The Absence Of Evidence

[FISHY1118]

They were not mutilations.

I've explained Eddowes' wounds more than once.

Like Nichols,they were both inpatients of Sutton's from December 1867 with rheumatic fever.The 'strep makes it's home in the small intestine.

Eddowes also had Xanthelasma.

Not to mention cancer.

So Eddowes and Nichols both had Xanthelasma? , [not to mention cancer of course] , wheres the medical evidence of this,? have you posted that somewhere?

[FISHY1118]

And you wonder why .

[FISHY1118]

Between this lastest theory, and the organ harvesting theory , and deconstructing jack, [no ripper at all theory]



Is it any wonder ?

[JeffHamm]

There are definitely problems with those reports. However, the later report begins:

The body of the murdered woman, which now lies in St. George's Mortuary, close to St. George's Parish Church, presents a dreadful spectacle. It is the corpse of a woman about 40 years of age, and, as it lies on the slab, exhibits prominently a fearful wound on the throat.

That sounds to me like the reporter is at the mortuary, observing the corpse at first hand.

He's not conducting a post-mortem examination, nor is he trained to. One of the Dr's duties in a post mortem is to record and describe any and all injuries, while one of the duties of a reporter is to write stories that will sell papers.

Personally, I put my odds on the Dr. being the more accurate of the two, but you can place your bet where you feel lucky.

Would a fall resulting in bruising to the temple, necessarily result in that sort of head trauma?

A fall resulting in brusing to the temple would result in, well bruising on the scalp. And the report says:

Also in Phillip's testimony he reports "...On removing the scalp there was no sign of bruising or extravasation of blood between it and the skull-cap. ..." negating the idea she suffered any kind of head injury, otherwise an interesting idea.

So yes, a fall that results in bruising to the scalp (temple area) would result in bruising to the scalp, but there was no bruising to the scalp, hence a fall that would result in bruising to the scalp did not occur.

If you want to argue that the scalp didn't include the temple area, then it seems more to the point to just indicate the statement I included wouldn't include the temple area. But there's no mention of injuries or bruises to the temple area, which would still have to be recorded during the post-mortem.

If he pulls the scarf - not enough to strangle but enough to prevent speech or screams - and then quickly gets her to the ground and cuts her throat, when does this stuff occur ...?

"...Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration which I have watched and seen on two occasions since...."

Presumably before the the pulling of the scarf event.

It's a very tricky problem. I seriously wonder is she were sitting down when the attack began. Then any fall or rapid decent becomes more like a fairly gentle recline.

Lamb: She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.

Her clothes were examined and were very muddy on the left, not on the right and the doctors conclude she was put to the ground in the position she was found (lying on her left side). If she was sitting at one point, that might be expected to be apparent by the mud pattern and they would have mentioned that. There's no mention of such a mud pattern, but you are free to presume it is there but not mentioned. But it makes the doctor's suggestion her throat was cut as she was falling odd as he implies falling after having her scarf pulled as she moves away from her attacker (hard to do while sitting).

Basically, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest she sat down in the mud at any point during the attack.

I'm fairly confident that Schwartz existed, however I'm undecided on whether he saw less or more than he claimed to.

Do you mean, not very strong evidence that it was JtR? Isn't there strong support for the idea that Stride was an interrupted murder? What is that support based on, if not the apparent skills of the murderer?

Stride could have been killed by JtR, and she could have been killed by someone else. I'm about 50/50 odds in my thinking. The other 4 of the C5 I see no reason to believe they were not all killed by the same person (JtR), Tabram and McKenzie are interesting possible victims as well in my opinion, though both at lower odds of inclusion. Opinions vary of course.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

He's not conducting a post-mortem examination, nor is he trained to. One of the Dr's duties in a post mortem is to record and describe any and all injuries, while one of the duties of a reporter is to write stories that will sell papers.

Personally, I put my odds on the Dr. being the more accurate of the two, but you can place your bet where you feel lucky.



A fall resulting in brusing to the temple would result in, well bruising on the scalp. And the report says:

Also in Phillip's testimony he reports "...On removing the scalp there was no sign of bruising or extravasation of blood between it and the skull-cap. ..." negating the idea she suffered any kind of head injury, otherwise an interesting idea.

So yes, a fall that results in bruising to the scalp (temple area) would result in bruising to the scalp, but there was no bruising to the scalp, hence a fall that would result in bruising to the scalp did not occur.

If you want to argue that the scalp didn't include the temple area, then it seems more to the point to just indicate the statement I included wouldn't include the temple area. But there's no mention of injuries or bruises to the temple area, which would still have to be recorded during the post-mortem.

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.

Presumably before the the pulling of the scarf event.

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?

Her clothes were examined and were very muddy on the left, not on the right and the doctors conclude she was put to the ground in the position she was found (lying on her left side). If she was sitting at one point, that might be expected to be apparent by the mud pattern and they would have mentioned that. There's no mention of such a mud pattern, but you are free to presume it is there but not mentioned. But it makes the doctor's suggestion her throat was cut as she was falling odd as he implies falling after having her scarf pulled as she moves away from her attacker (hard to do while sitting).

Basically, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest she sat down in the mud at any point during the attack.

This assumes the ground was uniformly muddy. 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.

[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

[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?

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.