Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[JeffHamm]

Hi NBFN,

Sorry, the quote function isn't working for me on this thread at the moment.

Just seeking clarification on something in your post above (#1005).

"'Broad shouldered man' yelled 'Lipski' at Lawende - an orthodox, lower-middle class man, who was standing outside the Jewish men's club, in Duke street.
That is why no one heard it, in Berner street!
Quite possibly, Israel Schwartz is 5'5", with a fair complexion, dark hair, a small mustache, has a full face and broad shoulders, and sometimes wears a black cap with peak.
In other words, Schwartz' first man is self-projection."

So, are you saying that Lawende was the one who had "Lipski" shouted in his presence, and that Schwartz was the one doing the shouting? That is what I'm reading above, but just want to make sure I'm not completely misreading that.

If so, that would be a really interesting twist for a plot line in a "loosely based upon real events" screen play, but, while I don't know for sure what happened at the time, I know there is no basis for believing that is even close to the real events. It's imaginative, and up there with some of the most creative thinkers when it comes to alternative realities from the information we have recorded, but sticking with that idea will certainly not get you closer to solving who JtR was than sticking with the information as it's recorded and looking for far more minor conflicts (of where there are many, due to the nature of the information we have - mostly eye witness testimony of one form or another).

As for the club's involvement, which often hinges on two unsubstantiated assumptions (Schwartz was associated with the club somehow, either a member or a friend of it so the club put Schwartz up to posing as a witness; the murderer was associated with the club, and the club wants to direct attention away from a Jewish offender so they won't get closed down). The problem, though, is that Schwartz, when he talks to the police, in his statement he implicates a Jewish offender because Schwartz believed Lipski was shouted to Pipeman (according to what he told the police). While Andersen things Schwartz was mistaken, and that Lipski was probably shouted at Schwartz himself (which is what most of us tend to accept now), the "cover story" is what Schwartz tells the police, not their reinterpretation of it. That means, in order to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender they invent a cover story in which the offender is Jewish. It's self contradictory, and falsifies itself.

What's going on with the conflict in the time lines is simply the fact that eye witnesses can be really bad with remembering what the time was. Particularly if they've not got their own watch, and rely on memory of the time, which up until that point, they hadn't really been paying attention to.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Hi Jeff.
The Quote function isn't working for me now on this thread....
I'll make my own.

We don't know they didn't pass his statement over do we?

No we don't, but we don't know if they did. That's the point.
We shouldn't assume some clandestine reason for his not showing up, if the answer is just as simple as he wasn't called to testify.

It's never been determined why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest, but given they allowed others to testify whose stories they must have questioned (i.e. Mary Malcolm's claim that Stride was her sister), I don't think they prevented people just because there were doubts about the information.

Right, but Malcolm wasn't a key witness. Most witnesses just have a story to tell which amounts to background information. Very few see the actual assault or see the perpetrator as Schwartz claimed. So the story given by Schwartz must have required more indepth investigation than the story told by Malcolm.

Also, there are a couple of messages between the police and home office (I think), where it sounds like the police had expected Schwartz to testify at the inquest (actually, they read as if Schwartz had testified at the inquest, though we know that is wrong and I think it's just an example of poor wording - all covered before on the boards so I won't go over it again here).

Anderson said it, then Warren repeated it. Those are the only two comments on the subject that I recall.

What I find most annoying is there is nothing to indicate why Schwartz suddenly vanishes.

Do you mean that we can't find him today?
We never hear of Mrs Long again, nor Hutchinson, and what happened to Michael Kidney? We don't read about them again, but does that mean they vanished?
Was anyone looking for them after their '15 minutes of fame'?

We know the police didn't think Schwartz's belief that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman was correct, but that just means they doubted Schwartz's interpretation of the events (who was shouting at whom; was pipeman chasing Schwartz, or just also leaving the scene? etc), rather than the events themselves (Lipski was shouted by BS; pipeman headed in the same direction as Schwartz, etc). Given we know the police at least doubted Schwartz's interpretation, then the press reports indicating the police doubted the truth of the story may simply reflect that doubt without indicating they doubted the events happened - just Schwartz's interpretation of them.

Yes, you could be right.
What we are exploring here are various explanations for Schwartz not showing up. So long as we have a handful of possibilities there is no cause to create a conspiracy (as some do) or accuse someone of lying.
The solution could be quite mundane, and that simply due to a lack of information.

If the story provided by Schwartz was still under investigation at the time the coroner required to see the witness statements, then Schwartz's statement, in my view, should have been held back.
Besides, the coroner was able to determine the 'where', 'when' & 'by what means' the victim met her death, without Schwartz statement.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi NBFN,

So, are you saying that Lawende was the one who had "Lipski" shouted in his presence, and that Schwartz was the one doing the shouting? That is what I'm reading above, but just want to make sure I'm not completely misreading that.

Yes

If so, that would be a really interesting twist for a plot line in a "loosely based upon real events" screen play, but, while I don't know for sure what happened at the time, I know there is no basis for believing that is even close to the real events. It's imaginative, and up there with some of the most creative thinkers when it comes to alternative realities from the information we have recorded, but sticking with that idea will certainly not get you closer to solving who JtR was than sticking with the information as it's recorded and looking for far more minor conflicts (of where there are many, due to the nature of the information we have - mostly eye witness testimony of one form or another).

Time will tell

What's going on with the conflict in the time lines is simply the fact that eye witnesses can be really bad with remembering what the time was. Particularly if they've not got their own watch, and rely on memory of the time, which up until that point, they hadn't really been paying attention to.

Who was the witness or witnesses?
What did this person or persons witness?
How do you know this person(s) was really bad at remembering the time?
How did this person(s) know of the murder, without also discovering the victim?
How can a time of death be stated, that does not concur with an interruption theory?
Why is Schwartz' time in Berner street, exactly the same as Arbeter Fraint's time of death?
If this witness (or witnesses) is so unreliable with the time, why doesn't Arbeter Fraint explain away the time anomaly?

It is all so very suspicious.

[JeffHamm]

Who was the witness or witnesses?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about a specific witness, but rather, a general principle with dealing with witness testimony. An individual might be really good, but there's no way for us to know that simply because they stated a time. If, however, we can find independent ways to test the accuracy of their stated times, then we may be able to find ways to decide if what they stated was likely to be accurate or not. That's why the online maps that let us measure the distances that people traveled are so useful. We can measure how far they appeared to have traveled, and look to see if the times they testify are reasonable given where they said they were at various points in time.

Other things one can do is compare the various times given, and see if they appear to be all roughly bouncing around some common time, with various degrees of error. Obviously, we may give more weight to someone who had a clock or watch to consult, and less to those who appear to be estimating the time, and so forth. Also, more weight would be given to police officers, whose job required them to keep note of the time, and to medical professionals who are called to duty (as they too would be required to take particular note of the time), and less weight to someone who was just out and about, perhaps having a few pints or socialising, all which are activities where time can become blurred.

What did this person or persons witness?

As I say, I'm not referring to a particular witness, just to the collection of witness statements. Looked at as a whole, there will inevitably be conflict (sometimes not by much, sometimes by quite wide margins). This is where going from the evidence as stated starts to shift into interpretation - one then has to work out why the times are all over the show, and based upon the principle that witness testimonies to time are often error prone, one then tries to work out from that noisy evidence what the underlying real times were.

How do you know this person(s) was really bad at remembering the time?

Again, since I'm not referring to a particular individual, but rather to the type of evidence as a whole, I don't know. Without independent ways to verify the likely accuracy of their testimony, one cannot know. However, we know that PC Watkins and PC Harris report patrol times and locations that appear to be very accurate given the size of their patrols and the required patrol walking speed. As such, we can conclude they were pretty good at it (PC Watkins having a watch also points to us having some confidence in the times he states).

How did this person(s) know of the murder, without also discovering the victim?

I don't know what you're referring to here and can't see how it connects to my post above?

How can a time of death be stated, that does not concur with an interruption theory?

Again, not sure how that connects to my post that you're replying to? But all one would do is state a time whereby Stride's killer could leave without any known event acting as the interrupter. That doesn't mean something didn't happen at that time that caused them to leave, of course, but at least the time stated is capable of having the murderer leave the scene without having to have been interrupted.

Why is Schwartz' time in Berner street, exactly the same as Arbeter Fraint's time of death?

Because they both stated the same time, presumably. It doesn't mean they were both right. Which one is wrong is what interpretation is about. AF doesn't appear in any official documents, though he may appear in the newspapers. The information in the newspapers is generally less reliable, in part because someone telling their story to a news reporter is not under the same constraints of accuracy, or questioning for details, and so is more apt to "fill in the blanks" to move the story along. When asked how sure of the time they were by an investigator, the response can be something definate (I checked my watch) or reveal it's a speculative blank filling "well, not positive, but I think it was somewhere around that time", etc. Reporters don't need to do that, and it makes for a less sensational story to have the person be wishy-washy. Do we know if that happened here? No, but we don't know it didn't either. That's why one has to take all the evidence, then look for the underlying pattern that smoothes off the noise from such errors. Personally, I would just stick to the times reported by the police officers involved and the doctors, and work out what time they were called to the scene. Then, with those more reliable sources worked out, fixing those events, compare the other witnesses as to how well they connect to it. Those who are further off would be more likely to be the ones who have a less reliable idea of what the time was (note, that doesn't mean other aspects of their testimony is also unreliable, just the bits about "when", not "what").

If this witness (or witnesses) is so unreliable with the time, why doesn't Arbeter Fraint explain away the time anomaly?

Given AF contradicts their own timeline (ToD at 12:45, body found at 1:00 - how could AF know ToD at 12:45 if they didn't even know of the body until 1:00?), I would suggest we already have reason to doubt the reliability of AF's times.

It is all so very suspicious.

Life is suspicious.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Wickerman,

Hi Jeff.
The Quote function isn't working for me now on this thread....
I'll make my own.

It appears my gremlin has moved to your place. Don't feed it after midnight.

No we don't, but we don't know if they did. That's the point.
We shouldn't assume some clandestine reason for his not showing up, if the answer is just as simple as he wasn't called to testify.

Ah, ok. Just wanted to make sure I hadn't overlooked something. But yes, I think there probably was a mundane reason that is lost to us now.

Right, but Malcolm wasn't a key witness. Most witnesses just have a story to tell which amounts to background information. Very few see the actual assault or see the perpetrator as Schwartz claimed. So the story given by Schwartz must have required more indepth investigation than the story told by Malcolm.

I believe identifying the victim was a key goal of an inquest, so while she wasn't key with respect to the death itself, I think she would be considered testifying upon a key aspect of the inquest.

Anderson said it, then Warren repeated it. Those are the only two comments on the subject that I recall.

Do you mean that we can't find him today?
We never hear of Mrs Long again, nor Hutchinson, and what happened to Michael Kidney? We don't read about them again, but does that mean they vanished?
Was anyone looking for them after their '15 minutes of fame'?

Sorry, I mean vanishes from all official records. After his testimony, there's a bunch of chatter between the police and home office about searching for all the Lipski's in the area, and so forth. Finally, the police inform HO that it's likely that Lipski was shouted at Schwartz himself, etc. So, for some time, the police are acting upon his information in a way that indicates they believed him, even to the point of following up on the bits they doubted. And yet, no mention is ever made about Schwartz not testifying at the inquest, and no mention is ever made by the police indicating that they've lost faith in him, and yet, he's never mentioned again by the police - I don't think he's even referred to in any of the memoirs years later.

But you're right, he's not the only one to suddenly exit the stage and not get a mention later. Still, for someone who seems like such an important potential witness, it's frustrating that we don't know why (or even if) the police stopped considering his testimony.

Yes, you could be right.
What we are exploring here are various explanations for Schwartz not showing up. So long as we have a handful of possibilities there is no cause to create a conspiracy (as some do) or accuse someone of lying.
The solution could be quite mundane, and that simply due to a lack of information.

I suspect it was, but if one wanted a conspiracy of sorts, it may have been similar to the GSG - the police thought his testimony might cause too much unrest by re-inflaming things via the Lipski aspect, so they didn't bring him forward.

If the story provided by Schwartz was still under investigation at the time the coroner required to see the witness statements, then Schwartz's statement, in my view, should have been held back.
Besides, the coroner was able to determine the 'where', 'when' & 'by what means' the victim met her death, without Schwartz statement.

Well, all of the witness statements concerning men potentially seen with a victim would still be under investigation, but perhaps it was because this time they may have thought they had him, and didn't want this to be released because it was considered too important? Who knows? I sure don't.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Given AF contradicts their own timeline (ToD at 12:45, body found at 1:00 - how could AF know ToD at 12:45 if they didn't even know of the body until 1:00?), I would suggest we already have reason to doubt the reliability of AF's times.

So now you're saying it was AF that erred on the times, not the unknown witness.
Obviously having a witness report ToD after time of discovery, is nonsensical.
But the problem remains; why are they stating a time of death at all, regardless of how accurate it is?
If they don't know when the murder occurred, then the only ToD they can suppose, is one compatible with interruption by Diemschitz.
Otherwise we have to suppose that they know more that they are letting on.

Arbeter Fraint, Oct 5, page 3:

para 2 starts: The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.

para 3 starts: At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market.

Do you really suppose that people like Wess and Krantz, didn't notice this huge contradiction?
It is like they are hinting to their readers, as to what really occurred.
Why do you suppose they are pretending that Liz is the sister of Mary Malcolm, and that she goes by the name of "Tall Lisa"?
It is a blatant attempt to alter Stride's identity.

Me: Why is Schwartz' time in Berner street, exactly the same as Arbeter Fraint's time of death?

Jeff: Because they both stated the same time, presumably. It doesn't mean they were both right.

Yes, just a coincidence, but again, how can AF be speculating on ToD, if they didn't witness or participate in the murder?
It makes no sense.

If Schwartz was wrong about the time when on Berner street, then what time, approximately, did the incident occur?
Did it occur when Lave was outside?
Or Fanny Mortimer?
Or maybe Letchford's sister (or another person at her address)?
Or perhaps when James Brown was getting his supper?
Or maybe when the young couple stood on the corner of the board school?

The questions go on and on...
If BS killed Stride close to the time Schwartz is running for his life, why does no one walk through the passageway after 12:40 and before 1:00, and find her?
If BS kills just prior to Louis' arrival, how does he manage to treat her rough for 15 minutes, without anyone noticing?
Why were all the people in the cottages apparently so frightened to come out?
That wasn't the case for people inside the club, who rushed down to see, even if they didn't like to look at blood or a dead body.
Where is Louis' pony and cart, and why are they not mentioned in Lamb's reporting of his and Dr Phillips' search of the area?
Why does Louis state that he owns the pony and cart, and that there is a stabling area in the yard, and a dung pile in the yard, but he supposedly keeps the pony and cart at another location?
Why does the victim appear to have been laid quietly down?
How could the left side of neck been cut the deepest, with victim on her left side and with face against a wall?

Personally, I would just stick to the times reported by the police officers involved and the doctors, and work out what time they were called to the scene.

Sounds like a good idea to me!

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

It appears my gremlin has moved to your place. Don't feed it after midnight.

I must be up before the gremlins, the Quote is working now.

I believe identifying the victim was a key goal of an inquest, so while she wasn't key with respect to the death itself, I think she would be considered testifying upon a key aspect of the inquest.

Yes, the identification of the victim was a key goal, but calling a stranger like Schwartz isn't going to do that.
Witnesses were called to satisfy different requirements of the inquest.
The other requirements like; When & Where are covered by PC Smith, Brown & Diemschutz, and; By What Means was provided by the doctors.

Well, all of the witness statements concerning men potentially seen with a victim would still be under investigation, but perhaps it was because this time they may have thought they had him, and didn't want this to be released because it was considered too important? Who knows? I sure don't.

To oversimplify the situation, I see the goal of the police is to work towards a prosecution, in doing so they gather hundreds of statements. Some require more investigation than others. All the while, there is a coroner who needs a handful of witnesses from the police to conduct his inquest. From the police perspective they have a pile of statements that required little to no real investigation, then a smaller pile that are still ongoing.

The coroner wanted to conduct his inquest at 11:00 am, the day after the murder, even before the post-mortem had been conducted at 2:00 pm that same afternoon. Schwartz only gave his statement to police Sunday evening, the coroner wanted his statements from police first thing the next morning so as to compile a list of witnesses.
Why the rush?
If Baxter had waited 24 hours he may have had a wider selection of statements to choose from.
As it happens, Baxter held his inquest on Monday (with only three witnesses - perhaps all that could be found at short notice), Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday.
We have all wondered why Baxter then waited a full three weeks to conduct his final sitting to sum up the inquest. Perhaps it was because the police were still looking for the men identified by Schwartz?

The note by Swanson concerning the witness Schwartz only really says that his statements reads credible. It isn't a recommendation that the police as a whole believe what Schwartz said, only that his statement reads credible, yet they seem to have had no luck in verifying the story.

[JeffHamm]

So now you're saying it was AF that erred on the times, not the unknown witness.

No, now I'm commenting upon what you put forth. I'm just running with your speculative presentation and seeing where it goes, and it goes off the rails pretty quick.

Obviously having a witness report ToD after time of discovery, is nonsensical.
But the problem remains; why are they stating a time of death at all, regardless of how accurate it is?
If they don't know when the murder occurred, then the only ToD they can suppose, is one compatible with interruption by Diemschitz.
Otherwise we have to suppose that they know more that they are letting on.

Or the simpler explanation, they don't know what they're talking about. When I say start with the evidence, I don't mean the evidence is gosphel, but you have to establish it's reliability - otherwise you end up with these sorts of divisions "you decide they are 100% correct, and end up at - "Otherwise we have to suppose that they know more that they are letting on." or you conclude they were wrong and end up at "...they don't know what they're talking about." The first thing to do is regroup, and stop there, note it as a point of division, and then go back to the evidence and look for more points of division. Then, you can list "here is what we know - and there is where we start to divide", etc. You'll still get push back, as there are those we want to claim other points are where the dividsions lie, etc.

Arbeter Fraint, Oct 5, page 3:

Do you really suppose that people like Wess and Krantz, didn't notice this huge contradiction?

Given what you report as their statements, yes, I would conclude that.

It is like they are hinting to their readers, as to what really occurred.
Why do you suppose they are pretending that Liz is the sister of Mary Malcolm, and that she goes by the name of "Tall Lisa"?
It is a blatant attempt to alter Stride's identity.

No, I dislike unnecessarily complicated explanations, and would go for the far more boring (yet simple), "they are full of it".

Yes, just a coincidence, but again, how can AF be speculating on ToD, if they didn't witness or participate in the murder?
It makes no sense.

By simply making it up as they go alone. Their testimony seems unreliable, so rather than concoct a complicated way of making it work, I tend to conclude they're making up.

If Schwartz was wrong about the time when on Berner street, then what time, approximately, did the incident occur?

Can't say, if Schwartz was wrong on the time, then he could be wrong in either direction.

Did it occur when Lave was outside?
Or Fanny Mortimer?
Or maybe Letchford's sister (or another person at her address)?
Or perhaps when James Brown was getting his supper?
Or maybe when the young couple stood on the corner of the board school?

My initial response covers all of these.

The questions go on and on...

Yes, that's the nature of speculation, it's possible to generate an infinite number of possibilities. Therefore, your chance of randomly generating the truth is about 1/infinity, which equals 0. Hence, if you want to increase your chances of getting to the truth, don't speculate but base it upon fact. That's why I focus on the things we "know" - albeit 2nd or 3rd hand, which is also why I'm not fussed about getting to the idea of who JtR was. That's a question beyond the evidence we have, so I concentrate on what we can know.

If BS killed Stride close to the time Schwartz is running for his life, why does no one walk through the passageway after 12:40 and before 1:00, and find her?

Because they were too busy singing in the club. Ohhhh, this is too easy, I can make anything up, can't I?

If BS kills just prior to Louis' arrival, how does he manage to treat her rough for 15 minutes, without anyone noticing?

Actually, while I could argue with your phrasing, that is the focus of the interruption by Deimshutz theory debate. The typical solution is that one, or the other, of the witnesses has their times a bit wrong. It's not proven, but it works.

Problem is, I'm not convinced Stride is a victim of JtR, and if she's not, then the need for the killer to leave due to interruption vanishes., making this issue less worthy of discussion.

Why were all the people in the cottages apparently so frightened to come out?

I'll hazzard to guess that it was due to a murder in their backyard?

That wasn't the case for people inside the club, who rushed down to see, even if they didn't like to look at blood or a dead body.

It wasn't for those who went out, we don't know how many stayed inside.

Where is Louis' pony and cart, and why are they not mentioned in Lamb's reporting of his and Dr Phillips' search of the area?

Don't know where it really was, as it's not indicated, but my guess is was moved up into the yard and out of the way.

Why does Louis state that he owns the pony and cart, and that there is a stabling area in the yard, and a dung pile in the yard, but he supposedly keeps the pony and cart at another location?

Probably because, in the everyday sequence of life, he did both, if not with equal frequency.

Why does the victim appear to have been laid quietly down?

because that's how she appeared? It's a description of the victim, it is what it is. When you get to the point you speculate on what happened, though, don't forget that you have to tell a story that ends up where the victim appears to have been laid quietly down.

How could the left side of neck been cut the deepest, with victim on her left side and with face against a wall?

By placing the knife under the neck and cutting it.

Sounds like a good idea to me!

What does?

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

If Schwartz fabricated B S,then he presumably fabricated Pipeman.Why would he do this?

Ive said before, and Ill say it again because it makes so much damn sense....if Israel was leaving the club via the passageway around 12:40-12:45 and saw a BSM assaulting a woman almost behind the open gate on the left, he might have just scurried along, not to wanting to get involved...just like most people would do. Pipeman serves one purpose, a team or gang influence at work. "Lipski" serves another...to suggest they were anti Semitic. That addition for me speaks to the climate locally, not this event.

Lets face it...Israels excuse for why he is there isn't a great one, we don't even know where he moved from that day but we can assume moving a few items wouldnt have taken his wife all day to move. He was an immigrant, he likely only owned some clothes. Maybe some dishes. There was a meeting there that night for Immigrant Jews, which he is, and some men lingered. I think he saw the woman being assaulted, just cowardly slipped out the gates and went home. The story he gives makes him look less cowardly...for one, because its 2 men that he contends with...and it suggests his concerns at the time were for his wife...just like Louis claimed. Such swell husbands huh...

[JeffHamm]

... "Lipski" serves another...to suggest they were anti Semitic. That addition for me speaks to the climate locally, not this event.
....

Sigh, ok, let's try again. No it does not, because you're describing Andersen's interpretation. Schwartz told Andersen that Lipski was shouted to Pipeman, and in Schwartz's mind (and it's Schwartz's mind that matters here; not the accuracy of what's in in his mind), that indicated that pipeman was Jewis. It was Andersen who suggest Schwartz misinterpreted the events. But Andersen's view (and the one you clearly hold), are not important, it's what Schwartz believed that is, even if his belief is wrong.

And Schwartz believed Lipski indicated the offener's accomplice at least was Jewish, and told the police that. Therefore, there is no way that Schwartz was set up by the club to tell a story to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender - because he does exactly the opposite of that goal. This line of argument contradicts itself.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Sigh, ok, let's try again. No it does not, because you're describing Andersen's interpretation. Schwartz told Andersen that Lipski was shouted to Pipeman, and in Schwartz's mind (and it's Schwartz's mind that matters here; not the accuracy of what's in in his mind), that indicated that pipeman was Jewis. It was Andersen who suggest Schwartz misinterpreted the events. But Andersen's view (and the one you clearly hold), are not important, it's what Schwartz believed that is, even if his belief is wrong.

And Schwartz believed Lipski indicated the offener's accomplice at least was Jewish, and told the police that. Therefore, there is no way that Schwartz was set up by the club to tell a story to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender - because he does exactly the opposite of that goal. This line of argument contradicts itself.

- Jeff

As Ive pointed out Jeff, numerous times...the call could have easily been interpreted as a call between conspirators about this interloper arriving...Schwartz. It doesn't make sense that when you have an obviously Jewish man and a redhaired man across the street, a known locally used Jewish slur wouldnt be directed at the obviously Jewish man.

What Schwartz said isn't believable Jeff...its why he isn't part of the Inquest at all. So defining who interpreted what isn't really an issue anyway. Nothing happened like Israel's statement indicates. Putting emphasis on what Schwartz stated is doing exactly what was intended by that statement...to misrepresent or mislead what happened. As my suggestion, if Israel was actually there at all at the same time he gives in his story, he may have seen something like he describes.. but he saw it in the passageway as he left the club.

This would certainly explain why 4 witnesses say they were by Liz at 12:45ish, and why Fanny didn't see anyone from 12:50 until 1am.

But to the initial point...."Lipski" was known to be used as a derogatory term towards immigrant jews since the infamous local of that name made headlines.

[Michael W Richards]

As to the throat cut you gents were discussing, Blackwell helps with that...he suggested her scarf was grabbed by the assailant, twisted, and using that scarf to hold her off the ground he cuts her throat and drops her. Trailing wound...2 second act.

[c.d.]

What Schwartz said isn't believable Jeff...its why he isn't part of the Inquest at all.

Sorry, Michael but as it has been pointed out numerous times no one knows for certain why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. If you want to speculate that's fine but please don't state it as a fact.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

What Schwartz said isn't believable Jeff...its why he isn't part of the Inquest at all.

Sorry, Michael but as it has been pointed out numerous times no one knows for certain why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. If you want to speculate that's fine but please don't state it as a fact.

c.d.

cd, your reticence about discarding Schwartz flies directly in the face of the fact that he did not appear, and none of his story was entered into that evidence in any shape or format, and that there is only James Browns evidence recorded for the time of 12:45. Thats the facts m'am. And Brown didn't even see Liz in all likelihood. So Israel is actually less important than someone who really isn't important at all.

The idea that you can support his statement sadly isn't yours alone, and it stands in the way of any real learning about this murder.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Can we please get this straight once and for all? Do you know for a fact why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest or are you simply speculating?

c.d.