Schwartz, a fraud?

[mariab]

switchin' it

I got the Swiss knife but not the gay. (Which proves that you were wrong when complaining “all women love them some gays“ the other day, lol.)

But a switch-hitter in baseball is a player who bats both right-handed and left-handed. And switch riding in snowboarding/wakeboarding is riding with the tail of the board in front, which I do at 40%, yep. And a switch jump is called a cab jump, from Cali skater Steve Caballero (whom you might have heard of as a punk rocker in the '80s). I got a cab 180° which I wish were bigger.
(Apologies for the brief highjack, I'm missing riding big time and getting all frothy at the mouth right now.)

And I'll be quiet too, cuz I gotta eat. (Probably only way to get me quiet.)

[Tom_Wescott]

No, Maria, it's a gay joke. And my 'Swiss Man' comment was a joke on swiss knives. If a joke has to be explained, it's not funny, so I'll be quiet now.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Is that a baseball joke? (Cuz I don't know a thing about baseball.)

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't know, if Pipe Man's a switch hitter, what does that say about BS Man?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Or “Switch Man“, switching from knife to pipe in a jiffy.

[Tom_Wescott]

How about 'Swiss Man', since he apparently had a knife that could also be used as a pipe?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

C word

Hello Greg. Actually, I prefer "Danger Man" myself.

I was demonstrating that Schwartz's story could be bogus and yet he not personally have lied.

At any rate, I had not mentioned conspiracy. Sometimes, two people act together; other times, not. Whether they do or not must be ascertained based on certain criteria. One can neither rule them in nor out a priori.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Regarding the validity of the police using both Schwartz and Lawende,I don't recall seeing anything internal, written after Annie Chapman, that suggested more than one murderer for these crimes. Other than some questions based on the 2 man element in Israels story or Marys possible accomplice "after the fact" I think the bulk of the official evidence favors my opinion.

Hi Mike,

The police investigated each of these murders as individual cases. This was their established routine and until these murders, they had been mostly successful. They interrogated friends, relatives and acquaintances in order to establish the antecedents of each victim and to determine if anyone might have a motive to commit murder. Most murders were and are perpetrated by people who know the victim. After Mary Kelly's murder - even though a string of murders had taken place - they interrogated Joe Barnett for 4 hours to ascertain his whereabouts on the night of her murder and to see if his story could be corroborated. No matter what any of them may have thought, individually, the CID had standard procedures that they followed.

Naturally, they investigated any possible correlation between the murders too. They would have been fools not to do so. Realizing a series of unsolved murders that do share some common traits is evidence itself. The recent Long Island murders are a prime example, and the police, with all of the new forensics and technology, haven't solved those murders yet. Yet they have checked the histories of each victim, their relationships and their movements prior to their deaths.

As to the authorities involved with the Whitechapel murders... Anderson wrote, 'murderer or murderers' in some of his communications. Wynne Baxter, in his summary of the Stride murder, stated that he thought the Eddowes murder may have been the work of a copycat. So, I don't see where this is getting us.

If the police had been able to apprehend, prosecute, and gain a conviction of one man for just one murder, they would have been happy to do so. A good example of this is what they did with Thomas Sadler. They investigated him for the murder of Francis Coles and for the other murders. Even after it was proved that he couldn't have perpetrated the others, they still went after him for Coles. They didn't just assumed he was Jack the Ripper. His exoneration in court didn't stop them from pursuing him. Swanson interrogated his wife again some nine months later.

Interesting to me that Schwartz came in on his own but Lawende was discovered the during door to door inquires.

That's true, witnesses were and are compiled both ways. They follow every lead they get no matter how they get it. Whether Swanson was right or wrong in his assessment of Lawende and Schwartz, he was simply trying to work with the pieces of the puzzle he had available. And they didn't have much.

[Bridewell]

Thats why if IS is lying about anything, I think it might be about Pipeman who turns into knifeman to help alleviate his less than brave actions.

Hi Abby,

That's my take on it too. I guess the Pipeman metamorphosis into Knifeman is dependent on whether Schwartz himself "sexed up" his description or the journos did it for him. Both at least as likely as the mistranslation theory I would have thought.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Abby Normal]

You make it sound almost like he's a lone stranger in a strange land...

But he's not a lonely jew acting in isolation...he's a jew who's possibly been living in a close-knit club, is definitely living in a fairly populous jewish area...With back-up I reckon he just might've - particularly if he's the sort that later openly becomes an activist...look at it this way (1) There's nobody in the jewish community gainsaying his story and (2) He can always fall back on his ignorance of the tongue and claim interpretational misunderstandings.

I don't think there'd be any shame in cutting and running at the time...not if he didn't know the woman and it wasn't his business anyway...In that area he'd probably have been called far worse names if he'd stuck his beak into something that didn't concern him!

I accept there's no proof...but thereagain, that should read: "there's no proof either way"...other witnesses simply do not seem to have attended the same ping pong game.

All the best

Dave

Hi Cog

But he's not a lonely jew acting in isolation...he's a jew who's possibly been living in a close-knit club, is definitely living in a fairly populous jewish area...With back-up I reckon he just might've - particularly if he's the sort that later openly becomes an activist...look at it this way (1) There's nobody in the jewish community gainsaying his story and (2) He can always fall back on his ignorance of the tongue and claim interpretational misunderstandings

Not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying he is lying to somehow protect the club? Please be more specific.

Anyhow, to you or those who suggest this my question would be then- Why have someone else make up BS/"lipski" story when you already have LD who could do it so much more convincingly?

I don't think there'd be any shame in cutting and running at the time
Sorry. i disagree. You see an apparently innocent woman getting attacked by a stranger and that stranger then insults you and you run away. To me, and any reasonable person i think would find those actions as cowardly.

Thats why if IS is lying about anything, I think it might be about Pipeman who turns into knifeman to help alleviate his less than brave actions.

[GregBaron]

The Jews are Not the Men...

Why are you all picking on this poor little Hebrew. I'm with Abby, he saw something, he told them what he saw, he went on with his life. Is that so unbelievable?

Conspiracy theories are fun but remember one thing, none of them are true....

Is it not possible that he is reciting his Aunt Rebekah's knish recipe and the translator, driven by a different agenda, concocts the BS story?

Cheers.
LC

Certainly possible Lynn but is everybody on the take? Is everyone a conspirator, a spy, an informant, an anarchist, a confederate? Aren't some people just ordinary blokes trying to do their jobs?

I think we often put too much into this story. Is that your old friend Ockham I hear again? or is it Principio something or other....?

I think you've been watching too many of those old I Spy reruns again Lynn....


Greg

[Bridewell]

Lawendes descriptions show us a man at least 2 inches taller, without Dark Hair, and with fair colored moustaches, not Brown. Add the clothing discrepancies and its hard to imagine the 2 suspects seen by Lawende and Schwartz could be considered a "good match".

It's not an exact match. That would be highly improbable from any two witnesses to the same event (unless there has been collusion). The two men described were seen by different witnesses, about 50 minutes apart and in different locations under different lighting conditions. There is nothing here sufficiently incompatible to demonstrate conclusively that the two men described were not one and the same IMHO.

regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

knish

Hello Abby.

"Would a Jew new to a foreign country risk causing severe problems to himself/family by lying to police in a murder investigation?"

Without committing to the truth/falsity of his testimony, I wonder whether it were necessary for Schwartz to lie in order for the story to be untrue?

Is it not possible that he is reciting his Aunt Rebekah's knish recipe and the translator, driven by a different agenda, concocts the BS story?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Witness Descriptions

Hunter,

Regarding the validity of the police using both Schwartz and Lawende,I dont recall seeing anything internal, written after Annie Chapman, that suggested more than one murderer for these crimes. Other than some questions based on the 2 man element in Israels story or Marys possible accomplice "after the fact" I think the bulk of the official evidence favors my opinion.

Interesting to me that Schwartz came in on his own but Lawende was discovered the during door to door inquires.

The suspects:

Schwartz's:
"He thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down:- age, about 30; ht, 5 ft 5 in; comp., fair; hair dark; small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak, and nothing in his hands.

Second man: age, 35; ht., 5 ft 11in; comp., fresh; hair, light brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat, wide brim; had a clay pipe in his hand."

Lawende's:
In a report by Donald Swanson, dated 19 October 1888," age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in., comp. fair, fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor." Also in the Police Gazette on 19 October 1888.

The first publication of the description of the man seen by Lawende was in the Times on 2 October - "of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

Lawendes descriptions show us a man at least 2 inches taller, without Dark Hair, and with fair colored moustaches, not Brown. Add the clothing discrepancies and its hard to imagine the 2 suspects seen by Lawende and Schwartz could be considered a "good match".

I for one think it highly unlikely the Berner Street murder changed clothes, put lifts in his shoes and lightened some facial hair before heading to Mitre Square, I hope you do too.

Best regards Hunter, all.
Mike R

[Cogidubnus]

I would say no. Would a jew new to a foriegn country risk causing severe problems to himself/family by lying to police in a murder investigation. I would say no.

Plus he casts himself pretty negatively in the story. I doubt if someone was going to lie about it and talk to both the police and the press for the whole world to know that they would cast themselves as a total coward.

You make it sound almost like he's a lone stranger in a strange land...

But he's not a lonely jew acting in isolation...he's a jew who's possibly been living in a close-knit club, is definitely living in a fairly populous jewish area...With back-up I reckon he just might've - particularly if he's the sort that later openly becomes an activist...look at it this way (1) There's nobody in the jewish community gainsaying his story and (2) He can always fall back on his ignorance of the tongue and claim interpretational misunderstandings.

I don't think there'd be any shame in cutting and running at the time...not if he didn't know the woman and it wasn't his business anyway...In that area he'd probably have been called far worse names if he'd stuck his beak into something that didn't concern him!

I accept there's no proof...but thereagain, that should read: "there's no proof either way"...other witnesses simply do not seem to have attended the same ping pong game.

All the best

Dave