If Schwartz Lied ...

[caz]

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.

Quite so, c.d.

What also gets missed is that if her killer wasn't the ripper, and therefore had some other motive for the crime, he could still have been interrupted by Louis D's arrival, without ever having mutilation in mind. Off the top of my head, he may have believed she had pinched something from him, and was planning to search her for it after cutting her throat, but had no time. Or if the killer was a club member, who struck her in a fit of temper, he had no choice but to leave her where she fell if he heard the pony and cart coming before he could attempt to move her body off the premises. Now that would surely fit better with Michael Richards's theory that a club man did the dirty deed, quite literally, on his own doorstep, leaving others to try and clean up the mess.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

From personal experience, Darryl, I would say those most likely to do the sensationalising are the journalists, and Baxter would surely have known that, even assuming he had read how the Star reported the story.

Following a genuine double event in Croydon, where I lived in 2003, I was contacted by a local paper to give an interview, as a result of the book I co-authored with Keith Skinner and Seth Linder, which had just been published. I presume the reporter was given my contact details by the publisher, but I don't know that for certain. Anyway, when I read the published article I found it bore only a passing resemblance to what I had actually said during the interview, and I was misquoted with gay abandon. No language barrier either, unlike the case with the Star and their 'Hungarian'.

In case anyone is interested in this modern day double event, to see how it compares with the attacks on Stride and Eddowes, here is a handy link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3705320.stm

Love,

Caz
X

[Darryl Kenyon]

From personal experience, Darryl, I would say those most likely to do the sensationalising are the journalists, and Baxter would surely have known that, even assuming he had read how the Star reported the story.

That is fair comment Caz. What bothers me though is the fact the Star said they doubted the Hungarians story. It just seems a little strange that they would embellish a story they doubted. Maybe Schwartz asked for money for the interview which perhaps cast doubt in the reporters mind. I suppose there is the possibility that the same interpreter [ as at Lemen St ] did the translation and it was he who was paid, thus he embellished the story making it more worthwhile and perhaps more profitable.
Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

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.

Here are two maps showing his supposed route, if his 'home' was 22 Ellen Street. It might help the visualization.

The second map is the one Gavin Bromley supplied for his article, and shows the whole neighborhood; the first is a detail from the 1890 fire insurance map. It is a little difficult to see but No. 22 is in the middle section of the street, between the second 'L' and the second 'E' in ELLEN.

If you are correct, and Schwartz decided to blow past his lodgings, he either has to decide to turn right or left once he reaches Ellen Street, from Berner. If he takes Stutfield Street, he still won't reach a railway arch, as the street appears to terminate with a row of houses

So whatever route he takes, he must have continued to Pinchin Street and then went west to reach the arch.

By arch, I think Swanson must mean where Back Church Lane goes under the railway.

If this is true, and both The Star and Swanson are correct, and we hold them to the letter of the law, and Schwartz didn't run past his lodgings but ran home, the most natural and logical inference is that Schwartz's lodgings where on the other side of the above mentioned railway arch, or, in other words, the south end of Back Church Lane.

I thought it was interesting that Bromley found a Sarah Schwartz living at 22 Back Church Lane in 1885, which must have been just on the other side of the arch. This would explain Swanson's statement. Schwartz was fleeing to No. 22. However, this connection is just a theory, and my own research has shown that sometime between 1885 and 1891 these houses near the arch were demolished, so it is unclear if No. 22 even existed in September 1888. Hence we see there is a 'stone yard' in the lower left corner on the 1890 map. No. 22 Back Church Lane must have been very near hear, as No. 32 is on the north end of the tracks, at the corner of Pinchin Street, the house numbers descending as one moves south.

[rjpalmer]

Footnote to a footnote. A notation in the 1891 Census, showing that the houses between No. 8 and No. 38 Back Church Lane, listed in 1881, no longer exist. The 'Schwartz' house was apparently knocked down for the coal depot or the stone yard sometime after 1885, but before 1890.

[caz]

Cheers, RJ. I'll leave all this for others to ponder, as my sense of direction is worse than hopeless!

I wasn't really thinking of Schwartz deciding to 'blow past' his lodgings. I was thinking he might have taken a detour, to 'confuse the enemy', by not going straight to where he was going to hang his hat that night - and we don't even know where that was, or whether his wife was waiting for him, and vulnerable to the same threat from Pipeman, had he followed Schwartz going wee wee wee all the way home.

[rjpalmer]

It also seems unlikely that Schwartz thought he had witnessed a domestic quarrel, if he saw Pipeman as BS man's accomplice.

True enough, and it is interesting that the Echo of October 1st seems to imply that this is exactly what Schwartz initially believed--it was a domestic dispute.

"THE MURDERED WOMAN'S STRUGGLES...

The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it."

Presumably when Schwartz saw the pipe smoker and heard the shout of 'Lipsky!' he revised his assumption and took off running.

[caz]

That is fair comment Caz. What bothers me though is the fact the Star said they doubted the Hungarians story. It just seems a little strange that they would embellish a story they doubted. Maybe Schwartz asked for money for the interview which perhaps cast doubt in the reporters mind. I suppose there is the possibility that the same interpreter [ as at Lemen St ] did the translation and it was he who was paid, thus he embellished the story making it more worthwhile and perhaps more profitable.
Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

I thought the Star was reporting that it was the police who didn't 'wholly accept' the story. If so, could this have been a reference to Schwartz's original claim that BS man had addressed Pipeman as 'Lipski'? Under police questioning, he admitted he was unable to say if that was the case, and Abberline, for one, thought it more probable that BS man was aiming it at Schwartz himself. In effect, that makes the story partially accepted, regarding the actual assault, but leaves Pipeman's true role in limbo.

However, I agree with you that the story would have been stronger if the Star had not alluded to any doubt at all - particularly as Pipeman was now given a knife to brandish at the Hungarian. But might that have been the point? In saying that the story was not wholly accepted, they gave themselves a free hand to add this dramatic flourish. If Pipeman was traced and turned out to be a vicar or a policeman, they could always blame the knife detail on the Hungarian's lack of veracity or the interpreter's lack of skill.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

True enough, and it is interesting that the Echo of October 1st seems to imply that this is exactly what Schwartz initially believed--it was a domestic dispute.

"THE MURDERED WOMAN'S STRUGGLES...

The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it."

Presumably when Schwartz saw the pipe smoker and heard the shout of 'Lipsky!' he revised his assumption and took off running.

Yes indeed. And I think I'm catching the 'reading between the lines bug' too, because I see here two excuses for the price of one, as to why Schwartz didn't stay to help a woman in potential danger: 1) it wasn't his business to separate a man and his wife having an argument; and 2) he wasn't hanging around to be beaten up by the man's best buddy.

That's not to say he was telling porkies about what he thought was going on, but he must have felt a tinge of guilt and cowardice afterwards, on learning that he had left the woman to be murdered by BS man, Pipeman or even a Third Man. I reckon his bravest action was to come forward afterwards and admit it.

[Fiver]

Simple process if you havent already solved the Whodunnit and named Jack as her killer from the opening bell. No-one was seen by anyone in the street between 12:35 and 12:55....conclusion? No person coming off the street committed the crime. Conclusion? The killer came from a group of socialist anarchists at the club at that time.

If "No-one was seen by anyone in the street between 12:35 and 12:55", then

1) Louis Diemschitz could not have arrived at the 12:45 time you insist on, he must have arrived at 12:55 or later. Which leaves only a couple minutes for the supposed conspirators to come up with their useless conspiracy.
2) Elizabeth Stride was not on the street "between 12:35 and 12:55", so she must have entered Dutfield's Yard at 12:35, probably with her killer.
3) Morris Eagle was lying when he said he entered Dutfield's Yard from the street at 12:40.
4) James Brown, who was neither Jewish nor an anarchist, was lying when he said he saw Stride on the street at 12:45.
5) Israel Schwartz was lying when he said he saw Stride on the street at 12:45.

The idea that "No-one was seen by anyone in the street between 12:35 and 12:55" is based on a false assumption about Fanny Mortimer's statement. What she actually said was "I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o’clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual." and "I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand." who she thought "might have been coming from the Socialist Club". He later was found to be Leon Goldstein.

So your first conclusion, that "No person coming off the street committed the crime", is not supported by the evidence. Even if it were true, it does not support your second conclusion that "The killer came from a group of socialist anarchists at the club at that time." The Inquest shows that in addition to Dutfield's Yard leading to the International Working Men's Education Society, it also led to "a house, which is divided into three tenements" and "a store or workshop belonging to Messrs. Hindley and Co., sack manufacturers".

[Fiver]

Buying into anything isnt the point Fiver, finding just one person who is seen outside the gates or on the street by a validated witness between 12:35 and 12:55 is. Youve said "your theory", thats not correct, the evidence itself suggests that the killer didnt come from off the property. Ive just supported that evidence.

What is your definition of a validated witness?

Is it a witness who is seen by another witness? Then there are no validated witnesses.

Is it a witness who is seen or heard another witness? Then PC Smith was heard by Fanny Mortimer at about 12:35 and Lewis Deimschutz was heard by Fanny Mortimer after 12:55.

It it a witness whose statement supports another witnesses' statement? Both Israel Schwartz and James Brown claim to have seen Elizabeth Stride together with a man on the street at about 12:45.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We look for things that might add weight to a statement especially when there is conflict. Spooner is a case in point. He gives an estimated time of 12.35 in his statement which Michael takes as a fact despite the fact that his method of estimation is pretty shaky. He also said that he was at the corner of Christian Street and Fairclough Street between 12.30 and 1.00 with a woman. They talked for 25 about minutes. This appears to take him to around 12.55 but his wording isn’t very clear. He also said that he’d been in the yard for about 5 minutes before Lamb arrived. So we have..

1) A time estimated from pub closing times which includes 2 estimated periods of standing around plus an estimated period of walking.

2) A statement that he was at the corner between 12.30 and 1.00 for 25 minutes.

3) A statement where he only has to estimate 5 minutes and where we know, within a very few minutes, what time Lamb arrived (definitely after 1.00)

Anyone looking at these in an unbiased manner would conclude that point 3 is easily the stronger of the three.

We have to ask then why Michael is so adamant in quoting 12.35 as a ‘fact.’ More importantly why does he completely ignore point 3? At one point he even claimed that Spooner didn’t say it.

This is one of the points that many of us have tried to make. Evidence has to be assessed. And not selectively.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And so of the regularly named ‘dissenting’ witnesses we can eliminated Gilleman and Eagle (especially as no one can fathom why these have been mentioned in the first place because they confirm Diemschutz.) We can eliminate Spooner as his ‘5 minutes before Lamb’ very obviously trumps his ‘12.35’ by a country mile. It’s also worth noting that the all-seeing (according to Michael) Fanny Mortimer saw or heard no one leaving or returning the yard yelling for the police. Just as she didn’t see or hear Diemschutz return in his cart at 12.35. We might also ask, if Spooner arrived at 12.35 then Diemschutz must have discovered the body near to 12.30. So how did PC Smith not see or hear him or any commotion at all? We can further ask, if this was a cover up, why did Diemschutz immediately leave to look for a Constable giving him or the club members zero time to come up with a plan?

This leaves Hoschberg and Kozebrodski. Hoschberg uses ‘about’ and ‘i should think’ which proves that he was estimating. He also mentions going to the yard after hearing a police whistle which was likeliest to have been Lamb so we have exceedingly strong reason to suggest that he was genuinely mistaken.

This leaves Kozebrodski who was also very obviously mistaken. No manipulations are required. Just an assessment based on reason and evidence. As we all know this alleged cover up crumbles very easily and the more you look at it the less and less sense it makes. It’s an exercise in creative writing, selective quoting and editing, manipulating of witnesses, non-existent statements and egregious shoehorning.

[caz]

And so of the regularly named ‘dissenting’ witnesses we can eliminated Gilleman and Eagle (especially as no one can fathom why these have been mentioned in the first place because they confirm Diemschutz.) We can eliminate Spooner as his ‘5 minutes before Lamb’ very obviously trumps his ‘12.35’ by a country mile. It’s also worth noting that the all-seeing (according to Michael) Fanny Mortimer saw or heard no one leaving or returning the yard yelling for the police. Just as she didn’t see or hear Diemschutz return in his cart at 12.35. We might also ask, if Spooner arrived at 12.35 then Diemschutz must have discovered the body near to 12.30. So how did PC Smith not see or hear him or any commotion at all? We can further ask, if this was a cover up, why did Diemschutz immediately leave to look for a Constable giving him or the club members zero time to come up with a plan?

This leaves Hoschberg and Kozebrodski. Hoschberg uses ‘about’ and ‘i should think’ which proves that he was estimating. He also mentions going to the yard after hearing a police whistle which was likeliest to have been Lamb so we have exceedingly strong reason to suggest that he was genuinely mistaken.

This leaves Kozebrodski who was also very obviously mistaken. No manipulations are required. Just an assessment based on reason and evidence. As we all know this alleged cover up crumbles very easily and the more you look at it the less and less sense it makes. It’s an exercise in creative writing, selective quoting and editing, manipulating of witnesses, non-existent statements and egregious shoehorning.

That's okay, Herlock. After all, Michael 'Gene Genie' Richards is only channelling the spirit of the Met Police in the 1970s, in the way they fashioned the evidence to bang up members of minority groups.

He's just socking it to the socialists at the Berner Street club in 1888. Give him a break.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

...egregious shoehorning.

Love it. I do it all the time.