Suspect Witnesses?

[Abby Normal]

The thread is entitled "Suspect Witnesses?"

Ergo, dodgy Witnesses.

(It's a play in words)

Discussion on Schwartz is fair game, as is the likes of Hutchinson, Maxwell, Lewis, Mccarthy, Harvey etc...etc...

Schwartz was mentioned initially to kick things off.

Schwartz and Hutchinson remain the most enigmatic "witnesses"...yet it's odd that only Hutchinson is also considered a potential suspect, while Schwartz isn't.

Why is that?

For all we know, Schwartz cut Stride's throat.

Nobody saw or heard anything he did anyway, so it's a viable possibility.

because there is nothing dodgy about schwartz account and everything dodgy about hutchs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Probably because it’s a barking mad suggestion Andrew. If you could just leave the Grassy Knoll for a moment and ask yourself why you get so ‘upset’ by the concept that something can occur without others seeing or hearing it (especially considering that it was a very short incident with no great level of noise and not a Led Zeppelin sound check) and that the notion of someone being used as ‘pretend’ witness only occurs in novels and movies. There’s not a single thing about the Schwartz story that’s strange and I’ve never understood why you view it as such. Yes there are some fairly minor discrepancies in the reporting but these things happen especially when we have a non-English speaker and an interpreter whose language skills were of an unknown standard. We know what happened. Schwartz walked down Berner Street behind BS man. BS man stopped and got into some kind of altercation with a woman. Schwartz crossed to the other side to avoid getting too close. He’s sees Pipeman who is on the club side. BS man shouts “Lipski.” Schwartz crosses over a walks away down Fairclough Street. He looks back and sees Pipeman walking in the same direction. He panics and starts to run. Forward 10 minutes and Louis Diemschitz finds the body of Elizabeth Stride in Dutfield’s Yard. There was no one wearing a false beard, no one hiding in a bush and no one present that worked for the Russian secret police.

[Filby]

Hi all


Those of you who are familiar with my research style, will know that I like to try and think outside the box and approach things in a rather unconventional way, so as to try and make things interesting, and perhaps even encourage others to open their minds and become more diverse and adaptable in their respective ways of thinking.


So...

Here's a question for all of you wise and wonderful people...


Are there any individuals in the Ripper case, who didn't even exist?

Odd thing to ask.

I know, right?


But, let's go with it...


Are there any individuals who the police invented so as to try and lure the killer into a false sense of security and/or to feed the real killer misinformation, in an attempt to push the killer into making a mistake and thus revealing themselves?

It's something that I have considered for a while, but let's say... Schwartz... (as an example only)


Could Schwartz have been completely fabricated by the police, in a bid to lure the killer to make a mistake?


Are there any other so called "witnesses" who were never seen in public, but who only exist in a police report as having given a statement?

I mean, that's more than 1 question, but you get the idea.


Thoughts?

In regards to using Schwartz fabrication (example) to lure JtR. I suppose it's possible such tactics could be used, but why invent a suspect? Rather since we are reasoning here, hypothetically speaking, wouldn't it be more rational to lure by promoting opportunity? I would think inventing false suspects would only keep JtR at bay longer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

I'm contrasting the usual excuse given for Schwartz being out for many hours while his wife moved - that they were poor with few belongings and thus the move would be a one-woman job - with Israel's theatrical appearance at the police station. You're imagining inserted answers, and supposing that Mrs Schwartz might have had community help, sort of helps to make my point.

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.

By sheer coincidence Schwartz was detouring down Berner St at the very moment a man approached the victim, while she 'conveniently' stood at the gateway to the yard. One has to marvel at the impecable timing.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

This is very speculative. If Pipeman had known BS, throwing his mate under a hansom cab would have been risky, as it would become one man's word against another. Ditto BS Man. Schwartz couldn't give the 'deciding vote', having claimed to have run off before the murder.

Had the police been keeping Schwartz under lockdown, I doubt the press would have been given any of his details. Could the Star have been trusted not to leak?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

That leaves unexplained why Swanson's report mentions Schwartz but not Brown, whereas the coroner's summing-up mentions Brown but not Schwartz.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Is his story backed up by Wess's comments to the Echo?

What about Der Arbeter Fraint's apparent knowledge that the murder occurred at about a quarter to one?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz on the left, Flower Lady in the Middle, and Lewis Dimestore on the Right. His cart had a flat tire. I betcha' didn't know that.

Once again you have portrayed these two Jewish men as apes. Any particular reason for that?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Probably because it’s a barking mad suggestion Andrew.

Who made that suggestion, Michael?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm contrasting the usual excuse given for Schwartz being out for many hours while his wife moved - that they were poor with few belongings and thus the move would be a one-woman job - with Israel's theatrical appearance at the police station. You're imagining inserted answers, and supposing that Mrs Schwartz might have had community help, sort of helps to make my point.

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.

By sheer coincidence Schwartz was detouring down Berner St at the very moment a man approached the victim, while she 'conveniently' stood at the gateway to the yard. One has to marvel at the impecable timing.

There’s nothing remotely unusual or suspicious about it unless you are determined to see things as being pre-ordained. He had gone out, his wife was moving while he was out, he went home and saw an incident on the way. There’s nothing remotely ‘convenient’ about it. It’s a perfectly normal series of occurrences. We don’t know the full back story of Schwartz and his wife’s situation. We don’t know what he had been doing during the day. Why is it ‘convenient’ that the woman was standing where she was? It’s about as ‘convenient’ as the ripper and Annie Chapman both being in the yard of number 29 at the same time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who made that suggestion, Michael?

As far as I can recall, it was Michael Richards, but you appear to be along the same line of thinking. You constantly express doubts about Israel Schwartz perfectly normal behaviour.

[The Rookie Detective]

In regards to using Schwartz fabrication (example) to lure JtR. I suppose it's possible such tactics could be used, but why invent a suspect? Rather since we are reasoning here, hypothetically speaking, wouldn't it be more rational to lure by promoting opportunity? I would think inventing false suspects would only keep JtR at bay longer.

False witnesses, not suspects.

I'm suggesting that Schwartz's story was used as false witness, but derived from a genuine account of someone having witnessed a domestic assault, which was printed in the press that day after the murder.

By inventing a false witness; or more specifically a false story, it can then make the killer believe he has been seen in the act, and therefore make the killer paranoid into believing they had been possibly identified.

This then provokes a response from the killer to act, and that in turn leads to a greater chance of the culprit making a mistake.

It's a form of passive entrapment, that's perfectly legal and can indeed be an effective tool in drawing a killer out of the woodwork.

Imagine a man robbing a store at gun point, who then shoots the person behind the counter.
But typically the CCTV is found to be faulty.
But then the police put out a story by stating they believe they may have identified the killer through CCTV.

This works if the killer is known and being tracked, but also if the police have nothing to go on and need the killer to make a mistake by stepping out of their hiding place.

I am suggesting that the police may have taken the witness story of having witnessed a domestic assault, and then added lots of false narrative (the Schwartz account) in a bid to make the killer believe that they had been seen, and therefore panic the killer into thinking their game was up.

But I don't see the police of 1888 having a psychologcial mindset that would have incorporated the concept of "calling the killer's bluff."

[Herlock Sholmes]

That leaves unexplained why Swanson's report mentions Schwartz but not Brown, whereas the coroner's summing-up mentions Brown but not Schwartz.

Maybe because Brown was at the inquest but Schwartz wasn’t?

[c.d.]

By sheer coincidence Schwartz was detouring down Berner St at the very moment a man approached the victim, while she 'conveniently' stood at the gateway to the yard. One has to marvel at the impecable timing.

Can't coincidence and conveniently be ascribed to so many aspects of this case? Was it convenient that Mortimer just happened to be at her door when she was? Was it convenient that there just happened to be singing at the club masking sounds from the yard? Is it a coincidence that Kelly was murdered in her room after Barnett's leaving left her all alone?

I mean why focus on Schwartz and disregard all other occurrences in the case?

c.d.

[Paddy Goose]

Once again you have portrayed these two Jewish men as apes. Any particular reason for that?

Nope. No particular reason. I did because I can. The same as Rookie can share "Rookie's Dream" where "Schwartz" is "totally fabricated by the POLICE." and get this, nobody at the Star ever not once asked to actually lay eyes on, to "see" the Hungarian. They immediately printed what the POLICE told them.

But why am I still here? After all, I've sat through a zillion generic Stride threads since I joined in 2008. In fact, the first thing I noticed was a generic Stride thread in which Christer and Ben were all crossways over a cutaway jacket. And yeah Michael Richards aka Perry Mason had some doozies back in the day. "Rookie's Dream" takes the cake, though. But I still like Rookie.

But yeah, why am I still here on this thread? After all, Tom Wescott nixed "Rookie's Dream" in post #8 in straightforward plain English that made perfect sense. And I thanked him for that. I think I'll leave it at that.