Is Mr Schwartz the equivalent of a Hasidic Hutchinson?

[Guest]

Hello all,

I've been looking more critically at the event records regarding the Stride murder investigation and to my eye it would seem that what Israel Schwartz represents in the big picture is essentially the same thing that George Hutchinson later represents in the Kelly investigation, based solely on what the existing and known records suggest. They are promises unfulfilled.

Both gave very close proximity ID's, and in Schwartz's case, his statement impacts the investigation a great deal at first....offering an off-site altercation involving the soon to be murdered woman and a Broadshouldered Man, feet from the murder location, and just minutes from the estimated time of her throat being cut. Lending itself to a suggestion that she was killed by someone not club affiliated. Occurring off the property of the International Club, but just outside their "empty yard", by their own member witness accounts. A significant sighting if accurate.

Hutchinson's story convinces Inspector Abberline, and offers the police the absolute best suspect description if accurate of all the alleged Ripper sightings. He re-introduces a well heeled suspect, as seen in Packers story. But this was a notion that few investigators thought probable, a poor local man was the ideal suspect until George Hutchinson came in on Monday November 12, 1888, after 6pm, and the closure of Marys Inquest.

Both gave what amounts to very important information if truthful......yet Israel Schwartz, and his story and suspect are not even mentioned in Liz Strides Inquest, and we also know that the Police felt Hutchinson's story was not to be believed by no later than November 16th. He was "discredited".

The Inquest for Liz Stride opened Monday Oct 1st...after Schwartz's statement was on record, and was held over 5 days in October, ending Oct 23rd. There was ample time for them to Investigate his story and character fully during that period, even if only to bring him in on the final day, October 23rd. Yet the Inquest clearly shows they deferred to Mr Browns suspect instead, both having the same approximate time mentioned.

To me that suggests the authorities felt that the most likely last witness account of Liz Stride and the one they were prepared to support was not one with her and a Broadshouldered Man seen assaulting her, but one that is described by the Victorian Godfather of Soul , James Brown...a dock laborer from Fairclough Street...

"He saw the couple standing by the Board School; the woman had her back to the wall, facing the man who had his arm up against it. Brown heard the woman say "No, not tonight, some other night" which attracted his attention. There was no trace of an accent in the woman's voice. The man was described as being about 5ft 7in tall and stoutly built, wearing a long overcoat which went down almost to his heels. He was wearing a hat, but Brown was unable to describe it. It was quite dark, so he could not tell if the woman was wearing a flower on her jacket, but both appeared sober."

Note that they are not near the gates at all. And that the woman demurred for that particular night, but in a way that left future "meetings" as not possible. It also may indicate that she was not soliciting that night. She was not mistreated by this man, nor did she seemed stressed in his company, even with his arm blocking her path.

Since the official version of the events witnessed at 12:45am on Berner Street comes from James Brown, not Israel Schwartz, I suggest one of these 2 answers are probable......One, that Israel Schwartz was disbelieved by the authorities and felt to be a less trustworthy source than James Brown was,.... or Two, that Schwartz's omission at the Inquest and the absence of his story altogether as a witness was to enable them to use him quietly and discreetly to view some later suspects. And perhaps as the grounds for an issuance of a Pardon for Accomplices after Marys murder.......based on Schwartz's inclusion of Pipeman with a knife in one account in addition to BSM's altercation with Liz, and Wideawake Hat seen at Marys location.

In the second option I mention, that would be very much the kind of role that has been assumed was filled by Lawende, including being called for later line-ups and possibly a face to face ID with a patient in a Mental Institution under police arrest.

I personally believe that Schwartz's Broadshouldered Man is not likely the Ripper by his entrance and interaction with witnesses, but very possibly her killer.....if his story is truthful.....but Browns account would better fit a Ripper pick-up profile,....if his was the truth.

The only way to tell is what the authorities believed is the evidence that they chose to present regarding their investigations. And there is no official sanction of Israel Schwartz.

I believe at the very least, Brown should be considered the final sighting of Liz Stride going forward....which would therefore place question on Israels motives for fabricating a story. Like we see hundred page threads doing regarding George Hutchinson all the time.

Any comments, ideas and thoughts are welcome.

Best regards all.

[halomanuk]

Oh Mike what have you done ?
Created another thread (albeit an interesting one ) with Hutchinson in it ?
Oh woe !!

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Michael. For the record, I see no reason to think Schwartz was Hassidic. Hassidic is not a synonym for Jew.

There certainly are similarities here, and this is an issue I've brought up many times...why is Hutchinson damned as a liar and even a murderer whereas Schwartz is taken at face value? The main reason has to do with Swanson's endorsement in his famous report. However, Swanson could not personally endorse Schwartz's veracity, since he took no part in the interrogation. He merely commented that the 'police report left no doubt' as to Schwartz's honesty. In short, the interrogating detective believed Schwartz. The detective in question was Abberline, the same man who put his short-lived stamp of approval on George Hutchinson.

According to the Star, the police arrested a couple of men based on Schwartz's evidence, but were reluctant to move further on it unless supporting evidence came forth. If the Star is correct, then the police as a whole were not that confident in Schwartz's information.

In comparing Schwartz to Hutchinson, there's two important factors that seperate them. In Schwartz's favor, his evidence is more believable on the face of it. In Hutchinson's favor, at least there's a modicum of support that he was where he said he was at the time he said he was. Schwartz found no such support for his statement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Hi Michael. For the record, I see no reason to think Schwartz was Hassidic. Hassidic is not a synonym for Jew.

There certainly are similarities here, and this is an issue I've brought up many times...why is Hutchinson damned as a liar and even a murderer whereas Schwartz is taken at face value? The main reason has to do with Swanson's endorsement in his famous report. However, Swanson could not personally endorse Schwartz's veracity, since he took no part in the interrogation. He merely commented that the 'police report left no doubt' as to Schwartz's honesty. In short, the interrogating detective believed Schwartz. The detective in question was Abberline, the same man who put his short-lived stamp of approval on George Hutchinson.

According to the Star, the police arrested a couple of men based on Schwartz's evidence, but were reluctant to move further on it unless supporting evidence came forth. If the Star is correct, then the police as a whole were not that confident in Schwartz's information.

In comparing Schwartz to Hutchinson, there's two important factors that seperate them. In Schwartz's favor, his evidence is more believable on the face of it. In Hutchinson's favor, at least there's a modicum of support that he was where he said he was at the time he said he was. Schwartz found no such support for his statement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

The title was just a play on words with alliteration, I didnt mean to suggest Israel was in fact Hasidic.

But on your comments, it seems to me both witnesses have senior investigative support for their statements initially, and yet neither were considered in the short term to be viable stories.

The Inquest doesnt re-open to enter Hutchinsons remarks, and Israel's are not at all present in the Stride Inquest. Yet both had some support extended at one point. I believe that suggests they were both found to be less than credible when investigating their claims.

Hutchinson has no support for his story in the evidence, unless you assume he was Sarah's Wideawake Man, something I dont embrace fully myself. He could easily have used that story element to better position his fabrication by having that knowledge before he entered the station Monday night.

Best regards Tom.

[Tom_Wescott]

In both the case of Hutchinson and Schwartz, we have press reports telling us the police don't place too much faith in their evidence. Both do seem to fall off the radar, whereas Lawende is referenced years later.

Like you, I'm not convinced that Sarah Lewis saw Hutchinson. That's just something we assume. However, she DID see someone standing in that spot at that time, and after publication, Hutch emerged to put himself in that spot at that time. That would be rather odd of him had it not been him she saw. But I digress...Like you, I would like to hear from some people who could tell us why we should accept Schwartz as the Rosetta Stone of Berner Street witnesses.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[celee]

Hi,

I think both men were telling the truth. Hutchinson is the sronger witness because he actually new the victim and I dentified her.

Your friend, Brad

[Tom_Wescott]

He claimed he knew her, but do we know that for sure? And Schwartz also identified the body of Liz Stride as the woman he saw, for all that's worth.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[celee]

Hi,

I am hard headed. I am still one of the few that believe Hutchinson's story. I think the fact that Hutchinson Knew the victim and talked to her the night he saw her, much like Cox, makes him a better witness then a man who is identifing a strange womens body. However, I believe Shwartz too.

It is strange that both men sightings seem to be dismissed by Abberline.. He could have just decided that Cox was the best witness. However, I can't explain why Abberline would later claim that no one ever got a good look at the ripper and those who did only saw him from behind.

The cry of "Oh murder" heard by two independant women around 3:45 in the morning just puts doubts in my mind concerning every witness. Maybe it put doubts in Abberline's mind aswell

Your friend, Brad

[Tom_Wescott]

If ever I'm on trial, I want you on the jury, Brad.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[celee]

Hi Tom,

I guess a friend on the jury is always a good thing.

I just think that the cry of murder that two different woman heard would cause any decent Detective to take pause. Sarah Lewis claimed the scream was loud and sounded like it was right outside the door. Pratter claimed the scream was faint but she had been awaken by the cat. The Cat may have been frightend by the activities taking place below.

I know that it has been suggested that a cry of murder is common in the East End, but how common, and how often is a loud cry of murder heard and the next morning a neighbor is found butchered in her room.

The Cry puts the time of her death just before four in the morning. There would have to be alot of time accounted for to explain what Cox's suspect and George's were doing with Kelly before he attacked her.

If Abberline beieved the cry of murder came from Kelly then he may have just dismissed all the witnesses in favor of the theory that Kelly went back out after three in the morning. In my opinion very possible>

Your friend, Brad

[perrymason]

Hi Folks,

Im glad you read my intentions clearly Tom, I do think its time to re-visit Schwartz's viability and his influence on the potential scenarios that have been discussed about that murder and crime scene. Without his story we have Liz at 12:45am still some yards from the gates to Dutfields Yard, engaged in a quiet discussion with a man leaning over her, perhaps blocking her path with his arm. She might well have had cashous in her hand.

Brad, I admire the fortitude of you and others that swim upstream on Hutchinson's worth to these investigations, but I also believe that its not viable evidence that he provides. Almost everyone believes that Astrakan Man was at least embellished if not fictional, but the police who interviewed him believed something more than that, ...they felt his "story" was not credible. His whole story.

With both witnesses as Tom pointed out, we have initial written support for their stories by credible investigators...one very senior one. In Hutchinsons case we are told his story was discreditted, and his lateness in giving it explains why he isnt giving this evidence in the Inquest. In Schwartz's case, we have roughly 3 weeks for them to verify his story and still have it told at the Inquest. But not only is the story not told, but we are given no idea by the presentation of evidence throughout the Inquest that the story even existed. Without the papers and Swanson's notation, Israel doesnt exist in this investigation at all.

A man who claimed to see a murder victim being accosted feet from, and minutes before, her murder...a killer who is thought to be Jack the Ripper and was seen and heard by the same simple man walking down Berner at almost 1am....what possible reason could there be to exclude that statement from the official records of the Inquest?

I can think of the 2 that I mentioned......he wasnt believed, or he was kept under wraps by the authorities for some reason.

Im leaning towards disbelieved....even though we dont know who the Jewish witness is that is later taken to ID a patient who was Jewish. Maybe it wasnt Lawende.

Either way.....his story is I believe unusable due to the absence of any indication aside from Swansons comments that he gave trusted witness evidence.

With Hutch we KNOW he wasnt trusted.

Best regards Tom, Brad.

[Chris]

Without the papers and Swanson's notation, Israel doesnt exist in this investigation at all.

You're forgetting the correspondence about his evidence by Abberline and Anderson - the latter of whom actually believed he had given evidence at the inquest. If Schwartz was discredited by the police, they didn't tell Anderson about it!

And when you speak of Swanson's statement in relation to the inquest, you should remember that to all intents and purposes the inquest had been over for two weeks when Swanson wrote. It was only briefly resumed to hear evidence about the identity of the victim - nothing at all about the crime. If Schwartz wasn't called because he was somehow discredited, why would Swanson be unaware of that when he came to discuss his evidence in detail more than a fortnight later?

[Robert]

Leaving Hutchinson aside (oh bloody hell, yes) it's true that the police may have discounted Schwarz's story for a number of reasons - but I doubt if these had anything to do with a lack of good faith on Schwarz's part. Schwarz was a Jew, indeed in appearance strongly so. He was living in an area where anti-semitism was common. So he would have been a fool to admit that he had seen a Gentile woman possibly being attacked by the Ripper and had walked away, unless he had a good reason for saying it, i.e. because it had happened.

Also, he doesn't seem to have been a publicity-seeker. This mayfly Schwarz appears and disappears in the blink of an eye.

[celee]

Hi Mike,

Hutchinson was discredited? The only prove we have of this is a Newspaper articl that ran a paragragh claiming that his story was discredited, am I missing something?

Abberline seems to discount every witness during his 1903 interview.

Your friend, Brad

[Ben]

Good points, Tom.

I think the fact that Hutchinson Knew the victim and talked to her the night he saw her, much like Cox

But neither of those things are "facts", Brad. They're just claims made by Hutchinson that have never been verified.

Hutchinson's evidence was apparently discredited, yes. Besides the press account and Abberline's 1903 interview, we also have the observations of other senior police officials, including Robert Anderson and Melville Macnaghten. The former observed that the only person to have acquired a good look at the murderer was Jewish, while the latter stated that nobody saw the killer unless it was the City PC near Mitre Square. Accepting that Macnaghten had simply confused or amalgamated eyewitness accounts from the double event, it's clear that all criteria (City witness, PC, Mitre Square) rule out Hutchinson.

Best regards,
Ben