Timing between Eddowes and Stride is bang on

[Batman]

Reasons to accept Schwartz

Like the Stride/Eddowes goldilocks zone for travelling persons meeting there is also the timing of Schwartz and who he is. Here are some reasons to accept him.
1. Motive as witness - Schwartz was on his way home. He MUST be there. Today we actively seek out witnesses for a statement if we know they passed near the seen of a crime.
2. Recent - Schwartz was a recent addition to Whitechapel. Yet was brought into a murder conspiracy so quickly? Wouldn't someone with more experience be a better choice?
3. No English - Why create a witness that can't speak English? Wouldn't it be better to use a witness with better English to describe things in more detail? To firmly put the scent off?
4. Stride has a bruise on her chest in addition to shoulder bruising. Schwartz described a frontal blitz on the woman.
5. Timing and distance. The distance between the attack and where Stride was found was a few feet. The timing is also very close.
6. No drag marks, no extra mud on back nor a ripped dress - Drag marks where stepped on by people there. Highly contaminated crimes scene. Dragging by her scarf neck would have her upper body off the mud. Only lower legs make contact. No ripped clothes either. Its mud.
7. No blood on her scarf. This discounts a rear attack with knife across her neck. Schwartz saw a frontal attack.
8. No arterial spray - ditto.
9. Blood isn't absent. It's pooled behind her neck and running along the side of the building.
10. Schwartz remained a key witness throughout the investigation's reports/documents.
11. Schwartz's sighting may have turned up Pipeman who was interviewed and cleared as Swanson describes many witnesses and pipeman no longer a suspect.
12. Many suspects where hauled in over Schwartz's account of what he seen.
13. Schwartz describes a man close to what Lawende saw.
14. What Lipski meant wasn't figured out for a long time, until they realized it was slur in connection with Lipski who poisoned a women in the area not long ago. Why make up this slur if it wasn't so obvious? Wouldn't 'Jew!' be better?

[Abby Normal]

Like the Stride/Eddowes goldilocks zone for travelling persons meeting there is also the timing of Schwartz and who he is. Here are some reasons to accept him.
1. Motive as witness - Schwartz was on his way home. He MUST be there. Today we actively seek out witnesses for a statement if we know they passed near the seen of a crime.
2. Recent - Schwartz was a recent addition to Whitechapel. Yet was brought into a murder conspiracy so quickly? Wouldn't someone with more experience be a better choice?
3. No English - Why create a witness that can't speak English? Wouldn't it be better to use a witness with better English to describe things in more detail? To firmly put the scent off?
4. Stride has a bruise on her chest in addition to shoulder bruising. Schwartz described a frontal blitz on the woman.
5. Timing and distance. The distance between the attack and where Stride was found was a few feet. The timing is also very close.
6. No drag marks, no extra mud on back nor a ripped dress - Drag marks where stepped on by people there. Highly contaminated crimes scene. Dragging by her scarf neck would have her upper body off the mud. Only lower legs make contact. No ripped clothes either. Its mud.
7. No blood on her scarf. This discounts a rear attack with knife across her neck. Schwartz saw a frontal attack.
8. No arterial spray - ditto.
9. Blood isn't absent. It's pooled behind her neck and running along the side of the building.
10. Schwartz remained a key witness throughout the investigation's reports/documents.
11. Schwartz's sighting may have turned up Pipeman who was interviewed and cleared as Swanson describes many witnesses and pipeman no longer a suspect.
12. Many suspects where hauled in over Schwartz's account of what he seen.
13. Schwartz describes a man close to what Lawende saw.
14. What Lipski meant wasn't figured out for a long time, until they realized it was slur in connection with Lipski who poisoned a women in the area not long ago. Why make up this slur if it wasn't so obvious? Wouldn't 'Jew!' be better?

Yup.
And do we really think a conservative jew, a foreigner, a newcomer, a stranger in a strange land is really going to lie to the police in a huge murder investigation-threatening himself and his family?
No effing way in hell.


Plus we can put the lying Schwartz/club conspiracy to bed once and for all with the mere fact that he was FOUND by police-he didn't come forward proactively.

[John G]

Hello,

I think Batman's post 121 has some force but, at risk of repeating myself, for me it still needs to be reconciled with the cachous issue. I think a club conspiracy of any kind is highly unlikely and totally unsupported by the evidence.

[Wickerman]

Plus we can put the lying Schwartz/club conspiracy to bed once and for all with the mere fact that he was FOUND by police-he didn't come forward proactively.

Where did you get that from?

The press account says this:

"...He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them."

I thought every one knew he came in voluntarily, unless you have something to the contrary?

[Wickerman]

I think a club conspiracy of any kind is highly unlikely and totally unsupported by the evidence.

Yes!
An unnecessary distraction.

[Batman]

I believe Schwartz was corroborated by Pipeman

This account involves Swanson's report, Schwartz's witness testimony and active journalism.

There are no contradictions and everything logically follows.

1. News - Police arrested someone.
The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. The prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

This makes sense. If pipeman was arrested due to Schwartz's account then Schwartz implicated him. Pipeman gave chase. So the police don't wholly accept his account. However see next news item.

2. News -The Star, MONDAY, 1 OCTOBER, 1888

Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

So, this was Pipemans story and maybe others where there. It does say 'those'.

3. Swanson says police cleared him.
On the 19th October 1888, Swanson wrote that 'the police apparently do not suspect the second man,’


Pipeman sees two people quarreling and moves on. Schwartz interpreted it as giving chase. Police found Pipeman. Doubted him because Schwartz said he chased him. Later they clear him. Swanson reports this officially.

Conclusion: Schwartz is telling the truth.

[Rosella]

Maybe 'others' who witnessed what they thought was a domestic incident included pipeman? Plus, although Schwartz doesn't mention it, there could have been others passing the club at the time or leaving the pub across the road who saw what they thought was a minor altercation between a husband and wife. The paper may have interviewed 'others' but obviously didnt bother to name them.

[RockySullivan]

Had any members of the club on Berner made their way to the club at mitre square that night after strides murder?

If pipeman is a witness why turn around at the railway arch. Again it's too much of a coincidence that BSman shouts lipski and pipeman chases Schwartz to the railway arch where lipski is written by the pinchin torso.

[Batman]

Had any members of the club on Berner made their way to the club at mitre square that night after strides murder?

If pipeman is a witness why turn around at the railway arch. Again it's too much of a coincidence that BSman shouts lipski and pipeman chases Schwartz to the railway arch where lipski is written by the pinchin torso.

Whatever reason was given, it was sufficient for the police to dismiss him and for Swanson to report that they have no reason to suspect him.

[RockySullivan]

Whatever reason was given, it was sufficient for the police to dismiss him and for Swanson to report that they have no reason to suspect him.

I've never found that to be a satisfactory explaination for suspects personally. The police may have made a mistake as they commonly do in serial killer investigations. Even if pipeman was the ripper unless he admitted it what could they charge him with? Schwartz may have seen him near the murder site but unless he's caught red handed or he confesses what could they do?

I imagine since the ripper appears quite cunning he may have been able to talk himself out of any situation or atleast be confident enough to believe so which could explain the risky murder locations

[Rosella]

Had any members of the club on Berner made their way to the club at mitre square that night after strides murder?

If pipeman is a witness why turn around at the railway arch. Again it's too much of a coincidence that BSman shouts lipski and pipeman chases Schwartz to the railway arch where lipski is written by the pinchin torso.

I've never heard that the Imperial Club in Duke St and the Berner St International Working Men's Educational Club had too much in common, actually. One was strictly Socialist and had a bit of a reputation for 'rows' among its neighbours while the Imperial, which served kosher meals in a gentlemen's club atmosphere, had apparently been set up to allow business owners in the neighbourhood to meet and talk over deals etc in a cordial atmosphere. There might have been dual members who travelled between them but it doesnt seem very likely.

[Wickerman]

3. Swanson says police cleared him.
On the 19th October 1888, Swanson wrote that 'the police apparently do not suspect the second man,’

I think you will find that this comment was not written by Swanson.

If you backtrack to the previous page (assuming you are using the "Ultimate"), you will see the beginning of a footnote. I was informed that this was the writing of G. Lushington? (though not 100% certain), so not part of the 19th Oct. report by Swanson.

Which may be consistent with the later release of that official police 'wanted' notice of 12th Nov. in the Daily Telegraph, where the description for Pipeman is not given. We only read the one for BS-man.

That footnote must have been written after 19th Oct. Which must suggest that he was still suspect prior to that date.

[Batman]

I think you will find that this comment was not written by Swanson.

If you backtrack to the previous page (assuming you are using the "Ultimate"), you will see the beginning of a footnote. I was informed that this was the writing of G. Lushington? (though not 100% certain), so not part of the 19th Oct. report by Swanson.

Which may be consistent with the later release of that official police 'wanted' notice of 12th Nov. in the Daily Telegraph, where the description for Pipeman is not given. We only read the one for BS-man.

That footnote must have been written after 19th Oct. Which must suggest that he was still suspect prior to that date.

I dont see the footnote. Which edition and page please.

[Wickerman]

I dont see the footnote. Which edition and page please.

I have the first edition, hdbk, the marginal note (sorry, not footnote) begins 8 lines up from the bottom of page 123, and then ends 6 lines down from the top of page 124.

I have to admit, that inserted marginal note caught me out once before.

[Batman]

I have the Robinson version so I don't think I have that referenced. Maybe someone else with my version can help me.