Schwartz, a fraud?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

John Cleary / John Arnold who predicted the Pinchin Street Torso three days before the murder specified the murder would be by Jack the Ripper. Now if he got this information by overhearing two people discussing it this would further suggest the Torso Murders were carried out by two people. Another coincidence I want to add to this is the site of the Pinchin Street Torso and the Lipski graffiti above it links directly with the once instance which was the only suggestion of JtR having an accomplice, the Schwartz story which involves two people.

Regarding coincidences, I wonder how close Schwartz got to the (future) site of the Pinchin Street Torso and Lipski graffiti, when "he ran so far as the railway arch"?

East London Observer, Sep 14 1889:

Not far from the arch where the headless trunk was found, a pedestrian exploring the neighbourhood would find himself in Berner street, where Elizabeth Stride was brutally murdered on Sept. 30 last year, and if he proceeded a little further he would traverse the dull and wretched Batty street, where Lipski foully murdered his landlady [sic], for which he was afterwards hanged at the Old Bailey. That the memory of this notorious criminal is still fresh in the minds of the inhabitants around is shown by the fact that on a black paling opposite the arch under which the unknown body was hidden some one had written the word 'Lipski' in large chalk letters. Whether done before the discovery or after no one seems to know, but the name was there.

[JeffHamm]

Lipski was commonly used as slur. Senior investigators that heard the story felt it was directed at Schwartz directly as an anti Semitic slur. Which is precisely what Ive been saying. What he said presented that word in that context, what he said he thought about it doesnt really matter, because he was lying anyway...the only person f**ing this up is.....well....lets just say I have no idea how you come up with your reasoning, I only know that it isnt reasonable in any way.

(bolding my emphasis)

With respect to the bolded portion, that is entirely false. What Schwartz relayed to the police is fundamentally critical to the whole thing. Schwartz, according to your theory, has been sent with a fabricated story to deflect the police from investigating the club members. Therefore, the story he tells the police is the "cover story". Scwartz's story, as he relays it, implicates a Jewish offender because Schwartz's tale has the following elements:
1) Pipeman as an accomplice
2) B.S. calling Pipeman Lipski

And therefore Schwartz's story implicates a Jewish offender (Pipeman), with the implication that B.S. is probably also Jewish.

The police, however, are aware that people who witness things do not always interpret the events correctly. It was the police who were more inclined to believe that Schwartz was mistaken, and that Lipski was shouted at him and not Pipeman, because Lipski was used as an anti-Semitic insult. It is the police re-interpretation of Schwartz's tale that does not implicate a Jewish offender. It is Schwartz's actual tale that brings one in.

It would take a special kind of stupid for the club members to concoct a cover story with the aim of deflecting attention away from the Jewish club members by having the offender be Jewish. Because that's what Schwartz originally told the police.

Schwartz's story, as he told it, refutes your theory by itself because what Schwartz told the police is the complete antithesis of your theory.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Abberline: I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

Unable to say - because whichever it was is not critical to his tale.
If it were addressed to Schwartz, it means something like "bugger off, Lipski!". Shortly after he finds the second man following him in a perceived threatening manner.
Alternatively, it were addressed to the second man, as we know this man shortly after begins following Schwartz in a perceived threatening manner, it can be inferred as meaning "Lipski on the scene!".
Either way, the second man looks very much like an accomplice.
There's just one problem; the police did not suspect the second man, and his description was not on the wanted list.
The second man was a known quantity, and the man himself gave a very different account to that of Schwartz.
This led to Leman street ceasing investigation related to Schwartz' statement, and the coroner not calling him to the inquest.
Israel Schwartz was likely a fake witness.

[JeffHamm]

Abberline: I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

Unable to say - because whichever it was is not critical to his tale.
If it were addressed to Schwartz, it means something like "bugger off, Lipski!". Shortly after he finds the second man following him in a perceived threatening manner.
Alternatively, it were addressed to the second man, as we know this man shortly after begins following Schwartz in a perceived threatening manner, it can be inferred as meaning "Lipski on the scene!".
Either way, the second man looks very much like an accomplice.
There's just one problem; the police did not suspect the second man, and his description was not on the wanted list.
The second man was a known quantity, and the man himself gave a very different account to that of Schwartz.
This led to Leman street ceasing investigation related to Schwartz' statement, and the coroner not calling him to the inquest.
Israel Schwartz was likely a fake witness.

Hi NBFN,

Under questioning witnesses will reevaluate what they initially state "to know", so Schwartz's initial statement to the police that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, and he took this to be Pipeman's name (it being recognizable to him), could easily result in him second guessing that after being asked how sure he was Lipski was directed at Pipeman. People often do not re-evaluate how they interpret something until forced to do so through questioning.

It is thought that Pipeman was identified, but what his account of the situation was is unknown to us. If he was identified and questioned, he clearly wasn't retained as a suspect, so his account would differ from Schwartz quite dramatically with regards to his own involvement. He also may have denied chasing Schwartz and was just hurrying down the road to avoid the ongoing confrontation, for example (obviously I don't know that, but just putting it out there as an example).

The police hadn't stopped following up on Schwartz's statement, though. They were actively searching the area for families by the name of Lipski. So even though the police thought Schwartz was likely mistaken on that point, they still followed up on what he actually stated and considered it a lead worth pursuing. As such, the police did not cease their investigation with regards to Schwartz. It appears it may have fizzled and played itself out. Nothing came of the search for Lipski families (presumably they were all accounted for), and if they identified Pipeman, at most they may have gotten another description of B.S. of the generic type we have (male, 28-32, dark coat and trousers, wearing a hat, with a moustache - basically something that would describe just about any male in the area really).

We have no idea why Schwartz was not called to the inquest, but there's nothing to suggest it was because of disbelief in his statement. Rather, I think the most probable explanation I've seen put forth here was that the police were still investigating his statement and did not want to jeopardize that ongoing investigation given all of the information Schwartz would add was more or less covered by the other witnesses (other than his viewing of Stride being manhandled of course). Again, can't say that was the reason for sure, but given the police were still looking for Lipski's in the area, and probably looking for Pipeman (if they hadn't already found him), that shows they had faith in Schwartz's information.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Under questioning witnesses will reevaluate what they initially state "to know", so Schwartz's initial statement to the police that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, and he took this to be Pipeman's name (it being recognizable to him), could easily result in him second guessing that after being asked how sure he was Lipski was directed at Pipeman.

I'm not seeing where Schwartz took Lipski to be Pipeman's name...

Swanson: The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski'...

It's just an ejaculation, by the sound of it. Would Schwartz have know it to be a name?

Even if it were perceived as being the man's name, it does not effect my interpretation that we (that is, Abberline and the police) are supposed to perceive an almost cause and effect relationship between the shouting of the word, and 'Mr Lipski' setting out after Schwartz (and giving up the chase before 'the' rail arch).

People often do not re-evaluate how they interpret something until forced to do so through questioning.

How much force did Abberline actually use? Did Swanson write...?

The man who threw the woman down called out 'Lipski', but it was not apparent to Schwartz if this were addressed to him or to the man on the opposite side of the road.

Obviously not. I think the doubts about who the word were directed to were more belonging to Abberline than Schwartz.

It is also worth considering that a man with no English - whether 100% true or otherwise - is not going to be as certain about the intentions of an English speaker as you or I. Schwartz seemed fairy sure it were aimed at Pipeman. Abberline should have recognised this and moved on. I guess he was 'hung up' about who was Jewish and who wasn't, whereas the critical issue is, where did the culprit come from; the club or the street? Schwartz' tale suggests the later.

It is thought that Pipeman was identified, but what his account of the situation was is unknown to us.

Verbally, yes. Behaviourally, maybe not.

If he was identified and questioned, he clearly wasn't retained as a suspect, so his account would differ from Schwartz quite dramatically with regards to his own involvement.

Which would suggest what about Schwartz? Well certainly not that he was covering for Leon Goldstein, as we know Fanny Mortimer didn't know her right from her left.

He also may have denied chasing Schwartz and was just hurrying down the road to avoid the ongoing confrontation, for example (obviously I don't know that, but just putting it out there as an example).

Perhaps not a good example Jeff, because you just said in this circumstance his account would differ from Schwartz quite dramatically.

The police hadn't stopped following up on Schwartz's statement, though. They were actively searching the area for families by the name of Lipski. So even though the police thought Schwartz was likely mistaken on that point, they still followed up on what he actually stated and considered it a lead worth pursuing. As such, the police did not cease their investigation with regards to Schwartz. It appears it may have fizzled and played itself out. Nothing came of the search for Lipski families (presumably they were all accounted for), and if they identified Pipeman, at most they may have gotten another description of B.S. of the generic type we have (male, 28-32, dark coat and trousers, wearing a hat, with a moustache - basically something that would describe just about any male in the area really).

I think Leman street doubted Schwartz due to the discovery of Pipeman, and his story differentiating wildly with Schwartz'. Apparently their ongoing interest was dependent on "additional facts" coming to light - which sounds like they have too much ambiguous and/or contradictory information.

Meanwhile, the assault part of the story seems on better ground, especially given the alternate assault report. As it was BS man who exclaimed 'Lipski', that part of the investigation is reasonable to pursue.

We have no idea why Schwartz was not called to the inquest, but there's nothing to suggest it was because of disbelief in his statement.

Given the Pipeman as a known quantity theory, I think it fairer to say that we have unprovable suspicions, rather than no idea.

Rather, I think the most probable explanation I've seen put forth here was that the police were still investigating his statement and did not want to jeopardize that ongoing investigation given all of the information Schwartz would add was more or less covered by the other witnesses (other than his viewing of Stride being manhandled of course). Again, can't say that was the reason for sure, but given the police were still looking for Lipski's in the area, and probably looking for Pipeman (if they hadn't already found him), that shows they had faith in Schwartz's information.

Or does it show that Abberline did not want to admit that he had been sold porkies by Schwartz, and pressed on with his fruitless search?
If that is not true (or fair), then what explains the Home Office marginal note that says the police apparently do not suspect the second man?
How can they not suspect this man without speaking to him? If they spoke to him, they know his name, and I can tell you with a fair degree of confidence that his last name was not Lipski.

[JeffHamm]

Abberline states he questioned Schwartz quite closely on the subject of who Lipski was called out to, which doesn't mean force, but questioned him very carefully. That could result in the witness re-evaluating their certainty. However, the fact the police search for families by that name indicate Schwartz believed it was called out as the name of Pipeman, at least initially, and also that his uncertainty was not indicative of his changing his mind (as in going, "OH, yah, it makes more sense if he was shouting at me" type thing).

We don't know the intonation of how Lipski was said, but given Schwartz thought it was Pipeman's name, it would appear that it was said in such a way that this interpretation was not improbable. It would, in Schwartz's mind, be B.S. calling to their friend to deal with Schwartz as he's interfering just by being there and B.S. is having a dispute with Stride (though of course Schwartz doesn't know Stride's name, and probably interpreted the situation as a domestic of some sort).

yes, I agree, Abberline had doubts about Schwartz's interpretation of who Lipski was shouted at, given he knew the name was used as an insult to Jews. But, given that he's aware of this, he's right to investigate that aspect of Schwartz's statement. He's also correct to investigate along the lines that Schwartz stated too.

And Pipeman's description of not chasing Schwartz is a very big change in the dynamics, and "drama" of the situation. It would entirely change the meaning of the events, even if the underlying facts are similar. But, you are free to see that as less of a dramatic difference if you wish as there's no need to debate over the meaning of a descriptive.

Schwartz wasn't covering for anyone, Leon or otherwise. he was just recounting what he claims to have witnessed, and how he interpreted the intentions of those he saw. He could recount the events accurately and still get the intentions majorly wrong. If Pipeman were identified and questioned and it became clear he was not chasing Schwartz, etc, that would be such an example. We don't know if that happened, but there are some indications it might have. And if that is what happened, then again, they're left with an assault, 15 minutes before she was found murdered (which Swanson I think indicates means someone else could have come along and murdered Stride), and a fairly generic description of B.S. Without something more, what could they do, paritcularly since if Pipeman were identified it becomes clear Lipski was probably shouted at Schwartz. And so, without additional facts, what exactly could they have done further with his information? Until they had a suspect, then Schwartz's information will have played out. Doesn't mean they doubted him, just means a generic description doesn't get you very far.

As for "no idea", true, we have all sorts of ideas, but ideas are a dime a dozen, one can just dream up things and as long as there's no evidence to get in the way of a good story, the ideas flow like manna from heaven. But I was referring to ideas as those drawn from evidence, and with regards to Schwartz's absence from the inquest, we have no evidence and therefore have nothing to draw ideas from, other than the whimsical nature of our imaginations. All we know is Schwartz did not appear, and the police were still looking for Lipski families, so they hadn't dismissed him completely. If they did identify Pipeman, I agree, his name wasn't Lipski, and at that point, the leads Schwartz provided must have dried up; meaning Pipeman obviously couldn't give any better of a description of B.S. than Schwartz did, and may even have seen less (again, we don't know, so anything we put in there is just speculation, not fact, no matter how convinced we become of our own deductions).

Anyway, I think we tend to agree on most points. Abberline had doubts about Schwartz's interpretations, Pipeman may have been identified and questioned, Lipski was, as Abberline thought, probably shouted at Schwartz himself, and Pipeman, if identified, doesn't appear to have added any new leads, and finally, Schwartz wasn't covering for anyone, he was just recounting what he saw and what he thought was going on. While there were doubts about Schwartz's interpretations of the intentions of B.S. and Pipeman, there's no indication that hte police doubted the facts he stated. But given the description he gives is generic, there's little for the police to do further unless more information were to come to light.

- Jeff