Is Mr Schwartz the equivalent of a Hasidic Hutchinson?

[Tom_Wescott]

* Schwartz willingly went to the police with an interpreter. If I'm not mistaken, he alone of the Berner Street witnesses appearing at the inquest, did not come about from the police door knocking.

My choice of words here was bad. That's what I get for doing all my posting at work between calls! I didn't mean to suggest that Schwartz appeared at the inquest, which is obviously not the case. But Inspector Reid made a point of saying that all the inquest witnesses from Berner Street came about as a result of their door-knocking. Schwartz did not.

I agree that Schwartz's absense means something. Maybe something little, maybe not. I can't call it proof that they didn't believe in his statement, because the Swanson report and the exchange with Abberline came well after the inquest started, and at that time, he had clearly not been discounted ala Packer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Hey Tom,

I think this is possibly another instance where investigators might choose... and have the right to do so... at what stage in the investigation information is to be released officially. If his story was believed and being investigated quietly during the Inquest, we might never have the need or cause to have them address that later on.....there is never a trial.

But there is a "rumor" that a Jewish witness was used for ID's later on. To me, one possible answer includes Israel instead of Lawende as their go to guy.

Its one of the few reasons I can imagine for them not even mentioning the sighting or the witness at the Inquest.

Best Regards

[Tom_Wescott]

But there is a "rumor" that a Jewish witness was used for ID's later on. To me, one possible answer includes Israel instead of Lawende as their go to guy.

This is no rumor, this happened on more than one occassion, and the press was specific in one instance that it was Lawende, so I doubt Schwartz had anything to do with the later ID parades.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

This is no rumor, this happened on more than one occassion, and the press was specific in one instance that it was Lawende, so I doubt Schwartz had anything to do with the later ID parades.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You may be right Tom, and I did know that the ID's occurred in notations and press materials, but I dont recall seeing a formal confirmation of that in police logs or on a report.

Im sure you see my point though.....to me it seems that Israels absence from the formal records of the evidence gathered at Inquest must either be due to his storys perceived value and that he was purposefully kept from exposing himself publicly...or that the story wasnt felt to be of enough importance to give to the jurors.

Since we have senior support for his story on paper, and since his story contains an altercation between the deceased and a man very near to the time and place of her death, it would have to be considered important if believed.

Best regards

[dixon9]

being a novice at this (and i know i will never be up to scratch like you experts) but i really cant work out why Israel Schwartz was not called as a witness at the inquest.Was it an oversight/error by the police or did they just not believe him?

[caz]

Hi All,

Just caught up with this thread.

I imagine there was only so much that could be done if Schwartz was wanted for the Inquest but for whatever reason (illness, travel, fear of "Lipski" man's revenge for grassing him up, or fear of not keeping his story straight?) he had made himself scarce. Might that perhaps account for extra attention being given to others with any information about the deceased's likely movements in the run up to her violent death? Were they simply having to make the best of the witnesses who did attend because they couldn't have Schwartz?

Mind you, if that were the case I can't imagine Hutchinson would have been let out of anyone's sight, once he came into view, in case a suspect were subsequently found for Stride's murder (or indeed any of the other murders) who could suddenly make GH's account relevant again, despite whatever reasons had led to it being filed under 'Moving Swiftly On'. We don't after all know what those reasons were.

Sightings of any specific individual with one or more of the victims would have been useless if the police had no means of finding and producing the relevant prosecution witnesses as and when needed for their day in court.

Of course, people are free to doubt Schwartz's reliability as a witness, but they can't drop him like a brick if they also reject the possibility that the ripper was interrupted. They need him to confirm that the killer launched an initial attack on Stride at 12.45, just like they need Blackwell to confirm that Stride was killed in the 10 minute window between 12.46 and 12.56 (and preferably nearer to 12.46) or there is simply no possible obstacle to the 1am Rippus Interruptus theory.

It doesn't matter how good Perry Mason thinks he is at reading and interpreting the various reports of what Blackwell said, because each and every one allows for the fatal cut to have been made very shortly before the killer, whoever he was, felt obliged for whatever reason to make himself scarce. None of the reports I've read had Blackwell putting the most likely time of death any earlier than 12.56. On the contrary, his reported best guess was that she had been dead for 20 minutes or less, before conceding 30 minutes as an absolute maximum. It's just like an antiques expert saying "I fully expect this vase to fetch £20 or less at auction, but certainly not a penny over £30". Nothing wrong with the English usage there, and it wouldn't mean that he had instantly revised his estimate mid-sentence from nought-£20 to somewhere between £20 and £30. It would simply mean that if the vase went for as much as £25 he'd be surprised.

The only conditions that would make any kind of interruption scenario in any way implausible (though still far from impossible) would be if Schwartz had indeed seen the killer attacking Stride at 12.45 and she had indeed died several minutes before the pony and cart could be heard approaching. But if the argument is that the ripper could not have stopped himself from using those spare minutes to inflict some damage on the dead body, it makes no sense that a one-off killer, already seen by two witnesses, would not have used the same spare minutes to make absolutely sure that his third witness, Stride herself, was silenced for good - absolutely vital if she could have identified her attacker. Would an inexperienced knifeman have known, or trusted to luck, that this single cut would prove fatal?

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

Hi All,

Of course, people are free to doubt Schwartz's reliability as a witness, but they can't drop him like a brick if they also reject the possibility that the ripper was interrupted. They need him to confirm that the killer launched an initial attack on Stride at 12.45, just like they need Blackwell to confirm that Stride was killed in the 10 minute window between 12.46 and 12.56 (and preferably nearer to 12.46) or there is simply no possible obstacle to the 1am Rippus Interruptus theory.

It doesn't matter how good Perry Mason thinks he is at reading and interpreting the various reports of what Blackwell said, because each and every one allows for the fatal cut to have been made very shortly before the killer, whoever he was, felt obliged for whatever reason to make himself scarce. None of the reports I've read had Blackwell putting the most likely time of death any earlier than 12.56. On the contrary, his reported best guess was that she had been dead for 20 minutes or less, before conceding 30 minutes as an absolute maximum. It's just like an antiques expert saying "I fully expect this vase to fetch £20 or less at auction, but certainly not a penny over £30". Nothing wrong with the English usage there, and it wouldn't mean that he had instantly revised his estimate mid-sentence from nought-£20 to somewhere between £20 and £30. It would simply mean that if the vase went for as much as £25 he'd be surprised.


X

Not only are you consistently rude and often flagrantly misquoting....see the above quote in bold, "she had been dead for 20 minutes or less".... or making up position statements of others, now you make this reasonable question a farce.

When Blackwell says "within 20 minutes of my arrival, not more than half an hour," that cannot possibly mean he felt it was probably less than 20 minutes. Not in English anyway. Unless English is your second language, you would know that immediately. In case that is an issue for you, his quote translates to times of 12:56am and 12:46am respectively.....meaning her throat was probably cut between 12:56 and 12:46am,....in his estimation...not mine.

Since Diemshutz places himself at the gates at 1am, and could be heard approaching for a few minutes prior.....its not me who has to find a reason to discount an interruption....its you and others who have to fill in at least 4 minutes after the throat cut to Diemshutzs' horse shying....to as much as 14 minutes of killer inactivity.

Did he stand and stare at her lying there for a few minutes....maybe he panicked hearing the horse and cart....(a guy who cuts open a woman on a sidewalk in plain view now panicking hidden behind gates and in darkness....please..).....is he planning on where to start cutting, or whether he should open her legs, or whether he should lift or cut through the ankle length skirt, ...(that was not a problem before or after Liz for him).........is he washing his hands in the kitchen for a moment....is he writing Strides name down on his list of victims, playing solitaire.....exactly what reason would you prefer?

Since youve made it abundantly clear on many related topics that you believe what you believe without having any specific supporting evidence, Im sure youll pick a good one out for yourself. Maybe writing some down on paper and putting them all into a hat to pick one from might be fun. No need to get bogged down with evidence and all that rigmarole.

She dies with a single artery cut, may have been cut while falling, and is found in the position she first hit the ground in, completely untouched. No false starts of anything, and no incomplete..."interrupted"....Jack-like moves.

If this is the best you can do, Id appreciate you wasting your bile on someone else's post and time.

The thread, by the by, concerns the fact that both Hutchinson and Schwartz share non-Inquest status, and only Schwartz's story is not clearly and definitely discredited. Hutchinson was found to be a liar in their opinion within 72 hours or so, was Schwartz also... during the almost 3 weeks the Inquest was held over? One could not appear...one was not asked to appear, and these were 2 important sightings if accurate.

I submit that considering the time they had to investigate Hutchinson before tossing him out, if they investigated Schwartz and believed him, they would have had nearly 3 additional weeks to schedule his statement at the Inquest.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

it makes no sense that a one-off killer, already seen by two witnesses, would not have used the same spare minutes to make absolutely sure that his third witness, Stride herself, was silenced for good - absolutely vital if she could have identified her attacker. Would an inexperienced knifeman have known, or trusted to luck, that this single cut would prove fatal?

That's an interesting way of looking at it, Caz. Another is to ponder whether an inexperienced knifeman wouldn't have known any better, and thought he'd done quite enough already. Yet another is to consider whether it wasn't an experienced knifeman who wasn't quite as unhinged as the Ripper. A further possibility is that he could have been a knifeman (experience immaterial) who had no intention of plunging his hands into a "fresh" abdominal cavity, and hence had no need to effect a significant and rapid loss of blood.

[Jeff Leahy]

I everyone,

Surely you are all missing the elephant in the room here?

Unless you wish to believe that Swanson and Anderson were going senile, or more improbable that they were lying in some bizarre conspiracy theory.

Surely Schwartz not Lawende is the only probable witness, at their suggested ID parade?

And while SPD has made a plausible explanation that Swanson confused the ID with that of Saddlers ID in Cole’s case. That in it self is full of holes and unexplained lose ends.

Lets face it the ELEPHANT is the simple fact that SCHWARTZ was, at least believed by SWANSON and ANDERSON….if we except the authenticity of the Marginalia….which lets face it all the evidence suggests…is genuine..

And therefore SCHWARTZ must have been a credible witness.

Pirate

[Chris]

Unless you wish to believe that Swanson and Anderson were going senile, or more improbable that they were lying in some bizarre conspiracy theory.

Surely Schwartz not Lawende is the only probable witness, at their suggested ID parade?

Unfortunately there's no "surely" about it.

[Jeff Leahy]

Surely being rhetorical….most probable witness? acceptable grammar?

[Chris]

What I meant was that Schwartz isn't the "only probable witness". I think it would be fair to say that Lawende and Schwartz are the only probable witnesses, but obviously opinions differ as to which of them is more probable.

[Jeff Leahy]

Ah yes, I can agree with that.

Although obviously other suggestions have been made about their witness (including the Mysterious Mitre Sq Policeman? and Hutchinson), Schwartz and Lawende are the most probable candidates.

Lawende, by his own admission ‘probably wouldn’t recognize the man again’ and was also used as the witness in the Saddler case only days before the supposed ‘seaside home ID’. Both facts tend to eliminate him…

Which largely leaves Schwartz. And Schwartz fits the bill nice and snuggly if you accept his timing was out, and his claimed incident happened only briefly before Deimschutz turns right from Commercial Road down Berner Street and right into Dutfield yard.

Especially if Jack disappears through Dutfeild Yard and out the back (via the mysterious locked from inside door) rather than leaving via Berner Street. Where he would have been seen by Diemschutz, if traveling in the direction of Mitre Square..

In fact, Diemschutz could theoretically have been turning into Berner Street as Schwartz and Pipeman head off down Berner Street (past Fairclough Street) in the opposite direction. Leaving only minutes between attack and finding body.

Strangely Mrs Mortimer hears nothing, not even a ‘Lipski’, but does hear Deimschutz cart pass her door.

But for my money the only witness of Jewish origin that could have seen and ID’d, Jack the Ripper, was Schwartz.

And his credibility is checked by his probability, of being the 'Seaside home' witness.

Pirate

[Chris]

Lawende, by his own admission ‘probably wouldn’t recognize the man again’ and was also used as the witness in the Saddler case only days before the supposed ‘seaside home ID’. Both facts tend to eliminate him…

But Lawende's doubts about whether he would know the man again scarcely eliminate him, as we know he was used in the Sadler case, and also probably in the Grant case.

The Seaside Home "identification" must have taken place before the attempted identification of Sadler, if it preceded Aaron's committal to Colney Hatch, as Swanson says. In any case, it's only a difficulty if one takes at face value everything Anderson says, which many people don't.

[Jeff Leahy]

But Lawende's doubts about whether he would know the man again scarcely eliminate him, as we know he was used in the Sadler case, and also probably in the Grant case.

Yes this is True. He may have had doubts but the police still pulled him in. Perhaps they thought something would jog his memory. Fair point however.

The Seaside Home "identification" must have taken place before the attempted identification of Sadler, if it preceded Aaron's committal to Colney Hatch, as Swanson says.

Then if Lawende had of positively identified Kosminski, why bring him in to identify Saddler? It wouldn't make sense?

In any case, it's only a difficulty if one takes at face value everything Anderson says, which many people don't.

Conveniently.

But seriously Anderson is indeed a complicated subject. The piont I'm making is simply that Schwartz is the best fit if Anderson is telling the truth, and thus he becomes a credible witness....

Now if Anderson told 'porkies' everything becomes more complicated. Personally I dont think he would lie on such a matter...but then I sit on the Fido side of the fence.

Pirate