Schwartz and Brown

[lynn cates]

Hello. I have searched the threads diligently and cannot find a comparison of the testimonies of Schwartz and Brown regarding the Liz Stride event. I am perhaps overlooking the forest for the trees.

Since both these men's purported sightings are roughly cotemporal (12:45), are they:

1. Describing different aspects of the same event?

1A. Is broad shouldered man (BS man) the same as brushed off man (BO man)?

2. Different events with different men?

Finally, which piece of testimony is more reliable? Schwartz was not fluent in English nor was he called to the coroner's inquest. Brown was "almost sure" he had seen Liz. (Begg, Fido, and Skinner suggest he may have been a block or two over and witnessed a different event altogether.)

Help!

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn,

Schwartz did not appear at the inquest, but that doesn't mean he wasn't called. We simply do not know why he didn't appear. As far as comparisons, many have been done. If we are working on the assumption that Brown and Schwartz both saw Liz and within a few minutes of each other, then it's very unlikely that Brown saw BS Man. He either saw 'Pipeman' with her or another man entirely.
I don't believe Brown was a 'block or two over' from where he said he was, because he was able to name the place he bought his dinner from and he was very familiar with the area.
Liz had a very distinctive appearance and Brown seems to have been an honest witness, so I'd say it's probable (though not certain) he saw Liz.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

chronology

Hello Tom. Thanks. So perhaps Brown's sighting slightly predates Schwartz?

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

It could have. Brown could have been off by a few minutes as well as Schwartz. That's why I say Brown could have witnessed Pipeman talking to Liz.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Hi folks,

I like Toms assessment of Brown, but I do think that there is a flawed perception that is present in the comments that I see a lot of posters use....that the absolute absence of any police records, press records or official memos that Schwartz had anything to do with the Inquest doesnt mean that he wasnt involved. In fact, those facts strongly suggests just that. The only lingering element from Israels statement that is discussed in later memos regards the call of "Lipski", because it is pivotal to their own opinion that the killer was a poor local Jew.....who wouldnt likely use a taunt that is anti-semetic. They dont talk about BSM....or Pipeman, or anything else related to his statement.

My belief is that they eventually came to the conclusion that Schwarzts statement intentionally inserts an anti-semite into a scenario that should have cast suspicion on a killer that was Jewish...since all the men at that location that night were Jewish, and they owned the death site property which was inside their own gates.....and senior officials stated they thought Jack was a local Jew.

Brown did appear. He did say the time was 12:45...he wasnt contradicted by another account for the same time,..nor was Israels statement added to the records at that time even if he was absent from the proceedings.

Lawende was sequestered, introduced at the Inquest and had his suspect details suppressed.....a prime example of how they dealt with statements they felt were pivotal to the case. Lawende saw a man with Kate around 8 minutes before she was found dead, so he likely saw her killer....so he is very important. Israel says he saw Liz being accosted mere feet from and within 10-15 minutes from the time she is discovered murdered, with a single slit. So he very likely saw her killer....so he would be very important....yet he is totally absent from all Inquest coverage that exists regarding the Stride proceedings, and they had a few weeks due to postponements to investigate his story.

Best regards

[Phil Carter]

Isreal Swartz

Hello Michael,

I may stand corrected, but in Philip Sugden's book, I seem to recall he wrote that " Swartz's inquest testimony has not survived".. so instaed it is a 2nd hand rendition we know of.. or am I up too late at night (it's 2a.m.) and need some sleep?

best wishes

Phil

[perrymason]

Hello Michael,

I may stand corrected, but in Philip Sugden's book, I seem to recall he wrote that " Swartz's inquest testimony has not survived".. so instaed it is a 2nd hand rendition we know of.. or am I up too late at night (it's 2a.m.) and need some sleep?

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

I dont have my copy handy, but I believe that all of the reminiscences of Israel's statement Sunday night came from Swanson's notes....which makes sense, if the hard file copies disappeared...he would at least have had summaries for the statements in his reports. I believe Mr Sugden likely assumed, (as do many of the people who have read and studied these cases and have seen mention of portions of Israels story with investigative support attached), that Israel was indeed a well supported witness and of value in at least the Stride Inquest, and that he likely appeared.

Im more suspicious perhaps than Mr Sugden....who is by the way the author of my personal favourite Ripper murders book.....I suppose I see his absence in black and white terms, and having his story appear in notes but not in public transcriptions of the Inquest testimonies to me places doubt that A) he did appear, and B) that he provided an accurate story that includes Liz Stride.

For example....what If they thought he saw something, and that "Lipksi" was a relevant feature of the story....but they didnt believe it was as he described it...or where he said it took place. That would explain the appearance of only that feature of his story in later notations and comments by the Investigators.

Ive said before, If Israel was actually leaving the club, via the side door, and saw BSM and Liz and Pipeman inside the gates, BSM and Liz arguing, then I can see them omitting his public testimony and not even mentioning him.... but privately using his "Lipski" for investigative purposes.

Only Israel saw BSM and Liz and Pipeman, and no-one including witnesses that were about... off and on.. and witnessed the street from 12:45 until 1am, saw Israel or any of the other 3 people.

Cheers Phil

[Chris]

I believe Mr Sugden likely assumed, (as do many of the people who have read and studied these cases and have seen mention of portions of Israels story with investigative support attached), that Israel was indeed a well supported witness and of value in at least the Stride Inquest, and that he likely appeared.

Sugden knew perfectly well that Schwartz didn't appear at Stride's inquest, and discussed possible reasons for his non-appearance (p. 202).

[Stephen Thomas]

Was the 'Lipski shout' mentioned in newspapers at the time?

[Sam Flynn]

Was the 'Lipski shout' mentioned in newspapers at the time?

It wasn't, Stephen - which leads me to believe that it might have been suppressed to avoid stoking up anti-Semitic fires. The concerns held by the police in this regard is perhaps reflected in the way in which they treated the GSG, both on the street and in internal memos.

[Stephen Thomas]

It wasn't, Stephen - which leads me to believe that it might have been suppressed to avoid stoking up anti-Semitic fires. The concerns held by the police in this regard is perhaps reflected in the way in which they treated the GSG, both on the street and in internal memos.

Thanks, Sam

So 1976 was the first time the Lipski/Mr BS stuff surfaced.

Interesting or what?

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Sam

So 1976 was the first time the Lipski/Mr BS stuff surfaced.

Interesting or what?

It looks like it, Stephen. The Schwartz story was, in outline, carried by The Star of the 1st October 1888 - but it doesn't give Schwartz's name, and there's mention of "broad shoulders" or the cry of "Lipski!" either. It does, however, report that Schwartz told of a second man "shouting out some sort of warning" to the chap ill-using Liz Stride.

Apropos the police perhaps wanting to keep a tight lid on any Semitic connections, it's interesting to note that Schwartz is only described as an "Hungarian" in the article - not "Jewish". Furthermore, the Star also has this to say: "He [Schwartz] gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them". Of course, that might well have been in order to respect the privacy of the witness, but it does make one think.

[Jon Guy]

2. Different events with different men?

Hi Lynn

I believe Brown saw another couple by the Board School in Fairclough St.

The same couple were seen by Fanny Mortimer, before, and after the murder when they walked up to the club gates and spoke to her. They were hanging around the bottom of the Berner St before the murder, and as Brown came along Fairclough St to the chandlers (which was on the corner of Berner St opposite the Nelson where Pipeman was standing) it has to have been this couple that he saw.

Although he identified Stride at the morgue, he didn`t notice any flower on the woman he saw, and the man had a long coat and he couldn`t remember whether there was any head wear.

[lynn cates]

flower disparity

Hello Jon. Thanks. I was always struck by the "flower disparity."

Trying to identify victims/suspects by their clothing seems to me a dubious enterprise at best. And yet how many of our "better" witnesses did precisely that?

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

To me the interesting thing about Browns sighting is that the situation that he says he saw was not a threatening one....overtly. They were talking, albeit his arm may have blocked her passage, but Brown didnt say she was stressed or struggling. The tussle that ended with a fall with BSM appears confrontational and potentially enough to stir up some anger or defensive posturing on Liz's part......yet within minutes she is bleeding to death inside the gates with cashous in her hand. The cashous will always be a problem with the Schwartz account.....yet they pose no problem with the Brown story.

The timing and the cashous have to play a role in the determination of whom to follow I think......regardless who is the one giving the 12:45am story on the stand...or who isnt.

Best regards