Steps To The Nelson?

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

This may seem like quite a trivial question, but as some of you might have noticed from some recent discussions regarding Pipeman on Berner Street, it's quite an important one:

Does anybody know whether there was a step/steps leading to the entrance into The Nelson, or was it just a flat, off-the-street entrance? Was there any steps other than that entrance in the immediate vicinity?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can shed some light on this. (I've also posted this on JTR Forums, so hopefully somebody will know something....)

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

Does anybody know whether there was a step/steps leading to the entrance into The Nelson, or was it just a flat, off-the-street entrance? Was there any steps other than that entrance in the immediate vicinity?

It looks pretty flat in this photo from 1909:

http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Image:BernerStreet.jpg

[Rob Clack]

There was a step there, but as Chris said it was pretty flat. That was on the 1909 photograph. I don't know if it would have been much different 21 years earlier. And wasn't pipeman on the other side of the road by the school?



Rob

[Chris]

There was a step there, but as Chris said it was pretty flat. That was on the 1909 photograph. I don't know if it would have been much different 21 years earlier. And wasn't pipeman on the other side of the road by the school?

I think he was, according to the police records (despite Tom's arguments). But according to the Star's report of Schwartz's story he "came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off."

[Rubyretro]

I don't know -it looks like he graffited his name in chalk on the bottom left panel..

[Rob Clack]

I think he was, according to the police records (despite Tom's arguments). But according to the Star's report of Schwartz's story he "came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off."

Thanks Chris that's what I thought. I'll stick to the Police reports it's clear enough in them.

Rob

[Jon Guy]

Hi Chris and Rob

I think he was, according to the police records (despite Tom's arguments). But according to the Star's report of Schwartz's story he "came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off."

The Police Report states:"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he (Schwartz) saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the street (to Schwartz).

[Chris]

The Police Report states:"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he (Schwartz) saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the street (to Schwartz).

Just to be clear, the words you have in parentheses are your interpretation, not part of the report. It's that interpretation I don't agree with. This has been discussed at some length on other threads.

[Jon Guy]

Just to be clear, the words you have in parentheses are your interpretation, not part of the report. It's that interpretation I don't agree with. This has been discussed at some length on other threads.

The following statement, in a report by Insp Abberline on 1st Nov, would have been mentioned on the other threads, which should have cleared things up for once and for all:

"I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was the man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting his pipe"

[Chris]

The following statement, in a report by Insp Abberline on 1st Nov, would have been mentioned on the other threads, which should have cleared things up for once and for all:

"I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was the man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting his pipe"

If I remember correctly, it was mentioned there by me, and I think it should clear things up, because there is no reference in that report to Schwartz having crossed the road. That being the case, I'd suggest "on the opposite side of the road" could only be understood to mean "on the opposite side from the man attacking the woman".

Likewise for a copy of a letter printed in the "Ultimate Sourcebook" (p. 142):
"A statement has been made by a man named Schwartz to the effect that he had heard a person who was pulling about a woman identified as Elizabeth Stride 15 minutes before the murder off Berner Street took place, call out "Lipski" to an individual who was on the opposite side of the road."

Likewise for Swanson's table of information about the descriptions of men seen by witnesses, with its headings "First man seen by Schwartz with woman at 12.45" and "Man seen on the opposite side of the street by Schwartz."

[caz]

"I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was the man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting his pipe"

That seems clear enough to me now.

Schwartz is the one with the eyes and he saw two men in the street: one on the Dutfield's Yard side calling Lipski and one on the other side lighting his pipe.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

"I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was the man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting his pipe"

That seems clear enough to me now.

Schwartz is the one with the eyes and he saw two men in the street: one on the Dutfield's Yard side calling Lipski and one on the other side lighting his pipe.

Yes - I think common sense tells us that what the police would wish to record is what Schwartz saw as a witness, and in particular the positions of the two men relative to each other. Their position relative to Schwartz wouldn't have been so important, and the three short records quoted above certainly don't mention the position of the first man relative to Schwartz.

[Rob Clack]

I agree with Chris and Caz and it seems pretty clear to me that pipe man was across the road from Dutfields Yard by the school.

Donald Swanson's 19th October report:

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing and lighting his pipe.

That seems clear enough to me. Schwartz crossed the road and saw a man in front of him by the school because schwartz was walking in that direction.

Same report:

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,

My reading of this, is that it was pipe man who was called "Lipski". So again there is a rederence to the opposite side of the street.

Inspector Abberline's 1st November report:

There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

Again the opposite side of the road is mentioned.

There's also the Home Office letter part of which said:

...before the murder off Berner Street took place, call out "Lipski" to an individual on the opposite side of the road.

This appears to be the same as a letter written to the Commissioner of the Police from the Home Office dated 29th October. So there are four separate references to pipe man being on the opposite side of the road.

Rob

[Chris]

This appears to be the same as a letter written to the Commissioner of the Police from the Home Office dated 29th October. So there are four separate references to pipe man being on the opposite side of the road.

To be fair, Tom has argued that this means the opposite side of the road from Schwartz. But I don't think that is a natural reading at all, particularly in the case of the documents that don't say anything about where Schwartz was.

[Rob Clack]

To be fair, Tom has argued that this means the opposite side of the road from Schwartz. But I don't think that is a natural reading at all, particularly in the case of the documents that don't say anything about where Schwartz was.

Hi Chris,

My reading of the documents is that Pipe man and Schwartz were on the same side of the road (after Schwartz had crossed over) as there seems to have been a bit of confusion as to who "Lipski" was addressed to.

Rob