Schwartz, a fraud?

[Wickerman]

So the second man supposedly came out of the Nelson beer-house, at a quarter to one. Times, Oct 2:

Morris Eagle: On the same side as the club is a beershop and I have seen men and women coming from there.
A Juryman: That is always closed about 9 o'clock.

The second man did not come out of the beerhouse, he came out of the doorway of the beerhouse.
It is pretty common for a pipe smoker to step into a sheltered recess to light his pipe. There is no suggestion in either report that the beerhouse was still open.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz is now walking alongside the board school fence, towards Fairclough street...

... but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

So where had the second man been standing, when lighting his pipe and commencing to follow Schwartz, who is heading south toward the railway arches?
Three clues:

1. Schwartz does not see the man until he crosses - so probably the board school side.
2. The man who assaulted Stride, called 'Lipski'; apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road. So once again, the school side.
3. The man followed Schwartz, who was heading south. So the second man must have been to his north - closer to Commercial Rd than Schwartz was. So perhaps somewhere near the Hampshire Court corner of the school.

Note that this is nowhere near The Nelson beer-house (on the corner of Berner (club side) and Fairclough) - as is the case in the Star account.
It also places the first and second man quite close together (but on opposite street sides).

Three related questions...

1: Why do people commonly suppose the pipeman was down on the Nelson corner?

Apparently because they conflate elements of the Met account, and The Star account...

... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, ...

A very different location.
In the Star account, it seems obvious where the second man had come from - The Nelson beer-house, on the corner of Berner and Fairclough streets.
It also seems clear that this man wants to warn the other man of Schwartz' presence, before rushing at Schwartz with a knife...

... and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more.

Both 'intruder', and 'waited to see no more', indicate that Schwartz was lingering at the scene - this was no brief walk-by as commonly supposed.

2: Where had the man with the pipe come from, that prevented Schwartz from noticing him, until Schwartz crosses Berner street?

In the Met account, it is not obvious how the man lighting his pipe comes to be where he is.
These are some of the possibilities...

1. Pipeman turned into Berner street just after Schwartz did, but on the opposite side to the club. He then stopped roughly across from the gateway, both to light his pipe and observe the escalating fracas, across the road.
This would account for Schwartz not seeing him until Schwartz crosses the street - the man had walked behind him.
So in this scenario, the broad-shouldered man enters Berner street, followed by Schwartz several seconds later, followed by the pipeman several seconds after Schwartz. The broad-shouldered man assaults the woman, then shouts 'Lipski' at one of the other two men, who moments later begin to scurry away like startled rabbits.

2. Pipeman entered Berner street via Hampshire court, just after Schwartz reached the gateway. Otherwise the same as #2.
Why the pipeman had just walked through the court is unknowable, of course. My guess is that he was on his way home, after having dropped off his laundry with Mrs Kuer.

3. Pipeman was standing in that location, prior to Schwartz entering Berner street. He could have come from anywhere, including the club.
However, this possibility does not explain why Schwartz does not see the man before reaching the gateway.

4. Pipeman had come from the direction of Fairclough street.
In this case, turning around and apparently following Schwartz (while running), would be compatible with the notion that he and the other man were together or known to each other. The police did not believe this to be the case.

3: Schwartz only gets a brief view of the pipeman, before fleeing. Yet he was able to give a detailed description:

Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

Not so the following day...

The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red.

Why the reduction in detail? Was it an attempt to conceal the identity of the second man? The Echo:

... the secretary (Woolf Wess) mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, ... The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body.

Does this mean that the man who apparently gave chase, who perhaps becomes the pipeman in Schwartz' story, is known to some members of the club (but not a member himself)?
If yes, then it is likely that Israel Schwartz was also known to some members of the club, probably including Wess.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your way of viewing the evidence Michael is a simply staggering example of tunnel vision. Your witnesses simply do not tally with an earlier discovery time. They just don’t. You are manipulating statements to suit by cherry picking errors over proper evidence. Hoschberg is a perfect illustration of this. He was obviously, blatantly, transparently, provably wrong when he ‘guessed’ at 12.45 but does that bother you? Of course not.

Frank keeps asking you about Gillen. I’ve asked you as well. Could you please cut and paste anything with the name Gillen on please because you seem unwilling to respond. I’ll ask the question again:

Is the person that you keep referring to as Gillen actually Gilleman?

[Michael W Richards]

Eagle actually didn't say he stayed to the club wall, Michael. The coroner asked him if he passed up the middle of the gateway, to which he answered something like "yes, I think so", adding that he "naturally walked on the right side, that being the side on which the club door was." So, in short, he says he walked on the right side of the middle. Which is not "staying to the club wall". And so your reasoning looses a lot of power, to say the least.

But what kind of damage control would that have been, if an idea would have taken hold that she might have been discovered earlier?

Seems a rather odd & inefficient sort of effort if nobody but these 2 were in on it. Eagle hedging, Diemshutz copying Spooner's account, Diemshutz sending out Kozebrodski and 2 other men for a PC right after the murder, not letting Kozebrodski & the other 2 in on it. What if these men would actually have come back with a PC? What if they would have come back with some other member of the public? It would have been a sheer miracle if these 2 wouldn't be found out.

I've asked you a few times before, but you've never answered me yet, but could you post this Gillen guy's statement, in which he's supposed to say that he was alerted to the body between 12:40 and 12:45?

You know as well as I do that Gillen is refered to but not interviewed, the point nevertheless doesnt change. The main club characters, including Schwartz, have no corroberation for anything they say. The group I mention all the time virtually match each other in times and witnessed events. Independent and unaffiliated witnesses. You take the former group. I defer to the latter.

The very fact that Eagle and Louis cannot be verified in any details while a group of witnesses can, should raise a red flag for anyone. A closer inspection verifies those concerns.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I dont suggest a conspiracy in the sense of a community gathered together with a plot and storyline provided, I suggest 2 men looking to do damage control on a potentially explosive event on their soil, on their watch

At a time when Sir Charles Warren was so concerned about ill feeling toward Jews that he had a poorly spelt grafitto rubbed out to prevent a riot do you seriously think that the police might even have considered inflaming the Jewish population further by closing down a Jewish club for the sin of having a ripper murder inside the gate of their yard? By what stretch could this be considered reasonable?

So even the reason for a cover-up doesn't hold water. No matter what you say if they were that desperate to avoid the wrath of the police then why not simply wait until the street was empty and drop the body a couple of doors away then wash away the blood? Or wrap the body in something, stick it on the back of Louis cart and dump her somewhere else? Or get one of the members to say “I was walking along Berner Street when I saw a man drag a woman inside the yard. As I got nearer the man came out carry a knife and looking agitated. I approached him and he told me to ‘f#*^k off’ in a broad Scottish accent. I chased him but he was too quick and I lost him.” Bingo. The killer was a Scotsman who ran in the direction of Commercial Road. Or, why didn’t Diemschutz just say that as he got to the gates a man came out carrying a knife and that he’d be able to identify him if he saw him again.

Any of the above would have been preferable to the alleged Schwartz plan.

[Herlock Sholmes]

By properly assessing what witnesses said and by accepting that timing errors will naturally occur we can see very clearly that no cover up went on here. There isn’t a smidgeon of proper evidence apart from manufactured connections and assumptions. Nothing that anyone can say though will change your mind Michael because your fully committed to a theory which you are unwilling to give up. You view everything through the conspiracist goggles. Most of the thinking you can see here by yourself and NBFN you can see on any JFK assassination site or faked Moon landing site. It’s so familiar. Any factual rebuttal is basically responded to with “well they would say that wouldn’t they.” Once this line of thinking is adopted it distorts everything. It’s The Curse Of The Conspiracist. Like Qanonsense in the States.

Auto-correct error. ‘The value of Kate’s evidence’ should read ‘The value of Lave’s evidence’ of course.

[FrankO]

He says he stayed to the club wall going in due to the darkness, so where is Liz found? Inside the gate close to the club wall. Then he would have had to possibly step over her to do what he says. I believe it shows he hedged his bet.

Eagle actually didn't say he stayed to the club wall, Michael. The coroner asked him if he passed up the middle of the gateway, to which he answered something like "yes, I think so", adding that he "naturally walked on the right side, that being the side on which the club door was." So, in short, he says he walked on the right side of the middle. Which is not "staying to the club wall". And so your reasoning looses a lot of power, to say the least.

Just in case an idea took hold that she might have been discovered earlier than 1am.

But what kind of damage control would that have been, if an idea would have taken hold that she might have been discovered earlier?

I dont suggest a conspiracy in the sense of a community gathered together with a plot and storyline provided, I suggest 2 men looking to do damage control on a potentially explosive event on their soil, on their watch.

Seems a rather odd & inefficient sort of effort if nobody but these 2 were in on it. Eagle hedging, Diemshutz copying Spooner's account, Diemshutz sending out Kozebrodski and 2 other men for a PC right after the murder, not letting Kozebrodski & the other 2 in on it. What if these men would actually have come back with a PC? What if they would have come back with some other member of the public? It would have been a sheer miracle if these 2 wouldn't be found out.

Thats why the four I mention differ with Louis in some important timing and activity details, although they do agree with each other.

I've asked you a few times before, but you've never answered me yet, but could you post this Gillen guy's statement, in which he's supposed to say that he was alerted to the body between 12:40 and 12:45?

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the four cases I mention, Issac K, Heschburg, Gillen and Spooner, all of them in some interviews said they were alerted to the body between 12:40 and 12:45...Spooner included. Your surprise that I would base my opinion on what is essentially actual evidence here is always confusing, and your denial that they exist is Trumpian.

But you’re not weighing up that individual evidence to see what is likely to have been the case. You ignore the possibility of error and assume that any earlier time must have been correct. Just to cite one example is Hoschberg. Yes he said “about” 12.45 “I should think” which couldn’t really have been less certain. And yet he was certain that he’d been alerted by a police whistle. We know that the only police whistle was Lamb and that it occurred after 1.00. Therefore his guess was overwhelmingly likely to have been wrong. That’s assessing the actual evidence as opposed to accepting what suits a theory.

As for Schwartz, see post 507. Although I disagree that this would be the ONLy reason to discard him, (his claim he was checking on his wifes moving progress 12 hours after it began...from where....), its clear he was. If believed, he would be the single most important witness in any Canonical crime investigation. Likely seeing the villain minutes before he acts. That he isnt speaks volumes..if you listen of course.

The Inquest was to answer the ‘when’ and ‘how’ she died of course. Schwartz certainly couldn’t contribute to the ‘how’ as Stride was still alive when he saw her and the Doctor knew how she had died. As to ‘when,’ Smith reckoned that he’d seen her alive at 12.35 and they also had Eagle saying that he saw no body at 12.35 Ialthough of course he admitted that the yard was dark)Diemschutz said that he’d discovered the body at 1.00. The Doctors TOD fell within that window. Schwartz ‘might’ have narrowed it down by 10 minutes which is hardly massive. So, although Schwartz could add useful information to the police investigation (which they acted upon) but he had little of significance to add at an Inquest. And so if he’d expressed a genuinely held fear for his own safety might not the Coroner have weighed things up and excused him? The suggestion that he was excluded because the police didn’t trust what he said is simply refuted by the evidence that they acted on his statement and continued to do so at least until the end of October when they put his description of BS Man on the front page of the Police Gazette. That’s evidence Michael. Why would they use his description and distribute it if they saw no value in it? It’s a slam dunk of an argument which you continue to try and refute.

If you read any rebuttal at all, you will note that numerous, voluminous times Ive suggested that Louis and Eagle discussed options, so why would you think quoting Eagle would compel me to think otherwise? Louis provably lied, about his arrival time for one...and Eagle hedged his bet. Eagle did not state he saw Lave, nor did Lave state that he saw Eagle arrive, yet both say they were on the same spot at the same time. So....these are the kind of statements you go by?

Since when is 12.35 the same as 12.40? Eagle said he’d returned at 12.35, Lave said 12.40. You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that Eagle arrived back before Lave went into the yard. The value of Kate’s evidence has to be questioned too because, according to him, he was in the yard until 1.10 and there was no one there. So he was obviously wrong. Was he actually there and at that time?

You say that Diemschutz ‘provably’ lied. Frank demolished that nonsense ages ago. If he saw a clock at 1.00 he’d have arrived at the yard in under a minute. Therefore 1.00. Honestly Michael this argument about the use of the word ‘precisely’ to try and prove Diemschutz a liar is truly one of the most desperate attempts that I’ve ever heard but such is conspiracy theory thinking.

You suggest that Diemschutz and Eagle conferred but you have absolutely zero evidence for this. These kind of ‘inferences’ can be employed to make anything fit.


The majority of witness accounts all suggest a discovery time, by Louis, around 12:40-12:45, a full 20-25 minutes before Louis's claims. Louis, Morris, Lave and Schwartz have zero corroboration...why, because they built a story hastily among only a few men. Didnt work out the fine print.

That simply isn’t true Michael. The ‘evidence’ tells us that Spooner and Hoschberg got to the yard after 1.00. Eagle said that he first saw the body at 1.00. These ‘earlier’ times don’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Who corroborates Gilleman as stating an earlier time? And yet Eagle said that he called him to the body at 1.00 just after Diemschutz had discovered the body.

By properly assessing what witnesses said and by accepting that timing errors will naturally occur we can see very clearly that no cover up went on here. There isn’t a smidgeon of proper evidence apart from manufactured connections and assumptions. Nothing that anyone can say though will change your mind Michael because your fully committed to a theory which you are unwilling to give up. You view everything through the conspiracist goggles. Most of the thinking you can see here by yourself and NBFN you can see on any JFK assassination site or faked Moon landing site. It’s so familiar. Any factual rebuttal is basically responded to with “well they would say that wouldn’t they.” Once this line of thinking is adopted it distorts everything. It’s The Curse Of The Conspiracist. Like Qanonsense in the States.

[Michael W Richards]

How many times do we have to keep restating the facts Michael before you stop saying that these witnesses agree with each other and point to any earlier discovery time. The don’t. Eagle, for 100th time, said that he saw the body at 1.00! How does this agree with an earlier discovery time? It doesn’t Michael. But you persist in using him. Why??

You simply cannot back up this claim Michael. Eagle has gone. Hoschberg has provably gone. As has Spooner by his own words! You have no 4 witnesses. They do not exist in terms of backing up an earlier discovery time and simply ignoring the fact and carrying on name checking achieves nothing.

In the four cases I mention, Issac K, Heschburg, Gillen and Spooner, all of them in some interviews said they were alerted to the body between 12:40 and 12:45...Spooner included. Your surprise that I would base my opinion on what is essentially actual evidence here is always confusing, and your denial that they exist is Trumpian.

As for Schwartz, see post 507. Although I disagree that this would be the ONLy reason to discard him, (his claim he was checking on his wifes moving progress 12 hours after it began...from where....), its clear he was. If believed, he would be the single most important witness in any Canonical crime investigation. Likely seeing the villain minutes before he acts. That he isnt speaks volumes..if you listen of course.

If you read any rebuttal at all, you will note that numerous, voluminous times Ive suggested that Louis and Eagle discussed options, so why would you think quoting Eagle would compel me to think otherwise? Louis provably lied, about his arrival time for one...and Eagle hedged his bet. Eagle did not state he saw Lave, nor did Lave state that he saw Eagle arrive, yet both say they were on the same spot at the same time. So....these are the kind of statements you go by?

The majority of witness accounts all suggest a discovery time, by Louis, around 12:40-12:45, a full 20-25 minutes before Louis's claims. Louis, Morris, Lave and Schwartz have zero corroboration...why, because they built a story hastily among only a few men. Didnt work out the fine print.

[Varqm]

To the thread,yes Schwartz was a fraud.His first/official statement (man on the right was aggressive) differ with the STAR interview (man on the left was aggressive) one day after. This is the only possible reason Coroner Baxter did not include him in the inquest,otherwise he was the most important witness.Baxter had 22 days to change his mind.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Thats why the four I mention differ with Louis in some important timing and activity details, although they do agree with each other

How many times do we have to keep restating the facts Michael before you stop saying that these witnesses agree with each other and point to any earlier discovery time. The don’t. Eagle, for 100th time, said that he saw the body at 1.00! How does this agree with an earlier discovery time? It doesn’t Michael. But you persist in using him. Why??

You simply cannot back up this claim Michael. Eagle has gone. Hoschberg has provably gone. As has Spooner by his own words! You have no 4 witnesses. They do not exist in terms of backing up an earlier discovery time and simply ignoring the fact and carrying on name checking achieves nothing.

[Michael W Richards]

Totally agree, Michael.

He said he didn’t notice anything lying there, that he didn’t think anything could have lain there, and – only in the end – said he couldn’t say for certain that there was there was no body there then. Simply because - just as you say - he couldn't be absolutely certain she wasn't there.

Ok Franko. My point was really that he couldnt have missed the body if it was there at 12:40. Her feet were inches from the open gate, maybe even visible with some streetlight coming in, or out the open kitchen door. He says he stayed to the club wall going in due to the darkness, so where is Liz found? Inside the gate close to the club wall. Then he would have had to possibly step over her to do what he says. I believe it shows he hedged his bet. Just in case an idea took hold that she might have been discovered earlier than 1am. I dont suggest a conspiracy in the sense of a community gathered together with a plot and storyline provided, I suggest 2 men looking to do damage control on a potentially explosive event on their soil, on their watch. Which means some men in attendance had no idea how they would present the facts so they just gave their own recollections. Plus, they had no economic stake in the life of the club...they just hung out there.

Thats why the four I mention differ with Louis in some important timing and activity details, although they do agree with each other.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a thought but when Spooner talked of pub closing times mightn’t he have been talking about the club? When he got there just after 1.00 there were already around 15 people there most, if not all, would have been club members. Couldn't he have assumed that the club, like the pubs, closed at 12.30 which would explain to him why the members were still there? They’d only just left the club at 12.30 closing time? So he simply estimated 12.35 as just after closing time?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Quite so, Michael. Also interesting is that the coroner, a man who spoke to Spooner directly & heard exactly what he said, in summing up recapitulated that Diemshutz found the body at one o'clock and that "blood was flowing from the throat, even when Spooner reached the spot some few minutes afterwards." (Times, 24 October).

There really can be no serious doubt about Spooner Frank. Basically he gives 5 bits of info on time.

1. 12.35 - based on pub closing times which would mean seeing people leaving a pub or maybe walking past and assuming that they’d just left the pub.

2. That he’d been talking to a woman for 25 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00.

3. That he arrived at the yard 5 minutes before PC Lamb.

4. He saw two Jews running (Diemschutz and Kozebrodski)

5. We might also add that there were about 15 people in the yard when he got there.

So out of the 5 snippets 4 of them point to a time of around 1.00 (allowing a 5 minute margin of error for point number 2.)

So what does a conspiracist do? You’ve guessed it.....point number 1 is valid and the rest are wrong.

Id say that this was a perfect example of conspiracist selectivity Frank. Anyone taking a dispassionate look at this episode must surely go with points 2, 3, 4 and 5 as most relevant?

Therefore, of the 4 alleged witness who supposedly support an earlier discovery time, Eagle, Hoschberg and Spooner can be dismissed on very obvious evidence. Following on therefore its also very obvious that Kozebrodski must have been mistaken. The four witnesses don’t support and earlier discovery time. Nothing does.

[FrankO]

These are the leaps that have to be made constantly to arrive at conspiracy Frank IMO. It’s a mindset.

An example is Hoschberg. He is quoted and used to propose an earlier time of discovery of the body. How did he find out that there was something going on? He heard a policeman’s whistle which we know occurred after 1.00. That should tell everyone what they need to know. He was very obviously mistaken. No policeman answered the call of a whistle before 1.00 and no one reported hearing one.

Even after that though some still prefer to believe a man that said:

“. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think...”

Quite so, Michael. Also interesting is that the coroner, a man who spoke to Spooner directly & heard exactly what he said, in summing up recapitulated that Diemshutz found the body at one o'clock and that "blood was flowing from the throat, even when Spooner reached the spot some few minutes afterwards." (Times, 24 October).