The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Scott Nelson]

You sound a tad more positive than the last opinion piece you wrote about him.
Anything changed?

It was tongue in cheek.

[Cogidubnus]

If you look at what Israel claims though, there is real reason to doubt the veracity. He claims he was returning from the market, so why is he on Berner Street instead of Brick Lane at 12:45 at night?

Sorry Michael...When does Schwartz say he was returning from the market? What is it that indicates he should be on Brick Lane? In his statement to the Star reporter he merely says he's been out all day...perhaps he was at work, as befits an LVP man supporting his wife.

why would his wife need 13 hours to move that? It was far more likely she would be at their new home at that time.

The reasons for the move and details thereof aren't stated. We don't even know any family or other commitments they may've had...for reasons unknown to us, they may not've been able to move in until somebody else moved out...we simply DON'T know. You can bet your boots though that Abberline DID know all these things though...If you think he didn't ask, then I suggest you're seriously underestimating the man...

Was he in one of the cottages inside the passageway? Was he a club member or regular? What was the nature of his acquaintance with Woolf Wess? What did he buy or sell that day..if he bought, where was that stuff? Did he attend the meeting that night? Why doesn't he come forward before Sun evening?

There seems to be no reason for this suggestion of a connection with the club...It appears to be a purely speculative invention for which there is no firm evidence at all.

Cheers

Dave

[Garza]

Take Schwartz out of the equation and all the testimonies add up. Put him in and nothing makes sense. Including his two different versions of what he claimed happened.

I just find it very unlikely that Mortimer who seemed to be able to detect and identify a policeman's footsteps walking outside her door would be unable to hear someone shout "Lipski" and Liz giving a startled cry right outside her door.

Bless her, she seems like one of those nosy little bittys, but she is definitely the most reliable witness we have on Berner Street - her and Goldstein.

[c.d.]

Hello Garza,

Except that they weren't right outside her door and we don't know if she was actually standing at her door at the time. Remember her testimony is that she did so "off and on" for part of the claimed time.

c.d.

[Garza]

Hello Garza,

Except that they weren't right outside her door and we don't know if she was actually standing at her door at the time. Remember her testimony is that she did so "off and on" for part of the claimed time.

c.d.

C.D.

It practically was right outside the door, Fanny Mortimer lived a couple of doors down from the socialist club - that's about 15-20 ft in a terraced housing street. I don't know if you have had the chance to walk down Berner/Henriques Street but it is narrow - and with two storey houses lining each side of it - it would have created an echo - like a lot of Victorian era terraced housing (I have lived in a lot of said terraced housing, still do but my street is way wider than Berner Street and even then people just talking at night is amplified, let alone a drunk shouting.)

The echo is likely why Mortimer could hear and identify footsteps outside her door.

Now, have someone yell Lipski in a street like that in the dead of night - I can assure you someone would have heard it - in fact almost the whole street should have heard it. I find it hard to believe that no-one collaborated Schwartz's story if the events went down as he said they did.

Also lack of physical evidence as well. Schwartz said that Liz Stride was pushed down to the ground - the ground consisting of a wet and dirty East End street. Yet we see no dirt or grime on her backside or front, nor her hands where she would instinctively put out to break a fall. No slight abrasions on her hands that they might have to break a violent push the ground. Nor did she have a dirty handkerchief that she might have wiped her wet/dirty hands with. Not to mention it was stated the body showed no signs of the struggle at all.

Police during the Ripper investigation received a lot of false testimony - it is not at all unfathomable that a few squeezed through the cracks and were taken seriously by the police. Schwartz might have been mistaken in the time, street, identity or hell he may have just morbidly wanted to see a dead body or some excitement of being the centre of attention instead of the duldrum and hardship of an East End life.

But still, the fact that no-one can corroborate a fantastic and loud event as Schwartz described fills me with skepticism.

[c.d.]

Hello Garza,

The whole question of whether Mortimer would have heard the yell of Lipski of course depends on whether or not she was actually at her door at the time. We do know that she had a sick husband and several children. Could she have been drawn away from the door by them for a few moments? The other question of course is how accurate was she with her times? But let's give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she was at the door at the time.

We now have to determine if she could have heard a "yell." Schwartz's statement said the man he saw "called out" Lipski. How does a yell differ from calling out? I have no idea. I see no reason for the B.S. man to yell in the same way that someone shouting "fire" would yell or someone screaming for help. I would assume that he was looking directly at Schwartz with an aggressive look on his face and maybe an accompanying gesture. That should have been sufficient to get his point across. Did he really need to scream at the top of his lungs?

Your point about lack of mud on her dress is a good one. I was under the impression that there was mud on her dress so I can't really comment further on that point. Lack of abrasions on her hands would bolster the idea that Schwartz only witnessed a little street hassle and not a violent attack. That her body showed no signs of a struggle does not conflict with Schwartz's testimony because he did not witness her death. To me, it seems to indicate that he only saw a street hassle and that her real killer came along later.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Fanny Mortimer says that between 12:30 and 1am that she was at her door "nearly the whole time". People need to stop re-interpreting what she said. She was clear. She didn't hear or see Israel Schwartz, Pipeman or BSM, she didn't see Louis arrive, she didn't see 2 men running for help, she didn't see Lave standing at the gates....interesting that all these things are statements that are not corroborated by anyone. Fanny did see the young couple...as corroborated by Brown, and she did see Goldstein pass, as corroborated by Leon himself. That's 2 separate sightings, both corroborated. She was at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1am, and in the most glaring contradiction of all, she did not see Louis coming down Berner Street at all, something he said he was certain of. " I arrived at the club at precisely 1am".

[c.d.]

Schwartz saw the BS man incident some 15 minutes before her body was discovered. Plenty of time for reconciliation and for stride to then enter willingly into the court with the man -at which point she takes out the cashoo. and is murdered. Seems unlikely she would do that though after the incident, but according to some on here it was no big deal.

Reconciliation? Possibly. But doesn't the B.S. man as her killer camp call it a brutal attack? And don't they argue that the B.S. man was so enraged that he didn't care that he had been seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man. Very hard to imagine Stride going off peacefully with him under those circumstances. And if she had to be dragged and was attempting to fight him off somehow the cachous remained in her hand undisturbed.

So was it a brutal attack or not?

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

The fact that others believed Israels story at all isn't enough reason to assume it actually happened, nor that it happened in the way his translator reported. In the physical evidence there is evidence that Liz Strides scarf was grabbed and twisted and that it remained that way while he made the single draw across her throat. That for me suggests that she had her back turned to him at the time, and that wouldn't be consistent with a premise that she was heading into the passageway. I believe it indicates she was heading out into the street and was brought back by the choking scarf technique.

Whether she was attacked from behind while going in or out of the ally depends upon what one imagines happened next. For example, BS spins her round, throws her towoards the gates, she drops her cashous, picks them up as she is getting up and he comes up, grabs her scarf and pusher her forward into the passage, and she doesn't drop them this time as she's near the ground, and he cuts her throat and flees as Schwartz was right there.

No matter who attacks her, she ends up holding the cachous, so whether it was BS or someone else, she was attacked, put to the ground, and ends up with the cachous in hand. They may be an anomaly, but they are one regardless of who attacks her.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Whether she was attacked from behind while going in or out of the ally depends upon what one imagines happened next. For example, BS spins her round, throws her towoards the gates, she drops her cashous, picks them up as she is getting up and he comes up, grabs her scarf and pusher her forward into the passage, and she doesn't drop them this time as she's near the ground, and he cuts her throat and flees as Schwartz was right there.

No matter who attacks her, she ends up holding the cachous, so whether it was BS or someone else, she was attacked, put to the ground, and ends up with the cachous in hand. They may be an anomaly, but they are one regardless of who attacks her.

- Jeff

Liz Stride is waiting to meet someone in or from the club and decides to freshen her mouth a bit, or she is there to enter the club as a hired cleaner,.."at work among the Jews", .. and she is approached by a surly man trying to negotiate a quickie. She tells him to F off. He pokes her in the chest with menace. She then turns to head out the gates to wait on the street in front of the passageway, and the surly man grabs her scarf, twists it and pulls back, she is off balance and while bent and twisted and choking, the surly man slides a knife across her throat and lets go of the scarf. She falls, her legs drawn into her body..and she bleeds out.

That's a 2 second scenario that was suggested by the examining doctor. And it fits the physical evidence to a T.

When she is found is the only question here, because Israel Schwartz, someone who has been established by a valued researcher here as at the very least an acquaintance of Woolf Wess's, does not factor at all into the equation. According to the authorities trying to establish Liz Strides cause of death.

So 12:45 has Brown seeing the young couple that Fanny saw and later spoke with. So there is nothing to contradict the 4 witnesses that stated they were already alerted about the dying woman at around 12:40-12:45. Nothing but Morris, Joe and Louis. The first 2 stated they were at the gates at around 12:40, and Louis says he didn't arrive until "precisely" 1am. No-one saw anyone else, and no-one saw Louis arrive at 1am. We have an eye witness with a clear view from 12:50 until 1am, and she didn't see anyone. 1 of the 4 people who claim to be there at around 12:45 stated that Louis sent him out for help at that time.

You see what happens when you set the misguided belief in Schwartz aside, a much more precise picture emerges. The men who worked for or lived at the club lied. The men in attendance there, who had nothing to do with any killing, had no reason to. A man who saw some members going for help didn't need to either. The man who kills Liz,....in my opinion a hired thug that was engaged when they thought William Morris would be the speaker that night, a planned event that was threatened with violence due to the polarizing nature of Morris's politics, ...was likely taken into the club, his knife thrown into the soapy sink water, or maybe placed somewhere near the stage...and he was presented as a member in attendance when they were questioned. Why would they protect him? Why would they lie? Because their club was considered a haven for low men and anarchists, many of the Socialist activists were, and it would be closed in a heart beat if the police thought one of them committed the murder. Socialists across the UK would be subjected to animosity and violence in retaliation. It would cause riots. And loss of any income for some staffers.

With an obvious threat to their wallets, their safety, their club and their cause it shouldn't surprise anyone that they would present stories that did their best to deflect that suspicion...….with a little intro music, Here's Israel Schwartz. That very vehicle to safety.

Im always surprised when considering how few people are willing to accept the logical here...in favor of a mutilator who does mutilate due to a supposed interruption that is not present in any known evidence.

[Sam Flynn]

Im always surprised when considering how few people are willing to accept the logical here...in favor of a mutilator who does mutilate due to a supposed interruption that is not present in any known evidence.

Presumably because the former requires the acceptance of an elaborate conspiracy. I'm certainly not a fan of the "JTR did it" scenario, but it's a rather more straightforward proposition than a cover-up.

[Harry D]

C.D.

It practically was right outside the door, Fanny Mortimer lived a couple of doors down from the socialist club - that's about 15-20 ft in a terraced housing street. I don't know if you have had the chance to walk down Berner/Henriques Street but it is narrow - and with two storey houses lining each side of it - it would have created an echo - like a lot of Victorian era terraced housing (I have lived in a lot of said terraced housing, still do but my street is way wider than Berner Street and even then people just talking at night is amplified, let alone a drunk shouting.)

The echo is likely why Mortimer could hear and identify footsteps outside her door.

Now, have someone yell Lipski in a street like that in the dead of night - I can assure you someone would have heard it - in fact almost the whole street should have heard it. I find it hard to believe that no-one collaborated Schwartz's story if the events went down as he said they did.

Also lack of physical evidence as well. Schwartz said that Liz Stride was pushed down to the ground - the ground consisting of a wet and dirty East End street. Yet we see no dirt or grime on her backside or front, nor her hands where she would instinctively put out to break a fall. No slight abrasions on her hands that they might have to break a violent push the ground. Nor did she have a dirty handkerchief that she might have wiped her wet/dirty hands with. Not to mention it was stated the body showed no signs of the struggle at all.

Police during the Ripper investigation received a lot of false testimony - it is not at all unfathomable that a few squeezed through the cracks and were taken seriously by the police. Schwartz might have been mistaken in the time, street, identity or hell he may have just morbidly wanted to see a dead body or some excitement of being the centre of attention instead of the duldrum and hardship of an East End life.

But still, the fact that no-one can corroborate a fantastic and loud event as Schwartz described fills me with skepticism.

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

[Michael W Richards]

Presumably because the former requires the acceptance of an elaborate conspiracy. I'm certainly not a fan of the "JTR did it" scenario, but it's a rather more straightforward proposition than a cover-up.

Im not sure you've accurately interpreted what I said Sam, I never suggested a "conspiracy", just that staff members lied to protect themselves. A conspiracy that has 3 club members directly contradicting the staff members would be a pretty poorly constructed "conspiracy", wouldn't it? And acceptance of a serial mutilators guilt based on a murder devoid of such actions may seem straightforward to you, to me it just seems ridiculous. If anything can be learned from the 2 preceding murders that were almost certainly committed by the same lone man....and that does appear "straightforward",...is that he kills so he can cut. The actual killing isn't the objective, and in fact it appears it had little overall value to the killer..he didnt prolong that aspect at all. He did however prolong the event duration by the mutilations.

[Harry D]

There was no evidence of a struggle, no defensive injuries, and no one heard anything. It would suggest that Stride was blitzed by her killer while her guard was down. As she was still clutching the cachous when she was found, this means two things: that Stride was killed suddenly with little time to react, and two that she did not anticipate an attack coming. Two points that would seem to rule out the man who moments earlier had assaulted her (allegedly).

[Michael W Richards]

There was no evidence of a struggle, no defensive injuries, and no one heard anything. It would suggest that Stride was blitzed by her killer while her guard was down. As she was still clutching the cachous when she was found, this means two things: that Stride was killed suddenly with little time to react, and two that she did not anticipate an attack coming. Two points that would seem to rule out the man who moments earlier had assaulted her (allegedly).

My earlier suggested scenario would fit that summary Harry.