Different Killers

[John G]

Hello John.

"My problem is that if "others" witnessed the altercation, who were these people? Why aren't they referred to in official police reports? Why didn't they appear at the inquest? And more crucially, why didn't any of these additional witnesses take the opportunity to make some easy money by selling their story to the Star?"

Bingo.

Cheers.
LC

And, from a logical perspective, isn't this line of reasoning ultimately self defeating anyway? I mean, Scwartz doesn't mention "others", he only refers to Pipeman. Therefore, any suggestion that there were further witnesses, that he inexplicably fails to mention, surely implies that he lied.

[Batman]

pipeman is one witness

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Obviously, Swanson seems to have accepted his story. But what, really, does that get us more than the Leman coppers NOT accepting it? It's like saying Batman accepts it but Cates does not.

Regarding Lawende: surely he was at inquest? Not sure how that is suppressed?

Cheers.
LC

Pipeman seems to have been cleared by Swanson. That's at least one other witness. We know they also said during the investigation they made formal arrests. They had no additional information to press charges. The Star has told us that both Schwartz and Pipeman where doubted at one time or another during that investigation, but the conclusion of the affair is given by Swanson. Obviously the first man is still suspected but not the second or he would have said it. So Schwartz was corroborated.

Stride and Eddowes both had their key witnesses surpressed by the investigators at the time. This is the only way to reconcile the fact the investigation files continue to use both in suspect identification, one by Met, one by City.

Lawrence's testimony was halted during the inquest.

Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
The Foreman: The jury do not desire it.

Surely the details I mentioned already explains these questions?

[Hunter]

Finally, the "AF" story came out about a week or so later. Why not a SINGLE word about Schwartz?

Why not a single word about Schwartz in dozens of other newspapers?

[Batman]

Why not a single word about Schwartz in dozens of other newspapers?

Crawford tells us that the police are actively trying to surpress the suspects description. His interdiction at the inquest on this matter is clear. This also explains why Schwartz wasn't given status at the inquest, yet still remained used by investigators (Schwartz; A-Z). Lawende further corroborates this by telling reporters he has nothing to say to them. He was told by the police not to say anything.

I suspect Lawende was coached by investigators to say he wouldn't recognize the man, but that they knew he could and hence why they used them throughout the investigation, even doing a face to face with Sadler, but he cleared him as JtR for not being the man he saw with Eddowes. The reasons for keeping identification details a secret are obvious. They wanted to catch JtR and didn't want him to change appearance. The attempt failed somewhat, as journalists managed to break the story (i.e - did their jobs).

[Wickerman]

Hello John.

"My problem is that if "others" witnessed the altercation, who were these people? Why aren't they referred to in official police reports? Why didn't they appear at the inquest? And more crucially, why didn't any of these additional witnesses take the opportunity to make some easy money by selling their story to the Star?"

Bingo.

Cheers.
LC

If more people questioned these brief, vague and unsourced press stories there wouldn't be half the disagreements there are on these boards.

[Batman]

If more people questioned these brief, vague and unsourced press stories there wouldn't be half the disagreements there are on these boards.

Its more about cherry picking. This old chestnut comes up again and again. Its fine. Skepticism is good... and then this line of objection gets dropped when it comes to the 'alternative' modern interpretation which borrows from said 'brief, vague and unsourced' stories.

Except this story has an official report from Swanson on the matter that flows with the news just fine. No conflict between them on the matter. Standard investigative doubt that eventually sees Pipeman go free after corroborating Schwartz.

[lynn cates]

or . . .

Hello John. Thanks.

"Therefore, any suggestion that there were further witnesses, that he inexplicably fails to mention, surely implies that he lied."

Well, possibly very confused.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

If more people questioned these brief, vague and unsourced press stories there wouldn't be half the disagreements there are on these boards.

But they wont because they believe what the read !

[lynn cates]

Lawende

Hello batman. Thanks.

"Obviously the first man is still suspected but not the second or he would have said it. So Schwartz was corroborated."

By Swanson only. Oh and perhaps someone from the Home office who still thought Lipski was a perpetrator. (heh-heh)

"Stride and Eddowes both had their key witnesses surpressed by the investigators at the time."

Suppressed? How was Lawende suppressed? He testified at inquest--unlike Schwartz.

"This is the only way to reconcile the fact the investigation files continue to use both in suspect identification, one by Met, one by City."

I have no idea what you mean? is it that Lawende later testified about Grainger?

"Lawrence's testimony was halted during the inquest."

Halted? You mean some parts were left out just in case the suspect should turn up? You are comparing chalk to cheese.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

papers

Hello Cris. Thanks.

I presume that's because no other paper had an informant in the police.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Right you are.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Pipeman seems to have been cleared by Swanson. That's at least one other witness. We know they also said during the investigation they made formal arrests. They had no additional information to press charges. The Star has told us that both Schwartz and Pipeman where doubted at one time or another during that investigation, but the conclusion of the affair is given by Swanson. Obviously the first man is still suspected but not the second or he would have said it. So Schwartz was corroborated.

Stride and Eddowes both had their key witnesses surpressed by the investigators at the time. This is the only way to reconcile the fact the investigation files continue to use both in suspect identification, one by Met, one by City.

Lawrence's testimony was halted during the inquest.

Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
The Foreman: The jury do not desire it.

Surely the details I mentioned already explains these questions?

You know it would be helpful while discussing these issues if personal opinions aren't paraded around as "facts".

1. There is no evidence at all that Swanson "cleared" anyone during the Stride investigation.
2. Schwartz is not "corroborated" by any known witness or source connected with the Stride Investigation.
3. Lawendes statement was suppressed and that was announced during his attendance at the Inquest into Eddowes death, he was also sequestered before it...however there is no evidence that Israel Schwartz's story or Israel Schwartz had anything at all to do with the Inquest into Liz Strides death.
4. All potential leads were followed up extensively.

As has been stated many times here and elsewhere, if you want to include anything Israel Schwartz claimed as being of value to the investigation into the murder of Liz Stride, you first must provide proof that his statement was entered as evidence in said Inquest, and that the authorities authenticated some stated belief in his story with verifiable actions, beyond the first 24 hours.

Its ironic that many who seem to be in search of the truth here accept stories that clearly do not have any merit within the known investigation.

If you want to stick with knowns in the Stride case, which would place you well within the minority here ... here's a few;

1. Liz was not seen alive by any identified street witness after 12:35am
2. James Brown saw the young couple by the school.
3. Fanny Mortimer was at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1am, she did not see or hear anything of Louis Diemshitz arrival.
4. No-one viable saw or heard anything within the Schwartz story.
5. 3 witnesses stated within 1 hour that they were by the dying woman in the passageway at or just before 12:45.
6. 1 medical authority suggested that the cut could have been made up to an hour prior to 1:30am.

The obvious is blinding...only club hired personelle made claims that could not be substantiated by any other witnesses and they were in direct contradiction with other club members and unaffiliated street witnesses who did corroborate each other, or had outside validation.

I wish people would quit making the Stride case into some undecipherable monumental mystery...its clearly a simple street killing. Period. If youd like to know why it happened, as do I, then lets use the facts and perhaps we have a chance of deducing...but this "Israel claimed this", and "Jack was interrupted" stuff is so old its decomposing.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

And, from a logical perspective, isn't this line of reasoning ultimately self defeating anyway? I mean, Scwartz doesn't mention "others", he only refers to Pipeman. Therefore, any suggestion that there were further witnesses, that he inexplicably fails to mention, surely implies that he lied.

As this paragraph was released by the same paper, the Star, on the same day but in a later edition, it seems odd to me that they would provide a detail not included in their initial story about the Hungarian.

Initially, there was no mention that the Hungarian simply thought the attack was, "a man and his wife quarreling". The Hungarian also described the attacker as "about 30", whereas this later paragraph suggests, "aged between 35 and 40"

A different reason, plus the different age estimate does suggest a different source other than the Hungarian.

I notice at the end of the 'Hungarian' article the Star reports that, "The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes." If this man was either BS-man or Pipeman, then why would Swanson include the descriptions of both men in his 19th Oct. report?
So, either we have another unnamed witness, or the story is false.

[lynn cates]

zero

Hello Batman.

"This also explains why Schwartz wasn't given status at the inquest, yet still remained used by investigators (Schwartz; A-Z)."

Ah! Now I get it. You are referring to that nonsense about Schwartz being the Seaside Home identifier. If I recall properly, Paul Begg and the other Kosminskiites dreamed that one up because Lawende did not fit.

There is ZERO evidence that Schwartz later figured in the investigation.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

outcome

Hello Jon.

"I notice at the end of the 'Hungarian' article the Star reports that, "The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes"."

And what was the outcome of that arrest?

Cheers.
LC