Originally posted by Harry D
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only
Collapse
X
-
The distrust between the immigrants and the Police, the anti-Semitic climate generally, the perception of the Socialists as Anarchists, all contributed to what I believe is a story that was intended to deflect suspicions about Liz Strides murderers ethnicity. Its why Israel adds "Lipski", it establishes the assailant as most probably gentile.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Harry D View PostDoes no one else find it odd that a non-English speaking Jew (who were usually recalcitrant and distrusting of the authorities) willingly came forward to the police? Maybe Israel Schwartz was an honest guy, although I question that since he left a woman in distress and never searched for a policeman.
no I don't. he was a cowherd, but really no reason to question his honesty. especially since his peaked cap suspect is corroborated by a host of other witnesses that night."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Harry D View Post
Sounds like a load of old bull, to me."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostThe distrust between the immigrants and the Police, the anti-Semitic climate generally, the perception of the Socialists as Anarchists, all contributed to what I believe is a story that was intended to deflect suspicions about Liz Strides murderers ethnicity. Its why Israel adds "Lipski", it establishes the assailant as most probably gentile.
It was Anderson who tells us that Lipski was probably directed at Schwartz, and not pipeman, but Schwartz's telling implicates a Jewish confederate and therefore probably a Jewish offender.
- Jeff
Comment
-
Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
No, the addition of Lipski in Schwartz's statement implicated a Jewish offender because Schwartz's description is that Lipski was shouted at the offender's confederate. And as Jews and Gentiles did not commonly hang out together, that greatly raised the possibility of a Jewish offender as well - according to Schwartz.
It was Anderson who tells us that Lipski was probably directed at Schwartz, and not pipeman, but Schwartz's telling implicates a Jewish confederate and therefore probably a Jewish offender.
- Jeff
youd think if they were going to come up with a conspiracy they would get there story and there times straight. no what we have here are typical and innocuous witness statements in which not everything is clear and witness times are off. par for the course in a typical criminal investigation.
thank god there are posters like you and others on here that realize this."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
>>Maybe draw some attention to the growing antisemitism too. His "theatrical" bent might explain some aspects of the story. Fled incontinently might be one, who would admit to that when no-one saw them? Why say you peed your pants? To add drama.<<
Ah! I'm glad you explained, I can now see where your misunderstanding is coming from.
Deimshitz and many club members were an antisemites, in the original sense of the word, someone who despises Judaism, hence the riots against the club led by the Rabbis. If Schwartz was an Orthodox Jew as Abbereline implied, he would have a distinct disapproval of club members.
And the word "incontinently" has nothing to do with "incontinence".Last edited by drstrange169; 11-14-2019, 10:49 PM.dustymiller
aka drstrange
Comment
-
Originally posted by Harry D View PostDoes no one else find it odd that a non-English speaking Jew (who were usually recalcitrant and distrusting of the authorities) willingly came forward to the police? Maybe Israel Schwartz was an honest guy, although I question that since he left a woman in distress and never searched for a policeman.
Whether Schwartz was a coward or not is completely irrelevant to the veracity of his story. As for searching for a policeman, he did not speak English remember?
c.d.
Comment
-
Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post>>Maybe draw some attention to the growing antisemitism too. His "theatrical" bent might explain some aspects of the story. Fled incontinently might be one, who would admit to that when no-one saw them? Why say you peed your pants? To add drama.<<
Ah! I'm glad you explained, I can now see where your misunderstanding is coming from.
Deimshitz and many club members were an antisemites, in the original sense of the word, someone who despises Judaism, hence the riots against the club led by the Rabbis. If Schwartz was an Orthodox Jew as Abbereline implied, he would have a distinct disapproval of club members.
And the word "incontinently" has nothing to do with "incontinence".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
bingo Jeff
youd think if they were going to come up with a conspiracy they would get there story and there times straight. no what we have here are typical and innocuous witness statements in which not everything is clear and witness times are off. par for the course in a typical criminal investigation.
thank god there are posters like you and others on here that realize this.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Abberline confirmed it was used regularly and derogatorily, if he called it to his "confederate" then he might just be pointing out that a Lipski has just walked up on him. Its pretty obvious though that it was directed at Schwartz, just as obvious that it was part of the story to deflect suspicion to a gentile assailant, as it is that Israels, BSM and Pipeman never had any encounter as Israel creatively described.
It doesn't matter that Schwartz was mistaken, and Lipski was more likely directed at him and not pipeman, that's Anderson's correction of a witness misunderstanding what it was they witnessed - it's certainly not the story the club would come up with as a way of accusing a gentile - you don't claim the offender was Jewish in order to direct police attention towards a non-Jewish offender.
Schwartz's story as he originally told it (so the version closest to what the conspirators put together as their "cover story") accuses a Jew as one of a pair of offenders. Therefore, Schwartz was not sent in with a story to direct police attention away from a Jewish offender.
- Jeff
Comment
-
But if you take the report in The Star, 'pipeman' shouts 'a warning' to BS man, after coming out of a pub? This, apparently, is a first hand statement from Schwartz. Swanson's report and The Star both portray the same event, but with some devils in the details. Personally, I think Schwartz gave a true statement, he just either wasn't on Berner Street, or was, at an earlier time. Witnessing a barney in Cherry Tree Passage, then running down Backchurch Lane to the arches on Pinchin St maybe?
Just a thought.Thems the Vagaries.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View PostBut if you take the report in The Star, 'pipeman' shouts 'a warning' to BS man, after coming out of a pub? This, apparently, is a first hand statement from Schwartz. Swanson's report and The Star both portray the same event, but with some devils in the details. Personally, I think Schwartz gave a true statement, he just either wasn't on Berner Street, or was, at an earlier time. Witnessing a barney in Cherry Tree Passage, then running down Backchurch Lane to the arches on Pinchin St maybe?
Just a thought.
The fact that Anderson, through questioning of Schwartz, concludes that Schwartz was mistaken is irrelevant, and we have to set aside what we now know - that Lipski was a derogatory name used against Jews and was probably directed at Schwartz - that wasn't what Schwartz first said or conveyed. But it does sound like something someone less familiar with the English speaking people of the area might do, which adds a level of credence to his story. Whether that boosts it to credible or not is still open to interpretation.
- Jeff
Comment
-
I'm not of the opinion there was a cover up/ conspiracy/ Schwartz was a patsy or such. I think he genuinely saw something and went to the police of his own free will after hearing of the murder.
But when all the witness statements are taken as a whole, they do build a picture of that nights events. Until you add Schwartz.
Hmm.Thems the Vagaries.....
Comment
Comment