Schwartz, a fraud?

[Sunny Delight]

With the Fenian connection you’ve probably looked into the Tumblety connection? I don’t think that he was the Ripper but he certainly had an eventful life.

Ive recently watched a superb documentary on the Easter Rising narrated by Liam Neeson which you’ve probably seen. It was great to see black and white interviews with some of those that were involved plus wives etc.

Yes I have looked into Tumblety and his connections. It appears to me anyways that he was nothing more than a sympathiser who may have known some 'players' through establishments etc but was someone not particularly useful as he rather brought far too much attention upon himself. I know he frequented hotels owned by Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa who was exiled from Ireland for extremist activities(he and four others were known as the 'Cuba five'). O'Donovan Rossa had actually been elected to Westminster in 1869 whilst in prison for 'treason felony'. I would find it rather odd if Rossa, a wily and cunning operative had given Tumblety much encouragement. Rossa's establishments were places Fenian sympathisers hung out so to speak. One of the reasons I don't give any credence to Tumblety as the Whitechapel murderer is that he was far too eccentric and self promoting to in any way commit the crimes. To my mind and as I say I am quite new to the case the Ripper was a local man, probably the man Scwartz and Lawende both saw and someone who had a job. That is about all we can infer really I think.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Dont we have a reference to "Gillen", which is the same man, that says 12:40. Yes, we do...as weve discussed for over a year. Spooner said about 25 to 1. You know we have Inquest transcripts, right? If so, why do I have to keep quoting them. Fanny Mortimer, despite whatever convoluted interpretation you offer, said she was at her door "nearly the whole time" between 12:30 and 1. She also said that she went out to the door and stayed there from 12:50 ish until just after 1. So...in what universe does that empower Louis and his "precisely" at 1 comment? Hint...it doesnt.

I have no problem with you having no problem with statements that have zero corroboration, believe what you want. The problem here is you attempt to discredit the majority of the accounts on times because I suppose you prefer different answers.

I offered evidence that men were standing around while Liz was bleeding, but whens I suggest that Louis and Eagle were among them as per 4 witness accounts, you start making up excuses and dissing the majority accounts in favour of ones that have ZERO VALIDATION. Nonsense, but sadly now, predictable. Having an intelligent discussion seems with you seems so elusive, I can only conclude that its because you dont understand all the elements here, the times given by witnesses...you keep correcting witnesses own words for some bizarre reason, and incorrectly then summarizing events...which to you are , what was that word..."obvious". Yes, some things are obvious here but they are not flattering for you nor do they back up anything you conclude.

You dont care how or who you mislead, so we are done here. This isnt Herlocks Imaginary Stories...maybe you should start that somewhere where people arent interested in acute perceptions and astute observations.

You never addressed my hypothetical...because of cours ethe answer makes your arguments look foolish...but lets try again, more specific this time.

4 witnesses give statements to the police that they saw a dying woman lying in a specific location, surrounded by standing men, all stories with the same times and details. 1 witness says he was the first and only person by that dying woman, and as it turns out it was 20 minutes later than the 4 aforementioned witnesses. He says he alone first discovered the body. No-one saw what time her arrived there. Another man says that at the same time the 4 witnesses who all are corroborated by the others accounts were by the dying woman, he saw her alive, in another location, with 1 man assaulting her and 1 man watching. No other witness saw either the last witness, the woman alive after 12:35 on the street, nor the two unidentified men the last witness says were there also.

You choose the absolute weakest possible stories and then state its obvious that they were actually the correct ones and the men who ALL had stories that matched in times and events, were ALL wrong by 20 minutes.

And you claim this is the responsible and sensible way to interpret the data...when in fact it is the polar opposite of that.

Your arguments are weak, your "facts" are incorrect and misleading, and you judge all the info by what you would like to find as an outcome. All that adds up to a sure book deal for you on this topic.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Herlock. I have been interested in the case for a few years. I am I suppose relatively young(36 to be exact) but my interest very much stems from my University studies where I researched British and Irish history(I am Irish). What fascinated me was Irish migrants and their living conditions and the communities that sprang forth. Also the Fenian bombing campign which I happened to stumble upon whilst researching the 1916 Easter rising.(the main signatory of the 1916 Proclaimation of independence had been arrested and jailed in England for over 15 years mostly in solitary confinement. He had been a Fenian bomber). And that led me to Mary Kelly and the conspiracy theories around her- total nonsense by the way also. I then started researching this case- I think the context of the time period is fascinating.

I began studying these cases in 1988, so youll understand the "new student" reference. Herlock gets offended for others now...

[Michael W Richards]

then whose being the a**hole?

Hello Michael,

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

c.d.

Since your answering a remark not made to you....lets leave that up to the peanut gallery shall we? I know what I am...and its discontent with bs and opinions used to counter actual evidence...but thats not new to you either is it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. ..lets leave that up to the peanut gallery shall we

Nice one Michael. Instead of just personal insults to me you insult everyone on the thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dont we have a reference to "Gillen", which is the same man, that says 12:40. Yes, we do...as weve discussed for over a year.

At last!!! After weeks you’ve finally admitted that Gillen and Gilleman are the same person. That wasn’t hard was it? So why couldn’t you have said that ages ago instead of posting Gillen. Of course, you haven’t presented this mention of an earlier time by him but obviously you will take it as gospel whilst ignoring the fact that he called Eagle to the body at 1.00.

Spooner said about 25 to 1. You know we have Inquest transcripts, right? If so, why do I have to keep quoting them.

Because, for the 263rd time, you only quote part of it. I’ll repeat, you only quote part of it, and because it’s yet to sink in guess what, I’ll repeat it again.....YOU ONLY QUOTE A PART OF IT, and the part that you quote is the part where he’s estimating. He stands for 5 mins (or was it a bit longer?) he then walks, but for how long? So his arrival at the pub is another estimation. Then he talks to a woman for 25 minutes (did he have a stopwatch?) So....a bunch of estimations Michael which you claim as a fact. Which by the way, with a reasonable margin for error could easily have been 1.00.

But of course you avoid the important part. Just as much his own words as the 12.35 guess, HE ARRIVED AT THE YARD 5 MINUTES BEFORE LAMB! Do you remember this? He’s not estimating the lengths of conversations or the duration of strolls he’s actually using a fairly fixed point. Lamb. Who got to the yard after 1.00. We can’t say exactly what time but 5 minutes before he arrived gets us to....12.35?....nah, 1.00.

Every single time you post 12.35 ill post 5 minutes before Lamb. We wouldn’t want you misleading everyone would we Michael?

Fanny Mortimer, despite whatever convoluted interpretation you offer, said she was at her door "nearly the whole time" between 12:30 and 1. She also said that she went out to the door and stayed there from 12:50 ish until just after 1. So...in what universe does that empower Louis and his "precisely" at 1 comment? Hint...it doesnt.

You do like to latch on to convenient words and phrases don’t you Michael? It’s a common symptom of the conspiracy theorist. Fanny said that she went onto her doorstep after hearing Smith pass. Now in English the opposite of outside is inside and so before she went outside she must have been.....inside, which according to her was between 12.30 and 12.45. So that’s half of the 30 minutes spent inside for a start so she even refutes herself.

But....there’s always a but. Now of course you just accept 12.45 as you just accept Spooner saying 12.35. But like Spooner..there’s more. She said she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed but Smith said that he passed at 12.30-12.35. Inconvenient I realise Michael. And so if she went onto her doorstep between 12.30-12.35 then she’s inside when Schwartz passed. Now I know you don’t like the bigger picture approach, preferring to latch on to a version that you like, but there really is no excuse for simply turning a blind eye to this possibility. It’s not setting a good example to lesser students of the case is it?

I have no problem with you having no problem with statements that have zero corroboration, believe what you want. The problem here is you attempt to discredit the majority of the accounts on times because I suppose you prefer different answers.

And I have no problem with your position behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll.

I offered evidence that men were standing around while Liz was bleeding, but whens I suggest that Louis and Eagle were among them as per 4 witness accounts, you start making up excuses and dissing the majority accounts in favour of ones that have ZERO VALIDATION. Nonsense, but sadly now, predictable. Having an intelligent discussion seems with you seems so elusive, I can only conclude that its because you dont understand all the elements here, the times given by witnesses...you keep correcting witnesses own words for some bizarre reason, and incorrectly then summarizing events...which to you are , what was that word..."obvious". Yes, some things are obvious here but they are not flattering for you nor do they back up anything you conclude.

Ill simply ask again Michael, after peddling this theory for years and with researchers studying this case in minute detail all the time, why has no one come out and said “guess what? I think Michael was right all along and that there was a cover-up and Stride was discover half an hour earlier?

I suppose everyone else is blind and stupid and only you can see the light? Wake up Michael. If this theory had any traction it would have caught on at least to some extent by now. But it hasn’t. Because it doesn’t.

You dont care how or who you mislead, so we are done here. This isnt Herlocks Imaginary Stories...maybe you should start that somewhere where people arent interested in acute perceptions and astute observations.

Are you so unaware that you can’t see your own arrogance in these comments Michael. Your acute perceptions and acute observations have got you precisely nowhere. Arguing a fantasy that no one else believes.

You never addressed my hypothetical...because of cours ethe answer makes your arguments look foolish...but lets try again, more specific this time.

4 witnesses give statements to the police that they saw a dying woman lying in a specific location, surrounded by standing men, all stories with the same times and details. 1 witness says he was the first and only person by that dying woman, and as it turns out it was 20 minutes later than the 4 aforementioned witnesses. He says he alone first discovered the body. No-one saw what time her arrived there. Another man says that at the same time the 4 witnesses who all are corroborated by the others accounts were by the dying woman, he saw her alive, in another location, with 1 man assaulting her and 1 man watching. No other witness saw either the last witness, the woman alive after 12:35 on the street, nor the two unidentified men the last witness says were there also.

Its an irrelevant scenario because you’re distorting the facts as ever.

You choose the absolute weakest possible stories and then state its obvious that they were actually the correct ones and the men who ALL had stories that matched in times and events, were ALL wrong by 20 minutes.

And you favour guesswork and fantasy. I still think back with a smile at your ‘evidence of interruption’ joke. A classic Michael.

And you claim this is the responsible and sensible way to interpret the data...when in fact it is the polar opposite of that.

Your arguments are weak, your "facts" are incorrect and misleading, and you judge all the info by what you would like to find as an outcome. All that adds up to a sure book deal for you on this topic.

Im happy to end this Michael because it’s impossible to discuss the case sensibly with someone so utterly biased. You’ve deliberately sought a scenario to suit your idea about Issenschmidt which is the most honest approach. You’ve spent years on this non-existent cover-up which renders you impervious to reason so you resort to telling everyone how superior you are whilst spitting out insults (and your dummy out of the pram at the same time)

Theories either get traction or they don’t yours hasn't but your pride won’t let you back down so you plough on favouring guesswork and fixating on pathetic nonsense like the word ‘precisely.’ All textbook conspiracy theorist behaviour.

Look around you Michael. NO ONE ACCEPTS YOUR COVER UP THEORY. Is everyone wrong or might you be? Of course you’ll say it’s everyone else. The sad thing is Michael that you just sound like a defeated Bond villain. And you HAVE lost the argument by the way. Not because of anything I’ve said but because the evidence has always been against you. Its a lost cause....you really should give it up after all this time Michael. No ones listening.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. which is the most honest approach

I meant “which is not the most honest approach,” of course.

[Varqm]

Of course we would have expected Schwartz to have appeared but I can’t see how he was ‘key’ Varqm? The Inquests aim was to decide how and when she died of course and so as far as the ‘how’ was concerned Schwartz was entirely surplus to requirements. As to the ‘when,’ yes he could have narrowed the window of time down by less than 10 minutes (only by saying that Stride was still alive at 12.45) but it’s hardly massive is it? And of course this wouldn’t have affected the police investigation one iota because they had Schwartz statement anyway.

The most important point as far as discussion on here goes is that we can’t simply state that he didn’t appear at the Inquest because the police put no faith in his story unless we can prove this and we can’t. We know that the Inquest began directly after the murder; we know that the police interviewed a potential BS man; we know that the description was being used into late October and we have senior police officers talking about Schwartz (none of whom said that he wasn’t believed) so how could all this have happened if Schwartz had been disregarded in 24 hours? It’s ludicrous. As long as there are possible alternative explanations then we shouldn’t be making categorical statements. Is it possible that Schwartz simply went into hiding to avoid giving evidence at the Inquest? I’d say that this has to be at least a possibility. Whether individuals suspect that this is or isn’t true is largely irrelevant unless someone can prove it either way.

So let's say this was the OJ Simpson case. A witness witnessed the OJ's wife being assaulted by a short Latin looking guy a few minutes before,lets say 10-15 minutes, before her body was discovered ,you don't think that was relevant enough? Wow.Fired.
So the Star reporter could find him but the authorities could not,not even a relative,wife and from there Schwartz.And no report of any kind that the an important witness was wanted but he was hiding.OK.
The conflicting statement mostly and absence from the inquest were enough proof.

The case formally ended in 1892.What the police thought in Oct/Nov 1888 was not the final word.They could have changed their minds after 1888.

But to each his own..

[Herlock Sholmes]

So let's say this was the OJ Simpson case. A witness witnessed the OJ's wife being assaulted by a short Latin looking guy a few minutes before,lets say 10-15 minutes, before her body was discovered ,you don't think that was relevant enough? Wow.Fired.
So the Star reporter could find him but the authorities could not,not even a relative,wife and from there Schwartz.And no report of any kind that the an important witness was wanted but he was hiding.OK.
The conflicting statement mostly and absence from the inquest were enough proof.

The case formally ended in 1892.What the police thought in Oct/Nov 1888 was not the final word.They could have changed their minds after 1888.

But to each his own..

Of course it would be relevant and of course Schwartz was relevant to the police investigation. It’s not me that’s suggesting that Schwartz evidence had been dismissed by the police. All that I’ve asked Varqm is what value was Schwartz evidence to a an Inquest? The Inquest, as you know, was looking to establish ‘how’ and ‘when’ Stride was killed. Do you accept that? So could Schwartz contribute to the Inquest finding out ‘how’ she died? No, because she was still alive when he last saw her and the Doctor could tell them exactly how she’d met her death. What about ‘when?’ At the absolute best he could narrow down the window by 10 minutes. Certainly a contribution but not exactly a game changing one is it?

If Schwartz didn't attend the Inquest would it, in any way, have compromised the Police’s investigation of the case? No, because they already had a statement from him.

So the Star reporter could find him but the authorities could not,not even a relative,wife and from there Schwartz.And no report of any kind that the an important witness was wanted but he was hiding.OK.

Be serious Varqm. The authorities and The Star found him because they knew where to look. They obviously went to his house or his place of work or to one of his regular haunts but if later on he didn’t want to be found do you really think that he’d go to those places? What if he had an old friend who lived in some village in Kent so he went to stay with him? What if his London friends didn’t know about this friend? And if Schwartz went into hiding because he was in fear is it likely that his wife would have betrayed him even if she’d known where he was or would she have said “he just packed a bag and left. I haven’t a clue where he’s gone.”

The conflicting statement mostly and absence from the inquest were enough proof.

Its proof of nothing Varqm. It’s your opinion. I’m not presuming to know the reason why he didn’t attend the Inquest because we have no evidence so why are you? The argument that the police had dismissed his evidenced is contradicted by the police continuing to mention him as a witness. The Inquest occurred immediately after the murder so could they really have searched for someone called Lipski, found and questioned a potential BS man and then decided that Schwartz was a liar in such a short space of time and all the while senior police officers are mentioning him as a witness into November? Surely the suggestion is preposterous Varqm?

And yet, what is preposterous about a man who feared for his life (whether justifiably or not) going into hiding?

[Varqm]

Of course it would be relevant and of course Schwartz was relevant to the police investigation. It’s not me that’s suggesting that Schwartz evidence had been dismissed by the police. All that I’ve asked Varqm is what value was Schwartz evidence to a an Inquest? The Inquest, as you know, was looking to establish ‘how’ and ‘when’ Stride was killed. Do you accept that? So could Schwartz contribute to the Inquest finding out ‘how’ she died? No, because she was still alive when he last saw her and the Doctor could tell them exactly how she’d met her death. What about ‘when?’ At the absolute best he could narrow down the window by 10 minutes. Certainly a contribution but not exactly a game changing one is it?

If Schwartz didn't attend the Inquest would it, in any way, have compromised the Police’s investigation of the case? No, because they already had a statement from him.



Be serious Varqm. The authorities and The Star found him because they knew where to look. They obviously went to his house or his place of work or to one of his regular haunts but if later on he didn’t want to be found do you really think that he’d go to those places? What if he had an old friend who lived in some village in Kent so he went to stay with him? What if his London friends didn’t know about this friend? And if Schwartz went into hiding because he was in fear is it likely that his wife would have betrayed him even if she’d known where he was or would she have said “he just packed a bag and left. I haven’t a clue where he’s gone.”



Its proof of nothing Varqm. It’s your opinion. I’m not presuming to know the reason why he didn’t attend the Inquest because we have no evidence so why are you? The argument that the police had dismissed his evidenced is contradicted by the police continuing to mention him as a witness. The Inquest occurred immediately after the murder so could they really have searched for someone called Lipski, found and questioned a potential BS man and then decided that Schwartz was a liar in such a short space of time and all the while senior police officers are mentioning him as a witness into November? Surely the suggestion is preposterous Varqm?

And yet, what is preposterous about a man who feared for his life (whether justifiably or not) going into hiding?

If one has to explain whether an assault on a victim in the same place 10-15 minutes where she was found dead is not important then we are in different realities.
Also look at the Stride inquest or the others again and determine the importance of each witness compared to Schwartz in explaining the circumstances surrounding her death.

It's proof enough,just by simple common sense.Again Lawende was used in 1891 and even Henry Smith only talked about Lawende,he was the only credible witness.

You are making too many stories about Schwartz hiding.Simply he was not believable.Like Hutch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If one has to explain whether an assault on a victim in the same place 10-15 minutes where she was found dead is not important then we are in different realities.
Also look at the Stride inquest or the others again and determine the importance of each witness compared to Schwartz in explaining the circumstances surrounding her death.

It's proof enough,just by simple common sense.Again Lawende was used in 1891 and even Henry Smith only talked about Lawende,he was the only credible witness.

You are making too many stories about Schwartz hiding.Simply he was not believable.Like Hutch.

The ‘not believable’ part conflicts with what we know. You are in denial of the facts and are making assumptions that are convenient. Like someone else.

Im sorry but I’ve wasted far too much time on this thread trying to show that black isn’t white just to come up against the same brick walls. You win Varqm. I give up. Schwartz simply made the whole thing up and the police were a bunch of gullible, incompetent halfwits who continued to quote him as a witness long after they had ceased to believe him and that they had both spent time investigating and acting upon his evidence and then deciding that he was a liar...all in the space of around 24 hours.

Why didn’t I see this straight away?

Have fun on the Grassy Knoll with Michael.

[Varqm]

The ‘not believable’ part conflicts with what we know. You are in denial of the facts and are making assumptions that are convenient. Like someone else.

Im sorry but I’ve wasted far too much time on this thread trying to show that black isn’t white just to come up against the same brick walls. You win Varqm. I give up. Schwartz simply made the whole thing up and the police were a bunch of gullible, incompetent halfwits who continued to quote him as a witness long after they had ceased to believe him and that they had both spent time investigating and acting upon his evidence and then deciding that he was a liar...all in the space of around 24 hours.

Why didn’t I see this straight away?

Have fun on the Grassy Knoll with Michael.

Go ahead keep believing in witnesses with 2 conflicting statements and that an assault minutes before a murder is not important.And Schwartz was hiding against imaginary threats.That Baxter had until Oct. 22 to include Schwartz,while the whole of London was listening, and did not.Good luck as a Keystone cop.

[c.d.]

Hello Varqm,

I don't think anyone is arguing that Schwartz would not have been an important witness. As such, it is surprising that he did not attend the inquest. But we simply don't know why he was not there. Could it have been because the police dismissed his story? Absolutely. But since no one knows for sure it makes no sense to turn it into an if A then B argument meaning that if it can be shown he did not attend then he was not believed. That is bad reasoning. And if we follow that reasoning then Fanny Mortimer and others were not believed since they did not attend.

It remains unclear and a mystery why he was not there.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Varqm,

I don't think anyone is arguing that Schwartz would not have been an important witness. As such, it is surprising that he did not attend the inquest. But we simply don't know why he was not there. Could it have been because the police dismissed his story? Absolutely. But since no one knows for sure it makes no sense to turn it into an if A then B argument meaning that if it can be shown he did not attend then he was not believed. That is bad reasoning. And if we follow that reasoning then Fanny Mortimer and others were not believed since they did not attend.

It remains unclear and a mystery why he was not there.

c.d.

Exactly c.d.

We have to keep stressing over and again the difference between opinion and fact. As you say, we simply don’t know why Schwartz didn’t appear at the Inquest. All I’ve done is to suggest that if Schwartz felt that either BS man or Pipeman had posed a threat then he might have gone into hiding. Am I claiming this as a fact? Of course not, but if you can see this why can’t others? Why the emphatic confidence that the police must have had no confidence in Schwartz? And why does the fact that senior police officers go on citing Schwartz as a witness into November, without expressing doubt as to his validity, give some posters no cause to pause and think? They just plough on implacably along the ‘police had dismissed him’ line. Why this level of over-confidence?

I can’t help thinking that if some posters stopped trying to see conspiracies behind every door and cover-ups around every corner they would have no cause to keep seeing what they want to see.

[Varqm]

Hello Varqm,

I don't think anyone is arguing that Schwartz would not have been an important witness. As such, it is surprising that he did not attend the inquest. But we simply don't know why he was not there. Could it have been because the police dismissed his story? Absolutely. But since no one knows for sure it makes no sense to turn it into an if A then B argument meaning that if it can be shown he did not attend then he was not believed. That is bad reasoning. And if we follow that reasoning then Fanny Mortimer and others were not believed since they did not attend.

It remains unclear and a mystery why he was not there.

c.d.

It is not bad reasoning since the 2 statements he did was conflicting.If a victim was assaulted minutes before her dead body was in found in the same spot,there is no way the witness can't be heard,it's too important.Any fact-finding mission like the inquest fails without it .And in any mention of the murder later on has to include this.It's common sense/reasoning.
The police report by Swanson was Oct. 19,the Gazette,Oct. 20 I think,so the police believed in him.The inquest ended in Oct. 23.He had time to put him in and the police surely would have submitted him as a witness.The only explanation was Schwartz was dismissed,by Baxter at least.
Anyways I have enough.we obviously do not see eye to eye about the importance of Schwartz's sighting,the "could have been" if it was true.