If Schwartz Lied ...

[FISHY1118]

Only that you mentioned that it came from Abberline himself ,i just wanted to see in what context , book, official document it came from, thats all . Surely out of sheer curiousty someone could point it out ?

Well im happy to leave the conversation at that, as long as we can both agree that mine and your opinion regarding Schwartz testimony are different. i believe him , you dont, But niether should say based on what you have provided and what i provided is wrong, because no existing evidence supports it .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If Abberline [and feel free to point it out where this was said, only that ive never seen it and would like to ] has Schwartz saying ''that other than the first and second man, there was no else in the street'' it may well be added information told to Abberline by Schwartz as he remembered it, maybe he didnt see anyone else for any number of reasons, we just dont know ,but like i said i doesnt change anything as far as his original statement goes does it ?.


Finally, where was Ed Spooner at 12.45 am ?

Fishy,
I've already fed you a decent amount of evidence, and now you're asking for more, not limited to these examples. Yet your mind is well and truly made up! I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

[FISHY1118]

''That information is not contained in Swanson's summary. It comes directly from Abberline. It has been quoted and discussed here recently.''

But how does that change the fact what Schwartz reported seeing ? when he claimed 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.

If Abberline [and feel free to point it out where this was said, only that ive never seen it and would like to ] has Schwartz saying ''that other than the first and second man, there was no else in the street'' it may well be added information told to Abberline by Schwartz as he remembered it, maybe he didnt see anyone else for any number of reasons, we just dont know ,but like i said i doesnt change anything as far as his original statement goes does it ?.


. which is just funny. James Brown saw nothing of a suspicious nature. Likewise, Fanny Mortimer saw and heard nothing. The couple by the board school wall, who spoke to Fanny, saw and heard nothing suspicious either. Eagle and Lave did not see Stride at the gates, and nor did anyone else. No one inside the club or the tenements heard screams or cries for help, and some of those stated that they would have had there been any. Finally, neither Ed Spooner nor anyone else is recorded as having seen an apparent chase along Fairclough street, or any other street.

Added to all that, we have the prisoner situation at Leman street, and the rapidly changing attitude towards Schwartz. One day he is believed, the next is isn't. Someone or something, contradicted Schwartz so badly, that the police at that station lost interest in his story. This has always been overlooked by Schwartz believers.

At 12.45 when Schwartz stated the incident took place, where were James Brown ,Fanny Mortimer, the couple by the board school wall,Eagle and Lave standing? . If the whole incident took 30/ 40 seconds to play out and they were somewhere else, a minute or two either side of Schwartz time, they might conceiveably missed the whole event might they not ? Has anyone other than Schwartz specifically mentioned a time of 12.45am. If not, how do we know what time they were there exactly? if so why didnt anyone contradict Schwartz statement? which not one person has done. I.E ''well i was there and i didnt see a man throw a women to the ground''


'' Someone or something, contradicted Schwartz so badly, that the police at that station lost interest in his story. This has always been overlooked by Schwartz believers.''

You cant have a contradiction unless you compare the same event from two different sources who saw the same thing at the same time. Schwartz doubter seem to forget this.



''So you want to see someone contradict the hypothetical claims of a hypothetical witness? That isn't going to happen. Perhaps instead, you could tell us who this hypothetical witness was'' ...

What i like is a ''genuine'' witness who can claim ''officially'' what Schwartz saw didnt happen !!, and as yet no one has been able to provide such evidence of that . Nor will they because it doesnt exit .

Ill wait here when it/if does.



No one inside the club or the tenements heard screams or cries for help, and some of those stated that they would have had there been any. Finally, neither Ed Spooner nor anyone else is recorded as having seen an apparent chase along Fairclough street, or any other street.

''Not very Loudly'' remember that part , ? you need to get right into the nitty gritty with those who ''stated'' the above. That inside the club and tenements , if asked if they heard any screams or cries for help [which there werent any cries of help as far as im aware] would they be as confident knowing such a cry was not very Loud ? .

Finally, where was Ed Spooner at 12.45 am ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I dont think you quiet answered my questioned, and you ignored my second point .

You will have to explain how I didn't answer your question, which I believe I did do. Onto your second point ...

Especially when there is no conflicticting or contradictory reports/evidence to suggest anything other than what he saw actually happened

... which is just funny. James Brown saw nothing of a suspicious nature. Likewise, Fanny Mortimer saw and heard nothing. The couple by the board school wall, who spoke to Fanny, saw and heard nothing suspicious either. Eagle and Lave did not see Stride at the gates, and nor did anyone else. No one inside the club or the tenements heard screams or cries for help, and some of those stated that they would have had there been any. Finally, neither Ed Spooner nor anyone else is recorded as having seen an apparent chase along Fairclough street, or any other street.

Added to all that, we have the prisoner situation at Leman street, and the rapidly changing attitude towards Schwartz. One day he is believed, the next is isn't. Someone or something, contradicted Schwartz so badly, that the police at that station lost interest in his story. This has always been overlooked by Schwartz believers.

'' Also, why did Schwartz say that other than the first and second man, there was no else in the street? He walked straight by 36 Berner street.''


Highlight for me where Schwartz says this in his above statement .

That information is not contained in Swanson's summary. It comes directly from Abberline. It has been quoted and discussed here recently.

''For all the reasons given by many members of this forum, over many years. The case against Schwartz is not a blank slate, as you seem to believe.''

And not one of thoses reasons are an answer to my second point , there is no case agaisnt Schwartz untill someone proves otherwise that what he saw and the statement he gave are different to what someone who saw the same event '' testified ''to.

Unless you can prove otherwise, Schwartz will remain an uncorroborated witness. Considering all the claims he made, any reasonable person should be able to look at Schwartz with at least some degree of scepticism.

3rd reason ????? any relevence what so ever ?

Are you referring to the Echo report? The one that has Schwartz implicitly cast as the murderer?

''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.''


Pleaseeeeeeeee somebody ,anybody just show me someboby who claimed this didnt happen when they witnessed the same event .

ill wait right here .

So you want to see someone contradict the hypothetical claims of a hypothetical witness? That isn't going to happen. Perhaps instead, you could tell us who this hypothetical witness was ...

[FISHY1118]

''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.''


Pleaseeeeeeeee somebody ,anybody just show me someboby who claimed this didnt happen when they witnessed the same event .

ill wait right here .

[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.


Thanks for that post , Heres the beauty of those two newspaper reports as i see it , if they were given by someone other than Schwartz , do they not confirm what he saw?

If Schwartz' himself is the man who/if the reports are said to have come from, then why should he not be believed ? Especially when there is no conflicticting or contradictory reports/evidence to suggest anything other than what he saw actually happened,

I dont think you quiet answered my questioned, and you ignored my second point .



'' Also, why did Schwartz say that other than the first and second man, there was no else in the street? He walked straight by 36 Berner street.''


Highlight for me where Schwartz says this in his above statement .


''For all the reasons given by many members of this forum, over many years. The case against Schwartz is not a blank slate, as you seem to believe.''

And not one of thoses reasons are an answer to my second point , there is no case agaisnt Schwartz untill someone proves otherwise that what he saw and the statement he gave are different to what someone who saw the same event '' testified ''to.


3rd reason ????? any relevence what so ever ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thanks for that post , Heres the beauty of those two newspaper reports as i see it , if they were given by someone other than Schwartz , do they not confirm what he saw?

So why didn't Fanny Mortimer mention this to the press? Also, why did Schwartz say that other than the first and second man, there was no else in the street? He walked straight by 36 Berner street.

Now tell me if the third report I quoted, also confirms what Schwartz saw ...

If Schwartz' himself is the man who/if the reports are said to have come from, then why should he not be believed ?

Because they add nothing to the weight of evidence in favour of his story. On the contrary, Abberline said that Schwartz stopped to watch what was going on at the gates. Does that sound to you like "no notice was taken of it"? Where is the remainder of the story? How many versions of the story did Schwartz actually give? Was it 2, or 3, or even 4? Giving multiple widely varying versions of the same story, is a reason not to believe Schwartz. Why do think Schwartz believers are so keen to blame the discrepancies in the Star, on that paper, even though its editorial made it clear that the paper's opinion was that Schwartz's tale lacked credibility?

Especially when there is no conflicticting or contradictory reports/evidence to suggest anything other than what he saw actually happened,

For all the reasons given by many members of this forum, over many years. The case against Schwartz is not a blank slate, as you seem to believe.

[FISHY1118]

There is a press account, in at least 2 papers. Who the witness was that these accounts refer to, is unclear. This report is from The People, Oct 7:

The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

This is from The Star, Oct 1:

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Were these based on Schwartz's statement to the Leman street duty officer, or did someone else give a statement about the same incident? Who might that have been?

The reason I mention the duty officer, and not Abberline, is that these reports are only equivalent to the incident at the gates, in Swanson's report. Strangely enough, the other main element of Swanson's summary of Schwartz's statement, is the chase or apparent chase, which is not in these reports but there is something at least equivalent to it in this Echo report, Oct 1:

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made about the difficulty there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be called from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally this fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.

If you mentally combine the two reports, you pretty much have the Schwartz incident. Is that just a coincidence?

Regarding the quarrelling mentioned in the People/Star report, and also mentioned in the Star report of the Schwartz incident, the following snippet from the Star (Oct 1) is interesting:

Late last night a well-known character, know as "One-armed Liz," recognised the woman as a frequenter of the Flower and Dean-street lodging-houses. She was also identified by John Arundell and Charles Preston, who knew her as lodging at No. 32 in that street. She was known by more names than one, but commonly as "Long Liz," though her true name is said to be Elizabeth Stride. She left Flower and Dean-street between six and seven o'clock on Saturday night. She then said she was not going to meet anyone in particular. Stride is believed to be a Swedish woman from Stockholm. According to her associates, she was of calm temperament, rarely quarrelling with anyone; in fact, she was so good-natured that she would "do a good turn for any one." Her occupation was that of a charwoman. She had the misfortune to lose her husband in the Princess Alice disaster on the Thames some years ago. She had lost her teeth, and suffered from a throat affection.

Perhaps the cachous was related to the throat infection. What, if anything, do you read into her saying she was not going to meet anyone in particular?

Thanks for that post , Heres the beauty of those two newspaper reports as i see it , if they were given by someone other than Schwartz , do they not confirm what he saw?

If Schwartz' himself is the man who/if the reports are said to have come from, then why should he not be believed ? Especially when there is no conflicticting or contradictory reports/evidence to suggest anything other than what he saw actually happened,

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Does another eyewitness account of this same incident exist ?,

Could somebody post it ?

There is a press account, in at least 2 papers. Who the witness was that these accounts refer to, is unclear. This report is from The People, Oct 7:

The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

This is from The Star, Oct 1:

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Were these based on Schwartz's statement to the Leman street duty officer, or did someone else give a statement about the same incident? Who might that have been?

The reason I mention the duty officer, and not Abberline, is that these reports are only equivalent to the incident at the gates, in Swanson's report. Strangely enough, the other main element of Swanson's summary of Schwartz's statement, is the chase or apparent chase, which is not in these reports but there is something at least equivalent to it in this Echo report, Oct 1:

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the two latter running up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made about the difficulty there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be called from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally this fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.

If you mentally combine the two reports, you pretty much have the Schwartz incident. Is that just a coincidence?

Regarding the quarrelling mentioned in the People/Star report, and also mentioned in the Star report of the Schwartz incident, the following snippet from the Star (Oct 1) is interesting:

Late last night a well-known character, know as "One-armed Liz," recognised the woman as a frequenter of the Flower and Dean-street lodging-houses. She was also identified by John Arundell and Charles Preston, who knew her as lodging at No. 32 in that street. She was known by more names than one, but commonly as "Long Liz," though her true name is said to be Elizabeth Stride. She left Flower and Dean-street between six and seven o'clock on Saturday night. She then said she was not going to meet anyone in particular. Stride is believed to be a Swedish woman from Stockholm. According to her associates, she was of calm temperament, rarely quarrelling with anyone; in fact, she was so good-natured that she would "do a good turn for any one." Her occupation was that of a charwoman. She had the misfortune to lose her husband in the Princess Alice disaster on the Thames some years ago. She had lost her teeth, and suffered from a throat affection.

Perhaps the cachous was related to the throat infection. What, if anything, do you read into her saying she was not going to meet anyone in particular?

[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 ?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?