Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Can we please get this straight once and for all? Do you know for a fact why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest or are you simply speculating?

c.d.

cd, for god sake.....how about this...YOU prove that he or his statement was part of any Inquest records that are known. YOU and others claim we don't know whether he was at the Inquest or had his statement entered into evidence for it...yet, there is no evidence at all that was the case. He and his story are not a part of any Inquest records...so....its YOU who need to show that despite all that lacking evidence he was there, or had his story entered.

Why you would expect me to prove something that is already clear is beyond me still....YOU are the one, or among the ONES anyway, that suggest despite the lack of evidence he mattered, or that he could have had his story in Inquest data anyway. Ok...so where is YOUR proof? You've already seen mine...totally absent in all Inquest data. THIS IS NOT SPECULATIVE. This idea of yours to me is like suggesting Jack the Ripper may have had wings and flew away from murder sites.....ok....what proof is there of that? None.

[c.d.]

I give up.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

For Israel to have called Joseph Lawende a 'Lipski', after reemerging into Duke street from Mitre Square, might seem rather a case of the pot calling the kettle Schwartz.

However, as this post demonstrates, the use of the word 'Lipski' as an insult by a Jew against another Jew, was very much a possibility.

Once this is realized, it only takes a little imagination to transfer Israel's story from Berner street to the true location.

The main trick is to substitute Israel for broad shoulders - in the story told to Abberline, BS is a simulacrum.

More specifically, Schwartz sees himself as separate to the behavior of BS - as though having an out-of-body experience - so this 'identity' is redundant, and need not be replicated.

[Michael W Richards]

I give up.

c.d.

Finally. Progress. When you were asked to prove what you claim is possible, but you cannot find one shred of proof to back the claim, best to pack the argument in. My argument is that Israels story had no bearing for the Inquest into how Liz Stride died, and the proof is that there isn't one shred of evidence that he, or his claim, were recorded as evidence in this investigation. He made a statement at a police station, that's all. He didn't swear to it under oath, he wasn't called to recount it at the Inquest, and there is no record that it was even considered at the Inquest. As I said before, James Brown is the ONLY witness that testifies for possible sightings on that street at 12:45.

Granted...it doesn't help that others chide in with Israel support in some other formula.

Israel Schwartz did not see a Broad shouldered man assault Liz Stride in the street at 12:45,...giving him the benefit of the doubt, he may have seen an assault, but not there.

[c.d.]

Good Lord, Michael. I never claimed that Schwartz appeared at the investigation. In all my years on the boards, I have never heard any poster make that claim. So I have to wonder why you are trying to move the goalpost. You claim to know why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. You have made that claim numerous times. When asked how you know that you have never given an answer. It is entirely possible that it was determined that he lied and that is the reason he was not called. But here is the point which you seem to miss. We don't know why he did not appear. Unless you and you alone have evidence why. If so, please share it with the rest of us.

You seem to be having trouble differentiating between fact and speculation. So let me make it clear once more -- do you know for a fact why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Good Lord, Michael. I never claimed that Schwartz appeared at the investigation. In all my years on the boards, I have never heard any poster make that claim. So I have to wonder why you are trying to move the goalpost. You claim to know why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. You have made that claim numerous times. When asked how you know that you have never given an answer. It is entirely possible that it was determined that he lied and that is the reason he was not called. But here is the point which you seem to miss. We don't know why he did not appear. Unless you and you alone have evidence why. If so, please share it with the rest of us.

You seem to be having trouble differentiating between fact and speculation. So let me make it clear once more -- do you know for a fact why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest?

c.d.

There is only 1 reason why Israel Schwartz's story would not be relevant to the Inquest proceedings cd. Just 1. Because it wasn't believed. If it was, even in part....then at the very worst his story would be attached to the Inquest data and he needn't have appeared. An assault on a victim minutes just before and almost on the very spot she is killed would be the best evidence of any witness for this Investigation....IF believed. It would almost guarantee BSM as the Primary Suspect. Is he? Is there any primary suspect? Is there any evidence at all that they kept looking for BSM as Strides probable killer?

Fact is WHAT IS...speculation is suggesting that despite WHAT IS, WHAT IF is still on the table...without a shred of evidence as support.

People read "his story is not wholly believed" and don't seem to see Israel there...they think its one of the men he describes. Do you really think Pipeman or BSM could be tracked down and questioned without Schwartz, his ID of either would be the only thing they could use to detain and question anyone. HE(Israel) was not "wholly believed".

Take your hand off your ears, and from your eyes, and youll see and hear the TRUTH. And that's WHAT IS.

[c.d.]

I don't know why you insist on making this so difficult, Michael. All you need to say is that you don't know for an ascertained fact why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest but the fact that he did not appear is quite suspicious and that a reasonable conclusion is that it was because his story was not believed and dismissed by the police.

Now is that really that hard for you to say?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

There's a couple of details that should be mentioned in reference to the fact Schwartz did not appear at the inquest.

We notice Baxter took the whole week to hear witnesses, but if you notice, all the witnesses who might have contested the statement by Schwartz, had he appeared, he saved till the last day.
Baxter seems to have organized the witnesses into groups, leaving all those who would provide Strides last known movements in Berner St. (Marshall, Brown & PC Smith) for the Friday. Even then, Baxter would not conclude the inquest for another two weeks, leaving his summation until October 23rd.
I wonder if he knew Schwartz's story and was giving the police extra time to validate it, or to find Schwartz?


Another point, when Baxter questioned Krantz, who was the only witness present at Dutfields Yard from 12:30 - 1:00 am., he asked him:
[Baxter] Had you heard any sound up to that time?
[Krantz] No.
[Baxter] Any cry?
[Krantz] No.
[Baxter] Or scream?
[Krantz] No.
......
[Baxter] Supposing a woman had screamed, would you have heard it?

No-one at the inquest had said anything about a woman screaming.
The only witness who alluded to hearing a scream had been Schwartz.

"The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly."

I wonder if Baxter had read Schwartz's police statement. Schwartz couldn't be found, or the police were still investigating his story so Baxter preferred not to use his statement, but he knew what it contained?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Michael,

As Ive pointed out Jeff, numerous times...the call could have easily been interpreted as a call between conspirators about this interloper arriving...Schwartz. It doesn't make sense that when you have an obviously Jewish man and a redhaired man across the street, a known locally used Jewish slur wouldnt be directed at the obviously Jewish man.

Yes, it easily could be, and that's what Andersen did, reinterpreted Schwartz's statement on the basis that Schwartz's belief about the intentions behind the act of calling out was wrong. In other words, if we allow for Schwartz to have misunderstood who Lipski was shouted at then we can look at other ways to interpret the events he describes and we can attribute different intentions to the people he describes. i.e. Schwartz presents Pipeman as a co-offender, that's Schwartz's interpretation, but we might re-interpret that to suggest Pipeman was an innocent bystander. Or, Schwartz presents "Lipski" as being shouted by BS to Pipeman and that he thought it was pipeman's name (which we know Schwartz thought this because the police then, on the basis of Schwartz's statement, searched for all the families by the name of Lipski in the area - there's various official reports to Home office covering that investigation).

We can question, and reinterpret. What we must not forget, though, is that with regards to whether or not Scwartz was presenting a story concocted by the club as part of an elaborate cover up, is that the cover story is the one that Scwartz presents, not the reinterpreted versions. And Schwartz's version proves his story was not part of a club cover up.

The only versions that might fit a club cover up are the ones based upon ignoring Schwartz's interpretation/presentation and re-interpreting it, but those are not the story as told by Schwartz.

What Schwartz said isn't believable Jeff...its why he isn't part of the Inquest at all. So defining who interpreted what isn't really an issue anyway. Nothing happened like Israel's statement indicates. Putting emphasis on what Schwartz stated is doing exactly what was intended by that statement...to misrepresent or mislead what happened. As my suggestion, if Israel was actually there at all at the same time he gives in his story, he may have seen something like he describes.. but he saw it in the passageway as he left the club.

This would certainly explain why 4 witnesses say they were by Liz at 12:45ish, and why Fanny didn't see anyone from 12:50 until 1am.

But to the initial point...."Lipski" was known to be used as a derogatory term towards immigrant jews since the infamous local of that name made headlines.

We don't know why Schwartz isn't part of the inquest. He could have been sick, he might have not wanted to testify due to fear, the police may have found his information likely to start social unrest and wanted to hold it back, his lack of English may play some part in that decision, and so forth. There are all sorts of reasons one could come up with that might explain why he wasn't there. We don't know which, if any, of those reasons is the right one. Saying the police proved his statement was wrong requires proof that they did prove it wrong, and to my knowledge, we do not have anything to indicate that the police did prove Schwartz's statement one way or the other.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

As for the notion that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest because the police didn't believe him, the inquest started around Oct 6th and concluded on Oct 23rd.

On Oct 19th, Swanson writes a letter to the Home Office, in which he states:

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they [Schwartz and PC Smith] are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, ..."

And he goes on a fair bit about Schwartz's statement, pipeman, etc.

In other words, well into the inquest it is clear the police took Schwartz very seriously, and certainly had not disproven his account.

As such, "Police doubting his statement" does not appear to be the explanation for Schwartz's absence from the inquest. But that still leaves lots of options open.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

As for the notion that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest because the police didn't believe him, the inquest started around Oct 6th and concluded on Oct 23rd.

The dates are all here Jeff, Monday 1st Oct. to Friday 5th Oct., with the summary given on Tuesday 23rd Oct., after a 2 week hiatus.

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_stride.html

On Oct 19th, Swanson writes a letter to the Home Office, in which he states:

"If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they [Schwartz and PC Smith] are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, ..."

Which appears to suggest Schwartz's story may still be under investigation.

[JeffHamm]

The dates are all here Jeff, Monday 1st Oct. to Friday 5th Oct., with the summary given on Tuesday 23rd Oct., after a 2 week hiatus.

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_stride.html

Which appears to suggest Schwartz's story may still be under investigation.

Thanks for those dates. Yes, it does appear they were still investigating Schwartz's statements, but the phrase in bold "If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, ..." suggests that at least up until the 19th, the police had not found any reason to doubt his report (though they may have disagreed on some of Schwartz's interpretations of what he saw). As such, I don't think one can then conclude that Schwartz wasn't called because the police doubted him, at most, one might be able to argue he wasn't called because the police had not verified his report - but then, Long testified and there was no one to verify her report, either, so I'm not sure that argument would hold up given there's no indication they did that in other cases.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Thanks for those dates. Yes, it does appear they were still investigating Schwartz's statements, but the phrase in bold "If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, ..." suggests that at least up until the 19th, the police had not found any reason to doubt his report (though they may have disagreed on some of Schwartz's interpretations of what he saw). As such, I don't think one can then conclude that Schwartz wasn't called because the police doubted him, at most, one might be able to argue he wasn't called because the police had not verified his report - but then, Long testified and there was no one to verify her report, either, so I'm not sure that argument would hold up given there's no indication they did that in other cases.

- Jeff

We have other examples of Swanson's notes where he is equally not too clear.
In Stewart's "Ultimate", the last two pages of chapter 4 (p 68, hdbk) Swanson writes about the accuracy of doctor Phillips as opposed to Richardson, but then if Mrs Long is correct then Phillips must be wrong. The whole section does not read too clear, I think this is what we have with that quote you provided above.

In my view, in the quote you provide above, Swanson is saying that Schwartz statement reads credible, providing the police report (of the investigation of his story) casts no doubt upon it. The "report" is what the police will write after they conclude their investigation of his story, but the report is not complete by the time Swanson wrote that note. I know it is dated 19th Oct. but he must have written it long before that date. It is the complete file which was dated 19th Oct. when all the reports of the murders (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride) had been handed over to Warren.

So, the "police report of his statement" (their conclusion of the investigation) had not been written at the time which Swanson made his notes. They were still investigating his claims, looking for Pipeman & BS-man, or perhaps even Schwartz himself?

By the way, Mrs Long did not witness an assault.

[JeffHamm]

We have other examples of Swanson's notes where he is equally not too clear.
In Stewart's "Ultimate", the last two pages of chapter 4 (p 68, hdbk) Swanson writes about the accuracy of doctor Phillips as opposed to Richardson, but then if Mrs Long is correct then Phillips must be wrong. The whole section does not read too clear, I think this is what we have with that quote you provided above.

In my view, in the quote you provide above, Swanson is saying that Schwartz statement reads credible, providing the police report (of the investigation of his story) casts no doubt upon it. The "report" is what the police will write after they conclude their investigation of his story, but the report is not complete by the time Swanson wrote that note. I know it is dated 19th Oct. but he must have written it long before that date. It is the complete file which was dated 19th Oct. when all the reports of the murders (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride) had been handed over to Warren.

So, the "police report of his statement" (their conclusion of the investigation) had not been written at the time which Swanson made his notes. They were still investigating his claims, looking for Pipeman & BS-man, or perhaps even Schwartz himself?

By the way, Mrs Long did not witness an assault.

The letter is itself dated 19 Oct, but as we know, multiple drafts of letters were often composed before the final version sent. Regardless, had views changed by the 19th then that would be reflected. The whole thing is found in the Ultimate, starting at the bottom of page 121 (2nd page of Chpt 7). In the report, while they consider a number of possibilities (i.e. that Stride was murdered by someone after Schwartz's man, for example), he also considers the description given by Schwartz to be a closer match to the one given by Lawende than the description of the man given by PC Smith. There is discussion as well that it appears PC Smith and Schwartz saw Stride with 2 different men, etc.

So, again, the overall impression is not that the police doubted Schwartz, at least not the extent that one would think they would not call him to present his testimony because they thought it was made up. Basically, even if the police were still trying to follow up on what he told them, there's nothing to indicate the police did not believe his statement was given in good faith.

Again, I think that just means there's some other explanation for why Schwartz did not present at the inquiry, and it is probably something quite mundane, as these things tend to be.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Is there any evidence that any of Schwartz's story was withheld?
Is there any evidence that any of Schwartz's story is entered into any records of the Inquest, even in notation form?
Is there anyone at the Inquest who gave statements that in any way supports any of Schwartz's?
Would a believed account be withheld by authorities without any public notification that it was?

Would a sighting of a victim being assaulted by someone within 5 minutes of her throat being cut, and within 10 feet or so from the spot the act itself takes place upon, be very relevant in the question of how the woman died...which is the function of the Inquest.

That's 4 NO's and the last is Yes, for those that are playing along. I changed the line of questioning only to demonstrate that its not just the lack of records to support any involvement in the Inquest, its also the fact that by virtue of the details within it, his story would have been from the last man known to be with the soon to be murdered woman while in the throes of being assaulted. Schwartz would have been the most important witness. When considering his times and the proximity to her murder site, its inconceivable that if believed Schwartz would not be THE most important witness.

Now, contextually, what reasons are there to suggest that he was that most critical witness despite his absence in all known records of the Inquest?

That's NONE for those dedicated few paying attention to whats actually being said, instead of just arguing with the person saying it.