Suspect Witnesses?

[The Rookie Detective]

That's something I'm torn between, I can't in good faith believe Schwartz, or his story, was a fabrication, yet nothing about his encounter is confirmed by the statements of others.
It's almost like Schwartz truly did see an assault, but in a different street, he just thought he was in Berner St.

Could he have witnessed an assault in Berners St (near Oxford St) instead?!

Can you imagine, haha!

[Wickerman]

I personally think that there's a reasonable possibility that the police and press worked in tandem to try and draw out the real killer. . .

Hi Chris.

We have numerous complaints by the press that the police will tell them nothing.

Here are a few quotes:

"no definite information has been received at the time of writing, thanks to the extreme reticence of the police".

"As a strongly-marked feature of the hue and cry after the murderer, we feel bound to mention the almost insuperable difficulty there is in obtaining any information from the police".

"Acting upon orders, the detectives and inspectors declined to furnish any information of what had occurred, and refused permission to the press to inspect the place."

"If the London police were as capable in other respects as they are in holding their peace, no criminal in the realm would pass undetected. The constables at the police offices in the Whitechapel were marvels of reticence. Nobody knew anything. The instructions to say nothing had come from Scotland yard."

"The police had orders to refuse the newspapers every information . ."

"The police are very reticent on the subject, and the doors of Commercial-street Police Station are closed to all comers . . ."

Again, we must take what is known into consideration before we offer conjecture.
The press were complaining throughout the investigation that the Met. Police will tell them nothing.
The City Police however, were quite cooperative with the press.

[Wickerman]

Could he have witnessed an assault in Berners St (near Oxford St) instead?!

Can you imagine, haha!

I'm not so sure that the name of the street is the problem, Schwartz didn't read English, so he wouldn't know which street he passed through.
If he walked that way on a regular basis then ok, but we don't know that.
If Schwartz passed a pub/club with a yard beside it, where he saw a woman being assaulted, then the next morning heard of a murder in a yard beside the club in Berner St., he may have assumed what he saw was that same attack.
An honest mistake.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Chris.

We have numerous complaints by the press that the police will tell them nothing.

Here are a few quotes:

"no definite information has been received at the time of writing, thanks to the extreme reticence of the police".

"As a strongly-marked feature of the hue and cry after the murderer, we feel bound to mention the almost insuperable difficulty there is in obtaining any information from the police".

"Acting upon orders, the detectives and inspectors declined to furnish any information of what had occurred, and refused permission to the press to inspect the place."

"If the London police were as capable in other respects as they are in holding their peace, no criminal in the realm would pass undetected. The constables at the police offices in the Whitechapel were marvels of reticence. Nobody knew anything. The instructions to say nothing had come from Scotland yard."

"The police had orders to refuse the newspapers every information . ."

"The police are very reticent on the subject, and the doors of Commercial-street Police Station are closed to all comers . . ."

Again, we must take what is known into consideration before we offer conjecture.
The press were complaining throughout the investigation that the Met. Police will tell them nothing.
The City Police however, were quite cooperative with the press.

That would have been official policy, whereby had a press man engaged with a Police officer at the reception desk he would have been given the official line. A few quid and a nod and a wink though could be easily done away from prying eyes.

[Wickerman]

That would have been official policy, whereby had a press man engaged with a Police officer at the reception desk he would have been given the official line. A few quid and a nod and a wink though could be easily done away from prying eyes.

In a police station?, you're letting your imagination run away with you . . .

A beat Constable on the street?, yes possibly, but what does a beat Constable know about Scotland Yard investigations?

[Sunny Delight]

In a police station?, you're letting your imagination run away with you . . .

A beat Constable on the street?, yes possibly, but what does a beat Constable know about Scotland Yard investigations?

No, not in a Police station. Away from prying eyes would mean certainly not in a Police station. However if you seriously think Journalists didn't have their 'sources' formal or informal within a Police station, just as they do nowadays, well I am afraid you lack imagination.

[Lewis C]

I personally think that there's a reasonable possibility that the police and press worked in tandem to try and draw out the real killer.

This may have been achieved by having received a generic statement from a member of the public who believed they had witnessed a domestic assault, and then used that story to fabricate an elaborate assault that involved Bs man, Pipeman, and the almost predictable anti-semitic slur thrown into the mix.


The reason why I think Schwartz may have been an elaborate hoax, is because nothing he claims to have seen or heard can be corroborated by any other witness or persons physically in Berner Street at the time.

The shout of "Lipski!" - not heard.
The Pipe man following (allegedly) Schwartz - not seen or heard.
The BS man who assaulted (allegedly) Stride - not seen or heard.
The Pipe man- not seen or heard.
James Brown passing the junction of Berner St at virtually the same time - saw or heard none of the above.
Schwartz himself - never seen or heard arriving, attending or leaving the scene at any point in time.
Schwartz doesn't appear at the inquest despite his potentially crucial evidence.


When you combine all of the above and realise that they form the sum of all parts, then it opens up a viable line of questioning regarding Schwartz's integrity and even his very existence itself.

So yeah, that's my answer.

Hi RD,

On your above list, you're basically saying the same thing about 6 different ways, making one thing sound like about 6 things. The basic idea is that we have no known witness besides Schwartz for what Schwartz saw. If we don't have a known witness for one of those things, we probably also wouldn't have one for any of the others. And James Brown is just an example of someone who didn't witness any of those things. The most likely explanation for that is that he wasn't where he could witness the events at the time that they happened. If he was out at about that time, maybe he was out at 12:43 and the Schwartz event happened at 11:47. Or vice versa.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How did the Press know he was well dressed and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. How did they know he was accompanied by a friend who acted as interpreter. How then did the Pressman find out his address?

Because someone at the Station told him, probably for a few quid on the side.

Whatever the circumstances by which the Star obtained this information, it's interesting that Schwartz seems to have left his wife to move house during his unexplained absence, seemingly covering the day, evening and half the night prior to the murder. This is usually explained by the Schwartz's being poor and thus having few belongings. Yet this supposedly poor man rocks-up to a police station, looking well dressed to the point of appearing theatrical. Make it make sense.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It's a case of primary versus secondary sourcing. Swanson's notes and Abberline's comments can be counted as primary sourcing because Abberline derived his information directly from Schwartz. The pressman writing this report did not, and it's reasonable to conclude that he (or his source) confused the roles of the men. There is no indication that Diemshitz and Spooner were seen running away from Dutfield's Yard and along Fairclough Street, nor any indication that they were viewed suspiciously by anyone. It is certainly possible that BS Man, upon seeing Pipeman and sensing danger, blamed Schwartz for the woman on the ground, causing Pipeman to give chase. But that's only one of the possibilities. And there's nothing to indicate Pipeman came forth and gave a statement. In fact, the report written by Swanson almost three weeks after the murder, which was commented upon by Abberline (who would have personally interrogated Pipeman), and in which Pipeman is referred to as the 'supposed accomplice' of BS Man, argues strongly against such a conclusion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

What do you mean by "it's reasonable to conclude that he (or his source) confused the roles of the men"? You go on to suggest that BS Man blaming Schwartz who is then pursued by Pipeman is a possibility, which aligns with what we read in the Echo report. So, how did the pressman confuse the roles? Was it the pursuing man who did the killing? Was he pursuing Schwartz as an accomplice to BS? Is it the name 'Israel Schwartz' that Wess has forgotten, rather than the pursuing man, but not the detail regarding his (non) membership of the club? That would suggest Schwartz had associations with one or more club members...

Israel Schwartz, if anything in the Star report is correct, would have been known to the men of the IWEC. It was probably William Wess who went with Schwartz to the police station and translated for him. Schwartz and his identity were to be kept from the press, which is why he would have stated that he didn't remember the man's name. And which is why Schwartz's name didn't appear in the Star report - one of the few innovative ideas the police had (probably Anderson, in this case).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Why is it probable that the 'friend' who accompanied Schwartz was Wess? Your claim that Wess accidently on purpose forgot Schwartz's name only works if it's assumed the pressman got the roles wrong, as on face value it seems that Wess forgot the name of the man who had pursued Schwartz. Is this not circular reasoning?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

HI Paddy. I believe the police orchestrated the Star interview with Schwartz with the purposes of drawing out either Pipeman or BS Man. The Star editor got savvy to it rather quickly. The police purportedly did something similar with Sadler's wife in order to bolster their failing case against Sadler. But, of course, Schwartz was a real person.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

So, the Star put a knife in Pipeman's hand instead of pipe, had him lunging at the "intruder" and communicating with the man harassing the woman in the gateway, and this was done to draw him out? I don't understand your reasoning. Had I been the Pipeman of the police account, the press account would have kept me quiet.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thank you Wickerman.

You have said one of the best things I have EVER seen posted on Casebook. Words of wisdom. Thanks again.

Clearly, the suggestion that Schwartz may not have been real has been extremely upsetting for you.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi RD,

On your above list, you're basically saying the same thing about 6 different ways, making one thing sound like about 6 things. The basic idea is that we have no known witness besides Schwartz for what Schwartz saw. If we don't have a known witness for one of those things, we probably also wouldn't have one for any of the others. And James Brown is just an example of someone who didn't witness any of those things. The most likely explanation for that is that he wasn't where he could witness the events at the time that they happened. If he was out at about that time, maybe he was out at 12:43 and the Schwartz event happened at 11:47. Or vice versa.

Vice versa? That would have Stride talking to Parcelman, then standing in the gateway alone, getting assaulted, then going over to the board school corner to chat briefly with Overcoat Man, then going back to the yard to be murdered, presumably not by BS Man, just prior to the street being witnessed by both Goldstein and Mortimer. That is quite a scenario.

The alternative is Stride talking to Parcelman, then Overcoat Man, then going to the gateway alone, before being murdered by BS Man, a few minutes prior to Goldstein being on the street. Somehow Fanny must see Goldstein just before turning in for the night but miss everything that supposedly occurs at the gateway.

[The Rookie Detective]

Whatever the circumstances by which the Star obtained this information, it's interesting that Schwartz seems to have left his wife to move house during his unexplained absence, seemingly covering the day, evening and half the night prior to the murder. This is usually explained by the Schwartz's being poor and thus having few belongings. Yet this supposedly poor man rocks-up to a police station, looking well dressed to the point of appearing theatrical. Make it make sense.

Excellent point indeed.

[Fiver]

The reason why I think Schwartz may have been an elaborate hoax, is because nothing he claims to have seen or heard can be corroborated by any other witness or persons physically in Berner Street at the time.

Nothing that James Brown claims to have seen can be corroborated by any other witness or persons physically in Berner Street at the time.
Nothing that Morris Eagle claims to have seen can be corroborated by any other witness or persons physically in Berner Street at the time.
Nothing that Joseph Lave claims to have seen can be corroborated by any other witness or persons physically in Berner Street at the time.
Nothing that Charles Letchford claims to have seen can be corroborated by any other witness or persons physically in Berner Street at the time.
Nothing that Matthew Packer claims to have seen can be corroborated by any other witness or persons physically in Berner Street at the time.
Nothing that William West claims to have seen can be corroborated by any other witness or persons physically in Berner Street at the time.

The shout of "Lipski!" - not heard.
The Pipe man following (allegedly) Schwartz - not seen or heard.
The BS man who assaulted (allegedly) Stride - not seen or heard.
The Pipe man- not seen or heard.
James Brown passing the junction of Berner St at virtually the same time - saw or heard none of the above.
Schwartz himself - never seen or heard arriving, attending or leaving the scene at any point in time.
Schwartz doesn't appear at the inquest despite his potentially crucial evidence.

When you combine all of the above and realise that they form the sum of all parts, then it opens up a viable line of questioning regarding Schwartz's integrity and even his very existence itself.

Police internal memos show that Israel Schwartz existed. There is plenty of room to doubt his accuracy or integrity, but not his existence.

[Sunny Delight]

Whatever the circumstances by which the Star obtained this information, it's interesting that Schwartz seems to have left his wife to move house during his unexplained absence, seemingly covering the day, evening and half the night prior to the murder. This is usually explained by the Schwartz's being poor and thus having few belongings. Yet this supposedly poor man rocks-up to a police station, looking well dressed to the point of appearing theatrical. Make it make sense.

We don't know where Schwartz was that day. All we know is that his wife was moving house or lodgings. We don't know if he had a lot of belongings or if he had none. We don't know if his wife enlisted the help of family members or friends to help with the move. We don't know Schwartz circumstances. Was he well off or poor. Or in between. So how can we judge him against his appearance at the Police Station.

You are inserting answers to questions we don't have an answer to and then putting your hands out and saying, make it make sense.