Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Hi etenguy,

    I would suggest that it only takes one error of interpretation on the night by Schwartz and that the other follows on as a consequence. If at the time Lipski was shouted, probably startling him, he looks around and notices pipeman for the first time (another jolt, given he's already nervous about the confrontation, he crossed the street to avoid it after all) and he presumes pipeman is the intended target. Without much time to consider things, he then sees pipeman coming towards him (probably, as you say, to also avoid the confrontation developing) and in his now "alert for danger" state that would simply result in both reaffirming his belief that B.S. and pipeman are working together and also in making him think pipeman is coming after him. Basically, once that initial error is made about Lipski being intended for pipeman, the rest of how he interprets the entirety of the events will flow on from that starting point. Only when he is forced to reconsider the events, when he is questioned, do the alternatives occur to him and he backs down in his confidence. In other words, I think we only have one mistake to assume and the others are simply further consequences of that initial error of interpretation. At least, that's how it looks to me.

    - Jeff
    And to me, Jeff.

    If Schwartz had little or no English at all, everything would have had to be translated for him by others, so would he even have recognised "Lipski" as a term of abuse, as opposed to just a name?

    The idea now seems even more preposterous to me that he would have been chosen to deliver a script, which he not only deviated from, but then allowed ambiguity and confusion to creep in and take over, resulting in some to interpret it as it was originally intended, by whoever wrote the script and cast him as the narrator!

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

      Indeed, Jeff. If Schwartz did misinterpret the situation, then the chain of events you outline is likely how that happened.

      But what was going on in the attacker's head? Why did he shout out at all? If this was JtR, this would be the only time he attacked before being somewhere secluded and then to draw attention to himself further immediately before a murder. It doesn't strike me as the behaviour we might expect from JtR given the other murders and sightings. Whether Schwartz was mistaken, lying or completely accurate - I am now doubting that Stride was murdered by JtR.
      Hi etenguy,

      You may be right, although I do think JtR was smart enough to know when he might have been biting off more than he could chew. He couldn't be expected to have it all his own way on every occasion, or always be in total control of the external circumstances. What if he found himself out of his comfort zone this time, with a location that was too risky, a prospective victim too resistant, and pesky witnesses coming along at any moment? We just don't know how he would have reacted if such obstacles were put in his way. Yes, he might have been the type to simply shrug and casually trot off elsewhere for his jollies - Mitre Square for instance - if an opportunity wasn't working out for him. But how do we know he would have behaved in the same cool, calculated manner as he could have done when alone in a secluded spot with a willing companion? Is JtR not allowed to lose his cool, or do anything rash, if things aren't going entirely his way?

      Whoever killed Stride - whether it was BS man or someone who came on the scene after he left - did it swiftly and efficiently and got away, not worried that she might live long enough to tell the tale. This smacks to me of someone with at least the skill and knowledge to kill in the darkness with a single cut to the throat. Anyone without that experience, especially if he could have been identified by Stride, would have been wise to make sure she was dead before he left her - assuming he wasn't interrupted before he could do so, if Louis did find her much earlier than he claimed.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

        Indeed, Jeff. If Schwartz did misinterpret the situation, then the chain of events you outline is likely how that happened.

        But what was going on in the attacker's head? Why did he shout out at all? If this was JtR, this would be the only time he attacked before being somewhere secluded and then to draw attention to himself further immediately before a murder. It doesn't strike me as the behaviour we might expect from JtR given the other murders and sightings. Whether Schwartz was mistaken, lying or completely accurate - I am now doubting that Stride was murdered by JtR.
        I go back and forth over whether Stride was a Ripper victim. Of the Canonicals, she's the most likely to have been killed by someone else. Schwartz' statements are one of the the best pieces of evidence for a non-Ripper. This has been pointed out to Michael before, but he clings to his assumption that every Jewish witness in the Stride case is a heartless anarchist conspiring to obstruct justice.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          And to me, Jeff.

          If Schwartz had little or no English at all, everything would have had to be translated for him by others, so would he even have recognised "Lipski" as a term of abuse, as opposed to just a name?

          The idea now seems even more preposterous to me that he would have been chosen to deliver a script, which he not only deviated from, but then allowed ambiguity and confusion to creep in and take over, resulting in some to interpret it as it was originally intended, by whoever wrote the script and cast him as the narrator!

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          Hi Caz,

          From what we know of Schwartz, which is very little, it seems entirely possible that he would be unaware of Lipski being used as a derogatory term, but of course if it was commonly used, given he is apparently identifiable as being Jewish, he may have been. Clearly, home office was not familiar with that as Abberline had to explain it to them, but it sounds like it was a local usage thing, so that's probably not surprising.

          Of course, if he was familiar with it as an epithet, then his original statement attributing pipeman as the recipient becomes itself confusing unless, of course, one argues that pipeman was also identifiably Jewish in appearance, which only further reduces the effectiveness of his statement as some sort of damage control. Also, as you suggest, choosing Schwartz, who apparently doesn't speak English, to be the one to convey the damage control message to the police is about as poor a choice for a messenger as one could imagine. And given Schwartz doesn't go to the police until the next day or something like that, the club would have had quite a long time to plan and organize this cover story. Moreover, it's a bit late to do much, as the police had already taken down the names and addresses of those present, and so if anything at all aroused suspicion in their cover story, then everyone at the club becomes under suspicion. So trying to plant information generates a huge risk of "poking the bear", making Schwartz's story as he told it, and his choice as messenger, impossible to be concocted by the club.

          Basically, the Schwartz involvement idea refutes itself.

          And the club conspiracy theory is also nonsensical. I forget who originally pointed it out, but the focus of the information the conspiracy seems to be trying to manipulate is the time the murder took place, not where. And in terms of bringing attention to the club, it's the where that matters. There's nothing that reduces the risk to the club by making the police believe the murder happened around 1 o'clock rather than 20 minutes earlier, and it makes no sense they would be concerned with the time and not the place.

          Anyway, we've all made these points before. I'm baffled by the whole thing, and struggle at times to understand what, exactly, is the point being made, but that's a point about me not the theory (my inability to understand a theory doesn't make a theory wrong - I don't understand quantum physics, for example, but by all accounts it works pretty well )

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            I go back and forth over whether Stride was a Ripper victim. Of the Canonicals, she's the most likely to have been killed by someone else. Schwartz' statements are one of the the best pieces of evidence for a non-Ripper. This has been pointed out to Michael before, but he clings to his assumption that every Jewish witness in the Stride case is a heartless anarchist conspiring to obstruct justice.
            Hi Fiver,

            I agree. Stride is one I have never been able to make up my mind about either, and I'll probably have changed my mind a couple times by the time I finish typing this. The events around Stride's murder involve a lot sightings, and various comings and goings, making it the most complicated series of events to keep track of. Before we can really make headway in assessing the events, we have to know what they are and have a reasonable idea as to the sequence and timing of them. Without that, it's hard to evaluate how good an explanation is. It isn't hard for me to argue with myself both for and against her inclusion in the series, and so I tend to reserve judgement.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              Hi etenguy,

              I agree, if Schwartz's sighting of events, even if not his interpretation of them, is correct, there are some things that seem different from the other attacks. In particular, by all appearances JtR goes with the victim to the crime scene, and then initiates his attack. That would mean he appears to have spent at least some time in their company, negotiating and so forth. What Schwartz describes is B.S. walking down the street, and even if we think she said something to him, either initially or in response to something he says to her first, the assault on her seems almost immediate. That doesn't seem to fit JtR's M.O. very well.

              On the other hand, if B.S. is one of the men thought to be seen with Stride earlier, then that would indicate they did spend some amount of time in conversation, and so forth, and for some reason they have parted company and then he turns around and heads back and the confrontation ensues, with Schwartz noticing things after B.S. has turned around and headed back.

              So if B.S. is JtR, and I'm not saying he is just considering that possibility, then Stride appears to have rejected him and he went on his way. Which means he would have went on his way in a direction opposite to Mitre Square as well, now that I think of it. Anyway, if that rejection sparked his murderous desire, it may be that his return and out of character attack reflects that. Also, we have no information about how Nichols and JtR came together, and it is only an assumption that the two of them went to Buck's Row together, rather than met in passing in Buck's Row. In that case, he could have just blitz attacked her as they passed each other, similar to Stride (again, I'm not saying that had to happen, but we don't know how they met, so all options are on the table making it hard to rule anything out so we can't know what's right and what's wrong). And, with Eddowes, if the Church Passage Couple is not Eddowes and JtR, we are again left with a completely open set of possibilities of how that initial encounter went.

              With Chapman, where at one point Cadoche hears a woman saying "No", and later when he returns to the backyard, he hears a bump on the fence, we again have the possibility of a rejection of some sort (note, he doesn't say she said "no" in any fearful sort of way, and the bump occurs a few minutes later, so it seem unlikely to me the "no" was an exclamation of fear, rather just her saying "no" to something. Maybe a rejection, but of course, she also might have been saying no to something quite innocuous, like "have you slept at all tonight"? type thing - we don't know and the options are endless, so we're unlikely to guess the truth here). But, regardless, Chapman and JtR must have went into the backyard together, and I think that's where we assume that JtR always spent some period of time with his victim before hand. Particularly as that idea would fit with the Kelly case as well, as it would appear he accompanied her back to her room.

              What I'm getting at, is that while JtR may have spent a period of time with Chapman and Kelly, we really can't be sure if he did that with Nichols and Eddowes as well (though there are at least some threads to suggest that for Eddowes, but they require concluding that the Church Passage Couple is indeed Eddowes and JtR. While that may be the case, and what minimal evidence we have does point that way, the evidence we have is still too weak to describe that as anything more than possible in my view).

              So, if he didn't spend time with Eddowes and Nichols, then Stride becomes less of an oddity. We just don't know enough to make a very confident call on that as far as I can tell. The wound to Eddowes' throat, for example, reads almost like a carbon copy of the wound to Stride's, albeit Eddowes' is a bit deeper, but not by much and well within the amount of variation one would expect from one case to the next. Also, both appear to have had their throats cut after having been put to the ground (there's no great spray of blood on the walls high above Stride, for example). What I don't know, though, is if the throat wounds they both show are very common in knife attacks when the victim is prone. If that's just what they turn out to be like, then the similarities don't mean much. But if throat wounds vary a great deal between different attackers even when the victim is prone, then that similarity would be telling. That's beyond my range of knowledge, so I can't resolve that for myself.

              Anyway, as you can see, I have no idea about Stride, and I neither favour her being or not being a victim of JtR. I see differences, but I see similarities too. And the differences are often with what we presume to have happened in the other cases, rather than what we really can be sure of (particularly in reference to Eddowes and Nichols).

              Not sure if my waffling is of any help. I would like to think it serves some purpose though.

              - Jeff

              P.S. Oh, as for what was going on in her attacker's head? Who knows? If B.S. is Stride's killer, then he's obviously angry and confrontational, so seeing Schwartz suddenly appear could just as easily spark a confrontational shout from him. Schwartz was walking behind B.S. after all, so B.S. may have been unaware of Schwartz until he suddenly appeared at the time B.S. was pushing and pulling at Stride.
              Thanks Jeff

              I think the points you make suggest a level of doubt concerning whether Elizabeth Stride was a Ripper victim, but the similarities with other murder victims also suggest she was. It is difficult to come off the fence for me. I had thought I had concluded she was a Ripper victim, but less clear on that now.

              You are correct concerning the suppositions made around JtR's interactions with his victims, although all the sighting reports we have (some of which we may of course challenge) tell us a story and we have no witness reports of an attack in public view nor of interactions with third parties with the other murders. However, you are correct again in saying that something may have triggered a response on that particular night that caused a change in behaviour. Certainly, if JtR did kill Elizabeth Stride, the fact that he then killed Catherine Eddowes within the hour would suggest a heightened state.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                Hi etenguy,

                You may be right, although I do think JtR was smart enough to know when he might have been biting off more than he could chew. He couldn't be expected to have it all his own way on every occasion, or always be in total control of the external circumstances. What if he found himself out of his comfort zone this time, with a location that was too risky, a prospective victim too resistant, and pesky witnesses coming along at any moment? We just don't know how he would have reacted if such obstacles were put in his way. Yes, he might have been the type to simply shrug and casually trot off elsewhere for his jollies - Mitre Square for instance - if an opportunity wasn't working out for him. But how do we know he would have behaved in the same cool, calculated manner as he could have done when alone in a secluded spot with a willing companion? Is JtR not allowed to lose his cool, or do anything rash, if things aren't going entirely his way?

                Whoever killed Stride - whether it was BS man or someone who came on the scene after he left - did it swiftly and efficiently and got away, not worried that she might live long enough to tell the tale. This smacks to me of someone with at least the skill and knowledge to kill in the darkness with a single cut to the throat. Anyone without that experience, especially if he could have been identified by Stride, would have been wise to make sure she was dead before he left her - assuming he wasn't interrupted before he could do so, if Louis did find her much earlier than he claimed.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Hi Caz

                You make some good points - there are plausible explanations for the attackers' behaviour other than he was not JtR. And the similarities are clear as well as us knowing JtR was definitely out on the prowl that night. And the timings of the two murders are very coincidental if it was not the same person committing both. I am just a little less clear than a week or so ago that Stride was a victim of JtR.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  This is all very reasonable, etenguy, but Michael's theory is that not only did Schwartz lie, to deflect blame for the murder away from the club and the Jews there, and onto a Gentile ripper on Berner Street, but that the authorities must have known he had lied, because there was no other possible reason for him not attending the Inquest to give his account.

                  What I've been unable to get from Michael [apart from an admission that the police investigated the story anyway ] is which part of Schwartz's account would have led to the conclusion that he was lying? All of it? Some of it? Just one particular aspect?

                  Michael's reasons for concluding that Schwartz lied are bound up with his belief in an earlier discovery of the murder, but that can't be applied to the authorities, because they accepted Louis D's 1am discovery time. So their reasons for disbelieving Schwartz's story would have to be different, but as yet Michael has come up with no suggestions.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  1. Schwartz was likely excluded from the Inquest because they didnt trust, or couldnt validate his story. Since you misrepresented what I said and think above.
                  2. If anyone paid attention and read the story Schwartz gives, the implausible nature, (just outside a club, after a meeting had recently ended...coincidentally of course, filled with Socialists and Anarchists...obviously people Schwartz liked since he is later directly associated with Wess and that club, and checking on his wife to see if she moved a suitcase or 2 up to 12 hours after he left her to do the heavy work) and lack of any verification would be ample reason to mistrust it.

                  Let me ask you, has anyone ever ruled out that Schwartz had moved from one of the passageway cottages? Does anyone have his address as of that morning? No and No.

                  My "Belief" as you characterized it is that the only people there at the time of the murder were members and staff. Oddly enough, thats exactly what the evidences indicates. Funny that. So Schwartz and his story create an unseen, unheard and completely fabricated story that adds 3 men to a street that was by ALL accounts deserted and empty that last 25 minutes, for one, established by a witness who claimed she was at her door to the street "almost the whole" half hour between 12:30 and 1am. Who also didnt see Louis arrive just before, at, or just after 1am. She did hear and cart and horse after that, but that would be around 1:05..when Lamb and Issac Kozebrodski come into the passageway with lots of other men "standing around".Which is the only time near 1am that Louis could have first arrived unseen.

                  All Ive ever claimed is that the men who said they were there at around 12:40 are the only ones who have corroboration for their times, that Louis definitively did not arrive "precisely" at one as he said at the Inquest..so error or lie, and that Eagle, Issac and PC Lamb could not have been returning to the club when Louis could have arrived had he been mistaken about saying "precisely, shortly after 1am. Since the medical opinions vary from 12:46 to as early as 12:30, according to Phillips for the cut time, all this makes perfect sense and fits the verifiable data. Not that anyone Im debating this with cares a hoot about verifying anything.

                  Ive just been watching to see just how many people disregard these hard facts to make their own "conclusions" anyway, and disparage mine. Problem is, mine uses evidence. Your uses unseen, unheard and unproven actions and times, and unseen, unheard individuals in the road, and presumptions that interrupted acts wouldnt leave trace evidence. Its not even a fair fight with you folks..but carry on anyway.

                  The reality is someone from that property killed Liz Stride..., so member, staff but certainly Socialist Jew, that he wasnt interested in Ripping by all the evidence, and the staff modified stories and created a Schwartz-bomb to counter the impressions that were left by the hard facts. Period.

                  Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-26-2021, 06:13 PM.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • .
                    1. Schwartz was likely excluded from the Inquest because they didnt trust, or couldnt validate his story. Since you misrepresented what I said and think above
                    Staggering!!! Amazing!!! unbelievable!!! This is dead. The possibility does not exist. It’s a dead Parrot. It can no longer be used. It’s been proven, absolutely, categorically and without a single, solitary, minute, possible shadow of a doubt to have been impossible. Schwartz was NOT excluded from the Inquest because the police didn’t trust him and anyone that says that he was is an embarrassment to the subject!!!
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                    Comment


                    • . "almost the whole
                      Apart from the fact that her own Evening News interview contradicts this, which (par for the course) you ignore of course you will note the word ‘almost.’ This renders any statement inferring that she couldn’t have missed anything redundant.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                      “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                      Comment


                      • .
                        All Ive ever claimed is that the men who said they were there at around 12:40 are the only ones who have corroboration for their times
                        Nope, you’ve made things up.

                        You’ve named Gilleman (well the non-existent Gillen) as proof of an earlier time of discovery when his only mention is by Eagle who said that he called him to the body around one. HOW IS THAT HONESTY?

                        You’ve bizarrely used Eagle who actually said that he first saw the body at about 1.00.

                        You’ve deliberately and repeatedly IGNORED the fact that Spooner said that he’d been at the yard for 5 minutes when Lamb got there.

                        You’ve persistently tried to use Diemschutz use of the word ‘precisely’ despite this being entirely non-suspicious and the fact that it’s been explained numerous times.

                        How many more examples do we need to absolutely prove the lengths you’ll go to try and prop up your theory?
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                        “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                        Comment


                        • . Problem is, mine uses evidence
                          michael, use your ‘honest’ methods and explain to us all how gilleman proves, or even points to, an earlier discovery time.

                          Im not holding my breath by the way.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                          “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                          Comment


                          • . and presumptions that interrupted acts wouldnt leave trace evidence
                            You never cease to amaze me. You have zero scruples do you?

                            FOR THE 1000TH TIME.......

                            A MAN CUTS A WOMANS THROAT, INTENDING TO MUTILATE HER NEXT

                            AS HES DOING IT HE HEARS A NOISE

                            HE STOPS, WAITING TO SEE IF THE NOISE PASSES

                            THE CART ENTERS THE YARD.

                            HE HIDES

                            ......


                            NOW LOOK AT THE CRIME SCENE AND TELL EVERYONE WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO HAVE SEEN THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT THE KILLER INTENDED TO MUTILATE.

                            THE ANSWER IS NOTHING BY THE WAY BUT I AWAIT YOUR JOKE.....ERR I MEANT ANSWER OF COURSE
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                            Comment


                            • .
                              The reality is someone from that property killed Liz Stride..., so member, staff but certainly Socialist Jew, that he wasnt interested in Ripping by all the evidence, and the staff modified stories and created a Schwartz-bomb to counter the impressions that were left by the hard facts. Period
                              Pathetic, sad and embarrassing. The only human being on the entire planet who believes this utter tosh.

                              Keep jumping up and down saying “it’s true, it’s true Michael” and still no one will believe you.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                              Comment


                              • It’s impossible to discus this case with a man so utterly divorced from reality that he can’t even see the nonsense that he’s typing. The distortions and manipulations. Twisting and shoehorning. We’ve all tried for the last few weeks to discus this part of the case reasonably but it’s impossible. That you can actually try to state you're theory as a fact is truly pathetic. Grow up Michael or as the American’s say “smell the coffee.”
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X