If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There are couple of points in the Star's Oct 2 reporting of the police's efforts, that are worth noting.

All their efforts to get a tangible clue on which to work have been futile. Inquiry at the Bishops-gate and Leman-street police-stations this morning developed the fact that there was NO CLUE WHATEVER.
The threads that had been taken up on the possible chance of their leading to something tangible have been laid down again. It is but fair to say that the police have clutched eagerly at every straw that promised to help them out, but there is nothing left to work on. People have come forward by scores to furnish the description of a man they had seen with some woman near the scene, and not a great while before the commission of one or the other of SUNDAY MORNING'S CRIMES, but no two of the descriptions are alike, and none of the accompanying information has thus far been able to bear investigation. In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. 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. If every man should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them. There are many people in that district who volunteer information to the police on the principle of securing lenient treatment for their own offences, and there are others who turn in descriptions on the chance of coming near enough the mark to claim a portion of the reward if the man should be caught, just as one buys a ticket in a lottery. Even where such information is given in good faith, it can rarely be looked upon in the light of a clue.

As both double event crimes are being referred to, we could reasonably suppose that no two of the descriptions being alike, would include the following.

At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street - A MAN, age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

At 1.35 a.m., 30th September, with Catherine Eddows, in Church-passage, leading to Mitre-square, where she was found murdered at 1.45 a.m., same date - A MAN, age 30, height 5 ft. 7 or 8 in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor.

The other obvious point being that none of the stories of the numerous people who had come forward, claiming to see a man and woman near either scene and prior to the crime, have stood up to subsequent investigation. This is an important point, because it suggests that more than one of these reports from the public were acted on, implying that they were initially taken seriously. This of course includes 'the Hungarian'.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It doesn't say there were doubts being held by lower ranked police.

True - we rely on the Star's reporting for that. That still leaves us to ponder Swanson's wording. Do you suppose he had good reason for explicitly expressing faith in Schwartz's statement? I would have thought that "if Schwartz is to be believed", there would be no reason to mention it.

Rather, it points out that the report, which would be based upon the most information available (direct interview with Schwartz, etc), indicates there is no doubt. While those with less information might hold doubts, the opinions of those not fully informed are immaterial with regards to the statement. The statement explicitly says there are no doubts held by those police (the report) who are in the best position to form an opinion.

If the report consisted primarily of Abberline's interview notes, and perhaps not anything originating from lower ranked police, then on what basis can we say that it was written by those who were 'fully informed', and thus in the best position to form an opinion? There may be another reference to the timing of Schwartz's police station visit, but the Star tells us it was late on the Sunday afternoon. The reference to Leman street's doubts was owing to a visit to that station on the Tuesday morning. So what information was Leman working with by that time?

* A statement from Schwartz taken by someone like the duty inspector. Presumably Abberline did not speak to every Tom, Dick and Harry who turned up to the station with a story to tell.
* Abberline's interview notes, and any related verbal communication with officers there
* The statements of two men we are told were arrested on the basis of Schwartz's statement
* The Star's own report plus any resulting communication with that paper
* Any relevant witness statements. Was Abberline even aware of witnesses like Fanny Mortimer, at the time he interviewed Schwartz?

Somehow I think Tuesday morning beats late Sunday afternoon.

Sure, others who have less information to work with might have doubts, but this statement isn't evidence of those doubts actually existing. The press do report there were concerns about some of Schwartz's statement, but we know what those were (mostly around Schwartz's interpretation of who Lipski was shouted at, and the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman) while it seems likely the press did not because they were less informed about police thinking than the writer of the police reports to HO.

- Jeff

This notion that the doubts expressed about Schwartz were merely a matter of Schwartz's interpretations, rather than the authenticity of his story, seems to be a very popular ... umm, interpretation. But how well does it explain the evidence?

Firstly, why on earth would Leman street be giving up on Schwartz, simply because he couldn't say for sure who 'Lipski' was shouted at, or whether the two men were together or known to each other? That makes no sense at all. How do these issues even justify being conceptualised as matters of interpretation? Was the second man chasing him, or fleeing? He claimed not to know, rather than having a firm opinion that someone disagreed with.

On the subject of disagreeing with Schwartz's 'interpretations' (also very popular), let's consider this in relation to a point you made above, regarding "those police (the report) who are in the best position to form an opinion". If Schwartz is to be believed, then the situation is; Schwartz was there, you weren't there, I wasn't there - none of us were - and neither were any of the police. In that case, who was in the best position to form an opinion on these points? It amuses me that so many Schwartz believers are in the habit of 'correcting' Schwartz, where they feel he got it wrong.

Secondly, and this is something that everyone seems to be missing; the "it was just doubts over interpretation" theory, does not account for Leman street's rather obvious change of mind. The Star, Oct 1, tells us:

The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

At this stage, Schwartz's statement was being taken seriously by Leman street. Not so by the following morning (or at least, not until "additional facts" are obtained). Schwartz was believed until he wasn't. If this were just down to issues of interpretation, this change of attitude would not be apparent. These questions of interpretation are owing to Abberline, and his interview with Schwartz occurred before the Star man had even run Schwartz to earth.

Clearly something of great significance occurred between the Star Oct 1 and 2 editions, which had nothing to do with doubts over Schwartz's 'interpretation' of the intended recipient of 'Lipski!'.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But what are these "doubts" referring to exactly? Is the implication that they believed Schwartz to be lying or are they essentially saying we don't know for certain whether he witnessed the beginning of Stride's murder or just a common street hassle? Or is that statement simply saying because of the language barrier and problems with interpretation we simply don't know what the hell he saw?

c.d.

I would suggest, exactly what I'm talking about in #2900. If the police knew who Pipeman was, this should have removed any reason to doubt the truth of Schwartz's story (had there been any at that point). Yet there is evidence it had exactly the opposite effect.

How could that be? Well this is something I was thinking about a lot, several months back. The answer I eventually came to was rather interesting - at least I think so. Obviously the question came first though, and the question only became evident by first doubting the truth of Schwartz's story.

[caz]

If Pipeman identified himself to the police, we may presume that he was able to confirm an assault on a woman outside the club, but he was hardly likely to confirm Schwartz's initial belief, that Pipeman was an accomplice who chased him away! Pipeman's version of the story would then have cast doubt on the 'truth' according to Schwartz, and helped confirm Abberline's interpretation, that "Lipski" was directed at the obviously Jewish witness - Schwartz - while Pipeman had merely been a second unconnected witness, who had left the scene in the same direction.

If Pipeman didn't come forward, and neither he nor the assailant could be identified, the police would be left with only Schwartz's word for what he thought he had witnessed.

Either way, it didn't result in Stride's alleged assailant being found.

As for the Star, do you honestly believe the police would have given one of its reporters chapter and verse on their enquiries and what progress they were making, if any? The best Star man could expect was a brief statement to fob them off, which would then be fleshed out for the paper by reading between the lines.

Star man: "Any update on the assault on the murdered woman, witnessed by the Hungarian?"

Police: "No. Our enquiries are ongoing." [In other words, bugger off and let us do our job. This is a murder enquiry.]

Questions would be designed so any answer could be given more meat and meaning than it had in reality. So this one could have been interpreted as the police not getting anywhere yet, either with the story itself or with anyone thus far arrested on the strength of it.

It's like asking a celebrity if it's true she is having a baby, and when she says "No!", the headline reads: 'Miss X denies pregnancy rumours'.

Love,

Caz
X

[JeffHamm]

True - we rely on the Star's reporting for that.

And we know the police held lots of information back from the press, and of course still do. So the Star's reporting is based upon less information. Also, the Star is very vague about things, and simply says that Schwartz is not wholly believed, it doesn't say he was entirely dismissed. That wording is entirely consistent with what we do know about police thinking, which is that Schwartz was not wholly believed - they thought he got the Lipski thing wrong and so they were not convinced that Pipeman was involved as an accomplice the way Schwartz testifies. We know that's police thinking about Schwartz's statement, and that is entirely consistent with what the Star reports - he wasn't wholly believed, but neither was he wholly dismissed. There's no conflict, therefore, that requires any further explanation.

That still leaves us to ponder Swanson's wording. Do you suppose he had good reason for explicitly expressing faith in Schwartz's statement? I would have thought that "if Schwartz is to be believed", there would be no reason to mention it.

No, the statement "If Schwartz is to be believed ..." is in the context of a report. That statement is to direct the reader to the particular witness about to be considered (Schwartz) and indicating the inferences one would make if that witness statement is looked at as true. Witnesses can be wrong, or misleading, etc, so in the report the reader is directed to consider things from the point of view that Schwartz's information is accurate. This is then followed by the statement that the police report indicates that this option is not chosen randomly, but that it is founded upon the fact that the police report on Schwartz leaves no doubt that his statement should be viewed as true.

In short, his wording is simply a formal way of indicating "Consider the information from this witness as it has been verified by the police as reliable ...". What those statements are not doing is indicating that there is any reason to doubt that Schwartz witnessed what he claims to have witnessed.

If the report consisted primarily of Abberline's interview notes, and perhaps not anything originating from lower ranked police, then on what basis can we say that it was written by those who were 'fully informed', and thus in the best position to form an opinion?

On the basis that those like Abberline and the other higher ups were all aware of the reports and findings of the investigation. They were informed about what those lower ranked police were doing, and would have received updates. The lower ranked, however, would be aware of their own activities, and of some of their colleagues, but they would not be spending time with all the reports and looking for the underlying patterns.

There may be another reference to the timing of Schwartz's police station visit, but the Star tells us it was late on the Sunday afternoon. The reference to Leman street's doubts was owing to a visit to that station on the Tuesday morning. So what information was Leman working with by that time?

* A statement from Schwartz taken by someone like the duty inspector. Presumably Abberline did not speak to every Tom, Dick and Harry who turned up to the station with a story to tell.

Abberline interviewed Schwartz and took his statement personally. As you say, he wouldn't have interviewed every witness but those deemed very important he would want to be involved. Schwartz was considered a potentially very important witness as shown by the fact that Abberline got involved. Hardly surprising, Schwartz is claiming to have potentially seen the murderer. By this time, the police had already erased the GSG, which was viewed as a big mistake, so mishandling of such an important witness would not go down well. Abberline's involvement would be, in part, to take primary responsibility for this information to try and ensure it too is not lost.

* Abberline's interview notes, and any related verbal communication with officers there
* The statements of two men we are told were arrested on the basis of Schwartz's statement
* The Star's own report plus any resulting communication with that paper
* Any relevant witness statements. Was Abberline even aware of witnesses like Fanny Mortimer, at the time he interviewed Schwartz?

What difference would it make if Abberline knew about Fanny Mortimer? She was outside for a brief period and not at the time of the incident. Her information has little to add, particularly if she is unsure of the time. I can't recall if there is any official statement by FM to the police, though. We do know the police canvassed house to house at the time, when Packer originally said he saw nothing and nobody of interest, and so would have spoken to her then. Either she had nothing to say (or was reluctant to speak to the police) or she came across as unreliable somehow. She wasn't called to the inquest.

Somehow I think Tuesday morning beats late Sunday afternoon.



This notion that the doubts expressed about Schwartz were merely a matter of Schwartz's interpretations, rather than the authenticity of his story, seems to be a very popular ... umm, interpretation. But how well does it explain the evidence?

It is an exact description of what we know the police view of Schwartz's statement was. They believed he witnessed the events, they did not believe he interpreted the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman correctly nor did they believe Lipski was shouted to Pipeman but rather at Schwartz. He was not wholly believed.

In short, the statement describes what we know, and as such it is a description of the known evidence.

Firstly, why on earth would Leman street be giving up on Schwartz, simply because he couldn't say for sure who 'Lipski' was shouted at, or whether the two men were together or known to each other? That makes no sense at all. How do these issues even justify being conceptualised as matters of interpretation? Was the second man chasing him, or fleeing? He claimed not to know, rather than having a firm opinion that someone disagreed with.

They didn't give up on Schwartz. They canvassed the area looking for all the Lipski families, for example. However, if Schwartz had nothing more to add to his statement, and could recall no further details, then if Pipeman was identified and cleared there was little more they could do unless pipeman was able to provide a better description of B.S. If not, then the investigation of the leads produced by Schwartz had been completed or were ongoing (looking for Lipski). They didn't "give up" on his statement, they investigated it and it unfortunately didn't lead to an arrest.

On the subject of disagreeing with Schwartz's 'interpretations' (also very popular),

Well, it's popular because we know for a fact that Abberline did disagree with Schwartz's interpretation. We also know the police still looked for Lipski's because while they thought Schwartz probably got it wrong, they continued to investigate as he told it too. That's good police work.

let's consider this in relation to a point you made above, regarding "those police (the report) who are in the best position to form an opinion". If Schwartz is to be believed, then the situation is; Schwartz was there, you weren't there, I wasn't there - none of us were - and neither were any of the police. In that case, who was in the best position to form an opinion on these points? It amuses me that so many Schwartz believers are in the habit of 'correcting' Schwartz, where they feel he got it wrong.

I'm not correcting Schwartz, I'm restating Abberline's belief's. I have no idea if Schwartz got it right or wrong, I do know the police believed he may have misinterpreted things, so when I read reports about Schwartz not being wholly believed I know that's true because the police reports do express exactly where they think Schwartz misinterpreted events. I also know the police spent a great deal of time and effort to investigate Schwartz's statement as he actually gave it and they looked for all the Lipski families. That indicates he was not entirely dismissed, even with regards to the bits the police thought might be misinterpretations.

Secondly, and this is something that everyone seems to be missing; the "it was just doubts over interpretation" theory, does not account for Leman street's rather obvious change of mind. The Star, Oct 1, tells us:

The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

Hmmm, the truth of which man's statement is not wholly accepted? The Hungarian's or the prisoner's?

At this stage, Schwartz's statement was being taken seriously by Leman street. Not so by the following morning (or at least, not until "additional facts" are obtained). Schwartz was believed until he wasn't. If this were just down to issues of interpretation, this change of attitude would not be apparent. These questions of interpretation are owing to Abberline, and his interview with Schwartz occurred before the Star man had even run Schwartz to earth.

Clearly something of great significance occurred between the Star Oct 1 and 2 editions, which had nothing to do with doubts over Schwartz's 'interpretation' of the intended recipient of 'Lipski!'.

Yes, perhaps that's when Pipeman was identified, and it was made clear that Schwartz's believe that Pipeman was connected to B.S. was incorrect. And if pipeman could provide no further details about B.S., then all they had was Schwartz's description of B.S., and there was little more they could do. Doesn't mean they disbelieved Schwartz, only that having now tracked down Pipeman and that leading nowhere, means they've gotten as far as they can.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If Pipeman identified himself to the police, we may presume that he was able to confirm an assault on a woman outside the club, but he was hardly likely to confirm Schwartz's initial belief, that Pipeman was an accomplice who chased him away!

That was his initial belief? So are the following quotes in the wrong chronological order?

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

Regarding the identification of Pipeman and what he may or may not have confirmed, I will post on that separately.

Pipeman's version of the story would then have cast doubt on the 'truth' according to Schwartz, and helped confirm Abberline's interpretation, that "Lipski" was directed at the obviously Jewish witness - Schwartz - while Pipeman had merely been a second unconnected witness, who had left the scene in the same direction.

If you believe this scenario to be the correct one, it must be puzzling why the police continued looking for a 'Mr Lipski'. Given that Israel Schwartz was a 'Mr Schwartz', and not a 'Mr Lipski', the only reason to look for a man named Lipski, is if it were supposed that Lipski was directed at Pipeman (who did not appear Jewish). So the logic seems crystal clear; if they are looking for a man named Lipski, weeks after the murder, they must also be looking for Pipeman. Yet as noted numerous times, Pipeman's description does not appear on the apprehensions sought list. So what gives? Were they really looking for Lipski/Pipeman, or just keeping up appearances?

If Pipeman didn't come forward, and neither he nor the assailant could be identified, the police would be left with only Schwartz's word for what he thought he had witnessed.

Same point again - if this is the correct scenario, the following should presumably have been included in the Police Gazette.

Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

But it's not there. So, did the police identify Pipeman? I have my own opinion. What's yours?

Either way, it didn't result in Stride's alleged assailant being found.

Which any reasonable person must count as a strike against Schwartz. He placed himself and three others on the street, and included shouts, screams, and running, in his story. No one else reported seeing or hearing any of it. At some point we have to stop being nice to Israel Schwartz, and compare his claims to what the largest manhunt in history was able to come up with.

As for the Star, do you honestly believe the police would have given one of its reporters chapter and verse on their enquiries and what progress they were making, if any?

If you can quote me suggesting as such, then you have your answer.

The best Star man could expect was a brief statement to fob them off, which would then be fleshed out for the paper by reading between the lines.

Star man: "Any update on the assault on the murdered woman, witnessed by the Hungarian?"

Police: "No. Our enquiries are ongoing." [In other words, bugger off and let us do our job. This is a murder enquiry.]

Questions would be designed so any answer could be given more meat and meaning than it had in reality. So this one could have been interpreted as the police not getting anywhere yet, either with the story itself or with anyone thus far arrested on the strength of it.

It's like asking a celebrity if it's true she is having a baby, and when she says "No!", the headline reads: 'Miss X denies pregnancy rumours'.

Love,

Caz
X

Exactly how much communication went on between the police and Star is unknowable, but the police must have been curious about the 'running to earth', given that Schwartz's name and address had not been released, according to the Star at least.

There is a hint about how much the Star knew of Schwartz's police statement, in its editorial.

... the story of a man who is said to have seen the Berner-street tragedy, and declares that one man butchered and another man watched, is, we think, a priori incredible.

The man who watched, is Pipeman, not Knifeman. Pipeman was "on the opposite side of the street". Whereas Knifeman "came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off". The Star seemed to know at least the broad detail of the police statement.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And we know the police held lots of information back from the press, and of course still do. So the Star's reporting is based upon less information. Also, the Star is very vague about things, and simply says that Schwartz is not wholly believed, it doesn't say he was entirely dismissed. That wording is entirely consistent with what we do know about police thinking, which is that Schwartz was not wholly believed - they thought he got the Lipski thing wrong and so they were not convinced that Pipeman was involved as an accomplice the way Schwartz testifies. We know that's police thinking about Schwartz's statement, and that is entirely consistent with what the Star reports - he wasn't wholly believed, but neither was he wholly dismissed. There's no conflict, therefore, that requires any further explanation.

If Schwartz was not wholly believed, and this was merely to do with not 'believing' his interpretations - which would be an odd way of putting it - then what are we to make of the prisoner in the Star report, who is being held pending inquiries ...?

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

So he was not wholly believed either. So being consistent about this, he too must have interpreted things incorrectly, according to the police. So that's two men who couldn't get it right, according to men who weren't there. So what was the prisoner's error(s) of perception? Perhaps he was under the impression that he was chasing the murderer along Fairclough street. But as we all believe Schwartz, that can't be right. So what element of his statement was not wholly accepted? I can't imagine he claimed to be holding a knife, rather than a clay pipe.

The way Schwartz testifies sounds a lot to me like he had no idea if Pipeman was an accomplice or not ...

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

That would seem to weaken the argument that Leman street's doubts over the truth of Schwartz's story, are just doubts over his interpretations.

No, the statement "If Schwartz is to be believed ..." is in the context of a report. That statement is to direct the reader to the particular witness about to be considered (Schwartz) and indicating the inferences one would make if that witness statement is looked at as true. Witnesses can be wrong, or misleading, etc, so in the report the reader is directed to consider things from the point of view that Schwartz's information is accurate. This is then followed by the statement that the police report indicates that this option is not chosen randomly, but that it is founded upon the fact that the police report on Schwartz leaves no doubt that his statement should be viewed as true.

In short, his wording is simply a formal way of indicating "Consider the information from this witness as it has been verified by the police as reliable ...". What those statements are not doing is indicating that there is any reason to doubt that Schwartz witnessed what he claims to have witnessed.

As you say, witnesses can be wrong or misleading, so this argument is applicable to all of them. "If Cross is to be believed ...", "If Richardson is to be believed ...", "If Hutchinson is to be believed ...". Why does Schwartz alone gets this treatment, if the police report leaves no doubt that his statement should be viewed as true?

On the basis that those like Abberline and the other higher ups were all aware of the reports and findings of the investigation. They were informed about what those lower ranked police were doing, and would have received updates. The lower ranked, however, would be aware of their own activities, and of some of their colleagues, but they would not be spending time with all the reports and looking for the underlying patterns.

So did the lower ranked police possibly make a mistake, in releasing the prisoner? Working with less information, how could they know for sure if this man's story was true? One day his story is not wholly accepted, the next day it is, apparently owing to inquiries. So how does one inquire as to whether a man was chasing another man from the scene, or fleeing the scene in the same direction as another man fleeing the scene?

Abberline interviewed Schwartz and took his statement personally. As you say, he wouldn't have interviewed every witness but those deemed very important he would want to be involved. Schwartz was considered a potentially very important witness as shown by the fact that Abberline got involved. Hardly surprising, Schwartz is claiming to have potentially seen the murderer. By this time, the police had already erased the GSG, which was viewed as a big mistake, so mishandling of such an important witness would not go down well. Abberline's involvement would be, in part, to take primary responsibility for this information to try and ensure it too is not lost.

Right, so Abberline's involvement and Schwartz's apparent non involvement in the inquest, seems to be a huge enigma.

What difference would it make if Abberline knew about Fanny Mortimer? She was outside for a brief period and not at the time of the incident. Her information has little to add, particularly if she is unsure of the time. I can't recall if there is any official statement by FM to the police, though. We do know the police canvassed house to house at the time, when Packer originally said he saw nothing and nobody of interest, and so would have spoken to her then. Either she had nothing to say (or was reluctant to speak to the police) or she came across as unreliable somehow. She wasn't called to the inquest.

Yet if she had been called, I dare say she could have cleared up a few issues. For example, you're claiming to know that she was outside for a brief period, but that is not what she is quoted as saying. Evidently, Fanny Mortimer is not to be believed.

It is an exact description of what we know the police view of Schwartz's statement was. They believed he witnessed the events, they did not believe he interpreted the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman correctly nor did they believe Lipski was shouted to Pipeman but rather at Schwartz. He was not wholly believed.

In short, the statement describes what we know, and as such it is a description of the known evidence.

This does not explain the transition we see in the Star, across the Monday and Tuesday editions. On Monday, Schwartz was believed, they are acting on his statement, two men have been arrested, and the statement of one of them is not wholly believed. The next day, both men have evidently been released, doubts have now been transferred to Schwartz, and they are no longer acting on his statement. This transition would not be evident if it were merely an issue of interpretation, as this issue is owing to Abberline's interviewing of Schwartz, which occurred on the Sunday.

They didn't give up on Schwartz. They canvassed the area looking for all the Lipski families, for example. However, if Schwartz had nothing more to add to his statement, and could recall no further details, then if Pipeman was identified and cleared there was little more they could do unless pipeman was able to provide a better description of B.S. If not, then the investigation of the leads produced by Schwartz had been completed or were ongoing (looking for Lipski). They didn't "give up" on his statement, they investigated it and it unfortunately didn't lead to an arrest.

Only Pipeman could have possibly been named Lipski, as we know Schwartz's name, and Pipeman was the only other man on the street (other than BS, who used the word). So if Pipeman was identified and cleared, it would seem illogical to still be looking for a man named Lipski.

Well, it's popular because we know for a fact that Abberline did disagree with Schwartz's interpretation. We also know the police still looked for Lipski's because while they thought Schwartz probably got it wrong, they continued to investigate as he told it too. That's good police work.

Well, it should not be popular, regardless of Abberline's opinion. If Lipski was directed at Pipeman, as suggested by Schwartz, then at least we have a vaguely plausible reason for Pipeman to have followed Schwartz - he was seeing off the 'intruding Jew' (this is more or less what we see in the Star report). Having watched the incident while causally lighting his pipe, why would Pipeman then run off like a startled rabbit, without so much as the prompt of 'Lipski!', pointed in his direction, to send him on his way? The popular belief that Pipeman fled, is a belief in a causeless effect.

Hmmm, the truth of which man's statement is not wholly accepted? The Hungarian's or the prisoner's?

"The truth of the man's statement..." is the relevant thread.

Yes, perhaps that's when Pipeman was identified, and it was made clear that Schwartz's believe that Pipeman was connected to B.S. was incorrect. And if pipeman could provide no further details about B.S., then all they had was Schwartz's description of B.S., and there was little more they could do. Doesn't mean they disbelieved Schwartz, only that having now tracked down Pipeman and that leading nowhere, means they've gotten as far as they can.

- Jeff

The apparent discovery of Pipeman, and the apparently contradictory ongoing search for a possible Mr Lipski, has already been discussed, but I wonder if the police supposed there might have been another man on the street at the time, that Schwartz failed to mention (to them). Considering the differences in Pipeman and Knifeman's location, device in hand, and behaviour (flight vs aggression), I don't think that suggestion is far-fetched.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If Pipeman identified himself to the police, we may presume that he was able to confirm an assault on a woman outside the club, but he was hardly likely to confirm Schwartz's initial belief, that Pipeman was an accomplice who chased him away!

Let's step through the logic of this, and see where it leads ...

If the prisoner in the Star report was not wholly believed (at least initially), then obviously he was partially believed, and to be partially believed, he must have been on the street at the time - it was not, say, that the police believed him that he was down the pub at the time, but didn't believe (agree) which pub it was.

If Schwartz is to be believed, then we may presume that Schwartz was correct when stating that Pipeman was the only other man on the street.

Ergo, the Prisoner = Pipeman

Now if this man were able to confirm the assault on Stride outside the club, then we really have to wonder if it were owing to Pipeman, that the following report appeared in a few of the papers.

The People, Oct 7: 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.

Recently I suggested that it may have been Fanny Mortimer was gave the statement referred to. That suggestion was rejected. So Pipeman would seem to be the obvious candidate, and arguably the only candidate, as Schwartz gave a different age for BS man, and more importantly he stopped at the gateway to watch what was going on.

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, and most of us seem to agree that he fled, rather than chase away that 'intruding Jew'. A fleeing man would not have returned to the scene.

Houston, we have a problem with our logic: How did Pipeman know that the woman seen thrown to the ground, was also the murdered woman? He would have to have gone to the yard to find that out.

The Star tells us: This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

What inquiries could they be making? That he was there is a given - he placed himself at the scene. Without BS man's input, the running versus chasing thing cannot be inquired into. Which leaves what? Obviously enough, it leaves Pipeman's presence in Dutfield's Yard, to be inquired into.

D-I Reid (inquest): As soon as the search was over the whole of the persons who had come into the yard and the members of the club were interrogated, their names and addresses taken, their pockets searched, and their clothes and hands examined. There were 28 of them.

One of those names and addresses was Pipeman's. Reid effectively gave Pipeman an almost perfect alibi. Otherwise the not wholly believing of Pipeman could not be resolved, as it would have been one man's word against another, and the men would have ended up in court.

This logic is only valid if it resulted in a loss of Schwartz's credibility, and that is exactly what we see ...

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. 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.

[JeffHamm]

If Schwartz was not wholly believed, and this was merely to do with not 'believing' his interpretations - which would be an odd way of putting it - then what are we to make of the prisoner in the Star report, who is being held pending inquiries ...?

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

So he was not wholly believed either. So being consistent about this, he too must have interpreted things incorrectly, according to the police. So that's two men who couldn't get it right, according to men who weren't there. So what was the prisoner's error(s) of perception? Perhaps he was under the impression that he was chasing the murderer along Fairclough street. But as we all believe Schwartz, that can't be right. So what element of his statement was not wholly accepted? I can't imagine he claimed to be holding a knife, rather than a clay pipe.

The way Schwartz testifies sounds a lot to me like he had no idea if Pipeman was an accomplice or not ...

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

That would seem to weaken the argument that Leman street's doubts over the truth of Schwartz's story, are just doubts over his interpretations.

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.

As you say, witnesses can be wrong or misleading, so this argument is applicable to all of them. "If Cross is to be believed ...", "If Richardson is to be believed ...", "If Hutchinson is to be believed ...". Why does Schwartz alone gets this treatment, if the police report leaves no doubt that his statement should be viewed as true?

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).

So did the lower ranked police possibly make a mistake, in releasing the prisoner? Working with less information, how could they know for sure if this man's story was true? One day his story is not wholly accepted, the next day it is, apparently owing to inquiries. So how does one inquire as to whether a man was chasing another man from the scene, or fleeing the scene in the same direction as another man fleeing the scene?

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

There are all sorts of ways to investigate a person's statement depending upon what they said, and the circumstances. Given we don't know either of those then we could make something up I suppose, but in the end, we have the police indicating that the person was cleared to their satisfaction. And we have nothing to base an evaluation of that decision on.

Right, so Abberline's involvement and Schwartz's apparent non involvement in the inquest, seems to be a huge enigma.

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.

Yet if she had been called, I dare say she could have cleared up a few issues. For example, you're claiming to know that she was outside for a brief period, but that is not what she is quoted as saying. Evidently, Fanny Mortimer is not to be believed.

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.

This does not explain the transition we see in the Star, across the Monday and Tuesday editions. On Monday, Schwartz was believed, they are acting on his statement, two men have been arrested, and the statement of one of them is not wholly believed. The next day, both men have evidently been released, doubts have now been transferred to Schwartz, and they are no longer acting on his statement. This transition would not be evident if it were merely an issue of interpretation, as this issue is owing to Abberline's interviewing of Schwartz, which occurred on the Sunday.

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.

Only Pipeman could have possibly been named Lipski, as we know Schwartz's name, and Pipeman was the only other man on the street (other than BS, who used the word). So if Pipeman was identified and cleared, it would seem illogical to still be looking for a man named Lipski.

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.

Well, it should not be popular, regardless of Abberline's opinion. If Lipski was directed at Pipeman, as suggested by Schwartz, then at least we have a vaguely plausible reason for Pipeman to have followed Schwartz - he was seeing off the 'intruding Jew' (this is more or less what we see in the Star report). Having watched the incident while causally lighting his pipe, why would Pipeman then run off like a startled rabbit, without so much as the prompt of 'Lipski!', pointed in his direction, to send him on his way? The popular belief that Pipeman fled, is a belief in a causeless effect.

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.

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.

"The truth of the man's statement..." is the relevant thread.

The apparent discovery of Pipeman, and the apparently contradictory ongoing search for a possible Mr Lipski, has already been discussed, but I wonder if the police supposed there might have been another man on the street at the time, that Schwartz failed to mention (to them). Considering the differences in Pipeman and Knifeman's location, device in hand, and behaviour (flight vs aggression), I don't think that suggestion is far-fetched.

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.

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.

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

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

- Jeff

[DJA]

[DJA]

[QUOTE=NotBlamedForNothing;n783980]

Let's step through the logic of this, and see where it leads ...


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

[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.

[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

[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

[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