Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Abby Normal]

Whereas I think you're ignoring evidence to protect the reputation of Israel Schwartz, and thus your peaked cap man theory.

no im ignoring made up evidence lol

[NotBlamedForNothing]

...on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

I've always found the bold bit interesting and note that believers in Schwartz generally ignore it or reject it. Not only do only these words suggest that Schwartz claimed to have watched the abuse of the woman from very close range, but it also becomes significant when we read that Schwartz subsequently crossed the road. That is because almost all if not all of the residences on Berner St, south of the gateway, were on the west side, that is, club side. So, why cross if he has already reached the gateway? Wasn't Schwartz walking down Berner St to see if his wife had completed the expected move of address while he had been out all day and half the night?

I wonder if it were actually the second man (Pipeman) who did the crossing of the road toward the gateway, where Schwartz still stood, having been signalled by the first man (BS). That would be closer to what we see in the Star account, where the two men are communicating, and the second man comes at Schwartz in a menacing manner. Had Schwartz been the one to cross the road and begin to walk away, he is no threat, and it would be best to let him go. Yet, that does not seem to be the case. Either he was pursued, or we have to imagine that our casual pipe smoker got so scared at the first man calling him a name, that he ran off. The problem with that scenario, aside from its believability, is that to flee in Schwartz's direction implies that he starts from a position north of Schwartz (closer to Commercial Rd) and thus moves closer to the man he is supposedly fleeing. The flight or fight response should have him fleeing to the north.

I don't think we can rely on Schwartz for the complete story. Swanson's "If Schwartz is to be believed", reflects a caution in relying on an uncorroborated witness.

[Lewis C]

My read is that the phrase "If Schwartz is to be believed" expresses some doubt on Swanson's part, but the rest of the passage indicates that he doesn't have very much doubt. So he's allowing for the possibility that Schwartz isn't to be believed, but he thinks it's far more likely that Schwartz is to be believed. As Jeff mentioned, the rest of his statement isn't what I'd expect him to have said if he thought Schwartz wasn't to be believed. I don't think there's an implied second "if". To say that "the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it" is not to say that the police report makes Schwartz' account a certainty.

[The Rookie Detective]

"If Schwartz is to be believed"...


There are 3 separate sections to the syntax of this statement that warrant assessment.

Firstly, the word "If"

Well, there is no question mark present and so Swanson is not asking a direct question. At face value this would suggest that Swanson is making a statement rather than being inquisitive.

However, when we add the next part; "is to be"...we have some context for the initial word "If"
This part of the phrase highlights and concerns timing.

The phrase "is to be" implies that at the point of writing, Swanson is suggesting that there is currently is some uncertainty, because he refers to a potential future event that has not yet transpired.

And when we then add the word "believed" the implication is that Swanson is highlighting a potential issue with truth and not Schwartz's interpretation of events.

Of course, when we add the following sentence referring to the police report having no doubt, it acts as a perfect counterbalance to what Swanson is saying.

it's a clever way for Swanson to acknowledge that there's no doubt in what Schwartz is saying from an official police perspective, with a drop of scepticism that aims to highlight that there is still belief to be found and therefore hint that Swanson himself has doubts.

He merges his professional and personal opinions in the first 2 sentences, but in such a subtle way that it does just enough to raise an eyebrow, but is careful enough to not rock the boat.


"If Schwartz is to be believed" comes from a personal opinion that something doesn't sit right, but is then followed with a sentence that confirms that the police report and statement given by Schwartz at the time of writing have no doubt in Schwartz. This serves to highlight the official police line at the time.

It would seem that Schwartz was believed initially, and at the time Swanton wrote what he did, the police STILL had no doubt...OFFICIALLY.

But somewhere at the 11th hour, something went wrong for Schwartz, and the man who should have been the prime witness ends up not even attending the inquest and ultimately dissappears from history; like he never existed in the first place.

Perhaps he was given a change of identity to protect him and his family?

Unlikely, seeing as Schwartz is an enigma PRIOR to the murder also.


In summary, it is clear that the police took Schwartz seriously and had no doubt in him, even up to the point that Swanson wrote what he did...

...but Swanson himself clearly has some doubt because he begins with the phrase "If Schwartz is to be believed..."

That phrase is Swanson's way of telling us there is something wrong in his own personal belief in Schwartz, but that not to the extent that he's prepared to go in opposition to the official police line at the time of writing.

He is perhaps the window into the world of Schwrartz and gives us some reasoning; albeit subjective, that he personally doesn't believe Schwartz.

It would be interesting to see if the official belief in Schwartz changed as a result of what Swanson wrote.

If the timing fits, then I would suggest it was Swanson himself who threw the spanner in the works and managed to cast doubt in Schwartz from an official perspective.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, the doubts must refer to existing evidence, although the identification of Pipeman might have changed thinking, had it ever occurred. Your phrase "their current way of thinking" suggests you understand the Met police to have been a monolithic entity, with no significant differences of opinion, within.



The Star chose to publish this "tittle-tattle", effectively undermining their own scoop of the previous day. Why would they? A hypothetical equivalent would have been the Evening News publishing this:

In the matter of the fruiterer who said he sold grapes to a male companion of the deceased woman, the Leman St police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.



This does not explain why the sentence appears in the report, nor why we don't see a similar sentence for other witnesses. It is Schwartz and Schwartz alone, who merits a disclaimer.

There were no doubts by the time that Swanson wrote his summary. That’s why he said just that. Swanson would have conferred with officers like Abberline who would the papers have conferred with for their ‘Leman Street’? Probably Officer Bloggs who was willing prepared to say anything for a bit of beer money. Where are the ‘doubts’ about Schwartz in his November 1st letter? He has forgotten to mention them even in an internal police report.

If there were ever doubts then it makes more sense that these ‘doubts’ occurred early on until the evidence gleaned from the ongoing investigation showed that he was telling the truth.

I think that, to the ‘crusade against Charles Cross’ we can add a ‘crusade against Israel Schwartz.’

[The Rookie Detective]

There were no doubts by the time that Swanson wrote his summary.

No doubts from an official police perspective at the time, but Swanson himself is seemingly unconvinced; hence his opening line.

If there were ever doubts then it makes more sense that these ‘doubts’ occurred early on until the evidence gleaned from the ongoing investigation showed that he was telling the truth.

On the contrary. It seems that the complete opposite is the case, and doubt was very much present when Swanson wrote his summary; but NOT in an "official" sense. Swanson isn't questioning anything; he's instead making a subtle statement. It's therefore not a question of self-doubt from Swanson's perspective, but rather a way of planting his personal belief into the mix without questioning the official police line.

I think that, to the ‘crusade against Charles Cross’ we can add a ‘crusade against Israel Schwartz.’

Lechmere is very much a case of "The boy who cried wolf" in that it's now immensely difficult to question the likes of Schwartz, because of the superficial impact that Lechmere has had on the case.


I think that the police had Schwartz as their number 1 witness from the moment he gave his statement, and that this continued to be the case for some time....until the uncertainties surrounding Schwartz's account began to come to the forefront, because not a single word he said could be proven, verified or corroborated.

Not a single word.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lechmere is very much a case of "The boy who cried wolf" in that it's now immensely difficult to question the likes of Schwartz, because of the superficial impact that Lechmere has had on the case.


I think that the police had Schwartz as their number 1 witness from the moment he gave his statement, and that this continued to be the case for some time....until the uncertainties surrounding Schwartz's account began to come to the forefront, because not a single word he said could be proven, verified or corroborated.

Not a single word.

We have Inspector Abberline still talking of Schwartz as a valid witness at the beginning of November! Was he just talking out of his backside? This tells us all that we need to know without looking between any lines. Swanson isn’t being mysterious or dropping hints he’s stating something clear and straightforward without the need of implying an added ‘if.’ “If Schwartz is to be trusted, and the evidence leaves us with no doubt…” ie “Therefore we believe that Schwartz can be trusted.” No talk of ‘let’s wait and see,’ or ‘maybe more evidence will arise.’ This is 3 weeks after the murder. The investigation is done…what else can they expect to find unless someone comes forward with previously unheard information? Swanson is talking of the moment, after 3 weeks of investigation. The police have arrived at their conclusion and their conclusion is that Schwartz was telling the truth (as he clearly was.)


This is all very simple and requires no complications. Schwartz saw an incident. Not a single, smidgeon of doubt can be placed against him.

Can anyone give me a valid reason why Schwartz would have lied without veering off into conspiracy land?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Looking at Schwartz.

I’d start with the fact that the majority of witnesses are honest (if occasionally mistaken) I’d also suggest that when witnesses are found to have lied their motive for doing so is usually fairly obvious; no convoluted plots - because they were somewhere they shouldn’t have been, because they were trying to protect someone, because they were up to something. They had a vested interest in lying. Although motives aren’t usually discovered until later we know that we have no known motive for Schwartz to have lied, even just about why he was in Berner Street that night. We don’t know if the police followed up on his story of checking to see if their house move had occurred but they could have.

Every attempt to accuse Schwartz of lying requires speculation and imagination, but these are things that you can apply to almost any witness. ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’ The claim that a man placed himself at the scene of a knife murder when he wasn’t there, in the middle of a series of murders with the public baying for blood, and with no one to back him up in any claim not to have been the murderer, is the most extraordinary of claims. So what is our extraordinary evidence? No one saw the incident. Yes, at 12.45am in a dimly lit, empty backstreet. No one heard it. Yes, with no one else outside and with the woman not making any great noise. That’s it. That’s the evidence against Schwartz which justifies a claim that he wasn’t there. Would anyone dare to call it extraordinary? What about strong? Reasonably strong? Fair? I’d use ‘feeble.’ Or ‘non-existent.’

What about a claim that he was there and up to no good? Simple question - why bother placing himself at the scene. Just keep quiet. No one could place him there.

None of this holds water. None of it justifies all of these contortions and limbo dancing under the evidence just to try and demonise one witness. View the evidence as it’s presented to us. Nothing about the story that we have of what occurred that night raises as much as an eyebrow from me. I’m not remotely suspicious or concerned that there was something occurring that we haven’t noticed.

Only one important question remains. Who killed Elizabeth Stride?