Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Schwartz v. Lawende
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
Incorrect, yes, with respect to interpretation.
Swanson is writing as if there was a second 'if' in the sentence.
In other words the first 'if' is applicable to both halves of the sentence.
His meaning was this...
" If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it..."
We speak this way all the time, use one preposition to apply to more than one sentence. It's just that when you write down what you say, it can give an erroneous meaning.
If you asked me something about the ball game tomorrow, I could say..
"If I go to Toronto, and if I go to the ball game, I will find out for you..."
But, I could just as easy use one 'if'.
"If I go to Toronto, and go to the ball game, I will find out for you..."
Both statements mean exactly the same thing.
The problem with Swanson's note is when he left out the second 'if' his sentence lends itself to a different meaning.
At the time of writing there was no police report of their investigation into Schwartz's story - that is what Swanson was saying, in my view.
If the police report of Schwartz's statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows that if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw is the more probable of the two to be the murderer.
Speaking of those doing the police work ...
... 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.
Doubts about Schwartz long predate Swanson's report, and these are the doubts he was hinting at, in my view.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
The coroner's schedule is independent to any police work, if an inquest must be held it must be within a reasonable time or the delay is punishable.
Secondly, the inquiry is not there to identify the killer, only to establish the when, where & by what means the victim met her death. Schwartz could not contribute to any of that, nor could he identify the victim, so his testimony was not necessary for the coroner.
The coroner's duties are to establish the identity of the victim, which Schwartz could not help, and discover when, where & how she died.
Schwartz's statement contributed nothing towards that end.Last edited by Michael W Richards; 02-01-2024, 02:43 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
But Darryl, you failed to mention the bulk of those had left by 11:30 pm, and that only about 20-30 were left (other reports suggest 28), so does your point still apply?This is a relocation as it’s been rightly pointed out that the John Richardson thread had become a Schwartz/Berner Street discussion. ​​​​​​…….. Posted by Michael Richards: Response from me: Perhaps you can explain how you select which Fanny Mortimer version to use?
The 28 includes people from outside the club, like Spooner. A number of club attendees seem to have left the premises after the discovery, and not returned prior to the closure of the gates.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
But Darryl, you failed to mention the bulk of those had left by 11:30 pm, and that only about 20-30 were left (other reports suggest 28), so does your point still apply?
I am not saying Jack was a member of the club , Liz could have stood in the gateway and stopped a passer by who attacked her once in the yard .What I am saying however is there was an in and an out at Dutfield's , Jack could have come either way to kill Liz and we can't discount either. Also I bet Jack wasn't more than two or three mins with Liz before he killed her.
Off to work
Regards Darryl
Leave a comment:
-
theres is absolutely zero evidence the killer came from the club and or there was a conspiracy by club members to cover it up. end of story.
there is however, evidence that stride was meandering about with a non club member, peaked cap man, and that he was her killer. its not rocket science, although some try to portray it that way.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
So, belief in Schwartz by Scotland Yard was still 'up in the air' when Swanson wrote the relevant section of his report?
Is the following interpretation therefore incorrect, in your view?
Swanson is writing as if there was a second 'if' in the sentence.
In other words the first 'if' is applicable to both halves of the sentence.
His meaning was this...
" If Schwartz is to be believed, and (if) the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it..."
We speak this way all the time, use one preposition to apply to more than one sentence. It's just that when you write down what you say, it can give an erroneous meaning.
If you asked me something about the ball game tomorrow, I could say..
"If I go to Toronto, and if I go to the ball game, I will find out for you..."
But, I could just as easy use one 'if'.
"If I go to Toronto, and go to the ball game, I will find out for you..."
Both statements mean exactly the same thing.
The problem with Swanson's note is when he left out the second 'if' his sentence lends itself to a different meaning.
At the time of writing there was no police report of their investigation into Schwartz's story - that is what Swanson was saying, in my view.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
To be fair Wick , William Wess in his testimony said the club had around 80 members , he also says there may have been 100 people attending a lecture in the lecture room. Perhaps there were more in other rooms , didn't I read somewhere that there may have been 200 people there that night ? .
Anyway the point I am trying to make is that not everybody who was there that fateful night could have been a member of the club. So it follows that some people may have been vouched by one or two people without anyone else knowing who they where, [ if at all ]. Suppose A was with B who was not a member, and A went off early and no one else knew B but he hung around. He could have left anytime without anyone taking much notice of the time when he left. Or as an alternative B could have left while A was still one of those left singing without telling him. Again with B not being a club member, and not well known who would take much notice of when he left ?
Regards Darryl
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
The problem I see with the killer being a club member is that the police interviewed all the members, and as would be expected they not only have alibi's, but all their stories will confirm each other. The police will be looking for an inconsistency, an example being 'A' says he was with 'B', whereas 'B' makes no mention of seeing 'A'.
Unless you want to proposed a conspiracy among club members then we can rest assured their stories all confirmed each other.
Lets be honest, to think the killer may have been a member of the club is hardly an outstanding theory, it was likely their first thought - hence the individual interrogations & personal searches of the members.
Anyway the point I am trying to make is that not everybody who was there that fateful night could have been a member of the club. So it follows that some people may have been vouched by one or two people without anyone else knowing who they where, [ if at all ]. Suppose A was with B who was not a member, and A went off early and no one else knew B but he hung around. He could have left anytime without anyone taking much notice of the time when he left. Or as an alternative B could have left while A was still one of those left singing without telling him. Again with B not being a club member, and not well known who would take much notice of when he left ?
Regards DarrylLast edited by Darryl Kenyon; 01-31-2024, 06:27 PM.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostThe problem I see with the killer being a club member is that the police interviewed all the members, and as would be expected they not only have alibi's, but all their stories will confirm each other. The police will be looking for an inconsistency, an example being 'A' says he was with 'B', whereas 'B' makes no mention of seeing 'A'.
Unless you want to proposed a conspiracy among club members then we can rest assured their stories all confirmed each other.
Lets be honest, to think the killer may have been a member of the club is hardly an outstanding theory, it was likely their first thought - hence the individual interrogations & personal searches of the members.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostIf Israels story is accurate and honest, and BSM isnt her eventual killer, then its almost a cert that the killer is already at the club.Or maybe just returning to it.....? Either way, in your scenario Jack,... who you believe committed this crime, is at that club.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
For Israel Schwartz to give a relatively detailed account of him being a first hand witness to a woman being assaulted in public just yards away from where she was found murdered around 15 minutes later... and for him to not even be at the inquest to give said evidence...that tells you all you need to know about Schwartz and his validity as a witness.
If Schwartz was there in Berner St, he's more likely to have been the killer himself and his account of being followed by Pipeman may have been him evading capture after being caught slashing Stride's throat.
What if Schwartz and BS man are the same person?
So Pipeman chased Bs Man/Schwartz and the alleged anti Semitic slur is false rhetoric from the killer to push the idea the Ripper was Jewish.
That would mean that it was Pipeman who disturbed Schwartz/BS man and that would coincide with press reports that the killer was seen being chased and that the person chasing wasn't connected to the club.
As I've posted before; the name Israel has direct biblical links to the name Jack.
Was it in fact Schwartz who was seen talking to Stride? Bearing in mind that Schwartz was the killer disguised as someone else; playing a character as it were.
Did the killer deliberately dress up to portray being a Jew, when he wasn't? All in an attempt to push the false claim of the killer being Jewish.
Of all the people present in Berner Street, Schwartz has remained a ghost.
But why is that?
Well, perhaps the stereotypical looking Jew was the killer in disguise.
It would also explain the Goulston Street graffiti.
Lots to ponder
RD
Perhaps timing is the key issue here, if Schwartz's account in the Star is arguably a response to the Echo report. The Echo was, I believe, a morning newspaper. The Star was an evening newspaper. If the Star interview occurred on the Monday, in time for the evening edition, but after the morning edition of the Echo had been published, then the theory might work.
Even if the theory does work in regard to timing, it doesn't make Schwartz the killer. He may have just been a man on his way home from the markets, who was chased for his gladstone bag. If so, we probably know the real name of the ghost.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
The coroner selects his witnesses from the list provided by police.
The witnesses story must be verified to some degree before they can tell the coroner the witness is to be believed.
You must remember the police interview hundreds of witnesses in the course of their investigations, but only a few are able to offer direct testimony relating to the victim at the time of the murder.
A coroner cannot use a witness who turned out to be mistaken about what they saw, or intentionally lying for some reason. The police are expected to question the witness and investigate the truth - in other words test the witness against all the other statements given to them.
The proof of this can be seen with the statement of Maxwell who's claim directly conflicted with medical evidence, but the police could not break her claim, so they had to put her name on the coroners list.
The coroner (or his secretary) then receives the list of names coupled with copies of their statements, and the coroners office then reads all the statements and will select which witnesses they will choose to attend the public inquiry.
What I am saying is the police were still investigating Schwartz's story, as Swanson says, there is no police report at the time, which means they were still investigating his story.
This, in my view, is why he did not appear as a witness.
Is the following interpretation therefore incorrect, in your view?
Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
" If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it..." Swanson, 19th October. We don't know why Schwartz was not at the inquest, but it clearly was not because the police didn't believe him. Swanson makes it clear that they did believe him. This was after the last evidence given at the inquest. Fact, not supposition.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post...
What you suggest isnt feasible anyway, with a Monday start they didnt have enough time to vet most of the witnesses that appeared at the Inquest,..... but they didnt withhold them...
Mary Malcolm? Really? They knew she was wrong before they let her speak. So why do it?
The inquest did begin before the victim had been truly identified, so Malcolm's inclusion is understandable in the circumstances.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
If they were still investigating his statement, which placed an assailant with Stride minutes just before she is cut, why would the Inquest proceed right away?
Secondly, the inquiry is not there to identify the killer, only to establish the when, where & by what means the victim met her death. Schwartz could not contribute to any of that, nor could he identify the victim, so his testimony was not necessary for the coroner.
Wouldnt his statement be the most germane if true? It would suggest Wilfull Murder as the likely cause and set up BSM as the likely culprit.
Schwartz's statement contributed nothing towards that end.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: