A Whip and a Prod

[drstrange169]

He didn't do it Al, he just egged the socialists on and acted out the innocent party to the police, but then who is going to believe Schwartz an egger as an actor?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Schwartz was the ripper all along? The scoundrel!

He'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky socialists.

[DJA]

22 Ellen Street was 11 doors from Back Church Lane as opposed to Christian Street at the other end.
Popular way of giving an address back then.

[JeffHamm]

Swanson's report, regarding Israel Schwartz, begins:



So was his address, 22 Ellen Street, or something Backchurch Lane?

Was Abberline not even capable of getting a non-ambiguous and properly spelled address, out of him?

The Star report states:



How did the Star reporter come to know that 22 Ellen was incorrect, and that the actual address was in Backchurch Lane?

Was Schwartz' real address actually 22 Backchurch Lane, were a Sarah Schwartz had been living in 1885?

Was Schwartz reluctant to give his real address, as apparently was Charles Lechmere also, who eventually gave his address as 22 Doveton Street?

When Scotland Yard became aware of this anomaly (assuming they read the papers), did they make an effort to clear up the ambiguous address, and/or wonder why the situation had parallels with witness Charles Cross?

By the way, at what number Berner St, had Schwartz been living?
Surely not #40 - only a conspiracy theorist would suppose that!

Schwartz is reported to have said words to the effect of:



Apart from the question as to what moments the woman screamed 3 times, how can the oxymoronic 'screamed three times, but not very loudly', not be seen as Schwartz' attempt to explain why no one heard a thing?



Schwartz claimed to know zero English.
It's important to realize how easy this would be to fake, especially when one turns up to a police station to make a statement, with a friend acting as interpreter.
Did Abberline take steps to verify that Schwartz knew zero English, or did he just take him at his word?

The term 'Lipski' had, by 1888, become a well known antisemitic slur, in the East End.
Was Schwartz aware of this, and if so, does the fact that he has picked-up on this bit of 'culture', suggest that he has been in England for some time?
Could we then suppose that Schwarz did indeed know at least some English?

Isaac Kozebrodsky was a recent immigrant from Poland. He was able to make a statement in English.
Schwartz was also a recent East European immigrant, and I dare say he could have done the same as 'Isaacs'.

Schwartz admitted to running away from what was about to become a murder scene.
The 15 minute gap until Diemschutz arrives, helps to make Schwartz look like an innocent witness.
Too bad the undercover reporter from the Echo, has Wess explaining what really happened, to the effect that:

There was no 15 minute gap between the murder and discovery of the body!

Consequently, we have to get serious and answer these two questions:

Why was Schwartz running away from a murder scene, at the same time that multiple witnesses from the club had seen a man being chased away, who they collectively regarded as being the murderer?

Why does Louis Diemschutz insist he turned up just after 1 am, when at the same time, PC Smith, standing on Commercial Road, can already see a crowd gathering at the gates of #40?

God only knows how I could have come up with the following answers to the above, but for what it's worth ...

The answer to the 2nd question is: Because Louis Diemschutz is attempting to move the murder time forward, by 15 minutes, in an attempt to cover for his friend, Israel Schwartz.

The answer to the 1st question is: Because Israel Schwartz is Jack the Ripper.

Ellen Street and Backchurch Lane intersect each other. Abberline's notes would indicates he lived near the intersection of those two streets. Unfortunately, it seems very common for witnesses to give unreliable addresses to the police (it comes up quite often, Ms. Long, from the Chapman case, for example, I think gives 2 or 3 different addresses, and there are a number of witnesses in the newspapers who seem to be the same person but going by different names). It seems to be a common practice, as frustrating as that is today, but it doesn't seem to be sinister.

I'm afraid a series of unanswered questions doesn't really provide proof that Israel Schwartz is JtR. But good luck with that.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Swanson's report, regarding Israel Schwartz, begins:

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, ...

So was his address, 22 Ellen Street, or something Backchurch Lane?

Was Abberline not even capable of getting a non-ambiguous and properly spelled address, out of him?

The Star report states:

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane.

How did the Star reporter come to know that 22 Ellen was incorrect, and that the actual address was in Backchurch Lane?

Was Schwartz' real address actually 22 Backchurch Lane, were a Sarah Schwartz had been living in 1885?

Was Schwartz reluctant to give his real address, as apparently was Charles Lechmere also, who eventually gave his address as 22 Doveton Street?

When Scotland Yard became aware of this anomaly (assuming they read the papers), did they make an effort to clear up the ambiguous address, and/or wonder why the situation had parallels with witness Charles Cross?

By the way, at what number Berner St, had Schwartz been living?
Surely not #40 - only a conspiracy theorist would suppose that!

Schwartz is reported to have said words to the effect of:

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

Apart from the question as to what moments the woman screamed 3 times, how can the oxymoronic 'screamed three times, but not very loudly', not be seen as Schwartz' attempt to explain why no one heard a thing?

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away ...

Schwartz claimed to know zero English.
It's important to realize how easy this would be to fake, especially when one turns up to a police station to make a statement, with a friend acting as interpreter.
Did Abberline take steps to verify that Schwartz knew zero English, or did he just take him at his word?

The term 'Lipski' had, by 1888, become a well known antisemitic slur, in the East End.
Was Schwartz aware of this, and if so, does the fact that he has picked-up on this bit of 'culture', suggest that he has been in England for some time?
Could we then suppose that Schwarz did indeed know at least some English?

Isaac Kozebrodsky was a recent immigrant from Poland. He was able to make a statement in English.
Schwartz was also a recent East European immigrant, and I dare say he could have done the same as 'Isaacs'.

Schwartz admitted to running away from what was about to become a murder scene.
The 15 minute gap until Diemschutz arrives, helps to make Schwartz look like an innocent witness.
Too bad the undercover reporter from the Echo, has Wess explaining what really happened, to the effect that:

There was no 15 minute gap between the murder and discovery of the body!

Consequently, we have to get serious and answer these two questions:

Why was Schwartz running away from a murder scene, at the same time that multiple witnesses from the club had seen a man being chased away, who they collectively regarded as being the murderer?

Why does Louis Diemschutz insist he turned up just after 1 am, when at the same time, PC Smith, standing on Commercial Road, can already see a crowd gathering at the gates of #40?

God only knows how I could have come up with the following answers to the above, but for what it's worth ...

The answer to the 2nd question is: Because Louis Diemschutz is attempting to move the murder time forward, by 15 minutes, in an attempt to cover for his friend, Israel Schwartz.

The answer to the 1st question is: Because Israel Schwartz is Jack the Ripper.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks, Jeff. I was not aware of a specific Lipski investigation. I guess the point I was trying to make was that the clue was not substantial enough to rule out particular (i.e., Jewish) suspects.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

Yah, that's true. As Schwartz told it, it tended more to implicate a Jewish offender than rule one out (though Abberline's take was that Schwartz's belef was incorrect and that Lipski was shouted at Schwartz himself). Anyway, the Ultimate includes a number of communications between the police and Home Office, and Home Office was of the belief that locating this "Lipski" was important and was pushing to find out what the police were doing to track him down. That's what eventually prompted Warren (I think it was) to convey to Home Office that, while they were looking for families of that name, it appeared that Lipski was an anti-semitic insult, etc. It had some impact, but I wouldn't say it was to the point it completely distracted the overall investigation, rather, just another lead that was being followed, and also, one that was being considered from a number of potential points of view.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

Thanks, Jeff. I was not aware of a specific Lipski investigation. I guess the point I was trying to make was that the clue was not substantial enough to rule out particular (i.e., Jewish) suspects.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

So are we to believe that the use of "Lipski" was so cleverly concocted by the club members to further their conspiracy that Abberline told his men" don't even bother to question a suspect that may be Jewish even if he is covered in blood and has a bloody knife in his hand as he can't possibly be our man?"

Is there any evidence at all to show that "Lipski" did in fact impact the investigation in any way?

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

The police went about trying to track every family by the name of Lipski in the area, knocking on doors, and asking after them. The Home Office was pressuring the police to locate "Lipski" and it convinced some the perpetrator was Jewish. It was Abberline who felt Lipski was a red herring, but despite his view on that, the police did look for Lipski. In that sense, yes, it did impact the investigation.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

So are we to believe that the use of "Lipski" was so cleverly concocted by the club members to further their conspiracy that Abberline told his men" don't even bother to question a suspect that may be Jewish even if he is covered in blood and has a bloody knife in his hand as he can't possibly be our man?"

Is there any evidence at all to show that "Lipski" did in fact impact the investigation in any way?

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

For the writer of the article to be jovial on this point, while avoiding any ambiguity, supposes that the readership of the Star would 'just know' that the paper could not possibly have a reporter on the staff who could speak some Hungarian.
Why take the risk that some people could read him literally?

Because one of the objectives of a newspaper is to sell papers, and entertaining the readership with clever quips is one way do try and do that?

Why not just say 'he was run to earth in Backchurch Lane, and we spoke to him via an interpreter'?

see above

By the way, why was Schwartz in Backchurch Lane? Doesn't he now live at 22 Ellen St?

Have no idea as there is no report of why he was there given. But, no matter where people go, there they are.

Perhaps all this 22 something St is something we should be suspicious of - it seems one too many coincidences to me.

Regarding the interpreter, why was this person 'at hand', when Schwartz was 'run to earth'?
Did the Star reporter take the interpreter with him?

While we have been given no explanation, or identity, of the interpreter, it seems likely that they were a friend or associate of Schwartz. Given Schwartz is reported as speaking no English, it seems hardly remarkable that if he's going out to do anything that might entail interacting with others (i.e. shopping of any sort), he might have to bring a friend to help him communicate. I don't know that, obviously, but how else he's supposed to go about his daily business is hard to imagine.

That would seem logical, as we know the reporter was just being colourful about his 'imperfect' knowledge of Hungarian.
On the other hand, could this 'at hand' interpreter be the same 'friend' that interpreted for Schwartz at Leman St station?
If the later, I wonder why the friend allowed Schwartz to tell a substantially different story, than the one he told the prior evening?

May or may not be the same friend, or may be, as you suggest, the reporter brought one, or there was luckily enough, someone random at hand who just happened to speak Hungarian. Again, we have no information to know which of those is true for sure (if any), but in my mind, a friend of Schwartz's seems most probable (see above).

As for the difference in the stories, as mentioned before, we don't know where the differences originated from. We don't know for sure if Schwartz told different stories, or if the source of the error is in the police and/or journalist recording of Schwartz's story, or as you suggest, in the translation phase. Any of those could be the case. If I were to pick one as most probable, given the press reports are frequently shown to be full of errors, I would suggest that's the issue (also, see my first point above).

Also, if the interpreter was in either the first case, or both, a friend of Israel's, how can anything he says be taken seriously?
It is a completely dodgy situation!

Without some reason to suspect Schwartz had dodgy friends I'm not sure why this would apply? Why is being a friend of Schwartz an automatic reason not to take his story and/or the translation of it seriously? In many ways, I would think a friend of Schwartz would have more of a reason to ensure Schwartz's story is told correctly, and also would be someone who might have a better understanding of how Schwartz conveys himself, so they might be better at translating his words with intent to meaning.

A young man being chased away by a clay pipe wielding maniac, who is triggered into action by a man a few doors down apparently yelling an antisemitic slur at the young man who is walking by harmlessly, who both other men can clearly make out to be Jewish, in the darkness, immediately after the man who yells and who has just started talking to a woman standing in a gateway, throws her to the pavement - is a story of pure fantasy.

That is one theory, but one that has not been proven. It's also a theory that Schwartz witnessed something and his description is a telling of what he believed to be the case.

Why does anyone take Schwartz and his story, seriously?

Because he's a potential eye-witness to the crime maybe? And, while no doubt some of his perceptions and memories will be erroneous (as is the case with any witness testimony), it has not been shown that his testimony is fabricated. There is, of course, theories out there based upon that notion, but they are by no means proven.

It's because it provides the foundation for Louis' story about finding a dead woman in the driveway, 15 minutes later.
What people cannot or will not realise, is that providing a foundation to Louis' story, is the whole point of it!

Just because Schwartz's testimony is consistent with Louis' story doesn't mean it had to be fabricated. Also, given that one of the fundamental premises for considering Schwartz's story to be fabricated is to deflect attention away from the offender being Jewish, the fact that Schwartz's testimony was such that it implicates a Jewish offender that notion contradicts itself. Don't forget, Schwartz, in his police statement, believed Lipski was shouted to pipeman and implies that he thought Lipski was pipeman's name - that's the message taken away by the police and they went looking for local families of that name and Home Office was putting a lot of pressure on the police to locate all the Lipski families in the area, etc.

The notion that "Lipski" was shouted at Schwart as an insult is an alternative interpretation of the events, an interpretation which differs from that supplied by Schwartz, and which originates from Abberline. Basically, Abberline is suggesting we ignore Schwartz's belief and view those events as an insult directed at him. But that wasn't Schwartz's story.

I'm not saying Schwartz is the best of witnesses, or that his story must be true as he told it. But it's part of the evidence that has to be considered and it can't just be thrown out because it happens to correspond with Louis's statement. Generally, when independent witness statements agree that is usually viewed as corroboration, oddly, in this situation, people seem to view it as suspicious.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't think the statements about Schwartz's level of English conflict. The Star reads "The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand,...", and the first bit is just a colourful way of confirming the reporter could no more speak Hungarian than Schwartz could speak English (i.e. none at all), and this is bolstered by the statement that there was an interpreter available. I don't think that creates a conflict sufficient to suggest there was any deception involved.

For the writer of the article to be jovial on this point, while avoiding any ambiguity, supposes that the readership of the Star would 'just know' that the paper could not possibly have a reporter on the staff who could speak some Hungarian.
Why take the risk that some people could read him literally?
Why not just say 'he was run to earth in Backchurch Lane, and we spoke to him via an interpreter'?
By the way, why was Schwartz in Backchurch Lane? Doesn't he now live at 22 Ellen St?
Perhaps all this 22 something St is something we should be suspicious of - it seems one too many coincidences to me.

Regarding the interpreter, why was this person 'at hand', when Schwartz was 'run to earth'?
Did the Star reporter take the interpreter with him?
That would seem logical, as we know the reporter was just being colourful about his 'imperfect' knowledge of Hungarian.
On the other hand, could this 'at hand' interpreter be the same 'friend' that interpreted for Schwartz at Leman St station?
If the later, I wonder why the friend allowed Schwartz to tell a substantially different story, than the one he told the prior evening?

Also, if the interpreter was in either the first case, or both, a friend of Israel's, how can anything he says be taken seriously?
It is a completely dodgy situation!

Fleeing to Ellen Street makes a lot more sense than the railway arch, but whether that conflict is a result of the Star or the police making an error (of or via the interpreter) or Schwartz himself changing his story is unknown, and all three possibilities need to be considered.

A young man being chased away by a clay pipe wielding maniac, who is triggered into action by a man a few doors down apparently yelling an antisemitic slur at the young man who is walking by harmlessly, who both other men can clearly make out to be Jewish, in the darkness, immediately after the man who yells and who has just started talking to a woman standing in a gateway, throws her to the pavement - is a story of pure fantasy.

Why does anyone take Schwartz and his story, seriously?
It's because it provides the foundation for Louis' story about finding a dead woman in the driveway, 15 minutes later.
What people cannot or will not realise, is that providing a foundation to Louis' story, is the whole point of it!

[c.d.]

Considering all that the club members did in such a short amount of time they have to be considered the role model for all conspiracies. Even remembering under the circumstances to yell the correct thing. Now that is impressive.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

They even went for help yelling "another murder has been committed"....another?? A single throat cut indicates the same guy on the loose?


As opposed to yelling " a murder has been committed but obviously not by the same killer who has been terrorizing Whitechapel because this woman only has a single throat cut not the two cuts which we have come to expect."

One cut or two the results are the same. When the killer raised his knife I don't think the thing that was foremost on his mind was I need to be consistent with my cuts.

c.d.

Actually 1 cut and 2 are not the same cd, if they were Liz would have died quickly...not bled out. Also the double cuts served another purpose, they helped get much of the blood out of the body before he cuts into it and excises things,..something Strides killer was quite obviously not intent on doing.

And the "another murder" bit is to provide some proof they were intent on distancing themselves from this murder, by just blaming that killer at large for it without any real evidence to support it. Makes it interesting when you consider the GSG mentions Jews and "not be blamed".

[c.d.]

They even went for help yelling "another murder has been committed"....another?? A single throat cut indicates the same guy on the loose?


As opposed to yelling " a murder has been committed but obviously not by the same killer who has been terrorizing Whitechapel because this woman only has a single throat cut not the two cuts which we have come to expect."

One cut or two the results are the same. When the killer raised his knife I don't think the thing that was foremost on his mind was I need to be consistent with my cuts.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I have to say Im pleased you posted that now. Its the general feel you get from the text that means a lot...and you summarized some real issues within it well.

Im getting more and more convinced that Liz was discovered around 12:40-:45. One other element here is curious,...you asked about Lave, he says he was at the gates from around 12:30 until 12:40 then went back inside his cottage, ...but other than Eagle, who says he came through about 12:40, no-one is around. Not one smoker, not one person catching some air...even though the neighbors complained about "low men" talking and smoking in that passageway late at night after meetings.

It seems the stage was cleared by some statements, so that an event could be constructed by a story that would show the club as blameless in this murder. They even went for help yelling "another murder has been committed"....another?? A single throat cut indicates the same guy on the loose?

That's a plausible interpretation, except that it doesn't account for one thing; why does Diemschutz say he arrives just after seeing the clock tower at exactly 1 am, when 12:45 would make much more sense?
If the club are going to construct a story, why risk having Louis' arrival time clash with other witness times?
Why must he say he arrives when he does, and not at a more realistic time?
Because we are meant to see things like this ...

Schwartz arrives back in Berner St at 12:45.
He is approaching #40 when he sees a man and woman talking.
Schwartz then sees the woman being manhandled.
Schwartz doesn't want to get involved and senses danger to himself, so crosses the road and shoots off.
His walking direction suggests he lives beyond #40, and his timing (after the meeting) suggests he has no association with the club.
Diemschutz arrives back in Berner St at 1 am.
He finds a dead women in the driveway.
This must be the woman Schwartz had seen being mistreated.
The murderer must have fled on hearing Louis arrive with pony and cart.
Furthermore, Schwartz' instincts seemed to have served him well.
Schwartz does the responsible thing and reports seeing the assault.
Diemschutz and club seem to have done the right things; they've gone for police, and cooperated when they arrive.
Of critical importance though, it appears that Schwartz and Diemschutz have no knowledge of each other.

Louis' incongruous late arrival time is necessary to create the illusion of the discovery of the body being several minutes after the assault is witnessed.
The 15 minute gap makes the murder time ambiguous, and Schwartz can't help with narrowing this down, because he concocts an apparently legitimate reason for fleeing the scene, which the murder adds much support to, in hindsight.
Without the 15 minute gap, it looks too much like Schwartz is lying about running away from a legitimate threat, and is actually running away because he is the culprit.
He would then have to explain why he is running away from a murder scene, and not just a domestic.

Schwartz and Diemschutz are working together.
This still leaves the club with a potentially huge problem; a murder on the grounds of the club.
No problem - Schwartz is going to sort that out, in about an hour's time.

Re Lave, this is the only quote I have come across:

I was in the yard of the club this morning about twenty minutes to one. At half-past twelve I had come out into the street to get a breath of fresh air. There was nothing unusual in the street. So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions.

That to me reads like he is outside for 30 minutes, from 12:30.
Is there another quote of his, that tells a different story?