Schwartz, a fraud?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could Schwartz have lied? Of course he could. Every witness might have lied but we have to ask why would he have lied? To get his 15 minutes of fame is usually the reason given but think of the circumstances.

A time when this killer is the talk of the city. A time of anti-Jewish sentiment. A time when people preferred to suspect the killer of being a foreigner. We have a man who isn't compelled to give a statement to the police if he wasn't there places himself; a foreigner and a Jew right at the scene of a murder. And if he was that naive wouldn't his interpreter friend have pointed this out to him? Was he so desperate to get his name in the paper that he'd he'd give false evidence to place him at the scene of the crime? Or did he come forward because he felt that Pipe man might have described him?

....

And on the differences between his police statement and his interview with The Star. Yes there are some differences but does this prove that he lied or might there have been a reason for these? Well he couldn't speak English for s start so misunderstandings in translation can occur. Can we say that he used the same interpreter on both occasions? As far as I know we can't, so what if the man who interpreted for The Star didn't speak as good English as the man who interpreted for the police? Or that the interpreter for the Star spoke Hungarian but imperfectly? Have we ever known the Press to exaggerate to sell papers? Maybe the reporter added the knife part? Or maybe after having time to think things over Schwartz had a better recall of events?

The answer is that we can't know. Therefore we certainly can't be certain that Schwartz lied. Again, it's stating opinion as fact.

[Varqm]

Was he an star witness or not? Was he vital or just an afterthought who could have been dropped in as a witness at anytime? If he was so important then he should have been on the list of witnesses called straight away. If that’s the case then how could they have dismissed his evidence so quickly? You can’t have it both ways.

He should have been.

Schwartz police statement was Sep. 30,the conflicting Star statement was Oct.1 so shortly after he was dismissed by Baxter is the only explanation I can think of.
The police report by Swanson was Oct. 19,the Gazette,Oct. 20 I think,so the police still believed in him.The inquest ended in Oct. 23.Baxter 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 and after possibly by 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.

[Varqm]

Hello Varqm,

Then why wasn't Fanny Mortimer called? Surely she was an important witness and could have helped set the time.

Be careful how you answer because yes that is a trick question. Because if you give ANY reason other than the police did not believe her statement then you are acknowledging that is was possible for a witness to be believed but not be called.

You keep arguing how important Schwartz would have been to the inquest and I agree completely. But we simply DON'T KNOW why he was not there.

c.d.

The events told.

[c.d.]

Hello Varqm,

Then why wasn't Fanny Mortimer called? Surely she was an important witness and could have helped set the time.

Be careful how you answer because yes that is a trick question. Because if you give ANY reason other than the police did not believe her statement then you are acknowledging that is was possible for a witness to be believed but not be called.

You keep arguing how important Schwartz would have been to the inquest and I agree completely. But we simply DON'T KNOW why he was not there.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Go ahead keep believing in witnesses with 2 conflicting statements and that an assault minutes before a murder is not important.And Schwartz was hiding against imaginary threats.That Baxter had until Oct. 22 to include Schwartz,while the whole of London was listening, and did not.Good luck as a Keystone cop.

Was he an star witness or not? Was he vital or just an afterthought who could have been dropped in as a witness at anytime? If he was so important then he should have been on the list of witnesses called straight away. If that’s the case then how could they have dismissed his evidence so quickly? You can’t have it both ways.

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

Even if Schwartz was "disbelieved" by the police it doesn't necessarily mean that they felt that he was lying. It could have simply been because of the language problem and his short time on the scene that they couldn't be certain just what the hell he did see. And as you say since Stride was alive according to Schwartz when he ran off the police might have simply concluded that he just saw a street hassle.

Again, we simply don' know.

c.d.

[Varqm]

Hello Varqm,

I don't think anyone is arguing that Schwartz would not have been an important witness. As such, it is surprising that he did not attend the inquest. But we simply don't know why he was not there. Could it have been because the police dismissed his story? Absolutely. But since no one knows for sure it makes no sense to turn it into an if A then B argument meaning that if it can be shown he did not attend then he was not believed. That is bad reasoning. And if we follow that reasoning then Fanny Mortimer and others were not believed since they did not attend.

It remains unclear and a mystery why he was not there.

c.d.

It is not bad reasoning since the 2 statements he did was conflicting.If a victim was assaulted minutes before her dead body was in found in the same spot,there is no way the witness can't be heard,it's too important.Any fact-finding mission like the inquest fails without it .And in any mention of the murder later on has to include this.It's common sense/reasoning.
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 Schwartz was dismissed,by Baxter at least.
Anyways I have enough.we obviously do not see eye to eye about the importance of Schwartz's sighting,the "could have been" if it was true.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Varqm,

I don't think anyone is arguing that Schwartz would not have been an important witness. As such, it is surprising that he did not attend the inquest. But we simply don't know why he was not there. Could it have been because the police dismissed his story? Absolutely. But since no one knows for sure it makes no sense to turn it into an if A then B argument meaning that if it can be shown he did not attend then he was not believed. That is bad reasoning. And if we follow that reasoning then Fanny Mortimer and others were not believed since they did not attend.

It remains unclear and a mystery why he was not there.

c.d.

Exactly c.d.

We have to keep stressing over and again the difference between opinion and fact. As you say, we simply don’t know why Schwartz didn’t appear at the Inquest. All I’ve done is to suggest that if Schwartz felt that either BS man or Pipeman had posed a threat then he might have gone into hiding. Am I claiming this as a fact? Of course not, but if you can see this why can’t others? Why the emphatic confidence that the police must have had no confidence in Schwartz? And why does the fact that senior police officers go on citing Schwartz as a witness into November, without expressing doubt as to his validity, give some posters no cause to pause and think? They just plough on implacably along the ‘police had dismissed him’ line. Why this level of over-confidence?

I can’t help thinking that if some posters stopped trying to see conspiracies behind every door and cover-ups around every corner they would have no cause to keep seeing what they want to see.

[c.d.]

Hello Varqm,

I don't think anyone is arguing that Schwartz would not have been an important witness. As such, it is surprising that he did not attend the inquest. But we simply don't know why he was not there. Could it have been because the police dismissed his story? Absolutely. But since no one knows for sure it makes no sense to turn it into an if A then B argument meaning that if it can be shown he did not attend then he was not believed. That is bad reasoning. And if we follow that reasoning then Fanny Mortimer and others were not believed since they did not attend.

It remains unclear and a mystery why he was not there.

c.d.

[Varqm]

The ‘not believable’ part conflicts with what we know. You are in denial of the facts and are making assumptions that are convenient. Like someone else.

Im sorry but I’ve wasted far too much time on this thread trying to show that black isn’t white just to come up against the same brick walls. You win Varqm. I give up. Schwartz simply made the whole thing up and the police were a bunch of gullible, incompetent halfwits who continued to quote him as a witness long after they had ceased to believe him and that they had both spent time investigating and acting upon his evidence and then deciding that he was a liar...all in the space of around 24 hours.

Why didn’t I see this straight away?

Have fun on the Grassy Knoll with Michael.

Go ahead keep believing in witnesses with 2 conflicting statements and that an assault minutes before a murder is not important.And Schwartz was hiding against imaginary threats.That Baxter had until Oct. 22 to include Schwartz,while the whole of London was listening, and did not.Good luck as a Keystone cop.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If one has to explain whether an assault on a victim in the same place 10-15 minutes where she was found dead is not important then we are in different realities.
Also look at the Stride inquest or the others again and determine the importance of each witness compared to Schwartz in explaining the circumstances surrounding her death.

It's proof enough,just by simple common sense.Again Lawende was used in 1891 and even Henry Smith only talked about Lawende,he was the only credible witness.

You are making too many stories about Schwartz hiding.Simply he was not believable.Like Hutch.

The ‘not believable’ part conflicts with what we know. You are in denial of the facts and are making assumptions that are convenient. Like someone else.

Im sorry but I’ve wasted far too much time on this thread trying to show that black isn’t white just to come up against the same brick walls. You win Varqm. I give up. Schwartz simply made the whole thing up and the police were a bunch of gullible, incompetent halfwits who continued to quote him as a witness long after they had ceased to believe him and that they had both spent time investigating and acting upon his evidence and then deciding that he was a liar...all in the space of around 24 hours.

Why didn’t I see this straight away?

Have fun on the Grassy Knoll with Michael.

[Varqm]

Of course it would be relevant and of course Schwartz was relevant to the police investigation. It’s not me that’s suggesting that Schwartz evidence had been dismissed by the police. All that I’ve asked Varqm is what value was Schwartz evidence to a an Inquest? The Inquest, as you know, was looking to establish ‘how’ and ‘when’ Stride was killed. Do you accept that? So could Schwartz contribute to the Inquest finding out ‘how’ she died? No, because she was still alive when he last saw her and the Doctor could tell them exactly how she’d met her death. What about ‘when?’ At the absolute best he could narrow down the window by 10 minutes. Certainly a contribution but not exactly a game changing one is it?

If Schwartz didn't attend the Inquest would it, in any way, have compromised the Police’s investigation of the case? No, because they already had a statement from him.



Be serious Varqm. The authorities and The Star found him because they knew where to look. They obviously went to his house or his place of work or to one of his regular haunts but if later on he didn’t want to be found do you really think that he’d go to those places? What if he had an old friend who lived in some village in Kent so he went to stay with him? What if his London friends didn’t know about this friend? And if Schwartz went into hiding because he was in fear is it likely that his wife would have betrayed him even if she’d known where he was or would she have said “he just packed a bag and left. I haven’t a clue where he’s gone.”



Its proof of nothing Varqm. It’s your opinion. I’m not presuming to know the reason why he didn’t attend the Inquest because we have no evidence so why are you? The argument that the police had dismissed his evidenced is contradicted by the police continuing to mention him as a witness. The Inquest occurred immediately after the murder so could they really have searched for someone called Lipski, found and questioned a potential BS man and then decided that Schwartz was a liar in such a short space of time and all the while senior police officers are mentioning him as a witness into November? Surely the suggestion is preposterous Varqm?

And yet, what is preposterous about a man who feared for his life (whether justifiably or not) going into hiding?

If one has to explain whether an assault on a victim in the same place 10-15 minutes where she was found dead is not important then we are in different realities.
Also look at the Stride inquest or the others again and determine the importance of each witness compared to Schwartz in explaining the circumstances surrounding her death.

It's proof enough,just by simple common sense.Again Lawende was used in 1891 and even Henry Smith only talked about Lawende,he was the only credible witness.

You are making too many stories about Schwartz hiding.Simply he was not believable.Like Hutch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So let's say this was the OJ Simpson case. A witness witnessed the OJ's wife being assaulted by a short Latin looking guy a few minutes before,lets say 10-15 minutes, before her body was discovered ,you don't think that was relevant enough? Wow.Fired.
So the Star reporter could find him but the authorities could not,not even a relative,wife and from there Schwartz.And no report of any kind that the an important witness was wanted but he was hiding.OK.
The conflicting statement mostly and absence from the inquest were enough proof.

The case formally ended in 1892.What the police thought in Oct/Nov 1888 was not the final word.They could have changed their minds after 1888.

But to each his own..

Of course it would be relevant and of course Schwartz was relevant to the police investigation. It’s not me that’s suggesting that Schwartz evidence had been dismissed by the police. All that I’ve asked Varqm is what value was Schwartz evidence to a an Inquest? The Inquest, as you know, was looking to establish ‘how’ and ‘when’ Stride was killed. Do you accept that? So could Schwartz contribute to the Inquest finding out ‘how’ she died? No, because she was still alive when he last saw her and the Doctor could tell them exactly how she’d met her death. What about ‘when?’ At the absolute best he could narrow down the window by 10 minutes. Certainly a contribution but not exactly a game changing one is it?

If Schwartz didn't attend the Inquest would it, in any way, have compromised the Police’s investigation of the case? No, because they already had a statement from him.

So the Star reporter could find him but the authorities could not,not even a relative,wife and from there Schwartz.And no report of any kind that the an important witness was wanted but he was hiding.OK.

Be serious Varqm. The authorities and The Star found him because they knew where to look. They obviously went to his house or his place of work or to one of his regular haunts but if later on he didn’t want to be found do you really think that he’d go to those places? What if he had an old friend who lived in some village in Kent so he went to stay with him? What if his London friends didn’t know about this friend? And if Schwartz went into hiding because he was in fear is it likely that his wife would have betrayed him even if she’d known where he was or would she have said “he just packed a bag and left. I haven’t a clue where he’s gone.”

The conflicting statement mostly and absence from the inquest were enough proof.

Its proof of nothing Varqm. It’s your opinion. I’m not presuming to know the reason why he didn’t attend the Inquest because we have no evidence so why are you? The argument that the police had dismissed his evidenced is contradicted by the police continuing to mention him as a witness. The Inquest occurred immediately after the murder so could they really have searched for someone called Lipski, found and questioned a potential BS man and then decided that Schwartz was a liar in such a short space of time and all the while senior police officers are mentioning him as a witness into November? Surely the suggestion is preposterous Varqm?

And yet, what is preposterous about a man who feared for his life (whether justifiably or not) going into hiding?

[Varqm]

Of course we would have expected Schwartz to have appeared but I can’t see how he was ‘key’ Varqm? The Inquests aim was to decide how and when she died of course and so as far as the ‘how’ was concerned Schwartz was entirely surplus to requirements. As to the ‘when,’ yes he could have narrowed the window of time down by less than 10 minutes (only by saying that Stride was still alive at 12.45) but it’s hardly massive is it? And of course this wouldn’t have affected the police investigation one iota because they had Schwartz statement anyway.

The most important point as far as discussion on here goes is that we can’t simply state that he didn’t appear at the Inquest because the police put no faith in his story unless we can prove this and we can’t. We know that the Inquest began directly after the murder; we know that the police interviewed a potential BS man; we know that the description was being used into late October and we have senior police officers talking about Schwartz (none of whom said that he wasn’t believed) so how could all this have happened if Schwartz had been disregarded in 24 hours? It’s ludicrous. As long as there are possible alternative explanations then we shouldn’t be making categorical statements. Is it possible that Schwartz simply went into hiding to avoid giving evidence at the Inquest? I’d say that this has to be at least a possibility. Whether individuals suspect that this is or isn’t true is largely irrelevant unless someone can prove it either way.

So let's say this was the OJ Simpson case. A witness witnessed the OJ's wife being assaulted by a short Latin looking guy a few minutes before,lets say 10-15 minutes, before her body was discovered ,you don't think that was relevant enough? Wow.Fired.
So the Star reporter could find him but the authorities could not,not even a relative,wife and from there Schwartz.And no report of any kind that the an important witness was wanted but he was hiding.OK.
The conflicting statement mostly and absence from the inquest were enough proof.

The case formally ended in 1892.What the police thought in Oct/Nov 1888 was not the final word.They could have changed their minds after 1888.

But to each his own..

[Herlock Sholmes]

. which is the most honest approach

I meant “which is not the most honest approach,” of course.