The Cachous

[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.

[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.

[John G]

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

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

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[John G]

So it was a coincidence then?

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.

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.

[Batman]

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.

So it was a coincidence then?

[John G]

No. He identified the body.

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.

[Batman]

That was based on an article in the Star, the same newspaper that had Pipeman rushing Schwartz with a knife. Moreover, the same article also states, "...the Lemsn Street Police have reason to doubt the truth of the story."

It based on several lines of reasoning and evidence including The Star.

You are just repeating the red herring about police doubting the story even though that's at the start of the inquiry and not the FINDINGS where Swanson's HO reported the investigation accepting his story. Sorry but 'quote mining' out of context like that does border on dishonesty.

Also there where arrests. Begg covered more than just The Star.

[John G]

I say you didn't even read what I wrote there.

Speaking of plural witnesses. You reject Paul Begg's findings on the multiple witnesses to Stride's account, right?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8520 <--Pipeman found and cleared.

'Others' is a plural term.

That was based on an article in the Star, the same newspaper that had Pipeman rushing Schwartz with a knife. Moreover, the same article also states, "...the Lemsn Street Police have reason to doubt the truth of the story."

[Batman]

As I noted earlier, even if he was telling the truth he may have witnessed a domestic squabble, involving a different couple, at an earlier time......

No. He identified the body.

[Batman]

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.

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

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.

"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

Yes they did search the Jewish community. You should read up on Kozminski more. There is often a mistake that the house to house search took place after MJK. It didn't. Took place because of this. If you have Evans and Rumbelow's Scotland Yard Investigates, covers it quite well.

Anyway you should try this experiment.

Items needed
- Multiple Coincidences
- Bread and Butter
- Sliced veg

Place coincidences and sliced veg on top of buttered bread. Sandwich it together. Open mouth and try to swallow. I can't because I am not that "gulli-et-ble".