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 JeffHamm View Post

    That's why the police thought Schwartz was mistaken.

    If Schwartz didn't believe Lipski was shouted at Pipeman as Pipeman's name, then the police would not have searched for Lipski families based upon Schwartz telling them what he believed. If Schwartz believed it was an insult at him, he would have said so, and the police would not have subsequently searched for all the Lipski's in the area.

    It is clear, therefore, Schwartz implicated a Jewish offender when he first spoke to the police. Therefore, his initial story cannot be construed as him trying to divert attention away from Jewish offenders.

    - Jeff
    I’d call that ‘incontrovertible’ Jeff.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

      .....It is clear, therefore, Schwartz implicated a Jewish offender when he first spoke to the police. Therefore, his initial story cannot be construed as him trying to divert attention away from Jewish offenders.

      - Jeff
      Perhaps then, here we have another reason for Schwartz not being called to the inquest?
      If the police were prepared to go to such lengths as erasing evidence (Graffiti) which points towards a Jewish suspect, then perhaps avoiding Schwartz's statement going public was another step towards the same end?
      Last edited by Wickerman; 10-08-2021, 04:02 PM.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        Perhaps then, here we have another reason for Schwartz not being called to the inquest?
        If the police were prepared to go to such lengths as erasing evidence (Graffiti) which points towards a Jewish suspect, then perhaps avoiding Schwartz's statement going public was another step towards the same end?
        Hi Wickerman,

        That's certainly one possibility. We have zero information to work with in terms of the why Schwartz was not there, so in the end, no explanation can really be offered, just pure speculations. We can still rank speculations based upon their plausibility though, since speculations will draw upon other ideas to put the whole story together. Many of the "the corner didn't believe him" lines, for example, go against Baxter's tendency to put witnesses up that he clearly did not believe (otherwise there wouldn't have been the issue with Stride's initial false identification - from his questions it is clear her identification is not considered "convincing") His desire to have all the medical details presented in the Chapman case, despite the doctor indicating they were post-mortem and so did not contribute to the cause of death, also indicates he tends to want everything put on record. Mind you, that latter is medical information, which he himself was also interested in, and he may have been more willing to cull a witness like Schwartz at the police request given the bulk of the information he would provide (ie. timing, location, etc) would be covered already. I just wish we had something that indicated the police wanted Schwartz's testimony with-held, and all we have is a summary letter where they mistakenly imply Schwartz did testify! And that seems to negate the idea the police made a decision to withhold Schwartz. Sigh. I'm arguing with myself now! ha ha

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Though I believe Schwartz observed an incident at the entrance to Duffield Yard,involving Stride,Schwartz,like many witnesses on recall.became uncertain of what really happened.Perhaps the questioning was of the suggestive kind,and he agreed because it explained what he was unsure of. Things happened quickly and unexpectedly,he wanted to clear from the scene and not get involved.Not a good witness,but I believe an honest one.
          So I accept there was an incident between Stride and an unknown male,and she fell.Also there was another male at the corner,who appeared to take some interest,and that this other male(pipeman) was the same person observed by Brown,in the company of Stride a short time earlier.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by harry View Post
            Though I believe Schwartz observed an incident at the entrance to Duffield Yard,involving Stride,Schwartz,like many witnesses on recall.became uncertain of what really happened.Perhaps the questioning was of the suggestive kind,and he agreed because it explained what he was unsure of. Things happened quickly and unexpectedly,he wanted to clear from the scene and not get involved.Not a good witness,but I believe an honest one.
            So I accept there was an incident between Stride and an unknown male,and she fell.Also there was another male at the corner,who appeared to take some interest,and that this other male(pipeman) was the same person observed by Brown,in the company of Stride a short time earlier.
            Hi Harry,

            I think that's a really nice summary of witness testimony in general, generally (though of course not always) trying to be helpful and relaying what they honestly believe. On the other hand, what they believe and what actually happened, can be quite different. That's why investigations much prefer more objective evidence (finger prints, DNA, etc).

            In any witness statement, such as Schwartz's, there are statements of fact, and there are interpretations overlaid upon them. In Schwartz's case, for example, he presents the facts of what he saw (or the facts as he recalls them), but he also presents them in the context of how interprets the intentions of the characters involved. He interpreted Lipski to be a warning shout directed at Pipeman, for example. That interpretation could be wrong, and yet the observable facts remain true (B.S. was walking in front of him. Interacted with Stride. They argue and Stride ends up on the ground. B.S. shouted Lipski, pipeman was there). And indeed, that's how the police tended to think, that Schwartz got the abstract interactions incorrect, but may have actually seen a woman (whom he identified as Stride when taken to the mortuary), in a tussle with a man, where she ended up on the ground. The man shouted Lipski. And another man was there, and he started moving towards Schwartz, at which point he fled the area.

            All of the interntions, who was the intended target of Lipski, why B.S. and Stride were arguing, etc, are just his interpretations, and so without some form of confirmation, are simply his assumptions rather than our own (admittedly, he was there and saw it, while we only see it through his statements).

            What I find important to take note of, though, is the police response. We know they believed that Scwartz was probably mistaken in his interpretation, and that Lipski was in all likelihood directed at him as an insult, which makes Pipeman's association with B.S. unknown. However, even though that's what they believed, they still investigated along the lines that Schwartz presented to them and tracked down Lipski families in the area. They didn't dismiss his version, they still investigated it, because they recognized that it may simply be the police who were misinterpreting things. Schwartz was there, so they still gave his version merit, and followed it up. The idea that the police were incompetent, or didn't check things out, is often suggested but from things like this, where we are lucky to have information about some of the things they did, I think those ideas are unfounded.

            Sure, the police would have their biases, and they didn't have all of the investigative tools that are available now, but they did have shoe leather, and they did know to gather information from people. And they did a lot of that, with door-to-door questioning of locals, and the posted adverts and flyers to get people to come them (probably not hugely effective, but they were doing things).

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • What is taken for granted by some posters,Jeff,is that there was a physical assault on Stride by BS.Does the evidence of Schwartz confirm that?I would say not.
              They were observed talking in the gateway,but the actual meeting between the pair was not observed. That there was contact between Stride and BS can be accepted,but did she fall of her own accord , or was she pushed ,is not so evident.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                What is taken for granted by some posters,Jeff,is that there was a physical assault on Stride by BS.Does the evidence of Schwartz confirm that?I would say not.
                They were observed talking in the gateway,but the actual meeting between the pair was not observed. That there was contact between Stride and BS can be accepted,but did she fall of her own accord , or was she pushed ,is not so evident.
                Hi harry,

                Well, given all we have are the eye-witness statements, and what they believe they saw and what actually happened are not always the same thing, what you suggest is entirely possible.

                However, I believe Schwartz indicates he observed B.S. walking ahead of him and did witness B.S. and Stride's initial encounter (at that time; whether or not B.S. and Stride had encountered each other earlier that night is another matter). It appears to have quickly escalated, as his report is that B.S. grabbed Stride, appeared to try and move her into the ally, then turned her around and threw her to the ground. Now, it could be that Stride was trying to pull away from him, and B.S. just pulled her towards him and she tripped. But even that involves a confrontation between B.S. and Stride, in which case, are we splitting hairs when it comes to whether or not she tripped or was put to the ground? In either explanation, B.S. is not dancing with her, it's an angry physical interaction. How angry, and how physical, it was at that point when Schwartz was there doesn't really matter as much as whether it grew to be more angry and more physical after his departure. And that is what we don't know.

                Anyway, there is at least one of the reports that suggests Schwartz saw things from just prior to B.S. being in Stride's company and then on through to his leaving.

                I suppose, though, as I mull things over, if Stride tripped, and B.S. wasn't intending to put her to the ground, it might open up a line of reasoning such as, B.S. then apologizes, helps her up, etc, which eventually leads to them entering the ally together voluntarily, at which point he attacks her again. This, of course, is based on the idea that B.S. is her killer. That sort of idea might alleviate some of the concerns that get raised about the cachous, but there's a lot of assumptions being made to consider it anything other than a "hmmm, what if..." type thing.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • BS Man was pulling Stride away from the alley.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    Anyway, there is at least one of the reports that suggests Schwartz saw things from just prior to B.S. being in Stride's company and then on through to his leaving.
                    Hi Jeff - any chance you could point me in the direction of that report? I tend to think B.S. was probably a patron of the club, but I wasn't aware there was a suggestion he might have departed the scene.

                    Cheers

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

                      Hi Jeff - any chance you could point me in the direction of that report? I tend to think B.S. was probably a patron of the club, but I wasn't aware there was a suggestion he might have departed the scene.

                      Cheers
                      Hi Greenway,

                      I think it's just one of the newspaper reports, but Schwartz talks about seeing BS ahead of him, walking a bit like he's drunk, and then stops by Stride and almost immediately things turn into the throwing he to the ground etc.

                      In my quote above, where I say "...and on through to his leaving",. By his I meant Schwartz, not BS.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        Hi Greenway,

                        I think it's just one of the newspaper reports, but Schwartz talks about seeing BS ahead of him, walking a bit like he's drunk, and then stops by Stride and almost immediately things turn into the throwing he to the ground etc.

                        In my quote above, where I say "...and on through to his leaving",. By his I meant Schwartz, not BS.

                        - Jeff
                        Thanks for the clarification - I think BS was probably a bit early to be the killer. There is a degree of corroboration by the marks found on the victims shoulders, but there's a lot going on in the story - it feels a little contrived to me.

                        I think there was a complaint by a certain newspaper a day or two after the story was first publicised, that the police, and or others, where putting out false stories - I may be getting my wires crossed but I got the impression that Schwartz's story was quite quickly seen as 'suspicious' - I'll try and find some references.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

                          Thanks for the clarification - I think BS was probably a bit early to be the killer. There is a degree of corroboration by the marks found on the victims shoulders, but there's a lot going on in the story - it feels a little contrived to me.

                          I think there was a complaint by a certain newspaper a day or two after the story was first publicised, that the police, and or others, where putting out false stories - I may be getting my wires crossed but I got the impression that Schwartz's story was quite quickly seen as 'suspicious' - I'll try and find some references.
                          Well, the police did, in a way, suspect Schwartz's story as Schwartz told it. We know the police believed Schwartz mininterpreted the intended target and meaning of B.S.'s shout of Lipski. Schwartz said it was to Pipeman as a call to an accomplice (as in alerting Pipeman by calling his name), but the police suspected it was probably Schwartz who was the intended target, and "Lipski" was being used as an anti-Semitic slur, as it was in that area at that time. As such, Schwartz's interpretation that Pipeman was involved would be called into question as well. So, much of what Schwartz's story included was indeed considered suspect by the police (though they followed that lead all the same, to their credit in my view).

                          So, if the press got wind that the police were not fully convinced of Schwartz's statement, but were kept in the dark as to the specifics of that doubt, well, then, like now, imaginations would run wild, and so it would not be surprising if stories were written questioning Schwartz's statement in it's entirety. But, the reality appears to have been that the police believed the events Schwartz relayed, just not his interpretation of the relationship between B.S. and Pipeman, or his interpretation of what intentions motivated their actions. Meaning, despite Schwartz's statement, they were not wholly convinced that Pipeman was in any way involved in the events as anything other than another bystander.

                          I think the above, which we know was the case (about the police not agreeing with the interpretations contained in Schwartz's tale), is more than sufficient to explain all of the more vague statements about the police doubting Schwartz. We know they doubted him, and we know what it was they doubted about his statement. And that wasn't a full scale dismissal of him, rather, just a dismissal of his belief that Pipeman was involved with B.S., etc.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

                            Hi Jeff - any chance you could point me in the direction of that report? I tend to think B.S. was probably a patron of the club, but I wasn't aware there was a suggestion he might have departed the scene.

                            Cheers
                            The article is published in the Star, if you pan down this link to the paragraph heading - INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT, you will find Schwartz's story, he is identified as the 'Hungarian'.
                            https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...r/s881001.html
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              I’d call that ‘incontrovertible’ Jeff.
                              That Israel Schwartz may have indicated initially that he believed the Lipski was a call to his pipe smoking friend, it remains his own perspective, and again, we have little reason to support what he says anyway as it clearly wasnt of perceived importance at the Inquest into Strides death. And whether the statement was believed by senior investigators later on as revealed in their comments, that is a record of perspective. Not of any fact.

                              As I interpret this whole scenario Israel has more to do with public relations than anything else.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                That Israel Schwartz may have indicated initially that he believed the Lipski was a call to his pipe smoking friend, it remains his own perspective, and again, we have little reason to support what he says anyway as it clearly wasnt of perceived importance at the Inquest into Strides death. And whether the statement was believed by senior investigators later on as revealed in their comments, that is a record of perspective. Not of any fact.

                                As I interpret this whole scenario Israel has more to do with public relations than anything else.
                                But the important point is that if, as you suggest, that Schwartz was simply a pawn in a plan with a very specific aim and one where his part in it was simplicity itself how could he have failed so miserably? All that he had to do was to say, in effect, “I saw a man attacking the woman that I’ve identified in the mortuary just outside the gates of Dutfield’s Yard. As I looked across the man yelled ‘Lipski’ at me so I became worried for my safety and moved on.” Thus placing the initial attack on the street and showing, with the anti-Semitic insult toward the Jewish Schwartz, that the man was obviously a gentile and so not a club member.

                                He’s given the simplest thing to do. So why does he introduce Pipeman when he’s surplus to requirements and leaves room for doubt as to who the insult was aimed at? It also of course introduces the very obvious possibility that BS Man was calling across to a man called Lipski. Something so straightforward should have been impossible to mess up. And as it seems so impossible to mess up the more probable explanation is that he didn’t mess it up. He just said what he’d seen because he wasn’t part of any plan but just a random bloke passing along Berner Street.

                                Then we have to ask the unavoidable question: how could the club members not have come up with a better and more effective plan than this? I’ve mentioned examples before so I’m repeating myself but….

                                Why didn’t Diemschutz simply say that as he was about to pull into the yard a man came out holding a knife and as he edged passed the cart he said “get out of the way you Jewish ****?’ He could even have added that he had a discernible accent (Scottish/Irish for example) He could even, for a bit of colour, say that he’d jumped off the cart and tried to grab him but he got away. Followed by a description to the police of a man that he’d never seen before. What could have been simpler?

                                Or they could have got Morris Eagle to have said that as he returned to the club a man came running out of the yard carrying a knife. He pushes passed him with “get out of the way Lipski.” Then Eagle discovered the body.

                                These aren’t exactly plans requiring a Professor Moriarty-like intellect. Anyone could have come up with them easily and on the spur of the moment. Yet they come up with the terrible Schwartz plan which he still manages to mess up. It doesn’t hold water.
                                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 10-13-2021, 10:48 PM.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X