Schwartz, a fraud?

[paul g]

Letchmere and Paul perhaps ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

According to The Star, Oct 1...

INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. 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. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police. It is, in fact, to the effect that he SAW THE WHOLE THING.

So this report is supposedly based on a retelling of the story told to the police, 'late yesterday afternoon'. So the following account should sound quite similar to Swanson's summary - at least in terms of the general story.

Firstly though, two questions.
Schwartz claimed to turn into Berner street at 00:45, yet did not go to the police until about 17:00. Why wait so long?
If, according to the Star; It is, in fact, to the effect that he SAW THE WHOLE THING, then what's with the - INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT - headline?
How could it not be important? This may be a hint that the Star is unsure about the authenticity of Schwartz's story.
The same edition includes this editorial comment, which although a bit vague, seems to refer to Schwartz...

... the story of a man who is said to have seen the Berner-street tragedy, and declares that one man butchered and another man watched, is, we think, a priori incredible.

Back to the report...

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated.

Why doesn't Schwartz see this man before Schwartz turns into Berner street? Why is he not visible to him, on Commercial Rd?
Perhaps because the man had walked through Sander street (joins Berner St with Backchurch Lane, north of the club).

He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her.

So the half drunk man gets to the gateway, still ahead of Schwartz, although Schwartz can see Stride from some distance away. That would mean Stride is more or less on the footway, as opposed to being in the passageway (and therefore invisible to Schwartz, at that point).

The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, ...

I'm not sure why 'back into the passage', rather than just 'into the passage'. What is being implied?

... feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.

Either the quarrel had begun before the push, or Schwartz is anticipating one.
Schwartz is now over on the board school side, walking toward Fairclough street...

Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, ...

So it seems Schwartz was about to lose interest, but then heard the quarrel and decided to look back, while apparently still walking ...

... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, ...

The kerb must refer to that leading onto Fairclough street - so Schwartz is now down on the board school corner.
As with the Met account, the second man has appeared on the scene quite suddenly...

... and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

Given that Schwartz is claimed to not speak English, it's unclear how he manages to determine two things about this shouting:

1. It consists of a warning
2. It is intended for the man, and not the woman

It is also unclear why the man deems it appropriate to rush aggressively at the 'intruder' - Schwartz - especially so, having apparently just exited the Nelson.

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.

The phrase 'waited to see no more', might imply that Schwartz had paused to see what was going to eventuate with the man from the pub who had yelled the warning, before realizing this man was a threat to him.
Now as Schwartz has just stepped onto Fairclough street, and the man with the knife is coming from the adjacent corner, I would suggest that Schwartz flees down Fairclough street - to the east - in the direction of Grove street.
This would of course mean that he fled to his new lodgings (in Ellen street), by a very indirect route!
In the Met account, it seems more likely that Schwartz flees to the south, further along Berner street toward Ellen street, and then turns left or right, on his way to 'the' railway arch.

He described THE MAN WITH THE WOMAN as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society.

For some reason, the second man is described in much less detail than in the Met account. This might be significant.
Whatever the case, it seems pretty clear from the story, that the other men were acting together, even if Schwartz claimed (to Abberline) that he could not determine if that were the case.

[Michael W Richards]

I have a much more sustainable and easy to understand suggestion...what If Israel Schwartz did see Liz with her killer...but it was inside the passage, as he left the building via the kitchen door...I believe he attended the meeting. He goes out between 12:35 and 12:40, sees Liz and someone behind the gate inside the passageway, he scurries around them and out the gate. Could Louis have come up Berner just after 12:35, when Fanny goes inside for a bit? Maybe he arrives just after her cut..or while she gets it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The following assumes - at least for the sake of analysis - that the 'Schwartz incident' was real.
So taking both the Met and the Star accounts in turn, and at face value, this is what I see...

Who got to the Dutfield's Yard gateway first; Schwartz, or the man who threw the woman down...?

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

Seems it was Schwartz!

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

So the man tried to pull Stride onto the road, failed (!), but was immediately able to throw her down onto the footway.
She then reacted with the seemingly oxymoronic not very loud screams.

Where was Schwartz initially, when he observed this fracas?

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

On crossing from ... the gateway? Apparently yes, otherwise, why cross?
Yet that implies Schwartz stopped at the gateway, to observe the fracas.

So on crossing, did Schwartz continue walking down Berner street?

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, ...

Not immediately - the man shouted 'Lipski', and then Schwartz proceeded to walk away.

So Schwartz has now stopped once - at the gateway, and for more than a few seconds - and paused once, after crossing Berner street.
This was no walk-by!

Schwartz is now walking alongside the board school fence, towards Fairclough street...

... but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

So where had the second man been standing, when lighting his pipe and commencing to follow Schwartz, who is heading south toward the railway arches?
Three clues:

1. Schwartz does not see the man until he crosses - so probably the board school side.
2. The man who assaulted Stride, called 'Lipski'; apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road. So once again, the school side.
3. The man followed Schwartz, who was heading south. So the second man must have been to his north - closer to Commercial Rd than Schwartz was. So perhaps somewhere near the Hampshire Court corner of the school.

Note that this is nowhere near The Nelson beer-house (on the corner of Berner (club side) and Fairclough) - as is the case in the Star account.
It also places the first and second man quite close together (but on opposite street sides). Hence the obvious questions that must have followed...

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

More evidence that Schwartz got a good close look at both Stride and the first man...

Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

More evidence that he also got a fairly good look at the second man...

Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

The location, behaviour, and degree of physical detail of the second man, are much different in the Star account...

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Wickerman. I doubt the police had much suspicion on any of the men held captive at the club, because the killer had clearly left the scene in order to kill Eddowes. But that doesn't mean the police didn't suspect that the men present knew something about the killer, particularly after Fanny Mortimer described the man she saw with the bag and further stated she suspected he was a member of the club.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Since the police in the passage at Dutfields Yard were working the scene that night before they even knew another woman had been killed, I think the suspicion was clearly on the men in attendance at that point. That is supported by the evidence.

The only relevance Goldstein has here is what he really saw when he looked in the passage towards the club's side open door as he passed the gates. Since we know he had empty cigarette cartons and some cigarette makers were in the cottages awake at the time, his relationship to the club would be important in evaluating his truthfulness as well.

Like in Israels case.

Regards,

Mike R

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wickerman. I doubt the police had much suspicion on any of the men held captive at the club, because the killer had clearly left the scene in order to kill Eddowes. But that doesn't mean the police didn't suspect that the men present knew something about the killer, particularly after Fanny Mortimer described the man she saw with the bag and further stated she suspected he was a member of the club.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Either way there is still a hungry press out there.

Swanson's future report tends to cast doubt upon option "b", so who lived at 22 Hellen St., and why was no "summons to appear" given, or, if one was, why did he not respond?

Regards, Jon S.

That first line I quoted of yours above is a goodie Jon. Not one press report of the Inquest transcripts that includes or even mentions Israel Schwartz's story.

Some would liken this to Pearly Poll first voluntarily coming in and then not coming in when she is summoned to. But we know what happened to her, she left town. Why dont we know the specific address Israel is heading to to check on his wife that night...the address they were moving from... or why he is hardly spoken of again, just a few short mentions in a few internal memos. And the primary focus of those written comments seem to be the prejudicial potential of the Lipski remark, none refer to the specifics of the altercation itself...which would have been the most critical portion of his statement. Because a solid sighting of a man seen accosting a woman feet from where she is murdered less than 15 minutes later would provide a very viable suspect.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

Hi Mike.

Hi Jon,

If you read the press reports every member was searched, the premises were searched and people were checked somewhat for bloodstains. Since some of those checked were from upstairs it seems logical to assume that the initial inquiries concerned the people on whose property the murder occurred.

Precisely my point Mike, all the members were held, thoroughly searched and questioned. To the best of my knowledge the police held no lingering doubts.

Given that his address was known, and an order to appear at the inquest as a witness is something that cannot be so easily avoided without follow-up by the authorities.
I find it odd that no further mention of Schwartz occured in the press if he avoided the "summons to appear", assuming a) the man living at 22 Hellen St. was not really Schwartz, or b) that he had been located and found to be lying.
Either way there is still a hungry press out there.

Swanson's future report tends to cast doubt upon option "b", so who lived at 22 Hellen St., and why was no "summons to appear" given, or, if one was, why did he not respond?

Once again our ignorance leads to intrigue..

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Speaking as one who's not sure "who originated what", I think Schwartz sighting needs looking at thoroughly. Why Schwartz doesn't mention any of the other witnesses we know of, and they don't mention him, is grist for the mill.

Who said there was any suspicion on Club members between the discovery of the murder and that same evening when Schwartz spoke to police?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

If you read the press reports every member was searched, the premises were searched and people were checked somewhat for bloodstains. Since some of those checked were from upstairs it seems logical to assume that the initial inquiries concerned the people on whose property the murder occurred.

Using logic once again can assist in assessing Schwartz ...here is a man no-one saw or heard, a Jewish Immigrant who speaks no English just passing by a club specifically tailored to a Jewish immigrant like himself, (the speech that night was Why Jews should be Socialists) at 12:45am. The club was known to have a large meeting that night that broke up around 11:30pm, and more than 30 members remained in the club until 1am singing. He says he was checking on his wife's move of their lodgings at 12:45, (we dont know from where on Berner), even though he had left her more than 12 hours earlier to do so. What she had to move was likely a suitcase or 2 and perhaps a stick of furniture.

No-one sees him that night, no-one hears him that night and Spooner and his date do not see anyone fleeing incontinently from Berner Street, though they do see Louis....(according to Spooner near 12:40am).

Israel's story establishes an attack on the dead woman just before her murder, off the Clubs premises, and by 1 or perhaps 2 assailants whom it would seem are Gentiles. In effect, releasing the club members from any further suspicion.

He is a Jewish phantom who brings salvation to a Jewish group of men considered to be Anarchists by the local constabulary, using a highly implausible story.

Logically, the fortuitous nature of his claim for the Club and its operations and his obvious ethnic connection with those same people leads one to consider the authenticity of his claims.

Now factor in his apparent absence in any formal Inquest transcript publications.

These reasons alone make the statements of many club members themselves, just after the murder and discovery, curious in contrast. Cumulatively the press reports indicate that at least 3 onsite members gave statements that had the discovery and alert at around 12:40-12:45am...curious because that matches Spooner.

What they did not have that night was the luxury of time to think of the best way to present their story and to co-ordinate that timing with all the others present. Thats why Louis says he went with Isaac at 1:03-:05ish, and Isaac says that night that Louis sent him alone for help around 12:40-:45am. Isaac said he returned to the club at 12:30 and approximately 10 minutes later was called to the passage by Louis.

These are some of the reasons why Israels story should be doubted by modern students of the crimes, despite any support that is suggested by internal comments of some officials. I think its clear to all of us that the informal or formal opinions of the contemporary officials are not be considered the "evidence". Many of them were accustomed to secrecy and misrepresentation as part of their intelligence work anyway.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

Now, if you'd actually like to discuss the theories that I myself originated regarding Schwartz being a false witness put forth by the Berner Street club in which I believe he used to live in order to throw suspicion off the members, then by all means, let's discuss.

Speaking as one who's not sure "who originated what", I think Schwartz sighting needs looking at thoroughly. Why Schwartz doesn't mention any of the other witnesses we know of, and they don't mention him, is grist for the mill.

Who said there was any suspicion on Club members between the discovery of the murder and that same evening when Schwartz spoke to police?

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Ontological discussion per Kant?

Hi Maria

I don't recall the specific thread (though I certainly recall the general context) but I rather think the question I intended to ask was "did Schwartz's eyewitness account actually happen" rather than did he actually exist at all, but by the time I came back, things had moved on, so what the heck, I didn't bother to correct anyone's perceptions...

Nonetheless if it was a Friday night you may well be correct in assuming that bottled substances might've influenced the way I worded things... what... tonight's Friday?... oh... oops!

All the best

Dave

[mariab]

Well, we disagreed when you came out and said that maybe Schwartz didn't exist at all, but maybe it was a late hour after a liquid dinner, if you know what I'm saying. :-)

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Maria

We've disagreed in the past, but I believe on this subject we're very much on the same page!

(napalm? No I reserve that for Littlehampton...I'm buggered in Bognor!)

All the best

Dave

[mariab]

{...}I'm well aware of the background to the doubts over Schwartz. I think you were quite right to raise them, and the lack of solid evidence is regrettable...Much in the club members testimony and police evidence is nonetheless suggestive is it not?

The lack of solid evidence is regrettable, but characteristic for the entire case, Dave. Not to worry, though. There's a lot of (circumstantial) evidence on Schwartz' possible affiliation with the IWEC and there might be more when I finally find a minute to resume my research.

And yep, like the French say, “retournons à nos moutons“.

but I hate to see personal abuse or favouritism entering into what should be friendly debate...

I like the smell of fresh idealism in the evening (vs. the smell of fresh Napalm in the morning)... :-p

[Cogidubnus]

Thank you for maintaining equal ground Dave, but Ive posted an apology on the thread. No need to muck up another one.

I will add for the purpose of this thread though that Tom Wescott didnt invent Schwartz questions or possible solutions to the many issues regarding club statements on these or other boards, that can be checked easily if one wishes. Lets not put any grapestalks in dead hands here.

Hi Michael

Equal ground is indeed all I'm trying to maintain...I don't know who you are, (apart from Perry Mason), or what has previously arisen between you and Tom, but simply would like to see fair debate...ok it can be vigorous, thrusting and sarcastic...all's fair in love, war and JtR...(and I'm no saint myself, though I have an unfortunate habit of apologising when I think I might've gone too far!), but I hate to see personal abuse or favouritism entering into what should be friendly debate...

All the best

Dave