If Schwartz Lied ...

[Abby Normal]

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.

thats possible. or perhaps schwartz made up pipe/knifeman to help make up for his less than brave behavior

[Wickerman]

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.

Yes, I checked in the Police Code. Mon-Fri they closed at 12:30 am. Sat close at 12:00 midnight, on Sunday at 10:30 pm.

If Pipeman/Knifeman was an employee, why rush out and chase a perfect stranger down the street?
Bad day?
It's not like Schwartz was trying to get a drink after hours...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The interpreter may be the cause of any confusion.

Mortimer thought she were on her doorstep for nearly all of half an hour - confused.
Schwartz thought 'Lipski' had been directed to the second man - confused.
Schwartz was adamant that the second man was an accomplice to the first - confused.
Some unknown witnesses thought LD & IK running for police at 1am, was actually a man pursuing the murderer at 12:45 - confused.
The Star man couldn't correctly interpret Schwartz' account - confused.
Mortimer thought she saw black bag man in the vicinity of Dutfield's Yard, after previously seeing him walk down the street - confused.
Smith thought he had proceeded to Berner street at 1am - confused.
Smith couldn't work out what type of hat parcel man was wearing - confused.
Diemschitz and Kozebrodski witnessed grapes in Stride's hand - confused.
Anderson thought the evidence of Schwartz was presented at the inquest - confused.

All these people were confused about what they saw, did, what time it was, how they interpreted events, and what they believed to be true.
So says the modern investigator. Or is it actually the modern investigator who is confused?

The 'Secretary' story is hearsay.

Hearsay that your misinterpreted chase theory relies on

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I've asked myself the same question.

Currently, that places you in a minority.

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.

Ripperology 101. Still has to be mentioned, for some reason.

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.

Of course, there is nothing to wonder if the whole chase scene is regarded as fiction. The neighbourhood was spoken to by Reid and his men. No one heard anything suspicious.
As the environment I'm in requires a Schwartz-friendly interpretation to be taken seriously, then I would suggest that 22 Ellen street was not Schwartz' address - merely a place he could (and probably was) found. His real address may have been quite close to one of the nearby railway arches.

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?

Hello Mr Spooner, would you mind going around to Dutfield's Yard? We have a medical situation there we need help with. Meanwhile I'm going to keep chasing Isaacs's here. The little f***er just killed someone!

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.

How did Wess know of the Schwartz incident?
Why did Wess speak of witnesses that we never hear from?
Why does Wess seemingly want to throw Schwartz under a hansom cab?

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.

I've read several of the older threads. There was less emphasis on orthodox opinion, not many years ago.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Nor is there any reason for him not to run east on Fairclough, and thus make sense of the Echo report.

... but just as he stepped from the kerb ...

... there was a man standing on the corner of Christian & Fairclough streets, who can have no impact on which way Schwartz decides to run.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is how I interpreted each account, a little while back...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/5179-schwartz-a-fraud?p=750186#post750186

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/5179-schwartz-a-fraud?p=750194#post750194

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?

Why not just let Schwartz continue on his way? Indeed.

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?

How could the two men be acting together, if Schwartz had followed one of them down Berner street?

Or is there a third option?

The behaviour of Pipeman was radically different to that described by Schwartz.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

thats possible. or perhaps schwartz made up pipe/knifeman to help make up for his less than brave behavior

How does it make up for it?

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...

If that were the end of the story, Schwartz has already been cowardly.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What happens if there is no Pipe/Knifeman?

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

He continues on down Berner street, until he reaches the old address.
Then we are left with a simple assault...

The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

Not only does no one flee the scene, according to this statement, the incident hardly raises an eyebrow.
Yet Schwartz is very keen for it to be regarded that the second man is an accomplice to the man involved in the assault.
Then we have Wess in the Echo report, suggesting that the man pursued was the regarded by multiple witnesses to have been the murderer.
So plenty of finger pointing going on, and somehow I don't think the situation was as innocent and misconstrued as people would like to believe.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Mortimer thought she saw black bag man in the vicinity of Dutfield's Yard, after previously seeing him walk down the street - confused.

I knew that you’d continue to peddle that one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mortimer thought she were on her doorstep for nearly all of half an hour - confused.
Schwartz thought 'Lipski' had been directed to the second man - confused.
Schwartz was adamant that the second man was an accomplice to the first - confused.
Some unknown witnesses thought LD & IK running for police at 1am, was actually a man pursuing the murderer at 12:45 - confused.
The Star man couldn't correctly interpret Schwartz' account - confused.
Mortimer thought she saw black bag man in the vicinity of Dutfield's Yard, after previously seeing him walk down the street - confused.
Smith thought he had proceeded to Berner street at 1am - confused.
Smith couldn't work out what type of hat parcel man was wearing - confused.
Diemschitz and Kozebrodski witnessed grapes in Stride's hand - confused.
Anderson thought the evidence of Schwartz was presented at the inquest - confused.

All these people were confused about what they saw, did, what time it was, how they interpreted events, and what they believed to be true.
So says the modern investigator. Or is it actually the modern investigator who is confused?



Hearsay that your misinterpreted chase theory relies on

All to be expected in a case like this. As ever your making mountains out of unimportant molehills.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How did Wess know of the Schwartz incident?

Someone told him.

Why did Wess speak of witnesses that we never hear from?

Don’t know. It’s unimportant.

Why does Wess seemingly want to throw Schwartz under a hansom cab?

He doesn’t. He simply relays what he’s heard.

There was no cover-up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What happens if there is no Pipe/Knifeman?

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

He continues on down Berner street, until he reaches the old address.
Then we are left with a simple assault...

The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

Not only does no one flee the scene, according to this statement, the incident hardly raises an eyebrow.
Yet Schwartz is very keen for it to be regarded that the second man is an accomplice to the man involved in the assault.
Then we have Wess in the Echo report, suggesting that the man pursued was the regarded by multiple witnesses to have been the murderer.
So plenty of finger pointing going on, and somehow I don't think the situation was as innocent and misconstrued as people would like to believe.

Of course you don’t. You are a Conspiracy Theorist and you continue to get an unbelievable mileage out of nothing. There was no cover-up. Nothing points to a cover-up. Not even a hint or suggestion.

It would be nice to move away from Fantasy Island for a change but but you’ve got a whole life tenancy.

[Fiver]

Mortimer thought she were on her doorstep for nearly all of half an hour - confused.
Schwartz thought 'Lipski' had been directed to the second man - confused.
Schwartz was adamant that the second man was an accomplice to the first - confused.
Some unknown witnesses thought LD & IK running for police at 1am, was actually a man pursuing the murderer at 12:45 - confused.
The Star man couldn't correctly interpret Schwartz' account - confused.
Mortimer thought she saw black bag man in the vicinity of Dutfield's Yard, after previously seeing him walk down the street - confused.
Smith thought he had proceeded to Berner street at 1am - confused.
Smith couldn't work out what type of hat parcel man was wearing - confused.
Diemschitz and Kozebrodski witnessed grapes in Stride's hand - confused.
Anderson thought the evidence of Schwartz was presented at the inquest - confused.

* According to accounts in the newspapers, Mortimer was on her doorstep for nearly half an hour or for about ten minutes, so clearly at least one of the accounts is confused on the time.
* The police at the time concluded that Schwartz was confused when he thought "Lipski" was directed at Pipeman.
* The police at the time concluded that Schwartz was confused when he thought Pipeman was an accompice of BSman.
* If you believe the reported chase was an inaccurate description of LD and IK, then someone was confused. If you believe the reported chase was and inaccurate description of Schwartz and Pipeman, then someone was confused. If you believe the chase never happened, then someone was confused.
* The Star reporter's account of what Schwartz said contradicts the police report of what Schwartz said, so clearly at least one of those accounts is confused on those points.
* According to accounts in the newspapers, Mortimer saw the man with the bag once, but disagreed on what direction he was going. Clearly at least one of those accounts is confused about the direction. And you are confused about how many times Mortimer said she saw Bagman.
* PC Smith thought he entered Berner Street at 1am. This is clearly an estimate, not a sign of confusion.
* PC Smith said the man he saw was wearing "a dark felt deerstalker's hat". That might be incorrect - Smith only saw the man briefly in poor lighting, but that does not mean Smith was confused.
* Diemschutz did not mention grapes in his inquest testimony.
* Kozebrodski did not testify at the inquest.
* We have records of the inquest. They do not include any testimony from Schwartz, so Anderson was confused if he thought Schwartz testified at the inquest.

All these people were confused about what they saw, did, what time it was, how they interpreted events, and what they believed to be true.
So says the modern investigator. Or is it actually the modern investigator who is confused?

So far, the only modern investigator who seems confused is you. When accounts contradict each other, clearly someone from the time is confused. When period police concluded a witness was confused, that is not on modern investigator reading things into the account.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

* According to accounts in the newspapers, Mortimer was on her doorstep for nearly half an hour or for about ten minutes, so clearly at least one of the accounts is confused on the time.
* The police at the time concluded that Schwartz was confused when he thought "Lipski" was directed at Pipeman.
* The police at the time concluded that Schwartz was confused when he thought Pipeman was an accompice of BSman.
* If you believe the reported chase was an inaccurate description of LD and IK, then someone was confused. If you believe the reported chase was and inaccurate description of Schwartz and Pipeman, then someone was confused. If you believe the chase never happened, then someone was confused.
* The Star reporter's account of what Schwartz said contradicts the police report of what Schwartz said, so clearly at least one of those accounts is confused on those points.
* According to accounts in the newspapers, Mortimer saw the man with the bag once, but disagreed on what direction he was going. Clearly at least one of those accounts is confused about the direction. And you are confused about how many times Mortimer said she saw Bagman.
* PC Smith thought he entered Berner Street at 1am. This is clearly an estimate, not a sign of confusion.
* PC Smith said the man he saw was wearing "a dark felt deerstalker's hat". That might be incorrect - Smith only saw the man briefly in poor lighting, but that does not mean Smith was confused.
* Diemschutz did not mention grapes in his inquest testimony.
* Kozebrodski did not testify at the inquest.
* We have records of the inquest. They do not include any testimony from Schwartz, so Anderson was confused if he thought Schwartz testified at the inquest.

Ripperological Mythology at its finest

So far, the only modern investigator who seems confused is you. When accounts contradict each other, clearly someone from the time is confused. When period police concluded a witness was confused, that is not on modern investigator reading things into the account.

Let me tell you something I am confused about. D-I Reid made these comments at the inquest:

Inquiries were made in the street at the different houses, and no person could be found who heard any disturbance during the night. ...
Since then the police engaged in the inquiry had made house to house inquiry in the immediate neighbourhood, with the result that we have been able to produce the witnesses which have appeared before you.

So the result of the house to house inquiry was that people such as Spooner, Marshall and Brown appeared at the inquest. Not one person spoken to by Reid's men, mentioned witnessing the murderer being chased from the scene. How is it that Wess could be told of witness reports of such a thing, but not Reid?
Not one person in the neighbourhood supported Schwartz' claim to have run from the scene and all the way to the railway arch, pursued part of the way by another man. While I'm confused about this - and no doubt you'll be able to help with that - my gut feeling is that there was no chase.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How is it that Wess could be told of witness reports of such a thing, but not Reid?

Because the person that told Wess didn’t tell Reid?