Suspect Witnesses?

[Lewis C]

They might have that in common, but they differ from each other in other ways, and the ways that they differ are why they're viewed differently. One difference is that Hutch gave an unbelievably detailed description of the man he saw, but Schwartz didn't. Another difference is that what Schwartz said he did sounds like normal behavior, if not very courageous, while Schwartz following the couple and lingering outside Kelly's apartment sounds like odd behavior.

On this post from yesterday, where I said, "Schwartz following the couple and lingering outside Kelly's apartment", I meant Hutchinson, not Schwartz.

[Lewis C]

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

I see no reason why what I said needs to explain that. Your reasoning seems to be that since Swanson mentioned Schwartz but not Brown while the coroner's summing up mentions Brown but not Schwartz, therefore either Schwartz or Brown must be wrong. I don't think that that follows.

[Lewis C]

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.

You're calling it a coincidence that there happened to be a witness there at that time, while RD is questioning the likelihood that the Schwartz incident happened because there weren't additional witnesses. If no witnesses is a reasonable possibility, and 2 or more witnesses is also a reasonable possibility, then I suggest that one witness is reasonable too.

[Sunny Delight]

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.

The usual excuse given for Schwartz not helping his wife move home is irrelevant. The documentation does not tell us anything about Schwartz. We don't know where he was that day or what he was doing. We don't know if him and his wife were rich or poor or whether the whole street helped his wife move or she did it herself. We don't know if she had 8 children in tow or none. So to put your hands out in despair at imaginary answers you made up in your head and proclaim, make it make sense is well nonsensical itself.

As for the coincidence of Schwartz detouring down Berner Street at the very moment the man I believe to be the Ripper approached the victim, what do you mean by that? There are often witnesses to events or crimes who just happen to be passing at that time. Or even worse some people can be at the wrong place at the wrong time altogether, just as Stride was. I have zero idea what point you are making with impeccable timing? What do you mean by this?