Israel Schwartz -- Witness or . . .

[Jeff Leahy]

[my emphasis added]

Just one more thought on that, which refers to the possibility of using Israel Schwartz as a witness in February 1891.

If the witness was the same Israel Schwartz who was living at 22 Samuel Street in 1891 - which I think is likely but not certain - then we do know that he moved house pretty frequently.

We know this Israel was at 16 Brunswick Street in December 1890, at 19 Brunswick Street in March 1891, at 22 Samuel Street in April and May 1891, at 13 Queen Street in November 1894-August 1895, at 143 Back Church Lane in August 1896-April 1898, at 21 Jubilee Street in May 1901, at 1 John Street later the same month.

So this Israel had moved at least twice between October 1888 and March 1891, and there may well have been other moves before that, as we have no "sightings" of the family in the two years after the murders. Unless the police went to some lengths to keep in contact with him, they may well not have known where he was by the time of Coles's murder.

Admittedly Lawende had also moved house at least once between the murders and early 1891. But on the other hand in 1889 he stated that he had been employed by Messrs Gustav Kuschke & Co for more than six years, so it's quite likely he was still working for them in 1891 (and perhaps also in 1895, when he may have identified William Grant), and could have been contacted by the police through them.

While your point is undoubtedly fair here Chris. Surely this would have been the problem of every police case of the time. People moving address frequently is common today in London. Even more common at the time.

Surely policeman were aware of this, took account and new how to find people if required. In the old fashioned way of ‘asking around’. ?

National computers simply didn’t exist at the time. and Schwartz never went that far.

Pirate

[Stephen Thomas]

I'm open to new ideas though.

Hi Celesta

How about Schwartz was really Jack the Ripper and he went to the police with a made up story because he thought someone just might have seen him walking down Berner Street around the time of the murder ?

[Chris]

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."

[my emphasis added]

Just one more thought on that, which refers to the possibility of using Israel Schwartz as a witness in February 1891.

If the witness was the same Israel Schwartz who was living at 22 Samuel Street in 1891 - which I think is likely but not certain - then we do know that he moved house pretty frequently.

We know this Israel was at 16 Brunswick Street in December 1890, at 19 Brunswick Street in March 1891, at 22 Samuel Street in April and May 1891, at 13 Queen Street in November 1894-August 1895, at 143 Back Church Lane in August 1896-April 1898, at 21 Jubilee Street in May 1901, at 1 John Street later the same month.

So this Israel had moved at least twice between October 1888 and March 1891, and there may well have been other moves before that, as we have no "sightings" of the family in the two years after the murders. Unless the police went to some lengths to keep in contact with him, they may well not have known where he was by the time of Coles's murder.

Admittedly Lawende had also moved house at least once between the murders and early 1891. But on the other hand in 1889 he stated that he had been employed by Messrs Gustav Kuschke & Co for more than six years, so it's quite likely he was still working for them in 1891 (and perhaps also in 1895, when he may have identified William Grant), and could have been contacted by the police through them.

[Jeff Leahy]

And just to back Cel up here, if Schwartz was Anderson/Swanson's witness then he wasn't a great witness as he refused to testify.

Perhaps the police always new he was a problem but thought him a key to the Ripper case?

Pirate

[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.

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

[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.

[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]

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 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

[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.

[diana]

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

[Mort Belfry]

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

[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?

[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.