If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Is that Schwartz batting?

No, Schwartz is at a first slip. Druitt is at the non-striker's end.

[GBinOz]

No, Schwartz is at a first slip. Druitt is at the non-striker's end.

[Scott Nelson]

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.

And they could run really fast too.

[JeffHamm]

And they could run really fast too.

Hi Scott,

I don't think they would have to be going all that fast as none of the distances are particularly far. The average walking speed is around 3.1 mph, so running at round 6mph would be a reasonable estimate (that's 10 min/mile, and they're not sustaining that for anything like a mile; elite mile runners target 4min miles, which requires 15 mph speed, so I'm not suggesting anything "possible but improbable" here). Generally, in the various simulations I've worked on, I tend to set "running" at 6.1 mph as that was the value found in a study I read a few years ago. Unfortunately I'm trying to relocate the article as I appear to have recorded the speed information, but not the source information. Sigh.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I believe that when Schwartz opened the batting for the Working Men's Cricket Club, he got the team off to a reasonable start. However, the opposition attack asked some probing questions of him, which he often struggled to answer, and was eventually run out trying to take a quick single.

[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

Is this a better guess than cricket umpiring...?

Does anybody other than myself find it a little odd that the Stride Inquest is adjourned after it's third consecutive day, Wednesday 3rd October until, not the following day, but Friday 5th October? Dr Bagster Phillips evidence is thus split across two sessions separated by a day. The final day seems incredibly distant too (Tuesday 23rd October).

This seems odd, knowing how notoriously difficult it could sometimes be to hold on to juries.

Pure surmise, but is it conceivable that the Coroner wanted time out on the 4th either to consider, or perhaps hear arguments, as to whether Schwartz was called or not?

Just a passing thought - doubt very much if it's an original one either!

All the best

Dave

On the Friday, the foreman apparently knows about Schwartz and his police statement. Dr. Phillips's seems to understand what the foreman is 'getting at'. Baxter does not object to the foreman's question to Phillips. Nor does any reporter seem to have found it an odd question, given the apparent lack of context.

What would occur in the case of an individual called to an inquest, who was currently in police custody? Would that individual just be escorted to and from the inquest, by the police, but otherwise participate like any other witness? Is it conceivable that, just as the jury would visit the mortuary to view the deceased, the jury and coroner might go to a police station, to hear from a witness?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Swanston re Schwartz: On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

The Star re the Hungarian: … feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

The difference between Pipeman and Knifeman, is usually attributed to either one of two things:

one: Schwartz drastically changed his story, and Pipeman becomes Knifeman

two: some combination of misleading questions, poor interpretation, and sensational journalism by the Star, is to blame for the discrepancy

Is there a third interpretation?
Consider these differences between Pipeman and Knifeman:

* Pipeman was on the opposite side of the road to BS man and the woman, whereas Knifeman came out of the Nelson publichouse doorway

* Pipeman was standing lighting his pipe, whereas Knifeman rushed towards Schwartz as if to attack him, while holding a knife

On what basis do we assume that the Pipeman and Knifeman monikers, refer to one and the same person? Consider this further difference:

* Pipeman followed Schwartz part of the way to one the railway arches - he seemingly ran after him. Knifeman did not do anything that was similar or equivalent.

Wait. Didn't Knifeman also follow Schwartz? Read it again...

The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

There is no chase, in the Star account. Knifeman rushes at Schwartz while holding a knife, Schwartz flees, but there is no reference to him being followed. You only 'know' that Knifeman must have followed Schwartz, because you 'know' that Pipeman = Knifeman. Now you might object and say that the pursuing of the Hungarian is implicit in the Star account. To that I say; if the pursuit is implicit, then why can't the presence of Pipeman, also be implicit?

Pipeman and Knifeman were two different men. Prove me wrong...

[Michael W Richards]

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?

What do you think the Inquest was for Herlock? The above is so ridiculous I just had to highlight it.

"An Inquest is an investigation into a death which appears to be due to unknown, violent or unnatural causes, designed to find out who the deceased was, and where, when and how (meaning by what means).

How would be Murder, and a knife would be the Means, both questions greatly illuminated by an alledged attack seen on the victim by an aggresor...FEET and MINUTES FROM the location she is found. Please stop posting such nonsense, grown ups are discussing ideas that are not rubbish here.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Actually thats incorrect. We DO know that not one document that we have access to states that the story of Israel Schwartz is entered into the Inquest records in any shape or form. So you are kind of correct in one way, unless unknown documentation surfaces the records as they are indicate he was not part of that proceeding in any way. Memos about belief in his statement, like Abberline, and his later expressed belief that Hutchinson was on the level, are about as compelling as his Chapman revelations. They are made without substantive proof, ergo, they are just opinions, not facts.

Israels story not being a part of the known Inquest documentation, in any format, is a fact.

[Michael W Richards]

Is this a better guess than cricket umpiring...?



On the Friday, the foreman apparently knows about Schwartz and his police statement. Dr. Phillips's seems to understand what the foreman is 'getting at'. Baxter does not object to the foreman's question to Phillips. Nor does any reporter seem to have found it an odd question, given the apparent lack of context.

What would occur in the case of an individual called to an inquest, who was currently in police custody? Would that individual just be escorted to and from the inquest, by the police, but otherwise participate like any other witness? Is it conceivable that, just as the jury would visit the mortuary to view the deceased, the jury and coroner might go to a police station, to hear from a witness?

Lawende was sequestered and some of his statements were supressed. That was openly discussed. Any talk of Israel in that context? Granted, City vs Met rules, but if a witness is being held or protected by the police based on their perceived benefit to the discussions, surely they would have to disclose that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What do you think the Inquest was for Herlock? The above is so ridiculous I just had to highlight it.

"An Inquest is an investigation into a death which appears to be due to unknown, violent or unnatural causes, designed to find out who the deceased was, and where, when and how (meaning by what means).

How would be Murder, and a knife would be the Means, both questions greatly illuminated by an alledged attack seen on the victim by an aggresor...FEET and MINUTES FROM the location she is found. Please stop posting such nonsense, grown ups are discussing ideas that are not rubbish here.

Can’t you read?

Ive posted facts. We know what the aims of an Inquest are. This isn’t some stab at giving an opinion on what they ‘might’ have been. You are yet again arguing that black is white. How does it advance us if we can’t get past a simple statement of fact. I state a fact and instead of discussing it you try to refute it simply because it doesn’t suit your argument. Can there be a better illustration of your bias on this subject?

What Schwartz saw or didn’t see wouldn’t have helped an Inquest on the specific aims. First point, the identity of the victim. Schwartz categorically didn’t know her identity, but others did, so how can this point be disputed. Second point, where she met her death. How could Schwartz have contributed to this? They knew where the body was found and the doctors and police all agreed that she was killed where she was found. Third point, when was she killed. Schwartz didn’t see her being killed and she was very much alive when he left the scene. The doctor added a TOD of course. Fourth point, how she was killed. Again Schwartz definitely didn’t see her being killed so he couldn’t add to this one and it was down to the doctors to make this judgment.

I can’t stop you disputing the obvious but it just leaves the reader thinking “why is he so determined to show that Schwartz was disbelieved?”

The other point of course is that Coroner’s also accepted/received witness testimony from various people giving background info some relevant some less so. If any of us had been there at the time none of us would have been able to have predicted the list of witnesses exactly . We would get some right and some wrong. We would ask “why was he/she there,” or “why wasn’t he/she there?” And we wouldn’t have been able to give a reason for any presence or absence. For example, why wasn’t Fanny Mortimer called (she would hardly have been difficult to find) did the Coroner mistrust her evidence, or was a woman living 2 doors away who was supposedly on her doorstep when Schwartz passed and a few minutes before the murder, who heard Diemschutz return, and who saw events in the yard just after the murder not believed or was she also not a witness vital to the aims of the Inquest?

What about Mary Malcolm? The Coroner clearly doubted everything she said but she was still called. How does that square with you claiming that he didn’t call Schwartz because he mistrusted him (a witness with more actual information to add?)

So we know, not guess or give an opinion or speculate, but know the specific aims of the Inquest and that Schwartz wasn’t important in achieving them. We also know that it’s sometimes difficult to explain why some witnesses were or weren’t present. And we know that Coroner’s witness selection wasn’t based on his opinion of their reliability (see Malcolm)

So we can say 2 things for a fact. We have no way of knowing why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest but it wasn’t because Baxter mistrusted his evidence. And we have the fact that the police continued to name him a a valid witness well after the Inquest to categorically prove this. Why argue with facts?

We have to ask why these facts, which would little interest most people and certainly wouldn’t bother them unduly, have become such an important point for you? So much so that you will argue black is white on the subject. Anyone would think that you actually needed Schwartz discredited to be able to support a theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually thats incorrect. We DO know that not one document that we have access to states that the story of Israel Schwartz is entered into the Inquest records in any shape or form. So you are kind of correct in one way, unless unknown documentation surfaces the records as they are indicate he was not part of that proceeding in any way. Memos about belief in his statement, like Abberline, and his later expressed belief that Hutchinson was on the level, are about as compelling as his Chapman revelations. They are made without substantive proof, ergo, they are just opinions, not facts.

Israels story not being a part of the known Inquest documentation, in any format, is a fact.

That’s what I said. I don’t get what point you’re making here?

Another way of putting what I was saying was that we don’t know why he wasn’t there unless something turns up like a letter from Abberline saying “Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest because…..”

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Lawende was sequestered and some of his statements were supressed. That was openly discussed. Any talk of Israel in that context? Granted, City vs Met rules, but if a witness is being held or protected by the police based on their perceived benefit to the discussions, surely they would have to disclose that.

A man being in police custody as part of the investigation, is not the same as being held or protected by the police based on their perceived benefit to the discussions. The later implies deliberate secrecy.

What I think needs more consideration is the following contrast.

Swanston: Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

Anderson: I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself.

How do we get from Schwartz being unable to say if the men were together or known to each other, to Schwartz apparently stating that he regarded Pipeman as being BS Man's accomplice? To me, it seems that Schwartz made a further, clarifying statement, and it was this statement that somehow became know of, at the inquest.

Tell me why the following is not also an implicit reference to Schwartz...

Spooner: I did not meet anyone as I was hastening to Berner-street, except Mr. Harris, who was coming out of his house in Tiger Bay when he heard the policeman's whistle. He came running after me.

Presumably the question was something like...

Did you come across anyone, while making your way to the yard, who might have been leaving the crime scene?

Was Spooner too late getting to the yard, to have seen Schwartz? Then why does he change his mind about the time he arrived...?

I believe it was about 25 minutes to one o'clock when I ran round to the yard.

In other words, I could not have missed seeing a man running away from the vicinity of the crime. Did Spooner have Schwartz in mind?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Swanston re Schwartz: On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

The Star re the Hungarian: … feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

The difference between Pipeman and Knifeman, is usually attributed to either one of two things:

one: Schwartz drastically changed his story, and Pipeman becomes Knifeman

two: some combination of misleading questions, poor interpretation, and sensational journalism by the Star, is to blame for the discrepancy

Is there a third interpretation?
Consider these differences between Pipeman and Knifeman:

* Pipeman was on the opposite side of the road to BS man and the woman, whereas Knifeman came out of the Nelson publichouse doorway

* Pipeman was standing lighting his pipe, whereas Knifeman rushed towards Schwartz as if to attack him, while holding a knife

On what basis do we assume that the Pipeman and Knifeman monikers, refer to one and the same person? Consider this further difference:

* Pipeman followed Schwartz part of the way to one the railway arches - he seemingly ran after him. Knifeman did not do anything that was similar or equivalent.

Wait. Didn't Knifeman also follow Schwartz? Read it again...

The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

There is no chase, in the Star account. Knifeman rushes at Schwartz while holding a knife, Schwartz flees, but there is no reference to him being followed. You only 'know' that Knifeman must have followed Schwartz, because you 'know' that Pipeman = Knifeman. Now you might object and say that the pursuing of the Hungarian is implicit in the Star account. To that I say; if the pursuit is implicit, then why can't the presence of Pipeman, also be implicit?

Pipeman and Knifeman were two different men. Prove me wrong...

There’s no way that Schwartz would have made such a statement and neglected to have mentioned one man. If there were 2 men as you suggest then this incident involved only 3 men + Stride. How could he have neglected to have mentioned one of them especially when he mentions one of them having a knife?

I’d say that Swanson just got a bit confused in his retelling.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. How do we get from Schwartz being unable to say if the men were together or known to each other, to Schwartz apparently stating that he regarded Pipeman as being BS Man's accomplice? To me, it seems that Schwartz made a further, clarifying statement, and it was this statement that somehow became know of, at the inquest

Surely this just comes from the police exploring the possibility that BS Man and Pipeman might have known each other? Without the benefit of any transcripts police interviews we have no way of knowing of course. They might have asked “are you certain that he was shouting ‘Lipski’ at you” which possibly raised something of a doubt in his mind? This would have left the police with an option to consider.