Schwartz, a fraud?

[JeffHamm]

Abberline states he questioned Schwartz quite closely on the subject of who Lipski was called out to, which doesn't mean force, but questioned him very carefully. That could result in the witness re-evaluating their certainty. However, the fact the police search for families by that name indicate Schwartz believed it was called out as the name of Pipeman, at least initially, and also that his uncertainty was not indicative of his changing his mind (as in going, "OH, yah, it makes more sense if he was shouting at me" type thing).

We don't know the intonation of how Lipski was said, but given Schwartz thought it was Pipeman's name, it would appear that it was said in such a way that this interpretation was not improbable. It would, in Schwartz's mind, be B.S. calling to their friend to deal with Schwartz as he's interfering just by being there and B.S. is having a dispute with Stride (though of course Schwartz doesn't know Stride's name, and probably interpreted the situation as a domestic of some sort).

yes, I agree, Abberline had doubts about Schwartz's interpretation of who Lipski was shouted at, given he knew the name was used as an insult to Jews. But, given that he's aware of this, he's right to investigate that aspect of Schwartz's statement. He's also correct to investigate along the lines that Schwartz stated too.

And Pipeman's description of not chasing Schwartz is a very big change in the dynamics, and "drama" of the situation. It would entirely change the meaning of the events, even if the underlying facts are similar. But, you are free to see that as less of a dramatic difference if you wish as there's no need to debate over the meaning of a descriptive.

Schwartz wasn't covering for anyone, Leon or otherwise. he was just recounting what he claims to have witnessed, and how he interpreted the intentions of those he saw. He could recount the events accurately and still get the intentions majorly wrong. If Pipeman were identified and questioned and it became clear he was not chasing Schwartz, etc, that would be such an example. We don't know if that happened, but there are some indications it might have. And if that is what happened, then again, they're left with an assault, 15 minutes before she was found murdered (which Swanson I think indicates means someone else could have come along and murdered Stride), and a fairly generic description of B.S. Without something more, what could they do, paritcularly since if Pipeman were identified it becomes clear Lipski was probably shouted at Schwartz. And so, without additional facts, what exactly could they have done further with his information? Until they had a suspect, then Schwartz's information will have played out. Doesn't mean they doubted him, just means a generic description doesn't get you very far.

As for "no idea", true, we have all sorts of ideas, but ideas are a dime a dozen, one can just dream up things and as long as there's no evidence to get in the way of a good story, the ideas flow like manna from heaven. But I was referring to ideas as those drawn from evidence, and with regards to Schwartz's absence from the inquest, we have no evidence and therefore have nothing to draw ideas from, other than the whimsical nature of our imaginations. All we know is Schwartz did not appear, and the police were still looking for Lipski families, so they hadn't dismissed him completely. If they did identify Pipeman, I agree, his name wasn't Lipski, and at that point, the leads Schwartz provided must have dried up; meaning Pipeman obviously couldn't give any better of a description of B.S. than Schwartz did, and may even have seen less (again, we don't know, so anything we put in there is just speculation, not fact, no matter how convinced we become of our own deductions).

Anyway, I think we tend to agree on most points. Abberline had doubts about Schwartz's interpretations, Pipeman may have been identified and questioned, Lipski was, as Abberline thought, probably shouted at Schwartz himself, and Pipeman, if identified, doesn't appear to have added any new leads, and finally, Schwartz wasn't covering for anyone, he was just recounting what he saw and what he thought was going on. While there were doubts about Schwartz's interpretations of the intentions of B.S. and Pipeman, there's no indication that hte police doubted the facts he stated. But given the description he gives is generic, there's little for the police to do further unless more information were to come to light.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Under questioning witnesses will reevaluate what they initially state "to know", so Schwartz's initial statement to the police that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, and he took this to be Pipeman's name (it being recognizable to him), could easily result in him second guessing that after being asked how sure he was Lipski was directed at Pipeman.

I'm not seeing where Schwartz took Lipski to be Pipeman's name...

Swanson: The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski'...

It's just an ejaculation, by the sound of it. Would Schwartz have know it to be a name?

Even if it were perceived as being the man's name, it does not effect my interpretation that we (that is, Abberline and the police) are supposed to perceive an almost cause and effect relationship between the shouting of the word, and 'Mr Lipski' setting out after Schwartz (and giving up the chase before 'the' rail arch).

People often do not re-evaluate how they interpret something until forced to do so through questioning.

How much force did Abberline actually use? Did Swanson write...?

The man who threw the woman down called out 'Lipski', but it was not apparent to Schwartz if this were addressed to him or to the man on the opposite side of the road.

Obviously not. I think the doubts about who the word were directed to were more belonging to Abberline than Schwartz.

It is also worth considering that a man with no English - whether 100% true or otherwise - is not going to be as certain about the intentions of an English speaker as you or I. Schwartz seemed fairy sure it were aimed at Pipeman. Abberline should have recognised this and moved on. I guess he was 'hung up' about who was Jewish and who wasn't, whereas the critical issue is, where did the culprit come from; the club or the street? Schwartz' tale suggests the later.

It is thought that Pipeman was identified, but what his account of the situation was is unknown to us.

Verbally, yes. Behaviourally, maybe not.

If he was identified and questioned, he clearly wasn't retained as a suspect, so his account would differ from Schwartz quite dramatically with regards to his own involvement.

Which would suggest what about Schwartz? Well certainly not that he was covering for Leon Goldstein, as we know Fanny Mortimer didn't know her right from her left.

He also may have denied chasing Schwartz and was just hurrying down the road to avoid the ongoing confrontation, for example (obviously I don't know that, but just putting it out there as an example).

Perhaps not a good example Jeff, because you just said in this circumstance his account would differ from Schwartz quite dramatically.

The police hadn't stopped following up on Schwartz's statement, though. They were actively searching the area for families by the name of Lipski. So even though the police thought Schwartz was likely mistaken on that point, they still followed up on what he actually stated and considered it a lead worth pursuing. As such, the police did not cease their investigation with regards to Schwartz. It appears it may have fizzled and played itself out. Nothing came of the search for Lipski families (presumably they were all accounted for), and if they identified Pipeman, at most they may have gotten another description of B.S. of the generic type we have (male, 28-32, dark coat and trousers, wearing a hat, with a moustache - basically something that would describe just about any male in the area really).

I think Leman street doubted Schwartz due to the discovery of Pipeman, and his story differentiating wildly with Schwartz'. Apparently their ongoing interest was dependent on "additional facts" coming to light - which sounds like they have too much ambiguous and/or contradictory information.

Meanwhile, the assault part of the story seems on better ground, especially given the alternate assault report. As it was BS man who exclaimed 'Lipski', that part of the investigation is reasonable to pursue.

We have no idea why Schwartz was not called to the inquest, but there's nothing to suggest it was because of disbelief in his statement.

Given the Pipeman as a known quantity theory, I think it fairer to say that we have unprovable suspicions, rather than no idea.

Rather, I think the most probable explanation I've seen put forth here was that the police were still investigating his statement and did not want to jeopardize that ongoing investigation given all of the information Schwartz would add was more or less covered by the other witnesses (other than his viewing of Stride being manhandled of course). Again, can't say that was the reason for sure, but given the police were still looking for Lipski's in the area, and probably looking for Pipeman (if they hadn't already found him), that shows they had faith in Schwartz's information.

Or does it show that Abberline did not want to admit that he had been sold porkies by Schwartz, and pressed on with his fruitless search?
If that is not true (or fair), then what explains the Home Office marginal note that says the police apparently do not suspect the second man?
How can they not suspect this man without speaking to him? If they spoke to him, they know his name, and I can tell you with a fair degree of confidence that his last name was not Lipski.

[JeffHamm]

Abberline: I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

Unable to say - because whichever it was is not critical to his tale.
If it were addressed to Schwartz, it means something like "bugger off, Lipski!". Shortly after he finds the second man following him in a perceived threatening manner.
Alternatively, it were addressed to the second man, as we know this man shortly after begins following Schwartz in a perceived threatening manner, it can be inferred as meaning "Lipski on the scene!".
Either way, the second man looks very much like an accomplice.
There's just one problem; the police did not suspect the second man, and his description was not on the wanted list.
The second man was a known quantity, and the man himself gave a very different account to that of Schwartz.
This led to Leman street ceasing investigation related to Schwartz' statement, and the coroner not calling him to the inquest.
Israel Schwartz was likely a fake witness.

Hi NBFN,

Under questioning witnesses will reevaluate what they initially state "to know", so Schwartz's initial statement to the police that Lipski was shouted at Pipeman, and he took this to be Pipeman's name (it being recognizable to him), could easily result in him second guessing that after being asked how sure he was Lipski was directed at Pipeman. People often do not re-evaluate how they interpret something until forced to do so through questioning.

It is thought that Pipeman was identified, but what his account of the situation was is unknown to us. If he was identified and questioned, he clearly wasn't retained as a suspect, so his account would differ from Schwartz quite dramatically with regards to his own involvement. He also may have denied chasing Schwartz and was just hurrying down the road to avoid the ongoing confrontation, for example (obviously I don't know that, but just putting it out there as an example).

The police hadn't stopped following up on Schwartz's statement, though. They were actively searching the area for families by the name of Lipski. So even though the police thought Schwartz was likely mistaken on that point, they still followed up on what he actually stated and considered it a lead worth pursuing. As such, the police did not cease their investigation with regards to Schwartz. It appears it may have fizzled and played itself out. Nothing came of the search for Lipski families (presumably they were all accounted for), and if they identified Pipeman, at most they may have gotten another description of B.S. of the generic type we have (male, 28-32, dark coat and trousers, wearing a hat, with a moustache - basically something that would describe just about any male in the area really).

We have no idea why Schwartz was not called to the inquest, but there's nothing to suggest it was because of disbelief in his statement. Rather, I think the most probable explanation I've seen put forth here was that the police were still investigating his statement and did not want to jeopardize that ongoing investigation given all of the information Schwartz would add was more or less covered by the other witnesses (other than his viewing of Stride being manhandled of course). Again, can't say that was the reason for sure, but given the police were still looking for Lipski's in the area, and probably looking for Pipeman (if they hadn't already found him), that shows they had faith in Schwartz's information.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Abberline: I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

Unable to say - because whichever it was is not critical to his tale.
If it were addressed to Schwartz, it means something like "bugger off, Lipski!". Shortly after he finds the second man following him in a perceived threatening manner.
Alternatively, it were addressed to the second man, as we know this man shortly after begins following Schwartz in a perceived threatening manner, it can be inferred as meaning "Lipski on the scene!".
Either way, the second man looks very much like an accomplice.
There's just one problem; the police did not suspect the second man, and his description was not on the wanted list.
The second man was a known quantity, and the man himself gave a very different account to that of Schwartz.
This led to Leman street ceasing investigation related to Schwartz' statement, and the coroner not calling him to the inquest.
Israel Schwartz was likely a fake witness.

[JeffHamm]

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.

(bolding my emphasis)

With respect to the bolded portion, that is entirely false. What Schwartz relayed to the police is fundamentally critical to the whole thing. Schwartz, according to your theory, has been sent with a fabricated story to deflect the police from investigating the club members. Therefore, the story he tells the police is the "cover story". Scwartz's story, as he relays it, implicates a Jewish offender because Schwartz's tale has the following elements:
1) Pipeman as an accomplice
2) B.S. calling Pipeman Lipski

And therefore Schwartz's story implicates a Jewish offender (Pipeman), with the implication that B.S. is probably also Jewish.

The police, however, are aware that people who witness things do not always interpret the events correctly. It was the police who were more inclined to believe that Schwartz was mistaken, and that Lipski was shouted at him and not Pipeman, because Lipski was used as an anti-Semitic insult. It is the police re-interpretation of Schwartz's tale that does not implicate a Jewish offender. It is Schwartz's actual tale that brings one in.

It would take a special kind of stupid for the club members to concoct a cover story with the aim of deflecting attention away from the Jewish club members by having the offender be Jewish. Because that's what Schwartz originally told the police.

Schwartz's story, as he told it, refutes your theory by itself because what Schwartz told the police is the complete antithesis of your theory.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

John Cleary / John Arnold who predicted the Pinchin Street Torso three days before the murder specified the murder would be by Jack the Ripper. Now if he got this information by overhearing two people discussing it this would further suggest the Torso Murders were carried out by two people. Another coincidence I want to add to this is the site of the Pinchin Street Torso and the Lipski graffiti above it links directly with the once instance which was the only suggestion of JtR having an accomplice, the Schwartz story which involves two people.

Regarding coincidences, I wonder how close Schwartz got to the (future) site of the Pinchin Street Torso and Lipski graffiti, when "he ran so far as the railway arch"?

East London Observer, Sep 14 1889:

Not far from the arch where the headless trunk was found, a pedestrian exploring the neighbourhood would find himself in Berner street, where Elizabeth Stride was brutally murdered on Sept. 30 last year, and if he proceeded a little further he would traverse the dull and wretched Batty street, where Lipski foully murdered his landlady [sic], for which he was afterwards hanged at the Old Bailey. That the memory of this notorious criminal is still fresh in the minds of the inhabitants around is shown by the fact that on a black paling opposite the arch under which the unknown body was hidden some one had written the word 'Lipski' in large chalk letters. Whether done before the discovery or after no one seems to know, but the name was there.

[caz]

Actually Caz, if you 2 would get your heads out of the sand and review all the witness accounts, who corroborates who, who had bias, who had no secondary support at all, the physical evidence and the circumstantial evidence youll find that I, not you, am using that data. I use witnesses that have corroboration..you do not. I use data regarding her wounds to determine if a mutilator was there. You feel an interuption explains all that missing cutting away, though there is no interuption evidence at all. You claim this was done by Jack, though not one shred of evidence definatively links any single canonical kill with any other. You believe Israel, though its clear the men holding the Inquest didnt. You question Fanny, why, because you think she missed seeing things, while AT HER DOOR "NEARLY THE WHOLE tIME" that final half hour. You accept Louis arrived just after 1, though at least 4 people said he was already there 15-20 minutes earlier, and you are comfortable with Eagle and Lave returning to the club after seeking help, at around the same time Louis could have arrived "precisely at 1" but it was really after 1. Neither seeing anything or in the case of Lave and Eagle, each other.

yeah..you have it all under control....

At least I haven't got my head up my arse.

There is some evidence that Pipeman was found - or came forward - and furnished his own description of BS man.

I have not argued that the killer would have mutilated Stride in that location if only he hadn't been interrupted. My argument has been that whoever killed her - ripper or not - lost his temper with her and struck swiftly and efficiently with a single cut to the throat, and left the scene before Louis discovered the dying woman and raised the alarm. The location was clearly never going to suit a knife happy murderer with mutilation in mind, but that's where Stride chose to be, so IF IF IF he was indeed the ripper, that would not have improved his mood.

It is very far from clear that the men holding the Inquest didn't believe Schwartz, and you have yet to explain why on earth they wouldn't have done. The very fact that he didn't recognise "Lipski" as a slur aimed at himself, but took it to be the name of BS man's accomplice, has more of a natural ring of truth about it than the black-and-white lie you wish he had told. The authorities would have recognised this, even if you don't. That's why they tried to decipher what he had really seen and heard, from what he supposed he had.

I don't question Fanny! She didn't hear any pony and cart, or see or hear anything out of the ordinary, until Louis said he arrived, which - when combined with other evidence, including that police whistle - was most probably a minute or two before 1am. The clock Louis saw could have been slightly fast. At least 4 people could not reliably have put Louis there 15-20 minutes earlier. Try none. Fanny was locking up as she saw Goldstein pass by, around 12.55, and she heard Louis arriving around 3 or 4 minutes after she'd gone indoors for the night. All the commotion happened immediately after that.

You are only seeing the things you want to see, by picking bits and pieces from the entire body of evidence, and twisting them to fit your twisted view of the Jews on Berner Street, and it's not a pretty sight.

Which bits of Spooner's account to do accept, and which bits do you reject? He is one of your 4, isn't he?

[Herlock Sholmes]

99 % of the above nonsense aside...a couple of questions. Do you not believe that the discovery of a woman with a cut throat on their private property would warrant police scrutiny and when discovering that there seems to have been only socialist anarchist jews on that property at that time, that the evidence would then suggest a jewish killer? After all, they are the only people there at that time. Do you not feel that 4 people giving the same rough times and details is corroboration? Have you read the dictionary definition of that word? Are you aware that solitary unsupported and non validated witness accounts would never supersede corroborated ones in court? Do you not feel that the lack of mutilation on Stride is a strong indicator her killer didnt kill her so he could do that? Is that the same as in Annies case?

I know youll deny all these issues with one...its YOU MIchael, youre the devil...instead of apologizing for your errors and misrepresentations, youll claim people without substantiation are the de facto accounts in criminal investigations and that the lack of evidence of something like an interruption is just fine..it could have happened anyway. I guess using that argument so could an unseen and unheard parade...although I doubt that premise equally.

I should call you Peter.

More delusional stuff I’m afraid. If your theory had any basis in fact don’t you think, AFTER 10 YEARS, that someone would have said “hey, do you know what, I think Michael’s on to something?” But they haven’t. And you’re completely impervious to the fact.

You’re wrong and you know it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder."

Since Louis categorically did not arrive until after 1, and you like using Fanny's hearing the cart and horse as his arrival time...which was a few minutes after 1...how is it that Eagle is returning with Lamb, (see above before disputing fact), just after 1 as well? Hmm. Didnt Eagle only hear about this a few minutes after 1? So how did he get Lamb and return just after 1? Did Louis then leave, since he just arrived by you...after Eagle and Lamb were already there? hmm...Since Issac came back with Eagle and Lamb just after 1....what time must he have left by? oh yeah...you think Louis takes Issac K with him, even though he says Issac[s]...

I feel like Im debating this with Ripperfolk 101 types...I shouldnt have to remind anyone of the simple facts if they have been already debating points on these cases for some time. Doesnt casebook suggest gaining knowledge before posting anything?

Keep paddling away though, holes in your theories will eventuallly sink them, but no-one can take away your right to hold dear even that which can be so easily disproven.

“Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252H, deposed as follows:- About 1 o’clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street.”

Lamb admitted that he didn’t have a watch and so he was estimating. I know that you’re allergic to that concept Michael but the fact remains.

Since Louis categorically did not arrive until after 1,

Are you so utterly desperate to bolster your theory that you will stoop so low as to nitpick over a matter of seconds? For Christ’s sake grow up Michael. If we’re going to discuss the case like adults resorting to babyish nonsense will achieve nothing.

Even Doctor's with watches can misremember times.

Blackwell said....

“I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was just 1.10.”

Johnston however said.......

“As soon as Dr. Blackwell came he looked at his watch. It was then 1.16. I was there three or four minutes before Dr. Blackwell.”

So Blackwell arrived at either 1.10 or 1.16. Which of the two was correct? We can’t say for certain but Johnston’s 1.16 is very specific.... no one would estimate 1.16. It’s too exact. He also spoke of being woken by a Constable....

“About five or ten minutes past 1 on Sunday morning, I received a call from constable 436”

Then, from Lamb....

“Dr. Blackwell, about ten minutes after I got there, was the first doctor to arrive.”

.......

So we have to assess.

We cannot be exact to the minute of course but it’s reasonable to suggest

Johnston is called sometime between 1.05 and 1.10

He gets to the yard around 1.10/1.12

Blackwell got there at 1.16

Lamb got there around 10 minutes earlier.

So around 1.06.

........

. Hmm. Didnt Eagle only hear about this a few minutes after 1?

You know very well that he didn’t.

“He returned to the club about 25 minutes to 1.”

“Afterwards I joined my friend, and we sang together. I had been there about 20 minutes, when a member named Gilleman came upstairs and said, “There is a dead woman lying in the yard.”


So again, accepting very natural and very minimal leeway this has Mortis Eagle seeing the body for the first time at around 1.00. Certainly nowhere near 12.35 or 12.45.

.....

Look in the mirror Michael, you keep on telling me and Caz and Frank every poster on here that we’re all idiots or biased but you can’t consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Of course you can’t.

As Caz said, you’ve been pushing this bilge for 10 years or more and still, STILL Michael everyone rejects it.

You list this debate years ago. You’re losing it all over again. And you’ll keep in losing it.

[Michael W Richards]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
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.

Wrap the body in something. There would have been 1000’s of possible locations.

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.

He couldn’t speak English despite your typical conspiracist attempt to add doubt.

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.

Simple opportunity which would have achieved the alleged aim.

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.

Ditto

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.

Jack the Ripper wasn’t connected to anarchism, socialism or any other ism. None of your points connect to the ripper murders so how did one murder at that location point to the club? It didn’t.

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?

By closing down their club for a pathetic, unjustifiable reason.

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.

No, what anyone would do on finding a body on their property would be to go to the police. Which is what they did...unsurprisingly.

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.

So take away Lipski and there’s nothing left to achieve the aims of the plan....as I said.

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.

Just an option to show that the argument was between three drunks who’d been passing the club.

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.

Yes but they didn’t know that at the time. They had no way of knowing. Keep up Michael.

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.

Please, please stop embarrassing yourself on this ‘evidence of absence’ point Michael. I cringe every time I see you use it. Grow up.

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.

Your 4 witnesses aren’t corroborated Michael. You are making this up. It’s an ongoing con-job. You’re attempting to cover-up for the fact that you’ve been found out. And what makes it worse is that you’ve been found out over TEN YEARS.

You embarrassingly adopt a tone which says “I can’t believe that you can’t see this” but the point is Michael THAT YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON THAT BELIEVES THIS NONSENSE. And so, following your thinking, every single Ripperologist on the planet is an idiot for not being able to see it. They can’t see it because the evidence trashes is conclusively. You rely on cherrypicking evidence. Which reminds me Michael......

WHY IS IT THAT WHEN FACED WITH A STATEMENT WHICH GIVES 2 TIMES YOU COMPLETELY IGNORE ONE IN FAVOUR OF ANOTHER? YOU DON’T EVEN CONSIDER IT. YOU DON’T ASSESS IT. YOU DON’T DISCUS IT. YOU CONSISTENTLY IGNORE ANY MENTION OF IT . YOU PRETEND THAT IT DOESN’T EXIST. THIS ISN'T AN HONEST APPROACH MICHAEL AND YOU PERSISTENT REFUSAL TO RESPOND IS ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT YOU EMPLOY THE CHERRYPICKING OF EVIDENCE IN AN ATTEMPT TO BOLSTER YOUR DISCREDITED THEORY.

99 % of the above nonsense aside...a couple of questions. Do you not believe that the discovery of a woman with a cut throat on their private property would warrant police scrutiny and when discovering that there seems to have been only socialist anarchist jews on that property at that time, that the evidence would then suggest a jewish killer? After all, they are the only people there at that time. Do you not feel that 4 people giving the same rough times and details is corroboration? Have you read the dictionary definition of that word? Are you aware that solitary unsupported and non validated witness accounts would never supersede corroborated ones in court? Do you not feel that the lack of mutilation on Stride is a strong indicator her killer didnt kill her so he could do that? Is that the same as in Annies case?

I know youll deny all these issues with one...its YOU MIchael, youre the devil...instead of apologizing for your errors and misrepresentations, youll claim people without substantiation are the de facto accounts in criminal investigations and that the lack of evidence of something like an interruption is just fine..it could have happened anyway. I guess using that argument so could an unseen and unheard parade...although I doubt that premise equally.

I should call you Peter.

[Michael W Richards]

5 minutes before Lamb

Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting. I went to meet them, and they called out, "Come on, there has been another murder."

Since Louis categorically did not arrive until after 1, and you like using Fanny's hearing the cart and horse as his arrival time...which was a few minutes after 1...how is it that Eagle is returning with Lamb, (see above before disputing fact), just after 1 as well? Hmm. Didnt Eagle only hear about this a few minutes after 1? So how did he get Lamb and return just after 1? Did Louis then leave, since he just arrived by you...after Eagle and Lamb were already there? hmm...Since Issac came back with Eagle and Lamb just after 1....what time must he have left by? oh yeah...you think Louis takes Issac K with him, even though he says Issac[s]...

I feel like Im debating this with Ripperfolk 101 types...I shouldnt have to remind anyone of the simple facts if they have been already debating points on these cases for some time. Doesnt casebook suggest gaining knowledge before posting anything?

Keep paddling away though, holes in your theories will eventuallly sink them, but no-one can take away your right to hold dear even that which can be so easily disproven.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually Caz, if you 2 would get your heads out of the sand and review all the witness accounts, who corroborates who, who had bias, who had no secondary support at all, the physical evidence and the circumstantial evidence youll find that I, not you, am using that data. I use witnesses that have corroboration..you do not. I use data regarding her wounds to determine if a mutilator was there. You feel an interuption explains all that missing cutting away, though there is no interuption evidence at all. You claim this was done by Jack, though not one shred of evidence definatively links any single canonical kill with any other. You believe Israel, though its clear the men holding the Inquest didnt. You question Fanny, why, because you think she missed seeing things, while AT HER DOOR "NEARLY THE WHOLE tIME" that final half hour. You accept Louis arrived just after 1, though at least 4 people said he was already there 15-20 minutes earlier, and you are comfortable with Eagle and Lave returning to the club after seeking help, at around the same time Louis could have arrived "precisely at 1" but it was really after 1. Neither seeing anything or in the case of Lave and Eagle, each other.

yeah..you have it all under control....

5 minutes before Lamb

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
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.

Wrap the body in something. There would have been 1000’s of possible locations.

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.

He couldn’t speak English despite your typical conspiracist attempt to add doubt.

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.

Simple opportunity which would have achieved the alleged aim.

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.

Ditto

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.

Jack the Ripper wasn’t connected to anarchism, socialism or any other ism. None of your points connect to the ripper murders so how did one murder at that location point to the club? It didn’t.

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?

By closing down their club for a pathetic, unjustifiable reason.

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.

No, what anyone would do on finding a body on their property would be to go to the police. Which is what they did...unsurprisingly.

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.

So take away Lipski and there’s nothing left to achieve the aims of the plan....as I said.

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.

Just an option to show that the argument was between three drunks who’d been passing the club.

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.

Yes but they didn’t know that at the time. They had no way of knowing. Keep up Michael.

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.

Please, please stop embarrassing yourself on this ‘evidence of absence’ point Michael. I cringe every time I see you use it. Grow up.

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.

Your 4 witnesses aren’t corroborated Michael. You are making this up. It’s an ongoing con-job. You’re attempting to cover-up for the fact that you’ve been found out. And what makes it worse is that you’ve been found out over TEN YEARS.

You embarrassingly adopt a tone which says “I can’t believe that you can’t see this” but the point is Michael THAT YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON THAT BELIEVES THIS NONSENSE. And so, following your thinking, every single Ripperologist on the planet is an idiot for not being able to see it. They can’t see it because the evidence trashes is conclusively. You rely on cherrypicking evidence. Which reminds me Michael......

WHY IS IT THAT WHEN FACED WITH A STATEMENT WHICH GIVES 2 TIMES YOU COMPLETELY IGNORE ONE IN FAVOUR OF ANOTHER? YOU DON’T EVEN CONSIDER IT. YOU DON’T ASSESS IT. YOU DON’T DISCUS IT. YOU CONSISTENTLY IGNORE ANY MENTION OF IT . YOU PRETEND THAT IT DOESN’T EXIST. THIS ISN'T AN HONEST APPROACH MICHAEL AND YOU PERSISTENT REFUSAL TO RESPOND IS ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT YOU EMPLOY THE CHERRYPICKING OF EVIDENCE IN AN ATTEMPT TO BOLSTER YOUR DISCREDITED THEORY.

[Michael W Richards]

Actually Caz, if you 2 would get your heads out of the sand and review all the witness accounts, who corroborates who, who had bias, who had no secondary support at all, the physical evidence and the circumstantial evidence youll find that I, not you, am using that data. I use witnesses that have corroboration..you do not. I use data regarding her wounds to determine if a mutilator was there. You feel an interuption explains all that missing cutting away, though there is no interuption evidence at all. You claim this was done by Jack, though not one shred of evidence definatively links any single canonical kill with any other. You believe Israel, though its clear the men holding the Inquest didnt. You question Fanny, why, because you think she missed seeing things, while AT HER DOOR "NEARLY THE WHOLE tIME" that final half hour. You accept Louis arrived just after 1, though at least 4 people said he was already there 15-20 minutes earlier, and you are comfortable with Eagle and Lave returning to the club after seeking help, at around the same time Louis could have arrived "precisely at 1" but it was really after 1. Neither seeing anything or in the case of Lave and Eagle, each other.

yeah..you have it all under control....

[caz]

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.

No-one did, Michael, because Louis was still making his way back from Westow Hill [where, incidentally, I did jury service in 1985] and wouldn't arrive for another 25 minutes.

Sometimes, the simple truth really is that simple.