Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Schwartz v. Lawende

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

  • right

    Hello Tom.

    "As an exercise, I think we should all consider the Berner Street murder sans Schwartz. Pretend Schwartz never came forward and we don't have his story. We have Brown, Smith, Mortimer, but no Schwartz. And then see what happens."

    Bing, bing, bing.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Comment


    • arm

      Hello Jeff. Thanks.

      But if her arm is pulled tight behind her, what about those cachous?

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • proof

        Hello John. Thanks.

        Of course, there can be NO proof of an empirical object as they are inductive matters and proofs are deductive.

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • Originally posted by John G View Post
          By the way, do you think there's any possibility that PC Smith could be the "City PC" referred to in relation to the Kosminski identification (I believe the witness said that he bore a "resemblance" to the man he saw?

          Of course Smith wasn't a City PC but, as far as we know, no City constable saw Eddowes in the company of a suspect.
          ABSOLUTELY NOT.

          I think the whole mystery is easily explainable in that Anderson and Mcnaughton are describing two completely different events.

          McNaughten, who investigates Druit before joining the police is working from memory when he writes his memo in 1894. However he has the file created by Cox on Kozminski so his information on Kozminski is very accurate but only up to the time Kozminski is placed in a Private Asylum in Surrey in March 1889.

          So there is a PC witness in Mitre Street

          Karsten has posted a umber of press reports of a man and woman seen leaving Aldgate Station shortly before Eddows was murdered and the man returning alone down Mitre Street past Aldgate towards Goulston Street. The whole of that route is in City Police jurisdiction. Then we have the man with the red scarf being arrested the following day.

          Mcnaughten: 'There were many circumstances'

          I believe Kozminski came to the attention of police early on, but they failed to get a positive ID from Schwartz or Lawende so they had to let him go and have him followed. There was a PC Witness in Mitre Street but he only had a general view of the man and could not be certain, hence why Kozminski was followed by City Police for nearly three months.....IMAGINE THE PAPER WORK AND REPORTS? Where are they? I'd suggest in MacNaughten's bottom draw

          Yours Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
            Hello Jeff. Thanks.

            But if her arm is pulled tight behind her, what about those cachous?

            Cheers.
            LC
            We've been over this before Lynn, without actually doing it (And my partner is still recovering a major back operation) I think its impossible to tell.

            To some extent however you figure it it seems improbable she held onto the cachous somehow? I suggest that it was some sort of reflex action caused by pain and shock...but I can't prove that..

            So there is always going to be an element of mystery about the cachous

            Trusting you are well on this fine winters morning

            Yours Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
              Hello John. Thanks.

              Of course, there can be NO proof of an empirical object as they are inductive matters and proofs are deductive.

              Cheers.
              LC
              Hi Lynn,

              Hume's argument that no inferential justification of deduction is possible? Didn't Kant attempt to answer Hume via synthetic a priori principles?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                ABSOLUTELY NOT.

                I think the whole mystery is easily explainable in that Anderson and Mcnaughton are describing two completely different events.

                McNaughten, who investigates Druit before joining the police is working from memory when he writes his memo in 1894. However he has the file created by Cox on Kozminski so his information on Kozminski is very accurate but only up to the time Kozminski is placed in a Private Asylum in Surrey in March 1889.

                So there is a PC witness in Mitre Street

                Karsten has posted a umber of press reports of a man and woman seen leaving Aldgate Station shortly before Eddows was murdered and the man returning alone down Mitre Street past Aldgate towards Goulston Street. The whole of that route is in City Police jurisdiction. Then we have the man with the red scarf being arrested the following day.

                Mcnaughten: 'There were many circumstances'

                I believe Kozminski came to the attention of police early on, but they failed to get a positive ID from Schwartz or Lawende so they had to let him go and have him followed. There was a PC Witness in Mitre Street but he only had a general view of the man and could not be certain, hence why Kozminski was followed by City Police for nearly three months.....IMAGINE THE PAPER WORK AND REPORTS? Where are they? I'd suggest in MacNaughten's bottom draw

                Yours Jeff
                Hi Jeff,

                Thanks for this. I must keep up with the more recent developments in the Kosminski case! Particularly as I regard him as one of the few realistic suspects.
                Last edited by John G; 01-28-2016, 02:10 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by John G View Post
                  Hi Jeff,

                  Thanks for this. I must keep up with the more recent developments in the Kosminski case! Particularly as I regard him as one of the few realistic suspects.
                  Don't get me wrong here...I don't think this gets us any closer to the identity of Jack the Ripper....It simply explains why the various policeman involved said and why they believed what they did...

                  Its my opinion that the policeman involved in 1888 were far better and more honourable than those involved in 1964

                  Yours Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                    I just did a quick google search using the terms "fall catch yourself with hands outstretched." A number of responses show up mostly medical and sports related. You see over and over that it is natural to land on your outstretched hands.
                    But what about falling whilst holding something in the palm of the hand, CD?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                      Don't get me wrong here...I don't think this gets us any closer to the identity of Jack the Ripper....It simply explains why the various policeman involved said and why they believed what they did...

                      Its my opinion that the policeman involved in 1888 were far better and more honourable than those involved in 1964

                      Yours Jeff
                      Hi Jeff,

                      Yes, I agree. The police in 1888 were clearly trying to solve the case to the best of their ability, whereas there are serious questions regarding the 1964 investigation. Of course, Seabrook contended that John du Rose framed Mungo Ireland, a suspect against which there was no evidence of any description linking him to the murders and, as noted, he was in Scotland when the last victim was abducted.

                      Just out of interest, do you consider Elizabeth Figg and Gwynneth Rees to victims of the same serial killer? I think both a likely victims.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                        Guys,

                        As an exercise, I think we should all consider the Berner Street murder sans Schwartz. Pretend Schwartz never came forward and we don't have his story. We have Brown, Smith, Mortimer, but no Schwartz. And then see what happens.

                        Yours truly,

                        Tom Wescott
                        I see now why you are looking at Brown closer, based on the above. He is the man at the Inquest who claims activity he witnessed at approx 12:45,not Israel.

                        That sighting seems to me to problematic due to the absence of the flower arrangement, that we have witness testimony for, which was on her prior to 12:45am. The interesting element for me on the incident Brown claims is that I could see the man looming over the woman poking the woman in the shoulders while talking to her in an intimidating manner.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by John G View Post
                          Hi Jon,

                          It's an interesting point about Stride not being seen by herself that night. However, if she was soliciting, there surely must have been such periods.
                          Hi John.
                          Not speaking as an authority on the subject but, I'm pretty sure there was more than one type of 'soliciting'.

                          By way of example, we have women who prefer to solicit for brief encounters, a quick knee-trembler, and they are on their way.
                          Then there are others who hook up with a man who treats them to drink, and maybe pie and peas, and a bit of companionship for the night and she will stay with him until he has spent up.

                          I suspect Stride was the latter, and the man who killed her was the one seen by PC Smith, which was the same man she was with at the Bricklayers Arms, and quite possibly the man Packer saw her with.
                          And yes, I am well aware that differences exist in the descriptions of these men, though differences exist between witness descriptions today as the police can all too easily verify.

                          Packer was 58 yrs old, and could only see the chest of the man due to the serving window being so low, then he see's the man across the street in the dark. How many 58 year olds today don't have failing eyesight?

                          Then we have PC Smith who saw a man in a hard felt hat, but then later he says the hat was a deerstalker - they are not the same.
                          Packer changed his mind and was ridiculed for it, PC Smith changed his mind and no-one noticed.

                          As for Schwartz, I can't dismiss his statement because both Abberline & Swanson seem to accept it, and they must have known more than we do. However, my theory does not rely on Schwartz's statement, in fact you could eliminate Schwartz altogether (as some have suggested), and my theory does not change.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by John G View Post
                            Hi Lynn,

                            Hume's argument that no inferential justification of deduction is possible? Didn't Kant attempt to answer Hume via synthetic a priori principles?
                            He did indeed. I remember him grabbing his private parts and distinctly saying "yeah, I got your inferential justification of deduction right here."

                            c.d.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                              But what about falling whilst holding something in the palm of the hand, CD?
                              Yes, John that does happen but it is not the norm. But if it is say a beer can or a purse or some other object that object absorbs some of the shock of the fall. In the case of the cachous, there is only the tissue paper protecting them.

                              And while it is certainly possible that Stride could have held on to the cachous while falling there is also her attempting to get up (again the natural reaction is to put your weight on your outstretched hand to assist you in getting up). And then if she were dragged and attempted to fight off her attacker the cachous had to withstand that as well. So it is three things not just holding them while falling.

                              And while the cachous factor has been beaten to death, the point that I was trying to make was that if you want to ratchet up the ferocity of the B.S. man's attack then there is a direct correlation with the cachous, i.e., more violence increases the chances the cachous would have scattered.

                              c.d.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post

                                Its always struck me as odd that all the other victims from Smith to Kellly, meant their attacker on the north side of the Whitechapel Road.....So why Berner Street?
                                The earliest sighting of Stride that night was around 11:00 pm with a man at the pub in Settles Street, just over the north side of Commercial Rd.
                                We don't know where they met, but we do know Stride came from Flower & Dean St., on the north side of Whitechapel Road.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X