Schwartz, a fraud?

[DJA]

Is it possible to place Schwartz, BS man and pipe man and stride on this picture or is it taken from the wrong direction?

Tristan

Easy.

Pipeman was cleaning his pipe prior to having a knock off smoke after closing up his beer shop.

BS man was in front of Dutfield's Yard,having dragged Stride away from the yard,shouting "Lip,see!" Refer cachous as medication for her bottom lip.

Schwartz has crossed the road and is in the foreground/out of the picture.

Jack/Henry Gawen Sutton was 5"3" short,so none of those three was Jack the Ripper.

[Losmandris]

Anderson mentioned it but it’s certain that he was mistaken so I think we’re as certain as we can be that Schwartz didn’t attend but we have no way of knowing the reason for this. All we can say though is that it can’t have been because the police had no faith in Schwartz evidence as has been suggested or why would they have put his description of BS Man on the front cover of the Police Gazette 3 weeks after the murder? So we’re left to speculate. Maybe Schwartz feared for his safety and so went into hiding so that he couldn’t appear at the Inquest? Maybe he asked to be excused as he feared for his life and the Coroner agreed (weighing up the little he could have contributed to how and when Stride was murdered?)

Was the description on the cover of the Police Gazette describing BS man as Jack the Ripper or as someone the police wanted to question?

Tristan

[Herlock Sholmes]

Was the description on the cover of the Police Gazette describing BS man as Jack the Ripper or as someone the police wanted to question?

Tristan

I haven’t seen the actual description Tristan but I’m assuming that it was as someone that the police wanted to question.

[Varqm]

But the fact is that he didn’t appear at the Inquest and the Police did put his description of BS Man on the front page of the Police Gazette 18 days after that Star report about Leman Street Police. His evidence was also being mentioned as important into November by very senior police officers. If the police didn’t place and faith in his evidence it’s makes no sense that they would use it and even act on it.

Might not the Oct 2nd Star report have been the result of a reporter speaking to one officer who had doubts and who may have given the impression that his was a generally held view?

It was the Coroners job to make important facts of the case testified to in the inquest,he could summon anybody relevant to the case with the threat of the fine.If the police deemed Schwartz important they would have submitted Schwartz as a witness.Make your own determination based on the 2 different/conflicting statements .As far as Baxter goes I trust his judgement more,the ball was in his court to follow his mandate as Coroner to make the circumstances clear as to the murder.Also add to that, nobody else heard the assault and commotion that night.
In Swanson's report it did not mention the STAR interview, it probably contained only the initial statement before the STAR interview
.
Otherwise Schwartz would have been a "must have" witness, much more than the witnesses below who made it into a Baxter inquest,Nichol's case.

Walter Purkess [Purkiss], manager, residing at Essex Wharf, deposed that his house fronted Buck's-row, opposite the gates where
deceased was discovered. He slept in the front room on the second floor and had heard no sound, neither had his wife.

Alfred Malshaw [Mulshaw], a night watchman in Winthorpe-street, had also heard no cries or noise. He admitted that he sometimes dozed.
The Coroner: I suppose your watching is not up to much?
The Witness: I don't know. It is thirteen long hours for 3s and find your own coke. (Laughter.)
By the Jury: In a straight line I was about thirty yards from the spot where the deceased was found.

[Varqm]

The Stride case was like the Nichols case,JTR got interrupted/disturbed and he scrammed.Probably escaping to the Aldgate/Portsoken area as Eddowes coincidentally was being released by the police.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was the Coroners job to make important facts of the case testified to in the inquest,he could summon anybody relevant to the case with the threat of the fine.If the police deemed Schwartz important they would have submitted Schwartz as a witness.Make your own determination based on the 2 different/conflicting statements .As far as Baxter goes I trust his judgement more,the ball was in his court to follow his mandate as Coroner to make the circumstances clear as to the murder.Also add to that, nobody else heard the assault and commotion that night.
In Swanson's report it did not mention the STAR interview, it probably contained only the initial statement before the STAR interview
.
Otherwise Schwartz would have been a "must have" witness, much more than the witnesses below who made it into a Baxter inquest,Nichol's case.

Walter Purkess [Purkiss], manager, residing at Essex Wharf, deposed that his house fronted Buck's-row, opposite the gates where
deceased was discovered. He slept in the front room on the second floor and had heard no sound, neither had his wife.

Alfred Malshaw [Mulshaw], a night watchman in Winthorpe-street, had also heard no cries or noise. He admitted that he sometimes dozed.
The Coroner: I suppose your watching is not up to much?
The Witness: I don't know. It is thirteen long hours for 3s and find your own coke. (Laughter.)
By the Jury: In a straight line I was about thirty yards from the spot where the deceased was found.

But we know 2 things. 1) Schwartz didn’t appear at the Inquest, and 2) the Police felt that Schwartz description of BS man was important enough to be using it on October 20th.

I can’t see how it can be deduced that the police had no faith in him? So surely we must look for another reason to explain his absence from the Inquest? We can’t come up with anything definitive of course so we can only conjecture with ‘mights.’ He ‘might’ simply have gone into hiding somewhere to avoid being called if he feared for his life (whether justifiably or not?) He ‘might’ have asked to be excused for the same reason (and as he could add nothing to the ‘how’ she died and not much to the ‘when’ the Coroner might have left him out.) I cant see what would have made him a ‘must have’ witness at the Inquest?

There was Gilleman and Mrs Diemschutz of course who both could have verified the time that Diemschutz discovered the body but neither of them were called.

[Michael W Richards]

But common sense, rationality and reason tells us that Spooner and Hoschberg got to the yard after 1.00. Rationality tells us that Gilleman informed Eagle about the body at 1.00. Witnesses making estimates on timings can be wrong especially if they don’t have direct access to a clock or a watch so when these estimations are made we have to look at a wider picture for anything that might either refute or confirm. It’s especially true of Spooner because as well as estimating 12.35 everything else he said points to times around 1.00 which have to outweighs the earlier time. And so the times that you’re relying on are beyond all reasonable doubt incorrect.

As I’ve said before, Stride might not have been a ripper victim. None of us can be 100% certain. It’s also not impossible that the killer sought refuge in the club or was a club member. It’s also not impossible that a few members became aware of this and decided to keep it quiet. But coming up with a reason for a cover up (a scenario) isn’t enough to justify one. The evidence points away from it.

You see, thats a patently incorrect statement. Yet you wonder why I get rude. These men gave their own times, what you reason they actually were or should be is inconsequential. None gave a time at or just after 1am, they were all very clearly stated as 15 to 20 minutes earlier than that. All of the men mentioned. All saw the same things at around the same times. And you open with a summation that common sense says they were all wrong about the same critical detail by at least 20 minutes.

As for Schwartz, an opinion given by an individual about his impressions of a witness statement is also inconsequential. When the rubber met the road they did not use anything Israel Schwartz said, none of it, to help determine how Liz died. An assault on a very soon to be murder victim, minutes and feet from where it all happens at the earliest time the medical examiner said she could have been cut.......and not even an Inquest footnote about that story? How could that be?

Enter common sense, rationality and reason...mix in some logic, and you will finally see the flaws in supporting Israel Schwartz, Louis Diemshitz and Morris Eagle. Or you wont......I cant control the outcome of your assessment, just pointing out that within the known evidence those three mens statements are, or more accurately were or should be perceived as incorrect...either by accident or willful intention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You see, thats a patently incorrect statement. Yet you wonder why I get rude. These men gave their own times, what you reason they actually were or should be is inconsequential. None gave a time at or just after 1am, they were all very clearly stated as 15 to 20 minutes earlier than that. All of the men mentioned. All saw the same things at around the same times. And you open with a summation that common sense says they were all wrong about the same critical detail by at least 20 minutes.

No it’s not Michael. I keep talking about ‘assessing’ statements rather than just assuming that they are correct. You are simply jumping on estimated times and claiming them as written in stone when they’re not. You say “Yet you wonder why I get rude?” Yes I do, but I wonder even more why you consistently ignore the inconvenient?

Yes Spooner estimated 12.35 but....he saw Diemschutz and Kozebrodski and we know that they appeared after 1.00. He saw Harris who’d heard the police whistle which we know was after 1.00. He said that he’d got there 5 minutes before Lamb which meant that he’d got there after 1.00. So his estimation was very clearly wrong. Yes Hoschberg estimated 12.45 but he also said that it was after the police whistle so we know that it was after 1.00.

.....

If a witness says “I did x at around 2pm just after the postman came.” Would you still believe 2pm if you found that the postman actually arrived at 2.30? And that his next door neighbour confirmed that the postman had arrived at 2.30?

So why do you keep ignoring the background evidence which refutes the times that you keep using?


As for Schwartz, an opinion given by an individual about his impressions of a witness statement is also inconsequential. When the rubber met the road they did not use anything Israel Schwartz said, none of it, to help determine how Liz died. An assault on a very soon to be murder victim, minutes and feet from where it all happens at the earliest time the medical examiner said she could have been cut.......and not even an Inquest footnote about that story? How could that be?

I don’t know and neither do you. But, I’ll say it yet again, the police put Schwartz description of BS man on the front of the Police Gazette on October 20th. No matter how inconvenient that fact is Michael it’s a fact nonetheless and it utterly refutes and dismissed the suggestion that the police had no faith in Schwartz. That’s simply dead-in-the-water. There is another explanation and the fact that we don’t know it doesn’t change that.

Enter common sense, rationality and reason...mix in some logic,

It would make a refreshing change.

and you will finally see the flaws in supporting Israel Schwartz, Louis Diemshitz and Morris Eagle. Or you wont......I cant control the outcome of your assessment, just pointing out that within the known evidence those three mens statements are, or more accurately were or should be perceived as incorrect...either by accident or wilful intention.

The only think ‘wilful’ Michael is your selectivity when approaching evidence. Simply calling Diemschutz and Eagle liars doesn’t wash when there’s nothing to back it up.

So without nitpicking a minute or two either way we have...

Diemschutz finds the body at 1.00. Fanny Mortimer, from inside her house, hears his horse and cart (how many could there have been in a backstreet at 1.00? He tells those inside including Gilleman who goes upstairs and tells Eagle who sees the body around 1.00. So that ties up.

Diemschutz sees Spooner just after 1.00 and gets back to the yard 5 minutes before Lamb got there....so just after 1.00. Hoschberg hears Lambs whistle and arrives just after 1.00.

Kozebrodski was very obviously mistaken and Lave cannot be explained, but as he said that he was in the yard until 1.10 and there was no one there, there has to be a serious cloud over his evidence.

We don’t need to intentionally latch on to very obvious errors to construct a conspiracy when the facts of a perfectly explicable series of events exist.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

But we know 2 things. 1) Schwartz didn’t appear at the Inquest, and 2) the Police felt that Schwartz description of BS man was important enough to be using it on October 20th.

I can’t see how it can be deduced that the police had no faith in him? So surely we must look for another reason to explain his absence from the Inquest? We can’t come up with anything definitive of course so we can only conjecture with ‘mights.’ He ‘might’ simply have gone into hiding somewhere to avoid being called if he feared for his life (whether justifiably or not?) He ‘might’ have asked to be excused for the same reason (and as he could add nothing to the ‘how’ she died and not much to the ‘when’ the Coroner might have left him out.) I cant see what would have made him a ‘must have’ witness at the Inquest?

There was Gilleman and Mrs Diemschutz of course who both could have verified the time that Diemschutz discovered the body but neither of them were called.

Hi Herlock,

Just to jump in here, I personally think it's absurd that Schwartz wasn't a "must have" at inquest. He really was, look at the tangential witnesses who gave evidence. It's against the evidence of the other inquests to assume he wasn't called because he had nothing to offer. Again, personally, I think if he was available, he would have been called. Why he wasn't, we don't know, and likely never will. But my point is that had he been available, he would have been called.

Does this alter the Berner St inquest? Maybe, but to me it doesn't alter much than is already known. Schwartz doesn't promote or disprove the club theory. The club cover up collapses on it's own. It's always worth keeping in mind, we don't have Schwartz's statement, we have Swanson's summation.

The police put out his description, but we don't know if that's because they thought it was a genuine lead or whether they were trying to clear up his story as it was. I don't doubt Schwartz saw something that night. Whether it was on Berner St, or at that time, is unknown, but I don't have him down as a liar or a fantasist. The police had to take him seriously, it would be reckless not to.

But does removing Schwartz massively move the goal posts? To me, no. Liz was a proveable street worker, conflicting reports admittedly have her with different men that night (cheers Josh for clearing that up) and she meets the MO of the Whitechapel killer, apart from the mutilation. If we keep the Diemschutz interruption but remove Schwartz, does it still fit? I'd say yes, probably better.

Schwartz may well have seen Liz and her killer. His statement doesn't change anything, but I can't see for the life of me why he'd be excused the inquest, allowed to or otherwise. His absence is a mystery, but I agree, it's not because he was thought of as phoney. How many accusations and witness testimony made it from the desk sergeant, to the detective, to the inspector, to Swanson's report? Not many I'd wager. So Schwartz was clearly taken seriously. Doesn't mean he was right. Doesn't mean he was part of some convoluted conspiracy.

So keeping with the O/P, no, not a fraud. Mistaken, maybe. Unreliable, could be, if he was unsure and not willing to commit to something. Coward? Yes, maybe. Fraud? No. The difference in statements, ones the Star, an unreliable source, ones a summary of a statement now lost. Great sources.

Does it change anything? Not really, Liz is documented around Berner St that night, and is killed there. And found around 1am, give or take a little indescrepancy around time keeping. Schwartz may be totally wrong, it changes nothing. But I'd say he's a prime call for inquest, if the police thought he was there.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Herlock,

Just to jump in here, I personally think it's absurd that Schwartz wasn't a "must have" at inquest. He really was, look at the tangential witnesses who gave evidence. It's against the evidence of the other inquests to assume he wasn't called because he had nothing to offer. Again, personally, I think if he was available, he would have been called. Why he wasn't, we don't know, and likely never will. But my point is that had he been available, he would have been called.

Does this alter the Berner St inquest? Maybe, but to me it doesn't alter much than is already known. Schwartz doesn't promote or disprove the club theory. The club cover up collapses on it's own. It's always worth keeping in mind, we don't have Schwartz's statement, we have Swanson's summation.

The police put out his description, but we don't know if that's because they thought it was a genuine lead or whether they were trying to clear up his story as it was. I don't doubt Schwartz saw something that night. Whether it was on Berner St, or at that time, is unknown, but I don't have him down as a liar or a fantasist. The police had to take him seriously, it would be reckless not to.

But does removing Schwartz massively move the goal posts? To me, no. Liz was a proveable street worker, conflicting reports admittedly have her with different men that night (cheers Josh for clearing that up) and she meets the MO of the Whitechapel killer, apart from the mutilation. If we keep the Diemschutz interruption but remove Schwartz, does it still fit? I'd say yes, probably better.

Schwartz may well have seen Liz and her killer. His statement doesn't change anything, but I can't see for the life of me why he'd be excused the inquest, allowed to or otherwise. His absence is a mystery, but I agree, it's not because he was thought of as phoney. How many accusations and witness testimony made it from the desk sergeant, to the detective, to the inspector, to Swanson's report? Not many I'd wager. So Schwartz was clearly taken seriously. Doesn't mean he was right. Doesn't mean he was part of some convoluted conspiracy.

So keeping with the O/P, no, not a fraud. Mistaken, maybe. Unreliable, could be, if he was unsure and not willing to commit to something. Coward? Yes, maybe. Fraud? No. The difference in statements, ones the Star, an unreliable source, ones a summary of a statement now lost. Great sources.

Does it change anything? Not really, Liz is documented around Berner St that night, and is killed there. And found around 1am, give or take a little indescrepancy around time keeping. Schwartz may be totally wrong, it changes nothing. But I'd say he's a prime call for inquest, if the police thought he was there.

good talk al and i agree. he probably just made himself scarce. like he did that night. new to the country, dosnt speak the language, worried about family. dosnt want to get involved.

im not sure he was a must have, obvioisly the inquest can go on and make its conclusions without him, but yes, they would have tried to call him at least.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fair points Al. It could simply have been that Schwartz decided to ‘disappear’ rather than appear. I understand your point about why he should have been called but I can’t help coming back to the reason for the Inquest. How Stride was killed and when. Obviously they knew how she was killed so he could have added nothing on that score. I also don’t see that he could have made a massive difference to the when. They knew that she’d been killed before 1.00 and they had a police officer who positively identified seeing alive her at 12.35. So allowing just 2 or 3 minutes to get from the Smith sighting would take them to around 12.38. So with Smith and Diemschutz it was around 12.38-1.00. With Schwartz and Diemschutz it would have given them perhaps 12.46-1.00. On top of that they had Blackwell’s TOD estimate. So all told all Schwartz could have added was to narrow the TOD down by around 8 minutes.

I’m not saying that this must have been the reason why he wasn’t called but isn’t it at least possible that if Schwartz genuinely felt that his life might have been in danger as a man who might have been able to identify the killer that the Coroner might have weighed this against the very little of major value that he could have added on the TOD (bearing in mind that the Police investigation still had Schwartz statement so it wasn’t as if his absence would hamper their investigation. To me the fact that they used his description on October 20th shows that they were taking him seriously (of course that doesn’t prove that he was genuine or not mistaken) so there must have been another reason why he wasn’t called. We can only conjecture of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

good talk al and i agree. he probably just made himself scarce. like he did that night. new to the country, dosnt speak the language, worried about family. dosnt want to get involved.

im not sure he was a must have, obvioisly the inquest can go on and make its conclusions without him, but yes, they would have tried to call him at least.

If I had to put money on it Abby I’d favour that explanation too. That he just went off to lie low at a friends house somewhere until the Inquest was over.

[Joshua Rogan]

So all told all Schwartz could have added was to narrow the TOD down by around 8 minutes.

Not even that, HS. James Brown identified Stride as the woman he saw with a man by the board school when returning with his supper at around a quarter to one, so approximately the same time as Schwartz' sighting.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I’m not saying that this must have been the reason why he wasn’t called but isn’t it at least possible that if Schwartz genuinely felt that his life might have been in danger as a man who might have been able to identify the killer that the Coroner might have weighed this against the very little of major value that he could have added on the TOD (bearing in mind that the Police investigation still had Schwartz statement so it wasn’t as if his absence would hamper their investigation. To me the fact that they used his description on October 20th shows that they were taking him seriously (of course that doesn’t prove that he was genuine or not mistaken) so there must have been another reason why he wasn’t called. We can only conjecture of course.

Absolutely Herlock, I agree, if Schwartz was at risk, to himself or to jeopardizeing the investigation, he'd be protected. But his statement about that night would be included. It'd be at inquest. It wasn't, but it was out there later in the press, so was it afterthought?

I remain, can we remove Schwartz and still keep the Whitechapel killer? Yes. I've said before, I don't buy into Schwartz, I reckon he got his streets or times wrong, but it doesn't change the event's that night.

[Michael W Richards]

So without nitpicking a minute or two either way we have...

Diemschutz finds the body at 1.00. Fanny Mortimer, from inside her house, hears his horse and cart (how many could there have been in a backstreet at 1.00? He tells those inside including Gilleman who goes upstairs and tells Eagle who sees the body around 1.00. So that ties up.

Diemschutz sees Spooner just after 1.00 and gets back to the yard 5 minutes before Lamb got there....so just after 1.00. Hoschberg hears Lambs whistle and arrives just after 1.00.

Kozebrodski was very obviously mistaken and Lave cannot be explained, but as he said that he was in the yard until 1.10 and there was no one there, there has to be a serious cloud over his evidence.

We don’t need to intentionally latch on to very obvious errors to construct a conspiracy when the facts of a perfectly explicable series of events exist.

What you dont want to accept or agree with is obviously wrong, even when its in the words of the man or men that the quote is attributed, huh? Thats kind of bizarre. That you think you know better what time Issac K saw Louis by the body better than he himself expressed, that you know he must have been wrong...like the other corroborative witnesses....

I wont belabour what is evidently a problem beyond Israel Schwartz for you, just that in your quote above you disregard the words of Issac Kozebroski, Heschburg, and Spooner and decide that their times were all wrong, though corroborating each other, by at least 20 minutes. If thats your stance then logic, reason and rational thought wont be of interest to you anyway.

Have your own little world where only evidence you like is acceptable. Ill keep on looking around for someone to discuss this more...how should I say this, more realistically? Anyway, good luck with creating a story instead of revealing one.

Youll always have to deal with Israel not being worth mentioning in a formal Inquest, but I suppose youll just assume all the press omitted his testimony. Creating works wonders when the truth wont fit, right?