If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh dear, perhaps I shouldn't have posted the snippet about Minsky. It was meant to be a lighthearted joke after the perfectly reasonable suggestion that the police would have infiltrated the club if they considered it full of dangerous anarchists. Perhaps Minsky was indeed a police informant, but it seems much more likely that the Daily News article is simply a misprint and should actually be "Polish jew".
Sorry.

It doesn’t matter Joshua, he’s another confirmation of the fact that the alarm was raised after 1.00. There was no one returning to the yard with Spooner at 12.35. The cover-up/conspiracy is stone dead. And had been from the start of course.

[Joshua Rogan]

He was a 19 year old Russian.
I'll go along with the paper mucking up though.

Thanks for posting his details earlier, Dave. Always interesting to know a little more about even minor players.
I believe much of Poland (including his birthplace) was part of Russia at the time, so Polish and Russian are often synonymous in this context.

[Joshua Rogan]

It doesn’t matter Joshua, he’s another confirmation of the fact that the alarm was raised after 1.00. There was no one returning to the yard with Spooner at 12.35. The cover-up/conspiracy is stone dead. And had been from the start of course.

Fair enough :-)

[caz]

I love the fact that a newspaper misprint managed to change a Polish Jew to a Police Jew, and we are meant to believe that a Hungarian Jew with not a word of English was chosen to deflect the blame away from the Jews and the club with an invented story which would require the services of a translator, but still be open to interpretation.

It's a minor miracle that Schwartz didn't attend the Inquest, if they couldn't locate the right interpreter for the job.

Schwartz : "I saw two Jews in cahoots, one addressing the other as Lipski."

Coroner [consulting his Hungarian phrase book] : "Ah, he says his hovercraft is full of eels. Well that's useful to know."

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I love the fact that a newspaper misprint managed to change a Polish Jew to a Police Jew, and we are meant to believe that a Hungarian Jew with not a word of English was chosen to deflect the blame away from the Jews and the club with an invented story which would require the services of a translator, but still be open to interpretation.

It's a minor miracle that Schwartz didn't attend the Inquest, if they couldn't locate the right interpreter for the job.

Schwartz : "I saw two Jews in cahoots, one addressing the other as Lipski."

Coroner [consulting his Hungarian phrase book] : "Ah, he says his hovercraft is full of eels. Well that's useful to know."

Love,

Caz
X

[JeffHamm]

Oh dear, perhaps I shouldn't have posted the snippet about Minsky. It was meant to be a lighthearted joke after the perfectly reasonable suggestion that the police would have infiltrated the club if they considered it full of dangerous anarchists. Perhaps Minsky was indeed a police informant, but it seems much more likely that the Daily News article is simply a misprint and should actually be "Polish jew".
Sorry.

ha ha! I took that hook, line, and sinker. Ooops! Anyway, as Herlock has said, it's another club member pointing out that the chaos begain around 1 o'clock. But good interpretation that it was a misprint. That actually makes more sense when one stops to think about it.

- Jeff

[caz]

I must say I felt quite short-changed by Rogan Josh and that misprint. I really wanted the club to have among its members a Minsky spy, who was oblivious to the arse-covering exercise supposedly going on right under his nose between 12.40 and 1am. He'd have made Inspector Clousseau look like Sherlock Holmes by comparison.

Talking of Minsky spies, we had our last Christmas pudding yesterday, on the pretext that I didn't want to forget about it until after the 'best before' date - which was 2023.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fiver]

The manner of death could be accidental, willfully committed, a result of suicide..there are variables.

People do not cut a six inch long incision in their own neck by accident. Suicides don't magically make the knife disappear afterwards. Liz Stide was clearly murdered. The question is whether she was killed by the Ripper, who was interrupted before he could mutilate and pose the body, or if she was killed by someone else. Schwartz' testimony does not prove or disprove either scenario. On the other hand, if Schwartz was lying, that also does not prove or disprove if if she was killed by the Ripper or by some other killer.

[Fiver]

None of us can state the reason for Schwartz absence from the Inquest with anything like certainty. We can only conjecture. We are on solid ground though when we say that it wasn't because the Police disregarded him. The written evidence dismisses that suggestion conclusively.

As you and others have noted, the police looked for "Lipski" based on the description provided by Schwartz. They had a witness with a clear description of someone who might be the killer. And that would give possible reasons that the police would not want Schwartz testifying at the inquest. If the suspect did not know the police had a description that would improve the chance of the police finding the suspect before they could alter their appearance or flee. It also meant the suspect wouldn't be able to retaliate against the witness.

But as you note, we can speculate, but we cannot know why Schwartz was not called as a witness for the inquest. It could be as simple as the summons getting lost or missdelivered by the Post Office.

[JeffHamm]

As you and others have noted, the police looked for "Lipski" based on the description provided by Schwartz. They had a witness with a clear description of someone who might be the killer. And that would give possible reasons that the police would not want Schwartz testifying at the inquest. If the suspect did not know the police had a description that would improve the chance of the police finding the suspect before they could alter their appearance or flee. It also meant the suspect wouldn't be able to retaliate against the witness.

But as you note, we can speculate, but we cannot know why Schwartz was not called as a witness for the inquest. It could be as simple as the summons getting lost or missdelivered by the Post Office.

Hi Fiver,

The problem with that, though, is that other potential "sightings" were not with held. Long testified concerning the description of a man she saw with a woman she believed was Chapman outside of Hanbury Street. We have multiple people describing men seen with Stride (or whom they thought was Stride) in her case. And we also have Lawende and Leve both testify about their sighting of the Church Passage Couple with respect to Eddowes. Mind you, Lawende mentions a Mr. Harry Harris was also with them, and I don't see any testimony by him at the Eddowes inquest. I had a look under witnesses, and there's an old thread about him, and he's mentioned in a newspaper article (Evening News, Oct 9, 1888: http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881009.html), but all that is indicated is that he didn't see anything other than the back of the man (interestingly, Lawende says the woman had her back to them), and that he's convinced that Lawende and Leve saw no more than he did. Mind you, Lawende is spelled Levander in the article, so it doesn't appear they spoke to him (or at least the reporter didn't get a correct spelling).

Anyway, I digress. My point is, there are a fair number of witnesses giving descriptions of men seen with women thought to be the victims shortly before they were murdered. Even evidence thought so provocative a riot might ensue if the public saw it so that they erased it before it could be photographed (yes, the graffittii) is described in full at the inquest. And so if it's not too late, in short the police do not seem to have engaged in "holding witnesses back" at the other inquests or even Stride's (where there are a number of them), so I don't see why that should apply to Schwartz in particular.

- Jeff

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
It doesn’t matter Joshua, he’s another confirmation of the fact that the alarm was raised after 1.00. There was no one returning to the yard with Spooner at 12.35. The cover-up/conspiracy is stone dead. And had been from the start of course.

Fair enough :-)



I just wanted to say that I wasn’t being dismissive of your post in any way Joshua. I just meant that his presence alone is another voice saying that the alarm was first raised around 1.00. As we all know.

[Michael W Richards]

People do not cut a six inch long incision in their own neck by accident. Suicides don't magically make the knife disappear afterwards. Liz Stide was clearly murdered. The question is whether she was killed by the Ripper, who was interrupted before he could mutilate and pose the body, or if she was killed by someone else. Schwartz' testimony does not prove or disprove either scenario. On the other hand, if Schwartz was lying, that also does not prove or disprove if if she was killed by the Ripper or by some other killer.

Thats a clear representation of what I mentioned earlier....mis-quoting or misreprenting. The context of my comment was about the mandate of an Inquest, not guesswork about how Liz Stride dies. The Inquest is to determine Cause of Death, not WHO if anyone killed her. In that context Israel could not be excluded if believed or proven truthful, and a summons not arriving, however farfetched that may be, would not explain why he wouldnt have even a mention in any documents related to Strides death from the Inquiry.

To deny his unimportance anyway..and espouse he was believed, is like the self serving "interruption although not indicated in any evidence" kind of argument.

Usually used by those who are keen to attribute this murder to serial mutilator, despite the obvious evidence contradicting that.

[Michael W Richards]

For the person who mentioned Issac K and Louis's arrest for attacking policeman the next spring, surely that shows a distinct lack of respect for local authority. Why they werent closed due to that, I dont know, but surely suspcions of housing a murderer is a bit more unsavoury. Of course theyd dodge blame..."another murder" has been committed they yelled out, a clear attempt rto suggest linkage with earlier murders that curiously included features ghalring absent in Strides case.

As for the actual time of awareness of the murder, at what time did the Arbeter Fraint, published later that month, state it occurred? The paper printed onsite, with pre release knowledge of content by Wess and Im sure Louis? The time the club states it happened. Not the steward, not the speaker, but the paper in the yard reporting on the event?

That time was.....?

[caz]

Thats a clear representation of what I mentioned earlier....mis-quoting or misreprenting. The context of my comment was about the mandate of an Inquest, not guesswork about how Liz Stride dies. The Inquest is to determine Cause of Death, not WHO if anyone killed her. In that context Israel could not be excluded if believed or proven truthful, and a summons not arriving, however farfetched that may be, would not explain why he wouldnt have even a mention in any documents related to Strides death from the Inquiry.

To deny his unimportance anyway..and espouse he was believed, is like the self serving "interruption although not indicated in any evidence" kind of argument.

Usually used by those who are keen to attribute this murder to serial mutilator, despite the obvious evidence contradicting that.

Repeating the same flawed arguments a thousand times won't remove the flaws.

Stride didn't die from being shoved around by BS man, whether Schwartz invented the story or not. The cause of death was a single wound to the throat, inflicted while there was nobody but her killer to witness it.

[Fiver]

Thats a clear representation of what I mentioned earlier....mis-quoting or misreprenting.

I quoted you exactly, so please do not accuse me of misquoting you. You said "The manner of death could be accidental, willfully committed, a result of suicide..there are variables." Your second sentence "The HOW is the only question here, and Israel would have impacted what they perceived." changes nothing about what I said.

People do not cut a six inch long incision in their own neck by accident. Nothing that Israel Schwartz said could have impacted that self-evident fact.

Suicides don't magically make the knife disappear afterwards. Nothing that Israel Schwartz said could have impacted that self-evident fact.

Liz Stide was clearly murdered. Nothing that Israel Schwartz said could have impacted that self-evident fact.

The HOW was never in question. What Israel Schwartz said supported that self-evident fact, but it was a self-evident fact even if Schwartz had never shared his account with anyone.

The real unknown was WHO. The question is whether Liz Stride was killed by the Ripper, who was interrupted before he could mutilate and pose the body, or if she was killed by someone else. Schwartz' account does not prove or disprove either scenario. On the other hand, if Schwartz was lying, that also does not prove or disprove if if she was killed by the Ripper or by some other killer.