Schwartz, a fraud?

[Cogidubnus]

Hypocrisy

Interesting...I'm not pursuing anyone, but I've just come directly from a thread on which a contravention of Rule 8 is being contended on, as far as I can see, the very slightest of grounds...

Whilst I'm not the originator of this particular thread, I revived it (post #244) specifically to discuss the Schwartz testimony...and I'm a little surprised to find the aforementioned claimant actively condoning the hijacking of this thread to discuss another case completely...

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Dave. Why does it matter to you? And why do you feel others would be interested in your opinion of my posting etiquette?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Posting etiquette concerns us all equally Tom...or should do as it's small politenesses that lubricate the smooth workings of the world...

Did I express unduly strong or unfairly pointed views on posting etiquette? No, all things considered, I was very mild...

Did I mention you by name Tom? No I didn't...None the less I appear to have drawn blood...So if the cap fits please feel free to wear it.

Now, in accordance with Rule 8, can we please either get back to the subject of the thread, or drop it altogether?

Thanks

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Posting etiquette concerns us all equally Tom...or should do as it's small politenesses that lubricate the smooth workings of the world...

Then why are you being such a prick?

Did I mention you by name Tom? No I didn't...None the less I appear to have drawn blood...So if the cap fits please feel free to wear it.

You accused me of hypocrisy. That's a cap that most certainly doesn't fit. I came onto this thread and commented perfectly on topic with what was being discussed. In fact, I made an observation in direct response to the topic of discussion. Your buddy, on the other hand, hijacked a brand new thread with his OWN off-topic rant. I said nothing. Another poster pointed out to him that he had been off-topic since his very first post. I said nothing. He acknowledges he's off-topic, and continues his rant. Then I said something. It's all right there. There's the natural evolution of discussion which occurs, causing threads to go off-topic, and then there's hijacking and trolling. Very different.

Now, if you'd actually like to discuss the theories that I myself originated regarding Schwartz being a false witness put forth by the Berner Street club in which I believe he used to live in order to throw suspicion off the members, then by all means, let's discuss.


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Interesting...I'm not pursuing anyone, but I've just come directly from a thread on which a contravention of Rule 8 is being contended on, as far as I can see, the very slightest of grounds...

Whilst I'm not the originator of this particular thread, I revived it (post #244) specifically to discuss the Schwartz testimony...and I'm a little surprised to find the aforementioned claimant actively condoning the hijacking of this thread to discuss another case completely...

Dave

Thank you for maintaining equal ground Dave, but Ive posted an apology on the thread. No need to muck up another one.

I will add for the purpose of this thread though that Tom Wescott didnt invent Schwartz questions or possible solutions to the many issues regarding club statements on these or other boards, that can be checked easily if one wishes. Lets not put any grapestalks in dead hands here.

My best regards,

Mike R

[Cogidubnus]

"Posting etiquette concerns us all equally Tom...or should do as it's small politenesses that lubricate the smooth workings of the world..."

Then why are you being such a prick?

QED...To any unbiased observer you've just said it all...nonetheless...

Simply because of such self-evident, offensive, bullying, and unnecessary outbursts as you habitually resort to when challenged on equal grounds...is that clear enough?

You accused me of hypocrisy. That's a cap that most certainly doesn't fit.

Tom, owing to my habit of looking at "new posts" I quite coincidentally came directly to this thread from another, in which it appeared to me you were accusing somebody undefined, of trolling "off-topic" with minimal grounds. (I had in fact looked back and genuinely couldn't see who you might be referring to, although to be fair, I suspected you might be holding some sort of grudge against Michael and it might just be him)...nonetheless....

On this thread (which I'd revived specifically to discuss Schwartz) you openly condoned a couple of posters who were far more definitely off-topic...discussing in fact a quite different murder...

If that isn't hypocrisy, then what is?

Nonetheless, in the interests of keeping things "low-profile", I kept my comments very moderate and did not explicitly name you...you've done that for yourself...

Your buddy, on the other hand, hijacked a brand new thread with his OWN off-topic rant.

I have no buddy...as stated before elsewhere, I haven't a clue who Michael is, have no idea what grudge you may or may not bear him, and have never even private-mailed him...in fact I did not even know for sure that you were referring to him.

Now, if you'd actually like to discuss the theories that I myself originated regarding Schwartz being a false witness put forth by the Berner Street club in which I believe he used to live in order to throw suspicion off the members, then by all means, let's discuss.

Having taken the trouble to back-read damn nearly every thread on the current boards, I'm well aware of the background to the doubts over Schwartz. I think you were quite right to raise them, and the lack of solid evidence is regrettable...Much in the club members testimony and police evidence is nonetheless suggestive is it not?

Nonetheless, returning to "nos moutons" I believe you were actively discussing Long, and as such, that input surely belongs on a different thread? No?

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Thank you for maintaining equal ground Dave, but Ive posted an apology on the thread. No need to muck up another one.

I will add for the purpose of this thread though that Tom Wescott didnt invent Schwartz questions or possible solutions to the many issues regarding club statements on these or other boards, that can be checked easily if one wishes. Lets not put any grapestalks in dead hands here.

Hi Michael

Equal ground is indeed all I'm trying to maintain...I don't know who you are, (apart from Perry Mason), or what has previously arisen between you and Tom, but simply would like to see fair debate...ok it can be vigorous, thrusting and sarcastic...all's fair in love, war and JtR...(and I'm no saint myself, though I have an unfortunate habit of apologising when I think I might've gone too far!), but I hate to see personal abuse or favouritism entering into what should be friendly debate...

All the best

Dave

[mariab]

{...}I'm well aware of the background to the doubts over Schwartz. I think you were quite right to raise them, and the lack of solid evidence is regrettable...Much in the club members testimony and police evidence is nonetheless suggestive is it not?

The lack of solid evidence is regrettable, but characteristic for the entire case, Dave. Not to worry, though. There's a lot of (circumstantial) evidence on Schwartz' possible affiliation with the IWEC and there might be more when I finally find a minute to resume my research.

And yep, like the French say, “retournons à nos moutons“.

but I hate to see personal abuse or favouritism entering into what should be friendly debate...

I like the smell of fresh idealism in the evening (vs. the smell of fresh Napalm in the morning)... :-p

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Maria

We've disagreed in the past, but I believe on this subject we're very much on the same page!

(napalm? No I reserve that for Littlehampton...I'm buggered in Bognor!)

All the best

Dave

[mariab]

Well, we disagreed when you came out and said that maybe Schwartz didn't exist at all, but maybe it was a late hour after a liquid dinner, if you know what I'm saying. :-)

[Cogidubnus]

Ontological discussion per Kant?

Hi Maria

I don't recall the specific thread (though I certainly recall the general context) but I rather think the question I intended to ask was "did Schwartz's eyewitness account actually happen" rather than did he actually exist at all, but by the time I came back, things had moved on, so what the heck, I didn't bother to correct anyone's perceptions...

Nonetheless if it was a Friday night you may well be correct in assuming that bottled substances might've influenced the way I worded things... what... tonight's Friday?... oh... oops!

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Now, if you'd actually like to discuss the theories that I myself originated regarding Schwartz being a false witness put forth by the Berner Street club in which I believe he used to live in order to throw suspicion off the members, then by all means, let's discuss.

Speaking as one who's not sure "who originated what", I think Schwartz sighting needs looking at thoroughly. Why Schwartz doesn't mention any of the other witnesses we know of, and they don't mention him, is grist for the mill.

Who said there was any suspicion on Club members between the discovery of the murder and that same evening when Schwartz spoke to police?

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Speaking as one who's not sure "who originated what", I think Schwartz sighting needs looking at thoroughly. Why Schwartz doesn't mention any of the other witnesses we know of, and they don't mention him, is grist for the mill.

Who said there was any suspicion on Club members between the discovery of the murder and that same evening when Schwartz spoke to police?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

If you read the press reports every member was searched, the premises were searched and people were checked somewhat for bloodstains. Since some of those checked were from upstairs it seems logical to assume that the initial inquiries concerned the people on whose property the murder occurred.

Using logic once again can assist in assessing Schwartz ...here is a man no-one saw or heard, a Jewish Immigrant who speaks no English just passing by a club specifically tailored to a Jewish immigrant like himself, (the speech that night was Why Jews should be Socialists) at 12:45am. The club was known to have a large meeting that night that broke up around 11:30pm, and more than 30 members remained in the club until 1am singing. He says he was checking on his wife's move of their lodgings at 12:45, (we dont know from where on Berner), even though he had left her more than 12 hours earlier to do so. What she had to move was likely a suitcase or 2 and perhaps a stick of furniture.

No-one sees him that night, no-one hears him that night and Spooner and his date do not see anyone fleeing incontinently from Berner Street, though they do see Louis....(according to Spooner near 12:40am).

Israel's story establishes an attack on the dead woman just before her murder, off the Clubs premises, and by 1 or perhaps 2 assailants whom it would seem are Gentiles. In effect, releasing the club members from any further suspicion.

He is a Jewish phantom who brings salvation to a Jewish group of men considered to be Anarchists by the local constabulary, using a highly implausible story.

Logically, the fortuitous nature of his claim for the Club and its operations and his obvious ethnic connection with those same people leads one to consider the authenticity of his claims.

Now factor in his apparent absence in any formal Inquest transcript publications.

These reasons alone make the statements of many club members themselves, just after the murder and discovery, curious in contrast. Cumulatively the press reports indicate that at least 3 onsite members gave statements that had the discovery and alert at around 12:40-12:45am...curious because that matches Spooner.

What they did not have that night was the luxury of time to think of the best way to present their story and to co-ordinate that timing with all the others present. Thats why Louis says he went with Isaac at 1:03-:05ish, and Isaac says that night that Louis sent him alone for help around 12:40-:45am. Isaac said he returned to the club at 12:30 and approximately 10 minutes later was called to the passage by Louis.

These are some of the reasons why Israels story should be doubted by modern students of the crimes, despite any support that is suggested by internal comments of some officials. I think its clear to all of us that the informal or formal opinions of the contemporary officials are not be considered the "evidence". Many of them were accustomed to secrecy and misrepresentation as part of their intelligence work anyway.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Wickerman]

Hi Mike.

Hi Jon,

If you read the press reports every member was searched, the premises were searched and people were checked somewhat for bloodstains. Since some of those checked were from upstairs it seems logical to assume that the initial inquiries concerned the people on whose property the murder occurred.

Precisely my point Mike, all the members were held, thoroughly searched and questioned. To the best of my knowledge the police held no lingering doubts.

Given that his address was known, and an order to appear at the inquest as a witness is something that cannot be so easily avoided without follow-up by the authorities.
I find it odd that no further mention of Schwartz occured in the press if he avoided the "summons to appear", assuming a) the man living at 22 Hellen St. was not really Schwartz, or b) that he had been located and found to be lying.
Either way there is still a hungry press out there.

Swanson's future report tends to cast doubt upon option "b", so who lived at 22 Hellen St., and why was no "summons to appear" given, or, if one was, why did he not respond?

Once again our ignorance leads to intrigue..

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Either way there is still a hungry press out there.

Swanson's future report tends to cast doubt upon option "b", so who lived at 22 Hellen St., and why was no "summons to appear" given, or, if one was, why did he not respond?

Regards, Jon S.

That first line I quoted of yours above is a goodie Jon. Not one press report of the Inquest transcripts that includes or even mentions Israel Schwartz's story.

Some would liken this to Pearly Poll first voluntarily coming in and then not coming in when she is summoned to. But we know what happened to her, she left town. Why dont we know the specific address Israel is heading to to check on his wife that night...the address they were moving from... or why he is hardly spoken of again, just a few short mentions in a few internal memos. And the primary focus of those written comments seem to be the prejudicial potential of the Lipski remark, none refer to the specifics of the altercation itself...which would have been the most critical portion of his statement. Because a solid sighting of a man seen accosting a woman feet from where she is murdered less than 15 minutes later would provide a very viable suspect.

Best regards,

Mike R