If Schwartz Lied ...

[JeffHamm]

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi George,

Yah, given Schwartz's belief that B.S. and Pipeman were a pair, it's easy to see how he would view anything that looked like Pipeman coming towards him as sinister.

Israel Schwartz - conspiracy theorist?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

My feeling is that when Schwartz made his report to the police they asked him why he didn't intercede in an attack on a woman. He covered this for the press report by turning the pipe into a knife. Are you suggesting there were two men on the same corner outside the Nelson?

Cheers, George

Hi George.

The Star report tells us the reason he didn't intercede.

The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.

Only then does Knifeman enter the picture.

Regarding the location of the men, no, I think only one man was roughly where Schwartz placed Knifeman.

[DJA]

What is your point? The report says that the assault was witnessed, but "no notice was taken of it". It does not say that the witness suddenly got startled and ran off. So it does not support Schwartz's claim to have had a man at the scene begin to run in his direction, prompting him to run as far as one the railway arches.

You have not recognised your own quote.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Jeff,

I agree with your suggestion. I think Pipeman was sheltering in the doorway setback to light his pipe and heard a commotion. He emerges to see a man and woman outside the gateway, with the man shouting to another man (Schwartz) on the NE corner of Berner and Fairclough. Pipeman calls out "what's going on here" and takes a few steps towards Schwartz who bolts, not looking back until some distance away when he realises he is not being followed.

When referring to Pipeman running, Abberline says something quite interesting ...

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.

The phrase "he might have been alarmed" indicates that Abberline can only guess as to why the man ran off, after having stood watching while lighting his pipe. It apparently made little sense to him, so did it occur to him that the problem only arose when he moved the target of 'Lipski' from Pipeman to Schwartz? It was his own reinterpretation of what Schwartz had told him, that made Pipeman's running off, inexplicable. Why didn't he just accept that the two men probably were together?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So if Pipeman did see the assault and reported it, we are faced with a very big issue. According to Schwartz, Pipeman ran from the scene

What is your point? The report says that the assault was witnessed, but "no notice was taken of it". It does not say that the witness suddenly got startled and ran off. So it does not support Schwartz's claim to have had a man at the scene begin to run in his direction, prompting him to run as far as one the railway arches.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That's all rather complicated. I suspect that after making two arrests, both of which lead to the person being let go, the police realised they do not have enough information to continue arresting every tall fellow in the area. if the did locate pipeman, he may have had little to add (I went out, lit my pipe, heard a shout up the road, and headed home) completely unaware of what was going on around him, maybe didn't even take note of the jewish man rushing on ahead of him.

In other words, the information may have played out rather than have become disbelieved.

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?

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?

Schwartz does not mention the appearance of the men to be or not to be Jewish looking so I don't know what you're basing that on? Schwartz just describes 2 other men being there, and he doesn't say they looked like Gentiles. Abberline does mention that Schwartz had a Jewish appearance, are you using that as the basis of deciding the other men must have looked non-Jewish?

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.

Don't you mean "only by buying-in ..."? the writer of the note is pointing out that Schwartz's statement implicates a Jewish offender. and if the writer of the note has read that there is no doubt as to Schwartz's statement, then why would the writer disbelieve it?

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 am unfamiliar with the evidence that shows Baxter was uninterested in Schwartz's testimony? Do you have some evidence where Baxter states his view on Schwartz?

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.

If she did, we will never know that unless it was recorded.

We also do not know if FM ever made an official statement to the police at all. She may only have been telling her story to reporters. Packer, for example, told the police he saw nothing when they first came around. Later, he started telling his story about selling the grapes at 11 or 12, pending on the version, and claiming the police never spoke to him. Fanny likewise may have clamed up when the police did their house to house search, but was more than willing to take centre stage when the reporters were about. If she's not willing to make an official statement that is even more reason to doubt her - it's one thing to make up stories to get attention and be in the papers, it's quite another to lie to the police and while under oath at an inquest (see the "pensioner" from the Chapman case, who has to reveal he's been telling tales about himself for years and yet has to admit that at the inquest because he's been swore in).

So, given Fanny is unwilling to swear to her statements, why should we believe her?

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 ...

She was outside for a brief period and not at the time of the incident.

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.

It went on for a few weeks, so I would say it was serious, perhaps not as serious as a judge named Mr. Serious and with a degree in seriousness from the University of Serious, but I don't think they treated it flippantly and just thought "oh well, slow day, might as well ask that guy over there if he knows where the Lipski's live. No? Well, that's that then".

Okay, it was serious. So if they had found Pipeman, they must have still been looking for Knifeman - someone else.

They had a statement, and they invested time, money, and resources in following it up. That shows they put some stock in what Schwartz had to say. Fanny, however, only appears in news stories and does not appear to have given a statement to the police. And that, perhaps, should make us wonder more about how seriously she should be taken.

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

He's just exited a building, quite likely in order to go home. People rarely get involved in domestic disputes they see, so why would Pipeman be expected to be different?

in other words, what reason does pipeman have to stay in the area?

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?

And it was Schwartz's interpretation that Pipeman was chasing him, but if Schwartz just saw Pipeman start heading towards him, and then flees the area, Pipeman may never have gotten any faster than walking speed - so was not chasing Schwartz at all.

We don't know if Pipeman ran. We only know that Schwartz thought Pipeman was coming towards him at the call of B.S.

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.

With the newspapers, we can't even be sure if what gets reported is actually what the person said.

Does that include the report of unknown source, that has an unquoted Fanny outside for just 10 minutes?

I've lost you here? Are you saying that during the Schwartz event Stride is already dead? That's an idea I've not heard before.

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

Hi Jeff
I have to disagree, the Star itself in the same edition said that Schwartz story was not wholly accepted. I don't think they would try and embellish the story then contradict themselves in the same paper. Also the headline reads - INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT with it being halfway down.
It was the biggest breakthrough to date, if totally accurate. And they were the only paper to get wind of it.
They followed the lead but were not 100% convinced by Schwartz, but printed it just in case. Just my opinion
Regards Darryl

[JeffHamm]

Hi Andrew,

My feeling is that when Schwartz made his report to the police they asked him why he didn't intercede in an attack on a woman. He covered this for the press report by turning the pipe into a knife. Are you suggesting there were two men on the same corner outside the Nelson?

Cheers, George

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

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I agree with your suggestion. I think Pipeman was sheltering in the doorway setback to light his pipe and heard a commotion. He emerges to see a man and woman outside the gateway, with the man shouting to another man (Schwartz) on the NE corner of Berner and Fairclough. Pipeman calls out "what's going on here" and takes a few steps towards Schwartz who bolts, not looking back until some distance away when he realises he is not being followed.

That leaves BSman, Pipeman and possibly Parcelman in the vicinity of Stride only minutes before her death, as well, of course, as all the people in the Club and surrounding buildings.

I'm also about 50/50 on Stride being a JtR victim, but IMO if she is included then it is logical to also include McKenzie, and vice versa.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yah, given Schwartz's belief that B.S. and Pipeman were a pair, it's easy to see how he would view anything that looked like Pipeman coming towards him as sinister. The situation between B.S. and Stride clearly got Schwartz nervous, and the appearance of Pipeman would be just another unsettling event. Pipeman may have done nothing more than step into his view just after the Lipski shout and Schwartz, already in an agitated state takes it for the worst and gets out of there while Pipeman could have just went on his way in an entirely different direction, giving us the "B.S. is JtR". Or, he may have interacted further with B.S., leading in some cases to "Pipeman as JtR" theory, or simply moved B.S. on for "JtR comes along later" theory (perhaps parcelman as you suggest he may be around), and of course we have all of those coupled with "but X was not JtR and only killed Stride", though I think that one is a bit harder to argue for in all but the B.S. killed Stride line since finding a motive for the others, although I suppose Parcelman could be the one where an exception could be made if one speculates that he's hanging around because he's angry with her from their earlier encounter.

Regardless of where one's fancy takes them in those options, the key point really is that given Schwartz's reaction to the whole B.S. situation it is easy to see how he might have interpreted any movement by Pipeman as him being chased even if Pipeman did no such thing. Again, it suggests that while Schwartz may be recounting the events reasonably well, his interpretation of the intentions of the other people could be entirely incorrect. We would be wise to keep that in mind I think; the what happened parts of his statement seems reasonably reliable but the why it happened parts of his statement could be entirely erroneous.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Pipeman and Knifeman look different enough that I feel totally justified in asking; why do we all suppose these identities are of the same man?

Hi Andrew,

My feeling is that when Schwartz made his report to the police they asked him why he didn't intercede in an attack on a woman. He covered this for the press report by turning the pipe into a knife. Are you suggesting there were two men on the same corner outside the Nelson?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

And it was Schwartz's interpretation that Pipeman was chasing him, but if Schwartz just saw Pipeman start heading towards him, and then flees the area, Pipeman may never have gotten any faster than walking speed - so was not chasing Schwartz at all.

We don't know if Pipeman ran. We only know that Schwartz thought Pipeman was coming towards him at the call of B.S.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I agree with your suggestion. I think Pipeman was sheltering in the doorway setback to light his pipe and heard a commotion. He emerges to see a man and woman outside the gateway, with the man shouting to another man (Schwartz) on the NE corner of Berner and Fairclough. Pipeman calls out "what's going on here" and takes a few steps towards Schwartz who bolts, not looking back until some distance away when he realises he is not being followed.

That leaves BSman, Pipeman and possibly Parcelman in the vicinity of Stride only minutes before her death, as well, of course, as all the people in the Club and surrounding buildings.

I'm also about 50/50 on Stride being a JtR victim, but IMO if she is included then it is logical to also include McKenzie, and vice versa.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

The statement is saying ...

... they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Why? Because something Schwartz said didn't make sense to Abberline, who otherwise believed his story? So why had they acted at all? Clearly something has changed.

What additional facts do you suppose Leman street requires, to recommence acting on Schwartz's statement? Presumably I can answer that for myself; they need confirmation from BS man, who he said Lipski to, or at least get a second opinion on the matter from Pipeman. So when the men they are searching for, tell them what really happened, they will proceed to act further on Schwartz's statement. Somehow I don't think the police were relying on a Catch-22.

That's all rather complicated. I suspect that after making two arrests, both of which lead to the person being let go, the police realised they do not have enough information to continue arresting every tall fellow in the area. if the did locate pipeman, he may have had little to add (I went out, lit my pipe, heard a shout up the road, and headed home) completely unaware of what was going on around him, maybe didn't even take note of the jewish man rushing on ahead of him.

In other words, the information may have played out rather than have become disbelieved.

According to Schwartz, he was the only man in the street of Semitic appearance. Could the person who wrote the following marginal note, care less about was not to be doubted, according to Swanson?

Schwartz does not mention the appearance of the men to be or not to be Jewish looking so I don't know what you're basing that on? Schwartz just describes 2 other men being there, and he doesn't say they looked like Gentiles. Abberline does mention that Schwartz had a Jewish appearance, are you using that as the basis of deciding the other men must have looked non-Jewish?

The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew.

Only by not buying-in to all the particulars of Schwartz's story, could the writer of that note come to that conclusion. That is why so many people find this comment confusing - they just cannot think out of the Schwartzian square.

Don't you mean "only by buying-in ..."? the writer of the note is pointing out that Schwartz's statement implicates a Jewish offender. and if the writer of the note has read that there is no doubt as to Schwartz's statement, then why would the writer disbelieve it?

No, and I don't understand how you read it that way. The prisoner was arrested based on Schwartz's statement, yes, and the following day he is released, although that is only implicit.

So are you not surprised that Schwartz was important enough for Abberline to get involved, and interview him at length, yet Baxter was apparently uninterested?

I am unfamiliar with the evidence that shows Baxter was uninterested in Schwartz's testimony? Do you have some evidence where Baxter states his view on Schwartz?

I think you may be moving the goalposts here, Jeff. You asked me in #2915, what difference it would have made to Abberline, to know about Fanny Mortimer. If there are apparently contradictory statements by or regarding her, in the press, then what Abberline could have learned by reading her statement or interviewing her himself, cannot be determined. For all we know though, she might have seen the murdered woman thrown to the ground, taken no notice of it, and chosen to avoid mentioning it to the press.

If she did, we will never know that unless it was recorded.

We also do not know if FM ever made an official statement to the police at all. She may only have been telling her story to reporters. Packer, for example, told the police he saw nothing when they first came around. Later, he started telling his story about selling the grapes at 11 or 12, pending on the version, and claiming the police never spoke to him. Fanny likewise may have clamed up when the police did their house to house search, but was more than willing to take centre stage when the reporters were about. If she's not willing to make an official statement that is even more reason to doubt her - it's one thing to make up stories to get attention and be in the papers, it's quite another to lie to the police and while under oath at an inquest (see the "pensioner" from the Chapman case, who has to reveal he's been telling tales about himself for years and yet has to admit that at the inquest because he's been swore in).

So, given Fanny is unwilling to swear to her statements, why should we believe her?

If the prisoner (one of those two men), had been able to clear himself as being elsewhere, why do we read this about him ...?

The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

How serious was this search for a Lipski family, especially after the surrounding areas had already been thoroughly door-knocked? Didn't the Lipski as a surname hypothesis, come from the Home Office? If so, was it at least partly a political decision by Scotland Yard, to keep looking for a man of this name, and keep the HO happy?

It went on for a few weeks, so I would say it was serious, perhaps not as serious as a judge named Mr. Serious and with a degree in seriousness from the University of Serious, but I don't think they treated it flippantly and just thought "oh well, slow day, might as well ask that guy over there if he knows where the Lipski's live. No? Well, that's that then".

They had a statement, and they invested time, money, and resources in following it up. That shows they put some stock in what Schwartz had to say. Fanny, however, only appears in news stories and does not appear to have given a statement to the police. And that, perhaps, should make us wonder more about how seriously she should be taken.

When a story is altered or modified, in this case by a reinterpretation of one part of it, there are likely to be knock-on effects. If Lipski is shouted at Pipeman, and Pipeman proceeds toward Schwartz, then we have a dubious but nonetheless logical cause and effect sequence. That is, the calling of Lipski prompts Pipeman to see off the intruding Jew. Make Schwartz the recipient instead, and sure it has the specific logic of being a match to Schwartz's Jewish appearance, but in doing so, it creates another problem; there is now no reason for Pipeman to flee. If he was content watching the 'action', while smoking his pipe, his stays that way. His running off becomes an effect without any apparent cause.

He's just exited a building, quite likely in order to go home. People rarely get involved in domestic disputes they see, so why would Pipeman be expected to be different?

in other words, what reason does pipeman have to stay in the area?

And it was Schwartz's interpretation that Pipeman was chasing him, but if Schwartz just saw Pipeman start heading towards him, and then flees the area, Pipeman may never have gotten any faster than walking speed - so was not chasing Schwartz at all.

Exactly, so why did he run? Moving the recipient of Lipski from Pipeman to Schwartz, removes any reason for Pipeman to have run. Leave things Schwartz' way, and apparently the two men are together or known to each other. Yet if that is true, Pipeman must be found, and therefore he should be on the apprehensions sought list. Which of course, he isn't.

We don't know if Pipeman ran. We only know that Schwartz thought Pipeman was coming towards him at the call of B.S.

So inconsistencies in the papers regarding Fanny Mortimer, reflect badly on her, whereas inconsistencies between a paper and police interview of a witness, reflects badly on the paper. Well that is very fortunate for Israel Schwartz, I guess, and unfortunately for me, I don't have the luxury of being able to blame the papers, when they don't say what I think they should.

Well, technically inconsistences between papers reflect badly on the reliability of FM's statements. The fact she does not go to the police and make an official statement might look bad on her, but that's common even today.

So yes, it is the papers as a source of information that is questionable. And of course, an official police interview has greater reliability (in terms of recording what the person actually says, the newspapers are more prone to embellishment to sell the story).

It's not fortunate for Schwartz? How does Schwartz benefit? It is fortunate for us that we have a police record of what Schwartz says because it means we have a source of information that is more reliable than the newspapers, which are known to be unreliable. It's not the individual's themselves being considered as reliable or unreliable people, but the source of the information that we have to work from.

We might have an official police report about a witness who gives a statement. We have a reliable source for that statement. Now, we may then conclude that the statement is false - so we are pretty sure the police have recorded what the witness said, and we're pretty sure that what the witness said is false.

With the newspapers, we can't even be sure if what gets reported is actually what the person said.

A lying Schwartz and an absent Schwartz, are not necessarily the same thing. Regarding Pipeman, it was a long while back that I brought up the issue of the police apparently not looking for him, presumably because he'd been located. So no recent change there. Pipeman and Knifeman look different enough that I feel totally justified in asking; why do we all suppose these identities are of the same man?

Because there is no other mention of knifeman, but pipeman gets a mention by the police in their reports.

Correct, with the possible but unlikely exception of her seeing an assault on Stride. Interesting that you're asking me this question, given FM's witnessing of Goldstein was confirmed. Who witnessed Schwartz, BS or Pipeman?

Schwartz witnesses B.S and Pipeman
Pipeman witnesses B.S. and Schwartz
B.S. witnesses Pipeman and Schwartz

So if Pipeman was found, then pipeman witnesses B.S. and Schwartz.

So, FM is on her step when Goldstein walks by. Who witnessed FM and Goldstein?

When the use of the word 'Lipski' suggests they were. After the murder.

I've lost you here? Are you saying that during the Schwartz event Stride is already dead? That's an idea I've not heard before.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That statement is saying the doubts are about his interpretations. It's not doubting there were two men, it's showing that during questioning Schwartz's confidence that Pipeman was whom B.S. shouted Lipski at wavered. As in, Abberline asked him are you sure he wasn't shouting Lipski at you? (meaning Scwhartz), and at that point a possibility that may not have occurred to Schwartz before was presented and he responds "Well, I hadn't thought of that, maybe it was", at which point the police have every reason to doubt Schwartz's original statement. Obviously I don't know the exact flow of the interview, but that sort of thing sounds like what is being summarised here given Abberline also tells us he questioned Schwartz on that point quite carefully.

The statement is saying ...

... they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Why? Because something Schwartz said didn't make sense to Abberline, who otherwise believed his story? So why had they acted at all? Clearly something has changed.

What additional facts do you suppose Leman street requires, to recommence acting on Schwartz's statement? Presumably I can answer that for myself; they need confirmation from BS man, who he said Lipski to, or at least get a second opinion on the matter from Pipeman. So when the men they are searching for, tell them what really happened, they will proceed to act further on Schwartz's statement. Somehow I don't think the police were relying on a Catch-22.

I don't know, reports are written with different phrasing all the time because that's how language and writing worked prior to computers and form letters. In the end, it doesn't change the meaning of what was written, and what was written indicates that Schwartz's statement was not to be doubted (at least with regards to the events described, if not, as we learn from other reports, all of his interpretations about the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman).

According to Schwartz, he was the only man in the street of Semitic appearance. Could the person who wrote the following marginal note, care less about was not to be doubted, according to Swanson?

The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew.

Only by not buying-in to all the particulars of Schwartz's story, could the writer of that note come to that conclusion. That is why so many people find this comment confusing - they just cannot think out of the Schwartzian square.

Schwartz was never, to my understanding, a prisoner. Are you conflating Schwartz with the person arrested based upon Schwartz's statement?

No, and I don't understand how you read it that way. The prisoner was arrested based on Schwartz's statement, yes, and the following day he is released, although that is only implicit.

I don't know, but huge enigma sounds a bit of hyperbole to me. I think Abberline was known to be an active investigator, and while he wouldn't have interviewed every Tom, Dick, and Harry that was brought in, I think he played more than just an administrative role at times.

So are you not surprised that Schwartz was important enough for Abberline to get involved, and interview him at length, yet Baxter was apparently uninterested?

Fanny Mortimer's descriptions of what she did vary from newspaper to newspaper, so one can either pick and choose from those, or recognize that her statements are contradictory and so do not form a reliable base upon which to build a case.

I think you may be moving the goalposts here, Jeff. You asked me in #2915, what difference it would have made to Abberline, to know about Fanny Mortimer. If there are apparently contradictory statements by or regarding her, in the press, then what Abberline could have learned by reading her statement or interviewing her himself, cannot be determined. For all we know though, she might have seen the murdered woman thrown to the ground, taken no notice of it, and chosen to avoid mentioning it to the press.

The Star is not well know for its accuracy, and we know the police did continue to follow up on the Lipski families. However, if we go with the above, it might be they arrested two men, both fitting the description of Pipeman, both were able to clear themselves as being elsewhere, and so actual Pipeman was not found but they realised the descriptions were too general that they couldn't just keep arreseting all tall men in the area.

If the prisoner (one of those two men), had been able to clear himself as being elsewhere, why do we read this about him ...?

The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

Indeed, which does bring into question if the indications that Pipeman might have been located is sound - it has been suggested he may have been, but I agree that if so, the police would have discontinued their search for Lipski families. I'm not sure of the date when Pipeman is possibily identified though, so I suppose if it corresponds to the termination of the search for Lipski's then your above argument would explain why.

How serious was this search for a Lipski family, especially after the surrounding areas had already been thoroughly door-knocked? Didn't the Lipski as a surname hypothesis, come from the Home Office? If so, was it at least partly a political decision by Scotland Yard, to keep looking for a man of this name, and keep the HO happy?

Again, I don't follow your reasoning. At issue is the police belief, so Abberline's opinion, which is a belief, is what we're talking about, and Abberline's opinion was that Schwartz was probably wrong and Lipski was not shouted at Pipeman but at Schwartz. It says nothing about whether or not the police belief is correct, only that we know they were of the belief that Schwartz was not.

When a story is altered or modified, in this case by a reinterpretation of one part of it, there are likely to be knock-on effects. If Lipski is shouted at Pipeman, and Pipeman proceeds toward Schwartz, then we have a dubious but nonetheless logical cause and effect sequence. That is, the calling of Lipski prompts Pipeman to see off the intruding Jew. Make Schwartz the recipient instead, and sure it has the specific logic of being a match to Schwartz's Jewish appearance, but in doing so, it creates another problem; there is now no reason for Pipeman to flee. If he was content watching the 'action', while smoking his pipe, his stays that way. His running off becomes an effect without any apparent cause.

And if Pipeman was not the one Lipski was shouted at, then Pipeman leaving the scene at the same time Schwartz did does not mean Pipeman was in any way chasing or following Schwartz even if Schwartz interpreted him to be doing so.

Exactly, so why did he run? Moving the recipient of Lipski from Pipeman to Schwartz, removes any reason for Pipeman to have run. Leave things Schwartz' way, and apparently the two men are together or known to each other. Yet if that is true, Pipeman must be found, and therefore he should be on the apprehensions sought list. Which of course, he isn't.

Knifeman only appears in the newspaper, and appears to be some sort of garbled version of Pipeman. That garbling may have been intentional or not, but in either case there is no reason to believe there was a knifeman. Otherwise, in one telling Schwartz mentions knifeman but not pipeman, and when he mentions pipeman he omits knifeman, and coincidently, when knifeman is present and pipeman absent it is knifeman who shouts Lipski at B.S. but when Pipeman is present and knifeman absent it is B.S. who shouts Lipski at pipeman.

Given the options, I go with the statement given to the police involving pipeman and assign knifeman to newspaper fiction.

So inconsistencies in the papers regarding Fanny Mortimer, reflect badly on her, whereas inconsistencies between a paper and police interview of a witness, reflects badly on the paper. Well that is very fortunate for Israel Schwartz, I guess, and unfortunately for me, I don't have the luxury of being able to blame the papers, when they don't say what I think they should.

At least you are now acknowledging that Schwartz saw something, and that at least Pipeman was there. You also seem to believe there was even a 3rd person present, knifeman.

A lying Schwartz and an absent Schwartz, are not necessarily the same thing. Regarding Pipeman, it was a long while back that I brought up the issue of the police apparently not looking for him, presumably because he'd been located. So no recent change there. Pipeman and Knifeman look different enough that I feel totally justified in asking; why do we all suppose these identities are of the same man?

And you argue that FM is reliable and to be believed, but she saw none of this.

Correct, with the possible but unlikely exception of her seeing an assault on Stride. Interesting that you're asking me this question, given FM's witnessing of Goldstein was confirmed. Who witnessed Schwartz, BS or Pipeman?

So when do you think all of these people were present that FM missed?

- Jeff

When the use of the word 'Lipski' suggests they were. After the murder.