Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Based on The Echo report, some argue that Schwartz was running west to east on Fairclough, because The Echo ticks off the names of the sides streets on Fairclough starting from west to East.

    But this is giving the reporter too much credit, and it is complicated by the fact that there were no sides street off the Fairclough to the west. Further, the same people who draw this conclusion also suggest the chase alluded to by The Echo report was not Schwartz, but the club members running to find a police constable. One can't have it both ways.

    I personally think it is more likely that Schwartz ran west to reach Back Church Lane, and then headed south, because that is where the railway arch is, but again, there is not enough information to prove this. And some argue that the reference to Schwartz's residence on Back Church Lane is actually a reference to Ellen Street, which was off Back Church Lane.

    The most logical inference is that is was late at night, and Schwartz had some distance to walk to get to home. Not knowing if his wife had move yet, he wanted to check his 'old' address (No. 22 Ellen Street) to save himself the long walk in case she hadn't yet moved, so he walk down Berners Street to get to Ellen when he witnessed the assault.

    Unfortunately, if this is correct, then his 'new' address could damn well be anywhere in the East End. The only clue we have is that Swanson lists Schwartz's address as Ellen Street at the time of the interview, but whether this is his new address or his old address entirely depends on whether his wife successfully made the move or not, and we have no way of knowing.

    This one will be argued until the last trumpet sounds.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
      The post office directory for 1882 shows only businesses, but clearly the houses from 8 to 32 had not been removed yet.

      This list reads downwards, but it should be applied upwards. No.2 is at the bottom by Cable street on a map.
      Out of curiosity has anyone checked the beer seller Carl Conrad Schutze? I’m just thinking about a possible spelling error? Yes, I know it’s unlikely but might he have had a brother called Israel?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
        I personally think it is more likely that Schwartz ran west to reach Back Church Lane, and then headed south, because that is where the railway arch is, but again, there is not enough information to prove this.
        If, as the Star suggests, the man who startled Schwartz came from the doorway of the pub on the west side of Bermer Street, then Schwartz would have had to run towards that man to reach Backchurch Lane. Which seems very unlikely to me.
        ​​​
        Last edited by Joshua Rogan; 06-09-2021, 09:04 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
          Based on The Echo report, some argue that Schwartz was running west to east on Fairclough, because The Echo ticks off the names of the sides streets on Fairclough starting from west to East.

          But this is giving the reporter too much credit, and it is complicated by the fact that there were no sides street off the Fairclough to the west. Further, the same people who draw this conclusion also suggest the chase alluded to by The Echo report was not Schwartz, but the club members running to find a police constable. One can't have it both ways.
          That's true. However, there is a way to have Schwartz running east along Fairclough street.
          Firstly, keep the stated times. Chase ~12:45. Search ~1:00.
          Secondly, assume Edward Spooner is not quite what he appears to be, and as a consequence, fails to report witnessing the chase.

          Failing that, Schwartz has to either run south to Ellen street, and then right past the old/new residence, or he runs west long Fairclough.
          The south option contradicts the Echo report, while the western escape still requires witnesses, and for Schwartz to loop back from around Pinchin street, hoping not to reencounter Pipeman.

          I personally think it is more likely that Schwartz ran west to reach Back Church Lane, and then headed south, because that is where the railway arch is, but again, there is not enough information to prove this. And some argue that the reference to Schwartz's residence on Back Church Lane is actually a reference to Ellen Street, which was off Back Church Lane.

          The most logical inference is that is was late at night, and Schwartz had some distance to walk to get to home. Not knowing if his wife had move yet, he wanted to check his 'old' address (No. 22 Ellen Street) to save himself the long walk in case she hadn't yet moved, so he walk down Berners Street to get to Ellen when he witnessed the assault.
          If 22 Ellen street were actually the old address, the following must still be accounted for.

          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.

          If we say that Ellen street is off Berner street, and also argue that the Star man actually ran Schwartz to earth on Ellen-street, Backchurch Lane, then perhaps the Schwartz's moved from somewhere in Ellen street, to somewhere else in Ellen street. The issue with that being...

          When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

          A move along Ellen street means he may well have walked down Berner street anyway.

          Unfortunately, if this is correct, then his 'new' address could damn well be anywhere in the East End. The only clue we have is that Swanson lists Schwartz's address as Ellen Street at the time of the interview, but whether this is his new address or his old address entirely depends on whether his wife successfully made the move or not, and we have no way of knowing.

          This one will be argued until the last trumpet sounds.
          ...but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

          ...he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

          Which of these is true? The first. The second. Both. Neither.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            Thanks Jeff, but no cigar I fear.
            The timing is wrong.
            The map I posted above, plus the post office directory prove there were houses on the east side of Backchurch Lane in 1888, not a multifloored wharehouse.
            The map with the walkway is 1899.
            Back to the drawing board....
            Oh, damn. I thought one of the small mysteries might have a plausible solution. But thanks for correcting me before I got too excited.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

              As a Postie of many years standing this is indeed true. Over the years on handwritten letters you do not see it as much but still now and again up to the present day.
              Regards Darryl
              Well thankyou Darryl, I kind of hoped someone would remember.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                If, as the Star suggests, the man who startled Schwartz came from the doorway of the pub on the west side of Bermer Street, then Schwartz would have had to run towards that man to reach Backchurch Lane. Which seems very unlikely to me.
                ​​​
                My thoughts exactly Joshua.
                For me west is out.
                It's only ever been east or south, and the story does say he ran towards his new lodgings, which is south from Dutfields Yard.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                  Oh, damn. I thought one of the small mysteries might have a plausible solution. But thanks for correcting me before I got too excited.

                  - Jeff
                  Nah, it seems we both thought the same thing for one brief shining moment, then reality set in
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    If 22 Ellen street were actually the old address,....
                    The police had his address down correct, 22 Ellen street, Backchurch Lane.
                    They require his current address where they can find him in future if necessary.

                    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.
                    What has struck me is, considering his story begins as he turns down Berner street from Commercial Road, and he admits to first intending to check his wife had left their old address in Berner street. Why is it in two separate reports he makes no mention of stopping briefly at this old address after he turned down Berner street?
                    Not even a passing comment like "I briefly checked No.xx as I passed.."





                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      What has struck me is, considering his story begins as he turns down Berner street from Commercial Road, and he admits to first intending to check his wife had left their old address in Berner street. Why is it in two separate reports he makes no mention of stopping briefly at this old address after he turned down Berner street?
                      Not even a passing comment like "I briefly checked No.xx as I passed.."
                      Perhaps he hadn't yet passed his 'old' lodgings at the time of the incident? ie he had been living in the southern half of Berner Street.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                        There is not enough surviving information to know to where Schwartz was running; depending on one's interpretation, he could have headed towards Ellen Street, or he could have headed towards somewhere else. Neither location is entirely satisfactory, and Swanson isn't concise enough to draw any firm conclusion.
                        Right, any conclusion we come to on the evidence as limited as it is will be tenuous.

                        That said, in any police interview they will need to know where they can find the witness in the future. Which means the address they take down is his current address. In the case of a witness who is in the process of moving, the address will certainly not be the old address he left behind.
                        Schwartz has either moved to 22 Ellen street Backchurch Lane, or his move has been cancelled for the forseeable future.

                        On the strength of this, where we read "he fled incontinently to his new lodgings" means to 22 Ellen street, Backchurch Lane.
                        And, this means he ran south from Dutfields Yard.
                        South, is just the general direction towards the railway arches. The vast expanse of arches may have become a local landmark and used as a reference instead of actually saying South.

                        The reason this is tenuous is we are dependent on the specific wording of a statement implying a meaning it was never intended to imply. Meaning, he was not asked to describe the direction he fled, yet we are attempting to extract such a meaning from his words, assuming they are in fact his words verbatim. Which, given this was taken down through an interpreter is another caveat.



                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          The police had his address down correct, 22 Ellen street, Backchurch Lane.
                          They require his current address where they can find him in future if necessary.
                          Right, and I think they needed to find him sooner rather than later.
                          When Schwartz finished speaking to Abberline, his position was either that 'Lipski' had been directed to the second man, or as a result of Abberline's probing, he was unsure. That is not reflected in Robert Anderson's draft of a letter to the Home Office, Nov 5:

                          With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that since the Lipski case, it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.

                          Now this may be the opinion of the department, rather than of Schwartz himself, but the evidence we have today does not suggest what Anderson is saying here. It is as though Schwartz had changed his mind. So when was this apparently new position of Schwartz presented, on which the Dept. had come to the position stated in Anderson's draft? Was it indeed at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case? That can't be though, can it? Schwartz wasn't at the inquest. No he wasn't, but was his evidence presented nonetheless?

                          Tuesday's Star said the Leman-street police "arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts." So Pipeman is presumably now a free man. Yet it cannot be that it was just Pipeman's word against Schwartz', and the former won. Something more must have occurred. Is it possible that as of midday Tuesday at the latest, it is Schwartz being held for further questioning? Does Schwartz now pen an updated account, which reaches Baxter by the beginning of Wednesday's inquest session? At the end of that session, Dr Phillips is giving evidence. DT:

                          Before the witness had concluded his evidence the inquiry was adjourned until Friday, at two o'clock.

                          Then on the Friday, the foreman and possibly Phillips also, seem to be cognizant of the Schwartz incident...

                          Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
                          Phillips: That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

                          What happened on the Thursday, that the press were unaware of?
                          The other question is; if Schwartz were held for questioning, when was he released? I would guess Tuesday evening, and Wess was waiting for the outcome before getting hold of Leon...


                          W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.

                          It's not clear if Goldstein also went to the Morning Advertiser office, or if he was looking a bit theatrical at the time.

                          What has struck me is, considering his story begins as he turns down Berner street from Commercial Road, and he admits to first intending to check his wife had left their old address in Berner street. Why is it in two separate reports he makes no mention of stopping briefly at this old address after he turned down Berner street?
                          Not even a passing comment like "I briefly checked No.xx as I passed.."
                          While we don't have a lot to go on, both reports lack a sense of the mundane. To some extent there is a feeling of unreality in both accounts.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                            The only map I can lay my hands on dated 1888, is that by G.W. Bacon



                            We see Pichin st. and all renovations down to Cable st. just as detailed out on an 1894 map.
                            So, it is pretty safe to say a No.22 Backchurch Lane did not exist in 1888.
                            Thanks for all the maps and information. I think the most probable railway arch Swanson referred to was where Backchurch met Pinchin - around where remains of one of the Torso killer's victims was left in 1889.

                            Comment


                            • So there’s nothing suspicious in the slightest about any of these events.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                                On the strength of this, where we read "he fled incontinently to his new lodgings" means to 22 Ellen street, Backchurch Lane.
                                And, this means he ran south from Dutfields Yard.
                                South, is just the general direction towards the railway arches. The vast expanse of arches may have become a local landmark and used as a reference instead of actually saying South.
                                But the statement that he fled "incontinently to his new lodgings" cannot be strictly correct, if taken literally, because Schwartz wouldn't have been anywhere near a railway arch if he just ran straight home, and there is no railway arch between Dutfield's Yard and 22 Ellen Street.

                                So, in accepting that the Star reporter got it right, we are forced to modify the very account that we are relying on, and conclude that Schwartz didn't flee directly to his new lodgings (which, for the record, I believe were his old lodgings and the proposed move had been unsuccessful) but instead ran past No. 22, turned on a side street, headed south, then turned west to reach the major railway arch on Back Church Lane, which I can't help but believe was the one Swanson was referring to.

                                We are forced to either tweak the primary sources, or to speculate about things that are not in evidence.

                                Personally, I find it hard to believe that Swanson was so careless to allude to a landmark unless the Home Office understood the reference; I have to think that there was an earlier report (now lost) that said something about this railway arch, and this would explain why it was relevant.

                                Otherwise the vagueness of Swanson's reference is really quite inexcusable.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X