Israel Schwartz Observation

[Tom_Wescott]

This thread is to continue a discussion that started on the thread entitled 'What's the Most Compelling Feature?'. Jon Guy posted a very interesting observation that I think should be discussed. My apologies to anyone who may have posted the same observation in the past and I either didn't notice it or wasn't receptive to it at the time. I'll be reposting some of our posts momentarily. While I'm aware of the possibility that Schwartz saw nothing and was lying (I kinda jumpstarted that some time ago), for the purposes of this discussion, we're taking the view that he was a legitimate witness who relayed what he saw to the best of his ability. On any discussion of Schwartz's evidence, it's important to keep in mind the following:

* He did not speak English and operated through an unknown interpreter.
* Abberline interviewed Schwartz but his report does not survive.
* Swanson provided only an abbreviated summary of Schwartz's statement, had no personal knowledge of Schwartz or his evidence, and never met the man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Tom,

I have to imagine that Schwartz wasn't too happy about having a "Lipski" thrown his way or having to run off. A little tough on his manhood. I wonder if he might have unintentionally embellished his story so that the police would be a little more eager to pick up the BS man. Sort of a that'll teach the son of a bitch to mess with me.

Just a thought.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

That's a great point, CD, and certainly worthy of consideration. Read the following and let me know what you think of Jon's observation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Moved Discussion

The discussion was sparked by the following post from Mitch Rowe:

No other witnesses came forward to confirm what he says happened. I dont believe such a ruckus on the street would go unnoticed by anyone other than Schwartz. On the other hand we have Diemschutz. He reports what he saw. His story makes sense..ect..

Jon Guy replied:

Perhaps, it went unnoticed Mitch,because the actual incident took place just inside the gates and not out on the street. Schwartz and BS Man only needed two or three minutes to walk down Berner St without been seen, and the rest could have happened in the yard.

Tom Wescott chimes in:

Liz was standing in the gate, BS Man was on the pavement. BS Man then pulled Liz onto the pavement and toward the street before turning around and allegedly pushing Liz down. So the event did in fact occur out in the open, if it occurred at all.

Economical in his words as always, Jon Guy brings his point home thus:

Schwartz to Swanson : " the man tried to pull the woman into the street,but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway"

Schwartz to Star : " The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage"

No, it occured in the passageway.At that point I saw what he saw, but was still not convinced. When you've seen a scene a certain way in your mind for years it's yard to change your view in just a second. But by the time I'd finished writing the following post, the gerbil was turning:

Guy is the Man!

Jon Guy,

You're really on top of your game today! I see what you're saying about Schwartz, and that's pretty smart thinking. In fact, I had to go back and look to remind myself why I thought the event occurred on the sidewalk/pavement. Here's why:

he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

This means standing between the gate posts at the edge of the pavement (sidewalk), not in the darkness of the passageway where Schwartz would never have gotten a good look at her.

The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway

At this point Stride firmly moves into the light (what little there was) as she's pulled toward the street and thrown onto the pavement. How do I know that by 'footway' Swanson meant pavement and not passage?

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 oppos- ite side of the road, 'Lipski',

This suggests that from Schwartz's perspective, BS Man also saw Pipeman enter the scene and called to him. Obviously, BS Man would have had to be on the pavement, and not around the corner in the passageway, for this to be possible. So Schwartz is placing the action on the pavement.

Let me add that your argument is compelling and is giving me pause for thought on the matter.

Fisherman then entered the frey with his tuppence:

This stuff is admittedly confusing:

"Schwartz to Swanson : " the man tried to pull the woman into the street,but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway"

Schwartz to Star : " The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage"

To me, it suggests that it all took place partly in the entrance to the yard, and partly on the street.
"The footway" would not refer to the muddy yard. Therefore she would have been thrown to the ground on the pavement, as far as I understand.

Also, the claim that she was pushed back into the passage seems to point to her having been outside as the pushing began.

Problem is, if we accept that she went down, it seems that she did so outside the passage in case number one, but inside it in case number two...?

Next problem is that the Star version does not include the fall:

"He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alleyway where the body was found. 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 pass- age, but 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 a 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 specific pushing bit does not involve any fall, and Schwartz seems not to have been alarmed to any greater extent by it. Therefore, it seems that Schwartz only realized that there was a quarrel going on AFTER he had seen her being pushed back into the passage, when he heard sounds he interpreted as a row, and turned back to have a closer look.

My guess is that the discrepancies between the two versions was caused by a combination of the Star reporters work and bad interpretation. It is not the only oddity offered by comparing the two versions, and the suggestion that the problem may have lain to a significant extent in language difficulties is unavoidable.

Jon Guy returns in response:

Hi Fisherman

The footway can also be mean a "passage for pedestrians".(Websters 1913)

The side of the passage that Stride was found also housed the built in door in the gate, and would have been the footway to the yard and club.

He tries to pull her into the street but turns her round and throws her on the footway.

The two accounts are the same ?

Tom again:

Jon,

I didn't get a chance to do it last night, but soon I'll look at more reports from Swanson to see how/if he made usage of the terms 'pavement' and 'footway'. It could prove enlightening for our purposes here.

Jon Guy:

Hiya Tom

I would be grateful if you would look into the matter further. I do understand it`s all about interperation of the statement, a statement that has been translated . But I would be very interested in any feedback from yourself.

The footway could of course mean the pavement (sidewalk) but I noticed a definition for footway meaning " a passageway for pedestrians".

I have always read it as I stated,it makes more sense that a man attacking a woman would push her back into the darkness (where her body was to be found), and would explain why Letchford`s sister and Mortimer saw nothing.

My good friend, Simon Wood, joins the discussion:

Hi All,

Footway is interchangeable with pavement [GB]/sidewalk [US].

Check out references in "Press Reports".

Regards,

Simon

And the final post on the other thread from me:

Thanks for that, Simon. I hadn't thought to look in the press reports. However, I'm interested in knowing if pavement/footway were interchangeable to Swanson. If anyone can help on that today or this weekend, that would be great. I probably won't be posting again until Tuesday since my home comp is capoot.

[c.d.]

Hi Tom,

I can see Liz's three small screams (I believe) being in line with being pushed or falling. More of an indication of surprise. But if she is being pulled back into a dark passageway, why does she not scream bloody murder (no pun intended)?

c.d.

[Marlowe]

Does anyone find it the least bit odd that Saucy Jacky's "number one squealed a bit" and Schwartz' 'screamed three times, but not very loudly', seem to support one another -- perhaps even a bit too much?

Marlowe

[perrymason]

Thought Id follow over here to see what the fuss is, and I dont. The accounts are slightly different....not surprising, we dont have the original statement either, and they seem to indicate that while Schwartz watched from behind Broadshouldered Man made a grab for Liz, she pulled back, and either lost her grip or he let go of her. He pulled towards the street, she to the yard. She fell...maybe looking as if she was pushed that way.

I think this may have actually occurred elsewhere, but around the entrance to Dutfields seems to be the statements location.

Best regards.

[Tom_Wescott]

The debate is over whether she fell on the pavement/sidewalk, or into the walkway of the yard. If the latter, which Jon Guy illustrates is quite possible, then there's at least two possible ramifications to this:

* Schwartz would have only glimpsed the woman, who otherwise would have been in the dark.
* Pipeman would have not seen Liz and therefore his motivation to run would not have been fear or a sense of civic duty as he would not have been aware a woman was in jeopardy.

This therefore might strengthen the theory that Pipeman was in fact chasing Schwartz away.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Youre suggesting that based on some unproven hypothetical about cobblestones, walkways and sidewalks we may have reason to conclude Pipeman and Broadshoulders were working together?

It was a short lived idea at the time, and rightfully so, because anyone who was there and witnessed any kind of row, might have decided to leave quickly just as Schwartz did. She was said to have let out a cry when she fell...if that happened and she was slightly in the shadows, for all Pipeman knew, the man over her could be killing her that moment.

There is no sound theory that has lasted regarding Pipeman and Broadshoulders working together, and the evidence suggests he left for the same reason Schwartz did, fear.... just after Schwartz. If he was being chased, the chaser gave up fairly easily, and let the man carry on home without following him. Which makes that whole episode useless...why follow a witness to keep him quiet if you intend to let him escape without catching him? Just to scare him off?

Which would mean that Pipeman, if in cahoots, is taking a great risk following the man just to scare him off...anyone could have seen him chasing Schwartz off, like Fannie for example.

If Liz's assault took place outside the gates anywhere as described, shadows or not, we can be fairly certain it was Liz, Schwartz was, and since she dies feet away and mere minutes later, her single assailant is the prime suspect.

Cheers.

[brummie]

If pipeman is just another witness why not come forward and give his story to the police, he must have read about the murder at that location afterwards and realised his testimony may have some importance. Of course all tjis is only useful if Lizzie was avictim of JTR, and i still have considerable doubts on that score.One further observation, put yourself in Lizzies shoes for a moment knowing a serial killer of prostitutes is on the lose if some stanger tries to attack you in the dark would you give only three small screams or would you scream so loud as to wake the whole of London.Is there a chance therefore that she knew her attacker?

[Chava]

Shock can take your breath away. I don't think it's as easy to scream in such circumstances as one might think.

[perrymason]

If pipeman is just another witness why not come forward and give his story to the police, he must have read about the murder at that location afterwards and realised his testimony may have some importance. Of course all tjis is only useful if Lizzie was avictim of JTR, and i still have considerable doubts on that score.One further observation, put yourself in Lizzies shoes for a moment knowing a serial killer of prostitutes is on the lose if some stanger tries to attack you in the dark would you give only three small screams or would you scream so loud as to wake the whole of London.Is there a chance therefore that she knew her attacker?

Why didnt Blotchy Man come forward if he didnt kill Mary?
Why did Hutchinson wait if he had nothing to fear?
Why didnt Sailor Man that Lawende saw come forward if he didnt kill Kate?

As to your last line, I believe there is a possibility she knew Broadshouldered Man....and thats why she didnt just start screaming and not stop till he left or people were alerted to the altercation. It might also explain cashous at what appears to be a stressful moment.

Cheers.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Abberline, in his 19th September report, wrote—

". . . he [Charles Cross] noticed a woman lying on her back on the footway (against some gates (leading into a stable yard) . . ." (Abberline's brackets)

Hope it helps.

Regards,

Simon

[Jon Guy]

Hello

I will try to show why I think the whole Schwartz episode took place in the gateway, and not out on the street.

The Star version : The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage

The Police version : The man tried to pull the woman into the street,but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway.

Now, it had to have happened in the gateway as Mrs Mortimer was standing at her door from 12.45 to 12.55 and saw Goldstein only.
Charles Letchford`s sister also stood in her doorway at around 12.50 and saw nothing.

Also, if we consider all the to- ing and fro-ing in the yard, the only time that it could have happened was between 12.45 and 12.55 as no-one was in the yard.

The witnesses dictate that it happened in the yard ( where her body was found !!! )

[drstrange169]

Hello Tom,

I know we only have Schwartz’s statement third hand, via the interpreter, Abberline and Swanson but as it’s all we have and it’s there we should look for guidance.

Swanson defines three separate areas in his report;

‘… had got as far as the GATEWAY…”

“… a woman who was standing in the GATEWAY…”

“…tried to pull the woman into the STREET…”

“…threw her down on the FOOTWAY…”

If the “footway” and “gateway” are the same, why would he have not said …
threw her down in the gateway? Presumably the changed description was intended to delineate the different areas.

Logistically it makes sense too.

If BS and the victim were on the path in front of him, Schwartz would need to cross the road to order to give them a wide arc of avoidance.

If they had moved inside the gate, he need only step out into the road to gain a wide arc of avoidance.

Also, several club members commented on how dark the inside of the gateway was. In fact the gateway was so dark, Diemschitz, despite concentrating hard, could not see enough to recognise a body.
How then would a scared Schwartz who was deliberately trying to avoid any kind of eye contact have known BS’s victim was thrown to the ground if they were inside the gate?

I started with the fact that it’s all third hand, so it can't offer guarantees and all theories are worth exploring but the standard still stacks up best.

Thanks for you time.