The Cachous

[lynn cates]

sensible

Hello Jon.

"I also suspect the presence of this other couple has caused confusion."

Sensible, as always.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

resemblance

Hello Errata.

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

I resemble that remark. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

I'm in the book.

Hello Batman.

"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?'

You mean a racial slur? Again, I ask you to imagine an account of a killing where the N-word is used. Now imagine the upper echelon cops consulting a phone directory, under N, to find the murderer.

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

I daresay. But it might, given you could grasp the ramifications.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

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?

It has to do with your conspiracy theory.

"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?

Your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense in any language because its ambiguous and it seems you haven't even worked out this alternative guess of yours properly at all. Nobody seems to know what it is and even though it morphs still makes no sense.

"Yes they did search the Jewish community."

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

You said no search happened and now once you have been pointed in the right direction say it is not relevant. It is if you claim that their testimony was supposed to cast suspicion away from Jews and this club. It did no such thing.

"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.

Well that comment explains why you forgot house to house searches also involving Jews took place following the double even by JtR.

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

Cheers.
LC

You are referencing yourself and your personal new original research as a source. This is just hypocrisy to say I can't reference Evans, Rumbelow or Begg but your conspiracy theory is okay to reference. No sale.

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

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

What multiple witnesses?

Cheers.
LC

See the third post down on this thread from yourself. You have read it and forgot it or are ignoring it.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8520

[lynn cates]

pre-reqs

Hello Batman. thanks.

"You said no search happened"

Where on EARTH did I say that? The club was searched almost immediately. A good discussion of this can be found in my Stride essay.

Moreover, the neighbourhood was searched.

My claim is that searching the club is one thing, searching the community, quite another.

I may respond to the rest AFTER:

1. You learn to speak English.

2. You have taken a basic logic class.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

A first.

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

"You have read it and . . . are ignoring it."

Ah! First good idea you've come up with.

Don't mind if I do. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

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

Cheers.
LC

There is no reason why Abberline would mess that one up after he had Schwartz questioned. You do know that happened right?

[Batman]

Hello Batman. thanks.

"You said no search happened"

Where on EARTH did I say that?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=340416&postcount=168

Hello (again) Batman.

"It was a terrible plot then because the use of Lipski confounded everyone for weeks until they concluded it was an insult directed at Schwartz."

Agreed. I think it was hastily concocted by no more than 2 or 3 club members.

"Also did it deflect? They did house searches in the Jewish parts too following the double event."

From the club? Probably. But NOT the Jewish community. Nor was such intended.

Cheers.
LC

The emphasis in bold in mind. Your memory is worse than Andersons and he is having is covering years, not hours like you.

[Batman]

Hello Batman.

"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?'

You mean a racial slur? Again, I ask you to imagine an account of a killing where the N-word is used. Now imagine the upper echelon cops consulting a phone directory, under N, to find the murderer.

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

I daresay. But it might, given you could grasp the ramifications.

Cheers.
LC

It was only worked out that it was a racial slur after Anderson investigated it. It took a lot of time.

The N word is English. That is called a false analogy. Pick another language. How about... Farciarz or Fuksiarz. See how quickly you understand that by reading it? Could you be inclined to look up both as surnames if you didn't know.

[John G]

If Schwartz's evidence is accepted, it surely makes much more sense to interpret what he saw as a domestic incident than a prelude to a murder. For instance, he describes the man stopping and having what must have been a very brief conversation with the women. However, if murder via a blitz attack was the intent, why speak to her at all? If the intention was to lure her away, I.e. to a more suitable murder location, why didn't he spend more time trying to convince her to go with him? Why the rapid, and dramatic, change in tactics?

If, on the other hand, it was a domestic incident, a possible scenario is that the woman stormed off after an argument. The boyfriend then asks her to go back with him, she refuses, so he then pulls her towards the street- out of frustration and by way of added encouragement. The shout of "Lipski" may have been a warning not to get involved in a purely domestic incident.

I also agree that context is everything. As soon as Schwartz finds out about the murder, I.e the next day, it would be understandable that he would reinterpret what he saw as a prelude to a murder, rather than a common domestic squabble.

[Batman]

So you no longer accept his behavior was telegraphing intent to assault Stride? Remember this was your original reason why she didn't take out the cachous. Now she can in your new model.

[John G]

So you no longer accept his behavior was telegraphing intent to assault Stride? Remember this was your original reason why she didn't take out the cachous. Now she can in your new model.

In the scenario that I outlined I don't think the woman was Stride-remember Schwartz doesn't mention the flower. I think it could have been another couple, possibly the one seen by Fanny Mortimer. And, as I noted previously, that would explain their failure to come forward for elimination purposes.

[Batman]

So who is telegraphing an assault?

[John G]

So who is telegraphing an assault?

That issue, and the cachous problem, is irrelevant if the couple Schwartz saw was not Stride and her killer, but another couple involved in a straightforward domestic dispute.