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?

[Wickerman]

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.

But Chris, inventing a false witness for public consumption does not include describing this same false witness as if he really existed, in police reports sent to head office.
One of the quickest ways to get a reprimand, a demotion, or lose your job, I would think.
Scotland Yard H.Q. would have to be told this is a false witness, if in fact the deception did not already come from the top brass itself.

This is just barking up the wrong tree Chris, sorry to say.

[Tom_Wescott]

I fail to see how we can claim that without some indication Schwartz might have been sequestered, like Lawende.
Without that, they have no way to keep the press from Schwartz, plus the fact the Star account is a lengthy piece, you seem to be suggesting the whole story is a fabrication.
Such a claim should require some kind of corroboration.

Schwartz's name appeared nowhere in the press and he was not called to the inquest. Either that's proof of Schwartz's sequestration or else you're on board with the theory that he never existed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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?

There's nothing speculative about the police using the press in such a way. It was written about in the papers at the time. They allegedly did something similar when Sadler was in the hot seat for Coles by having journalists put words into Sadler's wife's mouth to make him look more Ripperish. Of course the police used the press!

Read the Star report again, notice the differences in the men's appearance and movements. Nothing really risky in it. It would either work or it wouldn't. I'll tell you what was risky - not immediately releasing detailed descriptions of both of Schwartz's man as well as Lawende's man so the public could join in the hunt. Instead, everyone in London was turning in men who looked like Packer's fictitious clerk which not only could lead to nothing, but wasted vast amounts of police resources.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Filby]

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."

Thanks for correction and clarification. I would have to ponder this a bit more, but your description of a false witness seems plausible to a degree, but a bit too desperate move even for the police at that time. Risk clearly outweighs the benefits of such a move, in my view. Not only are they possibly misleading the suspect, but also the Whitechapel residents which really isn't in their best interest, in my view, especially knowing that JtR is still undetectable, basically.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

This amounts to rephrasing half the question and ignoring the other half.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Because I don't believe Schwartz.

The Star: This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter.

A non-English speaking actor! How convenient.

Now if you would kindly answer my question; Was Wess aware of the 'Schwartz incident' when he spoke to the Echo reporter?