If Schwartz Lied ...

[FISHY1118]

''If Stride really was thrown to the ground, causing her to scream in some sense, then any physical evidence that supports this claim is going to go some way in dealing with the Schwartz doubters, like myself. It would a matter of going through the statements of the doctors, or anything else you think relevant.''

Theres just now way of knowing ''why'' she screamed tho is there ? she could of been pissed at him for throwing her down, or not because she was hurt because of the fall. We just speculate with out proof different senarios where Schwartz testImony is concerned . All we can do is take it for what it was intended and given to the police at the time . If you disagree thats fine ,i for one dont simply because of the following.

There is no evidence from any source that i know of that contradicts Schwartz statement .

That page about equality , talks about Schwartz being a suspect rather than his account of what he saw as a witness

i suppose the police thought enough to dismiss him at the time for being a suspect ,is that what hey detemined with lechmere

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thats ok Andrew no probs [hopes thats your name ] , just on the physical evidence tho, is it really that important that there has to be ? How do we know the condition of strides clothes before the attack? or any injuries to her body? its possible there were none of these after her attack . Again who makes the claim that there was ''no evidence she was pulled into the street'', where is it that its stated that would contradict what Schwartz said ?

If Stride really was thrown to the ground, causing her to scream in some sense, then any physical evidence that supports this claim is going to go some way in dealing with the Schwartz doubters, like myself. It would a matter of going through the statements of the doctors, or anything else you think relevant.

Schwartz seems to have claimed that the man tried to pull the woman into the street. To me, 'tried' implies failed. How could a stout man fail to pull a slight woman like Liz, anywhere he wanted to? I just think that sounds strange, as in, unlikely. Now if it were a man he was trying to pull around, it makes sense. So what could this (other) man doing in the gateway, that prompts BS to pull him toward the street? He is blocking the gateway. It is at this point that BS supposes someone of being a 'murdering Jew'. Hence 'Lipski!'. Do you really think that word, which has strong connotations with murder, was said just before or just after a murder actually occurred?

''If I had to choose from your 1, 2 or 3, then its 3. However, it's more complicated than 3. Is it so radical not to believe a witness in a 134 y/o murder case?''

Easy to say that now i guess .... But ok yes, As long as we can say that about all the witnesses

Is this what you mean about equality?

[FISHY1118]

Thats ok Andrew no probs [hopes thats your name ] , just on the physical evidence tho, is it really that important that there has to be ? How do we know the condition of strides clothes before the attack? or any injuries to her body? its possible there were none of these after her attack . Again who makes the claim that there was ''no evidence she was pulled into the street'', where is it that its stated that would contradict what Schwartz said ?


''If I had to choose from your 1, 2 or 3, then its 3. However, it's more complicated than 3. Is it so radical not to believe a witness in a 134 y/o murder case?''

Easy to say that now i guess .... But ok yes, As long as we can say that about all the witnesses

I think we will leave the ''loud'' debate , too subjective ..
.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fishy,
I was referring to physical evidence, not what Schwartz said. Sorry I didn't make that clear, but I thought it was implied.

If I had to choose from your 1, 2 or 3, then its 3. However, it's more complicated than 3. Is it so radical not to believe a witness in a 134 y/o murder case?

If Schwartz is believed, then the man's failed attempt to pull the woman into the street must be regarded as irrelevant. What other choice is there?

A scream has to be loud, or louder than loud, to be a scream. A not loud scream is an oxymoron. I make the assumption that either or both the interpreter or Abberline would have confirmed Schwartz's description of the sounds.

[FISHY1118]

'''Arguably there is no evidence that Stride was ever thrown onto the footway''


No evidence except for the fact that Schwartz gave an official police statement claiming thats what he saw , Thats the evidence !!, and as yet i dont recall another witness contradicting that with a statement that claims that stride ''was,nt'' thrown into the footway ''

3 options .1 you believe him , 2, you think he was mistaken, 3 ,you think he lied.

I dont think youll pick 1 , So i gotta say, to say he Lied or was mistaken 134 years after he witnessed the event that you and i obviously didnt is pretty ballsy my friend


''Tried? Tried and failed? So a broad shouldered man tried but apparently failed to pull a slightly built woman who was standing on the footway, into the street. Excuse me for putting it like this, but this is where everyone should check that their BS detector is functioning.''



Yes why not? .Schwartz only said the man tried to pull the women into the street, wether he failed not is irrelevant ,dont you think ?


On the ''not very loud'' topic , on a scale of 1 to 10 any sound that one might be asked to say how loud it was , an 8 might be described as ''very loud'' , a 3 might be ''not very loud'' like i said depends on the persons interpretation

Just a simple answer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How does the nature of the screams change what Schwartz claimed he saw and heard ?

This is a Schwartz-centric view of the evidence. I prefer to just look at the evidence as it is, rather than through the eyes of an uncorroborated witness. If the screams were screams of pain, we might expect to see corresponding injuries or damage to clothing. Arguably there is no evidence that Stride was ever thrown onto the footway. Presumably then, Stride's screams consisted of words. No doubt many believe that these words were not heard over the thunderous din of the club's impromptu choir. Funny that many of the same people appear to have no doubts about Fanny Mortimer being able to hear the passing plod of a policeman, while inside her place, or that the murderer made his escape on hearing the pony and cart enter the street, with his concentration centred on the victim he is about to start cutting open.

A better question should be, Why was the man who may of been Jack the Ripper [if stride was a ripper vitim] trying to drag her into the open street!!!?? .?

Discussed here

Just noticed before i post, are you suggesting Schwartz testemoiny included that Stride said this ''murder police murder'' ?

or that the accuracy of the screams that were refuted by the police and members and inmates of the club ?

In the case of Schwartz, not that he said that Stride used those words, because they are English words, but that the screams he claims to have heard, may have consisted of unintelligible words, rather than what is normally meant by a scream. In the case of the police, their refutation seems to be in relation to rumours, and not Schwartz himself. Still, we don't know who was responsible for starting those rumours.

Then that could just as esasily be explain be Schwartz saying ''not very loudly'' ,i take it not very loudly means that maybe only he heard the screams , depends of what one chooses to assume what Schwartz interetation of ''not very loudly''.

Would you agree that 'loudly', is not the same as 'very loudly'? If yes, then we could say that the screams were loud, but not heard by those in the kitchen of the club, or by those still awake in the cottages down the laneway. Do you find that at all curious?

[FISHY1118]

How does the nature of the screams change what Schwartz claimed he saw and heard ?

A better question should be, Why was the man who may of been Jack the Ripper [if stride was a ripper vitim] trying to drag her into the open street!!!?? .?


Just noticed before i post, are you suggesting Schwartz testemoiny included that Stride said this ''murder police murder'' ?

or that the accuracy of the screams that were refuted by the police and members and inmates of the club ?

Then that could just as esasily be explain be Schwartz saying ''not very loudly'' ,i take it not very loudly means that maybe only he heard the screams , depends of what one chooses to assume what Schwartz interetation of ''not very loudly''.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Perhaps it went something like this ...

Schwartz: The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed ...

Stride: Murder! Police! Murder!

Schwartz: ... but not very loudly.

Or perhaps it didn't ...

DN Oct 3: From an early hour in the morning a large crowd collected in front of the yard in Berner-street, but the drenching showers which fell in the course of the afternoon soon dispersed the people. Rumours of a sensational character were prevalent during the day. One was to the effect that during the previous night shouts of "Murder" and "Police" had been heard in the immediate vicinity of the International Club. The accuracy of this statement was at once denied by the police, and their refutation has since been supported by the members of the club and the inmates of the clubhouse.

What do you suppose was the nature of the three screams?

[FISHY1118]

That being said, i dont see how one mans testmony can be dimissed based on what another man claims to be something else, when we dont know or can proove either of their eywitness accounts


Like i said, all the witnesss in the JtR murders that one chooses to support face this problem.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In the end i guess it comes down to which witness one chooses to believe and which one he doesnt . That can be said im sure for Long, Cadosch ,Richardson Lewende etc , in Schwartz case the police were happy with his statement and thought it reliable, Abberline sure thought so.

Swanson on Schwartz

My point is this,....... one small detail can change the whole outcome of what may or may not have happen.

Schwartz's story is part of the narrative of Berner street. Maintaining that narrative, or big picture, is perhaps not the best approach to spotting small details that might suggest that the narrative is false.

[FISHY1118]

In the end i guess it comes down to which witness one chooses to believe and which one he doesnt . That can be said im sure for Long, Cadosch ,Richardson Lewende etc , in Schwartz case the police were happy with his statement and thought it reliable, Abberline sure thought so.

Ill give you an example, in Richardsons case , when he was questioned by by Chandler on the morning of the Chapman murder, i think it was only an hour after the discovery of her body , according to Chandlers inquest testimony Richardson never mentioned sitting on the step to cut the leather from his boot.

So we have two senarios, either he lied about it or forgot to tell Chandler on the morning, but remembered that he did sit down when he gave his testimony.

But heres the problem , the people who suspect he lied and support Chandlers account of what Richardson said could be right in assuming that he only went as far as the back door of 29 Handbury st, open it up just enough to just see if the lock was on the door of the shed he was checking, thus missing Chapmans body lying between the steps and the fence .

That would mean Chapmans boby could well have been there much earlier than when Richardson said he sat on the step , giving credence to the Dr Phillips time of death of 3.30 am/ 4.00am .

My point is this,....... one small detail can change the whole outcome of what may or may not have happen.


And so it is with every witness of every murder of JtR .

Schwartz is just as likely to be wrong or right as any other witness .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times,'' but not very loudly''


The witnesses might not have heard the screams where as schartz did,

This must be assumed to be true, to make Schwartz's story true. However, doing so could possibly lead to a dilemma. If people not many yards away could not hear screams, then could the murderer have heard the approach of the pony and cart, in time to make his escape, unnoticed? It seems to me that if screams could not be heard due to singing, then the same would apply to a man in the laneway, in regards to the audibility of a pony and cart turning into Berner street. So Diemschitz would have to get fairly close to the yard, before being heard.

When you entered the yard, if any person had run out you would have seen them in the dark?
Oh, yes, it was light enough for that. It was dark in the gateway, but not so dark further in the yard.

Consequently, an interrupted murdered would have to have hidden in the yard for a while. It would seem that that is exactly the conclusion reached by the police, according to the MA of Oct 3:

The police have arrived at the conclusion that on the Sunday morning when the murder of "Long Liz" was committed the perpetrator of the deed must have had a very narrow escape from capture. It is their belief, and also that of many members of the International Club, that when the steward of the club, Mr. Diemschitz, entered the yard in his trap at one o'clock in the morning the miscreant was about to carry out the mutilation of his victim. There is little doubt that the unexpected entry of the vehicle disturbed him in his diabolical work, and compelled him to retire to another part of the yard. The explanation offered as to his escape is that when the alarm was raised and the members of the club rushed pell-mell downstairs into the yard, he mingled amongst them, and succeeded in effecting his escape before the police appeared upon the scene.

Other than the possibility of this actually working, there are at least two issues with this theory.

1. There is too much blood, too soon, for a murder that close to Diemschitz' arrival.

How far did the blood run?
As far as the kitchen door of the club.

2. What is going on at ~12:45, that allows Stride to remain alive until just prior Diemschitz' arrival? Did BS leave the scene, only to be followed by the entrance of JtR? What happens to Stride in the period between these events, and why is she witnessed by no one?

''''The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway ''

I dont see anywhere where spooner or brown say this didnt happen.

Witnesses rarely say what didn't happen, particularly in regards to events that didn't involve them.

[caz]

A clue is that the Star account is actually milder than the police account, except for the considerable 'amping-up' of the second man. Evidence that that was owing to Schwartz and not the Star, includes the Star making it very plain that they did not believe the Hungarian's story.

The Star account gives us Schwartz's rather far-fetched excuse for being alone on the streets at that time. Should we all forget about that?

Again, there is this strange trust in the Star's integrity.

The Star would have known how sensational the story was, with Schwartz seeing one man assaulting Stride, and a second brandishing a knife. It was a reporter's wet dream.

The Star would also know that this information had not come from any police source, so their safest bet was to print it but then pretend they gave it no credence themselves. It was just the kind of dramatic yarn the readers could expect from a Johnny Foreigner who wanted a bit of the action. That way, the 1888 equivalent of today's Daily Mail reader would not suspect the pipe had been turned into a knife - with or without the help of a leading question or two - just to sell more papers, at the expense of a man with no English and no right of reply.

I hope Abberline would have seen right through it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This is Schwartz's description of the first man, given to the police:

age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

The 'full face' tells us that Schwartz did get a frontal view of this man. That seems a little strange, given what Abberline said in 1903:

"There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious, and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him. All agree, too, that he was a foreign- looking man,--but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel. One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view."

The peaked cap tallies, but there were many of those in Whitechapel. The age does not quite match, and there is no indication from Schwartz that the man was a foreigner. These could be ignored as being due to the vagaries of eyewitness descriptions. That leaves one big issue - Schwartz clearly did not only see the man's back. So by this stage, did Abberline not include Schwartz with "the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another"? Why wouldn't he? Was it because at some point, Abberline had come to the conclusion that Israel Schwartz was a fraud?

Not that strange, given that Schwartz may not have come face to face with the man who actually killed Stride, and even if he did, that man may not have been Jack the Ripper.

Abberline would have appreciated the distinction. His interpretation of Schwartz's story was, after all, that "Lipski" had been used as an insult directed at the witness due to his strong Jewish appearance. This implies Abberline had BS man down as a Gentile thug, yet he believed - or came to believe - that the ripper looked like a foreigner.

Maybe Abberline did eventually conclude that Schwartz was a 'fraud'.

But equally, he may have come to doubt his own interpretation of what Schwartz had witnessed.

And equally, he may have had doubts about BS man being Stride's killer, or that the ripper killed Stride.

Who really knows if anyone got a good look at Jack the Ripper himself?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Do you suppose this man, who had evidently been released by the next day, could have been BS? If not, then presumably he looked something like this:

Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

Consider the situation. Leman street has arrested one man, with apparently nothing more to go on than this description, and yet the man's statement is not wholly accepted. It was about a quarter to one in the morning - was he there or not? If he was, then in what regard was his statement only partly believed? Which part did they not believe one day, and did believe the next, and based on what new information?

The apparent ease in locating this man, tells me that Leman street had a bit more to go on than just a description. It's as though they had another source of information. Next day ...

They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

According to Schwartz, other than himself and BS, the only other man on the street was Pipeman. So once again, if Pipeman was the other source, why the continued search for Mr Lipski? That question is obvious enough, but there is another; if Schwartz was believed about who had been on the street at the time, then why was this other source apparently taken seriously? Was it because the other source was the vigilance committee?

I wonder if you might be reading far too much into all this?

The man arrested on the strength of Schwartz's description of BS would have been asked to account for his whereabouts, assuming he was denying any involvement. The fact that he had not been charged, but was being held for inquiries, was probably so that the police could check out his alibi. His statement would obviously not be 'wholly accepted' until that was done. It doesn't automatically mean they thought he was lying, and presumably their enquiries ruled him out, in which case he was not Stride's assailant. He might have been a local thug, known to the police, who best fit the description they had.

For all we know, the other source could have been Fanny Mortimer, talking about black bag man. When Goldstein turned up at the nick to explain his movements, the newspaper could have got their wires crossed and assumed he had been arrested on the strength of her sighting of him.

You must surely realise by now that you are in a minority when it comes to trusting what was reported in the newspapers.

Love,

Caz
X