Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:

"this usually only holds when the witness feels to be under threat themselves (when the gun is pulled, when the shady character in a bulky jacket stands stock still on a crowded street). There's no real reason to suppose this was the case in our example."

I think that it has been showed a number of times that Schwartz feared for his own security, and we know that he crossed the street to get out of BS man´s way, Claire. Therefore it stands to reason to apply this sort of thinking here, I´d say.

The best, Claire!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...and while I´m at it, and since there was a somewhat heated discussion on the topic of whether a streetwise pony was an animal that would shy at different situations or not, here´s a snippet from the Evening News, October 1:st 1888. It is the voice of Louis Diemshitz we are hearing:

"I am a traveller in the common jewellery trade, and work only for myself. I have also been the steward for the International Working Men's Club for between six and seven years, and I live on the premises of the club. For some time I have been in the habit of going to Westow Hill, at the Crystal Palace, every Saturday, in order to sell my goods at the market which is there. I got back this Sunday morning about one o'clock, and drove up to our club-room gate in my pony cart. My pony is frisky and apt to shy, though not much, and it struck me when I was passing through the double gates into the yard that he wanted to keep too much to the left side against the wall."

And there we are: "My pony is frisky and apt to shy". That says just about all there is to say on the matter of city ponies not being all that impressed by different occurences in the streets. Horses are and remain sensitive animals.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Exactly my point. All horses shy when a body is in their path. I think it's important that he specifically said that his pony was apt to shy, to distinguish it from other city ponies.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:
" I think it's important that he specifically said that his pony was apt to shy, to distinguish it from other city ponies"

..and I think, Mike, that he said nothing of the sort. What he said was something that distinguished his pony from other ponies IN GENERAL to some extent (it was a more apt to shy than ponies in general), and what he of course also said was something that points straight away from your supposition that the ponies of the East End were streetwise animals that would normally not shy away from things.
And to add good measure, Mike – Stride´s body never was in the pony´s way. There was ample space to walk past her by using the middle of the passageway, but the pony shied to the left anyway.

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[DVV]

"Lipski" remains an very improbable insult in this kind of situation - unless uttered by a gentile.

Fisherman

A very reasonable view.
Otherwise it would sound too much like "*****z", in gangsta rap. But this ironical use of "*****z" came after a long use of the term by white racists.
In 1888, the Lipski affair was far too recent for such a mirror effect.

Amitiés,
David

[harry]

So the pony was apt to shy.At what?,and why did it travel further into the yard before before it stopped and refused to go on.What was further in the yard that stopped it.

[Fisherman]

How far, Harry, did it travel into the yard? Pray, tell me, sir!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

"It would be utterly remarkable if he were neighbors with young men just like himself but did not enjoy an acquaintance and/or frequent the club."

Abraham Heshburg might not think it so "utterly remarkable".

Heshburg was a child, not a young man, and he was not an immigrant. He was not at all fond of the club. Apples and oranges, my friend.

I´m slightly troubled by this, Tom. Do you mean that Schwartz would have been there, but told a story that differed from what happened, or do you mean that he was just a hired misinformant who was never even there?
In each case, but maybe mostly so in the last one, I think it would be a strange thing to hire a man who did not speak English, and then provide him with an interpreter. It would involve more risks that somebody got something terribly wrong. Just a thought.

It's pure speculation on my part, but if it is shown that Schwartz was associated with William Wess and the club - through one of their leagues, for instance - then very serious doubt would be thrown on Schwartz's credibility. What I'm suggesting is the possibility that a) he lied at the instruction of William Wess, who possibly acted as his interpreter, or b) he was paid by Charles Le Grand to lie, as was Matthew Packer. Since Schwartz was moving that evening and not able to attend the club festivities, he would be a likely and trustworthy choice for someone like Wess who was on serious damage control mode.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"It's pure speculation on my part, but if it is shown that Schwartz was associated with William Wess and the club - through one of their leagues, for instance - then very serious doubt would be thrown on Schwartz's credibility. What I'm suggesting is the possibility that a) he lied at the instruction of William Wess, who possibly acted as his interpreter, or b) he was paid by Charles Le Grand to lie, as was Matthew Packer. Since Schwartz was moving that evening and not able to attend the club festivities, he would be a likely and trustworthy choice for someone like Wess who was on serious damage control mode."

Thanks for this, Tom. I thought that this was how you wiew it, and it has it´s points, of course. But I still think that the Sod-it,-Schwartz-does-not-speak-a-word-of-English-issue would have prevented the whole thing.
Then again, it can be reasoned that a scheme like this may have reinforced the chance that the police would take it seriously. Given the choice, though, between regarding Wess/Le Grand as being that sly or regarding the whole notion of Schwartz acting as a paid misinformant as not very credible, I move for the latter choice.

The best!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

It strikes me that, if the IWEC wanted to get someone to invent a story about an altercation at the Club gates, they'd have had someone looking from a window or nipping out the back to witness it, rather than the almighty palaver that Schwartz came out with.

[harry]

Fisherman,
How far did the pony travel into the yard?well I last attended school sixty five years ago,thats right 65,and I may be a little rusty, but here goes.
The right hand side of the gate 4"5".Strides body 5'7",but being as she was not fully stretched I'll settle for five'.As the cart was about level with the body,we can accept the horse being in front of the cart.and allow at least 5 foot for the animals length.Now lets see thats4'5"+5'7"+5'=say15'.Correct headmaster?
As the wall on the right hand side,before it joined the clubhouse proper was 15',the animal's head would have levelled the junction.So it had,I presume,travelled past the body to an extent that disallows blood or the body causing it to shie and stop,but it does allow something else.An upright man perhaps.
How do I place the cart level with the body.Well Diemschultz says he looked down,and there the bundle was.Not to right or left,but down.
Can I now sit down sir?

[The Good Michael]

Harry,

Maybe you know the answer to this next question, because I sure don't.

If Diemschutz hopped down and looked down, he had to have hopped down to the right or to the left or he'd be sitting on the pony's back. In the UK, as modern drivers sit on the right side of the car, I assume that a cart driver would sit at least a bit to the right and that the natural inclination would be to hop down on the right side. If he did just that, it would have meant that the body was just off to the right and ahead of the cart, possibly putting it precariously close to the right front wheel, or right wheel if it was only a two-wheeler. This would mean that the body was, in the pony's mind, very, very close to being in it (the cart's path). Yet, I like your thinking about a lurking man being there. As soon as the cart passed where the body was, and we know that it did, a man could have easily gotten away in the ample space that was created. I see no argument that can say even 'probably the killer had already gone'. There is nothing that eliminates the possbility that he was there, not even remotely, but there is nothing that says he was definitely still there. The shying is something, however. Yet a body would have done that as well.

What does this mean? Maybe nothing.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Harry, I am amazed at your measuring of where that pony ended up in the yard. Thanks for that lesson! I do not think, however, that we are going to be able to use it. I´ll explain why.

To begin with, "looking down" does not necessarily equal "looking straight down". You can look down at an object on the ground a fair distance away. Moreover, this is what was said:

Diemschitz, from the inquest:

"All at once my pony shied at some object on the right. I looked to see what the object was, and observed that there was something unusual, but could not tell what."

No looking down there!

Diemschitz, as quoted in the Evening Post, October 1:st:

”...it struck me when I was passing through the double gates into the yard that he wanted to keep too much to the left side against the wall. I could not make out what was the matter, so I bent my head to see if there were anything to frighten him. Then I noticed there was something unusual about the ground, but I could not tell what it was, except that it was not level.”

Please notice that Diemschitz says that his pony shied to the left as the steward was passing through the gates. This implies that it shied at an early stage.
Now, no matter when the pony shied, we must not conclude that it stopped as it shied! It may well have proceeded to a point where it had passed the body. Much as it did not want to proceed along the way Diemshutz usually took, it may of course have proceeded any stretch of the road after it had shied to the left.

There may have been a killer in that yard, Harry. There is no disproving it. The horse may have been spooked by anything else but Stride´s body, and if you feel that it is a reasonable explanation, well then there you are, Harry.
But since we have records telling us that the horse shied as Diemschitz drove through the gates, I think it remains something that will a very secondary choice of reason to that shying, considering that there was a dead woman, reeking with blood, lying to the right directly inside that yard. That leaves us with a situation where no other explanation is called upon for the horse´s behaviour.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Diemschutz parked his pony and cart in front of the steps.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"Diemschutz parked his pony and cart in front of the steps."

Thanks, Tom! What I am trying to point out here, though, is that the pony shied to it´s left on passing the gates. Harry´s wiew seems to be that the pony may have been scared by somebody (and that somebody would be Jack) standing deeper into the yard.

The best,
Fisherman