Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

Michael is right.

The idea that Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest because he was ill, couldn't be bothered, was running an errand for his mum in Hartlepool or had to rub lard on the cat's boil doesn't fly.

Nor does the idea that court translators were unavailable or that his evidence was heard in camera.

These are all just handy constructs to maintain the status quo of the Ripper mystery.

Because his story gave the lie to the 1.00 am interrupted-Ripper double-event malarkey Schwartz's story was disavowed and he wasn't allowed anywhere near the inquest.

And being an East End Jew [not the easiest of gigs in 1888] he didn't complain.

Israel Schwartz did exactly what he was told by the cops.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Michael is right.

The idea that Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest because he was ill, couldn't be bothered, was running an errand for his mum in Hartlepool or had to rub lard on the cat's boil doesn't fly.

Nor does the idea that court translators were unavailable or that his evidence was heard in camera.

These are all just handy constructs to maintain the status quo of the Ripper mystery.

Because his story gave the lie to the 1.00 am interrupted-Ripper double-event malarkey Schwartz's story was disavowed and he wasn't allowed anywhere near the inquest.

And being an East End Jew [not the easiest of gigs in 1888] he didn't complain.

Israel Schwartz did exactly what he was told by the cops.

Regards,

Simon

Thanks Simon and MR

So why wasn't he at the inquest? Why did the cops tell him not to attend?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

Read my last post again.

"Because his story gave the lie to the 1.00 am interrupted-Ripper double-event malarkey . . ."

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Read my last post again.

"Because his story gave the lie to the 1.00 am interrupted-Ripper double-event malarkey . . ."

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon
Sorry if im being daft but How?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

It's my turn to be dim.

How, what?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

And why does Scotland Yard need to promote the Double-event scenario by subverting justice?

I'm not seeing the gain.

[c.d.]

"Schwartz would be a crucial witness at trial in establishing the identity of the killer but that is not the purpose of an inquest."

I agree with Bridewell's point. This was not a trial. Schwartz's testimony was not crucial as far as putting a rope around the neck of a guilty man nor was it crucial in exonerating an innocent man. No one was on trial for murder. It seems extremely unlikely that a verdict of accidental death or suicide would be returned. With or without Schwartz's testimony the result would still be death by person or persons unknown.

The simplest explanation for his absence is that he was simply not sure of what he saw coupled with all the problems inherent in translating. That would only seem to muddy the water for the jurors and ultimately have no bearing on their verdict.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

"Schwartz would be a crucial witness at trial in establishing the identity of the killer but that is not the purpose of an inquest."

I agree with Bridewell's point. This was not a trial. Schwartz's testimony was not crucial as far as putting a rope around the neck of a guilty man nor was it crucial in exonerating an innocent man. No one was on trial for murder. It seems extremely unlikely that a verdict of accidental death or suicide would be returned. With or without Schwartz's testimony the result would still be death by person or persons unknown.

The simplest explanation for his absence is that he was simply not sure of what he saw coupled with all the problems inherent in translating. That would only seem to muddy the water for the jurors and ultimately have no bearing on their verdict.

c.d.

The point is erroneous, because the Inquest was also to determine whether or not Liz died by natural causes or by "wilfull murder by person or persons unknown", in which case Israel's story would have been critical. Its far more likely she wasn't cut accidentally or by a self inflicted wound if we see her accosted just before that cut.

[Vincenzo]

Wouldn't the doctors who were at the inquest had been able to testify that Liz Stride had been murdered without Schwartz' testimony? It would be easy to tell that the wound was not self inflicted since no weapon was found at the scene and I assume that it would be rather easy to tell that it was not an accident if there was no feature in the surroundings which would have created such a wound.

[Michael W Richards]

Wouldn't the doctors who were at the inquest had been able to testify that Liz Stride had been murdered without Schwartz' testimony? It would be easy to tell that the wound was not self inflicted since no weapon was found at the scene and I assume that it would be rather easy to tell that it was not an accident if there was no feature in the surroundings which would have created such a wound.

AP Wolf suggested a few years ago that a boot scraper, the type that would have been present in any venue with cattle, might have caused a knife like wound. The situation here is that with Israel Schwartz, we have a struggle that involves the deceased.....a few feet from and within minutes of her fatal injury. From that a conclusion of wilful murder might be plausible. Without Israel for all we know there was some kind of accident that actually caused the cut, without Israel, Liz isn't seen alive by anyone after 12:35, so there is a distinct possibility that she spent her last few minutes inside the gate, out of sight. We cant know how that injury occurred based on that, and since we have witnesses with a great deal riding on any perception of guilt, we have few witnesses to trust.

Best regards

[Wickerman]

A boot scraper was not a blade. If you fell on it you might get a nasty bruise.

We had one similar to this, set in our house wall.

https://www.google.com/search?q=19th+century+boot+scraper&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCNiV9c3wtcYCFYoQkgodAQwH7Q&biw=1154&bih=931

I think the Doctors would have taken any bloodstained boot scraper into account, but they were not sharp enough to cut skin.

[GUT]

A boot scraper was not a blade. If you fell on it you might get a nasty bruise.

We had one similar to this, set in our house wall.

https://www.google.com/search?q=19th+century+boot+scraper&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCNiV9c3wtcYCFYoQkgodAQwH7Q&biw=1154&bih=931

I think the Doctors would have taken any bloodstained boot scraper into account, but they were not sharp enough to cut skin.

We had a similar one on the back step, I had the "pleasure" of falling on it once, scrapes and bruises not real cuts.

[Vincenzo]

It would have had to have been one hell of an accident for Liz to somehow slice open her own neck, while lying on the ground, bad enough to cause death.

[Bridewell]

The point is erroneous, because the Inquest was also to determine whether or not Liz died by natural causes or by "wilfull murder by person or persons unknown", in which case Israel's story would have been critical. Its far more likely she wasn't cut accidentally or by a self inflicted wound if we see her accosted just before that cut.

In what way 'erroneous'?

It would be a perverse jury indeed which returned a verdict of 'natural causes' on a death resulting from a cut throat. Stride died because her throat was cut. Schwartz's evidence is of value in identifying (from description) her assailant but, as previously stated, that is not the purpose of an inquest.

[Michael W Richards]

In what way 'erroneous'?

It would be a perverse jury indeed which returned a verdict of 'natural causes' on a death resulting from a cut throat. Stride died because her throat was cut. Schwartz's evidence is of value in identifying (from description) her assailant but, as previously stated, that is not the purpose of an inquest.

Stride died because a wound in her throat bled her dry while the club members scurried about, and there is nothing concrete within the evidence that is presented to suggest how that happened, or by whom. To wit....the wound could have been caused accidentally...something that would have appeared less likely if Israels story made it into the Inquest. Which it very obviously, didn't.

Even if the wound was made by someone holding a knife, that still doesn't mean that the cut was intentional...she could have been threatened with a knife to her throat and then slipped inadvertently pressing into that blade. Personally, I believe that the evidence suggests she was killed by someone in that passageway and therefore in some capacity associated with the club or that nights meeting in particular, but I don't pretend that the evidence presented at the inquest answers that question definitively.

I do know however that using the evidence that is presented that non-one within the presented witness group saw Liz on the street, or alive, after 12:35am. Ergo, my interpretation of the event.... Someone who was already on club property at 12:35, inside that passageway, killed her. Obviously that would point to someone from that club on that night.

Cheers