Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pipeman : Perceptions Of Time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pipeman : Perceptions Of Time

    Thread for discussing Pipeman and his role in Berner Street discussions.

    Was he an ally of Broad Shoulders Man ?

    A few seem to feel Pipeman was more likely than BSMan to have been Stride's murderer.

    My thread starting question is this :

    I get the impression...from reading threads and discussions Ripperologists contribute to....that there is this assumption or perception that Pipeman was on Berner Street for a period of time before Israel Schwartz made his way down the road and noticed him.

    What I mean by "period of time" can be explained in this way a little easier, I think.

    Lets say you're at work and you stop working for 5 seconds to sit and tie your shoelace. Your boss comes out and sees you sitting...nevermind that you're tying your shoe...all he sees is that you're sitting...and to him, that means you've been sitting on yer duff for "hours'.

    I get that impression that ( not everyone and maybe only a few to be honest ) the fact is that its somehow overlooked that Pipeman may have been "at the scene" for only seconds before Schwartz spied him.

    Does anyone else get that impression ?
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

  • #2
    Since no one else has tackled this yet, I'll go ahead and stick my neck out - pun intended.

    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Was he an ally of Broad Shoulders Man ?
    I am inclined to believe not, but rather imagine that BS man came upon Stride on his own... but it is understandable why Schwartz may have initially believed that could be the case considering the nature of some criminal activities that took place. He didn't stick around to make an assessment of the situation... he acted on survival instinct, sharpened probably by previous experience.

    A few seem to feel Pipeman was more likely than BSMan to have been Stride's murderer.
    Schwartz did not witness Pipeman doing anything but getting the hell out of there, just as he did. That is all of the information we have... unless one tends to believe the Star report instead of the police... and that can of worms has, not only been opened, but spilled all over the boat until there's nothing left to fish with.

    I get the impression...from reading threads and discussions Ripperologists contribute to....that there is this assumption or perception that Pipeman was on Berner Street for a period of time before Israel Schwartz made his way down the road and noticed him.
    ... the fact is that its somehow overlooked that Pipeman may have been "at the scene" for only seconds before Schwartz spied him.
    Does anyone else get that impression ?
    The first impression is probably derived from the police statements that said Pipeman was standing, lighting his pipe, which would be natural to do... having occasionally smoked a pipe myself. He could have been walking beforehand or could have been waiting on someone. There's no information either way, I'm afraid.
    Best Wishes,
    Cris Malone
    ______________________________________________
    "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cris Malone View Post
      Schwartz did not witness Pipeman doing anything but getting the hell out of there, just as he did. That is all of the information we have... unless one tends to believe the Star report instead of the police... and that can of worms has, not only been opened, but spilled all over the boat until there's nothing left to fish with.
      What do you mean by that last statement about worms, boats and "nothing left to fish with"?

      Comment


      • #4
        Hey How and all,

        I am very much an advocate of the Pipeman-as-JTR theory, but to answer the topic, no, I don't believe Pipeman had been in Berner Street for any length of time.

        I believe that Jack was the sort to wander about brooding while he awaited an opportunity - not that he simply ducked out of his lodgings, murdered somebody and then ducked back into them in the space of 10 minutes. The murder of Liz Stride and the fact that it wasn't "completed" to me reeks of an opportunistic kill where the murderer had not had the time to fully think through this particular attack - the fact that he essentially blocked himself into the yard which lay a matter of metres from where dozens of IWMEC members were very much awake and alert.

        So as a basic reconstruction of the events on Berner Street that night, Jack is passing through the immediate vicinity of the street, awaiting his chance. He isn't expecting it but then he sees this intoxicated BS man start laying into Liz - who is alone. Sensing his moment, he waits outside a doorway and lights his pipe. Seeing Israel Schwartz passing by and stopping for a gawk, he hurries him along after the attacker shouts the phrase which would have been familiar to Jack as well as a resident of the East End, "Lipski".

        When BS man gives Liz a final shove and stumbles away, Pipeman takes the role of being the concerned party to the rescue..."I saw that brute throwing you around, are you alright? Let me help you get up..." Shaken, Liz retreats to the passageway with her concerned companion....and the rest is history.

        That's my rough version of events anyway....whether he was JTR or not, it's undeniable that Pipeman was at the very least a suspicious character.

        Cheers,
        Adam.

        Comment


        • #5
          Sensible

          Originally posted by How Brown View Post
          ...
          I get the impression...from reading threads and discussions Ripperologists contribute to....that there is this assumption or perception that Pipeman was on Berner Street for a period of time before Israel Schwartz made his way down the road and noticed him.
          What I mean by "period of time" can be explained in this way a little easier, I think.
          Lets say you're at work and you stop working for 5 seconds to sit and tie your shoelace. Your boss comes out and sees you sitting...nevermind that you're tying your shoe...all he sees is that you're sitting...and to him, that means you've been sitting on yer duff for "hours'.
          I get that impression that ( not everyone and maybe only a few to be honest ) the fact is that its somehow overlooked that Pipeman may have been "at the scene" for only seconds before Schwartz spied him.
          Does anyone else get that impression ?
          Eminently sensible observations by Cris.

          How, the only source of information on the second man (indeed the only witness to see him) was Schwartz. The two sources providing information on this second man, as we have seen, are Swanson's summary of Schwartz's statement and the report on Schwartz that appeared in The Star newspaper of Monday 1 October 1888. Unfortunately these two sources conflict in what they say despite the Star claiming that they had got the story 'just as he had given it to the police.'

          Without wishing to get into another pointless debate about the reliability of these two sources I am taking the police report as the correct version. From that report it is obvious that Schwartz did not notice this second man, who was in the act of lighting his pipe, until he crossed the road at a point near to the entrance to Dutfield's Yard.

          After this all is speculation. It is fair to say that Schwartz had followed the suspect who attacked Stride from Commercial Road, along Berner Street, as far as the gateway where the suspect stopped and spoke with, and accosted, the woman who was standing in the gateway. Schwartz then crossed the road and saw the second man.

          In my opinion it is fair to speculate that Schwartz probably walked along with his head down taking notice only of the (allegedly tipsy) man he was following, immediately ahead of him. Whether or not the second man was already on the street or not we shall never know but, as I have said, we can but speculate.

          When the Star reporter went to Backchurch Lane to see Schwartz the interview was conducted via the medium of a third party who was there and could speak English. Factors to consider here are how good was this unknown third party's English/Hungarian, how hurriedly was the interview conducted and how reliable was this unknown reporter? Whatever, he must have taken notes of the conversation (hardly under ideal conditions) and probably in shorthand. For all we know the reporter may have put the question to Schwartz 'Where did the second man come from?' Schwartz may have replied 'There was a beer house across the road he must have come out of there.' We can see here how easily, with a third party translating, quickly taken notes etc., this could have been corrupted by the reporter when he sat down and penned his full article later.

          That is, I admit, pure speculation on my part but it would go some way to explaining the anomalies.

          Comment


          • #6
            How,

            If you were about to start a job, would you light a pipe?

            I think that act, in itself, is an indicator.

            Monty

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks to one and all for replying to what I thought was going to turn out to be a tumbleweeds thread ! Much appreciated Stewart,Cris, and AW !!

              That was right on the money,Monty...
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Paul View Post
                What do you mean by that last statement about worms, boats and "nothing left to fish with"?
                LOL.. Hi Paul,

                I meant that the topic had been argued to the point of exhaustion. It was a general observation... nothing personal.
                Best Wishes,
                Cris Malone
                ______________________________________________
                "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                Comment


                • #9
                  It was a damp and windy night. Pipeman may have been closer to a building than the curb to facilitate lighting his pipe, which requires a match to stay lite for a few seconds... no pipe smoker likes the taste of sulfur.

                  Adam has a good imagination. Since Schwartz was walking by, had passed Pipeman and likely to continue - even if pausing for a moment- I can't see why Pipeman would choose to rush him off. He wouldn't even know how the incident between BS man and Stride was going to play out at that time or if the attention of a constable might be drawn... not to mention that Schwartz had seen him and may be able to provide identification.

                  For a killer waiting for an opportunity, he sure picked an odd one.
                  Best Wishes,
                  Cris Malone
                  ______________________________________________
                  "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cris Malone View Post
                    LOL.. Hi Paul,

                    I meant that the topic had been argued to the point of exhaustion. It was a general observation... nothing personal.
                    I didn't assume it was personal, I just didn't understand what was meant :-).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You've got to have a good imagination to be able to give this theory any credence, as a lot of it involves guesswork, connecting dots and theorising. If you're one of those "Oh no, we dare not veer off the known and generally accepted course of events" that's got nobody anywhere for the last 123 years, then this theory isn't for you.

                      The point is, Cris, that Schwartz got in the way of Pipeman's plans - not that he didn't know what BS man was going to do or what Schwartz was going to do - he got in the way, had already interrupted BS man and so had to be "shown the door".

                      What you're asking us to believe instead is even more unlikely - either the intoxicated, publicly attacking BS man was the killer, and if you presume Stride was a Ripper victim, he was JTR as well, the same one who was having a friendly conversation with Kate Eddowes 45 minutes later - i.e., not throwing her around on the street, OR another individual entirely seperate from any of these men entered the scene and was the killer....

                      Monty:

                      Why not? Is there anything in the act of lighting a pipe which would make it impossible for him to have killed Liz? Cold, miserable night, didn't know how long he was going to be waiting for....best for him and any other witnesses to look occupied, no?

                      Cheers,
                      Adam.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A pipe is not a cigarette Adam.

                        The process of packing, tampering, intitial lighting, tampering again, then maybe more lights makes the act a lenghty one.

                        Its not something you undertake if you either have something else planned or or feel an opportunity to attack is imminant.

                        A pipe is to be savioured.

                        Monty

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          AW:

                          With all due, I'm with Monty four-square on this one. There's a different aesthetic at work between smoking a cigarette and going through the actions of smoking a pipe ( thats just the mechanics ).
                          To Join JTR Forums :
                          Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi Adam,

                            You make a valid counterpoint. Most of us 'theorize' to some extent. Despite my sometimes rigid interpretations, I am still guilty of theorizing and profiling as well. My assumptions are based upon my interpretations of the information acquired and I try not to stray too far from what is known. It is the style of some to expand a little farther, maybe... and that's alright. Creative imagination can be helpful when offering a perspective of events that have many unknown elements to it.

                            In some way I may be on more untenable ground when it comes to my interpretation of the murder of Elizabeth Stride. With the anomalies, contradictions and unknowns that surround this particular murder, none of us are on solid ground in making any judgment as to how Long Liz met her death. She could have been killed by anyone and she may not have been killed by the same hand that killed Kate Eddowes.

                            I believe that the likelihood that the same man killed both women that night is great; for the reasons that have been stated many times. I do not believe that Pipeman was her killer because his actions don't suggest that to me and his physical description doesn't match the man seen with Eddowes just minutes before she was murdered. I do believe that man was probably Eddowes' murderer.

                            I do believe the man seen by Schwartz accosting Elizabeth Stride is a better candidate because an infraction of some kind was witnessed very near the location that she was found dead just 15 minutes later. However, I agree with you that BS man is no certainty either... for the same reasons you have stated and the fact that the forensics, in my mind, suggest that she never expected the attack.

                            So, yes, that leaves me with an unknown person who came across Stride in the 15 minutes between her altercation with BS man and Diemshitz's discovery of the body... the man later seen with Eddowes at the entrance to Church Passage. The police understood that possibility due to the nature of Stride's business and the very real possibility (not certainty) must be considered that her killer could have been interrupted. Its a theory that is as old as the day of the murders, but it is still a plausable one.

                            Let me ask you a question Adam. Do you believe that the man described by Lawende was the probable killer of Catherine Eddowes?... and if so, where does he fit in with any of the witness descriptions in and around Berner St. ?
                            Best Wishes,
                            Cris Malone
                            ______________________________________________
                            "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Cris.
                              I think your self assessment on this particular case is prettymuch along the same lines as myself.
                              The only departure from your own analysis which I would maintain is, that although Schwartz, as the last known witness ran from the scene, BS-man did not.
                              For us, our determination of the sequence of events ends with Schwartz running away from BS-man who was in the process of assaulting Stride.

                              Why are we required to think BS-man stopped the assault?

                              Regards, Jon S.
                              Regards, Jon S.
                              "
                              The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
                              " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
                              Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X