If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

The problem is SD that Michael’s theory requires Schwartz absence from the crime scene. We don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest so Michael (and at least 2 other posters agree with him) state it as a fact that the police had discredited his evidence. This is stating opinion as fact of course and as Jeff points out it’s very obvious from the evidence that the police hadn’t dismissed his evidence. In fact they searched for someone called Lipski on the strength of it. They even took one man in for questioning on the strength of it. And we have Abberline and other senior officers in print talking about Schwartz as a witness during and after the Inquest. This should tell us all that we need to know about whether the police had dismissed Schwartz or not. They very obviously hadn’t.

At the end of the day we don’t know why he wasn’t at the Inquest. We can conjecture but we can’t claim to know. Well, sadly some try to claim that they know but they don’t. Yes we would have expected him to have been there even though he could have added little or nothing of use to an Inquest but he wasn’t. As Jeff said, maybe he was due to show up but he didn’t. Maybe they couldn’t find him to tell him to show up because he’d gone into hiding because he feared reprisals from BS Man? These are just suggestions but they can’t be impossible and so shouldn’t be dismissed unless bias is allowed to take over.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Yes, there are various examples of testimony given at the inquest that the police clearly were not very confident in. Pearly Poll, for example, was not considered a very useful witness in the Tabram case (she hid from the police, seemed to take the identifying of soldiers as a bit of a joke, etc) yet she still testified.

The police were, however, actively pursuing lines of investigation based upon Schwartz's statement to them, and there's nothing to indicate they had lost faith in what he told them. I was just pointing out that even if they had doubts about his statement, that was not a reason to not invite him - it wasn't a reason for other witnesses who testified remember. We don't know why Schwartz doesn't appear at the inquest, we only know he didn't. Insisting it was because the police didn't believe him is to ignore the fact that others they did not believe were allowed to testify, in particular, Stride's identification was delayed for that very reason as they allowed the woman to misidentify her (and it seems pretty clear they were suspect of her identification from the start). Given identification of the body is a primary objective of an inquest, if they let her testify then there's no basis for arguing that they would not let Schwartz testify. Therefore, his lack of being at the inquest is for some other reason than police not believing him (mind you, that isn't to say it proves the police did believe him, I'm only pointing out he wasn't blocked from appearing by the police or coroner). What proves the police took him seriously is there search efforts for the Lipski's in the area, which was ongoing and took a lot of resources (and even then, they were of the opinion that Lipski was probably shouted at Schwartz himself, and that Schwartz's belief it was shouted at Pipeman was incorrect).

- Jeff

[Sunny Delight]

Yes, there are various examples of testimony given at the inquest that the police clearly were not very confident in. Pearly Poll, for example, was not considered a very useful witness in the Tabram case (she hid from the police, seemed to take the identifying of soldiers as a bit of a joke, etc) yet she still testified.

The police were, however, actively pursuing lines of investigation based upon Schwartz's statement to them, and there's nothing to indicate they had lost faith in what he told them. I was just pointing out that even if they had doubts about his statement, that was not a reason to not invite him - it wasn't a reason for other witnesses who testified remember. We don't know why Schwartz doesn't appear at the inquest, we only know he didn't. Insisting it was because the police didn't believe him is to ignore the fact that others they did not believe were allowed to testify, in particular, Stride's identification was delayed for that very reason as they allowed the woman to misidentify her (and it seems pretty clear they were suspect of her identification from the start). Given identification of the body is a primary objective of an inquest, if they let her testify then there's no basis for arguing that they would not let Schwartz testify. Therefore, his lack of being at the inquest is for some other reason than police not believing him (mind you, that isn't to say it proves the police did believe him, I'm only pointing out he wasn't blocked from appearing by the police or coroner). What proves the police took him seriously is there search efforts for the Lipski's in the area, which was ongoing and took a lot of resources (and even then, they were of the opinion that Lipski was probably shouted at Schwartz himself, and that Schwartz's belief it was shouted at Pipeman was incorrect).

- Jeff

Thanks Jeff. Whatever the reason it probably was something simple as is often the case with these things. Conspiracy theories often build up around such cases of incomplete infornation- the truth is always far less dramatic, often even downright boring. But yes good point on Lipski as the Police were searching the area for Lipski's for quite a few weeks. A strange thing to do if they didn't believe Schwartz evidence.

[Sunny Delight]

The problem is SD that Michael’s theory requires Schwartz absence from the crime scene. We don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest so Michael (and at least 2 other posters agree with him) state it as a fact that the police had discredited his evidence. This is stating opinion as fact of course and as Jeff points out it’s very obvious from the evidence that the police hadn’t dismissed his evidence. In fact they searched for someone called Lipski on the strength of it. They even took one man in for questioning on the strength of it. And we have Abberline and other senior officers in print talking about Schwartz as a witness during and after the Inquest. This should tell us all that we need to know about whether the police had dismissed Schwartz or not. They very obviously hadn’t.

At the end of the day we don’t know why he wasn’t at the Inquest. We can conjecture but we can’t claim to know. Well, sadly some try to claim that they know but they don’t. Yes we would have expected him to have been there even though he could have added little or nothing of use to an Inquest but he wasn’t. As Jeff said, maybe he was due to show up but he didn’t. Maybe they couldn’t find him to tell him to show up because he’d gone into hiding because he feared reprisals from BS Man? These are just suggestions but they can’t be impossible and so shouldn’t be dismissed unless bias is allowed to take over.

Theories are fun, I even had my own a page back but I wouldn't be wedded to anything really. It is important to remain open minded. You are quite right that claiming something that is unknown as a fact only takes away from a theory rather than enhancing it. From the available evidence though it is clear Schwartz was not discredited. Him not appearing at the inquest for whatever reason does not nullify the facts that the Police were looking for Lipski's in the area for weeks afterwards. It also does not take away from the fact Schwartz description of the man he saw being used weeks after the event by Police.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Theories are fun, I even had my own a page back but I wouldn't be wedded to anything really. It is important to remain open minded. You are quite right that claiming something that is unknown as a fact only takes away from a theory rather than enhancing it. From the available evidence though it is clear Schwartz was not discredited. Him not appearing at the inquest for whatever reason does not nullify the facts that the Police were looking for Lipski's in the area for weeks afterwards. It also does not take away from the fact Schwartz description of the man he saw being used weeks after the event by Police.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with a theory SD, or coming up with a scenario. Michael has come up with a scenario which he believes fits the evidence but, even if it did fit the evidence, it still wouldn’t make it true. The problem is that we have to assess the evidence and not just take it at face value. For eg, Mortimer said that she went onto her doorstep just after PC Smith passed at 12.45 and so Michael takes this as evidence that Schwartz wasn’t there because Mortimer didn’t see him. But if we ‘assess’ her evidence we know that Smith himself said that he passed 10 minutes or more earlier. And so if Smith was correct then Mortimer would have been inside when Schwartz passed. So what’s more likely? Schwartz lied for no reason to put himself alone at the scene of a murder that was bound to be attributed to the most wanted man in the country or...Smith was correct on his time rather than Mortimer? We might also ask, if Smith passed at 12.45 why didn’t he see anyone standing around a body in the yard in Michael’s scenario? Another example of assessing is Spooner of course. He estimated his time of 12.35 at the yard by using pub closing times and judging how long it took for him to walk to his final spot and then judging the 25 minutes he’d stood talking or do we go with the fact that he said that he’d been at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb arrived (which incidentally is corroborated by Diemschutz passing.) It’s pretty obvious what the most reliable time. Then Hoschberg who said that he arrived at the yard at 12.45 after hearing a policeman’s whistle. He got there to a yard full of people. Clearly he was mistaken in his estimation of the time. Eagle said Gilleman called him to see the body around 1.00 more confirmation of the time of discovery.

[Renascor]

I'm new to the Casebook forum so please bear with me. I've recently read Tom Wescott's excellent Ripper Confidential book. It strikes me as strange that Israel Schwartz was absent from the area on September 29th while his wife spent the day moving from Berner Street to their new home in Ellen Street. I would have thought that moving house would be something a husband would be actively involved in. Unless, perhaps, he was at work. Any idea why he was not helping with the move?

[Sunny Delight]

There’s certainly nothing wrong with a theory SD, or coming up with a scenario. Michael has come up with a scenario which he believes fits the evidence but, even if it did fit the evidence, it still wouldn’t make it true. The problem is that we have to assess the evidence and not just take it at face value. For eg, Mortimer said that she went onto her doorstep just after PC Smith passed at 12.45 and so Michael takes this as evidence that Schwartz wasn’t there because Mortimer didn’t see him. But if we ‘assess’ her evidence we know that Smith himself said that he passed 10 minutes or more earlier. And so if Smith was correct then Mortimer would have been inside when Schwartz passed. So what’s more likely? Schwartz lied for no reason to put himself alone at the scene of a murder that was bound to be attributed to the most wanted man in the country or...Smith was correct on his time rather than Mortimer? We might also ask, if Smith passed at 12.45 why didn’t he see anyone standing around a body in the yard in Michael’s scenario? Another example of assessing is Spooner of course. He estimated his time of 12.35 at the yard by using pub closing times and judging how long it took for him to walk to his final spot and then judging the 25 minutes he’d stood talking or do we go with the fact that he said that he’d been at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb arrived (which incidentally is corroborated by Diemschutz passing.) It’s pretty obvious what the most reliable time. Then Hoschberg who said that he arrived at the yard at 12.45 after hearing a policeman’s whistle. He got there to a yard full of people. Clearly he was mistaken in his estimation of the time. Eagle said Gilleman called him to see the body around 1.00 more confirmation of the time of discovery.

In regards Spooner- how far away was he from Berner Street. He did say he was with a young woman- probably his girlfriend. He couldn't have been the couple Mortimer spoke about by any chance? The geography of London is quite unknown to me really. I find it hard to work out exactly where these people were when they state the different streets etc. Ps yes I dont think there is much doubt around 1am is the time that Diemschitz found Stride's body.

[Michael W Richards]

Reasoned and logical as ever Jeff

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

Just a low tolerance for Rebuttal 101 and Reality avoidance.

Lamb said he saw 2 men at 1:00 in the street...gee, didnt Louis say he arrived at 1am?....it was Eagle and Issac k he went into the yard with, Issac says he saw Eagle returning to the yard with a constable just after 1...gee, isnt it impossible for Eagle to be returning at 1:00 if Louis didnt discover the body until just after 1?....gee, doesnt Lamb say a few other people were gathered there just after 1am, so why did they gather before Louis arrived? So...Why did Eagle leave before 1am for help? Why did Issac K say he left alone to find help at 12:40 and saw Eagle on his return just after 1? How did Louis arrive at 1 when Fanny is at her door and for the five minutes leading up to 1 she sees only Goldstein pass at 12:55-56?

Why do 4 friggin people state that they, along with others, were alerted to the dying woman from 12:35 to 12:45?

You cited Lamb many times, yet its very, very clear that his story fits precisely with Issac K...who said he went for help around 12:40.

The ridiculousness of you argument is concrete placed on the sea....it sinks without any effort.

Louis is ON RECORD saying he arrived "precisely" at 1 because he checked the clock on his way in, yet many, many people say they knew of the body and saw Louis there well before 1am and Fanny saw no cart and horse arrive "precisely"at 1..she was standing right there.

I cant argue the same idiocy over and over again, so just post your Rebuttal 101 amatuer spin on fact interpretation and lets just move on so it can be forgotten.

[caz]

In regards Spooner- how far away was he from Berner Street. He did say he was with a young woman- probably his girlfriend. He couldn't have been the couple Mortimer spoke about by any chance? The geography of London is quite unknown to me really. I find it hard to work out exactly where these people were when they state the different streets etc. Ps yes I dont think there is much doubt around 1am is the time that Diemschitz found Stride's body.

Spot on, Sunny. The only reason I can see for anyone doubting this is if they have some ridiculous, unworkable conspiracy theory to defend.

Also, what would Schwartz have had to gain from inventing the story as he told it [not the interpretation put on it by the authorities], or lying about the circumstances? If the police had been able to disprove it or show that he lied about any aspect of it, he could have been charged with wasting their time or even perverting the course of justice. This was a murder enquiry, not a game of charades.

Oh and there were not 4 witnesses who all gave a reliable earlier time for the discovery of Stride's body. Even if all 4 had come up with the same or similar estimated time, that wouldn't make it reliable, because there are other factors to consider, from their individual accounts. At least one of the 4 gave an estimated time that was physically impossible. I'm thinking of the one who heard the phantom police whistle.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Spot on, Sunny. The only reason I can see for anyone doubting this is if they have some ridiculous, unworkable conspiracy theory to defend.

Also, what would Schwartz have had to gain from inventing the story as he told it [not the interpretation put on it by the authorities], or lying about the circumstances? If the police had been able to disprove it or show that he lied about any aspect of it, he could have been charged with wasting their time or even perverting the course of justice. This was a murder enquiry, not a game of charades.

Oh and there were not 4 witnesses who all gave a reliable earlier time for the discovery of Stride's body. Even if all 4 had come up with the same or similar estimated time, that wouldn't make it reliable, because there are other factors to consider, from their individual accounts. At least one of the 4 gave an estimated time that was physically impossible. I'm thinking of the one who heard the phantom police whistle.

Love,

Caz
X

When you use the vast majority of witness timings and only witness accounts that are corroborative and without pre-"conspiring" to have them appear that way, ridiculous and unworkable actually become the contrasting ideas, not the mirrors reflection of a 12:40-12:45 ish discovery. So...actually the polar opposite of your disparaging remarks.

When witnesses claim to hear something and see nothing is one thing, to then to state a "whistle" sound belonged to this policeman at this location is absurd. Someone heard a cart and horse, someone heard a whistle, and people like yourselve make that into specific people doing specific actions in specific directions. Which again, is ludicrous. Sounds are notoriously difficult to pinpoint an original source without visuals, but of course, you know that and just play this part to be insulting.

Israel Scwrzt did not haveanything to offer in the question of How Liz Stride dies by virtue of his absence in all forms at the Inquest into that very question. His statements contents make his ommission unthinkable..unless of course it was also a lie or unprovable. Like Louis arriving at "precisely" 1.

Spooners description of whe he left the pub, how they walked to the Beehive and how long he was there before he saw 2 jews...he never said he saw Louis, or Morris, he said 2 jews, and we know by virtue of Issac Ks remarksthat he also was out looking for a cop around 12;40-12-45...is perfectly compatible with his estimation he saw those men well before 1am.

You and some others argue a baseball is square and suggest a football is actually round...you claim something that is easily proven incorrect. Your beliefs taint your own intellect I guess.

Louis provably did not arrive "precisely" at 1am. Issac K did not accompany Louis, despite all those who suggest Issacs was actually Issac K. Not one witness corroborates Eagles return time, Louis's return time, or Israel Schwartzs statement. Which since he is known to have been friends with Wess, isnt complicated to understand. A dead woman suddenly is alive again outside the gates after the last time she is actually seen alive, and is attacked by an anti semite now no less....which is very fortunate for the club, because she is found dead on a property populated at that time by ONLY Jews. So Only Jews and on thier property...vs An antisemite, off the grounds. And you dont see how that is a relief to the Club?

The evidence as far as witnesses is concerned is overwhelmingly in favour of an arrival time of Louis by, or before 12:45. No other stories have any kind of second party verification. None.

But claim you know the real story...go ahead. Its your thang.

[Michael W Richards]

When you use the vast majority of witness timings and only witness accounts that are corroborative and without pre-"conspiring" to have them appear that way, ridiculous and unworkable actually become the contrary contrasting ideas, not the mirrors reflection of a 12:40-12:45 ish discovery. So...actually the polar opposite of your disparaging remarks.

When witnesses claim to hear something and see nothing is one thing, to then to state a "whistle" sound belonged to this policeman at this location is absurd. Someone heard a cart and horse, someone heard a whistle, and people like yourselve make that into specific people doing specific actions in specific directions. Which again, is ludicrous. Sounds are notoriously difficult to pinpoint an original source without visuals, but of course, you know that and just play this part to be insulting.

Israel Scwrzt did not haveanything to offer in the question of How Liz Stride dies by virtue of his absence in all forms at the Inquest into that very question. His statements contents make his ommission unthinkable..unless of course it was also a lie or unprovable. Like Louis arriving at "precisely" 1.

Spooners description of whe he left the pub, how they walked to the Beehive and how long he was there before he saw 2 jews...he never said he saw Louis, or Morris, he said 2 jews, and we know by virtue of Issac Ks remarksthat he also was out looking for a cop around 12:40-12-45...is perfectly compatible with his estimation he saw those men well before 1am.

You and some others argue a baseball is square and suggest a football is actually round...you claim something that is easily proven incorrect. Your beliefs taint your own intellect I guess.

Louis provably did not arrive "precisely" at 1am. Issac K did not accompany Louis, despite all those who suggest Issacs was actually Issac K. Not one witness corroborates Eagles return time, Louis's return time, or Israel Schwartzs statement. Which since he is known to have been friends with Wess, isnt complicated to understand. A dead woman suddenly is alive again outside the gates after the last time she is actually seen alive, and is attacked by an anti semite now no less....which is very fortunate for the club, because she is found dead on a property populated at that time by ONLY Jews. So Only Jews and on thier property...vs An antisemite, off the grounds. And you dont see how that is a relief to the Club?

The evidence as far as witnesses is concerned is overwhelmingly in favour of an arrival time of Louis by, or before 12:45. No other stories have any kind of second party verification. None.

But claim you know the real story...go ahead. Its your thang.

Its not rocket science....when you have 4 people that give independant accounts of one thing and all agree on virtually all pertinent details....and you then are asked to compare them with individual accounts that are all without any second hand verification or corroboration to see whom to believe, the balance of belief should be the opposite to what people like Herlock and Caz claim.

[Michael W Richards]

In case its still not clear....it appears that Louis arrived before 12:45, summoned people to the body and sent some for help, he then stood around with the other people gathered until just after 1, when he and Eagle finally go for help in different directions.

[Michael W Richards]

Rhetorical question.....at what time did the Arbeter Fraint issue published following Liz Strides death say the body was discovered by members? The paper that Wess ran. The paper that was printed in that yard. What was that time? Naysayers? Pretenders to the truth....anyone? Yeah....12:45.

[Joshua Rogan]

Rhetorical question.....at what time did the Arbeter Fraint issue published following Liz Strides death say the body was discovered by members? The paper that Wess ran. The paper that was printed in that yard. What was that time? Naysayers? Pretenders to the truth....anyone? Yeah....12:45.

Are you sure about that?

"At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body."

[Sunny Delight]

Its not rocket science....when you have 4 people that give independant accounts of one thing and all agree on virtually all pertinent details....and you then are asked to compare them with individual accounts that are all without any second hand verification or corroboration to see whom to believe, the balance of belief should be the opposite to what people like Herlock and Caz claim.

Morris Eagle was asked what time the body was found- he replied. "It must have been about one o'clock"

Louis Diemschitz stated: "On Saturday 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".

Constable Lamb stated: "Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder."

Edward Spooner: "Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder."

Dr. Blackwell: "On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman".


Edward Johnson: "On Sunday morning last, at a few minutes past one o'clock, I received a call from Constable 436 H. After informing Dr. Blackwell, who was in bed, of the case, I accompanied the officer to Berner-street"

James Brown was on the street at 12:45am. "I did not know deceased, but I saw her about a quarter to one on Sunday morning last."(his testimony is not fully accepted that he saw Stride. To be fair to him he ssemed fairly certain it was her)..

Then we have Fanny Mortimer who sees Leon Goldstein at 12:55am passing through Berner Street. So that is important as it means there was no commotion at this stage.

We also have Schwartz claiming an assault on Stride at 12:45am at the entrance of Dutfields yard. It seems to me that the four guys claiming 12:45 as the time the body was found as mistaken.