If Schwartz Lied ...

[DJA]

And that's what I feel may lie at the heart of the matter. Schwartz was the witness, so if he was unable to say whether a) was going on, or b), or even c) or d), how would that have changed at the Inquest, under even the closest questioning? How would anything have been resolved concerning Pipeman's role in the story, and what "Lipski" was all about?

The only way to get any further with this was to find Pipeman, and hope to get his account of the same incident.

I did previously suggest it may have been the thought of "Lipski" being repeated at the Inquest that made someone in authority decide it would be better if Schwartz wasn't called, given that he couldn't shed any light on that controversial matter, and it was always going to be open to interpretation anyway. Something similar to why the GSG was erased perhaps? Misjudged, possibly, but understandable and nothing more sinister than that?

Love,

Caz
X

Pipeman was found.Prolly the beer shop's proprietor having a knock off smoke.

Given Hip Lip Lizzie's bottom lip and the cachous which were medicine for it,BSM might well have shouted "Lip,see!"

Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia - Wikipedia
Catechu - Wikipedia
Henry Gawen Sutton - Wikipedia

[rjpalmer]

Do you believe Schwartz saw 'a murder taking place', and would have been truthful if he had said as much, had he attended the Inquest?

To the first question, yes. I think Schwartz likely saw a murder taking place. Witnesses of violent crime often misinterpret what they are seeing, or are not entirely certain what they witnessed. And in my view, Schwartz's admission of uncertainty makes him all the more plausible and trustworthy. Your second question isn't relevant because he didn't insist he witnessed a murder.

Some on this thread are stating as a fact that Schwartz witnessed Stride being assaulted 'fifteen minutes before the murder.'

This is not proven.

To be precise, he claims to have viewed her being assaulted 15 minutes before the body was discovered, which is an entirely different matter. That Liz's throat was still oozing blood when Diemschitz found her is no more evidence that she was murdered during the previous 3-5 minutes, than it was in the case of Polly Nichols. Diemschitz's estimate of 12:45 was just that...an estimate.

Name the person who saw Liz Stride alive between the time Schwartz left her, and when Diemschitz showed up. When you do that, I'll withdraw my belief (not conviction) that Schwartz saw her being murdered.

Do you agree with Sugden that 'the killings' might all have been the work of Schwartz's dynamic duo?

Yes, I agree with Phil Sugden that the killings might have been the work of a duo. Might being the key word. But Sugden also suggested that Stride might have been a killing, as in singular--not 'killings.'

[rjpalmer]

So, if I believe Schwartz witnessed the murder, do I believe the Met was wrong for not having him appear at the inquest?

I think the careers of Anderson and Monro and others at Scotland Yard show that they would comply with the rules, that is, if circumstances compelled them to do so, but they were also willing to push the envelope as far to the edge of the table as possible if they deemed it advantageous to their broader purpose. If Schwartz wasn't absolutely necessary to the needs of the coroner, they may well have found it advantageous not to alert Baxter to his existence. Since Schwartz himself was uncertain about what he witnessed, they would skirt any accusation of police misconduct.

But feel free to disagree. Finis.

[rjpalmer]

Pipeman was found.

That's one possible interpretation. But if so, Swanson was either mighty slow to catch on, or was very sloppy in his reports to the Home Office.

[caz]

Good Grief, Caz.

Sadly, I am increasingly convinced that David B. is correct and you are the great misunderstander, unless you are deliberately misstating people's positions to score points.

I never said this, nor even implied it, and in fact I said the opposite. You seem to be having a difficult time distinguishing between what may be valuable, and what is essential. Surely the distinction is not too subtle?

So why did you bother to write that nasty post, sneering at my illustration of how Schwartz would have been unable to answer any of the Inquest's 'essential questions', if you actually agree with me? I apologise for using 'invaluable' as a synonym for 'essential', if you found that confusing.

To repeat myself:

"If a witness is considered 'non essential,' could it only mean that he is not essential to the limited scope of an inquest--the filling out of a death certificate---and thus, the police can hold him back if doing so would be desirable to their aims?

Thus, from the angle of a death certificate, [ie. the inquest!] Schwartz is non-essential, but from the angle of a police investigation, he is anything but. So implying that he is a know-nothing of no value is about as wide of the mark as a person can be"

I took that to mean you were accusing me of implying that Schwartz was a 'know-nothing of no value', and being 'as wide of the mark as a person can be', when it was you who failed to grasp that I have repeatedly argued that his value was to the police investigation, rather than to the Inquest.

The Coroner is not holding a police investigation. He is holding an investigation into the cause of death. If there is no specific 'defendant,' the inquest doesn't amount to much more than allowing a death certificate to be filled out. Thus, the police are not required to bring forward witnesses that are non-essential to this aim, and yes, I believe there may be times when they might withhold a non-essential witness because it might thwart the aims of justice. Yet he is still potentially invaluable to their aims---which is catching the murderer.

Yes, so perhaps you could show me where, in my post to Darryl, or to anyone else for that matter, I implied that Schwartz knew nothing that would have been of any value to the police. I thought I made it screamingly obvious that I was only referring to his imagined appearance at the Inquest, and what little he could have brought to that party by way of death certificate fodder.

I am most assuredly not saying Schwartz was "deemed invaluable" to the inquest, I am saying his presence was not necessary, because it wasn't relevant to Baxter's limited aims. Had there been an actual "defendant" in custody, as there was in the Coles inquiry, (Sadler), then the inquest would have morphed into something more akin to an American grand jury, and such depositions would have been more relevant.

So perhaps you should take the time to read and understand where I'm coming from in future, before you wade in with your hobnail boots to accuse me of Schwartz and Sugden bashing, when you and I have, essentially, been saying the same thing all along - that Schwartz could have added nothing to the essential death info required at the Inquest, and his value as a witness was to the ongoing police enquiry.

So I am stating the exact opposite of what you imply. Schwartz was NOT 'deemed invaluable' to the aims of the Inquest. The aims of the inquest were limited. The aims of the police was to find the murderer, and if you don't think Schwartz wouldn't have been highly valuable to them, then your aren't thinking at all.

There you go again! Please please please, RJ, show us all where I have ever implied that the police did not consider Schwartz to be a potentially important witness. I have always argued against posters such as Michael Richards, who regularly insist that the police must not have believed Schwartz, or he'd have been at the Inquest. I see no reason to disbelieve him myself, and no reason why the police [or Baxter, if he was in the loop] would have concluded that he was lying. I've lost count of the number of posts which reflect my position on this one.

So why drag Schwartz before the inquest and alert broad shoulders and the pipe smoker to the fact that the police are trying to trace them? Why do you find this possibility so controversial??

Eh? Where did I imply any such thing?? I think that would be a highly reasonable decision to take, and I've posted previously about the potential danger to Schwartz himself in this very regard!! Why drag him before the Inquest and alert a possible killer about this potential future prosecution witness, with the potential power of a hangman?

It is assumed by many commenting here, that the public, and presumably the coroner, were already well-aware of Schwartz. That he was "before the public." I don't agree. This is hindsight thinking. He is mentioned in a single snippet in one newspaper only, and not even by name, and the Star published several editions that day, so unless someone was buying every newspaper in London, and already had the benefit of the hindsight of what we know is in the existing MEPO files, it would have been easily missed. Further, as the Stride murder was part of a double event, and the Eddowes inquiry was also flooding the papers, dozens of other accounts and stories were also in circulation. The very existence of Schwartz would have been very easily missed in the media blitz.

Ultimately, we know that Schwartz was taken seriously by having access to Swanson's report, etc. The police could have held Schwartz back from the public, and no one would have been the wiser. And in my view, Scotland Yard C.I.D. viewed themselves as a very tight-lipped organization. They avoided publicity if they could.

I don't think my belief is even slightly far-fetched.

It's not. It's just not capable of being proved correct, which you acknowledged yourself.

Do you agree with me that it was also probably wise not to stir the "Lipski" hornets' nest at the Inquest, if the very existence of Schwartz and what he heard was being drowned out in the media blitz? A case of letting sleeping hornets lie?

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Maybe there was something similar to the GSG behind it, or maybe after being questioned Schwartz was much less confident in what he could testify to, and as a result, would be too wishy-washy on the stand to be considered useful? The complete lack of anything in the police files concerning him, though, could indicate the police weren't really surprised at his non-attendance, which would fit with him not being called. The notes we do have, where Abberline indicates that after careful questioning Schwartz couldn't say who Lipski was directed to, could be the indication of Schwartz waffling in confidence, and so the police really didn't have a need to record it in anything that has survived to us.

Baxter doesn't seem to ask where he is, and he has asked about others (the pensioner I believe, in Annie's inquest), so Baster too doesn't seem concerned. So either Baxter has no idea Schwartz existed, or he's been informed that Schwartz is unreliable as a witness unless they can locate pipeman and they're investigating.

Anyway, nothing is recorded indicating a concern about Schwartz's lack of showing, which would fit with them not expecting him to. And I suppose given what we know of his statement, not expecting him to would indicate he probably was dropped from the list. They were investigating his story, so it can't be the doubted him completely, but if Schwartz now came across as indecisive, and he needed a translator, and they were still investigating, etc, it may just be he was "too hard", and since other testimony would narrow the time of her murder to a similar range, others were giving descriptions, and the potential for inflaming tensions with Lipski testimony, maybe that's all it was - he was just "too hard for no gain"? Though I doubt they would have phrased it that way, but that sort of thing could be all there was to it.

I just wish we had something more solid than guess work.

- Jeff

A very reasonable summary, Jeff. Thank you. I'm so glad to see that you understood my position with no trouble at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Please please please, RJ, show us all where I have ever implied that the police did not consider Schwartz to be a potentially important witness.

Caz, with all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, do have a gin and tonic and relax. Where I've responded, I've responded to the slings and arrows you have thrown in my direction. And yes, we have common ground.

For the most part, the only observation I have voiced on this thread is that Schwartz's non-appearance at the inquest does not appear to be adequately explained by the "mundane" answers being batted about: clerical error, the difficulty in obtaining a translator, etc. They don't strike me as plausible.

On the matter of translators, I do wonder if the Star reporter was accurate in believing that Schwartz spoke Hungarian. Maybe so, but the reporter frames it within a joke, which adds an element of doubt. For centuries, most Jews in Hungary spoke Yiddish, though this was evidently beginning to change by mid-19th Century. It's another unknown. But Abberline clearly had no trouble finding a translator, nor did the Star reporter, but suddenly Baxter is at his wit's end? (That's a hypothetical--it's not aimed at you!)

What we do know is that Wynne Baxter had no trouble in obtaining translators in other inquests. We even know some of their names. There was a bloke that translated Russian, German, and Yiddish during the inquest over the disaster at the Jewish theater in 1887.

Here's an inquest in 1891 where Baxter brings in a translator to interpret a witness from Austria, which presumably would mean Austria-Hungary, would it not? Anecdotal evidence, but evidence that he could, in fact, drum up an interpreter if necessary.

Anyway, no more grief from my end! Maybe someday we can limit our destructive bashing to the Maybrick threads. Yes, the threat of more Jewish violence could well have been a factor in not bringing in Schwartz. In regards to your earlier comments, however, I would suggest that the local insult 'Lipski!' may have been the first word a Jew just off the boat would have learned. We don't know if Schwartz was in London during the Lipski trial, do we? If he was living in Berner street, he would have been in the heart of the turmoil. I don't think he was mistaken about what he heard, and I don't think Abberline did either. Enjoy your weekend.

[caz]

Yet we are assured that Schwartz's account is so trivial that his presence at the inquest would not only have been pointless, but an outright laughing matter--a skit suitable for Benny Hill. He has nothing at all to tell us!

This is what threw me, RJ. You were squaring up for an argument here, by suggesting that, on the contrary, there would have been every point in having Schwartz at the Inquest, because he had plenty to tell those present about the essential details of Stride's death. I can't see how you expected your words to be interpreted in any other way.

[c.d.]

The question of whether or not Schwartz would have been deemed an essential witness is essentially moot for all practical purposes. Even if it could be proven with 100% absolute metaphysical certainty that he would have been considered essential and therefore would have appeared at the inquest it does not necessarily follow that his non-appearance resulted from the police disbelieving his story. There could be a very simple and rational explanation why he was not there. The bottom line is that we simply do not know so any attempt at an explanation (no matter how well supported) is pure speculation as opposed to fact.

c.d.

[caz]

Caz, with all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, do have a gin and tonic and relax. Where I've responded, I've responded to the slings and arrows you have thrown in my direction. And yes, we have common ground.

I'm always relaxed when I post, RJ. Please don't worry on my account, and cocktail hour is fast approaching.

That strangely ill-judged post you addressed to Darryl, referencing my post to him, had nothing to do with any 'slings and arrows' you might imagine I threw in your direction. I can only think I must have unintentionally hit a nerve and didn't realise you were that sensitive.

Anyway, no more grief from my end! Maybe someday we can limit our destructive bashing to the Maybrick threads. Yes, the threat of more Jewish violence could well have been a factor in not bringing in Schwartz. In regards to your earlier comments, however, I would suggest that the local insult 'Lipski!' may have been the first word a Jew just off the boat would have learned. We don't know if Schwartz was in London during the Lipski trial, do we? If he was living in Berner street, he would have been in the heart of the turmoil. I don't think he was mistaken about what he heard, and I don't think Abberline did either. Enjoy your weekend.

I don't think Schwartz was mistaken either, over the one word he was able to pass on to the police. I do believe that BS man was real, and did call out "Lipski".

What I doubt, however, is that Schwartz knew it was meant as an insult, because that would make a nonsense of his original account. He seemed blissfully unaware, before Abberline questioned him, that his strong Jewish appearance would have made him the obvious target. Why would he have supposed BS man had addressed such an insult to Pipeman, if he thought they were acting together and saw him as an intruder who needed to be scared away?

Enjoy your weekend too.

[c.d.]

Please don't worry on my account, and cocktail hour is fast approaching.

It is always five o'clock somewhere!!!

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Please don't worry on my account, and cocktail hour is fast approaching.

It is always five o'clock somewhere!!!

c.d.

ill drink to that!

[Scott Nelson]

James Brown could have seen Stride (with another man) after the Schwartz encounter.

[Joshua Rogan]

James Brown could have seen Stride (with another man) after the Schwartz encounter.

Or with the same man, if he succeeded in pulling her from the gateway once Israel had fled.

[Scott Nelson]

Yes, but then it would appear that the couple regained their mutual composure rather quickly during Brown's sighting.