Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pipeman : Perceptions Of Time

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

  • Howard Brown
    replied



    You've been a real roll lately, Gareth....that was funny.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    You should have seen his sidekick, Washer Woman.
    That is TOO funny!

    Leave a comment:


  • Adam Went
    replied
    The description was quite vague, but that's understandable. I think Schwartz's main priority at that point in time was to get the hell out of there.

    Cheers,
    Adam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Matt Hood
    replied
    I was thinking it could be this chap.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


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

    Pipeman.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Matt Hood
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Adam Went
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cris Malone
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Adam Went
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X