Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    So would you say his testimony is "unsafe" to rely on?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I would Trevor. But I’d say it because we have a solid reason for doubting him. He said that he was in the yard from 12.40 until 1.10 and saw no one. We know for a fact that there were people in the yard from 1.00 or very slightly after. By 1.10 the yard was full including police. There’s nothing wrong with using the word unsafe if we have a valid reason for doing so.

    Regards

    Herlock



    Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

      Hi rj,
      I know you were asking this of Wickerman, but the "man pursued" story sounds a lot like Diemshutz & Kozebrodski when they went looking for the police after finding Stride. They went as far as Grove (as per the story), and then returned, picking up Spooner along the way back.

      - Jeff
      Hi Jeff,

      This is a remote possibility, but I don't think it can be correct.

      The Secretary, Wess, states this occurred at 12:45 (the same time alluded to by Schwartz) and he must have been very well aware that Deimschitz and Co. did not discover the body and go hunting for a policemen until twenty minutes later, at around 1:05 a.m.

      Further, I realize most commentators, including Sudgen, make it sound as if Deimschitz and Kozbrodski went off alone, which could be misinterpreted as this mysterious duo, but at the inquest Deimschitz alludes to several men accompanying him down Fairclough Street (nor does he say they were running) so it is difficult to see how this could be interpreted by onlookers as one man chasing another man.

      Deimschitz (Morning Post): "All the men who were with me halloed as loud as they could for the police, but no one came.”

      Deimschitz (People): “The men with me shouted as loud as they could for the police, but we could not make one hear.”

      One of these men was evidently named 'Jacobs.' (Deposition of Morris Eagle).

      Paul Begg ('The Facts') theorizes that Morris Eagle chased after Diemschitz and Kozbrodski and Jacobs, but I can't see how this can be correct, either, as Morris specifically states that he went in the opposite direction from the Club, ie., towards the Commercial Road, and he seems to have left before Deimschitz and Kozbroadski, so it is difficult to see how he could be behind them.

      Uncertainly exists, but what I glean from the Echo is that people in the neighborhood had seen a man chasing another man at 12:45 (which is precisely what Schwartz describes in his statement to Abberline) and Wess heard this as well. Curiously, Wess seems to have known the general identity of the man giving chase, which might support DJA's suggestion that the Pipe Smoker was identified.

      If you accept this analysis, Israel Schwartz began his Whitechapel adventures as a suspect.

      Cheers
      Last edited by rjpalmer; 04-10-2021, 11:09 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

        Hi Jeff,

        This is a remote possibility, but I don't think it can be correct.

        The Secretary, Wess, states this occurred at 12:45 (the same time alluded to by Schwartz) and he must have been very well aware that Deimschitz and Co. did not discover the body and go hunting for a policemen until twenty minutes later, at around 1:05 a.m.

        Further, I realize most commentators, including Sudgen, make it sound as if Deimschitz and Kozbrodski went off alone, which could be misinterpreted as this mysterious duo, but at the inquest Deimschitz alludes to several men accompanying him down Fairclough Street (nor does he say they were running) so it is difficult to see how this could be interpreted by onlookers as one man chasing another man.

        Deimschitz (Morning Post): "All the men who were with me halloed as loud as they could for the police, but no one came.”

        Deimschitz (People): “The men with me shouted as loud as they could for the police, but we could not make one hear.”

        One of these men was evidently named 'Jacobs.' (Deposition of Morris Eagle).

        Paul Begg ('The Facts') theorizes that Morris Eagle chased after Diemschitz and Kozbrodski and Jacobs, but I can't see how this can be correct, either, as Morris specifically states that he went in the opposite direction from the Club, ie., towards the Commercial Road, and he seems to have left before Deimschitz and Kozbroadski, so it is difficult to see how he could be behind them.

        Uncertainly exists, but what I glean from the Echo is that people in the neighborhood had seen a man chasing another man at 12:45 (which is precisely what Schwartz describes in his statement to Abberline) and Wess heard this as well. Curiously, Wess seems to have known the general identity of the man giving chase, which might support DJA's suggestion that the Pipe Smoker was identified.

        If you accept this analysis, Israel Schwartz began his Whitechapel adventures as a suspect.

        Cheers
        I've made the same argument as Jeff makes - that the men running were Diemschutz & Kozebrodski, in no small way because Schwartz told us he ran towards the railway arch, but all the railway archs are either south down Berner St., or east along Fairclough, then turn south.
        Those two men ran west along Fairclough, so it cannot have been Schwartz fleeing chased by Pipeman. Besides, the man who assaulted Stride was still in the gateway as Schwartz ran off, so clearly he couldn't have been the murderer.

        If, on the other hand, he made BS-man up, then you need to explain why Schwartz decided to go to the police that same day with any story at all, if he really had been by himself.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          I've made the same argument as Jeff makes - that the men running were Diemschutz & Kozebrodski, in no small way because Schwartz told us he ran towards the railway arch, but all the railway archs are either south down Berner St., or east along Fairclough, then turn south.
          Those two men ran west along Fairclough.
          Thanks, Wick.

          I think you must mean east, as this is what Jeff theorized; unfortunately, the Echo article doesn't state where on Fairclough Street the men were running, though it does seems to imply they were headed toward Grove Street.

          As always, there is wriggling room for doubt:

          If you have the inclination, click on the thread below where Chris Phillips discusses an alternative theory in Post #79, in which 22 Ellen Street is Schwartz's new lodgings, but his current lodgings were on Backchurch Lane.

          The Identity of Israel Schwartz - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

          The most relevant part:

          "I think the sole source of the Ellen Street address is the report prepared by Donald Swanson for the Home Office on 19 October, in which (as Simon has posted) he spells the name of the street as "Helen".

          I think that - as you say - this must be Schwartz's address at the time of his statement to the police, which was late on the afternoon of Sunday 30 September according to the Star report.

          The information about the move comes from the same report, which says:

          "It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated ..."

          And a bit further on it says that after witnessing the incident "He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings", so it seems that the move had taken place.

          So if that's all correct his wife moved in his absence on the Saturday, and 22 Ellen Street was the new address. But again, most of this hinges on the accuracy of the Star report, and it's possible that there could have been a misunderstanding in translation.

          It strikes me there might actually be some mileage in the idea that the Star reporter misunderstood this too, and that Ellen Street was the address of the old lodgings. According to the map in Gavin Bromley's dissertation, 22 Ellen Street is virtually at the end of Berner Street, and some distance from Back Church Lane, so that could reasonably be described as "lodgings in Berner-street". And if the new lodgings were in or near the southern part of Back Church Lane, then that would be consistent with Schwartz running west along Fairclough Street (as indicated by one press report) and down Back Church Lane "so far as the railway arch" (Swanson's report). It would also get round the difficulty of his wife apparently having moved house on the Sabbath.”


          So what I think is being suggested in this second interpretation is that when Schwartz sees the disturbing scene at the Club, he decides to call-off his walk down to check out his new lodgings at 22 Ellen Street, and instead turns west onto Fairclough to reach his current home on Backchurch Lane and notices he is being followed. He flees west on Fairclough and then south, and the railway arch is either in Hooper Street or Pinchin Street at the south end of Backchurch Lane.

          This was also Chris Scott's belief.


          In truth, none of the interpretations are entirely satisfactory.

          Have a good night.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            Hi Jeff,

            This is a remote possibility, but I don't think it can be correct.

            The Secretary, Wess, states this occurred at 12:45 (the same time alluded to by Schwartz) and he must have been very well aware that Deimschitz and Co. did not discover the body and go hunting for a policemen until twenty minutes later, at around 1:05 a.m.

            Further, I realize most commentators, including Sudgen, make it sound as if Deimschitz and Kozbrodski went off alone, which could be misinterpreted as this mysterious duo, but at the inquest Deimschitz alludes to several men accompanying him down Fairclough Street (nor does he say they were running) so it is difficult to see how this could be interpreted by onlookers as one man chasing another man.

            Deimschitz (Morning Post): "All the men who were with me halloed as loud as they could for the police, but no one came.”

            Deimschitz (People): “The men with me shouted as loud as they could for the police, but we could not make one hear.”

            One of these men was evidently named 'Jacobs.' (Deposition of Morris Eagle).

            Paul Begg ('The Facts') theorizes that Morris Eagle chased after Diemschitz and Kozbrodski and Jacobs, but I can't see how this can be correct, either, as Morris specifically states that he went in the opposite direction from the Club, ie., towards the Commercial Road, and he seems to have left before Deimschitz and Kozbroadski, so it is difficult to see how he could be behind them.

            Uncertainly exists, but what I glean from the Echo is that people in the neighborhood had seen a man chasing another man at 12:45 (which is precisely what Schwartz describes in his statement to Abberline) and Wess heard this as well. Curiously, Wess seems to have known the general identity of the man giving chase, which might support DJA's suggestion that the Pipe Smoker was identified.

            If you accept this analysis, Israel Schwartz began his Whitechapel adventures as a suspect.

            Cheers
            Hi rj,

            Deimshitz's statements above are phrased as there being more than 1 other with him, though that could be anywhere from 2 or more additional men. I've seen various reports that have Kozebrodski heading off with Deimshitz, and others mention a Jacobs, so perhaps there were three in total that iniitally left the club together.

            I'm looking at Spooner's inquest testimony, where he says "...After talking for about 25 minutes I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out "Murder" and "Police." They then ran as far as Grove-street and turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter. They replied, "A woman has been murdered." I then went round Berner-street. ..."

            In the above, he says he's standing and the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman.

            So it appears that by the time Deimshitz is on Fairclough, where the "man pursued" event occurs, there's only two of them on Fairclough, perhaps Jacobs continued south on Berner street or turned west on Fairclough, splitting up to increase the chances of finding a PC?

            After having re-read that story, it sounds to me like a conflation of Schwartz's story (the man spotted and presumed to be the murderer being B.S. spotted by Schwartz at 12:45, which also contains Schwartz then being "pursued" by pipeman in Schwartz's version) and Diemshitz's and Kozebrodski's search for a police officer on Fairclough. The blending has resulted in the man presumed to be the murderer becoming the chased man.

            I believe there are also news reports that Kozebrodski also ends up going with Eagle to find PC Lamb and unnamed PC 436H (I think that's right) on Commercial-road. PC Lamb does testify that two men found him. I suppose that opens the possibility that Kozebrodski, Jacobs, and Diemshitz all left towards Fairclough together, and Kozebrodski then turned around and joined Eagle and went north?

            The odd thing is that Eagle's testimony sounds like he went alone. Also, he states "...When I got outside I saw Jacobs and another going for the police in the direction of Fairclough-street, and I then went to the Commercial-road, all the time shouting "Police!" On getting to the corner of Grove-street I saw two constables, and told them that a woman had been murdered in Berner-street. ..."

            PC Lamb says he was between Batty and Christian streets, and if that's where he was, then Eagle should never have reached Grove, as that's the next street over. Unless, of course, Eagle goes past Batty and Christian, then PC Lamb enters onto Commercial, and Eagle gets to Grove and turns around and see PC Lamb. But if that's the case, the shouts of "Police" would have to have been something I would not call a shout. I suspect, though, that's just a typical failure in detail that happens in testimony, as Eagle (and Kozebrodski) were heading towards Grove when they met PC Lamb, they just didn't actually get there.

            So if Kozebrodski did go with Eagle, which it appears he may have, then Eagle must have left the yard either after Deimshutz and Kozebrodski returned with Spooner, or Kozebrodski turns around and heads off with Eagle (and now only Jacobs is with Deimshutz when Spooner sees them; making Deimshutz's "all the men..." statement either referring to the initial 3 that left together but K turns around, or to when Spooner joins them for the return leg.).

            Add to that the fact Spooner testifies that PC Lamb arrives about 5 minutes after he got to the yard, and that seems unlikely to be accurate if Eagle and Kozebrodski leave at more or less the same time as Diemshutz heads off, since Spooner doesn't come back until Diemshutz arrives back and PC Lamb isn't all that far away.

            Diemshutz's journey to Grove and back could be done within 3-4 minutes (it's not that far either), so if there was some sort of delay between Deimshutz leaving and then Eagle coming out of the club, Deimshutz could be coming back with Spooner and Kozebrodski for the latter to join Eagle in the search to the north. But we've lost Jacobs somewhere, making it look like he went down a different street than east on Fairclough with D & K.

            It's all a bit of a mess, really, reflecting the panic and confusion that no doubt was going on at the time, and people not being good enough to take notes and having to reconstruct what they did minute by minute.

            Anyway, despite that bit of a side track, I agree with you, though, that if Schwartz was initially viewed with serious suspicion, that could indeed explain why he wasn't called to the inquest. I'm not sure the "man pursued" article is very strong evidence of that being the case, but it doesn't have to be to entertain the idea.

            - Jeff
            Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-11-2021, 02:20 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

              Thanks, Wick.

              I think you must mean east, as this is what Jeff theorized; unfortunately, the Echo article doesn't state where on Fairclough Street the men were running, though it does seems to imply they were headed toward Grove Street.
              Yes RJ, sorry I had my east/west mixed up, the railway arches were west along Fairclough, then south on Backchurch Lane.
              Yet the 'two running men' story ran east, towards Grove St.
              Sorry for that.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                ....The odd thing is that Eagle's testimony sounds like he went alone. Also, he states "...When I got outside I saw Jacobs and another going for the police in the direction of Fairclough-street, and I then went to the Commercial-road, all the time shouting "Police!" On getting to the corner of Grove-street I saw two constables, and told them that a woman had been murdered in Berner-street. ..."

                - Jeff
                Hi Jeff.

                But that is not unusual. Both Diemschutz & Kozebrodski claim "I went", "I saw", "I ran", etc. The interviewer wants to know what the witness did, not what the group did. A witness cannot, or at least should not, answer for a group.
                Diemschutz says "I ran for a policeman", and likewise Kozebrodski, "I ran for a policeman", its what they did.
                Anyone who has been in court will recognise the reminder from the prosecutor, "just tell the court what you did Sir". We've all heard that a thousand times.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  Hi Jeff.

                  But that is not unusual. Both Diemschutz & Kozebrodski claim "I went", "I saw", "I ran", etc. The interviewer wants to know what the witness did, not what the group did. A witness cannot, or at least should not, answer for a group.
                  Diemschutz says "I ran for a policeman", and likewise Kozebrodski, "I ran for a policeman", its what they did.
                  Anyone who has been in court will recognise the reminder from the prosecutor, "just tell the court what you did Sir". We've all heard that a thousand times.
                  Hi Wickerman,

                  Fair enough, and I'm sure that's what it reflects. It gets a bit tricky trying to put the pieces back together when there's fewer clues as to how they fit. But that's our problem.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    I would Trevor. But I’d say it because we have a solid reason for doubting him. He said that he was in the yard from 12.40 until 1.10 and saw no one. We know for a fact that there were people in the yard from 1.00 or very slightly after. By 1.10 the yard was full including police. There’s nothing wrong with using the word unsafe if we have a valid reason for doing so.
                    So would agree that a newspaper report which is in direct conflict with the official signed inquest testimony is a valid reason to say it is unsafe ?

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      So would agree that a newspaper report which is in direct conflict with the official signed inquest testimony is a valid reason to say it is unsafe ?

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      I was thinking more of your assessment of Hutt and Robinson to be honest. You claim that they are ‘unsafe’ and yet you have no specific reason to doubt them apart from the fact that you think it somehow strange that they remembered seeing Eddowes wearing a shawl. That’s something that’s not based in a fact. As far as I know (and there might be a different version for all that I know; I haven’t checked) Lave’s statement has to be taken as it is. Therefore we know for a fact that he couldn’t have been correct about being in that yard from 12.40 for 20 minutes. And so we have a solid reason for doubting him.
                      Regards

                      Herlock



                      Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Are you going to admit that Gilleman can be struck of your ‘list’ now?

                        We’ve already struck off Spooner and Eagle. Though God knows why you mentioned Eagle in the first place.

                        That leaves you with Abraham “about” “I should think” Hoschberg. And Kozebrodski.

                        A cast iron case.
                        All quiet on the Gilleman front....of course.
                        Regards

                        Herlock



                        Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                          Louis didnt have that though. He had minutes, and no time to gather evryone around to say "this is what to say".
                          Seems like he used them wisely, then, seeing that, directly after the discovery, he did have time to call Kozebrodski to the yard and send him for a policeman, no less. That would be a good thing to do if he wanted to have it seem that he discovered the body only some 20 minutes later. And he still didn’t tell Kozebrodski what to say in case he would come back with a copper. Like I said, great cover up/damage control.

                          ...Eagle couldnt be sure whether a body was there at 12:40..
                          I distinctly remember you saying that we shouldn’t believe anything Eagle or Diemshutz said because they were lying. So why should we believe this particular bit?

                          ...and Louis claiming he arrived at "precisely 1" which can be instantly disporven by Fannys statement,...
                          From his statements it can be concluded that he would have turned into the yard around half a minute after he saw the clock indicating one o’clock on the corner of Berner Street if he drove at the speed of a slow bike or around 40 seconds after one o’clock if he drove slower than a slow bike. So Diemshutz rounded off by 30 or 40 seconds. Big deal.

                          Now, what part of Mortimer’s statement(s) exactly disproves that Diemshutz didn’t or couldn’t arrive when he stated he did?

                          Issac K, Spooner, Gillen, Heschberg and likely some others gathered around the woman around 12:40-12:45...
                          Except, there is no Gillen. And if you mean Gilleman, he doesn’t claim he was around the woman around 12:40-12:45, nor does any reference to him place him there at that hour.

                          Let me put it this way....if Louis and other members had attacked the police with clubs 6 months before this murder happened, would they then be more suspect for you?
                          Not really, as it wouldn’t distract from the fact that it would, at best, be a very weak attempt at a cover up or damage control.
                          "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                          Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                          Comment


                          • Michael

                            Issac K, Spooner, Gillen, Heschberg and likely some others gathered around the woman around 12:40-12:45...

                            FrankO

                            Except, there is no Gillen. And if you mean Gilleman, he doesn’t claim he was around the woman around 12:40-12:45, nor does any reference to him place him there at that hour.

                            Im sure that Michael is grateful to you for pointing this one out Frank. I certainly am.

                            Is that the sound of tumbleweeds that I hear?
                            Regards

                            Herlock



                            Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                            Comment


                            • Michael

                              Issac K, Spooner, Gillen, Heschberg and likely some others gathered around the woman around 12:40-12:45

                              ....

                              And as we can eliminate Gilleman because he categorically doesn’t mention an earlier time; and we can eliminate Spooner because he said that he’d been at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb arrived (so he actually saw Lamb) so that means after 1.00; and we know that Hoschberg used the words ‘about’ and ‘I should think’ proving that he was estimating rather than going by a clock (and the fact that he heard Lamb’s whistle which was provably after 1.00) and so he can very safely be eliminated.

                              Your theory relies on Kozebrodski. Wow. If you tried I guess that you might be able to make it a little weaker.
                              Regards

                              Herlock



                              Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                .....
                                Further, I realize most commentators, including Sudgen, make it sound as if Deimschitz and Kozbrodski went off alone, which could be misinterpreted as this mysterious duo, but at the inquest Deimschitz alludes to several men accompanying him down Fairclough Street (nor does he say they were running) so it is difficult to see how this could be interpreted by onlookers as one man chasing another man.

                                Deimschitz (Morning Post): "All the men who were with me halloed as loud as they could for the police, but no one came.”

                                Deimschitz (People): “The men with me shouted as loud as they could for the police, but we could not make one hear.”

                                One of these men was evidently named 'Jacobs.' (Deposition of Morris Eagle).....
                                Hi RJ.
                                In the Daily Telegraph, 1st Oct. the scenario appears reasonably well described by Diemschitz.

                                "...a member named Isaacs went down into the yard with me, and we struck a match...........
                                "...Then we both went for the police, but, unfortunately, it was several minutes before we could find a constable..."


                                The same article then tells us Eagle ran in a different direction than the others (Diem. & Koz.)

                                "At last another member of the club, named Eagle, who ran out after us and went in a different direction, and found one somewhere in Commercial-road".

                                As Eagle had to run up Berner to Commercial Rd., and he went in the opposite direction to "the others", this indicates those "others" had to run south towards Fairclough, and those "others" had to be Diem. & Koz.

                                Diemschitz's own experience is described in the Echo:

                                "...I went for a policeman, but could not find one. When looking for the police, I told a young man of the affair, and he came with me back to the yard. The young man lifted up the woman's head, and then I saw that the throat was cut".

                                In this version we recognise the "young man" as Spooner, who's own story fits what we read.

                                In The Star, we read another perspective:

                                "...I and Isaacs ran out for a policeman, but could not find one after traversing several streets,".

                                For myself, I found it reasonably straight forward to piece the sequence together, and that Isaac Kozebrodsi was "Isaacs", that both he & Diemschitz ran together in the direction of Fairclough, then East as far as Grove, and they brought Spooner back with them.

                                It's not easy to place Schwartz running East, the logic does not support such a claim. He either ran south through the Fairclough intersection, or west towards Back Church Lane, in my view.
                                The only running men that fit "the Sectretary" article are Diemschitz & Kozebrodski".




                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X