The Cachous

[c.d.]

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

Hello Lynn,

I fail to see how the shout of Lipski is significant in the context of a club conspiracy since Schwartz was not certain that Lipski was what the B.S. man uttered nor was he sure that it was directed at him. Additionally, isn't there some evidence that Lipski was also used as a verb meaning to do someone harm? If if in fact it was used in that context that would eliminate the idea of some sort anti-semitism as its purpose and render it just a generic insult.

c.d.

[Batman]

Hello Lynn,

I fail to see how the shout of Lipski is significant in the context of a club conspiracy since Schwartz was not certain that Lipski was what the B.S. man uttered nor was he sure that it was directed at him. Additionally, isn't there some evidence that Lipski was also used as a verb meaning to do someone harm? If if in fact it was used in that context that would eliminate the idea of some sort anti-semitism as its purpose and render it just a generic insult.

c.d.

That's correct.

As a note, the generic insult is the one Robert House opts for in his book Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect.

[c.d.]

Dr. Blackwell tells us that the reason why the hard to see sweets where in the position found was because the hand had relaxed.

A simple easy peasy solution is that she thought it was a robbery and brought them out for him to take or already had them out and wanted to protect them.

Since he didn't display a knife how was she to know her fate???

Who goes around robbing people of cachous?

c.d.

[Batman]

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.

I think this is going to require quite a detailed explanation as to what you think happened to explain your perspective properly.

[Batman]

Who goes around robbing people of cachous?

c.d.

In 2015, only in a very poor part of the world would that happen.

In 1888 Whitechapel... they beat each other up over a piece of soap and a broken piece of mirror was a luxury item for Nichols to have.

The point is her perceptions (robbery) don't have to gel with his intent (murder) to explain her actions.

[John G]

I think this is going to require quite a detailed explanation as to what you think happened to explain your perspective properly.

As I noted in my earlier post we have various sightings of couples, during the evening of the murder, wandering around the local area: by Marshall, PC Smith, Mortimer, Schwartz and Brown; and for the matter, Packer, although I accept that his testimony is suspect.

However, crucially, only PC Smith refers, correctly, to the woman wearing a flower-Schwartz certainly doesn't. I think, therefore, there must have been two couples present in the area, and the woman of the second couple probably resembled Stride.

So which couple did Schwartz see? Well, as he doesn't mention the woman wearing a flower, I think there's a reasonable chance he saw the second couple, involved in a straightforward domestic dispute. And, when he hears about the murder the next day, he naturally assumes, wrongly, that what he actually witnessed was the prelude to a murder, with Stride the victim.

And, as I've pointed out, if the woman he saw was Stride, why didn't he notice the flower, as PC Smith clearly did? After all, if his account was true we have to accept that he was observant because he refers to the man's moustache and hair colour.

Errata has suggested that he didn't notice the flower because he was more focused on the man. Well, if that was the case how could he be sure that the woman was Stride?

Of course, Schwartz witnessing an assault on the woman of the second couple, by the man of the second couple, would explain why they didn't come forward for elimination purposes.

[Batman]

Schwartz doesn't describe her standing talking to someone. He describes seeing the man throw her down. In that respect is there any reason he wouldn't have noticed this detail. Sure. She is down. A face is recognizable as well as attire.

[John G]

Schwartz doesn't describe her standing talking to someone. He describes seeing the man throw her down. In that respect is there any reason he wouldn't have noticed this detail. Sure. She is down. A face is recognizable as well as attire.

Yes he does. He mentions the man stop and speak to the woman, who was stood in the gateway.

[Batman]

No one heard them shout Lipski though.

[John G]

As I noted in my earlier post, ""Lipski" might have been a warning to Schwartz not to interfere in a purely domestic dispute.

[Batman]

Here is something to consider.

If one did not believe that she was offering up valuables in what she thought was a robbery then she might have something more of value on her, thereby indicating she wouldn't have gone for the cachous, yet, if you look at the inquest inventory of her belongings she just had string on a card, a thimble and two handkerchiefs. The sweets are the obvious choice. It doesn't prove she thought she was being robbed, but the cachous were really all she had to give should she have to give something. The other possibility is that they stole her gold and banknotes, but that's hardly likely.

[Errata]

I think if you want to understand Schwartz's statement, and the likelihood of what he saw, you have to put yourself in his position. How does his surprise alter how he perceives what is happening? How does his fear do that? How does his hasty exit affect what he remembers? Is he describing to the cop what happened to her, or what happened to him? Does he see himself as the victim, or her? Does he likely think those men killed her? Does he feel guilt about that? How does that affect his actions? Would it make him identify a woman he couldn't really remember? And if he doesn't really remember her, does that mean he identified the wrong woman, or could he have identified the right one anyway?

He can get it right even if he does it wrong. And he can get it wrong even when he does it right.

But he's not a witness. He's a man who went through something himself. He also happened to see the victim right before she died, but he didn't know that. Look at his story from the perspective of a man who was attacked by the same men who attacked this young woman. And you feel attacked when you are chased, even if they never lay a hand on you. Look at it from that perspective and see if things make more sense, or less. Does it make sense that a man chased away from a scene in terror said what he did, described it the way he did, had the details that it had and not the details one might expect from eyewitness testimony?

[John G]

Schwartz saw the man stop and speak to the woman. I think he would have communicated his intentions at that point. And whatever he wanted, it wasn't the cachous. In fact, the obvious solution is that he wanted the woman to come with him, which is why he tried to pull her towards the street.


Just out of interest, can anyone provide any press reports of cachous robberies in London, 1888.

[John G]

I think if you want to understand Schwartz's statement, and the likelihood of what he saw, you have to put yourself in his position. How does his surprise alter how he perceives what is happening? How does his fear do that? How does his hasty exit affect what he remembers? Is he describing to the cop what happened to her, or what happened to him? Does he see himself as the victim, or her? Does he likely think those men killed her? Does he feel guilt about that? How does that affect his actions? Would it make him identify a woman he couldn't really remember? And if he doesn't really remember her, does that mean he identified the wrong woman, or could he have identified the right one anyway?

He can get it right even if he does it wrong. And he can get it wrong even when he does it right.

But he's not a witness. He's a man who went through something himself. He also happened to see the victim right before she died, but he didn't know that. Look at his story from the perspective of a man who was attacked by the same men who attacked this young woman. And you feel attacked when you are chased, even if they never lay a hand on you. Look at it from that perspective and see if things make more sense, or less. Does it make sense that a man chased away from a scene in terror said what he did, described it the way he did, had the details that it had and not the details one might expect from eyewitness testimony?

Hi Errata,

Of course, we don't know that he was followed; that's just his perception of events. I agree with your earlier post -that he probably took little notice of the woman, although I still think he would have been likely to see something as distinctive as a flower- in which case his identification of Stride in the mortuary must be regarded as suspect. As I've noted, I think it quite possible that he witnessed a simple domestic dispute involving a different couple. However, after he learned of the murder, he assumed that the woman must have been Stride, and the man her killer.

[Batman]

John people went to jail for literally pinching bread.