Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Hi Sunny Delight,

    I see others have already provided you with feedback, but since you addressed the question to me, I'll toss out my thoughts for what they're worth. first, I don't have my books with me at the moment to check up on some details, but at first blush I think your suggestion sounds plausible. I would want to double check a few things (reliability of the various sightings; for example, how sure are we that Brown sees Stride? If yes, then how credible is the idea that the man seen at that time could be Schwartz's B.S.? and that sort of thing.

    There are a number of statements and reports that stem from the Stride case, so there will be contradictions in the stated times. Never forget that eye witness accounts are often quite rough estimates, and some people can be way off the mark. That doesn't mean they are deliberately lying, rather, they're just unfortunately mistaken. Some will be more reliable (i.e. someone with a watch will be more reliable about the time than someone who is just estimating the time) and some will be less.

    Anyway, your idea sounds plausible, and nothing jumps out at me as problematic. I think it would be worth your time to sketch out your idea, then look at the evidence (testimonies, descriptions, etc), to see if you can disprove it. If you can, you're done, if you can't, you've got a decent idea that holds up to the evidence. Note, if you find you can disprove your idea try not to give in to the temptation to explain away the evidence and remember that it is the evidence that is used to evaluate the idea not the other way around.

    - Jeff
    hey jeff
    i beleive brown saw the couple at the same time that schwartz saw bs man and stride. plus browns description of the man dosnt really fit the other witnesses description of the man that night. it has been posited that the couple brown saw was the same couple mortimer saw, not stride and her man.

    in my scenario, which is similar, bs man/ the ripper is with stride for some time, trying to get her to go to a secluded spot, theyre seen by marshall and pc smith. after pc smith passes them, bs man tries one more time to get her to a dark ally but she wont go and he storms off, only to shortly return(this is where schwartz sees him) and attacks her. perhaps she bolts into the yard toward perceived help after the initial assault and he catches her in there, gets her to the ground and cuts her throat. or maybe one of the other sub scenarios after the initial assault that ive mentioned before. anyway, makes sense to me and fits the evidence.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by harry View Post
      While his (Schwartz)story may not be relevant to one source,Michael,it was of interest to the investigating police officers.While there is no other identified witness to what Schwartz claims, his testimony should not be dismissed on those grounds.There was no other,as far as is known,witness to what Brown observed.Do we dismiss his evidence also?
      If you look again Harry you will see that we can verify and validate likely Brown seeing a young couple canoodling on the corner. We have a secondary source for that in Fanny Mortimer. The only people she saw or heard before Goldstein was that young couple, with the young lady dressed in dark clothing, and no flower arrangement added by Brown. I suspect that in the dark, with all due respect to the other victims, Liz could pass for someone much younger.

      The thing about the identifications later is that very rarely are the victims clothed in and looking the same as they did the hours before they were killed. A stranger seeing someone with a cowboy hat and boots at 2am might be hard to count on when all he sees a bareheaded corpse under a sheet. A glimpse of a stranger for a second or 2. At night. When the eye would be unconsciously drawn to what is most prominent or obvious. Like a white flower with maidenfern.

      Lineups of suspects are better than mortuary id's as far as Im concerned.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #63
        Does anyone here remember where I could find a discussion about the idea that "lipski" was actually misheard, and was in fact a Polish word translated to something like "mind your own business". I believe the word in Polish was something like wrlibski. (???)

        Thank you

        Rob House

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by robhouse View Post
          Does anyone here remember where I could find a discussion about the idea that "lipski" was actually misheard, and was in fact a Polish word translated to something like "mind your own business". I believe the word in Polish was something like wrlibski. (???)

          Thank you

          Rob House
          I know that it was discussed at Howard Brown's site, the following thread, posts #30 and #31.

          Cheers.

          Szwarz/Shine/Schwartz ~ ? - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

          Comment


          • #65
            If Brown had seen Spooner, the police would have sorted it. They didn't. He was at the inquest and wasn't challenged.

            Something potentially similar happened at the Coles inquest; a witness ("Jumbo") thought he had seen Coles, but witnesses were brought in to disprove his sighting.

            Nothing like this occurred with James Brown, the hardest working man in rock and roll.
            Last edited by rjpalmer; 02-27-2021, 03:39 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Thanks!

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                If Brown had seen Spooner, the police would have sorted it. They didn't. He was at the inquest and wasn't challenged.

                Something potentially similar happened at the Coles inquest; a witness ("Jumbo") thought he had seen Coles, but witnesses were brought in to disprove his sighting.

                Nothing like this occurred with James Brown, the hardest working man in rock and roll.
                I'm not sure that Brown was considered a de facto sighting and therefore wasnt challenged Rob, in fact by accepting his opinion it was Stride we have even more problems with reconciling witness stories. And explaing how the flowers suddenly appeared after 12:45...and how she got inside the passageway and cut by as early as 12:46am, as per Blackwells earliest time. In fact Phillips allowed for an hour before he arrived...and that was just after 1:30. Then 12 hours later he conflicts with Schwartz's story, who isnt an Inquest witness.

                I think that since Fanny saw no-one but the young couple until 12:56...at which time its likely Liz was already cut and lying there, all Brown does is validate Fanny...which then makes her appearance unneccesary. But it makes the young couple the only people seen from 12:35 until 12:55.

                They had time to bring Schwartz in for the Inquest, and every reason to if they believed him...his absence is then quite telling about his perceived value.

                From the time Smith left no-one saw anyone but that young couple on that street until 12:55. Fanny didnt see anyone in or out of the gates, and she certainly didnt see Louis arrive when she is at her door until just after 1am.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by robhouse View Post
                  Thanks!
                  I just tried an online English to Polish translator and ‘mind you own business
                  comes up as

                  pilnuj swoich spraw

                  when you click ‘speak’ it’s obvious that this couldnt have been what he said. So I tried ‘go away,’ and it came up as

                  Idź stąd

                  when you click speak it’s not a million miles away from ‘Lipski.’

                  The translation for f#*k off is

                  Odpieprz się

                  This is a three syllable phrase and if you use ‘speak’ and make the first syllable quieter and emphasise the last two (which wouldn’t be impossible) it seems quite close to me as well.

                  Ive always thought that Lizzie must have been a possibility too but this implies that they might have known each other, which isn’t impossible of course.
                  Regards

                  Herlock



                  Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    I just tried an online English to Polish translator and ‘mind you own business
                    comes up as

                    pilnuj swoich spraw

                    when you click ‘speak’ it’s obvious that this couldnt have been what he said. So I tried ‘go away,’ and it came up as

                    Idź stąd

                    when you click speak it’s not a million miles away from ‘Lipski.’

                    The translation for f#*k off is

                    Odpieprz się

                    This is a three syllable phrase and if you use ‘speak’ and make the first syllable quieter and emphasise the last two (which wouldn’t be impossible) it seems quite close to me as well.

                    Ive always thought that Lizzie must have been a possibility too but this implies that they might have known each other, which isn’t impossible of course.
                    Hi Herlock,

                    The polish term in question is 'wscipski', which would be used to describe a meddlesome ratbag.

                    Thems the Vagaries.....

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                      Hi Herlock,

                      The polish term in question is 'wscipski', which would be used to describe a meddlesome ratbag.
                      Hi Al,

                      Love Meddlesome Ratbag (not keen on The Drunken Bakers though)
                      Regards

                      Herlock



                      Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Brown's estimate of the time agrees with that of Schwartz.A male and a female present in the vicinity of the crime scene.The male Pipeman separated by a short distance from the female Stride,when Schwartz passed.While direct evidence is not available to show Pipeman and Stride were the couple Brown saw,it is quite possible they were.Brown saw a male and a female,and even in dim light he would notice that much,but why should he note details such as a flower?Does he appear to have been that interested?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post


                          The polish term in question is 'wscipski', which would be used to describe a meddlesome ratbag.
                          Wot's "Lip,see" in Polish ?

                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by DJA View Post

                            Wot's "Lip,see" in Polish ?
                            I'm not totally sure, but I'd wager it's got a load of 'Z's and 'C's in it.
                            Thems the Vagaries.....

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              So after sketching down some ideas of a timeline and what may have happened I think this may be a reasonable scenario:

                              - PC Smith witnesses Liz Stride with a man on Berner Street 12:30am.

                              - Fanny Mortimer comes to her door at between 12:30-12:35am. She is at her door on and off until 1am.

                              - Morris Eagle returns to the club at 12:40am, tries the front door then enters through Dutfields Yard. He doesn't particularly remember seeing anyone on the street but when challenged at the Inquest he says there probably were.

                              - James Brown returning from a Chandlers Shop sees a couple beside the Board School near Fairclough Street. This is 'about 12:45am'. The estimation is important. He passes by the couple quickly- probably 20 seconds or less. He returns home. This in my scenario is Stride and B.S man. B.S man is propositioning her. Most probably shortly before 12:45am. Stride tells him 'not tonight, some other night' and walks towards Dutfields Yard. B.S man walks up Berner Street but stops and begins to walk back towards Stride who is now at the Passage of Dutfields.

                              - Israel Schwartz enters Berner Street at 12:45am and sees a man physically attack Elizabeth Stride. I believe Schwartz statement where he says as he turned into Berner Street he saw a man in front of him is important. Unless it is a mistranslation it says to me that B.S man had to have been on the street already as otherwise Schwartz would have said he had been walking in front of him for a while. So I have B.S. man turning and walking back towards Stride- there is a tussle betwen the two and B.S man throws her to the floor. After Schwartz legs it and Pipeman follows B.S man kills Stride but his situational awareness is good and he thinks better of mutilation although that was his aim. He leaves Dutfield's yard most likely an instant before Fanny Mortimer comes back to her door.

                              - Fanny Mortimer returns to her door between 12:50am and 1am.

                              - Leon Goldstein passes through Berner Street at 12:55am. He is seen by Fanny Mortimer. The only person she has seen on the street.

                              - A couple are standing 20 yards away from Dutfield's yard probably between 12:50 and 1am. Mortimer says the couple were there before and after Stride was murdered. As she thinks that was between 12:55 and 1am this 10 minute estimation seems probable to myself. The couple hear and see nothing which seems odd. However if Stride is already dead and B.S man has already fled the scene that makes sense.

                              - Fanny Mortimer goes back indoors at 1am and bolts the door.

                              - Louis Diemschitz finds Elizabeth Strides body.

                              I think we can safely conclude Edward Spooner had his timings wrong. He was using the pubs closing to estimate and there are too many others who contradict his evidence. Simply he was wrong. Anyways this is my scenario, feel free to read it critically. Thanks.
                              Last edited by Sunny Delight; 02-28-2021, 08:59 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                My personal view is that if Schwartz was not lying, then Stride cannot be a Ripper victim. To me, one of the hallmarks of a Ripper killing is that it makes very little noise. It seem improbable to me that BS man, if he was in fact Stride's killer, could have gotten away with any of the other murders.

                                So if Schwartz was proven to be a liar, my confidence in Stride being a Ripper victim would go up. Though it's of course possible for BS man to be BS, and somebody else to have killed Stride, so it would not go up to 100%.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X