Two

[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

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.

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

[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

[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".

“ 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

[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

[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

[Fisherman]

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

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

You're a powerful and attractive man, Fisherman.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"None of your huffing and puffing has ever robbed my theory of its inherent sense of truth and I doubt that's liable to change any time soon."

Not soon, Tom - that already happened. You were´nt around to realize it though...

Cheating doctors, a clumsy assistant who manages to transfer clotting blood in oblong dots without producing fingerprints AND who uses his fingers on the back of the hand instead of on the front (the way ALL other medicos seemingly did and still do), theorizing that the right hand must have been seen by the early witnesses although it would in all probability have been effectively hidden from sight does not add up to an ...ehrm, ... "inherent sense of truth". There are other and better names for such things.

But like I say, that´s just me. Anybody can read the evidence in whatever fashion they choose to.

The best,
Fisherman
huffing and puffing away

[Tom_Wescott]

None of your huffing and puffing has ever robbed my theory of its inherent sense of truth and I doubt that's liable to change any time soon, Fish. As for Johnston, Perry was referring to Diemschutz and the layman at the scene, who took Johnston to be a doctor.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"Everyone on the site thought Edward Johnston was a doctor."

Johnston described himself at the inquest as an assistant to the doctors Blackwell and Kaye. He informed the coroner that he had been the person approached by the policeman coming to fetch a doctor, and he stated that he in his turn informed Blackwell that he would set off for Berner Street. Blackwell was sleeping at the time the police arrived, and could not rush off immediately.

A logical deduction, digesting all of this, would be that Johnstons status was not that of a non-credited apprentice with very little knowledge - instead he was trusted by Blackwell to rush ahead in advance and get the work started in Dutfields yard. To me, that speaks of much trust in him on behalf of Blackwell. And I think that is very important to realize, trying to establish what role he would have played.

Therefore, when you write "The blood on her hands and wrist appeared as oblong spots and were probably transfered there from her neck by Edward Johnston when he first unbuttoned her collar and then felt her wrist", I am thankful that you add "At least that's how I see it". As you know, I think that this interpretation is not a very credible one. Johnston tells us that the blood had all but run away down the gutter when he arrived, and that it was clotting, pointing to the fact that he could see exactly what he was doing all of the time. It must also be noted that NOBODY of the early witnesses, Spooner, Lamb, Johnston ever mentions having seen Stride´s right hand, whereas they ALL tell us the exact postion of the left one. Probable conclusion? They never saw the right one, and therefore they did not see the blood on it either, the blood that was in all probability there all the time from the outset.

As you admit yourself, your scenario involves a very awkward thing, namely the doctors lying on Johnstons behalf, as well as his own either forgetting about the fact that he had had his hands smeared with blood or simply lying about it.

Much as you are (of course) welcome to this rather fanciful interpretation of how Stride got the dots of blood on her hand and wrist, it should be pointed out that is not a very likely scenario. It also has the distinct disadvantage of urging to disbelieve that the blood is crucial murder evidence instead of a pointer to a clumsy doctor´s assistant and a pair of cheeting medicos...

...at least that is how I see it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Archaic,

Where's your sense of irony? I was accusing PM of generalizing while I was generalizing all over the place. It was subtle, I know.

Perry,

Everyone on the site thought Edward Johnston was a doctor.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Seriously, years ago, I played with the possibility that "theatrical appearance" could be describing "Astrakhan Man".

Quite possibly, Jon. I can also picture the broad-shouldered man cursing his luck at being thwarted by such an individual and plotting his revenge accordingly: "I'll get back at those theatrically-dressed Jews, just you wait!"

On that subject, I'm not so sure about Schwartz needing to be neutral on the subject of religion in order to survive in the acting profession (if that was his business). It might injur his professional credibility to espouse extreme views on the subject in a very public fashion, but in private, he could have harboured whatever radical views he wished without fear of them getting in the way of pulling off a decent performance. So I wouldn't agree that a neutrality on most subjects would make an actor any better. One might reasonably surmise that Anthony Hopkins was very much against murder and cannabalism when he took on the role of Hannibal Lector, but he did an excellent job anyway - not because he was open to the idea of tongue-eating, but because he was pretending to be someone who was.

All the best,
Ben