Two

[Fisherman]

See Tom? You get it wrong all the time...!

Fisherman

[Archaic]

Archaic,
Where's your sense of irony?

Hi, Tom. I guess I did miss your intended irony.

I was trying to follow a rather long, complex, multifaceted discussion about the murder of Elizabeth Stride and your post sort of threw me... glad to know you were joking.

Best regards, Archaic

[Jeff Leahy]

“ what seems more probable is that Stride was standing, possibly facing the wall, when her killer grabbed the back of the scarf and pulled her back, exposing the throat and at the same time causing Stride’s knees to buckle. Instinctively she raised her hand to her throat, while the left hand involuntarily tightened around the cachous. She was quickly pulled to the ground, the knife simultaneously slicing the throat. The bruising on the shoulders, if not old, could have been caused by the man seen by Schwartz- who actually told the Star that he saw the man ‘put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage. Where ever he pushed her, to the pavement or into the passage, he’s likely to have grabbed her shoulders, where the bruising was found. It seems reasonable to argue, therefore, that the bruising probably proves that Stride was indeed the woman whom Schwartz saw assaulted, and it is further reasonable to suppose that the man who assaulted her was the murderer.”

So say’eth the Great wizard of OZ

Pirate

[perrymason]

“ what seems more probable is that Stride was standing, possibly facing the wall, when her killer grabbed the back of the scarf and pulled her back, exposing the throat and at the same time causing Stride’s knees to buckle. Instinctively she raised her hand to her throat, while the left hand involuntarily tightened around the cachous. She was quickly pulled to the ground, the knife simultaneously slicing the throat. The bruising on the shoulders, if not old, could have been caused by the man seen by Schwartz- who actually told the Star that he saw the man ‘put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage. Where ever he pushed her, to the pavement or into the passage, he’s likely to have grabbed her shoulders, where the bruising was found. It seems reasonable to argue, therefore, that the bruising probably proves that Stride was indeed the woman whom Schwartz saw assaulted, and it is further reasonable to suppose that the man who assaulted her was the murderer.”

So say’eth the Great wizard of OZ

Pirate

I think the above has potential, but quite frankly framing it within a story from Schwartz isnt the best or most sound platform to begin with....since we have no official evidence from him at all. We have press interviews, and police recollections. No official statement in his or rather the translators words.

Im curious what you make of the fact that she has the cashous in her hand at the beginning of the incident you describe above...why she is alone in the yard with her killer if as you suggest its the same man who accosted her in the street,.... and why you get to be the Great Oz.

Cheers PJ

[Chris]

I think the above has potential, but quite frankly framing it within a story from Schwartz isnt the best or most sound platform to begin with....since we have no official evidence from him at all. We have press interviews, and police recollections.

We don't have his original statement, but it's ridiculous to claim that Swanson's report of Schwartz's evidence isn't "official", and it's quite misleading to describe it as a "police recollection".

[m_w_r]

"Theatrical Appearance"

Hi chaps,

I had always thought that Schwartz's "theatrical appearance" might be taken to mean that he resembled the version of the Jew portrayed on the stage in Victorian London - that is, not that he might have been mistaken for an actor, but that he looked like the kind of stereotypical Jewish character one might have seen in a play.

Regards,

Mark

[perrymason]

We don't have his original statement, but it's ridiculous to claim that Swanson's report of Schwartz's evidence isn't "official", and it's quite misleading to describe it as a "police recollection".

Is it Chris? Are the notes that Swanson writes with respect to Schwartz a verbatim copy of his statement once translated? Do we know that via a transcript of Schwartz's statement itself? Do we have the validation for Swansons notes reflected in the witnesses called to testify at the Inquest? Do we in fact know that Swanson wasnt recollecting when he makes the remarks?

I think to suggest that Schwartz is a key witness in this case is misleading, because his story isnt even mentioned at the Inquest, aside from him not being called to give it.

The official records of the investigation leads and witnesses, which are the Inquest documents, show that for the time of approx 12:45am, James Brown is the witness to Liz and a "suspect", not Israel.

Now...if you have some evidence that suggests his story was so important it was suppressed and he was kept as their secret key Jewish witness instead of Lawende...then Ill gladly acquiesce. Because thats the only plausible reason for his omission aside from the more probable one....that Brown was more credible.

Best regards

[perrymason]

Hi chaps,

I had always thought that Schwartz's "theatrical appearance" might be taken to mean that he resembled the version of the Jew portrayed on the stage in Victorian London - that is, not that he might have been mistaken for an actor, but that he looked like the kind of stereotypical Jewish character one might have seen in a play.

Regards,

Mark

Quite possible Mark. That doesnt answer whether he would clash or meld with the values the Club espoused though...which to me is a key with this individual.

All the best

All the best.

[Archaic]

Schwartz's story

I do fear your four possibilities are too limiting. By Schwartz's own testimony he was not the most macho of witnesses so is not another scenario that Schwartz, who was not initially paying much attention. suddenly saw some sort of confrontation, heard something (he clearly was not much of an English speaker or hearer) and high-tailed it from the vicinity? He later tried to reconstruct the brief encounter to the police and then the Star (the latter's reporter almost assuredly asking leading questions) and came up with the account we now know. Not a deliberate falsification, to be sure, but like most eye-witness accounts not CCTV accurate.

Real life is like that, whether we like it or not. Don.

Don's post makes a lot of sense to me.

Schwartz's top priority that night was to
a.) do nothing to draw any of the trouble he witnessed towards himself and
b.) to immediately remove himself from the scene.

A person in full 'Flight' mode isn't the most reliable witness.

Schwartz clearly made no attempt to go to the aid of a woman in distress, so who knows if this fact somehow colored his testimony? Isn't it possible that Schwartz saw either more, less or something other than he told the police?

For instance, if others on the street that night didn't confirm a sighting of "Pipe Man", is it at least possible that Schwartz made him up in order to not look like such a coward for running away from a woman in distress who was murdered shortly afterward? No "Pipe Man" ever came forward to testify... so perhaps claiming to be out-numbered was less of a fact and more of a face-saving excuse? Or maybe Schwartz did see a Pipe-man, but saw him a block or two away from Dutfield's Yard?

> And as Robert McLaughlin pointed out in his dissertation, it's at least possible that the man shoving the woman to the ground yelled "Lizzie!" at her, rather than "Lipski!" at him.

Schwartz was clearly not macho; he was a non-English-speaking immigrant fresh from dreadful European scenes of violence perpetrated against Jews, and he was walking alone late at night in a terrible neighborhood... if he heard an angry voice yell "Lizzie!" he might very well have thought he had heard "Lipski!" and thus taken it as a personal threat.

Schwartz's story is so problematical for so many reasons, I'm just not sure how much weight it should be given, or how much scrutiny it can bear.

Best regards, Archaic

[Chris]

"perrymason"

Swanson was writing an official report summarising the evidence and the actions that had been taken by the police. Almost certainly he would have had a copy of Schwartz's statement in front of him.

It's quite misleading to describe the contents of the contemporaneous police reports as "police recollections", which makes them sound like the unreliable memoirs published decades later.

[Jeff Leahy]

Morning Michael and Archaic

Firstly Mike you must excuse my sense of humour the above passage:

“ what seems more probable is that Stride was standing, possibly facing the wall, when her killer grabbed the back of the scarf and pulled her back, exposing the throat and at the same time causing Stride’s knees to buckle. Instinctively she raised her hand to her throat, while the left hand involuntarily tightened around the cachous. She was quickly pulled to the ground, the knife simultaneously slicing the throat. The bruising on the shoulders, if not old, could have been caused by the man seen by Schwartz- who actually told the Star that he saw the man ‘put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage. Where ever he pushed her, to the pavement or into the passage, he’s likely to have grabbed her shoulders, where the bruising was found. It seems reasonable to argue, therefore, that the bruising probably proves that Stride was indeed the woman whom Schwartz saw assaulted, and it is further reasonable to suppose that the man who assaulted her was the murderer.”

Is a quote from ‘FACTS’ by Paul Begg, not a humble Pirate.

What is puzzling me at present sort of ties in with what Archaic is saying, namely that something does not seem quite right about Schwartz testimony.

If we take Paul Begg’s above conclusion, which makes sense to me, then what we have is an attack and murder that takes just moments, maybe 15 to 30 seconds?

Yet if the police statement is correct Schwartz is on the East side of the road heading towards BSM and Stride when the attack starts and he has a poor view. As he crosses the road he gets a better view of Liz and BSM, however it must have taken several seconds to cross the road, so the only explanation for this time laps is that BSM and Stride are happily talking? Before the attack starts. If Liz screams three times, the first makes Schwartz stop and look across the road from wear he has an excellent view of the attack.

I guess the story could also be made to fit if ‘Pipeman’ (who incidentally I believe was traced and did confirm Schwartz story) also hears Liz scream and shouts ‘Lipski’ at the Jewish looking murderer ie BSM.

My problem is that, the whole thing would have to start on the street, move six to nine feet inside Dutfield yard before Stride is forced to her knees and her throat cut.

So if for some reason you were trying to reconstruct this incident you would have solved your ‘wheelie bin’ problem but inherited a large time frame problem. Also the other largely ‘unknown’ at present is the lighting problem.
Deimschutz says clearly he was unable to see Liz even when he lights a match. So I don’t think anyone could have seen anything inside Dutfields Yard. It was clearly by far the darkest of the JtR murder locations and I wonder if that effected Jacks ability to perform the mutilations? Perhaps it was just to dark when he got inside the yard and that’s what stopped his pleasure?

However without knowing the lighting configuration its impossible to tell at what point Schwartz was unable to see what was happening. Perhaps he could see them just inside the gateway but only heard the second and third screams? Its impossible to tell without the lighting. However he has a good view of BSM, while on the East side of the road, and a good look at Liz as he crosses the road. He doesn’t have a good view of BSM when the attack starts…that’s if he witnesses the murder of course.

But I’m again speculating, My main problem is placing Schwartz witnessing the ‘murder’ inside a realistic time frame based on the police statement.

Pirate

PS I’m off to see U2 with my sister at Wembley today, so I wont be about until tomorrow night….have to look after her so excuse the choice of music. But I’m interested in any views or thoughts on the time frame…

[perrymason]

Hi again,

This "struggle" that Schwartz reports does occur just within the period that Blackwell suggests the cut took place, but it also needs to culminate in one swift act that may have taken 2 seconds for her assailant in the street to be the same one inside the gates. And she wouldnt look as "if gently lain down", with her skirt hem still only exposing her boots as she lay on her side.

Does an altercation with the man on the street at approx 12:45am easily then translate to them staying in each others company still physically quarelling until the man finally just grabs her scarf, chokes her and slits her throat while she falls? Is that his "final word" on the matter?

Or isnt a man who was pestering her while drunk likely to be pretty easily brushed off by a street veteran of 20 years? Or perhaps its that she would leave the immediate area, or call for help?

I think people should be very interested in the fact that this altercation that the statement alleges did not cause Liz to call for help....or to stray away from the yard entrance.

I think its probable in the minute or 2 after she gets rid of Broadshouldered Man, while she is about to freshen her mouth, that she meets her killer.

Someone who perhaps was pissed off to find a woman he knows waiting with breath mints and a flower on her good evening wear inside the yard of Socialist Jews.

The circumstances, a possible late date.....and a relationship end that same week, are often ignored when assessing a potential killer.....and since she is cut in a way that does not suggest something only "Jack" would do....perhaps the circumstances of Liz Strides Life and Death have more to reveal than the story of a man who isnt given a pulpit to preach it from by the authorities.

Best regards all

[Archaic]

Why Yell "Lipski"???

Hi, everyone. I have puzzled over many aspects of Schwartz's testimony, and here's another one:

Why would Broad-Shouldered Man yell "Lipski!" right after shoving a woman to the ground
when he is standing right outside the socialist's club full of dozens of Jewish men?

Of all the dumb things for a man in his position to yell, that strikes me as one of the very dumbest.

He's on their turf, he's manhandling some lone woman... it's too bad somebody inside didn't hear him;
I bet they'd have all come out and cleaned his clock!

Best regards, Archaic

PS: For that matter, why the hell didn't Lipski go into the club for reinforcements in order to come to the woman's assisstance instead of running away?

[perrymason]

Hi, everyone. I have puzzled over many aspects of Schwartz's testimony, and here's another one:

Why would Broad-Shouldered Man yell "Lipski!" right after shoving a woman to the ground
when he is standing right outside the socialist's club full of dozens of Jewish men?

Of all the dumb things for a man in his position to yell, that strikes me as one of the very dumbest.

He's on their turf, he's manhandling some lone woman... it's too bad somebody inside didn't hear him;
I bet they'd have all come out and cleaned his clock!

Best regards, Archaic

PS: For that matter, why the hell didn't Lipski go into the club for reinforcements in order to come to the woman's assisstance instead of running away?

I think the word I highlighted above is pivotal to the question regarding Israel....."their"...did he see something while he was on his own turf? Maybe even from inside the empty yard that often held "low men" and women until after 1am on meeting nights.

Since Eagle returns to the club at 12:40, and some 28 men are still in attendance when Diemshutz finds the body....it would seem that on that night as usual there were many people still onsite after 1am......so....were any actually in the yard near 12:45am? Maybe Israel?

Cheers Archaic

[Archaic]

Hi, Michael. I read your post several times to make sure I understood what you were saying.

This is how I understood you: You seem to be implying that perhaps Schwartz saw something of even greater significance which occurred a bit later, such as the deadly attack upon Stride?

Do you think Schwartz might actually have been inside the yard at that time?

Whatever happened, I still can't understand why Schwartz wouldn't have gone into the club or banged on its doors & windows and alerted other to come to his aid and the aid of Liz Stride.

Schwartz is lucky enough to be right on the club's premises, and it's a building full of Jewish men who can speak his language- many of them immigrants as well- yet he runs off alone in the darkness.

>>What do you think of the possibility that BS Man might have actually yelled "Lizzie!", but that the nervous Schwartz mistakenly thought he heard "Lipski!!" directed at himself?

Best regards, Archaic