Israel Schwartz -- Witness or . . .

[diana]

What if we decide that Israel Schwartz's story is made up out of whole cloth?

What does his story do for him? It explains why he was seen running from the crime scene very close to the time of the murder.

Are there inconsistencies? Yes. He tells us that Liz was thrown down in the footpath, but later her body is found inside the fence. His description of broad shoulders does not match the descriptions given by anyone else of men seen with Liz near the time of the murder.

Does it reveal knowledge that JtR would have? Yes. The bruises on Liz's shoulders are consistent with Schwartz's description of how she was pushed down. Perhaps he accidently included an element of truth?

Given the direction he was running, could he have logically gotten to Mitre Square in a short time? Yes.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Diana,

But what if Schwartz's story was true?

Doctor Blackwell testified that Stride "would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed."

It therefore makes sense that Stride was attacked at 12.45, fifteen minutes before being found dead by Louis Diemschitz.

The trouble is, the timing of Israel Schwartz's story did rather upset the hoary old myth that Jack was disturbed by Diemschitz and so, seized by an unsatisfied bloodlust, went off in search of another victim.

Maybe that's why his story was discredited and he didn't appear at the inquest.

Regards,

Simon

[richardnunweek]

Hello Diana,
I see Israel as another paronoid witness like George Hutchinson, both saw actual events, the former running for it, proberly out of attempting to avoid a fracass, and who knows may well have invented pipe man, to give him some manhood for doing a runner.
In the case of Gh, if the majority of Casebook are right , then he was so scared of having been seen by residents in the immediate area, that he invented Astracan for giving him a reason to be right near the crime scene.
I am not saying either man was guilty of any crime, just that circumstances happened , that warrented their actions.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Diana writes:

"He tells us that Liz was thrown down in the footpath, but later her body is found inside the fence. His description of broad shoulders does not match the descriptions given by anyone else of men seen with Liz near the time of the murder"

Diana, there is no reason to believe that Stride could not have gotten up after she was thrown down, is there? My contention is that she did, and that she entered the yard afterwards.
As for the description of BS man, have a look at the man Marshall describes seeing with Stride earlier that evening - it tallies incredibly well, and my guess is that these two sightings were sightings of the very same man.

The best,
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

Hello, all.

The fact that George Hutchinson's story was "discredited" is stressed regularly on The Casebook, but the fact that Israel Scwartz's story was "discredited" is rarely considered by posters. I'm wondering why.

[Chris]

The fact that George Hutchinson's story was "discredited" is stressed regularly on The Casebook, but the fact that Israel Scwartz's story was "discredited" is rarely considered by posters. I'm wondering why.

Because it's doubtful whether Schwartz's story was discredited?

[Mort Belfry]

If Schwartz did make up the whole story what was then the purpose of inventing Pipeman?

[diana]

Without the invention of pipeman he has no explanation for why he was seen running away from the crime scene.

[CLK]

Without the invention of pipeman he has no explanation for why he was seen running away from the crime scene.

Im not sure. I think saying he was running away from, if my memory is right,a threatening looking man assaulting a women, is a good enough excuse. I think you could be right though, saying a man chased you away gives you an even better excuse for running.

[Celesta]

Hi Diana and All,

Interesting. But was his story totally discredited? I thought that, because of the interview(s) later, where extra details got added, doubt was cast on his story. But was it totally discredited? I know that Swanson didn't think his testimony would buy anyone a cup of coffee much less convince a jury of anything, so if that's being discredited then I guess so.

As for Pipe Man, the details Israel gives about him provide a pretty fair mental picture of Pipe Man. Yet his description is not overblown like G. H.'s. You have one description that's overblown, GH's, and one that just vague enough to be convincing.

I often wonder about Liz's attacker being disturbed by Diemschutz. I think Diemschutz arrival was pretty close on JtR heels, but possibly he was gone already? What was to keep him from killing Liz the instant Schwartz & Pipe Guy turned and fled? I know that doesn't fit Simon's timing very well. I used to have this vision of the attacker wandering off and then someone else, BS man, who just happened to be lurking, dragging Liz into the Yard, but that's seems coincidental. It comes back to the timing and how convinced one is about the times supplied by Schwarzt, etc..

Questions about this murder always lead me to think there were two killers at work.

These cases nip you no matter which way you turn.

Interesting question, Diana.

Nice to see you back, Paul.


Best wishes,

Cel

[Chris]

Interesting. But was his story totally discredited? I thought that, because of the interview(s) later, where extra details got added, doubt was cast on his story. But was it totally discredited? I know that Swanson didn't think his testimony would buy anyone a cup of coffee much less convince a jury of anything, so if that's being discredited then I guess so.

Are you perhaps partly thinking of Packer rather than Schwartz here?

Swanson's comment (in his report of 19 October) rather suggests the police accepted Schwartz's story:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered ..."

I think the only suggestion that the story had been discredited comes from a report in the Star of 2 October:
"In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. 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. "

My suspicion is that this may actually be a garbled version of the same report that appeared in the Star the previous day:
"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."

In that report, though the wording leaves it liable to misconstruction, I think it's clear that the man whose statement is not wholly accepted is the prisoner, who had been arrested because he fitted the description given by Schwartz.

[Celesta]

Hi Chris,

It took me a minute to find it, but what I was thinking of was described in Evans' and Rumbelow's Scotland Yard Investigates. It's in the chapter "Did Anderson Know?" on page 253, although there's more in an earlier chapter, which I haven't tripped over yet. The upshot is that Swanson dismissed not only Schwartz, but Lawende because he didn't believe they could positively identify the Ripper. This has stuck in my head and always comes up whenever I see anything about Schwartz. It left me with the clear impression that Swanson had no confidence in their usefulness.

The quote: "If Schwartz was regarded as a good witness and was still available, there can be no reason why he would not have been called upon, even if he had been used in a previous unrecorded and unsuccessful identification attempt. And, as we have seen, Swanson clearly dismissed both witnesses, Schwartz and Lawende, believing them unable to make a positive identification of the ripper because their sightings did not contain proof that it was the killer they saw. In any event an identification by either of them would have amounted merely to supporting circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence of the fact to be proved."

As you mentioned, Packer was most certainly dismissed as completely useless and unreliable.

Thanks for your well-done response to my post.

Cel

[Chris]

Celesta

Thanks for clarifying that.

To be fair to Schwartz, I don't think there's any implication in what Evans and Rumbelow say that Swanson had concluded that Schwartz's story was untruthful, only that there was no definite proof that the man he had seen was the murderer of Stride. I think diana is talking more about the possibility that the story was an invention.

[perrymason]

Hi Diana,

Some interesting thoughts revealed in the following post...a few I addressed..

What does his story do for him? It explains why he was seen running from the crime scene very close to the time of the murder.

I think in this case, what does his story do for the Club members is more germaine. His statement places Liz off property when assaulted within 15 minutes of being found dead. He doesnt need the story to explain his running from the scene....no one saw him do it.

Are there inconsistencies? Yes. He tells us that Liz was thrown down in the footpath, but later her body is found inside the fence.

Since the altercation he describes takes place 15 minutes before the victim must be inside the gates, and he witnesses the assailant helping the woman up, its not inconsistent.

His description of broad shoulders does not match the descriptions given by anyone else of men seen with Liz near the time of the murder.

The only accepted witness near the time of her death is PC Smith who sees her at 12:35ish, Mr Brown's sighting coincides with the time given by Schwartz and is hardly ever referred to by most Ripperologists. The point here is that at 12:45, there is only Schwartz, following BSM walking towards Liz, and Pipeman....by Israels own account. And its 10 minutes after PC Smith has moved on.

Does it reveal knowledge that JtR would have? Yes. The bruises on Liz's shoulders are consistent with Schwartz's description of how she was pushed down. Perhaps he accidently included an element of truth?

I think you may be premature on that conclusion Diana, because Schwartz said he saw him trying to pull her into the street, it seems she resisted and fell or tripped. I do think the bruises might be hard pokes in the chest as she had her back to the wall she dies beside, though.

Given the direction he was running, could he have logically gotten to Mitre Square in a short time? Yes.

Wouldnt touch that, not even with a 10 foot pole.

I think its fair to suggest that some details may be skewed because of the witness needing to be translated, I think his claim that he was checking to see if his wife had completed the move is far fetched, and I believe there is a possibility that he was actually in attendance at that nights meeting, and when leaving through the yard...the front door was locked, he witnessed a scuffle and kept on walking.

I think that the Police knew the Club members better than how they presented themselves that night...horrified little mice, afraid of blood and in terror, I know I first pictured them as older men in yarmulkes based on their statements.. ....in fact Diemshutz is around 30, Kozebrodski is around 17, and Eagle is around 28.

Schwartz puts the likely assailant, BSM, outside the gates and off property initially, which eliminates his coming from the yard entrance, since the main door was locked at 12:40, as per Eagle. He gives the Club an alibi.

Does that then mean he lied? Maybe....but maybe the man who interprets for him alters the translation.......Wess of The Arbeter Fraint translated for Goldstein and his Gladstone, and he is the first person to speak at the Inquest...oddly enough.

I think we have a Club cover-up, involving the main club witnesses.....as self protection. Her death has far more in common with a street violence episode than by some abdomen cutting ghoul, and as it occurred inside the gates, it follows that its possible some people were in that yard based on the neighbors comments regarding after hours activities in the yard after a meeting,...despite the claims that none were, which leaves us with a likely Club Member or guest as the killer.

I think Schwartz was a tool, thats all.

Best regards

[Celesta]

No, no, Chris. I agree with this recent post by you. I didn't realize, until just this minute, that I had overlooked your first post. Sorry! I don't think Swanson necessarily thought Schwartz was lying, at least not completely, just that after the Hungarian interview, he thought Israel might not be as useful a witness.

For all we know, Schwartz could have been with Liz himself and, an altercation started when the assailant came up.

My first post was a shotgun response to several of the above. Paul's in particular. Paul wrote: The fact that George Hutchinson's story was "discredited" is stressed regularly on The Casebook, but the fact that Israel Scwartz's story was "discredited" is rarely considered by posters. I'm wondering why.

I don't have any reason, at this point, to believe that Schwartz was making up the story, merely that he might not have been the great witness they thought they had at first. I think Michael has a point about the translation problem, and that the translation problem was further compounded with the press.

I'm open to new ideas though.