Would It Be The Job of the Police Or the Grand Jury to Discredit Schwartz's Testimony

[lynn cates]

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Hello Dave. Thanks.

Not sure that Swanson accepted him, but, very well.

If you like his story, well and good. I could EASILY live with BSM for Liz.

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

But which Schwartz story?

The 'Pipeman' or 'Knifeman' version?

Consider that Schwartz must have already known that Warren had rubbed off the anti-Semitic graffiti.

We have here a witness who was frightened of cops (because of fleeing a police state in Hungary) unable to speak English (apparently he had a friend when being interviewed by the police) being investigated by a decapitated CID dominated by Warren's agenda: eg. stop sectarian riots before they start.

Schwartz may have said 'Lipski' because he knew the riot-paranoid cops would focus on this act of prejudice and that he himself was a near-victim too of this vile, racist killer. He may have thought tha this was an account which got him off the hook for not going to the help of a Gentile woman under threat of violence; for looking like a coward.

In the newspaper account--arguably far more credible than the muddled, self-serving tale he told the police--there is no such element, no menacing cry of 'Lipski'. Instead Schwartz allegedly claims he saw a man with a knife hopefully coming to the rescue of a harlot being pushed around by a drunk.

An armed figure who, furthermore, broadly resembles Lawende's description of the sailor-like man amiably chatting with Eddowes (whereas BSM arguably does not).

[Wickerman]

Hello Cris. Thanks.

Agreed. And that seems to be what Stewart has been saying.

Schwartz was not there. So perhaps speculation is idle?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

By nature we are an inquisitive people, we know he was not there, ...but why?

Sadly, any attempt at determining why from the meager lines in Swanson's report will predictably be fruitless.

Only Coroner Baxter knows, and he isn't saying.

[Michael W Richards]

This is an insightful thread, to be sure...about my fellow Ripperologists in particular. I happen to agree with the summation given by Stewart earlier regarding the apparent importance of Israel Schwartz in the Inquest proceedings....had his story been found to produce investigative fruit, or had it been in any way corroborated, that story constitutes one of the best witness sightings of any Canonical murder, so close to the time of the murder only Catherine Eddowes Sailor Man competes with it. It would have been presented at the Inquest, or referenced, if the police were backing it at that time.

Ive speculated that a possible reason for Israels absence is a discovered link between him and the club, in fact I believe a researcher Maria here has discovered such a link between Schwartz and Wess. I believe she suggested she had found one anyway. If the police thought, as I suspect, that Israels story was concocted to divert the attention from the passageway to the street...off the premises until the murder time....and to implicate a gentile as the culprit, essentially clearing the club with that remark...then they may have felt uneasy about supporting it.

That doesnt mean they thought the story was complete fiction though. Ive speculated that perhaps they suspected, as I do again, that the altercation Israel claims to have seen actually transpired, but not in the location and manner he states. If Israel was leaving the club through the side door and came up to BSM and Liz talking against the wall, almost behind the open gate, then the "fall" could have been the murder happening...on the spot she is found.

The problem with Israel telling that story could be about where he told his wife he was that night, but for certain it would implicate the club in the murder, and as a by product, validate the Ripper is an Immigrant Jew theory that ran through September.

I think its possible that the club fashioned the Schwartz story alterations and adjusted some key times so they would be viewed as assuredly blameless...even though I dont believe the man that killed Stride was a member.

Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

But which Schwartz story?

The 'Pipeman' or 'Knifeman' version?

By the standards of the time the two tales are not (apart from the substitution of the hungarian word "dagger" for "pipe") mutually exclusive.

All the best

Dave

[Hunter]

...Consider that Schwartz must have already known that Warren had rubbed off the anti-Semitic graffiti.

Schwartz would not have known about the graffiti at the time he made his deposition at Leman Street station.

In the newspaper account--arguably far more credible than the muddled, self-serving tale he told the police--there is no such element, no menacing cry of 'Lipski'. Instead Schwartz allegedly claims he saw a man with a knife hopefully coming to the rescue of a harlot being pushed around by a drunk.
An armed figure who, furthermore, broadly resembles Lawende's description of the sailor-like man amiably chatting with Eddowes (whereas BSM arguably does not).

Schwartz would not have known the description given by Lawende at that time either. And neither description Pipeman/sailorman remotely resemble each other.

[Jonathan H]

Why wouldn't Schwartz not know about the graffiti?

It was the next day he was interviewed, wasn't it.

You think that the anti-Semitic writing supposedly of the fiend was kept a secret; that the cops could keep a lid on that with so many people knowing? Kept from local Jewish people already on the alert for an East End pogrom?

I did not say that Schwartz knew about Lawende's description, which are broadly comparable: a not-so-stout man with a moustache, attired like a prole. Schwartz claimed he had reddish facial hair and Lawende said he had a red neckchief.

[lynn cates]

Got a light?

Hello Jonathan. Thanks.

I have a problem accepting the "Star" version. Did he REALLY see a man standing and lighting a knife?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

suspension

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Quite. Hence, I think it wise to suspend the story until further evidence emerges.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

knife

Hello Dave. That's true. But, as I remarked above, one does not usually light a knife.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Cris. Entirely agree.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Domestic

Hello all,

If, as is stated in one report, Schwartz thought he was witnessing a "domestic" he would have been reluctant to get involved. And nine times out of ten this would have been the case, men being allowed to "chastise" their wives at the time. All he saw was a woman being thrown to the ground (not that that is nothing, I hasten to add) - he had no way of knowing what was going to follow. And is it not possible that the police kept him under wraps as a very valuable witness, the only man to witness the beginning of an attack?

Best wishes,
C4

[lynn cates]

a kept man

Hello Gwyneth.

"And is it not possible that the police kept him under wraps as a very valuable witness?"

Quite possible. The key word being, of course, "kept," for his official testimony seems never to have made it to inquest.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mike

Ive speculated that a possible reason for Israels absence is a discovered link between him and the club, in fact I believe a researcher Maria here has discovered such a link between Schwartz and Wess. I believe she suggested she had found one anyway.

So let's see it then....

All the best

Dave

[Hunter]

You think that the anti-Semitic writing supposedly of the fiend was kept a secret; that the cops could keep a lid on that with so many people knowing? Kept from local Jewish people already on the alert for an East End pogrom?

Yes, Jonathan. That's exactly what I'm saying. The police managed to keep it under wraps for quite a while. All that was publicly known concerned the apron only. The Pall Mall Gazette got wind of the graffiti story a couple of days after the murders and they were convinced (by the police) that it was an unfounded rumor.

The Star gets wind of Schwartz and tracks him down, resulting in a fantastic story. The next day the police shuts the lid on that witness too, even though they circulate Schwartz's description internally. The reason this was likely done was to keep any suspect from going underground and give their 'noses' time to find someone. This is how CID operated at the time.

After a couple of weeks and no results, and an unauthorized likeness appears in the Daily Telegraph, the descriptions are released to the public.