Schwartz, a fraud?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

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...”

[FrankO]

I don't call that hedging. He was simply being honest because it was dark. He couldn't be absolutely certain that she wasn't there.

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz was a key witness and it may be we never fully get to the bottom of him not appearing at the inquest. What we do know is that he was believed and his story is not contradicted by anyone else. I have a fair degree of certainty that the man Scwartz saw was the Ripper- let's not forget this was a man who had killed 2 or 3 women(maybe 4) already and was becoming more and more daring with each attack. This was his first real mistake. Scwartz told the papers the man seemed to be drunk or at least tipsy- did this inhibit his usual caution as well. A feeling of invincibility with the added alcohol surely adds up to a mistake or two. The calling of 'Lipski' at Schwartz would seem to imply a local man as the attacker. This fits with what we know about serial killers. They are often local. Boring. Dull. Run of the mill. To me this was the Ripper intoxicated and careless or more careless than his previous attacks and Schwartz got a good look.

How intoxicated was the Ripper when he got to Mitre Square?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The 'Schwartz incident' is really about answering the fundamental question; did the killer come from inside the club, or outside it?

Really? I’d say that it was about whether BS Man was the killer of Liz Stride or not?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Ive said many times that its likely Louis AND Morris discussed responses. That the reason Morris hedged his bet on whether Liz Stride was there at 12:40 when he says he arrived at the passageway, not seeing Lave who was standing there at the time. To be fair, Lave said he was there from 12:30 and to 12:40-12:45, and he didnt see Morris either apparently. Back to the point, Eagle does not say Liz Stride, or a body was not there when he came in. He hedges. I believe thats a result of his knowing that the story as given might not stand up against contradictory witnesses. Of which there are many. Though few appear at the Inquest.

I don’t call that hedging. He was simply being honest because it was dark. He couldn’t be absolutely certain that she wasn’t there. According to The Evening News Lave claimed to have been in the yard for half an hour from 12.40 until 1.10 which is clearly impossible. Even if Lave had gone into the yard at 12.40 Eagle said that he’d returned at 12.35. You might say that there is doubt about Schwartz because Lave didn’t see him. I’d say that if he didn’t see Schwartz then it was because Lave wasn’t there at that time (and as Lave had said that he was in the yard until 1.10 we know for a fact there there is huge doubt over his statement.)

And we still have Gilleman announcing the body at around 1.00 and Eagle seeing the body for the first time at around 1.00. Youre argument is based on a conversation between Diemschutz and Eagle for which there’s just no evidence.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What is even more telling however is that when compared with the man Lawende would describe the similarities are striking.

Schwartz description of suspect:

Aged 30
5ft 5inches tall
Broad Shoulders
Small brown moustache
Fair Complexion

Lawende description of suspect:

Aged 30
5ft 7inches tall
Medium Build
Fair moustache
Fair Complexion

Surely it is the same man. And if it is the same man then Schwartz is the key to unlocking the whole case.

Who gave the following description? Star, Oct 1:

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Why is the age different to both Schwartz' Met account (30), and Star account (30)?

Why was the event witnessed by multiple people, when according to Abberline...?

There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe.

Collective silence will work for a while, but at some point, these and other Schwartz-related questions will have to be answered.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

According to The Star, Oct 1...

... the story of a man who is said to have seen the Berner-street tragedy, and declares that one man butchered and another man watched, is, we think, a priori incredible.

So did the other man watch from across the street, and a few yards north of the gateway?
Or did he come out of the public-house a few doors off?

It's just that the first possibility is based on the Met account - the second on the Star's own.
Seems the Star may have had detailed knowledge of Schwartz' police statement.

Schwartz is now over on the board school side, walking toward Fairclough street...

Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, ...

So it seems Schwartz was about to lose interest, but then heard the quarrel and decided to look back, while apparently still walking ...

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

The kerb must refer to that leading onto Fairclough street - so Schwartz is now down on the board school corner.
As with the Met account, the second man has appeared on the scene quite suddenly...

... and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

To elaborate on a few points...

The following assumes - at least for the sake of analysis - that the 'Schwartz incident' was real.
So taking both the Met and the Star accounts in turn, and at face value, this is what I see...

Who got to the Dutfield's Yard gateway first; Schwartz, or the man who threw the woman down...?

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

Seems it was Schwartz!

It seems Swanson was not the clearest of writers, which is odd, considering the critical role he was given in the case.

When considering Schwartz' story, a lot of effort goes into the 'Lipski' issue, and determining the religious/ethnic identities supposed by and for the those in the story.
This seems a bit a pointless to me, considering what Abberline wrote of the matter...

I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

The 'Schwartz incident' is really about answering the fundamental question; did the killer come from inside the club, or outside it?
The fundamental question of the Schwartz incident itself is; is that answer by design, or accident?

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

So the man tried to pull Stride onto the road, failed (!), but was immediately able to throw her down onto the footway.
She then reacted with the seemingly oxymoronic not very loud screams.

More ambiguous writing from Swanson.
Which of these interpretations seems most likely...?

... he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & ...

the woman screamed in pain three times, but not very loudly

the woman screamed in fear three times, but not very loudly

the woman screamed in anger three times, but not very loudly

The first is not really compatible with the lack of apparent 'throw down injuries'.
The second is not really compatible with 'not very loudly'.
The third seems most likely, and fits with the idea of the fracas continually intensifying; talking > quarrelling > raised voice, almost yelling
However, it still has problems...

Mrs Diemschitz: I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing them, had there been any. In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave.

Fanny Mortimer: It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found.

Where was Schwartz initially, when he observed this fracas?

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

On crossing from ... the gateway? Apparently yes, otherwise, why cross?
Yet that implies Schwartz stopped at the gateway, to observe the fracas.

So Schwartz observed the fracas at close range, rather than walking right on by.
Was he feeling alarmed, and keen to finally get home to his wife, at this point?

So on crossing, did Schwartz continue walking down Berner street?

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, ...

Not immediately - the man shouted 'Lipski', and then Schwartz proceeded to walk away.

So Schwartz has now stopped once - at the gateway, and for more than a few seconds - and paused once, after crossing Berner street.
This was no walk-by!

How much time has now elapsed, from the point Schwartz turns into Berner street?
Still got a way to go...

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.

Did the second man actually run?

Abberline: Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.

So did both men run in terror, while Stride seems to have gone quietly into the darkness of the yard?
We can infer the Met's answer to the first part of that question - they did not seem to regard Pipeman as a suspect - double event police suspects

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). Hence the obvious questions that must have followed...

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

What possible reason did the second man - after lighting his pipe - have for running a substantial distance from the scene (halfway to the railway arch?)?
How many turns did he take - giving Schwartz the impression he was still be followed?
One or more turns would look like a chase. None, would make Schwartz' effort seem over the top.
This part of the story feels highly unrealistic, to me.

The placement of Pipeman on the opposite side of Berner street, and a few yards to the north of the gateway (as I interpret the Met report), reminds me of...

PC Smith: She stood on the pavement, a few yards up Berner-street, on the opposite side to where she was found. I noticed the man who was talking with her.

That was no more than 10 minutes earlier. Stride's companion might have been her killer.
Now a man stands in the same area, who seems to alarm Schwartz enough that he flees, and thus Schwartz misses witnessing the murder.
Was Pipeman real, or psychological projection?

The location, behaviour, and degree of physical detail of the second man, are much different in the Star account...

To the point that it would be reasonable to wonder who the Star man really spoke to.

[FrankO]

You appear to gloss over the fact that Morris Eagle said that he first saw the body at 1.00 (called to the scene by Gilleman) How is he a favourable witness?

Good point, Michael.

[Michael W Richards]

Schwartz was a key witness and it may be we never fully get to the bottom of him not appearing at the inquest. What we do know is that he was believed and his story is not contradicted by anyone else. I have a fair degree of certainty that the man Scwartz saw was the Ripper- let's not forget this was a man who had killed 2 or 3 women(maybe 4) already and was becoming more and more daring with each attack. This was his first real mistake. Scwartz told the papers the man seemed to be drunk or at least tipsy- did this inhibit his usual caution as well. A feeling of invincibility with the added alcohol surely adds up to a mistake or two. The calling of 'Lipski' at Schwartz would seem to imply a local man as the attacker. This fits with what we know about serial killers. They are often local. Boring. Dull. Run of the mill. To me this was the Ripper intoxicated and careless or more careless than his previous attacks and Schwartz got a good look.

What is even more telling however is that when compared with the man Lawende would describe the similarities are striking.

Schwartz description of suspect:

Aged 30
5ft 5inches tall
Broad Shoulders
Small brown moustache
Fair Complexion

Lawende description of suspect:

Aged 30
5ft 7inches tall
Medium Build
Fair moustache
Fair Complexion

Surely it is the same man. And if it is the same man then Schwartz is the key to unlocking the whole case.

Matching suspect descriptions to then argue for the same killer is hardly compelling evidence Sunny. Everyone looked like everyone else after midnight on dimly lit streets. Your support of Schwartz and his value if his story were true is all well and good, so surely you too must be shocked that this tale of assault is not recorded, presented, offered or defended in an Inquiry whose mandate is to discover How the victim dies. An assault minutes before an estimated throat cut time...feet from the very spot...had to be important. Yet it wasnt. Giving an opinion of belief means nothing, Aberline supported Schwartz and Hutchinson, which was based on his burning desire to solve these crimes in the district where he made his name,.. not on sound provable data. Both these witnesses are distractions.

[Michael W Richards]

You’re still having to base your case on the worst of witnesses. You appear to gloss over the fact that Morris Eagle said that he first saw the body at 1.00 (called to the scene by Gilleman) How is he a favourable witness? To dismiss him you would have to just assume that he’d lied without any evidence for it otherwise you’d just be saying ‘well Diemschutz lied therefore Eagle must have lied.” And you’re not saying that. Are you?

I think Ive said many times that its likely Louis AND Morris discussed responses. That the reason Morris hedged his bet on whether Liz Stride was there at 12:40 when he says he arrived at the passageway, not seeing Lave who was standing there at the time. To be fair, Lave said he was there from 12:30 and to 12:40-12:45, and he didnt see Morris either apparently. Back to the point, Eagle does not say Liz Stride, or a body was not there when he came in. He hedges. I believe thats a result of his knowing that the story as given might not stand up against contradictory witnesses. Of which there are many. Though few appear at the Inquest.

[Sunny Delight]

Schwartz was a key witness and it may be we never fully get to the bottom of him not appearing at the inquest. What we do know is that he was believed and his story is not contradicted by anyone else. I have a fair degree of certainty that the man Scwartz saw was the Ripper- let's not forget this was a man who had killed 2 or 3 women(maybe 4) already and was becoming more and more daring with each attack. This was his first real mistake. Scwartz told the papers the man seemed to be drunk or at least tipsy- did this inhibit his usual caution as well. A feeling of invincibility with the added alcohol surely adds up to a mistake or two. The calling of 'Lipski' at Schwartz would seem to imply a local man as the attacker. This fits with what we know about serial killers. They are often local. Boring. Dull. Run of the mill. To me this was the Ripper intoxicated and careless or more careless than his previous attacks and Schwartz got a good look.

What is even more telling however is that when compared with the man Lawende would describe the similarities are striking.

Schwartz description of suspect:

Aged 30
5ft 5inches tall
Broad Shoulders
Small brown moustache
Fair Complexion

Lawende description of suspect:

Aged 30
5ft 7inches tall
Medium Build
Fair moustache
Fair Complexion

Surely it is the same man. And if it is the same man then Schwartz is the key to unlocking the whole case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You’re still having to base your case on the worst of witnesses. You appear to gloss over the fact that Morris Eagle said that he first saw the body at 1.00 (called to the scene by Gilleman) How is he a favourable witness? To dismiss him you would have to just assume that he’d lied without any evidence for it otherwise you’d just be saying ‘well Diemschutz lied therefore Eagle must have lied.” And you’re not saying that. Are you?

[Michael W Richards]

Wouldn't anyone who was in the club that night have told police that Schwartz was at the meeting?

As far as I can tell Scott the main interviews were done that same night, few of these men appear at the Inquest. Schwartz came forward almost 20 hours later. When some if any realized the impact of that statement Im sure they would be content to stay quiet. Its the best possible alibi they could have wanted. Her most likely killer came from the street, not the club. With antisemitism added for flair...after all, .he was theatrical in appearance. Just thought...perhaps he did a sketch there that night, in costume, and would be hard to recognize as such by other attendees. That would be an interesting twist...Schwartz as the actual killer, still in costume, while leaving the club via the kitchen door.

What Im suggesting is that Louis and Morris were by the body and discussing how to handle this at around 12:40-45. Parties were sent out, including Issac K and 2 jews that Spooner sees, and that Louis and Morris left roughly at the time they estimated they did. the medical timing is fine, the police timings are fine, and we have one of three street witnesses to verify that Louis did not arrive at 1 as he stated, emphatically. Why would he want the records to show it was 1? Because it would explain the time he actually leaves himself for help. It was just minutes in his story, in mine, its more like 20-25 minutes. That discussion would happen is a certainty..how long and to what end it did...thats a good question.

[Scott Nelson]

..what If Israel Schwartz did see Liz with her killer...but it was inside the passage, as he left the building via the kitchen door...I believe he attended the meeting.

Wouldn't anyone who was in the club that night have told police that Schwartz was at the meeting?