Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Ok,

    Bottom of post 2961 you say "I understand about ideas conflicting, but if George or anyone else wants to know what my position or best guess is on x, y, or z, they only need ask me. ..."

    and in post 2955 you say "If Pipeman came toward Schwartz from the pub, just after Schwartz passes the gateway, then Schwartz would have 'exited the scene' by doing a U-turn..." place Schwartz in the vicinity of the gateway (just passed is similar to opposite, but technically you could argue not the same, but the differences are minimal in a practical, if not literal, sense).


    - Jeff
    #2955 is responding to a scenario that you suggested, which is quoted in the post. It is not my scenario, so it cannot be claimed that I suppose that that is what occurred. It's simple Jeff - you provided an 'if', and in response I suggested a 'then'.

    This actually points to a larger issue. Any discussion of a Schwartz incident scenario, almost has to pre-suppose that the incident was true. Not necessarily all the details we have, but the gist of it. So those who do not believe Schwartz, but choose to get involved with the discussion of scenarios, are inadvertently solidifying Schwartz's general reputation as a witness. So Schwartz wins, by default.
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      Schwartz made it clear that the two men were known to each other, when he spoke to the Star. That it is indeed unlikely that a man walking out of a pub would just happen to know and provide support to some drunk who had come down from the other end of the street, is not a reason to suggest alternative interpretations, rather it is a reason to be suspicious of the storyteller.
      Unless, unless ... it is supposed that the two men were known to each other, because they were both associated with the vigilance committee.

      The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand ...

      What was that shiny thing, really?
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post



        ''Schwartz made it clear that the two men were known to each other, when he spoke to the Star''. That it is indeed unlikely that a man walking out of a pub would just happen to know and provide support to some drunk who had come down from the other end of the street, is not a reason to suggest alternative interpretations, rather it is a reason to be suspicious of the storyteller.



        Schwartz's statement does not survive but the details are given by Chief Inspector Swanson in a report dated 19 October 1888, and are worth repeating here. 1

        12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. [Here there is a marginal note. 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'.]'' Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other''. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.




        So which is it ?
        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          #2955 is responding to a scenario that you suggested, which is quoted in the post. It is not my scenario, so it cannot be claimed that I suppose that that is what occurred. It's simple Jeff - you provided an 'if', and in response I suggested a 'then'.
          I guess George will have to take that as your answer then.

          This actually points to a larger issue. Any discussion of a Schwartz incident scenario, almost has to pre-suppose that the incident was true. Not necessarily all the details we have, but the gist of it. So those who do not believe Schwartz, but choose to get involved with the discussion of scenarios, are inadvertently solidifying Schwartz's general reputation as a witness. So Schwartz wins, by default.
          Schwartz isn't in a competition, the concept of "winning" doesn't apply. Abberline, who interviewed Schwartz came to the conclusion that the events described happened, and that Schwartz made some errors about who Lipski was shouted at. Given that erroneous belief, then Pipeman chasing Schwartz doesn't make sense, but Schwartz believing he was chased does. Basically, the account is coherant and sounds like the type of errors people make, so there's nothing to suggest it is wrong. You've offered a couple of alternatives, that the event happened after Stride was found dead, and that the woman Schwartz saw was a man. None of those have any basis in evidence, nor have you presented a convincing argument to back those up. In addition, as both George and I have said a few times, it is hard to make sense out of the many varied posts you've made, and so we've both requested you to present in one post a description of how you think the night unfolded. But you've explicitly refused to do that, so we are still in the dark as to what it is you think happened. From the scattershot presentation, I can see no coherent story, which I think reflects your reliance on the news, which is known to be unreliable, and therefore will be more noise than signal. So if you want to see it in terms of winning and losing, then a plausible and coherent story (and yes, suggesting Schwartz got some things wrong can still mean the story is coherant) beats an implausible, chaotic, and quite possibly self contradictory one. it's hard to tell, though, because you won't actually tell us what your story is.

          - Jeff
          Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-07-2022, 11:22 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            To be quite honest, I find it hard to make out what you believe. At times you seem to believe Schwartz, at times you have even said he didn't exist (this was a post from some weeks ago).
            Are these positions mutually exclusive?

            And as I've said, I believe the Star has a story loosely based upon Schwartz's account, but it has somehow become mangled in the details. George believes Schwartz may have changed his story when talking to the press due, I think, to Schwartz being a bit embarrassed after talking with Abberline and realising that maybe Pipeman wasn't chasing him at all and his running would make him look a coward. I suspect the reporter just asked some leading questions to get Schwartz to at least say "it could have been a knife", so that he could write a more sensational story. You put more faith in The Star, as such, we have no common ground because you are drawing your inferences from what I believe to be an unreliable source, and you view me as doing the same.
            That is not your best interpretation of what I'm suggesting in #2981, but whatever.

            Schwartz: The man had a clay pipe in his hand.
            Star man: Could it have been a knife?
            Schwartz: Yeah, I guess so.

            Is Schwartz to be believed because he is so believable, or because you guys help him out so much?

            He would not necessarily hear the footfalls of a pursuer, that would depend upon how close the pursuer was, the volume of his own footsteps (which will be louder than that of someone behind him), and also whether or not his attention is directed to sounds behind him or just on the escape route in front of him.
            If Schwartz neither heard nor saw the man running, then his 'pursuit' virtually amounts to an hallucination. To be fair though, Fanny Mortimer's witnessing of black bag man walking north on Berner street, was also an hallucination.

            We don't know that Pipeman ran anywhere if Schwartz was mistaken as Abberline suggests. Rather, Pipeman could have:
            A) walked away
            B) walked into the street to better see what was happening at the club, and then went back to his original position
            C) walked up to the club and confronted B.S.
            D) something else
            If any of these are true, then why didn't Pipeman come forward, or at least become identified? Either scenario suggests there is no need to continue looking for Mr Lipski. On the other hand (he did come forward or was identified), then there is an apparent conflict between Schwartz's story - who claimed that the man ran, and the man's story, who (given A, B, C, or D), says he only walked. Isn't that right ...?

            This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

            In that case, why did Leman street apparently come down on the side of the prisoner? Was it because ...?

            E) He was in Dutfield's Yard when the gates were closed, so ended up on Reid's list of 28, and as consequence had a cast iron alibi, and as a consequence of that ...

            ... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              ''Schwartz made it clear that the two men were known to each other, when he spoke to the Star''. That it is indeed unlikely that a man walking out of a pub would just happen to know and provide support to some drunk who had come down from the other end of the street, is not a reason to suggest alternative interpretations, rather it is a reason to be suspicious of the storyteller.



              Schwartz's statement does not survive but the details are given by Chief Inspector Swanson in a report dated 19 October 1888, and are worth repeating here. 1

              12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. [Here there is a marginal note. 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'.]'' Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other''. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

              So which is it ?
              Well given that the stories come from Israel Schwartz and not myself, you may want to ask him about the apparent conflict. Failing that, anyone here who believes Schwartz's story. I will admit to poor wording though. What I meant was, Schwartz made it clear that the two men in his story, were known to each other, when he spoke to the Star. I didn't meant that his interpretation was or is incontestable, although I can see how it would come across that way.

              What we have then, is Schwartz being unsure on the situation with the two men, one day, and so clear the next that he sails dangerously close to the partial understanding of English wind ...

              ... A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

              How did he know it was a warning for the man?

              It is the second man, and the second man only, who is 'sexed-up' in the Star account. Meanwhile, we have that fascinating situation with the prisoner going on, at Leman street. I would suggest that this was not just a coincidence. Instead it gives tantalising clues as to what really happened.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

                In that case, why did Leman street apparently come down on the side of the prisoner? Was it because ...?

                E) He was in Dutfield's Yard when the gates were closed, so ended up on Reid's list of 28, and as consequence had a cast iron alibi, and as a consequence of that ...

                ... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.
                I would just point out again that there is no indication of whether the prisoners, or the men arrested, were tall, or broad shouldered, or a selection from each category.

                Cheers, George
                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  Are these positions mutually exclusive?
                  Pretty much by definition, yes they are.

                  That is not your best interpretation of what I'm suggesting in #2981, but whatever.

                  Schwartz: The man had a clay pipe in his hand.
                  Star man: Could it have been a knife?
                  Schwartz: Yeah, I guess so.

                  Is Schwartz to be believed because he is so believable, or because you guys help him out so much?
                  We are evaluating Abberline's belief in Schwartz, as that is the evidence we have. It is Abberline's belief that Schwartz was mistaken about the relationship between Pipeman and B.S. Abberline interviewed Schwartz, so he was in a far better position to evaluate Schwartz and his account than any of us. Moreover, as an investigating police officer, his objective is to get at the truth and not to sell papers, so he is not concerned about how sensational a story he can get out of Schwartz. All we can do is look at the situation and see if there are any problems, if not, given we have no way to interview Schwartz ourselves and ask our own questions (which Abberline could do, and did, but we don't have a transcript of that interview, just his summary where he states the conclusions he's drawn, not all the questions and statements made that led him to that conclusion). From that, we attempt to piece together the events and see if a plausible scenerio can be constructed. And it can, quite easily, and therefore we have no evidence to indicate that Abberline's conclusion was incorrect.

                  Again, you can point to The Star, but as I say, the information in The Star is not reliable. The press at the time, and still today, is motivated by the desire to sell papers, and stories are written towards that goal. We know the press even fabricated some stories (there's a complete fictional attack reported somewhere, for example. I forget the exact details though, but some reporter made up a story about an attack on a woman and it appears in the press). As such, your attack on Abberline's conclusions are based upon very questionable and unreliable sources of information. I do not see such arguments as bearing weight, hence, you've not convinced me that I should place your opinion over that of Abberline's.

                  So, if anything, I suppose I'm defending Abberline not Schwartz, but the better description is that Abberline's argument is more convincing that those being offered as alternatives.

                  If Schwartz neither heard nor saw the man running, then his 'pursuit' virtually amounts to an hallucination. To be fair though, Fanny Mortimer's witnessing of black bag man walking north on Berner street, was also an hallucination.
                  No, hallucination is not the correct word. His pursuit is a mistaken belief. It is probable he saw Pipeman moving towards him, and he misinterpreted this as Pipeman starting to pursue him. That's not hallucination that is misinterpretation.

                  Fanny Mortimer didn't see Goldstein heading north on Berner Street, that's your misinterpretation of slightly different wordings found in the press. I've seen your posts on that and your arguments she saw him twice have not convinced me that is true. You can restate that you think it is true, but I fear we'll just turn into a parody of a Monty Python sketch if I reply.

                  If any of these are true, then why didn't Pipeman come forward, or at least become identified? Either scenario suggests there is no need to continue looking for Mr Lipski. On the other hand (he did come forward or was identified), then there is an apparent conflict between Schwartz's story - who claimed that the man ran, and the man's story, who (given A, B, C, or D), says he only walked. Isn't that right ...?
                  You'll have to ask Pipeman his reasons, there's no way for me to know his thoughts. What I do know is that a lot of people who witness events do not come forward.
                  This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

                  In that case, why did Leman street apparently come down on the side of the prisoner? Was it because ...?

                  E) He was in Dutfield's Yard when the gates were closed, so ended up on Reid's list of 28, and as consequence had a cast iron alibi, and as a consequence of that
                  I don't know, we do not have a record of their reasoning, only their final decision, and a pretty cryptic one at that. We also do not know for sure that the prisoner being referred to here is indeed Pipeman. It could be Goldstein, who wasn't actually arrested but was spoken to by the police. The press, again, often gets details wrong because they have to write a story and often do not have all the facts. So if the description came from FM and not Schwartz, we know that Goldstein was spoken to by the police, in which case the press could have presumed he had been arrested and presented it as such. Now, there may be information within the dates of this story and the Goldstein coming forth story that preclude the above, but even if so it still doesn't mean the prisoner has to be Pipeman. If the press's is incorrect by implying Schwartz was the source of the description, always a possibility to consider, that could mean the description that resulted in an arrest and later release could come from any number of people who gave descriptions that night.

                  ...

                  ... the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.
                  - Jeff
                  Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-07-2022, 06:43 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                    I would just point out again that there is no indication of whether the prisoners, or the men arrested, were tall, or broad shouldered, or a selection from each category.

                    Cheers, George
                    No indication?

                    The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

                    Do you suppose this man, who had evidently been released by the next day, could have been BS? If not, then presumably he looked something like this:

                    Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

                    Consider the situation. Leman street has arrested one man, with apparently nothing more to go on than this description, and yet the man's statement is not wholly accepted. It was about a quarter to one in the morning - was he there or not? If he was, then in what regard was his statement only partly believed? Which part did they not believe one day, and did believe the next, and based on what new information?

                    The apparent ease in locating this man, tells me that Leman street had a bit more to go on than just a description. It's as though they had another source of information. Next day ...

                    They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

                    According to Schwartz, other than himself and BS, the only other man on the street was Pipeman. So once again, if Pipeman was the other source, why the continued search for Mr Lipski? That question is obvious enough, but there is another; if Schwartz was believed about who had been on the street at the time, then why was this other source apparently taken seriously? Was it because the other source was the vigilance committee?
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      Well given that the stories come from Israel Schwartz and not myself, you may want to ask him about the apparent conflict. Failing that, anyone here who believes Schwartz's story. I will admit to poor wording though. What I meant was, Schwartz made it clear that the two men in his story, were known to each other, when he spoke to the Star. I didn't meant that his interpretation was or is incontestable, although I can see how it would come across that way.

                      What we have then, is Schwartz being unsure on the situation with the two men, one day, and so clear the next that he sails dangerously close to the partial understanding of English wind ...

                      ... A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

                      How did he know it was a warning for the man?

                      It is the second man, and the second man only, who is 'sexed-up' in the Star account. Meanwhile, we have that fascinating situation with the prisoner going on, at Leman street. I would suggest that this was not just a coincidence. Instead it gives tantalising clues as to what really happened.
                      Whos more likely to get schwartzs story right, a cheif inspector or a newspaper reporter? , or what possible reason would schwartz have for telling two different verions of that sentence ?

                      I think you need to forget about what you read in the newspapers back then ,as jeff has stated many times just to unrelieable a sourse
                      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        You've not read my other post yet I take it, where I admit I had forgotten or overlooked that part of Abberline's statement. But in a way, that actually makes Schwartz's account easier to understand. If after passing by B.S. and Stride Schwartz did at some point stop and look back at what was going on, that could very well be what prompted B.S. to shout Lipski at him. That, to me, makes more sense than B.S. calling out if Schwartz is past him and walking away. And furthermore, it means that Schwartz may indeed have walked far enough that he is now getting close to where Pipeman is standing on the opposite side of the street (which would be the same side as the club, because Schwartz has crossed over to the side across from the club). Basically, that ends up making Schartz's overall account much easier to understand, particularly if it was the shout of Lipski that Pipeman took notice of, and then moved out into the street to get a better look at what was going on "up there" (or is it down there?) and Schwartz took that movement to be Pipeman coming for him.
                        You place so much faith in Abberline's judgement, but only when it suits. Swanson's report tells us that Schwartz was right at the gateway when he saw the man stop and speak to the woman ...

                        ... having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

                        He stopped and watched while ...

                        The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

                        Then he crosses the road. We know he claimed to stop and watch, because Abberline tells us exactly that ...

                        I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

                        Claiming that Schwartz first crosses the road and only then looked back, is changing the story. This begs the question; if Schwartz is to be believed, then why does the story need to be changed? The answer of course, is that without modifications it just doesn't sound realistic. Who's problem is that?

                        Actually, this is not even a question of Abberline's judgement. It's just a matter of Abberline's ability to take a statement. In other words, Abberline says that Schwartz stopped to look at the man ill-using the woman, because that is what Schwartz told him he did.


                        Having agreed in some sense that Schwartz did claim to look at the man and what he was doing, this leads on to another issue. This is Schwartz's description of the first man, given to the police:

                        age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

                        The 'full face' tells us that Schwartz did get a frontal view of this man. That seems a little strange, given what Abberline said in 1903:

                        "There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious, and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him. All agree, too, that he was a foreign- looking man,--but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel. One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view."

                        The peaked cap tallies, but there were many of those in Whitechapel. The age does not quite match, and there is no indication from Schwartz that the man was a foreigner. These could be ignored as being due to the vagaries of eyewitness descriptions. That leaves one big issue - Schwartz clearly did not only see the man's back. So by this stage, did Abberline not include Schwartz with "the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another"? Why wouldn't he? Was it because at some point, Abberline had come to the conclusion that Israel Schwartz was a fraud?
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          You place so much faith in Abberline's judgement, but only when it suits. Swanson's report tells us that Schwartz was right at the gateway when he saw the man stop and speak to the woman ...

                          ... having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

                          He stopped and watched while ...

                          The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

                          Then he crosses the road. We know he claimed to stop and watch, because Abberline tells us exactly that ...

                          I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

                          Claiming that Schwartz first crosses the road and only then looked back, is changing the story. This begs the question; if Schwartz is to be believed, then why does the story need to be changed? The answer of course, is that without modifications it just doesn't sound realistic. Who's problem is that?

                          Actually, this is not even a question of Abberline's judgement. It's just a matter of Abberline's ability to take a statement. In other words, Abberline says that Schwartz stopped to look at the man ill-using the woman, because that is what Schwartz told him he did.

                          Hi Andrew,

                          According to your theory, Stride is on the ground before Schwartz crosses the road, so the kerb he refers to in the Star interview is the kerb on the western side of Berner St, north of the gateway. Pipeman/Knifeman then appears to the south at the intersection of Berner and Fairclough and Schwartz takes fright and runs towards him???? If Schwartz is near the gateway and Pipeman is near the Nelson, how could there be any doubt as to whom "Lipski" was directed?

                          Second point: Schwartz gave the police the description of two men. There were arrests made on those descriptions but the arrested prisoners were released so they were not considered to be the men Schwartz saw. There is nowhere indicated which descriptions was being used to briefly detain said persons of interest.

                          Third point: you now have Kozebrodski acting as a lookout while Diemshitz is in the yard with the body. You said you could name Pipeman if "that would get me off your back". Please do so....but let me guess...Samuel Friedman?

                          Cheers, George
                          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                          “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            You place so much faith in Abberline's judgement, but only when it suits. Swanson's report tells us that Schwartz was right at the gateway when he saw the man stop and speak to the woman ...

                            ... having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.
                            The person who is stopping here is B.S., not Schwartz.

                            He stopped and watched while ...
                            You are implying this happened when B.S. stopped, but that is not what it says, it is what you are imposing on the statement without justification. All we have Abberline's comment that Lipski was shouted when Schwartz stopped, we do not have a statement as to when Schwartz stopped and looked relative to when B.S. stopped and spoke to Stride. That is something we have to try and piece together in the sequence - and we know you don't do sequences.

                            The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

                            Then he crosses the road. We know he claimed to stop and watch, because Abberline tells us exactly that ...

                            I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.

                            Claiming that Schwartz first crosses the road and only then looked back, is changing the story. This begs the question; if Schwartz is to be believed, then why does the story need to be changed? The answer of course, is that without modifications it just doesn't sound realistic. Who's problem is that?
                            No, it is putting the story together from the bits we have. Changing the story is turning Stride into a man, and inserting non-existent knifeman, or claiming Schwartz doesn't exist, making it a curiosity how you explain the fact that Abberline says he interviewed him.

                            Actually, this is not even a question of Abberline's judgement. It's just a matter of Abberline's ability to take a statement. In other words, Abberline says that Schwartz stopped to look at the man ill-using the woman, because that is what Schwartz told him he did.
                            Yes, and as I've said a couple times now, Abberline does indicate that Schwartz stopped. What we don't have, however, is Schwartz's actual statement. From Abberline's account, we get Schwartz starting off behind B.S., whom he sees stop and talk to Stride. Schwartz also says he saw B.S. manhandle Stride, and she fell after that point, but it does not say how much time has passed, you are assuming it is immediate, but that is not stated. The man yells out Lipski, and at that point Schwartz sees Pipeman coming towards him. Later, Abberline also mentions that Schwartz had stopped to look, but he doesn't detail when that happened. You've chosen to place that stopping right at the gate, but to me that doesn't make sense. It makes more sense if he stopped a bit further down, when he hears Stride yell out the first of her 3 yells, and B.S. reacts to Schwartz's stopping, and Pipeman reacts to B.S. shouts, which Schwartz then thinks Pipeman is coming for him.

                            That to me starts to paint a picutre that is consistent with what has been said, makes sense of Schwartz's misinterpretation of Pipeman's connection to B.S., and also of B.S. yelling at him in the first place.

                            You are looking for ways to make Schwartz's statement look false, but the only way to do that is to show that it cannot be true. There are always ways to tell a story that doesn't fit someone's statement - like change Stride into a man and clearly Schwartz has lied because it wasn't a woman. The difference is the idea it was a man is unfounded.

                            Anyway, you can approach things this way if you want, but it does not appeal to me. To each their own.


                            Having agreed in some sense that Schwartz did claim to look at the man and what he was doing, this leads on to another issue. This is Schwartz's description of the first man, given to the police:

                            age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

                            The 'full face' tells us that Schwartz did get a frontal view of this man. That seems a little strange, given what Abberline said in 1903:
                            Abberline is referencing Long and/or Lawende below, not Schwartz. The two L's both say they saw their man from the back (unless I'm misremembering Lawende; maybe he said he saw Eddowes from the back? If so, just omit Lawende when I mention him). Moreover, statements made 15 years later are hardly considered reliable. But again, you may set aside the police accounts made at the time to favour the press and memoirs if that is more suited to your approach.

                            "There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious, and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him. All agree, too, that he was a foreign- looking man,--but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel. One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view."

                            The peaked cap tallies, but there were many of those in Whitechapel. The age does not quite match, and there is no indication from Schwartz that the man was a foreigner. These could be ignored as being due to the vagaries of eyewitness descriptions. That leaves one big issue - Schwartz clearly did not only see the man's back. So by this stage, did Abberline not include Schwartz with "the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another"? Why wouldn't he? Was it because at some point, Abberline had come to the conclusion that Israel Schwartz was a fraud?
                            Just because Long saw her man's back, and Lawende saw his man's back, doesn't mean when Schwartz stopped and looked back towards the gate, or as he passed B.S. when B.S. stopped to talk to Stride, that he didn't see his face. That's an invalid and unfounded inference.

                            Anyway, I really don't think we're going to get anywhere on this, and as you won't present everything in one, it's just becoming a repetition of you saying you don't agree with something, but at the same time you refuse to spell out a clear picture of what you think happened as an alternative. As such, it's time to just agree that we disagree.

                            - Jeff
                            Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-08-2022, 02:38 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              We are evaluating Abberline's belief in Schwartz, as that is the evidence we have. It is Abberline's belief that Schwartz was mistaken about the relationship between Pipeman and B.S. Abberline interviewed Schwartz, so he was in a far better position to evaluate Schwartz and his account than any of us. Moreover, as an investigating police officer, his objective is to get at the truth and not to sell papers, so he is not concerned about how sensational a story he can get out of Schwartz. All we can do is look at the situation and see if there are any problems, if not, given we have no way to interview Schwartz ourselves and ask our own questions (which Abberline could do, and did, but we don't have a transcript of that interview, just his summary where he states the conclusions he's drawn, not all the questions and statements made that led him to that conclusion). From that, we attempt to piece together the events and see if a plausible scenerio can be constructed. And it can, quite easily, and therefore we have no evidence to indicate that Abberline's conclusion was incorrect.
                              Apparently we do have evidence that Abberline's conclusion was incorrect, as he was under the impression that Pipeman ran, following Schwartz. Generations of Ripperologists have supposed likewise. All of them incorrect, it would seem.

                              Again, you can point to The Star, but as I say, the information in The Star is not reliable. The press at the time, and still today, is motivated by the desire to sell papers, and stories are written towards that goal. We know the press even fabricated some stories (there's a complete fictional attack reported somewhere, for example. I forget the exact details though, but some reporter made up a story about an attack on a woman and it appears in the press). As such, your attack on Abberline's conclusions are based upon very questionable and unreliable sources of information. I do not see such arguments as bearing weight, hence, you've not convinced me that I should place your opinion over that of Abberline's.
                              You're misrepresenting my position, by claiming that I am pointing to the Star. I don't believe Schwartz's story, so I don't regard either account as having anything more than a vague resemblance to the truth. However, what I am saying is that the specific change we see in the second man, across the accounts, is reflective of the changing situation at Leman street. I'm hoping that argument isn't too subtle for others to understand.

                              Regarding Abberline's conclusion regarding the Lipski thing, well it was I who pointed out that without any prompting from BS man, Pipeman had no reason to run, and as a consequence you came to the conclusion that he didn't. Yet Abberline did not also come to that conclusion himself. So I guess we could say that, unlike myself, you are not attacking Abberline's conclusions, you just don't agree with some of them.

                              So, if anything, I suppose I'm defending Abberline not Schwartz, but the better description is that Abberline's argument is more convincing that those being offered as alternatives.
                              Except for Schwartz stopping to watch at the gateway, and Pipeman running. In those cases, your arguments are to be preferred.

                              No, hallucination is not the correct word. His pursuit is a mistaken belief. It is probable he saw Pipeman moving towards him, and he misinterpreted this as Pipeman starting to pursue him. That's not hallucination that is misinterpretation.
                              His pursuit is a mistaken belief? That is conjecture masquerading as fact.

                              Fanny Mortimer didn't see Goldstein heading north on Berner Street, that's your misinterpretation of slightly different wordings found in the press. I've seen your posts on that and your arguments she saw him twice have not convinced me that is true. You can restate that you think it is true, but I fear we'll just turn into a parody of a Monty Python sketch if I reply.
                              I won't restate it, but simply ask; what were those slightly different wordings found in the press?

                              You'll have to ask Pipeman his reasons, there's no way for me to know his thoughts. What I do know is that a lot of people who witness events do not come forward.
                              No, I'm asking you; if Pipeman simply walked away, he is an entirely innocent man, so why wasn't he located by the biggest manhunt in history? Schwartz places this man on the street at the time of the assault. At some point Schwartz has to be held accountable for his claims.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                                Whos more likely to get schwartzs story right, a cheif inspector or a newspaper reporter? , or what possible reason would schwartz have for telling two different verions of that sentence ?
                                A clue is that the Star account is actually milder than the police account, except for the considerable 'amping-up' of the second man. Evidence that that was owing to Schwartz and not the Star, includes the Star making it very plain that they did not believe the Hungarian's story.

                                I think you need to forget about what you read in the newspapers back then ,as jeff has stated many times just to unrelieable a sourse
                                The Star account gives us Schwartz's rather far-fetched excuse for being alone on the streets at that time. Should we all forget about that?
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X