Who has the goods?

[GBinOz]

He said he was returning from the market where he had been since around noon....working. So he just avoided helping his wife, not work in general.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for that information. Could you point me to a reference please. When he said he was at the market, did he say he was working there? If he were just a visitor he would still be compliant with his possible religious constrictions.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Those who subscribe strictly to Judaism believe that males are not to do work of any descrption on Saturdays. He was proceding down Berner St to his new address early on Sunday morning after having refrained from partaking in the move there. It could be as simple at that.

Cheers, George

All day and well into the night is a hell of a long time to be away from his wife, and not working while he is. If he had stayed home for even half the day, he would have known if his wife had completed the expected move (while he sat on his arse), but then his excuse for later being on Berner street, evaporates. It is almost certainly a fake story.

[Michael W Richards]

Those who subscribe strictly to Judaism believe that males are not to do work of any descrption on Saturdays. He was proceding down Berner St to his new address early on Sunday morning after having refrained from partaking in the move there. It could be as simple at that.

Cheers, George

He said he was returning from the market where he had been since around noon....working. So he just avoided helping his wife, not work in general.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Those who subscribe strictly to Judaism believe that males are not to do work of any descrption on Saturdays. He was proceding down Berner St to his new address early on Sunday morning after having refrained from partaking in the move there. It could be as simple at that.

Cheers, George

Good suggestion George

[JeffHamm]

To protect the identity of the murderer

But saying nothing at all would have been the best way to do that. To introduce a lie, which is where I'm assuming you're going with this, just risks that lie being uncovered and drawing Schwartz himself to the attention of the police. Why would he protect the murderer by putting himself at risk of being questioned should his lie be uncovered when the police had no idea who the murderer was? The only reason to deflect the police is if they appear to be on, or about to get on, the right track, otherwise, there's nothing to protect the murderer from (meaning, if the police haven't a clue, the murderer is already safe and not in need of protecting). Also, there's nothing that suggests Schwartz's statement is a lie, so it's starting to get into making an unnecessary and unsupported assumption in order to suggest another unevidenced assumption (that Schwartz knew the murderer), etc. But, I could be wrong on where you're going with this, but it seems even worse if Schwartz did see what he reported and only withheld the fact he knew B.S. name. In that case, he's potentially made it worse for B.S. by giving some details to the police they would otherwise not have. So that clearly would be better to "say nothing at all", which leads to me thinking you're going along the "he lied" route, but there's nothing that indicates what he said was a lie.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

But this is a time when people really couldn’t afford to turn down work or even the opportunity of getting future work. If they were moving because they hadn’t been regular payers or they just needed cheaper accommodation then it’s perhaps unlikely that they would have owned many possessions; clothes etc. Not too difficult for his wife and kid to move. Maybe a friend or neighbour had offered help?

Those who subscribe strictly to Judaism believe that males are not to do work of any descrption on Saturdays. He was proceding down Berner St to his new address early on Sunday morning after having refrained from partaking in the move there. It could be as simple at that.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Haven't you read the Echo report?

Ages ago but not recently. What date is it and I’ll have another read.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Well then he certainly did a good job.

c.d.

Almost perfect

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How did Wess throw him under a Hanson cab? It’s your interpretation.

Haven't you read the Echo report?

[Michael W Richards]

Israel Schwartz is directly connected to the Berner Club later in the 1890's, its said he was a friend of Wess's due to meeting him in Paris a few years before this event, and as pointed out...we dont know where he lived that morning, and we know that a move for a landed immigrant would be very few belongings. Almost all rental spaces had some furniture.

The point here being that beginning with his story for why he was there at that time, we should remember that its highly improbable that his wife couldnt have completed his move within a very short time....and not still have any moving to do 12 hours after he left her. He is an immigrant Jew outside a club that had a meeting that night for immigrant Jews, he likely knows Wess, and he would have no need to check on his wife...wherever the place he was renting until that morning was. Look at the whole picture then its easier to sort out the smaller issues.

[c.d.]

To protect the identity of the murderer

Well then he certainly did a good job.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Selected? Wess threw Schwartz under a hansom cab. At least that is one valid interpretation. If true, then it is likely that Schwartz selected himself.

How did Wess throw him under a Hanson cab? It’s your interpretation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not many possessions = a quick move

Consequently the story does not work without the move being expected, as opposed to definite - Schwartz needs the excuse to be briefly on Berner street.

You’re reading way too much into this. We just cannot know Schwartz exact circumstances.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Eddowes gave an incorrect name to the Police.

But not as a statement signing witness, so that is hardly equivalent

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Because there was no chase. At first he thought hat he was being followed but he realised that he wasn’t.

Where does it say that?

Abberline: Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.

Anderson's later reference to "the supposed accomplice", suggests the opposite - that he went from being unsure to being quite sure.