Schwartz, a fraud?

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Easy little man, youre bordering on being outed as a liar. Post 513.."You know as well as I do that Gillen is refered to but not interviewed".

Youve attempted to discard what you dont like and diss me while doing so....in a format like this you can get away with that I guess. But you are patently incorrect, and intentionally deceitful when you do so...like my first sentence. The reference is there, you even quote it, then ask for more when there is no more...and you know it. The man said 12:40...Issac said about 10 minutes after half past twelve, Heshburg said it was a quarter to 1, Spooner said he believed it was 25 minutes to 1. But yet you post this....."Its very obvious that Diemschutz entered the club at just after 1.00 and told those on the ground floor about Stride." Only to those with their heads up their......

But sure, obvious to those who believe the minority of accounts without any validation and discard the multiple accounts that validate each other in almost every minute detail without prior conspiring. Its like youve been told not to walk into a glass door thats closed and do it despite the warning. Obtuse. Your not someone that I enjoy sparring with here because your arguments are almost always misrepresentations...(see liar above)...and your beliefs are based on only what you choose to see. Ive cited so many times ...(its a question now whether there are learning impairment issues with you),...that not one of the witnesses you use to make "obvious' deductions about have any secondary source of validation, and contradict multiple accounts which directly and absolutely tell a very different story than they do. Like "I arrived precisely at 1", when he didnt. You have a witness standing right there at 1am for god sakes and she didnt see squat at 1am.

And you quote him and Eagle, the guy who "wasnt sure" whether he had to step around or over a body in the passageway or not. And Schwartz...who apparently has no business in any formal discussions concerning how Liz Stride dies, and zero validation.

I dont care about proving how petty you are, I do care about how inaccurate and incorrect you are, and people like you, saying "its obvious..." when the inverse is actually obvious. lt misleads new people, those who havent studied this from all angles for over 30 years..which I and others most certainly have.

So......once again, each witness that I mention gave a time at approximately 12:40 and 12:45 have at least 3 other people who can corroborate almost every detail in the story, and ALL THE WITNESSES YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE...Louis, Morris and Israel, HAVE NO CORROBORATION, NO SECONDARY SOURCE VALIDATION, AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT ELEMENTS OR ALL OF THEIR STORIES CAN BE CONTRADICTED DIRECTLY.

If lying and misrepresenting is the only way you can refute those remarks,...please dont bother. People are trying to learn and investigate, Im sure they get as tired of the Forest Gump Method of Detectivin.

4 people vs....well, none that we can validate. Guess you like the longshots. But your continued denials dont re-write any history.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Easy little man, youre bordering on being outed as a liar. Post 513.."You know as well as I do that Gillen is refered to but not interviewed".

No he’s not. If you can prove that a man called Gillen existed then by all means do so but Frank and I have asked for this verification numerous times and none has been forthcoming.

Youve attempted to discard what you dont like and diss me while doing so....in a format like this you can get away with that I guess. But you are patently incorrect, and intentionally deceitful when you do so...like my first sentence. The reference is there, you even quote it, then ask for more when there is no more...and you know it. The man said 12:40...Issac said about 10 minutes after half past twelve, Heshburg said it was a quarter to 1, Spooner said he believed it was 25 minutes to 1. But yet you post this....."Its very obvious that Diemschutz entered the club at just after 1.00 and told those on the ground floor about Stride." Only to those with their heads up their......

Firstly, I quoted the mention of Gilleman and not someone called Gillen.

Secondly, Gilleman (notice I’m leaving out the mysterious Gillen) alerted Eagle to the discovery of the body. According to Eagle this was at 1.00 (and before you say it, we can’t hold witnesses like him to an exact time so 5 minutes means zero) So Eagle, and therefore Gilleman, do not point to an earlier discovery of the body.

Thirdly, you expect posters on here to ignore the very obvious fact that witnesses can be shown to have been incorrect. You on the other hand accept any error that suits you. Of course Hoschberg said 12.45 but, as he used the words “about” and “I should think” you don’t need to be a genius to understand that this was an estimation which of course you conveniently take as gospel.. But he also tells us that he was alerted the goings on in the yard by a police man’s whistle. This could only have been Lamb who arrived on the scene after 1.00. Therefore Hoschberg was undoubtedly wrong in his guess. This isn’t being untruthful Michael it’s called following his own words. Assessing the value. Hoschberg can safely be dismissed. Spooner said 12.35. Again you use very selective quoting that is convenient to your theory. He also said that he was talking to a woman for 25 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00 which takes it to 12.55 at the earliest. So two contradictory times. But again we have real confirmation from his own lips. He arrived at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb! Game over for Spooner too. So you’re left with Kozebrodski who was also guessing the time.

Your witnesses are as feeble as they could be and do not stand up to the minimum of scrutiny unless you view them with the conspiracy goggles on of course.

But sure, obvious to those who believe the minority of accounts without any validation and discard the multiple accounts that validate each other in almost every minute detail without prior conspiring. Its like youve been told not to walk into a glass door thats closed and do it despite the warning. Obtuse. Your not someone that I enjoy sparring with here because your arguments are almost always misrepresentations...(see liar above)...and your beliefs are based on only what you choose to see. Ive cited so many times ...(its a question now whether there are learning impairment issues with you),...that not one of the witnesses you use to make "obvious' deductions about have any secondary source of validation, and contradict multiple accounts which directly and absolutely tell a very different story than they do. Like "I arrived precisely at 1", when he didnt. You have a witness standing right there at 1am for god sakes and she didnt see squat at 1am.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Im assessing the witness whilst you simply cling to every obvious, blatant errors.

God you keep clinging to the same old stuff! Diemschutz use of the word ‘precisely.’ Please try to understand this.

Man sees clock - clock says 1.00 - journey takes less than 1 minute - arrival time? You guessed it - 1.00. It’s really not difficult. If Diemschutz said precisely 1.00 it would be nitpicking of gargantuan proportions if you held him to have meant that as he’d arrived at the yard the clock ticked onto 1.00!

And the flexible Mrs Mortimer! She heard a horse and cart at around the time that he returned. If she was on her doorstep at 12.45 for 10 minutes as she said then she was inside the house Michael. When you cease to be outside it means that you are now..inside. According to her she went back outside after hearing the cart.


And you quote him and Eagle, the guy who "wasnt sure" whether he had to step around or over a body in the passageway or not. And Schwartz...who apparently has no business in any formal discussions concerning how Liz Stride dies, and zero validation.

Conspiracist nitpicking again. Desperate stuff I’m afraid.

I dont care about proving how petty you are, I do care about how inaccurate and incorrect you are, and people like you, saying "its obvious..." when the inverse is actually obvious. lt misleads new people, those who havent studied this from all angles for over 30 years..which I and others most certainly have.

Of course I’d forgotten. You are an expert and others like myself aren’t on your elevated level. We’ve heard that one before and yet you call me petty? Remind me who this man Gillen is again will you?


So......once again, each witness that I mention gave a time at approximately 12:40 and 12:45 have at least 3 other people who can corroborate almost every detail in the story, and ALL THE WITNESSES YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE...Louis, Morris and Israel, HAVE NO CORROBORATION, NO SECONDARY SOURCE VALIDATION, AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT ELEMENTS OR ALL OF THEIR STORIES CAN BE CONTRADICTED DIRECTLY.

Its amazing that you can say this Michael. What about the elements of Spooners story that flatly contradict 12.35? Or Hoschberg’s mention of a police whistle which contradicts his 13.45. Please explain why you conveniently choose to ignore these and others?

If lying and misrepresenting is the only way you can refute those remarks,...please dont bother. People are trying to learn and investigate, Im sure they get as tired of the Forest Gump Method of Detectivin.

4 people vs....well, none that we can validate. Guess you like the longshots. But your continued denials dont re-write any history.

Ok Michael, if history repeats itself this is how it goes. You again throw out some personal insults. I respond very mildly. Then I get someone accusing me of being insulting

In this post alone you have.....

1. Called me ‘little man.’
2. Intentionally deceitful.
3. A liar ( as in ‘see liar above)
4. That I might have learning impairments.

I’ll ignore the ‘Forest Gump’ because I consider that just mildly insulting, even humorous.

I won’t report you Michael even though this isn’t your first outburst on here which even Caz criticised you for.

Your points have been responded to and shown to be either wrong or extremely weak. Only you and one other poster can’t see it. Both conspiracy minded coincidentally. You’re witnesses crumble under scrutiny. Your cover up didn’t happen and pretty much everyone but you can see it. You have a theory. It’s your baby and you’re protective of it in the face of the facts. It’s ok to keep stressing how important you are to Ripperology and those that disagree with you aren’t but the more we descend into conspiracy theorist nonsense the more ridicule that the subject will get.

[Wickerman]

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.

Take a closer look at the three doorways of the beerhouse, the doors when closed are set back a distance from the face of the building, possibly 6-9 inches, sufficient depth for a man to face the door to light his pipe.

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

It is impossible to smoke a knife!

A knife, is not what he told the police.

[DJA]

[FrankO]

I'm saying it is not obvious how he missed him, not that it was impossible to.

Fair enough, Andrew.

However, we are dealing with a narrow street, and the way I interpret Swanson, is that Schwartz is claiming to linger at the gateway.

I've never read it like that; the way I read it is that Schwartz continues walking and, perhaps, only pauses for a second just before Mr. Broad Shoulders shouted. However, the "away" in "& then Schwartz walked away" may also simply mean that he had passed the scene at that point and from then on started to put distance between himself and the scene.

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.

He doesn't need to have been right up close (less than 5 meters) to them, just being focused on them would be enough. Remember, the street was likely not very well lighted and Mr. Pipeman may have stood at a rather shady spot. Also, only the lighting of his pipe may have attracted Schwartz's attention.

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.

Not to me. Street brawls were quite common, I believe. Schwartz's account gives me the impression that he wasn't a man who wanted to get involved in the quarrel and, in the end, seemed a rather easily scared man.

[FrankO]

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.

Thanks for that, Michael; I missed that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok Michael, if history repeats itself this is how it goes. You again throw out some personal insults. I respond very mildly. Then I get someone accusing me of being insulting

In this post alone you have.....

1. Called me ‘little man.’
2. Intentionally deceitful.
3. A liar ( as in ‘see liar above)
4. That I might have learning impairments.

I’ll ignore the ‘Forest Gump’ because I consider that just mildly insulting, even humorous.

I won’t report you Michael even though this isn’t your first outburst on here which even Caz criticised you for.

Your points have been responded to and shown to be either wrong or extremely weak. Only you and one other poster can’t see it. Both conspiracy minded coincidentally. You’re witnesses crumble under scrutiny. Your cover up didn’t happen and pretty much everyone but you can see it. You have a theory. It’s your baby and you’re protective of it in the face of the facts. It’s ok to keep stressing how important you are to Ripperology and those that disagree with you aren’t but the more we descend into conspiracy theorist nonsense the more ridicule that the subject will get.

in regard to Mortimer, where I said that she went back inside after hearing the cart of course I meant that she went back inside after spending 10 minutes on the step until she’d heard the cart then the commotion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

EDWARD SPOONER

Id just like to focus (hopefully on one last time) of the witnesses who allegedly point us to an earlier time of death and get opinions. Witnesses should be assessed in full and not just partially or selectively so let’s assess.

Spooner basically gives us 5 points from which we can try and assess what time he arrived at Dutfield’s Yard. My first point is an obvious one in that caution should be applied to a man that contradicts himself within the space of a few lines of testimony. It’s hardly conducive to confidence. So, the five points....

1. “The only means I had of fixing the time was by the closing of the publichouses. I stood at the top of the street for about five minutes, and then 25 minutes outside the publichouse. I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went to the yard.”

We notice first of all that Spooner doesn’t have a watch and he doesn’t see a clock so he’s making an estimation based on pub closing times. So are there any ways that he might have been mistaken? Could he just have seen someone coming out of a pub late and assumed that it was just after closing time but it was actually later - could it have been a barman going home? Could he have seen lights going off and assumed that it was just after closing time when actually the landlord/staff had just spent time cleaning/tidying up? Or perhaps he was talking about the Club? He arrived there and there were around 15 people in the yard and he assumed that the club had just closed at 12.30? His thinking might have been that it couldn’t have been 1.00 because they wouldn’t have still been there?

I’m not saying that any of my suggestions are true but they are possibles and it’s up to individual posters to assess how plausible or not they are. Either way we can’t deny that Spooner said 12.35 (and no one has ever tried to deny this.)

Point 1 = 12.35

2. “Between half-past 12 and 1 o’clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. I had previously been in another beershop at the top of the street, and afterwards walked down. After talking for about 25 minutes.”

This is as clear as mud of course but surely everyone would have to agree that by no stretch of the imagination does this point to Spooner getting to the yard at 12.35? If we give him the biggest benefit of the doubt that we can and take it back to 12.30 then 25 minutes spent talking still gets us to 12.55. If he began his conversation at 12.35 then we have 1.00 of course. So...

Point 2 = 12.55 (when he talks to Diemschutz)

3. “I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out “Murder” and “Police.”

This was very obviously Diemschutz and Kozebrodski (Diemschutz confirms meeting Spooner and Brown heard them calling “police” and “murder.”) Exact times are impossible of course so I’ll give an approximate one which can’t be far wrong.

Point 3 = 1.03 (when he sees Diemschutz and Kozebrodski)

4. By the jury. – As I was going to Berner-street I did not meet any one except Mr. Harris, who came out of his house in Tiger Bay (Brunswick-street). Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman’s whistle blowing.

We know that there were no whistles blown before 1.00. If there were the police would have responded to them but they didn’t.

Point 4 = after 1.00

5. “I stood there about five minutes before a constable came.”

We know that Lamb got to the yard after 1.00 but of course we can’t give and exact time.

Point 5 = 1.00 or just after.

..........


So to sum up we have 5 times from Spooner’s Inquest testimony - are they all close? Do they tie up? I’d say that there’s a pretty obvious trend. One of these points gives us a ‘way out’ time of 12.35 whilst four points all give a time of around 1.00 or just after.

Which time carries the most weight? The 12.35 which was an estimation based on pub closing times or the 4 times around 1.00 (3 of which are confirmed by the actions of others) Can anyone taking a reasoned, unbiased approach, with hand on heart say that 12.35 was the likeliest or the correct one? I’d suggest that the answer to that is about as obvious as it could be.

Edward Spooner doesn’t confirm an earlier discovery time. An assessment shows that he was very obviously mistaken when he said 12.35. He even contradicts himself. Four times!

[IchabodCrane]

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.

Hi Sunny
dont forget the peaked cap!
Now if Schwartz had mentioned a salt and pepper jacket, ....!!!

oh the many ifs... if only we had a little more information

Cheers
Ichabod Crane

[Herlock Sholmes]

EDWARD SPOONER

Id just like to focus (hopefully on one last time) of the witnesses who allegedly point us to an earlier time of death and get opinions. Witnesses should be assessed in full and not just partially or selectively so let’s assess.

Spooner basically gives us 5 points from which we can try and assess what time he arrived at Dutfield’s Yard. My first point is an obvious one in that caution should be applied to a man that contradicts himself within the space of a few lines of testimony. It’s hardly conducive to confidence. So, the five points....

1. “The only means I had of fixing the time was by the closing of the publichouses. I stood at the top of the street for about five minutes, and then 25 minutes outside the publichouse. I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went to the yard.”

We notice first of all that Spooner doesn’t have a watch and he doesn’t see a clock so he’s making an estimation based on pub closing times. So are there any ways that he might have been mistaken? Could he just have seen someone coming out of a pub late and assumed that it was just after closing time but it was actually later - could it have been a barman going home? Could he have seen lights going off and assumed that it was just after closing time when actually the landlord/staff had just spent time cleaning/tidying up? Or perhaps he was talking about the Club? He arrived there and there were around 15 people in the yard and he assumed that the club had just closed at 12.30? His thinking might have been that it couldn’t have been 1.00 because they wouldn’t have still been there?

I’m not saying that any of my suggestions are true but they are possibles and it’s up to individual posters to assess how plausible or not they are. Either way we can’t deny that Spooner said 12.35 (and no one has ever tried to deny this.)

Point 1 = 12.35

2. “Between half-past 12 and 1 o’clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. I had previously been in another beershop at the top of the street, and afterwards walked down. After talking for about 25 minutes.”

This is as clear as mud of course but surely everyone would have to agree that by no stretch of the imagination does this point to Spooner getting to the yard at 12.35? If we give him the biggest benefit of the doubt that we can and take it back to 12.30 then 25 minutes spent talking still gets us to 12.55. If he began his conversation at 12.35 then we have 1.00 of course. So...

Point 2 = 12.55 (when he talks to Diemschutz)

3. “I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out “Murder” and “Police.”

This was very obviously Diemschutz and Kozebrodski (Diemschutz confirms meeting Spooner and Brown heard them calling “police” and “murder.”) Exact times are impossible of course so I’ll give an approximate one which can’t be far wrong.

Point 3 = 1.03 (when he sees Diemschutz and Kozebrodski)

4. By the jury. – As I was going to Berner-street I did not meet any one except Mr. Harris, who came out of his house in Tiger Bay (Brunswick-street). Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman’s whistle blowing.

We know that there were no whistles blown before 1.00. If there were the police would have responded to them but they didn’t.

Point 4 = after 1.00

5. “I stood there about five minutes before a constable came.”

We know that Lamb got to the yard after 1.00 but of course we can’t give and exact time.

Point 5 = 1.00 or just after.

..........


So to sum up we have 5 times from Spooner’s Inquest testimony - are they all close? Do they tie up? I’d say that there’s a pretty obvious trend. One of these points gives us a ‘way out’ time of 12.35 whilst four points all give a time of around 1.00 or just after.

Which time carries the most weight? The 12.35 which was an estimation based on pub closing times or the 4 times around 1.00 (3 of which are confirmed by the actions of others) Can anyone taking a reasoned, unbiased approach, with hand on heart say that 12.35 was the likeliest or the correct one? I’d suggest that the answer to that is about as obvious as it could be.

Edward Spooner doesn’t confirm an earlier discovery time. An assessment shows that he was very obviously mistaken when he said 12.35. He even contradicts himself. Four times!

For clarity of course, on point 1 I neglected to post the part where he said ‘between 12.30 and 1.00’

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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.

Because he was giving a statement in a police station. He wasn’t on the psychiatrists couch. If he said that he ran away then fear is implied. There’s nothing surreal about it apart from the attempts to implant a mystery into an entirely banal event. Man walks down street, sees a man attacking a woman, there’s a shout, another man is seen, man scarpers. Yes there are differences between the two versions but these can almost certainly been put down to misinterpretation and the language barrier.

[Varqm]

Baxter said in his summation :

At 1 o'clock the body was found by the manager of the club. He had been out all day, and returned at the time. He was in a two-wheeled barrow drawn by a pony, and as he entered the gateway his pony shied at some object on his right. There was no lamp in the yard, and having just come out of the street it was too dark to see what the object was and he passed on further down the yard. He returned on foot, and on searching found the body of deceased with her throat cut. If he had not actually disturbed the wretch in the very act, at least he must have been close on his heels; possibly the man was alarmed by the sound of the approaching cart, for the death had only just taken place. He did not inspect the body himself with any care, but blood was flowing from the throat, even when Spooner reached the spot some few minutes afterwards, and although the bleeding had stopped when Dr. Blackwell's assistant arrived, the whole of her body and the limbs, except her hands, were warm, and even at 16 minutes past 1 a.m.

[Varqm]

Because he was giving a statement in a police station. He wasn’t on the psychiatrists couch. If he said that he ran away then fear is implied. There’s nothing surreal about it apart from the attempts to implant a mystery into an entirely banal event. Man walks down street, sees a man attacking a woman, there’s a shout, another man is seen, man scarpers. Yes there are differences between the two versions but these can almost certainly been put down to misinterpretation and the language barrier.

Nonsense,at least to me and it seems Baxter too because he could not have left the most important witness out,an assault before the murder.Schwartz was walking down Berner St.,it was relatively barren/quiet early morning except the couple and a bit later the pipeman and he could not differentiate between man on the right was aggressive, differing with the STAR interview,the man on the left was aggressive.He must have been stoned.
So Baxter would have spend time in the inquest trying to determine whether witness's statement no. 1 was the correct statement or was it statement no. 2. Cmon.

from the Chapman inquest I think Insp. Chandler,just a little mistake.

The Daily Telegraph
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1888

Coroner] Did you see the handkerchief taken off the body? - I did not. The nurses must have taken it off the throat.
[Coroner] How do you know? - I don't know.
[Coroner] Then you are guessing? - I am guessing.
The Coroner: That is all wrong, you know. (To the jury). He is really not the proper man to have been left in charge.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nonsense,at least to me and it seems Baxter too because he could not have left the most important witness out,an assault before the murder.Schwartz was walking down Berner St.,it was relatively barren/quiet early morning except the couple and a bit later the pipeman and he could not differentiate between man on the right was aggressive, differing with the STAR interview,the man on the left was aggressive.He must have been stoned.
So Baxter would have spend time in the inquest trying to determine whether witness's statement no. 1 was the correct statement or was it statement no. 2. Cmon.

from the Chapman inquest I think Insp. Chandler,just a little mistake.

The Daily Telegraph
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1888

Coroner] Did you see the handkerchief taken off the body? - I did not. The nurses must have taken it off the throat.
[Coroner] How do you know? - I don't know.
[Coroner] Then you are guessing? - I am guessing.
The Coroner: That is all wrong, you know. (To the jury). He is really not the proper man to have been left in charge.

If it would have been so important to Baxter why didn’t he simply call Schwartz to the Inquest to question him on it? Perhaps it was because Schwartz actually had little to add in terms of ‘how’ Stride was killed (the Doctor’s told him that) and ‘when’ (he had the Doctors TOD, Smith saying that he’d seen her around 12.35 and Diemschutz finding her at 1.00) Schwartz said that he’d seen her at 12.45 but she was still alive so, at best, he could have narrowed the TOD by 10 minutes.

[c.d.]

If Schwartz ultimately was not believed by the police it doesn't necessarily follow that they believed him to be lying. It could have been that because of the language barrier and his short time on the scene that they simply didn't know what the hell he had seen. They also might have concluded that he simply saw a little street hassle.

But if they did conclude that he was lying why then did they not prosecute him and why didn't they conclude that the club must have been involved in some sort of cover up? Connecting the dots in that case should have been pretty obvious to at least one person on the force.

c.d.