Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[lynn cates]

fell for it

Hello Roy. Thanks.

Well, if she really fell . . .

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

theory

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

And a fine theory it is, too.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

B S M

Hello MB. Thanks.

Here is from Swanson:

"The man who threw the woman down called out . . . 'Lipski.'" (Ultimate, p. 122.)

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

Hello MB. Thanks.

Here is from Swanson:

"The man who threw the woman down called out . . . 'Lipski.'" (Ultimate, p. 122.)

Cheers.
LC

Yes Lynn, but was this not Swanson reporting merely what Schwartz via a translator had apparently said ..

Also Lynn , I had always believed this paragraph below to be attributed to the ( ultimate ) as opposed to Swanson ,

If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it, it follows ... that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer.

Which , if attributed to Swanson clearly validates your point , but if not , we are left with Abberline's doubts and frustrations .

So was it Swanson or the ultimate ?

cheers , moonbegger

[lynn cates]

recipient

Hello MB. Thanks.

Yes, it was in Swanson's report.

Abberline's frustrations came from not knowing the RECIPIENT of "Lipski."

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

Ah Ha , Cheers Lynn .. Thanks for untangling my tangled up tangle

moonbegger

[Dr. John Watson]

Lynn,

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.

Hi DRoy! I agree, and that's a very good point you bring up. Though I've often seen the term "attack" in print, and I've used it myself at times, what Schwartz describes sounds more like a struggle of some kind, or scuffle as you suggest - more a case of BSM trying to pull Liz into the yard and she falling or being pushed to the sidewalk while resisting, for instance. The two versions of Schwartz's statement differ on what he says about the assault itself:

The police version quotes him as stating that BSM ". . . tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her around and threw her down on the footway . . . ."

The Star report has Schwartz stating he saw BSM " . . . put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage . . . ." adding that he heard the "sound of a quarrel" behind him as he was leaving, but saying nothing about her being thrown down.

It's clear from Schwartz's statement that BSM did commit an assault on Stride in front of the gateway to Dutfield's Yard, but it likely did not involve striking her with his fist or with a weapon. From what I recall of the autopsy, aside from the obvious throat wound and a fresh bruise on the shoulder, doctors found no marks of a recent physical assault on Stride's face or body. Thus, it's entirely possible that the encounter Schwartz witnessed was nothing more than a man trying to force Stride off the footway and into the yard and she falling to the ground while resisting him. This possibility, of course, does not let BSM off the hook. He still assaulted Stride and tried to force her into the very yard where she was later found murdered. He is still a viable suspect as Stride's killer.

John