The Absence Of Evidence

[erobitha]

Hi erobitha,

Abberline questioned Schwartz closely at the time he made his statement, because he had doubts about the suggestion that "Lipski" was addressed to Pipeman, who then appeared to chase after Schwartz, as if he was intruding on an assault involving the two men, BS man and an accomplice with a Jewish name. It was Abberline who believed that BS man had used the name as an insult directed at Schwartz himself, due to his strong Jewish appearance. Schwartz himself could not be certain either way, and conceded that Pipeman may have been equally alarmed by the situation and merely went off in the same direction.

There is no evidence that Schwartz was attempting to put a drunk Englishman at the scene to protect members of his own community. Quite the opposite would appear to have been the case.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I guess it can be interpreted in numerous ways.

The description Schwartz gave of BS man would conjure up a drunk Englishman. However, the whole Lipski thing I believe back fired. I believe Schwartz TRIED to insinuate there was anti-semitism being used by the killer. Whether it was aimed at him or pipeman the intention was to show this racial slur was used by the killer.

Swanson went out of his way to add a note on his 19th October letter to define as follows. “The use of ‘Lipski’ increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew”.

Would it not seem odd a Jew would abuse another Jew with such terminology? If you were alerting your mate that they had company would you have chosen a slur against someone of your own creed? I just don’t understand how that makes any sense.

If pipeman’s name was Lipski and BS man was simply alerting his pal, then okay fair enough.

My theory is Schwartz wanted to demonstrate anti-semitism which would suggest a gentile, but it somehow got muddled up in the killer being Jewish. Accidentally or by design.

Just my thought.

[caz]

I feel sorry for the Jewish community of that time. Just normal men and women going about their business, trying to carve out new lives for themselves through industry and endeavour. Only to be treated with suspicion and outright anti-semitism. And that’s just the police!

After the Stride murder every man and his dog in the club were interviewed for hours. If I was part of that community I might feel peeved off enough to try and protect my community. At this stage everyone believes Jack was a Jew thanks to the Leather Apron nonsense and demonising of Jews in the papers.

I would feel compelled to potentially file a false witness account. Use details that are near impossible to verify but sound real enough to be taken seriously. Make it look like the Jewish man was simply walking by and witnessing the attack, but it was gentiles that committed it. Throw in a Lipski to show they were being anti-semitic, then they can focus on the killer being a drunk Englishman. I’d be angry enough to do that. Maybe one of the many theatrical types in the Jewish drama society could become ‘Israel Schwartz’.

Abberline being the diligent detective he was, took down the statement as intended. Except, his superiors were not buying it. They could smell a rat. Things did not add up. But they might yet still be able to use it to their advantage.

The fact that later Anderson, and I believe also Warren, both tried to insinuate Schwartz testified at the inquest is puzzling and confusing.

Hi erobitha,

Abberline questioned Schwartz closely at the time he made his statement, because he had doubts about the suggestion that "Lipski" was addressed to Pipeman, who then appeared to chase after Schwartz, as if he was intruding on an assault involving the two men, BS man and an accomplice with a Jewish name. It was Abberline who believed that BS man had used the name as an insult directed at Schwartz himself, due to his strong Jewish appearance. Schwartz himself could not be certain either way, and conceded that Pipeman may have been equally alarmed by the situation and merely went off in the same direction.

There is no evidence that Schwartz was attempting to put a drunk Englishman at the scene to protect members of his own community. Quite the opposite would appear to have been the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It wouldn't simply be that he was well dressed. There would be something he wore that gave a theatrical appearance.
Victorian society was very class rigid, you were expected to dress according to your station in life. Doctors, Lawyers, Gentry, tradesmen, all had a type of dress-code to observe.
In most cases the younger generation always had someone to look up to. Like a junior Doctor or Lawyer would have a senior partner, someone who would expect him to look the part, and dress accordingly. Not bring any kind of ill repute to the profession, etc.
As for looking theatrical, it need not be much, his hat or the style of collar & cuffs, the colour or style of tie, the type of jacket - knee-length or shorter, or tailed coat perhaps.

So would it be reasonable to suppose that Israel Schwartz was a professional actor?

One poster speculated that perhaps Israel Schwartz was the illusive Mr Astrachan.

Only on the basis of dress? Seems there are no public records of Schwartz, beyond the Star interview. So he too seems quite an illusive character.

[Wickerman]

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

Right, thanks Fiver.
So, the end result is the same then, the Sabbath ran from roughly 5:40 pm Friday to 5:40 pm Saturday, with just over 6 hrs of the day left.

[Wickerman]

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.

It wouldn't simply be that he was well dressed. There would be something he wore that gave a theatrical appearance.
Victorian society was very class rigid, you were expected to dress according to your station in life. Doctors, Lawyers, Gentry, tradesmen, all had a type of dress-code to observe.
In most cases the younger generation always had someone to look up to. Like a junior Doctor or Lawyer would have a senior partner, someone who would expect him to look the part, and dress accordingly. Not bring any kind of ill repute to the profession, etc.
As for looking theatrical, it need not be much, his hat or the style of collar & cuffs, the colour or style of tie, the type of jacket - knee-length or shorter, or tailed coat perhaps.

One poster speculated that perhaps Israel Schwartz was the illusive Mr Astrachan.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but the Police Gazette was published by the Metropolitan Police and distributed to police stations all over England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. It was 'in-house' and not sold by news vendors, was it?

Fair point RJ but I still feel publishing Schwartz description before the inquest concluded, if they wanted to keep him secret from Baxter and the inquest was risky.
Would Baxter not have contacts within the police force and be made aware of the description being circulated ? Maybe not, but still, why take the chance.
Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

….and as such, none would have found their way to journalists in the print press? I think the point remains valid. If he was that secret, even a “police -only” periodical is not slightly risky?

No, I'm afraid I don't see this objection as valid.

By the 19th, the police had ample time to quietly search for Schwartz's suspect without announcing the fact to the world--nearly three weeks.

The mere fact that they sent a description out in the Police Gazette on the 19th, does not, to my thinking, undermine the theory that Schwartz was kept from the first three sessions of the inquest, where his account would have been given official confirmation and be published in dozens of papers all over London and elsewhere, alerting the broad-shouldered man that the police had found Schwartz, thus he had been seen and described, and the police were now actively trying to find him (the alleged murderer).

No doubt a few master criminals would eagerly read every copy of the Police Gazette they could lay their hands on, but that can't be helped. Announcing a police operation on page two of The Times could be helped.

[erobitha]

I feel sorry for the Jewish community of that time. Just normal men and women going about their business, trying to carve out new lives for themselves through industry and endeavour. Only to be treated with suspicion and outright anti-semitism. And that’s just the police!

After the Stride murder every man and his dog in the club were interviewed for hours. If I was part of that community I might feel peeved off enough to try and protect my community. At this stage everyone believes Jack was a Jew thanks to the Leather Apron nonsense and demonising of Jews in the papers.

I would feel compelled to potentially file a false witness account. Use details that are near impossible to verify but sound real enough to be taken seriously. Make it look like the Jewish man was simply walking by and witnessing the attack, but it was gentiles that committed it. Throw in a Lipski to show they were being anti-semitic, then they can focus on the killer being a drunk Englishman. I’d be angry enough to do that. Maybe one of the many theatrical types in the Jewish drama society could become ‘Israel Schwartz’.

Abberline being the diligent detective he was, took down the statement as intended. Except, his superiors were not buying it. They could smell a rat. Things did not add up. But they might yet still be able to use it to their advantage.

The fact that later Anderson, and I believe also Warren, both tried to insinuate Schwartz testified at the inquest is puzzling and confusing.

[erobitha]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but the Police Gazette was published by the Metropolitan Police and distributed to police stations all over England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. It was 'in-house' and not sold by news vendors, was it?

….and as such, none would have found their way to journalists in the print press? I think the point remains valid. If he was that secret, even a “police -only” periodical is not slightly risky?

[rjpalmer]

If the police wanted to keep Schwartz secret, to me they didn't do a very good job. We have The Star tracking him down but more importantly The Police Gazette gave out a description on Oct 19 from Schwartz but the inquest by Baxter didn't conclude to the 23rd

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but the Police Gazette was published by the Metropolitan Police and distributed to police stations all over England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. It was 'in-house' and not sold by news vendors, was it?

[erobitha]

do you think hutch was a reliable witness?

No.

I think the account Hutchinson gave Abberline was deliberately elaborate for a reason. I have a pet theory with no substance as to why, and that for now will stay with me.

Unlike Schwartz however, I do believe some of his account. I believe he did see MJK around the time he said, and I do believe he was waiting outside in the cold. We have someone else to corroborate that at least.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If the police wanted to keep Schwartz secret, to me they didn't do a very good job. We have The Star tracking him down but more importantly The Police Gazette gave out a description on Oct 19 from Schwartz but the inquest by Baxter didn't conclude to the 23rd .And in his summing up Baxter makes great pains comparing the descriptions of Brown etc but no mention of the description given by Schwartz. I would have thought he would be aware of the Police Gazette report ? Surely he would have asked the question were/who did this description come from -
At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street - A MAN, age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.
Yet in his summing up he says -
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 on which they had devoted so much time.
Regards Darryl

[caz]

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

c.d.

Now don't be silly, c.d. If the ripper didn't consider it safe to linger in a particular location to whip out a womb, he'd have bought the lady an ice-cream, wished her a good evening and been on his way.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Nor me, RJ. I just don't see him coming forward in those circumstances. A man who 'flees' home, and is 'terrified' by what has happened, and has no English to help him with the nuances of a police interrogation? He'd be relying on his own ability to stick to the script under pressure; the skills of an interpreter to deliver it; and the integrity of the police, not to set him up for one or more of the murders if they suspect him of lying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Roger:

.
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

Caz:

. This idea is growing on me, RJ, as it would help to resolve a few issues, wouldn't it?

Me too Caz. I can’t really see anything that would give us cause to eliminate it out of hand. Could we really state as a fact that the police, under huge pressure on all sides, wouldn’t have been prepared for a bit of rule-bending if they felt that it might help them get a result. Others might disagree of course but I think that it’s a feasible possible explanation for Schwartz absence. It’s certainly more feasible than the idea that the police didn’t value his evidence.