The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Fiver]

The tried ... but is interesting. How does a broad-shouldered man try to pull a thin, 44yo woman away from where she is, but fail? This seems almost as odd as screaming but not loudly. The best I can come up with (always assuming that this incident actually occurred) is that, when pulled, Stride clung to one of the gate rails, and screeched a bit. Kind of like this...

Clearly the "screaming, but not loudly" is a flawed translation, though we can only speculate what Schwartz meant. Broad shouldered doesn't mean well-coordinated, especially if he had been drinking. Stride was known as Long Liz, which implies she was not small. I understand some sources put her at 5 foot 5, the same height as BS man The doctor examining the body described it as fairly nourished, which does not imply thin.

While Schwartz could have been lying, the described scuffle seems possible. If Schwartz told the truth, then Stride probably wasn't killed by the Ripper.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Do any of the defenders of Schwartz care to comment on the issue raised in #796? I'll understand if you'd prefer not to get your hands dirty.

By the way, the YT link was set to start the video at about halfway (64s, I think it was). Not sure why the video starts at the start, but the intention wasn't to make people watch 2 minutes of TESB

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Abby.

Myself, the most I'd allow is that the account of this 'Schwartz' character may contain within it a report of some part of an attack actually seen by someone. (Stride, you will remember, had what might be called the appropriate bruising). Everything around it, though, is fabrication designed to protect the Club -- including men who are not connected with it; a pipe that turns into a knife, and antisemitism laid on with a trowel.

M.

The differences between the police and press accounts are often seen as reasons for doubting both. If Schwartz can't keep a straight story, why believe anything he said? There is another way of looking at this. If the story was purely fictional, why change it? Why not tell the same fictional story to the police and press? Perhaps what we see in the two accounts considered together, is Schwartz's changing concerns in regard to the two men. In the press account, gone is the violent, swearing, assaulter of the victim, in place of the much milder "half-tipsy man", who just pushes the victim before quarrelling with her. Also gone is the apparently fleeing man who only wanted to have a smoke in peace, in place of an aggressive, shouting man who rushes the "intruder" with a knife.

Why the almost complete reversal of roles? Surely this hints at something.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Really , ??? Why? What evidence can you provide that proves your theory That Schwartz was dishonest and therefore lied ?

Neither of the men Schwartz claimed were on the street when the victim was, were ever identified by the police. That's quite an achievement given this was the biggest manhunt in history.

Who else came forward to say they witnessed the same event Schwartz gave testimony too , who them themselves claimed it a "different " version of that same event .???

Do you mean, who corroborated Schwartz's account, at least partially? You already know the answer. Let me guess - you count that as evidence of Schwartz's honesty?

If one chooses to use other witnesses and their testimony of times and positions and whereabouts at that moment, then one need to show evidence beyond any doubt such evidence is 100 % accurate .

To achieve what?

Schwartzs evidence just like any other is open to no more or less scrutiny in regards to the Stride murder.

So, do you believe Schwartz's evidence has to be demonstrated to be beyond any doubt 100% accurate?

[Mark J D]

The above does read like an assertion, as opposed to a belief. Any reader may reasonably expect the line to be followed by some sort of evidence. If you had began the line with "..it looks to me like....", or some other cautionary verbage the sentence would read more like the suggestion it was intended to be.

Thanks. But I'm only interested in discussion of the actual topic, and that's all I'll engage with.

M.

[Wickerman]

... Everything around it, though, is fabrication designed to protect the Club -- including men who are not connected with it; a pipe that turns into a knife, and antisemitism laid on with a trowel.

M.

The above does read like an assertion, as opposed to a belief. Any reader may reasonably expect the line to be followed by some sort of evidence. If you had began the line with "..it looks to me like....", or some other cautionary verbage the sentence would read more like the suggestion it was intended to be.

[Mark J D]

You seem to have taken offense at that. That was certainly not my intention. But (invoking the late Christopher Hitchens), if you cannot provide evidence for your assertion, I can simply dismiss it without evidence.

c.d.

Do what you like.

M.

[c.d.]

I don't have 'to somehow show' anything.

Hope that helps.

M.

You seem to have taken offense at that. That was certainly not my intention. But (invoking the late Christopher Hitchens), if you cannot provide evidence for your assertion, I can simply dismiss it without evidence.

c.d.

[Mark J D]

Everything around it, though, is fabrication designed to protect the Club -- including men who are not connected with it; a pipe that turns into a knife, and antisemitism laid on with a trowel.

Even if the Club did gain some protection from his story (an argument I don't really subscribe to), you still have to somehow show that it was all fabricated with that intent in mind rather than that simply being the result.

c.d.

I don't have 'to somehow show' anything.

Hope that helps.

M.

[c.d.]

Everything around it, though, is fabrication designed to protect the Club -- including men who are not connected with it; a pipe that turns into a knife, and antisemitism laid on with a trowel.

Even if the Club did gain some protection from his story (an argument I don't really subscribe to), you still have to somehow show that it was all fabricated with that intent in mind rather than that simply being the result.

c.d.

[Mark J D]

no it dosnt. it reeks of an innocuous witness account, with the usual confusion that goes along with them, especially from one who dosnt speak the language. and the usual reluctance to get involved. his account also matches the other witness descriptions who saw the ripper that night. and of stride. there is no reason to doubt his statement-- on the contrary it reeks of the truth.

Hi Abby.

Myself, the most I'd allow is that the account of this 'Schwartz' character may contain within it a report of some part of an attack actually seen by someone. (Stride, you will remember, had what might be called the appropriate bruising). Everything around it, though, is fabrication designed to protect the Club -- including men who are not connected with it; a pipe that turns into a knife, and antisemitism laid on with a trowel.

M.

[Abby Normal]

That's right. Unless someone can suggest some part of the gate that Stride could have valiantly held onto to prevent herself being pulled away, the theory fails. That would leave unexplained how the man seemingly failed to pull Stride into the street.

I think we can see in the summarized police account, what Schwartz was trying to achieve. He wants us to believe that the man was so violent that the woman screamed - not once but three times - but he has an excuse for why no one else heard these screams. He also wants us to believe that the man had no intention of taking the woman into the yard - on the contrary he tried to move her away from it - it's just that his broad shoulders weren't quite strong enough to manage it, and she just ended up on the ground. The whole accounts reeks of dishonesty.

no it dosnt. it reeks of an innocuous witness account, with the usual confusion that goes along with them, especially from one who dosnt speak the language. and the usual reluctance to get involved. his account also matches the other witness descriptions who saw the ripper that night. and of stride. there is no reason to doubt his statement-- on the contrary it reeks of the truth.

[FISHY1118]

That's right. Unless someone can suggest some part of the gate that Stride could have valiantly held onto to prevent herself being pulled away, the theory fails. That would leave unexplained how the man seemingly failed to pull Stride into the street.

I think we can see in the summarized police account, what Schwartz was trying to achieve. He wants us to believe that the man was so violent that the woman screamed - not once but three times - but he has an excuse for why no one else heard these screams. He also wants us to believe that the man had no intention of taking the woman into the yard - on the contrary he tried to move her away from it - it's just that his broad shoulders weren't quite strong enough to manage it, and she just ended up on the ground. The whole accounts reeks of dishonesty.

Really , ??? Why? What evidence can you provide that proves your theory That Schwartz was dishonest and therefore lied ?

Who else came forward to say they witnessed the same event Schwartz gave testimony too , who them themselves claimed it a "different " version of that same event .???

If one chooses to use other witnesses and their testimony of times and positions and whereabouts at that moment, then one need to show evidence beyond any doubt such evidence is 100 % accurate .

Schwartzs evidence just like any other is open to no more or less scrutiny in regards to the Stride murder.

[Mark J D]

The whole accounts reeks of dishonesty.

It does. The aim is clearly to put something into the public domain that has an attacker who's unconnected with the Club and clearly isn't Jewish doing what looks like the start of the murder. It's obvious horse-****.

M.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think we have a lot of visual evidence that those gate rails (seen in the famous photo) were a later replacement for what in 1888 were solid wood doors (with a small doorway opening in one of them).

Bests,

Mark D.

That's right. Unless someone can suggest some part of the gate that Stride could have valiantly held onto to prevent herself being pulled away, the theory fails. That would leave unexplained how the man seemingly failed to pull Stride into the street.

I think we can see in the summarized police account, what Schwartz was trying to achieve. He wants us to believe that the man was so violent that the woman screamed - not once but three times - but he has an excuse for why no one else heard these screams. He also wants us to believe that the man had no intention of taking the woman into the yard - on the contrary he tried to move her away from it - it's just that his broad shoulders weren't quite strong enough to manage it, and she just ended up on the ground. The whole accounts reeks of dishonesty.