GSG because of Schwartz?

[Jon Guy]

Point 1:
Graffiti doesn't get rubbed off by people passing does it?, you know this and I know this.
Are you able to negotiate walkways and paths without bumping into or sliding along any walls?
I'm sure you can, so can I, and believe it or not, so do other people..

There would have been a lot of traffic by that doorway, Jon
What about the market stall that would have been set up by the doorway with all the clothes hanging up ? Have you seen the picture of the Goulston Street market, and the type of clothes stall by that door in particular ?

Point 2:
Unless you can demonstrate that this example of graffiti was unique then your argument is mute, graffiti could have been quite prevalent in the Jewish sector. East Enders were quite annoyed at Jews for a number of reasons...

They were, but during that Autumn all other issues faded away.

We do have photographic samples of graffiti on walls in general in this period so we are not able to claim that this was a special case...

I`ve not seen photographic evidence of small hand written messages, written in lower case.

Point 3:
It was never established who "Lipski" was addressed to, or why. Abberline tells us himself that Schwartz was not certain about this....

I thought that due to Schwartz`s strong Jewish appearance Abberline concluded that the Lipski insult was directed at Schwartz ?

[Hunter]

Maybe when I have enough time and libations in the next couple of days I'll address some of the misconceptions boosted recently on this thread...
And maybe not.

[Michael W Richards]

Can you elaborate please? Schwartz described a frontal assault (not rear even though a lot of people even believe today JtR struck from the rear). The autopsy revealed that she did have frontal bruising with the added note that they couldn't rule out they were older. Yet they are still corroborative of Schwartz who couldn't have known the autopsy results this early and they couldn't have known about his witness testimony.

Yes there is speculation a rife, but one also has to then be prepared to apply that same criticism to one's own hypothesis no? I think to be fair its the logical course of action.

A good question I would have is if anyone saw Schwartz about that time. I believe his being there has been corroborated by other witnesses.

Of the different stories concerning exactly what happened to Liz it seems the most believable is the one where she is accosted by someone from behind, who grabs her by the arm or hand and attempts to pull her into the street, she pulls back and falls, he is seen stooping over her, perhaps helping her up. She had the bruising, yes, but it isn't explained by that incident.

The difference between constructive speculation that can help and that which can hurt the investigation is when the accepted known physical characteristics of the scene and the victims condition when found are adhered to.

To re-iterate, no one saw Israel, no-one heard the altercation, no-one saw Eagle or Lave, no one saw or heard Louis arrive.

Without those contentious witnesses we have Liz in the passageway and off the street just after PC Smith leaves,...because a corroborated witness was at her door to the street off and on from 12:30 until 12:50 when she spent the last 10 minutes at her door. She didn't see or hear Louis though he states he was sure he arrived in the passageway at 1am.

Clearly, some witnesses are wrong or lying.

I tend to question the ones that have zero corroboration, and as in Israel's case, start with a questionable premise and end with complete exoneration of anyone on the property at the time. Since he is an immigrant Jew, at an immigrant Jew Socialist club shortly after a large meeting, and since it appears he knew at least Woolf Wess personally, his story seems even less credible, and extremely fortunate for club people like Wess.

Happy New Year.

[Batman]

How she received the bruises cannot be explained by Schwartzs account, the assailant did not interact with her in a way that would cause them according to his story. Read it again.

Can you elaborate please? Schwartz described a frontal assault (not rear even though a lot of people even believe today JtR struck from the rear). The autopsy revealed that she did have frontal bruising with the added note that they couldn't rule out they were older. Yet they are still corroborative of Schwartz who couldn't have known the autopsy results this early and they couldn't have known about his witness testimony.

Yes there is speculation a rife, but one also has to then be prepared to apply that same criticism to one's own hypothesis no? I think to be fair its the logical course of action.

A good question I would have is if anyone saw Schwartz about that time. I believe his being there has been corroborated by other witnesses.

[Michael W Richards]

Schwartz provided significant details that the autopsy later corroborated such as frontal bruising present and he claimed a frontal assault. Then we have his discription matching Lewede which is the police position on things (do you think Lewede was in on your hypothesis?). Also the way one side of her back was caked in mud way more than the other suggests she was dragged. However if you read Begg he suggests Pipeman was located and cleared by the police. Also Begg suggests it was Schwartz who was taken to the seaside home to identify kozminski, not Lewende.

I am aware of the facts you mentioned, but there are guesses in there as well. How she received the bruises cannot be explained by Schwartzs account, the assailant did not interact with her in a way that would cause them according to his story. Read it again. The suspects description does not match the description of Sailor Man, but many think they are close enough to assume so. Her left side, the one she lay on, was caked, there was some additional mud as well on the back of her skirt. There is no evidence at all that suggests she was dragged, in fact a police statement said she looked as if "lain gently down". And her skirt hem had not risen beyond her boot tops.

I have great respect for authors like Mr Begg, and Mr Evans, Mr Sugden and Mr Fido, and quite a few other authors on the topic. But an opinion is still an opinion...a fact is something that can be, and has been, proven. That a witness ID took place at all is a matter of words not facts, and since Israel does not appear at the Inquest, since his statement is not read, or entered as evidence,... since we do not hear that his story is being suppressed like we do with Lawende, since we know Lawende was sequestered at Police expense and we hear none of that about Israel...the evidence suggests Lawende, if anyone, was the Jewish witness.

Again though, assuming something took place because someone said it did isn't using reliable evidence. Its merely choosing to believe,....I prefer when attempting to solve this or any puzzle, to find evidence that compels one to believe.

Cheers

[Batman]

So in some twisted way, even though Schwartz had yet to make his formal appearance in this saga, his statement.....one that begins with a very sketchy premise and alleged incidents that no-one else saw or heard.....

Cheers

Schwartz provided significant details that the autopsy later corroborated such as frontal bruising present and he claimed a frontal assault. Then we have his discription matching Lewede which is the police position on things (do you think Lewede was in on your hypothesis?). Also the way one side of her back was caked in mud way more than the other suggests she was dragged. However if you read Begg he suggests Pipeman was located and cleared by the police. Also Begg suggests it was Schwartz who was taken to the seaside home to identify kozminski, not Lewende.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe there is every possibility that the GSG was written because the author believed that some anarchist Jews were trying to lie their way out of blame on Berner Street that night, and the author was the killer in Mitre Square. The placement, at sometime between Longs first and second pass by that spot, is because one or more Berner Street club Jews lived in the Model Homes.

So in some twisted way, even though Schwartz had yet to make his formal appearance in this saga, his statement.....one that begins with a very sketchy premise and alleged incidents that no-one else saw or heard..... a story that seems pretty clearly intended to place the killer from off the grounds and make him Gentile....might be the validation for that grafitto...because the story may well have been a lie to avoid blame for Liz Strides death....a responsibility they would bear even if the murderer was just a visitor that night, not a club employee. Like 3 of the witnesses were without any corroboration for their stories.

In fact, all of their stories are essentially refuted by the cumulative stories given by Kozebrodski, Heschberg and Spooner, within 1 hour after the killing. Club members, but without any real responsibility or liability here.

Because all 3 of those stories suggest Louis summoned help in the passageway at around 12:40....


Cheers, ...and Happy New Year.

[Natasha]

Oh and Natasha my comments weren't aimed at you in particular just at anyone whose theory is based on police incompetence.

I have suggested that in the past as well. You need to question every aspect of the case. Good detective work, no matter how difficult the questions are to ask or who they are aimed at, gets results, or at least lead to new avenues of thought.

[GUT]

Oh and Natasha my comments weren't aimed at you in particular just at anyone whose theory is based on police incompetence.

[GUT]

GUT

I'm not saying the police were stupid. There was a political unrest around this time. There was racism aimed at the Jews. The police were stepping on egg shells. This could be a possible reason for not digging too deep into questioning the Jews. How did I come to this conclusion? The GSG was destroyed!

If the GSG was photographed maybe this would warrant people to believe the Jews to be responsible. By destroying the GSG, that is saying the police never took the graffiti seriously.

Also where are the press reports? Don't tell me they have gone missing!

Also you should know by now, I never stick rigidly with a theory. It's not about trying to force a piece in to the puzzle to make it stick. I'm just looking at different angles in this case.

II would suggest that there is no mention of it in the press because nothing came of it, just as today after a murder there is seldom any mention that the police canvassed the neighbourhood, [sometimes there is, but usually not] but the police do so. The simple fact is that the press, then as now, report what they think the public want to read about, the sensational, seldom do they report the mundane.

[Natasha]

G'day Rosella [by the way a couple of real beauties in the bushes outsde my window at the moment]

I hereby award thee the post of the day.

So many want to base theories on "The documents we have don't show that the police did X so they mustn't have." When anyone with half a brain would have made that inquiry or searched that spot or questioned that person or visited that place, it is just, as you rightly say, so much has been lost to us. Any theory that relies on the police being to stupid to do a half effective job will not get the thumbs up from me.

GUT

I'm not saying the police were stupid. There was a political unrest around this time. There was racism aimed at the Jews. The police were stepping on egg shells. This could be a possible reason for not digging too deep into questioning the Jews. How did I come to this conclusion? The GSG was destroyed!

If the GSG was photographed maybe this would warrant people to believe the Jews to be responsible. By destroying the GSG, that is saying the police never took the graffiti seriously.

Also where are the press reports? Don't tell me they have gone missing!

Also you should know by now, I never stick rigidly with a theory. It's not about trying to force a piece in to the puzzle to make it stick. I'm just looking at different angles in this case.

[GUT]

How do we know that the inhabitants of Goulston St weren't asked if they had seen or heard anything unusual during the night (and let's not forget that the dumping of the apron/writing of the GSG occurred in the early hours of the morning when most people were fast asleep?) I think we sometimes forget just how much material and documentation has simply disappeared in the past century.

G'day Rosella [by the way a couple of real beauties in the bushes outsde my window at the moment]

I hereby award thee the post of the day.

So many want to base theories on "The documents we have don't show that the police did X so they mustn't have." When anyone with half a brain would have made that inquiry or searched that spot or questioned that person or visited that place, it is just, as you rightly say, so much has been lost to us. Any theory that relies on the police being to stupid to do a half effective job will not get the thumbs up from me.

[Natasha]

How do we know that the inhabitants of Goulston St weren't asked if they had seen or heard anything unusual during the night (and let's not forget that the dumping of the apron/writing of the GSG occurred in the early hours of the morning when most people were fast asleep?) I think we sometimes forget just how much material and documentation has simply disappeared in the past century.

I would have though that perhaps the police would at least knock on the doors of some of the inhabitants houses in and around Goluston Street, to see if perhaps the murderer may have been living there.

It seems that perhaps the evidence was planted, but what if the apron was dropped by the killer by accident? We don't know for sure if it was dumped by someone, or if it was used to wrap organs. The logical thing to do would be to question everyone in the vicinity of where the apron was found.

Yes a great deal of info' has been lost, but there is no mention by the press that anyone around Goulston street was questioned.

[Rosella]

How do we know that the inhabitants of Goulston St weren't asked if they had seen or heard anything unusual during the night (and let's not forget that the dumping of the apron/writing of the GSG occurred in the early hours of the morning when most people were fast asleep?) I think we sometimes forget just how much material and documentation has simply disappeared in the past century.

[Natasha]

Hi Jon

There were other stains, the Times, along with a few other publications noted:

"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it."

The blood spots were of recent origin

Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street

I'm going by what the coroners say, that there was spots of blood, rather than what the majority of the papers say, because the coroner said spots.

It was also wet in places, consistent with it carrying organs perhaps.
It would be rather bizarre for the killer to bring along this large piece of bloodstained cloth to wipe his hands, etc. but carry the wet organs in his pocket. Does he care more about the cleanliness of his hands than his clothes?
I think not.

Would it not be bizarre to all of a sudden decide to dump the apron that contained the organs?
I think the apron had nothing to do with carrying away organs. I think if the ripper was going out to take organs, he would need to be organised, by bringing something that would contain the organs.

I have been thinking that perhaps someone else had planted the apron, perhaps one of the officers because perhaps they had strong convictions about who they thought the ripper was. The GSG may not have been written by an officer, but by linking it to the apron would therefore (in the mind of the person who planted it there) open a different route of inquiry. Perhaps one of the officers were in the believe that a Jew had committed the crimes and were annoyed that there wasn't further questioning of the Jewish community. It is very strange that the Jewish inhabitants of Goulston Street were not questioned about anything they may have heard/seen, or that they weren't questioned because of the GSG (as far as I know they weren't). The ripper may have lived in there for all they know.

Just an idea.