Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Why do we have to assume that BS man was a Gentile? Why couldn’t one Jew insult another by calling him Lipski? Lipski was a murderer after all and his religion wasn’t a factor in his crime. I don’t see this as proof that BS man was a Gentile. It’s a weak way of trying to give the impression that the killer was a non-Jew. A much simpler and more reliable method would have been first, procure a witness that could actually speak English (which shouldn’t have been difficult) and then get him to state that BS man spoke with an accent...Scottish, Irish or Welsh would have done the trick but then again conspirators never choose the easy way do they.
    Regards

    Herlock



    “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

    “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 with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

    ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      Why do we have to assume that BS man was a Gentile? Why couldn’t one Jew insult another by calling him Lipski? Lipski was a murderer after all and his religion wasn’t a factor in his crime. I don’t see this as proof that BS man was a Gentile. It’s a weak way of trying to give the impression that the killer was a non-Jew. A much simpler and more reliable method would have been first, procure a witness that could actually speak English (which shouldn’t have been difficult) and then get him to state that BS man spoke with an accent...Scottish, Irish or Welsh would have done the trick but then again conspirators never choose the easy way do they.
      If Schwartz had witnessed the throw down incident, but at a different time and place to that claimed, he would still be the best choice of witness.
      No doubt that possibility will be dismissed out of hand, but consider; no one has ever been able to convincingly explain all of the following:

      Apparent lack of noise
      Pattern of bruising/pressure marks
      Very tight scarf, turned to the left
      Appearing to have been laid gently down
      Cachous lodged between thumb and forefinger
      Contusion to side of face
      Plastered with mud down left side

      Now if the throw down incident and murder are assumed to be two very separate events, explaining all of the above becomes radically easier.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        Why do we have to assume that BS man was a Gentile? Why couldn’t one Jew insult another by calling him Lipski? Lipski was a murderer after all and his religion wasn’t a factor in his crime. I don’t see this as proof that BS man was a Gentile. It’s a weak way of trying to give the impression that the killer was a non-Jew. A much simpler and more reliable method would have been first, procure a witness that could actually speak English (which shouldn’t have been difficult) and then get him to state that BS man spoke with an accent...Scottish, Irish or Welsh would have done the trick but then again conspirators never choose the easy way do they.
        Hi Herlock,

        Utterance of a word doesn't preclude B.S. being anything at all so that's of course entirely possible. However, from what we know via Abberline, it comes across to me at least as indicating it was a term used by local Gentiles (probably those of English/British decent primarily) to insult Jews (whether limited to recent immigrants or not is unclear, but probably unlikely given anti-Semitism was not rare at the time). So to me, that suggests it is improbable enough that B.S. would be Jewish and so we go with him being a Gentile unless something else of substance indicates otherwise. Again, the above is just based upon how I read Abberline's statements pertaining to how Lipski was used as an insult, so if I'm over-reading that then what follows is overstated. That's my take on it anyway, for what it's worth.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          Hi Herlock,

          Utterance of a word doesn't preclude B.S. being anything at all so that's of course entirely possible. However, from what we know via Abberline, it comes across to me at least as indicating it was a term used by local Gentiles (probably those of English/British decent primarily) to insult Jews (whether limited to recent immigrants or not is unclear, but probably unlikely given anti-Semitism was not rare at the time). So to me, that suggests it is improbable enough that B.S. would be Jewish and so we go with him being a Gentile unless something else of substance indicates otherwise. Again, the above is just based upon how I read Abberline's statements pertaining to how Lipski was used as an insult, so if I'm over-reading that then what follows is overstated. That's my take on it anyway, for what it's worth.

          - Jeff
          Hello Jeff,

          I wouldn’t dispute any of that but I certainly think that if there was a deliberate plan to depict Stride’s attacker as a Gentile (as per Michael’s theory) then there were much simpler and effective methods of achieving this. Of course it makes little sense that plotters looking for a fake witnesses would select a none English speaker in the first place when an English speaker could easily have BS Man saying something like “what are you looking at you Jewish bastard?!” Or something similar. What could be simpler, more obvious or more indisputable?
          Regards

          Herlock



          “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

          “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 with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

          ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            If Schwartz had witnessed the throw down incident, but at a different time and place to that claimed, he would still be the best choice of witness.
            No doubt that possibility will be dismissed out of hand, but consider; no one has ever been able to convincingly explain all of the following:

            Apparent lack of noise
            Pattern of bruising/pressure marks
            Very tight scarf, turned to the left
            Appearing to have been laid gently down
            Cachous lodged between thumb and forefinger
            Contusion to side of face
            Plastered with mud down left side

            Now if the throw down incident and murder are assumed to be two very separate events, explaining all of the above becomes radically easier.
            Witnesses can be mistaken especially on matters of identification but also on times of course so it’s not impossible that he might have witnessed an incident that occurred a bit earlier in the evening. I can’t see him being mistaken on location though.

            I can’t remember but did Schwartz say how he got the time 12.45?
            Regards

            Herlock



            “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

            “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 with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

            ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

            Comment


            • The theory that Schwartz was a fake witness, set up by club members to put a Gentile ripper out on the street assaulting Stride, has so much wrong with it - and nothing right with it - that I can't believe it's still being peddled by anyone as possible, never mind plausible.

              Before putting a time of 12.45 to this invented incident, involving three men and one woman, the plotters would have had to be confident that there was nobody around at that time to report that nothing of the kind had happened.

              And if there was nobody around at that time to witness such an incident, then there is no obstacle to it having happened, and Schwartz having given an honest account of what he thought was going on, to the best of his ability.

              Love,

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


              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                Hi Herlock,

                Utterance of a word doesn't preclude B.S. being anything at all so that's of course entirely possible. However, from what we know via Abberline, it comes across to me at least as indicating it was a term used by local Gentiles (probably those of English/British decent primarily) to insult Jews (whether limited to recent immigrants or not is unclear, but probably unlikely given anti-Semitism was not rare at the time). So to me, that suggests it is improbable enough that B.S. would be Jewish and so we go with him being a Gentile unless something else of substance indicates otherwise. Again, the above is just based upon how I read Abberline's statements pertaining to how Lipski was used as an insult, so if I'm over-reading that then what follows is overstated. That's my take on it anyway, for what it's worth.

                - Jeff
                The man in question here, if we accept is a Gentile/anti-Semite antagonist, suggests we may have some connection from this murder to the anti Jew rhetoric found later in Goulston.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  The theory that Schwartz was a fake witness, set up by club members to put a Gentile ripper out on the street assaulting Stride, has so much wrong with it - and nothing right with it - that I can't believe it's still being peddled by anyone as possible, never mind plausible.

                  Before putting a time of 12.45 to this invented incident, involving three men and one woman, the plotters would have had to be confident that there was nobody around at that time to report that nothing of the kind had happened.

                  And if there was nobody around at that time to witness such an incident, then there is no obstacle to it having happened, and Schwartz having given an honest account of what he thought was going on, to the best of his ability.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  I think that you are complicating what is a basic principle here caz, which is, would the club do its best to appear as law abiding and harmless as possible to the authorities when a dead MURDERED woman is discovered on their property?

                  IF they did hesitate to seek authorities might that be time for the senior men onsite to make some decisions based on that initial basic principle? Would those discussions be among all the men, or just the ones that have senior rank there. Like the Club Steward. Or maybe the speaker. Or the stewards wife?

                  Isnt there evidence that there was a delay in seeking help, if they knew Stride was there when a few members stated they saw her there. And Louis. Isnt there evidence that Louis and Eagles statements seem to support each others but contrast concerningly with these other lesser class members? The ones that wouldnt be privy to any story that might be given by the higher ups.

                  How many club affiliated men did not see another living soul around 12:40-12:45 in that passageway? How many men of lesser stature in the club ranks there saw a few men there at that same time? How many men say they saw Louis Diemshitz there at around 12:45? Seems like Lave and Eagle missed seeing all this, and each other. Could someone be in that passageway between the entrance and the side door at the same time and not see each other?

                  Surely people can see that what I suggest is already on paper if you follow it logically.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Hello Jeff,

                    I wouldn’t dispute any of that but I certainly think that if there was a deliberate plan to depict Stride’s attacker as a Gentile (as per Michael’s theory) then there were much simpler and effective methods of achieving this. Of course it makes little sense that plotters looking for a fake witnesses would select a none English speaker in the first place when an English speaker could easily have BS Man saying something like “what are you looking at you Jewish bastard?!” Or something similar. What could be simpler, more obvious or more indisputable?
                    Sure, but if you wanted the police to think B.S. was a Gentile hurling insults at a Jewish witness, you would also tell the police that B.S. shouted at you, not suggest to the police that B.S. called out by name to whom you thought was his accomplice.

                    The whole notion that B.S. was probably a Gentile insulting Schwartz comes from Aberline not from Schwartz (although he appears to have decided Abberline might have something there). As far as Schwartz was concerned, Pipeman was Lipski, making B.S. in Schwartz's view probably Jewish too.

                    The best way, in my opinion, for the club to implicate a Gentile would basically start with not implicating a Jew in the cover story and go from there.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      The theory that Schwartz was a fake witness, set up by club members to put a Gentile ripper out on the street assaulting Stride, has so much wrong with it - and nothing right with it - that I can't believe it's still being peddled by anyone as possible, never mind plausible.

                      Before putting a time of 12.45 to this invented incident, involving three men and one woman, the plotters would have had to be confident that there was nobody around at that time to report that nothing of the kind had happened.

                      And if there was nobody around at that time to witness such an incident, then there is no obstacle to it having happened, and Schwartz having given an honest account of what he thought was going on, to the best of his ability.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      In the midst of the ripper scare Louis Diemschutz discovers a woman with her throat cut in Dutfield’s Yard next to the club. What would be almost the first thing that he thought? What would be the first thing that the members thought when they saw her and the police arriving at the scene? I’d suggest that they would all have thought “here’s another victim of the Whitechapel Murderer.” So Michael’s conspirators would have to have thought that, for some inexplicable reason, the police would have somehow blamed the club for the fact that the ripper had killed on their property raising the possibility that they might have tried to get the club closed down on this basis. Can anyone believe this?

                      Then they get a fake witness who can’t even speak English and who, we assume, is given a script to follow. Despite this very simple ‘script’ he still manages to get some details different when he talk to The Star.

                      Then they have Morris Eagle arriving back at 12.45 leaving people asking why he didn’t see Schwartz? Why didn’t they get Schwartz to say that he’d passed at 12.50 (after Eagle had gone inside)

                      Why didn’t they tell Kozebrodski about the ‘new’ time instead of leaving him to claim an earlier time?

                      Not much of a plan really. But we all know that it never happened of course.



                      Regards

                      Herlock



                      “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

                      “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 with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

                      ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

                      Comment


                      • Found this on the internet. Lipski as a verb:

                        Even before his execution, “Lipski” became a part of Londoners’ vocabulary. It was used as both a slur against Jews and as a verb, the way a certain kind of suffocation murder still known as “burking” was named after William Burke of “Burke and Hare” fame.

                        If used as a verb implying a threat of physical violence it takes away the question of whether or not the B.S. man was Jewish or a Gentile. Although it seems to be a reference to poisoning could it have meant generally to do harm to someone?

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • >>Would those discussions be among all the men, or just the ones that have senior rank there.<<


                          The club rejected notions like "senior rank". In fact all titles were banned in the club within a few years. "Discussions among all the men" was the VERY POINT of the clubs existence.
                          dustymiller
                          aka drstrange

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                            >>Would those discussions be among all the men, or just the ones that have senior rank there.<<


                            The club rejected notions like "senior rank". In fact all titles were banned in the club within a few years. "Discussions among all the men" was the VERY POINT of the clubs existence.
                            If you imagine there was no hierarchy with a club that regularly took in cash, then thats your call. ALL business organizations have tiers.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • I believe that Mr Theatrical was a good choice because he spoke no English. Unless you have 2 people within earshot who both understand his native language, then the translator has leeway to present any story he likes really. Or format the testimony in his own manner, not necessarily as delivered.

                              The bottom line to what I suggest is that there is undeniable evidence that is well known that supports my contention. We have witnesses who said they saw Louis by the body at around 12:40-12:45. We have witnesses from the "senior" ranks in the club that have statements that contain impossibilities....like Morris and Joseph being in the exact same location at the exact same time and not even seeing each other. We have a statement from one club "official" that at 12:40 when he entered that passageway, he couldnt be sure There is no evidence from any witness who can confirm exactly when Louis arrives, and 1 that makes it obvious it was not "precisely" at one as claimed. There is no statement within the transcripts from the Inquest into this death that suggests anyone was seen with the victim outside the gates struggling with an unknown assailant, there is no-one in fact who saw Liz Stride alive after 12:35 according to those documents. A witness on record who believed he saw her with someone by the board school was incorrect, proven by the fact the woman wore no color on her upper clothing, and the earliest time of her cut is within just a minute of his alleged sighting. There are a number of witnesses who statements indicate they were made aware of this dying woman between 12:40-45. All said Louis was seen there at that time. That would suggest the cut was actually made slightly earlier than 12:46..which would be supportable by Phillips contention that as of 1:30 when he arrived he felt the murder had happened within the previous hour.

                              If Israel Schwartz's statement wasnt trustworthy enough to put on record at the Inquest, then was the very presentation of it assuredly in the best interest of serving justice? Or was it for the clubs benefit?
                              Last edited by Michael W Richards; 05-12-2021, 12:03 PM.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • We have argued for pages and pages and years and years about saying anything in concrete form about this murder one way or the other. Pro Jack, or not. The truth exists but it can only be revealed when the small connections all click into place.

                                We have lots of evidence available here to make some solid foundations from, and some that for years should be set aside. 1 is an interruption. There is no evidence that happened, so start thinking of solutions that dont incorporate unsubstantiated theory. Like Israel being relevant at the time of the Inquest and after. There is no evidence that anything he said influenced anyone organizing the Inquest, and later mentions of support by officials isnt validation that he was truthful. Its just that they thought he was. Like Anderson though "it was ascertained" the killer was a local jew. Or Abberlines contention that as Chapman hanged things "dovetailed" and that he was likely the culprit. Or Macnaughten narrowing the search down to a suicide and someone in jail at the time of the murders. Or Monro's Hot Potato. These are just opinions of men, not official validation of facts.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X