Schwartz, a fraud?

[corey123]

Hello Lynn,

Yes, I also forgot to mention Brown. Thanks for mentioining it anyways. Most people believe IS to be more relieable than Brown, but I don't think it of either of them. Like you have said before, the only witness of the Stride murder is that of P.C William smith.

I did't realize this may be the case until you mentioned it to me. The parcel is interesting .

Anyhow, may the schwartz be with you as well my friend.

[lynn cates]

plain yoghourt

Hello Corey. Thanks, but don't make a fuss. I'M JUST PLAIN YOGHOURT. (heh-heh).

Cheers.
LC

[corey123]

If I may transfer this from another thread to here, an observation offered by Fisherman.

To begin with, I think we may conclude that we are in agreement that Schwartz may have gotten things wrong to some extent. We differ, though, when judging exactly what and how.
I would like to point out to you, that although you write that Schwartz ran off for the obvious reason that he was scared about what BS man did to Liz, but if you give your own post another read, you will realize that Schwartz WALKED off after having witnessed BS mans action. It was not until he realized that Pipeman followed him that he started running!
In conclusion, it would seem that Schwartz was uneased by the confrontation between BS and Liz, and then he made the supposition that BS and Pipeman were working in tandem, and that Pipeman were acting upon BS mans wish, purportedly setting off after Schwartz. Up til that point, there was no imminent threat at hand on his behalf. After it, he had good reason to believe that he was outnumbered and that there was an act of violence, focusing on his own person, at hand. And THAT was why he ran.

But just as I have pointed out, there was no such threat at hand when Schwartz took in the shoving and the low-key outcries. These observations seem quite genuine to me.

As for Schwartz timing things wrong, there is every possibility that this is a viable suggestion. We know that from experience. But letīs not forget that the article in the Scotsman, that pictures two men chasing down Fairclough Street, ALSO gives the time as 12.45!

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"In my feeble mind, the only testimony from that night (regarding Berner st) with which I am completely comfortable comes from PC Smith."

PC Smith, Lynn, got a quick glance at the couple he spoke of, whereas Marshall was able to observe his couple for a full ten minutes. At the inquest, he was dead certain of everything he said, and did not wawer in any respect at any time. Now, that is the kind of testimony that I would say is by far and away the best. Marshall may well be the overall best witness in the whole Ripper case.

"Brown WAS in the area"

Yes, he was. At some stage. And we cannot pinpoint that stage with absolute certainty, but we DO know that he was inside a chandlerīs shop three or four minutes of it!
What do you make of the Scotsmans report, speaking of a man chasing another man down Fairclough Street at 12.45? Apparently this was observed by a clubsman - but NOT by Brown. Do we first have a lying Schwartz, and then an accomplice, trying to corroborate his story? And if we do, why did not the witness describe the easily recognizable jew running in front to clinch it all?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

stop and smell the flowers

Hello Fish. But there is one detail of Marshall's testimony that must give one pause. Did he or did he not see the flower that Liz was purported to have attached to her? If not, why not?

Now one can contend (as I think you wish to) that the flower came from her consort subsequent to the Marshall observation. But if so, whence the sale? Did the chandler's shop carry such? Did Matthew Packer sell flowers? What about a pub just before it closed?

Notice that I do not require a precise answer--an approximation will do.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn C:

"Did he or did he not see the flower that Liz was purported to have attached to her? If not, why not?"

He COULD not see it, Lynn, fo the very obvious reason that she did not wear it at the stage in question. He very clearly points this out: "She did not then" wear the flower. It is not as if he wawered. He is dead certain that it was not there.

After that, you have a full hour in which Stride could have aquired the flower, and I do not think that we must accept that it was bought at a floristīs. Selling flowers in the street would have been very common at such things do not adjust to laws and regulations about opening hours. Think Eliza in "My fair lady", Lynn! I really fail to see any sort of problem with this issue, unless we specifically want to cast a doubt on Marshalls testimony.

From The East London Advertiser, September 15, 1888:

"She used to do casual work, make antimacassars, and sell flowers in the street"

That was Annie Chapman, of course, and I think we can safely rule her out as the one who sold Strideīs flower ...

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

'enery 'iggins, etc

Hello Fish.

"He is dead certain that it was not there."

Yes, and that is my point. If it were Liz, why is she not wearing the flower? Most likely answer: She does not then possess it.

"After that, you have a full hour in which Stride could have a[c]quired the flower, and I do not think that we must accept that it was bought at a floristīs."

Bingo! Nor at a pub nor yet at a chandler's shop.

"Selling flowers in the street would have been very common a[s] such things do not adjust to laws and regulations about opening hours. Think Eliza in "My fair lady", Lynn!"

Indeed. Or the "violet seller" in Tod Browning's Dracula. In fact, the "Cockney flower girl" has become something of a stereotype.

"I really fail to see any sort of problem with this issue"

Umm, well I can think of at least one. Are we to suppose that a flower girl was hawking her wares around midnight? Shouldn't she be close to a major thoroughfare and during evening hours, say, before 10:00?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn C:

"Are we to suppose that a flower girl was hawking her wares around midnight? Shouldn't she be close to a major thoroughfare and during evening hours, say, before 10:00?"

How many major thoroughfares would you be able to get to in half an hours time, starting out from Berner Street? Quite a few. And what makes you think that a woman like Annie Chapman would have refrained from selling a flower at such a thoroughfare at midnight, if she was given the opportunity?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

errata

Hello Fish. I think the key phrase is in your "given the opportunity."

Of course, Commercial rd would have been the nearest main thoroughfare. Now, suppose I waive the lateness of the hour and let's suppose that, indeed "Eliza" is over on Commercial rd hawking flowers--not, "flowers for your button 'ole" but the nice kind Liz in fact had.

Now, let's pick up the action. Liz and BS are making eyes at one another close to Dutfields. "Liz, my darling, my all, how lovely you would look with a flower. Hie thee to Commercial rd where I saw Eliza hawking them a while ago. Perchance she lingers." They depart, he buys flower, she pins it on.

"And now, fairest one, let us return to the vicinity of the IWMEC to catch the last strains of Tum Balalaika resonating from inside. I find Russian folk tunes SO erotic, don't you?"

My point in this admitted whimsicality is that the scenario (indeed, many of that night's Liz sightings) requires Liz and her consort to revolve around the IWMEC like 2 satellites.

So my question is this: What was so attractive about the club? Now the solicitation camp at least has the (to my mind) feeble excuse that Liz was using the club as a base of operations for solicitation (many potential clients, a fence to hide behind, etc). But I can't see what to do with the area as a base for young lovers.

(Note: this does not preclude young lovers--or even BS and Liz--from being near and becoming romantic. But I'm not sure why one would come back there after buying flowers.)

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn C:

"What was so attractive about the club?"

Such a question works from the presumption that the club was what drew Liz and BS man there from the outset. But this is something we cannot know, of course, which is why I prefer to stick with the vicinity as such. Either way, I cannot answer your question - I just donīt know why this was the chosen venue, but I DO know that it was so on Lizībehalf, since we may observe her in that particular street at a couple of occasions during a full hour. Why? Open question, at least so far.

As for the possibility of flowers being sold close to midnight, the fact that the pubs shut down at 12.30 (I believe) may have played a role. That would have sent a good deal of potential customers out into the streets, and where there are potential customers, there are also willing sellers.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

candid

Hello Fish. Your honesty is very refreshing.

My major problem with the solicitation theory is that the forensic reconstruction falls flat.

My major problem with the domestic theory is that it seems not (yet) to account for Liz's purported movements that night.

But do keep agitating "ze little grey cells." Perhaps we'll get an answer.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

If Schwartz wanted an even more convincing story that the BS man was Liz's killer, why didn't he embelish his story even more? He could have had the BS man grab her by the throat or kick her when she was on the ground. All sorts of possibilities there. But in the story we have, the BS man could just been a drunk hasseling a prostitute a little.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

details

Hello CD. Well, the more the embellishment, the more likely to get a detail wrong. You will notice that those who claimed to be in the yard just before Liz was supposed to be cut saw nothing--at least, they didn't think they saw anything (hedging their bets in case someone came forward with an earlier time).

If IS had gotten too graphic, the question would become, "Well, Mr. Schwartz, if you saw an assault with a knife, why didn't you intervene? And why did you not go to the police at once?"

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hello Casebook,

There has been recent discussion on the thread Folie a deux, and I do believe it has gone off topic a bit. The main focus now is if the sighting by Isreal Schwartz is reliable or not.

I have a special problem with his testimony because I see many holes in his story.

For example, how did he know the sighting was at 12:45? I do believe he would have a little trouble finding out the time in the fearful rush he was in. Also why did he describe Elizabeth's screams as "she screamed three times and not too loud". This statement makes no sence if you believe she was in any danger at all.

If I may use an example, Fisherman on the Folie a deux thread offered this possibility.

Now, transfer this reasoning to Berner Street, and make the supposition that the man who walks up to Stride is the same man that gave her the flower and kissed her in the doorway an hour earlier. He now finds her, seemingly soliciting, and decides to drag her away with him. They exchange a couple of words:

"What are you doing, Lizzie? You cannot stand here like this!"
"Come off it, I do what I choose to"
"No, you donīt. Come here!"

He pulls, she resists, he looses his grip, and she falls. He calls out in frustration:

"Lizzie!"

Realizing that there are people around (Schwartz and Pipeman) she lowers her voice:

"No, no, no!"


Then why, if this may have happened, did Schwartz run away when he realized he was being followed? Becuase I believe his brain was playing tricks on itself. I believe he saw only a fraction of what really happened and his brain filled in the holes with what it would expect to see and removed any pointless details. I also do not, for one minute believe he just stood there and watched it. I believe he saw a glimps of something he didn't understand fully. Again, this is only a possibility.

It was also mentioned that Schwartz may have adopted a big city "casual walk-past" additude. How is this so if he was an immigrant? Obviously this isnt probable becuase according to him, he passed what he described as a tipsy man approaching the "woman at the enterance of the allyway", he turned around once he heard a quarrel.

Also why were there differences in each story he told? When he told police his account, no man with a knife appears. However, in the October 1st account he does mention a knife weilding man. This is enough to raise suspicion. Also why did the simple act of either Liz being thrown on the ground(police version) and pulled into the yard(star) appear.

Appearently this may be a tale woven by the IWCM to divert suspiceon away from them.

Any thoughts?

Hi Corey

I beleive IS story to be basically trustworthy. If anything he lied about it might be pipeman to help explain his running away.

Also why did he describe Elizabeth's screams as "she screamed three times and not too loud". This statement makes no sence if you believe she was in any danger at all.

Many possibles:
He only did not hear it loud becuase of noise from singing from the club and/or rain/muggy night.
She was yelling with the intention of telling the man to stop but not screaming for help.
She had a sore throat or something, physically could not scream loud.



IS may have come upon the two just as JtR was returning to Stride after finally being rebuffed by her (after spending alot of his time and effort to get her into a dark alley unsuccessfully) and "losing it" and attacking Stride in public. After he scares off IS he pulls her into the yard and finishes it(throat cutting) but bolts before mutilations.

Just a frustrated JtR with a reluctant woman who loses his cool- not any need for conspiracies.

BTW when I first heard of IS testamony one of the first thing that came to my mind is that he may have actually witnessed the throat cutting without realizing it. If this is the case, the not screaming loudly may be becuase her throat was already cut. JtR then pulled her into the yard but was scared away by LD or other club members before mutilations. I think my previous
scenario is more likely, however.

[packers stem]

ever get the impression that stride was deliberately kept in the area to be killed,maybe in the hope of attracting beat police from other areas.This would keep the way clear for a planned meet with eddowes.
Could she have been killed because of her name?
JTR looking for e(liz)abeth long and finding long liz by mistake then spending an hour trying to find out what she saw?
For whatever reason he seems to have badgered her rather than just moving on to a 'more willing' victim.