Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Whats wrong with that assessment.?
    One problem is that avoids all mention of plain clothes police, and vigilance committee patrolmen.

    The Echo, Oct 5: The number of the force and of disguised detectives on duty last night was as large as ever; and they were joined, too, by about fifty volunteer patrols - working men whose indignation has taken this unselfish character.

    There would have been similar numbers on the night of Sep 29/30. They all missed the Schwartz incident ... because it never happened.
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      Nor is there one single shred of evidence that he was where he said he was, at the time he says he was there, and that he actually saw what he says he saw. Add to that his story is completely absent from all Inquest transcripts, and if his story was believed, it would have been the single most relevant witness statement. Last person to be seen with victim, close to the time she is cut...a few feet from that location.
      Hi Michael,

      While Schwartz was not reported as testifying at the inquest, Anderson stated in a draft letter to the Home Office "With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. on the evidence of Schwartz in the inquest in Eliz Stride's case is that...." - Ref: Jack the Ripper: The Definitive History By Paul Begg.

      This is backed up by Warren's letter to the Home Office dated 6th. November 1888 says " that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's....etc" (The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook p.151).

      I recently heard that Anderson mentioned Schwartz giving evidence at the inquest in "The Lighter Side of my Official Life", but I haven't confirmed that yet.

      The implication is that Schwartz was heard "in camera".

      Cheers, George
      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

      “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

        Hi Michael,

        While Schwartz was not reported as testifying at the inquest, Anderson stated in a draft letter to the Home Office "With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. on the evidence of Schwartz in the inquest in Eliz Stride's case is that...." - Ref: Jack the Ripper: The Definitive History By Paul Begg.

        This is backed up by Warren's letter to the Home Office dated 6th. November 1888 says " that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's....etc" (The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook p.151).

        I recently heard that Anderson mentioned Schwartz giving evidence at the inquest in "The Lighter Side of my Official Life", but I haven't confirmed that yet.

        The implication is that Schwartz was heard "in camera".

        Cheers, George
        Hi George,

        The Warren and Andersen internal letters/reports have always intrigued me. My general thoughts are that Warren is summarizing Andersen, so while he's included the same information, it's not clear if he's repeating it on "good faith" or if he independently is confirming what Andersen says. Officially he is doing the latter, because he would be responsible, etc, however I'm using confirming here to mean that he too is factually aware of Schwartz giving testimony at the inquest (meaning, it did actually happen).

        Now, let's examine that idea, that it did actually happen. We know Schwartz did not testify publicly. Nowhere is there a record of his testimony. Could it be that there was a blanket "news ban" on his testimony? I don't think so. I find it difficult to believe the press would not react to such an order, and would, as modern papers and news outlets do now for things like name suppression orders, report that such an order had been put in place. For example, in the Chapman case, when the doctor's report of her injuries were asked to be withheld (as they were post-mortem, etc), the papers reported on that debate. They voluntarily chose to withhold much of the details because, as the doctor stated, they were too graphic and horrid for publication. But, from that, we know the details were presented (and, in fact, ended up recorded as well, which is why we have them). With regards to Schwartz, there's nothing similar, not a peep in the press about "testimony they are requested to withhold from publication", etc. So, while that took awhile, I think we can safely conclude that sort of thing didn't happen.

        Like you've suggested, I've wondered if it were possible for Schwartz to have testified, in private, just to the Coroner. I do not see how that could be done, though. It is the jury who returns the verdict, not the coroner, so it serves no purpose with regards to the case to present the information to the corner without the jury hearing it. And if the press were removed from the room, so the jury could hear the evidence but not the press, we again run into the previous problem.

        I'm not even sure there is a legal avenue for such things to occur during an inquest? But that's for the legal experts to comment upon.

        While I agree the letters seem to suggest Schwartz testified at the inquest, I tend to think there must be an error there. The conclusion with regards to "Lipski", which is being referred to in the letters, was arrived at during Schwartz's statement to the police, while he was being questioned, etc. If that process, though, was considered by officials to be part of the inquest (in a broader sense, not just the witnesses testifying in front of the coroner and jury) then that might suggest a resolution.

        But I agree, the suggestion is a tantalizing one. It also demonstrates that at the time the opinion of Schwartz's testimony was that the factual events were true, but Schwartz's interpretation of the events was suspect (i.e. pipeman was not named Lipski, and was probably not B.S. accomplice, but the events themselves they saw no reason to dismiss as unreliable).

        Anyway, those are just my opinion and some of the things that occur to me on that, some, none, or all of which you are free to agree or disagree with.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          The implication is that Schwartz was heard "in camera".
          Immediately after the one day break in the inquest (Thursday), the testimony of Dr Phillips resumes...

          The Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
          Dr Phillips: That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

          Evidently the inquest knew about Schwartz - at least by the Friday session. I've no idea how that came to be.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            One problem is that avoids all mention of plain clothes police, and vigilance committee patrolmen.

            The Echo, Oct 5: The number of the force and of disguised detectives on duty last night was as large as ever; and they were joined, too, by about fifty volunteer patrols - working men whose indignation has taken this unselfish character.

            There would have been similar numbers on the night of Sep 29/30. They all missed the Schwartz incident ... because it never happened.
            You never cease to amaze me. This is desperation beyond all desperation. So what you’re saying is that…

            ”Schwartz wasn’t there because if he was he’d have been seen by someone that we can’t claim was in Berner Street.”

            Well done for that classic of utter nonsense.

            Just because the WVC were active we have no reason to say that they were in Berner Street. Had the ripper let it be known that he was intending to strike there? Or was the WVC so huge that they could post men in every single street in the Whitechapel area. To quote John McEnroe “You cannot be serious?!”

            because it never happened.
            I didn’t need to comment on this bit but again……stating your opinion as fact.

            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Just because the WVC were active we have no reason to say that they were in Berner Street..
              I thought that might get you worried. I'm sure you're thinking to yourself; how could Schwartz have been on Berner street with three others, then on Fairclough street with the pipe smoker hot on his tail, and then keep pounding the pavement all the way to the railway arch, and not be seen by any of these men?

              By the way, evidence for WVC patrol being on Berner street has already been discussed. Have you conveniently forgotten already?
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                I thought that might get you worried. I'm sure you're thinking to yourself; how could Schwartz have been on Berner street with three others, then on Fairclough street with the pipe smoker hot on his tail, and then keep pounding the pavement all the way to the railway arch, and not be seen by any of these men?

                By the way, evidence for WVC patrol being on Berner street has already been discussed. Have you conveniently forgotten already?
                Ive forgotten nothing. You suggested a possibility which you appear to be assuming to be a fact. Again.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  I thought that might get you worried. I'm sure you're thinking to yourself; how could Schwartz have been on Berner street with three others, then on Fairclough street with the pipe smoker hot on his tail, and then keep pounding the pavement all the way to the railway arch, and not be seen by any of these men?

                  By the way, evidence for WVC patrol being on Berner street has already been discussed. Have you conveniently forgotten already?
                  Or the young couple, or the woman at her Berner Street door off and on, or the men gathered inside the passageway at 12:40-12:45? The only person we know for a fact was anyway near where Israel says he saw the action was Liz Stride, and she was dying. No record of Israel let alone the 2 other men, which suddenly appeared and disappeared on a deserted street.

                  Liz Stride was last seen, reliably, at 12:35. That means she could have entered the passage and been out of sight just after that.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                    Hi Michael,

                    While Schwartz was not reported as testifying at the inquest, Anderson stated in a draft letter to the Home Office "With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. on the evidence of Schwartz in the inquest in Eliz Stride's case is that...." - Ref: Jack the Ripper: The Definitive History By Paul Begg.

                    This is backed up by Warren's letter to the Home Office dated 6th. November 1888 says " that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's....etc" (The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook p.151).

                    I recently heard that Anderson mentioned Schwartz giving evidence at the inquest in "The Lighter Side of my Official Life", but I haven't confirmed that yet.

                    The implication is that Schwartz was heard "in camera".

                    Cheers, George
                    Those mentions are obviously errors in reference, they should be commenting about his statement in the Stride case. Unless there are some hidden or destroyed documents that recorded an "in camera" or some kind of submission in absentia as part of the Inquest documentation, there is no record known anywhere that indicates Israel Schwartz story was submitted in any fashion, let alone that he gave his statement during the Inquest.

                    And if he was believed, they would have had to include it....its the most relevant of any statement if real.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Ive forgotten nothing. You suggested a possibility which you appear to be assuming to be a fact. Again.
                      No, it's a matter of probability. Again. So what odds would you suggest?
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        No, it's a matter of probability. Again. So what odds would you suggest?
                        Close to non-existent. Not even worth discussing.

                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Close to non-existent. Not even worth discussing.
                          The Voice of Reason says the probability is so miniscule that it is not even worth discussing, and therefore it isn't. Which is such a relief - for a moment I thought the whole story of that night might have been rather different to what is normally supposed. We can all sleep easy now.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            The Voice of Reason says the probability is so miniscule that it is not even worth discussing, and therefore it isn't. Which is such a relief - for a moment I thought the whole story of that night might have been rather different to what is normally supposed. We can all sleep easy now.
                            The point that should be obvious is that the WVC couldn’t have been everywhere and we have no proof that they were in Berner Street.

                            What you appear to be saying is….if the WVC were in Berner Street that night then they might have seen Schwartz if they were there at that time therefore we can use this as evidence that Schwartz wasn’t there.

                            We have no proof that they were there and so no…..I can’t see why it’s worth discussing.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              Those mentions are obviously errors in reference, they should be commenting about his statement in the Stride case. Unless there are some hidden or destroyed documents that recorded an "in camera" or some kind of submission in absentia as part of the Inquest documentation, there is no record known anywhere that indicates Israel Schwartz story was submitted in any fashion, let alone that he gave his statement during the Inquest.

                              And if he was believed, they would have had to include it....its the most relevant of any statement if real.
                              Yet again you fly in the face of facts. You really should read David Orsam’s article on this. It’s stone dead. I don’t know how many times this has to be repeated but on these threads it doesn’t matter because facts get brushed under the carpet or ignored when they’re inconvenient.

                              We know for a fact….not opinion but fact…..the criteria of an Inquest. Schwartz couldn’t contribute to any of those points (not a single one) so he was not a witness that had to have been called. Yes we know that often witnesses were called who simply gave background info and that some witnesses appeared who were of no importance at all. This just shows that these were often down to the whim of the Coroner. So we simply cannot say that Schwartz must have been called and that he wasn’t called because he wasn’t believed. David also proposed something like 8 possible/plausible explanations for Schwartz non-appearance.

                              We don’t know why Schwartz didn’t attend. We cannot know it because it’s not written or stated anywhere. It’s an unknown. Of course you claim to know the unknown because it suits your agenda. I’m quoting facts, you’re reciting a script.

                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                The point that should be obvious is that the WVC couldn’t have been everywhere and we have no proof that they were in Berner Street.

                                What you appear to be saying is….if the WVC were in Berner Street that night then they might have seen Schwartz if they were there at that time therefore we can use this as evidence that Schwartz wasn’t there.

                                We have no proof that they were there and so no…..I can’t see why it’s worth discussing.
                                The plebs need not concern themselves with this issue, because The Voice of Reason has spoken!
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X