Schwartz, a fraud?

[corey123]

Hello Garza,

First and formost, welcome to the forum.

Second, I don't believe he lied. I believe the story was the product of either of two things, unreliably witness testimony( meaning he didn't really see Stribe but rather something else. When you only get a part of the information needed to store that information, you brain fill's in the holes, and not with anything relevent) or a misjudge in translation.

[Garza]

Hello Garza,

First and formost, welcome to the forum.

Second, I don't believe he lied. I believe the story was the product of either of two things, unreliably witness testimony( meaning he didn't really see Stribe but rather something else. When you only get a part of the information needed to store that information, you brain fill's in the holes, and not with anything relevent) or a misjudge in translation.

That is a valid possibility corey.

If Schwartz even mistook his time by 15 mins, its changes everything. I mean agruably Hutchinson's testimony is far more valid than Schwartz's as someone actually seen Hutchinson where he said it was at the night of Mary Jane's murder. No-one seen Schwartz at the scene. That doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't there, but I must confess that I am confused why some people consider his testimony so solid considering it contradicts other testimonys as no-one else even partially can confirm what he seen or heard - even when in close proximity.

If you were having an "odd one out" contest for Stride's murder, Schwartz testimony would be it - excluding the obvious lies by Packer of course.

And thats for the welcome, I'm not strictly new, just has a hiatus the last few months :-)

[Hunter]

Just a quick clarafication... no opinion on Schwartz either way.

First, since Lewis and Huchinson were mentioned... there is no evidence that Mrs. Lewis saw Hutchinson. That tie has been made by theorists; based on conjecture.

On Schwartz... the police did give his testimony credibility - at least for some time - as stated in Swanson's Oct 19 report and Abberline's followup on the 'Lipski' question. Both Anderson and Warren state in official reports that Schwartz did give inquest testimony. As Evans and Rumbelow (both experienced policemen) stated in Scotland Yard Investigates, it could have been that the problematic nature of Schwartz's dearth of the English language made it more pragmatic to have him offer a written statement only ( which was done at all inquest but have not survived in the Stride case). The newspaper accounts are of the verbal testimonies only. The official written witness testimonies of the Eddowes and Kelley cases have survived.

Of course, the problem with this is that the coroner (Baxter), in his summary, makes no mention of Schwartz. Whether he would be predisposed to do so is not certain, but it would be strange that - if such a written statement existed in the coroner's hand - he chose not to admit it into the public record; as it, to some degree, was already publicly known.

[mariab]

Wow, Hunter, this is a VERY important observation! Never before had I thought that the reason Schwartz wasn't invited at the inquest might have been a practical one, due to his great problems with the English language, instead of his alledged lack of credibility! Still, it's significant that the coroner (Baxter) didn't mention Schwartz at all in his summary.
I have no time right now to read the Stride inquest posted here on casebook, neither can I read SY investigates (which has just arrived) before several weeks, but usually your quotes from the sources are correct, so I'll trust you on this.

[Trevor Marriott]

Wow, Hunter, this is a VERY important observation! Never before had I thought that the reason Schwartz wasn't invited at the inquest might have been a practical one, due to his great problems with the English language, instead of his alledged lack of credibility! Still, it's significant that the coroner (Baxter) didn't mention Schwartz at all in his summary.
I have no time right now to read the Stride inquest posted here on casebook, neither can I read SY investigates (which has just arrived) before several weeks, but usually your quotes from the sources are correct, so I'll trust you on this.

I am sorry i dont agree had Schwartz given a written statement and his understanding of the engliish language was not that great then they would have used an intrepter to take down the initial statement.

If his statement was material to the death then he surely would have been called and again an interpreter used in court.

So it would seem he had no material evidence to give, or what he originally told them lacked any credibilty.

[mariab]

Hello Mr Marriott,
the argument about Schwartz not having been invited at the inquiry due to his difficulties with the English language came from Hunter, not from me!
I tend to agree with what you said:
Trevor Marriott wrote:
I am sorry i dont agree had Schwartz given a written statement and his understanding of the english language was not that great then they would have used an intrepter to take down the initial statement.
Do you subscribe to the theory of the IWMC having pushed Schwartz into a fabricated testimony, Mr Marriott? There are some people currently conducting research on this, and I'd like to look up for Schwartz in listings of workers/sweaters related to the IWMC, but I have no idea yet of if I can conduct such a search online.
(I might not be able to post for some time in the next hours, as I need to get going to go take care of a bureaucratic matter and some errands, but I'll be back in the late afternoon/early evening.)

[lynn cates]

Fishman

Hello Maria. If you seek lists of sweaters and labour records, you might try Professor William Fishman. He would be just the man for this. Why not chat him up?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Mr Marriott,
the argument about Schwartz not having been invited at the inquiry due to his difficulties with the English language came from Hunter, not from me!
I tend to agree with what you said:
Trevor Marriott wrote:
I am sorry i dont agree had Schwartz given a written statement and his understanding of the english language was not that great then they would have used an intrepter to take down the initial statement.
Do you subscribe to the theory of the IWMC having pushed Schwartz into a fabricated testimony, Mr Marriott? There are some people currently conducting research on this, and I'd like to look up for Schwartz in listings of workers/sweaters related to the IWMC, but I have no idea yet of if I can conduct such a search online.
(I might not be able to post for some time in the next hours, as I need to get going to go take care of a bureaucratic matter and some errands, but I'll be back in the late afternoon/early evening.)

Hi Maria
i do not subscribe to that theory. I think it was a simple case of whatever he said if he actually said anyhting to the authorites was deemed to be totally unreliable for whatever reason

[c.d.]

Sweaters???

c.d.

[mariab]

To Trevor Marriott:
“For whatever reason“ is not enough for me, sorry!

C.D: wrote:
Sweaters???
Yeah, C.D., that was my exact reaction when Wescott first mentioned this word. I was like “What the-? Sweaters, cardigans, pashminas? Did I end up in a freaking issue of Homemaking magazine?“ But later I figured out that “sweaters“ comes from “sweating“, and means “manual workers“ in Victorian jargon.

Hello Lynn,
I'd love to chat up Professor William Fishman, but I don't have his coordinates, plus, I would prefer it if some informed Ripperologist confirmed me if such lists (for workers and sweaters) can be consulted online (which, honestly, I doubt they would). Gotta run now. Can you believe that the stupid post office changed its venue (which, conveniently, used to be 2 tiny blocks from my apartment), plus I still got at least half a dozen errands to run. Ugh!

[c.d.]

Thank you, Maria. I figured that was probably the case but I wasn't sure.

c.d.

[mariab]

No problem, C.D.. It took several days for me to figure it out!

[Hunter]

I am sorry i dont agree had Schwartz given a written statement and his understanding of the engliish language was not that great then they would have used an intrepter to take down the initial statement.

If his statement was material to the death then he surely would have been called and again an interpreter used in court.

So it would seem he had no material evidence to give, or what he originally told them lacked any credibilty.

The fact is that the police did give Schwartz credibility and it was written after the Stride inquest, which ended effectively on Oct. 5. The Oct. 23 conclusion was only to eliminate Elizabeth Stokes' testimony and for the coroner to give his summation. Swanson's report was on the 19th of October; Abberline's comments were made on the 1st of November. Whether we choose to believe in Schwartz's credibility or not, the police did for that period of time and there is no further record of him ever being discredited.

Speculation is fine and dandy, but if we don't consider the relevant facts at hand, then we have nothing.

[mariab]

Hunter, I understand where you're going with this. Still, I need to have a look at the sources myself (not just now, whenever I manage in the near future). I'll also try to find a way to check for “sweaters“ (and cardigans) associated with the IWMC.

[Garza]

Just a quick clarafication... no opinion on Schwartz either way.

First, since Lewis and Huchinson were mentioned... there is no evidence that Mrs. Lewis saw Hutchinson. That tie has been made by theorists; based on conjecture.

Ok then, both Schwartz and Hutchinson were not viewed or heard by anyone else in the vincinity of crime scenes, there is no evidence that they were there.