6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

Hello Jon. Thanks.

No suggestion whatever about Swanson. And, yes, he had no doubts about the story.

My suggestion concerns Schwartz ONLY. And, according to one press account, the lads at Leman were dubious about his story.

Cheers.
LC

I took it that if you question the veracity of Schwartz, by implication you are also questioning Swanson's opinion.

I think there's an avenue to pursue along that line of thinking.

.

[lynn cates]

implication

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"by implication you are also questioning Swanson's opinion."

Well, that's a very WEAK implication. He said, he had no reason to doubt it.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

"Weak"?, no I wouldn't say it is weak.
In questioning Schwartz (the story) we are also questioning Swanson. Likewise, because Swanson's position places any opinion he holds beyond question, then Schwartz gets a free pass.

Maybe, it is not so simple.

.

[Semper_Eadem]

Hello Same. Thanks.

"How much beer would 6d buy though?"

Well, if she were being stood treat by a client . . .

Cheers.
LC

Well regarding that angle, Lynn, I wonder if she was prostituting while she had that 6d. She might of spent it on beer and then started prostituting to earn more money because she fell off the wagon as the saying goes. In other words she might have waited until the money she had was gone before she prostituted herself.

On the other hand, Liz might of not been prostituting at all that night. She might have just been mistaken for a prostitute by Jack The Ripper and attacked. I have wondered if he attacked her and after killing Liz, he might of thought to himself, wait a minute this isn't any of the prostitutes I have seen walking around. I always thought JTR stalked the women around Whitchapel because he never killed a woman who was known not to have been prostitute, except perhaps Liz? So Jack stops what he is doing after he kills Liz and goes off to find a prostitute he knows for a prostitute like Eddowes. Of course that theory doesn't really explain Eddowes savage mutilation unless JTR only progressed in mutilation with actual women he knew where prostitutes.

[DRoy]

DRoy.

The statement given by Schwartz has not survived, we only have Swanson's summary with which to judge, along with the controversial press version.
And yes, given that a third party appears to have been involved, certain details may not have been conveyed accurately in either version.

A police statement given by Schwartz, and incidentally given to Abberline, would have been written on the same form as that given by Hutchinson.

Jon,

That's my point, was the summary a summary or was it Schwartz's statement? Was there anything left out? As the story gets passed down, any details get changed? Where words interpreted and changed? Words read wrong? Etc.

Seems likely to me. Is that why Schwartz didn't testify at the inquest, a blunder or blunders were found in the 'summary' which pointed towards Schwartz's statement not having as much value?

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Lynn,

Yes it is possible Schwartz told a fib, however I have to agree with Jon, if Swanson believed Schwartz at least when he said he did then I think that means he believed him.

Maybe that changed later? Are there any recorded comments about Schwartz after Swanson said there is no reason to doubt the statement?

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Jon,

That's my point, was the summary a summary or was it Schwartz's statement? Was there anything left out?

Hi DRoy, just to be clear, a statement is given in the first person on a form designed for the purpose. What Swanson wrote about Schwartz was on his Summary of the murders dated 19th Oct. intended for the Home Office. His opinion is presented in a discussion format, but it is certainly possible that some details were recorded inaccurately or incompletely.

Recently it has been proposed that Schwartz's entire story was invented.
Given that no-one else in Berner St. was able to confirm the story, and that one press release suggest Leman St. had reason to doubt Schwartz, we have to wonder.
Abberline writing as late as 1st Nov. & Anderson on the 5th Nov. both show no indication of doubt.


.

[Michael W Richards]

To suggest Swanson was mistaken in his summary in referring to the statement given by Schwartz as reliable appears totally untenable. Yet the latter's non appearance at the inquest coupled with press rumors that the police "have reason to doubt the truth of the story" are consistent with the possibility that Swanson was indeed wrong.

.

Or disbelieved...or discovered to be a plant by the Club itself. Who believed the tale is really irrelevant in the larger scheme, there seems to be no effect on the
Stride investigation nor does it have any value in, again, the larger scheme of things.

Cheers Wick

[lynn cates]

marginally speaking

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"In questioning Schwartz (the story) we are also questioning Swanson."

I don't see that. He believed the story. He may have been right--or not.

"Because Swanson's position places any opinion he holds beyond question, then Schwartz gets a free pass."

On the contrary, I take his pronouncements as marginal. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Where have all the flowers gone?

Hello Same. Thanks.

"I wonder if she was prostituting while she had that 6d. She might have spent it on beer and then started prostituting to earn more money because she fell off the wagon as the saying goes. In other words she might have waited until the money she had was gone before she prostituted herself"

OK. Whence the flower?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

chopping and a changing

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Yes, and isn't it just possible that Kidney had stumbled upon her that night, or even followed her accompanied by those men?"

I'll bite. Can you help me see this? Here's the least bad so far.

1. Kidney worked the docks.

2. He might have worked late.

3. The docks were located to the south.

4. Michael just happened to pass down Berner on his way home.

5. He sees Liz by chance and "cautions" her.

BUT:

6. Schwartz has BS going north to south. from docks to home requires south to north.

That won't do.

Cheers.
LC

Followed by

Hello Roy. Thanks.

"Your united front is scaring me, please go back to disagreeing."

I am alarmed myself. (Alright, CD, was Liz killed by "Jack"?--heh-heh)

"Who said BS Man killed Liz?"

Various and sundry. IF Schwartz is right, look no further. Of course, I cannot convince myself that Israel told the truth.

Cheers.
LC

Also

Hello Jon. Thanks.

No suggestion whatever about Swanson. And, yes, he had no doubts about the story.

My suggestion concerns Schwartz ONLY. And, according to one press account, the lads at Leman were dubious about his story.

Cheers.
LC

Makes one wonder.

[lynn cates]

Swanson

Hello Roy. Thanks.

"Maybe that changed later? Are there any recorded comments about Schwartz after Swanson said there is no reason to doubt the statement?"

Not of which I am aware. I doubt Swanson changed his mind, and I have no reason to believe he was aware of the Leman attitude.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

maybe

Hello Jon.

"Given that no-one else in Berner St. was able to confirm the story, and that one press release suggests Leman St. had reason to doubt Schwartz, we have to wonder."

Excellent summary. That's it in a nutshell--cannot confirm; cannot deny.

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Lynn, Michael, Jon

We may have gone a bit off topic for this specific thread. Michael started a new one yesterday where much of our recent discussion might be better suited. I hope we can continue there if you will...

Cheers
DRoy

[Semper_Eadem]

Hello Same. Thanks.

"I wonder if she was prostituting while she had that 6d. She might have spent it on beer and then started prostituting to earn more money because she fell off the wagon as the saying goes. In other words she might have waited until the money she had was gone before she prostituted herself"

OK. Whence the flower?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,
I forgot the flower. Maybe she bought that too or found it.