The Cachous

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.]

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.

[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.

[Batman]

So who is telegraphing an assault?

[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 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]

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]

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.

[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.