Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • .
    If Ted Stanley ,Thomas Conway.Mary Watts and the man below * was talked about in the inquests as witnesses to be searched,the Coroner asking the police to do so why not Schwartz who's testimony was submitted to the inquest by the police?
    Can we prove that Schwartz was submitted to the Coroner as a potential inquest witness?
    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

      So with all of the vagueness surrounding Lave Frank I’d suggest that he might have gone into the yard at 12.40 ish. He walked into the street and while he was doing so Eagle entered the yard explaining why they missed each other. He goes back inside at approx 12.45 then Schwartz passes?
      That’s a possibility, of course, Michael. However, I don’t think it’s the most likely one. I’ve been able to find 8 newspapers who carried versions of Lave’s statement. They all contain various pieces of information, like:
      • I was in the yard at about 20 minutes to one
      • I came out first at half past 12
      • I passed out/strolled into the street
      • I remained out until 20 minutes to one
      • I went down into the court about 20 minutes before the body was discovered
      • I walked about for 5 minutes or more
      As we can see, there are 2 pieces of information that do not fit with “I went down into the court about 20 minutes before the body was discovered”, them being “I came out first at half past 12” and “I remained out until 20 minutes to one”. On the other hand, there’s only one piece of information that doesn’t go with “I came out first at half past 12”, namely “I went down into the court about 20 minutes to one”. Since “I went down into the court at about 12:40” is very similar to “I was in the court at about 12:40” and I don’t think that the “I remained out until 12:40” and especially the “I came out first at half past 12” were made up out of whole cloth and the “I walked about for 5 minutes or more” fits very well in between the approximate times of 12:30 and 12:40, I believe the most likely version of Lave’s story is that he went out at about 12:30, walked about for 5 minutes or more and that he went back inside at about 12:40 (and before Eagle arrived).

      But, again, what you suggest is also possible, although I think it would be more difficult for Lave to miss Eagle.

      All the best,
      Frank

      "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


      • Originally posted by Varqm View Post


        The Coroner and jury shall,at the first sitting of the inquest,view the body,and the coroner shall examine on
        oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge
        of the facts whom he thinks it expedient to examine.


        It shall be the duty of the coroner in case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath
        of those who know the facts and circumstance of the case,or so much of such statement as is material,and any such
        deposition shall be signed by the witness and also by the coroner.
        Yes, but in your interpretation of the clause in that second sentence, you did not include the all important point:

        "....whom he thinks it expedient to examine."

        No-one, has been able to get around that last caveat.

        The only two questions that are pertinent on this issue for me are:
        1) Did Coroner Baxter decide Schwartz's story was not believable, or not necessary, or
        2) Did Baxter not receive Schwartz's statement from police because they had not finished investigating his story (by the 5th).

        The implications of Schwartz's story were more important so needed a more thorough investigation than is normally required. This is not to say the police did not believe Schwartz, but every story requires a degree of investigation, some more than others.
        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, 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.
          Precisely what my own observation would have been, Jon. The only reason for Schwartz volunteering his story, not only to the police, but to the Star as well, if he was actively involved in Stride's murder, would have been if - as the argument goes with George Hutchinson - he knew he had been seen by at least one witness in a compromising position, and decided he must give an 'innocent' explanation for his arrival at the scene and hasty departure, before they came to find him and accuse him of a sinister one.

          As with Hutchinson, it might well have proved impossible for anyone to have identified Schwartz by name and learned his current whereabouts, had he chosen to keep a low profile for fear of being suspected of the murder himself. No need to come forward with a fake cover story, involving the invention of two suspicious characters, if nobody else was there at 12.45 to know what he was really up to.

          Love,

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


          Comment


          • Implicit in the Echo's story of a murderer who was disturbed at 12:45 and then seen running away with another man in pursuit is that this was seen by a witness or witnesses, whose names we do not know but either directly or indirectly gave their information to Wess. Otherwise Wess could not have told this to a reporter. He must have heard about this incident from somewhere, even if it was the rumor mill. Ergo, someone saw something or thought they saw something.

            And lo and behold, we learn that Schwartz came forward on Sunday and informed the police that he had been chased by a man at exactly this same time, 12:45.

            For whatever reason, some people don't wish to believe the Echo is referring to Schwarz, but to the club steward and other men shouting for a policeman twenty minutes later. But for this explanation to be true, there has to be as much or more 'shoe horning' in order for the two accounts to coincide. Paul Begg has a man named Jacobs in the pack of men traveling on Fairclough Street, which is plausible, because Morris Eagle names him in The Times' account of the inquest, stating he went in the opposite direction, and we know Eagle went north.

            Anyway, if there were witness or witnesses, as Wess seemingly implies, Schwartz had a perfectly plausible reason for coming forward, be he guilty or innocent: to clear himself from suspicion, since he knows there had been, at the very least, an assault, and that he was seen running away. Either by the witnesses Wess implies, or by the broad shouldered man himself.

            His coming forward is perfectly plausible. But the mere fact that he came forward doesn't necessarily automatically exonerate him--and certainly wouldn't in the eyes of the police. All they know is there is a mountain of conflicting data and they don't yet know who to believe, or how to interpret any of it.

            That the pursuit on Fairclough Street was west-to-east is not specifically stated by the Echo. It states that a pursuit was seen, and then names the cross streets running west to east until Grove Street. But there were no cross streets on Fairclough running from Berner Street to the west; the street quickly terminates in Back Church Lane. If the journalist was trying to theorize which cross streets the men may have taken, he had no choice but to name them, and all of them were to the east. Thus, he may have not known which direction the men were actually running, but leaves the reader with the wrong impression.

            Further, Schwartz running in panic to his lodgings is problematic if these lodgings were at 22 Ellen Street, because Swanson refers to a railway arch, and there is no railway arch between the club and 22 Ellen Street. It would mean Schwartz ran past his own lodgings and continued in a zig-zag path several streets to the south or southwest.

            This could be true, but the most natural explanation for Swanson's statement is that Schwartz's lodgings were on the other side of a railway arch, but his pursuer didn't follow him that far.

            Frustratingly, it is not entirely certain if 22 Ellen are supposed to be Schwartz's new lodgings, or his old lodgings. In fact, to be nitpicky, it's not even entirely certain Schwartz was currently living with his wife.
            Last edited by rjpalmer; 04-12-2021, 03:27 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
              There would be some physical evidence warranting that conclusion regardless of what you personally believe. You do understand the word, right? It implies something begun was unfinished as a result of interruption.

              The problem here, Michael is that you are assuming that something was "begun." That might not have been the case. Something might have prevented his beginning mutilation. That something could simply have been paranoia. So if the mutilation was never begun there would be no physical evidence of his intent.

              c.d.
              A notorious handbag thief follows a lady with a large one [handbag, that is], in the hope that he will be able to waylay her in a quiet location and snatch it from her. But when the lady suspects she is being followed, she heads for the nearest building where there are lights on and music playing. If he wants that bag and its contents, he will have to act quickly, before anyone sees him there and clocks what's going on. He makes a grab for the bag when he believes the coast is clear, but she pulls it away from him, determined to put up a good fight. Before he can try again, he hears a taxi coming towards them and slowing right down, so he thinks "blow this for a game of soldiers", then punches the lady hard in the face and runs off, before she even hits the deck.

              When she is found, her bag is next to her, still zipped up, with her phone, cash, bank cards and house keys all safe inside and untouched, but she is dead from the impact of the fall onto a hard or sharp surface, and has the bruises to show for the punch.

              In Michael's world, the cops would be right to conclude that because there is no evidence of an actual attempt to snatch the dead woman's handbag, this cannot have been the intention, and they should therefore concentrate their enquiries on those inside the building, for anyone with some personal grudge against the victim, and can safely eliminate the handbag thief - if they ever get a sniff of who he might actually be.

              Love,

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


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                So with all of the vagueness surrounding Lave Frank I’d suggest that he might have gone into the yard at 12.40 ish. He walked into the street and while he was doing so Eagle entered the yard explaining why they missed each other. He goes back inside at approx 12.45 then Schwartz passes?
                Might they have steered clear of putting into words a simple, if indelicate explanation, such as popping out to use the privy? How easily could witnesses have missed each other in this way? They didn't all have bladders as strong as my cat, Monty, who can go for hours on end without needing to use next door's garden.

                Love,

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


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                  I have posted the excerpt many times in this thread.What did Purkiss,Mulshaw,George Clapp,Richard Pierce,Mary Ann Monk add to the to the essential questions of the Inquest? As well as Lawende and Co.,Long,Best,Gardner.Marshall and Brown?

                  And what do you believe was the essential questions of the inquests,was it only the Who Where,When and How?

                  And what do you think on how the Coroners (c5) interpreted the Coroners Act 1887 based on the witnesses and inquests they run?

                  If someone is doing a formal inquiry about a murder, would the last man - who saw the victim with a man and the man was assaulting the victim in same spot where the victim was found dead 15 minutes prior, important/integral to the inquiry or not?

                  If Ted Stanley ,Thomas Conway.Mary Watts and the man below * was talked about in the inquests as witnesses to be searched,the Coroner asking the police to do so why not Schwartz who's testimony was submitted to the inquest by the police?

                  The Coroner: We cannot do more. (To the police): There was a man who passed down Buck's-row when the doctor was
                  examining the body. Have you heard anything of him?
                  Inspector Abberline: We have not been able to find him. Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made
                  inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.
                  The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.
                  ---------------------------

                  The Coroner and jury shall,at the first sitting of the inquest,view the body,and the coroner shall examine on
                  oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge
                  of the facts whom he thinks it expedient to examine.


                  It shall be the duty of the coroner in case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath
                  of those who know the facts and circumstance of the case,or so much of such statement as is material,and any such
                  deposition shall be signed by the witness and also by the coroner.


                  After viewing the body and hearing the evidence the jury shall give their verdict and certify it by an
                  inquisition in writing,setting forth,so far as such particulars have been proved to them,who the deceased
                  was,and how,when,and where the deceased came by his death,and if he came by his death by murder
                  or manslaughter,the persons,if any,whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter,or of
                  being accessories before the fact to such murder.

                  Where a person duly summoned to give evidence at an inquest does not,after being openly called three times,appear
                  to such summons,or,appearing,refuses without lawful excuse to answer a question put to him,the coroner may impose
                  on such person a fine not exceeding forty shillings.
                  I think we've been through all the variables now, Varqm, but we still can't say for certain why Schwartz didn't appear. If he wasn't called, for example, it could have been because the Coroner wasn't informed about his evidence, in which case that would explain why he didn't attend, and why there is nothing on record about any steps taken to try and make him attend.

                  Other posters have explained all this better than I have, so their posts are well worth reading, assuming you haven't already done so.

                  But one point I would repeat is that even with Schwartz's evidence in front of him, I don't believe Baxter would have been compelled to call him, just to be seen to be consistent in his treatment of witnesses in general. In any case, I thought it was your belief that he only didn't call Schwartz because he considered his evidence unreliable, in which case he wouldn't have been compelled to call him, or any other witness, on that basis.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  Last edited by caz; 04-12-2021, 03:50 PM.
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                    In fact, to be nitpicky, it's not even entirely certain Schwartz was currently living with his wife.
                    Of course, The Star refers to "their lodgings," implying that Schwartz and his wife are living together, which is probably true, but I find it somewhat odd that Schwartz is away the entire Jewish sabbath, without knowing for certain where his wife is currently staying, and is still trying to figure it out at 1 a.m.

                    So my assumption is that he may have been working outside the area, and thus, temporarily at least, he might have not have been living with his wife full-time, hence the confusion over where she is currently staying. Presumably she was to move before the last day of the month (?), which coincidentally coincided with the weekend, and Schwartz's return home.

                    A lot of uncertainties.

                    Comment


                    • Question.

                      Here's The Star reporter, Oct 1st, referring to Schwartz.

                      "He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police station accompanied by a friend...

                      "He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed it...

                      "A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch Lane."

                      If the police were not talking, how could the Star man have traced Schwartz to Back Church lane, unless someone else knew Schwartz had been seen running through the street the previous night?

                      Who was he, Sherlock Bloody Holmes? Someone must have given him the hint. The most obvious answer being someone associated with the Club. This could support the idea that Wess knew about the incident.

                      Comment


                      • Hello Caz,

                        The possibility and plausibility of an interruption is simply that. It in no way implies that an interruption did in fact take place. I think those two separate ideas somehow get conflated by some posters. They fear that if they even acknowledge the possibility that an interruption took place that they are therefore tacitly admitting that it did. That is simply not the case. And I don't know any poster on here who has stated as fact that an interruption took place. Only that an interruption is a plausible explanation for why Stride was not mutilated.

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                          Implicit in the Echo's story of a murderer who was disturbed at 12:45 and then seen running away with another man in pursuit is that this was seen by a witness or witnesses, whose names we do not know but either directly or indirectly gave their information to Wess. Otherwise Wess could not have told this to a reporter. He must have heard about this incident from somewhere, even if it was the rumor mill. Ergo, someone saw something or thought they saw something.
                          ...etc...etc.
                          A stalemate? perhaps.
                          The only wrinkle I have with my take is, the Secretary claims the 2nd man running (giving chase?) was not a member of their club. That Wess could not remember his name. This begs the question - how would a witness get the name of the running man?, unless it was the 2nd man who was the witness who told Wess of the encounter.

                          We do not know if Pipeman was a member, but both Diemschitz & Kozebrodski are both members. So if that claim is true it adds weight to the running men being Schwartz & Pipeman.
                          The answer to that problem might be simply that the unnamed witness did not recognise who the 2nd man was.

                          And, on top of this is the suggestion by some that Wess was Schwartz's interpreter when he gave his statement.

                          If anyone believes it was Wess who accompanied Schwartz as translator to offer a statement to police, then this story from Wess (the Secretary) clearly cannot be Schwartz chased by Pipeman. The story assumes the first man running was the murderer, but Wess would have known the first man was not the murderer.

                          The final problem I have in matching the "two running men" story with Schwartz & Pipeman is, Pipeman would have known Schwartz was not the killer. Which then leads to further questions.....


                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • We'll never know, but in regards to the mysterious "Jacobs," this is slim, I admit, but there was a Emanuel Jacobs mentioned in the account of the violent row at the club in March 1889.

                            He was supposedly assaulted by the Club Members, which could suggest he wasn't an actual member, but the article claims he was living on Berner Street.


                            Click image for larger version  Name:	March1889.JPG Views:	0 Size:	109.7 KB ID:	755561

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                              Question.

                              Here's The Star reporter, Oct 1st, referring to Schwartz.

                              "He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police station accompanied by a friend...

                              "He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed it...

                              "A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch Lane."

                              If the police were not talking, how could the Star man have traced Schwartz to Back Church lane, unless someone else knew Schwartz had been seen running through the street the previous night?

                              Who was he, Sherlock Bloody Holmes? Someone must have given him the hint. The most obvious answer being someone associated with the Club. This could support the idea that Wess knew about the incident.
                              Schwartz friend, [ the interpreter ] could have tipped a Star reporter off for a shilling " Have I got a story for you ". Maybe, even Schwartz wanted him to. The police made enquires into how the Star found out and that may have put doubt in Baxter's mind. Especially since Schwartz seems to sensationalise his story further for the paper.
                              Regards Darryl

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                His coming forward is perfectly plausible. But the mere fact that he came forward doesn't necessarily automatically exonerate him--and certainly wouldn't in the eyes of the police. All they know is there is a mountain of conflicting data and they don't yet know who to believe, or how to interpret any of it.
                                I see that now, RJ, that Schwartz may have been afraid that being seen running away could lead to him being suspected, although I would still argue that it would have been very hard to track him down if he hadn't come forward voluntarily. And who else would have informed the police about an assault on Stride, shortly before she was found murdered, if Schwartz hadn't? What you say here can almost be applied to Hutchinson, or at least in the way he is viewed by those who suspect him today.

                                Further, Schwartz running in panic to his lodgings is problematic if these lodgings were at 22 Ellen Street, because Swanson refers to a railway arch, and there is no railway arch between the club and 22 Ellen Street. It would mean Schwartz ran past his own lodgings and continued in a zig-zag path several streets to the south or southwest.

                                This could be true, but the most natural explanation for Swanson's statement is that Schwartz's lodgings were on the other side of a railway arch, but his pursuer didn't follow him that far.

                                Frustratingly, it is not entirely certain if 22 Ellen are supposed to be Schwartz's new lodgings, or his old lodgings. In fact, to be nitpicky, it's not even entirely certain Schwartz was currently living with his wife.
                                I've wondered in the past if Schwartz ran off in a panic, and then realised that heading straight for his new lodgings - or wherever he planned to sleep that night - was not the wisest move if Pipeman was following him and meant him harm. I bet he was mightily relieved when the man gave up the chase. It also seems unlikely that Schwartz thought he had witnessed a domestic quarrel, if he saw Pipeman as BS man's accomplice.
                                Last edited by caz; 04-13-2021, 12:00 PM.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X