Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • I don't think Schwartz lied. Occam's razor aside, I think the fact part of his story involves someone shouting "Lipski" at him proves it's true. It's too specific and relevant to the location to be made up. I think what is a more likely scenario if what Schwartz saw was wrong is that women he saw wasn't Stride and just looked like her.

    Comment


    • I do not believe the non attendance at the inquest is a case for or against Schwartz being truthful.His stated evidence covers a period of less than 30 seconds,or a little over if the period of following along Berner Street is included.He hears a man speak,sees a woman fall,sees another man emerge from a doorway,and he(Schwartz) is away.Why should that be cause for lying?

      Comment


      • We will never get an answer to this question of course; only a list of possible answers without enough background even to weigh them up. Before this thread I personally wasn’t fully aware of the precise aims of an inquest so, at the very least, I think it’s important that we remember these aims. That said, it’s very obvious that witnesses were called to this and other inquests that had even less to add that Schwartz could so it does appear surprising that he didn’t attend. I’d still suggest the possibility that Schwartz might have asked to be left out because he felt in fear for his life and Baxter, assessing his statement and seeing that his testimony would have been no great loss, agreed.

        Roger makes the very valid point that he gave a newspaper interview which was hardly seems the act of a man in seeking anonymity. As researchers have had such difficulty locating Israel Schwartz in the records I wonder if it’s possible that this wasn’t his real name? Maybe the reason that he didn’t present himself to the police was that he was scared but someone persuaded him that he should go to the police but under another name? Might the police have even agreed to him using the name Schwartz? I don’t know.

        I make this suggestion only because there appears to be very little that we know for a fact and that one of those facts is that Schwartz had nothing to add toward the very specific aims of the inquest. And so we have:

        a) Schwartz could add nothing of value toward the specific aims of the inquest.

        b) Looking at other inquests and the witnesses called it appears unlikely that he wouldn’t have been called.

        If we add that it seems unlikely that a coroner would question the honesty of a witness (as that was the job of the police and they wouldn’t present him with the statement of an obviously untrustworthy witness) we appear to be left with a possibility/likelihood that Schwartz was wanted at the inquest but did not appear. So that appears to leave:

        1) Schwartz was called but didn’t show up.

        2) Schwartz was excused from attending for some reason.

        ???
        Regards

        Herlock



        “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

        ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          We will never get an answer to this question of course; only a list of possible answers without enough background even to weigh them up. Before this thread I personally wasn’t fully aware of the precise aims of an inquest so, at the very least, I think it’s important that we remember these aims. That said, it’s very obvious that witnesses were called to this and other inquests that had even less to add that Schwartz could so it does appear surprising that he didn’t attend. I’d still suggest the possibility that Schwartz might have asked to be left out because he felt in fear for his life and Baxter, assessing his statement and seeing that his testimony would have been no great loss, agreed.

          Roger makes the very valid point that he gave a newspaper interview which was hardly seems the act of a man in seeking anonymity. As researchers have had such difficulty locating Israel Schwartz in the records I wonder if it’s possible that this wasn’t his real name? Maybe the reason that he didn’t present himself to the police was that he was scared but someone persuaded him that he should go to the police but under another name? Might the police have even agreed to him using the name Schwartz? I don’t know.

          I make this suggestion only because there appears to be very little that we know for a fact and that one of those facts is that Schwartz had nothing to add toward the very specific aims of the inquest. And so we have:

          a) Schwartz could add nothing of value toward the specific aims of the inquest.

          b) Looking at other inquests and the witnesses called it appears unlikely that he wouldn’t have been called.

          If we add that it seems unlikely that a coroner would question the honesty of a witness (as that was the job of the police and they wouldn’t present him with the statement of an obviously untrustworthy witness) we appear to be left with a possibility/likelihood that Schwartz was wanted at the inquest but did not appear. So that appears to leave:

          1) Schwartz was called but didn’t show up.

          2) Schwartz was excused from attending for some reason.

          ???
          hi herlock.
          the most easiest and mundane reason is usually the cause. ive been saying all along, its probably number one. and there could be many reasons for it.. he never got the summons, had other obligations, didnt want to get involved, was ill etc etc.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            hi herlock.
            the most easiest and mundane reason is usually the cause. ive been saying all along, its probably number one. and there could be many reasons for it.. he never got the summons, had other obligations, didnt want to get involved, was ill etc etc.
            Hi Abby,

            Thats probably the case however frustrating. One thing is certain though, no one can state that they know the reason for a fact.
            Regards

            Herlock



            “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

            ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
              Hi Caz - I’m just dropping by, so I can give you an immediate answer.

              Yes, I admit that Anderson’s use of ‘alleges’ can be interpreted in different ways, depending on the interpreter, but isn’t this what we do? Interpret?
              Hi RJ,

              Of course, and that is what I find so interesting, because interpreting is so often subjective, and dependent on one's personal feelings towards the individual who is writing, rather than just taking a word, or sentence, at face value, without presuming any ulterior motive, unless there is direct evidence pointing to some attempt to twist the facts to give the desired impression. Some of us are more prone to reading between the lines, looking to put the worst possible interpretation, sometimes on a single word or phrase. This may not always be a conscious process, but others can see when it happens on a regular basis. I probably err too much in the other direction, preferring to give the writer the benefit of the doubt unless it's clear their choice of words is deliberate sleight of hand.

              If the name allegedly screamed had been ‘Meiklejohn’ or “Johnstone” I would have interpreted Anderson’s use of the word ‘alleges' differently. But the name was the racially charged ‘Lipsky,’ and this, to my mind, puts a different complexion on it. The context matters.
              Yes, and the context here is that Schwartz spoke no English, and from his original account it seems apparent that he didn't know the name was racially charged, but merely assumed BS man was addressing Pipeman by name, and that name sounded to him like "Lipski" - hence he 'alleged' that was the word used.

              The 'racially charged' interpretation was put on it by others, including Abberline, who believed BS man was probably aiming "Lipski" at the obviously Jewish Schwartz, to try and send him packing [or rather, unpacking, if his wife was still unloading the Pickfords cart ].

              Question: don’t you think an immigrant Jew living in East London in September 1888, fast on the heels of the Leather Apron scare and the threats of random violence against Jews, would know and be sensitive to the word ‘Lispki,’ far better than you or I or Sir Robert Anderson? If a black man hears the N-word being yelled at him, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he heard it correctly. If an Asian hears the G-word, ditto. If I’m an affluent white dude sitting over in Whitehall, my use of the word ‘allegedly’ in describing these racial slurs has an ever-so slight barb to it, does it not?
              I'm not so sure you are right, RJ. With no English, Schwartz would have been unable to read the newspapers unaided, and unable to grasp much of what was going on around him, socially or politically, without a helpful interpreter going the extra mile to explain things to him on a daily basis. If he had heard the name "Lipski" on a regular basis, and understood that it was a perjorative expression used against Jewish men just like him, why would he have been ignorant or confused about who was the intended recipient on this occasion?

              Think about it: BS man uses an anti-Semitic slur. If Schwartz recognises it as such, why on earth does he suppose BS man is shouting it at Pipeman - a supposed accomplice, who chases after him? It makes no sense.

              Having said all that, I'm not trying to give Anderson a free ride. He might well have been prejudiced against Schwartz because he had come to this green and pleasant land without learning a word of the lingo. So any word he claimed to hear could have been given the 'allegedly' treatment, almost subconsciously. That's as far as I would go in this particular instance.
              Last edited by caz; 04-08-2021, 12:45 PM.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                So a man who witnesses an assault right next to the point were the murder victim is found 15 min before her body is discovered cannot provide answers to essential questions . Well you may have no one appear who saw Liz or who was in Dutfields yard before her body was discovered appear. Please tell me what questions they answered which couldn't be better answered by Schwartz ? Because I am at a loss to see any.
                Regards Darryl
                Hi Darryl,

                Let's assume for the sake of brevity that an interpreter is on hand to translate the 'essential questions' and answers.

                Coroner: What was the dead woman's name?

                Schwartz: I'm buggered if I know. Never saw her before that night.

                Coroner: What was the cause of her death?

                Schwartz: No effing idea. I wasn't there.

                Coroner: Where did she die?

                Schwartz: Are you simple? I wasn't there.

                Coroner: When did she die - by which I mean the date?

                Schwartz: I only heard about it afterwards - like you.

                Coroner: Not much help, are you laddy?

                Schwartz: No shi* Sherlock. I still want paying, mind. I've left the wife on her own to unpack the cat's meat.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Last edited by caz; 04-08-2021, 01:07 PM.
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                  How is Sir Robert Anderson's acceptance/dismissal of Israel Schwartz as a witness irrelevant to the topic of this thread?
                  If Schwartz lied...

                  From c.d's opening post:

                  The Schwartz discussion rages on. But if it were shown conclusively that he did in fact lie what does that tell us about Stride's death and whether or not she was killed by the Ripper? Does it confirm a club conspiracy?

                  Keep in mind that according to Schwartz Stride was still alive when he left the scene.
                  What could Anderson's opinion of Schwartz as a witness [even if we knew it] tell us about Stride's death and whether or not she was a ripper victim? Would Anderson's opinion confirm a club conspiracy?

                  You could open a new thread to discuss this, but I'm not sure there would be many takers.
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Hi Darryl,

                    I assume, however right or wrongly, that Caz must think Phil Sugden was an idiot.

                    "Alone of the witnesses called forth by this terrible series of crimes, Schwartz may actually have seen a murder taking place. More than that, with its possible implication of two men, his evidence cautions against us against embracing too readily the conventional wisdom that the killings were the work of a lone psychopath." (p. 201)

                    Yet we are assured that Schwartz's account is so trivial that his presence at the inquest would not only have been pointless, but an outright laughing matter--a skit suitable for Benny Hill. He has nothing at all to tell us!

                    Let me approach it from a different angle. If a witness is considered 'non essential,' could it only mean that he is not essential to the limited scope of an inquest--the filling out of a death certificate---and thus, the police can hold him back if doing so would be desirable to their aims?

                    Thus, from the angle of a death certificate, Schwartz is non-essential, but from the angle of a police investigation, he is anything but. So implying that he is a know-nothing of no value is about as wide of the mark as a person can be?

                    Meanwhile, we are offered a "mundane" and therefore supposedly likely explanation that, having seen one of the Whitechapel Murder victims being physically assaulted, Schwartz became so ill for 23 days that he could not attend the inquest. Nothing to see there, of course.

                    Or, that even though there were 5 sessions of the inquest, stretching from October 1st through October 23rd, no one thought of sending Schwartz a summons during that entire period.

                    I think I'll pass on the mundane, and continue to believe that Schwartz was deliberately held back, though I concede that I can't prove it.

                    Cheers.


                    Last edited by rjpalmer; 04-08-2021, 02:21 PM. Reason: typo

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      but I'm not sure there would be many takers.
                      Kind of like the Fast Eddy provenance, he mused, taking another sip of his morning coffee.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                        Hi Darryl,

                        I assume, however right or wrongly, that Caz must think Phil Sugden was an idiot.

                        "Alone of the witnesses called forth by this terrible series of crimes, Schwartz may actually have seen a murder taking place. More than that, with its possible implication of two men, his evidence cautions against us against embracing too readily the conventional wisdom that the killings were the work of a lone psychopath." (p. 201)

                        Yet we are assured that Schwartz's account is so trivial that his presence at the inquest would not only have been pointless, but an outright laughing matter--a skit suitable for Benny Hill. He has nothing at all to tell us!

                        Let me approach it from a different angle. If a witness is considered 'non essential,' could it only mean that he is not essential to the limited scope of an inquest--the filling out of a death certificate---and thus, the police can hold him back if doing so would be desirable to their aims?

                        Thus, from the angle of a death certificate, Schwartz is non-essential, but from the angle of a police investigation, he is anything but. So implying that he is a know-nothing of no value is about as wide of the mark as a person can be?

                        Meanwhile, we are offered a "mundane" and therefore supposedly likely explanation that, having seen one of the Whitechapel Murder victims being physically assaulted, Schwartz became so ill for 23 days that he could not attend the inquest. Nothing to see there, of course.

                        Or, that even though there were 5 sessions of the inquest, stretching from October 1st through October 23rd, no one thought of sending Schwartz a summons during that entire period.

                        I think I'll pass on the mundane, and continue to believe that Schwartz was deliberately held back, though I concede that I can't prove it.

                        Cheers.

                        why would he be deliberately held back?
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          Hi caz,

                          I see how Schwartz can't put a name to Stride directly, nor to B.S or pipeman. He did, however, identify Stride's body as the woman he saw, and Stride's identity is eventually established (after a bit of confusion caused by Mary Malcolm). I agree, he didn't see Stride murdered, nor in his police statement does he mention a knife, etc. He can, however, provide a bit of a description of B.S.

                          While his description is fairly generic, his identification of Stride is more sound than Lawende's or Leve's of Eddowes, and his identification of B.S. is on par with that offered by Lawende yet better than that offered by Long at Chapman's inquest.

                          In a way, Schwartz combines the better parts of Lawende's, Leve's and Long's input to those inquests, and he also sees a confrontation while the others just see conversations.

                          So it strikes me as odd that Schwartz, who arguably is the witness with the most information, would not be called given how Lawende, Leve, and Long were? Pearly Poll doesn't add anything more (and quite a bit less) in the Tabram's inquest either. I'm not sure the "doesn't provide information directly as to how or who" really works once we look at other witnesses and what they provide. Whatever the bar is for the information to be considered sufficient, if those witnesses cleared it then surely Schwartz does as well?

                          I believe in Swanson's summary of police activities around the Stride case has a section where he outlines the conflict between Schwartz's description of B.S. and the earlier PC sighting, but notes how B.S. is more similar to the description given by Lawende. While one might think that's a good thing, as I recall, the surrounding context suggests some level of disappointment over that conflict between Schwartz's description and the PC's. It's almost as if the police had a strong confidence in the PC's description and this conflict was disturbing, to at least some, this might be a pointer to the police doubt that gets mentioned (doubt because they put a higher level of confidence in the PC's description and because Schwartz's doesn't tally well with that, they figure Schwartz is the one in error; that would be a mistake, but that sort of thing does happen). Hmmmm, now that think about it, I believe there's a note written on it at that point where someone indicates that surely Schwartz's description should be preferred, which does point to others suggesting confidence in Schwartz. Sigh, I think I just refuted my own idea within the same paragraph!

                          But there must have been a reason why Schwartz doesn't appear, but we have so little information I don't think it's even possible to work out if that reason primarily lies with the police, the coroner, or Schwartz himself. If it does primarily involve either the police or Baxter, I suspect it will something completely different from our current guesses, and any record that might hint to the reason has been lost through time, if it even existed.

                          - Jeff

                          Hi Jeff,

                          While I quite agree that it seems odd that Schwartz would not have been called, considering all those other witnesses who were, there would only have been an obligation on Baxter to call him if his information was deemed essential for the Inquest. Baxter wasn't obliged to be consistent when deciding which non-essential witnesses to call, nor to explain why he called one witness but not another. But for whatever reason, it does appear that he chose not to compel Schwartz to attend, which was his prerogative - barring human/clerical error. I can only presume he had his reasons, which would make sense if only we knew what they were!

                          It's just another gap in our knowledge, allowing us the luxury of filling it with anything we choose - from innocent explanations to sinister ones. The bigger sin is absolute certainty, where there can only ever be speculation.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X


                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Just a genuine 'brain-picker', it's not like I have an answer myself.
                            We all know it was the coroner's responsibility to select the witnesses, and I'm not at all convinced that Brown had more to offer than Schwartz.
                            So, I'm inclined to think the only scenario that is left is that the police never provided Baxter with the statement from Schwartz.
                            But, not because they didn't believe him. I suspect because they had not finished investigating his story.

                            When we look at the depth of detail across the 4 reports (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride), and the fact the Tabram report was written on a Sept. form - when he began his research, the date of 19th Oct. must be the date of completion. Not that he wrote all four reports on the one day. That would be well nigh impossible.
                            Which for this issue - the comment on Schwartz, we cannot say with any certainty when that was written.
                            Which means it is possible it was written earlier in October.
                            Sounds a reasonable explanation to me, Jon. Wasn't there also a claim that the police established the existence of Pipeman, and got a description from him of BS man, which didn't match the one given by Schwartz? It's a pity we don't know the truth of this, but we do know the police were looking for anyone called Lipski, who might fill Pipeman's shoes and be involved in the assault on Stride.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • It's just another gap in our knowledge, allowing us the luxury of filling it with anything we choose - from innocent explanations to sinister ones. The bigger sin is absolute certainty, where there can only ever be speculation.

                              Amen!!!!!!

                              c.d.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                                Hi Darryl,

                                Let's assume for the sake of brevity that an interpreter is on hand to translate the 'essential questions' and answers.

                                Coroner: What was the dead woman's name?

                                Schwartz: I'm buggered if I know. Never saw her before that night.

                                Coroner: What was the cause of her death?

                                Schwartz: No effing idea. I wasn't there.

                                Coroner: Where did she die?

                                Schwartz: Are you simple? I wasn't there.

                                Coroner: When did she die - by which I mean the date?

                                Schwartz: I only heard about it afterwards - like you.

                                Coroner: Not much help, are you laddy?

                                Schwartz: No shi* Sherlock. I still want paying, mind. I've left the wife on her own to unpack the cat's meat.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Coroner: What was the dead woman's name?
                                I don't know the dead woman's name but I identified her as the woman I saw being assaulted 15 min before she was found dead at the mortuary. Sorry if that is not relevant
                                Coroner: What was the cause of her death?
                                I don't know but since I saw a man assaulting her 15 min before she was found dead I think he would have a better idea. Sorry if you don't think his description is noteworthy.
                                Coroner: Where did she die?
                                I don't know but since I saw a man assaulting her 15 min before she was found dead right next to the spot I have heard she was found murdered I would have thought my evidence to were and how was important. Sorry if it isn't.
                                Coroner: When did she die - by which I mean the date? 15 min after I last saw her alive. Again sorry if that is not relevant.
                                Coroner: Not much help, are you laddy?
                                Certainly not, since it seems unlikely you called me to the inquest
                                Regards Darryl

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X