The Absence Of Evidence

[jerryd]

After researching a man by the name of Marks Rubenstein, I have a different view on all things "Lipski", so to speak. Rubenstein was the brother in law of Phillip Lipski of Batty Street. Rubenstein was also involved in the Sarah Schwartz case, by the way. If anyone is interested in more on him, I can include a link to what research I found on him. I don't want to clutter up this thread too much.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

As I see it, there is nothing strange about Schwartz's proposed move.

It's Saturday. It's the end of the week, and it's also the end of the month. That's when people normally move if they are paying rent on a week-to-week or month-to-month basis. They don't want to get stuck paying extra.

The obviously implication is that the Schwartz's were moving at the end of the week/month, but there were complications. Maybe the house they were moving into hadn't been vacated yet, or there was some other hold-up.

Either way, Schwartz still had work or had other important business to attend to, away from the area, and couldn't be in contact with his wife on Saturday. So, away all day, he didn't know whether she had been able to make the move or not. Nothing at all unusual in that. People worked long hours.

The only clue we get regarding Schwartz' activity during the day, is from the Star report:

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.

Which is curiously vague. So one more to the list of Israel Schwartz unknows; where did he work, and in what role?
The only clue we get regarding that, is from his reported appearance at Leman street station:

This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

Bizarre! Did Bram Stoker have the appearance of being in the theatrical line, or just that of a regular middle-class man?
So what is going on Schwartz? Was he a particularly flamboyant character, or had he perhaps come straight from stage rehearsals, with no time to take his stage dress and makeup off?
Or maybe something else entirely; it was a deliberate attempt to disguise his normal appearance.

Now it's 1 a.m. and Schwartz is walking down Commercial Road, wanting to go home...but he doesn't know where home is. Did his wife make the move or not? He doesn't know.

Despite the common wisdom, I strongly suspect that Schwartz's "new" lodgings were a good distance away. Aldgate? Or was it the other direction Limehouse? Or Mile-End?

Again, we don't know, but not wanting to walk all that way unnecessarily, Schwartz decides to first stop by his "old" lodgings in case his wife hadn't been able to make the move.

These were at 22 Ellen Street. Yes, he turned onto Berner Street, but that was only to get from Commerical Road to Ellen Street, which was just south of Berner.

But, of course, he ran into Jack the Ripper and the rest is history.

In any event, the proposed move was evidently delayed. That's why Swanson still lists Schwartz's address as 22 Helen Street [Ellen Street] at the time of his interview on Sunday night. He was still at his old lodgings.

It's even possible that Schwartz then moved away, and was lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. "**** happens," as they say, and the best witness the Met had was AWOL.

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

P.S. You mentioned "Sarah Schwartz" of 22 Back Church Lane. Unfortunately, she was almost certainly not related to Israel Schwartz. She came to the UK alone, was headed to America, and had no friends or relatives in London. I am fairly certain she sailed to America a few months after her horrific ordeal, though I still need to confirm it. The 22 Back Church Lane address was long gone by 1888, so it could not be associated with Schwartz.

I only quoted from Bromley's article, for the benefit of anyone not sure who erobitha was referring to.

Here is an interesting question regarding Schwartz' real address, or at least his whereabouts on October 1.
Is the address given to the police - 22 Ellen street - compatible with the Star report...?

He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane.

That is, is Backchurch Lane the same as Ellen Street, for all intents as purposes?
Looking at a post by Chris Scott, apparently not. https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...s-no-2#post502
Consider the following addresses...

Cohen 34 Backchurch Lane
Goldstein 7 Brunswick Street Ellen Street
Rosenberg Ellen Street

It seems Brunswick Street is regarded as 'hanging off' Ellen Street, but Ellen Street does not 'hang off' Backchurch Lane - it is a 'standalone' street.
Thus it would seem that the Star man really did run Schwartz to Earth on Backchurch Lane, and not Ellen Street.
So how did he obtain this alternate address?

[Fiver]

Isn't there something about the Jewish day, it begins & ends at noon. Not midnight like the west?
But this may vary with different types of Jews.

The Jewish day begins at sunset. So Shabbat (Sabbath) is from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday.

[c.d.]

Or that he was paranoid from the minute he stepped into the yard but the desire to kill overcame his better judgment.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This relates to the ongoing debate concerning the murder of Elizabeth Stride. We have two conflicting viewpoints.

Firstly, that because there was no physical evidence of the killer being interrupted (skirts raised, legs spread etc) we should assume that the killer didn’t intend to mutilate his victim and so as a result we should dismiss Stride as a ripper victim.

The second viewpoint is that if the killer was interrupted just as he cut Stride’s throat and then stopped (because of Diemschutz arrival) and had no further contact with the body then we could expect no evidence of an intention to mutilate to have existed.

I have to point out that it isn’t being suggested that Stride definitely was a ripper victim only that the possibility exists. Evidence of interruption might have existed of course if the killer had been interrupted after he’d lifted her skirts for example but that not what is being suggested. What is being suggested is that the killer might have been interrupted just as or just after he’d cut her throat and that consequentially we cannot expect evidence of interruption to have existed.

I see that Michael has voted. 19-1 now

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

We know the police liked to keep their cards close to their chest. The idea that they may have kept information they deemed important from the inquest is not that far fetched. While I've been skeptical of that, I've been re-reading some of the communications of Charles Warren, and the following paragraph found in a reply to the Board of Works for the Whitechapel District and dated Oct 3rd, is worthy of keeping in mind. (Found on page 160 of my copy of Evans & Skinner):
"...
You will agree with me that it is not desirable that I should enter into particulars as to what the police are doing in the matter. It is most important for good results that our proceedings should not be published, and the very fact that you may be unaware of what the Detective Department is doing is only the stronger proof that it is doing its work with secrecy and efficiency.
..."

Now, that's not quite the same as indicating they would extend such "secrecy and efficiency" to an inquest, nor is it surprising that he's not going to release details to an outside group, but it is interesting that he indicates that information should not be published. This may just be a Victorian phrase indicating that the information should not be made public, but regardless, if the police at the time felt Schwartz might have put them on to a good lead, then not wanting it public knowledge would be understandable. They can't help it if Schwartz spoke to the press, but they do not have to draw greater attention to him, or get his story in every paper.

Anyway, just thought that was an interesting communication from Warren that pertains to the police view with regards to important information and making it public.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

I used kick around the following idea: that there was no broad-shouldered man. The broad-shouldered man was Schwartz himself.

He's hurrying home, he's tired, he doesn't know if his wife made the move. He's not in a good mood, and a streetwalker solicits him. He shoves her to the ground and keeps going, but someone sees him, yells a racial insult, and gives brief chase.

Schwartz flees home, only to learn the next morning that the woman he assaulted had been murdered. Terrified, he comes forward to clear himself, but lies about his own involvement for obvious reasons. Another man assaulted Stride--not him.

It could work, but I no longer think this is the correct answer.

[c.d.]

The idea that he was discredited seems like a poor and convenient excuse to eliminate a witness that is harmful to so many pet theories, including my own brilliant solution.

I often get the feeling on here by the way that Schwartz is viewed by some that he must have stolen their family fortune or impregnated a number of their distant female relatives.

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

All fairly normal and above board stuff.

Nothing to question here at all? Saturday is the sabbath - I thought Jews do not traditionally work on the Sabbath? What was he doing exactly?

Nothing more than pure coincidence of 22 Back Church Lane and the attack on Sarah Schwartz three years prior, who actually was Hungarian? I think there is a collage of different stories going on here designed to deliberately confuse.

Then I’m a Maybrickian and in your eyes am no more than a wild fringe theorist.

Schwartz is and was never a reliable witness in my wild fringe theory view. No proof he even existed.

This is Colney Hatch material, Erobitha---but that's fine, most of us have been there.

For the sake of those passing through and who still don't know the reference, Sarah Schwartz was a teen-aged Hungarian immigrant who had been robbed while on board ship, and was briefly working in London in 1885 to earn money for passage to America. This was fully three years before the Whitechapel Murders, of course. Her employers were horrific swine, and when she attempted to quit, they encouraged men to rape her. This did not happen at 22 Back Church Lane. That address is simply somewhere she briefly stayed during the trial in an age when the press stupidly gave the names and addresses of rape victims. In fact, one account gave the house number as 26 Back Church Lane, so it may not even have been 22. Either way, her employers were sent to prison, and she appears to have gone on to America. Who knows? Maybe an emigrant society took pity and helped her. End of story, 1885.

Three years later, a man named Schwartz, supposedly a Hungarian, and who happens to live at 22 Ellen Street, comes forward after the murder of Liz Stride. This is not the same address as Sarah Schwartz. That house no longer even existed--the railway tore it down to put up coal sheds.

So you've lost me in a labyrinth worthy of Bruce Robinson and Stephen Knight. How could the two cases have become linked, and how would it have confused the issue? What issue? What mysterious group of masterminds manipulates the evidence in such a cryptic manner and to what end?

It appears to be nothing more than a name coincidence noticed 120 years later by Gavin Bromley, while doing genealogical research on East End families named Schwartz. It turned out to be a dead-end. The Covid confinement has been brutal, but we can't afford to lose our minds now.

We of course don't know anything at all about Israel Schwartz and why he was out & about on Saturday. We don't know how Orthodox he was, and why he had business to attend to.

Totally off-topic, but the Sabbath runs from sundown to sundown, and it is not unknown among Jewish men to mark the end of their fast with a glass or two of wine on Saturday night. There is no law against it. I rather fancy our three Jewish friends in Duke Street had been in their cups until 1.40 a.m. when they went their separate ways home. 'Delayed by the rain,' is an excuse a man tells his wife when he's been knocking back the spirits until the wee hours. All speculation, of course, but Jewish men like a tipple as much as the next guy, and I've noticed that some nice, if illegal, Wódka was distilled in Aldgate. Maybe Schwart wasn't particularly religious and he worked all day, then knocked back a few glasses himself.

By the way, there appears to have been a fair amount of Romanians named Schwartz in London in the 1890s and 1900s, but I don't know if that means anything.

If it makes you feel better, I, too, am an outcast, because I strongly suspect that Schwartz was not lost in the shuffle, and the true answer is this: the police deliberately kept him from the inquest. Illegal, or pushing the envelope? Yes, but here in the U.S. you would get wealthy if paid a dollar every time the police & prosecution kept a witness from the defense, and this is not even a trial, but a coroner's inquest. At least the late, great Phil Sugden was willing to accept this as one possibility. "Perhaps they [the police] considered his testimony so important that they wished to keep the details secret." (p 202)

Seems entirely reasonable to me. The police were being embarrassed by all these murders, but here was a man who saw one of the victims physically assaulted. No witness mentioned in the MEPO/Home Office files is discussed more than Israel Schwartz. They are still arguing about him and analyzing the meaning of his account in early November.

The idea that he was discredited seems like a poor and convenient excuse to eliminate a witness that is harmful to so many pet theories, including my own.

Have an enjoyable week.

R P

[erobitha]

cmon cd the police were in on it with the club members.

Sorry, what club members corroborated Schwartz again? I missed that

[Abby Normal]

Ok I am confused here. If Schwartz never existed who was it that Abberline interviewed and who was Swanson referring to in his report?

c.d.

cmon cd the police were in on it with the club members.

[Abby Normal]

Isn't there something about the Jewish day, it begins & ends at noon. Not midnight like the west?
But this may vary with different types of Jews.



An odd journalist may have invented a story, but you think they invented people?
I don't think there is any examples of that.

or would moving even be considered work?

[Abby Normal]

All fairly normal and above board stuff.

Nothing to question here at all? Saturday is the sabbath - I thought Jews do not traditionally work on the Sabbath? What was he doing exactly?

Nothing more than pure coincidence of 22 Back Church Lane and the attack on Sarah Schwartz three years prior, who actually was Hungarian? I think there is a collage of different stories going on here designed to deliberately confuse.

Then I’m a Maybrickian and in your eyes am no more than a wild fringe theorist.

Schwartz is and was never a reliable witness in my wild fringe theory view. No proof he even existed.

do you think hutch was a reliable witness?

[c.d.]

Ok I am confused here. If Schwartz never existed who was it that Abberline interviewed and who was Swanson referring to in his report?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

All fairly normal and above board stuff.

Nothing to question here at all? Saturday is the sabbath - I thought Jews do not traditionally work on the Sabbath? What was he doing exactly?

Isn't there something about the Jewish day, it begins & ends at noon. Not midnight like the west?
But this may vary with different types of Jews.

Schwartz is and was never a reliable witness in my wild fringe theory view. No proof he even existed.

An odd journalist may have invented a story, but you think they invented people?
I don't think there is any examples of that.