If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Michael, can we put this to bed once and for all? Do you know for a fact why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest or are you simply speculating? If you know, please share that with the rest of Ripperology.

c.d.

Well said c.d.

None of us know this and, unless previously unknown documentation surfaces, none of us ever will know. It’s simple a fact of wish thinking to claim to know. Of stating opinion as fact. Again.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Israel Schwartz claimed to see a soon to be victim of murder struggling with someone minutes before she is cut fatally, and just feet from the location it happens at. If believed, there is absolutely no sound argument for exclusion of this statement from the Inquest proceedings. It would be THE most germane witness account.

I agree. If Schwartz wasn't an important witness, then no one was. Most of the objections to Schwartz being an important witness, implicitly assume that Schwartz is to be believed. So for example, she was alive when he left the scene of the altercation. Yet according to the Echo report, it seems he was chased down Fairclough street, as the murderer.

As mentioned, we do not have the Inquest files as it were, but we have the transcripts...and not one mention of Israel or his story in any of them.

At least some people at the inquest appear to know of Schwartz' account, because we can see it being referred to, implicitly...

Immediately after the one day break in the inquest (Thursday), the testimony of Dr Phillips resumes...

The Foreman: Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?
Dr Phillips: That is an inference which the jury would be perfectly entitled to draw.

Evidently the inquest knew about Schwartz - at least by the Friday session. I've no idea how that came to be.

The throwing to the ground is not part of the Star report, so somehow the inquest must have learned of Schwartz' police statement. Interesting that the implicit reference to Schwartz occurred immediately after the 'rest day'. So perhaps Schwartz did attend the inquest, in some capacity? And yet...

The Coroner, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case to which they had patiently devoted so much time. It was true that one of the principal duties of the Court was to inquire “who gave the wounds, and who are, in what manner, culpable either of the act or of the force, and who were present, either men or women.” It was also true that the facts proved in evidence were insufficient to return a positive answer to this inquiry; but it might surely be urged that they had had before them those who appeared most likely to afford information, and that the interval which had occurred since the death justified a doubt if even a long adjournment would place them in a more satisfactory position. There was in the evidence no clue to the murderer, and no suggested motive for the murder. Those who knew deceased were unaware of anyone likely to injure her. She never accused anyone of having threatened her. She never expressed any fear of anyone, and although she had outbursts of drunkenness, she was generally a quiet woman. The ordinary motives of murder – revenge, jealousy, theft, and passion – appeared, therefore, to be absent from this case: while it was clear from the accounts of all who saw her that night, as well as from the post-mortem examination, that she was no otherwise than sober at the time of her death. In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the case in Mitre-square – possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which unfortunately for the piece (sic) of the inhabitants and the trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful.

Why did the jury apparently need to "be urged that they had had before them those who appeared most likely to afford information, and that the interval which had occurred since the death justified a doubt if even a long adjournment would place them in a more satisfactory position."

Who does the jury want to see? Why is the coroner doubting the benefit of another long adjournment, as of Oct 23? Why not just put the desired witness on the stand, right now? Reading between the lines, I think there is an obvious answer; the police cannot find Israel Schwartz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree. If Schwartz wasn't an important witness, then no one was. Most of the objections to Schwartz being an important witness, implicitly assume that Schwartz is to be believed. So for example, she was alive when he left the scene of the altercation. Yet according to the Echo report, it seems he was chased down Fairclough street, as the murderer.

le

I don’t know why people do proper research and relate facts if you’re just going to ignore them in favour of gut feeling. As per the requirements of an Inquest Schwartz was not an important witness.

As per the requirements of an Inquest Schwartz was not an important witness.

As per the requirements of an Inquest Schwartz was not an important witness.

Perhaps if I type this fact in 3 times you might acknowledge it?

Again, the aims of an Inquest. Not guesswork, not my opinion…..fact.


1. The identity of the deceased. (And that didn’t mean someone say “yes I recognise that woman” it meant being able to say “I know that the victim was called Elizabeth Stride)

So Schwartz couldn’t contribute to that.

2. When and where she died.

Schwartz obviously couldn’t say that because she was still alive when he saw her.

3. The medical cause of death.

Again, Schwartz very obviously couldn’t add anything to that point.

4. How she came by her death.

Stride was still alive when he saw her so he couldn’t contribute to that.



4 aims……..Schwartz couldn’t contribute to any of them.

Therefore…..Schwartz was not a vital witness.

It couldn’t get much simpler.

I perhaps should add…and if Schwartz could have named the man he’d seen attacking or manhandling Stride….as he couldn’t then it was a case of murder by person or persons unknown.

[GBinOz]

I don’t know why people do proper research and relate facts if you’re just going to ignore them in favour of gut feeling. As per the requirements of an Inquest Schwartz was not an important witness.

As per the requirements of an Inquest Schwartz was not an important witness.

As per the requirements of an Inquest Schwartz was not an important witness.

Perhaps if I type this fact in 3 times you might acknowledge it?

Again, the aims of an Inquest. Not guesswork, not my opinion…..fact.


1. The identity of the deceased. (And that didn’t mean someone say “yes I recognise that woman” it meant being able to say “I know that the victim was called Elizabeth Stride)

So Schwartz couldn’t contribute to that.

2. When and where she died.

Schwartz obviously couldn’t say that because she was still alive when he saw her.

3. The medical cause of death.

Again, Schwartz very obviously couldn’t add anything to that point.

4. How she came by her death.

Stride was still alive when he saw her so he couldn’t contribute to that.



4 aims……..Schwartz couldn’t contribute to any of them.

Therefore…..Schwartz was not a vital witness.

It couldn’t get much simpler.

I perhaps should add…and if Schwartz could have named the man he’d seen attacking or manhandling Stride….as he couldn’t then it was a case of murder by person or persons unknown.

Hi Herlock,

If you apply your criteria to Smith it turns out that he is not an important witness either. In fact, only the doctors and the identity witnesses could meet any of your requirements. Sorry, but my opinion is that Schwartz was considered an important witness and that he was, as suggested by Anderson and Warren, called to the inquest but "in camera".

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Perhaps if I type this fact in 3 times you might acknowledge it?

I acknowledge it, but it's wrong. Baxter said:

It was true that one of the principal duties of the Court was to inquire “who gave the wounds, and who are, in what manner, culpable either of the act or of the force, and who were present, either men or women.”

That criteria fits Schwartz' account to a T. In fact, Baxter may well have had Schwartz in mind when he said this. By the way, I got the quote from this orsam post.

Imagine if one day someone were to find a statement by Schwartz, presented at the inquest, or even an in camera testimony. It would be a huge find. Would you be interested in reading it?

[GBinOz]

The inquest was conducted on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th October with a couple of witnesses and the summary on the 23rd. What happened on the 4th Oct?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

If you apply your criteria to Smith it turns out that he is not an important witness either. In fact, only the doctors and the identity witnesses could meet any of your requirements. Sorry, but my opinion is that Schwartz was considered an important witness and that he was, as suggested by Anderson and Warren, called to the inquest but "in camera".

Cheers, George

George,

Look everyone’s entitled to an opinion of course but at some point we have to acknowledge facts. It’s not a case of whether you or me or anyone considers him important. The fact is that in compliance with the very specific aims of an Inquest Schwartz wasn’t a vital witness. This is a fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The inquest was conducted on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th October with a couple of witnesses and the summary on the 23rd. What happened on the 4th Oct?

Cheers, George

I don’t know. Maybe The Coroner had other business to attend to?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I acknowledge it, but it's wrong. Baxter said:

It was true that one of the principal duties of the Court was to inquire “who gave the wounds, and who are, in what manner, culpable either of the act or of the force, and who were present, either men or women.”

That criteria fits Schwartz' account to a T. In fact, Baxter may well have had Schwartz in mind when he said this. By the way, I got the quote from this orsam post.

Imagine if one day someone were to find a statement by Schwartz, presented at the inquest, or even an in camera testimony. It would be a huge find. Would you be interested in reading it?

I’m not continuing with this. Your just deciding that it’s wrong to suit yourself. The subject was deeply researched by a man who does research in the Legal profession. And you just decide that you don’t like it. Ok.

[JeffHamm]

Because people tend to stop reading when a point is made they disagree with...Ill repeat this premise, which Ive done a few times.

What if Israel Schwartz was there at that time, but what he reported seeing on the street actually took place inside the passageway, as he made his way out via the kitchen door...which was ajar. I think IF he was there at all, he was a meeting attendee or met with some members after the meeting broke up. To believe he just happened to be there checking to see if his wife had completed moving what would be a suitcase or 2 of possessions in the 12 hours he said he was gone for isnt reasonable or rational. We also dont know where he lived that morning do we? Might it have been in that passageway, in one of the cottages? We know later that it is confirmed he and Wess know each other and later in the LVP Israel is directly connected with that club.

If he saw what he saw in the alleyway, then his placing the event on the street instead is surely revealing of an attempt to bias perceptions of where the killer likely came from.

Hi Michael,

If one gets to set a set of starting conditions, one can ensure they end up where they want to get.

For example, if Schwartz was not a member of the club, and did not know Wes at the time of Stride's murder, it appears that because he witnessed the altercation, he became acquainted with them, as evidenced by the fact we know they were acquainted after the murder.

And, while yes, since we don't know where he lived that morning, it could indeed have been in that passageway in one of the cottages. Those are buildings within a reasonable distance of where he claims to have been, etc. But, there are many many many places of residence in that area, and because we don't know where he lived, he could equally have lived in any of them. So, while your suggestion isn't impossible, it is highly improbable, given the evidence we have (none; how much more none can we have? None, none more none; sorry, a Spinal Tap reference there, and couldn't help myself).

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at, is that when we have no evidence it is best to just "stop". We can always find a story that works when we are freed from the constraints that information provides. When we try to fill in the gaps, we inevitably fill them in to suit what we believe, even if we have no factual basis for that belief (it's even worse when we have some facts, and now think we're just building upon them - once we step into the unknown, we enter the realm of monsters and are wise to be afraid).

There is nothing recorded to suggest that Schwartz had any connection to the club at the time of Stride's murder. And any connection he may have after that point in time could easily have arisen because of the event. In other words, his later known connections could just as easily be viewed as evidence that he did, indeed, witness what he said he did. And, as a result of his involvement, developed relationships with other people also caught up in the murder.

Do I know that? No, of course not, I just made it up. I'm just trying to illustrate how easy it is to create stories. The danger lies in believing that which you made up is true.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The inquest was conducted on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th October with a couple of witnesses and the summary on the 23rd. What happened on the 4th Oct?

Cheers, George

I don’t know. Maybe The Coroner had other business to attend to?

Perhaps he had to umpire a one day match?

[GBinOz]

I don’t know. Maybe The Coroner had other business to attend to?

Hi Herlock,

I don't know either but it would be a convenient time to hear the evidence of Schwartz.

I looked at the link you provided and came across this, from the Evening Post, which agrees with the Times account:
Mr. Edward Johnson, of 100, Commercial-road, said he was assistant to Drs. Kaye and Blackwell. On Sunday morning from five to ten minutes past one a constable called at the surgery and witness accompanied him to the yard in Berner’s-street, where he saw the deceased.

This is beyond frustrating. Two journalists hear one thing and two hear another. Unless of course there was some sharing involved.

With all due respect to your opinion, which you have sufficiently repeated, what actually happened doesn't conform to your guidelines. There were many people called to the inquest who don't satisfy any of your criteria, Brown and Marshall to name just two.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Perhaps he had to umpire a one day match?

Is that Schwartz batting?

[GBinOz]

This is also from the Evening Post:
Edward Spencer, 26, Fairclough-street, a horse keeper, said that on Sunday morning between half-past 12 and on o’clock he was outside the Beehive public-house, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, with a young woman. They had been in a public-house in Commercial-road and remained until closing time, when they left and walked down Christian-street. They had been standing talking about 25 minutes, when two youths came running along shouting “Murder!” and “Police!”

This account points to Spooner seeing Diemshitz and Jacobs just before one o'clock. I think Jeff was right when he suggested that Spooner's "25 minutes before one" in other accounts was a mishearing of "5 minutes before one". The "youths" reminds us that the men from the Club were very young.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps he had to umpire a one day match?

All that we know is that no one appears to have made an issue of this so we know that there was nothing suspicious going on.