Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[harry]

If Schwartz fabricated B S,then he presumably fabricated Pipeman.Why would he do this?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

To give him an excuse not to attend to the assaulted woman.

[harry]

But if BS is a fabrication,then so must be the assault.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There was no assault and Pipeman, in Berner street.

[JeffHamm]

There was probably at least one person who witnessed Stride between those times.

[ES1001] Joseph Lave, an American living temporarily at the club, said - "I was in the Club yard this morning about twenty minutes to one. I came out first at half-past twelve to get a breath of fresh air. I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual. The district appeared to me to be quiet. I remained out until twenty minutes to one, and during that time no one came into the yard. I should have seen any body moving about there."

Note how Lave's period outside - 12:30-40 - neatly straddles Smith's 12:35 sighting?
This is quite deliberate.
The purpose of Lave's comments is two-fold:

1. To undermine the credibility of PC Smith, as a witness
2. To 'clear the deck' for the Schwartz incident - which is a totally fabricated event

This is what member Phil Carter had to say, regarding the identity of Lave:



I wonder if that description would be anything like PC Smith's description of the man standing next to Stride, while holding the stack of Arbeter Fraint papers, that Wess had left for him in the printing office, just before he left #40 Berner, at 12:15?
Or was it more like the man with the 'Yankee twang', who bought grapes from Matthew Packer, and later squeezed the juice from them into a man's handkerchief, which was then planted on the victim in an attempt to take Stride away from the club property, just prior to her murder?

I don't understand how Lave's newspaper report would undermine PC Smith's reported sighting? PC Smith reports he saw a couple in Berner's Street at 1:35 (and he later identifies Stride as the woman he saw), while all Lave says is that he saw nothing unusual and no one entered the yard while he was there. So, PC Smith's couple did not enter the yard between 1:30-1:40, and they must not have appeared unusual or drew Lave's attention (which might not be at all surprising if they're down the street a short ways, and not making a fuss - hence, the night was quiet and nothing appeared unusual to him. But that still gives plenty of time (well, 5 minutes), for Schwartz to come along.

So, there's no contradiction at all, and so no basis for the claim that Schwartz's story must be a fabrication.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Psst.....it was 12:35 am.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't understand how Lave's newspaper report would undermine PC Smith's reported sighting? PC Smith reports he saw a couple in Berner's Street at 1:35 (and he later identifies Stride as the woman he saw), while all Lave says is that he saw nothing unusual and no one entered the yard while he was there. So, PC Smith's couple did not enter the yard between 1:30-1:40, and they must not have appeared unusual or drew Lave's attention (which might not be at all surprising if they're down the street a short ways, and not making a fuss - hence, the night was quiet and nothing appeared unusual to him.

Seeing the soon to be victim standing next to a man from the club, counts as something unusual.
Especially when he is probably the man standing next to her.
Thus Lave (which is probably a fake name) pretends he was wandering around on the street outside the club for 10 minutes, seeing nothing of consequence.
So the first purpose is to play down the passing police constable's possible sighting of the victim, in both a dead and alive state.
That's the last we hear of Lave, too - he does not appear to be among those who go running for police, so he must stay in the yard, thus allowing him to get (another) good look at the victim.
Presumably Lave's name and address ended up on DI Reid's list of 28 club members.
I have no idea what street he lived in, but a good guess would be that the number was 22.

But that still gives plenty of time (well, 5 minutes), for Schwartz to come along.

Yes, and so does Eagle's return at 12:40.
That's the other point of it - the timing is quite deliberate, and the purpose is to metaphorically clear the stage, in preparation for the incident involving Stride and Schwartz' first man, which can't be hindered by having anyone see it, which is why entries to and exits from the club, magically cease from 5 minutes before Schwartz supposedly turns into Berner St, to the time Diemschitz returns, supposedly at exactly 1 am.

Schwartz 'sees' it, of course, which is why Pipeman/Knifeman has to be invented.
So Israel, an endearing young man who goes out all day leaving his supposed wife to move house, and does not come to the assistance of a woman who is supposedly thrown to the ground right in front of him, has an 'excuse' to run away, as far as the rail arch - and thus has no idea, supposedly, as to the fate of the woman.

So, there's no contradiction at all, and so no basis for the claim that Schwartz's story must be a fabrication.

The essence of the Schwartz incident could be defined as the period he witnesses from his entry into Berner street, until the the moment he reaches Ellen street.
It would occupy about 90 seconds.
In this period, Schwartz would traverse past many people either known to be awake at the time, or may have been, not including anyone inside the club.
So quite suddenly, there are four people on the street and in the vicinity of #40 - Schwartz sees the other three at close range, yet no one else sees or hears a thing, and neither of the men are ever located by the police.
This just happens to occur directly outside a working men's club, on a night in which about 100 people are in attendance, most of them Jews, and yet here we have a Jewish man walking by alone at nearly 1 am, who has absolutely no involvement with it, regardless of living in the same fairly short street.
It is truly amazing.
The Schwartz incident is not a real event, rather it is best described by this term; simulacra

[Wickerman]

If the police had been unable to verify his story, or to prove any part of what Schwartz claimed. Why would they pass his statement over to a coroner for him to appear at an inquest?
This wasn't just an ordinary witness, he would be a key witness, with significant claims.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If the police had been unable to verify his story, or to prove any part of what Schwartz claimed. Why would they pass his statement over to a coroner for him to appear at an inquest?

Because the police believed his story.
Police, in this context, meaning; Chief Inspector Abberline
Given that Schwartz was not called to the inquest, when the verification of his story was in it's infancy, we can only assume that Baxter thought his story was nonsense.

This wasn't just an ordinary witness, he would be a key witness, with significant claims.

Who ever witnessed this key witness?
Are you aware of a single media or legal document, that references any activity by Schwartz, after the Star interview on Oct 1?
Does it bother you at all, that Schwartz seems to vanish from history, after this?
Presumably he didn't drown in the Thames, so where did he go?

[Wickerman]

Because the police believed his story.
Police, in this context, meaning; Chief Inspector Abberline

We read that Swanson believed his statement, irrespective of the fact it could not be verified.
However, we also read that "the Leman-street police" did not believe his story.

Given that Schwartz was not called to the inquest, when the verification of his story was in it's infancy, we can only assume that Baxter thought his story was nonsense.

The way I had it explained to me, the process was that the police hand copies (or the originals?) of all the witness statements to the Coroner's Office. The coroner then reads all the statements and selects only those witnesses who experienced sufficient activities to enable the coroner's jury to determine the 'who, where, when & by what means' the victim met their death.

Which suggests to me, if the police are unable to verify one particular statement then it would not qualify to be handed to the coroner.
This is my interpretation of why Schwartz was not called by Baxter, he never saw his statement.

Who ever witnessed this key witness?
Are you aware of a single media or legal document, that references any activity by Schwartz, after the Star interview on Oct 1?
Does it bother you at all, that Schwartz seems to vanish from history, after this?
Presumably he didn't drown in the Thames, so where did he go?

Which only serves to emphasize my interpretation.

[c.d.]

We read that Swanson believed his statement, irrespective of the fact it could not be verified.

But in his report Swanson also allowed for the possibility that Schwartz had only witnessed a street hassle and that Stride's killer was not B.S. man.

c.d.

[The Baron]

[I]

But in his report Swanson also allowed for the possibility that Schwartz had only witnessed a street hassle and that Stride's killer was not B.S. man.

c.d.

And this prove that Schwartz was not the witness used to identify Kosminski


The Baron

[c.d.]

Hello Baron,

I don't see how this eliminates Schwartz as the witness. Can you elaborate?

c.d.

[harry]

One can allow that a recall of events may not be one hundred per cent accurate,but there is enough information for a belief that both Brown and Schwartz were telling the truth as they remembered it,and that about 12.45 that morning,Stride,BS,and Pipeman were where they were reported to have been.This allows for a belief that Pipeman was the man seen with Stride by Brown. There has been no reasonable statement by anyone,that shows Brown and/or Schwartz lied.

[Wickerman]

But Brown could have seen the 2nd couple in the street, the couple mentioned by Mortimer.