The Statements of Morris Eagle and Mrs. Diemschutz

[perrymason]

cd,

We have some reasons to wonder whether Israel Schwartz was considered a viable important witness here...but if he was, (despite the fact we have no evidence that says he appeared at the Inquest at all), then BSM must be the prime suspect in a murder that seems common in almost every aspect, excluding the fact that its Fall 1888 in London, and a killer who has been savaging women in the area is thought to have been working that night......a 10 minute walk and 45 minutes later.

If a man was seen assaulting her within minutes of the earliest estimated cut time.... then unless we see him leave, or her leave, he is likely the killer. Is he Jack-like in his entrance? Is he Jack like in how he leaves a victim? Is he Jack like yelling at a witness?

On that last point, in regards to Israel Schwartz....his lingering mention in the memos of the investigators almost always concerned the cry of "Lipski"...because some investigators thought that it was a good indicator this all had something to do with the local Jews...but his altercation and suspect details are absent. Does that mean they keyed to one aspect of this story due to it leading them down a path they thought they should be following anyway?

Cheers cd

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I have no reason to believe that Schwartz lied in his statement. And like you always say unless we have evidence to the contrary, we have to accept the facts as they are.

I agree that the BS man has to be the number one suspect. It really can't be otherwise. It is only when we start to examine the BS man as Liz's killer that we start to see red flags aplenty.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

I have no reason to believe that Schwartz lied in his statement. And like you always say unless we have evidence to the contrary, we have to accept the facts as they are.

I agree that the BS man has to be the number one suspect. It really can't be otherwise. It is only when we start to examine the BS man as Liz's killer that we start to see red flags aplenty.

c.d.

See I dont have a problem with something like the altercation Israel suggests turning into a violent street incident....albeit just off the street.....its that I dont see her holding cashous at the time she is cut... in that scenario. I dont see her entering the yard willingly with the man after the scuffle...yet she must enter the yard soon thereafter,...and I dont see a man intent on killing her drawing attention to himself with 2 witnesses at that location just before this happens.

If this actually happened in the yard....and BSM assaults Liz where she is cut,...then I could entertain that idea...it would also explain why the Israel Schwartz that you and so many put so much stock in is absent from all records of Liz Strides Inquest....and a sequestered or protected witness is not mentioned anywhere......may have some value that is not documented.

The troubling circumstances that cause us problems carrying that witnessed scuffle by Schwartz into the yard either with her killer or to one waiting inside the yard...are less of a problem if you imagine she was in the company of someone she knew well. And the story is much more credible if it happened in the yard, and if we actually do have members in that yard after a meeting, past 1am....like multiple neighbors said happened regularly.

She either entered the yard with her killer, entered the yard to a waiting killer, entered the yard and the killer entered after her, or she entered the yard sometime after 12:35am and never left it again. Since we have Fanny Mortimer who had a view of the gates and was at her door from sometime near 12:45 off and on until 1am....and she only sees someone pass by the entrance at 12:55am....we might be able to suggest that the altercation Israel states he saw where he saw it actually happened inside the yard...or he or she was incorrect about the time, honestly or with the intention of deceit. Fanny has no reasons to lie. Does a Hungarian Jew who speaks no English standing outside a European Jewish Mens Club minutes before a woman is murdered on the property? One who was supposed to perhaps be aiding his wife settling into the new room they let? At a time when the Police were discussing a European Jew as Jack the Ripper?

Cheers cd, best regards.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I think you are making way too much of Schwartz's non-appearance at the inquest. The explanation could be quite simple -- an inability to find a translator for that day or maybe even more so a reluctance on Schwartz's part to testify for fear of retaliation by the B.S. man. He does not appear to be the bravest of souls having run off as he did. He was a Jewish immigrant who did not speak English. His reluctance to limit his involvement is quite understandable. He might have said to the police "hey look guys, I didn't have to get involved but I was trying to help. You have my statement, lets leave it at that." The police simply might have been sympathetic and cut him a break.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

I think you are making way too much of Schwartz's non-appearance at the inquest. The explanation could be quite simple -- an inability to find a translator for that day or maybe even more so a reluctance on Schwartz's part to testify for fear of retaliation by the B.S. man. He does not appear to be the bravest of souls having run off as he did. He was a Jewish immigrant who did not speak English. His reluctance to limit his involvement is quite understandable. He might have said to the police "hey look guys, I didn't have to get involved but I was trying to help. You have my statement, lets leave it at that." The police simply might have been sympathetic and cut him a break.

c.d.

Hey cd,

I think the inverse is true when it comes to Israel actually....that too much is assumed about his potential credibility based on later memo references to his "Lipski" story element. The fact is that his story if true is vital to the investigation into her death, and he and his story are completely absent from all Inquest coverage.

If you remove him....or as my best guess is at this point....you align him with the club and have the incident he saw occur in the yard on the spot where Liz is killed as he is leaving the club instead of just outside the gates.....(the difference in the stories a result of some club "spin" on the precise location the entanglement takes place...moving it 15 feet or so out onto the street)....then you have an answer for many problems. And a reason to not allow him to give his story at the Inquest...if the authorities discovered he was actually a club member for example....which Ill bet he was....and altered his story on their behalf.

Best regards cd

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

He simply could have been a piss poor witness. A witness that really doesn't answer the questions directly put to him. One that has trouble making himself understood or one that appears to contradict himself. We know that he gave his original statement through an interpreter but there is no mention of how difficult a task it was. It might have been like pulling teeth especially if they were trying to pin him down on the whole pushed/shoved/fell thing. The police might have felt that he would have simply confused a jury.

There are just too many simple and plausible explanations for his non-appearance. In my opinion, they need to be considered first and eliminated before we start to cast a net of suspicion.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

He simply could have been a piss poor witness. A witness that really doesn't answer the questions directly put to him. One that has trouble making himself understood or one that appears to contradict himself. We know that he gave his original statement through an interpreter but there is no mention of how difficult a task it was. It might have been like pulling teeth especially if they were trying to pin him down on the whole pushed/shoved/fell thing. The police might have felt that he would have simply confused a jury.

There are just too many simple and plausible explanations for his non-appearance. In my opinion, they need to be considered first and eliminated before we start to cast a net of suspicion.

c.d.

Hi cd,

I guess well just have to disagree about any potential significance to his absence in the records. As far as I know there were standards and practices that would be applied to the putting on of a public Inquest or Inquiry regarding an unsolved Murder, and the summoning of anyone to give a statement would be first related to the relevance with respect to the crime in question and also the potential value that the information offered in determining a likely cause of death. I think those practices almost forced the police to put people on the stand with stories that they didnt believe themselves....like Caroline Maxwell for example.

If Israel Schwartz was withheld or withdrawn as a witness, that would be documented in the proceedings....because as the criteria suggests, his story is very relevant to a possible suspect seen with the victim minutes before she is murdered. Something vital in the detremination of her death be it Accidental or Willful murder. Liz Stride could have been killed accidentally after all.....her wound could have happened a bunch of ways that required no murder at all. The Jury would need that information.

If the witness was sequestered or protected, they would have done what they did with Lawende, announce him but withhold his details, ...we all know he was believed by the police.

If the witness fled, it would be noted, If the witness died before the Inquest it would be noted, if the witness had a family emergency, it would be noted.

Because any information that the police had before the Inquest that may be relevant to the question of the circumstances of Liz Strides death would be entered and presented at the Inquest. I would bet that is standard procedure. And remember......we have never seen a police report for the taking of Israel Schwartz's statement via his interpreter, we have only heard there was one.

My questions are......did he actually make a formal statement, and if so, why wasnt that statement and him as a witness mentioned in any coverage of the Inquest....and why is the only element of his story that is discussed in later memos concerning exclusively the issue of the meaning of "Lipski"? No mention of his ID, his suspect, the timing....

Cheers cd