Schwartz, a fraud?

[bolo]

Hi all,

I go with what Steward P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow have to say about Schwartz in Jack The Ripper - Scotland Yard Investigates, he was considered an important witness by Abberline (and Swanson, et. al.), the Star version of his testimony was probably altered to some extend to make it more dramatic and thus sell more copies and he did not appear at the inquest because he barely spoke English. They would have had to find an interpreter who they could trust which may have been a problem.

Evans and Rumbelow also mention that the Coroner had the authority to accept written statements in lieu of a witness actually appearing.

Occam's Razor and all, eh.

Grüße,

Boris

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi all,

I go with what Steward P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow have to say about Schwartz in Jack The Ripper - Scotland Yard Investigates, he was considered an important witness by Abberline (and Swanson, et. al.), the Star version of his testimony was probably altered to some extend to make it more dramatic and thus sell more copies and he did not appear at the inquest because he barely spoke English. They would have had to find an interpreter who they could trust which may have been a problem.

Evans and Rumbelow also mention that the Coroner had the authority to accept written statements in lieu of a witness actually appearing.

Occam's Razor and all, eh.

Grüße,

Boris

Makes sense to me Bolo

[c.d.]

Even with the best interpreter available there would still be a problem in that Schwartz didn't understand what was being said or what was actually taking place in the Stride encounter. So no interpreter could fix that. Kind of the blind leading the blind.

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi all,

I go with what Steward P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow have to say about Schwartz in Jack The Ripper - Scotland Yard Investigates, he was considered an important witness by Abberline (and Swanson, et. al.), the Star version of his testimony was probably altered to some extend to make it more dramatic and thus sell more copies and he did not appear at the inquest because he barely spoke English. They would have had to find an interpreter who they could trust which may have been a problem.

Evans and Rumbelow also mention that the Coroner had the authority to accept written statements in lieu of a witness actually appearing.

Occam's Razor and all, eh.

Grüße,

Boris

This seems the most likely explanation. So if Scwartz is seen as reliable he must have seen the Ripper?

[c.d.]

Possibly or he might have simply seen a street hassle and the Ripper came along later.

c.d.

[Varqm]

We'll there is the other possibility.That they did not want him in the inquest because of the word "lipski".They do not want the press asking to much questions.The police wanted to investigate Schwartz's claim internally.They do not want to add more to the anti-semitic sentiment in the Chapman's case.Warren personally went down to Goulston street to check the graffito and had it erased.The word Lipski was being discussed in parliament.
But I do not believe it.It was simply Schwartz was guessing/making things up,which the police sooner realized.But i have my own suspect.He was Jewish.They did not want him caught and have a trial because partly there could be a riot.Too many Jews in the East end,a lot from the pogroms in the Russian empire.

[bolo]

This seems the most likely explanation. So if Scwartz is seen as reliable he must have seen the Ripper?

Stride's body was found 15 minutes after Schwartz' sighting so the attacker could also have been her murderer, or another man sneaked in and did it when the quarrel was over and Stride had returned to her waiting position at the gate of the yard.

[c.d.]

Stride's body was found 15 minutes after Schwartz' sighting so the attacker could also have been her murderer, or another man sneaked in and did it when the quarrel was over and Stride had returned to her waiting position at the gate of the yard.

Exactly. Which is why Swanson allowed for both possibilities in his report.

c.d.

[Varqm]

Hi all,

I go with what Steward P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow have to say about Schwartz in Jack The Ripper - Scotland Yard Investigates, he was considered an important witness by Abberline (and Swanson, et. al.), the Star version of his testimony was probably altered to some extend to make it more dramatic and thus sell more copies and he did not appear at the inquest because he barely spoke English. They would have had to find an interpreter who they could trust which may have been a problem.

Evans and Rumbelow also mention that the Coroner had the authority to accept written statements in lieu of a witness actually appearing.

Occam's Razor and all, eh.

Grüße,

Boris

London was the biggest most prosperous city in the world,they could not find an interpreter? That's not even remotely believable.The difference in the 2 versions was so big it could not have came down to interpreter miscue.
If a written statement was accepted then the coroner in his summation would say the victim was assaulted 10-15 minutes before her body in the same spot,the assault was seen by.....It's nonsensical.

[bolo]

London was the biggest most prosperous city in the world,they could not find an interpreter? That's not even remotely believable.The difference in the 2 versions was so big it could not have came down to interpreter miscue.
If a written statement was accepted then the coroner in his summation would say the victim was assaulted 10-15 minutes before her body in the same spot,the assault was seen by.....It's nonsensical.

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.

[c.d.]

But if Schwartz didn't understand what he saw or heard in the first place how is an interpreter going to help?

[Michael W Richards]

Im happy to end this Michael because it’s impossible to discuss the case sensibly with someone so utterly biased. You’ve deliberately sought a scenario to suit your idea about Issenschmidt which is the most honest approach. You’ve spent years on this non-existent cover-up which renders you impervious to reason so you resort to telling everyone how superior you are whilst spitting out insults (and your dummy out of the pram at the same time)

Theories either get traction or they don’t yours hasn't but your pride won’t let you back down so you plough on favouring guesswork and fixating on pathetic nonsense like the word ‘precisely.’ All textbook conspiracy theorist behaviour.

Look around you Michael. NO ONE ACCEPTS YOUR COVER UP THEORY. Is everyone wrong or might you be? Of course you’ll say it’s everyone else. The sad thing is Michael that you just sound like a defeated Bond villain. And you HAVE lost the argument by the way. Not because of anything I’ve said but because the evidence has always been against you. Its a lost cause....you really should give it up after all this time Michael. No ones listening.

Speak for yourself only Herlock, you havent been given the right or opportunity to speak for everyone. I knew you wouldnt ever agree a while ago when I read arguments so weak they cant stand up by themselves without you shouting OBVIOUS from the roof top. I gave you a scenario that explains and validates the majority of witness statements with respect to time and explains why Louis would lie about a discovery time...because we have fixed times by medical authorities and policemen times dont we?

In fact...heres a way to explain yourself so EVERYONE can make sense of your argument.

Louis arrives at "precisely" 1am. You buy Louis whole hog so you have to be on board with his insistence in this matter, yes? His horse shies, he gets off the cart, lights a match, runs inside to find his wife, then summons members from upstairs. How long did that take? What time is marked by the first official here...Lamb? Just before 1am he sees 2 men running towards him to tell him about the murder. How many people did he see around the body...about 30. At around 1am. When did Blackwell hear about the event...about 10 minutes after 1.
What time did Johnson learn of the crime...a few minutes after 1am. That would be about the time Louis is calling upstairs for help by his story, correct? So who told Johnson and when did they learn of this?
What time did Reid learn of this...by telegram no less...1:25.
How does Lamb see 2 men running for help before Louis even arrived? Seems Issac K also saw them coming back together, as he was returning. Around or just before 1am.
How do 30 Jews suddenly gather round the body as soon as Louis arrives..."precisely" at 1, so that they are all there just after 1...when Lamb says he arrives then. I know you like contesting the words directly from sources you disagree with, like Spooner, Issac Kozebrodksi, Gillen and Heschberg, but youre a Diemshitz supporter so that should be fine with you.
Does Louis leave with Issacs a few minutes after 1 when Lamb is already there?
How can 4 independent witnesses who have no prior consultations together give a discovery time that are all 15-20 minutes before Louis says he arrives?
How can Louis arrive "precisely" at 1am when Fanny Mortimer a few doors down is at her door at that time watching the street and she sees or hears nothing?
You think Louis and Issac Kozebrodsky went for help together...despite Issac saying he went by himself at 12:40...so, what is the earliest possible time that could have happened? Right about when Lamb says he arrives, right? Explain that.

I have no doubt that there will be disputing witnesses own words without demonstrated justification, creative use of time, and accepting that which can be contradicted by many sources.

You know you could have avoided all this by correct phrasing of your argument and mere acceptance of contradictory evidence to your premise, but you pissed me off by taking such a high and mighty "obvious" correctness I couldnt let it pass. Youve called witnesses liars without citing why that should be the case...Ive told you a viable motive for Louis and Morris to have lied and even pointed out how Eagle left possible an earlier time for Liz to have been there just by his hedging, there is no obvious or reasonable motive for any of the 4 witnesses to lie about the exact same times time without first collaborating on a 15-20 minute discrepancy ....youve assumed that Lamb is incorrect, that Louis discovering the body just after 1 is still just fine despite Lambs evidence, and that Louis just discovering the body after 1 still works with Johnson being told of it within a very few minutes, youve imagined Fanny simply not being at her door for key events despite the fact she says herself "nearly the whole time between 12:30 and 1", ....the liberties youve taken and the errors youve made make all this unworkable...so your obvious solution is just your own opinion, which can be dealt with easily by facts alone.

The very fact that you believe any answer to any of the pertinent questions on this and the other murders, questions that have been debated by scholars for over 130 years, really just have obvious answers in your opinion just shows a lack of knowledge of the facts and of basic math. And insults all the pople who have debated the questions. Fact is....They dont all work together,..the statements as they are do not give us a cohesive 30 minutes. The only way you make an argument is by selecting facts, unfortunately you make no sensible argument why these facts should be set aside. Because its obvious to you? Pleeeze..

[Sunny Delight]

Stride's body was found 15 minutes after Schwartz' sighting so the attacker could also have been her murderer, or another man sneaked in and did it when the quarrel was over and Stride had returned to her waiting position at the gate of the yard.

It is a possibility of course. However Fanny Mortimer saw Leon Goldstein at 12:55am so she must have been at her door between 12:50 and 1am. To my mind the Ripper probably killed Stride almost immediately after Schwartz witnesses the initial altercation and she hears the Ripper leaving the scene which she mistakes for a Policeman.

[c.d.]

Hello Sunny,

Why would the B.S. man kill Stride after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man?

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

Hello Sunny,

Why would the B.S. man kill Stride after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man?

c.d.

Hi c.d. I don't know- panic maybe as Stride had screamed and he had just been seen by a witness?