The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Batman]

But like all witness testimony in this case it was never tested as to its accuracy or reliability. It has simply muddied the waters by allowing researchers to draw perhaps the wrong inferences from the chain of events.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Swanson's reports to the HO tell us that Schwartz's account was investigated and accepted, hence the Lipski investigation involving all the senior officers.

People where arrested in connection with his.

[Trevor Marriott]

Where in Schwartz`s account (either Police statement or Star story) does it support your idea ?

I was simply using that as an example of what someone might say to the un wanted attention of a street prostitute who had stopped him by taking hold of his arm, and his subsequent actions in either pulling away from here or simply pushing her away allowing her to fall to the ground.

Read my later posts regarding the witness testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Swanson's reports to the HO tell us that Schwartz's account was investigated and accepted, hence the Lipski investigation involving all the senior officers.

People where arrested in connection with his.

No it wasnt tested it was accepted as being correct that's not the same.

Just to put you right on another point.Such an assault in todays world would not be regarded as a serious assault. It would be nothing more than what is known as "common assault"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

No it wasnt tested it was accepted as being correct that's not the same.

Just to put you right on another point.Such an assault in todays world would not be regarded as a serious assault. It would be nothing more than what is known as "common assault"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It was investigated. What do you mean by 'tested' other than that? They eventually found no reason to cast doubt on his story which involves other people including his wife.

Just to put you right, in today's world where a person is seen ''commonly assaulting'' someone and they die afterwards, it isn't a 'common assault'. It's so serious an assault its called a 'fatal assault'. The only consideration is if its premeditated murder or not.

[John G]

I doubt it because the idea she is accosting men is in disagreement with one witness hearing her say ""No, not tonight, some other night". Then we have Schwartz who sees her being accosted. That 2 strikes against your assumption, Trevor.

Its a plausible explanation but the plausible alternative has more strength from the witness evidence to support it. We select that which has more evidence for it, which is why I dismiss the idea she is accosting people (a positive claim that isn't even neutral btw and has no evidence for it).

But the quote, "No, not tonight, some other night", is based on comments overhead by James Brown. And, as I've noted several times, his evidence contradicts Schwartz's evidence.

[John G]

It was investigated. What do you mean by 'tested' other than that? They eventually found no reason to cast doubt on his story which involves other people including his wife.

Just to put you right, in today's world where a person is seen ''commonly assaulting'' someone and they die afterwards, it isn't a 'common assault'. It's so serious an assault its called a 'fatal assault'. The only consideration is if its premeditated murder or not.

But you can't remotely prove that the assault "witnessed" by Schwartz resulted in her death. What he witnessed, if he witnessed anything at all, was a simple common assault, as Trevor has quite rightly pointed out.

[John G]

Swanson's reports to the HO tell us that Schwartz's account was investigated and accepted, hence the Lipski investigation involving all the senior officers.

People where arrested in connection with his.

George Hutchinson's evidence was also accepted initially, and the police invested significant resources in trying to locate Astrachan man. But this came to nothing, just like any investigations into Schwartz's "suspect".

[Batman]

But you can't remotely prove that the assault "witnessed" by Schwartz resulted in her death. What he witnessed, if he witnessed anything at all, was a simple common assault, as Trevor has quite rightly pointed out.

That would require a conviction.

The alternative is a coincidence.

An important difference between the two suspects is that all resources and the lead investigators worked on the Schwartz lead while they divide on Hutchinson, with Abberline taking charge of it while Swanson and Cox report on stakeouts and house to house searches.

It is simply more likely than not that someone seen assaulting someone who dies soon after is responsible. In this case the person who was assaulted is dead which doesn't make it a common assault.

[Trevor Marriott]

It was investigated. What do you mean by 'tested' other than that? They eventually found no reason to cast doubt on his story which involves other people including his wife.

Just to put you right, in today's world where a person is seen ''commonly assaulting'' someone and they die afterwards, it isn't a 'common assault'. It's so serious an assault its called a 'fatal assault'. The only consideration is if its premeditated murder or not.

Again you are showing your ignorance of the law with regards to defining assaults and how evidence is tested. I will not continue to argue the points with you.

[Batman]

Again you are showing your ignorance of the law with regards to defining assaults and how evidence is tested. I will not continue to argue the points with you.

That's fine Trevor.

In this instance the person who was seen being assaulted is dead. That's the difference.

I have no idea what you mean by evidence 'tested' because you haven't described that one bit. How does your idea of a test differ from that one Swanson reported? I think you are just saying he accepted it on a whim which isn't what the HO report says at all, or forgot Swanson looked into it.

As Begg rightly states, as well as nearly every other solid book on the topic, it is hopeless to believe that the investigators at the time didn't accept what Schwartz had to tell them.

Another thing is where is the same degree of doubt over every other witness who came forward? No, Schwartz get singled out for a purpose.

[Batman]

Packer investigated well, Schwartz not? That can't be right

Matthew Packer is a witness in the Stride murder.

White reinterviewed Packer. On the bases of their investigation Swanson concluded that any evidence Packer gave would be rendered useless probably because Packer's story changed.

That is an example of the degree of investigating they undertook for a witness who claimed to see Stride, let alone a witness who claimed to see Stride being attacked before she died.

The idea Schwartz wasn't fully investigated is rendered highly improbable given the intensity of the investigation at these other levels connected with Stride's death.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's fine Trevor.

In this instance the person who was seen being assaulted is dead. That's the difference.

I have no idea what you mean by evidence 'tested' because you haven't described that one bit. How does your idea of a test differ from that one Swanson reported? I think you are just saying he accepted it on a whim which isn't what the HO report says at all, or forgot Swanson looked into it.

As Begg rightly states, as well as nearly every other solid book on the topic, it is hopeless to believe that the investigators at the time didn't accept what Schwartz had to tell them.

Another thing is where is the same degree of doubt over every other witness who came forward? No, Schwartz get singled out for a purpose.

But the person assaulted didn't die as a result of the assault did they ?

There is every degree of doubt about every witness statement. I am not singling Schwartz out at all. The trouble is that some believe which witnesses they want to believe because it fits well with their theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

But the person assaulted didn't die as a result of the assault did they ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The cause of death is the severing of the left carotid artery.

"Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since."


This suggests she underwent pressure from being handled this way.

[Trevor Marriott]

The cause of death is the severing of the left carotid artery.

"Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since."


This suggests she underwent pressure from being handled this way.

The severing of the carotid artery occurred in Dutfields yard not in the street.

The street incident is a separate incident from the yard incident.

There is no evidence to show that the two incidents were connected because the actual time of death cannot be accurately determined.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Assuming that Schwartz was telling the truth about the alleged assault, the only evidence for the GSG being connected to Schwartz and Lawende et al. is circumstantial at best. Whitechapel was heavily populated by Jewish immigrants, so I'd say that the chances of there being Jewish eyewitnesses and Jewish graffiti found on the night of the murder are pretty high.

Just to reiterate, I still think it was written by a schoolboy earlier in the evening. Everything about it, from the handwriting style, to the spelling error, to the height, and finally the size of the message. It's suggestive of someone who's tentative, not sure what they're doing, i.e. a kid afraid of getting caught, not a serial killer who's deliberately come out of hiding to put a message across. And would the killer have even been able to write such a message under the poor lighting conditions?

I also believe there is reason to cast suspicion on PC Long's testimony. His timings appear to be off and I don't see how he can claim the apron wasn't there at 2:20am, but he wasn't sure about the graffito. If he missed the graffito, then surely it's possible that he missed the apron, as well.