Schwartz, a fraud?

[Sunny Delight]

If Schwartz was excused from the inquest could it have been that the Police did not have an interpreter available and thus as Schwartz didn't speak any English he could not appear?

[Varqm]

If Schwartz was excused from the inquest could it have been that the Police did not have an interpreter available and thus as Schwartz didn't speak any English he could not appear?

They would find one.That's kind of naive.
There is no police memoir of JTR assaulting a victim and seen by a witness.The police use Lawende in identifying Sadler in 1891.So at some point they also dismissed Schwartz as a witness..

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Schwartz was excused from the inquest could it have been that the Police did not have an interpreter available and thus as Schwartz didn't speak any English he could not appear?

Id say it’s a possibility Sunny but a conspiracist would say no of course.

[Varqm]

Id say it’s a possibility Sunny but a conspiracist would say no of course.

Nonsense.It's not conspiracy,I think you are the one.You are reading the situation wrong.If Star was able to get a hold of him the authorities would,A witness like Schwartz would not be allowed in the inquest because of 2 very conflicting stories.And an inquest without an account of an assault on the victim minutes prior to her murder is wrong/inaccurate,it would be amateur hour.This was a murder case.LOL.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

You do realise that other people can read your responses don’t you Michael?

You’re an intelligent man so sadly we can’t put this down to you misunderstanding what I’ve said. I’m afraid that with you being so irreversibly committed to your theory you’re simply not being honest when you keep accusing me of disregarding evidence when it’s very obviously you that is guilty of this. I realise that I’m wasting my time though. I saw a quote in an old Ripperologist recently where Tom Wescott mentions your theory and the fact that only you believe in it but I’m certain that you wouldn’t be concerned that it still hadn’t caught on because you’ve become conspiracy-blind. You may have a low opinion of me Michael but do you also have a low opinion of every other Ripperologist? All those researchers and students of the crime who have spent years poring over the details of the crimes and none of them believe that a cover up took place. Are they all stupid? Or, as will probably be your view (and to use Trevor’s catchphrase) are they just unwilling to accept it because they are wedded to the ‘old established ideas?

You accept Spooner’s estimate although it’s based on estimated times like time taken to walk and length of conversation.

and yet...

He sees Diemschutz who ran for the police after 1.00. Confirmed by Brown - why do you dismiss this Michael?
He sees Harris who has been alerted by Lamb’s whistle and so it’s after 1.00 - why do you dismiss this Michael?
He stated that he arrived at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb so after 1.00 - why do you dismiss this Michael?

Yet you adhere to an estimation where his basis for that estimation very obviously allows for error?

Again with Hoschberg - he says ‘about 12.45 I should think.’ This is undeniably a guess.

But he states for certain that he heard a Police whistle. This had to have been Lamb so it had to have been after 1.00. This is a slam dunk Micheal and yet, of course, you go for the guess because it suits you.

.......

You are the one that’s blind to evidence Michael. You aren’t taking a balanced view. You go for obviously flawed estimates over verifiable facts. It’s also staggering that even though we know that the Police were using Schwartz description on the 20th October and later, you still try and peddle the self-serving nonsense that they were disregarding his evidence. How more obvious can this be?

Im repeating myself I know but the few simple facts that I’ve posted above categorically disprove your assertion that it’s me that is ignoring evidence. It’s very obviously you Michael; in your pursuit of a fantasy. You should be embarrassed to dispute the simple and very obvious facts above.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nonsense.It's not conspiracy,I think you are the one.You are reading the situation wrong.If Star was able to get a hold of him the authorities would,A witness like Schwartz would not be allowed in the inquest because of 2 very conflicting stories.And an inquest without an account of an assault on the victim minutes prior to her murder is wrong/inaccurate,it would be amateur hour.This was a murder case.LOL.

Varqm I’d suggest that you take a little time to read through some of this thread. As everyone here will confirm I’m not the conspiracist. I’m about as far away from a conspiracy theorist as you’ll find anywhere. Michael is suggesting the cover up.

Why, if The Star got hold of him, would the authorities also have got hold of him? He wasn’t in hiding when The Star spoke to him. I’m not saying that this certainly happened Varqm just that it’s a possibility. What if he had a friend living in Manchester for example and he went to stay with him (and the police didn’t know this?)

Im sorry but to suggest that he wasn’t called to give evidence because of conflicting stories doesn’t make sense. You are implying that the Police didn’t trust what Schwartz said. If that was the case why would they put his description of BS Man on the front of their Gazette on October 20th? They obviously put weight in Schwartz evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

Nonsense.It's not conspiracy,I think you are the one.You are reading the situation wrong.If Star was able to get a hold of him the authorities would,A witness like Schwartz would not be allowed in the inquest because of 2 very conflicting stories.And an inquest without an account of an assault on the victim minutes prior to her murder is wrong/inaccurate,it would be amateur hour.This was a murder case.LOL.

Precisely...but not like "precisely at 1"...right Herlock? Actually precise Varqm. There is no way Schwartz if believed would not have been the star witness at that Inquest. People like to imagine differently...apparently because someone unofficially states they believed the story..like thats a quality stamp or something. Its just an personal opinion in the Gazette, an opinion, not a Position taken by the Police.

If the Police didnt believe him, then why are people still using his story as some sort of a factual baseline. Its seems people choose what makes sense to them, some dont feel compelled by reason or logic...they use gut feelings, or a overarching belief that an individual carries about how many the "Ripper" killed or who killed the Canonical Group...like weve proven that 5 had linkage. We havent, for the record. We haven't even linked one with 1 other within the assumptive Group.

I personally do link at least 2 with one killer, perhaps a third...that only leaves 10 in the Unsolved Murders file for the same period and district. Also...people should look at the total murders that year for greater London before they go about espousing ideas that only 1 man was at work in London....oops, someone just published a book with that same premise? Guess they have that overarching problem too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Precisely...but not like "precisely at 1"...right Herlock? Actually precise Varqm. There is no way Schwartz if believed would not have been the star witness at that Inquest. People like to imagine differently...apparently because someone unofficially states they believed the story..like thats a quality stamp or something. Its just an personal opinion in the Gazette, an opinion, not a Position taken by the Police.

If the Police didnt believe him, then why are people still using his story as some sort of a factual baseline. Its seems people choose what makes sense to them, some dont feel compelled by reason or logic...the use gut feelings, or a overarching belief that an individual carries about how many the "Ripper" killed or who killed the Canonical Group...like weve proven that 5 had linkage. We havent, for the record. We haven't even linked one with 1 other within the assumptive Group.

I personally do link at least 21 with one killer, perhaps a third...that only leaves 10 in the Unsolved Murders file for the same period and district. Also...people should look at the total murders that year for greater London before they go about espousing ideas that only 1 man was at work in London....oops, someone just published a book with that same premise? Guess they have that overarching problem too.

Because most of us aren’t holding on desperately to a thoroughly disproven conspiracy theory by manipulating evidence and repeatedly ignoring the obvious.

Diemschutz, Eagle, Gilleman, Spooner, Hoschberg, Mortimer all point to Diemschutz arriving at 1.00. Actually there are no grounds for even discussing an earlier discovery time as it should be dismissed out of hand and without a second thought. It’s revisionism simply for the sake of it and not for any genuine desire to advance the subject. The ‘reason’ for the conspiracy is weak beyond belief. The actual cover up is laughably inept and the attempt to justify it desperate. The childish insistence on quoting the word ‘precisely’ is a case in point. Utterly typical conspiracist thinking. Despite Frank pointing out that Diemschutz would have got from the clock to the yard in under a minute on we go. It’s a brick wall of bias.

Its noticeable that you never really address the points Michael. For example, Spooner inconveniently stating that he’d arrived at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb. Why is that? It’s because there is no answer. You can’t wriggle out of it so you ignore it and keep parroting his estimated time as if it’s a fact. Like Harris and Hoschberg hearing the police whistle which we know for a fact was after 1.00. Again, it’s because these cannot be refuted or wriggled out of.

This conspiracy was demolished by others long before I questioned it Michael but your pride simply won’t let you admit it. The facts beat the estimates and guesses.

There was no cover up. Everyone knows it except you Michael.

[Michael W Richards]

Giileman apparently said 12;40, Issac K said 12:40, Spooner estimated 12:35, and Mortimer didnt see anyone arrive at or just before 1am....how in heavens name that means to you that they all point to a time around 1am is beyond all reason...and obviously not what any of these people actually said. Just you.

If I say I read this at 2:35pm and you read that and still say that I didnt, without any proof...then whose being the a**hole?

[Sunny Delight]

They would find one.That's kind of naive.
There is no police memoir of JTR assaulting a victim and seen by a witness.The police use Lawende in identifying Sadler in 1891.So at some point they also dismissed Schwartz as a witness..

Naive to think the Police could not find an interpreter? I would say Schwartz spoke Hebrew most likely- possibly just Hungarian only and maybe both. As it is we cannot know. What I do know is even nowadays Police struggle to find interpreters of both quality and integrity. It isn't a given the Police would have found one.

[Sunny Delight]

Id say it’s a possibility Sunny but a conspiracist would say no of course.

Thanks Herlock. Could be possible. Would you say most likely Scwartz spoke Hebrew and maybe Hungarian. You seem quite knowledgable on the case- would interpreters of this sort have been easy to procure in 1888 for the Police to use at an inquest? I also must say your posts above are excellent and certainly there can be no doubt Stride was found at 1am.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks Herlock. Could be possible. Would you say most likely Scwartz spoke Hebrew and maybe Hungarian. You seem quite knowledgable on the case- would interpreters of this sort have been easy to procure in 1888 for the Police to use at an inquest? I also must say your posts above are excellent and certainly there can be no doubt Stride was found at 1am.

Now do you see what harm your proclamations are to new students Herlock? People believe what they read, instead of studying all the factors for themselves...its why there is a Canonical Group in the first place. People took other peoples word,...like Louis, who said he arrived "precisely" at 1am, like Morris who says he arrived at the passageway at 12:40 yet didnt see Lave or anyone else, despite the fact that 4 people say they were there with others at that time. Read all the witness accounts Sunny, note the times and actions, use whatever logic and reason are at your disposal and you will find that only a minority of statements suggest a 1am discovery, and all are contradicted by the majority of witnesses who said 12:40-12:45. Also study where Fanny Mortimer lived...understand that she was at her door facing the street...is it possible she could have missed a cart and horse and driver pulling up to 40 Berner Street just before or at 1am?

None of the witnesses who said the discover was after 1 have any corroboration at all, all of the witnesses who said 12:40-12:45 are corroborated by multiple witness accounts.

Its like bizarro world when people start using the uncorroborated non-validated statements to argue against a plethora of matching ones. 4 people see a tiger at 4pm, and the other people who say they were there....1 sees a Giraffe and nothing else, and no-one sees him. What animal is probably there at 4pm?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Giileman apparently said 12;40, Issac K said 12:40, Spooner estimated 12:35, and Mortimer didnt see anyone arrive at or just before 1am....how in heavens name that means to you that they all point to a time around 1am is beyond all reason...and obviously not what any of these people actually said. Just you.

If I say I read this at 2:35pm and you read that and still say that I didnt, without any proof...then whose being the a**hole?

Where did Gilleman say 12.40? Eagle said that Gilleman told him about the body and he went to view it.....at 1.00.

Yes Kozebrodski said ‘about’ 12.40. The word ‘about’ means that he was estimating his time. He then went looking for a Constable with Diemschutz, heard by Brown, at just after 1.00.

And Spooner....well waddya know, yet again you completely disregard evidence and go for an estimation. I sense a pattern here. Remember? Harris...police whistle....and the 5 minutes before Lamb arrived. Proving that when he went to the yard it was after 1.00. But go ahead Michael ignore the evidence and stick to the convenient guesses.

Then old Mrs M..... no she didn’t see Schwartz but.... she went onto her doorstep for 10 minutes after hearing PC Smith pass. Smith said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35 so let’s split the difference and say 12.33. Plus 10 minutes on her doorstep which takes us to....12.43 and she goes back inside until she heard the commotion at the club (and Diemschutz horse and cart btw arriving at 1.00 and not at 12.35 when she was on her doorstep) Schwartz passes at 12.45 whilst she’s indoors.

It’s very interesting Michael that you ask “why didn’t she see Schwartz at 12.45?” Even though she was inside. And yet you don’t ask why she and Smith didn’t see him returning at 12.35. Smith also walked past the yard but didn’t mention seeing a horse and cart. Strange that

Forget the convenient guessing mistakes and regard the inconvenient corroborating evidence.

Again remember the example I gave, Mr X said that he did Y at 2.30 just after the postman came. The postman however said that he came at 3.00 and as he was just entering the gate Mrs B passed and asked him the time and he said 3.00.

Conclusion? You of course go for 2.30 whilst most people look at the corroborating evidence and say 2.30. It’s exactly the same with events in Berner Street. If you see a guess that helps your theory you embrace it wholeheartedly and turn a blind eye to the inconvenient facts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock. Could be possible. Would you say most likely Scwartz spoke Hebrew and maybe Hungarian. You seem quite knowledgable on the case- would interpreters of this sort have been easy to procure in 1888 for the Police to use at an inquest? I also must say your posts above are excellent and certainly there can be no doubt Stride was found at 1am.

Thank you Sunny, but before others say “Herlock....knowledgeable!!!” I make no claim to be an expert on this case. I’m not. I’ve been interested in it for 35 years but lost a lot of interest for around 10 years. There are definitely some experts on the details of the case on here and elsewhere though but we can all disagree or agree on interpretations.

That said, there can be no doubt that Stride was discovered by Diemschutz at around 1.00. Michael (and maybe one other poster) appear to be the only people in the world that believe otherwise.

Im unsure how accessible the relevant interpreter might have been? A friend of mine even wondered if the Coroner might have weighed up how much Schwartz could have added against the cost of paying an interpreter? I don’t know. If I had to favour a reason why he didn’t attend the Inquest it would be that he feared reprisals from BS man, who he may have felt was the ripper, and so he went into hiding somewhere until the Inquest was over. It’s just conjecture though of course.

[c.d.]

then whose being the a**hole?

Hello Michael,

Is this just a rhetorical question or are you looking for an answer?

c.d.