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 NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    It does seem like a waste of time and resources, in hindsight, or even in foresight, given that Abberline knew 'Lipski' was a used as a slur.

    How much faith do you think the police actually had in Schwartz? Leman St apparently did not believe him. Reid, who seems to have worked closer with Baxter than any other policeman, did not think the BS man was necessarily the killer, and it would seem Baxter did not call Schwartz to the inquest - or if he did, Schwartz was a no show. Swanson failed to personally endorse Schwartz in his report, in which he makes it clear that Pipeman has not been located, because he is not suspected. On Oct 23, Anderson says the police did not have a clue. Wait, wasn't the behaviour and description of the BS man an important clue? Apparently not. There is no known mention of Schwartz beyond November '88, making a strong contrast with Lawende. The police support for Schwartz has been exaggerated.

    ''The official files'' show that the police accepted the statement made by Schwartz and found him to be a credible witness.

    There is no exaggeration ,just what the police confirmed at the time .

    Last edited by FISHY1118; 03-18-2024, 09:03 AM.
    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
      Again, that all depends upon which version we're considering. In the "ultra cartoonish", we could propose something outlandish like B.S. just yelled it out to nobody in particular. Or, we could go with how Schwartz suggested, that it was yelled out to Pipeman. Or as Abberline suggested, it was yelled at Schwartz. Who B.S. actually yelled Lipski to depends upon which scenerio one is considering. Once you choose your conclusion, you choose who the target was. But once we recognize we don't actually know, then we're left with considering the various possibilities.

      For example, some have suggested that B.S. didn't even shout Lipski, but Lizzie, so in that line of thought B.S. was shouting at Liz. So we have some who think B.S. yelled at Pipeman (Schwartz), some who think he yelled at Schwartz (Abberline), and some modern suggestions that he yelled at the only remaining person there, Liz herself.
      Perhaps, in frustration at the club allowing low women to solicit from the gateway, the man did indeed yell out to nobody in particular. That's not a bad idea - I might run with it. It's a shame that none of the 'Lipski's' in the club heard him yell it.

      I think hallucinated is a bit leading. If B.S. yelled Lipski at Schwartz, then that would suggest Schwartz misinterpreted Pipeman's intensions - Pipeman wasn't running "after" him, but simply moving from the area (for example), and his starting off at that time made an apparently already nervous Schwartz interpret that as Pipeman coming for him. It's not a hallucination, I'm suggesting he did see Pipeman move out into the street in this version, but his error was one of interpretation of Pipeman's intentions (an error that follows from his initial misinterpretation of Pipeman being the target of the Lipski shout - the errors compound together).

      So is he reliable?

      In terms of the events, probably, although we might want to be cautious about things like how far Pipeman followed him. If Schwartz ran off at the point he thinks Pipeman is chasing him, but in reality Pipeman isn't, then Schwartz is going to think he's being followed quite a bit longer than he was (since in reality he never was!). But in the more objective side of things, there's no reason to doubt him just because he interpreted the intensions for the actions incorrectly. We could consider him reliable for things like "B.S. shouted Lipski", there was another man there too (Pipeman). Pipeman moved away from where he was standing as Schwartz went by. We might question the idea that Pipeman actually chased Schwartz at all, and consider the possibility that Pipeman may even have gone off in a different direction with Schwartz not realising that until he later checks to see if he is being pursued and finds he isn't. We have to be careful not to throw out everything just because we doubt some of what he says. Witnesses always get some things wrong, that doesn't mean everything should be ignored.​
      The writing of Frederick Abberline, as close as we'll ever get to the words of Israel Schwartz...

      Click image for larger version

Name:	fetch?id=662301&d=1627666397.jpg
Views:	123
Size:	79.8 KB
ID:	831057

      I don't quite understand why you don't see the slightest problem with the authenticity of Schwartz's account, yet at the same time feel the need to significantly alter it.

      The same goes for others, who do not accept things like Schwartz watching the incident while at the gateway himself, the screaming being accurately translated, and the throwing to the ground which is interpreted as a mere push. All these things, including your notion of a phantom pursuer, contradict the official records. The problem with all these 'modifications', for those who make and endorse them, is that the support of the police can no longer claimed in support of the argument, for the simple reason that whatever police support for Schwartz remained after his Sunday evening statements, was based on the content of those statements, not on their 21st century 'revisions'.

      Presumably before Stride stood in the gateway she made her way to the gateway from somewhere else.
      Where she unfortunately crossed paths with Joseph Lave?
      Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


        ''The official files'' show that the police accepted the statement made by Schwartz and found him to be a credible witness.

        There is no exaggeration ,just what the police confirmed at the time .
        If Fishy is to be believed, and the official files casts no doubt on it, it follows that the police never even hinted at there being a problem with the authenticity of Schwartz's account.
        Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          If Fishy is to be believed, and the official files casts no doubt on it, it follows that the police never even hinted at there being a problem with the authenticity of Schwartz's account.
          Wheres the exaggeration ?

          Try as you may to convince others, you cant eliminate Schwartzs statement from the record and the fact that again 'The official files'' show that the police accepted the statement made by Schwartz and found him to be a credible witness.

          You have also failed to show one shread of evidence or proof that Schwartz was dishonest or lied , its just your conjecture and speculation ,nothing more.​
          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            Wheres the exaggeration ?

            Try as you may to convince others, you cant eliminate Schwartzs statement from the record and the fact that again 'The official files'' show that the police accepted the statement made by Schwartz and found him to be a credible witness.
            The police accepted his statement, until they didn't. Hence no mention of him in a single police document or memoir, after Nov '88. It's clear that even Abberline quietly gave up on him. It is only modern researchers that are intent on flogging this dead horse.

            You have also failed to show one shread of evidence or proof that Schwartz was dishonest or lied , its just your conjecture and speculation ,nothing more.​
            Nonsense. For example, you claimed I couldn't show evidence that anyone was in listening range at the "exact moment" this incident occurred (whenever that was - you didn't bother saying), and I pointed to evidence of the two women who had been in the kitchen for 20 minutes leading up to the discovery, with the door half open. You didn't reply, for obvious reasons.

            Perhaps it's time you gave us a few shreds of evidence or proof that Schwartz was honest and told the truth. For example, show us some corroborating witness evidence, or evidence that the mythical Pipeman or BS man actually existed, outside of the theatrical one's imagination.
            Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


              ''The official files'' show that the police accepted the statement made by Schwartz and found him to be a credible witness.

              There is no exaggeration ,just what the police confirmed at the time .
              There is evidence that some officials believed what Schwartz had said, there is no evidence that he was involved in the Inquest into the death of Liz Stride, so you have voiced belief without any evidence to support their supposed belief. Abberline believed him, and he also believed Hutchinson, who was discredited a few days after making his statement.

              It is inconceivable that if Schwartz was believed as the Inquest was held he wouldnt be asked to make his statement there. His story involves the deceased and someone assaulting the deceased minutes before she is killed, its very germane to that proceeding if believed...or true. Yet, no sign of his statement in any format with the Inquest documentation.

              Before you or anyone suggest he was being withheld or his story was, just refer to how Lawende was handled and youll see. They said he was sequestered, they paid those expenses, and they said they asked him to withhold some information.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post
                It might be helpful to show Jeff's timeline in this thread, so here it is:



                1:16: Dr. Blackwell arrives at scene (That IS what he said)

                1:13:35: Johnson arrives at scene (That is not what he said)

                PC Smith Leaves to fetch ambulance

                1:05:30: PC Smith Arrives

                1:04:45: PC Lamb Arrives (That is not what he or anyone said, and is impossible if Louis only just arrived at 1)

                1:03:33: PC Lamb alerted by “runners” (Patently incorrect, what he did say was ..."Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting.")

                1:02:21: Runners start heading from yard, north towards Commercial Road, Returned from Fairclough, Spooner arrives at Scene... (Not correct by statements once again.....Issac Kozebrodski says he was sent out for help just after he was called to the passageway at 12:40, and Spooner says ..."We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." That would make it about 12:40-12:45 when he accompanies the men back to the gates)

                1:00:34: Runners head out south toward Fairclough. This is heard by James Brown, whose testimony places this at 1o'clock (non BST). (Not what is said by anyone....and Runners could not have been sent before Louis says he even arrived.)
                (
                12:58:24: Diemshutz’s arrival (based upon George’s 1m 50s recreation of pony shy->heading out. (Once again, not what is stated by the witness himself...."I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning".)

                { Time window for Schwartz Incident }

                12:48:01: James Brown sees a man and woman (Stride?) by the board School; (Im getting more and more curious about how many people have actually read the transcripts first before posting these imaginary times..."but I saw her about a quarter to one on Sunday morning last."

                12:47: Fanny Mortimer goes inside (FM estimated about 4 minutes later she heard a pony and cart go by. The recreation has an 11 m 24 gap. The range for 4 minute estimates span from 1m 15s to 12m 31s, so while on the long side, the recreation is still within acceptable limits). (Again, incorrect. Fanny sees Leon Goldstein, while at her door, between 12:50 and 12:55. She remains there until 1.)

                { Time window for Goldstein to walk down Berner Street }.see above

                12:39: Fanny Mortimer goes outside (Fanny never said this, nor did anyone else. The only time we KNOW Fanny is at her door is around 12:50-12:55, because Leon later confirms that time.)

                12:37:30: PC Smith’s previous patrol of Berner’s Street
                Again, what he did say is..."I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock.")

                So as not to be considered intentionally misleading, how about any time anyone wants to imagine their own sequence of events and times they add a disclaimer first stating something like ...The following is my estimate of times and events, and they do not match the times given by the witnesses themselves.
                Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-18-2024, 01:23 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  Perhaps, in frustration at the club allowing low women to solicit from the gateway, the man did indeed yell out to nobody in particular. That's not a bad idea - I might run with it. It's a shame that none of the 'Lipski's' in the club heard him yell it.
                  It is a shame. Had they, there is a chance they may have come out to investigate, and if BS was Stride's killer, perhaps it would have prevented her murder. And if BS was JtR, that may have flowed on to prevent Eddowes' as well.

                  Anyway, have fun with that suggestion. If you grow bored with it, I am sure I could make up other equally unsupported ideas with regards to BS intentions.


                  The writing of Frederick Abberline, as close as we'll ever get to the words of Israel Schwartz...

                  Click image for larger version  Name:	fetch?id=662301&d=1627666397.jpg Views:	0 Size:	79.8 KB ID:	831057

                  I don't quite understand why you don't see the slightest problem with the authenticity of Schwartz's account, yet at the same time feel the need to significantly alter it.
                  I have no problem with the events. I just recognise that when it comes to knowing another person's intentions, that is more prone to error. And, when I consider Abberline's idea that Schwartz may have got the intentions wrong, and Schwartz apparently ends up unsure himself, then I think the evidence tells us to be wary of that aspect of Schwartz's statement. As for the length of pursuit, that is just a possibility that could follow given Schwartz's state of mind. Obviously I have no idea if it at all resembles the true events any more than you do with regards to BS shouting to the wind - yet you say you are going to run with it anyway. It is what we do when an idea strikes our fancy, we explore where it might lead, but we just need to remember we are speculating, and so will get some things wrong. Maybe even all of it. I don't claim I have found the one true anchor in a raging sea of false belief. I just think some interesting lines of possibility emerge when we look at things

                  The same goes for others, who do not accept things like Schwartz watching the incident while at the gateway himself, the screaming being accurately translated, and the throwing to the ground which is interpreted as a mere push. All these things, including your notion of a phantom pursuer, contradict the official records. The problem with all these 'modifications', for those who make and endorse them, is that the support of the police can no longer claimed in support of the argument, for the simple reason that whatever police support for Schwartz remained after his Sunday evening statements, was based on the content of those statements, not on their 21st century 'revisions'.
                  Again, those are just more examples of people exploring different ideas, nothing wrong with that. Some ideas catch on, others don't, as each if us weigh what is presented as to its plausibility. Does it seem to flow naturally and coherently, ir does it come across as forcing a square peg into a round hole?

                  And I didn't say the pursuer was a phantom, as Pipeman I am saying was real, and even moved in Schwartz's direction. What I said was that given Schwartz had already decided that Pipeman was BS accomplice, his interpretation of that movement would be that Pipeman was coming for him. And if he then runs off, he would naturally presume Pipeman was in pursuit. Depending upon how far he runs before looking back, he would believe he's being followed even if he isn't. It is an extension of his belief, which may be an error, that BS shouted an alert call to Pipeman.

                  Where she unfortunately crossed paths with Joseph Lave?
                  I don't recall Lave saying he saw Stride? I believe he said he walked around in the yard, went to the street (so to the gates), and at that time all was well. If Stride was there alive, he would have seen her and mentioned it. Where did you find it recorded that Lave saw Stride? I may have missed that.

                  - Jeff
                  Last edited by JeffHamm; 03-18-2024, 01:22 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                    I don't recall Lave saying he saw Stride? I believe he said he walked around in the yard, went to the street (so to the gates), and at that time all was well. If Stride was there alive, he would have seen her and mentioned it. Where did you find it recorded that Lave saw Stride? I may have missed that.

                    - Jeff
                    I dont believe the suggestion was that he saw Liz, only that based on his statement to the press he should have...he claimed that he had gone into Dutfield's Yard at 12.40am to get a breath of fresh air: "So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."

                    He doesnt see Eagle, who said he arrived at 12:40, and apparently he didnt see Israel or BSM or Liz at 12:45 outside on the street. You know if people used the information available some of us wouldnt have to constantly post corrections about times and events the witnesses themselves gave.

                    Comment


                    • There would be far less confusion if people were to start using the times by witnesses as the witness gave them. No-one here is in any position to arbitrarily state times different than those witness stated times for an argument that they would like to put forward. That being said, many do anyway.

                      With the Stride case you have times stated by the witnesses for events and actions. They had a much better chance of making an estimate than anyone here does 136 years later, and there is absolutely no need to use arguments like "no synchronized timepieces", or who had access to a clock or watch.They ALL did. Just because those timepieces are not all universally the same times doesnt matter, no-one has the ability to know whether they are in error by 20 seconds or 20 minutes according to what source they used.

                      So...here are some times that witnesses gave...
                      Issac Kozebrodski: Says he returned to the club at 12:30am
                      PC Smith :Sighted a woman and "parcel man" at 12:35am
                      Lave: Said he was at the gates at 12:40am for about a half hour.
                      Eagle: Said he arrived back at the club at 12:40am. "Couldnt be sure" a body was there at that time.
                      Kozebrodski/Hescheberg: Both said they were alerted to see Louis in the passageway about a body lying there at around 12:40. Issac says that Louis or some other member sent him out for help. Eagle also leaves to get help. So does Louis and Issac[s], not Kozebrodksi.
                      Spooner: According to his story he left the pub at midnight, walked to the Beehive with his date, and was there about 25 minutes before he sees club men running for help. That puts him there around 12:40am. Says he was there about 5 minutes before PC Lamb shows up.
                      Schwartz: Says he saw Liz, BSM and Pipeman at 12:45am outside the gates
                      Brown: Says he saw Liz at 12:45 near the school, with a man.
                      Mortimer: Says she was at her door almost the entire half hour, but was at her door from 12:50 until about 1 when she goes inside. She sees Goldstein around 12:50-12:55.
                      PC Lamb: Says he saw the men calling for help just before 1am.
                      Diemshutz: Says he arrived at exactly 1am.
                      Johnson; Says he arrived there a bout 4 or five minutes before Blackwell.
                      Blackwell: Says he arrived at 1:16am.

                      Ive seen posters here change all those times arbitrarily so they can claim there is a cohesive timeline using these same witnesses, but had they stuck to the times the witnesses gave themselves, they would see that there is no possible cohesive timeline using all the witness times as given. Or stories, as given. Some are incorrect, intentionally or not.

                      Who among the above witnesses were directly employed by the club and were in effect responsible for what transpired there at that time? Do their times work into a cohesive timeline or story? No. But if you assume they altered their stories somewhat to protect themselves and the club, which is not only reasonable.. its prudent, then what are you left with? A cohesive timeline using all the witnesses, give or take a few minutes, excluding Brown sighting, which was not of Liz but of the young couple. The woman he saw did not have flowers on her jacket, Liz did.


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        It does seem like a waste of time and resources, in hindsight, or even in foresight, given that Abberline knew 'Lipski' was a used as a slur.
                        Remember the establishment high-up whose marginal note on Swanson's summary says 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'...? The actor playing 'Schwartz' couldn't risk being too clear -- suspiciously precise and exact! -- about who shouted to whom; the police were meant to put the bits together theselves. The result was that that part of the plan very nearly didn't work. Without Abberline's street knowledge, the imaginary shout would only have been taken in wrong directions. "I told you it was a Jew!" "Find someone called Lipski!"

                        Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                        How much faith do you think the police actually had in Schwartz?
                        I wouldn't be surprised if 'Schwartz' began to implode the moment the police noticed that pipeyman had become a definite, definite knifeyman...

                        Bests,

                        Mark D.
                        Last edited by Mark J D; 03-18-2024, 08:48 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                          There would be far less confusion if people were to start using the times by witnesses as the witness gave them. No-one here is in any position to arbitrarily state times different than those witness stated times for an argument that they would like to put forward. That being said, many do anyway.

                          With the Stride case you have times stated by the witnesses for events and actions. They had a much better chance of making an estimate than anyone here does 136 years later, and there is absolutely no need to use arguments like "no synchronized timepieces", or who had access to a clock or watch.They ALL did. Just because those timepieces are not all universally the same times doesnt matter, no-one has the ability to know whether they are in error by 20 seconds or 20 minutes according to what source they used.

                          So...here are some times that witnesses gave...
                          Issac Kozebrodski: Says he returned to the club at 12:30am
                          PC Smith :Sighted a woman and "parcel man" at 12:35am
                          Lave: Said he was at the gates at 12:40am for about a half hour.
                          Eagle: Said he arrived back at the club at 12:40am. "Couldnt be sure" a body was there at that time.
                          Kozebrodski/Hescheberg: Both said they were alerted to see Louis in the passageway about a body lying there at around 12:40. Issac says that Louis or some other member sent him out for help. Eagle also leaves to get help. So does Louis and Issac[s], not Kozebrodksi.
                          Spooner: According to his story he left the pub at midnight, walked to the Beehive with his date, and was there about 25 minutes before he sees club men running for help. That puts him there around 12:40am. Says he was there about 5 minutes before PC Lamb shows up.
                          Schwartz: Says he saw Liz, BSM and Pipeman at 12:45am outside the gates
                          Brown: Says he saw Liz at 12:45 near the school, with a man.
                          Mortimer: Says she was at her door almost the entire half hour, but was at her door from 12:50 until about 1 when she goes inside. She sees Goldstein around 12:50-12:55.
                          PC Lamb: Says he saw the men calling for help just before 1am.
                          Diemshutz: Says he arrived at exactly 1am.
                          Johnson; Says he arrived there a bout 4 or five minutes before Blackwell.
                          Blackwell: Says he arrived at 1:16am.

                          Ive seen posters here change all those times arbitrarily so they can claim there is a cohesive timeline using these same witnesses, but had they stuck to the times the witnesses gave themselves, they would see that there is no possible cohesive timeline using all the witness times as given. Or stories, as given. Some are incorrect, intentionally or not.

                          Who among the above witnesses were directly employed by the club and were in effect responsible for what transpired there at that time? Do their times work into a cohesive timeline or story? No. But if you assume they altered their stories somewhat to protect themselves and the club, which is not only reasonable.. its prudent, then what are you left with? A cohesive timeline using all the witnesses, give or take a few minutes, excluding Brown sighting, which was not of Liz but of the young couple. The woman he saw did not have flowers on her jacket, Liz did.

                          So, Kozebrodski arrives at 12:30 and doesn't see a body.
                          PC Smith sights a women he identifies as Stride at 1:35, so she's alive at that time.
                          Lave is at the gates from 12:40 for about 30 minutes, which means he leaves the gates at 1:10.

                          So Stride must be killed after 1:10. Then, Deimshutz has to arrive, fetch them men from the club, the men to run down Fairclough, Spooner follows them back. That is going to take some time in the order of minutes, let's say about 4 (George recreated Deimshutz's activities and estimated his poking, getting down, match lighting, etc, would require over 1 but under 2 minutes. The run down and back on Fairclough will require a few minutes as well, so we're at around 1:15. After Spoon arrives, we need a 5 minute wait for PC Lamb to arrive, so 1:20 .... but Dr. Blackwell arrives at 1:16, before the police go to get him, and Johnson arrives 4 minutes earlier, at 1:12, while the men are just emptying from the club .... and all the while Lave is there, seeing none of it, because according to him it was quiet and nothing of interest happened; "...while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions." And Moritmer, who you say is on her doorstep the whole time, is also oblivious to all of this activity.

                          Hmmmm, it's almost like the times as stated by those witnesses, that we are supposed to use, don't produce a coherant series of events, and that perhaps some of the times you've listed are wrong.

                          I would like to point out as well, that PC Lamb, in about 4 papers is quoted only as saying he arrived about 1 o'clock, and only one paper says shortly before. Moreover, the papers that use about are not direct copies of each other. As such, for PC Lamb at least, it is probably a mistake to rely on the one odd paper out. The news is sufficiently unreliable that to pick and choose one source is risky. If it is the only source of information on a point then it is all we have, but in this case we have multiple papers saying when PC Lamb arrived, and the vast majority just say he said "about 1 o'clock", which means either side of 1, by some small amount (what counts as small is not clearly defined of course). Spooner is there at 12:40, but Lave doesn't see him either, and PC Lamb arrives at 12:45, a 15 minute period which, as a police officer, he describes as just before 1 o'clock (Lave doesn't notice that either).

                          Also, Mortimer says different things at different times. In other papers she says she was at her doorstep for about 10 minutes, and went out shortly after PC Smith's prior patrol. Which he places around 12:30 or 12:35 as I recall, and that would place her on her doorstep until somewhere around 12:45.

                          Anyway, I know that the timeline I put together is based upon applying measurements and empirical work of people's ability to estimate time durations. While there are some things I had to make a choice on when putting together the simulation, I do try to mention where that subjectivity comes in. However, my subjective calls are things like "I have this 3 minute event that seems to have occurred within this 10 minute window", and I place it somewhere in the window that gets determined by the more objective approach (measuring distances, time estimations) and so forth. If you call applying measurements over which I have no control, applying empirically based information to estimates of time duration, examining if the "calculated times" and "stated times" are widely different as a way of error checking, an approach to arbitrarily adjust things then I am one of the guilty ones. While it is not a perfect method, I do think it is better than picking some of the information and assuming those bits are correct when it is clear that from just a few of them nothing can work as the story they tell violate the known principles of the universe (unless, of course, one wants to grant Dr. Blackwell access to Well's time machine).

                          - Jeff
                          Last edited by JeffHamm; 03-18-2024, 08:53 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            I dont believe the suggestion was that he saw Liz, only that based on his statement to the press he should have...he claimed that he had gone into Dutfield's Yard at 12.40am to get a breath of fresh air: "So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."

                            He doesnt see Eagle, who said he arrived at 12:40, and apparently he didnt see Israel or BSM or Liz at 12:45 outside on the street. You know if people used the information available some of us wouldnt have to constantly post corrections about times and events the witnesses themselves gave.
                            I think you need to read NBNF's statement that I was replying to. He says "Where she unfortunately crossed paths with Joseph Lave?", which is suggesting she crossed paths with Lave. I am not aware of any such information, and was asking where he got it from.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              I dont believe the suggestion was that he saw Liz, only that based on his statement to the press he should have...he claimed that he had gone into Dutfield's Yard at 12.40am to get a breath of fresh air: "So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."

                              He doesnt see Eagle, who said he arrived at 12:40, and apparently he didnt see Israel or BSM or Liz at 12:45 outside on the street. You know if people used the information available some of us wouldnt have to constantly post corrections about times and events the witnesses themselves gave.
                              An interesting question about Lave is how did he pay for his temporary accommodation? Perhaps he did odd jobs for the club. He goes into the yard, by his own estimate about 20 minutes before the discovery. So, at that point his is near the printing/editing rooms. He then goes "as far as the street". Was he just getting fresh air, as he claimed, or was he pulling down and putting up posters? I just wonder if our Parcelman was actually Posterman.
                              Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                                Remember the establishment high-up whose marginal note on Swanson's summary says 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'...? The actor playing 'Schwartz' couldn't risk being too clear -- suspiciously precise and exact! -- about who shouted to whom; the police were meant to put the bits together theselves. The result was that that part of the plan very nearly didn't work. Without Abberline's street knowledge, the imaginary shout would only have been taken in wrong directions. "I told you it was a Jew!" "Find someone called Lipski!"
                                The thinking behind that marginal note seems strange indeed, and I agree that a bit of uncertainty might have helped Schwartz look genuine. However, what if the marginal note writer had the same view as to what really happened, as yourself? Perhaps he was pointing the finger at someone from the club, or Schwartz himself.

                                I wouldn't be surprised if 'Schwartz' began to implode the moment the police noticed that pipeyman had become a definite, definite knifeyman...

                                Bests,

                                Mark D.
                                I actually think it began before then, and was owing to one of the arrests, which had the effect of backfiring badly on Schwartz.
                                Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X