|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 20, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
Israel Schwartz:
Archive through April 20, 1999
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 05:21 am |        | Hi Mr George & Mr Yost,
First off Chris. What the hell is a hard return? It sounds absolutely frightful. I
presume it's something I'm doing or not doing on my messages, any technical help you
can give me on this point would be gratefully accepted. You should remember I've
only just learned how to turn this thing on!
Dave, I see you agree with me on the placing of the main protagonists.
You query why I do not think it possible for Schwartz to give a description of the
assailants features, or indeed any features of either of the two men. Picture the scene.
Schwartz is CWTH (this is a forces expression meaning cold wet tired & hungry
signifying generally miserable). He has a lot on his mind, just in front of him he sees
a man he believes to be a drunk start an altercation with a woman. This he does not
need, he crosses the street in a deliberate attempt to avoid any involvement and walks
on. He hears someone call out, sees another man, further on down the street
apparently start to come after him, Schwartz moves rapidly in the general direction of
away.
If you play this scene out you will find some interesting points.
1. As Schwartz did not mention seeing anyone else in Berner Street, it is logical
to assume that the victim was not in view. Which places her off the road and
pavement and in the entrance to Dutfields Yard. Now we have no idea how far into
the passageway she was standing, but even if she were standing right in the entrance
she would not be visible to the front man until he was practically abreast of her. He
then starts a commotion and Schwartz decides to get out of the way. He crosses the
road.
2. The most logical way to cross the road quickly to remove yourself from any
trouble would be to veer off and cross the road at a slant, from NW to SE. The
entrance to Dutfields yard was fairly narrow (speaking from memory my files are in
my office) about twelve feet. This means that Schwartz would quickly (about 1 or 2
seconds) place himself outside the area it would be possible to look into the entrance
of the yard. Don't forget the entrance was between two buildings which would
quickly cut off your view. Therefore his opportunity to get a good look at the suspect
would be severely limited, assuming he turned around (whilst walking rapidly away)
to stare at the man. I don't know about you but whenever a situation arises involving
trouble people generally take the greatest care to avoid all eye contact and look away.
In all likelihood he crossed over, tucked his head down and carried on walking.
3. Even assuming he was extremely foolhardy and decided to stop on the other
side of the road to have a good look (which he makes no mention of ) what would he
be able to see? First off the man was struggling which means his body was in
extreme motion which fact alone would make it very difficult to get a good look at
him. Secondly available light. The nearest lamppost was some eighty feet away
towards Commercial Road. We know the entrance to Dutfields yard was extremely
dark and ill lit (when Diemschutz arrived shortly afterwards it was so dark that from a
matter of a few feet he was unable to distinguish the object on the floor. Even with
the help of a match he still had trouble deciding whether it was his wife or not)
Therefore the conditions were not suitable for Schwartz to get a good look at the
suspect even if he wanted to.
4. By this time Schwartz had walked away from the scene and was probably
almost on top of Fairclough St, if not actually crossing it, before the second man
appears. It is logical to assume this because if Schwartz was rooted to the spot staring
into Dutfields Yard when pipeman appears, all pipeman would have to do to intercept
him would be to cross the road at right angles and cut him off. Schwartz is quite clear
on this he states he was 'followed by pipeman' which means Schwartz was in front
and pipeman behind.
Schwartz found himself caught up in a frightening situation, if you were in the same
position, given the nature of the times, wouldn't you want to distance yourself as
quickly as possible? And who can blame him.
I know that the Star version of events has to be taken with a large pinch of salt, but it
is noticeable that their description of the two men is far less detailed than the version
given to the police which tends to suggest Schwartz was just filling in the gaps for the
police in an effort to be helpful.
Let me tell you a brief story to illustrate what I mean. During the Jack the Stripper
murders an old and bold Detective accompanied a brand new detective out to
question a witness. It soon became obvious that the new detective hadn't quite got the
hang of interviewing as he was asking questions like 'Was his hair black or brown?'
The older man intervened and by asking similar questions proved that the man they
were looking for was a one legged man with a patch over his eye and a parrot on his
shoulder!
A previous poster asks why are we 'hostile to Schwartz' indicating that either we take
a witness at face value or are hostile to him/her. Nothing can be further from the
truth, all an investigator is doing when questioning a witness is extracting the currants
of fact from the bun of imagination.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 08:30 am | | Hi Bob:
I am sending you an e-mail about the hard returns. You really are making me hungry for those currant buns! :-)
Chris George |
Author: D. Radka
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 02:14 pm | | Mr. Yost,
I would sincerely appreciate it if you would please offer a criticism of the graphic located under "Witnesses" at the main page of the Casebook (click on Schwartz's name), in light of your post above. Schwartz's Pipeman is there represented by the green dot. This graphic represents Schwartz crossing Berner Street directly toward the spot on which the Pipeman was standing. The Pipeman therefore would have been standing approximately across the street from the entrance into Dutfield's Yard. I may be wrong, but I've always taken it that one reason behind the richness in interpreting Schwartz's police interview was that he couldn't resolve whether the cry "Lipski!" was addressed on the one hand to him (Schwartz) or on the other to the Pipeman. This would place Schwartz on the same side of the street as the Pipeman at the time Stride's assailant cried out, or, at least at some point along the vector line originating at Stride's assailant and proceding toward the Pipeman; in other words, Schwartz would essentially be crossing the street into the arms, as it were, of the Pipeman, as the graphic shows.
How would all present resdesign the graphic to make it correct? If the graphic is incorrect, certainly it shouldn't be up and running on this web site. Where should the green dot have been placed?
Alternatively, I may be incorrectly interpreting the graphic. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I have never read discussion here before that the graphic might be incorrect. Thank you all.
David |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 04:44 pm | | David
Good spot. I checked out the Witness page after reading your comments and agree that it does not appear to tally with Dave Yost's description. Here is my interpretation.
First, the compass direction is not indicated on the diagram, though in fact as you view it North is at the top of the screen and South at the bottom. If we take Swanson’s report first, he says of Schwartz that "…on crossing to the other side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe." There is no clear indication of exactly where Pipeman was standing. Thus the green dot on the diagram is somebody’s interpretation that in the dark street, Schwartz first saw the man when he almost walked into him whilst crossing over. It appears that the artist has interpreted Swanson's description that "The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the other side of the road, 'Lipsky'..." The question is, does 'other side' here denote the other side to the assailant, or the other side to Schwartz - the subject of Swanson's previous sentence? Anyhow, as Schwartz, now on the East side of Berner Street, crossed Fairclough Street and continued heading south, Pipeman followed him. If the artist’s original assumption is correct then the route both men followed is also correct.
However, if we accept the report of 10th October in The Star we have to draw Pipeman's movements slightly differently. As Schwartz observed the start of the first man's attack on Stride "...a second man came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off, and shouting some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder". The pub would have been The Nelson at 46 Berner Street, on the N.W. corner of the street intersection. (The door was situated directly above the U in Fairclough Street). The ‘intruder’ (Schwartz), whom the report implies is looking back to see the assault, is therefore probably just approaching the crossroads. Pipeman looks to see what is happening, hears the warning/abuse then runs straight into the road, heading diagonally for the S.E. corner of the intersection. Schwartz, already quickening his pace as a result of what he has seen, flees with Pipeman following him south.
I don’t want to speak for Mr. Yost, whom I know has made an in depth study of the events of Berner Street that night. He is more than capable of describing his interpretation. But I will just add that if we start with Swanson’s statement as being the more reliable source, and borrow the detail from The Star that Pipeman emerged from the pub to light his pipe, then we have him standing at the N.W. corner of the crossroads initially. Schwartz, now on the eastern side of Berner Street first sees him as he approaches the intersection. Pipeman witnesses the assault then follows Schwartz southwards. This has been my picture of events for some while now, and it appears close to my understanding of Dave’s comments.
Regards, V. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 05:04 pm | | | Correction. As I'm sure most of you have spotted. At the end of my third paragraph, it's Pipeman who shouts the message rather than hears it. The identity of the person who calls out is a significant difference between the two versions of the incident. |
Author: Dave Yost
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 08:14 pm | | Hi All,
Yes, I do agree with you, Bob, as to where the "main protaganist" is/was. And, I compliment you on the significant task of understanding the "mind set" of the witness. Yet, I do wonder if anyone, even he who might be tired, etc could surely not distinquish between this type of clothing or that type, etc, unless he merely/only had a glimpse of same, which is not the situation with Schwartz (at least with the 1st-man).
When 'Interpreting Israel Scwhartz' (which I believe to be the name of the Ripperana article previously mentioned), it must be realized that Commercial Road is North of Fairclough Street, Dutfield's Yard is to the West and that the Board School is to the East, as one where standing in the junction of Berner & Fairclough Streets facing toward Commercial Road.
I attempt to re-present the graphic in question for a better view of what is being discussed along this aspect:
The green dot which represents Schwartz's 2nd-man (pipeman) IS in the wrong location. From where the green dot emerges, this would more closely correspond with Letchford's home, 39 Berner Street, than with the pub.
The pub was located at #46 Berner Street (ie., North-West corner of Berner & Fairclough Streets) and owned by the individual mentioned previously.
One aspect of the Schwartz testimnoy which needs to be taken into account is that he is describing his actions as he sees them...it is not a narrative from the 3rd person. Schwartz crosses to the oppisite side of the street (Dutfield side to Board school side), he then sees a man on the oppisite side of the street (dutfield side; ie, oppisite from where he is now, which is by the Board school)
I hope this has helped.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: D. Radka
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 10:16 pm | | Dave,
Now I'm really confused. On the diagram above, can you please place for me the Board School? Thanks!
David |
Author: Dave Yost
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 11:21 pm | | Hi David,
The Board School would be in the North-East corner of the junction (ie., by the "h" in 'Fairclough Street' given in the above diagram.
I would also add from a previously mentioned item, that "Lipski" was shouted (as heard by Schwartz) from the 1st-man. This is clearly recorded in MEPO 3/140, as commented upon Ch Insp Swanson. There is no information to date to indicate that either man knew each other. If there is, (beyond discussion & theory), then I'd be glad to see it.
Again, hope this helps.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 19 April 1999 - 12:48 am | | Hi Bob H, Chris George, Dave Y, David R, Viper...
How confused am I? - Let me count the ways. After making & trashing countless diagrams - Think I finally cracked the code:
1) Thanks to all that figured out that Pipeman, Stride & Attacker (Killer) were on Dutfield Yard - West side of street and Schwartz on Board School - East side when Attacker shouted the L word.
This reinforces my growing belief that the Attacker/Killer was Michael Kidney shouting Lizzie at Liz Stride.
2) The diagram above with flashing dots is NOT a correction - just a copy of the map from Main Menu> Witnesses> Schwartz - which erroneously puts Pipeman's starting position on east side of Berner St.
3) Commercial Street [top of map] is to the north, Fairclough St. [bottom of map] is to the south. Pipeman stood in front of (or came out of) the pub on the SW end of Berner street - but the pub is being referenced as NW because it's on Fairclough Street's north side.
Y'all please let me know if this version of the location of the buildings isn't correct.
BOB H: If above is accurate - then Schwartz was looking almost dead on at Pipeman when he lit up - so Schwartz could at least seen whether or not Pipeman had a beard and/or mustache or was clean shaven.
I appreciate everyone's time & effort doing re-enactments, etc. - especially Our Man in Berner Street - Dave Y.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 19 April 1999 - 03:03 am | | Does any of the following help?
From the report in The Star it seems clear that Schwartz followed the attacker up Berner Street on the same side of the road as the attacker, which was the side on which the Club was located. He witnessed the attack and crossed over the road to the school side. "Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back..." Now, it is clear from the photos that to have gone a few yards he must have crossed the road a few feet behind the scene of the assault, passed Stride and the attacker, gone on a little further, then heard the quarrel. He turned back "but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off." The photos and the map make it clear, I think, that the "few doors off" is a "few doors" away from the scene of the assault rather than a "few doors" away from Schwartz.
Now, the photo of Berner Street, which shows The Nelson at 46 when it has become a shop shows that it had three doors, one in Berner Street inself, another in Fairclough Street and the main entrance angled on the Berner Street/Fairclough Street corner. We don't know from which door Pipeman emerged and the door he used would determine how aware of the assault he would have been and whether or not he had witnessed any of it. Much also depends on whether he had emerged from within the pub or had simply been standing in the doorway. If the latter, I would suggest that from the photo he must have been standing in the angled doorway, in which case he may have been aware of little. I think this is doubly likely if he had indeed been in the process of lighting his pipe rather than wielding a knife because the angled doorway looks like the only one affording any shelter for his match. |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 19 April 1999 - 04:19 am | | Hi Paul! Welcome back - Hope you're feeling much better.
Yes, yours above does help. Now I've got a clearer visual of Berner Street ... and a lot more options to complicate the plot. Sigh. ;^)
As always, your input is greatly appreciated.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 19 April 1999 - 05:04 am | | Hi Paul!
Welcome back! I hope that all is well and that you are back in the flush of youth.
The story in the STAR does seem to contradict other evidence I've read. Is the coverage in your opinion accurate enough? If so, I'll have to review my ideas over Pipeman considerably. It seems much more likely that he was a chance spectator, like Schwartz, or even the one that interrupted Jack as he was about to start mutilating. If so, then Stride would belong to the can. five and Eddowes was killed later because the attack on Stride had to be broken off.
Why didn't Pipeman come forward as witness then? Did he just not want to get involved or had he other reasons? Did Jack then call out to him or was Schwartz confused or mistaken?
I'm glad you're back, Paul. Take care.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 19 April 1999 - 05:51 am | | Thanks for the good wishes. I'll try to steer clear of hospital for a while!
I am less inclined to give priority to the newspaper report than I am to the official police report, mainly because I feel that the police would have ensured that they got Shwartz's story accurately, particularly regarding any supposed knife. I therefore think the Pipeman was indeed lighting his pipe and was wholly unconnected with the attacker. Another reason is that had they been connected one would think that they would have gone to the attack location together and that the attacker would have approached Stride from the pub, not from the opposite end of the street. And if the Pipeman was on watch, why didn't he alert the attacker to Schwartz's presence? And on top of all that, Schwartz describes what to me looks like an unprovoked attack, not an assault planned in advance with a lookout in position, especially as the noisy and busy Club seems a daft place to locate a planned attack.
An unprovoked attack does not appear to be the Ripper's modus operandi, which was more likely to engage the victim or allow himself to be engaged by the victim in conversation (as may have been the case with Chapman and Eddowes) and to be taken by them to the murder scene. This may weigh in favour of Stride not being a Ripper victim. On the other hand, an unprovoked assault (or perhaps an assault provoked by something Stride said) instead of a more measured attack, coupled with the noisy location and the presence of one or more witnesses may explain why the Ripper didn't mutilate Stride and went on to kill again.
Pipeman may have come forward but his testimony be unrecorded in the badly depleted official files. The Star does report that a man had been questioned and detained, his story considered unsatisfactory. But if he didn't come forward, we'll never know why. As for who called to whom, we'll not know that either; Abberline stated that Schwartz didn't know. Much would depend on what if any words accompanied "Lipski" and whether it was in this instance used in the derogatory sense.
I don't know whether Stride was a Ripper victim or not, but I am struck by the similar description of the man sen to assault Stride and the man seen with Eddowes, both of whom wore a peaked cap. Peaked caps may have been as common then as Reaboks are common today, but...... |
Author: Caz
Monday, 19 April 1999 - 07:56 am | | Hi All!
I do love Bob Hinton's pieces, they just ooze logic and make things so easy to visualise.
My post, on the other hand, will defy all logic so hold onto your hats. Just allow me to indulge my little scenario and I will trouble you no further.
I had a discussion with Yaz back under the old long-stride-board(sorry!), where I said I believed that pipeman was JtR1, Stride's attacker was JtR2, the cry was Lizzie, not Lipski, and that I didn't like the Schwartz scenario one little bit. Was that man for real? Has anyone any proof that he was not just JtR1 messing about with funny disguises, theatrical costume, false beards and police time-wasting? Did he confirm his identity? Was his Hungarian fair dinkum? Did any independent witnesses see ALL THREE MEN and Liz together? Did JtR1 pose as Schwartz to put everyone off the scent because he knew there were other possible witnesses to parts of the evening so far? Was JtR2 his 'friend and interpreter'?
Thanks for listening.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 19 April 1999 - 12:28 pm | | Hi Caz,
Interesting scenario, I noticed you questioned
Schwartzs' ease with Hungarian.
Is it your suspicion,that it was false?
I wonder if the police confirmed his identity.
Maybe someone from his neighborhood could have
identified him, and given testimony.
Has his interrogation transcripts survived?
Would he be known to the policemen on his beat?
Whad'da ya think?
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 19 April 1999 - 01:06 pm | | I'm sorry but I really cannot continue to post on these boards. I'm just getting to grips with 'hard returns' when somebody puts in a fully animated diagram! I mean, really, where's my quill I'm going to totter off to a darkened room and lie down.
The diagram did illustrate a point I was trying to make however. If you look at it carefully it shows all the positions of the main players, however when we get to the actual attack, shoving and so forth, Schwartz'z dot is actually stationary, and then moves off to cross the road. Whereas in real life he was probably moving continuously, and therefore when he looked back to the scuffle he was probably almost crossing Fairclough. This would also be ideally placed for pipeman, standing in the pub doorway to cross the road and follow him.
Great to see Paul back at the keyboard again, take it easy and mend properly. |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 20 April 1999 - 05:41 am | | One other point I would add to my earlier submission,is the fact that Schwartz stated that after the initial contact between Stride and her alledged attacker,and after having walked some distance further on,Schwartz heard a quarrel between them.
AS Schwartz could not understand the English language,his use of the word quarrel might indicate they were speaking in loud voices.
If this were so it appears that the so called physical assault had develloped into a verbal exchange,a reasonable expextation if the contact had been of a bothersome nature and not the murderous intent that so many seem to imply.
Why was the alledged assailant there at all?. One reasonable assumption would be that he was on his way home after an evenings drinking.If on the other hand murder was his intention,and he was not J.T.R,then two of that kind were on the prowl in the same locality,over the same period,and the Berner St killer was the more bizzare of the two. |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 20 April 1999 - 08:34 am | | Hi All!
God, my apologies to Dave Yost here, I didn't catch the full animation bit of your wonderful diagram. (I'm also full of envy at the colours, but thought they would at least remain stationary as well as stationery!)
Having swapped my own quill pen for Hubby's PC over the last few weeks, I can see I've got a lot more to learn.
Can I join you, Bob, in that darkened room? My dental injections are wearing off and I could do with a lie down!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 20 April 1999 - 11:11 am | | Dear Caroline:
Actually Dave was not responsible for the diagram, which already appears on the Casebook under the description for Israel Schwartz. I believe Stephen Ryder is responsible for putting the graphic on the Casebook, but Dave was able to take it and place it here on the message boards, which is more than I could do -- I have not figured out yet how to italicize and bold, let alone post in technicolor as Yaz and others do!!! Dave's point is of course that man number two, the man with the clay pipe seen by Schwartz, is wrongly placed on the diagram, and by rights should be first located to the right and slightly under the "d" of Dutfield's Yard, since this is where the pub was located from which he emerged. The pub was located at the northwest corner of Fairclough and Berner Streets, i.e., the WEST side of the street, not the EAST side, where the diagram incorrectly places him. From that location on the west side of the street, man no. 2 would have followed Schwartz toward the railway arch.
Chris George |
Author: Julian
Tuesday, 20 April 1999 - 06:03 pm | | G'day everyone.
Don't even think about it Bob. (big smile)
Jules |
|
|
|
|
