reported in the press involving knifeman.

As most people do. However, that means supposing that Pipeman ran along behind Schwartz, for whatever reason, but no one witnessed that either. Either that, or Pipeman just strolled off, and Schwartz was followed by The Phantom Menace. The later would arguably suggest that Schwartz was not of sound mind. The other issue with belief in Pipeman, is that Wess claimed to have been given the name of the man who did the chasing. Accepting Wess at his word, that he couldn't remember that man's name, arguably suggests that Pipeman believers are being naive.

You would have to ask Abberline why he supposed that, all I know is that he did.

What I would ask Abberline, is why he believed the story he was given, if so much interpretation was involved in making sense of it.

I think I can drink 50 pints in an hour. I can think anything I want, but that doesn't make it true. People thinking they would have heard a sound doesn't mean they really should have. There was singing and so forth going on the club, so lots of reasons why their belief about what they would or would not have heard is a far cry from a "terrible blow" to anything.

These witnesses would have taken the singing and talking into account, when coming to the conclusion that they would have heard any screams or cries for help. Also, these are people who would have been well attuned to the acoustics of the area.

FM: It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found.

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

- Jeff

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 reason the man tried to pull the 'woman' into the street, is that 'she' was blocking the entrance to the yard. The reason the man apparently failed to pull the woman into the street, is that the 'woman' had balls.

[JeffHamm]

If Pipeman came toward Schwartz from the pub, just after Schwartz passes the gateway, then Schwartz would have 'exited the scene' by doing a U-turn and heading straight back up Berner street. That is the opposite of what he claimed, and so this is possibly another reason for doubting that Pipeman = Knifeman.

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

If he just heads off, there is no man to run behind Schwartz - apparently following him - who ends his run prior to Schwartz reaching the railway arch. If this is correct, then Pipeman never followed behind Schwartz, and yet, according to Schwartz there was no other man on the street who was in a position to do this. So who was following Schwartz, as far as he was concerned? Was it The Phantom Menace?

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.

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I wasn't aware that I had been on your back, but no, you have been commenting in bits and pieces for too long. Time to present your theory in full for peer appraisal.

Cheers, George

Doesn't everyone here, comment in bits and pieces?

There is a theory in #2918 that Pipeman ended up in Dutfield's Yard. Why can't the peers appraise that, before demanding some over-arching theory?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi George,

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

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

If Pipeman came toward Schwartz from the pub, just after Schwartz passes the gateway, then Schwartz would have 'exited the scene' by doing a U-turn and heading straight back up Berner street. That is the opposite of what he claimed, and so this is possibly another reason for doubting that Pipeman = Knifeman.

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

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

If he just heads off, there is no man to run behind Schwartz - apparently following him - who ends his run prior to Schwartz reaching the railway arch. If this is correct, then Pipeman never followed behind Schwartz, and yet, according to Schwartz there was no other man on the street who was in a position to do this. So who was following Schwartz, as far as he was concerned? Was it The Phantom Menace?

[JeffHamm]

Sequences are for Schwartzists ha-ha

Well I could tell you who Pipeman was. Would that be enough to get you off my back for a while?

?? The fact that events happen in sequence is entirely independent on whether or not the events involve Schwartz or not - Schwartz is not the "all being master of time space and dimension" after all.

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

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

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

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

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

...
It doesn't make sense if one buys-into Schwartz's story.

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

It goes without saying that if Schwartz was called and didn't show, it is not a good look at all. Whatever the case, the foreman's question to Phillips, suggests that at least several people at the inquest were aware of Schwartz's police statement. I don't understand how, though.

Shortly before that the Dr is giving his opinion that Stride was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, so the question from the foreman could easily have been prompted by that as well.

Knifeman actually speaks and behaves aggressively to warn off 'the intruder' - giving Schwartz an actual reason to run - whereas Pipeman says nothing and his behaviour seems arbitrary. Schwartz also held back on Knifeman's description. For whatever slight resemblance Schwartz's bizarre stories had to reality, I would say that Knifeman was the character that matched someone real, and that Pipeman was the creation.

We disagree on that. I put more credence in the statement Schwartz gave to the police, which involves Pipeman, than the story reported in the press involving knifeman.

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

You would have to ask Abberline why he supposed that, all I know is that he did.

Not even a hint?

It is not me vs Schwartz, rather it's Schwartz vs the witnesses who said they would have heard screams had there been any, but didn't. These witnesses are another terrible blow to Schwartz's credibility.

I think I can drink 50 pints in an hour. I can think anything I want, but that doesn't make it true. People thinking they would have heard a sound doesn't mean they really should have. There was singing and so forth going on the club, so lots of reasons why their belief about what they would or would not have heard is a far cry from a "terrible blow" to anything.

I think it was Isaac Kozebrodsky.

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

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Sequences are for Schwartzists ha-ha

Well I could tell you who Pipeman was. Would that be enough to get you off my back for a while?

I wasn't aware that I had been on your back, but no, you have been commenting in bits and pieces for too long. Time to present your theory in full for peer appraisal.

Cheers, George