Schwartz, a fraud?

[Varqm]

We'll there is the other possibility.That they did not want him in the inquest because of the word "lipski".They do not want the press asking to much questions.The police wanted to investigate Schwartz's claim internally.They do not want to add more to the anti-semitic sentiment in the Chapman's case.Warren personally went down to Goulston street to check the graffito and had it erased.The word Lipski was being discussed in parliament.
But I do not believe it.It was simply Schwartz was guessing/making things up,which the police sooner realized.But i have my own suspect.He was Jewish.They did not want him caught and have a trial because partly there could be a riot.Too many Jews in the East end,a lot from the pogroms in the Russian empire.

[c.d.]

Possibly or he might have simply seen a street hassle and the Ripper came along later.

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi all,

I go with what Steward P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow have to say about Schwartz in Jack The Ripper - Scotland Yard Investigates, he was considered an important witness by Abberline (and Swanson, et. al.), the Star version of his testimony was probably altered to some extend to make it more dramatic and thus sell more copies and he did not appear at the inquest because he barely spoke English. They would have had to find an interpreter who they could trust which may have been a problem.

Evans and Rumbelow also mention that the Coroner had the authority to accept written statements in lieu of a witness actually appearing.

Occam's Razor and all, eh.

Grüße,

Boris

This seems the most likely explanation. So if Scwartz is seen as reliable he must have seen the Ripper?

[c.d.]

Even with the best interpreter available there would still be a problem in that Schwartz didn't understand what was being said or what was actually taking place in the Stride encounter. So no interpreter could fix that. Kind of the blind leading the blind.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi all,

I go with what Steward P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow have to say about Schwartz in Jack The Ripper - Scotland Yard Investigates, he was considered an important witness by Abberline (and Swanson, et. al.), the Star version of his testimony was probably altered to some extend to make it more dramatic and thus sell more copies and he did not appear at the inquest because he barely spoke English. They would have had to find an interpreter who they could trust which may have been a problem.

Evans and Rumbelow also mention that the Coroner had the authority to accept written statements in lieu of a witness actually appearing.

Occam's Razor and all, eh.

Grüße,

Boris

Makes sense to me Bolo

[bolo]

Hi all,

I go with what Steward P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow have to say about Schwartz in Jack The Ripper - Scotland Yard Investigates, he was considered an important witness by Abberline (and Swanson, et. al.), the Star version of his testimony was probably altered to some extend to make it more dramatic and thus sell more copies and he did not appear at the inquest because he barely spoke English. They would have had to find an interpreter who they could trust which may have been a problem.

Evans and Rumbelow also mention that the Coroner had the authority to accept written statements in lieu of a witness actually appearing.

Occam's Razor and all, eh.

Grüße,

Boris

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think this point can't be stressed enough, Michael. The police's goal was to get to the truth; the newspapers had a very different goal: sell papers. The headline "SAW THE WHOLE THING" should tell a thing or two in that sense.

Not that this means Schwartz's police account was truthfull, just that it explains why the police account & the Star account are different in some aspects.

Exactly Frank. The Press had the temptation of hearing what they wanted to hear or adding bits to spice things up. Could we 100% exonerate them from the possibility that maybe Schwartz told The Star that he got the impression that Pipeman had something in his other hand? The reporter asks “could it have been a knife?’ Schwartz: ‘I’m not sure.’ Reporter: ‘but it could have been?’ Schwartz: ‘well yes it could have been.’ And before you know it Pipeman has a knife.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, I hear you. Schwartz was an important witness and you would expect him to have appeared at the inquest. But since absolutely no one knows why he did not appear to give a reason why he did not with absolute certainly is as you say stating opinion as fact. I don't know why this has to be so complicated. It is certainly permissible to say I feel strongly that the police did not believe him and then use his non-appearance to bolster that argument. Just don't state it as fact.

c.d.

[FrankO]

Have we ever known the Press to exaggerate to sell papers?

I think this point can't be stressed enough, Michael. The police's goal was to get to the truth; the newspapers had a very different goal: sell papers. The headline "SAW THE WHOLE THING" should tell a thing or two in that sense.

Not that this means Schwartz's police account was truthfull, just that it explains why the police account & the Star account are different in some aspects.

[c.d.]

I need something stronger than beer c.d.

I can hear Jack Daniels calling to me

Yeah, I hear you. Schwartz was an important witness and you would expect him to have appeared at the inquest. But since absolutely no one knows why he did not appear to give a reason why he did not with absolute certainly is as you say stating opinion as fact. I don't know why this has to be so complicated. It is certainly permissible to say I feel strongly that the police did not believe him and then use his non-appearance to bolster that argument. Just don't state it as fact.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Varqm,

If you acknowledge that there could have been other explanations but don't accept them then we are good and could all go get a pint.

Is that your position?

c.d.

I need something stronger than beer c.d.

I can hear Jack Daniels calling to me

[Herlock Sholmes]

. He was not called because immediately the next day he made a conflicting statement

Again Varqm you are stating your opinion as if it’s a proven fact and it simply isn’t.

Schwartz police statement was Sep. 30,the conflicting Star statement was Oct.1

And the police were acting on Schwartz information after those dates. Very senior Police Officers were quoting Schwartz after those dates. How could this be if they had dismissed his evidence due to the differences in the 2 statements? Can you not see that this doesn’t make sense Varqm?

We have to disagree.The other possibilities are too unlikely to believe in.If Schwartz was an honest witness,it was straightforward and simple enough he would have been in the inquest

Can you honestly believe this? Really? Is it impossible that a witness who had been shouted at by a possible murderer might not be in fear? Even if he was in no actual danger he still might have felt that he was. How can you know his temperament Varqm? He might have been a very nervous person by nature. The kind that panics easily. People hide from the police every minute of every hour of every day in the week. Why is it so unbelievable that Schwartz might have gone into hiding? I genuinly don’t see how you can categorically rule out this possibility as if you know for a fact that it’s not true? In fact it’s more plausible than the police acting on evidence from a witness that they’d already dismissed. Now that’s implausible.

add to that he was believed by police in Oct 19/20.

?? If you accept that why do you keep suggesting that he didn’t appear at the Inquest because the police didn’t believe him ??

[Varqm]

It's not the only explanation Varqm. It's the only explanation that you are willing to accept. There's a big difference.

If he was such an important witness surely he'd have been informed straight away that he would be being called to give evidence? He wouldn't have been called as an afterthought. So according to your reasoning he must have been dismissed as a witness right at the beginning of the Inquest? So how does that square up with the police searching for a Lipski? How does that square with the police questioning a man who they thought matched a description? How does that square up with the description being used in the Gazette? How does this square up with senior police officers still mentioning him as a witness in November? It doesn't add up.

He was not called because immediately the next day he made a conflicting statement.
Schwartz police statement was Sep. 30,the conflicting Star statement was Oct.1.
Same as Hutchinson,the next day after his police statement,if I remember right,or two,he said he saw no one else aside from the couple and a policeman a bit far away,immediately failing because based on timeline Sarah Lewis passed right in front of him at 2:30-2 am.

We have to disagree.The other possibilities are too unlikely to believe in.If Schwartz was an honest witness,it was straightforward and simple enough he would have been in the inquest;add to that he was believed by police in Oct 19/20.

[c.d.]

Varqm,

If you acknowledge that there could have been other explanations but don't accept them then we are good and could all go get a pint.

Is that your position?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He should have been.Paste from previous post.

The police report by Swanson was Oct. 19,the Gazette,Oct. 20 I think,so the police believed in him.The inquest ended in Oct. 23.He had time to put him in and the police surely would have submitted him as a witness.The only explanation was that in the end Schwartz was dismissed,by Baxter at least and possibly the police too.
As far as I'm concerned the fact that Henry Smith did not mention him but instead Lawende only also speaks volumes.

It's not the only explanation Varqm. It's the only explanation that you are willing to accept. There's a big difference.

If he was such an important witness surely he'd have been informed straight away that he would be being called to give evidence? He wouldn't have been called as an afterthought. So according to your reasoning he must have been dismissed as a witness right at the beginning of the Inquest? So how does that square up with the police searching for a Lipski? How does that square with the police questioning a man who they thought matched a description? How does that square up with the description being used in the Gazette? How does this square up with senior police officers still mentioning him as a witness in November? It doesn't add up.