If Schwartz Lied ...

[Wickerman]

But the statement that he fled "incontinently to his new lodgings" cannot be strictly correct, if taken literally, because Schwartz wouldn't have been anywhere near a railway arch if he just ran straight home, and there is no railway arch between Dutfield's Yard and 22 Ellen Street.

Yes, I think we are all in agreement on your second point, it's the first that is debatable.

So, in accepting that the Star reporter got it right, we are forced to modify the very account that we are relying on, and conclude that Schwartz didn't flee directly to his new lodgings (which, for the record, I believe were his old lodgings and the proposed move had been unsuccessful) but instead ran past No. 22,......

Whether the address is his old or new address, in my view does not change the route he takes.

He still ran directly south towards the railway arches until he hit Ellen street, he must then go left or right.
He turns right (west) and, either stops at No.22 (because it's the new address), or runs past (because footsteps are still behind him) to the far end of Ellen street, then turns south again towards the railway arches, to simply put distance between the man he thought was following him. The man did not follow him this far.
He carefully retraces his steps back to No.22, the move never happened.

The fact he gave 22 Ellen street, Backchurch Lane, address to the police certainly means he can be found there in the near future, and this address on his statement indicates there was no new address on Backchurch Lane.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Schwartz felt that Pipe Man was following him is it likely that he’d have led him straight to his front door? So couldn’t he have just gone as far as those railway arches, looked back and seen that Pipe Man was no longer following him, then gone to his new lodgings?

[Wickerman]

If Schwartz felt that Pipe Man was following him is it likely that he’d have led him straight to his front door? So couldn’t he have just gone as far as those railway arches, looked back and seen that Pipe Man was no longer following him, then gone to his new lodgings?

He's dressed like he's in the theatrical business, is he the type of person to head for the nearest door he can lock - his own?
Or, hope to christ he can out run him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

He's dressed like he's in the theatrical business, is he the type of person to head for the nearest door he can lock - his own?
Or, hope to christ he can out run him?

Maybe he had a friend who lived around there so he headed for his house but he realised that Pipe Man had gone?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But the statement that he fled "incontinently to his new lodgings" cannot be strictly correct, if taken literally, because Schwartz wouldn't have been anywhere near a railway arch if he just ran straight home, and there is no railway arch between Dutfield's Yard and 22 Ellen Street.

So, in accepting that the Star reporter got it right, we are forced to modify the very account that we are relying on, and conclude that Schwartz didn't flee directly to his new lodgings (which, for the record, I believe were his old lodgings and the proposed move had been unsuccessful) but instead ran past No. 22, turned on a side street, headed south, then turned west to reach the major railway arch on Back Church Lane, which I can't help but believe was the one Swanson was referring to.

We are forced to either tweak the primary sources, or to speculate about things that are not in evidence.

No one is forcing us to anything, nor should it be a requirement that we dream up a solution to the apparent problem. The two accounts are incongruous with each other, and the geography. That is Schwartz' problem, not ours.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that Swanson was so careless to allude to a landmark unless the Home Office understood the reference; I have to think that there was an earlier report (now lost) that said something about this railway arch, and this would explain why it was relevant.

Otherwise the vagueness of Swanson's reference is really quite inexcusable.

The railway arch alluded to by Schwartz, is the default railway arch, as far as he is concerned.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Whether the address is his old or new address, in my view does not change the route he takes.

He still ran directly south towards the railway arches until he hit Ellen street, he must then go left or right.
He turns right (west) and, either stops at No.22 (because it's the new address), or runs past (because footsteps are still behind him) to the far end of Ellen street, then turns south again towards the railway arches, to simply put distance between the man he thought was following him. The man did not follow him this far.
He carefully retraces his steps back to No.22, the move never happened.

The Echo report is the new elephant in the room

The fact he gave 22 Ellen street, Backchurch Lane, address to the police certainly means he can be found there in the near future...

Yes, and that's all it has to mean

[NotBlamedForNothing]

He's dressed like he's in the theatrical business, is he the type of person to head for the nearest door he can lock - his own?

Schwartz looked that way on Sunday evening

Or, hope to christ he can out run him?

H.O. marginal note snippet:

The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

Does that sound like the man ran after Schwartz?

[Wickerman]

H.O. marginal note snippet:

The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

Does that sound like the man ran after Schwartz?

I'd hazard a guess they are talking of him being a 'murder suspect', a partner in crime with the man who assaulted Stride.
After all, the police had him down as brandishing a pipe, not a fearful weapon in most peoples eyes.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'd hazard a guess they are talking of him being a 'murder suspect', a partner in crime with the man who assaulted Stride.
After all, the police had him down as brandishing a pipe, not a fearful weapon in most peoples eyes.

A 'partner in crime' is not necessarily a murder suspect, nor is that a phrase the police would use.
If the police suspected the second man, it had to be either as a murder suspect, or as an accomplice to murder. Anderson made it clear that only the second option was a possibility, and a dubious one at that...

With ref. to yr letter &c. 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. It appears that since the Lipski case, it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.

This aligns with the Star Oct 1 account, in which it is made very clear that the second man was an accomplice to the first.
The issue coming out of RA's draft letter, is that it takes two positions that are not positively evident in Swanson's report and Abberline's later comments...

one: the name Lipski was directed at Schwartz

two: the second man was definitely supposed to be an accomplice

Anderson' draft letter is evidence that Schwartz made an additional statement, subsequent to speaking to Abberline late on the Sunday afternoon.
This aligns with Star Oct 2 account, in which we learn that the arrests based on Schwartz original statement have led to nothing, and that there will be no further investigation along the same lines, without additional evidence. It seems Schwartz was taken in for further questioning, but the discrepancies in the accounts of the prisoner(s) with that of Schwartz, were never fully explained. On the other hand, an additional statement by Schwartz would seem to explain RA's reference to the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The Echo report again, plus a bit from Arbeter Fraint...

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.
At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body.

The usual understanding of Schwartz in relation to the IWMES, is that he was a non-member, with no connection to the club or its members. A less common view is that Schwartz was an unidentified member. Is there another possibility? According to Woolf Wess:

• the murderer had no doubt been interrupted, as...
• about 12:45 he was seen being chased along Fairclough street
• unspecified members of the public regarded the man pursued to have been the murderer
• the man pursued escaped his pursuer
• the pursuer, like the public witnesses, had no connection to the club, and...
• Wess cannot even remember the pursuers name
• Arbeter Fraint, Oct 5, agrees with the ~12:45 murder time, without explaining how they could know that that precisely, given...
• the body was not discovered until 1am

What does all this add up to, if not an attempt to scapegoat Schwartz?
Put another way, which of the above points would you change, to make it look more like Schwartz was the murderer, without making it too obvious that the club was pointing the finger at him, by claiming a member did the chasing, and/or were amongst the witnesses?
Yet to be able to scapegoat Schwartz, they must know about his story by the time Wess was talking to the Echo reporter, which seems to have been about the same time (late Sunday afternoon) that Schwartz was talking to Abberline. Did Wess regard Schwartz as expendable?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Echo report again, plus a bit from Arbeter Fraint...

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.
At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body.

The usual understanding of Schwartz in relation to the IWMES, is that he was a non-member, with no connection to the club or its members. A less common view is that Schwartz was an unidentified member. Is there another possibility? According to Woolf Wess:

• the murderer had no doubt been interrupted, as...
• about 12:45 he was seen being chased along Fairclough street
• unspecified members of the public regarded the man pursued to have been the murderer
• the man pursued escaped his pursuer
• the pursuer, like the public witnesses, had no connection to the club, and...
• Wess cannot even remember the pursuers name
• Arbeter Fraint, Oct 5, agrees with the ~12:45 murder time, without explaining how they could know that that precisely, given...
• the body was not discovered until 1am

What does all this add up to, if not an attempt to scapegoat Schwartz?
Put another way, which of the above points would you change, to make it look more like Schwartz was the murderer, without making it too obvious that the club was pointing the finger at him, by claiming a member did the chasing, and/or were amongst the witnesses?
Yet to be able to scapegoat Schwartz, they must know about his story by the time Wess was talking to the Echo reporter, which seems to have been about the same time (late Sunday afternoon) that Schwartz was talking to Abberline. Did Wess regard Schwartz as expendable?

So you’re now weaving a further conspiracy into conspiracy central. You’re over-complicating things over a few transcription errors or press exaggerations or misheard rumours.

[caz]

A 'partner in crime' is not necessarily a murder suspect, nor is that a phrase the police would use.
If the police suspected the second man, it had to be either as a murder suspect, or as an accomplice to murder. Anderson made it clear that only the second option was a possibility, and a dubious one at that...

With ref. to yr letter &c. 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. It appears that since the Lipski case, it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.

This aligns with the Star Oct 1 account, in which it is made very clear that the second man was an accomplice to the first.
The issue coming out of RA's draft letter, is that it takes two positions that are not positively evident in Swanson's report and Abberline's later comments...

one: the name Lipski was directed at Schwartz

two: the second man was definitely supposed to be an accomplice

Anderson' draft letter is evidence that Schwartz made an additional statement, subsequent to speaking to Abberline late on the Sunday afternoon.
This aligns with Star Oct 2 account, in which we learn that the arrests based on Schwartz original statement have led to nothing, and that there will be no further investigation along the same lines, without additional evidence. It seems Schwartz was taken in for further questioning, but the discrepancies in the accounts of the prisoner(s) with that of Schwartz, were never fully explained. On the other hand, an additional statement by Schwartz would seem to explain RA's reference to the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest.

I may be wrong, but are you not reading too much into this, NBFN?

It was Schwartz who had initially 'supposed' [thought/believed] that Pipeman was BS man's accomplice, and for two reasons: firstly, he assumed BS man was addressing Pipeman by the name Lipski, and they were therefore known to one another; and secondly, he thought Pipeman was helping BS man by chasing him away from the scene of the assault. You can see this more clearly if you expand on the wording slightly:

'With ref. to yr letter &c. 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 man Schwartz had supposed was an accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that since the Lipski case, it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.'

In other words, the opinion arrived at by the police was that Schwartz had misunderstood the situation, and the epithet was aimed at him, due to his strong Jewish appearance, in which case Pipeman was likely to have been a mere bystander, who followed Schwartz's example by leaving the quarrelling couple to it.

Schwartz admitted to Abberline, under close questioning, that he couldn't say who BS man was addressing as Lipski, nor could he tell whether Pipeman was running after him or not. He may still have suspected the former, and said as much to Star man, not wanting to be thought a cowardy custard for becoming alarmed and running away for no good reason. But the police, after questioning him [and possibly finding Pipeman and talking to him, though not necessarily], formed the view that BS man was acting alone, and was seen by two innocent, independent witnesses.

I do give some credit to the police, particularly Abberline, who knew the territory and his job so well, to sort out who could safely be eliminated from suspicion and who should remain a person of interest until further notice.

[Wickerman]

The Echo report again, plus a bit from Arbeter Fraint...

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.
At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body.

The usual understanding of Schwartz in relation to the IWMES, is that he was a non-member, with no connection to the club or its members. A less common view is that Schwartz was an unidentified member. Is there another possibility? According to Woolf Wess:

• the murderer had no doubt been interrupted, as...
• about 12:45 he was seen being chased along Fairclough street
• unspecified members of the public regarded the man pursued to have been the murderer
• the man pursued escaped his pursuer
• the pursuer, like the public witnesses, had no connection to the club, and...
• Wess cannot even remember the pursuers name
• Arbeter Fraint, Oct 5, agrees with the ~12:45 murder time, without explaining how they could know that that precisely, given...
• the body was not discovered until 1am

What does all this add up to, if not an attempt to scapegoat Schwartz?
Put another way, which of the above points would you change, to make it look more like Schwartz was the murderer, without making it too obvious that the club was pointing the finger at him, by claiming a member did the chasing, and/or were amongst the witnesses?
Yet to be able to scapegoat Schwartz, they must know about his story by the time Wess was talking to the Echo reporter, which seems to have been about the same time (late Sunday afternoon) that Schwartz was talking to Abberline. Did Wess regard Schwartz as expendable?

Schwartz didn't run east on Fairclough, he ran south towards his lodgings at 22 Ellen street.
The Fairclough runners were Diemschutz & Kozebrodski, as heard by Marshall, Brown & Spooner.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I may be wrong, but are you not reading too much into this, NBFN?

This is such a conservative place that your question really goes without saying.

It was Schwartz who had initially 'supposed' [thought/believed] that Pipeman was BS man's accomplice, and for two reasons: firstly, he assumed BS man was addressing Pipeman by the name Lipski, and they were therefore known to one another; and secondly, he thought Pipeman was helping BS man by chasing him away from the scene of the assault. You can see this more clearly if you expand on the wording slightly:

'With ref. to yr letter &c. 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 man Schwartz had supposed was an accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that since the Lipski case, it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.'

You can also see this more clearly if you read the Star report - as I (and others) have pointed out many times.

In other words, the opinion arrived at by the police was that Schwartz had misunderstood the situation, and the epithet was aimed at him, due to his strong Jewish appearance, in which case Pipeman was likely to have been a mere bystander, who followed Schwartz's example by leaving the quarrelling couple to it.

What did I say in #1212...?

Now this may be the opinion of the department, rather than of Schwartz himself, but the evidence we have today does not suggest what Anderson is saying here. It is as though Schwartz had changed his mind. So when was this apparently new position of Schwartz presented, on which the Dept. had come to the position stated in Anderson's draft? Was it indeed at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case? That can't be though, can it? Schwartz wasn't at the inquest. No he wasn't, but was his evidence presented nonetheless?

Schwartz admitted to Abberline, under close questioning, that he couldn't say who BS man was addressing as Lipski, nor could he tell whether Pipeman was running after him or not. He may still have suspected the former, and said as much to Star man, not wanting to be thought a cowardy custard for becoming alarmed and running away for no good reason. But the police, after questioning him [and possibly finding Pipeman and talking to him, though not necessarily], formed the view that BS man was acting alone, and was seen by two innocent, independent witnesses.

How could the police have formed that view after speaking only to Schwartz, who was adamant that the second man was an accomplice? Did they decide Schwartz was deluded or lying, or had they identified Pipeman, who contradicted Schwartz' accomplice notion?

My point regarding Anderson's draft letter, is that the position arrived at is not compatible with either Swanson's report, or Abberline's post-interview comments. As both of these are directly related to Abberline's interviewing of Schwartz, I think it is reasonable to suggest that Schwartz made subsequent official comments. This also seems to tie in nicely with the notion of this evidence being presented at the inquest (albeit unknown to the press), and being referred to at the inquest by the foreman. Regarding this point, the alternative must be that Anderson was mistaken in his belief that Schwartz had anything to do with the inquest, or that he was lying - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...478#post754478

I do give some credit to the police, particularly Abberline, who knew the territory and his job so well, to sort out who could safely be eliminated from suspicion and who should remain a person of interest until further notice.

Abberline thought the two men may have both fled in fear - one after gawking at the altercation at close range, before calmly crossing the road and continuing, the other after having calmly lit a pipe, on the next corner. A ludicrous suggestion.
The alternative within the Schwartz story is obviously that the man was chasing Schwartz away - an accomplice. In that case, please explain the Star, Oct 2 report, and the H.O. comment about the police not suspecting the 2nd man.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz didn't run east on Fairclough, he ran south towards his lodgings at 22 Ellen street.

Then I guess the Star report was more accurate than Swanson's

The Fairclough runners were Diemschutz & Kozebrodski, as heard by Marshall, Brown & Spooner.

Did Kozebrodski 'escape' Diemschitz?