Schwartz, a fraud?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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]

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).

[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.

[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?

[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]

. 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?