Archive through April 18, 1999

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through April 18, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses: Israel Schwartz: Archive through April 18, 1999

Author: Stephen P. Ryder Friday, 20 November 1998 - 12:46 pm
August 1996 Undoubtedly, the Ripper victim (although in recent years her victim status has been the topic of serious debate) whose murder seems to have had the most witnesses was 'Long Liz,' Elizabeth Stride. Whether it be William Marshall, Matthew Packer, James Brown, or William Smith, no witness account is as tantalizing as that of Israel Schwartz, who claimed to have seen two men with Stride. One of them, according to Schwartz, pushed her violently to the ground attempting to drag her into Dutfield's Yard, and upon seeing him, yelled 'Lipski' to the other man, who began to follow Schwartz. Can Schwartz's testimony be believed? If so, what is the significance of the word 'Lipski?' Were the two men he saw in cahoots, or were they just in the same place at the same time? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Date: Thu, 08 Aug 96 14:14:56 -0700 From: Stephanie Richey If Schwartz is to be believed it seems likely the Ripper and an acomplise working on Elizabeth Stride. The Ripper probably saw Schwartz and called to his partner "Lipski!" signafying they had a Jewish witness. A Jewish man named Lipski was convicted of poisoning his wife and was sentinced to hang. Ever since then the word "Lipski" was used as a derogatory term for a Jew. The word was probably used as a code between the Ripper and his partner. The Ripper would not run after Schwartz, since he would work with Stride, and would want to be the least likely recognized. The accomplice would be more expendable. Post Reply to Conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 15:06:14 +0100 From: Koji I cannot believe that the ripper had an accomplice. The theory about the Schwartz incident which I accept is that the man assaulting Stride was Kosminsky whose description matches well. Lipsky was a well known Jewish insult at the time after a man by that name murdered his wife in 1887. The man who followed Schwartz for a while was probably the ripper who probably murdered Stride under the pretence of befriending her and fending off Kosminsky. I do not consider it logical to assume the ripper had an accomplice-at least from the evidence cited here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 14:36:39 -0000 From: Martin Wolverton Schwartz's testimony brings up the interesting possibiltiy that the killer could have had an acomplice. At first glance most people would write this off, as most serial killers work alone. However it is not unheard of; remember that two men worked together as the "Hill-side Strangler" and a married couple were involved together in the "Moors Murders" in England back in the 50's! All in all Schwartz seems to be beleivable, but there is always the possibility that the second man was also frightened away by the killer and Schwartz only assumed him to be following him and thus the man's acomplice... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:26:24 -0400 From: Jim DiPalma I don't think the second man seen by Schwartz was an accomplice. Schwartz told the police that he crossed the street to avoid the man who had pushed Stride to the ground, so that he was standing on the same side of the street as the second man. When the first man turned and yelled 'Lipski', he may very well have been addressing Schwartz, who was Jewish, and not the second man, since they were standing just a few feet apart at that point. Schwartz stated that he "ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far". Looking at a map of the area, there was a rail line that ran just north of and parallel to Cable and Royal Mint streets, scarcely two blocks south of the murder scene. While I don't know the exact location of the railway arch to which Schwartz was referring, it's reasonable to assume it was somewhere along that line. If the second man were the killer's accomplice, he must have been aware that Schwartz would be able to describe and possible identify both he and the killer. Why then would he stop chasing Schwartz after only two blocks?? This leaves two other possiblities as to the second man: 1) he was just a passer-by, who simply was frightened and ran away as Schwartz did. I think this was the case. 2) he was JTR. He followed Schwartz just long enough to scare him off, returned, confronted the first man and drove him off, then convinced Stride to take him as a client and killed her.
Author: SKeenan Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 02:27 pm
I don't think Schwartz saw Kosminski attacking Liz because the assailant yelled "Lipski" at Schwartz. Being a Jew, Kosminski probably would not have addressed Schwartz in such an anti-semetic way. However, I do believe that the man Schwartz saw was Liz Stride's murderer--but not Jack the Ripper (not his M.O.).
Author: Yazoo Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 04:18 pm
Hey Why would Scwartz's testimony be unbelievable or inaccurate? Any later identification made either (supposedly) by him or anybody else, based on his description, is a different story. SKeenan, if you want, I'd like to hear why you think Liz Stride doesn't fit JtR's MO (or his "signature"). See you under the Stride topic? Yaz P.S., Any involvement of a second man can be based on four (at least) pieces of testimony/"unreliable" evidence: 1) accepting Martha Tabram as a series victim and accepting that two cutting implements were used; 2) the conversation heard by Albert Cadosch from his yard in 27 Hanbury street on September 8th, 1888; 3) Schwartz's man with the pipe who is standing and watching from the darkness across the street from Stride's attack/murder -- and only moves to follow Schwartz, showing no evidence of fear if he's lighting his pipe during the attack that sends Schwartz to the opposite side of the street; 4) two different writers in the "Dear Boss" and Lusk correspondence. Is any or all of that convincing enough? See you under another topic, if one exists for the "Second Man" theory(?).
Author: Jim DiPalma Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 03:14 pm
Hi All, Yazoo writes: P.S., Any involvement of a second man can be based on four (at least) pieces of testimony/"unreliable" evidence: Is any or all of that convincing enough? Actually, with all due respect Yazoo, none of it proves anything with regards to the involvement of a second man. Let's take them one at a time: 1) accepting Martha Tabram as a series victim and accepting that two cutting implements were used; Even assuming Tabram was a Ripper victim (a huge if), and assuming two weapons were used (almost as big an if), it still does not prove two men were involved. Here's a possible scenario: Tabram's killer pulls the second weapon with his left hand, strikes her once, finds it cumbersome/ineffective, and resumes the attack using only the penknife in his right hand. 2) the conversation heard by Albert Cadosch from his yard in 27 Hanbury street on September 8th, 1888; There was no conversation. Cadoche(sp?) heard the single word "No", followed by the sound of something falling against the fence. It is most likely both sounds were made by the victim Chapman. 3) Schwartz's man with the pipe who is standing and watching from the darkness across the street from Stride's attack/murder -- and only moves to follow Schwartz, showing no evidence of fear if he's lighting his pipe during the attack that sends Schwartz to the opposite side of the street; "moves to follow Schwartz" is an unfounded assumption, there is no evidence on that point. He may just as well have been fleeing to avoid becoming involved, or because he was frightened. IMO, this is a more likely explanation than the pipe man being an accomplice. As to showing no fear if he's lighting his pipe during the attack, this is a detail of timing for which, again, there is no evidence. We don't know exactly when he stepped out of the pub, or exactly when he lit his pipe. If pipe man lit his pipe immediately before the attack began, he may not even have seen the start of it. Ever struck a match a few inches in front of your face in darkness? There's a few seconds afterwards during which you can't see much of anything while the eyes recover. My point is that we don't have detailed information as to who saw exactly what exactly when. In the absence of such information, no firm conclusions can be drawn. The sketchy information we do have hardly qualifies as evidence of collusion. 4) two different writers in the "Dear Boss" and Lusk correspondence. Neither of which were ever proven to have come from the murderer, along with thousands of other pieces of correspondence received by the police that did not come from the murderer. Again, this proves nothing. Sorry Yazoo, none of this is at all convincing, at least to me. IMO, JtR acted alone. Cheers, Jim
Author: Yazoo Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 05:16 pm
Hey, Jim None of it was mean to be convincing, as I said in my note. It's just all that a two-man theory can be based on. However, since you brought it up... 1) Tabram: If she was a Ripper victim, she had two different types of wounds according to Dr. Killeen. Unless someone at the time who was a qualified medical examiner contradicted him, it is perilous for moderns to come along and dismiss his testimony because...well, for any reason. He also speculated on two hands, left vs, right, being involved. Since he (as you presume) was alone, he would have to switch knives during the attack or inflict 38 wounds with one knife and only one with the other. Not a very conclusive situation. 2) The voices. Unless someone witnessed the events, it is possible to have the scenario where the victim has already been murdered when Cadosch comes out, he hears the voices (none of which are distinct; neither of which are genderized), an almost conversational "no", and someone bumping the fence, Cadosch leaves for work rather than simply doesn't hear anymore voices/noises. Unless there is direct contemporary evidence, most writers write up this incidence using the following two, unproven and misleading assumptions (however, "natural" the assumptions might be): 1) the "no" that was heard was an emphatic, imperative "No!" instead of a more soft-spoken, non-imperative "no." 2) because Cadosch left for work, the voices automatically stopped too when he left. 3) Schwartz: read Swanson's summary of Schwartz's testimony. The sequence of events is quite clear, and also the lack of any fear in anyone (besides the victim!) until Schwartz passes the man with the pipe who is walking behind him. Then Schwartz runs. The assumption of being followed is Schwartz's. It may be unwarranted but Schwartz, Swanson, and one assumes the rest of the police didn't think so. The lighting of the pipe is clear from Swanson. The assumption of how dark it was and whether the match caused temporary blindeness is not an assumption made by Schwartz, Swanson, or me. We have what Schwartz saw and it is plain enough. If it does not suit a particular theory, it still does not go away. The 1888 police held it to be credible; most people today hold it to be credible...enough said there. Not proof of collusion...never said it was. 4) The letters: there ain't no evidence as to where any of the letters came from, which is not the same thing as "proof" or "evidence" that they did not come from the murderer. No one knows. Only two pieces of correspondence ever were posted by the police around the area, and they are from the writer of one of the two sets mentioned. So, again, some contemporary corroboration in taking them seriously...at least for the moment. None of the above is "convincing" and none of it was meant to be "convincing" of a two man theory. None of it was "proof." But I think it's more accurate than your post conveys. What does "IMO" stand for, BTW? Yaz
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 18 December 1998 - 05:14 am
If we accept the testimony of Schwartz as being accurate,it makes him,like Hutchinson,a very remarkable person. Their detailed descriptions as to facial features and clothing,is extraordinary given the conditions in which the incidents were obseved. The light was poor,both nights it had been raining heavily,and they both had only seconds to observe what they said happened.Also the evidence was given quite some time after the incidents so described. To those who want to believe,perhaps they would like to test themselves.Observe Any individual in clear light,make note of features and clothing, put details to paper and some hours later try to remember those details before checking on what was recorded. If you can equal the feats of Schwartz or Hutchinson,then I would be willing to accept their testimony.
Author: Yazoo Friday, 18 December 1998 - 08:50 am
Hi, Harry, Schwartz volunteered his testimony nine days after the "event." Hutchinson, three days. The importance of Schwartz's testimony, to us, is what he saw happen, not the physical description the police asked him to give. Hutchinson is different because, for whatever reason, he focused on the physical description of the man and had almost nothing to say about any "events." Everybody from 1888 is dead. There will be no "line-up" where the dead can point the finger at the dead. Every witness is asked to provide a physical description. No experiment I know of, and there are many, shows that the physical descriptions witnesses provide are very accurate or even helpful, in a general way. But some people can remember what they see. The late 19th century wasn't bombarded with competing images from multimedia sources as we are, driving out many connective thoughts we might have -- even without them being stamped with the trauma of seeing a crime committed. Those people who can remember what they see may not be so extraordinary -- you just can't generalize. Does that make the physical descriptions of the people Schwartz and Hutchinson saw absolutely accurate? No. BUT does that potential inaccuracy of the assailant's physical description make ALL of their testimony questionable? No. Want proof? How often have you watched a sporting event and recalled a part of the action for your friends, and they corroborate your memory by saying they saw the same thing. But could any of you describe the player's facial features who performed the action -- even in general terms; even after seeing them in newspapers and on TV many, many times? But I bet you could describe the clothes they were wearing at a specially important media event (some event that struck you as memorable, like an awards ceremony) -- as in Hutchinson's testimony. If you don't want to believe Schwartz or Hutchinson, you are free to do so -- I don't place much weight on their descriptions of facial features either. But would you be throwing out valid information with what was ONLY questionable information on a part of what they saw -- you weren't there and the assailant was never caught, so you and I can't absolutely refute or substantiate anybody's physical descriptions. Experiments are fine, but we aren't all machines who perform alike. One or both or neither men might have been very good at seeing details and remembering them. Does this hostility to Schwartz have anything to do with Lawende's possible corroborative description, Stride's canonicity, or the possibility of Schwartz being the witness several years later against Kosminski? Otherwise, I can't understand the hostility some people show towards Schwartz's total testimony. Yaz
Author: Jim DiPalma Friday, 18 December 1998 - 10:09 am
Hi All, Yazoo writes: None of the above is "convincing" and none of it was meant to be "convincing" of a two man theory. None of it was "proof." But I think it's more accurate than your post conveys. Perhaps I misunderstood you, I thought you were positing the 4 points as support the two-man theory. I agree that none of it is proof. But, since you brought it up...:-) 1) Tabram: If she was a Ripper victim, she had two different types of wounds according to Dr. Killeen. Unless someone at the time who was a qualified medical examiner contradicted him, it is perilous for moderns to come along and dismiss his testimony because...well, for any reason. OK, I can agree with this, so it's established that two different weapons were used. He also speculated on two hands, left vs, right, being involved. Since he (as you presume) was alone, he would have to switch knives during the attack or inflict 38 wounds with one knife and only one with the other. Not a very conclusive situation. Well, let's look at the alternative, that there were two killers involved in Tabram's murder. With this scenario, you have one man who stabs just once and stops, while the other stabs 38 times in a frenzied rage. I really think this is even less plausible than a single, right-handed killer who stabbed once with the left hand, found it cumbersome, and switched hands. 2) The voices. Unless someone witnessed the events, it is possible to have the scenario where the victim has already been murdered when Cadosch comes out, he hears the voices In order for this scenario to hold, there would have to have been 3 people in the backyard at 29 Hanbury, Chapman and her two killers. But, we have the testimony of Mrs. Long, who saw Chapman outside 29 Hanbury shortly before the murder with just one man. Again, the balance of probability here is that the voices Cadoche heard were those of Chapman and the Ripper. 3) Schwartz: read Swanson's summary of Schwartz's testimony. The sequence of events is quite clear, Schwartz did not speak English, so Swanson's summary was something he heard second-hand after having been translated from another language. Eyewitness testimony is dicey in any event, under the above circumstances, it would be even more so. You simply cannot treat this information as a 100% accurate description of the events in question. If you doubt that, take a look at the version as reported by the Star, there are glaring differences. Different translator, different person reporting the translation...... 4) The letters: there ain't no evidence as to where any of the letters came from, which is not the same thing as "proof" or "evidence" that they did not come from the murderer. Agreed, but that's not what I said. What I said was that neither the Dear Boss letter or the Lusk letter were ever proven to have come from the murderer. That being so, they are irrelevant to any discussion of a two-man theory. What does "IMO" stand for, BTW? "IMO" is the single most important acronym you could possibly use when discussing things Ripper, as it stands for "In My Opinion". :-) :-) Note the liberal use of it in my previous post, which thereby qualifies it as my opinion only. Otherwise, I can't understand the hostility some people show towards Schwartz's total testimony. Let me clarify. I am not hostile towards Schwartz's testimony. My impression of Schwartz is that he was being truthful in what he told the police. He clearly had no reason to lie. The problems I have with Schwartz are as stated above, he did not speak English, everything we have from him is second hand and translated. By his own admission, he did not know if "Lipski" was addressed to him or to pipe-man. By his own admission, he could not state with certainty that the two men were acting together. Given all of that, I simply believe his testimony must be treated with caution. Cheers, Jim
Author: Yazoo Friday, 18 December 1998 - 11:37 am
Hey, Jim, On the four points: 1) In your scenario, the killer not only switched hands but switched weapons. Odd to say the least...but not conclusive of two men killing her. 2) On Mrs. Long: You say regarding Schwartz that eyewitness testimony is "dicey", why then is Long any different? BUT, I'll accept Long. It doesn't mean that a second man was not around and Long just did not see him. If JtR stalked his victims first...well, a second man could have been waiting in the backyard, ensuring privacy etc. Again, this is not conclusive. What I wanted to point out from all four points was this Cadosch's testimony and the interpretations given to it. Again, what I say is not conclusive. It may not even be probable...but it's worth closer and separate scrutiny from what we're doing here. Is there a Cadosch topic we can go to? 3) Paul Begg gave a handy explanation of why Swanson's version may be more accurate of anything else related from Schwartz...and that was he was making an official visit to the police and brought his own reliable translator. He was also questioned by Abberline and others, who knows how many times. Language becomes less of a barrier with multiple translators, questioners, official interviews (possibly an unreported testimony in front of Baxter -- see Begg et al. JtR: A-Z). The primacy is Swanson, NOT the Star. And yes, I do take Schwartz's version of what happened as 100% accurate. Except for the physical description (the bone of contention in ALL eyewitness testimony), there is no reason -- linguistic or otherwise -- to doubt the third-hand version of Swanson...since the line would be: 1) Schwartz, to 2) translator, to 3) Abberline and other PCs etc, to 4) Swanson's summary. Something may have been skewed in the translation, but I think it more likely to be from one English speaker to another! You know how that goes. Your objections to Schwartz not knowing the term "Lipski" and not knowing if the two men acted together somehow casting doubt on his testimony is not reasonable. In fact these details support his accuracy because he testifies to things whose relevence or meaning he does not even understand. Hard for him to misinterpret WHAT was said and done...easy for him to not know WHY a thing was said or done. That does not shed any doubt on his testimony. 4) On the letters: there being no proof in any of the previous 3 suppositions, the conclusion drawn about the 4th applies to all. Why are we wasting our time with this then? BUT, the letters were never proven to have come from anybody or any source (even poor Tom Bulling and the rest of the wicked, wicked press). Littlechild's letter says they could "find no 'hard' evidence" of Bulling/CNA involvement -- and just what is 'soft' evidence, it is too late to ask Mr. Littlechild. There is no evidence, period, of press involvement -- and since Littlechild could not "find" any, the reasonable assumption is that he at least looked! If he made that statement AND never looked for evidence against Bulling/CNA/press...well, you draw your own conclusions about that! Again, this is not conclusive but it is hardly irrelevent to anyone who wants to argue for a two-man theory and is looking for ANY factual information to do so (factual meaning existing, not necessarily incriminating or conclusively proving one supposition or another). Thanks for explaining IMO -- I thought it sounded like a new American health insurance scheme. I can never remember Internet shorthand or how to do smiley-face/winking-face stuff like that. BTW is about it! If you want to continue this, let's drop the other stuff out of the Schwartz conversation...but I'd rather agree to disagree. I would like to see some other opinions on the Cadosch testimony though...but again, not here. I hope I see ya later, Jim, as this has been a fun line of thought. Yaz
Author: SKeenan Sunday, 20 December 1998 - 07:44 pm
Hello again When I said Schwartz could not have seen Kosminski attacking Stride, I was not calling him an "unreliable" witness. I was merely disputing a theory that says Schwartz was Anderson's witness, used to identify Kosminski at the seaside home. Schwartz could not have seen Kosminski because the attacker called him an anti-Semetic name, something which another Jew (like Kosminski) would not have uttered. I do believe, however, that Schwartz did see someone attacking Stride. I trust Schwartz completely as a witness, as a witness who could exonerate Kosminski. Sorry for the confusion, SKeenan
Author: Yazoo Sunday, 20 December 1998 - 10:29 pm
Hey again, SKeenan, I don't understand what's so important about who Anderson's witness was, period. Whatever conclusions Anderson drew from wherever or whomever, is there any consensus among the police officials who left behind books, interviews, marginalia, letters, whatever on who JtR was? Did they ever catch JtR? No to both. I respect their work. I reject their conclusions. Yaz
Author: Jim Jackson Sunday, 10 January 1999 - 11:03 am
Re:"Lipski" Far from being a term of abuse meant to scare off a potential witness, which in itself is a somewhat quaint notion, could it not be the case that Schwartz, (a foreigner with a second-hand command of English), misheard and misinterpreted the abusive call "Lipski" as the identifying cry of "Lizzie" (the diminutive form of Elizabeth). If this is the case then it means that the attacker definitely had an accomplice, whom he was addressing, and that the unfortunate Schwartz had stumbled upon the attack unseen. Think about it. Jimbo
Author: J. Helsing Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 12:50 pm
Welcome, everyone, to the official Jim and Yazoo message board!! CASEBOOK: Jim and Yazoo SPECIFIC WITNESS: Schwartz
Author: Julian Friday, 16 April 1999 - 12:15 am
G'day everyone. Thanks for your input Yaz and Jim. I think the word 'Lipsky' was a derogatory term thrown at Schwartz. An attacker would not look at a witness to his crime and shout out "Lizzy". Sorry, I shouldn't be here but I just thought I'd throw that in. Good luck with your research everyone. Jules
Author: Rotter Friday, 16 April 1999 - 05:22 pm
Did Schwartz's statement get taken in the original Hungarian? If so, is there anything to gain by a careful retranslation?
Author: D. Radka Friday, 16 April 1999 - 08:40 pm
Rotter, They called in an interpreter, who I believe became the middle of a three-way oral conversation which was later reported in English in the police files, not transcribed. David
Author: Bob Hinton Saturday, 17 April 1999 - 06:42 am
Dear Everyone, I've just found this section, most interesting. A couple of points to get the pot boiling again. First off re the comments about Tabram being assaulted by two people. In my book I mention the case of a woman who was strangled and suffered multiple stab wounds by at least two weapons. We know this for a fact because one of them broke off in one of the wounds. She suffered injuries remarkably similar to Tabram's yet there was only one assailant. Many two bladed clasp or folding knives, have one blade that is pointed and one blade that is rounded, one weapon yet producing two distinctive wounds. As for Schwartz, he's one of my favourites. First point, from what I've read on this board it seems as if the posters have assailant and victim on West side of the street, and Schwartz (crossing over) and pipeman on the East side of the street. I have assailant and victim and pipeman on West side and initially Schwartz (after crossing)alone on the East side. Pipeman came out of the pub on the corner, the only pub (beershop) there was on the corner of Berner and Fairclough. He then crossed over the road, after Schwartz had passed, and followed Schwartz. On the East side of the street there was a school, surrounded I believe with railings. If pipeman had been standing on this side he must have been in full view. Since he would also be ideally placed to see the attack (better in fact than Schwartz) Schwartz would hardly cross the road into his arms. Schwartz's natural assumption would be that he was part of the attack. I notice one of the posters saying he accepts Schwartz 100%. Why? I've never met a witness yet that is 100% accurate, witnesses are human, and the best humans score is in the low 70's! Witness statements are like currant buns, with the currants being accuracy. In some buns you have lots of currants, in others not so much and in others none at all. This doesn't mean the witness is trying to deceive anyone necessarily, its just that the human being does have a tendency to sub-consciously manufacture details. This tendency is most noticeable in vulnerable witnesses like children and people like Schwartz. Look at Schwartz's situation. He is in a strange land, apparently in the middle of a nightmare. Someone is going around hideously murdering women and is apparently a Jew. He has a frightening encounter. He can't speak English, and if anyone connects him with the attack he could stand a very good chance of being lynched. Yet in spite of all this he very bravely goes to the police and tells his story. He must have been paralysed with fear, I'm not sure if I was in the same situation I would have done the same. If you want to try to imagine what his situation must have been like, just imagine you find yourself in a country like Afghanistan, you are a foreigner and you don't speak the language. A white foreigner has been attacking and mutilating the local women and you witness what may be an attack. Would you trot along to the local cop shop and make yourself known? A lot of what Schwartz says is in my opinion, believable, some of it isn't - its up to the investigator to pick out all the currants and lay them in a heap. Just as a matter of interest, try the following. Mark out on a lawn or similar with washing line, a replica of the area, making sure all dimensions are as correct as you can get them. Place your people to represent the various players and run the whole scenario through. See how long it takes 'Schwartz' to walk down the street, how long to cross over and more importantly what his field of view is. This will give you a good indication what it was POSSIBLE for him to witness. Now factor in illumination ( you replicate this by blindfolding the subject with varying layers of scarf) height of buildings (which would restrict views) and the results will surprise you. My experiments have shown that in my opinion it would have been possible for Schwartz to have seen the following: 1. The sex, height and approximate build of the man walking in front of him. 2. The sex of the victim. 3. The sex, height and approximate build of the pipeman. 4. A few brief details of the struggle. and thats about it. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Christopher T. George Saturday, 17 April 1999 - 10:56 am
Hi, Bob: I enjoy your posts very much but could you do us a favor of removing the hard returns so that your sentences read continuously? This would greatly facilitate us following your train of thought! Thanks for your consideration, and thanks for your interesting input on Schwartz. Chris George
Author: Dave Yost Saturday, 17 April 1999 - 10:41 pm
Hi All, Yes, humans, as witnesses, tend to be fallible in some respect at some point at some time. But, this does not necessarily alter his/her credibility or usefulness in aiding us with respect to what might have happened. The incident took place on the West-side of the street (Dutfield's Yard), and Schwartz crossed over to the East-side of the street (Board School). Schwartz's 2nd-man (pipeman) was near the North-West corner of the jucntion of Berner & Fairclough. As an interesting sidenote, (according to A.M.P.), the premises [pub near where "pipeman" stood), was converted to a chandler's shop around 1897. Before that, the place was a pub, (as the Star reported), and its landlord in 1888 was Louis Hagens. There is also an article in a past Ripperana discussing Schwartz's description of the 2nd-man. At present, I seem to be unable to locate the article, but will inform you upon doing so. - Bob, did not Schwartz describe to the police what you list he might have been able to, after you stated, "...in my opinion it would have been possible for Schwartz to have seen the following: Although, I find it curious that you lack to mention the possibility of describing hair colour, clothes, & whether or not the man had a moustache, or is this part of the "approximate build" you mention? Cheers, Dave Yost
Author: Harry Mann Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 04:56 am
In addition to what Bob has written,it may also be noted that Schwartz would have saw the encounter against the dark background of the yard where Stride was found.Would he have been able to have seen clearly each detail so as to state that it was indeed an assault. Perhaps,as I have stated before,it was an attemt at a drunken embrace which was resisted by Stride who twisted and fell.Maybe it was she who made the first contact,and he repelled her,again resulting in her twisting and falling.Thirdly,did she slip and fall while accosting him,and he merely placed his arms on her to try and stop her falling. I can remember through the 30's before the motor car became commonplace,people travelled almost entirely by foot,and such encounters as i have outlined above,were commonplace,especially by those affected by drink. I have difficulty in accepting that a person, even if under the influence of alcahol,and with witesses present,would suddenly for no apparant reason,first assault and then cut the throat of a woman,who just happened to be where he was passing.