Which Schwartz interpretation is acurate ?

[lynn cates]

Liz

Hello DLDW. Thanks. Always good to try various scenarios.

I was referring to Liz. One would expect a "Hmmpff. A fine help you were."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

anomalies

Hello CD. Thanks.

Not sure why the Inspector made that suggestion. Perhaps he noted--as I do--all the anomalies in Israel's story. Swanson seems to be explaining the suggestion to those above him.

As I have said, IF the BSM story were real, THEN he killed Liz. But I am convinced that BSM did not kill Liz.

Draw the conclusion.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn.

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

Yes, I see your line of reasoning here. But what of Liz? No chastisement for his inaction during the assault?

Cheers.
LC

No, if he was non-threatening enough to follow into a dark area for business then I imagine not. It is possible that the number of victims wasn't higher do to caution of those who solicited. So a non-threatening killer isn't going to break character to help his potential victim. That and he had a big knife on him going into a dark spot with a working woman. He had the advantage so why give it up? I'm also thinking perhaps her murderer gave her those cachous right before he struck. Misdirection to allow him to draw her focus and allow for little resistance. All speculation of course and I'm not proposing it as the case. Just trying to form a reasonable scenario out of the idea.

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

Yes, I meant Swanson not Schwartz.

Yes, it is a "suggestion." But again there has to be some basis for making that suggestion implying that it was not a 100% certainty that the B.S. man was her killer.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

suggestion

Hello CD. Thanks.

Schwartz? You mean the "Inspector"? No, I see no tacit acceptance. But you are right that he sees enough time.

Please recall that he refers to the entire theory as "the suggestion."

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

Even if they are not Schwartz's words per se he is still citing them and there would seem to be tacit acceptance of this theory since he does not dismiss it out of hand.

As for the time factor, he is saying that YES, there was enough time for another killer or am I misreading that?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

the real story

Hello CD. Thanks. Permit me to answer both questions at once.

Here are Swanson's words:

"I understand the Inspector to suggest that Schwartz' man need not have been the murderer. True only 15 minutes elapsed between 12.45 when Schwartz saw the man & 1.0 when the woman was found murdered on the same spot. But the suggestion is that Schwartz' man may have left her, she being a prostitute then accosted or was accosted by another man, & there was time enough for this to take place & for this other man to murder her before 1.0." ["Ultimate" pp. 123 & 4]

I beg to call your attention to the following:

1. It is not Swanson's opinion at all, but a suggestion by an inspector (Reid?).

2. Swanson is dealing ONLY with the time factor--it was physically possible for BSM to leave, Liz collect herself, find another man and for him to kill her.

But for some reason--unknown to me--his thinking here has been put for police theory. It was not.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello (again) CD.

"Why list a possibility if you don't think it is probable?"

My son just got a diagnosis on an engine light on his car. Listed: one probability along with four possibilities.

It's being thorough.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

There is literally an infinite number of possibilities. So if he chose to mention this one, doesn't that seem to imply that he thought it could be probable?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello CD.

"Since Swanson allows for the possibility of another killer he is not taking the times stated as being written in stone."

He seems to be thinking that Liz was killed around 1.00--just about when Dimshits arrived.

Cheers.
LC

...and we know this how?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

thorough

Hello (again) CD.

"Why list a possibility if you don't think it is probable?"

My son just got a diagnosis on an engine light on his car. Listed: one probability along with four possibilities.

It's being thorough.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Dimshits

Hello CD.

"Since Swanson allows for the possibility of another killer he is not taking the times stated as being written in stone."

He seems to be thinking that Liz was killed around 1.00--just about when Dimshits arrived.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

...and Happy Easter to you too, Jeff.

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

We seem to be going in circles here. Obviously he considered the B.S. man the prime suspect. But since he allows for the possibility of another killer he is stating that there is a reasonable chance somebody other than the B.S. man was her killer. So to conclude that the B.S. man HAD to be her killer doesn't jive with with Swanson's report. That's all I am saying.

c.d.

Ah yes. So many ripperology puzzles tend to be so, circular that is.

But my opinion is that Swanson believed Schwartz probably witnessed something significant. But at this time he was keeping all possibilities open.

ANd thats what I believe happened later on in 1894-5

But as I say its simply opinion. Could someone else have killed Stride, its not impossible I just think it unlikely given what we know.

But thats Ripperology. Happy Easter

Yours Jeff

[c.d.]

Hello Jeff,

We seem to be going in circles here. Obviously he considered the B.S. man the prime suspect. But since he allows for the possibility of another killer he is stating that there is a reasonable chance somebody other than the B.S. man was her killer. So to conclude that the B.S. man HAD to be her killer doesn't jive with with Swanson's report. That's all I am saying.

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

I am talking about his report on the Stride murder not the marginalia. Why list a possibility if you don't think it is probable?

c.d.

Yes but he also gives considerable space to the events witnessed by Schwartz. He must surely have thought these significant even though Schwartz was note called to give evidence.

Given what he later states in the Marginalia it at least seems possible that he considered Schwartz a significant witness.

After all he would have known where the suspect, he was investigating, lived. Swanson was thus aware of Kosminski's connection to the Stride murder scene..and the vacinity of Berner Street

Surely significant?

Yours Jeff