The Absence Of Evidence

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It is clear to me that newspapers did publish false stories and engaged with interferring with the case. The Dear Boss letter & Saucy Jack postcard are cases in point. There was a war to sell papers, each one looking to gazzump the next.

How do we know this was not one such time? Readers must ask that question. Examine the language and detail in the article. We should be questioning the authenticity. No-one has been able to locate an israel Schwartz at the address Swanson gave. Or a Hungarian-Austrian Israel Schwartz. How very odd that a Hungo-Austrian girl was assualted in 1885 and lived at that exact adress Swanson mentioned whose name was Shwartz. Yet, it appears she emigrated. Where they related?

Schwartz’s nationality is only mentioned in the Star reports and he was stated to be Hungarian. There is no mention of his nationality in any of the police or Home Office references. He is merely referred to as a ‘foreigner’. No census records exist for an Israel Schwartz born in Hungary. The records found for an Israel Schwartz, if they relate to the same man, indicate that he was Polish or Russian.

In 1885 there were newspaper reports relating to a Sarah Schwartz, aged 18 who was said to be Hungarian or Austrian. She had entered the service of Louis and Mary Keavy as domestic servant at a coffee shop in Church Lane on Sunday, 11 October, 1885. Because the establishment was frequented by rough looking men, Sarah Schwartz decided she didn’t want to stay and gave her notice the same day. Mary Keavy was annoyed at this and told 28 men who were in the house that they could do with the girl as they wished, whereupon Sarah was attacked in a cruel and horrific way, encouraged by the Keavys. She was able, finally, to crawl away and saw a doctor the following day who said she was suffering from the ‘effects of gross violence’. The Keavys were sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with hard labour. At the time of the trial Sarah Schwartz was said to be living at 22 Backchurch Lane.

This may indicate there was a family called Schwartz from Hungary in the area. No other records for Sarah Schwartz have so far been found.

Ref: Mrs. Kuer’s Lodger

Does 22 Backchurch Lane = 22 Ellen Street?

Was it not very handy an intepreter was on hand when the journalist called?

The Star: He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. 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. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.

It depends. If we assume the police did not disclose his name and address, there seems two ways the Star man could have ended up speaking to him:

One: Schwartz went to the press (with an interpreter), of his own accord - just like Goldstein and Wess did

Two: The Star man was tipped off, and managed to track Schwartz down.

The second sounds closer to 'ran him to earth'. So in that case the interpreter at hand would seem to be good luck for the reporter ... unless he came prepared.
Yet this does not explain how the tipster got the inside information about Schwartz' visit to Leman street.
So perhaps back to option one ... unless someone is getting inside information from the police, breaching confidentiality, and maybe making a quid out of the Star. So who might that unscrupulous character have been?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. When one considers "that one of the principal duties of the Court was to inquire “who gave the wounds, and who are, in what manner, culpable either of the act or of the force, and who were present, either men or women.”", then how on earth could Schwartz not have been called, unless not believed? If believed, he would have been Baxter's first pick

Because Israel Schwartz couldn't put a name to BS Man. Without a name it would still have been 'person or person's unknown.'

[FrankO]

So it would seem Frank, that your posts are worthy of serious discussion

Thanks, Andrew.

That leaves the movements of Lave, unexplained.

Indeed, it does. The way I see it, is that Mrs. Diemshutz was just telling that the last person to enter by the side door did so at around 20 minutes before the discovery of the body and that she’d heard nothing in the yard between this person’s arrival and the discovery of the body. So, I think Lave went outside and inside again before Eagle arrived.

A question for you: Regardless of the actual time of Diemschitz arrival, between 12:40 and that arrival time, who was in the yard at any point, other than murderer and victim?

I'm afraid my answer is: no one that we know of.

Many members were travellers, it would seem. Diemschitz, Eagle, and Goldstein were. Yet none of these people seem to know were to find a policeman, along a nearby main road. I reckon Matthew Packer would have known.

My take is that the members of the public who were involved in the direct aftermath of the discovery of the body, would have been very agitated by seeing a woman with her throat cut and all the blood right next to their club or so close to where they lived. And that would have had a direct influence on their thinking and memories in the sense that they may not have been able to think as straight as they normally would, nor that their memories would have recorded everything as well as they normally would. This would certainly explain why Eagle may have turned left on the top of Berner Street instead of turning right and directly to Ayliffe or why Diemshutz went looking for a PC in Fairclough Street instead of in Commercial Street.

Besides all of this, they couldn't know where Lamb, Smith or Collins would approximately be the moment they went looking for a PC.

It's also a little odd that Eagle seems to have had no trouble making his way to Leman street station. I don't suppose you are inclined to increase his 5 minute jog time, given the possibility of wrong turns.

I don’t see it as odd. There’s nothing to suggest that Eagle didn’t know the area. In fact, as you say, Eagle being a traveller, even suggests that he would have been familiar with the area.

But if he didn’t know where the station was, he could have asked Lamb. It wouldn’t have been difficult to (explain how to) find it. The police station was 3 left turns from the yard going via Commercial Street and 1 right turn, 1 left turn and 2 right turns via Hooper Street.

Besides – again - if Eagle ran at 3 m/s instead of 2 he would have covered the 610 to the station in less than 3 and a half minutes, leaving enough room to take 1 or 2 wrong turns.

I don't think Diemschitz did enter the side door.

Of course, anything is possible - but why wouldn’t Diemshutz have entered by the side door? He had his pony parked just outside this door and according to Eagle the front door was closed, which is why he entered the club by the side door at about 12.40, and it was also customary for members of the club to go in by the side door to prevent knocking at the front.

Furthermore, Diemshutz ran inside, said that there was a woman lying in the yard, asked for a candle and match and ran back out into the yard, lighted a match and seeing all the blood went for a PC. Eagle was upstairs when he learned about the woman in the yard, which makes it all the more probable that Diemshutz had already left for a PC when he lighted his match and said “Get up”. This also fits with a remark of his that he heard Diemshutz calling for the police just before he went running in the direction of Commercial Street.

When Fanny Mortimer goes to the yard, Diemschitz is there, and it would seem, Spooner too. Yet no police. So the search at that point must have been ongoing.

Seeing that Eagle returned shortly after this with Lamb & Ayliffe, it’s perfectly possible that they’d already found the police when Mortimer arrived in the yard. They just hadn’t arrived yet.

There is nothing more official than the account of a policeman under oath.

Smith: At 1 o'clock I went to Berner-street in my ordinary round. I saw a crowd of people outside the gates of No. 40. I did not hear any cries of "Police."

Can’t a policeman under oath have been mistaken? I’m not suggesting that Smith told porkies. I believe that he believed what he said. He was just mistaken by minutes, which would be nothing sinister or outlandish. Either that, or he was somewhere on his way to Berner Street, perhaps at the top of Gower's Walk as you suggest, when he saw a clock indicating 1 o'clock.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The fact we even question whether Stride is a JTR victim or not boils down to Schwartz's statement muddying the waters.

1) No other reports corroborate his account. No reports of men chasing other men. [...]

Not quite. Jon and I discuss related newspaper reports, including the mysterious chase down Fairclough street, starting here....

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/elizabeth-stride/712210-the-schwartz-bs-man-situation-my-opinion-only?p=756893#post756893

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Since we don't know how reliable Baxter thought he was it's hard to evaluate what level of reliability your statement implies.

- Jeff

For those who have not read the inquest testimony recently (not suggesting you are one of those, Jeff), it might come as surprise to learn that the Schwartz incident is actually referred to, at the inquest ...

The Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
Dr Phillips: That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

This is clearly a reference to what Schwartz described - so the Foreman knows of the incident, Phillips does not wonder what the point of the question is, and Baxter does not seem to have objected to it. They all know about Schwartz' tale!
Both the phrasing of the loaded question ("Do you not think..."), and Phillips' answer, suggest that these men regarded the BS Man story as less than genuine.

This is Baxter's summing up, from the Evening Post, Oct 23:

The Coroner, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case to which they had patiently devoted so much time. It was true that one of the principal duties of the Court was to inquire “who gave the wounds, and who are, in what manner, culpable either of the act or of the force, and who were present, either men or women.” It was also true that the facts proved in evidence were insufficient to return a positive answer to this inquiry; but it might surely be urged that they had had before them those who appeared most likely to afford information, and that the interval which had occurred since the death justified a doubt if even a long adjournment would place them in a more satisfactory position. There was in the evidence no clue to the murderer, and no suggested motive for the murder. Those who knew deceased were unaware of anyone likely to injure her. She never accused anyone of having threatened her. She never expressed any fear of anyone, and although she had outbursts of drunkenness, she was generally a quiet woman. The ordinary motives of murder – revenge, jealousy, theft, and passion – appeared, therefore, to be absent from this case: while it was clear from the accounts of all who saw her that night, as well as from the post-mortem examination, that she was no otherwise than sober at the time of her death. In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the case in Mitre-square – possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which unfortunately for the piece (sic) of the inhabitants and the trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful.

The phrase "but it might surely be urged that they had had before them those who appeared most likely to afford information", suggests to me that questions had been raised, or at least rumours existed, that at least one individual who was not called to the inquest, should have been. My money is on Israel Schwartz - I don't think Baxter believed his tale, and thought it best not to summon him.
When one considers "that one of the principal duties of the Court was to inquire “who gave the wounds, and who are, in what manner, culpable either of the act or of the force, and who were present, either men or women.”", then how on earth could Schwartz not have been called, unless not believed? If believed, he would have been Baxter's first pick!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What does 'expected to move' suggest? Did Mrs Schwartz not only change address on her own, but go house hunting on the day also?
Are we simply to assume that, having run as far as one of the railway arches, Mr Schwartz then cautiously makes his way to the new lodgings, finds his wife there, thus avoiding any need to return to Berner street?

If we assume that Schwartz did gingerly make his way back from the rail arch to the new lodgings on Ellen street, then the notion of Mrs Schwartz house hunting during the day, does not make sense - how would Israel have known were to go if he had gone out for the day, as the Star states?
So either Schwartz returned to the Berner street address, and found his wife still there, or, the new address was known to Schwartz at the start of the day. In that case, the reason for an expected move, as opposed to a definitely established one, could only be guessed.

When Schwartz stopped near gates of the yard, to watch some of the altercation, he was on the club/yard side of the street. So the Berner street address seems to have been beyond the Fairclough intersection, and probably on the same side as he had been walking. That would narrow things right down - he lived fairly near William Marshall. So it's a tiny bit ironic that when Marshall sees Stride and Rather Stout Man walking off (with his arm around her neck), the pair head in the direction of Ellen street!

[erobitha]

I wasn't sure if this was sarcasm, or whether you were genuinely unaware of such deceptions.

Here is one example:
"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."
https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...elo880908.html

There's no need to accuse all the press of employing deception, but cases did exist. I've written many times on the Star newspaper who employed dubious tactics purely to sell newspapers. 1888 was their first year, and their editor T. P. O'Connor was not above printing misinformation or exaggerating a story to grab the readers attention.
Truth never stood in the way of a good story with O'Connor.
The Star narrowly avoided being sued by John Pizer for false accusations, that case was settled out of court. The Evening News & Pall Mall Gazette were also involved.

You do know?, that the most likely candidate who wrote the Dear Boss letter was a Star journalist named Fred Best, his handwriting was even tested against the actual letter.
Another one of their deceptions was very likely the accusation of a witness being "discredited" leveled against George Hutchinson. It was proven to be wrong merely four days after they published the accusation, and no other paper repeated the charge.

So yes, we must be careful when accepting controversial stories which find no corroboration elsewhere.

It is clear to me that newspapers did publish false stories and engaged with interferring with the case. The Dear Boss letter & Saucy Jack postcard are cases in point. There was a war to sell papers, each one looking to gazzump the next.

How do we know this was not one such time? Readers must ask that question. Examine the language and detail in the article. We should be questioning the authenticity. No-one has been able to locate an israel Schwartz at the address Swanson gave. Or a Hungarian-Austrian Israel Schwartz. How very odd that a Hungo-Austrian girl was assualted in 1885 and lived at that exact adress Swanson mentioned whose name was Shwartz. Yet, it appears she emigrated. Where they related? Was it not very handy an intepreter was on hand when the journalist called?

We accept Schwartz because Swanson does. If Swanson did not, I doubt anyone would believe his account. In fact other reports around the time did cast doubt.

This is not exclusively my problem.

I cannot draw to an ultimate conclusion that Schwartz is a made-up character using a mix of different stories and names, because Swanson endorses him. Everything about Schwartz screams wrong to me. The fact we even question whether Stride is a JTR victim or not boils down to Schwartz's statement muddying the waters.

1) No other reports corroborate his account. No reports of men chasing other men. No reports of hearing "small screams". Pretty sure Fanny would have heard something - she was clsoe enough
2) No railway arch ever existed at the end of Berner Street, where was this railway arch exactly?
3) His name and testimony was not used at the inquest. Curiously neither was Fanny Mortimer's or Matthew Packer's
4) We only know his name after 19th October and it comes endorsed by Swanson

Take him out of the equation, then the chain of events make much more sense.

[Wickerman]

I imagine journalists placing fake news in papers in order to get the 'scoop' never happened back then. Still, he became quite a convenient witness that never was from the police perspective.

I wasn't sure if this was sarcasm, or whether you were genuinely unaware of such deceptions.

Here is one example:
"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."

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/east_london_observer/elo880908.html

There's no need to accuse all the press of employing deception, but cases did exist. I've written many times on the Star newspaper who employed dubious tactics purely to sell newspapers. 1888 was their first year, and their editor T. P. O'Connor was not above printing misinformation or exaggerating a story to grab the readers attention.
Truth never stood in the way of a good story with O'Connor.
The Star narrowly avoided being sued by John Pizer for false accusations, that case was settled out of court. The Evening News & Pall Mall Gazette were also involved.

You do know?, that the most likely candidate who wrote the Dear Boss letter was a Star journalist named Fred Best, his handwriting was even tested against the actual letter.
Another one of their deceptions was very likely the accusation of a witness being "discredited" leveled against George Hutchinson. It was proven to be wrong merely four days after they published the accusation, and no other paper repeated the charge.

So yes, we must be careful when accepting controversial stories which find no corroboration elsewhere.

[JeffHamm]

Probably about as reliable as Wynne Baxter thought he was

Since we don't know how reliable Baxter thought he was it's hard to evaluate what level of reliability your statement implies.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Thanks for the heads up Jon.

Hi again.
I see you joined the group.

I'm not altogether sure I understand your question about Swanson.
Lets assume, for arguments sake, Swanson was not endorsing Schwartz, in fact the comments he made were more neutral. Then we would have no conflict between how the press viewed Schwartz, and how Swanson viewed Schwartz.
Personally, I don't think Swanson is endorsing Schwartz. Though I admit this has been the traditional view.

If Swanson was not endorsing Schwartz, does your problem go away?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So if Swanson had not referenced Schwartz at a later date, how reliable a witness would people on here make him?

Probably about as reliable as Wynne Baxter thought he was

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Most rooms came furnished back then, if you move house you're typically carrying your clothes that's about it.

I don't think the workload is the issue. It's more the oddity of leaving such an important step as moving address, to his wife.
What the Star says is intriguing ...

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. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

So Mr Schwartz had apparently gone out all day, all evening, and well into the night, and then detoured into Berner street, just to check if Mrs Schwartz had completed the move she had expected to make. Fascinating!
What does 'expected to move' suggest? Did Mrs Schwartz not only change address on her own, but go house hunting on the day also?
Are we simply to assume that, having run as far as one of the railway arches, Mr Schwartz then cautiously makes his way to the new lodgings, finds his wife there, thus avoiding any need to return to Berner street?
If yes, then we are saying; Israel Schwartz had to check out an address on Berner street at a quarter to one in the morning, but having been chased away from the area, found that he didn't need to go back, oh and, this was occurring right when JtR was putting away another victim, who Schwartz had gone within yards of, right before fleeing the scene.
Is it that seriously what people believe?

Are we questioning where Swanson got this info from?
"12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen (Ellen) street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at that hour."..etc.

Not me, yet there is something about Israel Schwartz that leaves people seriously wondering ...

Hi Rob

Bearing in mind the total lack of reference to him, in what is after all the most contemporary and relevant work, and in the following issue too, did Schwartz even exist?

Dave

People do not say things like that, of Hutchinson.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Isn’t it reasonable to infer that the side door must have been closed at 12.45 when Mortis Eagle returned as he commented how dark the yard was therefor the door must have been opened between 12.45 and 1.00. Sarah D only mentions someone returning at 12.45 (which we can assume to have been Eagle.) Maybe she didn’t see anyone pass the kitchen to go to the back door after Eagle had returned. Or, as I said before, maybe she just opened the door herself for air.

That would be reasonable to infer, its just that there is also this to consider...

SD: Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs.

Okay, but how long had she been there? The MA report also states...

Mila, the servant at the club, strongly corroborates the statement made by her mistress, and is equally convinced there were no sounds coming from the yard between 20 minutes to one and one o'clock.

So it would seem Sarah and Mila had been in the kitchen for the period spanning Eagle's entrance, to the discovery.
That interpretation would also make sense of Fanny Mortimer's astonishment.

There’s no way of getting any further with this of course.

Perhaps look at the issue in a different way. Okay, so there was light streaming out into the yard. So what exactly? Why are we being told this? Is the implication that anyone just outside the door would have been seen? Recall that the kitchen was behind the passageway, which ran the length of the building. Could she have seen anyone out there, from the kitchen? If not, why mention the light streaming outside?
It sort of bothers me, in a curiosity sense. Was it a sort of Freudian Slip?
The door seems to have lined up with the WC's...

Baxter: There is one thing I have forgotten to ask. Is there a w.c. opposite your doorway?
Wess: Yes; by the side of the house divided into tenements. There are two w.c.'s.

How do you get to 3 doors as opposed to 2?

Front, back and side - although I'm not 100% about the back. The Times:

The witness, continuing, said he was not sure that the gardens of the houses in Batty-street faced the yard. The club premises ran back a long way into the yard. The front room on the ground floor of the club was occupied as a dining-room. At the middle of the passage there was a staircase leading to the first floor. At the back of the dining-room was a kitchen. In this room there was a small window over the door which faced the one leading into the yard. The remainder of the passage lead into the yard. Over the door in the passage was a small window, through which daylight came. At the back of the kitchen, but in no way connected with it, was a printing office. This office consisted of two rooms. The one adjoining the kitchen was used as a composing-room and the other one was for the editor.

More on the layout - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...865#post749865

[erobitha]

I'll tell you what, here's the thread on JTRForums:
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ew-information

I don't think there is any further info - this is likely the most up to date.

Thanks for the heads up Jon.

[Wickerman]

Did anyone ever find conclusive proof Israel Schwartz lived at the addresses claimed by Swanson? I am unaware we can even safely declare him as Hungarian

I'll tell you what, here's the thread on JTRForums:
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ew-information

I don't think there is any further info - this is likely the most up to date.