Different Killers

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"Yet you now have to contend with the fact that Swanson believes in an imaginary person made up by Schwartz."

Let's say they found someone answering to PM's description. So what? As they said at Leman st, we need more evidence to proceed.

So IF this was PM, his story was not worth a Scotch farthing.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

But who could that witness be? Schwartz doesn't mention anyone, apart from Pipeman. I suppose in theory it could be a neighbour of Mortimer who claimed to have seen something whilst indoors. But again this runs into the same difficulties: why were they not apparently utilized subsequently in the investigation, why did they not sell their story to the press or appear at the inquest?

Hello John.
The fact Schwartz doesn't mention anyone, is to me not surprising. Hutchinson doesn't mention anyone else either, neither did Lawende & Co., nor Mrs Long, nor PC Smith in Berner St. That fact alone indicates nothing.
These witnesses only observe what they witnessed, regardless what was going on elsewhere in the street.
Not mentioning anyone else does not mean the streets were deserted.
This is negative evidence, which is not evidence at all.

Who was he?, no idea, but he couldn't have been either Pipeman or BS-man.

I suspect that the papers sometimes resorted to police sources who were, on occasion, very unreliable, i.e. by giving garbled, unreliable or even dishonest information for cash.

The press did follow detectives around and re-interview who ever the police called on. Warren specifically complained to the Home Office about this tactic. It is how the press obtained most of their case related information.

That said, on the other side of the coin, the police used press stories as a means to expand their enquiries. The benefit was obvious, there were more reporters on the streets than detectives. So we might see a kind of mutual dependence on each other, regardless how much they both complained.

[lynn cates]

not ready to play

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"The police may not have "wholly" believed him, but he doesn't appear to have been charged with anything."

Looks like he was not a player.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

beliefs

Hello Batman. Thanks.

If something were "obliterated" every time you have announced that fact, the case would be solved.

But it isn't.

Your quote of Swanson is very old news and has been debated ad nauseam.

1. Swanson seems to mention it because of the doubts raised at Leman. Why else mention it?

2. As I pointed out above, he not only read Fred's report, but perhaps even consulted him.

3. What Swanson and Abberline believed is valuable insofar as they were senior investigators, BUT it is not the be all and the end all.

4. Just because there was no evidence of lying that Abberline found does NOT endorse Schwartz as truthful.

Forgive me if I observe you seem to have an almost religious veneration for authority. But surely ALL stories must be weighed against the actual evidence?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"The police may not have "wholly" believed him, but he doesn't appear to have been charged with anything."

Looks like he was not a player.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Correct, and the fact Swanson includes the descriptions of Pipeman & BS-man in his 19th Oct. report pretty much confirms this.

Then there is the official press release from the Met. published in the Daily Telegraph, 12th Nov. which includes the description of BS-man, but interestingly, not that of Pipeman.
Something may have transpired in the mean time?

[lynn cates]

about that pint

Hello John. Thanks. Make mine bitter. (heh-heh)

Yes, quite ironic.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Schwartz mentioned pipeman who Swanson says the police report cleared. So not like Hutchinson.

Nobody said that met and city didn't cooperate.

The problem is the absence of city knowledge on the matter.

[lynn cates]

guffaw

Hello (again) John.

"Mind you, if I remember correctly that's now all been completely resolved by Dr Jari and Russell Edwards. I mean, who needs unreliable witnesses when proper forensic science can come to your rescue!"

(heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

wish

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Something may have transpired in the mean time?"

Wish we knew what.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Forgive me if I observe you seem to have an almost religious veneration for authority. But surely ALL stories must be weighed against the actual evidence?

Cheers.
LC

I reference contemporary sources. I reference peer-review journals when I can. This is good practice, not bad. Anyone can read about your suggestion that this is a fallacy from authority and find it is not so. Plenty of university statements on that matter.

Forgive me for observing but if you hold these sources are not accurate, such as Swanson on the matter of Schwartz, then your views can't be better than their inaccuracy because you can't trust what they have said concerning witnesses and suspects, two of the most major themes in any murder investigation, their thoughts, apparently not good enough.

The problem is not skepticism, as I have said many times, its the cherry picking, down playing of the same sources that then get the all go, but only when it comes to that person's theory.

Tell me does your account of what happened to Stride involve anything other than witnesses?

I also find it strange with some people thinking because they can do a crime analysis, the Whitechapel investigators didn't. Especially the parts about second-guessing questions they 'should have asked' when they probably asked them.

Lead investigators not understanding the full implications of a murder witness testimony? Sorry. If that's the case, they put it to bed quickly. A-Z has Schwartz being a long lived witness. Not a short one like Hutchinson or Packer.

[Hunter]

Why not a single word about Schwartz in dozens of other newspapers?

I presume that's because no other paper had an informant in the police.

That's probably the case I reckon. You'd think that the AF would have an informant at the IWMEC too...especially if Schwartz was a shill for them anyway.

As we say round these parts -- put a little more gravy on the biscuit for taste. But they send Schwartz and an interpreter to give a red herring to the police and not one word in their propaganda rag to make sure their comrades got the same line for what would be the same benefit?

They could have really made use of Schwartz's story for propoganda. But they didn't. Funny that.

[lynn cates]

truth

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Although I have trouble understanding your herky jerky post (no offense), I'll try to respond to the small portion that was clear.

I think my main problem with your thinking is that you rarely get further than the secondary sources. Your posts are sprinkled with adversions to Sugden and Begg, etc. And, whilst I esteem their opinions as investigators, they are surely not harmonised one with another?

The best one can do is to look first to inquest reports, then to memos, etc. Newspaper accounts come last. And, in the first category (and here I actually agree with you) medicos are first, coppers second, others third.

But even here, in category one, everything must be tempered. So, for example, Dr. Phillips--whom I admire, respect and follow more than anyone else--is clearly wrong IF he really thinks that Liz was thrown to the ground whilst clutching cachous and retained then after the "bounce."

So one asks, "Why did he believe that?" And the answer is obvious. He was eager to provide an understanding of her shoulder bruises. And, yes, caeteris paribus, such a scenario would explain the bruises. But it runs counter to reality.

I think you would do well to get the forensic facts first. In other words, make a mock-up of Dutfields. Paper and ink will do. Ascertain measurements, look at body position (see, I did not lead you astray with my "left side" pronouncement), measure everything. Now, look at inquest testimony and try to get things to fit.

Once all this is done, then--and only then--see what other investigators have to say (ie, secondary sources).

Above all, let truth be your guide--not some position you have adopted (eg, I am bona fide . . .).

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dying story

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"But they send Schwartz and an interpreter to give a red herring to the police and not one word in their propaganda rag to make sure their comrades got the same line for what would be the same benefit?

They could have really made use of Schwartz's story for propaganda. But they didn't. Funny that."

Not at all. You see, my point is that the AF story came out AFTER "The Star" noted doubts about Schwartz. My thinking is that the club people were aware of the doubts--possibly after being warned about their BSM story.

Hence, they hoped the story would die on the vine.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Lynn you do realize that the Keppel we are referencing has released a forensic analysis in a peer review journal?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jip.22/abstract

Its called the Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling.

Here is my question to you. Why haven't you through your forensic connections published like he has if you are right and can demonstrate it?

[Batman]

I think my main problem with your thinking is that you rarely get further than the secondary sources. Your posts are sprinkled with adversions to Sugden and Begg, etc. And, whilst I esteem their opinions as investigators, they are surely not harmonised one with another?

I quote inquests, the ultimate and use italics and ref to articles here on CB. I then turn to Begg and Sugden as easy places to read their work which is also referenced and tied back to the source material. I turn to Evans/Rumbelow too.

This is opposed to say using yourself as a source in your forensic video. I asked a question about how you guaged the heights between the actors in your video and the height of the victim/killer. What did your forensic experts say on this point?

The best one can do is to look first to inquest reports, then to memos, etc. Newspaper accounts come last. And, in the first category (and here I actually agree with you) medicos are first, coppers second, others third.

I just use the Ultimate from Evans/Skinner which does all the above.

But even here, in category one, everything must be tempered. So, for example, Dr. Phillips--whom I admire, respect and follow more than anyone else--is clearly wrong IF he really thinks that Liz was thrown to the ground whilst clutching cachous and retained then after the "bounce."

I don't think there is anything 'clear' about how wrong he is. Nobody else seems to suddenly reject him either but accept his methodology and explanation. The 'sweets' critic is just a red herring. In the annuals of forensic pathology there is nothing preventing anyone from holding onto anything during any type of fall. Anything. I gave tens of examples, which all got ignored by those who want to find a mystery in how people can hold onto stuff during an assault/blow.

So one asks, "Why did he believe that?" And the answer is obvious. He was eager to provide an understanding of her shoulder bruises. And, yes, caeteris paribus, such a scenario would explain the bruises. But it runs counter to reality.

Nope. This answer was with respect of all the evidence, not just one point, like shoulder bruising. There is bruising in addition to this on her front. All the blood is pooled under her head and running to the side. There is no blood down her front. Gravity still operates. There is no arterial spray. No blood on scarf etc. Clearly wrong?

Anyway if your forensics analysis is better why not publish in an expert journal on the matter as others have done?