If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

According to your theory, Stride is on the ground before Schwartz crosses the road, so the kerb he refers to in the Star interview is the kerb on the western side of Berner St, north of the gateway. Pipeman/Knifeman then appears to the south at the intersection of Berner and Fairclough and Schwartz takes fright and runs towards him???? If Schwartz is near the gateway and Pipeman is near the Nelson, how could there be any doubt as to whom "Lipski" was directed?

George,
there are two things here. No, make that three. There is my interpretation of the police account, and of the press account. Then there is what I think really happened. What you're asking me here, is what I see as a mix of all three. So I can't really answer your question. I'll only say that, if you suppose Pipeman/Knifeman came from the same spot (the pub doorway), then for me we are dealing with the Star account, and in that case Schwartz steps off the kerb onto Fairclough street, on the board school side of the road.

Second point: Schwartz gave the police the description of two men. There were arrests made on those descriptions but the arrested prisoners were released so they were not considered to be the men Schwartz saw. There is nowhere indicated which descriptions was being used to briefly detain said persons of interest.

Not considered to be the men Schwartz saw? If BS and Pipeman were not together (as everyone believes), then why wouldn't they have let Pipeman go? What's his crime?

No, we can't say for certain which description was being used, but a BS lookalike, who's story was not wholly accepted, would not be released in a hurry.

Third point: you now have Kozebrodski acting as a lookout while Diemshitz is in the yard with the body. You said you could name Pipeman if "that would get me off your back". Please do so....but let me guess...Samuel Friedman?

Cheers, George

I don't actually see Koz as acting lookout. Just that, as the discovery or some inkling of it became known on the street, there was an attempt to get closer to the victim, that certain members didn't appreciate. What do you really think is going on here ...?

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

If a broad-shouldered man got hold of Liz, he could have pulled her anywhere he wanted to. There is no 'try', to quota Yoda.

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski'...

There was a dead or dying woman on the ground, next to a club full of Jewish immigrants, and someone on the street called 'Lipski'. Don't believe that conman Schwartz, that the word was uttered before the murder. That is bullshit.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Third point: you now have Kozebrodski acting as a lookout while Diemshitz is in the yard with the body. You said you could name Pipeman if "that would get me off your back". Please do so....but let me guess...Samuel Friedman?

Cheers, George

I forgot to answer your last question. No, not him. Perhaps consider the 'garbled' Echo report ...

The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

[GBinOz]

Well I could tell you who Pipeman was.

Ahh, I was expecting an actual name. That report is a little vague.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

...
His pursuit is a mistaken belief? That is conjecture masquerading as fact.
...

I was correcting your description of what I have been presenting as my interpretations, and so clearly speculation. I was not presenting them as fact. I wasn't there, nor were you. I, like everyone else, can only try to make sense of the information we have. You look to see if you can come up with stories that do not fit what people describe and presume they are wrong if you can, while I take the approach of trying to work out a plausible scenerio that fits what they describe, and then see if those plausible statements from different people spanning different times of the night go together and build an overall coherent story.

I won't restate it, but simply ask; what were those slightly different wordings found in the press?

So you're suggesting Fanny gave her accounts using the exact same words every time?

No, I'm asking you; if Pipeman simply walked away, he is an entirely innocent man, so why wasn't he located by the biggest manhunt in history? Schwartz places this man on the street at the time of the assault. At some point Schwartz has to be held accountable for his claims.

And I answered. I have no idea what Pipeman thought, I didn't know the man.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

No, I'm asking you; if Pipeman simply walked away, he is an entirely innocent man, so why wasn't he located by the biggest manhunt in history? Schwartz places this man on the street at the time of the assault. At some point Schwartz has to be held accountable for his claims.

If Pipeman, or BSMan for that matter, were innocent, why didn't they come forward? To me, the critical questions are, where was Parcelman, and why was Stride standing in the gateway?

Cheers, George

[DJA]

Pipeman was found.

Stride was waiting for ..... Sutton,who was watching from upstairs.

BS Man was muscle for Stride.
It was not until he left,after pulling Stride out of the yard,that Sutton went downstairs with the cachous.

[DJA]

Ahh, I was expecting an actual name. That report is a little vague.

Cheers, George

GUT has a bridge to sell you

[GBinOz]

GUT has a bridge to sell you

We've already completed that sale. Got it for a good price too.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If Pipeman, or BSMan for that matter, were innocent, why didn't they come forward?

Because the assumptions that are implicit in this question, are false.

There seems little point in me asking this, but what proof can you provide these these men existed? Since when is a story provided by an uncorroborated witness, regarded as being interchangeable with reality?

Assuming these men did exist, by now my answer should be entirely predictable; Schwartz's story bore so little resemblance to reality, that neither man realised that he needed to come forward, because nether realised that they were the first or second man in the story. This is similar to the reason why no one heard this 'incident'. Whatever friction occurred at the gateway after the discovery, became part of the general commotion.

As no one seems to believe that these men were together, then the question of Pipeman not coming forward is applicable to everyone. Presumably the answer is either "you'll have to ask him that", or crickets.

To me, the critical questions are, where was Parcelman, and why was Stride standing in the gateway?

Cheers, George

I agree these are critical questions. If Parcelman had left Stride to stand in the gateway, and then headed off, why didn't he come forward?

As for why Stride was standing in the gateway, I will again ask; where's the proof that she did?

The usual answers to the question of why she stood in the gateway, are that she was soliciting or waiting for someone. The first answer flounders when it's pointed out that she had zero money on her, and hadn't been seen at a pub since 11pm. The waiting for someone theory turns out to be someone who decided to kill her just after they meet up, which sounds arbitrary, or that the person never came forward, due to him having an extra-marital affair with Stride. What is the evidence for that scenario?

Seems there is no good reason to suppose that Stride ever stood in that gateway, and I don't believe she did.

Now a question for you!

The Star: INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane.

Without a name and address, how did the Star man manage to run Schwartz to earth in Backchurch Lane?

If you asked me that question, my answer would be:

The police gave the Star enough details, that they could find him. The reason for doing so was that the police wanted to see if Schwartz would tell the same story twice. This seems evident from the Star's comment that "... the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police." This is a good reason for supposing that the substantial change we see in the second man, when compared to the police statement, was owing Schwartz and not the paper.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Pipeman was found.

Lipski was not found. Was Lipski the first man, the second man, or a third man?

Stride was waiting for ..... Sutton,who was watching from upstairs.

Where in the building were the sleeping areas?

BS Man was muscle for Stride.
It was not until he left,after pulling Stride out of the yard,that Sutton went downstairs with the cachous.

Was Sutton a member of the club?

[caz]

The police gave the Star enough details, that they could find him. The reason for doing so was that the police wanted to see if Schwartz would tell the same story twice. This seems evident from the Star's comment that "... the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police." This is a good reason for supposing that the substantial change we see in the second man, when compared to the police statement, was owing Schwartz and not the paper.

You are very trusting when it comes to the Star. Why do you imagine the newspaper claimed that Schwartz's story was retold 'just as he had given it to the police'? We know it very much wasn't, so do you think that's what Schwartz told the Star and they believed him - despite finding the story itself unbelievable? How would that make sense?

Isn't it more likely that the Star wanted their readers to think the police were keeping the newspaper much better informed than they were doing in reality?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Do you suppose this man, who had evidently been released by the next day, could have been BS? If not, then presumably he looked something like this:

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.

Consider the situation. Leman street has arrested one man, with apparently nothing more to go on than this description, and yet the man's statement is not wholly accepted. It was about a quarter to one in the morning - was he there or not? If he was, then in what regard was his statement only partly believed? Which part did they not believe one day, and did believe the next, and based on what new information?

The apparent ease in locating this man, tells me that Leman street had a bit more to go on than just a description. It's as though they had another source of information. Next day ...

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.

According to Schwartz, other than himself and BS, the only other man on the street was Pipeman. So once again, if Pipeman was the other source, why the continued search for Mr Lipski? That question is obvious enough, but there is another; if Schwartz was believed about who had been on the street at the time, then why was this other source apparently taken seriously? Was it because the other source was the vigilance committee?

I wonder if you might be reading far too much into all this?

The man arrested on the strength of Schwartz's description of BS would have been asked to account for his whereabouts, assuming he was denying any involvement. The fact that he had not been charged, but was being held for inquiries, was probably so that the police could check out his alibi. His statement would obviously not be 'wholly accepted' until that was done. It doesn't automatically mean they thought he was lying, and presumably their enquiries ruled him out, in which case he was not Stride's assailant. He might have been a local thug, known to the police, who best fit the description they had.

For all we know, the other source could have been Fanny Mortimer, talking about black bag man. When Goldstein turned up at the nick to explain his movements, the newspaper could have got their wires crossed and assumed he had been arrested on the strength of her sighting of him.

You must surely realise by now that you are in a minority when it comes to trusting what was reported in the newspapers.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This is Schwartz's description of the first man, given to the police:

age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

The 'full face' tells us that Schwartz did get a frontal view of this man. That seems a little strange, given what Abberline said in 1903:

"There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious, and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him. All agree, too, that he was a foreign- looking man,--but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel. One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view."

The peaked cap tallies, but there were many of those in Whitechapel. The age does not quite match, and there is no indication from Schwartz that the man was a foreigner. These could be ignored as being due to the vagaries of eyewitness descriptions. That leaves one big issue - Schwartz clearly did not only see the man's back. So by this stage, did Abberline not include Schwartz with "the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another"? Why wouldn't he? Was it because at some point, Abberline had come to the conclusion that Israel Schwartz was a fraud?

Not that strange, given that Schwartz may not have come face to face with the man who actually killed Stride, and even if he did, that man may not have been Jack the Ripper.

Abberline would have appreciated the distinction. His interpretation of Schwartz's story was, after all, that "Lipski" had been used as an insult directed at the witness due to his strong Jewish appearance. This implies Abberline had BS man down as a Gentile thug, yet he believed - or came to believe - that the ripper looked like a foreigner.

Maybe Abberline did eventually conclude that Schwartz was a 'fraud'.

But equally, he may have come to doubt his own interpretation of what Schwartz had witnessed.

And equally, he may have had doubts about BS man being Stride's killer, or that the ripper killed Stride.

Who really knows if anyone got a good look at Jack the Ripper himself?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

A clue is that the Star account is actually milder than the police account, except for the considerable 'amping-up' of the second man. Evidence that that was owing to Schwartz and not the Star, includes the Star making it very plain that they did not believe the Hungarian's story.

The Star account gives us Schwartz's rather far-fetched excuse for being alone on the streets at that time. Should we all forget about that?

Again, there is this strange trust in the Star's integrity.

The Star would have known how sensational the story was, with Schwartz seeing one man assaulting Stride, and a second brandishing a knife. It was a reporter's wet dream.

The Star would also know that this information had not come from any police source, so their safest bet was to print it but then pretend they gave it no credence themselves. It was just the kind of dramatic yarn the readers could expect from a Johnny Foreigner who wanted a bit of the action. That way, the 1888 equivalent of today's Daily Mail reader would not suspect the pipe had been turned into a knife - with or without the help of a leading question or two - just to sell more papers, at the expense of a man with no English and no right of reply.

I hope Abberline would have seen right through it.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times,'' but not very loudly''


The witnesses might not have heard the screams where as schartz did,

This must be assumed to be true, to make Schwartz's story true. However, doing so could possibly lead to a dilemma. If people not many yards away could not hear screams, then could the murderer have heard the approach of the pony and cart, in time to make his escape, unnoticed? It seems to me that if screams could not be heard due to singing, then the same would apply to a man in the laneway, in regards to the audibility of a pony and cart turning into Berner street. So Diemschitz would have to get fairly close to the yard, before being heard.

When you entered the yard, if any person had run out you would have seen them in the dark?
Oh, yes, it was light enough for that. It was dark in the gateway, but not so dark further in the yard.

Consequently, an interrupted murdered would have to have hidden in the yard for a while. It would seem that that is exactly the conclusion reached by the police, according to the MA of Oct 3:

The police have arrived at the conclusion that on the Sunday morning when the murder of "Long Liz" was committed the perpetrator of the deed must have had a very narrow escape from capture. It is their belief, and also that of many members of the International Club, that when the steward of the club, Mr. Diemschitz, entered the yard in his trap at one o'clock in the morning the miscreant was about to carry out the mutilation of his victim. There is little doubt that the unexpected entry of the vehicle disturbed him in his diabolical work, and compelled him to retire to another part of the yard. The explanation offered as to his escape is that when the alarm was raised and the members of the club rushed pell-mell downstairs into the yard, he mingled amongst them, and succeeded in effecting his escape before the police appeared upon the scene.

Other than the possibility of this actually working, there are at least two issues with this theory.

1. There is too much blood, too soon, for a murder that close to Diemschitz' arrival.

How far did the blood run?
As far as the kitchen door of the club.

2. What is going on at ~12:45, that allows Stride to remain alive until just prior Diemschitz' arrival? Did BS leave the scene, only to be followed by the entrance of JtR? What happens to Stride in the period between these events, and why is she witnessed by no one?

''''The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ''

I dont see anywhere where spooner or brown say this didnt happen.

Witnesses rarely say what didn't happen, particularly in regards to events that didn't involve them.