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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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).

[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

[Cogidubnus]

Schwartz

Hi Lynn

Swanson accepted him
Anderson (at least at first) accepted him
Warren accepted him

Until I'm shown something concrete that proves conclusively otherwise who am I to differ?

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

more information

Hello (again) Dave. Thanks.

"Tom may have now backed off this through a lack of evidence"

Well, I don't think that it was ever more than a suggestion. But, Tom is wise in that he can argue either way.

From my perspective, IF Schwarz is telling the truth, then look no further--BSM killed Liz.

But, given the internal inconsistencies with the story and the out of place racial slur, I lean 60-40 against.

Perhaps some day we'll have more information?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

accept/dismiss

Hello Dave. Thanks.

"not happy to dismiss him without proof!"

Or accept him?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn

My suggestion is basically Tom Wescott's. IS may be trying to deflect blame from the club with his story.

I believe it was...though I believe Tom may have now backed off this through a lack of evidence

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Lynn

That was suggested long ago. As you say, we don't know. So, why not place him in brackets?

Quite happy to do that as I've previously indicated...just not happy to dismiss him without proof!

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

deflection

Hello Roy. Thanks.

My suggestion is basically Tom Wescott's. IS may be trying to deflect blame from the club with his story.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

brackets

Hello Dave. Thanks.

"are you suggesting he wasn't at Berner Street?"

That was suggested long ago. As you say, we don't know. So, why not place him in brackets?

Cheers.
LC