Schwartz, a fraud?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nonsense.It's not conspiracy,I think you are the one.You are reading the situation wrong.If Star was able to get a hold of him the authorities would,A witness like Schwartz would not be allowed in the inquest because of 2 very conflicting stories.And an inquest without an account of an assault on the victim minutes prior to her murder is wrong/inaccurate,it would be amateur hour.This was a murder case.LOL.

Varqm I’d suggest that you take a little time to read through some of this thread. As everyone here will confirm I’m not the conspiracist. I’m about as far away from a conspiracy theorist as you’ll find anywhere. Michael is suggesting the cover up.

Why, if The Star got hold of him, would the authorities also have got hold of him? He wasn’t in hiding when The Star spoke to him. I’m not saying that this certainly happened Varqm just that it’s a possibility. What if he had a friend living in Manchester for example and he went to stay with him (and the police didn’t know this?)

Im sorry but to suggest that he wasn’t called to give evidence because of conflicting stories doesn’t make sense. You are implying that the Police didn’t trust what Schwartz said. If that was the case why would they put his description of BS Man on the front of their Gazette on October 20th? They obviously put weight in Schwartz evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What you dont want to accept or agree with is obviously wrong, even when its in the words of the man or men that the quote is attributed, huh? Thats kind of bizarre. That you think you know better what time Issac K saw Louis by the body better than he himself expressed, that you know he must have been wrong...like the other corroborative witnesses....

I wont belabour what is evidently a problem beyond Israel Schwartz for you, just that in your quote above you disregard the words of Issac Kozebroski, Heschburg, and Spooner and decide that their times were all wrong, though corroborating each other, by at least 20 minutes. If thats your stance then logic, reason and rational thought wont be of interest to you anyway.

Have your own little world where only evidence you like is acceptable. Ill keep on looking around for someone to discuss this more...how should I say this, more realistically? Anyway, good luck with creating a story instead of revealing one.

Youll always have to deal with Israel not being worth mentioning in a formal Inquest, but I suppose youll just assume all the press omitted his testimony. Creating works wonders when the truth wont fit, right?

You do realise that other people can read your responses don’t you Michael?

You’re an intelligent man so sadly we can’t put this down to you misunderstanding what I’ve said. I’m afraid that with you being so irreversibly committed to your theory you’re simply not being honest when you keep accusing me of disregarding evidence when it’s very obviously you that is guilty of this. I realise that I’m wasting my time though. I saw a quote in an old Ripperologist recently where Tom Wescott mentions your theory and the fact that only you believe in it but I’m certain that you wouldn’t be concerned that it still hadn’t caught on because you’ve become conspiracy-blind. You may have a low opinion of me Michael but do you also have a low opinion of every other Ripperologist? All those researchers and students of the crime who have spent years poring over the details of the crimes and none of them believe that a cover up took place. Are they all stupid? Or, as will probably be your view (and to use Trevor’s catchphrase) are they just unwilling to accept it because they are wedded to the ‘old established ideas?

You accept Spooner’s estimate although it’s based on estimated times like time taken to walk and length of conversation.

and yet...

He sees Diemschutz who ran for the police after 1.00. Confirmed by Brown - why do you dismiss this Michael?
He sees Harris who has been alerted by Lamb’s whistle and so it’s after 1.00 - why do you dismiss this Michael?
He stated that he arrived at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb so after 1.00 - why do you dismiss this Michael?

Yet you adhere to an estimation where his basis for that estimation very obviously allows for error?

Again with Hoschberg - he says ‘about 12.45 I should think.’ This is undeniably a guess.

But he states for certain that he heard a Police whistle. This had to have been Lamb so it had to have been after 1.00. This is a slam dunk Micheal and yet, of course, you go for the guess because it suits you.

.......

You are the one that’s blind to evidence Michael. You aren’t taking a balanced view. You go for obviously flawed estimates over verifiable facts. It’s also staggering that even though we know that the Police were using Schwartz description on the 20th October and later, you still try and peddle the self-serving nonsense that they were disregarding his evidence. How more obvious can this be?

Im repeating myself I know but the few simple facts that I’ve posted above categorically disprove your assertion that it’s me that is ignoring evidence. It’s very obviously you Michael; in your pursuit of a fantasy. You should be embarrassed to dispute the simple and very obvious facts above.

[Varqm]

Id say it’s a possibility Sunny but a conspiracist would say no of course.

Nonsense.It's not conspiracy,I think you are the one.You are reading the situation wrong.If Star was able to get a hold of him the authorities would,A witness like Schwartz would not be allowed in the inquest because of 2 very conflicting stories.And an inquest without an account of an assault on the victim minutes prior to her murder is wrong/inaccurate,it would be amateur hour.This was a murder case.LOL.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Schwartz was excused from the inquest could it have been that the Police did not have an interpreter available and thus as Schwartz didn't speak any English he could not appear?

Id say it’s a possibility Sunny but a conspiracist would say no of course.

[Varqm]

If Schwartz was excused from the inquest could it have been that the Police did not have an interpreter available and thus as Schwartz didn't speak any English he could not appear?

They would find one.That's kind of naive.
There is no police memoir of JTR assaulting a victim and seen by a witness.The police use Lawende in identifying Sadler in 1891.So at some point they also dismissed Schwartz as a witness..

[Sunny Delight]

If Schwartz was excused from the inquest could it have been that the Police did not have an interpreter available and thus as Schwartz didn't speak any English he could not appear?

[Michael W Richards]

So without nitpicking a minute or two either way we have...

Diemschutz finds the body at 1.00. Fanny Mortimer, from inside her house, hears his horse and cart (how many could there have been in a backstreet at 1.00? He tells those inside including Gilleman who goes upstairs and tells Eagle who sees the body around 1.00. So that ties up.

Diemschutz sees Spooner just after 1.00 and gets back to the yard 5 minutes before Lamb got there....so just after 1.00. Hoschberg hears Lambs whistle and arrives just after 1.00.

Kozebrodski was very obviously mistaken and Lave cannot be explained, but as he said that he was in the yard until 1.10 and there was no one there, there has to be a serious cloud over his evidence.

We don’t need to intentionally latch on to very obvious errors to construct a conspiracy when the facts of a perfectly explicable series of events exist.

What you dont want to accept or agree with is obviously wrong, even when its in the words of the man or men that the quote is attributed, huh? Thats kind of bizarre. That you think you know better what time Issac K saw Louis by the body better than he himself expressed, that you know he must have been wrong...like the other corroborative witnesses....

I wont belabour what is evidently a problem beyond Israel Schwartz for you, just that in your quote above you disregard the words of Issac Kozebroski, Heschburg, and Spooner and decide that their times were all wrong, though corroborating each other, by at least 20 minutes. If thats your stance then logic, reason and rational thought wont be of interest to you anyway.

Have your own little world where only evidence you like is acceptable. Ill keep on looking around for someone to discuss this more...how should I say this, more realistically? Anyway, good luck with creating a story instead of revealing one.

Youll always have to deal with Israel not being worth mentioning in a formal Inquest, but I suppose youll just assume all the press omitted his testimony. Creating works wonders when the truth wont fit, right?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I’m not saying that this must have been the reason why he wasn’t called but isn’t it at least possible that if Schwartz genuinely felt that his life might have been in danger as a man who might have been able to identify the killer that the Coroner might have weighed this against the very little of major value that he could have added on the TOD (bearing in mind that the Police investigation still had Schwartz statement so it wasn’t as if his absence would hamper their investigation. To me the fact that they used his description on October 20th shows that they were taking him seriously (of course that doesn’t prove that he was genuine or not mistaken) so there must have been another reason why he wasn’t called. We can only conjecture of course.

Absolutely Herlock, I agree, if Schwartz was at risk, to himself or to jeopardizeing the investigation, he'd be protected. But his statement about that night would be included. It'd be at inquest. It wasn't, but it was out there later in the press, so was it afterthought?

I remain, can we remove Schwartz and still keep the Whitechapel killer? Yes. I've said before, I don't buy into Schwartz, I reckon he got his streets or times wrong, but it doesn't change the event's that night.

[Joshua Rogan]

So all told all Schwartz could have added was to narrow the TOD down by around 8 minutes.

Not even that, HS. James Brown identified Stride as the woman he saw with a man by the board school when returning with his supper at around a quarter to one, so approximately the same time as Schwartz' sighting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

good talk al and i agree. he probably just made himself scarce. like he did that night. new to the country, dosnt speak the language, worried about family. dosnt want to get involved.

im not sure he was a must have, obvioisly the inquest can go on and make its conclusions without him, but yes, they would have tried to call him at least.

If I had to put money on it Abby I’d favour that explanation too. That he just went off to lie low at a friends house somewhere until the Inquest was over.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fair points Al. It could simply have been that Schwartz decided to ‘disappear’ rather than appear. I understand your point about why he should have been called but I can’t help coming back to the reason for the Inquest. How Stride was killed and when. Obviously they knew how she was killed so he could have added nothing on that score. I also don’t see that he could have made a massive difference to the when. They knew that she’d been killed before 1.00 and they had a police officer who positively identified seeing alive her at 12.35. So allowing just 2 or 3 minutes to get from the Smith sighting would take them to around 12.38. So with Smith and Diemschutz it was around 12.38-1.00. With Schwartz and Diemschutz it would have given them perhaps 12.46-1.00. On top of that they had Blackwell’s TOD estimate. So all told all Schwartz could have added was to narrow the TOD down by around 8 minutes.

I’m not saying that this must have been the reason why he wasn’t called but isn’t it at least possible that if Schwartz genuinely felt that his life might have been in danger as a man who might have been able to identify the killer that the Coroner might have weighed this against the very little of major value that he could have added on the TOD (bearing in mind that the Police investigation still had Schwartz statement so it wasn’t as if his absence would hamper their investigation. To me the fact that they used his description on October 20th shows that they were taking him seriously (of course that doesn’t prove that he was genuine or not mistaken) so there must have been another reason why he wasn’t called. We can only conjecture of course.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Herlock,

Just to jump in here, I personally think it's absurd that Schwartz wasn't a "must have" at inquest. He really was, look at the tangential witnesses who gave evidence. It's against the evidence of the other inquests to assume he wasn't called because he had nothing to offer. Again, personally, I think if he was available, he would have been called. Why he wasn't, we don't know, and likely never will. But my point is that had he been available, he would have been called.

Does this alter the Berner St inquest? Maybe, but to me it doesn't alter much than is already known. Schwartz doesn't promote or disprove the club theory. The club cover up collapses on it's own. It's always worth keeping in mind, we don't have Schwartz's statement, we have Swanson's summation.

The police put out his description, but we don't know if that's because they thought it was a genuine lead or whether they were trying to clear up his story as it was. I don't doubt Schwartz saw something that night. Whether it was on Berner St, or at that time, is unknown, but I don't have him down as a liar or a fantasist. The police had to take him seriously, it would be reckless not to.

But does removing Schwartz massively move the goal posts? To me, no. Liz was a proveable street worker, conflicting reports admittedly have her with different men that night (cheers Josh for clearing that up) and she meets the MO of the Whitechapel killer, apart from the mutilation. If we keep the Diemschutz interruption but remove Schwartz, does it still fit? I'd say yes, probably better.

Schwartz may well have seen Liz and her killer. His statement doesn't change anything, but I can't see for the life of me why he'd be excused the inquest, allowed to or otherwise. His absence is a mystery, but I agree, it's not because he was thought of as phoney. How many accusations and witness testimony made it from the desk sergeant, to the detective, to the inspector, to Swanson's report? Not many I'd wager. So Schwartz was clearly taken seriously. Doesn't mean he was right. Doesn't mean he was part of some convoluted conspiracy.

So keeping with the O/P, no, not a fraud. Mistaken, maybe. Unreliable, could be, if he was unsure and not willing to commit to something. Coward? Yes, maybe. Fraud? No. The difference in statements, ones the Star, an unreliable source, ones a summary of a statement now lost. Great sources.

Does it change anything? Not really, Liz is documented around Berner St that night, and is killed there. And found around 1am, give or take a little indescrepancy around time keeping. Schwartz may be totally wrong, it changes nothing. But I'd say he's a prime call for inquest, if the police thought he was there.

good talk al and i agree. he probably just made himself scarce. like he did that night. new to the country, dosnt speak the language, worried about family. dosnt want to get involved.

im not sure he was a must have, obvioisly the inquest can go on and make its conclusions without him, but yes, they would have tried to call him at least.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

But we know 2 things. 1) Schwartz didn’t appear at the Inquest, and 2) the Police felt that Schwartz description of BS man was important enough to be using it on October 20th.

I can’t see how it can be deduced that the police had no faith in him? So surely we must look for another reason to explain his absence from the Inquest? We can’t come up with anything definitive of course so we can only conjecture with ‘mights.’ He ‘might’ simply have gone into hiding somewhere to avoid being called if he feared for his life (whether justifiably or not?) He ‘might’ have asked to be excused for the same reason (and as he could add nothing to the ‘how’ she died and not much to the ‘when’ the Coroner might have left him out.) I cant see what would have made him a ‘must have’ witness at the Inquest?

There was Gilleman and Mrs Diemschutz of course who both could have verified the time that Diemschutz discovered the body but neither of them were called.

Hi Herlock,

Just to jump in here, I personally think it's absurd that Schwartz wasn't a "must have" at inquest. He really was, look at the tangential witnesses who gave evidence. It's against the evidence of the other inquests to assume he wasn't called because he had nothing to offer. Again, personally, I think if he was available, he would have been called. Why he wasn't, we don't know, and likely never will. But my point is that had he been available, he would have been called.

Does this alter the Berner St inquest? Maybe, but to me it doesn't alter much than is already known. Schwartz doesn't promote or disprove the club theory. The club cover up collapses on it's own. It's always worth keeping in mind, we don't have Schwartz's statement, we have Swanson's summation.

The police put out his description, but we don't know if that's because they thought it was a genuine lead or whether they were trying to clear up his story as it was. I don't doubt Schwartz saw something that night. Whether it was on Berner St, or at that time, is unknown, but I don't have him down as a liar or a fantasist. The police had to take him seriously, it would be reckless not to.

But does removing Schwartz massively move the goal posts? To me, no. Liz was a proveable street worker, conflicting reports admittedly have her with different men that night (cheers Josh for clearing that up) and she meets the MO of the Whitechapel killer, apart from the mutilation. If we keep the Diemschutz interruption but remove Schwartz, does it still fit? I'd say yes, probably better.

Schwartz may well have seen Liz and her killer. His statement doesn't change anything, but I can't see for the life of me why he'd be excused the inquest, allowed to or otherwise. His absence is a mystery, but I agree, it's not because he was thought of as phoney. How many accusations and witness testimony made it from the desk sergeant, to the detective, to the inspector, to Swanson's report? Not many I'd wager. So Schwartz was clearly taken seriously. Doesn't mean he was right. Doesn't mean he was part of some convoluted conspiracy.

So keeping with the O/P, no, not a fraud. Mistaken, maybe. Unreliable, could be, if he was unsure and not willing to commit to something. Coward? Yes, maybe. Fraud? No. The difference in statements, ones the Star, an unreliable source, ones a summary of a statement now lost. Great sources.

Does it change anything? Not really, Liz is documented around Berner St that night, and is killed there. And found around 1am, give or take a little indescrepancy around time keeping. Schwartz may be totally wrong, it changes nothing. But I'd say he's a prime call for inquest, if the police thought he was there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You see, thats a patently incorrect statement. Yet you wonder why I get rude. These men gave their own times, what you reason they actually were or should be is inconsequential. None gave a time at or just after 1am, they were all very clearly stated as 15 to 20 minutes earlier than that. All of the men mentioned. All saw the same things at around the same times. And you open with a summation that common sense says they were all wrong about the same critical detail by at least 20 minutes.

No it’s not Michael. I keep talking about ‘assessing’ statements rather than just assuming that they are correct. You are simply jumping on estimated times and claiming them as written in stone when they’re not. You say “Yet you wonder why I get rude?” Yes I do, but I wonder even more why you consistently ignore the inconvenient?

Yes Spooner estimated 12.35 but....he saw Diemschutz and Kozebrodski and we know that they appeared after 1.00. He saw Harris who’d heard the police whistle which we know was after 1.00. He said that he’d got there 5 minutes before Lamb which meant that he’d got there after 1.00. So his estimation was very clearly wrong. Yes Hoschberg estimated 12.45 but he also said that it was after the police whistle so we know that it was after 1.00.

.....

If a witness says “I did x at around 2pm just after the postman came.” Would you still believe 2pm if you found that the postman actually arrived at 2.30? And that his next door neighbour confirmed that the postman had arrived at 2.30?

So why do you keep ignoring the background evidence which refutes the times that you keep using?


As for Schwartz, an opinion given by an individual about his impressions of a witness statement is also inconsequential. When the rubber met the road they did not use anything Israel Schwartz said, none of it, to help determine how Liz died. An assault on a very soon to be murder victim, minutes and feet from where it all happens at the earliest time the medical examiner said she could have been cut.......and not even an Inquest footnote about that story? How could that be?

I don’t know and neither do you. But, I’ll say it yet again, the police put Schwartz description of BS man on the front of the Police Gazette on October 20th. No matter how inconvenient that fact is Michael it’s a fact nonetheless and it utterly refutes and dismissed the suggestion that the police had no faith in Schwartz. That’s simply dead-in-the-water. There is another explanation and the fact that we don’t know it doesn’t change that.

Enter common sense, rationality and reason...mix in some logic,

It would make a refreshing change.

and you will finally see the flaws in supporting Israel Schwartz, Louis Diemshitz and Morris Eagle. Or you wont......I cant control the outcome of your assessment, just pointing out that within the known evidence those three mens statements are, or more accurately were or should be perceived as incorrect...either by accident or wilful intention.

The only think ‘wilful’ Michael is your selectivity when approaching evidence. Simply calling Diemschutz and Eagle liars doesn’t wash when there’s nothing to back it up.

So without nitpicking a minute or two either way we have...

Diemschutz finds the body at 1.00. Fanny Mortimer, from inside her house, hears his horse and cart (how many could there have been in a backstreet at 1.00? He tells those inside including Gilleman who goes upstairs and tells Eagle who sees the body around 1.00. So that ties up.

Diemschutz sees Spooner just after 1.00 and gets back to the yard 5 minutes before Lamb got there....so just after 1.00. Hoschberg hears Lambs whistle and arrives just after 1.00.

Kozebrodski was very obviously mistaken and Lave cannot be explained, but as he said that he was in the yard until 1.10 and there was no one there, there has to be a serious cloud over his evidence.

We don’t need to intentionally latch on to very obvious errors to construct a conspiracy when the facts of a perfectly explicable series of events exist.

[Michael W Richards]

But common sense, rationality and reason tells us that Spooner and Hoschberg got to the yard after 1.00. Rationality tells us that Gilleman informed Eagle about the body at 1.00. Witnesses making estimates on timings can be wrong especially if they don’t have direct access to a clock or a watch so when these estimations are made we have to look at a wider picture for anything that might either refute or confirm. It’s especially true of Spooner because as well as estimating 12.35 everything else he said points to times around 1.00 which have to outweighs the earlier time. And so the times that you’re relying on are beyond all reasonable doubt incorrect.

As I’ve said before, Stride might not have been a ripper victim. None of us can be 100% certain. It’s also not impossible that the killer sought refuge in the club or was a club member. It’s also not impossible that a few members became aware of this and decided to keep it quiet. But coming up with a reason for a cover up (a scenario) isn’t enough to justify one. The evidence points away from it.

You see, thats a patently incorrect statement. Yet you wonder why I get rude. These men gave their own times, what you reason they actually were or should be is inconsequential. None gave a time at or just after 1am, they were all very clearly stated as 15 to 20 minutes earlier than that. All of the men mentioned. All saw the same things at around the same times. And you open with a summation that common sense says they were all wrong about the same critical detail by at least 20 minutes.

As for Schwartz, an opinion given by an individual about his impressions of a witness statement is also inconsequential. When the rubber met the road they did not use anything Israel Schwartz said, none of it, to help determine how Liz died. An assault on a very soon to be murder victim, minutes and feet from where it all happens at the earliest time the medical examiner said she could have been cut.......and not even an Inquest footnote about that story? How could that be?

Enter common sense, rationality and reason...mix in some logic, and you will finally see the flaws in supporting Israel Schwartz, Louis Diemshitz and Morris Eagle. Or you wont......I cant control the outcome of your assessment, just pointing out that within the known evidence those three mens statements are, or more accurately were or should be perceived as incorrect...either by accident or willful intention.