A Case of Misattribution?

[lynn cates]

unfortunately

Hello Simon. Thanks. That would indeed be the case provided:

1. She were an unfortunate.

2. Met a second violent chap.

I agree about Swanson. He seems to wear his credulity on his sleeve, but underneath . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

The bottom line with Schwartz is that, no matter how truthful his story, it could not be allowed to torpedo the 1.00 am murder-interruptus incident and "double-event" which subsequently passed into official history.

Who do you believe? Israel Schwartz or Saucy Jacky?

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

neither

Hello Simon. I prefer to doubt both.

1. Schwartz' story is very convenient for the IWMEC.

2. SJ conveniently puts two disparate items together.

Both are convenient but likely have different target populations.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

Saucy Jacky wins hands down in terms of influencing target populations.

I'm not being combative, but in what way was Schwartz's story convenient for the IWMEC?

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

"Gentile on my mind"

Hello Simon. Well, given that Wess and the lads believed that they were watched by the police, and given that they felt there might be an attempt to pin it on the club, the Schwartz story dismantles by positing a Gentile bully.

So, you see, it could NOT have been one of us at the club.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

Wess and the lads were being watched by the cops who, for all we know, might have been on a tea-break at the appointed hour.

Are you suggesting that Israel Schwartz fudged the matter of BS man's ethnicity in order to prevent the murder being pinned on the IWMEC?

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

precisely

Hello Simon. That is PRECISELY my suggestion.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

The Gentile Bully

Hello Simon. Well, given that Wess and the lads believed that they were watched by the police, and given that they felt there might be an attempt to pin it on the club, the Schwartz story dismantles by positing a Gentile bully.

So, you see, it could NOT have been one of us at the club.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

If the Schwartz story is a fiction intended to remove suspicion from members of the IWMEC, why have him witnessing only an assault? Why not, unequivocally, the murder itself? Why not say, overtly that 'it was obvious to me that the man was a Gentile', rather than simply implying it in the description?
In addition, if

Wess and the lads believed that they were watched by the police

it would be extremely dangerous to have a Club stooge invent a story of this nature, because there would be every chance that a watching policeman would be able to disprove it. Where would that leave Israel Schwartz in the great scheme of things? Slopping out in Pentonville?

regards, Bridewell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

Okay. I respect that.

I realise I'm going out on a limb here, but how do you feel about Lawende having also fudged the ethnicity of the man he saw with "Eddowes" at the entrance to Church Passage?

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

risky

Hello Colin. Thanks. IF Israel claimed to have witnessed the murder, then he MIGHT be asked for details. That could prove embarrassing. Better to describe an assault and let there be a nascent murder.

Having the Met step in and say, "We saw no one there where Schwartz was supposed to be" could be risky. But then they might add, "We saw no one at all with Liz."

Further, no one else--Brown, Mortimer, etc.--saw Israel OR BS man. So . . .

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

no call

Hello Simon. Thanks.

Well, if his story is credible (as I believe it is) then he did not get a close look at the man.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Misunderstood

Hello Simon. That is PRECISELY my suggestion.

Cheers.
LC

Sorry, Lynn. My previous post was based on a misunderstanding of what you were saying. If we go with the notion that Schwartz saw what he claims to have seen, but postulate that he changed the man's description from Jew to Gentile, where does that lead?
The Schwartz account was initially believed, but he was not called to give evidence. The assailant now becomes a Jew, but presumably Pipeman, if not involved, remains a Gentile. There is some doubt about whether it was BS or Pipeman who shouted 'Lipski', but Schwartz reports being chased down the road by the latter. If the IWMEC was indeed being watched, Pipeman could have been one of the watchers?
The scenario becomes one wherein a watching policeman sees two Jews, one of whom is attacking Stride. Pipeman believes the two men are acting as a team and invokes the name of 'Lipski', a cowardly Jewish murderer from the previous year. He chases one of the two men away, returns to the scene and finds that the second has cut the throat of Liz Stride in his absence. If this is the nub of what you are suggesting it throws up some interesting questions, not least of which, to my mind is: Why wasn't Schwartz arrested?
In this scenario, surely, Schwartz would be in grave danger of being implicated as an accomplice to the murder. Would it also mean that Pipeman was a candidate to be Anderson's witness?
Apologies if I have, once again, mistaken the thrust of your argument.

Regards, Bridewell.

[GregBaron]

Who lied?

Hello Simon. Thanks.

Well, if his story is credible (as I believe it is) then he did not get a close look at the man.

Cheers.
LC

Well Lynn, if you're talking about Lawende here, then he got close enough to say about 5'7", fair, red kerchief, rough-looking, sailor etc. That's some detail....

Could Schwarz and Lawende both be lying to protect Jews?

Heaven forbid! Then the much maligned Anderson is right.........Ha



Greg

[lynn cates]

insurance

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"If we go with the notion that Schwartz saw what he claims to have seen, but postulate that he changed the man's description from Jew to Gentile, where does that lead?"

Well, I don't believe he saw anything. I think that Wess and the lads contrived the whole story, again, to avert danger for the club. And, yes, the stress was on his being a Gentile.

It may have been an unnecessary ruse, but from the IWMEC view, it was a sort of insurance policy.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

protecting Jews

Hello Greg. Thanks. But yet he could not likely pick him out subsequently. And his description is sufficient only to implicate hundreds, perhaps thousands, of London men.

So I'm not sure about protecting Jews.

Cheers.
LC