Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Israel Schwartz a form of Patsy

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post

    Hello A.B.E.,

    It doesn't necessarily follow that because Schwartz wasn't at the inquest that the police doubted his story. It may be in fact the case but we can't say for sure.

    My guess is that since the B.S. man was not on trial that the jury's conclusion that she was killed by a person or persons unknown would have resulted Schwartz or no Schwartz. It is not like they were going to rule it a suicide or accident. And if Abberline had trouble getting the story out of him because of the language issue, the police might have decided he would only confuse the jurors. Lastly, they might have concluded that he only saw a street hassle not a murder.

    c.d.
    With blinders off the ONLY valid reasons Israels story doesn't appear in ANY form at the Inquest is because it wasn't deemed important, or it was discovered to be false. The story details, if believed, make that a virtual impossibility. It would have been relevant, if not even a, or the, critical piece of the puzzle. But its not there, in any form.

    Therefore using Israel Schwartz's events to re-construct the events of that night is a huge waste of time.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

      Just a quick point, there was the case in the West Midlands of the young girl who was raped, ran to a taxi for help and was raped again. Don't have the exact article to hand, but shows even today **** people are everywhere. Not to take from your original point, the odds of being attacked then murdered are slim.
      Except that in the case of Stride this "brutal attack" simply consisted of her being pushed. Is that really such a rare occurrence for a woman out late at night by herself when drunken men are coming home from the pubs?

      c.d.

      Comment


      • #93
        Hello A.B.E.,

        Again, we simply don't know why he didn't testify. It could have been a very mundane reason like illness or perhaps he simply didn't show up possibly for fear of the B.S. man retaliating against him.

        c.d.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          With blinders off the ONLY valid reasons Israels story doesn't appear in ANY form at the Inquest is because it wasn't deemed important, or it was discovered to be false. The story details, if believed, make that a virtual impossibility. It would have been relevant, if not even a, or the, critical piece of the puzzle. But its not there, in any form.

          Therefore using Israel Schwartz's events to re-construct the events of that night is a huge waste of time.
          I'm inclined to agree on that point. More than most Schwartz seems to be totally disregarded by the authorities. Is it conspiracy or such that his statement doesn't fit at all with anyone else? But it's always pointed out he was a recent immigrant, yet we expect him to have a perfect knowledge of the geography. He ran past his own house? Was he even on Berner Street?
          Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

          Comment


          • #95
            "The ONLY valid reasons"... Sorry, but that is the very definition of an Argument from Ignorance which is a logical fallacy.

            c.d.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by c.d. View Post
              "The ONLY valid reasons"... Sorry, but that is the very definition of an Argument from Ignorance which is a logical fallacy.

              c.d.
              Huh? My post wasn't self explanatory enough? You don't understand how when information is not present in an official review of the facts that it cannot be considered valid information? You prefer to believe in something that doesn't exist and has no validity? Ok...excuse me, I have to take a call from Santa.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                Huh? My post wasn't self explanatory enough? You don't understand how when information is not present in an official review of the facts that it cannot be considered valid information? You prefer to believe in something that doesn't exist and has no validity? Ok...excuse me, I have to take a call from Santa.
                Perhaps you can ask Santa to explain the concept of an Argument from Ignorance.

                c.d.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                  Perhaps you can ask Santa to explain the concept of an Argument from Ignorance.

                  c.d.
                  Why would I ask that jolly old fellow about some erroneous application of language cd. Don't bother trying to be highbrow with me.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    >> Lets remember that Israel said nothing directly to anyone official, he said what he said to an interpreter..who was likely Woolf, an acquaintance,..<<

                    Wess makes it clear in his Echo interview that he didn't go to the police with Schwartz. If he did then the police would be asking why he so blatantly lied to the Echo.

                    But, all this is irrelevant, the purpose of the alleged conspiracy was to spread a story. Wess had the chance to promote Scwartz's "fake" story and not only chose not to, instead actually opened up the speculation that the killer could have been a club man. One hell of a bad conspiracy tacit!

                    We can't rule out the notion that a club man killed Mrs Stride, but we can say that a wider conspiracy by the club did not happen, because it failed so spectacularly.

                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • >> Am I the only one who thinks the term 'theatrical' was a euphemism for homosexual?<<

                      That's exactly what I used to think, but hunting around I couldn't find it being used as a contemporary euphemism. A more likely euphemism would have been a reference to the Aesthetic Movement rather than the theatre.

                      Plus it was a far less enlightened time. Homosexuality was illegal and if a newspaper could connect a homosexual ring to the ripper than that would have been great copy for The Star. Let's face it Duittists still think it's a great connection!

                      I don't think we can rule it out, but I consider it less likelier than I used to.
                      dustymiller
                      aka drstrange

                      Comment


                      • >> I know they have no more info than Schwartz but that does not mean they didn't have more info on Schwartz than us today.<<

                        Anderson didn't even know that Schwartz was not at the inquest.



                        >>I have trouble with the report in the Echo, to me it seems the quickest way home for Schwartz is straight down Berner St and into Ellen and home.<<

                        Wess's story is a vague recollection of a piece of gossip he heard, I don't think we need to delve into the logistics of it too much.


                        >>Maybe he had a p/t job here and wore some of that attire at the time he was interviewed , it was said he had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.<<

                        A few of us have looked into the theatre records, so far nobody has come up with Schwartz, however there have been a couple of good candidates who were, not surprisingly, tailors.



                        >>Yes, Oct 1 report could mean the prisoner but it could also mean Schwartz ... <<

                        No it clearly references the "prisoner".



                        >> but Oct 2 report definitely puts a dampener on things<<

                        Yes it does and that is definitely a mystery.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment





                        • Hungarian orthodox Jews who were well dressed and giving the appearance of being in the theatrical line.
                          Attached Files
                          dustymiller
                          aka drstrange

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                            Wess's story is a vague recollection of a piece of gossip he heard, I don't think we need to delve into the logistics of it too much.
                            I think it may stem from a report of what was actually Isaacs and Louis running along the street searching for a policeman, but being mistaken for one chasing the other.
                            ​​​​​

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              well apparently Abberline read into the suspect wearing a peaked cap quite well. especially since all the relevant witnesses describe a man wearing a peaked cap!
                              Hey Abbs,

                              If they saw a man with a peaked hat, they had to make note of that, whether they were commonplace or not.

                              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              yup-or simpler yet-just move her body out of the yard and be done with it. anything other than come up with some convoluted conspiracy story.
                              or simply tell the truth and assist the police-which they undoubtedly did.
                              Far too risky to move the body.

                              Anyway, it's quite telling that Schwartz never attended the inquest, and lost precedence to another Jewish witness (Lawende) who didn't even witness an assault, and admitted he probably wouldn't recognise the man again. Something's not stacking up.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                                I think it may stem from a report of what was actually Isaacs and Louis running along the street searching for a policeman, but being mistaken for one chasing the other.
                                ​​​​​
                                Im glad you said Issacs above Josh, because that's who Louis said went with him...while Issac K however said... within an hour of the murder... that Louis sent him out alone at around 12:40-45. He meets up with Eagle on his way back around 1. Funny... Eagle was there at 12:40, so was Lave by their statements, and Israel was outside the gates about to witness an assault in the street with who he believes is the soon to be murder victim, with a man smoking a pipe watching, ..around 12:45, and theres Brown seeing the young couple so many think is Liz and someone...at 12:45, then theres Heschberg and Gillen, and Mr Spooner gets into the picture, all around 12:40-12:45...and of course the young couple on the street and Fanny Mortimer, neither of which saw or heard anything on the street at 12:45, but Fanny sees Leon Goldstein look into the passageway at 12:55 and walk past briskly.

                                The street was empty at 12:45. The passageway however was not.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X