Stride..a victim?

[Scott Nelson]

You guys should re-read "The Theotokos Murders: Mother Mary and the Four Jacks" in Ripperologist 152 (October 2016). Randy Williams straightened out the whole Berner Street scenario.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I forgot to ask.

You seem to place great significance in Mortimer not hearing the Schwartz incident. She heard a Constable and a horse and cart but you even suggested that it might not have been one (maybe a passerby with one of those annoying ‘horse and cart’ ringtones)

Why don’t you find it significant that she heard a horse and cart at around 1.00 and yet she didn’t hear Diemschutz allegedly passing at 12.35 or whatever time you think he returned? Maybe the crafty swine fitted his horse with rubber soled shoes?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You guys should re-read "The Theotokos Murders: Mother Mary and the Four Jacks" in Ripperologist 152 (October 2016). Randy Williams straightened out the whole Berner Street scenario.

I think I saw a video a few years ago of him. Seemed a candidate for a padded cell to be honest. Didn't he write a book or was at least planning to Scott?

[Scott Nelson]

I don't know if a book ever came out.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

You guys should re-read "The Theotokos Murders: Mother Mary and the Four Jacks" in Ripperologist 152 (October 2016). Randy Williams straightened out the whole Berner Street scenario.

I went read that article. Yet another "mystery solved". I never realised Diemschutz and Astrakhan Man were one and the same. But that cheap costume jewellery gave him away.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Your obfuscating. The fact that Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren all speak of Schwartz being considered an important witness outweighs a quote from newspaper with no source quoted. This could simply have been the opinion of a Constable or a Sergeant that the Press spoke to over a pint.

I'm not comparing a meek newspaper report to the mighty of Scotland Yard.
What am saying is that the opinions of SY and Leman street station, appear to be quite different (the same being true of Packer).
I can tell you're very unhappy about this, but perhaps you should accept this imperfection, rather than obfuscating?

Of those four SY men, only Abberline ever met Schwartz, as far as we know.
Swanson, Anderson and Warren had to rely on Abberline's interview notes - thus their opinions are mostly derivative of Fred's.

It's interesting that you want to 'dismiss' the Star report, and yet in #1035 you say...

They arrest/question one man on the strength of Schwartz testimony.

This knowledge comes from the same report. Cherry-picking much?

I leave that to conspiracists. Like the repeated use of Mortimer saying that she was on her doorstep for most of the half an hour rather than the report where she spends around 10 minutes. That kind of cherrypicking.

That 10 minutes is the last 10 of the 30 minutes mentioned in her direct quote. There is no incompatibility, unless you want it.

If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered...

This statement exhibits no doubts. How are you reading ‘doubt’ in this? It even says “his statement casts no doubt upon it.”

It even says; If Schwartz is to be believed - implying that it would be reasonable not to.

Im not going to go trawling through the whole thread but what else have you been saying (along with Michael) about the reason for Schwartz non-attendance? You’re trying to do it in this post. Are you now saying that Schwartz wasn’t left out of the Inquest because the police had lost faith in him?

I'm saying that if you assert that someone in this forum holds a position, you have to be able to back it up with evidence. Start trawling...

No, this is black and white. If the police lost faith in Schwartz resulting in him not being called to the Inquest then this lack of confidence obviously had to have occurred some time before the Inquest. Schwartz gave his statement on the Evening of the day of the murder. We don’t know the exact time of course but if it was 7.00 and the I quest began at say 9.00 then we have 14 hours (just an estimation of course) So how could that lack of confidence have arisen (given the investigation, the arrest etc) in such a space of time? A statement about a possible ripper sighting, dismissed almost immediately, and than considered important later on. Why are you arguing against this? Can anything be more obvious?

The coroner decides who is called to the inquest.

I've already explained why Leman street might have quite quickly lost confidence in Schwartz.
We learn of this in the Star of Oct 2, so this loss of confidence may have occurred after the inquest commenced at 11am, Oct 1, which of course was after witnesses had received their summons. There is no reason to suppose this loss of confidence and Schwartz' inquest non-appearance, are linked.

So not only Schwartz saw this incident. But, according to Michael he was making it up to facilitate a cover up?

The implications of others both witnessing, and in one case also reporting 'the Schwartz incident', are rather enormous.
Talking about Michael won't change that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Your obfuscating. The fact that Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren all speak of Schwartz being considered an important witness outweighs a quote from newspaper with no source quoted. This could simply have been the opinion of a Constable or a Sergeant that the Press spoke to over a pint.
I'm not comparing a meek newspaper report to the mighty of Scotland Yard.
What am saying is that the opinions of SY and Leman street station, appear to be quite different (the same being true of Packer).
I can tell you're very unhappy about this, but perhaps you should accept this imperfection, rather than obfuscating?

Of those four SY men, only Abberline ever met Schwartz, as far as we know.
Swanson, Anderson and Warren had to rely on Abberline's interview notes - thus their opinions are mostly derivative of Fred's.

Its simply a case of who was more likely to have legitimate information Inspector Abberline or an unnamed newspaper source? It’s also apparent that Schwartz was still being mentioned as a witness of some value into November. Even if we only had this evidence for a week into October it would still eliminate the idea that he wasn’t called to the Inquest because they didn’t value him as a witness. Although they might have (if Schwartz had expressed fears) decided not to have called him as his statement didn’t affect the TOD. They had the Doctors, Diemschutz and Smith.

It's interesting that you want to 'dismiss' the Star report, and yet in #1035 you say...

They arrest/question one man on the strength of Schwartz testimony.
This knowledge comes from the same report. Cherry-picking much?

I wasn’t aware that it came from The Star so I don’t see how I could be accused of cherrypicking.

I leave that to conspiracists. Like the repeated use of Mortimer saying that she was on her doorstep for most of the half an hour rather than the report where she spends around 10 minutes. That kind of cherrypicking.
That 10 minutes is the last 10 of the 30 minutes mentioned in her direct quote. There is no incompatibility, unless you want it.

Only if you accept that Smith was wrong about what time he arrived in Berner Street. I think that he’s more likely to have been accurate in his timing that Fanny. And if that was the case then Fanny went onto her doorstep sometime around 12.35 for around 10 minutes so up until around 12.45.

If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered...

This statement exhibits no doubts. How are you reading ‘doubt’ in this? It even says “his statement casts no doubt upon it.”
It even says; If Schwartz is to be believed - implying that it would be reasonable not to.

It doesn’t mean anything of the kind. This is conspiracist pedantry. It means “If Schwartz is to be believed..and he obviously was.”

Im not going to go trawling through the whole thread but what else have you been saying (along with Michael) about the reason for Schwartz non-attendance? You’re trying to do it in this post. Are you now saying that Schwartz wasn’t left out of the Inquest because the police had lost faith in him?
I'm saying that if you assert that someone in this forum holds a position, you have to be able to back it up with evidence. Start trawling...

No.

No, this is black and white. If the police lost faith in Schwartz resulting in him not being called to the Inquest then this lack of confidence obviously had to have occurred some time before the Inquest. Schwartz gave his statement on the Evening of the day of the murder. We don’t know the exact time of course but if it was 7.00 and the I quest began at say 9.00 then we have 14 hours (just an estimation of course) So how could that lack of confidence have arisen (given the investigation, the arrest etc) in such a space of time? A statement about a possible ripper sighting, dismissed almost immediately, and than considered important later on. Why are you arguing against this? Can anything be more obvious?
The coroner decides who is called to the inquest.

So does the Coroner talk to all potential witnesses to assess their reliability before calling them? Or if a potential witness might have had genuine concerns for his safety after being threatened by a man who might have been Jack the Ripper and the Coroner may have taken the view that his testimony wasn’t required to establish TOD.

I've already explained why Leman street might have quite quickly lost confidence in Schwartz.
We learn of this in the Star of Oct 2, so this loss of confidence may have occurred after the inquest commenced at 11am, Oct 1, which of course was after witnesses had received their summons. There is no reason to suppose this loss of confidence and Schwartz' inquest non-appearance, are linked.

Which is what I’ve been saying.

So not only Schwartz saw this incident. But, according to Michael he was making it up to facilitate a cover up?
The implications of others both witnessing, and in one case also reporting 'the Schwartz incident', are rather enormous.
Talking about Michael won't change that

It lessens the chance, which was already small, of Schwartz making it up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I went read that article. Yet another "mystery solved". I never realised Diemschutz and Astrakhan Man were one and the same. But that cheap costume jewellery gave him away.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On whether you’ve suggested that Schwartz non-attendance must have been down to a lack of faith in his evidence. You said:


“Would he have been forced to attend, if there were genuine concerns about his and his family's safety if he did so? I don't know the answer, I'm merely curious.

If he is called to the inquest - which he surely was - he is legally obliged to attend.

If there were concerns over safety, there is a mechanism for dealing with this - appearance in camera.

There is no evidence that this mechanism was used, and therefore it is highly likely that Israel Schwartz dodged the inquest.

If every witness called to an inquest or court case could simply refuse to turn up on safety grounds, the entire legal system would pretty much collapse.

Given that Schwartz was happy to give an anonymous interview to the Star, the day after the murder, Schwartz himself could hardly have too many concerns about his or his family's (assuming there was one) safety - an anonymous daytime interview by a newspaper reporter, on a Whitechapel street, is hardly a high-security arrangement - either physically or in privacy terms. Compare that to an in camera appearance at an inquest, with the sort of protection available as was placed around Lawende, and any excuse for Schwartz' non-attendance simply evaporates.”

So you’re clearly dismissing all other reasons for Schwartz non-attendance.

[FrankO]

I forgot to ask.

You seem to place great significance in Mortimer not hearing the Schwartz incident. She heard a Constable and a horse and cart but you even suggested that it might not have been one (maybe a passerby with one of those annoying ‘horse and cart’ ringtones)

Herlock, if I remember well, Michael suggested that the sound of the pony cart might have been Eagle returning with PC’s Lamb & 426H. And he suggested that the heavy, measured tramp might have been that of Kozebrodski. Even though we can be fairly sure that Kozebrodski didn’t pass Mortimer’s house looking for a copper. After all, he said he went for a policeman in the direction of Grove Street and the shortest way to Grove Street was via Fairclough Street, not up Berner Street (and passed Mortimer’s house) to Commercial Road. Had that been the case, the logical thing for him to have said would have been that he went to look for one in the direction of Commercial Road.

Why don’t you find it significant that she heard a horse and cart at around 1.00 and yet she didn’t hear Diemschutz allegedly passing at 12.35 or whatever time you think he returned? Maybe the crafty swine fitted his horse with rubber soled shoes?

I’m sure Michael is going to stick to his interpretations, Herlock. He thinks that Mortimer should have heard the whole Schwarz incident, if it had really taken place. But this can’t mean anything, as with the alternative that he suggests as the truth (i.e. Diemshutz arrived around 12:39 on his pony cart and discovered the body then, etc.), Mortimer didn’t hear anything, either, other than the heavy, measured tramp of a policeman, which, according to Michael may have been Kozebrodski, who didn’t pass her house.

In the alternative situation Mortimer didn’t hear Kozebrodski leave the yard at about 12:40 in search of a policeman. That, however, is possible, as he didn’t say that he ran, nor that he shouted while running in search of a copper. But she didn’t hear 2 other Jews (the ones who would bring back Spooner) leave the yard a little later, either, and we know that they sure weren’t silent, as they were shouting out "Murder" and "Police." while running down the street. Furthermore, she didn’t hear the policeman’s whistle heard by Heshburg, nor did she hear Heshburg pass her house, coming down Berner Street from his house at number 28 (or 20). And, as you say, she didn’t hear Diemshutz’s pony cart pass her house just before 12:40, yet, she did hear a pony cart pass at precisely the moment when Diemshutz claimed he’d passed. I imagine that the couple, who claimed to have stood at the corner of the board school for about 20 minutes, just weren’t paying attention either, when the 2 Jews came running passed them, shouting all the while.

It’s interesting that Mortimer did claim that she went out just after one o’clock and then saw exactly the same amount of people in the gateway as Heshbug, i.e. two or three.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, if I remember well, Michael suggested that the sound of the pony cart might have been Eagle returning with PC’s Lamb & 426H. And he suggested that the heavy, measured tramp might have been that of Kozebrodski. Even though we can be fairly sure that Kozebrodski didn’t pass Mortimer’s house looking for a copper. After all, he said he went for a policeman in the direction of Grove Street and the shortest way to Grove Street was via Fairclough Street, not up Berner Street (and passed Mortimer’s house) to Commercial Road. Had that been the case, the logical thing for him to have said would have been that he went to look for one in the direction of Commercial Road.

Good point Frank. It’s also unlikely that Kozebrodski would have been walking as slowly as a policeman’s regulated beat under those circumstances.

I’m sure Michael is going to stick to his interpretations, Herlock. He thinks that Mortimer should have heard the whole Schwarz incident, if it had really taken place. But this can’t mean anything, as with the alternative that he suggests as the truth (i.e. Diemshutz arrived around 12:39 on his pony cart and discovered the body then, etc.), Mortimer didn’t hear anything, either, other than the heavy, measured tramp of a policeman, which, according to Michael may have been Kozebrodski, who didn’t pass her house.

In the alternative situation Mortimer didn’t hear Kozebrodski leave the yard at about 12:40 in search of a policeman. That, however, is possible, as he didn’t say that he ran, nor that he shouted while running in search of a copper. But she didn’t hear 2 other Jews (the ones who would bring back Spooner) leave the yard a little later, either, and we know that they sure weren’t silent, as they were shouting out "Murder" and "Police." while running down the street. Furthermore, she didn’t hear the policeman’s whistle heard by Heshburg, nor did she hear Heshburg pass her house, coming down Berner Street from his house at number 28 (or 20). And, as you say, she didn’t hear Diemshutz’s pony cart pass her house just before 12:40, yet, she did hear a pony cart pass at precisely the moment when Diemshutz claimed he’d passed. I imagine that the couple, who claimed to have stood at the corner of the board school for about 20 minutes, just weren’t paying attention either, when the 2 Jews came running passed them, shouting all the while.

It’s interesting that Mortimer did claim that she went out just after one o’clock and then saw exactly the same amount of people in the gateway as Heshbug, i.e. two or three.

Agreed Frank. We just can’t say that she ‘must’ have heard the Schwartz incident. Schwartz was clear that Stride’s 3 screams weren’t very loud and the shout was just one word.

If we accept the simple possibility that a couple of witnesses simply made errors whilst estimating the time there really is no great mystery here.

[Robert St Devil]

I’ve just be discussing Schwartz and his non-appearance ar the Inquest with a friend. I asked his opinion on the suggestion that the police either didn’t take him seriously or had somehow lost faith in his value as a witness. His response interested me so I’ll post the gist of what he said.

.....

I don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t called but it can’t possibly be because the police had lost faith in him. In Swanson’s 19th October report to the Home Office there’s not a hint of disbelief about Schwartz. In actual fact Home Office officials, who had read Swanson’s report, said in late October that his statement “seems to furnish a clue.”

In response to a question about Schwartz from the Home Secretary Robert Anderson wrote to Charles Warren on November 5th saying:

'I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Department [i.e. the C.I.D.] based on the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner Street on the night of the murder was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself"

Warren repeated this on November 6th in his response to the Home Secretary.

While Anderson did use the words ‘alleges’ and ‘supposed’ he would surely have informed Warren that they had dismissed Schwartz evidence before Warren replied to the Home Secretary? Instead, based on a report from Abberline on November 1st, he told Warren that it was believed that the man seen assaulting Stride has shouted ‘Lipski’ at Schwartz so it’s not tenable to say that the police had lost faith in Schwartz.

It’s also noteworthy to remember that the police had been searching for a man called Lipski all through November as referenced in Abberline’s 1st November report. As with Swanson’s report there’s no hint that Abberline doubted Schwartz.

So we have all of the top men: Warren, Anderson, Swanson and Abberline all writing as if Schwartz evidence was true.

Maybe the fact that Schwartz required an interpreter may have affected the decision on whether to call him at the Inquest or not. Ido t know the position on interpreters at Inquests but it may have been that the Coroner was expected to have paid for his services. Perhaps he didn’t want to spend the money? Also an Inquest isn’t a murder investigation. It’s to find out how and when the victim died. If the police had suspect then of course Schwartz would have to be called as the jury would have had to have decided whether to send the suspect for trial. But that apart, what could Schwartz have added about Stride’s death? He hadn’t seen her being killed and he couldn’t identify the man that he saw assaulting her. It’s true that the same could have been said for other witnesses but the fact that the Coroner might have been unenthusiastic about paying for an interpreter might have tipped the balance.

What if Schwartz had been contacted by the Coroner to appear but he’d told him that he was too afraid for his safety to appear and asked to be excused? The Coroner might have felt that there was no need for him to appear. The police already had his statement. It was for the Police to investigate his evidence not the Coroner or the Coroner’s jury.

Im speculating but it certainly seems dangerous to conclude that he didn’t appear because or the Police or the Coroner didn’t believe him.

.....

There certainly appears to be no basis at all for suggesting that the Police had lost faith in Schwartz. The evidence of the top police at the time totally point away from this so I think that we need another explanation. I think my friends suggestion is reasonable and logical and maybe the one.

Apologies if this has been stated already, whenever I put down Casebook, I rarely read the missing pages when I pick it up again; in this case, that would have been 30 or 40 odd pages ago on this particular thread.

Despite the objections made by contemporary alternative ripperology-theorists that Stride was not a Ripper victim, I will lay the claim that, by erasing the Goulston graffito, Sir Charles Warren was very much working under the suspicion that Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were murdered by the same hand, which is, to say, that the persons unknown who murdered within his jurisdiction was the very same persons unknown who murdered in the CoL jurisdiction. So, in the wake of the double event, might there have been an aspect of interdepartmental cooperation or, possibly, rivalry with regards to how the Met considered Schwartz?

For example,
Did the Met learn through back channels of CoL's witness Lawende's description and thought to themselves, "Well now, that doesn't sound anything like what our witness Schwartz described?". After all, I'm certain that the thought surely occurred to someone at the Met that Schwartz' story is suggesting two men may have been involved with the murder of Elizabeth Stride.

Or, were they taking a cue from CoL who wanted to reserve Lawende's description for internal purposes? Could the Met have rationalized that, by Schwartz attending the inquest, it could have occurred that "lipski" would have become public knowledge through the coroner's questioning, and they were intent on reserving that small clue for their own investigative purposes?

Then again,
Sir Ch. Warren is on record for removing the GSG because he didn't want to insight anti-semitic riots. Could there have been reservations about taking a slur against Jews, such as lipski, to press by having Schwartz repeat it at the inquest?

All considerations.

[jerryd]

Hi Robert.

Nice thought.

The CoL coppers believed it to be two men working in collusion. They were shadowing a suspect of their own on the night of the double event behind the Bishopsgate Police Station.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apologies if this has been stated already, whenever I put down Casebook, I rarely read the missing pages when I pick it up again; in this case, that would have been 30 or 40 odd pages ago on this particular thread.

Despite the objections made by contemporary alternative ripperology-theorists that Stride was not a Ripper victim, I will lay the claim that, by erasing the Goulston graffito, Sir Charles Warren was very much working under the suspicion that Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were murdered by the same hand, which is, to say, that the persons unknown who murdered within his jurisdiction was the very same persons unknown who murdered in the CoL jurisdiction. So, in the wake of the double event, might there have been an aspect of interdepartmental cooperation or, possibly, rivalry with regards to how the Met considered Schwartz?

For example,
Did the Met learn through back channels of CoL's witness Lawende's description and thought to themselves, "Well now, that doesn't sound anything like what our witness Schwartz described?". After all, I'm certain that the thought surely occurred to someone at the Met that Schwartz' story is suggesting two men may have been involved with the murder of Elizabeth Stride.

Or, were they taking a cue from CoL who wanted to reserve Lawende's description for internal purposes? Could the Met have rationalized that, by Schwartz attending the inquest, it could have occurred that "lipski" would have become public knowledge through the coroner's questioning, and they were intent on reserving that small clue for their own investigative purposes?

Then again,
Sir Ch. Warren is on record for removing the GSG because he didn't want to insight anti-semitic riots. Could there have been reservations about taking a slur against Jews, such as lipski, to press by having Schwartz repeat it at the inquest?

All considerations.

Good post Robert.

The anti-Semitic angle in Schwartz evidence might have tipped the balance in the decision on whether to call him to the Inquest. As we might add the suggestion that Schwartz might have felt that he (and maybe his family) could be in danger from either of the two men, then to me it appears that there’s enough scope for a plausible possible explanation for his non-attendance. Maybe we could add that Schwartz couldn’t really add anything to the ‘why’ and ‘when’ of Stride’s death when they had Smith and Diemschutz statements plus the Doctor’s TOD calculations.

The doubt expressed in The Star might simply have been from the opinion of a Constable as we don’t know the source of course but you make a good point Robert that any doubt might have come from the difference between Lawrence’s description of the man at the top of Church Passage and Schwartz description of BS Man.

[Robert St Devil]

... Maybe we could add that Schwartz couldn’t really add anything to the ‘why’ and ‘when’ of Stride’s death when they had Smith and Diemschutz statements plus the Doctor’s TOD calculations...

At the inquests, I am under the impression that the coroner was typically working towards 4 establishments: 1) victim identity by way of family or familiar associations; 2) the analysis & record of the medical practitioner; 3) the movement & measures taken by the police officials attending the crime scene; and, 4) witness observations.

With regards to #4, pertinence comes under question since a modern observer is trying to determine the narrative that the coroner is trying to establish. Still, it did seem that the Coroner did have one go-to question that may have revealed why one person was selected over another to attend the inquest. He usually asks the witness if "he or she" could identity the person at the mortuary as the same person that "he or she" had seen the night of the murder, and he usually asks this question if the witness claims that "he or she" saw the victim in the company of a man.

I could agree with your point that the Coroner was trying to bring forward those witnesses that added some value to establishing a possible narrative for the last moments of the victim; however, that point becomes confusing when it's considered how many IWMEC members were called forth who claim to have seen nothing, heard nothing, walked by nothing, and effectively only establish that, yes in fact, the gate was open.

Reading your reply Herlock, another thought occurred that maybe Schwartz was unable to identify Elizabeth Stride as the woman who he claims to have witnessed being attacked by a man. Yes, the venue and timeframe were relevant; however, if the Coroner was under an impression that Schwartz was going to balk when asked the "could you identify...." question, the coroner may have considered schwartz' observation as speculative.