Did jack kill liz stride?

[Wickerman]

Is the inquest in England the same as in America?

There is a copy of The Coroners Act, 1887 (UK), available for Kindle (free) at the Univ. of Toronto.

Although it is true to point out the parameters of the Coroners Inquiry the Act does allow the Coroner to adjust his Inquiry at his own discretion to be as broad or deep as he feels necessary.

Back then, coroners were not doctors.....

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Except Macdonald of course.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, Wick. I meant simply that doctors were not appointed coroners, but of course they could run for and being elected into that office the same as a lawyer or butcher.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

In reply to your comments below Caz, in bold...as is your style;


Thanks for that. So he was already back earlier than usual, without Michael wanting to put the clock back another 20 minutes. And I doubt Diemshitz would have lied about the usual hours he kept, as this could easily have been contradicted.

Diemshitz says he arrived at 1, he emphasizes this by virtue of the clock he passed. Fanny Mortimer was at her door from 12:50 until 1am....and didnt see or hear anyone coming. Dispute. Isaac Kozebrodski says he arrived back at the club at "half past 12", and "10 minutes later he was called into the passage by Louis, to see the body...before being sent alone for help. Dispute. Fanny Mortimer says that she was at her door "off and on" from 12:30 until 12:50, had Louis arrived during that time she may not have heard or seen him. We dont know if Fanny missed hearing noises while inside.

The point that seems to have escaped Michael is that Mrs Mortimer only said she heard the one pony and cart, and this was shortly after going inside for the night around 1am. And Diemshitz very definitely arrived back at some point. So unless he is meant to have tiptoed past, between 12.40 and 12.45, with pony and cart slung round his shoulders, Mortimer could hardly have missed his arrival at that earlier time, but heard someone else's cart passing later, roughly coinciding with the time Diemshitz gave.

Added to the accounts above we have one club member who stated that he was alerted to the dead woman before 12:45, and we have an outside witness who by his testimony would have seen the 2 men returning to the club before 12:45am. These accounts directly contradict the accounts given by Louis and Morris Eagle and Joe Lave and Israel Schwartz, but they do corroberate each other with respect to timing. Louis, Morris, Israel and Joe have the distinction of giving statements which no-one, not one other witness, verifies by their own account. But Leon does, by Fanny Mortimer. So there are no corroberated witness statements for the times of 12:40, and 12:45. Browns sighting of the young couple can be corroborated by Fanny, she saw the same couple.

Assuming Mortimer did hear a pony and cart passing (and did remark upon it to her husband), the only reasonable conclusion is that this was Diemshitz, back earlier than usual, and they both believed the time to be around 1am.

You assume that Fanny was up on the name and the habits of the club steward?

Oh and before Michael comes back with any smart alec suggestions to wise up and accept that no ripping means no ripper, I'd just like to point out that his most recent efforts have resulted in the number of exclusionists remaining stubbornly at 35, while the number of inclusionists has risen from 70 to 74.

Popular polling doesnt concern me Caz, getting the details correct does. I can only say that Ive learned that not everyone is well suited to interpreting data. I suppose that is one reason why not every cop becomes a detective. Some are better at solving puzzles than others.

Ive taken a very pragmatic approach to the puzzle of Jack the Ripper, where we would differ is that I have not eliminated the entire male population of London in 1888, between the ages of 28 and 35, in favour of a solitary bad guy responsible for all the street violence in the area. I believe that the specific time period of the Ripper Crimes coincides with a particularly dangerous time politically. When secrets and careers are at stake all sorts of violence is possible. We even see this possibility within the known Canonical evidence, a woman who claims she heard a victim state that she was going to turn in the killer on the loose and collect the reward. Providing a wonderful motive for murder Im sure to the killer, if true. Then why the mutilations? Because in some respects they were expected. A continuing saga.

But that didnt happen did it? Something completely non-extraordinary occurred...a woman was simply killed first. Meaning......likely not the same guy we expected would mutilate again. Which he may have, with Kate. I remain on the fence with her inclusion.

Cheers

[curious]

Ive taken a very pragmatic approach to the puzzle of Jack the Ripper, where we would differ is that I have not eliminated the entire male population of London in 1888, between the ages of 28 and 35, in favour of a solitary bad guy responsible for all the street violence in the area.

Now, Michael, that's not the case and everyone knows it. A few cases are attributed to one person by men who had access to many facts and details that have been lost in the 125 intervening years.

curious

P.S. I finally entered my vote -- after all this time. I believe Stride to have been killed by the same man who killed Eddowes.

[Mr Lucky]

Schwartz is going to be the kiss of death since he brings reasonable doubt to any "who" that is a suspect. Schwartz is not a long term resident of England, so where he lives without a suspect in custody is anybody's guess. If they catch an individual in 1891, and no one can find Schwartz, his inquest information is a problem. If he can not be found, no one else may be able to verify if it is someone that he has seen. With the level of forensics, the number of known people Schwartz places in the timeframe, amount of time that yet another individual could enter the timeframe, and the speed of this kill, Schwartz is a kiss of death to any criminal investigation to a single suspect. Without someone stating that they saw a specific individual cut Strides throat, how will they eliminate BS Bully, Pipe dude, or deranged club member as reasonable doubt to the death of Stride? I know if they tried to pin this on me, and there was his inquest testimony, I would say that she was alive when I left 20 seconds after Schwartz, if I admit that it was even me at the scene,who is there to prove me wrong? They would all have to think down the road, and that reasonable doubt could sink a case against a killer. How it seems to me.

Hi Sleekviper,

I totally agree, it looks to me that Schwartz role during any prosecution for Stride's murder would most likely be as a defence witness, and particularly without Pipeman's and/or BS man corroboration, he adds enough 'reasonable doubt' to the understanding of events that night that a jury would fail to convict. So this, and the failure to find either Pipeman or BS, is the most likely reason he wasn't called as a witness at the inquest, it isn't down to a question of his honesty or reliability in my opinion.

[sleekviper]

Thank you to all for the replies and help! I may have a "maybe moment", and it doesn't involve a "whodunit moment"; happy with a "maybe" that has nothing to do with the actual killer. Oh well, works for me! Think I need a new hobby.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thank you to all for the replies and help! I may have a "maybe moment", and it doesn't involve a "whodunit moment"; happy with a "maybe" that has nothing to do with the actual killer. Oh well, works for me! Think I need a new hobby.

Hi Sleek. What?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DRoy]

They're in 'Ultimate'. Surely you have that book? Just read the section that includes Swanson's Oct. 19th report.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

Thanks, I don't have it easily available as my reference books are currently packed.

If I remember correctly though, Abberline is commenting on the use of the name Lipski. In other words, if he is still commenting on 'Lipski' then it is most likely because he still believes Schwartz. Am I correct?

If I am correct that is what you meant, his report could still be interpreted many different ways. Example: Schwartz was believed except for the part about it being Stride (as mentioned, Schwartz only identified the body as that of Stride after viewing the body not before).

How many times have we heard from those at the top (including Abberline) that there was no clue to the murderer? Why would Abberline not say that there was a witness that he personally interviewed that had valuable info?

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Tom,

Thanks, I don't have it easily available as my reference books are currently packed.

If I remember correctly though, Abberline is commenting on the use of the name Lipski. In other words, if he is still commenting on 'Lipski' then it is most likely because he still believes Schwartz. Am I correct?

If I am correct that is what you meant, his report could still be interpreted many different ways. Example: Schwartz was believed except for the part about it being Stride (as mentioned, Schwartz only identified the body as that of Stride after viewing the body not before).

How many times have we heard from those at the top (including Abberline) that there was no clue to the murderer? Why would Abberline not say that there was a witness that he personally interviewed that had valuable info?

Cheers
DRoy

If youve not noticed Droy, Ive suggested several times that its possible that the investigators believed Schwartz saw something similar to what is claimed in his statement, but they could not align the story that they were given with any other known facts. Since the story introduces an assailant who by the timing alone is likely Strides killer, they may have needed some form of corroboration before putting him on the stand at the Inquest,....corroboration they apparently didnt get.

For example, if the police believed that Israel may have attended the meeting that night and/or was a club frequenter and/or a friend of Wess's, then they might have suspected his story was at the very least "modified" so as to show the club absolutely blameless in the death of Elizabeth.

Unless of course someone elses story matched some of Israels. None did.

An immigrant Jew provides a story that places the probable murderer outside the Immigrant Jew's property...an apparent anti semite assailant.....I cant imagine a more fortuitous story for the club, particularly at a time when some investigators were convinced "Jack" was an Immigrant Jew and the club itself was perceived as an anarchists club. It could also explain the GSG, if someone was aware of Israels attempt at an alibi for the club.

Cheers

[DRoy]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;281858]If youve not noticed Droy, Ive suggested several times that its possible that the investigators believed Schwartz saw something similar to what is claimed in his statement, but they could not align the story that they were given with any other known facts./QUOTE]

Michael,

I'm aware that it has been suggested by you and others. I was just commenting specifically on the question why Abberline may still have been mentioning Schwartz (or rather the reference to 'Lipski' from Schwartz's statement) if they no longer believed Schwartz and that he didn't testify.

Cheers
DRoy

[The Good Michael]

An immigrant Jew provides a story that places the probable murderer outside the Immigrant Jew's property...an apparent anti semite assailant.....I cant imagine a more fortuitous story for the club, particularly at a time when some investigators were convinced "Jack" was an Immigrant Jew and the club itself was perceived as an anarchists club. It could also explain the GSG, if someone was aware of Israels attempt at an alibi for the club.

An apparent supporter of the Jewish people in my mind and the only reason police would fear some sort of backlash by the community that would give them reason to remove the graffiti.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

I would imagine that some of the police were hesitant to accept Schwartz's evidence at face value because they would have compared him to Emanuel Violina, a discredited witness in the Chapman case who claimed to see two men assaulting Chapman, one of them threatening her with a knife. He was Bulgarian, looked black, and was very excited at the idea of seeing Chapman's body. Schwartz, a Hungarian, comes forth three weeks later with a similar story. One could understand why police would be initially skeptical. But unlike Violina, Schwartz held up to repeated questioning and Abberline accepted his evidence as reliable.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

How many times have we heard from those at the top (including Abberline) that there was no clue to the murderer? Why would Abberline not say that there was a witness that he personally interviewed that had valuable info?

Did Abberline say that? In any event, he'd be correct, since Schwartz, in all the fuss, failed to get BS Man's name. The description he provided did not lead to an identification, so it's correct to say that Schwartz provided no clue to anybody's identity. Except maybe Pipeman.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[sleekviper]

Hi Tom!
Sorry, been under the weather the past few days, hate that. What I meant was, happy over a possible feasibility with Schwartz is about as important as the size of Morris Eagle's shoe. When that becomes the case, it is probably time to find something else to pass the time.

[Jon Guy]

Unless of course someone elses story matched some of Israels. None did.

All the witness statments matched Schwartz`s statement.
I believe this has been pointed out to you four or five times now.