Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pipeman : Perceptions Of Time

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

  • #16
    Hey all,

    Monty and How:

    If Pipeman was Jack the Ripper, then you are trying to apply normal logic to a man who was not of "normal thinking".

    Nowhere in his account does Schwartz give a detailed description of what exactly Pipeman was doing, because Schwartz's focus was naturally on BS Man and Liz. Who's to say that Pipeman's "i'm occupied with my pipe" wasn't staged when he saw Schwartz coming?

    No matter which way you want to slice it, Pipeman is a dodgy character. Why would he stand "savouring" a pipe as you say Monty, while a woman is being attacked metres away from him? Why would he make no effort to intervene, or at least clear himself away from the area and out of suspicion? Unless of course you want to presume that he was BS man's accomplice, which makes no sense because by Schwartz's account, BS man was walking solo down Berner Street and had nothing to do with BS man prior to the "Lipski!" sledge - and besides that, we know pretty well that Jack acted alone. You just can't have BS man as Liz's murderer and Jack the Ripper as well, then.

    Cris:

    I can certainly understand where you're coming from and even agree with you to a point, it is always best to stick to the known facts where it is possible to do so. However, Liz Stride's murder has a set of circumstances which is completely unique to any of the other Ripper attacks. For more than a century, Pipeman was just an anomaly - nobody payed a lot of attention to him. It is well and truly time that there was some revised thinking in certain areas of the case, and this is one of them.

    BS Man is the very antithesis to everything we know of Jack and how he approached his other victims.

    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. ?

    I do believe the man Lawende saw was the murderer of Catherine Eddowes - however, I also have some reservations about how precise his descriptions of the man were. I'm not sure about you (?) but judging by a number of factors, I would be much more inclined to believe Schwartz's testimony over Lawende's.

    The truth is that the witness descriptions very rarely match each other in every detail - that could be for a variety of reasons but I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility that the killer deliberately changed his appearance, especially after the extremely close call in Berner Street.

    Cheers,
    Adam.

    Comment


    • #17
      In regards to some of your posts, theorizing is all right but you don't want to be carried away by it. Plus it is always good to have evidence.LOL

      Comment


      • #18
        Adam,

        If.

        Schwartz states Pipeman was lighting his pipe, hence his nom de plume. Schwartz paid enough attention to note that. Hardly the act of a man ready to pounce.

        According to Schwartz he did clear himself out of the area, he followed Schwartz away from the scene.

        There is absolutely no evidence to suggest he went back.

        Logic, which still applies like it or not, states there is no reason to assume Pipeman return to Dutfields Yard.

        Hey there George,

        Semper Eadem? That is the motto of my City.

        Monty

        Comment


        • #19
          The Third Man!

          Originally posted by Adam Went View Post
          ...Nowhere in his account does Schwartz give a detailed description of what exactly Pipeman was doing, because Schwartz's focus was naturally on BS Man and Liz....

          Schwartz was focused on the altercation, this is true, but nothing seemed to concern him as the statement reads, "he walked away".
          Schwartz saw the struggle and as he turned his head away (I presume), he heard someone shout "Lipski", or something similar.
          As Schwartz did not speak English he might have only "thought" the name was "Lipski".

          Schwartz only set off to run when he realized "Pipeman" was coming up behind him (also running?). Schwartz never said what caused them both to begin running away - we don't know what triggered this apparent fright.

          Have you read the Star account of Oct. 1st?, Schwartz provided a twist that has not appeared anywhere else, which in itself does make it sound a little suspicious.
          However, one of the best and most thorough researchers of the Stride murder was David Yost, and he appeared to accept the Star account.
          I think we are required to make allowances for the possibility that there was a "Third Man" in this scenario.

          I think David's flaw, if there was one, was that he preferred to see the "knife-man" and "Pipeman" as being the same man, which required some clever assumptions that I feel were not warranted.

          If we can accept the Star account as factual, then we must accept the existance of a "Third-Man", AKA, Knifeman.

          Schwartz passed BS & ES, and stepped away to cross the street, then ...

          "....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. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings."
          http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

          This sudden appearance of a Third Man, carrying a knife, is sufficient reason for anyone casually passing by, trying to mind their own business, to suddenly break out into a run to leave the scene as fast as they could.

          So yes, Schwartz was not wholly focused on Pipeman, his attention was first on BS & ES, then suddenly his attention was gained by a man with a knife who emerged from the pub, The Nelson, on the corner of Berner St.

          The caveat is, why did Schwartz not mention this man to Abberline?

          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


          • #20
            Hi Monty, yep it was also the motto of Elizabeth I as well. Means as I am sure you are aware <Always The Same> or unchanging

            Comment


            • #21
              Monty:

              Schwartz claimed that the man fled with him as far as the railway arch but pursued no further. Now, since you're so into logical thinking, tell me this: If you were witnessing a murder in action and chose to flee with another individual, would you not make some comment to that individual? Say "Let's get out of here"/"Should we go back and help?"/"Should we look for a policeman?"....whatever? Now Schwartz didn't speak English, we know that, but he never, ever claimed in any of his evidence that this Pipeman individual spoke to him or touched him in any way, shape or form. And yet he remembered one word, "Lipski", from BS man.
              If you were an accomplice to BS man who was trying to nab Schwartz, would you also not be yelling away at him, and pursuing him until he was well and truly out of sight?

              The latter is extremely unlikely anyway given the rest of Schwartz's testimony as I outlined in my last post....the point is that Pipeman smoking/lighting his pipe is not as an outlandish a scenario as it might seem when you consider some of the other possibilities.

              Again, if Pipeman was really JTR, then obviously the man had some issues and one can't try and second guess what "normal" behaviour would be....

              Wicker:

              Oh i've seen The Star report alright. Many, many times. Too many. I even covered it in my article "A Matter Of Time" from Ripperologist 113, April 2010 - where I also put forward Pipeman as the likely killer and therefore JTR.

              There is no "Third Man", David is correct- "Knifeman" was one and the same as "Pipeman", the version of his having a knife with him is simply a variation in Schwartz's testimony. I've seen the same thing published elsewhere. If true, it makes his candidacy as JTR a lot more likely in my view...nobody mentions seeing BS man wield a knife at any point, be it at Liz or anybody else....

              Cheers,
              Adam.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Adam Went View Post
                Monty:

                Schwartz claimed that the man fled with him as far as the railway arch but pursued no further. Now, since you're so into logical thinking, tell me this: If you were witnessing a murder in action and chose to flee with another individual, would you not make some comment to that individual? Say "Let's get out of here"/"Should we go back and help?"/"Should we look for a policeman?"....whatever? Now Schwartz didn't speak English, we know that, but he never, ever claimed in any of his evidence that this Pipeman individual spoke to him or touched him in any way, shape or form. And yet he remembered one word, "Lipski", from BS man.
                If you were an accomplice to BS man who was trying to nab Schwartz, would you also not be yelling away at him, and pursuing him until he was well and truly out of sight?

                The latter is extremely unlikely anyway given the rest of Schwartz's testimony as I outlined in my last post....the point is that Pipeman smoking/lighting his pipe is not as an outlandish a scenario as it might seem when you consider some of the other possibilities.

                Again, if Pipeman was really JTR, then obviously the man had some issues and one can't try and second guess what "normal" behaviour would be....

                Wicker:

                Oh i've seen The Star report alright. Many, many times. Too many. I even covered it in my article "A Matter Of Time" from Ripperologist 113, April 2010 - where I also put forward Pipeman as the likely killer and therefore JTR.

                There is no "Third Man", David is correct- "Knifeman" was one and the same as "Pipeman", the version of his having a knife with him is simply a variation in Schwartz's testimony. I've seen the same thing published elsewhere. If true, it makes his candidacy as JTR a lot more likely in my view...nobody mentions seeing BS man wield a knife at any point, be it at Liz or anybody else....

                Cheers,
                Adam.
                I'll leave you happy in your thoughts Adam.

                Suffice to say, Pipeman as Strides killer doesn't work for me.

                Monty

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
                  Cris.
                  I think your self assessment on this particular case is pretty much 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.
                  Hi Jon,

                  Certainly, we don't know what happened after Schwartz left. Outside of the pressure marks on Stride's shoulders, noticed in the post-mortem by both medicos at the scene, there seemed to be no indication of a struggle.

                  Although, both Phillips and Blackwell offered theories on how Elizabeth was placed on the ground and then, her throat cut, they never could explain why there was no sign of her resistance or the lack of arterial spray on a wall just inches from her head.

                  Assaults - if that was what BS man was doing to Stride - that escalate into murder usually leave more dramatic signs than this murder expressed. I could envision her throat being cut while she was standing - which is what happened to Ms. Thompson/Hinks at Rotherhithe in 1893 - as she grappled with her assailant, but that's not what happened here.

                  I could be wrong, as I am no expert on these matters, but I believe that whoever killed her intended to do so as soon as he met her and did not display that intent to the victim until he struck.


                  Originally posted by Adam Went
                  I do believe the man Lawende saw was the murderer of Catherine Eddowes - however, I also have some reservations about how precise his descriptions of the man were. I'm not sure about you (?) but judging by a number of factors, I would be much more inclined to believe Schwartz's testimony over Lawende's.
                  Hi Adam,

                  I would normally agree there, but Lawende had two other gentlemen with him who corroborated his story... even if they couldn't - or wouldn't - provide as much detail. Schwartz had no corroboration of his story nor did he apparently appear (as far as we know) at an inquest. For those reasons, I would have to give Lawende's testimony more credence.

                  This is not to say that I disbelieve his testimony given to Abberline, but the marked difference between that and what the Star reported he saw gives me pause to consider why that was the case.

                  Lawende was apparently used in a couple of subseqent ID attempts. There is no mention, anywhere, of Schwartz after early November, 1888.
                  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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Adam Went View Post
                    ...
                    There is no "Third Man", David is correct- "Knifeman" was one and the same as "Pipeman", the version of his having a knife with him is simply a variation in Schwartz's testimony.
                    An experienced researcher is never totally certain of anything.

                    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


                    • #25
                      Monty:

                      Well exactly, it's not a theory that is going to suit everybody. But if one approaches the subject logically, with an open mind and taking into account all the available testimony, known evidence and comparisons to other murders, Pipeman surely must make a far stronger candidate than BS man as the killer.

                      Can we state definitely that he was the man responsible? No, of course not. There's still many grey areas in the theory. But I think the lack of an explanation otherwise, including to my previous post from yourself, is near enough that he's an almightily suspicious character....

                      Cris:

                      Don't get me wrong, Lawende and Schwartz are both good witnesses and very close to the most valuable. However, i've always held some reservations over Lawende's testimony, particularly in recent times as i've looked at the strange, almost suspicious behaviour of one of his companions, Joseph Hyam Levy.....but that's for another topic.

                      It is certainly a shame that we don't know more about Schwartz.

                      Wicker:

                      Each person has their own interpretation, but I think if you look closely at the relevant reports, it's pretty clear that "Knifeman" was not an entirely seperate individual from Pipeman and BS Man, but rather a variation that it was Pipeman himself, and he was carrying a knife. Dodgy.

                      Cheers,
                      Adam.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Do we have a description of Pipeman? I've looked at Casebook and all the Stride page says over there is that the Home Office file records Schwartz simply describing him as a "man lighting a pipe", so I'm assuming that's all there is.

                        [EDIT] Nevermind, I found the Star report that said Pipes was tall, not so stout and had a reddish moustache.
                        Last edited by Matt Hood; March 1, 2019, 06:15 AM. Reason: Found the Star report

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The police made this reconstruction at the time, but I'm not 100% convinced of its accuracy.

                          Pipeman.jpg
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen"
                          (F. Nietzsche)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I was thinking it could be this chap.
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              The police made this reconstruction at the time, but I'm not 100% convinced of its accuracy.

                              [ATTACH]19378[/ATTACH]
                              Thank you for that! I never could visualize Pipeman. I had no idea he looked like a super hero.
                              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                                Thank you for that! I never could visualize Pipeman. I had no idea he looked like a super hero.
                                You should have seen his sidekick, Washer Woman.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen"
                                (F. Nietzsche)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X