Did jack kill liz stride?

[lynn cates]

just wondering

Hello Roy. Thanks.

Yes, I know--but was wondering if you had a bit of added information.

Cheers.
LC

[Semper_Eadem]

That is the age old question! well at least on this forum. Hmm perhaps he did. Well, I think it was either Jack or Stride's abusive live-in, one of the two. I want to say Jack because for most of my life the interrupted murder was totted by movies and books I read. But the MO doesn't quit match and I have heard some good arguments against Stride being a ripper victim. Well since Martin Fido said we should keep her in during a rippercast I listened to quite a while ago, and I tend to agree with that line of reasoning, plus the cops at the time thought she was a ripper victim, I'm gonna play it safe and say Stride was.

[sleekviper]

Is the inquest in England the same as in America? If it is, there would be no way that Schwartz would be at one for a case such as this. The inquest is the coroner stating that the deceased did not die of natural causes, they would not need every single witness to make that point, especially with the information as given by Schwartz. The coroner is going to focus on the how she died, the trial lawyer and trial are going to focus on the who killed her. The trial knows how, they have the inquest, they want the who, and 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.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

Can you please provide Abberline's comments, I don't recall them off hand. That would be much appreciated.

Cheers
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

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell,

You're displaying more than the usual amount of common sense this evening. Much appreciated.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks - I think!

[DRoy]

So Abberline's comments post-Oct.19th are to be disregarded then? Is this because he's so incompetent that he didn't notify his superiors that their key witness had long been proved a liar?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

Can you please provide Abberline's comments, I don't recall them off hand. That would be much appreciated.

Cheers
DRoy

[Tom_Wescott]

So Abberline's comments post-Oct.19th are to be disregarded then? Is this because he's so incompetent that he didn't notify his superiors that their key witness had long been proved a liar?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DRoy]

Hello Roy.

"I believe Schwartz's story was proven incorrect somehow/someway."

Anything to ground this? At Leman st, some seem to have doubted his story, but the doubt was never very solid.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,

I don't have any solid proof. As I mentioned, "I believe...". However, when looking at how things played out with Schwartz, I believe there is less proof of the contrary (his story proven correct).

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

This explains why every time you post to me you accuse me of rampant speculation. A bit of projection, perhaps?

We have facts which are unchangeable but require 'interpretation'. There may be more than one possible interpretation to those facts, in which case the most likely should be proffered for until and unless additional facts come along which require amending the interpretation. Speculation is what we consider possible beyond but in addition to that interpretation.

So, based on the fact that Schwartz's story was still accepted by not just Swanson but Abberline more than two weeks after he gave evidence, on what interpretation of the facts do you base your speculation that Schwartz was dropped as a reliable witness by the police prior to Oct. 19th?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

I have never accused you of rampant speculation. In my post 1969 I thought I cleared this up by showing your quote where you say "My guess is...".

It is my opinion that it's almost impossible not to speculate to a certain degree in attempting to interpret and piece together the little known and proven facts we have. I'm certainly 'guilty' of that.

My speculation is simply that Schwartz was dropped as a reliable witness because something in his statement was proven incorrect. Whether that was from miscommunication, bad translation, incorrect time, etc, I can't say. Swanson in his Oct 19th report is talking about the original statement taken by Abberline. Swanson didn't interview Schwartz that I'm aware of.

The fact Brown was at the inquest in the 'timeslot' of Schwartz's version and Schwartz did not testify at the inquest I believe shows that he was not as important as Brown's testimony was. Beginning with The Star's Oct 2 story, comments about The Hungarian and the police having reason to doubt his story, it seems quickly that there were doubts about his statement for who knows what reason.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

gounds of doubt

Hello Roy.

"I believe Schwartz's story was proven incorrect somehow/someway."

Anything to ground this? At Leman st, some seem to have doubted his story, but the doubt was never very solid.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

forensic questions

Hello CD.

"This club conspiracy business reminds me a lot of the JFK assassination theories."

Well perhaps not. I have never bought those JFK conspiracy theories, but have seen a couple of legitimate forensic questions put forward. But since they have been answered to my satisfaction, I am content.

Now, if only the same could be done for Liz, Kate and "MJK."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

unlikely

Hello Jason. Thanks.

Highly unlikely. Recall, at inquest, he denied any others being present when he found the body and went for the police.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hi Pink. All club members had renounced their Jewish faith and all belief in God, so that's unlikely.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

So it was those damn atheists!. Ooh I knew it. I just knew it.

c.d.

[caz]

She hears a pony and cart pull in next door. A few minutes later she hears the cries of murder and learns that her neighbor pulled his pony and cart in a few minutes earlier and found a body. Not sure I see anything 'iffy' or suspicious about it. The woman added 2 and 2 and came up with 4. Some here are trying to add 2 and 2 but are coming up with 666.

Not 'some', Tom. Just the one I think. And he has the bloomin' sauce to accuse me and others of going beyond the 'evidence' because we cannot rule out Jack as Stride's killer.

The passing of the cart occurred about four minutes after Godstein passed by. Goldstein says he passed by shortly before 1am. Diemshitz says he discovered the body at 1am. The times add up perfectly, which is inconvenient for some theorists who want to believe that Diemshitz arrived much earlier than 1am, discovered the body, and plotted for ten minutes before announcing the discovery.

Quite so.

And sadly no reason was given for her remark, however, we do read that Diemshitz doesn't normally come home at 1:00am - so maybe this was the cause of Mortimer's remark - he was early.

Mr. Diemshitz said:- "I was coming home from market at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I am a traveller by trade, and go to different markets to sell my goods. Yesterday I went to Westow-hill. As the night was so wet I did not stay quite so late as usual...."
Star, 1st Oct.

Hi Jon,

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.

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.

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.

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.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi,could Mr Diemschutz be the Jew who refused to testify against a fellow Jew it is quite possible that he saw our killer also Mr Diemshutz dosnt appear to be an angel he was arrested a year later for assaulting a police officer.

Hi Pink. All club members had renounced their Jewish faith and all belief in God, so that's unlikely.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott