Schwartz, a fraud?

[Sunny Delight]

Is there any possibility of Schwartz evidence being suppressed by Police with the coroners blessing? Or alternatively is there a possibility of Schwartz giving his evidence 'behind closed doors' so to speak? Maybe the whole 'Lipski' anti-semitic slur was deemed inappropriate to be given full press coverage?

[Herlock Sholmes]

His Oct 1 statement to the STAR was way too different from his police statement:

A SECOND MAN CAME OUT
of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings. He described

-even police had doubts: Oct 2 STAR:
In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

-----------------------

Coroners act 1887:

"It shall be the duty of the coroner in case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath of those who know the facts and circumstance of the case,or so much of such statement as is material,and any such deposition shall be signed by the witness and also by the coroner."

It would be "amateur hour" if Baxter did not include a witness who saw an assault on the victim minutes before the murder.The suggestion is silly.The inquest would be way too incomplete. Schwartz had 2 stories,in a barren/quiet street,he was guessing.

But the fact is that he didn’t appear at the Inquest and the Police did put his description of BS Man on the front page of the Police Gazette 18 days after that Star report about Leman Street Police. His evidence was also being mentioned as important into November by very senior police officers. If the police didn’t place and faith in his evidence it’s makes no sense that they would use it and even act on it.

Might not the Oct 2nd Star report have been the result of a reporter speaking to one officer who had doubts and who may have given the impression that his was a generally held view?

[Varqm]

His Oct 1 statement to the STAR was way too different from his police statement:

A SECOND MAN CAME OUT
of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings. He described

-even police had doubts: Oct 2 STAR:
In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

-----------------------

Coroners act 1887:

"It shall be the duty of the coroner in case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath of those who know the facts and circumstance of the case,or so much of such statement as is material,and any such deposition shall be signed by the witness and also by the coroner."

It would be "amateur hour" if Baxter did not include a witness who saw an assault on the victim minutes before the murder.The suggestion is silly.The inquest would be way too incomplete. Schwartz had 2 stories,in a barren/quiet street,he was guessing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Schwartz ultimately was not believed by the police it doesn't necessarily follow that they believed him to be lying. It could have been that because of the language barrier and his short time on the scene that they simply didn't know what the hell he had seen. They also might have concluded that he simply saw a little street hassle.

But if they did conclude that he was lying why then did they not prosecute him and why didn't they conclude that the club must have been involved in some sort of cover up? Connecting the dots in that case should have been pretty obvious to at least one person on the force.

c.d.

And why did they put his description of BS Man on the front of The Police Gazette on 20th October if they didn’t think that his statement was of value?

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Sunny
dont forget the peaked cap!
Now if Schwartz had mentioned a salt and pepper jacket, ....!!!

oh the many ifs... if only we had a little more information

Cheers
Ichabod Crane

Hi Icha
Did Schwartz mention a peaked cap? I don't recall that he did unless I am mistaken. Very true though on the lack of information. From the info we do have though the descriptions are very similar. Now if one or the other had described a 5ft 11 man with dark complexion, thin build, aged about 40 and clean shaven then there would have been a big problem!!

[Sunny Delight]

Who gave the following description? Star, Oct 1:

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Why is the age different to both Schwartz' Met account (30), and Star account (30)?

Why was the event witnessed by multiple people, when according to Abberline...?

There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

Collective silence will work for a while, but at some point, these and other Schwartz-related questions will have to beanswered.

I place zero substance upon newspaper reports when we have the actual Police files. The Met statement take precedent. That is what he told Police, that is what they had to work with. Newspaper reports have their place but only if Police files are unavailable and even then they need co-orboration and at times it helps if two or more reported the same thing(isolated reporting is subject to all sorts of caveats.).

As for your other question the Ripper may still have been tipsy by the time he got to Mitre Square(does this account for the much less systematic removal of organs?). The doctors thought it much more botched than his previous actions. Does it also account for poor decision making- the taking of half Eddowes apron? Then when he got to Goulston Street possibly spooked by a passer by he discards it in a panic? These are only thoughts of mine that may or may not have substance.

[c.d.]

If Schwartz ultimately was not believed by the police it doesn't necessarily follow that they believed him to be lying. It could have been that because of the language barrier and his short time on the scene that they simply didn't know what the hell he had seen. They also might have concluded that he simply saw a little street hassle.

But if they did conclude that he was lying why then did they not prosecute him and why didn't they conclude that the club must have been involved in some sort of cover up? Connecting the dots in that case should have been pretty obvious to at least one person on the force.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nonsense,at least to me and it seems Baxter too because he could not have left the most important witness out,an assault before the murder.Schwartz was walking down Berner St.,it was relatively barren/quiet early morning except the couple and a bit later the pipeman and he could not differentiate between man on the right was aggressive, differing with the STAR interview,the man on the left was aggressive.He must have been stoned.
So Baxter would have spend time in the inquest trying to determine whether witness's statement no. 1 was the correct statement or was it statement no. 2. Cmon.

from the Chapman inquest I think Insp. Chandler,just a little mistake.

The Daily Telegraph
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1888

Coroner] Did you see the handkerchief taken off the body? - I did not. The nurses must have taken it off the throat.
[Coroner] How do you know? - I don't know.
[Coroner] Then you are guessing? - I am guessing.
The Coroner: That is all wrong, you know. (To the jury). He is really not the proper man to have been left in charge.

If it would have been so important to Baxter why didn’t he simply call Schwartz to the Inquest to question him on it? Perhaps it was because Schwartz actually had little to add in terms of ‘how’ Stride was killed (the Doctor’s told him that) and ‘when’ (he had the Doctors TOD, Smith saying that he’d seen her around 12.35 and Diemschutz finding her at 1.00) Schwartz said that he’d seen her at 12.45 but she was still alive so, at best, he could have narrowed the TOD by 10 minutes.

[Varqm]

Because he was giving a statement in a police station. He wasn’t on the psychiatrists couch. If he said that he ran away then fear is implied. There’s nothing surreal about it apart from the attempts to implant a mystery into an entirely banal event. Man walks down street, sees a man attacking a woman, there’s a shout, another man is seen, man scarpers. Yes there are differences between the two versions but these can almost certainly been put down to misinterpretation and the language barrier.

Nonsense,at least to me and it seems Baxter too because he could not have left the most important witness out,an assault before the murder.Schwartz was walking down Berner St.,it was relatively barren/quiet early morning except the couple and a bit later the pipeman and he could not differentiate between man on the right was aggressive, differing with the STAR interview,the man on the left was aggressive.He must have been stoned.
So Baxter would have spend time in the inquest trying to determine whether witness's statement no. 1 was the correct statement or was it statement no. 2. Cmon.

from the Chapman inquest I think Insp. Chandler,just a little mistake.

The Daily Telegraph
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1888

Coroner] Did you see the handkerchief taken off the body? - I did not. The nurses must have taken it off the throat.
[Coroner] How do you know? - I don't know.
[Coroner] Then you are guessing? - I am guessing.
The Coroner: That is all wrong, you know. (To the jury). He is really not the proper man to have been left in charge.

[Varqm]

Baxter said in his summation :

At 1 o'clock the body was found by the manager of the club. He had been out all day, and returned at the time. He was in a two-wheeled barrow drawn by a pony, and as he entered the gateway his pony shied at some object on his right. There was no lamp in the yard, and having just come out of the street it was too dark to see what the object was and he passed on further down the yard. He returned on foot, and on searching found the body of deceased with her throat cut. If he had not actually disturbed the wretch in the very act, at least he must have been close on his heels; possibly the man was alarmed by the sound of the approaching cart, for the death had only just taken place. He did not inspect the body himself with any care, but blood was flowing from the throat, even when Spooner reached the spot some few minutes afterwards, and although the bleeding had stopped when Dr. Blackwell's assistant arrived, the whole of her body and the limbs, except her hands, were warm, and even at 16 minutes past 1 a.m.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Other than that, there is no indication of how Schwartz feels or what he perceives, other than the face value description of what he witnesses. Did he, for example, look at Stride's eyes and express what he saw? Was it fear he felt, when he runs from the scene? There is no mention of it. There is really no indication from either report, that Schwartz has any sense of humanity. He is just an impartial observer, even of his own behaviour. The whole story has a surreal quality to it.

Because he was giving a statement in a police station. He wasn’t on the psychiatrists couch. If he said that he ran away then fear is implied. There’s nothing surreal about it apart from the attempts to implant a mystery into an entirely banal event. Man walks down street, sees a man attacking a woman, there’s a shout, another man is seen, man scarpers. Yes there are differences between the two versions but these can almost certainly been put down to misinterpretation and the language barrier.

[Herlock Sholmes]

EDWARD SPOONER

Id just like to focus (hopefully on one last time) of the witnesses who allegedly point us to an earlier time of death and get opinions. Witnesses should be assessed in full and not just partially or selectively so let’s assess.

Spooner basically gives us 5 points from which we can try and assess what time he arrived at Dutfield’s Yard. My first point is an obvious one in that caution should be applied to a man that contradicts himself within the space of a few lines of testimony. It’s hardly conducive to confidence. So, the five points....

1. “The only means I had of fixing the time was by the closing of the publichouses. I stood at the top of the street for about five minutes, and then 25 minutes outside the publichouse. I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went to the yard.”

We notice first of all that Spooner doesn’t have a watch and he doesn’t see a clock so he’s making an estimation based on pub closing times. So are there any ways that he might have been mistaken? Could he just have seen someone coming out of a pub late and assumed that it was just after closing time but it was actually later - could it have been a barman going home? Could he have seen lights going off and assumed that it was just after closing time when actually the landlord/staff had just spent time cleaning/tidying up? Or perhaps he was talking about the Club? He arrived there and there were around 15 people in the yard and he assumed that the club had just closed at 12.30? His thinking might have been that it couldn’t have been 1.00 because they wouldn’t have still been there?

I’m not saying that any of my suggestions are true but they are possibles and it’s up to individual posters to assess how plausible or not they are. Either way we can’t deny that Spooner said 12.35 (and no one has ever tried to deny this.)

Point 1 = 12.35

2. “Between half-past 12 and 1 o’clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. I had previously been in another beershop at the top of the street, and afterwards walked down. After talking for about 25 minutes.”

This is as clear as mud of course but surely everyone would have to agree that by no stretch of the imagination does this point to Spooner getting to the yard at 12.35? If we give him the biggest benefit of the doubt that we can and take it back to 12.30 then 25 minutes spent talking still gets us to 12.55. If he began his conversation at 12.35 then we have 1.00 of course. So...

Point 2 = 12.55 (when he talks to Diemschutz)

3. “I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out “Murder” and “Police.”

This was very obviously Diemschutz and Kozebrodski (Diemschutz confirms meeting Spooner and Brown heard them calling “police” and “murder.”) Exact times are impossible of course so I’ll give an approximate one which can’t be far wrong.

Point 3 = 1.03 (when he sees Diemschutz and Kozebrodski)

4. By the jury. – As I was going to Berner-street I did not meet any one except Mr. Harris, who came out of his house in Tiger Bay (Brunswick-street). Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman’s whistle blowing.

We know that there were no whistles blown before 1.00. If there were the police would have responded to them but they didn’t.

Point 4 = after 1.00

5. “I stood there about five minutes before a constable came.”

We know that Lamb got to the yard after 1.00 but of course we can’t give and exact time.

Point 5 = 1.00 or just after.

..........


So to sum up we have 5 times from Spooner’s Inquest testimony - are they all close? Do they tie up? I’d say that there’s a pretty obvious trend. One of these points gives us a ‘way out’ time of 12.35 whilst four points all give a time of around 1.00 or just after.

Which time carries the most weight? The 12.35 which was an estimation based on pub closing times or the 4 times around 1.00 (3 of which are confirmed by the actions of others) Can anyone taking a reasoned, unbiased approach, with hand on heart say that 12.35 was the likeliest or the correct one? I’d suggest that the answer to that is about as obvious as it could be.

Edward Spooner doesn’t confirm an earlier discovery time. An assessment shows that he was very obviously mistaken when he said 12.35. He even contradicts himself. Four times!

For clarity of course, on point 1 I neglected to post the part where he said ‘between 12.30 and 1.00’

[IchabodCrane]

Schwartz was a key witness and it may be we never fully get to the bottom of him not appearing at the inquest. What we do know is that he was believed and his story is not contradicted by anyone else. I have a fair degree of certainty that the man Scwartz saw was the Ripper- let's not forget this was a man who had killed 2 or 3 women(maybe 4) already and was becoming more and more daring with each attack. This was his first real mistake. Scwartz told the papers the man seemed to be drunk or at least tipsy- did this inhibit his usual caution as well. A feeling of invincibility with the added alcohol surely adds up to a mistake or two. The calling of 'Lipski' at Schwartz would seem to imply a local man as the attacker. This fits with what we know about serial killers. They are often local. Boring. Dull. Run of the mill. To me this was the Ripper intoxicated and careless or more careless than his previous attacks and Schwartz got a good look.

What is even more telling however is that when compared with the man Lawende would describe the similarities are striking.

Schwartz description of suspect:

Aged 30
5ft 5inches tall
Broad Shoulders
Small brown moustache
Fair Complexion

Lawende description of suspect:

Aged 30
5ft 7inches tall
Medium Build
Fair moustache
Fair Complexion

Surely it is the same man. And if it is the same man then Schwartz is the key to unlocking the whole case.

Hi Sunny
dont forget the peaked cap!
Now if Schwartz had mentioned a salt and pepper jacket, ....!!!

oh the many ifs... if only we had a little more information

Cheers
Ichabod Crane

[Herlock Sholmes]

EDWARD SPOONER

Id just like to focus (hopefully on one last time) of the witnesses who allegedly point us to an earlier time of death and get opinions. Witnesses should be assessed in full and not just partially or selectively so let’s assess.

Spooner basically gives us 5 points from which we can try and assess what time he arrived at Dutfield’s Yard. My first point is an obvious one in that caution should be applied to a man that contradicts himself within the space of a few lines of testimony. It’s hardly conducive to confidence. So, the five points....

1. “The only means I had of fixing the time was by the closing of the publichouses. I stood at the top of the street for about five minutes, and then 25 minutes outside the publichouse. I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went to the yard.”

We notice first of all that Spooner doesn’t have a watch and he doesn’t see a clock so he’s making an estimation based on pub closing times. So are there any ways that he might have been mistaken? Could he just have seen someone coming out of a pub late and assumed that it was just after closing time but it was actually later - could it have been a barman going home? Could he have seen lights going off and assumed that it was just after closing time when actually the landlord/staff had just spent time cleaning/tidying up? Or perhaps he was talking about the Club? He arrived there and there were around 15 people in the yard and he assumed that the club had just closed at 12.30? His thinking might have been that it couldn’t have been 1.00 because they wouldn’t have still been there?

I’m not saying that any of my suggestions are true but they are possibles and it’s up to individual posters to assess how plausible or not they are. Either way we can’t deny that Spooner said 12.35 (and no one has ever tried to deny this.)

Point 1 = 12.35

2. “Between half-past 12 and 1 o’clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. I had previously been in another beershop at the top of the street, and afterwards walked down. After talking for about 25 minutes.”

This is as clear as mud of course but surely everyone would have to agree that by no stretch of the imagination does this point to Spooner getting to the yard at 12.35? If we give him the biggest benefit of the doubt that we can and take it back to 12.30 then 25 minutes spent talking still gets us to 12.55. If he began his conversation at 12.35 then we have 1.00 of course. So...

Point 2 = 12.55 (when he talks to Diemschutz)

3. “I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out “Murder” and “Police.”

This was very obviously Diemschutz and Kozebrodski (Diemschutz confirms meeting Spooner and Brown heard them calling “police” and “murder.”) Exact times are impossible of course so I’ll give an approximate one which can’t be far wrong.

Point 3 = 1.03 (when he sees Diemschutz and Kozebrodski)

4. By the jury. – As I was going to Berner-street I did not meet any one except Mr. Harris, who came out of his house in Tiger Bay (Brunswick-street). Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman’s whistle blowing.

We know that there were no whistles blown before 1.00. If there were the police would have responded to them but they didn’t.

Point 4 = after 1.00

5. “I stood there about five minutes before a constable came.”

We know that Lamb got to the yard after 1.00 but of course we can’t give and exact time.

Point 5 = 1.00 or just after.

..........


So to sum up we have 5 times from Spooner’s Inquest testimony - are they all close? Do they tie up? I’d say that there’s a pretty obvious trend. One of these points gives us a ‘way out’ time of 12.35 whilst four points all give a time of around 1.00 or just after.

Which time carries the most weight? The 12.35 which was an estimation based on pub closing times or the 4 times around 1.00 (3 of which are confirmed by the actions of others) Can anyone taking a reasoned, unbiased approach, with hand on heart say that 12.35 was the likeliest or the correct one? I’d suggest that the answer to that is about as obvious as it could be.

Edward Spooner doesn’t confirm an earlier discovery time. An assessment shows that he was very obviously mistaken when he said 12.35. He even contradicts himself. Four times!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok Michael, if history repeats itself this is how it goes. You again throw out some personal insults. I respond very mildly. Then I get someone accusing me of being insulting

In this post alone you have.....

1. Called me ‘little man.’
2. Intentionally deceitful.
3. A liar ( as in ‘see liar above)
4. That I might have learning impairments.

I’ll ignore the ‘Forest Gump’ because I consider that just mildly insulting, even humorous.

I won’t report you Michael even though this isn’t your first outburst on here which even Caz criticised you for.

Your points have been responded to and shown to be either wrong or extremely weak. Only you and one other poster can’t see it. Both conspiracy minded coincidentally. You’re witnesses crumble under scrutiny. Your cover up didn’t happen and pretty much everyone but you can see it. You have a theory. It’s your baby and you’re protective of it in the face of the facts. It’s ok to keep stressing how important you are to Ripperology and those that disagree with you aren’t but the more we descend into conspiracy theorist nonsense the more ridicule that the subject will get.

in regard to Mortimer, where I said that she went back inside after hearing the cart of course I meant that she went back inside after spending 10 minutes on the step until she’d heard the cart then the commotion.