Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[lynn cates]

assault

Hello Roy. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC

[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....................

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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!

[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

[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