Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israel Schwartz,

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    its a possibility. but why admit you were there at all?
    Because someone's seen you and has has made it clear, by shouting abuse at you, that that is the case perhaps?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Mr Osborne doesn't seem to have the first clue as to the taking of a witness statement - and you use that rubbish as the basis for an argument?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    I was not codding when I gave you the tip - this is not about being pedantic, or over-analysing Swanson's sentence structure.

    It is about how this sentence provides a window into how Swanson thinks.

    And Swanson thinks, in stories.

    Here is a long quote from the 2nd dissertation, linked to above:

    Hutchinson stated that he met Mary Kelly on the corner of Flower and Dean Street and that after a few words, she left him to walk down Commercial Street. A man coming in the opposite direction, stopped her and spoke to her. Hutchinson related: “...he then placed his hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap around it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head and watched him.” According to his account, Hutchinson was outside the ‘Queen’s Head at the corner of Flower and Dean Street’. But astonishingly, there was no public house by any name at this location. Instead, as a contemporary map reveals, there was only the bleak rise of a tenement block, to be found there. As to the ‘Queen’s Head’: this public house, rather than being located at the corner intersection of Flower and Dean Street, was actually located at the corner intersection of Commercial Street and Fashion Street. And to have reached it, Hutchinson would have to have turned his back on the couple he said he was observing, to walk further up Commercial Street. A distance, according to an Ordnance Survey Map, of one hundred and twenty yards. Therefore, Hutchinson’s contention that he watched a man engage Kelly near Thrawl Street, while he was outside the ‘Queen’s Head’ and that he was able to overhear their conversation, is totally discredited. How could he, by night’s dark cover plus at such a distance, have possibly observed such an innocuous detail as a strap around a small parcel?

    In addition to Hutchinson’s uncertainty regarding his position in Commercial Street, we find a most curious break in his narrative. We have worked out that to reach the ‘Queen’s Head’, he would have walked away from the couple he said he was watching. With every step he took, the distance between him and Thrawl Street increased. Yet this episode, this unavoidable walk, is missing or has been erased from his statement. Why? Clearly for a man who could remember or recall the colour of a man’s eyes and eyelashes by night, it is a perplexing omission.

    In light of these curious anomalies, I decided it would be worthwhile to examine Hutchinson’s original statement, (which is lodged at the Public Records Office). In doing so I came across a startling fact and one of paramount importance completely absent from the many books published on Jack the Ripper, which have included the statement of this labourer. For the long-held acceptance that Kelly and her client passed him at the ‘Queen’s Head’, is totally at odds with his original statement that he was standing outside another public house, one called the ‘Ten Bells’. And this particular public house we find, was sited at the corner of Church Street and Commercial Street, opposite Spitalfields Market. And this glaring discrepancy in Hutchinson’s testimony, we find was discovered only after his statement, labouriously taken down in longhand had been completed. However it was altered by a simple expediency: The wording of the ‘Ten Bells’ was struck through and substituted by that of the ‘Queen’s Head’.

    By such an act, the construction of Hutchinson’s account became more readily acceptable. Yet even this alteration cannot explain or dispel his flawed testimony. Consequently, we are forced to consider that George Hutchinson’s account was a fabrication. The edifice, indeed the very foundations of Hutchinson’s story, rested solely on his points of observation, his locations in Commercial Street. Remove anyone of these key-ins and the whole structure of events he claimed to have witnessed, collapses like a house of cards. And collapse it did, as the police must have discovered.

    But why then did the police, in view of this man’s obvious unreliability as a witness, decide to accept his story? To find a possible answer to this question...


    ...keep reading the dissertation.

    However, the point seems to be that the police back then, are not thinking in quite the same way as we do now.
    They are looking to create coherent stories, even if that means tampering with witness statements!

    So forget about the grammar and context of Swanson's sentence re Schwartz - that is an overly superficial interpretation of what I'm alluding to.
    I'm pointing out how Scotland Yard figures of the time, think in terms of little stories, rather than point-by-point analysis, with ambiguities removed.
    That is why they gloss over so many small, but critical details.

    Remember - the devil's in the details

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
    In Swanson's October 19 report, there is a sentence which begins...

    If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they [Smith, Schwartz] are describing different men...

    Why is there a reference to both 'his statement' and 'it'?
    Aren't these one and the same, so that the sentence could just read...

    If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report casts no doubt upon his statement, it follows if they are describing different men...

    I'm not trying to be pedantic.
    In the original sentence, I think the first 'it', is a reference to 'his story'.
    Swanson sees a police statement as being the written form of a very short story, told by a witness in relation to a crime.
    The statement itself, is merely the transcribing of a witness's story to paper, along with the signatures of the witness and attending officer.
    Lets see how pedantic works...

    If the sentence by Swanson is merely confirming that the police did believe him, it is a very long winded way of saying that. Especially when he begins the sentence with an "If".

    Had a layperson made the same observation we might read, "If Schwartz is to be believed, and if the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, then it follows"......etc.
    Which means Swanson has not yet seen a police report of the investigation into his story.

    Alternatively, we might read: "If Schwartz is to be believed, and providing the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, then it follows"......etc.

    As we can see, in neither case is Swanson confirming that he or the police believe the statement, at this point in time.

    The difference in how Swanson structured his sentence when compared to how a layperson might have wrote the same thing, I think is due to Swanson's education. Educated people tend not to use an "if" twice.

    In other words, I might say, If it doesn't rain, and if it isn't cold, I might do some gardening...
    Whereas Swanson might say: If it doesn't rain, and it isn't cold, I might do some gardening...
    The omission of the 2nd "if" is what has confused our understanding of what Swanson wrote.

    At the time Swanson wrote that sentence he had not seen a police report of the investigation into Schwartz's statement. He did not know if Schwartz's story was credible.


    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Swanson wrote what he wrote. Are you trying to criticize his writing style? You say that you are not being pedantic but that is how it is coming across. You are going to make yourself nuts if you start analyzing every statement made by the police in the hope of gleaning some hidden message.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    In Swanson's October 19 report, there is a sentence which begins...

    If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they [Smith, Schwartz] are describing different men...

    Why is there a reference to both 'his statement' and 'it'?
    Aren't these one and the same, so that the sentence could just read...

    If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report casts no doubt upon his statement, it follows if they are describing different men...

    I'm not trying to be pedantic.
    In the original sentence, I think the first 'it', is a reference to 'his story'.
    Swanson sees a police statement as being the written form of a very short story, told by a witness in relation to a crime.
    The statement itself, is merely the transcribing of a witness's story to paper, along with the signatures of the witness and attending officer.

    This understanding of statements, could have been a big handicap in catching the Ripper.
    Take Fanny Mortimer, for example.
    Fanny spends most of about a half an hour, on her doorstep, looking up and down Berner street.
    She sees some people, and that's it.
    What exactly is her story, then?
    Contrast to James Brown - his is a story because it has a start, middle and finish - more or less.
    So Brown gets called to the inquest, and Mortimer does not, but surely Fanny sees more of interest, and is closer to the action.

    Nowadays, a police statement would seem to be more inline with our 'information economy' - more focused on gathering data.
    There is more of the who, what, why, where and when - than back then.

    Try these dissertations:

    Suspect and Witness - The Police Viewpoint
    By Stewart P. Evans

    THE MAN WHO SHIELDED JACK THE RIPPER:
    George Hutchinson & his statement – An analysis.

    BY DEREK F. OSBORNE.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    My last post was to Simon before I knew that he was having some health issues. So, to keep the train of thought going, Ill revise the question to the reast on the thread....

    Why is the story and history given by Mary Malcolm about her sister Elizabeth Watts almost identical to the known history of Liz Stride? Is it really likely that someone comes into that Inquest with a false identification of a victim but an almost identical history to the actual victim? Did Watts have a coffee shop in Polar...as Stride did, ...was Watts called "Long LIz", as its is stated Stride was....dating a policeman in the past, "among the jews" in recent times...
    There is an article in Ripperologist #75, called 'Cat's Cradle', by Rob Hills.
    Rob gives a few reason's for being suspicious of George Morris, the nightwatchman PC Watkins runs to, in Mitre Square.
    Following is a copy & paste of reason #2.

    During the inquest into the murder of Catherine Eddowes, George Morris responded to a question asked by Mr Crawford, a solicitor acting on behalf of the police: ‘I had not quitted the warehouse between eleven and one. I had not seen Watkins before that evening.’ He also stated that his warehouse door had not been ajar more than two minutes.
    The time of ‘between eleven and one’ would refer to the murder of Elizabeth Stride. Annie Morris was also an alleged alias of Elizabeth Stride. During the Stride inquest, the coroner questioned Michael Kidney, paramour of Elizabeth Stride. The question was asked, ‘Had deceased ever had a child by you?’ to which Michael replied ‘No. She told me a policeman used to see her at Hyde Park before she was married to Stride [i.e., John Thomas Stride, whom she married on 7 March 1869]. I never heard her say she had a child by a policeman.’
    In 1869, George Morris was a serving Metropolitan policeman with T Division - Hammersmith. A letter dated 19 October 1888 and signed ‘An Accessory’ states that ‘The crime committed in Mitre Square city and those in the district of Whitechapel were perpetrated by an ex police constable of the Metropolitan Police who was dismissed the force through certain connection with a prostitute.’
    George Morris retired from the Met on 13 January 1882 age 47 due to ill health (stomach disease).

    He was born on 8 February 1834 in Teddington. In the 1841 census, George is shown to have been residing with his family at an address in Teddington High Street. His parents are John and Elizabeth Morris. John’s occupation is recorded as a labourer. George is 8 years old at this time. He has an older brother William aged 17, Henry aged 11 and a sister Mary Ann aged 14. His younger brothers are Thomas aged 5 and Frederick aged 2.
    I don't know the sender or recipient of the letter mentioned.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    My last post was to Simon before I knew that he was having some health issues. So, to keep the train of thought going, Ill revise the question to the reast on the thread....

    Why is the story and history given by Mary Malcolm about her sister Elizabeth Watts almost identical to the known history of Liz Stride? Is it really likely that someone comes into that Inquest with a false identification of a victim but an almost identical history to the actual victim? Did Watts have a coffee shop in Polar...as Stride did, ...was Watts called "Long LIz", as its is stated Stride was....dating a policeman in the past, "among the jews" in recent times...

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Michael,

    Keep your eye on Mary Malcolm.

    The woman of real interest at the Elizabeth Stride inquest was Elizabeth Watts. You might remember she was being blackmailed [she showed her anonymous letter from Shepton Mallet to Coroner Wynne Baxter].

    Elizabeth Watts appears to have been a serial philanderer and trigamist. Life was catching up with her. In 1888, three of her four husbands, including the one supposedly ship-wrecked in the Indian Ocean, were very much alive.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Ok Simon, I re-read Marys testimony and its curious that the story she gives for her sister has many similar characteristics with what is known about Stride....that she once had a coffee house in Poplar, that she was known as "Long Liz", that she had been arrested for drunken behavior, that she had been living in the neighborhood of "tailoring jews", that she once had been in a relationship with a policeman, ...then Watts shows up Tuesday Oct 23 to say Malcolm gave "false" evidence.

    So...why would Malcom do that, and why would she use some of Liz Strides history in her story about Elizabeth Watts? Im all ears...or eyes, rather.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Polygyny.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    How about that? I learned a new word "trigamist." Had to look it up. I was only familiar with the guy who said "I have two wives and I think it is bigamy to admit it."

    I remember a funny story an attorney told. He was in the Army and his first assignment was to interview a young private from the backwoods of some southern state who had been charged with bigamy. Apparently he had several wives. The attorney asked him if he realized that you had to get divorced first before you can marry again. He said the guy looked at him like he was a complete idiot and said "do you have any idea what a divorce cost?"

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Michael,

    Keep your eye on Mary Malcolm.

    The woman of real interest at the Elizabeth Stride inquest was Elizabeth Watts. You might remember she was being blackmailed [she showed her anonymous letter from Shepton Mallet to Coroner Wynne Baxter].

    Elizabeth Watts appears to have been a serial philanderer and trigamist. Life was catching up with her. In 1888, three of her four husbands, including the one supposedly ship-wrecked in the Indian Ocean, were very much alive.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Very interesting Simon. Adds intrigue to this mystery. As I indicated with cd, people have to stop discounting something based on their own perceptions of what constitutes a "Conspiracy", and pay attention when something extraordinary occurs...like Mary M being given the main stage for a large part of this Inquest when the authorities knew beforehand that her statement was provably wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Michael,

    Keep your eye on Mary Malcolm.

    The woman of real interest at the Elizabeth Stride inquest was Elizabeth Watts. You might remember she was being blackmailed [she showed her anonymous letter from Shepton Mallet to Coroner Wynne Baxter].

    Elizabeth Watts appears to have been a serial philanderer and trigamist. Life was catching up with her. In 1888, three of her four husbands, including the one supposedly ship-wrecked in the Indian Ocean, were very much alive.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    Is this Inquest just a figurative erasure of graffiti? Did they believe the club bore some responsibility for the murder but couldn't prove it, and wanted to suppress any suggestion of Jewish immigrant involvement in the crime for the same reasons they erased the grafitti?

    Good Lord! Is there anybody who was not involved in this conspiracy?

    c.d.
    Don't know cd...and neither do you or anyone else until at least one of these murders gets solved. But for future sake a cover-up between 2 or more people requires conspiracy, so, because the word Conspiracy alone suggests something more widespread, perhaps we can refrain from suggesting "Armegeddon" when a "Battle" is a more appropriate. Or as in this case, a cover-up.... when a broad conspiracy between many parties at this stage isn't insinuated, suggested or warranted.

    And a "coverup" when speaking of the Berner Street murder, based on elements I pointed outwith witness accounts and with the intentional and unneeded appearance at the Inquest of a witness making a statement that everyone knew was wrong before she made it, may not be as far fetched as you make it out to be.
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-18-2020, 05:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    I wasnt!!!
    So you say.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X