If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Can you imagine Israel being happy with Woolf's comments to the Echo? Neither can I. So what was the motivation for making them?
Clearly the murderer disturbed in his work theory, suits Wess down to the ground, and both the timing and description of the man pursued story are so uncannily similar to Schwartz' story of having been pursued by a man who does not follow him as far as the railway arch, that it cannot be explained away as easily as you would like it be.
So the question that begs, is; why would Wess scapegoat a fellow a Jew, if he did not believe that man to have been the murderer?

[Wickerman]

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

The interpreter may be the cause of any confusion.

Did Kozebrodski 'escape' Diemschitz?

The 'Secretary' story is hearsay.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can you imagine Israel being happy with Woolf's comments to the Echo? Neither can I. So what was the motivation for making them?
Clearly the murderer disturbed in his work theory, suits Wess down to the ground, and both the timing and description of the man pursued story are so uncannily similar to Schwartz' story of having been pursued by a man who does not follow him as far as the railway arch, that it cannot be explained away as easily as you would like it be.
So the question that begs, is; why would Wess scapegoat a fellow a Jew, if he did not believe that man to have been the murderer?

How is he scapegoating him if he’s simply repeating what he’s heard?

[caz]

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.

Only ludicrous when you use theatrical language to make it so. People tend to do things 'calmly' right up until the second when someone's behaviour becomes a cause for concern - for example, when BS man involves a third party by shouting "Lipski" at one of the witnesses. But that's beside the point. You only have one witness describing the scene, and you have all sorts of problems with how he described it to Abberline, and how the Star reported it, yet you seem to think that Abberline was told about two men acting 'calmly' but also fleeing in fear, and should therefore have seen this as a flat contradiction and got to the bottom of it, but didn't.

Do you know how the whole conversation went, when Abberline was closely questioning Schwartz, with the aid of an interpreter?

Do you know that Pipeman did not come forward with details of the same incident, confirming the opinion that Lipski was directed at Schwartz, and clearing up Schwartz's confusion?

[rjpalmer]

Did Kozebrodski 'escape' Diemschitz?

I've asked myself the same question.

The Secretary, presumably Woolf Wess, alludes to a man being chased by another man at 12.45 a.m.--fifteen minutes before Stride's body was discovered---but he escapes. That same day, Schwartz comes forward and tells fundamentally the same story, revealing he was the man being chased. He also states this chase happened at 12:45 a.m.

Nowhere does Schwartz actually reveal the route he took; one account, The Star, states that he ran to his 'new' lodgings, but at the same time alludes to his lodgings being in Back Church Lane--which may or may not mean Ellen Street and which may or may not be his 'new' lodgings as opposed to his 'old' lodgings. It probably means Ellen Street, but there is room for nagging doubt, for the other account, Swanson's report to the Home Office, alludes to a railway arch, which doesn't fit a man running straight to Ellen Street, but makes a heck of a lot more sense had Schwartz turned west on Fairclough when he first saw he was being followed and then ran straight down Back Church Lane to the railway arch. On the other hand, most of the houses down toward the arch had been demolished by 1888 to make room for a coal depot, etc. so it leaves us wondering where the heck Schwartz may have been heading.

What those who don't think Wess was alluding to Schwartz want us to believe is that two men, or quite possibly three men, running (jogging?) for a constable, and quite probably stopping and glancing up side streets, and yelling "Politsyant!" at the top of there lungs at 1:03 a.m. (nearly twenty minutes after the time of the alleged chase, and after the body was discovered), was being misinterpreted as one man chasing another man and escaping, even though the two men running (Kozebrodski and Diemschitz) returned together with Spooner. How did this unidentified witness know the man had escaped? And how could he have so badly misinterpreted as this having taken place fully fifteen minutes before the body had been discovered?

I don't find it a very compelling suggestion. Woolf Wess was clearly aware that club members had went in search of a constable, and that it had taken them nearly 15 minutes to find one--because The Echo report alludes to it in almost the same breath that it mentions this earlier 'chase.' Further, Kozebrodski and Diemschitz were club members, and Wess states the man giving chase wasn't.

It's hearsay, but hearsay doesn't easily go away if it seemingly aligns with other sources. Either way, stating the chase on Fairclough was definitely Kozebrodski and Diemschitz running for a policeman is overly confident. It is clearly an interpretation. It shouldn't be stated as an ascertained fact.

Personally, I don't attach any suspicion to Schwartz. At the same time, I tend to believe that Wess is alluding to Schwartz, and I think Schwartz's behavior may have been initially considered suspicious.

If you go back and read the posts from some years ago, when The Echo report was first being discussed, you'll find that many level-headed and what you call 'conservative' theorists also accepted that the secretary was referring to Schwartz. The 'misinterpreted search' theory was a later development that gained traction.

[Wickerman]

Nowhere does Schwartz actually reveal the route he took; one account, The Star, states that he ran to his 'new' lodgings, but at the same time alludes to his lodgings being in Back Church Lane--which may or may not mean Ellen Street and which may or may not be his 'new' lodgings as opposed to his 'old' lodgings. It probably means Ellen Street, but there is room for nagging doubt, for the other account, Swanson's report to the Home Office, alludes to a railway arch, which doesn't fit a man running straight to Ellen Street, but makes a heck of a lot more sense had Schwartz turned west on Fairclough when he first saw he was being followed and then ran straight down Back Church Lane to the railway arch. On the other hand, most of the houses down toward the arch had been demolished by 1888 to make room for a coal depot, etc. so it leaves us wondering where the heck Schwartz may have been heading.

RJ, when Schwartz first passed Dutfields Yard (on west side of Berner St.), do you accept he crossed the road to the east side, at which point he noticed this pipeman/knifeman step out from the corner beer retailer (on the west side)?

Do you accept Schwartz was concerned, possibly even startled by both events (the assault & the sudden appearance of another man), happening so quick together?

If so, how do you explain Schwartz, in your view, would have to run at the stranger to pass him to run west on Fairclough, as opposed to a more obvious reaction in my view to run either east away from contention, or directly south?

I can't think of a reason he would run in the direction of the man he claims was chasing him - that makes no sense to me at all.

[Fiver]

Edward Spooner said he had left a "public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight", then walked to the " outside the Beehive Public- house, at the corner of Christian-street". Does that mean the Beehive had also closed at midnight? Was there any sort of legal standard about what time pubs had to close?

If there was, then Pipeman leaving "the doorway of the public-house" at 12:45am would probably be an employee of that pub going home after sweeping up after close. If so, it might make Pipeman easier to identify.

[Wickerman]

Edward Spooner said he had left a "public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight", then walked to the " outside the Beehive Public- house, at the corner of Christian-street". Does that mean the Beehive had also closed at midnight? Was there any sort of legal standard about what time pubs had to close?

If there was, then Pipeman leaving "the doorway of the public-house" at 12:45am would probably be an employee of that pub going home after sweeping up after close. If so, it might make Pipeman easier to identify.

Pubs closed at midnight by municipal order.
The man stepped out of the doorway of No.46, not out of the pub.
It's quite common for anyone lighting a pipe to step into a doorway for momentary shelter to light the pipe.

[rjpalmer]

RJ, when Schwartz first passed Dutfields Yard (on west side of Berner St.), do you accept he crossed the road to the east side, at which point he noticed this pipeman/knifeman step out from the corner beer retailer (on the west side)?

I don't entirely accept that the Pipe Smoker was standing outside the pub.

It would help if Swanson wasn't such a clumsy, ambiguous writer.

"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he [Schwartz]saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road "Lipski" & then Schwartz walked away..."

This can be interpreted two ways.

The Star had it right, and the Pipe Smoker was on the same side of the street as the man assaulting Stride, and Swanson is imagining the scene from Schwartz's perspective...or....

The Star had it wrong, and the Pipe Smoker was actually on the opposite side of the street (Brown's man by the Board School) and thus the "man who threw the woman down called to the man on the opposite side of the road..."

The pub, or the beer retailer, wasn't on the opposite side of the road from Dutfield's Yard. So which is it?

I admit that Schwartz's maneuver at this point is clumsy. I, too, have trouble seeing it. But it could be that he crossed Fairclough, planning to continue south to Ellen, just as he saw the Pipe Smoker lurching towards him, and, thinking better of it, started walking west on Fairclough on the southside of the street towards Back Church Lane, and started running a few moments later.

But nothing is entirely clear, and sometimes I'd like to slap Swanson alongside the head.

One thing about it, if your interpretation is correct, doesn't it imply that Pipeman really was chasing Schwartz? If Schwartz really did continue south and then zig-zagged into Ellen, and then blew past his own lodgings to reach a railway arch, he must have been damn well convinced that he was being chased.

[rjpalmer]

And let me just add to the above...

Why would the Pipe Smoker be this adamant about chasing down a man who had simply witnessed an assault?

What would that imply? That Schwartz saw something wasn't suppose to see, or that Schwartz himself was suspected of playing a part in assaulting the woman?

Or is there a third option?

[Wickerman]

I don't entirely accept that the Pipe Smoker was standing outside the pub.

It would help if Swanson wasn't such a clumsy, ambiguous writer.

"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he [Schwartz]saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road "Lipski" & then Schwartz walked away..."

Yes, though when related through Schwartz's eyes, he crossed the street so the man coming out of the doorway is on the opposite side to Schwartz. As it is Schwartz who changed position from being on the same side, to now being on the opposite side.
As Schwartz is the one telling the story, we cannot view the incident from the eyes of the victim. We must view his story through his eyes.

This can be interpreted two ways.

The Star had it right, and the Pipe Smoker was on the same side of the street as the man assaulting Stride, and Swanson is imagining the scene from Schwartz's perspective...or....

The Star had it wrong, and the Pipe Smoker was actually on the opposite side of the street (Brown's man by the Board School) and thus the "man who threw the woman down called to the man on the opposite side of the road..."

But there was no "doorway of a public house" on the boardschool side, which should eliminate that interpretation.

I don't see a struggle with the interpretation, what I do see is a struggle to make Schwartz run west at that point, straight at the man he is so concerned about.

[Wickerman]

Let me just merge two posts together for the next point.

One thing about it, if your interpretation is correct, doesn't it imply that Pipeman really was chasing Schwartz? If Schwartz really did continue south and then zig-zagged into Ellen, and then blew past his own lodgings to reach a railway arch, he must have been damn well convinced that he was being chased.

And...

And let me just add to the above...

Why would the Pipe Smoker be this adamant about chasing down a man who had simply witnessed an assault?

What would that imply? That Schwartz saw something wasn't suppose to see, or that Schwartz himself was suspected of playing a part in assaulting the woman?

Or is there a third option?

For the longest time, many years in fact, I had never accepted Stride as a Ripper victim.
Only in the past few years have I come around to accepting the possibility, in large part due to the statements of Gardiner & Best.
I still can't say I'm 100% convinced, what is always at the back of my mind is the later assault on Rose Mylett by two men who had the appearance of sailors.

Charles Ptolomey stated:
"....I noticed two sailors. The shorter one was speaking to the deceased, and the tall one was walking up and down. So strange did it seem that I stopped and 'took account' of them. Then I heard the woman say several times "No! no! no!" and the short sailor spoke in a low tone. The tall one was about 5ft 11in. He looked like a Yankee. The shorter one was about 5ft 7in. It struck me that they were there for no purpose, and that was the reason I took so much notice of their movements."

And another..
"Ptolomey has given the police authorities a full description of the men's appearance, and says that, though in other respects they were dressed as seamen, one had a fur cap, drawn partly over his face, while the other wore a round black hat."

Were these two characters Pipeman & BS-man?

[Scott Nelson]

This can be interpreted two ways.

The Star had it right, and the Pipe Smoker was on the same side of the street as the man assaulting Stride, and Swanson is imagining the scene from Schwartz's perspective...or....

The Star had it wrong, and the Pipe Smoker was actually on the opposite side of the street (Brown's man by the Board School) and thus the "man who threw the woman down called to the man on the opposite side of the road..."

I believe, if I remember correctly, that Stewart Evans preferred the latter interpretation.

[Fiver]

Pubs closed at midnight by municipal order.
The man stepped out of the doorway of No.46, not out of the pub.
It's quite common for anyone lighting a pipe to step into a doorway for momentary shelter to light the pipe.

Thank you for confirming that the pubs closed at midnight.

Pipeman might have just ducked into the doorway to light up out of the wind. But the account given does not rule out the possibility that Pipeman might have been a pub employee who had just finished locking up after close. Some accounts claim Pipeman had a knife, and knives with blunt, rounded tips are used to clean the bowls of pipes.

[Fiver]

And let me just add to the above...

Why would the Pipe Smoker be this adamant about chasing down a man who had simply witnessed an assault?

What would that imply? That Schwartz saw something wasn't suppose to see, or that Schwartz himself was suspected of playing a part in assaulting the woman?

Or is there a third option?

Here is a possible scenario.

BSman shouts "Lipski" just as Pipeman steps out of the doorway. Schwartz misinterprets this as BSman and Pipeman are working together and starts to back away. Pipeman misinterprets the shout as an accusation against Schwartz for having mistreated the woman with BSman. Pipeman also misinterprets Schwartz' backing off as a sign of Schwartz' guilt and continues to walk forward. This reinforces Schwartz' misinterpretation and he retreats even faster. Schwartz' retreat reinforces Pipeman's misinterpretation and Pipeman continues to pursue. Before long you have a full speed chase with both Scwartz and Pipeman thinking the other is the bad guy.