Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[Paddy]

Matthews

It was Matthews who went to great pains to enquire if Abberline had discovered who was saying Lipski to who. Schwartz said he was not sure.
It was also stated that Schwartz had testified at the Inquest (on a draft letter to Matthews).
When Matthews got wind of the double event, he started sending telegrams (3 at least were mentioned in the communications). He asked Abberline in one communication if he would be asking about Lipski in the house enquiries. He probably ordered a silence on Schwartz's statement until the house to house search was concluded.

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.

Pat....................

[lynn cates]

assault

Hello Roy. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

And just how often do we have to trot out the tired out (but perfectly true) line that in the LVP very few people carried a timepiece, and even if they did their opportunities for accurately correcting same were very limited beyond earshot of Big Ben's chimes....all timings must, therefore be allowed a good degree of latitude...

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

I just wanted to re-iterate since some people type on regardless of what information has been posted, but Israel Schwartz is one of 3 parties that told a story that Liz Stride is alleged to have figured into at 12:45am. She is either at the corner by the Board School with someone....Brown.....she is being assaulted in front of the club gates....Schwartz,.... and she is lying dead or dying at the location she is eventually found in by a policeman,....Issac Kozebrodski, Edward, Spooner and a Mr Heschberg.

Only Brown and Spooner of those 3 sightings were called to the Inquest. Since we have 2 accounts that stated a young couple were at that corner....1, a press account that stated "A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises." 2, Fanny Mortimer " A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yds away, before and after the woman was murdered, but they told me that they did not hear a sound."

Substantive differences in the 2 accounts suggest the press account was not simply a parrotted version of Fannys interview but was in actuality from an interview with the "young woman", "She had, she said ..these appeared in the same issue of the news on Oct 1st.

The couple at the corner should by now be clear...it was not Liz Stride. That leaves 2 possible locations for her, based on the 3 stories given. Outside the gates, or dying just inside them. 1 Witness, and 1 witness only is the source for Outside the gate, and he is absent from the Inquest as is his story.....3 witnesses stated she was inside the gates dying, although of those witnesses only Spooner is called to the Inquest...and then is challenged by the Police on his timing given.

Anyone who states that the facts make sense as they are in the records is obviously missing the myriad of conflicts, outright guesswork and contradictory accounts here.

Someone, or some people lied, and someone or some people were mistaken.

Which camp is Israel in?

Cheers

[DRoy]

Hello Roy. Interesting.

Are you suggesting that this happened at the club as well?

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,

Sorry not sure what you mean here?

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

location, location, location

Hello John. Thanks.

"Surely you must see some significance in the fact that a witness who claims he saw a woman he identified as Stride, attacked at the very place. . ."

Umm? well, a few feet away.

". . . where her body was found 15 minutes later, is not called upon to testify under oath at inquest."

No, I see no significance. If anything, it sounds as if his story is dismissed.

"Considering all the others who testified concerning far less significant information, the absence of Schwartz stands out like a sore thumb, and the reason why he was not called is the elephant in the room!"

Given a rather loose interpretation of elephant.

"Glad you accept the possibility of translation problems, but not sure which story "doesn't jibe" with what facts, in your view."

I refer, once again, to the forensic details which don't quite add up. (Posted a few hundred times already.)

"I think if you accept the possibility of a few minutes difference in some of the times stated, Schwartz's story fits well with other testimony, in my extremely humble opinion."

I think Liz died about 12.45 (plus or minus 5 minutes). Time is not the problem here--it is location and condition of dress.

"Abberline seemed obsessed with the fine point of who was calling who "Lipski." Certainly something to want to get straight, but how much time did he spend with that line of questioning?"

Here are his words. "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely. . ."

"You mention additional facts "emerging" to clear things up - but from which source do you foresee these facts emerging?'

Whomever pilfered the records.

"Our debates and discussions are certainly informative and often lead to new theories etc., but new "facts" seem to be in short supply these days."

Yet "Der Arbeter Fraint" had a bit of new material.

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Yes, Schwartz could have been mistaken in his identification of Stride, as could every other witness quoted, but there's no reason to suspect this.

Dr JW,

I said mistake but really it could be any reason he identified her.
How different would women dress at that time of day in that neighborhood? Even then, as mentioned, he didn't describe Stride (at least not in Swanson's summary or the news report this thread is about). So I'd be skeptical of any witness who identifies a victim only after seeing the victim's lifeless body.

Of course, even if he did mistake another woman for Stride, it's still significant that he saw a man attack a woman in the same location as where Stride was murdered 15 minutes later.

Absolutely which is what my previous post points out a few times

If some of the experts in this forum had been around in 1888, you can bet there'd be no confusion over what Schwartz saw!

Although we all make light as you have, I think there are some great couch detectives in this forum and without them we wouldn't have gone down certain investigative paths and we'd be without a ton of the info we read in this forum every day. My two cents!

Cheers
DRoy

[Dr. John Watson]

Hello DRoy: That's a pretty good summary, I'd say, some points being stronger than others. Any witness statement is open to question as to how accurate or exact the witness's words are. Yes, Schwartz could have been mistaken in his identification of Stride, as could every other witness quoted, but there's no reason to suspect this. Of course, even if he did mistake another woman for Stride, it's still significant that he saw a man attack a woman in the same location as where Stride was murdered 15 minutes later.

It's only by comparing witness statements and trying to fit them into some reasonably coherent train of events that we can construct a fuzzy picture of what likely happened that night on Berner Street. The problem we have is that we don't know the whole story. If some of the experts in this forum had been around in 1888, you can bet there'd be no confusion over what Schwartz saw!

John

[Dr. John Watson]

Hello John. Thanks.

Actually, I am NOT one of those who make a big deal about Schwartz's absence from inquest.

From my point of view, the story does not jibe with the facts--hence my hesitation.

Translational difficulties COULD explain some of Abberline's frustration, but he questioned Schwartz repeatedly about whom, and to whom, shouted "Lipski."

Hopefully, additional facts will emerge that will help tip the balance.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn. Surely you must see some significance in the fact that a witness who claims he saw a woman he identified as Stride, attacked at the very place where her body was found 15 minutes later, is not called upon to testify under oath at inquest. Considering all the others who testified concerning far less significant information, the absence of Schwartz stands out like a sore thumb, and the reason why he was not called is the elephant in the room!

Glad you accept the possibility of translation problems, but not sure which story "doesn't jibe" with what facts, in your view. I think if you accept the possibility of a few minutes difference in some of the times stated, Schwartz's story fits well with other testimony, in my extremely humble opinion.

Abberline seemed obsessed with the fine point of who was calling who "Lipski." Certainly something to want to get straight, but how much time did he spend with that line of questioning? Although he must have questioned Schwartz at length concerning everything he saw, the one thing he seemed to emphasize in his report was the "Lipski" quote. No way to really judge the completeness of his interview without being able to read the entirety of the original statement.

You mention additional facts "emerging" to clear things up - but from which source do you foresee these facts emerging? Our debates and discussions are certainly informative and often lead to new theories etc., but new "facts" seem to be in short supply these days. Much is still out there, I'm sure, but it lies moldering in dusty attics and cramped basements, in cardboard boxes that once belonged to now deceased police officials or Ripper researchers. And that's the optimistic view! Ashes and garbage dumps may be more realistic.

John the Realist

[lynn cates]

spot

Hello Roy. Interesting.

Are you suggesting that this happened at the club as well?

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Hi everyone,

If Schwartz witness an attack on a 'woman' and not Stride then everything except the identification by him fits what we know and even infer. As has been mentioned, Schwartz identified Stride as the one attacked after giving his statement and later after seeing her body. Could he have been mistaken?

Scenario:
- Schwartz isn't lying, he witnessed an attack exactly as stated...it just wasn't Stride.
- Abberline & Swanson and everyone else have no reason to doubt his story...except that it wasn't Stride.
- One of the two men (PM or BSM) could have been picked up by the police (he is now the suspect noted in The Star).
- PM and BSM are both important witnesses since one of them attacked a 'woman' and the other may well be an accomplice or a witness (hence the Police Illustrated News description)
- Abberline spends his time trying to conclude the Lipski comment (again in reference to PM and or BSM), not prove or disprove Schwartz's statement.
- Schwartz doesn't testify at Stride's inquest because besides his error(?) in identifying the 'woman' (not Stride), everything else checks out.

Am I missing other important factors to include here? It does seem to tie all the characters together (except maybe some of those at the club or Mortimer).

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

no big deal

Hello John. Thanks.

Actually, I am NOT one of those who make a big deal about Schwartz's absence from inquest.

From my point of view, the story does not jibe with the facts--hence my hesitation.

Translational difficulties COULD explain some of Abberline's frustration, but he questioned Schwartz repeatedly about whom, and to whom, shouted "Lipski."

Hopefully, additional facts will emerge that will help tip the balance.

Cheers.
LC

[Dr. John Watson]

This little side debate seems to boil down to which of the following propositions is most likely: Some of the police believed Schwartz's whole story, some of the police believed part of the story but not the whole story, and some police believed none of the story. Official records don't really resolve that issue, but perhaps we can infer enough from the following to tip the scales one way or the other.

The only tangible evidence suggesting that Schwartz's entire story was seriously doubted at higher levels is the failure of Coroner Wynne Baxter to take his testimony at Stride's inquest. Problem is, the reason for this apparent failure remains shrouded in mystery. Some suggest Baxter heard Schwartz's testimony privately, at the request of police who wished to protect the identity of a star witness; others that police deliberately withheld Schwartz's statement from Baxter, for whatever reason; and some who feel it was Baxter who decided his evidence was not important enough to bother with. Hard to believe police would deliberately withhold evidence from the Coroner for any reason, and unlikely that Baxter would choose to ignore an eyewitness who claims to have seen a man attack Stride. That leaves the possibility that Baxter questioned Schwartz in a private session, but if he did, he made no mention of anything Schwartz claimed to have seen in his lengthy and detailed report of findings. Unfortunately the official records are silent on what appears to be an incredible oversight on the part of an otherwise capable official. All we are left with is conjecture.

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. But none seem to question that part of the statement in which Schwartz tells of witnessing a man attacking Stride while another man stands by. Later memos indicate a belief that Schwartz may be able to identify the Ripper, this obviously based on acceptance of the truth of his statement.

It seems apparent, though without definitive evidence, that no police official ever went on record as believing the entirety of Schwartz's statement, just as no official ever said he disbelieved the entire statement.

To my mind, we are left with a likelihood that most police officials, while perhaps doubting certain parts of Schwartz's statement, believed he was telling the truth about witnessing an attack on Stride within 15 minutes of the time her body was found and within feet of where Schwartz claims to have saw her attacked. 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.

John

[lynn cates]

The sum regarding "some."

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.

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.

"Why not just say, "Yes, no doubt some disbelieved the story; but, so much the worse for them"?"

"Who should just say that?"

Those who believe Schwartz.

"Who are the 'some'?"

Don't know, but whomever "The Star" reporter referred to--unless, of course, he bungled the story after a colleague had previously gotten it right.

"Who are the 'them' that it's worse for?"

See reply above (the "some" who were purported NOT to believe it).

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Lynn
It s necessary to deny the story altogether but it is clearly not sensible to rely on it either.
Sometimes the Star found untapped witnesses that provide extra detail. But when they quote police sources it is best to be sceptical unless the story is widely repeated as most newspapers would not reprint stray speculation.

I'm not sure what you mean by this:

Why not just say, "Yes, no doubt some disbelieved the story; but, so much the worse for them"?

Who should just say that?
Who are the 'some'?
Who are the 'them' that it's worse for?