A Case of Misattribution?

[Trevor Marriott]

Has it not occurred to anyone that Schwartz might have been an honest witness who simply recounted events to the best of his ability?

Yes and that what he saw was in no way connected to Stride or the murder

[Garry Wroe]

Has it not occurred to anyone that Schwartz might have been an honest witness who simply recounted events to the best of his ability?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn,

Wess and the lads were being watched by the cops who, for all we know, might have been on a tea-break at the appointed hour.

Are you suggesting that Israel Schwartz fudged the matter of BS man's ethnicity in order to prevent the murder being pinned on the IWMEC?

Regards,

Simon

That is what Ive been suggesting here and at one time on both Ripper boards Simon.

The ONLY thing that is discussed later about Israel's account by Swanson and Abberline is the "Lipski" element. Since we know antisemitic activities rose after Annie's murder....in part due to the possibly erroneous initial suspicion of a link of the Jew Piser to the crime,..it seems that these crimes had decidedly ethnic perceptions by both the officials and the media.

IF Israel Schwartz fabricated his story in order for the suspicion to be cast off Jews for the moment, Id say he did a great job. Had he only known that someone had other plans that night with a bloody apron and a slightly veiled accusation about Jewish involvement.

Who knows....maybe Israel was sent in to counter act that apron and message....they were both known of when Israel came in Sunday night.

These people were known as anarchists to the Police and the neighbors. Any hint that one of their own was involved would close that Club for good. Israel Schwartz singlehandedly saves their bacon...pardon the pun.

Best regards,

Mike R

[lynn cates]

great!

Hello Dave. Thanks.

Your assessment of the risk to Schwartz is so bang on that I cannot intelligently add to it.

In fact, IS may have been reciting his Aunt Rebekah's recipe for knish and Wess (if Tom's conjections be true) could translate as he liked.

Well done!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

curious

Hello Greg. Thanks. He was indeed. And, yes, ALL very curious.

Last point, Grainger was not Jewish--you are correct.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

cracking

Hello Colin. Thanks. I don't see the risk. If 2 or 3 of the brighter chaps got together and fed Schwartz the story, how could they have gotten caught--unless one cracked?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

It's certainly a bold assertion. If true, it exposed everyone who was party to the conspiracy to the risk of life imprisonment. Would they really go to those lengths just to prevent (possibly unsuccessfully) the attachment of suspicion to those frequenting the IWMEC? It would be an insurance policy with a very high premium, that's for sure.

Hi Colin

Actually when you think about it, the man most at risk is Schwartz himself...and the risk isn't actually that high...as a non-English speaker, he can always claim that any discrepancies in his story are down to translational misunderstandings, and that by coming forward he was acting in good faith.

Assuming a small remaining caucus of committee members, they've only got to stick together, and they've cracked it...and as members from birth of of an oppressed minority, I should think they were pretty good at sticking together...

If true, it's a pretty shrewd move actually...

Dave

[GregBaron]

I wouldn't know him but that's him...

Hello Greg. Thanks. But yet he could not likely pick him out subsequently. And his description is sufficient only to implicate hundreds, perhaps thousands, of London men.

So I'm not sure about protecting Jews.

Cheers.
LC

Points well taken Lynn but wasn't Lawende drug in a couple of years later to identify Grainger? And didn't he in fact finger him. I'm going from memory here. If this is true then he picked out somebody he couldn't pick out! Interesting.

All the descriptions could implicate thousands but one thing the sailor wasn't was a Jew!

All very curious...



Greg

[Bridewell]

The Conspiracy

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"If we go with the notion that Schwartz saw what he claims to have seen, but postulate that he changed the man's description from Jew to Gentile, where does that lead?"

Well, I don't believe he saw anything. I think that Wess and the lads contrived the whole story, again, to avert danger for the club. And, yes, the stress was on his being a Gentile.

It may have been an unnecessary ruse, but from the IWMEC view, it was a sort of insurance policy.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

It's certainly a bold assertion. If true, it exposed everyone who was party to the conspiracy to the risk of life imprisonment. Would they really go to those lengths just to prevent (possibly unsuccessfully) the attachment of suspicion to those frequenting the IWMEC? It would be an insurance policy with a very high premium, that's for sure.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

protecting Jews

Hello Greg. Thanks. But yet he could not likely pick him out subsequently. And his description is sufficient only to implicate hundreds, perhaps thousands, of London men.

So I'm not sure about protecting Jews.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

insurance

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"If we go with the notion that Schwartz saw what he claims to have seen, but postulate that he changed the man's description from Jew to Gentile, where does that lead?"

Well, I don't believe he saw anything. I think that Wess and the lads contrived the whole story, again, to avert danger for the club. And, yes, the stress was on his being a Gentile.

It may have been an unnecessary ruse, but from the IWMEC view, it was a sort of insurance policy.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Who lied?

Hello Simon. Thanks.

Well, if his story is credible (as I believe it is) then he did not get a close look at the man.

Cheers.
LC

Well Lynn, if you're talking about Lawende here, then he got close enough to say about 5'7", fair, red kerchief, rough-looking, sailor etc. That's some detail....

Could Schwarz and Lawende both be lying to protect Jews?

Heaven forbid! Then the much maligned Anderson is right.........Ha



Greg

[Bridewell]

Misunderstood

Hello Simon. That is PRECISELY my suggestion.

Cheers.
LC

Sorry, Lynn. My previous post was based on a misunderstanding of what you were saying. If we go with the notion that Schwartz saw what he claims to have seen, but postulate that he changed the man's description from Jew to Gentile, where does that lead?
The Schwartz account was initially believed, but he was not called to give evidence. The assailant now becomes a Jew, but presumably Pipeman, if not involved, remains a Gentile. There is some doubt about whether it was BS or Pipeman who shouted 'Lipski', but Schwartz reports being chased down the road by the latter. If the IWMEC was indeed being watched, Pipeman could have been one of the watchers?
The scenario becomes one wherein a watching policeman sees two Jews, one of whom is attacking Stride. Pipeman believes the two men are acting as a team and invokes the name of 'Lipski', a cowardly Jewish murderer from the previous year. He chases one of the two men away, returns to the scene and finds that the second has cut the throat of Liz Stride in his absence. If this is the nub of what you are suggesting it throws up some interesting questions, not least of which, to my mind is: Why wasn't Schwartz arrested?
In this scenario, surely, Schwartz would be in grave danger of being implicated as an accomplice to the murder. Would it also mean that Pipeman was a candidate to be Anderson's witness?
Apologies if I have, once again, mistaken the thrust of your argument.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

no call

Hello Simon. Thanks.

Well, if his story is credible (as I believe it is) then he did not get a close look at the man.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

risky

Hello Colin. Thanks. IF Israel claimed to have witnessed the murder, then he MIGHT be asked for details. That could prove embarrassing. Better to describe an assault and let there be a nascent murder.

Having the Met step in and say, "We saw no one there where Schwartz was supposed to be" could be risky. But then they might add, "We saw no one at all with Liz."

Further, no one else--Brown, Mortimer, etc.--saw Israel OR BS man. So . . .

Cheers.
LC