If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
and he thinks the Inquest organizers believed Israel Schwartz despite the fact he is left out of it entirely. He thinks that. Has he been able to find any proof of that?..................................no. But he rudely and persistently insults those who call him out for it

But David has presented proof. Using evidence. References, sources. You know.....proper evidence and not just your biased opinion. Not just a ‘because it suits you’ belief.

Ill say it again, the suggestion that Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest because he wasn’t believed by the police is no longer a valid argument. Categorically game over.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please explain to everyone why you dismiss the FACT that Spooner said that he’d been at the yard for 5 minutes before Lamb got there? ANC while your at it perhaps you might explain why you said that he never said it.

Prediction time...........SILENCE

[JeffHamm]

I'm sure that it won't, Michael.


OK, here's the sequenceline as I posted it on the thread "Sequence of comings & goings - Stride" https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-goings-stride


As per the Evening News of 1 October “a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.” According to this same newspaper edition Mrs. Mortimer saw that “A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.”
It seems that Mortimer spoke to the girl after the discovery of Stride’s lifeless body in the yard. And it could well be that Brown actually saw this girl with her boyfriend and not Stride. If we’re supposing this was the same couple, then:

1. this couple must have been standing there, just as Mortimer says, before and after the murder was committed and perhaps even during, although they may have moved a bit away from Berner Street while they were talking, still remaining within 50 yards of the yard
2. the couple were still there after the discovery, as it would seem both Mortimer and the Evening News talked to the girl about the period that they had been standing there
3. Mortimer doesn’t claim to have seen Brown pass, so it would seem that Mortimer wasn’t at her door when this happened; in other words, she must have come at her door after he passed
4. as neither Mortimer, Brown or the couple heard or saw anything of the Schwarz incident, the incident took place before the couple arrived at the corner of the board school

So, this is the sequence based on the above 4 points:

1. couple arrives at the corner of the board school
2. Brown passes and sees the couple
3. Mortimer comes to her door
4. Leon Goldstein passes
5. Mortimer goes back inside

The problematic period is between, say, 12:30 and the Schwartz incident.
We have quite a few things happening at or around 12:30 am:
- Charles Letchford arrives home
- William Wess, his brother and Louis Stansley leave the club by the steet door to go home
- Joseph Lave came out to get a breath of fresh air and stayed out for some 10 minutes
None of them saw each other or anyone else – or if they did, they didn’t say so.
Then there’s Morris Eagle who arrives back at the club at around 12:40 am

So, this may be the sequence based on the above:

1. Wess & company leave
2. Letchford arrives
3. Lave goes outside (and remains there for 5 to 10 minutes)
4. Eagle returns to the club

Then we’re left with the arrival of Stride & companion in the vicinity of the club, followed by Smith’s arrival when he sees them opposite the yard and the Schwartz incident, that must have taken place before the couple seen by Brown & Mortimer arrives at the corner of the board school. Since the men above don’t mention Smith and/or Stride & companion and Smith only mentions Stride & companion and none of the above, it seems logical that Stride arrives at the scene after Eagle returns to the club.

So, the most logical sequence based on the above seems:

1. Stride & companion arrive close to the club
2. Smith arrives and sees Stride & companion opposite the club
3. Stride, now alone, is standing at the entrance of the yard when Schwartz sees an altercation commence between Stride and a man who had been walking ahead of him

The complete sequence, including the period after the discovery of Stride’s body, is then as follows:

1. Wess & company leave / Letchford arrives
2. Letchford arrives / Wess & company leave
3. Lave goes outside (and remains there for 5 to 10 minutes)
4. Eagle returns to the club
5. Stride & companion arrive close to the club
6. Smith arrives and sees Stride & companion opposite the club Stride, now alone, is standing at the entrance of the yard when Schwartz sees an altercation between Stride and a man who had been walking ahead of him
7. couple arrives at the corner of the board school
8. Brown passes and sees the couple
9. Mortimer comes to her door
10. Leon Goldstein passes the club
11. Mortimer goes back inside
12. Louis Diemshutz arrives in the yard and discovers Stride
13. Diemshutz & Kozebrodski run south searching for a policeman, Eagle north
14. Edward Spooner arrives at the scene together with Diemshutz; Kozebrodski joins Eagle and they find P.C. Lamb; Mortimer enters the yard (she sees Spooner touch Stride’s face – Evening News, 1 October)
15. P.C. Lamb arrives, followed by another P.C. (426 H)
16. P.C. 426 is sent for Blackwell, Eagle for Inspector Pinhorn and blows his whistle
17. P.C. Albert Collins arrives as a result of the whistle (Smith sees 2 constables on his arrival and PC 426 isn’t at the scene then)
18. P.C. Smith arrives at the scene
19. As Edward Johnson, Blackwell’s assistant, arrives with PC 426, Smith leaves to get the ambulance
20. Lamb closes the gates
21. Dr. Blackwell arrives at the scene
22. Inspector Pinhorn arrives
23. Dr. Phillips arrives

I’ve left the times out so they can't get in the way, but if we want to put times to each coming or going, I think that everything should start with Blackwell’s timing, as he consulted his watch when he arrived in the yard. Furthermore, I’m not claiming that the list above MUST be correct, so anybody who wants to have a go at it, be my guest. And, of course, if we'd assume that Brown did see Stride & companion and not the couple Mortimer spoke to, then something might change.

All the best,
Frank

Hi FrankO,

This is great. I'm trying to put together simulations of the various comings and goings for the various crimes (something I had done for Mitre Square a while ago, and have put together a more flexible version to allow me to work on the others as well), and this summary will be very helpful to keep track of all the people involved in the Stride case. After that, it's a matter of trying to go through the various stated times, working out which are based upon clock's and watches, and which are based upon estimates (some estimates being relative times to other people's comings and goings, others being estimates of absolute times, and so forth), and seeing if a coherent set of events can be created once one factors in the distance people said they travelled and the associated times, etc. So far things are looking good, but there's a lot of information to try and tie in, so it's too early to say what will be the end result.

Regardless, and this may take quite a bit of time as there's some programming necessary that may take me awhile to find the time to do, I'll eventually post the results of what I find. While simulations are not exact recreation of events, and indeed will reflect events as they are told rather than magically recreating reality, they can be useful in evaluating if what was said is plausible or not. (i.e. If someone states they went from A to B and back, and that this took them 3 minutes, then one can work out if traveling that distance is possible in the time they state. In the Eddowes case things work out very well, but there are far fewer people involved, and a much more restricted time frame. The Stride case is probably the most complicated, but I digress).

- Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks Tom. As you say his estimation was off and based on various things including pub closing times, standing around times, walking time, the estimated time for a conversation etc and this from a man with no watch or clock available to consult. This doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have estimated correctly of course but it was fertile ground for error. What’s more solid of course is that he said that he’d been in the yard for 5 minutes before Lamb arrived. We know that Lamb arrived some time shortly after 1.00. So according to Michael, who believes that Spooner arrived at the yard at 12.35, he wasn’t just slightly out in his estimation of how long he’d been there before Lamb arrived, he was a whole 30 minutes out. We have to allow a bit of leeway with witnesses of course but not 30 minutes. Everything points to Spooner reaching that yard just after 1.00.

I stopped posting actively on the Stride threads some years ago (maybe a decade?) largely because they had become the Mike Richards (then Perry Mason) show. Mike's approach to the case appears to be as a contrarian. Even where there's a clear and obvious solution to a problem, he enjoys taking an opposing stance. This can be healthy as one of many tools used in evaluating evidence, but as the sole tool it's bound to become frustrating and pointless. I don't know how Mike has the stamina he does to keep going on and on against an ever-revolving door of sparring partners. It's almost admirable in a sad sort of way.

As for Schwartz, I believe the reason he didn't appear at the inquest is precisely the reason I published in Ripper Confidential. It's the only explanation that makes sense of all the known evidence, and is supported somewhat by the rather pointed Star editor's comments in the Oct. 3rd edition.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm sure that it won't, Michael.


OK, here's the sequenceline as I posted it on the thread "Sequence of comings & goings - Stride" https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-goings-stride


As per the Evening News of 1 October “a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.” According to this same newspaper edition Mrs. Mortimer saw that “A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.”
It seems that Mortimer spoke to the girl after the discovery of Stride’s lifeless body in the yard. And it could well be that Brown actually saw this girl with her boyfriend and not Stride. If we’re supposing this was the same couple, then:

1. this couple must have been standing there, just as Mortimer says, before and after the murder was committed and perhaps even during, although they may have moved a bit away from Berner Street while they were talking, still remaining within 50 yards of the yard
2. the couple were still there after the discovery, as it would seem both Mortimer and the Evening News talked to the girl about the period that they had been standing there
3. Mortimer doesn’t claim to have seen Brown pass, so it would seem that Mortimer wasn’t at her door when this happened; in other words, she must have come at her door after he passed
4. as neither Mortimer, Brown or the couple heard or saw anything of the Schwarz incident, the incident took place before the couple arrived at the corner of the board school

So, this is the sequence based on the above 4 points:

1. couple arrives at the corner of the board school
2. Brown passes and sees the couple
3. Mortimer comes to her door
4. Leon Goldstein passes
5. Mortimer goes back inside

The problematic period is between, say, 12:30 and the Schwartz incident.
We have quite a few things happening at or around 12:30 am:
- Charles Letchford arrives home
- William Wess, his brother and Louis Stansley leave the club by the steet door to go home
- Joseph Lave came out to get a breath of fresh air and stayed out for some 10 minutes
None of them saw each other or anyone else – or if they did, they didn’t say so.
Then there’s Morris Eagle who arrives back at the club at around 12:40 am

So, this may be the sequence based on the above:

1. Wess & company leave
2. Letchford arrives
3. Lave goes outside (and remains there for 5 to 10 minutes)
4. Eagle returns to the club

Then we’re left with the arrival of Stride & companion in the vicinity of the club, followed by Smith’s arrival when he sees them opposite the yard and the Schwartz incident, that must have taken place before the couple seen by Brown & Mortimer arrives at the corner of the board school. Since the men above don’t mention Smith and/or Stride & companion and Smith only mentions Stride & companion and none of the above, it seems logical that Stride arrives at the scene after Eagle returns to the club.

So, the most logical sequence based on the above seems:

1. Stride & companion arrive close to the club
2. Smith arrives and sees Stride & companion opposite the club
3. Stride, now alone, is standing at the entrance of the yard when Schwartz sees an altercation commence between Stride and a man who had been walking ahead of him

The complete sequence, including the period after the discovery of Stride’s body, is then as follows:

1. Wess & company leave / Letchford arrives
2. Letchford arrives / Wess & company leave
3. Lave goes outside (and remains there for 5 to 10 minutes)
4. Eagle returns to the club
5. Stride & companion arrive close to the club
6. Smith arrives and sees Stride & companion opposite the club Stride, now alone, is standing at the entrance of the yard when Schwartz sees an altercation between Stride and a man who had been walking ahead of him
7. couple arrives at the corner of the board school
8. Brown passes and sees the couple
9. Mortimer comes to her door
10. Leon Goldstein passes the club
11. Mortimer goes back inside
12. Louis Diemshutz arrives in the yard and discovers Stride
13. Diemshutz & Kozebrodski run south searching for a policeman, Eagle north
14. Edward Spooner arrives at the scene together with Diemshutz; Kozebrodski joins Eagle and they find P.C. Lamb; Mortimer enters the yard (she sees Spooner touch Stride’s face – Evening News, 1 October)
15. P.C. Lamb arrives, followed by another P.C. (426 H)
16. P.C. 426 is sent for Blackwell, Eagle for Inspector Pinhorn and blows his whistle
17. P.C. Albert Collins arrives as a result of the whistle (Smith sees 2 constables on his arrival and PC 426 isn’t at the scene then)
18. P.C. Smith arrives at the scene
19. As Edward Johnson, Blackwell’s assistant, arrives with PC 426, Smith leaves to get the ambulance
20. Lamb closes the gates
21. Dr. Blackwell arrives at the scene
22. Inspector Pinhorn arrives
23. Dr. Phillips arrives

I’ve left the times out so they can't get in the way, but if we want to put times to each coming or going, I think that everything should start with Blackwell’s timing, as he consulted his watch when he arrived in the yard. Furthermore, I’m not claiming that the list above MUST be correct, so anybody who wants to have a go at it, be my guest. And, of course, if we'd assume that Brown did see Stride & companion and not the couple Mortimer spoke to, then something might change.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank0. The young girl mentioned by Mortimer was herself interviewed and had not been near the Board School, and they had been out around midnight (when it was initially believed the murder might have been committed), but were not there at 1am. The woman James Brown saw (closer to 12:55 than 12:45, so post-Schwartz) was likely Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[harry]

Quite so Tom,and the male most likely Pipeman.

[FrankO]

Hi FrankO,

This is great. I'm trying to put together simulations of the various comings and goings for the various crimes (something I had done for Mitre Square a while ago, and have put together a more flexible version to allow me to work on the others as well), and this summary will be very helpful to keep track of all the people involved in the Stride case. After that, it's a matter of trying to go through the various stated times, working out which are based upon clock's and watches, and which are based upon estimates (some estimates being relative times to other people's comings and goings, others being estimates of absolute times, and so forth), and seeing if a coherent set of events can be created once one factors in the distance people said they travelled and the associated times, etc. So far things are looking good, but there's a lot of information to try and tie in, so it's too early to say what will be the end result.

Thanks Jeff, I hope it helps with the simultations (which I'd be very interested in)! I agree that the Stride case is probably the most complicated for the reason that there were relatively many witnesses around in her case and it's not always quite clear what they actually said to inquest, police or newspapers (like, for instance, Lave).

Regardless, and this may take quite a bit of time as there's some programming necessary that may take me awhile to find the time to do, I'll eventually post the results of what I find. While simulations are not exact recreation of events, and indeed will reflect events as they are told rather than magically recreating reality, they can be useful in evaluating if what was said is plausible or not. (i.e. If someone states they went from A to B and back, and that this took them 3 minutes, then one can work out if traveling that distance is possible in the time they state. In the Eddowes case things work out very well, but there are far fewer people involved, and a much more restricted time frame. The Stride case is probably the most complicated, but I digress).

Good luck with the work and I'll be looking forward to the end result!

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Frank0. The young girl mentioned by Mortimer was herself interviewed and had not been near the Board School, and they had been out around midnight (when it was initially believed the murder might have been committed), but were not there at 1am. The woman James Brown saw (closer to 12:55 than 12:45, so post-Schwartz) was likely Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your comments.

I, myself, had concluded that the young girl interviewed by the Echo on the morning of 1 October, couldn’t be the young woman mentioned by Mortimer for 2 reasons:
1. the couple mentioned by Mortimer had been standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, meaning that the couple was there between 12:30 and 1 am. Furthermore, it seems Mortimer spoke to her shortly after one o’clock when people were attracted to the commotion caused by the discovery, suggesting that she was even still there shortly after 1 am.

2. in the interview with the Echo this young girl told that she’d passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone and then, from twelve o'clock till half-past, she’d walked up and down with her sweetheart within 20 yards of where the body was found. To me this means that she wasn’t there between 12:30 and the discovery of the body.

So, I'd be interested to know how you've reasoned that the girl mentioned by Mortimer and the 'midnight girl' are one & the same.

It’s, of course, absolutely possible that Brown did see Stride, but why do you think it would have been closer to 12:55 than 12:45?

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

I stopped posting actively on the Stride threads some years ago (maybe a decade?) largely because they had become the Mike Richards (then Perry Mason) show. Mike's approach to the case appears to be as a contrarian. Even where there's a clear and obvious solution to a problem, he enjoys taking an opposing stance. This can be healthy as one of many tools used in evaluating evidence, but as the sole tool it's bound to become frustrating and pointless. I don't know how Mike has the stamina he does to keep going on and on against an ever-revolving door of sparring partners. It's almost admirable in a sad sort of way.

As for Schwartz, I believe the reason he didn't appear at the inquest is precisely the reason I published in Ripper Confidential. It's the only explanation that makes sense of all the known evidence, and is supported somewhat by the rather pointed Star editor's comments in the Oct. 3rd edition.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks Tom. I’ll certainly have a re-read of the Schwartz section of Confidential.

[caz]

I cannot believe the distance some of you are willing to go just to stand on a podium and proclaim someones ideas "incorrect"...like anyone of you has ANY PROOF thats the case.

Anyway, you are all missing what is between the lines here, and for those of you who choose to back witness statements that have Liz Stride in full view of anyone who was there at 12:45, along with no less than 3 other people...all on a street that EVERY witness in that area during that time said was "empty", "deserted", a street where no-one we can say for sure was there saw anyone but a young couple and Leon Goldstein between 12:35 and 1am, then I can understand the confusion.

In between the lines...how do any of you know that Louis didnt arrive when I said he did? Do any of you know that he, or Morris, or Joseph didnt cut her throat...they are the only ones near the gates at 12:40? Do any of you know that Issac K was lying when he said he was sent out at 12:40ish, or that any of the other men who said they were "standing around" with others were not there when they said they were? Do any of you know that Israel Schwartz was quoted accurately during translation, or that he came forward on his own accord? Do any of you have records that say he was a part of the Inquest in any shape and fashion?

I could list a thousand ways that youve assumed so much about this, and other murders, that makes objective intelligent discussion impossible.

So...for posterity sake, Women cut once are not ripped, a cut around 12:46 puts the people already on site the only people around, and relying on Herlock or Caz for truth will get you absolutely nowhere. They believe a Ripper cut once, they believe an interruption would explain that single cut even though none exists in the records, and they seem to believe that anarchists who in a few months prove their loyalty to the law by attacking policemen with clubs in that very yard were just gentle, law abiding men...despite the fact that the word anarchist should be some hint to them. They believe that people giving stories that have no secondary verification outweigh multiple corroborated accounts, they believe people wouldnt be fearful of losing income or a place to hang out so they can bad mouth the political systems that they chose to live in, or people that helped hurt the economy by inciting mass strikes of workers. They believe things they cant prove. They believe things that are provably wrong. All because ......so they can have a Jack to be spooked by. Message boards are great if you are talking to people who have altruistic goals and are seeking understanding an truth, but self serving a** h**** are also a part of online discussions.

Well, I can tell you this..the locals had much more scary people than mere street women killers in their midst at that time. And they had a plentiful supply of men willing to kill, for whatever reasons they saw fit. Jack the Ripper will go on because of this kind of ignorance and arrogance. Not because one shred of proof has ever been produced to connect even one "Canonical" victim with just 1 other.

As long as youre here, just skip the tripe and use that vast and remarkable resources made available to educate yourself, make up your own minds about issues, and dont let people without any proof of what they claim is a "fact" tell you what to think.

Herlock and Caz have ZERO proof that what I proposed cant be correct...they just think it is wrong. Like I care what they think. Non should you. Its hardly useful rebuttal, and just reveals more about them than it does any facts.

I wish you well in your search, and hopefully you dont get as many blockheads in your way.

Could you name these self serving a** h****, Michael? Or are they figments of your imagination?

In case I'm one of your self serving a** h****, I'm happy to assume, for argument's sake, that you are right about Louis arriving around the same time as Stride must have had her throat cut, both before, say, 12.40? So perhaps you would kindly explain to me, in words of one syllable, why Louis could not possibly have been approaching the yard while the killer was still there, causing him to flee before he might otherwise have done?

Now think carefully about what I'm asking here, and what I'm not asking. I'm making no assumptions about the killer himself, except that he would probably not wish to be caught with the victim. I'm not even suggesting his intention was to do anything other than kill her. I don't personally see any killer choosing to fanny about in that location any longer than strictly necessary. So assuming Stride was not killed by the ripper, but by someone without previous throat cutting experience, do we not have to consider the likelihood that he was interrupted by the pony and cart approaching, because he apparently didn't even have time to make sure that the one cut would prove fatal, and that she wouldn't survive long enough to identify him?

If the killer wasn't interrupted by Louis, in your view, how would you explain why only a single cut was inflicted, which, for all he knew, might have left her able to describe, if not identify him? How did he know, in the darkness of that yard, that one cut would be enough?

[caz]

As I said, let no person tell you what to believe, if they can prove it, thats something else. Students reading this are being asked to accept mere opinions including by someone with a dyslexic moniker as facts. They arent. Nothing in terms of evidence has been offered to validate their "hunches". They think this and that, but dishonestly represent their opinions and thoughts as viable arguments.

I just summarized the actual facts and leave it up to anyone who really studies this murder objectively to make up their mind. If anything like a conclusion is made its premature, no evidence supports either position. But the facts add up.

Herlock thinks Jack the Ripper killed a woman who was not ripped in any way, he thinks an interruption which is in no way in any evidence is the reason for the lack of damage, and he thinks the Inquest organizers believed Israel Schwartz despite the fact he is left out of it entirely. He thinks that. Has he been able to find any proof of that?..................................no. But he rudely and persistently insults those who call him out for it.

This study is unfortunately filled with people with agendas, people who are not capable of interpreting actual data, and people who will believe anything. The upside is it also has people who say "Prove there was a Jack the Ripper". For my money,those are the ones to follow. Because aside from revealing insights about characters and places via some stellar research by some members, not one "Ripper" murder has ever been proven to be linked with another.

It's not a dyslexic moniker, it's a Spoonerism! How apt.

I haven't seen Herlock rudely or persistently insulting you or anyone else, Michael. He always addresses the arguments you make to support your theories, and he demonstrates where they play fast and loose with the witness testimony and other evidence, cherry picking only what works, and rejecting the rest as if it doesn't exist or the witnesses must have lied.

This is in stark contrast to your personal insults, regularly attacking the poster in preference to addressing their posts, their observations and questions. You ignore what others actually post, and attack them for what they haven't posted.

You ought to be ashamed, Michael.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just began reading the chapter on Schwartz in Tom’s ‘Confidential.’ It begins with Schwartz statement of course and the first thing that I’d ask Michael (for him to avoid) is why, if the Club members fear was damage to their reputation, did Schwartz say this....

. he saw a man stop & speak to a woman who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street

He’s placing a known prostitute standing alone in their gateway. The fact that BS Man tried to pull her out into the street hints that she was actually almost inside the yard (over the threshold if you like) How does this fact help their case? Why didn’t he say that he saw a man walking with Stride having an argument? The man then pushed her into the yard?

This is a plan that Baldrick would have been proud of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Id also ask about this part, written by Abberline......

. I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski but he was unable to say.

If Schwartz was simply a part of a plot to convince the police that the killer was anti-semitic why was he so vague about who BS Man was addressing? Why didn’t he simply describe Pipe Man as being of Jewish appearance too? As Pipe Man wasnt of Jewish appearance wasn’t he introducing the possibility that the killer might have even known the other man and that Schwartz might have misheard some other word as Lipski? Of course we can accept that Lipski was an anti-Semitic insult and that it was directed at the Jewish-looking Schwartz but the fact that he was vague might lend a ring of truth to his statement. That he wasn’t just working to a script. In fact we might ask why a second man was required in the cover up at all? With Pipe Man there the police might have considered that BS man had directed some other word at him.

[JeffHamm]

Id also ask about this part, written by Abberline......



If Schwartz was simply a part of a plot to convince the police that the killer was anti-semitic why was he so vague about who BS Man was addressing? Why didn’t he simply describe Pipe Man as being of Jewish appearance too? As Pipe Man wasnt of Jewish appearance wasn’t he introducing the possibility that the killer might have even known the other man and that Schwartz might have misheard some other word as Lipski? Of course we can accept that Lipski was an anti-Semitic insult and that it was directed at the Jewish-looking Schwartz but the fact that he was vague might lend a ring of truth to his statement. That he wasn’t just working to a script. In fact we might ask why a second man was required in the cover up at all? With Pipe Man there the police might have considered that BS man had directed some other word at him.

Hi Herlock,

Yes, Abberline's statement "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski but he was unable to say." indicates that Schwartz told him that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, and so Schwartz implicates a Jewish offender (disproving he's part of any conspiracy designed to protect the club right there), it's clear that Abberline recognized the importance of this claim. First, he would be aware that Lipski was a common insult in the area (as he later tells us), and would want to establish how certain Pipeman was the intended target given Schwartz is described as recognizably Jewish (presumably by his haircut and/or style of dress, etc). Abberline would be well aquainted with how witness's can make interpretation errors like this while still getting the events correct (meaning these events could be true 1) Lipski was shouted 2) Pipeman was there, but in his statement Schwartz makes an interpretation error as to whom B.S. intends Lipski to refer to). So, Abberline investigates this, and in the end Schwartz may recognize that his original assumption that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman could have been wrong. It is now well known that how the police question a witness can result in some problems, creating or changing their memory of events, this was not known in 1888, and Abberline's pushing on this point would have been seen as the right thing to do.

What's most important, though, is that despite Schwartz's confidence in who Lipski was directed at, the police still went house to house in the area looking for families by the name of Lipski because, in the end, that is what Schwartz told them. It would be poor police work to decide that the police know that what the witness actually said must be wrong because the police have come up with an alternative idea.

- Jeff

[caz]

Good post, Jeff.

The fact that Schwartz goes from BS man addressing Pipeman as "Lipski", to admitting under further questioning that he is 'unable to say', is more than enough to disprove Michael's hunch that Schwartz's brief was to lie, by putting a Gentile killer out on Berner Street, abusing the victim. Why would Schwartz claim not to know what he witnessed, if he was lying about it to protect the club?

As liars go, Schwartz must be up there with Aldridge Prior, the Hopeless Liar. He gets the lie totally wrong, and then can't remember what he's meant to be lying about.

But in Michael's world, he must be a liar because otherwise he'd have been there at the Inquest, come hell or high water, and in Michael's world, liars are liars, so it doesn't matter to him whether a lie makes sense or not. He can take whatever they say and fashion a whole theory out of it.

Love,

Caz
X