Was Israel Schwartz a form of Patsy

[Abby Normal]

That's observant, and almost certainly due to the fact that what Issac said is directly contradictory to what Louis said in terms of timing. The club stewards statement cant be challenged by a club member on the stand, bad form.

Heschberg didn't appear either...he said he was alerted at 12:40, so did Gillen..he didn't appear either, and Spooner is told he is incorrect because his times don't match Louis's. News Flash….no-ones timings match Louis's.

so wait-now the club is in charge of who appears at the inquest? lol-powerful club

so why didn't they make sure their all important club saving witness schwartz was there?

[Michael W Richards]

so wait-now the club is in charge of who appears at the inquest? lol-powerful club

so why didn't they make sure their all important club saving witness schwartz was there?

On the first, Louis claimed to be first to discover the body, so he's the main man.

On the 2nd, since if believed Israel would have been the last one to see her alive, it seems pretty obvious it was the police that chose not to use him.

And his story was not used, so maybe stop peddling him as anything but a Mary Malcolm like distraction.

If you have clarity about why all the witnesses who said they knew of the body before 12:45 lied, or were all similarly wrong with the same times, then lets have it. You don't, so smug approval of Louis and Israel is akin to intentional ignorance. I used "intentional" again, so at this point Im definitely extending the benefit of the doubt.

[Abby Normal]

On the first, Louis claimed to be first to discover the body, so he's the main man.

On the 2nd, since if believed Israel would have been the last one to see her alive, it seems pretty obvious it was the police that chose not to use him.

And his story was not used, so maybe stop peddling him as anything but a Mary Malcolm like distraction.

If you have clarity about why all the witnesses who said they knew of the body before 12:45 lied, or were all similarly wrong with the same times, then lets have it. You don't, so smug approval of Louis and Israel is akin to intentional ignorance. I used "intentional" again, so at this point Im definitely extending the benefit of the doubt.

why thank you Michael, that's very kind of you. I appreciate it, as Im sure the admin will too.

[Michael W Richards]

why thank you Michael, that's very kind of you. I appreciate it, as Im sure the admin will too.

That kind of adolescent reaction isn't what I expected from a poster like you,.. but we make our own choices, don't we? Im sure admin noted the word "intentional" anyway.

[JeffHamm]

Since we're talking conspiracies/cover-ups, isn't the simplest version of that notion simply that the police did not bring Schwartz in as a witness because they did not want to spark anti-Jewish sentiment that might lead to riots? They erased the GSG for that reason, and that was far less inflamatory than having someone suggest that JtR's accomplice might have been a jew named Lipski (which is what Schwartz's original testimony was). Also, since the inquest was responsible for determining cause of death, holding Schwartz's information back would not interfere with that determination. We also know the police at the time thought it best practice to hold their cards very close to the chest.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

That kind of adolescent reaction isn't what I expected from a poster like you,.. but we make our own choices, don't we? Im sure admin noted the word "intentional" anyway.

HI Michael
don't worry I didn't report you. Ive never reportd anyone and never will. It was a joke/jibe at you and the way you like to couch your insults in just such a way to avoid having admin have to deal with it-which is why I said that they appreciate it also. lol

But thanks again for another weasily crafted insult re the adolescent remark. Ill take it as a compliment coming from you. I am rather young at heart though, I will admit.
BTW-do you have one iota of a sense of humor? one would think that it might go along with someone who has an over active imagination, but in your case I guess not.

Like I said I didn't report you. However congratulations are in order-in my many years of being on Casebook ive never put anyone on ignore, but with your constant clogging up of every thread with your convoluted conspiracy nonsense, total lack of sense of humor or humanity and constant barrage of weasily insults-youre the first!

Congrats! and good riddance

[c.d.]

Can we please settle this once and for all? No one. I repeat. No one. And one more time for good measure. No one knows why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest. Maybe he was at the palace banging Queen Victoria. Who knows? So speculate to your heart's content. Go on. Get it out of your system but for everybody's sanity please don't claim that you know for a fact because that just ain't so.

This applies to everybody.

c.d.

[c.d.]

But the dispute here isn't that a man in a peak-hat murdered Stride, it's that the altercation witnessed by Schwartz actually happened. Most of the evidence undermines an altercation minutes before the murder (lack of scream or struggle, cachous, Stride entering a yard with her attacker).

Hello Harry,

I am always surprised when you say this because I consider you one of the more level headed thinkers on these boards. Why is Schwartz's testimony inconsistent with Stride being murdered when Schwartz never says that is what he saw? He only saw a woman being pushed. He never said anything about cachous or her entering the yard or any kind of struggle.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Can we please settle this once and for all? No one. I repeat. No one. And one more time for good measure. No one knows why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest. Maybe he was at the palace banging Queen Victoria. Who knows? So speculate to your heart's content. Go on. Get it out of your system but for everybody's sanity please don't claim that you know for a fact because that just ain't so.

This applies to everybody.

c.d.

thank you!!!!!

[JeffHamm]

Can we please settle this once and for all? No one. I repeat. No one. And one more time for good measure. No one knows why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest. Maybe he was at the palace banging Queen Victoria. Who knows? So speculate to your heart's content. Go on. Get it out of your system but for everybody's sanity please don't claim that you know for a fact because that just ain't so.

This applies to everybody.

c.d.

Absolutely agree c.d. There is nothing recorded that provides any indication of why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest. There's nothing in the documentation we have that indicates whether or not police lost confidence in him, decided to not present his testimony to the public, or if he just didn't show up. I'm sure there are more categories of reasons one could come up with, but my point (and I believe yours) is that the readers of all presentations, and better yet presenters themselves, must remember anything with regards to this is just a hypothesis, it's not a fact, and while the idea can be evaluated for its logical soundness, being logically sound doesn't make it true because part of it's truth involves the connection to observable data - as in "the police decided his testimony should not be made public as it does not determine cause of death and would be inflammatory" + "police decisions are recorded" -> there will be some record of this decision. Well, we don't have what should follow (but we do with regards to the GSG of course). The problem is there is always the issue of "some records have been lost", which gets invoked to counter the lack of evidence we have.

Unfortunately, that last bit can be applied no matter what hypothesis is set up for examination because there simply is nothing recorded that tells us why Schwartz wasn't there. Certainly less credible witnesses were allowed to testify (i.e. the misidentification of Stride took up valuable time at the inquest), so reduced faith in his testimony doesn't seem a likely reason for him not to be there (and again, if they did, that should be in the records, particularly in letters to the Home Office, who appeared to take Schwartz's testimony quite seriously and were pushing the police to report on their efforts to locate people with the name Lipski, prompting Abberline to record the fact that Lipski was used as an insult, and also prompting him to carefully determine how confident Schwartz was the name was directed at "pipeman", revealing he wasn't, in the end, sure, which finally led Abberline to conclude it was probably directed at Schwartz.)

Apparently, in another thread, there is the suggestion that pipeman may even have been identified by the police, but alas, we've not got his name, nor what information he might have provided. Maybe he saw BS leave teh area with Stride alive? Maybe he didn't? I don't know, but I can speculate until the cows come home because there's no data to constrain me. Something to note, the more far fetched the theory, the stronger the arguments become to set evidence aside, a relationship that is hardly surprising.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<


Good thinking! Something I hadn't thought of.

Although, after mulling it over for a while, Wess specifically says the chaser was not a club member.

[drstrange169]

>>Issac K however said... within an hour of the murder... that Louis sent him out alone at around 12:40-45. <<


Dear Micheal,

Whenever you read a report in the newspaper from a witness saying they went alone to fetch a policeman, always believe it.

Yours truly,

Robert Paul

[drstrange169]

>> Issac K however said... within an hour of the murder... that Louis sent him out alone ... <<

Could you quote the exact sentence where you think Kozebrodski said he was "alone"?

You also seem to never quote this part of the report,
" Kozebrodsky was born in Warsaw, and can only speak English very imperfectly."

(My emphasis)

[drstrange169]

>>If Wess,s story is a piece of gossip then surely it cannot be relied upon ...<<

That's my view.


>>And remember the Star was the only paper to interview Schwartz, a massive scoop for them, yet they still doubted [for whatever reason], his version of events.<<

Correct, I have my view as to why and I'm sure others have different theories, but it's all just speculation.

[drstrange169]

>> Heschberg didn't appear either...he said he was alerted at 12:40 ...<<

And what was it Heschberg said "alerted him at 12:40?

Answer:
"It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter."

P.C.'s 426H, Lamb plus Blackwell and Johnston perjured themselves to be part of some club conspiracy?



>> and Spooner is told he is incorrect because his times don't match Louis's. <<

Spooner gave two times, one that fits and one that doesn't, that's why he is told he's incorrect. Occams razor.