Schwartz, a fraud?

[caz]

If the authorities and the men who patrolled the streets knew of the context in which that surname is used on the streets, then would it really matter what a Jew giving a witness statement thought it was intended as? And to whom. He didnt know and couldnt say whether the 2 men were together. Whatever the makeup of the 2 men the fact is that the saying was used commonly to denigrate jews. Since we only know the ethnicity of one man...Schwartz...he was the only man we know that surname might be directed towards.

Oh for heaven's sake, wake up Michael and think through what you are arguing. WHY didn't Schwartz know, or couldn't say, whether the two men were together? Your argument is that he was fed the lines to say, to make it crystal clear that Stride was the victim of a non-Jewish thug, who had hurled anti-Semitic abuse at Schwartz. Why did he introduce a third party and have BS man addressing him - a Jewish accomplice - as "Lipski" [because that was his name], if the message was supposed to be that "Lipski" was a slur aimed at Schwartz? The man could speak no English, so he could not have known the 'slur' context unless it had been explained to him by someone who could speak his language. And if that had been the case, he wouldn't have made a complete balls-up of the incident, by implicating a Jewish man named Lipski in the run up to the murder.

When the police already have information about things like street vernacular, area specific slurs, ethnic clashing,...whathave you,... they would certainly interpret remarks with that knowledge. Even if Schwartz didnt know who it was directed at...by his word only, like the rest of the story...the police would.

With hindsight, we know that this was how the story was interpreted by some, but it was NOT the story as Schwartz told it, and Pipeman was the extra cook who spoiled the broth.

Its like when Im unfazed by your dislike of my ideas....Ive made some conclusions here and there that your opinions cant affect. New facts? Thats differenet. You not seeing the existing idea on paper? Not really that consequential. Its there, whether you see it or not.

It's hardly 'dislike' of your ideas. It's whether there is any evidence to support them, and it's worse than that here, because the evidence refutes your idea that Schwartz's account was designed to deflect blame onto a Gentile. The fact that some interpreted it that way is neither here nor there. Others took his account at face value and went looking for men named Lipski, who matched Schwartz's description of the man he thought was being addressed by that name.

[Michael W Richards]

1. Why didn’t they just move the body away from the yard?
Blood evidence. Couldnt be sure everyone would conceal where it actually was found.

2. Why would they choose a witness that couldn’t speak English?
We read he couldnt, do we know that? We know Wess translated for Goldstein, did he also for Schwartz? Might help having a proclub man in the mix.

3. Why didn’t Diemschutz just say that a man pushed past him and ran away before speaking with an Irish accent?
Dont know why people tell the tales they do, just that many do tell tales.

4. Why didn’t Schwartz mention a non-Jewish connected accent as a very obvious way of pointing attention away from the club?
See 3.

5. Why would the Police have blamed the club for a ripper murder occurring next to their premises?
Its on their property, not "next" to it, and the police already thought these men were lawless and anarchistic.

6. Why would the police have wanted to appear to have been victimising Jews at that time?
How is blaming Jews for woman murdered on their property when only jewish men were known to be there victimizing them?

7. As Fiver pointed out, the body was still in the yard so what use was the plan?
There is no great plan like you people keep arguing with...it was what do we do, who goes where for help, lets get on board with each others stories. What anyone would do when finding someone dying on your property.

8. Would anyone really base an entire plan on one word, ‘Lipski?’
Lipski was added I believe to secure an idea that the broadshouldered man, most probable killer of Liz if the story is accurate, was antisemtitic. Like much of the East End and Government officials. They were using the predjudice to cast off suspicions.

9. Why didn’t Schwartz say that he saw Stride having an argument with two men and that it was obviously a ‘domestic.’

Why make this a domestic, they called out "another murder", so they were suggesting jack and also that he wasnt a jew.

10. Why would they bother/risk giving a later discovery time when there would have been huge risks of it being uncovered? For eg. Someone seeing Diemschutz return at 12.35?

If someone had seen Louis, or Eagle, arrive...it wouldnt have worked at all. No-one did.

These are just 10 off the top of my head. A useless plan concocted to negate a non-existent outcome. And only one person believes that this plan happened.

Welcome to The Grassy Knoll of Ripperology.

Simple equation, simple answers and they all fit with the majority of, and only corroborated, witness statements.

Sorry though...you were suggesting a serial mutilaror without any evidence of interruption or mutilation...which of course is so much more sensible even without supporting evidence. Im curious, is this man also the only gentile in the area? Because it seems that ONLY club attendees and cottage residents were there at the time and they were all Jewish. Or does he appear after BSMs assault, then slip out before Louis's 1:02-1:05 arrival? Fanny just happens to miss him while at her door? Like anything Israel said happened? Sorry...just hard to keep youre theory straight when there is no evidence at all framing it.

And You shake YOUR head?

Have it any you want, I really dont care. Your particular buyin is not required. It is what it is. 4 corroborated witnesses win over 3 witness who are biased, contradict the comparison validated accounts and do not have any corroboration for their stories themselves.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1. Why didn’t they just move the body away from the yard?

2. Why would they choose a witness that couldn’t speak English?

3. Why didn’t Diemschutz just say that a man pushed past him and ran away before speaking with an Irish accent?

4. Why didn’t Schwartz mention a non-Jewish connected accent as a very obvious way of pointing attention away from the club?

5. Why would the Police have blamed the club for a ripper murder occurring next to their premises?

6. Why would the police have wanted to appear to have been victimising Jews at that time?

7. As Fiver pointed out, the body was still in the yard so what use was the plan?

8. Would anyone really base an entire plan on one word, ‘Lipski?’

9. Why didn’t Schwartz say that he saw Stride having an argument with two men and that it was obviously a ‘domestic.’

10. Why would they bother/risk giving a later discovery time when there would have been huge risks of it being uncovered? For eg. Someone seeing Diemschutz return at 12.35?


These are just 10 off the top of my head. A useless plan concocted to negate a non-existent outcome. And only one person believes that this plan happened.

Welcome to The Grassy Knoll of Ripperology.

[Michael W Richards]

You jest, surely?

What Schwartz actually said he thought he had witnessed - two Jews in cahoots, one Jew addressing his accomplice Jew as "Lipski" - 'doesn't really matter'???

So Schwartz could have said: "Do you want to come back to my place, Lipski, bouncy bouncy?" and it would have made no difference, because senior investigators would still have translated it as an anti-Semitic slur directed at Schwartz?

I'm not sure this is worth anyone wasting another year trying to demonstrate how nonsensical your argument is, when you are the only one who can't or won't admit it.

Surreal.

If the authorities and the men who patrolled the streets knew of the context in which that surname is used on the streets, then would it really matter what a Jew giving a witness statement thought it was intended as? And to whom. He didnt know and couldnt say whether the 2 men were together. Whatever the makeup of the 2 men the fact is that the saying was used commonly to denigrate jews. Since we only know the ethnicity of one man...Schwartz...he was the only man we know that surname might be directed towards.

When the police already have information about things like street vernacular, area specific slurs, ethnic clashing,...whathave you,... they would certainly interpret remarks with that knowledge. Even if Schwartz didnt know who it was directed at...by his word only, like the rest of the story...the police would.

Its like when Im unfazed by your dislike of my ideas....Ive made some conclusions here and there that your opinions cant affect. New facts? Thats differenet. You not seeing the existing idea on paper? Not really that consequential. Its there, whether you see it or not.

[caz]

You jest, surely?

What Schwartz actually said he thought he had witnessed - two Jews in cahoots, one Jew addressing his accomplice Jew as "Lipski" - 'doesn't really matter'???

So Schwartz could have said: "Do you want to come back to my place, Lipski, bouncy bouncy?" and it would have made no difference, because senior investigators would still have translated it as an anti-Semitic slur directed at Schwartz?

I'm not sure this is worth anyone wasting another year trying to demonstrate how nonsensical your argument is, when you are the only one who can't or won't admit it.

Surreal.

[Michael W Richards]

You still have this all wrong. Whoever translated for Schwartz had "Lipski" apparently being addressed to Pipeman - not 'yelled' at Schwartz. That was an interpretation put on it by others, who thought it the more likely scenario. If Schwartz or Wess had wanted "Lipski" to represent a slur towards Jews, aimed at Schwartz, that's what the story would have been, and it wouldn't have been confused, ambiguous or open to alternative interpretations. Can you explain how Schwartz and Wess managed between them to screw up this most crucial aspect of the story so spectacularly, that instead of minimising any damage to the club by blaming a thug who had yelled anti-Semitic abuse at Schwartz, the blame was deflected onto two Jews in cahoots, one of whom was called Lipski?

I can see how it might have been 'just about the most advantageous story to the club that could be concocted', if only it had been concocted and not completely coc*ed up instead.

I'm not remotely surprised to see that you can't - or won't - see the dirty great hole you have dug in your own theory right there. Schwartz said the opposite of what you needed him to say.

Lipski was commonly used as slur. Senior investigators that heard the story felt it was directed at Schwartz directly as an anti Semitic slur. Which is precisely what Ive been saying. What he said presented that word in that context, what he said he thought about it doesnt really matter, because he was lying anyway...the only person f**ing this up is.....well....lets just say I have no idea how you come up with your reasoning, I only know that it isnt reasonable in any way.

[caz]

Actually we are meant to believe that Israel Schwartz had a theatrical appearance,..you know, like an actor who repeats lines?... that he later has an established connection with that very club and Wess..the Wess connection prior to that night...that Wess was very likley the translator, like he was on Tuesday for Goldstein, and what he says was yelled at him was very commonly known among police and reesidents in the area as a slur towards Jews...of which the recent past murderer Lipski was.

That makes his story about BSM as an assault on a victim who is killed minutes later, off the premises, and a verbal attack towards him by a gentile thug who was antisemitic, feet from the spot she is cut on, and within a just a minute or 2 of that single cut. Off the club grounds.

The reality of course is that no accreditted witness saw Liz Stride alive on the street after 12:35...not the young couple, not Fanny, not Eagle or Lave, or anyone else who had a view at around 1240-12:45. Thats because she was on the ground dying inside the passageway surrounded by jews from the club while they figured out a plan to minimize damage. (Shh..it seems thats still a secret to some.)

If you cant see how that is just about the most advantageous story to the club that could be concocted...well....lets just say Im less and less surprised these days what people come up with here.

You still have this all wrong. Whoever translated for Schwartz had "Lipski" apparently being addressed to Pipeman - not 'yelled' at Schwartz. That was an interpretation put on it by others, who thought it the more likely scenario. If Schwartz or Wess had wanted "Lipski" to represent a slur towards Jews, aimed at Schwartz, that's what the story would have been, and it wouldn't have been confused, ambiguous or open to alternative interpretations. Can you explain how Schwartz and Wess managed between them to screw up this most crucial aspect of the story so spectacularly, that instead of minimising any damage to the club by blaming a thug who had yelled anti-Semitic abuse at Schwartz, the blame was deflected onto two Jews in cahoots, one of whom was called Lipski?

I can see how it might have been 'just about the most advantageous story to the club that could be concocted', if only it had been concocted and not completely coc*ed up instead.

I'm not remotely surprised to see that you can't - or won't - see the dirty great hole you have dug in your own theory right there. Schwartz said the opposite of what you needed him to say.

[caz]

Thank you for your post, nice to remind the Pro-Schwartzites that statements need to be validated, and its impossible to validate an opinion that Schwartz actually did appear, or was recorded for the Inquest records. He wasnt.

I didn't think the argument was that Schwartz did appear; I thought it was merely pointed out that nobody knows, at this remove, why he didn't, and therefore we would all be speculating - which means making statements of opinion that can never be validated.

You have to stick with the one reason for his non-attendance - that his story was not considered credible - in order to keep your broken record playing: Schwartz was roped in solely to help with the damage control needed to deflect blame away from the club and its scheming, subversive Semites. So naturally you won't consider any of the other possibilities, which don't follow the plot which others understandably think you lost years ago.

You might not consider Schwartz's story credible, wearing your conspiracy goggles and weaving an infinitely more tangled and less credible web from selected strands of testimony from the other witnesses, but if the authorities were blind to all this, and concluded that Louis discovered Stride around 1am and immediately raised the alarm, why would they have dismissed Schwartz as mistaken at best, or a liar at worst? Because of his 'theatrical' appearance? Because he was a Jew and possibly an anarchist? Because he was foreign and couldn't speak the Queen's lingo? Or are you transferring your prejudices against the wretched man onto the authorities, and concluding that they couldn't possibly believe a man like that?

I feel sorry for Schwartz. He sees a woman being shoved around and runs off without attempting to come to her aid. Imagine how he feels when he is told that a woman was found murdered at or near the same spot shortly after he left the scene. A mixture of shame and fear, I would think. But he does the right thing and reports what he thought he witnessed: BS man addressing a possible accomplice - Pipeman - as "Lipski", the only word he had a prayer of recognising. If he is ashamed of leaving the woman to her fate, at least he can say he felt intimidated and outnumbered by these two men, one of whom chased after him as he fled incontinently from the scene. I see absolutely no valid reason to accuse this man of lying, and no possible reason why anyone with half a brain cell would have thought a non-English speaker would be fit for this purpose, or any reason why Schwartz would have agreed to this potty plan.

[Michael W Richards]

You can't come here talking logic and common sense, Bolo.

We are meant to believe that Schwartz was hand picked for his acting skills, to deflect blame from the Jews with an invented story of an anti-Semitic thug attacking Stride shortly before she was found murdered.

We are also meant to believe that no thought was given to the fact that he barely had two words of English to rub together, and that therefore the story needed to be short, sharp and to the point, in order to lessen the very considerable risk of it becoming mangled in translation.

I mean, if Michael Richards needed someone to give a false statement to the authorities, to send them off in entirely the wrong direction, would Schwartz and his story have been the obvious choice, to avoid the intended message:

"Send reinforcements, we're going to advance"

ending up as:

"Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance"?

Love,

Caz
X

Actually we are meant to believe that Israel Schwartz had a theatrical appearance,..you know, like an actor who repeats lines?... that he later has an established connection with that very club and Wess..the Wess connection prior to that night...that Wess was very likley the translator, like he was on Tuesday for Goldstein, and what he says was yelled at him was very commonly known among police and reesidents in the area as a slur towards Jews...of which the recent past murderer Lipski was.

That makes his story about BSM as an assault on a victim who is killed minutes later, off the premises, and a verbal attack towards him by a gentile thug who was antisemitic, feet from the spot she is cut on, and within a just a minute or 2 of that single cut. Off the club grounds.

The reality of course is that no accreditted witness saw Liz Stride alive on the street after 12:35...not the young couple, not Fanny, not Eagle or Lave, or anyone else who had a view at around 1240-12:45. Thats because she was on the ground dying inside the passageway surrounded by jews from the club while they figured out a plan to minimize damage. (Shh..it seems thats still a secret to some.)

If you cant see how that is just about the most advantageous story to the club that could be concocted...well....lets just say Im less and less surprised these days what people come up with here.

[Michael W Richards]

Go ahead.Last time I'll repeat.The 2 conflicting statements were enough for Schwartz to be dismissed by Baxter,or common sense,Baxter had 22 days to decide.There was the police statement and STAR interview for him to look at.The police believed otherwise,I do not know how long.The interpreter problem and Schwartz hiding were not believable reasons.The witnesses needed were sought like Mr. Stanley in Chapman's case,John Stride and Mrs Watts in the Stride case and mentioned at least.Schwartz was too important for the inquest.
The police made a mistake,sooner or later changed their minds,like with Hutchinson ,then it was only Lawende as the reliable witness.The case ended in 1892.
This is my last post on this.

Thank you for your post, nice to remind the Pro-Schwartzites that statements need to be validated, and its impossible to validate an opinion that Schwartz actually did appear, or was recorded for the Inquest records. He wasnt.

[caz]

First of all, Hungarian is a very complex language, there also are various local dialects which make translating it quite difficult, even for a native speaker. Second, it is not proven that Schwartz really was a native to Hungary, his name sounds more German with a Slavic background to me. How he ended up being a Hungarian Jew is also not not known, he could have simply ended up in Hungary like so many other Jews who fled the Russian pogroms and spoke a mix of Russian, Hungarian and Yiddish, which would have required a translator with quite specific language skills.

In order to answer the questions at an inquest, you have to have a basic knowledge of the English language. You not only have to be able to answer the Coroner's questions but also contextual questions by the Jury, and this is impossible if you are unable to follow the conversation due to language barriers. A possible interpreter not only would have had to speak the exact idiom of Schwartz but also would have had to translate all comments by everyone present at the inquest to enable him to answer the questions posed to him to the best of his ability. I think we both agree that this would not have been possible without prologing the inquest to ridiculous dimensions, that is why Wynne Baxter most probably went with the written statement Schwartz made to the police.

You can't come here talking logic and common sense, Bolo.

We are meant to believe that Schwartz was hand picked for his acting skills, to deflect blame from the Jews with an invented story of an anti-Semitic thug attacking Stride shortly before she was found murdered.

We are also meant to believe that no thought was given to the fact that he barely had two words of English to rub together, and that therefore the story needed to be short, sharp and to the point, in order to lessen the very considerable risk of it becoming mangled in translation.

I mean, if Michael Richards needed someone to give a false statement to the authorities, to send them off in entirely the wrong direction, would Schwartz and his story have been the obvious choice, to avoid the intended message:

"Send reinforcements, we're going to advance"

ending up as:

"Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance"?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Herlock,

This is copied from another post I wrote. The problem is not in finding an interpreter. Even the best interpreter in all of London isn't going to help with some key questions.

Coroner to Schwartz: What did the woman say to the man?

Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.

Coroner to Schwartz: What did the man say to the woman?

Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

Yes Schwartz couldn’t have commented on the nature of the argument. An English speaker also might have been able to have commented on whether or not it appeared that Stride and her killer knew each other.

On the availability of an interpreter? At an Inquest would any interpreter have sufficed or would they have needed an officially sanctioned one?

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

This is copied from another post I wrote. The problem is not in finding an interpreter. Even the best interpreter in all of London isn't going to help with some key questions.

Coroner to Schwartz: What did the woman say to the man?

Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.

Coroner to Schwartz: What did the man say to the woman?

Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Go ahead.Last time I'll repeat.The 2 conflicting statements were enough for Schwartz to be dismissed by Baxter,or common sense,Baxter had 22 days to decide.There was the police statement and STAR interview for him to look at.The police believed otherwise,I do not know how long.The interpreter problem and Schwartz hiding were not believable reasons.The witnesses needed were sought like Mr. Stanley in Chapman's case,John Stride and Mrs Watts in the Stride case and mentioned at least.Schwartz was too important for the inquest.
The police made a mistake,sooner or later changed their minds,like with Hutchinson ,then it was only Lawende as the reliable witness.The case ended in 1892.
This is my last post on this.

Good Varqm because repeating the same nonsense gets us nowhere. You are claiming an opinion as a fact.

Point out to me anywhere that anyone at the time says something like “it was decided not to call Schwartz to the Inquest because his evidence wasn’t believed.”

If you can do that Varqm I’ll grant that you have a point. Until then you don’t. And you won’t because no one said anything like it. And so there isn’t a smidgeon of evidence that this was the case. You have an opinion based on an unfounded assumption. That’s all. I fail to see why you can’t see it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Michael, the only point of my sequence list in post # 651 was to show you that your proposal would look just as ridiculous as you painted out Herlock’s in post #642, basing his on Lamb’s timing of seeing 2 men running towards him “shortly before one o’clock” in an attempt to make Diemshutz’s arrival at “exactly” one o’clock look ridiculous. You seem not to have got that. But I’m glad to see that, in reality, you suggest a more realistic time for Lamb arriving in the yard.

I’m not going to bother you any longer on the subject of the Stride murder, because it’s no use. You have had your very fixed views for over a decade and aren’t going to change them. Which is fine. I just can’t get my head around how you only see & interpret part of the evidence and disregard the rest.

Like for instance this:

[/FONT][/FONT]What the newspapers actually wrote is that Kozebrodski said: “I afterwards went into the Commercial road, and there along with Eagle I found two officers.” To me, that can’t mean anything else then Kozebrodski joining Eagle before they saw Lamb. It’s not clear where he joined him, in Berner Street or in Commercial Road, but it should be clear that he joined him before reaching Lamb, which is also supported by Lamb’s version of events: “two men came running to me”.

Another example is:

In order to be able to state this with certainty, you have to know that Mortimer went back inside at 1:01 at the earliest. But you don’t know that. The best evidence you have is “between half-past twelve and one o'clock” and even this doesn’t say when she went back inside exactly, but it certainly doesn’t suggest that she went back inside after the stroke of one.

Then there are the similarities between Spooner’s and Diemshutz’s account with regards to 2 men running & shouting, not finding a PC but bringing back a man to the yard, who then lifts Stride’s face/chin. They are striking to say the least. Yet, according to you, they mean nothing because all you're capable of saying is that Louis was a liar, so he must have lied about that, too. That you don't see that this, of course, doesn't make the similarities and the inference go away, are things I simply cannot fathom.

And, yes, when you just focus on the timings of “your” favoured 3 witnesses at face value, then there might be reason to believe that something wasn’t right, and, yes, when you add that they were an anarchist club, then there might be reason to believe they would try to hide something from the police. But when I add all the other information and see the bigger picture, then the idea of some sort of cover up quickly fades as far as I’m concerned.

All the best,
Frank

And that’s what it’s about Frank. Not viewing testimony as a whole but picking the bits that suit. Taking Spooner’s 12.30 estimate but completely ignoring his ‘5 minutes before Lamb’ is a perfect example. Mentioning the non-existent Gillen and the statement which never appears but ignoring the fact that Eagle called him to the yard at 1.00. How are these things explained? As you say, they must have lied. You point these out and Michael accuses us of being selective when he’s the one that’s doing just that. Picking to suit the theory. The cover up didn’t happen of course Frank and tellingly after 10 years only Michael still believes it.