Whistling on Berner Street

[c.d.]

Thanks for clarifying this for me but just let me make sure I have it straight. So you are in effect saying that it is possible that a witness (i.e., Fanny) could not be called to the inquest but their story was still believed despite not being called and that not being called in no way confirms a disbelief in their story. Maybe it is the fault of the education system here in America but it seems to me that you have just negated your own argument regarding Schwartz.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks for clarifying this for me but just let me make sure I have it straight. So you are in effect saying that it is possible that a witness (i.e., Fanny) could not be called to the inquest but their story was still believed despite not being called and that not being called in no way confirms a disbelief in their story. Maybe it is the fault of the education system here in America but it seems to me that you have just negated your own argument regarding Schwartz.

c.d.

I knew Id have to go over this again with you so I stuck around. Once again, Fanny is relevant to the investigation into Liz Strides murder, she is not relevant into the ONLY question that the Inquest is designed to address. The Inquest is designed to determined if in fact she was murdered at all..which makes Israels witness statement relevant to the Inquest question. They are not the same thing...the Investigation into murder and the investigation into whether a murder even took place. The statements taken are used where their relevance lies. Fanny saw no-one nor did she see the murder site. Israel says he saw what would likely be her killer, thereby assisting the Inquest with, again, the ONLY question that was relevant to them. Did she die accidentally, by her own hand, or by Wilful Murder.

Your problem understanding this point is simply a matter of properly understanding that the Murder Investigation and the Inquest have different mandates. No-one questioned suspects at the Inquest, no-one questioned who killed her, just whether she was in fact murdered.

In keeping with that, it is possible Israel still factored into the Murder investigation, but its clear their belief in his sighting of someone assaulting Liz Stride just before her death is not present. The murder investigation might want to use his statement perhaps if only to determine why he would give a statement of events that could not be proven to have happened at all. A murder investigation might want to evaluate his motives for doing so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im surprised that you didnt explain why you posted statements that are quite easily recognized as being wholly inaccurate, and instead chose to insult me for doing so. Very Trumpian of you.

By ‘inaccurate’ you mean that they don’t conform to your own interpretation. For example, it cannot be said for a fact (which you treat it as) that Fanny went onto her doorstep at 12.45. This was her estimate but she qualified it by saying that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed. Well we know what time Smith said the he’d passed - 12.30-12.35.

So if your interpretation is that Mortimer must have be right and Smith must have been wrong then there little point in any of us hoping for an unbiased assessment.

So it can’t be claimed that she went onto her doorstep as you seek to do.

It is entirely plausible (and likely) that she was back indoors when Schwartz passed.

It also can’t be claimed that she was on her doorstep almost all of the time between 12.30 and 1.00. It’s a nonsensical claim and not supported by the facts.

You believe 12.45 as a fact because it suits your theory. Your wrong of course.

[c.d.]

Well I have to say that I am impressed. Actually, let me change that to extremely impressed. It seems that of all the people involved in Ripperology you and you alone actually know for a fact why Schwartz was not at the inquest. The rest of us lesser mortals can only speculate.

Why don't you simply say that while you don't actually know, you believe the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Schwartz was not called because the police did not believe his story. Then support your argument with evidence. Why is that so difficult for you?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I knew Id have to go over this again with you so I stuck around. Once again, Fanny is relevant to the investigation into Liz Strides murder, she is not relevant into the ONLY question that the Inquest is designed to address. The Inquest is designed to determined if in fact she was murdered at all..which makes Israels witness statement relevant to the Inquest question. They are not the same thing...the Investigation into murder and the investigation into whether a murder even took place. The statements taken are used where their relevance lies. Fanny saw no-one nor did she see the murder site. Israel says he saw what would likely be her killer, thereby assisting the Inquest with, again, the ONLY question that was relevant to them. Did she die accidentally, by her own hand, or by Wilful Murder.

Your problem understanding this point is simply a matter of properly understanding that the Murder Investigation and the Inquest have different mandates. No-one questioned suspects at the Inquest, no-one questioned who killed her, just whether she was in fact murdered.

In keeping with that, it is possible Israel still factored into the Murder investigation, but its clear their belief in his sighting of someone assaulting Liz Stride just before her death is not present. The murder investigation might want to use his statement perhaps if only to determine why he would give a statement of events that could not be proven to have happened at all. A murder investigation might want to evaluate his motives for doing so.

It’s absolutely impossible to discus this with you when you keep posting stuff like this dishonesty. It’s been explained to you god knows how many times about the purpose of an Inquest. David Orsam wrote an in depth article showing why Schwartz wasn’t a vital witness for the Inquest. Proper research, using actual proven facts, quotes, references etc. And yet you keep parroting the same old self-serving nonsense. All that you are doing is attempting to mislead people in a desperate and sad attempt to breathe life into your discredited theory which you refuse to let go of. Schwartz was NOT important to the very specific, narrow aims of an Inquiry.

Try reading and avoid just making things up to suit. Try letting this sink in….

ISRAEL SCHWARTZ WAS NOT VITAL TO THE INQUEST.

[JeffHamm]

Well, its not a reach to suggest it. Schwartz quite obviously, despite various contemporary and modern opinions offering their personal support for his statement, had no official confidence shown by entering it as evidence in the Inquest into how Liz Stride dies.

If the police had no confidence in Schwartz's statement, why were they canvassing the area to locate all the Lipski families? This went on for some time, incurring costs both in manhour and financial terms. While the police believed Schwartz's assertion that Lipski was shouted at an accomplice was probably incorrect, they still investigated what he told them as he told it. If they had set aside his entire statement, as describing it as being viewed with no confidence implies, they would have done just that - set it aside and not engaged in an expensive and time consuming search for Lipski's in the area. The police action at the time indicates they had confidence in the events described by Schwartz, but were not convinced his interpretation was the only one. However, rather than presume their reinterpretation was the correct one, they had to see if they could rule out local Lipski's, which I believe there is a report suggesting they were able to (though I could be misremembering the phrasing of one of the reports to HO?). Regardless, it is far from obvious the police at the time had no official confidence in Schwartz, in fact, quite the opposite.

And it does suggest that, based upon the scenario he creates, that her killer was seen assaulting her OFF PREMISES...thereby insinuating that all 30 or so of the people who were ON PREMISES at that time had nothing to do with her murder. The convenience of this for the club seems to escape many... oddly, but these are the facts.

Convenience is a bit loaded here, and the inconvenience of an assault starting off premises pales in comparison to having a body on premises. If the club were trying to reduce the inconveniences, then using Deimshutz's cart to move the body elsewhere would be far more desirable than simply trying to convince the police the assault happened a few minutes later in time. Changing the time of the assult in no way removes the inconvenience of a body on their property.

As I pointed out earlier, a leading Socialist figure at that time refused to speak at the club because he felt they were Anarchists, not Socialists, and the local police and neighbors seem to agree with him. This club did not have a law abiding reputation therefore, so a murder perhaps committed by someone affiliated with that club on that clubs property would be a very formidable obstacle to their remaining open.

There wasn't exactly a high level of trust between the local residence of the East End and the police. The police, and the public at large, tended to paint the entire area with a rather dark brush. While such clubs were agitating for social reforms (and yes, some of that agitation included illegal activities although some was exacerbated by the police response), attempting to remove some of the inequalities that were stacked against them, that doesn't mean they would engage in any and all criminal activity. Covering up a murder of another person who was also suffering due to the social inequalities might indeed have been seen as the very antithesis of their purpose and as such it would serve their purposes to assist the police as much as they could while at the same time reserving the right to criticise the police for failing to catch the killer despite their assistance. Of course, if the police did catch the killer, they can then point to their assistance and claim some credit - a win win for them really.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s just remind Michael about the aims of an Inquest as per the Coroners Act 1887 (so not something that I’ve just invented)

. 'who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and if he came by his death by murder and manslaughter, the persons, if any, the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or of being accessories to the murder'.

So, Schwartz….

Could he identify the deceased? A let’s be clear, this doesn’t mean “yes that’s the woman I saw.” It means could he have stated “I know from personal experience that the woman was called Elizabeth Stride.”

So clearly a no.

Could he identify when she died? The ‘when’ is in regard to the date of her death and not the time of time death.

So clearly another no.

Could he identify how she died? Firstly he wasn’t a Doctor and secondly he wasn’t present when she died.

So clearly a no.

Could he identify, by name, a person who might have committed the murder or manslaughter?

Clearly no, as it was murder by person or person’s unknown.

…….

So 4 very specific aims and 4 very conclusive, inarguable no’s.

Yes, it wouldn’t have been remarkable had the Coroner decided to have called him as not all witnesses were vital but it wasn’t in any way vital or even important for Schwartz to have been called. These are the facts. So we clearly can’t say that he wasn’t called because the Coroner disbelieved him. The police believed him so on what basis would the Coroner second guess them? Is it being suggested that the Coroner investigated every single witness, checking their Police statements and anything that they might or might not have said to the Press? The idea is ludicrous. We don’t know why he wasn’t called (David O makes 8 suggestions purely as examples without favouring any or stating any as fact) But to make a claim to know why he wasn’t called simply because it fits a theory hardly covers the proposer in glory does it.

[JeffHamm]

I should also add, that if the police had dismissed Schwartz's statement in its entirety, then the report to the HO would not bother to present their reinterpretation of who Lipski was shouted at (in their view Schwartz himself rather than as Schwartz stated at pipeman), because providing an alternative explanation for an event they decided was entirely unreliable would be pointless. They would have just told HO that they had reason to disbelieve the entire scenario described in Schwartz's statement. However, the statement to HO makes it clear that the police did believe the events Schwartz described happened but doubted Schwartz's personal interpretation of those events.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You can’t be serious?

The names Lipski was used as an insult and not as an accusation of being a murderer.

I can be serious, and you can be completely wrong.

Swanson: 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...

The story as told by Schwartz, was that 'Lipski' was called to the second man. It was not called to Schwartz. Only Schwartz is entitled to tell his story.

Abberline tells us it was Schwartz who had the strong Jewish appearance, and gave his opinion on who 'Lipski' was addressed to...

I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

There is a very big clue here, that Schwartz was right in supposing that 'Lipski' was directed at the second man. The word was exclaimed while Schwartz had stopped to look at the man and woman at the gateway. In other words, it was when Schwartz was still on the club side of the street, and not on the opposite side. The second man was on the opposite side, and thus it would have been quite obvious to Schwartz, to who the first man had called 'Lipski'.

It is obvious why Abberline had the opinion that 'Lipski' had been addressed to Schwartz. As told by Schwartz, the story did not quite make sense to him, so in his own mind he made an alteration to the story, to make it work. In other words, Schwartz's story could only be made sense of, by changing it. For any student of the case, this should set mental alarm bells ringing.

From Abberline's words, the implication is that the second man did not have a strong Jewish appearance, and yet 'Lipski' seems to have been addressed to him. This precludes to the possibility that the word was being used as an insult. As no man by the name of Lipski was ever found, the only remaining possibility is that 'Lipski' was a reference to murder. Yet it at this point according to Schwartz, no murder had occurred. Strangely though, when we read the Echo report, we learn of a man who was pursued from the scene, but not an innocent man fleeing a man smoking a pipe, but rather a man believed to be the murderer. Consequently, there is a good case for supposing 'Lipski' was called after the murder, and in reference to the murder, rather than before it.

[Michael W Richards]

The need to correct you seems to be constant...

By ‘inaccurate’ you mean that they don’t conform to your own interpretation.1. For example, it cannot be said for a fact (which you treat it as) that Fanny went onto her doorstep at 12.45. This was her estimate but she qualified it by saying that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed. Well we know what time Smith said the he’d passed - 12.30-12.35.

So if your interpretation is that Mortimer must have be right and Smith must have been wrong then there little point in any of us hoping for an unbiased assessment.

So it can’t be claimed that she went onto her doorstep as you seek to do.

2. It is entirely plausible (and likely) that she was back indoors when Schwartz passed.

3. It also can’t be claimed that she was on her doorstep almost all of the time between 12.30 and 1.00. It’s a nonsensical claim and not supported by the facts.

You believe 12.45 as a fact because it suits your theory. Your wrong of course.

For #1, I never, ever said that Fanny was definitely at her door at 12:45. Re-read the posts if you are still unclear. #2, YOU stated it as fact she wasnt....your post #478..."At 12.45 Fanny was back indoors....thats what happened". You do recall your own posts dont you? And for number 3, on what basis can you dispute Fannys claim she was at her door "almost the whole time" between 12:30 and 12:45? Do you have one tiny piece of actual evidence for this persistent disparaging of her statement? Just one? Anything? Of course you dont....it doesnt exist. Which means much of what you write isnt a reflection of actual statements and evidence, its what you believe actually happened and when.

One would think that being exposed as someone who posts provable falsehoods might at some point fear for his/her reputation on the topic, having been called on this many times. And for the last time, Fanny never once said she went to her door after "SMITH" passed, thats another of your own historical invention.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The fact that the Police were still mentioning him in November shows that they were taking him seriously during the investigation. I’m not aware of any later records mentioning the case so I can’t say whether or not Schwartz was mentioned after November.

The police were looking for a man named Lipski, never found one, and after November we hear nothing more of Schwartz. This suggests they eventually gave up on Schwartz, as nothing had come of the investigation based on his statement.

It’s also possible that the Police at the time cleared up any ‘mysteries.’ So they might have double-checked his story of his reason for being in Berner Street at the time. They might also have gotten to the bottom of the discrepancies in The Star. After all isn’t it possible that the police would have become aware of the addition of a knife in The Star interview and decided to question him about it?

The 'mysteries' could have been cleared up, if BS and Pipeman had been identified, and either cleared or charged. To be more precise, Pipeman could have been cleared, if it were believed he were an innocent bystander. Yet BS man could not have been cleared just by giving a good account of himself. He would surely have had to face trial. As there is no evidence for this trial having occurred, it seems safe to say that BS man was never identified. So Schwartz places 4 people on the street, that no one else reports seeing any of, and the police never seem to have identified the first man, and possibly the second man also. This must raise some doubts about the truth of Schwartz's story.

As for questioning Schwartz about the knife and the Star report in general, that to me seems a real possibility. An explanation for why Schwartz did not attend the inquest, is that he were being held for questioning, by the police.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Neither in the Swanson version or in The Star interview does Schwartz mention ‘stopping.’ Abberline says it but was he right? Schwartz sounds a bit of a coward. Is he really going to stop and stare? Or look as he was passing? The latter is very obviously the more likely.

. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. 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, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

Here we see that ‘Lipski’ is called out after Schwartz crossed the road and not before. It’s clumsily worded of course but we have Schwartz on the opposite side of the road to the club and BS man shouting Lipski to the man on the opposite side of the road. Schwartz doesn’t say here where Pipeman was.

but in The Star…

. he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, 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.

Again we have Schwartz crossing the road first and Pipeman coming from the pub doorway (so the same side of the road as the club) Pipeman shouts at BS Man but there’s no mention of BS man shouting Lipski.

…….

How accurate was Swanson? How accurate was The Star report?

This is a scenario told by a non-English speaker via 2 different reporters and ripe for a bit of imaginative fiction and you’re just the man for the job.

…..

Schwartz passed the incident, crossed the road, saw Pipeman, got shouted at and left.

[Michael W Richards]

If the police had no confidence in Schwartz's statement, why were they canvassing the area to locate all the Lipski families? This went on for some time, incurring costs both in manhour and financial terms. While the police believed Schwartz's assertion that Lipski was shouted at an accomplice was probably incorrect, they still investigated what he told them as he told it. If they had set aside his entire statement, as describing it as being viewed with no confidence implies, they would have done just that - set it aside and not engaged in an expensive and time consuming search for Lipski's in the area. The police action at the time indicates they had confidence in the events described by Schwartz, but were not convinced his interpretation was the only one. However, rather than presume their reinterpretation was the correct one, they had to see if they could rule out local Lipski's, which I believe there is a report suggesting they were able to (though I could be misremembering the phrasing of one of the reports to HO?). Regardless, it is far from obvious the police at the time had no official confidence in Schwartz, in fact, quite the opposite.


Convenience is a bit loaded here, and the inconvenience of an assault starting off premises pales in comparison to having a body on premises. If the club were trying to reduce the inconveniences, then using Deimshutz's cart to move the body elsewhere would be far more desirable than simply trying to convince the police the assault happened a few minutes later in time. Changing the time of the assult in no way removes the inconvenience of a body on their property.

There wasn't exactly a high level of trust between the local residence of the East End and the police. The police, and the public at large, tended to paint the entire area with a rather dark brush. While such clubs were agitating for social reforms (and yes, some of that agitation included illegal activities although some was exacerbated by the police response), attempting to remove some of the inequalities that were stacked against them, that doesn't mean they would engage in any and all criminal activity. Covering up a murder of another person who was also suffering due to the social inequalities might indeed have been seen as the very antithesis of their purpose and as such it would serve their purposes to assist the police as much as they could while at the same time reserving the right to criticise the police for failing to catch the killer despite their assistance. Of course, if the police did catch the killer, they can then point to their assistance and claim some credit - a win win for them really.

- Jeff

The police rightly investigated any statements submitted by any witness. The Inquest, despite Mr Orsams apparent disagreement with me (and such a well respected man by Ripperologists too...oh well), is clearly devoid of Israel, his story, his characters and his storyline. But in the context of the Inquest establishing whether Stride was murdered is a paramount concern. His story would clearly provide some evidence that suggests she was murdered, and by the same man who he claims assaulted her in the street. Side point, ONLY Israel Schwartz gave a statement that includes Liz Stride in the street after 12:35, all other witnesses saw an empty street during that time. Brown obviously didnt see Stride, thats why I exclude him. Interesting that they did include him at the Inquest though. For the exact same time as Schwartz gives his altercation. Hmm.

To some of your other insights, one cannot move a body that has a trail of blood 10 feet or more long. And we have the young couple still about, even if Fanny is indoors at that time. The suggestion that the assault began off premises, despite your "convenience" interpretations, would exonerate ALL of the people still at the club immediately. Thats not in their interests? The club was an anarchist club, referred to as such and with the kind of reputation that goes with that term. All the revised interpretations of what they really were, and that they were really just law abiding folk, is dismissed by the fact that the steward of the club and arguably the one who most represented its values attacked the police with a club on that same property not long after this event.

[Michael W Richards]

The police were looking for a man named Lipski, never found one, and after November we hear nothing more of Schwartz. This suggests they eventually gave up on Schwartz, as nothing had come of the investigation based on his statement.

Clear and accurate.

[Michael W Richards]

Schwartz passed the incident, crossed the road, saw Pipeman, got shouted at and left.:2thumbsup:

Oh, so the term was shouted AT Schwartz? Thats another Herlock fact for us? You will eventually re-write the entire history of these cases with your creative application of What Actually Happened. Like the Monty Python sketch...."what I merely meant"....

In case you havent been paying attention there is not one account, statement, report, memo or casual comment that validates Israel Schwartz's statement in any way, shape or form. Just "belief".....your personal igloo of ignorance.