Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Your argument that Schwartz seems to be honest because he couldn't be sure, under careful questioning, who 'Lipski' was directed at, only works if it is supposed that he would have behaved differently had that not been the case. On the contrary, I don't think his behavior would change across scenarios.
    Rephrase:

    Your argument that Schwartz seems to be honest because he couldn't be sure, under careful questioning, who 'Lipski' was directed at, only works if it is supposed that he would have indicated differently had that not been the case. On the contrary, I don't think his certainty would change across scenarios.
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • .
      Your argument that Schwartz seems to be honest because he couldn't be sure, under careful questioning, who 'Lipski' was directed at, only works if it is supposed that he would have behaved differently had that not been the case. On the contrary, I don't think his behavior would change across scenarios
      There’s a huge problem here. In reality Schwartz wasn’t speaking, his interpreter was. For all Abberline knew Schwartz could have been describing in detail his last visit to the loo.

      We can add to this by saying that it’s being suggested that Schwartz was a false witness. In effect ‘created’ by club members. Sent to the police with his handler/interpreter who was in possession of a simple script.

      The ‘script’ was, put simply - I saw a man attack Stride in the street. That man shouted an anti-Semitic insult at me then I scarpered, followed by another man.

      Now remember, this was the interpreter talking to Abberline and not Schwartz. Schwartz was present but he was simply babbling in Hungarian. As long as the interpreter knew the script then that’s all that mattered.

      So the question for conspiracists is very, very obvious - how could the interpreter have failed to get across this very simple, scripted message?

      The confusion very strongly points to the fact that the interpreter was genuinely trying to interpret what Schwartz was saying. It’s possible of course that while the interpreter spoke Hungarian his grasp of the language may have been fairly basic and far from perfect.

      As Caz said, it has the ring of truth about it. If it was a set up the interpreter would have got the message across without any ambiguity. Not to mention of course that they’d had enough time to have come up with the much more effective ‘accent’ plan.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • .
        I've explained multiple times that I think Schwartz' account was part truthful. Do you accept that that is my position?
        If you think I think I'm the only person who can see through Schwartz, you're wrong. That is wrong since 1888
        But you haven’t ‘seen through’ him. You’ve stated the discrepancies that we’ve always known existed. All that you’ve done is viewed it with the conspiracy goggles on.

        Schwartz was speaking through an interpreter. We have no way of knowing how good, bad or average this interpreter was. We can’t even say for sure that the person that interpreted at his police interview was the same one that did the job for The Star interview. Maybe the first one had a very basic but imperfect grasp of Hungarian but the person that was available for The Star interview was a family member or a friend who might have actually been Hungarian too?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
          I didn't say that Schwartz had to be the source, but similarly, there can be no rumors based on Schwartz' story, until he gives it.
          That is, unless the man pursued story was real. Yet if it were real, then clearly multiple people - 'the public' - regarded the man pursued as being the murderer. Who could that man be, if not Israel Schwartz?
          If the man pursued story is regarded as real and accurate (which seems to be your position), then clearly Schwartz must be regarded as a suspect.
          If the story is real but inaccurate (falsely interpreted), then we have to wonder how it is that there is a false story with an uncanny similarity to that given by Schwartz. In that case, Schwartz' account is probably false, and therefore he should be regarded as a suspect.
          Either way, how can Schwartz not be on suspect lists?
          You again misinterpret my position. It seems likely that both accounts were real and both accounts were inaccurate.

          We have two independent accounts - both the Echo and the Star stories involve one man being pursued south on Berner Street at about 12:45, then along Fairclough, with the pursued escaping. Both stories reached the public in evening newspapers on the same day. So the Echo account cannot not be a "rumor based on Schwartz' story" - it is an independent account. From context, it appears the source of the Echo account is the pursuer, though it could have been a bystander.

          Those similarities make it likely that both stories are real. It does not mean that either is accurate in the points where they disagree. We could have Pipeman pursing Schwartz because Pipeman thinks Schwartz is a criminal and Schwartz running from Pipeman because Schwartz thinks Pipeman is a criminal.

          It does not mean Schwartz "must be regarded as a suspect". Suspicion is not proof. Several other men were suspected of being the Ripper at the time. Some were even pursued by people who thought they were chasing the Ripper. The police investigated and cleared them all.

          If the Echo story is real but inaccurate (falsely interpreted), then that makes it likely that Schwartz' story is also real but inaccurate. It does not make it likely that Schwartz' story is false. And even if Schwartz' story could be proven false it does not make it likely that he was the Ripper or that he was part of Michael's ridiculous conspiracy theory.



          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
            On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

            That places Schwartz on the board school side.

            ... but just as he stepped from the kerb A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and ... rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

            I reckon that has Schwartz running East along Fairclough street.
            You reckon incorrectly. The Star account shows that the Hungarian lived in Backchurch Lane and "fled incontinently, to his new lodgings" there. That means Schwartz ran south on Berner, then west on Fairclough to get to Backchurch Lane.

            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
            It is also worth noting that the Echo account fails to mention which street the man pursued turned down, to get to the railway arch.
            You are misremembering sources. The railway arch is not mentioned in either the Echo or the Star. It comes from an 19 October report by Chief Inspector Donald Swanson - "Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far." The railway arch was at the south end of Backchurch Lane, where it met Pinchin Street. (The remains of one of the Thames Torso Killer's victims would be found there in 1889.)


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              You again misinterpret my position. It seems likely that both accounts were real and both accounts were inaccurate.
              Yet you keep on referring to a pursuer. Who misinterpreted this pursuit and why? Why is a man pursuing another?

              We have two independent accounts - both the Echo and the Star stories involve one man being pursued south on Berner Street at about 12:45, then along Fairclough, with the pursued escaping. Both stories reached the public in evening newspapers on the same day. So the Echo account cannot not be a "rumor based on Schwartz' story" - it is an independent account. From context, it appears the source of the Echo account is the pursuer, though it could have been a bystander.
              Why do we never hear from the pursuer, or the witnesses? Wess referred to 'the public', who regarded the man pursued as being the murderer. Why are there no quotes in the press, from any member of 'the public', who believed they'd witnesses the murderer being chased at about 12:45? Don't you think it's a little fishy that none of these witnessed are ever heard from directly?

              As for the chase going South along Berner street, where did you get that idea from? The Echo explicitly mentions it going along Fairclough street, and the Star only says that the Hungarian ran to his new lodgings on Backchurch Lane. No route is provided.

              Those similarities make it likely that both stories are real. It does not mean that either is accurate in the points where they disagree. We could have Pipeman pursing Schwartz because Pipeman thinks Schwartz is a criminal and Schwartz running from Pipeman because Schwartz thinks Pipeman is a criminal.
              Please explain how the story can be real, but Pursuing Man is also Deluded Man? Did he see BS manhandle Stride, or did he Schwartz? If Schwartz, then what was BS doing? Why wasn't he identified and interrogated, and possibly called to the inquest?
              In the Met version of Schwartz' account, he crossed to the other side to avoid the man and woman situation, and the second man then appears to him on that opposite (board school) side. In the Star version, Schwartz still crosses the street, and then the second man comes out of the doorway of the pub on the club side corner, and shouts a warning to the man pushing Stride around. He then rushes at Schwartz with a knife. Is this the same man who mistakenly thought Schwartz was the bad guy? How does that make the slightest bit of sense?

              It does not mean Schwartz "must be regarded as a suspect". Suspicion is not proof. Several other men were suspected of being the Ripper at the time. Some were even pursued by people who thought they were chasing the Ripper. The police investigated and cleared them all.
              If he were legitimately pursued, Schwartz must be a suspect almost by definition. As your Pursuing Man is also Deluded Man theory doesn't hold water, both the Echo and Star chase stories must be regarded as fake, and on that basis Schwartz must be regarded as a suspect in the murder of Liz Stride.

              If the Echo story is real but inaccurate (falsely interpreted), then that makes it likely that Schwartz' story is also real but inaccurate. It does not make it likely that Schwartz' story is false. And even if Schwartz' story could be proven false it does not make it likely that he was the Ripper or that he was part of Michael's ridiculous conspiracy theory.
              According to a Home Office comment, the police did not suspect the second man. Why do you suppose that might be? Do you really suppose Schwartz fled from a man wielding a clay pipe, who himself watched Stride get pushed around, only to decide that he needed to bolt too?
              If Schwartz lied about his reason for being on Berner street at that time, and his reason for fleeing the scene, what do you suppose was his motive?
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                You reckon incorrectly. The Star account shows that the Hungarian lived in Backchurch Lane and "fled incontinently, to his new lodgings" there. That means Schwartz ran south on Berner, then west on Fairclough to get to Backchurch Lane.
                This is confused. Schwartz followed the half-tipsy man down Berner street. The man stops to speak to the woman, and then the pushing and quarrelling begins ...

                ... but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.

                So Schwartz is now walking by the board school ...

                Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb ...

                ... onto Fairclough street ...

                ... A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off ...

                How can Schwartz run South on Berner street to Fairclough street, if he is already on it when the man with the knife ...?

                ... rushed forward as if to attack the intruder.

                To be compatible with the Echo account, he must then run along Fairclough street, away from Knifeman. That means East.
                If he does not, then the two accounts are incompatible. If he does, then please take note if your name is Edward Spooner.

                You are misremembering sources. The railway arch is not mentioned in either the Echo or the Star. It comes from an 19 October report by Chief Inspector Donald Swanson - "Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far." The railway arch was at the south end of Backchurch Lane, where it met Pinchin Street. (The remains of one of the Thames Torso Killer's victims would be found there in 1889.)
                That's not what I meant. I'm saying that the Echo account does not give a complete picture of this supposed chase. At some point Schwartz must turn a corner to get to his new lodgings, or a railway arch, or both. Why didn't the man who told Wess the name of the pursuer, also tell him what turn or turns the chase took? Then we would know what railway arch Schwartz was referring to, and/or if he really ran down Backchurch Lane.

                By the way, if the new lodgings really were in Backchurch Lane, then what is the deal with 22 Ellen Street?
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                  If he were legitimately pursued, Schwartz must be a suspect almost by definition. As your Pursuing Man is also Deluded Man theory doesn't hold water, both the Echo and Star chase stories must be regarded as fake, and on that basis Schwartz must be regarded as a suspect in the murder of Liz Stride.
                  Oh Jesus, looks like everyone else has lost the will to live.

                  The newspapers were just trying to make sense of what they were hearing about the alleged comings and goings in connection with the Berner Street murder - as you are trying to do today. Their perceptions of who was running, when they were running, where they were running to, and why, were no more 'fake' stories than your own perceptions, and would have relied on the accuracy and recall of eye witnesses who had no reason to lie, but would not necessarily have known at the time what was going on themselves.

                  If Schwartz lied about his reason for being on Berner street at that time, and his reason for fleeing the scene, what do you suppose was his motive?
                  Well that's one for you to figure out, along with anyone else who prefers to regard Schwartz as a murder suspect than to consider the possibility that he was a decent man, just trying to help the police with their enquiries, and doing his best to make sense of what he had witnessed.
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • .
                    Yet you keep on referring to a pursuer. Who misinterpreted this pursuit and why? Why is a man pursuing another?
                    Is it really a mystery that 2 people running in the same direction with 1 person ahead of the other might be misinterpreted, by someone looking on, as a chase?
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • .
                      Oh Jesus, looks like everyone else has lost the will to live.

                      The newspapers were just trying to make sense of what they were hearing about the alleged comings and goings in connection with the Berner Street murder - as you are trying to do today. Their perceptions of who was running, when they were running, where they were running to, and why, were no more 'fake' stories than your own perceptions, and would have relied on the accuracy and recall of eye witnesses who had no reason to lie, but would not necessarily have known at the time what was going on themselves
                      I think most of us have Caz. All that we’ve been subjected to on this thread and other Stride-related ones has been a tissue of dishonest and utterly pointless manipulations, the sole purpose of which has been to create a mystery. To manufacture a cover that even child could see never occurred. When this comes from someone who finds mystery/conspiracy in every single sentence connected with the case then it’s not difficult to understand why. Everything is seen as a lie, every error hides a sinister motive. It’s an ego-driven fantasy without the slightest basis in fact and the best argument they have is the old Marriott Defence. I think that most people (apart from 2) are utterly weary of seeing this subject (a subject with ample mystery as it is) repeatedly dragged down a fantasists rabbit-hole.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Is it really a mystery that 2 people running in the same direction with 1 person ahead of the other might be misinterpreted, by someone looking on, as a chase?
                        I've never understood this suggestion, Michael, to be honest. It seems more clever than compelling, though I acknowledge that many people seem to believe it.

                        For this to be the correct, we have to believe that an unknown witness (or witnesses) misinterpreted seeing several men looking for a policeman as a chase, but then --coincidentally--there really HAD been a chase a short time earlier, as described by Schwartz.

                        If this is possible, why isn't it just as possible--or even more so--that this unknown witness actually saw Schwartz being chased?

                        Occam's Razor, and all that.

                        Why is it necessary to introduce a mistaken witness?

                        It seems to me that this line of argument inadvertently introduces the idea that there were no eyewitnesses to Schwartz's account, and thus he could have been lying about being chased.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Is it really a mystery that 2 people running in the same direction with 1 person ahead of the other might be misinterpreted, by someone looking on, as a chase?
                          No mystery, Herlock - especially if the one doing the interpreting wants it to be a chase, because they can make a mystery of it, where none exists.

                          Schwartz wasn't looking on, however, but was an active and spooked participant, so in his shoes he could be forgiven for thinking that Pipeman might be chasing him from the scene.

                          Love,

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


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                            I've never understood this suggestion, Michael, to be honest. It seems more clever than compelling, though I acknowledge that many people seem to believe it.

                            For this to be the correct, we have to believe that an unknown witness (or witnesses) misinterpreted seeing several men looking for a policeman as a chase, but then --coincidentally--there really HAD been a chase a short time earlier, as described by Schwartz.

                            If this is possible, why isn't it just as possible--or even more so--that this unknown witness actually saw Schwartz being chased?

                            Occam's Razor, and all that.

                            Why is it necessary to introduce a mistaken witness?

                            It seems to me that this line of argument inadvertently introduces the idea that there were no eyewitnesses to Schwartz's account, and thus he could have been lying about being chased.
                            As we know nothing of substance about this witness I wouldn’t discount either possibility Roger but you say “…..several men looking for a policeman…?” Surely we’re just talking about Diemschutz and Kozebrodski?
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • .
                              This is confused. Schwartz followed the half-tipsy man down Berner street. The man stops to speak to the woman, and then the pushing and quarrelling begins ...

                              ... but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.

                              So Schwartz is now walking by the board school ..
                              I don’t understand this part.

                              If Schwartz walked behind BS Man and BS Man stopped at the gates then that means that Schwartz, at that moment, was feet or even yards (according to how far behind BS Man he walked) behind the couple. So if he crosses the road how does this get him ‘…by the Board School?’ When he crossed the road he could have been 20 yards north of the front of the club and so a fair distance from the Board School.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Is it really a mystery that 2 people running in the same direction with 1 person ahead of the other might be misinterpreted, by someone looking on, as a chase?
                                It really would be a mystery if the witness continued to believe it were a chase, when the two men double back along the same street, pause to talk to Edward Spooner, and then continue on back to Berner street. Even more so if this witness then finds out the name of the man 'pursuing', and then tells Wess, who then tells the Echo reporter that he can't remember the man's name, but assures him that he is not a member of the club.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X