Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[Dr. John Watson]

Hi John,

I'm sure you didn't mean to slant this against Schwartz, but if he was genuinely not sure whether "Lipski" was directed at himself or Pipeman, that has a ring of truth about it because, let's face it, how could anyone in such circumstances have been sure? In which case, Abberline, an experienced interviewer despite the translation issues, could only accept his uncertainty, however unhelpful it was, and it would have been quite unfair to describe it as not getting 'a straight answer'. If Schwartz was making up this detail he didn't need to stick to his guns and risk pissing off Abberline. But if he was telling the truth, he didn't know because he couldn't know, so what else was he expected to say?

Caz: You are quite correct in your assessment. In going over Abberline's report and Swanson's summary, it's clear I read a little more into his report on Schwartz than was actually there. My intent was to suggest that Abberline's comments may have been responsible for casting doubt on Schwartz's story in the minds of police higher-ups. I used "a straight answer" because that was the inference I had when I first read Abberline's report, but in truth I find that Abberline was quite fair, stating simply that Schwartz was "unable to say" to whom the remark "Lipski" was made. (You'd think after 70+ years a guy would learn not to rely on memory alone, no matter how well he thinks he knows a subject!) Thanks, Caz, for straightening that out.

The Star quotes Schwartz as stating it was the second man who shouted a warning ("Lipski") to the man assaulting Stride, and I still believe that's exactly what he told police. Faulty translation of his words caused confusion on this point, leading Abberline to think it was Stride's assailant who shouted the name "Lipski" at someone, either the second man (with a pipe) or Schwartz. To me, shouting "Lipski" at some guy you see roughing up a woman makes more sense than the assailant interrupting his attack to hurl a racial insult at a nosy passerby. Abberline's close questioning as to who the assailant was shouting at could have confused Schwartz to the point where he simply could not answer.

Your impression as to what occurred during questioning, while differing slightly from mine, makes very good sense, especially the point about Schwartz's inability to answer being good evidence that he's telling the truth - a valid point whether there was faulty translation or not. Your version also absolves Abberline of misunderstanding Schwartz about the "Lipski" quote, a valid conclusion if your understanding is correct. Of course, that still doesn't explain how he came up with "pipe" instead of "knife" - but that's another story!

John

[DRoy]

Hello Roy. Thanks.

I mean the assault Schwartz witnessed. Was it near the club gates?

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,

I would think it would have to be at least relatively close yes.

Cheers
DRoy

[caz]

I think many of us will do whatever it takes to get the Schwartz story to dovetail with the other witness accounts.

The trouble is, some people are still relying on the deadly accuracy of certain timings given (not necessarily you, Lynn, I hasten to add) and concluding that some witnesses must have been lying about the time (the irony escaping them that liars and deadly accurate timings don't mix but equally cannot be distinguished).

The worst 'whatever it takes' in my book is to put the Schwartz story down to invention (eg a club protecting ruse) on the pretext that it doesn't dovetail with other witness accounts.

I would say that it dovetails remarkably well, considering that Schwartz couldn't possibly have known about the nice little window of time available the length and breadth of Berner St, in which to set up his little scene, when he could safely claim that nobody else was around to witness the 'incident' he described. If it never happened, several people could already have reported being in a position to see and hear that nothing of the kind happened. After all, it was meant to be a busy location wasn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[moonbegger]

Ohhh nooo! I don't think I'm ready for a coat debate!

John - Who Draws the Line for No Man!

Very well John

I'll further reiterate that any doubts police may have entertained about Schwartz's story, including those of Abberline, can be traced to confusion caused by translation difficulties, leading to doubts as to the accuracy of his statement, not the truth.

I didn't say a word

moonbegger

[caz]

There is some evidence supporting the position that police doubted a part of Schwartz's statement but believed the rest of it. Inspector Abberline's early report of his interview of Schwartz, stating that he couldn't get a straight answer from the witness concerning the "Lipski" quote, likely accounts for some doubt on the part of higher officials regarding that part of the statement, as reflected in inter-department memos.

Hi John,

I'm sure you didn't mean to slant this against Schwartz, but if he was genuinely not sure whether "Lipski" was directed at himself or Pipeman, that has a ring of truth about it because, let's face it, how could anyone in such circumstances have been sure? In which case, Abberline, an experienced interviewer despite the translation issues, could only accept his uncertainty, however unhelpful it was, and it would have been quite unfair to describe it as not getting 'a straight answer'. If Schwartz was making up this detail he didn't need to stick to his guns and risk pissing off Abberline. But if he was telling the truth, he didn't know because he couldn't know, so what else was he expected to say?

I'll further reiterate that any doubts police may have entertained about Schwartz's story, including those of Abberline, can be traced to confusion caused by translation difficulties, leading to doubts as to the accuracy of his statement, not the truth.

Now that I could buy.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Edward. Thanks.

"It's [not] necessary to deny the story altogether, but it is clearly not sensible to rely on it either."

Rely on it? For what? I already had doubts about Schwartz--as do many others.

What's the big difference between 'relying' on what the paper claimed, and using it to support your own doubts? If a second reporter read it wrongly as Schwartz's story that was not wholly accepted by the police, when it was in fact the account given by a potential suspect, you are left with the police having expressed no doubts about Schwartz, while on the contrary actively seeking the man he saw assaulting the victim. Some doubts!

Of course, it would explain why Swanson, in his report, talked about IF the story was correct, then paused to say he saw nothing in the report that cast doubt on it.

The police read the papers too, and Swanson can't be expected to have known who originated a claim that Schwartz's story was now doubted, if it was either one of his own men expressing a personal opinion or the reporter himself, clutching at the wrong straws.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

Black Knight

Hello John.

"John - Who Draws the Line for No Man!"

But do you move for no man? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dovetail

Hello MB.

"We can deliberate about the Pipe/knife language, conclusions and interpretations .. but we draw a line at the thought that muddled interpretations may also be responsible for a jacket/coat/overcoat confusion!"

I think many of us will do whatever it takes to get the Schwartz story to dovetail with the other witness accounts.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

"Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more."

Hello John. I always rejoice to see a reconstruction like yours. I appreciate the thought that goes into this.

I, too, share your hesitation about the two attacks. But, perhaps, an equally vexing dilemma is having Liz on the ground twice. Notice that IF Schwartz is correct, she is thrown down OUTSIDE the gates; but, she needs to be just INSIDE the gates.

But IF she falls twice, and given the mud stains, surely she needs to fall the exact same way both times?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

open

Hello Harry. Not sure we should dismiss Schwartz either--but I think we MUST approach his story with a good deal of skepticism.

Still, I am ALWAYS open to ANY story which allays my concerns over the forensic difficulties involved in his tale.

Cheers.
LC

[Dr. John Watson]

Dr John ,



Ah yes , the guy in the overcoat .. who just so happens to also be a Broad shouldered man , wearing a hat , and about the same height as the man witnessed by Schwartz ?? We can deliberate about the Pipe/knife language, conclusions and interpretations .. but we draw a line at the thought that muddled interpretations may also be responsible for a jacket/coat/overcoat confusion !

moonbegger

Ohhh nooo! I don't think I'm ready for a coat debate!

John - Who Draws the Line for No Man!

[moonbegger]

Dr John ,

Reasonable scenario: During the time periods indicated, Stride dumps the guy with the long overcoat, the one she's been seen with next to the Board School,

Ah yes , the guy in the overcoat .. who just so happens to also be a Broad shouldered man , wearing a hat , and about the same height as the man witnessed by Schwartz ?? We can deliberate about the Pipe/knife language, conclusions and interpretations .. but we draw a line at the thought that muddled interpretations may also be responsible for a jacket/coat/overcoat confusion !

moonbegger

[DRoy]

Paddy,

People were giving info to Matthews. You make it sound like he's the one that knows Schwartz better than anyone. I don't believe that to be the case.

He probably ordered a silence on Schwartz's statement until the house to house search was concluded.

By then it was too late hence The Star story.

So I think it was believed, but Schwartz's statement was presented either in written form or in private as it was part of an ongoing investigation that now included the City police.

Not sure how you come to this conclusion by everything you posted? That is just as speculative as every theory. The house to house was done prior to the end of the inquest so it really provided little value in proving or disproving Schwartz's statement. He could have testified at any time...unless of course his statement was no longer of value.

Cheers
DRoy

[Dr. John Watson]

Some final thoughts on Schwartz's statement, his Broad-Shoulder Man, Liz, and "Our Jack."

With some latitude on times given in various statements, here's a reasonable reconstruction of events on Berner Street occurring between 12:43 and 1:00 a.m.

12:43 - 12:46 a.m. Stride and unidentified man are seen at the corner Berner & Fairclough, she's telling him "No, not tonight." - Statement of James Brown

12:44 - 12:47 a.m. Stride is attacked by BS man on the sidewalk outside of Dutfield's Yard, while Schwartz and Pipe Man watch. - Statement of Israel Schwartz

12:59 - 1:01 a.m. Stride's body discovered murdered inside Dutfield's Yard near front gate. - Statement of Louis Diemschutz

Reasonable scenario: During the time periods indicated, Stride dumps the guy with the long overcoat, the one she's been seen with next to the Board School, strolls over to the workingman's club, is seen and assaulted by Broad-Shoulder man, then walks or is forced into Dutfield's Yard where she is found dead 13-15 minutes later. The idea of two different men assaulting Stride in the immediate vicinity of Dutfield's Yard within 15 minutes of each other is almost too much to accept. That, coupled with Schwartz's description of BS Man somewhat matching that of the man seen chatting up Eddowes at Mitre Square, does suggest that BS Man killed both women and is, therefore, Jack the Ripper. However logical that may be, I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that the crude and brutal BS Man who attacked a woman on the street, in front of witnesses, is the same non-threatening smooth-talking guy I've always pictured, who lured Kate Eddowes into the darkest part of Mitre Square and talked his way into the bedroom of Mary Kelly. There are other possibilities. No. 1: BS man was a drunken bully who killed Stride and then went home, while the real Ripper took care of Eddowes at Mitre Square. No. 2: After BS Man and Pipe Man left the scene, another man, totally unseen by any witness, propositioned Stride, led her into the Yard and killed her. Before completing his work, he heard Diemschutz approaching in his cart and hid in the darkness until Diemschutz went into the club at which time he escaped and fled down Fairclough Street, heading in the general direction of Mitre Square. My thinking at this particular time favors the last possibility, but nothing in this case is chipped in granite.

John the Uncertain

[harry]

If we dismiss the statement of Schwartz,we are still left with the statement of Brown,who did appear at the inquest,and whose recollections have not been seriously challenged.He gives a time of about 12.45 AM,and the couple he describes,are anything but a young, serious ,agreeable couple.As John and Dave have indicated,the accuracy of Schwartz may be a subject of disagreement,but not the overall picture that puts two males and a female in the immediate area of Dutfield yard,and an incident happening at the gate entrance,just after 12.45 AM.