Did jack kill liz stride?

[Hunter]

Hi, Hunter, All,
In the back of my mind runs the thought that in cases such as these, the authorities withhold certain things so that when a "suspect or person of interest" knows about these items the authorities know they're on to something real.

With that ever (or most of the time) running through my mind, it also occurs to me that perhaps what was being held back were details that very definitely pointed to the same killer — perhaps each crime scene or victim possessed something that was present at all the others considered to be the work of one man (and perhaps only certain of the authorities were clued in).

I don't think this was the case, although by this stage in the series the police were in a cat and mouse game with the press over the divulging of information. City officials took a slightly different tact than Met officials in dealing with this. Priorities for each were different, also. Met officials had concerns that went beyond the murders themselves and they had been under close scrutiny and criticism for some time... not to mention the ethic and social tensions exacerbated already by the Leather Apron episode.

But I doubt there was anything withheld that might have linked these murders that we don't know already know about. If there had been, I believe a more clear suspect would have emerged with a better consensus among the officials as to who the perpetrator might have been or even how many murders were committed by the same hand. There were differing veiwpoints of both.

[Hunter]

As to withholding evidence, we have clear evidence that the City Police did just that with Lawende,..announced openly...and at the Inquest. We have no such evidence about Israel.

I realize that this is beating a dead horse with you, but you are incorrect about Schwartz. Once again... the decision not to include Israel Schwartz or his testimony at the Stride inquest was for the coroner, Wynne Baxter, to make, not the police. And there were good reasons for Baxter to take the course he did concerning this witness.

It doesn't matter whether you or I think Schwartz was full of sh!t or not. It doesn't even matter if Baxter didn't believe him. If that was Baxter's only reservation about Schwartz - and nothing else - he would have hauled the Hungarian into his court and taken him apart as an example... just like he brought Pizer into the Chapman inquest in order to exonerate him. Baxter reveled in the drama of the courtroom. He dressed in colorful suits so he'd be the center of attention. What matters is the situation at the time that Baxter had to deal with. His demeanor was totally different at the Stride inquest than it had been in the previous two... and there were reasons why such was the case. That seems to get lost among people who prioritize some agenda instead of trying to broaden their base of knowledge of the entire subject in order to gain some reasonable perspective.

[lynn cates]

consensus

Hello Cris.

"But I doubt there was anything withheld that might have linked these murders that we don't know already know about. If there had been, I believe a more clear suspect would have emerged with a better consensus among the officials as to who the perpetrator might have been or even how many murders were committed by the same hand. There were differing viewpoints of both."

Well spoke. And a consensus is the ONE thing we do NOT have.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

present or absent

Hello Mike, Cris. Whether Schwartz's story were true or false, it cannot--in my humble opinion--be established by his presence OR absence from the inquest.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike, Cris. Whether Schwartz's story were true or false, it cannot--in my humble opinion--be established by his presence OR absence from the inquest.

Cheers.
LC

Hi absence is only a single piece in the puzzle of Schwartz Lynn, I use the example as a way of dealing with the alleged "belief" in Israel by the authorities.

I didn't say that the police made any decisions about whether or not to include Schwartz Hunter. I cited an example of a witness that had information which the police were acting upon that was presented openly at the Inquest.

cd, I think the significance of the missing mutilations doesn't hit home with you, but I personally see no reason why the man that killed Polly and Annie wouldn't kill in the same way if he killed again.

Observer, there re clearly features on that street that would play into peripheral vision, features that were not there in 1888. Such as the trees. There is no reason why a figure dashing through that intersection wouldn't be noticeable, unless you've decided the subject was facing the other way. Browns sighting at 12:45 I the Inquest version of events for that time frame, not Israels, so say what you want, it was acceptable to the cops.

Im not sure whether your goal is purely irritation, like a heavy wool sweater, or whether your contention actually is that Israels story is the one to use....but it matters not really. One can remove an itchy sweater, like removing a "star" witness from an Inquest.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

authorities and authorities

Hello Mike. Thanks.

Depends on the authorities. Swanson looked rather happy; Leman st lads, less so.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

And of course Richards conveniently (and repeatedly) omits the fact that the 'young couple' he refers to had not been at the corner since midnight and thus could not have been the couple witnessed by James Brown. But we mustn't let facts get in the way of a good....well, in his case, lousy...theory.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

unclear what your point is....is it that James Brown didnt actually see a young couple, or that the young couple including the woman without a flower was actually Liz Stride and someone at 12:45?

People talk about the inability of these people to judge the time accurately....so use Blackwells watch at 1:16 and his cut estimate. That estimate allows for a cut at around 12:46...in case you believe the woman in the young couple was Stride.

Or maybe its your contention it was LeGrand wearing a dress and his pipesmoking assistant.

[Hunter]

Depends on the authorities. Swanson looked rather happy; Leman st lads, less so.

Hi Lynn,

Swanson was relying on reports emanating from Leman St. It was the epicenter of the Met investigation. And as he said, they left no doubt. None of the surviving police reports suggests any doubt; not even from Abberline, who actually interviewed Schwartz at the time... at Leman St. The idea about the "Leman Street lads" having doubts about the Hungarian came from a press report -the Star- the same publication that broke the story in the first place.

[Hunter]

Hi absence is only a single piece in the puzzle of Schwartz Lynn, I use the example as a way of dealing with the alleged "belief" in Israel by the authorities.

The existing official files leave no doubt about this belief. Its there, in the handwritinf of the men involved in the case, whether you chose to awknowledge it or not.

I didn't say that the police made any decisions about whether or not to include Schwartz Hunter. I cited an example of a witness that had information which the police were acting upon that was presented openly at the Inquest.

OK... and for what purpose? What was your point?

The Met officials handled the situation with their witness differently than the City did. That's all. There were different priorities and circumstances to consider. Instead of dwelling on a singleminded agenda of "there ain't no Jack the Ripper," back off and study the investigation a little bit, the people involved and how things were playing out for them in real time.

[Hunter]

...Browns sighting at 12:45 I [is?] the Inquest version of events for that time frame, not Israels, so say what you want, it was acceptable to the cops.

Swanson didn't even include Brown's sighting in his HO report. He did, however, include Schwartz's in detail. Swanson was a cop.

[DRoy]

Hunter,

I know your comments were directed at Michael but perhaps you will share with others what information you have on the following...

Once again... the decision not to include Israel Schwartz or his testimony at the Stride inquest was for the coroner, Wynne Baxter, to make, not the police. And there were good reasons for Baxter to take the course he did concerning this witness.

What were the good reasons?

What matters is the situation at the time that Baxter had to deal with. His demeanor was totally different at the Stride inquest than it had been in the previous two... and there were reasons why such was the case.

What are the reasons?

That seems to get lost among people who prioritize some agenda instead of trying to broaden their base of knowledge of the entire subject in order to gain some reasonable perspective.

I don't have an agenda or a suspect(s) so if you'd be so kind to share your evidence and opinions it would be appreciated by me and many other students of the case.

Thank you

Cheers
DRoy

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi DRoy,

You have to watch out for Hunter. He can't think for himself. He's just stealing points made by an excellent article in the latest issue of Ripperologist, written by Cris Malone. I'd recommend you get that issue (I think it's free) and read the article. Issue 135.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I certainly understand the significance of the lack of mutilations to Liz. The chain of reasoning is quite simple. Jack the Ripper took out organs so therefore if no organs were taken and there were no signs of mutilation then the murder couldn't have been committed by Jack. I find that very poor reasoning and an extremely simplistic approach. Why just suddenly stop there? I think a far better approach is to consider it significant that there were no signs of mutilation but to then ask if there could be any reason why we don't see Jack's signature. Then look at possible reasons such as an interruption and determine if they are reasonable explanations.

You seem to want to envision Jack doing his mutilation thing as club members come pouring out of the club and he asks them to stand aside because they are blocking his light.

I envision a Jack who was smart enough to realize that he would be hanged if caught and who also realized that Liz was not the only woman in Whitechapel. He had the thrill of the kill with Liz. Something might have spooked him and he thought it better to make a hasty exit and find another victim as soon as possible which is what I think he did.

And yes it is possible that he could have been scared off by something like hearing a door slamming for which there would be no trace.

It is all in how you want to approach the case.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Michael,

I certainly understand the significance of the lack of mutilations to Liz. The chain of reasoning is quite simple. Jack the Ripper took out organs so therefore if no organs were taken and there were no signs of mutilation then the murder couldn't have been committed by Jack. I find that very poor reasoning and an extremely simplistic approach. Why just suddenly stop there? I think a far better approach is to consider it significant that there were no signs of mutilation but to then ask if there could be any reason why we don't see Jack's signature. Then look at possible reasons such as an interruption and determine if they are reasonable explanations.

You seem to want to envision Jack doing his mutilation thing as club members come pouring out of the club and he asks them to stand aside because they are blocking his light.

I envision a Jack who was smart enough to realize that he would be hanged if caught and who also realized that Liz was not the only woman in Whitechapel. He had the thrill of the kill with Liz. Something might have spooked him and he thought it better to make a hasty exit and find another victim as soon as possible which is what I think he did.

And yes it is possible that he could have been scared off by something like hearing a door slamming for which there would be no trace.

It is all in how you want to approach the case.

c.d.

Pure sexy genius.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Hello cd

Pure sexy genius.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ditto...wholeheartedly

All the best

Dave