Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    I don't know if you remember AP Wolf posting here, but once he suggested that she might have cut her throat on a boot scraper inside the gates.
    What's the opposite of the infinite monkey theorem?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

      What's the opposite of the infinite monkey theorem?
      Whats that Harry, throw enough monkey shite on the wall and some is bound to stick? I know the term actually, and in this instance, who knows? Throw her to the ground an infinite amount of times near a boot scraper and eventually it will cut her throat? Maybe.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post

        Hi Cd

        I'm not so sure...I think he saw her being whirled around and pushed down...Swanson's report says "The man tried to pull the woman into the street"...so she was already in the entrance way..."but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway"...an important "but" there, because it implies that instead of drawing her out of the yard, he whipped her the remaining few feet into the passage,"and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly" - I think he had her by the scarf...so not very loudly because the scarf was really tightening around her throat...I think he cut her throat just as she hit the deck...I don't think poor Liz had much time or opportunity to struggle...

        In any event, who says she was alive at this point? According to Swanson, not Schwartz...he was away on his toes by then...she didn't go into the passage voluntarily with BS Man, and quite likely didn't come out again...

        Note please I've said "I think"...I'll not try to pretend it's otherwise, but it does seem to make better sense of the subsequent timings too (see posts #81, #84 and #130)...I'm fundamentally a lazy reasoner, have no suspect in mind, and if there's a relatively simple sequence of events that seems to work, then that's the course I tend to favour..if we agree to differ, then no spilt milk!

        Cheers

        Dave
        Hello Dave,

        I don't want to beat a dead horse here but according to Schwartz Stride had to have been alive when he ran off otherwise Swanson would not have considered the possibility of a killer other than the B.S. man. Schwartz would have been questioned closely on this point.

        c.d.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by John G View Post

          But Scwartz doesn't say anything about a woman being strangled with a scarf. And he claims he witnessed Stride being thrown onto the footway not hurled into the yard.
          Hi John

          Schwartz, by this time has started crossing the road, has passed the Yard and is looking back...With BSM's back to Schwartz, his body is likely masking exactly what he was doing to hurl Liz to the ground...and don't forget it all happened quite quickly..."the man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway"...note please the "but" - he thought he saw the man try to pull the woman into the street, but threw her down instead? (Else why use the word but? Whats wrong with "and"?

          Also note please, it doesn't say the pavement but the footway...the entrance to the yard was, I believe, of mud and stones with a stone gutter or gully (referenced in the evidence) down the side by the club...the side door to the club opened onto it - wouldn't this be a footway? Sad that we only have Swanson's report to the Home Office, and not the original statement which might clarify this...

          Cheers

          Dave

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

            "On Saturday I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street." That's from the Inquest reported by the Telegraph Oct 2nd. The word "exactly" is then misused by Louis if youre correct. But did he mean what he said, if so, Fannys remarks directly contradict that. As for the boot scraper theory, it does help illustrate that it wouldn't take an extraordinary event to cause Liz's wound. One cut.
            Yes, I take "exactly" to be in reference to the Baker's clock, not Dutfields Yard. Otherwise he is guessing how long it could have taken him to get home from the Bakers.
            We would have to believe it was two minutes (or one minute?) before 1 o'clock as he passed the Bakers, in order for him to arrive "exactly" at 1:00. And, how would he know that?
            Therefore, "exactly" refers to the Baker's clock in my opinion.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              Almost certainly Wess and his Arbeter Fraints. The packages approx. size matches the printed edition of the paper.
              Sure!

              And, Wess was a witness, yet the suspect seen by PC Smith was never located. They were both at the inquest (Smith & Wess).
              I'll bet you got that from Tom, didn't you?
              Tom has a lot to answer for....
              Last edited by Wickerman; 06-22-2019, 04:27 PM.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                Hello Dave,

                I don't want to beat a dead horse here but according to Schwartz Stride had to have been alive when he ran off otherwise Swanson would not have considered the possibility of a killer other than the B.S. man. Schwartz would have been questioned closely on this point.

                c.d.
                Swanson seems to believe, and the Home Office appear to accept, that BSM is the more likely killer, but without firm evidence neither seems prepared to fully commit one way or the other - the notes described on pages 137 and 138 of the Sourcebook show this...nor obviously should we close our minds to either possibility...It is clear from what Swanson says that Schwartz was closely questioned on this point and I feel that his unwillingness to embroider exactly what he did see or fully commit is to his credit...which makes one wonder how much of the "Star" report later is embroidery by Schwartz, how much the translator, how much the reporter and how much the editor...

                Cheers

                Dave

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post

                  Hi John

                  Schwartz, by this time has started crossing the road, has passed the Yard and is looking back...With BSM's back to Schwartz, his body is likely masking exactly what he was doing to hurl Liz to the ground...and don't forget it all happened quite quickly..."the man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway"...note please the "but" - he thought he saw the man try to pull the woman into the street, but threw her down instead? (Else why use the word but? Whats wrong with "and"?

                  Also note please, it doesn't say the pavement but the footway...the entrance to the yard was, I believe, of mud and stones with a stone gutter or gully (referenced in the evidence) down the side by the club...the side door to the club opened onto it - wouldn't this be a footway? Sad that we only have Swanson's report to the Home Office, and not the original statement which might clarify this...

                  Cheers

                  Dave
                  Dave, I think you'll find that "footway" was the common terminology in that period.

                  Here is a snippet from the press discussing the repair of footways by using concrete, edging, paving & channelling (gutters?).

                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post

                    Swanson seems to believe, and the Home Office appear to accept, that BSM is the more likely killer, but without firm evidence neither seems prepared to fully commit one way or the other - the notes described on pages 137 and 138 of the Sourcebook show this...nor obviously should we close our minds to either possibility...It is clear from what Swanson says that Schwartz was closely questioned on this point and I feel that his unwillingness to embroider exactly what he did see or fully commit is to his credit...which makes one wonder how much of the "Star" report later is embroidery by Schwartz, how much the translator, how much the reporter and how much the editor...

                    Cheers

                    Dave
                    Agreed. I think most of the problems with Schwartz's story can be attributed to the fact that he walked into the middle of a movie that did not have subtitles and left before it ended.

                    I started the thread entitled "A Modern Day BS Man/Liz encounter" in which I stated that if English had not been my native language I would have completely misinterpreted what actually took place in the scenario I witnessed.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Yes, I take "exactly" to be in reference to the Baker's clock, not Dutfields Yard. Otherwise he is guessing how long it could have taken him to get home from the Bakers.
                      We would have to believe it was two minutes (or one minute?) before 1 o'clock as he passed the Bakers, in order for him to arrive "exactly" at 1:00. And, how would he know that?
                      Therefore, "exactly" refers to the Baker's clock in my opinion.
                      Then we have some issues don't we? Fanny never saw him or heard him and she was at the door until 1am, and we have Heschburg, Gillen, Kozebroski and Spooner saying that the body was discovered at 12:45 and that Louis was already there.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        Sure!

                        And, Wess was a witness, yet the suspect seen by PC Smith was never located. They were both at the inquest (Smith & Wess).
                        I'll bet you got that from Tom, didn't you?
                        Tom has a lot to answer for....
                        You know I do think Tom suggested that it was the paper, and its not out of the question he is right. Would Smith be responsible for ID'ng Wess in your mind? I don't see that myself. Wess is one of no less than 3 witnesses that were compensated by the club, and 1 more lived in a cottage on the property, what they said may be directly related to their desire to have continued employment. Its my contention that they like fudged details about that night to protect the club.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          Then we have some issues don't we? Fanny never saw him or heard him and she was at the door until 1am, and we have Heschburg, Gillen, Kozebroski and Spooner saying that the body was discovered at 12:45 and that Louis was already there.
                          There are issues with the stated times by all witnesses.
                          However, with respect to Fanny, I think you are incorrect. It is necessary to have Fanny at her door at least twice. You seem to have her there only once.
                          Thanks to Dave, I am reminded that I placed here at her at her door between 12:40-12:50, then the second time just after 1:00am, in fact after Louis arrived home, so possibly it was 1:05, or there abouts.

                          As for Spooner and the rest you mention, we have to just admit they had their estimates wrong.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                            "the man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway"...note please the "but" - he thought he saw the man try to pull the woman into the street, but threw her down instead? (Else why use the word but? Whats wrong with "and"?
                            Dave,
                            It sounds to me as if he tried to pull her from the gateway into the street, but in doing so pulled her off her feet and only managed to move her as far as the footway before she hit the ground. Since she was still held by the arm, she would quite likely pivot around and so land on her rear or side.
                            Bearing in mind this is translated from Hungarian, do you think that is a reasonable interpretation of Schwartz' statement?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              You know I do think Tom suggested that it was the paper, and its not out of the question he is right. Would Smith be responsible for ID'ng Wess in your mind? I don't see that myself. Wess is one of no less than 3 witnesses that were compensated by the club, and 1 more lived in a cottage on the property, what they said may be directly related to their desire to have continued employment. Its my contention that they like fudged details about that night to protect the club.
                              In my view Michael, once anyone raises the subject of lying witnesses, they are admitting they've lost the argument.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                Then we have some issues don't we? Fanny never saw him or heard him and she was at the door until 1am, and we have Heschburg, Gillen, Kozebroski and Spooner saying that the body was discovered at 12:45 and that Louis was already there.
                                Evening News 1st October 1888

                                During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.


                                It would appear that Fanny did hear Diemschutz arrive...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X