Schwartz, a fraud?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[FrankO]

You know as well as I do that Gillen is refered to but not interviewed, the point nevertheless doesnt change.

Actually, I don’t know anything about Gillen, Michael. I haven’t been able to find anything about him, either on Casebook or over at JtR Forums. Of course, I have found Gilleman/Gildeman/Gidleman, but since the only thing that’s known about him is that he was the one alerting Eagle to the murder some 20 minutes after the latter arrived back at the club, I concluded that you didn’t confuse Gillen with Gilleman. And so, I seriously wondered if there is a Gillen and, if so, what he stated, directly interviewed or only in reference. So, if there really is a Gillen (and you don’t mean Gilleman), then I’d still like to see the statement in which he’s referred to.

The main club characters, including Schwartz, have no corroberation for anything they say.

I beg to differ. Spooner is corroborating Diemshutz when it comes to the 2 Jews running along Fairclough Street, shouting for the police, not finding a policeman but instead bringing back a man to the yard, this man lifting the woman’s head right after arriving there. Mortimer also mentions a man touching Stride’s face, saying it was quite warm, just as Spooner (and only Spooner) stated.

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.

As you know, I disagree, Michael. The timings of at least 2 (Heshburg & Spooner) of the 3 witnesses are questionable, even though you don’t want to admit it. And if that closer inspection also raises a couple of questions as to how seriously these 2 men should be taken as conspiracists, then I have no trouble putting down the red flag and lay it to rest.

[FrankO]

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.

Why not? If Schwartz was focussing his attention on the man walking ahead of him and later on his interaction with the woman, then he might not have noticed Mr. Pipeman until he crossed the street, changing his focus from the couple to where he was heading: the opposite side of the street, where Mr. Pipeman was standing.

[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?

As Frank has mentioned Gilleman is variously called Gidleman, Gigleman, Gidlemann, Giddleman.

In the Evening News on 1st October Eagle told a reporter “I went into at about 12.40 on this night that you are asking about, which was about twenty minutes before the body was found.”

Its very obvious that Diemschutz entered the club at just after 1.00 and told those on the ground floor about Stride. One of these people that heard him was Gilleman who went to tell members upstairs. One of whom was Mortis Eagle. It’s all very simple.

Michael has been using the name Gillen since 2010 and he appears to believe that he makes some contradictory statement. On 20th October of last year (on here) Michael said that he would find the reference to Gillen’s contradictory statement but he’s yet to do so. So I’d say that we are on pretty solid ground in saying that there was no such person as Gillen and that Michael is mistaken. Given that we all make mistakes it’s perhaps more surprising that he studiously avoids admitting it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

It is impossible to come out of a doorway, if the door is closed and locked.
A doorway refers to the space otherwise occupied by a door when it is closed, and the space immediately adjacent.
The only semi-reasonable interpretation of '[he] came out of the doorway', that is compatible with a closed and locked door, is if the door were recessed.
In this case, the door was not recessed and the shelter available above it was minimal.

However, all the above is irrelevant, because...

It is impossible to smoke a knife!

[Joshua Rogan]

It is quite normal to clean a pipe using a knife

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why not? If Schwartz was focussing his attention on the man walking ahead of him and later on his interaction with the woman, then he might not have noticed Mr. Pipeman until he crossed the street, changing his focus from the couple to where he was heading: the opposite side of the street, where Mr. Pipeman was standing.

I'm saying it is not obvious how he missed him, not that it was impossible to.
However, we are dealing with a narrow street, and the way I interpret Swanson, is that Schwartz is claiming to linger at the gateway.
How could he miss the other man, who is just yards away?
Well I guess he could, if he is right up close to the quarrelling pair, and focused on them.

However, that would mean Schwartz is very close to Stride when she is thrown down.
Yet bizarrely, Schwartz seems to not have mentioned anything about Stride trying to communicate with him, or the pipeman, nor him trying to communicate with her.
So having watched the fracas unfold, he decides it would be best to cross the road. The reason for doing so is only given in the paper edition - apparently Schwartz was 'feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels' - having just stopped to watch that very quarrel, at close range!

Other than that, there is no indication of how Schwartz feels or what he perceives, other than the face value description of what he witnesses. Did he, for example, look at Stride's eyes and express what he saw? Was it fear he felt, when he runs from the scene? There is no mention of it. There is really no indication from either report, that Schwartz has any sense of humanity. He is just an impartial observer, even of his own behaviour. The whole story has a surreal quality to it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn’t it possible that Schwartz didn’t initially see Pipeman because when he first saw BS Man and Stride Pipeman was around the corner? He then turned the corner and stood in the pub doorway to clean and light his pipe? Schwartz was looking at BS man and Stride for the 2 seconds it would have taken for Pipeman to arrive on the scene?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The whole story has a surreal quality about it.

No it doesn’t. It’s your overactive imagination weaving mystery from every slight discrepancy or ambiguous phrase. Perhaps Pipeman was initially hiding on the Grassy Knoll?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is quite normal to clean a pipe using a knife

Good point