The Absence Of Evidence

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The railway arches ran across the south end of Backchurch Lane.

I don't think that is "the" railway arch, owing to the Echo report...

... about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., ...

I think it is implied that this mysterious chase went in the opposite direction to Backchurch Lane. I say 'mysterious' because once again we are told of unknown members of the public who witness a Schwartz related incident, who never seem to be identified. This in spite of Wess supposedly being told the name of one of the men!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Using a combination of Israel Lipski's first name and Sarah Schwartz's surname was a subtle reminder to the police of their own prejudices towards the local Jewish community (rightly or wrongly). Even throwing in Lipski's name as a slur was a nice touch from my perspective. This is all just theory.

I've heard this type of reasoning before. I wonder why someone has to see a name in a newspaper for the idea to take hold "I could use that as a pseudonym".
What is the rationale behind the need to see a name in print before it will be used as a false name by an intruder?

Isn't the primary issue here, not how the club or a man who gave the name Israel Schwartz might have arrived at a pseudonym, but rather if the name was in fact a pseudonym?

What person on record is currently regarded as the most likely to have been our Israel Schwartz?

When someone can conclusively draw a red line between the so-called Israel Schwartz the witness, to any other Israel Schwartz, I'll be keen to review the information.

How rare is this situation of not being able to positively identify an individual? Are most of the characters on Berner street or any of the other murder scenes fully accounted for, or is the case of Schwartz fairly typical?

[Wickerman]

You need to start with a record we know to be accurate for the person you are looking for, and like MJK, this falls down pretty much at the first hurdle for Schwartz. You mention 22 Ellen Street. Swanson actually had 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, in his case notes. The Star paper says Backchurch Lane. I think it's a false address.

Do you have a reason to think the address is false?
When I look at reports I don't normally question them without a reason. Back in the day it was quite normal for the post office to promote a two-street address, it helped their delivery service. In some cases there were two streets with the same name, so referencing the nearest larger road helped distinguish one Ellen-street from another.
I'm not suggesting this was the case with Ellen-street, it was just a general approach. The public were conditioned to write two streets like 22 Ellen-street, Backchurch Lane.
Just referring to someone by one of the two streets would not be out of the ordinary.

I don't believe The Star ever interviewed him, but likely did get the address from a source in the police.

Same question - what causes you to think the Star did not interview Schwartz?
And, I would be shocked if the police handed out personal information about a witness. If they put a witness in danger by such careless actions they would have the pants sued off them.

Then there is a railway arch that never existed....

The railway arches ran across the south end of Backchurch Lane.

[Wickerman]

I assumed you read about what happened to the girl? Or even Lipski for that matter? Seems like there is enough rationale for an aggrieved Jewish activist to make a point to the police. Again, just a theory.

Yes, it's not the first time I've read that story.
I didn't know the date when I first read it, I recall asking if she could be a relative. We know how families try to stick together in a foreign country.
I think it first surfaced on Howards Forum, someone was looking for Schwartz a few years back.

Other suggestions were made, that because Schwartz means black the family could have changed their name to Black, making their discovery so much more difficult.

[Wickerman]

It's the cinematic trope where a person asked for their name by an official will glance around the office, spy a poster, newspaper ad, or book title, and take inspiration from that. Like Ian Fleming's bird book by a James Bond.

Is that really what we have here?, Schwartz voluntarily gave a statement to police.

I recall another witness placed the start of his story at 2:00am, and someone on here said 2:00 was used in a story about the victim in a weekend paper, and they argued that "he must have got the time from that article".
The same witness was then accused of using a description "well-dressed man" in his story because the same phrase appeared in another story over that same weekend.
I'm not following the logic here.

Do witness statement have to be lies because the same adjective, phrase or surname appears in print a few days prior to the witness being interviewed?
Aren't these same words in use every day by everyone?

[erobitha]

I've heard this type of reasoning before. I wonder why someone has to see a name in a newspaper for the idea to take hold "I could use that as a pseudonym".
What is the rationale behind the need to see a name in print before it will be used as a false name by an intruder?

I assumed you read about what happened to the girl? Or even Lipski for that matter? Seems like there is enough rationale for an aggrieved Jewish activist to make a point to the police. Again, just a theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's the cinematic trope where a person asked for their name by an official will glance around the office, spy a poster, newspaper ad, or book title, and take inspiration from that. Like Ian Fleming's bird book by a James Bond.

It happened to me Pat. For a while I was called Public Toilet.

[Pcdunn]

It's the cinematic trope where a person asked for their name by an official will glance around the office, spy a poster, newspaper ad, or book title, and take inspiration from that. Like Ian Fleming's bird book by a James Bond.

[Wickerman]

...

There was a sexual assault on a young Austrian / Hungarian girl called Sarah Schwartz in a cafe on Church Lane in 1885 in Whitechapel. I think her name was the inspiration for the pseudonym used by whoever gave the witness statement....

I've heard this type of reasoning before. I wonder why someone has to see a name in a newspaper for the idea to take hold "I could use that as a pseudonym".
What is the rationale behind the need to see a name in print before it will be used as a false name by an intruder?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You need to start with a record we know to be accurate for the person you are looking for, and like MJK, this falls down pretty much at the first hurdle for Schwartz. You mention 22 Ellen Street. Swanson actually had 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, in his case notes. The Star paper says Backchurch Lane. I think it's a false address.

Can you elaborate on why you think it's a false address? Is it because the address didn't exist, or the address actually was for Ellen street, but no one named Schwartz has been found living there?

I don't believe The Star ever interviewed him, but likely did get the address from a source in the police.

The Star claimed to have found "the Hungarian" of their own accord. Is it possible the Schwartz story was getting around? There is that odd report in the Echo which suggests something like that was occurring.

As for the likes of Louis D there are enough primary sources to qualify his identity, of which I'm sure if you search on here you will see.

I'm sure. I was just wondering what a strong ID looked like.

Your question could we ever identify the real Israel Schwartz if it was a false name? In short, highly unlikely. It's the MJK paradox. What do we know is actually true that can be verifiable in anyway? If most, if not all, is false, how can you verify any of it as true?

I see the problem. If I ever come across something interesting, I might PM you.

By the way, Sarah Schwartz at the time of her assault was living at 22 Backchurch Lane. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Then there is a railway arch that never existed....

Everyone lived at 22 something! Like Leon Goldstein - 22 Christian Street - down near a railway arch.

[erobitha]

I see. Would I be right in saying that one or more documented links have been found to link an identity with a person in the records for many other characters involved in the murder scenes? How do we know who Louis Diemschitz was, for example?



So regardless of your Israel Lipski/Sarah Schwartz/Israel Schwartz theory being right or not, you believe Israel Schwartz was not the real name of the witness, hence why no one can positively locate him in the records?



Assuming a name to be false, can an identity still be positively linked to a real person?

One other question if you don't mind. What do you make of the address - 22 Ellen street - Schwartz gave to the police?

You need to start with a record we know to be accurate for the person you are looking for, and like MJK, this falls down pretty much at the first hurdle for Schwartz. You mention 22 Ellen Street. Swanson actually had 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, in his case notes. The Star paper says Backchurch Lane. I think it's a false address.

I don't believe The Star ever interviewed him, but likely did get the address from a source in the police.

As for the likes of Louis D there are enough primary sources to qualify his identity, of which I'm sure if you search on here you will see.

Your question could we ever identify the real Israel Schwartz if it was a false name? In short, highly unlikely. It's the MJK paradox. What do we know is actually true that can be verifiable in anyway? If most, if not all, is false, how can you verify any of it as true?

By the way, Sarah Schwartz at the time of her assault was living at 22 Backchurch Lane. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Then there is a railway arch that never existed....

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There needs to be at least one, if not more, documented links to the exact person you are looking for versus the one you have found.

In the first link you provided, there is not one clear link between that "Israel Schwartz" and the one who gave a witness statement to the Stride murder.

Similar to the second link, where is the direct connection?

I see. Would I be right in saying that one or more documented links have been found to link an identity with a person in the records for many other characters involved in the murder scenes? How do we know who Louis Diemschitz was, for example?

There was a sexual assault on a young Austrian / Hungarian girl called Sarah Schwartz in a cafe on Church Lane in 1885 in Whitechapel. I think her name was the inspiration for the pseudonym used by whoever gave the witness statement.

My theory is the International Jewish Working Mens Club knew they would most likely become the focus as suspects in the murder of Stride due to the proximity of her body to the club. I have always believed a club member left a false witness statement in the hope it would take heat away from anyone within the club from being suspected. Using a combination of Israel Lipski's first name and Sarah Schwartz's surname was a subtle reminder to the police of their own prejudices towards the local Jewish community (rightly or wrongly). Even throwing in Lipski's name as a slur was a nice touch from my perspective. This is all just theory.

So regardless of your Israel Lipski/Sarah Schwartz/Israel Schwartz theory being right or not, you believe Israel Schwartz was not the real name of the witness, hence why no one can positively locate him in the records?

When someone can conclusively draw a red line between the so-called Israel Schwartz the witness, to any other Israel Schwartz, I'll be keen to review the information.

Assuming a name to be false, can an identity still be positively linked to a real person?

One other question if you don't mind. What do you make of the address - 22 Ellen street - Schwartz gave to the police?

[erobitha]

Hello Jay.

Can I query you about this? Don't we have an identification for Israel Schwartz in the Israel Schwartz - new information JtR Forums thread?
If not, what about one of other identities discussed in Gavin Bromley's Mrs. Kuer’s Lodger dissertation?

I don't know much about genealogy, so can you tell me what a categorical identification consists of?

There needs to be at least one, if not more, documented links to the exact person you are looking for versus the one you have found.

In the first link you provided, there is not one clear link between that "Israel Schwartz" and the one who gave a witness statement to the Stride murder.

Similar to the second link, where is the direct connection?

There was a sexual assault on a young Austrian / Hungarian girl called Sarah Schwartz in a cafe on Church Lane in 1885 in Whitechapel. I think her name was the inspiration for the pseudonym used by whoever gave the witness statement.





My theory is the International Jewish Working Mens Club knew they would most likely become the focus as suspects in the murder of Stride due to the proximity of her body to the club. I have always believed a club member left a false witness statement in the hope it would take heat away from anyone within the club from being suspected. Using a combination of Israel Lipski's first name and Sarah Schwartz's surname was a subtle reminder to the police of their own prejudices towards the local Jewish community (rightly or wrongly). Even throwing in Lipski's name as a slur was a nice touch from my perspective. This is all just theory.

When someone can conclusively draw a red line between the so-called Israel Schwartz the witness, to any other Israel Schwartz, I'll be keen to review the information.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'm open to ideas on how they can be proven to actually exist. Focusing in on Schwartz, why do we keep hitting dead ends with him do you think?

Some records somewhere must exist, yet talented researchers such as yourself cannot identify him categorically. A bit similar to MJK. We knew as a person she existed, yet research thus far has hit brick walls.

Not everyone was honest in giving details accurately or truthfully.

I believe it is so muddled, that someone is lying somehwere. The fact his story cannot be corroborated whereas there are branches of possible corroboration with others, leaves me to believe Shcwartz is the odd one out.

His account certainly was not in line with others saw. Brown, Mortimer, Packer etc - yet when you take it away there is a fair bit of corroborating between witness accounts.

Police probably did believe him has his statement offers them some great clues. If it was true.

Schwartz was most likely summoned to attend the inquest in my view but never got the summons because he provided a dodgy address.

No Israel Schwartz has ever been found that matches the information we have of him in any available records. He exists only in the one statement and possibly in a fabricated interview by the outrageous Star newspaper.

So I chose to believe Schwartz is a non-relevant witness based on these facts. He is a red herring of his own making.

You can choose to interpret the facts any way you wish.

Hello Jay.

Can I query you about this? Don't we have an identification for Israel Schwartz in the Israel Schwartz - new information JtR Forums thread?
If not, what about one of other identities discussed in Gavin Bromley's Mrs. Kuer’s Lodger dissertation?

I don't know much about genealogy, so can you tell me what a categorical identification consists of?

[JeffHamm]

I believe most people know a bruise when they see one. However, I'm happy to concede that the journalist at the mortuary should not be included in that generalisation.

And the post mortem would have mentioned the bruise if it was there, but instead explicitly states there were no bruises on the scalp. But, if you want to put one there feel free, but I can tell you now I won't believe anything that follows on from that because we know she didn't have such a bruise.

Would not bruising over the shoulders, suggest downward rather than horizontal pressure? How does she get from the footway to the laneway, with downward force on the shoulders?

I don't know, depends upon the exact placement and angle of the bruises. That would have been a good question for the Dr's that examined her. Sadly, we will never know.

This assumes the ground was uniformly muddy. You are free to presume that but it is not mentioned.

Fair enough, but there's no indication she was ever sitting down either, so I suppose you are free to presume that but it is not mentioned.

Dr Phillips:

Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side.

Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud.

Sounds like she was very muddy on the left side, but only above the waistline. No mention of her skirt, which was down to her boots.

I don't suppose she did move away after having her scarf pulled, because I don't think she did have her scarf pulled.

Maybe it wasn't. It was the Dr's opinion, but maybe the doctor was wrong. Sure, so offer your own opinion, but maybe that will be wrong. At least the Doctor actually saw the body and clothing and how it was arranged, so if we are forced to pick which opinion to bet upon, my money will still be on the Doctor's I'm afraid, but I also recognize I'm not guaranteed to win that bet. Of course, the answer now can never be known.

- Jeff