Ripper Facts

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Lawende

I'm a couple of pages late, but I think it's important to remember that Lawende never identified Kate Eddowes. He didn't see the woman's face and wasn't shown Kate's body after she died.

He was shown her clothing, which he said was similar to those worn by the woman.

Also, Lawende was found several days after the murder from a house to house inquiry.

I don't doubt the man tried as hard and honestly as he could, but I would never consider his testimony reliable.
The fact that he said so himself at the inquest is also significant.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Steve,

There are numerous other reasons which cast doubt on Schwartz's evidence. As I replied to Craig, I will post a more detailed analysis at a later time.

I, for one, very much look forward to reading this. I've myself just finished the first draft on a 9,000+ word essay entitled 'Israel Schwartz - A Critical Analysis'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

However, based upon the revised timeline for PC Smith, she should then have seen him, the suspect and Stride. And this scenario is absolutely disastrous for Schwartz's evidence.

I think 'disastrous' might be too strong a word. After all, if we're willing to extend the benefit of doubt to other witnesses as to their timing and movements, then I'm not sure how our modified timings should prove 'disastrous' to another witness.

Having said that, Ripperology as a whole has been very generous to Israel Schwartz. Perhaps because his evidence remained unseen for almost 90 years it was handled like a precious treasure when it finally surfaced in 1976 in Stephen Knight's book. Since that time it's been treated as the gold standard of eye witness statements and even used to to discount Stride as a Ripper victim. This in spite of the fact that he completely disappears from the written record after November 1st, 1888. Aside from a very small number of 'fringe' Ripperologists who argue tooth and nail that Schwartz was a liar, Schwartz is just accepted by mainstream authors, seemingly with very little deep thought (with the exception of Paul Begg) and extended discussion, and is therefore accepted wholeheartedly by readers. I'm not suggesting that Schwartz was a liar, just that one shouldn't center their understanding of the Berner Street murder around his testimony.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John G]

I think 'disastrous' might be too strong a word. After all, if we're willing to extend the benefit of doubt to other witnesses as to their timing and movements, then I'm not sure how our modified timings should prove 'disastrous' to another witness.

Having said that, Ripperology as a whole has been very generous to Israel Schwartz. Perhaps because his evidence remained unseen for almost 90 years it was handled like a precious treasure when it finally surfaced in 1976 in Stephen Knight's book. Since that time it's been treated as the gold standard of eye witness statements and even used to to discount Stride as a Ripper victim. This in spite of the fact that he completely disappears from the written record after November 1st, 1888. Aside from a very small number of 'fringe' Ripperologists who argue tooth and nail that Schwartz was a liar, Schwartz is just accepted by mainstream authors, seemingly with very little deep thought (with the exception of Paul Begg) and extended discussion, and is therefore accepted wholeheartedly by readers. I'm not suggesting that Schwartz was a liar, just that one shouldn't center their understanding of the Berner Street murder around his testimony.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Thanks for reply. I think you make some excellent points regarding how Schwartz has come to be unquestionably accepted in the field of Ripperology.

And, of course, it's not just timings that raises question about his evidence, as has been discussed at length many times, and to which you infer yourself, i.e. the fact that he disappears from the written record after November 1888.

Of course, George Hutchinson, who was also initially considered an excellent witness, and by none other than Inspector Abberline, also quickly disappeared from the inquiry.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for reply. I think you make some excellent points regarding how Schwartz has come to be unquestionably accepted in the field of Ripperology.

And, of course, it's not just timings that raises question about his evidence, as has been discussed at length many times, and to which you infer yourself, i.e. the fact that he disappears from the written record after November 1888.

Of course, George Hutchinson, who was also initially considered an excellent witness, and by none other than Inspector Abberline, also quickly disappeared from the inquiry.

I perceive the difference between Schwartz and Hutch being that initially Hutchinson seemed credible. That's why we see such comments on his statement. Similarly, Schwartz's statement, also prepared by Abberline, gave Swanson no reason to doubt Schwartz's veracity. Schwartz naysayers point to the early Star blurbs about Schwartz not being believed as evidence that Schwartz was a liar. But the later discussions of Schwartz by Swanson and Abberline render these press report moots. Clearly by the end of October Schwartz was still considered quite an important witness. But that does not mean the police were convinced by him. How could they be? His evidence was never corroborated, and they must have been reminded of Emmanuel Violina from just weeks earlier who delivered a similar story to Schwartz, but in relation to the Chapman murder, and was quickly exposed as a liar.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Elamarna]

I, for one, very much look forward to reading this. I've myself just finished the first draft on a 9,000+ word essay entitled 'Israel Schwartz - A Critical Analysis'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

that will be something well worth the wait to read.

the same for your stuff too John

Steve

[c.d.]

Hello Tom,

Good to see you posting as usual.

I have always objected to seeing Schwartz from a black or white perspective, i.e., he was telling the truth or he was lying as though those are the only two possibilities. I think it more likely that he reported what he thought he saw with the additional handicap of the language barrier. If you reread the thread that I started (A Modern Day B.S. Man/Liz Encounter), it was plain that had I not understood English that I would have had a completely erroneous interpretation of what I had seen. I believe that that holds true for Schwartz way more than we think and needs to be factored into his testimony.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thank you, Steve. It will be part of my upcoming book entitled Whitechapel Confidential, of which a great part will be devoted to the 'Berner Street Mystery'. So there'll be a of stuff in there, not just Schwartz: new stuff on Fanny Mortimer, James Brown, Packer, et al.

Ceeds,

It's always great to see you're still kicking around these boards! I don't post too much any more as I've little left to say about Lechmere and even less about this Pierre fellow. However, I've been reliving old threads from 7 to 10 years ago and saw this thread discussing Stride so thought I'd chime in.
As you know (though many newer posters probably wouldn't) I've studied the Stride case closely and for a very long time. So long that I became burned out on it for a quite a while, though my interest rekindled recently while working on my new book.
One thing I'll say about Schwartz is that if you extract him from the record, the testimonies of everyone else - Smith, Brown, Mortimer - fit like a glove. Placing Schwartz back into that now-harmonious frame takes a little more work. Getting him into the right place takes yet a little more work. For instance, it's assumed that BS Man was Stride's murderer, and therefore assumed that James Brown's passing of Stride and a man occurred before Schwartz's pass through Berner Street. But what if...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Craig H]

[QUOTE=Columbo;380700]

Hi Craig,

It's gotten to the point in Ripperology where some people start to believe the people back in that time were not as "savvy" as we are today. They start second guessing testimony, witnesses etc, making wild accusations, and imposing some silly histrionics that make no sense when you examine it closely. We might as well just scrap all the records and write whatever we want.
The police records are the number one source of historical information for JTR. Then we have to fall to newspapers, memoirs, second hand gossip and the occasional "circumstantial evidence suspect" that almost always falls through.
The witness statements are historical fact and should be taken as such. You either believe them or you don't, but some people are wasting time trying to put some weird sherlock holmes twist on it.

Columbo

Hi Columbo

I think you're right.

It's easy to say that anyone could be the Ripper. However, if you start with what the primary sources show - witnesses, evidence at the sites - then you (hopefully) narrow down who it could be.

All the best
Craig

[Craig H]

Hi Tom W and John G

I'm really interested in what you both think about Schwart's witness statement.

Have either of you written about this before in other threads or elsewhere ?

I'm wondering if Schwartz's observation actually occurred shortly before he said. It sounds more like a robbery rather than attempted killing. The suspect was dragging his victim onto the street rather than into the dark alley. It also seems out of character approach to the other killings.

I also wonder if a non-English speaking Schwartz would have been intimidated or frightened by being interviewed by the police.

Keen to find out more from you both

All the best

Craig

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom W and John G

I'm really interested in what you both think about Schwart's witness statement.

Have either of you written about this before in other threads or elsewhere ?

I'm wondering if Schwartz's observation actually occurred shortly before he said. It sounds more like a robbery rather than attempted killing. The suspect was dragging his victim onto the street rather than into the dark alley. It also seems out of character approach to the other killings.

I also wonder if a non-English speaking Schwartz would have been intimidated or frightened by being interviewed by the police.

Keen to find out more from you both

All the best

Craig

Hi Craig, thanks. Yes, I've published in Ripper journals about this stuff, but mostly I hacked away here at the Casebook, though we're talking five or more years ago.
I have no firm conclusions about Schwartz and I urge against firm conclusions on most things, because it's important to remember that we don't even have his statement. We have only Swanson's summary of his statement and Swanson was not a terribly good writer.
I believe Schwartz was escorted by a friend to the Leman Street Police station, where the friend would have explained Schwartz's purpose there and made initial introductions but the actual interrogation would have occurred between Schwartz, Abberline, and an interpreter provided by the police. In this instance it was probably a fellow by the name of Smaje (I might be misspelling that, going by memory here) who had been a police interpreter for years and could speak many tongues. In fact, the year before he had been sent to the hospital to take the dying confessions of Israel Lipski.
You might be right about it being a robbery. Another possibility is that Schwartz witnessed Morris Eagle removing an unwanted woman from his club's yard on his way back into the club. That might explain why the man pulls her away from the yard, turns her around, and pushes her.
I've also written about my suspicions that Schwartz was affiliated with the Berner Street club. Some others have taken my research (usually without crediting me) and use it to argue for Schwartz having been a liar. I explore all of this more fully in my upcoming book, but the Star report states that up until the day before Schwartz had lived on Berner Street and was checking to see if his wife was still at their old residence. My logic is that his old residence is obviously on the same side of the street as that he was walking on (the club side) and evidently not before #40, so that rules out most residences, as from that point on it's mostly businesses. If Schwartz was affiliated with the club then it could be argued that he made up the story in order to draw suspicion away from the clubmen. However, there's no reason he could not have been a friend of the club and also be telling the truth about what he saw. It's also very possible his old residence was elsewhere on the street. Lots of speculation that makes for interesting discussion but leads to precious little that is solid.
For all we know, Israel Schwartz was Jack the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wesott

[Craig H]

Thanks Tom

I was also looking at some other posts of yours.

I also just bought your Bank Holiday murders kindle which I'm looking forward to reading

All the best
McCaughey

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks Tom

I was also looking at some other posts of yours.

I also just bought your Bank Holiday murders kindle which I'm looking forward to reading

All the best
McCaughey

That's fantastic, Craig. I hope you enjoy it. And please don't read too many of my old posts. Most of them are nonsense.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. McCaughey?

[c.d.]

Hello Tom,

The connection to Lipski by way of the interpreter is interesting. I am wondering if it could have been a case of leading the witness with the interpreter making the initial suggestion as to what Schwartz heard the B.S. man say.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"And please don't read too many of my old posts. Most of them are nonsense."

Finally, an admission! Now if we can only get some other posters on here to be so forthright.

c.d.