Packer and Schwartz

[John G]

Hi Jon,




Threadwise and Packer aside, Israel Schwartz is a suspect witness because we cannot identify his former residence even though he claims to be moving from it that very day, because it appears we have grounds to suspect he was a friend of a club someone special... potentially in a lot of trouble that night.....,and because his story for being there after a large meeting he would likely have been drawn to had ended seems contrived and not genuine, because his story is arguably the most favorable scenario for the club management and its members, and finally because there are no records that the story given by Israel Schwartz on Sunday night...a story with great significance to the question of the last few moments of her life...was entered as evidence at the Inquest in written form, was noted as submitted evidence orally, was declared as a witness account that is relevant to the proceedings by the authorities, or submitted in secret by the authorities. His story simply didnt matter...but based on its content, and if it was truly believed...that seems unthinkable.

Cheers Jon

Hello Michael,

I think the failure to identify is former residence is a very good point. And, like George Hutchinson, Schwartz seems to have rapidly disappeared from the inquiry. And, of course, The Star reported in two articles that the police had some doubt about his evidence. I also find it curious that no other newspaper picked up on the story.

[John G]

Then why posit such outrageous scenario's

In your opinion.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby.

"There is no evidence, zero, that his story or his credibility was questioned."

Not so. Leman st coppers questioned it.

Now, if you claim they were mistaken, that's fine. But they most certainly doubted his story.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn and curious
where is the source for this? Ive never heard it?if there is that's fine, id really like to know though.

[John G]

Including the time in which she was assaulted and murdered.



This is an illustration of you frequent flaws when making assumptions. We can not rule out BS man (if he existed) on the assumption that he was not carrying a parcel.

Well we can't rule out Michael Maybrick out either! In fact, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I didn't suggest that we could rule out BS man on the grounds that he was not carrying a parcel; I was merely replying to Abby's suggestion that BS man could have been PC Smith's suspect.

It may also behelpful if you were to familiarize yourself with earlier posts in this thread. There are numerous logical flaws to Scwartz's evidence, not least the cachous problem.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Michael,

I think the failure to identify is former residence is a very good point. And, like George Hutchinson, Schwartz seems to have rapidly disappeared from the inquiry. And, of course, The Star reported in two articles that the police had some doubt about his evidence. I also find it curious that no other newspaper picked up on the story.

Luckily, John, we have Swanson`s report, which does not seem to agree with the Star.

[Observer]

It may also behelpful if you were to familiarize yourself with earlier posts in this thread. There are numerous logical flaws to Scwartz's evidence, not least the cachous problem.

In your opinion. Look you're new here, I have no call to familiarise with earlier posts in this thread, I've heard it all before ad nauseum.

[John G]

Hi Lynn and curious
where is the source for this? Ive never heard it?if there is that's fine, id really like to know though.

Hello Abby,

The Star, 1st October, 1888 reported: "The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted ." Elsewhere, the paper stated:" Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling and no notice was taken of it." This, of course, implies that Schwartz merely witnessed a domestic dispute that was seen by other witnesses.

And, on 2nd October, 1888, the Star reported: " In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a man and woman in the passage where Stride's body was afterwards found, the Leman-Street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description obtained, and a second on that furnished by another source, but they are not likely to act on the information without additional facts.

[Abby Normal]

The pressure marks could have been caused at any time. And I don't think it's me that's failing to grasp logical inconsistencies in Scwartz's evidence!

As for who killed Stride, PC Smith's man was carrying a parcel; BS man wasn't. Moreover, Schwartz said that he saw BS Man "stop and speak to the woman, who was standing in the gateway." In other words, he'd just arrived on the scene... I know, perhaps he nipped back home in order to get rid of the inconvenient parcel, before quickly returning to cut Stride's throat!

Or maybe BS man was actually Michael Maybrick, arriving late for a singing gig at the club!

The pressure marks could have been caused at any time

.
Oh really? a year before? a month before? a week?
As the Drs at the time thought-they were caused by the killer.

And I don't think it's me that's failing to grasp logical inconsistencies in Scwartz's evidence!

There are zero inconsistancies with his story-only people inventing them to push there own far fetched theories.

As for who killed Stride, PC Smith's man was carrying a parcel; BS man wasn't.

Ever hear of a pocket?

In other words, he'd just arrived on the scene... I know, perhaps he nipped back home in order to get rid of the inconvenient parcel, before quickly returning to cut Stride's throat!

Or returning quickly to her in anger, after she continually refused to acquiesce to his desires.

Or maybe BS man was actually Michael Maybrick, arriving late for a singing gig at the club![/

Well that's rich, coming from someone who just posted some convoluted conspiracy theory! LOL.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Michael,

I think the failure to identify is former residence is a very good point. And, like George Hutchinson, Schwartz seems to have rapidly disappeared from the inquiry. And, of course, The Star reported in two articles that the police had some doubt about his evidence. I also find it curious that no other newspaper picked up on the story.

Hi John

Schwartz`s address would have been given on his statement to the Police.

[Observer]

In your opinion.

There were ample reasons why I suggested your scenario was outragous. It was a fairytale, nothing more nothing less

[Observer]

If memory serves me well John G, you are the poster who suggested that a side attack on Stride would have been extremly unlikely due to the fact that the narrowness of the yard entrance would have prohibit6ed such an attack. In reality the yard entrance was nine feet wide. The attacker could have performed a back flip and still have the room to attack and murder Stride.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

The Star, 1st October, 1888 reported: "The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted ." Elsewhere, the paper stated:" Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling and no notice was taken of it." This, of course, implies that Schwartz merely witnessed a domestic dispute that was seen by other witnesses.

And, on 2nd October, 1888, the Star reported: " In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a man and woman in the passage where Stride's body was afterwards found, the Leman-Street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description obtained, and a second on that furnished by another source, but they are not likely to act on the information without additional facts.

"The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted ."

They weren't talking about Schwartz here, but the arrested man. That's how I read it any way.

" In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a man and woman in the passage where Stride's body was afterwards found, the Leman-Street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

probably mistakenly trying to expound on the previous report which was referring to another man-not Schwartz.

But, if this is it, in the press no less, than really not much is it?

However, I concede, I cant say zero evidence any more for anyone doubting Schwartz story-I'll bump it up to a minute fraction. : )

I knew about the first statement of the 1st Oct but not about the 2nd-so thank you for posting!

[John G]

There were ample reasons why I suggested your scenario was outragous. It was a fairytale, nothing more nothing less

You didn't give any reasons!

[John G]

They weren't talking about Schwartz here, but the arrested man. That's how I read it any way.




probably mistakenly trying to expound on the previous report which was referring to another man-not Schwartz.

But, if this is it, in the press no less, than really not much is it?

However, I concede, I cant say zero evidence any more for anyone doubting Schwartz story-I'll bump it up to a minute fraction. : )

I knew about the first statement of the 1st Oct but not about the 2nd-so thank you for posting!

Hello Abby,
No problem, thanks for the reply.

[John G]

If memory serves me well John G, you are the poster who suggested that a side attack on Stride would have been extremly unlikely due to the fact that the narrowness of the yard entrance would have prohibit6ed such an attack. In reality the yard entrance was nine feet wide. The attacker could have performed a back flip and still have the room to attack and murder Stride.

No, wrong again! I suggested no such thing, you're obviously starting to confuse me with someone else!