If Schwartz Lied ...

[FISHY1118]

In the end i guess it comes down to which witness one chooses to believe and which one he doesnt . That can be said im sure for Long, Cadosch ,Richardson Lewende etc , in Schwartz case the police were happy with his statement and thought it reliable, Abberline sure thought so.

Ill give you an example, in Richardsons case , when he was questioned by by Chandler on the morning of the Chapman murder, i think it was only an hour after the discovery of her body , according to Chandlers inquest testimony Richardson never mentioned sitting on the step to cut the leather from his boot.

So we have two senarios, either he lied about it or forgot to tell Chandler on the morning, but remembered that he did sit down when he gave his testimony.

But heres the problem , the people who suspect he lied and support Chandlers account of what Richardson said could be right in assuming that he only went as far as the back door of 29 Handbury st, open it up just enough to just see if the lock was on the door of the shed he was checking, thus missing Chapmans body lying between the steps and the fence .

That would mean Chapmans boby could well have been there much earlier than when Richardson said he sat on the step , giving credence to the Dr Phillips time of death of 3.30 am/ 4.00am .

My point is this,....... one small detail can change the whole outcome of what may or may not have happen.


And so it is with every witness of every murder of JtR .

Schwartz is just as likely to be wrong or right as any other witness .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In the end i guess it comes down to which witness one chooses to believe and which one he doesnt . That can be said im sure for Long, Cadosch ,Richardson Lewende etc , in Schwartz case the police were happy with his statement and thought it reliable, Abberline sure thought so.

Swanson on Schwartz

My point is this,....... one small detail can change the whole outcome of what may or may not have happen.

Schwartz's story is part of the narrative of Berner street. Maintaining that narrative, or big picture, is perhaps not the best approach to spotting small details that might suggest that the narrative is false.

[FISHY1118]

That being said, i dont see how one mans testmony can be dimissed based on what another man claims to be something else, when we dont know or can proove either of their eywitness accounts


Like i said, all the witnesss in the JtR murders that one chooses to support face this problem.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Perhaps it went something like this ...

Schwartz: The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed ...

Stride: Murder! Police! Murder!

Schwartz: ... but not very loudly.

Or perhaps it didn't ...

DN Oct 3: From an early hour in the morning a large crowd collected in front of the yard in Berner-street, but the drenching showers which fell in the course of the afternoon soon dispersed the people. Rumours of a sensational character were prevalent during the day. One was to the effect that during the previous night shouts of "Murder" and "Police" had been heard in the immediate vicinity of the International Club. The accuracy of this statement was at once denied by the police, and their refutation has since been supported by the members of the club and the inmates of the clubhouse.

What do you suppose was the nature of the three screams?

[FISHY1118]

How does the nature of the screams change what Schwartz claimed he saw and heard ?

A better question should be, Why was the man who may of been Jack the Ripper [if stride was a ripper vitim] trying to drag her into the open street!!!?? .?


Just noticed before i post, are you suggesting Schwartz testemoiny included that Stride said this ''murder police murder'' ?

or that the accuracy of the screams that were refuted by the police and members and inmates of the club ?

Then that could just as esasily be explain be Schwartz saying ''not very loudly'' ,i take it not very loudly means that maybe only he heard the screams , depends of what one chooses to assume what Schwartz interetation of ''not very loudly''.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How does the nature of the screams change what Schwartz claimed he saw and heard ?

This is a Schwartz-centric view of the evidence. I prefer to just look at the evidence as it is, rather than through the eyes of an uncorroborated witness. If the screams were screams of pain, we might expect to see corresponding injuries or damage to clothing. Arguably there is no evidence that Stride was ever thrown onto the footway. Presumably then, Stride's screams consisted of words. No doubt many believe that these words were not heard over the thunderous din of the club's impromptu choir. Funny that many of the same people appear to have no doubts about Fanny Mortimer being able to hear the passing plod of a policeman, while inside her place, or that the murderer made his escape on hearing the pony and cart enter the street, with his concentration centred on the victim he is about to start cutting open.

A better question should be, Why was the man who may of been Jack the Ripper [if stride was a ripper vitim] trying to drag her into the open street!!!?? .?

Discussed here

Just noticed before i post, are you suggesting Schwartz testemoiny included that Stride said this ''murder police murder'' ?

or that the accuracy of the screams that were refuted by the police and members and inmates of the club ?

In the case of Schwartz, not that he said that Stride used those words, because they are English words, but that the screams he claims to have heard, may have consisted of unintelligible words, rather than what is normally meant by a scream. In the case of the police, their refutation seems to be in relation to rumours, and not Schwartz himself. Still, we don't know who was responsible for starting those rumours.

Then that could just as esasily be explain be Schwartz saying ''not very loudly'' ,i take it not very loudly means that maybe only he heard the screams , depends of what one chooses to assume what Schwartz interetation of ''not very loudly''.

Would you agree that 'loudly', is not the same as 'very loudly'? If yes, then we could say that the screams were loud, but not heard by those in the kitchen of the club, or by those still awake in the cottages down the laneway. Do you find that at all curious?

[FISHY1118]

'''Arguably there is no evidence that Stride was ever thrown onto the footway''


No evidence except for the fact that Schwartz gave an official police statement claiming thats what he saw , Thats the evidence !!, and as yet i dont recall another witness contradicting that with a statement that claims that stride ''was,nt'' thrown into the footway ''

3 options .1 you believe him , 2, you think he was mistaken, 3 ,you think he lied.

I dont think youll pick 1 , So i gotta say, to say he Lied or was mistaken 134 years after he witnessed the event that you and i obviously didnt is pretty ballsy my friend


''Tried? Tried and failed? So a broad shouldered man tried but apparently failed to pull a slightly built woman who was standing on the footway, into the street. Excuse me for putting it like this, but this is where everyone should check that their BS detector is functioning.''



Yes why not? .Schwartz only said the man tried to pull the women into the street, wether he failed not is irrelevant ,dont you think ?


On the ''not very loud'' topic , on a scale of 1 to 10 any sound that one might be asked to say how loud it was , an 8 might be described as ''very loud'' , a 3 might be ''not very loud'' like i said depends on the persons interpretation

Just a simple answer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fishy,
I was referring to physical evidence, not what Schwartz said. Sorry I didn't make that clear, but I thought it was implied.

If I had to choose from your 1, 2 or 3, then its 3. However, it's more complicated than 3. Is it so radical not to believe a witness in a 134 y/o murder case?

If Schwartz is believed, then the man's failed attempt to pull the woman into the street must be regarded as irrelevant. What other choice is there?

A scream has to be loud, or louder than loud, to be a scream. A not loud scream is an oxymoron. I make the assumption that either or both the interpreter or Abberline would have confirmed Schwartz's description of the sounds.

[FISHY1118]

Thats ok Andrew no probs [hopes thats your name ] , just on the physical evidence tho, is it really that important that there has to be ? How do we know the condition of strides clothes before the attack? or any injuries to her body? its possible there were none of these after her attack . Again who makes the claim that there was ''no evidence she was pulled into the street'', where is it that its stated that would contradict what Schwartz said ?


''If I had to choose from your 1, 2 or 3, then its 3. However, it's more complicated than 3. Is it so radical not to believe a witness in a 134 y/o murder case?''

Easy to say that now i guess .... But ok yes, As long as we can say that about all the witnesses

I think we will leave the ''loud'' debate , too subjective ..
.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thats ok Andrew no probs [hopes thats your name ] , just on the physical evidence tho, is it really that important that there has to be ? How do we know the condition of strides clothes before the attack? or any injuries to her body? its possible there were none of these after her attack . Again who makes the claim that there was ''no evidence she was pulled into the street'', where is it that its stated that would contradict what Schwartz said ?

If Stride really was thrown to the ground, causing her to scream in some sense, then any physical evidence that supports this claim is going to go some way in dealing with the Schwartz doubters, like myself. It would a matter of going through the statements of the doctors, or anything else you think relevant.

Schwartz seems to have claimed that the man tried to pull the woman into the street. To me, 'tried' implies failed. How could a stout man fail to pull a slight woman like Liz, anywhere he wanted to? I just think that sounds strange, as in, unlikely. Now if it were a man he was trying to pull around, it makes sense. So what could this (other) man doing in the gateway, that prompts BS to pull him toward the street? He is blocking the gateway. It is at this point that BS supposes someone of being a 'murdering Jew'. Hence 'Lipski!'. Do you really think that word, which has strong connotations with murder, was said just before or just after a murder actually occurred?

''If I had to choose from your 1, 2 or 3, then its 3. However, it's more complicated than 3. Is it so radical not to believe a witness in a 134 y/o murder case?''

Easy to say that now i guess .... But ok yes, As long as we can say that about all the witnesses

Is this what you mean about equality?

[FISHY1118]

''If Stride really was thrown to the ground, causing her to scream in some sense, then any physical evidence that supports this claim is going to go some way in dealing with the Schwartz doubters, like myself. It would a matter of going through the statements of the doctors, or anything else you think relevant.''

Theres just now way of knowing ''why'' she screamed tho is there ? she could of been pissed at him for throwing her down, or not because she was hurt because of the fall. We just speculate with out proof different senarios where Schwartz testImony is concerned . All we can do is take it for what it was intended and given to the police at the time . If you disagree thats fine ,i for one dont simply because of the following.

There is no evidence from any source that i know of that contradicts Schwartz statement .

That page about equality , talks about Schwartz being a suspect rather than his account of what he saw as a witness

i suppose the police thought enough to dismiss him at the time for being a suspect ,is that what hey detemined with lechmere

[c.d.]

Schwartz seems to have claimed that the man tried to pull the woman into the street. To me, 'tried' implies failed. How could a stout man fail to pull a slight woman like Liz, anywhere he wanted to? I just think that sounds strange, as in, unlikely.

The problem is that we don't know the motive or intent behind the B.S. man's actions. He might have been absolutely enraged or mildly annoyed that Liz was standing where she was. If the latter, then a shove following his attempt at puling her might have been sufficient to get his point across. No need to escalate the situation.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Stride actually could have been the aggressor as strange as that seems with the the B.S. man trying to get away from her. See the "A Modern Day B.S. Man/Liz Encounter" thread. In the scene I witnessed, had I not understood English I would have concluded that the man was the aggressor not the woman but the reality was that it was actually the woman who had initiated things.

We simply don't know.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The problem is that we don't know the motive or intent behind the B.S. man's actions. He might have been absolutely enraged or mildly annoyed that Liz was standing where she was.

This is the man disapproved of her standing/soliciting in that location theory. It's a popular explanation, but it suffers from a few problems.

Who, other than someone from the club, would have disapproved of Stride standing there, and to such an extent that he would assault her? Unless someone in the club did not tell the truth of their whereabouts at around 12:45, the only candidates for Disapproving Man are Joseph Lave and Morris Eagle. Did Eagle rough-up Stride, while Lave stood across the street lighting his pipe?

Alternatively, if you wanted to claim that Disapproving Man was not from the club, then you have a man with no way of knowing if the woman is known to some of the men inside, but who is happy to risk getting a severe beating, by manhandling one of their women.

When Schwartz (supposedly) stopped to watch what was going on between the man and the woman, right near them, did it not occur to Disapproving Man that Schwartz was either associated with the woman, or that he was an eager potential customer? In either case, why didn't he make his disapproval known to Schwartz?

If Stride was standing there to solicit, then where's her prior earnings?

If she was waiting for someone, then we have yet another individual to add to the list of unknown identities (Godot Man?), unless it is supposed it was BS she was waiting for. In that case, why was no evidence found by either the police or at the inquest, of anyone who held a grudge against her, let alone to the extent that he would possibly kill her?

Members of the club stated at the inquest that they had never seen unknown men or women at the gates or in the yard, with only a single exception, mentioned by Wess. Prior to 12:45, every sighting of Stride had been with a man, and with no signs of any friction. Suddenly, according to Schwartz, she is alone at a spot that women with no connection to the club are very rarely seen at. The odds are heavily against.

There is simply no good reason to suppose that Stride was every standing in the gateway, let alone that a man came along who disapproved of her standing there, minding her own business.

If the latter, then a shove following his attempt at puling her might have been sufficient to get his point across. No need to escalate the situation.

c.d.

So it was a shove, and not a throwing down? Why the watering down?

I guess we could get around this pulling onto the street issue, by ignoring the police account and going with take 2 - the Star:

The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage ...

This is Schwartz suggesting that the half-tipsy man was the murderer, and the implication of the word 'back' seems to be that the woman had been somewhere up the yard.

[FISHY1118]

Schwartz's statement does not survive but the details are given by Chief Inspector Swanson in a report dated 19 October 1888, and are worth repeating here. ¹

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed 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, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. 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. [Here there is a marginal note. 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'.] Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.


Does another eyewitness account of this same incident exist ?,

Could somebody post it ?