Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • .
    Ripperological Mythology at its finest
    No, just sensible, reasonable stuff. Not conspiracist delusion.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
      Currently, that places you in a minority
      Oh, gawd please! Not that!

      I've never cared to run with the herd. The herd often comes up with simplistic, knee-jerk answers.

      I don't see 3 or 4 men scrambling around and yelling for a policeman as being mistaken for one man chasing another.

      As a theory, it's more creative than convincing.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        The behaviour of Pipeman was radically different to that described by Schwartz.
        Or, if Pipeman was identified and interviewed by the police, it was determined Pipeman's intentions were radically different to that presumed by Schwartz. His behaviour may have been accurately described (Pipeman started to move rapidly in the direction of Schwartz) but Schwartz's interpretation that Pipeman was chasing him (the presumed intention behind the behaviour) may have been wrong (Pipeman was just moving off to avoid the confrontation, or even, Pipeman, after having lit his pipe, was in a rush to get home and didn't really pay any attention to the confrontation that was occurring as he didn't consider it all that big a deal at the time, etc).

        We don't know, of course, because it's not even a sure thing that Pipeman was identified, though there are some suggestions he might have been. But Schwartz's statement includes points of "fact" (observable behaviours) and points of "opinion" (interpretations of motive of the actors). Schwartz could be accurate on the former but widely inaccurate on the latter. When we read statements about the police doubting Schwartz, that may very well only refer to the latter aspects of Schwartz's statement. We don't know, of course, because we lack specifics in the information we do have. But there's no basis from what we have to jump to the conclusion that everything Schwartz said was inaccurate.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Because the person that told Wess didn’t tell Reid?
          A conspiracy of silence?
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            Or, if Pipeman was identified and interviewed by the police, it was determined Pipeman's intentions were radically different to that presumed by Schwartz. His behaviour may have been accurately described (Pipeman started to move rapidly in the direction of Schwartz) but Schwartz's interpretation that Pipeman was chasing him (the presumed intention behind the behaviour) may have been wrong (Pipeman was just moving off to avoid the confrontation, or even, Pipeman, after having lit his pipe, was in a rush to get home and didn't really pay any attention to the confrontation that was occurring as he didn't consider it all that big a deal at the time, etc).
            I've discussed this issue in previous posts. These were outside of mainstream thinking, so were mostly ignored. Starting again from scratch...

            Swanson: Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

            So if Pipeman was identified and interviewed by the police, he could have said that he was running away in fear, and been accepted by the police as telling the truth. He didn't say that, of course. Nor did he say anything about chasing 'the intruder'. The whole running away and being followed thing, was a ruse. Schwartz needed an excuse for not knowing how the assault ended, just as he needed an excuse for quickly ducking down Berner street in the first place. By the time Schwartz talks to the Star, he is full attack mode (he even has his war paint on)...

            ...A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more.

            BS Man is not the issue here. It's Schwartz vs Pipeman. So what happens when Pipeman speaks to the police? Does he just say, "I fled in fear of my own life"? No, probably more like "I saw a man throw the murdered woman to the ground, but thought it was a man and his wife quarrelling, so I took no notice of it." No running, and as a consequence...

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

            It's not like the police accepted that he was lighting his pipe, but ran in fear rather than in a predatory manner. He didn't run at all. There was no chase, as the police soon discovered...

            In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

            If they doubt the truth of Schwartz' story, it almost goes without saying that they would want to talk to Schwartz again. That is why Schwartz did not answer the coroner's questions on the Tuesday - he was back at Leman street station.

            We don't know, of course, because it's not even a sure thing that Pipeman was identified, though there are some suggestions he might have been. But Schwartz's statement includes points of "fact" (observable behaviours) and points of "opinion" (interpretations of motive of the actors). Schwartz could be accurate on the former but widely inaccurate on the latter. When we read statements about the police doubting Schwartz, that may very well only refer to the latter aspects of Schwartz's statement.
            Reid's men found no one who had witnessed this chase/fleeing. For good reason.

            We don't know, of course, because we lack specifics in the information we do have. But there's no basis from what we have to jump to the conclusion that everything Schwartz said was inaccurate.
            There seems to have been an assault on Stride at some point. Somewhere with muddy ground, not stony.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              I've discussed this issue in previous posts. These were outside of mainstream thinking, so were mostly ignored. Starting again from scratch...

              Swanson: Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

              So if Pipeman was identified and interviewed by the police, he could have said that he was running away in fear, and been accepted by the police as telling the truth. He didn't say that, of course. Nor did he say anything about chasing 'the intruder'. The whole running away and being followed thing, was a ruse. Schwartz needed an excuse for not knowing how the assault ended, just as he needed an excuse for quickly ducking down Berner street in the first place. By the time Schwartz talks to the Star, he is full attack mode (he even has his war paint on)...
              Yes, he could have said anything we want to imagine because the fact remains we do not know what he said, or even if he was identified and interviewed at all. Stating that "The whole running away and being followed, was a ruse." I hope is presented here as just more speculation as to what Pipeman might have said and isn't being presented as if it's fact. Given we have no record of Pipeman's statement to the police, or even if he gave one, clearly such things can only be hypothetical.


              ...A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more.

              BS Man is not the issue here. It's Schwartz vs Pipeman. So what happens when Pipeman speaks to the police? Does he just say, "I fled in fear of my own life"? No, probably more like "I saw a man throw the murdered woman to the ground, but thought it was a man and his wife quarrelling, so I took no notice of it." No running, and as a consequence...
              The details in the Star report are far more spectacular than those Schwartz gave to the police. Given the tendency for the press to up the drama in these types of stories, it is far better to focus on what Schwartz told the police, rather than rely on what the press wrote.

              Regardless, while I can see how Pipeman might have said the bit about thinking it was a quarrel, etc, I do not see any reason to go on and conclude he would have said there was no running. If he ran, he may very well have said, "and to avoid getting caught up in a domestic, I jogged down the street a bit", which Schwartz had interpreted as Pipeman chasing after him. Again, we don't know Pipeman contradicted any of the facts of Schwartz's statements, though he may very well have provided an explanation that did not correspond to what Schwartz had interpreted things to be.


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

              It's not like the police accepted that he was lighting his pipe, but ran in fear rather than in a predatory manner. He didn't run at all. There was no chase, as the police soon discovered...
              It's generally been suggested that the man whose statement is not wholly accepted refers to Schwartz. And again, rejecting Schwartz's interpretations, but accepting the "facts", would be entirely consistent with that description. Also, here you now seem to be suggesting that Pipeman did run, only in fear not in a predatory manner, while just above you suggested Pipeman did not run at all. As such, it appears you're just pointing out that we do not know what Pipeman said about what he did, which I agree with, we don't know. That means we have no basis to reject Schwartz's descriptions of the actions he witnessed, though we can question if his interpretations of underlying motivations and intentions are correct (as the police did when they questioned him about who Lipski was shouted at - Schwartz originally told the police he thought it was shouted at Pipeman, which lead to the police searching for the Lipski's in the area, but also made the police think Schwartz had misinterpreted things and that Schwartz, not Pipeman, was to whom Lipski had been shouted).


              In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.
              And this is why I mentioned above that it is Schwartz's, not Pipeman's, story that is not wholly believed. Again, we know the police doubted Schwartz's interpretation of who Lipski was shouted at, and it's possible they doubted other interpretive aspects of Schwartz's statement. We do not know, however, if they doubted the events he described, and we have nothing to suggest the police determined those events did not occur.


              If they doubt the truth of Schwartz' story, it almost goes without saying that they would want to talk to Schwartz again. That is why Schwartz did not answer the coroner's questions on the Tuesday - he was back at Leman street station.
              We have nothing to indicate that Schwartz was at the Leman street station at the time of the inquest.


              Reid's men found no one who had witnessed this chase/fleeing. For good reason.
              Well, if they did identify Pipeman, which you seem to be suggesting they did, then the police did find someone who not only witnessed the "chase/fleeing", but was part of it. What they may have determined is that "chasing" was not the correct description, but perhaps "mutual fleeing" would be more accurate.


              There seems to have been an assault on Stride at some point. Somewhere with muddy ground, not stony.
              I think the area in which she was found was described as muddy, so there's no reason to suggest she was assaulted elsewhere.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • .
                I've discussed this issue in previous posts. These were outside of mainstream thinking, so were mostly ignored. Starting again from scratch...

                Swanson: Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other.

                So if Pipeman was identified and interviewed by the police, he could have said that he was running away in fear, and been accepted by the police as telling the truth. He didn't say that, of course. Nor did he say anything about chasing 'the intruder'. The whole running away and being followed thing, was a ruse. Schwartz needed an excuse for not knowing how the assault ended, just as he needed an excuse for quickly ducking down Berner street in the first place. By the time Schwartz talks to the Star, he is full attack mode (he even has his war paint on)
                But we don’t know that Pipeman was identified. As nothing came from any police interview doesn’t that make it more likely that they arrested the wrong man.

                A ruse?

                Why would he need an excuse for not knowing how the assault ended unless he thought that the Police would have assumed that he’d have pulled up a chair and broken out the popcorn. He walked passed without looking back. This is another example, Amanda many, of you seeking to create mystery where none exist.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • .
                  If they doubt the truth of Schwartz' story, it almost goes without saying that they would want to talk to Schwartz again. That is why Schwartz did not answer the coroner's questions on the Tuesday - he was back at Leman street station
                  An unfounded assumption followed by an opinion stated as fact.

                  Par for the course I guess.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • .
                    In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts
                    If Pipeman was identified and interviewed isn’t this the likeliest source for the Press’s suggestion that the Police doubted Schwartz story. They didn’t doubt that whole of Schwartz story they merely had doubts about one aspect of it. The difference between the Police interview and the one with The Star isn’t impossible to apply a reasonable possible explanation. After all, we can’t know that the two interviews didn’t take place using different interpreters. One of whom might not have had perfect Hungarian. We also know that the Press were looking for sensation so it’s not an outlandish suggestion that it might have been a case of…

                    Schwartz: “I think the man had a pipe in his hand.”

                    Reporter: “ Are you sure that it wasn’t a knife?”

                    Schwartz: “Well it might have been I suppose.”

                    Reporter: “Ok, so we have a man with a knife…..”

                    I’ll go back to the question that I’d previously posed. If Schwartz was a false witness who’s sole aim was to have the mythical BS Man yell an anti-Semitic insult at him (thus showing that the killer wasn’t a Jew or a club member) why the hell does he confuse the matter by pointlessly inventing Pipeman. It makes zero sense especially considering that it wasn’t really Schwartz talking, it was the clubs ‘planted’ interpreter. Can we honestly believe that with such a simple plan the club conspirators would have been so idiotic as to add another figure to muddy the waters?

                    Whatever way you look at this ludicrous suggestion of a cover-up it crumbles. To believe it you have to rely on dodgy and disputed timings, garbled versions and laughably moronic plotters. We’re long past the stage were this fantasy should have been put to bed. In actual fact it has been put to bed conclusively and yet two people are desperate to keep it going.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • . There seems to have been an assault on Stride at some point.
                      Id say that was a very reasonable deduction. Try and stay in that vein.

                      Somewhere with muddy ground and not stony.
                      Well that didn’t last long. She was probably murdered in a coach somewhere and transported there.

                      Cue New Thread…….Was Stride Actually Killed In Dutfield’s Yard?
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post



                        I think the area in which she was found was described as muddy, so there's no reason to suggest she was assaulted elsewhere.

                        - Jeff
                        It's just one of those little details..... but this was the east end, Dutfield Yard was cobbled, as were the streets & roads, so where does the mud come from?
                        I'm inclined to think it's a euphemism for horse dung.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • It was massive news the double event. Why would The Star sensationalise a story then put it further down the paper and then say they doubt the Hungarians story?
                          It just doesn't make sense.
                          The only paper to get a scoop on the Mets star witness and,,, they say there is reason to doubt the account.
                          Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.
                          If they say they had good reason, they meant it. Otherwise Schwartz would have been the main story of that edition.
                          Perhaps it was the other way around and Schwartz sensationalised his story, and even more for the paper. And he saw nothing more than a bit of a domestic dispute, [ perhaps earlier than he stated ].
                          Unfortunately people do come forward in high profile cases from time to time with exaggerated **** and bull.
                          Regards Darryl

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            It's just one of those little details..... but this was the east end, Dutfield Yard was cobbled, as were the streets & roads, so where does the mud come from?
                            I'm inclined to think it's a euphemism for horse dung.
                            That’s a load of s*^t Wick.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                              It was massive news the double event. Why would The Star sensationalise a story then put it further down the paper and then say they doubt the Hungarians story?
                              It just doesn't make sense.
                              The only paper to get a scoop on the Mets star witness and,,, they say there is reason to doubt the account.
                              Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.
                              If they say they had good reason, they meant it. Otherwise Schwartz would have been the main story of that edition.
                              Perhaps it was the other way around and Schwartz sensationalised his story, and even more for the paper. And he saw nothing more than a bit of a domestic dispute, [ perhaps earlier than he stated ].
                              Unfortunately people do come forward in high profile cases from time to time with exaggerated **** and bull.
                              Regards Darryl
                              It’s certainly possible that Schwartz might have been guilty of ‘sexing’ up what he’d seen Darryl. Especially if money change hands.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                That’s a load of s*^t Wick.
                                I've been accused of talking sh*t before,....I can't imagine where this idea comes from....
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X