If Schwartz Lied ...

[Michael W Richards]

My personal view is that if Schwartz was not lying, then Stride cannot be a Ripper victim.

I'd expand my qualifying crtieria here Damaso, there are many easier ways to determine whether Liz Stride was "ripped" by that same man.

[Michael W Richards]

If I may suggest a refinement of the thread premise.....its clear that his story was considered irrelvant to the matter of How Liz Stride dies by the Inquest officials, so how about What may Schwartz NOT have lied about?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course Schwartz didn’t have to have lied to justify saying that his evidence couldn’t have helped the Inquest toward answering the question of how Stride died. Blackwell told them how Stride died. And as to the ‘when’ he could only ‘possibly’ narrow the window down by 10 minutes or so. Therefore he was hardly of massive importance though of course I accept that we would have expected him to have attended.

And of course, there’s no evidence that he did lie. The police obviously believed him as they set out to find someone called Lipski and took at least one man in for questioning on purely on Schwartz evidence. We have Mortimer of course but if we can mention the conflict between Schwartz police statement and the one that he gave to The Star then we are entitled to consider Mortimer’s Evening News statement where she claimed to have gone back inside 10 minutes after hearing Smith pass. She thought that Smith passed at around 12.45 whereas Smith said that it was between 12.30 and 12.35. And so if Smith was correct (and he was just as likely as Mortimer to have been correct and perhaps more so) then Mortimer was likely back inside when Schwartz passed. This is a far more likely explanation than one that requires a) a Constable being 10+ minutes out in his timing, and b) Schwartz placing himself at the scene of a murder for no discernible reason. Risking someone saying “I was looking at the gates from my window at 12.45 and saw no one” or something similar. We have no reason to dismiss Schwartz. The event that he witnessed would have taken a matter of seconds. Why is it apparently so strange that such a fleeting incident passed unnoticed at 12.45?

[JeffHamm]

The thing is, we don't know why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest, which means we cannot say he wasn't wanted, all we know is he did not show. They may have tried to get him to arrive, but given we do know he didn't speak English there could have been confustion on his part, or he never got the summons (or didn't understand it). The only thing we are left with is the fact he doesn't testify, but that doesn't mean his testimony wasn't desired.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

The thing is, we don't know why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest, which means we cannot say he wasn't wanted, all we know is he did not show. They may have tried to get him to arrive, but given we do know he didn't speak English there could have been confustion on his part, or he never got the summons (or didn't understand it). The only thing we are left with is the fact he doesn't testify, but that doesn't mean his testimony wasn't desired.

- Jeff

Absolutely Jeff. Assumptions are being made about the reason for Schwartz absence and it’s something that we just can’t know. Apart from a list of suggested possible reasons we can get no further on this. For me though there’s certainly real evidence that the police hadn’t dismissed him as unreliable (although there may have been some difference of opinion on this an officer or officers from Leman Street?)

[Michael W Richards]

Put plainly...IF the authorities believed Israel Schwartz when the Inquest commenced, regardless of whether they had proven his story yet, they would be compelled to include it formally and likely have him testify to his statement. It would be the single most important piece of evidence they would have had...the victim seen struggling with a brute minutes before and only a few feet from where she dies. Just before the estimated earliest cut time. The Inquest asks How did Liz Stride die, not Who killed Liz Stride, if they believed a BSM was attacking Stride that close to her time of death then they could rule out almost every other possible cause other than Willful Murder.

They would have no choice but to include him. In any form. And they did.......? Right. Left him completely out. The desire to have his viability carried forward is reliant on some comments made informally by senior investigators about their personal belief in his story weeks after the events, because in fact there is no evidence his story was being used in the investigation shortly after he gave the statement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Put plainly...IF the authorities believed Israel Schwartz when the Inquest commenced, regardless of whether they had proven his story yet, they would be compelled to include it formally and likely have him testify to his statement. It would be the single most important piece of evidence they would have had...the victim seen struggling with a brute minutes before and only a few feet from where she dies. Just before the estimated earliest cut time. The Inquest asks How did Liz Stride die, not Who killed Liz Stride, if they believed a BSM was attacking Stride that close to her time of death then they could rule out almost every other possible cause other than Willful Murder.

What other cause of death could there have been? Obviously it wasn’t a suicide and so it had to have been Wilful Murder. Schwartz could make no contribution to this. So the ‘how’ of Stride’s death didn’t need Schwartz or indeed any witness.

They would have no choice but to include him. In any form. And they did.......? Right. Left him completely out. The desire to have his viability carried forward is reliant on some comments made informally by senior investigators about their personal belief in his story weeks after the events, because in fact there is no evidence his story was being used in the investigation shortly after he gave the statement.

What about the search for Lipski or the man that was arrested/questioned on the back of Schwartz statement? How can you call those ‘comments’ informal when they were documented and between senior officers? Abberline could easily have said “well we’ve looked into Schwartz evidence and it looks like he was lying.” But he didn’t. They continue to discuss Schwartz as a witness which shows that they credited his evidence.

No of us can explain why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest and so we can only speculate but the suggestion that the police didn’t place any value in his evidence has no basis in evidence. Just as I have no evidence that he simply ‘disappeared’ because he feared reprisals, there is no evidence that the police dismissed him. Basically we have little to go on. Again, I agree that we would certainly have expected him to have been called but his contribution to the ‘how’ and the ‘when’ would have been close to inconsequential.

[Michael W Richards]

The manner of death could be accidental, willfully committed, a result of suicide..there are variables. The HOW is the only question here, and Israel would have impacted what they perceived.

As I said, investigating his story briefly after it was given, and still not including him in the Inquest shows us that at the time of the Inquest, he was not of any value to the primary question.

And people like yourself stating that we cant be sure why he wasnt invited along is just head in the sand arguing. Its bleedingly obvious...its because he didnt matter. If they believed him, he would have mattered...ergo......voila......they didnt believe him.

You can acknowledge the obvious or say "we need more study on this before concludng anything", but this is a really easy one to address and I personally want to work on issues that arent as obviously solved. Isreal did not matter....therefore, when constructing scenarios to understand that last half hour, remove from the equation an event that was claimed but unproven and not seen or heard by anyone. Not that risky really.

Take him out of this picture, use what is believed. And can be sustained. In the best situation, corroborative witness evidence. See? See why 4 men all stating Louis was there before 12:45 should be compelling evidence for that period.

[Sunny Delight]

The manner of death could be accidental, willfully committed, a result of suicide..there are variables. The HOW is the only question here, and Israel would have impacted what they perceived.

As I said, investigating his story briefly after it was given, and still not including him in the Inquest shows us that at the time of the Inquest, he was not of any value to the primary question.

And people like yourself stating that we cant be sure why he wasnt invited along is just head in the sand arguing. Its bleedingly obvious...its because he didnt matter. If they believed him, he would have mattered...ergo......voila......they didnt believe him.

You can acknowledge the obvious or say "we need more study on this before concludng anything", but this is a really easy one to address and I personally want to work on issues that arent as obviously solved. Isreal did not matter....therefore, when constructing scenarios to understand that last half hour, remove from the equation an event that was claimed but unproven and not seen or heard by anyone. Not that risky really.

Take him out of this picture, use what is believed. And can be sustained. In the best situation, corroborative witness evidence. See? See why 4 men all stating Louis was there before 12:45 should be compelling evidence for that period.

That is interesting that there were 4 men stating 12:45am as the time for Diemschitz. What were they using to estimate their timings do we know? That would be important. Spooner(is he one of the four) estimated due to the pubs closing times. Not very reliable. What about the others? You also seem to imply that Schwartz was not of any value to the primary question yet weeks later the Police were still using his desciption of B.S. man. Here is a thought. Evidence comes to light that seemingly discredits Schwartz before the inquest. Or at least leaves his evidence open to question? But soon after this evidence is dismissed as unreliable and the Police re-instate Schwartz and his description as key??

[Herlock Sholmes]

The manner of death could be accidental, willfully committed, a result of suicide..there are variables. The HOW is the only question here, and Israel would have impacted what they perceived.

As I said, investigating his story briefly after it was given, and still not including him in the Inquest shows us that at the time of the Inquest, he was not of any value to the primary question.

And people like yourself stating that we cant be sure why he wasnt invited along is just head in the sand arguing. Its bleedingly obvious...its because he didnt matter. If they believed him, he would have mattered...ergo......voila......they didnt believe him.

You can acknowledge the obvious or say "we need more study on this before concludng anything", but this is a really easy one to address and I personally want to work on issues that arent as obviously solved. Isreal did not matter....therefore, when constructing scenarios to understand that last half hour, remove from the equation an event that was claimed but unproven and not seen or heard by anyone. Not that risky really.

Take him out of this picture, use what is believed. And can be sustained. In the best situation, corroborative witness evidence. See? See why 4 men all stating Louis was there before 12:45 should be compelling evidence for that period.

A sadly typical post.

Please present the evidence that disproves any alternative explanation. Then again I know that you have no intention of doing so because you know very well that it’s just a case of you wanting your explanation to be true. It’s desperate wish-thinking. Opinion stated as fact. It’s a poor way of looking at any case.

And no, you don’t want to ‘work on issues’ you just want to keep on pushing a theory that no one else believes by employing your usual methods of selective evidence assessment. You just want to keep parroting the same old stuff then ignoring the responses. Basically you just want to keep sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring what others post because you think that all we need to do is to come up with a scenario and that would equate to a solution. All that we get is constant ducking and diving away from facing the obvious. If we measure a theory’s legitimacy by how many in the same field agree with you then yours should have been dismissed 10 years ago Michael.

....

I don’t know why I waste time even asking very simple questions because you usually ignore them by ‘disappearing’ for a couple of days or by providing an answer to a question that you want to answer rather than the one that was actually asked. But I will, following on from Sunny Delight’s post, ask one. So for the 94th time......

Why, when you assess Spooner, do you take as gospel his estimate of 12.35 when you yourself admitted that we have to factor in his first chat, his walk to his final position, then his guess of 25 minutes chatting time all based around pub closing times. Even you admitted that this could have been a fair bit later than 12.35.but......

YOU COMPLETELY DISMISS THE PART OF THE SAME STATEMENT WHERE HE SAID THAT HE WAS AT THE YARD 5 MINUTES BEFORE LAMB.

If this isn’t simply the dismissal of the inconvenient what is it? The part you support has so many possible variables that it’s about as shaky as possible. But the part in capitals (the one that you conveniently ignore Michael) is based on one very simple thing. Was Spooner capable of making a reasonable estimate of 5 minutes?

Could Lamb have arrived at 12.40? - definitely not.
Could Spooner have misjudged 5 minutes for 25 minutes? - of course not.

And so the latter is vastly more likely than the former and this is glaringly obvious. But here on the Grassy Knoll you go for the former. It’s like being in a never ending Ripperological Parrot Sketch. This theory is no more Michael. It is an ex-theory. It’s run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible.


Of course I don’t expect a proper answer to this but hey, I’m used to that.

[Michael W Richards]

Herlock, your consistently disputing statements that are in print, on the record, by using solitary quotes is something Im used to as well. So. Are you ever going to accept the realities of those statements or continue to support a discreditted witness with zero corroberation? To argue about whether 4 people givig the same times...again, all 4 gave times with 5 minutes of the others and all were from 12:35-12:45, have more substance than individual, biased witnesses who give times and actions that no-one corroberates still seems so bizarre. But you like doing it I guess.

So carry on with your fantasies, but please refrain from disparaging those of us who deal with the realities.

[JeffHamm]

While it is highly probable they would want Schwartz at the inquest, don't forget how hard it was for them to find people. Think of the pensioner, Mary Jane Kelly's family (never located), the sister of the woman who misidentified Stride (also a witness they didn't believe, but she was there and willing to testify, so they let her - there are other witnesses whose testimony they were not fully confident in but who testified. They didn't leave people out because they were unsure of their statements, they only left people out who didn't show up.

Swartz, for some reason, didn't show up. The police, at the time, were searching for Lipski families in the area in case Schwartz was right and Lipski was shouted at Pipeman (though that seemed unlikely, the police were following up his statement exactly as he gave it, as if someone by the name of Lipski was involved). Scwhartz may simply have not wanted to get involved, he may have been frightened, he may not have received the summons for some reason (or didn't understand what it was), and so forth. There are lots of simple reasons, any of which could be the case. Not believing his testimony is not one of them, as there are various examples of testimony given by witnesses which they have other witnesses to show the first was wrong. Yet, they still put all the statements on record of those they could get.

- Jeff

[Sunny Delight]

While it is highly probable they would want Schwartz at the inquest, don't forget how hard it was for them to find people. Think of the pensioner, Mary Jane Kelly's family (never located), the sister of the woman who misidentified Stride (also a witness they didn't believe, but she was there and willing to testify, so they let her - there are other witnesses whose testimony they were not fully confident in but who testified. They didn't leave people out because they were unsure of their statements, they only left people out who didn't show up.

Swartz, for some reason, didn't show up. The police, at the time, were searching for Lipski families in the area in case Schwartz was right and Lipski was shouted at Pipeman (though that seemed unlikely, the police were following up his statement exactly as he gave it, as if someone by the name of Lipski was involved). Scwhartz may simply have not wanted to get involved, he may have been frightened, he may not have received the summons for some reason (or didn't understand what it was), and so forth. There are lots of simple reasons, any of which could be the case. Not believing his testimony is not one of them, as there are various examples of testimony given by witnesses which they have other witnesses to show the first was wrong. Yet, they still put all the statements on record of those they could get.

- Jeff

So even if his statement had been discredited in some way this would not have been an impediment to testitying at the inquest? In that case it seems then it must have been a simple reason that we just haven't happened upon so long aftee the event. I think it is almost certain the Police placed a great deal of faith in Schwartz statement although the 15 minute difference between seeing the attack and finding the body leaves room for some doubt that B.S man was the Ripper. I think Donald Swanson eluded to this at one stage. I must say all the comments on here are great and really offering me a great deal of information I wasn't particularly aware of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, your consistently disputing statements that are in print, on the record, by using solitary quotes is something Im used to as well. So. Are you ever going to accept the realities of those statements or continue to support a discreditted witness with zero corroberation? To argue about whether 4 people givig the same times...again, all 4 gave times with 5 minutes of the others and all were from 12:35-12:45, have more substance than individual, biased witnesses who give times and actions that no-one corroberates still seems so bizarre. But you like doing it I guess.

So carry on with your fantasies, but please refrain from disparaging those of us who deal with the realities.

Nothing changes.

As predicted a complete refusal to answer an inconvenient and very simple question.

5 MINUTES BEFORE LAMB’S ARRIVAL IS NOT 12.35 ON THIS PLANET. ITS ALSO A PART OF HIS STATEMENT WHICH IS ‘IN PRINT’ AND ‘ON THE RECORD.’

A perfect and self-damning piece of selective evidence assessment......again

[Herlock Sholmes]

While it is highly probable they would want Schwartz at the inquest, don't forget how hard it was for them to find people. Think of the pensioner, Mary Jane Kelly's family (never located), the sister of the woman who misidentified Stride (also a witness they didn't believe, but she was there and willing to testify, so they let her - there are other witnesses whose testimony they were not fully confident in but who testified. They didn't leave people out because they were unsure of their statements, they only left people out who didn't show up.

Swartz, for some reason, didn't show up. The police, at the time, were searching for Lipski families in the area in case Schwartz was right and Lipski was shouted at Pipeman (though that seemed unlikely, the police were following up his statement exactly as he gave it, as if someone by the name of Lipski was involved). Scwhartz may simply have not wanted to get involved, he may have been frightened, he may not have received the summons for some reason (or didn't understand what it was), and so forth. There are lots of simple reasons, any of which could be the case. Not believing his testimony is not one of them, as there are various examples of testimony given by witnesses which they have other witnesses to show the first was wrong. Yet, they still put all the statements on record of those they could get.

- Jeff

Reasoned and logical as ever Jeff

Sadly Michael is impervious to both because he has a theory to defend.