Suspect Witnesses?

[Sunny Delight]

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.



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

And that my friends is good morning, good evening and good night.

[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.

If Pipeman and BS Man were known to each other, the accusation of Pipeman having a knife might have caused him to come forward to clear himself and point the finger at BS Man. However, what the police really wanted was BS Man, who was now in a position to come forward and support the Star account by saying he saw the whole thing and Pipeman was the killer. This would put BS Man in their clutches. Israel Schwartz did not appear at the inquest nor did his name appear in the papers. The police were keeping him under lockdown. There's no way he gave the Star interview without their permission. In this instance, the interpreter would have been a man working with the police who'd been told what to say to the Star reporter.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Nothing that James Brown claims to have seen can be corroborated by any other witness or persons physically in Berner Street at the time.

Actually, both Brown and Schwartz claim to have seen a man wearing a long overcoat around the same time and in the same spot.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Rookie Detective]

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.



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

A good post Fiver


But


Eagle - saw or heard nothing suspicious

Lave - saw or heard nothing suspicious

Letchford - saw or heard nothing suspicious

West/Wess - saw of heard nothing suspicious

Packer - subsequently discredited after being got to by the criminal Le Grande shortly after the murder.


Brown - I can't argue with your point regarding Brown, except to say that he stated going into the Chandlers shop on the corner, which would have been verified amd corroborated by the police. If the person who served him said that Brown didn't go into the shop, then Brown would have been a suspect for the murder.




So, what I'm saying, is that with the example you give, 4 of them didn't see or hear anything, so there's nothing to be proven (as you can't prove a negative) 1 was discredited and 1 would have been verified by the Chandlers shop owner/person who served Brown.


But again.... with Schwartz...who claims to see and hear everything... nothing whatsoever can be corroborated.


And so my point still stands.


At least with the likes of Eagle, Lave, Wess and Letchford, there may have been an element of plausible deniability.

You can't prove that witnesses didn't see or hear anything (a negative) but you CAN look to prove that a person claimed they saw and heard lots....that nobody else did; despite there being several other witnesses within the vicinity and at around the same time.

The key differences between Brown and Schwartz are fairly obvious, but I can understand why Brown is often used as an unreliable witness just to allow the more popular Schwartz to be accommodated into the narrative.

The interesting thing is, that when you run the sequence of events leading up to the murder, but omit Schwartz's fantastical and dramatic story, then the events that night seem to become more apparent.

The issue with Schwartz is that he's the hot chilli sauce to the sponge cake, the square peg in a round hole etc... etc...
The issue however is that only a few of us are open to the idea that the entire account given by Schwartz was a load of tosh.
No amount of demeaning Brown (or Mortimer's) integrity, manipulating timings to fit Schwartz in, or assuming that everyone in the street or at the corner were hard of hearing, can explain why Schwartz's story.

There's no shame to be had in the idea that Schwartz has fooled scores of researchers over the years. It of course doesn't help having a misplaced belief in the likes of Abberline and Co... but considering nobody really had a scoobie who the Ripper was, I'd say the police were absolutely abysmal and embarrassing in that they failed in their duty to find the killer.

They had 1 job.


That's why the anti-semitic rhetoric was later pedalled in a bid to steer attention away from the incompetence of the police at the time.

Blaming some random lunatic Jews had its limitations, although the likes of Kosminski managed to slip through the net and for some bizarre reason remains one of the prime suspects.

Ridiculous.

[The Rookie Detective]

And that my friends is good morning, good evening and good night.

Except only Brown and Packer from that list had anything to say.
Lave, Eagle, Latchford and Wess claimed they saw or heard nothing (and you can't prove a negative)

The beautiful thing about plausible deniability.


But Packer was later discredited because Le Grande essentially interrogated him.
And Le Grande was a nasty piece of work.
Packer lost his integrity pretty quickly.

And Brown's visit to the Chandler's shop would have been checked by the police, because if he never went there, he would have become a prime suspect.


So, we are left with Schwartz


And my point still stands.


And is still relevant because once again, unlike most of the people there that night who claimed to have seen or heard nothing.... Schwartz was the opposite.

Mortimer
Brown
Pc Smith
Schwartz

The 4 witnesses who claimed to have seen something significant.

Only Schwartz's claims are unverified.

Mortimer spoke to a couple who had been standing on the corner
Brown also saw a couple standing on the corner.

A coincidence?


Schwartz however...

Claimed to have seen an assault, the victim thrown down onto the floor; the woman screaming (3 times) but not very loudly.
(A scream by its very definition is of course...loud... and intended to raise an alarm for help. An automated response to threat)
The assailant who was apparently intoxicated, managed somehow to assault the woman in silence, as only she makes a sound.
The man then sees Schwartz, and then shouts an anti-semitic slur outside a Jewish club (which is either ballsey or stupid, or both)
The slur is audible enough to be heard by Schwartz, who sensing something untoward, then leaves the scene... but not before another man with a pipe comes out of a doorway and then apparently follows Schwartz as far as the train line/arch.
Which is again surprising as there's no train line or bridge anywhere near Ellen Street, and the route Schwarrz would have needed to have taken, doesn't fit with his statement.

Nobody saw or heard "Lipski!"
Nobody saw or heard Bs man
Nobody saw or heard Pipeman
Nobody saw or heard Schwartz.

But it's okay as Schwartz didn't speak a word of English.

So essentially... the translator likely did a botched job of it.

The odd thing is that the intial story printed in the press the day after the murder, speaks of a witness apparently witnessing a domestic, and then giving it a wide birth.

But then the story is somehow beefed up with a dramatic assault, a woman screaming; but not loud enough for anyone else to hear it (apart from Schwartz) an anti semitic slur that nobody else heard, a man with a pipe coming out of a doorway (on the wrong side of the road) a run to a phantom train line, a potential chase from a man with a pipe, who nobody saw either.

It's like the Star reporter who located Schwartz in Backchurch Lane, said to him...

"Okay, so if you want to get you name in the paper, we're gonna need to beef up your story, as uneventful domestic assaults don't sell."

The Star or course being the equivalent to a modern day tabloid like the Sun or Mirror; whereby most of the stories are made up to be more dramatic.

Why did his story change so much?

And if it didn't, then why did his story not appear in its entirety in the papers from day 1?

We know that the story of a person witnessing what they thought was a domestic assault, did appear in the paper on day 1, and unless it's NOT Schwartz's story....then why the initial ambiguity?

If the story about the domestic assault and Schwartz's story are NOT the same person, then we have another witness we can't account for.

The issue with Schwartz is that few have the courage to see what the narrative looks like with his story omitted.

I think the over dependence on the unwavering integrity of Abberline, is part of the reason why challenging Schwartz is often frowned upon.

But at the end of the day, Abberline failed in his responsibility to identify or capture the killer.

Abberline is often used a shield to protect Schwartz.


And therein lies the problem.

[Lewis C]

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.

Yes, I think those are both possibilities. It's also possible that Brown was mistaken about the woman he saw being Stride, though I lean slightly toward thinking that it was.

[Lewis C]

Brown - I can't argue with your point regarding Brown, except to say that he stated going into the Chandlers shop on the corner, which would have been verified amd corroborated by the police. If the person who served him said that Brown didn't go into the shop, then Brown would have been a suspect for the murder.

Hi RD,

This only means that there's confirmation (or may be) that Brown went to the Chandler's Shop, which I think no one disputes. I think the only thing there's any question about is whether or not he was right that the woman he saw was Stride. Later you mention demeaning Brown' integrity, but again, I don't think anyone does that. Some people think he was wrong about the woman being Stride, but I think that even those people think that it was an honest mistake.

The key differences between Brown and Schwartz are fairly obvious, but I can understand why Brown is often used as an unreliable witness just to allow the more popular Schwartz to be accommodated into the narrative.

Maybe some do that, but it isn't necessary. It's entirely possible that both Schwartz and Brown are good witnesses.

The interesting thing is, that when you run the sequence of events leading up to the murder, but omit Schwartz's fantastical and dramatic story, then the events that night seem to become more apparent.

If eliminating evidence seems to clarify things, that apparent clarification is likely an illusion. I don't see how the events would seem more apparent anyway.

No amount of demeaning Brown (or Mortimer's) integrity, manipulating timings to fit Schwartz in, or assuming that everyone in the street or at the corner were hard of hearing, can explain why Schwartz's story.

If Schwartz' story is true, it doesn't mean that everyone on the street was hard of hearing. It means that if there was anyone on the street at the time, we're unaware of any statement from any of them.

I think that all of us agree that we can't assume that any witness knew the exact time to the minute, so when someone applies that idea to a specific situation, it shouldn't be characterized as "manipulating timing". Both Schwartz and Brown estimated 12:45. If both of the things they describe couldn't have happened at the same time, it's far more likely that one or both of them was off by a couple of minutes than that one of them made up their story.

[c.d.]

But again.... with Schwartz...who claims to see and hear everything... nothing whatsoever can be corroborated.

You make this same point over and over again, R.D. and I am always forced to respond.

The fact that Schwartz's story is uncorroborated tells us just one thing and one thing only...and that is...wait for it....wait for it....that his story is uncorroborated!
That's it. Period. He might have been telling the truth or he might have been lying through his teeth but that fact that his story is uncorroborated doesn't necessarily mean the latter. That conclusion simply does not follow.

Would it have been nice if his story were backed by fifty priests and fifty nuns and some rabbis? Absolutely. And even better if we can throw in some Tibetan holy men, some gypsies, some radical feminist lesbians and an atheist. But it is what it is. It is hardly Schwartz's fault that is so nor is it anything that he could control. And uncorroborated witness testimony is permitted in court. Jurors simply have to decide how much weight they want to give it.

I think the over dependence on the unwavering integrity of Abberline, is part of the reason why challenging Schwartz is often frowned upon.

I know of no one who has ever sited his unwavering integrity.

But at the end of the day, Abberline failed in his responsibility to identify or capture the killer.

Abberline was not alone in that. There was plenty of blame to go around.

Abberline is often used a shield to protect Schwartz.

Belief runs a spectrum from I think his story is more plausible than not to I believe Schwartz's story and will wager the souls of my grandchildren on it being correct. We don't know where Abberline fell on that spectrum or if his belief changed over time. I don't see any sort of "protection."

c.d.

[Paddy Goose]

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

Oh, so you have suggested it? Let's see. We'lll look through all the posts you have made on this thread which is about Schwartz not being a real person, a real human being in flesh and blook, and instead the POLICE invented him out of thin air.

Buckle up, here we go.

[Paddy Goose]

It is really the second man (Pipeman) that makes the story so odd. ...
...
Even if we ignore the peculiar reference to Schwartz giving evidence at the inquest (which we should not do), something is not right - it feels off.

So it's odd. Feel off. You said. No, You did not suggest the POLICE made up Schwartz out of thin air and he was not a real person in flesh and blook.

On to the next post of yours on this thead,

[Paddy Goose]

...if you saw what looked like a husband-and-wife quarrel, and then when you crossed the road you see a man lighting his pipe?

We would still need to explain why no newspaper reported this, that we are aware of.

Nope you did not suggest Schwartz was not a real person in flesh and blook and instead the POLICE invented him out of thin air.

Moving right along.

[Paddy Goose]

The reason you don't see any mystery, is that you don't accept the evidence. Schwartz ran and so did the second man...

I didn't see it anywere in this post of yours, you suggesting that Schwartz was not a real person, a human being in flesh and blook, but rather the POLICE invented him out of thin air.

Continuing

[Paddy Goose]

If Herlock or Duran had been Pipeman, and seen a man harassing a woman on the street, they too would have run off in fear. Makes sense.

Not here. No, you STILL have not suggeted Schwartz was not a real person, a human being in flesh and blook, but the POLICE made him up out of thin air.

Onward!

[Paddy Goose]

According to the Star, "the Hungarian" went to the police ...
You have probably noticed that Abberline's second hypothesis -

You still have not suggested Schwartz was not a realy person, a human being in flesh and blood and instead the POLICE invented him out of thin air.

We continue

[Paddy Goose]

I doubt any man on the streets in that area at that time, alone, would have run off, having witnessed what must have been a fairly common occurrence.

Nope, you seem to be getting further and further awasy into a generic discussion. You still have not suggested Schwartz was not a real person, a human being in flesh and blood, instead the POLICE made him up out of thin air.

perseverance