Motivation?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Same as for Matthew Packer.

After viewing both, Schwartz successfully identified the first as the woman he had seen on Berner St.

"To be honest, we doubts as to the truthfulness of your story, but you've successfully identified the woman found dead on Berner street last night", said the attending police constable.
"I was not codding, dear bobby", replied a sardonic Israel Schwartz, with rolling eyes.
"I remember her well", he continued, "she's the one that squealed a bit".

[Wickerman]

A plausible scenario, but one that must include this...

CI Swanson: Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen...

How many bodies do you think were in the mortuary?

[miakaal4]

Interesting topic, motivation. Tells us lots if we can find truth. I know many sneer at the thought of the Free Mason involvement, so leaving that aside, has anyone got any ideas about what JtR was trying to do or say when it comes to the mutilations? I mean with Nichols it's possible to argue it was a mindless frenzy. But as we move up to Kelly there seems to be a definite increase in knife work and a motivation behind it. Why take the uterus? Why were Kelly's organs and body parts placed in the shape of a cross, or at compass points?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

A plausible scenario, but one that must include this...

CI Swanson: Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen...

[Wickerman]

Why would Israel Schwartz give a false story?
One common factor throughout all these murders is a complaint by several police officials, some contemporary, some retired, concerning how many false stories they received from the public.
Why do people offer false stories?

Is anyone familiar with this story?

The Central News says: "Another desperate assault, which stopped only just short of murder, was committed upon a woman in Whitechapel, on Saturday night. The victim was leaving the Foresters' Music hall, Cambridge-heath-road, where she had been spending the evening with a sea captain, when she was accosted by a well-dressed man, who requested her to walk a short distance with him as he wanted to meet a friend. They had reached a point near to the scene of the murder of the woman Nicholls, when the man violently seized her by the throat and dragged her down a court. He was immediately joined by a gang of women and bullies, who stripped the unfortunate woman of necklace, earrings, and brooch. Her purse was also taken, and she was brutally assaulted. Upon her attempting to shout for aid one of the gang laid a large knife across her throat, remarking, 'We will serve you as we did the others.' She was, however, eventually released. The police have been informed, and are prosecuting inquiries into the matter, it being regarded as a probable clue to the previous tragedies."
Daily Telegraph, 4 Sept, 1888.

The story above contains quite a lot of detail, after 4 days of investigation by police, we read an update in the press:

"Ever since the day of the murder, the whole neighbourhood has been more or less alarmed, nor was the alarm decreased by a story published in one or two newspapers this week, describing how a woman, on leaving the Forester's Music Hall, was accosted by a man who, when near the scene of the murder, hustled her down a turning, where she was stripped of all her money and jewellery by a gang who came up, and was threatened with the same fate as Mrs. Nicholls. Inquiries made into the accuracy of the story have proved it to be absolutely false and groundless."
East London Observer, 8 Sept. 1888.

What was the reason for this false story, why?
But, it happened, like the police say, they were inundated with false claims.
Schwartz just may have been another example, we don't need to provide a reason, it doesn't need to be part of a conspiracy. It's just an example of human nature.

[miakaal4]

Could Israel be fabricated? Made up? If so , why??

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I agree with that analysis. Swanson is not confirming an existing belief in Schwartz' story, he is saying this belief is pending the results of the police report, which at the time, is a work in progress.

Having said that, I get the impression Swanson did in fact believe Schwartz, even before the police report was finalised. Unlike the Leman St police.

I'm not sure we can say the coroner chose not to use him.
He would seem to be an extremely vital witness. Something is amiss!

So you say you don't believe Schwartz, which is why you don't concern yourself with what he said or claimed to see.
But what could be Schwartz' motivation to go to the police with a fake story?

[Wickerman]

The reason I don't concern myself with what Schwartz said, or claimed he saw is, I don't believe him.

The non-appearance of Schwartz at the inquest has been the source of numerous debates for several years. It appears the Coroner did not choose to use him as a witness, so why?
Consistent with this is the press article I just posted above where it is suggested the police doubt his story. Against this is the note by Swanson which appears to say the police have no doubt about his story.

Something is amiss.

My own view, I mentioned earlier this year is, that I believe we have misunderstood what Swanson wrote.
To me, this must be the simplest solution to the contention.

Swanson writes:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows....."

We have always assumed Swanson was confirming Schwartz story by saying the police report casts no doubt on what he says.

Let me give an example of what I think Swanson meant.

Compare these two statements:

"If I go to Toronto tomorrow, and go to a baseball game, then...."

with...

"If I go to Toronto tomorrow, and if I go to a baseball game, then...."

Both those statements mean the same. The difference is of course, the preposition "if" is used twice. Although there are times when we might use the "if" twice in similar statements, it is not necessary, nor is it always the case. The first "if" is assumed or implied in the second half of the statement regardless.

Therefore, what Swanson was saying is, that a police report, which would be the result of an investigation of Schwartz's statement, had not been written yet.

Swanson meant:
"If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows....."

Swanson was not confirming Schwartz, he was just saying Detectives are waiting for the police report on the investigation of his story.

That being the case, all three sources (The Coroner, the Star, and Swanson) are in agreement. Eventually, the police, for whatever reason, chose not to believe Schwartz.

[Wickerman]

I think I know, and I think I know why he apparently changes the story, almost overnight.

As for Pipeman running, I can't quite see a man running with a freshly lit pipe, and why would he anyway?
Is he working with BS Man? In what capacity?
Why not just let Schwartz walk by? He has already crossed the road and appears to have no interest in the assault outside #40.
Pipeman can't be working with Tipsy Man, 'cause the later just turned into Berner St ... tipsy. And now Pipeman is Knifeman, and is hostile to Tipsy Man.
So if the second man is just walking home (from where? the pubs closed at midnight), stops to light his pipe, and then 'follows' Schwartz down Berner St, then he quite possibly lives between Ellen St, Christian St, Pinchin St, and Backchurch Lane. Should be easy to track down.
Multiple arrests - no Pipeman.

Was this Pipeman?

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.
Star, 2 Oct. 1888.

[DJA]

You really need to do your research Andrew.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So, Schwartz ran towards the railway arches, which way did he run?

I think I know, and I think I know why he apparently changes the story, almost overnight.

As for Pipeman running, I can't quite see a man running with a freshly lit pipe, and why would he anyway?
Is he working with BS Man? In what capacity?
Why not just let Schwartz walk by? He has already crossed the road and appears to have no interest in the assault outside #40.
Pipeman can't be working with Tipsy Man, 'cause the later just turned into Berner St ... tipsy. And now Pipeman is Knifeman, and is hostile to Tipsy Man.
So if the second man is just walking home (from where? the pubs closed at midnight), stops to light his pipe, and then 'follows' Schwartz down Berner St, then he quite possibly lives between Ellen St, Christian St, Pinchin St, and Backchurch Lane. Should be easy to track down.
Multiple arrests - no Pipeman.

No, we can't work this stuff out for sure, but we can reason about the scenarios.

For example, the change of address. Should take a couple of hours at most.
Why not help his wife do it before going out for the day? Or did he leave before 9am?
That's 16 hours ago - longer than Diemschitz is away at the markets.
And why does he suppose the wife might not be done by 1am the next morning?

It really seems like Schwartz needs an excuse to be on Berner St when he says he was, and another excuse to only be there very briefly.
House move > Pipeman. It's all so convenient.
Later that morning or maybe lunchtime, he speaks to the Star man. He then essentially exits history.
Where did he go? I think I know.

[Wickerman]

Your problem is, you are trying to solve an issue for which we have no clear information.
- We don't know whether the 'Pipeman' was really a 'Knifeman', due to two different sources.
- We don't know if this man chased after Schwartz, or just ran behind him to avoid the same trouble.
- We don't know the true direction Schwartz claimed he ran.
- We don't know which address Schwartz's was running towards. However, the very fact 22 Ellen St. is noted on the statement by Swanson would indicate Ellen St. was the new address, the address where they could find him if required.
- Many rooms were rented fully furnished, so moving house may involve nothing more than his wife packing a few suitcases.

The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more.

The second man had a knife, not a pipe, so the wind is irrelevant.
Unless, that is, you're referring to the 'pipeman' from Swanston's report, based as it was on the Sep 30 version of events.
In that case, we're dealing with this:

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 so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

Is the second man now huddled in the doorway, trying to escape the wind while trying to light his pipe? Who knows?
Perhaps a more pertinent question is; what was the first street Schwartz ran down on his way to the railway arch?
Was it Berner or Fairclough Street?
If the former, he must have gone past the B/F intersection by the time he begins running from pipeman.
That takes him straight past his Berner St address, or at least the one his wife had been moving out of when he went out for the day over 12 hours earlier.
If the later, he runs right by Edward Spooner and lady friend, standing outside the Beehive.
Spooner make no reference to this, so I guess Schwartz ran further down Berner St and past the old address.

You've likely seen this map before.
The Green circle - Dutfields Yard.
Blue circle - 22 Ellen St.
Red circles - locations where railway tracks pass over, or run along side a road.



So, Schwartz ran towards the railway arches, which way did he run?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Louis had trouble lighting a match to see the body of Liz in the entrance to the club;

"It was rather windy, and I could only get a light sufficient to show that it was the figure of some person"

The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more.

The second man had a knife, not a pipe, so the wind is irrelevant.
Unless, that is, you're referring to the 'pipeman' from Swanston's report, based as it was on the Sep 30 version of events.
In that case, we're dealing with this:

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 so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

Is the second man now huddled in the doorway, trying to escape the wind while trying to light his pipe? Who knows?
Perhaps a more pertinent question is; what was the first street Schwartz ran down on his way to the railway arch?
Was it Berner or Fairclough Street?
If the former, he must have gone past the B/F intersection by the time he begins running from pipeman.
That takes him straight past his Berner St address, or at least the one his wife had been moving out of when he went out for the day over 12 hours earlier.
If the later, he runs right by Edward Spooner and lady friend, standing outside the Beehive.
Spooner make no reference to this, so I guess Schwartz ran further down Berner St and past the old address.
In either case, we should get a pretty good idea of where pipeman lives, presuming he was just walking home when he spooked Israel.
So why wasn't he identified?
Regardless, I guess pipeman must have dealt with the wind in time for Schwartz to see him coming, and Mrs Schwartz must have managed to complete the move by 1am, so that Israel never needed to return Berner street. Imagine the surprise he would have got if he did though, seeing all those people outside the club!
But at least he got home safe to his wife, and what an understanding wife she must have been, letting him go out all day and half the night, while she moved house for both of them.
Gee, I just thought of something. I wonder if they had any kids?

[Wickerman]

William Marshall reported a likely Stride sighting opposite 58 Berner Street ~ 11.45pm.

Tends to support Packer selling grapes ~ 11.30pm.

Wrong couple, walking the wrong way.
The man Marshall saw wore a cap, not a hat (with wide brim), Marshall saw no flower on her jacket.

Packer said Stride and the man came UP from the direction of Ellen St., Marshall said the couple walked DOWN towards Ellen St.
Different couple.

[Wickerman]

You clearly assume the Beerhouse had to be open for a man to come "out of the doorway", yet you have not explained why that is.
Once again.....he came from the doorway, not out of the Beerhouse.