The Cachous

[c.d.]

As I said before my post was lost in the server switcheroo, I think we have good reason to question Schwartz's reliability. None of the evidence or eyewitnesses corroborate his version of events. Furthermore, I find it awfully convenient that the only word BS Man utters to him is a perceived antisemitic insult, which would distance the suspect from the social club and work into Lynn's theory that Schwartz fabricated the whole thing to deflect suspicion away from the IWMEC.

Hello Harry,

Lipski was simply the only word that he understood since he didn't speak English.

c.d.

[c.d.]

My but there seems to be a lot of anti-Schwartz sentiment being expressed of late. I think it is time for old Occam to get out his razor.

First of all, Schwartz entered in the middle of a movie that was not in his native language and had no subtitles and he only stays a minute or two. He then has to give his description of what took place through an interpreter. Is it really surprising that this results in inconsistencies with his statement?

Again, Schwartz never said that he witnessed a brutal assault or a vicious attack let alone a murder. He simply said that he saw a woman being thrown to the ground. Period.

If in fact Schwartz had a Jewish appearance and it appeared that he was about to inject himself in the business of an angry non-Jew is it really surprising that he would get an anti-Semitic insult thrown his way? Why does anything more have to be made of that?

As for the views of the Leman Street police, was it standard police procedure to discuss witness accounts with reporters? Could the police have simply indicated that Schwartz's account was questionable because they were not quite sure of what he saw with the addition of the translation problem. Could this have been what the newspaper was referring to?

If there are questions or holes in Schwartz's story it is understandable and it does not necessarily mean that he was lying.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Possibly, as strange as that may seem. I think the crucial evidence here is that given by PC Smith. He, of course, observed a couple, and the woman was wearing a flower, so I think that we can be reasonably certain that she was Stride: and as a police officer we can assume he was probably more observant.

Yes John, PC Smith's observation is the last reliable account of Stride.
Interestingly though, the first descriptions of this suspect have him wearing a hard felt hat. How, and why the deerstalker crept into the story at the inquest, is a mystery.

Now, Mortimer, Schwartz, Brown and Marshall also saw a couple, but in each case the woman was not described as wearing a flower. I think it therefore safe to assume that two couples were in the locality that night and the woman of the alternate couple probably resembled Stride.

So, assuming Schwartz was telling the truth, which couple did he see? Well, as he doesn't mention the woman wearing a flower I see no reason why it couldn't have been the alternate couple, I.e. not Stride and her killer, involved in a domestic dispute. That might also explain why they didn't come forward for elimination purposes.

And let's not forget, Schwartz could have got his timing wrong, and that both Mortimer's and Brown's couple were also seen close to the club.

Pursuing alternatives, excellent John.
Yes, I also suspect the presence of this other couple has caused confusion.

[Wickerman]

My but there seems to be a lot of anti-Schwartz sentiment being expressed of late. I think it is time for old Occam to get out his razor.

First of all, Schwartz entered in the middle of a movie that was not in his native language and had no subtitles and he only stays a minute or two. He then has to give his description of what took place through an interpreter. Is it really surprising that this results in inconsistencies with his statement?

Again, Schwartz never said that he witnessed a brutal assault or a vicious attack let alone a murder. He simply said that he saw a woman being thrown to the ground. Period.

If in fact Schwartz had a Jewish appearance and it appeared that he was about to inject himself in the business of an angry non-Jew is it really surprising that he would get an anti-Semitic insult thrown his way? Why does anything more have to be made of that?

As for the views of the Leman Street police, was it standard police procedure to discuss witness accounts with reporters? Could the police have simply indicated that Schwartz's account was questionable because they were not quite sure of what he saw with the addition of the translation problem. Could this have been what the newspaper was referring to?

If there are questions or holes in Schwartz's story it is understandable and it does not necessarily mean that he was lying.

c.d.

Sober reasoning, as always c.d.
And yes, the police have been noted elsewhere to intentionally put the press off the scent, so we cannot blindly accept as true what they claim to have been told.

Schwartz, honest but mistaken, is much preferable.
This may have been the determination of the Coroner, as to why he was not chosen to appear.

[Errata]

The fact that the body may have resembled the person he observed briefly, in poor lighting conditions, and whilst under stress is far from conclusive. When Diemshutz first saw Stride he thought it was the body of his own wife! And Caroline Maxwell was convinced she saw Kelly at 8:30am, which was probably wrong, even though the sighting was in broad daylight and of someone she knew. And James Brown was also virtually convinced that the woman he saw was Liz Stride. In fact, perhaps Brown and Scwartz did see the same woman but that woman wasn't Liz Stride. In other words, if Brown made a mistake in his identification it at least proves that there was another woman wondering around the neighbourhood, with a man, who resembled Stride. And, as I've noted earlier, this could be the same couple seen by Mortimer.

Well, you know all y'all Gentiles look alike...

[John G]

Well, you know all y'all Gentiles look alike...

Well certainly all Liz Stride's seem to look alike!

[c.d.]

Well certainly all Liz Stride's seem to look alike!

All kidding aside, didn't women at that time dress pretty much alike and wasn't that clothing pretty much nondescript? Throw in poor lighting and the probability that the witnesses had no real reason to take a good look at them and memorize details of their appearance.

c.d.

[Batman]

Hello Harry,

Lipski was simply the only word that he understood since he didn't speak English.

c.d.

Is it a coincidence then that the only word he understood was also the name of a Jewish murderer who lived nearby?

Since Schwartz didn't know if it was directed at him or not and since it took the investigators awhile to figure out what it meant, then we have someone shouting out the equivalent of 'Jewish Murderer' in order to deflect attention away from the club?

Sorry, that doesn't make a shred of sense does it.

[John G]

All kidding aside, didn't women at that time dress pretty much alike and wasn't that clothing pretty much nondescript? Throw in poor lighting and the probability that the witnesses had no real reason to take a good look at them and memorize details of their appearance.

c.d.

Yes, he probably just assumed the woman was Stride. In fact, does he give any information about the woman's appearance? What is extraordinary is that he mentions details as indistinct as the colour of BS man's moustache and hair, but fails to mention the far more obvious detail of the woman wearing a flower.

[Batman]

She was thrown down on the ground not standing there chatting to someone.

[Errata]

Yes, he probably just assumed the woman was Stride. In fact, does he give any information about the woman's appearance? What is extraordinary is that he mentions details as indistinct as the colour of BS man's moustache and hair, but fails to mention the far more obvious detail of the woman wearing a flower.

That makes sense to me.

He'd be a moron to intervene, so he sees a woman wearing black get thrown to the ground. Sadly not uncommon. She's not important.

Guy giving him a laser glare and his lookout buddy, those were threats. That's important.

Remember that as far as Schwartz is concerned, he is telling the story of what happened to him. He got threatened and chased and he was terrified. He didn't know she was going to be murdered. He certainly didn't know she was going to get folded in to the Jack the Ripper investigation. He didn't pay attention to anything in those contexts. He was more "yeah it's sad about that woman in black, can we get back to how I almost died?" He's not a witness, he's a victim of a different crime. So he's paying attention to other details.

It would be like if you saw a girl getting into Bundy's car and behind that car was a guy looking at you making a throat cutting gesture and then signaling his buddy where you were. When you look back on the event, you're lucky to remember the car. But that isn't to say you wouldn't recognize it necessarily, though you could be excused if you didn't.

Which I think makes it safe to assume that there is a lot more to Schwartz's story than we have. I mean, nobody's story is two paragraph long anyway, so his statement in the Ripper investigation is pretty brief. If he had his own file as the victim of a separate crime, I think that would contain a lot more. As it is, I think we have as much of the story as a cop thought would be needed for Stride's murder, but a lot of the stuff that would make sense out of why he was there, why he reacted the way he did, that's left out.

And one of the guys may have shouted "Lenny!" to his buddy named Lenny, and Schwartz heard "Lipski!" if he was really feeling very threatened. And we don't really know Schwartz's experience prior to this night, so if for 30 years every time two Gentiles got together he got a beating, he might have an overdeveloped sense of threat. You should hear the crap people thought they heard Booth shout when he shot Lincoln. The official line is "Sic semper Tyrannis" which makes a certain sense as the motto of the flag of Virginia, but likely it wasn't that either. He might have said "**** my ankle" but that's lost to time. If you can't understand something off the bat, you go with tone, and to go with tone you need to know the mood. If you shout "I have kittens!" to someone who is terrified, that's not what they'll hear. Which is why you can usually sneak in appalling news to your spouse if you use a loving tone.

[lynn cates]

What?

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"You reject Paul Begg's findings on the multiple witnesses to Stride's account, right?"

What multiple witnesses?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

secondary

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

"Did they concoct getting JtR to kill in Mitre Square also or is this yet another coincidence?"

What has that to do with Israel's story?

"The reason why the conspiracy theory remains ambiguous is because when you actually tell people what it is the Schwartz witness testimony simply comes across as much more appealing and less hysterical."

Eh? Once again--in English?

"Yes they did search the Jewish community."

The Jewish community were at loggerheads with the club. So this is not relevant.

"You should read up on Kozminski more."

My dear Batman, I have forgotten more about him that you will ever know with your second hand research.

Anyway you should try this experiment. Strive to uncover what REALLY happened and stop "Oooing" and "Ahhhing" over secondary sources.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

monetised

Hello John.

"Possibly, as strange as that may seem. I think the crucial evidence here is that given by PC Smith. He, of course, observed a couple, and the woman was wearing a flower, so I think that we can be reasonably certain that she was Stride: and as a police officer we can assume he was probably more observant."

Bingo, again.

Do you play for money?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Funny, he doesn't look Jewish.

Hello CD.

"If in fact Schwartz had a Jewish appearance and it appeared that he was about to inject himself in the business of an angry non-Jew is it really surprising that he would get an anti-Semitic insult thrown his way? Why does anything more have to be made of that?"

1. Because "Jewish appearance" needs to be explained.

2. One must explain how BSM man recognised this, in poor lighting, at a distance AND whilst being busy with Liz.

"As for the views of the Leman Street police, was it standard police procedure to discuss witness accounts with reporters?"

For a fee?

"Could the police have simply indicated that Schwartz's account was questionable because they were not quite sure of what he saw with the addition of the translation problem. Could this have been what the newspaper was referring to?"

What translation problem? Did they ever remark such?

"If there are questions or holes in Schwartz's story it is understandable and it does not necessarily mean that he was lying."

Absolutely. ALL that is required is a coherent forensic explanation. Perhaps, many years hence, one will be related.

Cheers.
LC