If Schwartz Lied ...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

He probably peeled off his skin to reveal his true reptilian form and left for Venus on the mothership.

Schwartz a lizard? That could be construed as an anti-Semitic statement. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though.

Schwartz was believed by Abberline. Just accept it. It’s a fact. Move on.

I accept that Abberline was fooled by Schwartz, as is almost everyone else.

Newspaper rumours don’t cut it. You love them though. Grist to the mill.

I especially love this 'rumor'...

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

...because it suggests it was the struggle in particular, that was doubted. Who else was there at the time, who could have contradicted Schwartz?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Herlock,

[...]

I think that you made a very sensible suggestion that maybe Schwartz genuinely believed that his life was in danger from the ripper. I would suggest that in lieu of being excused from appearing at the inquest due to his fear, he was offered total secrecy in a tighly closed session on Thursday which included the exclusion of the press.

Without that total secrecy, who knows what broad shoulders might have done to him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I might be a little dim today, but I'm still struggling with your logic. You have repeated said that the Coroner must have been working within the parameters of the 4 point plan, but it is obvious that he wasn't observing those points in the case of Wess, Eagle, Spooner, Marshall and Brown. Even Smith wouldn't have qualified. I am at a loss to accept how Schwartz can deem to have been excluded based on a set of theoretical criteria that weren't being observed by the Coroner.

I think that you made a very sensible suggestion that maybe Schwartz genuinely believed that his life was in danger from the ripper. I would suggest that in lieu of being excused from appearing at the inquest due to his fear, he was offered total secrecy in a tighly closed session on Thursday which included the exclusion of the press. I think Schwartz was genuine in his statements (with translation limits) and was important to the evidence regardless of criteria that were obviously not implemented by Baxter.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

My point is simply this; others (you can guess who I mean) claim to know why Schwartz wasn’t called to the Inquest despite the fact that this reason isn’t stated anywhere in the records. I, on the other hand, simply state that we have no way of knowing as we haven’t been given this information. Can you, or anyone else, explain how I’m being .unreasonable?’ I’m criticised for not claiming to know the unknown.

On the subject of the 4 aims of the Inquest and Schwartz absence I’ll say that I’ve got this information from David Orsam, a man who’s not exactly well known for his skimpy research! So it’s not something I’ve misinterpreted or invented. It’s simply an indisputable fact (or at least it should be) that Israel Schwartz was not a vital witness. It seems strange to us (and to me at first) but it’s true nonetheless. An example of this is that when it’s said that an Inquest needed to establish when the victim died it meant ‘she was killed on 30th September 1888’ and not the time of death. Coroner’s often took an interest in this but TOD wasn’t a specific aim of the Inquest. And so, as you can see from that 1 of the 4 Schwartz simple couldn’t contribute. Another obvious one is identifying the witness where posters have said that Schwartz could have identified Stride (I’d previously have thought it myself) but the reality is that it means that the Inquest had to establish the victims name and again, very obviously, Schwartz was no use on that score. On ‘where’ she was killed it’s equally obvious that Schwartz couldn’t contribute to this because the doctors and police established that she’d died where she was found. With the ‘how’ she died its even more obvious why Schwartz couldn’t contribute. So no matter how counter-intuitive it might seem we can see very clearly that Schwartz wasn’t a witness who’s absence rendered the Inquest ineffective. In reality the Inquest didn’t need him in any way.

DO does say, and I’ve repeated, that evidence was taken from witnesses who couldn’t contribute to the 4 points. Some of whom might simply have come forward with the Coroner being obliged to hear them? But the point is that there’s no point playing the game of ‘why wasn’t he/she there?’ Or ‘why was he/she there?’ And so if we, a) know the 4 specific aims of the Inquest, b) know that we have no idea how an individual Coroner might or might not select witnesses and c) have no written information on why he didn’t call Schwartz (or Fanny Mortimer) for that matter, we cannot assume to know. How can this not be a perfectly reasonable position and yet some who claim to know the unknown claim that they are the ones being reasonable by doing so?

DO also gives examples of potential reasons why Schwartz might not have been there. Everyone a possibility imo. He also provides proper examples of witnesses that Baxter didn’t believe testifying at his Inquest. So this, combined with the fact that we know that the Police’s stated position was that Schwartz was a genuine, valid witness well after the Inquest, should dismiss the suggestion that Schwartz was called because the Coroner disbelieved him. Basically, the Coroner was presented with a list and he selected the ones that he wanted to here. He didn’t have the duty of ‘investigating’ each witness and making the kind of judgment call that could only be made my investigating police officers who had performed background checks and interviewed witnesses face to face. For these reasons we can discount that Schwartz was omitted because the Coroner disbelieved him.

We simply don’t know why he wasn’t there. That is the only honest answer George. Apologies for the long post but I wanted to make the full point as I find, with some, that wish-thinking triumphs over facts and that it’s apparently ‘unreasonable’ to say “we simply don’t know.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

I accept that Abberline was fooled by Schwartz, as is almost everyone else.

You assume this without grounds. Simply because to want a mystery.

I especially love this 'rumor'...

In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

...because it suggests it was the struggle in particular, that was doubted. Who else was there at the time, who could have contradicted Schwartz?

Who said this? Can it be tied to a specific officer? Was it the opinion of more than one officer? Can we know that it wasn’t a case of a police officer or two suspected that Schwartz just saw a domestic argument and mistook it for something more serious?

Do we have any quotes from the police themselves saying that Schwartz was doubted or disbelieved?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

On the subject of the 4 aims of the Inquest and Schwartz absence I’ll say that I’ve got this information from David Orsam, a man who’s not exactly well known for his skimpy research!

You seem very impressed with this Orsam chap. Can you invite him to join the forum so I can take him on as well?

We simply don’t know why he wasn’t there. That is the only honest answer George. Apologies for the long post but I wanted to make the full point as I find, with some, that wish-thinking triumphs over facts and that it’s apparently ‘unreasonable’ to say “we simply don’t know.”

Thanks for that honest, fact-based post, but can you write another that doesn't miss the point of George's question?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You seem very impressed with this Orsam chap. Can you invite him to join the forum so I can take him on as well?

You know that he’s no longer a member of course. I’m ‘impressed’ as you call it purely from experience. And as he’s a professional researcher working in the Legal profession I’d suggest that this adds weight to his points on Inquests. As opposed to someone saying “ well that can’t be true because it doesn’t sound right.”

Thanks for that honest, fact-based post, but can you write another that doesn't miss the point of George's question?

Answered in the fourth paragraph. Yes it was honest and fact-based. Yet still it’s disputed by those with a vested interest in creating mystery where none exists.

It’s ok, if annoying, to keep debating the same old points, but it’s futile when people dispute every single issue just for the sake of it, which is what’s happening here.

The statement: ‘We have absolutely no way of knowing why Schwartz wasn’t at the Inquest and it would be wrong to suggest that we do’ is one thing that we should all agree on because it’s as basic as it gets. And yet in this weird, black-is-white, Lewis Carroll-type world some try to claim that I’m in the wrong simply by stating a fact.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You assume this without grounds. Simply because to want a mystery.

The Home Office understood 'Lipski!' to have two possible meanings...

It does not appear whether the man used the word "Lipski" as a mere ejaculation, meaning in mockery I am going to "Lipski" the woman, or whether he was calling to a man across the road by his proper name.

Abberline was fixated on a third meaning - a derogatory term used toward Jews. It never seems to have occurred to him that the word might have been used in one of the other senses, even though he was dealing with a murder case. So he tried to talk Schwartz into supposing the word was directed at him. Schwartz partially relented, but Abberline missed the point.

Who said this? Can it be tied to a specific officer? Was it the opinion of more than one officer? Can we know that it wasn’t a case of a police officer or two suspected that Schwartz just saw a domestic argument and mistook it for something more serious?

I'm sure you already know that it wasn't, but why would one officer contradict the station, by giving his personal opinion, when the report tells us that two arrests have been made based on 'the Hungarian's' statement?

Do we have any quotes from the police themselves saying that Schwartz was doubted or disbelieved?

Other that what can be read into Swanson's comments, we have the same number as we do quotes from Fanny Mortimer, saying she were on her doorstep for just 10 minutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Home Office understood 'Lipski!' to have two possible meanings...

It does not appear whether the man used the word "Lipski" as a mere ejaculation, meaning in mockery I am going to "Lipski" the woman, or whether he was calling to a man across the road by his proper name.

Abberline was fixated on a third meaning - a derogatory term used toward Jews. It never seems to have occurred to him that the word might have been used in one of the other senses, even though he was dealing with a murder case. So he tried to talk Schwartz into supposing the word was directed at him. Schwartz partially relented, but Abberline missed the point.

An assumption based on zero evidence. Abberline was slightly closer to ground level than the Home Office. So I thinks it’s fair to assume that he’d have had a better understanding of street insults than Henry Matthews or one of his underlings?

I'm sure you already know that it wasn't, but why would one officer contradict the station, by giving his personal opinion, when the report tells us that two arrests have been made based on 'the Hungarian's' statement?

Yes I did know but wouldn’t an individual officer give an opinion to the Press? Especially if a coin or two changed hands. As I said, some might have felt that Schwartz simply saw a less serious argument and exaggerated it maybe due to his lack of English.

Other that what can be read into Swanson's comments, we have the same number as we do quotes from Fanny Mortimer, saying she were on her doorstep for just 10 minutes.

Where does Swanson mention doubting Schwartz?

You can keep on about Fanny as much as you like but one point that can’t be denied is that she said that she went on to her doorstep just after Smith passed. Therefore her time for going on to her doorstep is based on how accurate or inaccurate you feel Smith to have been? Do you think 10 or 15 minutes out sounds reasonable for Smith? It’s something that we can’t know for a fact but if Smith was correct (and there at least has to be a very reasonable possibility) then that would mean that Fanny was wrong.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

An assumption based on zero evidence. Abberline was slightly closer to ground level than the Home Office. So I thinks it’s fair to assume that he’d have had a better understanding of street insults than Henry Matthews or one of his underlings?

I see. Well that would explain why they didn't bother spending weeks looking for a man named Lipski.

Yes I did know but wouldn’t an individual officer give an opinion to the Press? Especially if a coin or two changed hands. As I said, some might have felt that Schwartz simply saw a less serious argument and exaggerated it maybe due to his lack of English.

The chance that the officer gave an opinion that was diametrically opposed to the general opinion at the station, is far less than a flip of a coin, or even two coins. You continue to psychologically struggle with notion that Schwartz was not universally believed by the police.

You can keep on about Fanny as much as you like but one point that can’t be denied is that she said that she went on to her doorstep just after Smith passed.

Actually it is you who denies this. You believe that it was just after just after. Or was it just after just after just after?

Therefore her time for going on to her doorstep is based on how accurate or inaccurate you feel Smith to have been? Do you think 10 or 15 minutes out sounds reasonable for Smith? It’s something that we can’t know for a fact but if Smith was correct (and there at least has to be a very reasonable possibility) then that would mean that Fanny was wrong.

Blimey! So what would that mean?

I was in Berner-street at about 12.35. About one o’clock I saw a large crowd of people outside the gate of No. 40.

Smith was at the top of Berner street at about 1:00. Did he hear cries for police, or see Lamb and the others as walked down the street?

I did not notice any disturbance, and heard no cries of "Police." There were two policemen there. I do not remember passing anyone on my way down Berner-street.

No. So they must have preceded him by 3 minutes or more. They themselves were preceded by Spooner.

I stood by the side of the deceased about five minutes, till Police-constable Lamb came.

And so on, until we get back to the point of the murder. A point implied by Charles Letchford.

...my sister was standing at the door at 10 minutes to one, but did not see anyone pass by.

How did he know when the murder had occurred?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The chance that the officer gave an opinion that was diametrically opposed to the general opinion at the station, is far less than a flip of a coin, or even two coins. You continue to psychologically struggle with notion that Schwartz was not universally believed by the police.

There’s nothing psychological about it. It’s about facts. And the facts tell us that the Police were treating Schwartz as a valid witness and continued to do so into November.

You can’t prove that Schwartz was disbelieved to any significant extent (or any extent at all because the reporter might have made it up or misinterpreted something that he’d heard) . A newspaper report on this without quoting where the reporters info came from is basically worthless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually it is you who denies this. You believe that it was just after just after. Or was it just after just after just after?

Absolutely not. You are so determined to uncover some plot that you’ve developed an aversion to prosaic explanations.

The point that I’ve made ad nauseum is simply that Fanny cannot be used to disprove Schwartz as we cannot be anything approaching certain as to when she was on her doorstep. And I don’t have to stoop to the conspiracist trick of assuming that all inconvenient witness must have been lying to do this. No manipulations required. Purely and simply - was she correct or was PC Smith? Toss a coin if you like but it won’t get you a conclusive answer and without a conclusive time she’s next to useless. You can’t use an unknown to prove a positive.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Blimey! So what would that mean?

I was in Berner-street at about 12.35. About one o’clock I saw a large crowd of people outside the gate of No. 40.

Smith was at the top of Berner street at about 1:00. Did he hear cries for police, or see Lamb and the others as walked down the street?

I did not notice any disturbance, and heard no cries of "Police." There were two policemen there. I do not remember passing anyone on my way down Berner-street.

No. So they must have preceded him by 3 minutes or more. They themselves were preceded by Spooner.

I stood by the side of the deceased about five minutes, till Police-constable Lamb came.

And so on, until we get back to the point of the murder. A point implied by Charles Letchford.

...my sister was standing at the door at 10 minutes to one, but did not see anyone pass by.

How did he know when the murder had occurred?

I don’t know what this section is about? My point is an obvious one.

If it’s claimed that Fanny went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed and that was at 12.45 then Smith was wrong by 10 or 15 minutes. Is that reasonable? If you think that it is then fine, it’s your own call of course.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There’s nothing psychological about it. It’s about facts. And the facts tell us that the Police were treating Schwartz as a valid witness and continued to do so into November.

So how many ID parades did Schwartz participate in, in that period. Just none? Was that because his friends had conspired to keep him hidden away from that terrifying man with the very sharp pipe?

You can’t prove that Schwartz was disbelieved to any significant extent (or any extent at all because the reporter might have made it up or misinterpreted something that he’d heard) .

I can't prove it, but there is good evidence, and that is what any serious researcher of a 133 year-old case, should be looking for. All you can do to contradict this, is to pull the "the newspaper made it all up" line. Lame.

A newspaper report on this without quoting where the reporters info came from is basically worthless.

Can we generalize this to...

A newspaper report on anything without quoting where the reporters info came from is basically worthless.

...or do you need to keep picking cherries?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The point that I’ve made ad nauseum is simply that Fanny cannot be used to disprove Schwartz as we cannot be anything approaching certain as to when she was on her doorstep.

There were many people on the street, in the hour leading up to the murder. For example...

Coroner: Did you meet anybody in Berner-street?
Wess: I can't recollect; but as I went along Fairclough-street, close by, I noticed some men and women standing together.

That was at about 12:15, but the point is that we see a pattern common to all witnesses who were on the street - they all see other people. Smith did, Eagle did, Wess did, and Mortimer did. She saw men near the club and others on the street (one of them twice). So the situation looks pretty dire for Schwartz, even before we consider men from the WVC and plain clothes police.

Your big failing is that you only think about Fanny. All you talk about in this regard, is Fanny. Everywhere you look, you only see Fanny. Yet when the timing doesn't suit, you want to hide Fanny away.

And I don’t have to stoop to the conspiracist trick of assuming that all inconvenient witness must have been lying to do this. No manipulations required.

Who were the inconvenient witnesses to Schwartz' little play? Name one.

Purely and simply - was she correct or was PC Smith? Toss a coin if you like but it won’t get you a conclusive answer and without a conclusive time she’s next to useless. You can’t use an unknown to prove a positive.

Smith was likely the most correct about the time, and I'm not sure about the 10 minute period, because it does not agree with either her other comments, or with Goldstein. However, if Smith was correct, and the 10 minutes was close enough to the truth, then the pony & cart must have been heard at about 12:48. Is that also correct?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So how many ID parades did Schwartz participate in, in that period. Just none? Was that because his friends had conspired to keep him hidden away from that terrifying man with the very sharp pipe?

What could we have expected the Police to have done with the descriptions that Schwartz gave? Or any other witness in this case for that matter? How many arrests could they have made? How many ID parades do we know occurred during these murders? Your point proves nothing.

I can't prove it, but there is good evidence, and that is what any serious researcher of a 133 year-old case, should be looking for. All you can do to contradict this, is to pull the "the newspaper made it all up" line. Lame.

A newspaper talking vaguely about ‘the Police’ is not good evidence. Especially when it’s directly contradicted by official documents. And I’m not pulling a line. The suggestion that the Press might have exaggerated is just a possibility. If someone within the Police had their doubts about Stride, and it’s quite possible that they did, we don’t know any details so it might just have been the opinion of the individual officer that the reporter interviewed. Or a small percentage of officers. The point is that this officer, or these officers, had no influence on the police investigation because Abberline clearly believed Schwartz and the Police acted accordingly.

Can we generalize this to...

A newspaper report on anything without quoting where the reporters info came from is basically worthless.

...or do you need to keep picking cherries?

Im not picking cherries I’m refusing to get carried away as you do every time you read anything on the case that has a slightly different wording or mentions a slightly different time or whenever you get an idea or whenever you think “I wonder if anyone has ever accused witness x of anything? Let me see.”

You start from a point of “well there must be some kind of mystery or cover-up in this somewhere,” but I start from a position of saying “most witness tend to give there opinions honestly so this should be the default position until significant evidence is produced to prove otherwise, always bearing in mind that timings have to be accepted as approximations when we know this to have been the case and taking into account that not everyone uses language in exactly the same way especially when we consider poor education and the use of second languages.”