Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post

    Why did Schwartz cross the road?

    Because he was chicken
    Why did Schwartz leave his wife to move house, while he went out all day and deep into the night?

    Why was Schwartz roaming the streets at night time?

    Why did Schwartz expect us to believe that he only ducked down Berner street, to see if his wife had finished the "expected" move, and just happen to bump into JtR, who was abusing a woman in full view of anyone observing the street, and name calling randoms as though he didn't care?

    Why did Schwartz claim to stop and watch this incident at close range, like he was some weird pervert?

    Why did Schwartz suppose we wouldn't wonder WTF this didn't illicit some response from either the man or the woman?

    Why did Schwartz claim that the woman screamed three times, but none of the people a short distance away heard it?

    Why did Schwartz claim to run all the way to a railway arch, simply because a pipe-smoking man began walking in his direction?

    Why did Schwartz claim that this man also ran in his direction, for no apparent reason?

    Why did Schwartz turn up to Leman street police station, looking like he had just walked off stage at the Lyceum?

    Why did Schwartz claim that a man walked out of pub that had been closed for near on 4 hours, and rush him with a knife?

    Same answer for all; Because Israel Schwartz was a nutjob.
    Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 04-05-2022, 12:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    If they did locate Pipeman. We don't know they did for sure, but there are some suggestions of it. But because we don't know, we reach the end of what we can conclude with any confidence, after that we have to consider things with both options open and consider the implications of which guess we choose.

    So, if they did locate Pipeman they didn't arrest him and appear to have cleared him. Moreover, as we do not see him in any report, it appears he had nothing to add other than being able to satisfy the police he wasn't connected to B.S.

    But we know the police were looking for Lipski families, which would, as you pointed out, only make sense if they didn't locate Pipeman. But I'm not sure of the timings of when Pipeman was supposed to be identified, although it appears the police were looking for Lipskis for at least a few weeks. That would suggest they hadn't identified Pipeman. If they were no longer looking for him "unless they got further information", then either the description Schwartz was able to give them of Pipeman was deemed insufficient information (not detailed enough), or perhaps they interviewed Schwartz again and he was not confident in his ability to describe Pipeman and was becoming less, rather than more, detailed. I don't know, of course, and I'm just making up options here because we have no information to work with. That's the thing with these cases, we have no information. I make stuff up to try to illustrate examples of things that might have happened, but I don't for a moment pretend they are real or facts. I try to phase it that Pipeman may have been identified to emphasize that we do not know as a certainty he was. Given the search for Lipskis went on for a while, it suggests Pipeman hadn't been found, unless locating him coincides with them stopping that search as well.
    I find it odd that no one else seems to have any thoughts on this subject, that they feel are worth sharing.

    They don't say who the other source was, so I don't know.
    More to the point is not who it was, but how there could be another source. If they arrested one man based on Schwartz's description (the prisoner), then the only other source could be Pipeman, unless ...

    The "going around arresting tall men" was just my way of pointing out that the description of Pipeman that we have is pretty generic other than he was 5'11", which was tall for the time. Maybe Schwartz was able to give the police a more detailed description that we don't have, but really, based upon what we have of Pipeman there's not a lot to base an arrest on.
    It's a little more detailed than 5'11''.

    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.

    Interestingly, Schwartz seems to have pulled back on the description of Knifeman.

    The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society.

    Based on the descriptions, does Pipeman = Knifeman, and why doesn't Schwartz want the public to have a fuller description of the man's age and appearance? Any chance it's because he doesn't want this man coming forward and contradicting him?

    The Pipeman description may not be a lot to go on, but amazingly (from our PoV), it was ...!

    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.

    This apparent ease in finding a man who is not wholly believed, suggests to me that the police had more to go on than we are aware of. Regarding this and the unidentified "other source", I would again point to the vigilance committee as being part of the puzzle. Did the WVC leave their fingerprints on Berner street, and perhaps Batty street also?

    Well, neither did Abberline, but since Schwartz thought the name Lipski was addressed to Pipeman, Schwartz must have thought that Pipeman could have been Jewish.
    That leaves Abberline's Lipski thinking, unexplained. If Schwartz thought Pipeman could have been Jewish, then Abberline could have too.

    I don't see anything in Abberline's quote where he says anything about what Pipeman looked like, only that because Schwartz looked strongly Jewish that Lipski could have been directed at him. Pipeman might also have looked Jewish (see above) but since Schwartz definately did, that means the intended target of "Lipski" could have been Schwartz (leaving Pipeman to look like anything you want, but nowhere does it say he looked like that).
    I'll leave this for others to comment on. After all, this is not a private conversation between yourself and myself.

    I just don't follow this at all? Given that Schwartz's statement was that B.S. shouted Lipski to another man, who seemed to come to his aid (this was how Schwartz described things), it follows that the other man's name may very well have been Lipski, which was a Jewish name. So how doesn't the note writer's comment make sense? He's just reiterating what Schwartz said? (It's Abberline who offers the alternative explanation, which you appear to agree with, which is fine, but based upon what Schwartz says the note writer makes perfect sense).
    It doesn't make sense if one buys-into Schwartz's story.

    We don't know Schwartz wasn't called to the inquest. We know he wasn't there, but we do not know if he was called or not. We do not know why he doesn't show if he was called. We have no evidence that tells us what Baxter's view of Schwartz was, so there's no way for us to know if Baxter was or was not interested in Schwartz.
    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.

    Actually, that's misinterpreting my position. The information we have about what Fanny did is contained only in newspaper reports that contradict each other. We have no reliable source for what it was she is supposed to have done. Whether or not Fanny herself was unreliable we cannot know because we do not know if she told her story consitently each time but the papers spun it differently (the reporters introduced the errors) or if she was the source of the variablity. What we do know is that there is no record of her statements from a source where reliably capturing what the person says, under conditions where they know there are consequences for stretching the truth and embellishments. As such, our version of Fanny's information is unreliable.
    The time Swanson gave for Goldstein, should go some way toward clearing up any contradictions. Unless that is, it is supposed Mortimer and Goldstein's sense of the time was about 15 minutes ahead of GMT, in both cases.

    As I've said before, I don't believe knifeman existed, so if they're still looking that would suggest it wasn't pipeman they found.
    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.

    Abberline gets the information from Schwartz, and that's how Schwartz interpreted it. But if Abberline is correct, and Pipeman is not connected to B.S, then it is unlikely Pipeman chased Schwartz anywhere despite how Schwartz may have interpreted things.
    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.

    Well, you're at odds with Abberline, who actually interviewed Schwartz. Moreover, there is no evidence to support your WVC notion, or to even hint at it.
    Not even a hint?

    And to conclude that Stride did not call out as Schwartz stated is to make an unfounded assumption to overturn a statement. Unless you can present a clear reason why you, rather than Schwartz, should be believed, then I suspect you'll not convince many of that idea. Remember, if Pipeman was indeed located, then he may very well have said she called out and that's what got him moving towards the scene to see what was going on.
    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.

    As for your suggestion that Stride was already dead when Schwartz witnessed his events, then who was the woman he saw being pushed down? Also, don't forget, Schwartz was taken to the mortuary and identified Stride as the woman he saw.

    - Jeff
    I think it was Isaac Kozebrodsky.

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post
    Why did Schwartz cross the road?

    Because he was chicken
    It would seem that the Covid has not diminished your sense of humour Dave. All the best for a speedy recovery.

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Why did Schwartz cross the road?

    Because he was chicken

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Schwartz crossed the street rather than approaching BS Man.

    Around 11.30 pm scores of singing radicals left the club,just three doors away.

    Louis Hagens would have felt like it was Xmas Eve or sumfin' for the next hour.

    Really would have enjoyed a knock off pipe.
    Last edited by DJA; 04-03-2022, 10:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    BS Man dragged Stride OUT OF THE ALLEY.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
    Just to add to my previous scenario, Pipeman is sheltering in the doorway of the Nelson lighting his pipe when he hears a commotion. He emerges to see a man in the gateway and a woman on the ground. The man in the gateway shouts Lipski at a Jewish looking man who is walking away from the scene and Pipeman deduces that he has attacked the woman and is making his escape having been interrupted by BSman. Pipeman makes a move towards Schwartz but Schwartz bolts so Pipeman walks down to the gateway to find out what happened. BSman declines to continue his altercation in front of a large male witness and leaves. This would remove the accomplice theory and explain why Schwartz thought that Pipeman rushed at him.

    So based on Schwartz's descriptions, the police arrest a couple of men who they interview and release, presumably cleared. Is there any evidence to say they were tall men rather than broad shouldered men?

    I know that it is accepted that Schwartz was not called to the inquest, but both Anderson and Warren referred to evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest. The inquest took place on Oct 1,2,3,5 and 23. Why the gap on the 4th? Did Schwartz give in camera evidence on the 4th?

    Cheers, George
    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.

    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.

    Anything can be placed in there because we don't know enough; we don't know how much time passes between Schwartz passing B.S. and the Lipski shout, we presume it was right away, but it might have been after enough seconds had passed that Schwartz was further along (just not moving fast enough for B.S.). We don't actually know much at all about Pipeman's movements, other than Schwartz thought Pipeman was coming at him, but there's reason to believe Schwartz might have interpreted any movement towards him as being "coming to get him" by that point.

    We're left with Pipeman being able to do anything from nothing much at all to being Stride's rescuer come murderer to JtR, etc. We can all produce theories, but we are devoid of any evidence by which to test our conjectures.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Sequence of comings & goings - Stride - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

    P
    rolly Louis Hagens.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Stride's three squeals would have caught Pipeman's attention.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Given that the rain had stopped,why was Pipeman "sheltering" in the doorway!

    Have a good look.

    He was having a knock off smoke.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Berner Fairclough cnr JTR 03.jpg
Views:	115
Size:	190.7 KB
ID:	784040 Click image for larger version

Name:	pipe knife Rogers.jpg
Views:	119
Size:	65.0 KB
ID:	784041 A picture is better than ...... there's two!

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Just to add to my previous scenario, Pipeman is sheltering in the doorway of the Nelson lighting his pipe when he hears a commotion. He emerges to see a man in the gateway and a woman on the ground. The man in the gateway shouts Lipski at a Jewish looking man who is walking away from the scene and Pipeman deduces that he has attacked the woman and is making his escape having been interrupted by BSman. Pipeman makes a move towards Schwartz but Schwartz bolts so Pipeman walks down to the gateway to find out what happened. BSman declines to continue his altercation in front of a large male witness and leaves. This would remove the accomplice theory and explain why Schwartz thought that Pipeman rushed at him.

    So based on Schwartz's descriptions, the police arrest a couple of men who they interview and release, presumably cleared. Is there any evidence to say they were tall men rather than broad shouldered men?

    I know that it is accepted that Schwartz was not called to the inquest, but both Anderson and Warren referred to evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest. The inquest took place on Oct 1,2,3,5 and 23. Why the gap on the 4th? Did Schwartz give in camera evidence on the 4th?

    Cheers, George
    Last edited by GBinOz; 04-03-2022, 12:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Israel Schwartz - conspiracy theorist?
    I don't understand this? Given the pejorative baggage that goes with "conspiracy theorist", probably not the best choice of words. Though I suppose by definition Schwartz was suggesting a conspiracy as Pipeman and B.S. were, in his view, working together and therefore a conspiracy.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    So what do you suppose was his reason for leaving out juicy bits such as the woman being thrown to the ground, the use of the word 'Lipski', and not one but two men running from the scene?
    No clue, maybe his editor removed them because there wasn't room to fit it in the column?

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    So now you seem to be saying that the police are indeed pulling back, rather than pushing forward. But Jeff, everyone knows you can't trust what you read in the Star! If they did locate Pipeman after just two arrests, then that's a 50% strike rate. Not bad for randomly picking out tall blokes to question. So what's the issue with continuing?
    If they did locate Pipeman. We don't know they did for sure, but there are some suggestions of it. But because we don't know, we reach the end of what we can conclude with any confidence, after that we have to consider things with both options open and consider the implications of which guess we choose.

    So, if they did locate Pipeman they didn't arrest him and appear to have cleared him. Moreover, as we do not see him in any report, it appears he had nothing to add other than being able to satisfy the police he wasn't connected to B.S.

    But we know the police were looking for Lipski families, which would, as you pointed out, only make sense if they didn't locate Pipeman. But I'm not sure of the timings of when Pipeman was supposed to be identified, although it appears the police were looking for Lipskis for at least a few weeks. That would suggest they hadn't identified Pipeman. If they were no longer looking for him "unless they got further information", then either the description Schwartz was able to give them of Pipeman was deemed insufficient information (not detailed enough), or perhaps they interviewed Schwartz again and he was not confident in his ability to describe Pipeman and was becoming less, rather than more, detailed. I don't know, of course, and I'm just making up options here because we have no information to work with. That's the thing with these cases, we have no information. I make stuff up to try to illustrate examples of things that might have happened, but I don't for a moment pretend they are real or facts. I try to phase it that Pipeman may have been identified to emphasize that we do not know as a certainty he was. Given the search for Lipskis went on for a while, it suggests Pipeman hadn't been found, unless locating him coincides with them stopping that search as well.


    Regarding how they were proceeding with the Schwartz related investigation, did they really go around the neighbourhood arresting tall men? What about this bit ...?

    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.

    Who is this other source? There was no else on the street who could have provided info about BS and Pipeman - Knifeman didn't exist, as such, and Fanny was boiling the pot for her sick husband's water bottle (and watching it) - so on what basis was this other source taken seriously?
    They don't say who the other source was, so I don't know.

    The "going around arresting tall men" was just my way of pointing out that the description of Pipeman that we have is pretty generic other than he was 5'11", which was tall for the time. Maybe Schwartz was able to give the police a more detailed description that we don't have, but really, based upon what we have of Pipeman there's not a lot to base an arrest on.


    In the case of Pipeman, yes. The following implies that the second man did not have a Jewish appearance, hence the reason for moving the target of 'Lipski' from that man to Schwartz.

    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.

    For BS man, I am only following the commonly held presumption that a Jewish man would not hurl an anti-Semitic insult at a stranger.
    Well, neither did Abberline, but since Schwartz thought the name Lipski was addressed to Pipeman, Schwartz must have thought that Pipeman could have been Jewish.

    I don't see anything in Abberline's quote where he says anything about what Pipeman looked like, only that because Schwartz looked strongly Jewish that Lipski could have been directed at him. Pipeman might also have looked Jewish (see above) but since Schwartz definately did, that means the intended target of "Lipski" could have been Schwartz (leaving Pipeman to look like anything you want, but nowhere does it say he looked like that).

    Because for the same reason as just stated, it doesn't make sense. Yet presumably it did make sense to the note writer. How? Well I would suggest that person (Lushington?) simply analysed the Berner street crime of his own accord with whatever info was available to him, and without getting trapped in the world of Schwartz, came to the conclusion that the murderer was Jewish. He did not get trapped because Swanson's report was his first exposure to the Schwartz incident. On reading that report, it only reinforced a view he already held.
    I just don't follow this at all? Given that Schwartz's statement was that B.S. shouted Lipski to another man, who seemed to come to his aid (this was how Schwartz described things), it follows that the other man's name may very well have been Lipski, which was a Jewish name. So how doesn't the note writer's comment make sense? He's just reiterating what Schwartz said? (It's Abberline who offers the alternative explanation, which you appear to agree with, which is fine, but based upon what Schwartz says the note writer makes perfect sense).

    He didn't call him to the inquest (or so it seems), and he ignored pressure to adjourn the inquest a second time, "on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case ...". Basically he was saying it would be pointless to go looking for Schwartz (who had obviously gone missing), as it was then too long from the time of the crime to have confidence in any as yet unheard from witness.
    We don't know Schwartz wasn't called to the inquest. We know he wasn't there, but we do not know if he was called or not. We do not know why he doesn't show if he was called. We have no evidence that tells us what Baxter's view of Schwartz was, so there's no way for us to know if Baxter was or was not interested in Schwartz.


    It's not a given, these are just your own speculations, and believe her about what? You obviously suppose Fanny was an unreliable witness, yet you also said this about her ...
    It's as much a given as Baxter's disinterest. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    I may be oversimplifying your position, but it seems to boil down to this:

    Fanny Mortimer is an unreliable witness, because she did not witness an event that she was not in a position to witness.
    Actually, that's misinterpreting my position. The information we have about what Fanny did is contained only in newspaper reports that contradict each other. We have no reliable source for what it was she is supposed to have done. Whether or not Fanny herself was unreliable we cannot know because we do not know if she told her story consitently each time but the papers spun it differently (the reporters introduced the errors) or if she was the source of the variablity. What we do know is that there is no record of her statements from a source where reliably capturing what the person says, under conditions where they know there are consequences for stretching the truth and embellishments. As such, our version of Fanny's information is unreliable.

    Moreover, I'm not talking about her being unreliable about events she was not in a position to witness such as the Schwartz incident because then she's not even a witness. I'm pointing out that the records of her description about what she did do are unreliable.

    Okay, it was serious. So if they had found Pipeman, they must have still been looking for Knifeman - someone else.
    As I've said before, I don't believe knifeman existed, so if they're still looking that would suggest it wasn't pipeman they found.

    It should also make us wonder how thoroughly they investigated Leon Goldstein.

    Just exited a building? You mean the pub that closed at 9pm, that we hear about in the Star report, that manufactured Knifeman out of nothing?
    Someone has suggested Pipeman may have worked in the pub.

    Abberline: 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.
    Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.
    Abberline gets the information from Schwartz, and that's how Schwartz interpreted it. But if Abberline is correct, and Pipeman is not connected to B.S, then it is unlikely Pipeman chased Schwartz anywhere despite how Schwartz may have interpreted things.
    Does that include the report of unknown source, that has an unquoted Fanny outside for just 10 minutes?
    It includes all newspaper reports that cannot be compared with official police reports or inquest testimony, with the exception of when the paper reports in transcript format (i.e. just a series of direct quotes). Summaries of testimony get coloured by the reporters writing style, and interviews in the street are even worse as the speaker is not under oath and so more likely to overstate things and also the reporter will conduct a longer interview from which they can cherry pick the bits that make the best story. And that best story may be unlike what the person actually said.

    Yes. I think the men Schwartz refers to, who seemingly know each other, did indeed know each other. They were WVC patrolman. Probably first responders, possibly bad guys. Hence all the pushing and shoving and name calling, at the gates. No one had heard any screams, because there weren't any.
    Well, you're at odds with Abberline, who actually interviewed Schwartz. Moreover, there is no evidence to support your WVC notion, or to even hint at it. And to conclude that Stride did not call out as Schwartz stated is to make an unfounded assumption to overturn a statement. Unless you can present a clear reason why you, rather than Schwartz, should be believed, then I suspect you'll not convince many of that idea. Remember, if Pipeman was indeed located, then he may very well have said she called out and that's what got him moving towards the scene to see what was going on.

    As for your suggestion that Stride was already dead when Schwartz witnessed his events, then who was the woman he saw being pushed down? Also, don't forget, Schwartz was taken to the mortuary and identified Stride as the woman he saw.

    - Jeff
    Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-03-2022, 11:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    That, or the reporter asked him some leading questions like "Are you absolutely sure it wasn't a knife?" and Schwartz's reply was along the lines of "Well, I don't think so but I suppose it could have been." and that was all the reporter needed to juicy up the story.

    - Jeff
    So what do you suppose was his reason for leaving out juicy bits such as the woman being thrown to the ground, the use of the word 'Lipski', and not one but two men running from the scene?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X