Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    But we can’t assume that these policemen lied. So we have to juggle times. You might not like that but it’s a better approach than assuming lies. So we would have something like - Smith arrived at around 1.07 (30 minutes onto 12.35 so that’s only +2 minutes) Lamb and Ayliffe arrived at 1.06 (possibly after Eagle first turned left into Commercial Road) Spooner arrived at around 1.03 (which meant that he arrived 3 minutes before Lamb which he guessed at 5 minutes so no issue there.)

    None of the events that occurred in Berner Street can be dismissed if we apply a reasonable amount of leeway and accept that people were largely estimating times and durations of time.
    Smith's earlier time was an estimate, not a lie. You might be surprised at how many people think Smith 'lied'. I would suppose that the earlier time was about 12:38, and I think that should be acceptable, "if we apply a reasonable amount of leeway and accept that people were largely estimating times and durations of time".

    Smith: On Saturday last I went on duty at ten p.m. My beat was past Berner- street, and would take me twenty-five minutes or half an hour to go round. I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock. I was not called. I saw a crowd outside the gates of No. 40, Berner-street. I heard no cries of "Police." When I came to the spot two constables had already arrived.

    That would mean Smith arrived at the yard at about 1:02. Not 1:07. Are you suggesting Smith lied?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      Smith's earlier time was an estimate, not a lie. You might be surprised at how many people think Smith 'lied'. I would suppose that the earlier time was about 12:38, and I think that should be acceptable, "if we apply a reasonable amount of leeway and accept that people were largely estimating times and durations of time".

      Smith: On Saturday last I went on duty at ten p.m. My beat was past Berner- street, and would take me twenty-five minutes or half an hour to go round. I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock. I was not called. I saw a crowd outside the gates of No. 40, Berner-street. I heard no cries of "Police." When I came to the spot two constables had already arrived.

      That would mean Smith arrived at the yard at about 1:02. Not 1:07. Are you suggesting Smith lied?
      No, that he was estimating. His 12.30-12.35 was an estimation. If his best took 30 minutes (and he wasn’t a robot) it might have been 32 minutes or 32 minutes. He might have passed first time at 12.36. The top and bottom is that a beat of approximately 30 minutes from approximately 12.35 could mean that he returned at approximately 1.06/107.

      He arrived at the yard after Lamb. So whatever time Lamb arrived Smith arrived just after.

      It’s simple. Stop nitpicking.

      We know what happened. Let it go. It’s madness.

      Spooner arrived at yard with Diemschutz.
      Then Eagle with Lamb and Ayliffe.
      Then Smith.

      Happy days.

      Moving on…….

      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

        But plotters didn’t do that and that’s the point.
        You want it to be the point.

        Someone deciding to send in Schwartz as a false witness would have had no way of knowing exactly who was in the street at 12.45 (even just passing through)
        Tell me what Fanny Mortimer said about persons on the street and near the club, in the Evening News interview.

        It’s can’t go unmentioned that the police went on considering Schwartz a genuine witness into November despite Fanny Mortimer allegedly being on her doorstep at the time he passed (according to some versions)
        You mean there was still a belief in 'Mr Lipski', even though Anderson's draft letter indicates Schwartz believed that 'Lipski' was directed at him - a position not evident in Swanson's summary of the event, which therefore suggests a further statement by Schwartz.

        If the Police had a reliable witness, sure of the time, who said something like “well I live a couple of doors from the club and I was on my doorstep from 12.30 until 1.00 and I didn’t see any argument near the gates” wouldn’t they have immediately dismissed Schwartz as a liar? Or did they, who heard Mortimer’s statement in full detail rather than the multiple Press versions that we are left with, simply come to the conclusion that she had gone back inside by the time that Schwartz passed? After all, it can’t be suggested that they were desperate to believe Schwartz at all costs.
        James Brown saw a couple standing at the board school corner at a quarter to one. The couple spoke to the Daily News and to Fanny Mortimer. There was no incident on the street at a quarter to one.
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          You want it to be the point.

          And of course it doesn’t bother you that in 20 years of researchers looking at this suggestion you appear to be the only person that gives it any credence. And you do because you want there to be a plot. Conspiracy theorists hate anything that they consider prosaic.

          Tell me what Fanny Mortimer said about persons on the street and near the club, in the Evening News interview.

          Would the plotters have known this by the time that they ‘sent’ Schwartz to speak to the police (after they’d decided that a non-English speaker was the best person to get the message across of course?) How could Schwartz or indeed anyone know that no one was looking through their window at 12.45?

          You mean there was still a belief in 'Mr Lipski', even though Anderson's draft letter indicates Schwartz believed that 'Lipski' was directed at him - a position not evident in Swanson's summary of the event, which therefore suggests a further statement by Schwartz.

          Or that someone pointed out the error. But I guess that’s too simple an explanation.

          James Brown saw a couple standing at the board school corner at a quarter to one. The couple spoke to the Daily News and to Fanny Mortimer. There was no incident on the street at a quarter to one.

          It’s noticeable that you trust certain witness on their timings and honesty but not others. You appear to have an in-built Psychic Lie-Detector that guides you into dismissing inconvenient evidence but homing in on opportunities to weave the version that you need.
          I’ll review….again.

          Our plotters must have come up with the ‘Schwartz plan’ within the 15 minutes or so after the early discovery of the body as simply delaying informing the Police would have served no purpose. So none of them have the decency which would have meant that their first thought was for the victim and giving accurate evidence to help toward getting this murderer of their local women of the streets. No their first thought was “they will close down our club for this!” When it’s known that a killer of women was stalking the streets it doesn’t occur to them that this murder might be ascribed to him. They believe that the police would blame them for ‘allowing’ the killer to use their premises. Yeah that’s believable.

          They are so absolutely desperate to protect the reputation of the pub against the anti-Semitic (and illogical) Police that they ignore the obvious option of wrapping the body in a piece of tarpaulin, putting it on the back of Diemschutz cart, and taking it elsewhere. So they, on-the-spot, come up with the idea of a false witness using an obscure anti-Semitic insult.

          Do they get one of the members to say “ I’ve just been out in the yard and I saw a bloke struggling with a woman in the gateway. Before I came back inside he shouted ‘f*^@k off you Jewish %#@$$ in an Irish accent.” No they decide to find another ‘witness’ who will identify the killer as a non-club member by the use of an obscure insult. Perhaps it was too simple to get an English speaking witness who could have said that the killer had an Irish or Scottish or Welsh or even a posh English accent?

          So with all of the people connected to the club plus family and friends and associates the person that they select to give this message to the Police is a man that speaks only Hungarian as the Police have many Hungarian speaking officers of course! Obviously they find an interpreter also willing to lie to the Police.

          We also have to remember of course that Schwartz didn’t know that he wouldn’t be called to give evidence at an Inquest so he had to be quite sanguine about perjuring himself if called.

          So all that our witness and interpreter have to do, their sole purpose, is to state that a man attacked Stride at the gates and that he called Schwartz a anti-Semitic name to prove that he wasn’t a Club member. Simples. Not quite. Schwartz and interpreter can’t even do that They introduce the totally unnecessary and totally disadvantageous (to their cause) Pipeman and then manage to leave doubt as to who BS Man was shouting Lipski at. How could anyone **** this plan up? Schwartz and his interpreter manage it though.

          No one could seriously suggest that the use of the word Lipski was part of a plot to paint the killer as a gentile when all they’d have had to have done was to use an English speaking witness who ‘recognised’ an accent. Even with the non-English speaking Schwartz he could have said that the killer was darker skinned. Malay, Lascar, Indian. Nah, too simple of course. Conspiracy theorist don’t do simple.

          Our plotters (and the remarkably naive Schwartz) aren’t at all concerned that there might be a witness or witnesses who testify that nothing was happening in the area of the gates at the stated time. They’re completely impervious to the danger of someone saying “well I looked out of my window around 12.35 and saw Mr Diemschutz from the club return on his horse and cart.” Which would of course immediately have exposed the plot. It’s also well worth mentioning that we have PC Smith passing at approximately 12.30-12.35 and that he saw nothing untoward in the yard; certainly no cabal of plotters around the body of Liz Stride scratching their heads about what do to save their beloved club from the reactionary police.

          So they get the plot sorted but neglect to ensure that everyone has their timings correct.

          The police question everyone but don’t get the slightest hint of anything amiss even after the few timing discrepancies that we are left with 132 years later. Perhaps they understood that people that didn’t own watches simply estimated times and guess what, sometimes they got it wrong.

          Which ever way you look at this plot it simply doesn’t hold water. Not even close. In fact I’d say that it’s laughable. A desperate attempt at weaving a fantasy around a very few very understandable discrepancies. Conspiracists simply refuse to accept reasonable explanations for unknowns. Everything is sinister. Every error hides a plot. It’s a joke that does the subject no favours. We can all see that there was no plot. Errors and discrepancies of course but a plot…..no. Its motive makes no sense. The plot itself requires childish stupidity, Forest Gump-like naivety and a brazen lack of concern for possible pitfalls that would have been obvious to an imbecile.

          There was no plot as everyone but 2 can see. The person that created the fantasy 20 years ago and a man who thinks that Mrs Richardson ran a brothel from her basement in Hanbury Street.

          Need I really say more.
          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

            There’s not a smidgeon of evidence for this laughable tripe. Embarrassing.
            The theory in the Irish Times (attributed to no one) is evidence.

            The lack of witnesses to Stride standing in the gateway, suggests ambush rather than waiting for Godot. This is also preferable to the notion that she were soliciting - the case for which would be much stronger if she were found to have coins on her person, but that was not so.

            The position and orientation of the body - on the northern side of the passage, and facing north - are at least compatible with the victim having been grabbed and pulled into the yard, while walking past the gates in a northerly direction.

            The scarf is pulled in a direction that makes sense, given the same scenario...

            Blackwell: There was a check silk scarf around the neck, the bow of which was turned to the left side and pulled very tight.

            As is Blackwell's theory of murder...

            I formed the opinion that the murderer took hold of the scarf which I found tightly pulled round her neck, and pulled the woman backwards, and then cut her throat.

            The man was just behind the line of the gates, obscured by darkness, and Stride was walking home - this is a much better theory than the Schwartz nonsense.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              I honestly believe that you’re getting worse.

              Why does anyone stand in a gateway? If you saw someone standing in a gateway would you say “well he can’t really be standing there because why would he want to stand in a gateway?”

              Please stop this nonsense. She might have arranged to meet someone is a possibility. After a miserable night she might have decided to earn some cash is another.

              You have no evidence for an ambushing murderer. Or an escaped Baboon or an insane, Transvestite Yak Farmer from Stepney.

              Try and control this lunacy.
              Hi Herlock,

              Are you disrespecting my great uncle Claudine, who went mad from eating infected yak burgers from his own Stepney farm?

              Another reasonable possibility is that Stride had popped into the yard to use the privy, and as she returned to the gateway, BS man spotted her and took against her for some reason. Maybe he thought she was trying to avoid him, or was looking for customers as they entered or exited the club.

              I mean, something must have angered the man who assaulted this defenceless woman, regardless of who actually killed her and whether it was another ripper murder.

              I wonder if the medics could have checked how recently she had emptied her bladder? Serious question.

              Love,

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


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Would the plotters have known this by the time that they ‘sent’ Schwartz to speak to the police (after they’d decided that a non-English speaker was the best person to get the message across of course?)
                Irrelevant, for two reasons. Firstly, club members were some (or most) of the people on the street or near the club. For example...

                Lave: I am a Russian, and have recently arrived from the United States. I am residing temporarily at the club. About twenty minutes before the alarm I went down into the yard to get a breath of fresh air. I walked about for five minutes or more, and went as far as the street. Everything was very quiet at that time, and I noticed nothing wrong.

                So about 20 minutes before the club was alerted to the murder, Lave went into the yard and wandered onto Berner street. So he was on the street at around 12:45, and could therefore have noticed who was or wasn't present. It's also interesting that Mrs D seems to have marked the point that Eagle returned, but not the re-entry of Lave. Need to watch that guy.

                Secondly, why do you think there was a plot? The Echo, Oct 1:

                ... the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street ...

                Arbeter Fraint stuck with the quarter to one murder time. They were obviously talking about Schwartz.

                How could Schwartz or indeed anyone know that no one was looking through their window at 12.45?
                Leeway

                Or that someone pointed out the error.
                So two errors in one short paragraph? Surely there's a simpler explanation.

                But I guess that’s too simple an explanation.
                The literal interpretation is a fairly simple explanation.

                It’s noticeable that you trust certain witness on their timings and honesty but not others. You appear to have an in-built Psychic Lie-Detector that guides you into dismissing inconvenient evidence but homing in on opportunities to weave the version that you need.
                James Brown was not seen running along Fairclough street, suspected of being the murderer. Nor did the young man at the board school corner, kill his sweetheart.

                Need I really say more.
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                  However, I still have to consider why Schwartz would have taken such a risk. Having said that, I would also say that there is another irony in your position (and Caroline's). If there was what you two like to call a plot, then by definition Schwartz is not acting alone. Someone could have conceivably told him when the street was deserted. To suppose that Schwartz has to just take the risk of guessing, implies he is acting alone. You can't have it both ways.
                  If we can't have it both ways, NBFN, that goes for you too. You are the one who wants Schwartz to go away and stay away, while I allow for him to have told the truth, as far as he was able to make sense of what he saw and heard. Just the four people visible and audible in the street around the time of the assault: Stride, BS man, Schwartz and Pipeman, with nobody watching or listening from an overlooking window or front door to confirm or deny what happened. You need one person - the right person - to have watched the whole time and seen nothing and nobody, either in the street itself or curtain twitching, if Schwartz was given the tip that he'd be safe to describe such an incident happening around 12.45, give or take a minute or two. How likely is that, considering the murder had not even taken place when this mystery witness was busy watching nothing?

                  Your only alternative would appear to be that Schwartz did indeed have to guess, but was prepared to take that risk, for whatever reason he was volunteering a false story to the police to begin with.

                  I don't think you intended to make your theory even less credible, but that's quite a feat. I'm not sure how you managed it.

                  Four things stand out to me in support of a 1am discovery by Louis D.

                  1) He gave the time because he saw an actual clock, just as he was about to arrive back in Berner Street.

                  2) Fanny heard a pony and cart followed by the commotion, after retiring to bed. This caused her to go and see what the fuss was all about, and this was shortly after 1am. If she'd been on her doorstep almost the whole time between 12.30 and 1am, she'd have seen the arrival of Louis D before retiring for the night, had he arrived even a few minutes earlier. She expressed no doubts about whose cart she had heard from the bedroom, which was downstairs, at the front of the house.

                  3) Fanny was unaware of any other pony and cart arriving at any time, and nothing earlier than 1am.

                  4) There is no reason for Louis D to have lied about the time on the clock - unless that reason has been manufactured to fit a theory.
                  Last edited by caz; 06-28-2021, 01:29 PM.
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post

                    Hi Herlock,

                    Are you disrespecting my great uncle Claudine, who went mad from eating infected yak burgers from his own Stepney farm?

                    Another reasonable possibility is that Stride had popped into the yard to use the privy, and as she returned to the gateway, BS man spotted her and took against her for some reason. Maybe he thought she was trying to avoid him, or was looking for customers as they entered or exited the club.

                    I mean, something must have angered the man who assaulted this defenceless woman, regardless of who actually killed her and whether it was another ripper murder.

                    I wonder if the medics could have checked how recently she had emptied her bladder? Serious question.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Hi Caz,

                    Nothing wrong with a Yak burger. I’ve tried Quorn so it can’t be as bad as that!

                    Thats a good point. Liz might have be using the facilities. Thinking about it, maybe Annie Chapman chose the backyard of number 29 because she needed the loo before taking care of business?
                    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

                      The theory in the Irish Times (attributed to no one) is evidence.

                      Rumour isn’t evidence.

                      The lack of witnesses to Stride standing in the gateway, suggests ambush rather than waiting for Godot.

                      It’s evidence that no one saw her, that’s all. The ambush theory is baseless and to get there you have to dismis Schwartz as a liar and you have no reason to do that.

                      This is also preferable to the notion that she were soliciting - the case for which would be much stronger if she were found to have coins on her person, but that was not so

                      Weird thinking. The fact that she had no coins shows that she might have been in need of coins.

                      The position and orientation of the body - on the northern side of the passage, and facing north - are at least compatible with the victim having been grabbed and pulled into the yard, while walking past the gates in a northerly direction.

                      Baseless speculation. It could account for other scenario’s too. This is not evidence. It’s fantasy.

                      The scarf is pulled in a direction that makes sense, given the same scenario...

                      Which ouodbalso have occurred in other scenario’s so again, this is not evidence. It’s not even close to evidence.

                      Blackwell: There was a check silk scarf around the neck, the bow of which was turned to the left side and pulled very tight.

                      As is Blackwell's theory of murder...

                      I formed the opinion that the murderer took hold of the scarf which I found tightly pulled round her neck, and pulled the woman backwards, and then cut her throat.

                      The man was just behind the line of the gates, obscured by darkness, and Stride was walking home - this is a much better theory than the Schwartz nonsense.

                      It’s a baseless fantasy. Not even worthy of a seconds consideration.
                      More manipulations to defend a laughable theory.


                      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


                        Irrelevant, for two reasons. Firstly, club members were some (or most) of the people on the street or near the club. For example...

                        Lave: I am a Russian, and have recently arrived from the United States. I am residing temporarily at the club. About twenty minutes before the alarm I went down into the yard to get a breath of fresh air. I walked about for five minutes or more, and went as far as the street. Everything was very quiet at that time, and I noticed nothing wrong.

                        So by mentioning Lave as an example you deduce that most of the street were club members. If that’s your standard of deduction then there’s little reason for comment.

                        So about 20 minutes before the club was alerted to the murder, Lave went into the yard and wandered onto Berner street. So he was on the street at around 12:45, and could therefore have noticed who was or wasn't present.

                        In one version Lave is in the yard/street until 1.10 and saw nothing so excuse me if I don’t take him too seriously.

                        It's also interesting that Mrs D seems to have marked the point that Eagle returned, but not the re-entry of Lave. Need to watch that guy.

                        I didn’t realise that Fanny was ‘in on it’ too?

                        Secondly, why do you think there was a plot? The Echo, Oct 1:

                        ... the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street ...

                        Arbeter Fraint stuck with the quarter to one murder time. They were obviously talking about Schwartz.

                        This means zero. As you know very well.

                        Leeway

                        Ok, of course we have to add leeway. And so……how could they have known that no one would step up and say “I was looking out of my window from 12.30 for abour 20 minutes. I could see the gates but I saw no one.” Ok. Leeway added.

                        :
                        I fail to see how, with a straight face, you can keep defending this crap. The idea of a plot deserves nothing but derision and mockery. It can be dismissed absolutely. It didn’t happen. It’s about time that you admitted to the truth.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          If we can't have it both ways, NBFN, that goes for you too. You are the one who wants Schwartz to go away and stay away, while I allow for him to have told the truth, as far as he was able to make sense of what he saw and heard. Just the four people visible and audible in the street around the time of the assault: Stride, BS man, Schwartz and Pipeman, with nobody watching or listening from an overlooking window or front door to confirm or deny what happened. You need one person - the right person - to have watched the whole time and seen nothing and nobody, either in the street itself or curtain twitching, if Schwartz was given the tip that he'd be safe to describe such an incident happening around 12.45, give or take a minute or two. How likely is that, considering the murder had not even taken place when this mystery witness was busy watching nothing?

                          Your only alternative would appear to be that Schwartz did indeed have to guess, but was prepared to take that risk, for whatever reason he was volunteering a false story to the police to begin with.

                          I don't think you intended to make your theory even less credible, but that's quite a feat. I'm not sure how you managed it.

                          Four things stand out to me in support of a 1am discovery by Louis D.

                          1) He gave the time because he saw an actual clock, just as he was about to arrive back in Berner Street.

                          2) Fanny heard a pony and cart followed by the commotion, after retiring to bed. This caused her to go and see what the fuss was all about, and this was shortly after 1am. If she'd been on her doorstep almost the whole time between 12.30 and 1am, she'd have seen the arrival of Louis D before retiring for the night, had he arrived even a few minutes earlier. She expressed no doubts about whose cart she had heard from the bedroom, which was downstairs, at the front of the house.

                          3) Fanny was unaware of any other pony and cart arriving at any time, and nothing earlier than 1am.

                          4) There is no reason for Louis D to have lied about the time on the clock - unless that reason has been manufactured to fit a theory.
                          Summed up perfectly Caz.

                          The whole idea of a plot is a joke that can’t be put down to being mistaken or to misinterpretation. It would be so bad if it was simply an error. This is quite deliberate. It’s the result of conspiracy theorists ego-driven desperation to discover something new. They don’t care if it’s true or not as long as they can say “I can see further than you. I see things that you just can’t understand.” We hear it all the time and it’s incredibly tiresome. Nothing about this plot remotely makes sense. We have to assume paranoia on behalf of the club members. Then we have to assume the planning capabilities of a bunch of toddlers. Then we have to assume that everyone carried a watch.

                          This debate is about taking either an honest or a dishonest approach to assessing evidence and the conspiracy fantasists have continued to show that they are totally dependant on the latter.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • It is great that there are so many different viewpoints and theories.

                            On this issue of Schwartz, I struggle greatly with his testimony. No one can seemingly find head nor hair of him after his statement to Abberline and the highly fortuitous encounter by The Star with him and his seemingly live-in interpreter.

                            Not one element of his story aligns with any detail of the other witnesses. Park timings for one moment, nothing in his story aligns with any other statements.

                            Something really does not add up.

                            Either his evidence was so good that he should be called to the inquest to give his version of events as potentially the last person to see Stride alive (aside from her killer). Alternatively, the 'evidence' was treated for what it was - not reliable and ultimately dismissed by the police. It even somehow got mixed up by Swanson that the murderer was a Jew because Schwartz may have been called 'Lipski' by the potential killer. Come again? Do we just dismiss that as a mistake?

                            None of it makes sense with Schwartz. He should be dismissed as being simply an unsafe witness.

                            I stand by what I said. I will eat my hat if anyone can actually find proof that the man Israel Schwartz existed on record outside of the Police statement and Star Report.
                            Last edited by erobitha; 06-28-2021, 05:27 PM.
                            "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                            - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                            Comment


                            • I can see no reason for dismissing Schwartz at all. Firstly and at the very least we have to give Abberline at least some credit. He’d have dealt with so many witnesses over the years that his instinct (whilst not infallible) would have been a valuable aid and he felt that Schwartz was genuine. So we have to consider 3 possibilities. That Schwartz was truthful, mistaken or a liar. It’s difficult to see how he could have been mistaken about where and when this event took place as he gave his evidence a very few hours after they occurred. He could certainly have been mistaken about what he saw though. If he was of a timid nature then he might have mistaken a bit of drunken horseplay for a serious argument. Would he have lied? It’s not impossible of course but we’d have to ask why? Why would he place himself unnecessarily at the scene of a murder which would in all likelihood have been connected to the series? We can of course eliminate his being part of a plot because no plot occurred. I really can’t see why it’s an issue that no one else saw an incident which couldn’t have taken more than a very few seconds?

                              Schwartz gave his address to the police. Whether they followed up on this or not who knows? I’d suspect that there’s a simple explanation for why he hasn’t been tracked down by modern researchers. Maybe Schwartz wasn’t his real name?
                              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
                                I know the publishing sequence, and I know the quotes. Thanks anyway.
                                If 'the man pursued' is not a reference to Schwartz, then what is it a reference to?
                                I have already answered this multiple times. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

                                I clearly answered "Who was the man pursued" in Post #1324.

                                I clearly answered "Who was the man pursued" again in Post #1359.

                                According to the October 1, 1888 Echo, the man pursued was "man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer"

                                According to the October 1, 1888 Star, the man pursued was a Hungarian who was not the killer.

                                My point is that the club secretary did not implicate Schwartz. At the time the club secretary gave his interview to the Echo, Schwartz' account had not been been published in the Star. The Star account also did not name the Hungarian. You can't deliberately implicate someone when you don't know who they are, let alone that after you give your interview Schwartz would give an account of being pursued.




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X