Was Israel Schwartz a form of Patsy

[Joshua Rogan]

Almost all Ripperologists live in a self built house of cards and really hate it when someone starts a leaf blower nearby. Almost every preconception about these cases is without any proof at all, so perhaps yourself and Sam and others might remember that when someone suggests something based on known evidence that has about as much factual backing as a mythical Ripper has.

Careful Michael, you're beginning to sound a lot like Trevor.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

swanson was clueless. any boots on the ground cop will tell you the chances of someone being assaulted and then killed in two separate unrelated incidents one right after the other is practically zilch. everything points to BS man killed her and was the ripper.

Just a quick point, there was the case in the West Midlands of the young girl who was raped, ran to a taxi for help and was raped again. Don't have the exact article to hand, but shows even today **** people are everywhere. Not to take from your original point, the odds of being attacked then murdered are slim.

[c.d.]

swanson was clueless. any boots on the ground cop will tell you the chances of someone being assaulted and then killed in two separate unrelated incidents one right after the other is practically zilch. and there are zero red flags--everything points to BS man killed her and was the ripper.

Hello Abby,

It must be nice to be so sure of your conclusions and I am sure that if Swanson were alive today he would appreciate your comments coming from someone who was not there at the time and has no police training. Do you really think that Swanson made that comment in his report for the hell of it without considering the facts of which he was aware?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Just a quick point, there was the case in the West Midlands of the young girl who was raped, ran to a taxi for help and was raped again. Don't have the exact article to hand, but shows even today **** people are everywhere. Not to take from your original point, the odds of being attacked then murdered are slim.

hi al
yes of course-but your example she wasn't murdered. and it happens but the exception proves the rule.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

hi al
yes of course-but your example she wasn't murdered. and it happens but the exception proves the rule.

The striking thing at the time was the exceptional rarity.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

It must be nice to be so sure of your conclusions and I am sure that if Swanson were alive today he would appreciate your comments coming from someone who was not there at the time and has no police training. Do you really think that Swanson made that comment in his report for the hell of it without considering the facts of which he was aware?

c.d.

with all apologies to hypothetically alive today swanson-sure he was there at the time-at his desk lol. I prefer boots on the ground cops like Abberline, and, although I may not be one, ive grown up around them, and from ones on here, and they all confirm the chances of two unrelated attacks on a single victim one right after the other is virtually non existant.

[Abby Normal]

The striking thing at the time was the exceptional rarity.

exactly. totally agree.

[Darryl Kenyon]

>>On this matter, Anderson and Warren's opinion carries no more weight than yours, mine, or anyone else's. Really?<<

Indisputably.

Anderson and Warren were not there, Schwartz was. By definition they cannot have more information about the incident than Schwartz. He is ground zero.



>> So if these reports are correct and Schwartz was chased off by a member of the club then he is obviously bsm which means the club knows who he is but declines to say. A far bigger conspiracy than what i am suggesting.<<

No.

Schwartz says he was chased by "Pipeman" not B.S.M. And he isn't even sure whether he was chased or whether the Pipeman took flight too.



>> no reports [what i am aware of], suggest he was an orthodox Jew <<

If the reporter didn't know what an orthodox Jew was compared to, the more common, non orthodox, there wouldn't be, just a story about a man in theatrical dress.

Tell me what does an actor look like?



>> So how come they specifically say in the same article The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted [Schwartz] <<

Because they were not talking about Schwartz, they were talking about a prisoner, as the article says if you read it in context.

"The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes.This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquires to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted."

Of course, the next day The Star did back track a bit, but that's another story. On the day they milked Schwartz for all they could.


>>Doesn't sound much to me like they are pushing a sensational scoop.<<

Headlines like, INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT ... SAW THE WHOLE THING, state otherwise.

Indisputably.
Anderson and Warren were not there, Schwartz was. By definition they cannot have more information about the incident than Schwartz. He is ground zero.

I know they have no more info than Schwartz but that does not mean they didn't have more info on Schwartz than us today.

Schwartz says he was chased by "Pipeman" not B.S.M. And he isn't even sure whether he was chased or whether the Pipeman took flight too.

I have trouble with the report in the Echo, to me it seems the quickest way home for Schwartz is straight down Berner St and into Ellen and home. But if he did go down Fairclough st then down Backchurch before turning into Ellen why did he say he went as far as the railway arch? The nearest one I can see [ apologies if I am wrong] is one at Hooper st off Backchurch , but that would take him past his house whichever way he took. Another anomaly in his evidence. Also if it is true, someone chasing the perceived murderer down Fairclough shouldn't it have been mentioned at the inquest by someone? Also we know that PC Smith's beat took him up to half an hour, his beat encompassed Fairclough st from Berner [including Berner] up to Back church lane but he saw nothing. Of course he could have been in say, Christian St at the time but yet again someone in the area not seeing Bsm an altercation , pipeman or a chase.

Tell me what does an actor look like?

A little off track this but - The Hebrew Dramatic Club - This was the first purpose-built Yiddish theatre in London, opening in 1886. It was started by a Mr Smith who, perhaps surprisingly, was a butcher by trade. He built the theatre to showcase the talents of the Odessa-born actor Jacob Adler, who went on to build a name in New York’s Yiddish theatre scene. The Hebrew Dramatic Club was a veritable hotbed of activity, open every night from 5pm until 1am, where audience members could enjoy concerts, dances and games like chess and draughts as well as the plays and performances. Nowadays, beady-eyed visitors to Princelet Street, just off bustling Brick Lane, may spot a special coal-hole in the ground, whose viola engraving commemorates the spot of this Yiddish landmark.

Maybe he had a p/t job here and wore some of that attire at the time he was interviewed , it was said he had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

Because they were not talking about Schwartz, they were talking about a prisoner, as the article says if you read it in context.

Star Oct 1 - The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.
Star Oct 2 - The threads that had been taken up on the possible chance of their leading to something tangible have been laid down again. It is but fair to say that the police have clutched eagerly at every straw that promised to help them out, but there is nothing left to work on. People have come forward by scores to furnish the description of a man they had seen with some woman near the scene, and not a great while before the commission of one or the other of SUNDAY MORNING'S CRIMES, but no two of the descriptions are alike, and none of the accompanying information has thus far been able to bear investigation. In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

Yes, Oct 1 report could mean the prisoner but it could also mean Schwartz but Oct 2 report definitely puts a dampener on things - police have clutched eagerly at every straw that promised to help them out, but there is nothing left to work on [ no following up on the two men running along Fairclough St ?].
And none of the accompanying information has thus far been able to bear investigation [no pipeman found ?]
The Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. Where did that come from? well maybe from a policeman based there.
Regards Darryl

[John G]

Hi John



except there absolutely no evidence he did.


cashooooooo! no its not-any modern forensics expert can tell you people die, suffer horrible violent deaths, etc, still clutching something in their hand. happens all the time.
and his evidence is corroborated by all the other witnesses that saw a suspect with a peaked cap.


what do you mean? of course he was he was questioned by police. if your talking about not being at the inquest-so what? we have no idea why. he may have simply avoided it and/or didn't want to go. although are many other reasons too.
and he may have been the Koz ID witness, although I think that probably was Lawende.



sure they do-they make perfect sense. what he witnessed could have only taken a couple of minutes-and at a time that fits with the other viable witness stories. and minutes before she was actually, indeed, found murdered feet away.



unless you think the ripper was some sort of robot or phantom lol. he was human, prone to mistakes and moods. he probably just lost his temper because Stride was not going easily where he wanted to.

No evidence that he didn't lie either. The fact that people die whilst clutching something in their hand is because of cadeveric spasm. That didn't happen in Stride's case. Moreover, it suggests she must have gone willingly into the yard with BS Man, who she couldn't have regarded as a threat, otherwise why take out the cachous in the first place? Sorry, but no way that happened.

Not only did he not appear at the inquest he didn't feature subsequently in the enquiry, despire getting a better look at the suspect than Lawende, so no way he was considered a reliable witness.

Arguing that the Ripper wasn't a robot is simply lazy thinking in my view, i.e. an excuse for rounding up as many victims as you can find and attributing the same perpetrator, however, vast the differences in MO or signature may be.

All the other witnesses did not describe a man with a peeked cap. That's simply wrong.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

A fascinating point. Why wasn't Schwartz at inquest? Why was he doubted?

[Abby Normal]

No evidence that he didn't lie either. The fact that people die whilst clutching something in their hand is because of cadeveric spasm. That didn't happen in Stride's case. Moreover, it suggests she must have gone willingly into the yard with BS Man, who she couldn't have regarded as a threat, otherwise why take out the cachous in the first place? Sorry, but no way that happened.

Not only did he not appear at the inquest he didn't feature subsequently in the enquiry, despire getting a better look at the suspect than Lawende, so no way he was considered a reliable witness.

Arguing that the Ripper wasn't a robot is simply lazy thinking in my view, i.e. an excuse for rounding up as many victims as you can find and attributing the same perpetrator, however, vast the differences in MO or signature may be.

All the other witnesses did not describe a man with a peeked cap. That's simply wrong.

i don't even know where to begin with this mess-so I wont.

[Michael W Richards]

Careful Michael, you're beginning to sound a lot like Trevor.

Trevor is Im sure a decent fellow, he just doesn't like the evidence that says the organs were taken at the scene. Since there is no absolute proof that they were, or weren't, its again, a moot point. The records say they were. As for me, I have no doubt about my claim that there is no definite proof that 1 victim was ever linked with 1 other by killer, Im ok with my stance. Opinions are like a**h****, everyone has one, but when people say the "Ripper" did this and the "Ripper" did that Ill always be here to say that any proof of that is absent.

Some people killed women in the East End that year, one did not kill all of them. That's just logical.

[Abby Normal]

A fascinating point. Why wasn't Schwartz at inquest? Why was he doubted?

hi al

Why wasn't Schwartz at inquest?

nobody knows

Why was he doubted?

he wasn't really-the only doubt, if any, was whether he saw her killer or not.

[c.d.]

A fascinating point. Why wasn't Schwartz at inquest? Why was he doubted?

Hello A.B.E.,

It doesn't necessarily follow that because Schwartz wasn't at the inquest that the police doubted his story. It may be in fact the case but we can't say for sure.

My guess is that since the B.S. man was not on trial that the jury's conclusion that she was killed by a person or persons unknown would have resulted Schwartz or no Schwartz. It is not like they were going to rule it a suicide or accident. And if Abberline had trouble getting the story out of him because of the language issue, the police might have decided he would only confuse the jurors. Lastly, they might have concluded that he only saw a street hassle not a murder.

c.d.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hello A.B.E.,

It doesn't necessarily follow that because Schwartz wasn't at the inquest that the police doubted his story. It may be in fact the case but we can't say for sure.

My guess is that since the B.S. man was not on trial that the jury's conclusion that she was killed by a person or persons unknown would have resulted Schwartz or no Schwartz. It is not like they were going to rule it a suicide or accident. And if Abberline had trouble getting the story out of him because of the language issue, the police might have decided he would only confuse the jurors. Lastly, they might have concluded that he only saw a street hassle not a murder.

c.d.

BS man not on trial regardless, if anyone saw anything that night they would be called up. Language barrier is a poor defence, realistically are we to say that a (entirely theoretical) conversation took place, to wit, "this Schwartz chap has some interesting information, but it would probably confuse the non Hungarian speaking locals. He might be a key witness to the most high profile crimes in our time, but we'll spare the natives listening to his foreign jabbering"
I do agree though, witnessing a street hassle seems likely. The police had reason to doubt the importance of his testimony. Why? We don't know.