If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the first occasion Goldstein walked down the street and around the board school corner. Fanny witnessed this.
That is not getting around her - which is a metaphor for avoiding detection of ones presence or intention. eg: that's Leather Apron getting round you
So your claim is irrelevant.

She did not sa that she’d seen him twice. Therefore she hadn’t seen him twice.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We know about Lipski from the police statement, and the fact that the police went looking for men named Lipski. Not much point in wasting precious resources on such enquiries if it was clear as day that the only Lipski in the affair was Schwartz himself, earning the insult for his unwanted intrusion. The ambiguity of the story points to it being an honest attempt by someone with no English, who was more fearful than curious at the time, to make sense of what he had witnessed. If his account was coloured by the news that the woman had been murdered, that would be natural enough, and not an indication that he was consciously adapting the story to fit.

We don't know who Schwartz really was, or anything about him. Therefore we cannot declare him to be honest.
Israel Schwartz is an enigma, and will probably remain so forever.

Every word reported by Star man should be taken with a generous pinch of salt. It's the nature of the beast, and who knows what leading questions were asked of Schwartz, via his interpreter, in an all too typical attempt to make more of the story? One man pushing an unfortunate, and two men making themselves scarce? Hardly story of the week, is it? "Ask him if the pipe was not more likely to have been a knife, and how much more threatened that would have made him feel. Tell him that in his shoes, I'd have run away like a girl too, knowing the men were armed and dangerous and after blood."

The Star editorial writer did not believe Schwartz. The headline for the story is INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT.
There is no throw down in the Star account, nor call of Lipski. Pipeman is the big change. That is owing to Schwartz wanting to clarify the men's relationship, and the prisoner situation at Leman street, which has probably already turned against Schwartz.

That was not my idea, but how about the conspirators simply dragging the body out onto the pavement beyond the yard, where Schwartz would later claim the assault had taken place? Turn her on her back, raise her skirts a bit if possible, then go back inside and let some other poor devil make the discovery and raise the alarm? After all, there would have been no innocent witnesses at the time, or the conspiracy wouldn't have worked anyway.

Highly risky

[NotBlamedForNothing]

She did not sa that she’d seen him twice. Therefore she hadn’t seen him twice.

She implied it though, and in speaking to two different reporters, described Goldstein walking from a totally different direction.
Fanny's dual sighting of Goldstein is quite obvious, if one takes the time to understand what she said.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. We know about Lipski from the police statement, and the fact that the police went looking for men named Lipski. Not much point in wasting precious resources on such enquiries if it was clear as day that the only Lipski in the affair was Schwartz himself, earning the insult for his unwanted intrusion. The ambiguity of the story points to it being an honest attempt by someone with no English, who was more fearful than curious at the time, to make sense of what he had witnessed. If his account was coloured by the news that the woman had been murdered, that would be natural enough, and not an indication that he was consciously adapting the story to fit

Its another nail in the conspiracy coffin Caz. The absolute nub of this ‘plan,’ the main point of the script that Schwartz was supposed to be reciting was that the assailant shouts ‘Lipski’ at him thus revealing himself an anti-Semite; therefore not a Jew or club member. So why can’t Schwartz achieve this very simple task even when he has a ‘club-friendly’ interpreter with him. It just introduced the question of who the word Lipski was aimed at. Furthermore, why the hell did he bother to complicate matters by introducing a fictional Pipeman into the scenario anyway? Apart from introducing the possibility that PM might have been a Mr Lipski or that he’d been mistaken by BS Man for a Mr Lipski or at least that Lipski was aimed at him rather than at Schwartz.

The introduction of Pipeman doesn’t help the plot in anyway. There’s no reason why Schwartz was compelled to introduce a Pipeman figure in the first place. And all the addition of Pipeman does is to add confusion to what should have been a perfectly simple task for Schwartz (or more to the point - his interpreter)

This plan really is so appallingly inept it’s impossible to believe that it was conceived by adults. The existence of Pipeman on its own should scream out that this was no plot or cover-up. This is why only two people over the past 20 years or so give it the time of day. It’s palpable nonsense.

[caz]

If Schwartz couldn't speak English then how could he say for sure who 'Lipski' was addressed to and why?

He couldn't. Abberline confirmed that back in 1888. Schwartz was unable to say. Glad we got there in the end.

Yet if Schwartz were in some sense a fake witness, and possibly knew some English, the most rational thing to do would be to say exactly what he did say - he didn't know for sure. In the fake scenario, he might have thought Abberline were trying to catch him out, by implying he had more understanding of the word in context, than a non-English speaker possibly could have.

You are once more speculating and trying to make something out of nothing. See the perfectly plausible version immediately above your speculative one. The result is the same in either case - Schwartz said he was unable to say. Sometimes, if it looks like a duck...

This, by the way, is where Schwartz seems to have slipped up in the Star interview - he knows who the second man is shouting at, and that the shouting is a warning about Schwartz' presence on the scene.
The critical issue for me, is that Schwartz wanted to indicate that the two men were together - he makes this absolutely clear the next day. A bit too clear, really. However, by then the differences in the accounts of Schwartz and Pipeman had probably become apparent. So there might have been a bit of an arms race, for want of a better analogy.

Once again, we have Star man on the hunt for a juicy story, while Abberline just needs to hear the plain, unvarnished truth, as far as Schwartz is able to say what happened. That is never going to be a simple enough explanation for the differences, as far as you are concerned, but that's your problem.

Is it impossible to believe that Schwartz could have been swayed in one direction under Abberline's careful and balanced questioning, and swayed in another by a persuasive journalist on a mission, who prefers the original suggestion of a murderer and his accomplice, but goes one better by putting the word he really wants to hear into his informant's mouth - to end up with a knife in the second man's hand where the pipe had been? It can't come back to haunt Star man because he can just shrug and say the pipe got lost in translation. A witness with no English was way more convenient for the reporter than for anyone else.

The assault was not invented. It happened earlier in the evening and was reported by an independent party. That is probably when Stride got the pressure points on her shoulders and all the mud down her left side. There was no mud in the laneway, especially after the rain had given the stones a good clean.
Schwartz had enough details about Stride that he was convincing. Possibly he described her clothing, and the flower(s), prior to being taken to mortuary.
It is the Pipeman and chase part of the story that let Schwartz down, but the overall situation was ambiguous.
As for there being no apparent gain, that really depends on who the killer was, and perhaps who was witnessed at about the time of the murder.

The overall situation was bound to be ambiguous if Schwartz didn't really know what was going on, or what was being said to whom, and didn't fancy hanging around to try and work it out. I see no reason why he would have lied about when the assault happened, and put it nearer to the discovery time, when witnesses might have been able to contradict him. Did he know the estimated time of death when he gave his account, so he could make sure 12.45 would not be too late to see the victim still alive?

The rest of your post once again relies on liars doing their best to distort the facts in order to protect the guilty, and only you seeing through it all. Isn't it far more likely that the various reports are a combination of truth, assumption, inaccuracy, rumour and journalistic licence, explaining why they can't all be reconciled into a single, reliable narrative of the night's events?

[caz]

We don't know who Schwartz really was, or anything about him. Therefore we cannot declare him to be honest.
Israel Schwartz is an enigma, and will probably remain so forever.

Nor can we conclude he was being deliberately deceptive.

Assuming you don't suspect him of murdering Stride, he should be presumed honest unless evidence beyond reasonable doubt shows him to have been dishonest.

Highly risky

Why? If the conspirators were able to put the discovery itself forward to 1am, because there was nobody else around earlier to know any different, they could just as easily have shifted the body away from the club entrance in mere seconds and pretended ignorance when it was found by others.

[caz]

This plan really is so appallingly inept it’s impossible to believe that it was conceived by adults. The existence of Pipeman on its own should scream out that this was no plot or cover-up. This is why only two people over the past 20 years or so give it the time of day. It’s palpable nonsense.

This plan was not conceived by adults, Herlock - not in 1888 anyway.

It's all a puerile game, devised by those who need to show they are smarter than everyone else, for spotting what everyone else has missed all these years. But it's only possible to spot these things by employing more speculation and imagination than the rest of us put together ever did.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fiver]

Slight problem. The following immediately precedes the Echo's man pursued story ...

FIVE SHILLINGS PER VISITOR.

The Club itself (proceeds the reporter), which is next door to the large gate, is now closed, but all this afternoon members and others who have special business there, are admitted after knocking at the door. The committee of the institution held a meeting this morning, at which the crime was talked over, and it was decided not to admit any stranger without the payment of a fee. The fee, the secretary explained, was to ...

The reporter spoke to Wess on Sunday afternoon. When did Schwartz go to Leman street? The Star, Oct 1:

INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder.

How could Wess have been informed of the Schwartz incident, before Schwartz had finished talking to Abberline?
If anyone's account is 'garbled', it is the one (or two) given by Schwartz!

The Oct 1 Echo makes it clear that Wess' source is not Israel Schwartz, so there is no problem. Wess' source is either the pursuer or someone who witnessed the pursuit.

The Echo account fails to mention which way the pursuit went along Fairclough.

If it went east, that could be a garbled misunderstanding of the two men seen by Spooner looking for the police. It also provides a second witness who supports that part of Spooner's story.

If it went west, that could be a garbled misunderstanding of Schwartz being pursued by Pipe Man. It also provides a second witness who supports that part of Schwartz' story.

[Fiver]

Because Schwartz was a fake witness.

The source of the 1 October Echo account cannot be Israel Schwartz. It is clear Wess' source was either the pursuer or a someone who witnessed the pursuit. So that's a second witness who also claimed that there was a pursuit along Berner Street at 12:45. A second, independent witness to a pursuit that Fanny Mprtimer did not see.

This leads to several possibilities.
1) This witness, who cannot be Schwartz, was lying for unknown reasons.
2) This witness observed Schwartz being chased by Pipe Man a few minutes before Fanny Mortimer opened her front door.
3) The witness observed the two Club members running in search of a police man that were also observed by Spooner.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
We don't know who Schwartz really was, or anything about him. Therefore we cannot declare him to be honest.
Israel Schwartz is an enigma, and will probably remain so forever

Then how can you state this as a fact?

Because Schwartz was a fake witness

[erobitha]

Schwartz was a plant witness, no doubt about it to me. The only discussion should be who planted him and why.

I will happily eat my hat if one person can find any shred of hard evidence that he existed in real life outside of his statement to the police. The Star interview with him and his interpreter at his house is ludicrous in itself.

Remove him from all scenarios of what happened that night and the chain of events become much clearer.

His so-called presence is designed to confuse. Not one person has corroborated his presence. Pipeman was eliminated from enquiries but that cannot be used as proof of evidence that Shwartz was there. We have no idea who pipeman even was. All the other witnesses in some way shape or form corroborate at least an element of another's story.

Schwartz - nothing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Abberline, an experienced officer who interviewed him face to face, didn’t think that there was anything fake about him. As we know that there was no cover-up then I can’t think of a single reason for Schwartz to place himself at the scene of a murder? Added to that he was also taking the huge risk of someone stepping up to say that they were at the spot at that time or saying that they were looking out of there window from 12.40-12.50 and saw nothing. I see zero reason to even remotely imply that Schwartz was anything other than a genuine witness.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

He couldn't. Abberline confirmed that back in 1888. Schwartz was unable to say. Glad we got there in the end.

Your argument that Schwartz seems to be honest because he couldn't be sure, under careful questioning, who 'Lipski' was directed at, only works if it is supposed that he would have behaved differently had that not been the case. On the contrary, I don't think his behavior would change across scenarios.

You are once more speculating and trying to make something out of nothing. See the perfectly plausible version immediately above your speculative one. The result is the same in either case - Schwartz said he was unable to say. Sometimes, if it looks like a duck...

It is not 'out of nothing'. It is out of the many arguments made against Schwartz, by many people, over many years.
You said that Schwartz' uncertainty "has a ring of truth about it", so that is the claim I'm referring to, when also considering the opposite.
I'm not obliged to list all the arguments against Schwartz, before doing so. That might only be necessary if we regard Schwartz as honest by default. Is that the real reason you suppose we should do just that?

Once again, we have Star man on the hunt for a juicy story, while Abberline just needs to hear the plain, unvarnished truth, as far as Schwartz is able to say what happened. That is never going to be a simple enough explanation for the differences, as far as you are concerned, but that's your problem.

You skipped over the arguments I made against this view, as though I hadn't made any. Presumably the notion that it was the Star that amped-up Pipeman, rather than Schwartz himself, is too valuable to risk being debated.

Is it impossible to believe that Schwartz could have been swayed in one direction under Abberline's careful and balanced questioning, and swayed in another by a persuasive journalist on a mission, who prefers the original suggestion of a murderer and his accomplice, but goes one better by putting the word he really wants to hear into his informant's mouth - to end up with a knife in the second man's hand where the pipe had been? It can't come back to haunt Star man because he can just shrug and say the pipe got lost in translation. A witness with no English was way more convenient for the reporter than for anyone else.

Careful and balanced questioning? Did Abberline gently push a witness giving a statement, in a certain direction? That would not be good policing.

Regarding your claim of journalistic license ...

... the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.

The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand ...

Was the Star requested to make a retraction?

Did the Star change the railway arch to this ...?

He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

Or omit important details ...?

The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail.

How interesting, given the prisoner situation at Leman street, and what he had told Abberline the prior evening ...

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

Did Schwartz fail to ID Pipeman? Or perhaps it is the case that Pipeman is a known identity, and Schwartz does not wish to give the public too many clues.

The overall situation was bound to be ambiguous if Schwartz didn't really know what was going on, or what was being said to whom, and didn't fancy hanging around to try and work it out. I see no reason why he would have lied about when the assault happened, and put it nearer to the discovery time, when witnesses might have been able to contradict him. Did he know the estimated time of death when he gave his account, so he could make sure 12.45 would not be too late to see the victim still alive?

I can think of a reason; he decided it was a risk worth taking.

The rest of your post once again relies on liars doing their best to distort the facts in order to protect the guilty, and only you seeing through it all. Isn't it far more likely that the various reports are a combination of truth, assumption, inaccuracy, rumour and journalistic licence, explaining why they can't all be reconciled into a single, reliable narrative of the night's events?

I've explained multiple times that I think Schwartz' account was part truthful. Do you accept that that is my position?
If you think I think I'm the only person who can see through Schwartz, you're wrong. That is wrong since 1888.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The Oct 1 Echo makes it clear that Wess' source is not Israel Schwartz, so there is no problem. Wess' source is either the pursuer or someone who witnessed the pursuit.

I didn't say that Schwartz had to be the source, but similarly, there can be no rumors based on Schwartz' story, until he gives it.
That is, unless the man pursued story was real. Yet if it were real, then clearly multiple people - 'the public' - regarded the man pursued as being the murderer. Who could that man be, if not Israel Schwartz?
If the man pursued story is regarded as real and accurate (which seems to be your position), then clearly Schwartz must be regarded as a suspect.
If the story is real but inaccurate (falsely interpreted), then we have to wonder how it is that there is a false story with an uncanny similarity to that given by Schwartz. In that case, Schwartz' account is probably false, and therefore he should be regarded as a suspect.
Either way, how can Schwartz not be on suspect lists?

The Echo account fails to mention which way the pursuit went along Fairclough.

On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

That places Schwartz on the board school side.

... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and ... rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

I reckon that has Schwartz running East along Fairclough street.

It is also worth noting that the Echo account fails to mention which street the man pursued turned down, to get to the railway arch.

If it went east, that could be a garbled misunderstanding of the two men seen by Spooner looking for the police. It also provides a second witness who supports that part of Spooner's story.

If it went west, that could be a garbled misunderstanding of Schwartz being pursued by Pipe Man. It also provides a second witness who supports that part of Schwartz' story.

If someone(s) witnessed two men running in search of police, and perceived it as one man chasing the other, do you not suppose they would have reconsidered that assumption, when the two men shortly after turn around and run in the opposite direction, but then pause to talk to Edward Spooner?

If the chase went West, and was witnessed, then why do we never hear from this witness?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The source of the 1 October Echo account cannot be Israel Schwartz. It is clear Wess' source was either the pursuer or a someone who witnessed the pursuit. So that's a second witness who also claimed that there was a pursuit along Berner Street at 12:45. A second, independent witness to a pursuit that Fanny Mprtimer did not see.

This leads to several possibilities.
1) This witness, who cannot be Schwartz, was lying for unknown reasons.
2) This witness observed Schwartz being chased by Pipe Man a few minutes before Fanny Mortimer opened her front door.
3) The witness observed the two Club members running in search of a police man that were also observed by Spooner.

The police did not suspect the second man (Pipeman). What did he have to say about all this?

Did this witness and/or Pipeman, know a murder had been committed?
If no, why would Pipeman be chasing someone?
If yes, then how could the body not be discovered until 1am?

The man pursued escaped, however, and ... the witness and pursuer went home, and told Wess about it all when he arrived at the club later in the morning?