Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[moonbegger]

Of course, the police thought BSM had shouted.

Cheers.
LC

Did they Lynn ? Where is that information ? everything I have read about it from Swanson & Abberline puts us exactly where we are today .. undecided .

Was Schwartz interviewed by Abberline on a separate occasion , or was the ( Police and interpreter ) interview the one that frustrated Abberline ?
and if it was , and all was left undecided and frustrated , then surely the interpreter was at fault .. A problem the press seem to overcome , leading me to believe the press had the better interpreter, and therefore the straighter picture ..

moonbegger

[caz]

There has to be a belief in Schwartz,if one is to comment on and believe in two sepatate attacks,or indeed one long sustained one.To dismiss Schwartz and claim he saw nothing, needs a whole new theory on how and when the fatal attack occurred,and by whom...

Wise words, Harry. If one takes Schwartz out of the equation, it also becomes that much harder to argue against another ripper killing: swift, silent, deadly efficient, motiveless and unseen from start to finish. The lack of mutilation is all that is left to argue with, but Louis D takes care of that. No assault at 12.45 means the killer could easily have been whipping out his weapon and committing himself just as he heard the pony and cart approaching to spoil his little game.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

Thanks for the crystal clear goblet of sanity in an oft arid desert

All the best

Dave

Why thank you kindly, Dave!

I often think I'm the one going slightly mad.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

So, at least we agree that Swanson was aware of that story?

Cheers.
LC

A reasonable possibility, that's all I was suggesting, Lynn.

Love,

Caz
X

[DRoy]

Well, the point is that IF they spoke truly, then they should have been in the yard only a few feet from where Liz died and only a few minutes before.

Lynn,

True, but if we accept people could be wrong about times then it only becomes coincidence that Schwartz witnessed an attack on a 'woman' within the same area and within 15 minutes of Stride being found. That sounds like Swanson's summary doesn't it?

You know, maybe we've all put too much emphasis on the 'attack' Schwartz witnessed. What did he really see? What did he really hear? Maybe the word 'attack' is too tough a word. If that word is lessened then Schwartz is still of value for seeing a minor scuffle with a 'woman' and then the rest of my theory still fits.

**Just to be clear, I'm not sold on the theory, it is just a theory. The intent was to offer an idea and get discussion going.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

B S M

Hello John. Thanks. Yes, it helps me understand your view.

Of course, the police thought BSM had shouted.

Cheers.
LC

[Dr. John Watson]

Hello John. To be clear, you believe:

1. Pipe man called out, "Lipski."

2. It was because he was indignant with BSM for attacking Liz?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn!

1. YES

2. NO, not because he was "indignant" ( at the word choice); more likely it was shouted in jest, as in "Hey killer!" perhaps in hope of distracting BSM long enough for Liz to get away.

Hope that helps!

John

[harry]

There has to be a belief in Schwartz,if one is to comment on and believe in two sepatate attacks,or indeed one long sustained one.To dismiss Schwartz and claim he saw nothing, needs a whole new theory on how and when the fatal attack occurred,and by whom,and in that case,the man Brown saw,takes on more significance. Simply because you cannot rule out Stride as the female Brown saw,and her companion as the last man known to be in her company,before she was killed.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Caz

The trouble is, some people are still relying on the deadly accuracy of certain timings given (not necessarily you, Lynn, I hasten to add) and concluding that some witnesses must have been lying about the time (the irony escaping them that liars and deadly accurate timings don't mix but equally cannot be distinguished).

The worst 'whatever it takes' in my book is to put the Schwartz story down to invention (eg a club protecting ruse) on the pretext that it doesn't dovetail with other witness accounts.

I would say that it dovetails remarkably well, considering that Schwartz couldn't possibly have known about the nice little window of time available the length and breadth of Berner St, in which to set up his little scene, when he could safely claim that nobody else was around to witness the 'incident' he described. If it never happened, several people could already have reported being in a position to see and hear that nothing of the kind happened. After all, it was meant to be a busy location wasn't it?

Thanks for the crystal clear goblet of sanity in an oft arid desert

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

Yard

Hello Roy. Thanks.

"Does the attack on the 'woman' that Schwartz witnesses (assuming he really did which goes against my arguments for years!) have to have anything to do with The Club or Stride?"

Well, the point is that IF they spoke truly, then they should have been in the yard only a few feet from where Liz died and only a few minutes before.

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Hello Roy. Thanks. I presume both assaults were able to avoid Wess, Eygle, and Lave?

Lynn,

Does the attack on the 'woman' that Schwartz witnesses (assuming he really did which goes against my arguments for years!) have to have anything to do with The Club or Stride? I don't see why it does.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

clarification

Hello John. To be clear, you believe:

1. Pipe man called out, "Lipski."

2. It was because he was indignant with BSM for attacking Liz?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

avoidance

Hello Roy. Thanks. I presume both assaults were able to avoid Wess, Eygle, and Lave?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

explanation

Hello Caroline. Thanks. And thanks for excepting me.

Busy street? Berner? Maybe not. Well, not if the testimony given by club members is accurate.

Would Schwartz have worried about time conflicts and sightings? Well, no conflict was noted between Schwartz and Brown. The explanations given on this thread may be spot on, nevertheless, they are explanations. Yet it seems not to cast any doubt on Brown. Maybe Schwartz as well--but he didn't make it round to inquest.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

So, at least we agree that Swanson was aware of that story?

Cheers.
LC