If Schwartz Lied ...

[caz]

Oh, gawd please! Not that!

I've never cared to run with the herd. The herd often comes up with simplistic, knee-jerk answers.

Oh the irony, RJ. You know precisely to what I refer - and it has bugger all to do with Schwartz. So back to topic we go.

[erobitha]

It was massive news the double event. Why would The Star sensationalise a story then put it further down the paper and then say they doubt the Hungarians story?
It just doesn't make sense.
The only paper to get a scoop on the Mets star witness and,,, they say there is reason to doubt the account.
Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.
If they say they had good reason, they meant it. Otherwise Schwartz would have been the main story of that edition.
Perhaps it was the other way around and Schwartz sensationalised his story, and even more for the paper. And he saw nothing more than a bit of a domestic dispute, [ perhaps earlier than he stated ].
Unfortunately people do come forward in high profile cases from time to time with exaggerated **** and bull.
Regards Darryl

Case in point was one witness at the actual inquest….Mary Malcolm.

I actually rate Schwartz’s value even less than hers.

[Fiver]

H.O. marginal note snippet:

The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz.

Does that sound like the man ran after Schwartz?

The marginal note appears to have been written by Home Secretary Henry Matthews. From context, it appears that Matthews believed Pipeman was a real person who really followed Schwartz. So if you agree with Matthews, then yes, that was the man who ran after Schwartz,

[Fiver]

Can you imagine Israel being happy with Woolf's comments to the Echo? Neither can I. So what was the motivation for making them?
Clearly the murderer disturbed in his work theory, suits Wess down to the ground, and both the timing and description of the man pursued story are so uncannily similar to Schwartz' story of having been pursued by a man who does not follow him as far as the railway arch, that it cannot be explained away as easily as you would like it be.
So the question that begs, is; why would Wess scapegoat a fellow a Jew, if he did not believe that man to have been the murderer?

Last I checked you were the one trying to explain away both Wess' account of a suspected Ripper being pursued and and Schwartz' account of being pursued by Pipeman. There are some interesting similarities, but this cannot be due to Wess scapegoating Schwartz. Wess' account appeared in the 1 October 1888 Echo. Schwartz' account appeared in the 1 October 1888 Star. The Echo and the Star were both evening papers, plus Schwartz was not named in the Star.

[Fiver]

Ripperological Mythology at its finest

If any of my numerous points were mythical, you should easily be able to disprove them.

Here they are again.

* According to accounts in the newspapers, Mortimer was on her doorstep for nearly half an hour or for about ten minutes, so clearly at least one of the accounts is confused on the time.
* The police at the time concluded that Schwartz was confused when he thought "Lipski" was directed at Pipeman.
* The police at the time concluded that Schwartz was confused when he thought Pipeman was an accompice of BSman.
* If you believe the reported chase was an inaccurate description of LD and IK, then someone was confused. If you believe the reported chase was an inaccurate description of Schwartz and Pipeman, then someone was confused. If you believe the chase never happened, then someone was confused.
* The Star reporter's account of what Schwartz said contradicts the police report of what Schwartz said, so clearly at least one of those accounts is confused on those points.
* According to accounts in the newspapers, Mortimer saw the man with the bag once, but disagreed on what direction he was going. Clearly at least one of those accounts is confused about the direction. And you are confused about how many times Mortimer said she saw Bagman.
* PC Smith thought he entered Berner Street at 1am. This is clearly an estimate, not a sign of confusion.
* PC Smith said the man he saw was wearing "a dark felt deerstalker's hat". That might be incorrect - Smith only saw the man briefly in poor lighting, but that does not mean Smith was confused.
* Diemschutz did not mention grapes in his inquest testimony.
* Kozebrodski did not testify at the inquest.
* We have records of the inquest. They do not include any testimony from Schwartz, so Anderson was confused if he thought Schwartz testified at the inquest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only mythical thing on this thread Fiver is this non-existent cover-up. That Diemschutz found Stride’s body at 1.00 cannot be disputed. It’s not even worthy of discussion. There is zero evidence for dismissing Schwartz either except that it’s convenient to some conspiracist delusion. Pages and pages of drivel. Nitpicking trivialities, manipulating timings and statements and blatant shoehorning. A never ending wave of dishonest, embarrassing bilge just to contrive a cover up or to manufacture a mystery.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

A cover-up non-existent? Mythical?

I've always found it eerily fascinating that Stride's body was discovered by Louis Diemschutz at the exact moment Eddowes was being released from Bishopsgate police station.

Diemschutz—"I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner Street."

George Henry Hutt—" About two minutes to one o'clock, when I was taking her out of the cell, she asked me what time it was. I answered, "Too late for you to get any more drink." She said, "Well, what time is it?" I replied, "Just on one." Thereupon she said, "I shall get a ---- fine hiding when I get home, then."

Hope you're well.

Simon

[Fiver]

We also know that the Press were looking for sensation so it’s not an outlandish suggestion that it might have been a case of…

Schwartz: “I think the man had a pipe in his hand.”

Reporter: “ Are you sure that it wasn’t a knife?”

Schwartz: “Well it might have been I suppose.”

Reporter: “Ok, so we have a man with a knife…..”

Or

Schwartz: “I think the man had a pipe in his hand.”

Reporter: “Was he cleaning the pipe?”

Schwartz: “Well, he might have been, I suppose.”

Reporter: “Ok, so we have a man with a knife…..”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or

Schwartz: “I think the man had a pipe in his hand.”

Reporter: “Was he cleaning the pipe?”

Schwartz: “Well, he might have been, I suppose.”

Reporter: “Ok, so we have a man with a knife…..”

Perfectly possible Fiver

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

A cover-up non-existent? Mythical?

I've always found it eerily fascinating that Stride's body was discovered by Louis Diemschutz at the exact moment Eddowes was being released from Bishopsgate police station.

Diemschutz—"I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner Street."

George Henry Hutt—" About two minutes to one o'clock, when I was taking her out of the cell, she asked me what time it was. I answered, "Too late for you to get any more drink." She said, "Well, what time is it?" I replied, "Just on one." Thereupon she said, "I shall get a ---- fine hiding when I get home, then."

Hope you're well.

Simon

Hi Simon,

Im very well thanks. I hope life’s treating you well over there?

Cases like these are full of coincidences though. It’s all down to whether the individual sees them as a coincidence though of course.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It's just one of those little details..... but this was the east end, Dutfield Yard was cobbled, as were the streets & roads, so where does the mud come from?

The Muddy Knoll

I'm inclined to think it's a euphemism for horse dung.

Why would Dr Phillips use that euphemism?

Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side.
...
Examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud.

How far down did the mud go?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It was massive news the double event. Why would The Star sensationalise a story then put it further down the paper and then say they doubt the Hungarians story?
It just doesn't make sense.
The only paper to get a scoop on the Mets star witness and,,, they say there is reason to doubt the account.
Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.
If they say they had good reason, they meant it. Otherwise Schwartz would have been the main story of that edition.
Perhaps it was the other way around and Schwartz sensationalised his story, and even more for the paper. And he saw nothing more than a bit of a domestic dispute, [ perhaps earlier than he stated ].
Unfortunately people do come forward in high profile cases from time to time with exaggerated **** and bull.
Regards Darryl

I mostly agree, Darryl, but I would add the story is actually less sensational in the Star, except for the behaviour of the second man. There is no throw down or use of the word 'Lipski'. There is also more context in the Star account. Clearly when Schwartz went to the Star, he was on a mission to implicate the second man.
The problem for Schwartz however, was that the second man had an unassailable story, after inquiries were made regarding the prisoner's statement.

[Scott Nelson]

It was common for heavy rain to wash accumulated dust and dirt from the edges of cobblestones. There was also a shallow water table in this area.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It was common for heavy rain to wash accumulated dust and dirt from the edges of cobblestones.

If the assault on Stride did not result in her being thrown down on the footway, but somewhere else that was muddy, then the question is; where and when? Perhaps "You would say anything but your prayers", suggests someone who is starting to become frustrated with Stride's excuses. That might place the incident a little after Marshall last sees the the pair, at about 11:55. Stride and Rather Stout Man then walk toward Ellen street. Schwartz seems to know some of the actual details of the incident - The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage... - so is there a connection between Schwartz' knowledge of the incident, and Ellen street?

There was also a shallow water table in this area.

The blood ran along the gutter for several feet. The gutter might have been a bit watery. It cannot have been muddy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the assault on Stride did not result in her being thrown down on the footway, but somewhere else that was muddy, then the question is; where and when? Perhaps "You would say anything but your prayers", suggests someone who is starting to become frustrated with Stride's excuses. That might place the incident a little after Marshall last sees the the pair, at about 11:55. Stride and Rather Stout Man then walk toward Ellen street. Schwartz seems to know some of the actual details of the incident - The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage... - so is there a connection between Schwartz' knowledge of the incident, and Ellen street?



The blood ran along the gutter for several feet. The gutter might have been a bit watery. It cannot have been muddy.

So you’re suggesting a question based on an assumption for which we have no evidence? Yes we know that, as a general point, witnesses have been known to lie but we have no reason to suggest that Schwartz did so. We know that there was no Anarchist/club member cover-up of course so what reason would Schwartz have had to place himself at the scene of a crime with no one to verify that he wasn’t the killer? Then we can add the fact that he had a genuine and specific reason for being there which the please could easily have checked had they chosen to. The introduction of Pipeman into the story is an unnecessary detail to add for someone simply making things up for a specific reason which, added to the possibility that Pipeman might have been questioned leading him to challenge Schwartz version of events, points away from him making up the episode. Then we have the experienced Abberline, who would have questioned him face-to-face and in more detail than we know, treating him as a valid witness.

The only reason that we have to place any doubt against Schwartz is a) The Star interview, where it’s hardly a stretch of the imagination to suggest that any small differences might have been down to errors of interpretation or Press exaggeration, and b) the fact that no one else appeared to have seen the incident. An incident that couldn’t have taken more than a very few seconds with Stride ‘screaming’ but not very loudly. It’s was hardly a full scale riot or a marching band.

Schwartz could have been mistaken in that the confrontation between BS Man and Stride might not have been as violent a confrontation as he first thought. His timid nature might have caused him to assume more aggression than was actually present. Maybe it wasn’t Stride that he saw? But we have no reason to doubt that he was where he was, when he said that was (give or take a reasonable amount of time) and that he pretty much saw what he said that he did or that he reported what he thought that he saw. To dismiss him we need for, far more and we just don’t have it.