IWEC members

[Darryl Kenyon]

Would Jack have been happy about the evidence given by Schwartz (if it is assumed he knew about it)?

Well if Jack was broad shoulders, he assaulted Liz right next to were she was found murdered. He may not have expected her body to be found so soon after, but there would always be a chance of that , and of course that is what happened. But the very fact he did assault her [ if he existed ], in the street would he then go and kill her mere feet away when he knows at least one witness had a good view of him and probably a second, and would he draw attention to himself by shouting " Lipski " ?
Knowing he was soon to kill Liz, ripper or not ?
I doubt it very much

Regards Darryl

[Lewis C]

Has anyone considered that Liz may have tried to head to the club to raise the alarm that she was being pursued?

The club's noise would seem to offer her potential safety, but she didn't get to the door in time before he caught her. JtR did not want the alarm to be raised. Killed her by covering her mouth from behind and slitting her left carotid swiftly and efficiently. Then, along comes Luis and his pony.

JtR slinks into the shadows of the nearby privy. Tense and nervous he peers gingerly around the corner to see if there is an opportunity to get away. Luis goes inside and he seizes his moment to escape.

This is how I believe it unfolded.

I think that this is possible, but only if BS man wasn't her killer. Schwartz' account immediately prior to the assault is of him following BS man and seeing the assault when BS man reaches Stride, and it sounds like BS man is walking rather than running. That being the case, if Stride had been running away from him, she would have escaped.

[Michael W Richards]

Well if Jack was broad shoulders, he assaulted Liz right next to were she was found murdered. He may not have expected her body to be found so soon after, but there would always be a chance of that , and of course that is what happened. But the very fact he did assault her [ if he existed ], in the street would he then go and kill her mere feet away when he knows at least one witness had a good view of him and probably a second, and would he draw attention to himself by shouting " Lipski " ?
Knowing he was soon to kill Liz, ripper or not ?
I doubt it very much

Regards Darryl

For myself the idea that the killer would interact in any significant or avoidable way with a witness just before committing a crime like murder is unlikely as well. Assuming that he intended to kill her of course. I think its one of the weaknesses of Israels statement. Because suggesting that incident happened where and when he stated it did makes BS almost certainly her killer. And his behaviour in front of witnesses, if she is an intended target at that time, isnt what we would expect from the Phantom Menace anyway. Isnt one of his trademarks that he avoids been seen?

If Israel Schwartz's account is false, which I personally believe it was, then it does become a very different scenario. Her probable killer? Not so obvious without BSM. But where then did the killer likely come from, seems to be more obvious.

[c.d.]

But again, Schwartz never said he saw Stride being killed. He only saw her being thrown to the ground. He can hardly be blamed for how someone chooses to interpret his account.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

But again, Schwartz never said he saw Stride being killed. He only saw her being thrown to the ground. He can hardly be blamed for how someone chooses to interpret his account.

c.d.

Hi cd, its not that he claimed to have seen a non-fatal encounter with Liz, its that at the time and in the specific location that he claims to have seen it Liz Stride is just minutes and feet away from where she will be killed. Making BSM by far the most probable killer, based on time and availability. But as weve discussed, is it reasonable to assume that BSM, if intending to kill Liz, would accost her on the street and yell at a witness just before doing so? Seems unlikely to me.

Without Israels claimed sighting and events, and based on the only real witnesses to the street off and on from 12:35 until the alleged initial discovery at 1...Fanny and the young couple, (Fanny just seeing an empty street until Goldsteins pass at 12:55), the most likely place for Strides killer to come from is the club property. Which is why the Police searched and interviewed everyone there, as well as the property itself.

[c.d.]

But as weve discussed, is it reasonable to assume that BSM, if intending to kill Liz, would accost her on the street and yell at a witness just before doing so? Seems unlikely to me.

Hello Michael,

Then we are in agreement. I don't think the B.S. man would have killed Liz after being seen by two witnesses either. So it would seem that either Schwartz was lying or somebody (Jack) came onto the scene after B.S. man left. I go with the latter.

I also think that it is a strong possibility that Schwartz was not lying but terribly confused by what he saw.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

But as weve discussed, is it reasonable to assume that BSM, if intending to kill Liz, would accost her on the street and yell at a witness just before doing so? Seems unlikely to me.

Hello Michael,

Then we are in agreement. I don't think the B.S. man would have killed Liz after being seen by two witnesses either. So it would seem that either Schwartz was lying or somebody (Jack) came onto the scene after B.S. man left. I go with the latter.

I also think that it is a strong possibility that Schwartz was not lying but terribly confused by what he saw.

c.d.

I mentioned earlier about how lots of people seem unconcerned with the very timely appearances and disappearances that go with this particular murder investigation. People say they were somewhere, other people say they were there at the same time, yet neither sees each other. People appear and then vanish on what is described as early as 12:20 as a "deserted" street. A PC says he was there just before 1, the club steward says he only just arrived to find the body at 1. Fanny says she was at her door "nearly the whole time" between 12:30 and 1 and sees no-one aside from Leon at 12:55, yet Israel says he was on the street, so was Liz, so was another man accosting Liz, and another man opposite smoking a pipe. Where was BSM before Israel sees him, where was Pipeman, how is it Israel is the only one to see Liz alive on the street after 12:35? How come no-one sees Israel? Remember, the young couple was there, on that street, the whole half hour. Brown sees them, most probably. So how come they didnt see any of this? Fanny was at her door off and on from 12:30 until 1, she sees the young couple and Goldstein, but just happens to miss seeing or hearing Israel, BSM, Pipeman and Liz?

The idea that yet another person suddenly appears, just after BSM...(for some unknown reason).. stops bugging Liz and leaves, is an attempt to insert yet another someone who wasnt seen by anyone else, and has just a few minutes to kill Liz, based on her earliest estimated cut time. We have everyone popping up and disappearing at almost choreographed times. And most people wont entertain the idea that the killer came from the club, where he wouldnt have been seen anyway. My point is that if anyone did show up to kill Liz after this alleged encounter with BSM is over, then its highly likely they were somewhere out of sight until that time. Her attacker could have been at the club, or on its grounds that whole half hour, and out of sight. If thats the case, then why do we need to bother with Israel's story at all? If her killer most likely came from the club anyway. Maybe that explains the complete absence at the Inquest.

[c.d.]

Oh please, not the inquest thing again.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

The arguments concerning the times provided by these witnesses has been based on what time sources were available to those witnesses, and whether the timepieces were synchronized. The assumption is that none were likely synchronized, certainly reasonable, and most had no source of their own to refer to. This is also a reasonable assumption except for the fact that in just one example 3 witnesses stated they did something at almost the exact same time and they are all discounted as just being off on their timing in favour of a singular account, one that suggests they were all early by 20 minutes. 2 of these witnesses came from inside the club, where there was a clock, and 1 was just guessing at a time but did have 2 corroborating accounts, the members, to validate his guess.

The Police used time sources from various places on their beats, they had to have reliable access to record the time of their routes, Fanny almost certainly had a clock in her home, the members had a clock inside the club. None would have the same times displayed, but its unreasonable to assume that 3 people who stated the same approximate time must all be early by the same 20 minute period. The reason for this particular conclusion is that Louis says he arrived "precisely" at 1. So how could 3 men already be by the body at around 12:40...ish? Based just on Louis, a singular account that cannot be validated by any secondary witness.

By all means be skeptical when someone gives a specific time, but when 3 people all give the same approximate time and events, and the person most responsible on-site for what happened at that club that night gives a time that is 20 minutes later than those 3 men, the logical thing is not to discard the corroborated accounts in favour of a singular account, who may have a motive for presenting a story that best serves the club while avoiding inference of misadventure or involvement in this crime. Louis uses the word "precisely" when describing his arrival time, yet the first PC summoned by Eagle then joined by Issac Kozebrodski when heading back to the club, said he arrived "just before 1".

If the discovery was at around 12:40, then that PC would be approximately correct on his time, based on the fact that just after the discovery, Issac K and Eagle first went out for help. They would be returning with the PC at around the time he said. A few minutes here and there is one thing, there are no definitive times with estimates, but when 3 sources come up with the same time without any collusion, and a later witness time...the first PC...can validate a timeline from that discovery time, well......

We have the first medical assistant on site at around 1:10, the second at 1:16, we have a PC at the scene at just before 1, and we have 3 sources saying they were by the dying woman around 12:40. None of these times could be correct if we accept Louis as the de facto time here. If he didnt arrive until 1, and thats the initial discovery time everyone wants to agree to, then how does the PC arrive before him with Eagle and Issac? And how is it that 3 unaffiliated witnesses all stated a time 20 minutes earlier? Non Synchronized timepieces? Then how did all 3 manage to give the same approximate time?

[Michael W Richards]

Oh please, not the inquest thing again.

c.d.

I thought youd see the logic there...if the police believed Israel, but thought...as you intimated..that her killer came after BSM left her, because as weve said, its unlikely a man intent on killing someone would allow himself to be seen and heard just before doing so, then there are very few places that man could have come from and not been seen by anyone until then. Ergo, the police may have concluded that BSM was not likely the killer...then the Schwartz sighting loses value in that regard. If they thought that BSM, as the last person seen with Liz is most probable as her killer, then he would be very relevant. Investigative process 101....look at who the victim was last seen with as the potential killer.

[Michael W Richards]

The arguments concerning the times provided by these witnesses has been based on what time sources were available to those witnesses, and whether the timepieces were synchronized. The assumption is that none were likely synchronized, certainly reasonable, and most had no source of their own to refer to. This is also a reasonable assumption except for the fact that in just one example 3 witnesses stated they did something at almost the exact same time and they are all discounted as just being off on their timing in favour of a singular account, one that suggests they were all early by 20 minutes. 2 of these witnesses came from inside the club, where there was a clock, and 1 was just guessing at a time but did have 2 corroborating accounts, the members, to validate his guess.

The Police used time sources from various places on their beats, they had to have reliable access to record the time of their routes, Fanny almost certainly had a clock in her home, the members had a clock inside the club. None would have the same times displayed, but its unreasonable to assume that 3 people who stated the same approximate time must all be early by the same 20 minute period. The reason for this particular conclusion is that Louis says he arrived "precisely" at 1. So how could 3 men already be by the body at around 12:40...ish? Based just on Louis, a singular account that cannot be validated by any secondary witness.

By all means be skeptical when someone gives a specific time, but when 3 people all give the same approximate time and events, and the person most responsible on-site for what happened at that club that night gives a time that is 20 minutes later than those 3 men, the logical thing is not to discard the corroborated accounts in favour of a singular account, who may have a motive for presenting a story that best serves the club while avoiding inference of misadventure or involvement in this crime. Louis uses the word "precisely" when describing his arrival time, yet the first PC summoned by Eagle then joined by Issac Kozebrodski when heading back to the club, said he arrived "just before 1".

If the discovery was at around 12:40, then that PC would be approximately correct on his time, based on the fact that just after the discovery, Issac K and Eagle first went out for help. They would be returning with the PC at around the time he said.

A few minutes here and there is one thing, there are no definitive times with estimates, but when 3 sources come up with the same time without any collusion, and a later witness time...the first PC...can validate a timeline from that discovery, well......

We have the first medical assistant on site at around 1:10, the second at 1:16, we have a PC at the scene at just before 1, and we have 3 sources saying they were by the dying woman around 12:40. None of these times could be correct if we accept Louis as the de facto time here. If he didnt arrive until 1, and thats the initial discovery time everyone wants to agree to, then how does the PC arrive before him with Eagle and Issac? And how is it that 3 unaffiliated witnesses all stated a time 20 minutes earlier? Non Synchronized timepieces? Then how did all 3 give the same approximate time?

[c.d.]

I thought youd see the logic there...if the police believed Israel, but thought...as you intimated..that her killer came after BSM left her, because as weve said, its unlikely a man intent on killing someone would allow himself to be seen and heard just before doing so, then there are very few places that man could have come from and not been seen by anyone until then. Ergo, the police may have concluded that BSM was not likely the killer...then the Schwartz sighting loses value in that regard. If they thought that BSM, as the last person seen with Liz is most probable as her killer, then he would be very relevant. Investigative process 101....look at who the victim was last seen with as the potential killer.

relevant/schmelavant. NO ONE KNOWS why he was not called.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I believe there should have been some men that did see Liz there during that critical last half hour and declined to admit to it later. We have Issac K returning to the club at around 12:30pm, we have Eagle arriving at the passageway at around 12:40, we have Lave standing there for almost 15 minutes..at the gate and inside the passageway, we have Israel Schwartz claim a he saw a commotion in front of the gates with Liz and 2 other people at around 12:45, and you have Goldstein walking past around 12:55...making his pass the closest to the earliest time of the cut as estimated by Blackwell around 30 minutes later. We know Liz was in that immediate area at 12:35 based on PC Smith's sighting, are we to believe that none of those witnesses saw her at or shortly thereafter that time? This murder has been investigated with the pretext that its ok if we see almost scheduled arrivals and disappearances of witnesses or victims to make the storyline work. And missing sightings of men whose own statements put them right there at the crucial moments.

I'm fine with all this, however you have to some extent dodged the question; why anyone didn't report seeing someone go outside in the period leading up to the discovery, return inside and go to the sink and wash a knife. To quote Mrs D again:

Some twenty minutes previously a member of the club had entered by the side door, but he states that he did not then notice anybody lying prostrate in the yard.

Was she lying by omission?

As for whether Liz was actually there to work, its my conjecture supported by her recent past I mentioned, her lodgemates remarks she wore her "good evening wear" that night, the lint brush request, the breath fresheners, the flowers she didnt have when leaving the doss house for the night, the fact that the location she was at had a large meeting that was now in the state of needing to be cleaned, it ended around 11:00-11:30, ...all in all I believe it was a date, which I dont rule out, or that she had been offered this job to clean by a Jewish person she already worked for or one that had heard of her.

Would she dress for work the same way she would for a date?

No one at the crime scene admitted to recognising the victim (other than PC Smith). Had Stride been in the habit of going to the club to work, in the weeks preceding the murder, it would be reasonable to suppose that club members would have recognised her, and possibly a neighbour like Fanny, who knew a lot a faces (but not Goldstein's, suggesting he was a recent arrival).

As you mention, the club event ended around 11:30 (or as late as midnight). When Stride was spotted by PC Smith after 12:30, was she just arriving for work, or on a break, or on her way home, or something else? If that something else was a date, what sort of date has the woman standing outside a men's club, with the man holding a paper bag?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I mentioned earlier about how lots of people seem unconcerned with the very timely appearances and disappearances that go with this particular murder investigation. People say they were somewhere, other people say they were there at the same time, yet neither sees each other. People appear and then vanish on what is described as early as 12:20 as a "deserted" street. A PC says he was there just before 1, the club steward says he only just arrived to find the body at 1. Fanny says she was at her door "nearly the whole time" between 12:30 and 1 and sees no-one aside from Leon at 12:55, yet Israel says he was on the street, so was Liz, so was another man accosting Liz, and another man opposite smoking a pipe. Where was BSM before Israel sees him, where was Pipeman, how is it Israel is the only one to see Liz alive on the street after 12:35? How come no-one sees Israel? Remember, the young couple was there, on that street, the whole half hour. Brown sees them, most probably. So how come they didnt see any of this? Fanny was at her door off and on from 12:30 until 1, she sees the young couple and Goldstein, but just happens to miss seeing or hearing Israel, BSM, Pipeman and Liz?

We have to be careful with why didn't X see Y? thinking.
What is generally meant is; X is not quoted in the press as seeing Y, but probably should have.
X may have indeed seen Y, but one of the following occurred.

X saw Y but:

• forgot about it
• didn't mention it to a reporter
• the reporter didn't record it
• the reported left it out of their report
• it was included in the report but was edited out

Fanny may have seen Eagle. She may have seen the young couple. Eagle may have seen Lave. He may have seen Stride with Parcelman. What's in the press reports and what was seen, are different things.

[c.d.]

She very well may have been there on a date or a cleaning job. But is she were killed by Jack how could he possibly know why she was there? He simply saw a woman standing by herself late at night. Did he think hmmmm her clothes seem free of lint and she has breath fresheners or looks dressed for work. I won't bother approaching her. But if he did, we have no way to determine her response. So linty clothes or lint free clothes tell us nothing as to whether she was a victim of JTR.

c.d.