Schwartz, a fraud?

[mariab]

Agree with Caz, plus we don't even know if Stride was not being escorted from the IWEC premises by a BS who was a Club member. It's a possibility.

[moonbegger]

I agree with Tom.

The bizarre 'Pipeman' was more likely to have really been 'Knifeman'; since this was a crime involving a murderer with a knife, and who worked within a very narrow timeline:

The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. MONDAY, 1 OCTOBER, 1888.

'INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT
was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police. It is, in fact, to the effect that he

SAW THE WHOLE THING.
It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb

A SECOND MAN CAME OUT
of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, 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. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings. He described

THE MAN WITH THE WOMAN
as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. 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. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society. The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.'


The story Schwartz tells in the newspaper version, though lacking the official status of the police report, nevertheless, makes more sense, as it is less self-servingly 1) a tale of racial persecution because it is isn't, and 2) Schwartz did shamefully know and he fearfully fled.

The witness, furthermore, describes an armed man who generically resembles the figure later seen chatting with Eddowes, as described by Lawende.

Is that really just a coincidence?

Good post jon ..

All sounds perfectly plausible to me ... i have always preferred the interview he made to the press as opposed to the police one ..
My question would be .. are the obvious discrepancies .. literally Interpretation ones , or were the police holding something back deliberately

moonbegger.

[harry]

It appears that Schwartz did what so many of us are wont to do,that is ,assume certain acts took place,and certain conditions prevailed.The first is the gait of the man in front of him.Another is that Stride was pushed back into the yard.It maybe that BS was indeed half tipsy,and that Stride was pushed back,but there are alternatives to Schwartz assumptions.It was night,the light was poor,and,assumptions here,Schwartz took off in panic.

[Cogidubnus]

Blind panic

So where do we think Schwartz ran to...Pinchin Street (that'd be some panic indeed) or over towards Gowers Walk somewhere? Or where?

All the best

Dave

[Archaic]

If Stride was hanging around hoping to lure a club member or two into the darkness of the yard for a spot of business, she might well have been reluctant to draw the wrong kind of attention to herself and end up being escorted from the premises. So I doubt that uttering a piercing scream would have been her first thought, assuming BS man merely came across as the kind of Saturday night oaf she was long used to dealing with.

I imagine it would have taken a very clear sense of imminent peril before Stride would have tried to scream the clubhouse down.

I agree with you, her 3 "not very loud" screams seem more like she was taken by surprised and offended rather than in actual fear for her life.

Perhaps she wanted to make just enough noise to induce the man to stop roughing her up?


I'm not sure what to make of that quoted Star report regarding the man with a knife, the arrest, etc. I'm sure we can all agree that the Star was not exactly a reliable news source.

Does it show up in any other article or report? Is there any corroboration?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

Regarding the alleged screams, we have 1 witness within earshot at the time of the alleged attack, James Brown, a young couple and Fanny Mortimer, and by her statement she could possibly have been in close proximity to the event at the very time it supposedly happened. At or near her door to Berner Street. And she was off and on at her door from around 12:30 until 1am, the last 10 minutes or so, continuously. Her verified sighting of Leon Goldstein at around 12:55-:56 supports her claim.

For me it is important to remember that we have a statement from Israel...not necessarily the facts. His apparent absence at the Inquest may well speak to that point.

If someone screams and no-one is around to hear it...is there any sound?

Best regards,

Mike R

[Tom_Wescott]

For the unaware who may venture here.

Michael Richards = Perry Mason.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Michael Richards = Perry Mason.

I've no idea under what circumstances Michael previously left Casebook...I have, however, read many older threads and, on the whole, enjoyed reading his input...So I can't say his reappearance unduly bothers me...far from it, I look forward to the debate!

For me it is important to remember that we have a statement from Israel...not necessarily the facts. His apparent absence at the Inquest may well speak to that point.

Pray enlarge... (I am suspicious of the gent myself)...what's in your mind?

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

Briefly, Tom you should be aware that I made that disclosure on my 2nd post on another thread and that I have no axes to grind, no bones to bare. Ive been allowed back on to discuss some things with people who have advanced knowledge of a study subject of mine, not to re-open past differences.

I appreciate your comments Dave and Ill go further by suggesting that the alleged "screams" and the call of "Lipski" are to me serious problems with the statement, because we have Inquest witnesses that were within earshot at the time. Its one thing to expect someone to have seen exactly what happened to whom by whom on a dark street in the wee hours, but sounds retain their potency even in the dark. Some are even amplified under the right conditions.

At approximately 12:45am we have the young couple on the corner that Brown saw, Brown, and very possibly Fanny Mortimer...as she need not have been at her door to have heard something. That is demonstrated by her recalling various sounds in her statement,... boots, a cart and horse and a "ruckus" of sorts after 1 at the Club. I don't believe she indicated that she was at her door for any of those.

Yet she was there.....at least when Leon Goldstein passes hurriedly by at 12:55-56am.

My best regards,

Mike R

[Cogidubnus]

So you reckon he's a put-up? (or aren't you prepared to go that far yet?)

Incidentally, I'm still wondering where it was Schwartz ran to in his panic...anyone got any good ideas?

All the best

Dave

[Hunter]

Hi Mike,

For me it is important to remember that we have a statement from Israel...not necessarily the facts. His apparent absence at the Inquest may well speak to that point.

His apparent absence from the inquest may mean something else.

If someone screams and no-one is around to hear it...is there any sound?

I guess there are different levels of screams and Schwartz did say that they were not very loud. The singing at the club could have muffled her to some degree.

You raise an interesting point about Fanny Mortimer. She did claim to hear other sounds; sounds that seemed to emanate right past her door. A woman screaming 'not very loudly' at about the same location where other noises are coming from may have been a little more difficult to ascertain or she could have been occupied with doing something at that moment that made a little noise itself.

[harry]

Dave,
It appears that Schwartz continued in the same direction as when he was following BS.On over the intersection,without turning left or right. Whether there was an intended destination in that direction,is to me,not clear.
Regards.

[Michael W Richards]

So you reckon he's a put-up? (or aren't you prepared to go that far yet?)

Incidentally, I'm still wondering where it was Schwartz ran to in his panic...anyone got any good ideas?

All the best

Dave

Hi again Dave,

On your first point, I am skeptical about his story for being there at that time and why his statement lacks any corroboration from other witnesses. Nobody heard cries of any kind, no-one heard or saw the altercation he alleges, or his Broadshouldered Man or Pipeman, and no-one saw him leave hurriedly.

Even though at 12:45am we have Brown and the couple at the corner, Fanny by her door off and on, and Spooner and his date were lingering outside the Beehive at that time and didnt see anyone flee from Berner.

To address your points Hunter, yes, the absence from the Inquest could mean something else, but we have a city Inquest that sequestered a witness then publicly announced at the Inquest that they were withholding his evidence due to the ongoing investigation. If the Metro police had similar policies, why not the same with Israel? And why allow Brown to be the only Inquest witness for the 12:45am time?

Also, Im glad you agree Fanny may well be a key here.

My best regards,

Mike R

[Hunter]

To address your points Hunter, yes, the absence from the Inquest could mean something else, but we have a city Inquest that sequestered a witness then publicly announced at the Inquest that they were withholding his evidence due to the ongoing investigation. If the Metro police had similar policies, why not the same with Israel? And why allow Brown to be the only Inquest witness for the 12:45am time?

You almost answered you're own question; the Met as opposed to the City and Baxter as opposed to Langham.

Also, I'm glad you agree Fanny may well be a key here.

Yes, what Mortimer didn't see is just as important as what others did see. And I agree, she was likely out the greatest length of time (10 minutes?) up until and including the time Goldstein passed by. Whether she was out off and on previously - or not - she may have been occupied and less attentive.

[Michael W Richards]

You almost answered you're own question; the Met as opposed to the City and Baxter as opposed to Langham.

Hey Hunter,

I would think that Policies override Personalities in situations like Inquests and although I am uncertain if there were any major discrepancies between how the Met police and how the City police conducted their Inquests, Im fairly confident that neither would knowingly present evidence to the jurors that could mislead them. I use Browns appearance to illustrate that point.

The juries were convened to determine cause of death, and contradictory evidence was presented...see Caroline Maxwell. Yet at Strides Inquest the witness on record for the time of approx 12:45 is just James Brown. Despite the fact that Israels statement included an assault on the soon to be deceased and the close proximity of that altercation to where she was murdered and found allegedly 15 minutes later.

If they felt it accurate, isnt presenting the evidence without at the very least referring to Schwartz's statement bound to mislead the jurors? I mean...when comparing the stories, who is more likely to have been the probable killer....Israels man assaulting the victim just before her murder, or Browns man with the young lady... at the corner?

Cheers Hunter,

Mike R