Did jack kill liz stride?

[The Good Michael]

The ground floor is the first floor. That is the only thing that makes sense.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

You've floored me there, Tom. We Brits refer to the ground floor as 'the ground floor', and the one above that as 'the first floor'. I thought it was you Americans who called our ground floor 'the first floor' and our first floor 'the second floor'.

Love,

Caz
X

Perhaps I had it backwards. Thus, Americans win again in the arena of sensibility.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

I happen to also prefer that Brits refer to the first floor of a building as 'first floor' whereas here we say 'ground floor' and call the 2nd floor the 'first floor'. I've discovered that when writing the Tabram murder for a mixed crowd of Brits and Americans it's hard to keep this straight for the reader.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You've floored me there, Tom. We Brits refer to the ground floor as 'the ground floor', and the one above that as 'the first floor'. I thought it was you Americans who called our ground floor 'the first floor' and our first floor 'the second floor'.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If you postulate that Schwartz is lying, you create a scenario in which a man gives himself a bogus justification for having run away from the scene of a murder. Such a scenario would have made Schwartz so suspect that an arrest would be more than justified. Is there anything to suggest that such an arrest was ever made? If not, I hold to the belief that the account given by Schwartz was seen as credible.

The fact that the time he gives (12.45am) doesn't accord with those given by other witnesses is of small consequence to anyone who accepts that all such timings can only be approximate, depending on how the individual witness arrived at the time given. Did he/she own a watch? If so, was it accurate and reliable? If not, how was the time arrived at? Guesswork, approximation, a rough calculation of the time which had elapsed since that witness last saw a clock (or heard it chime); then the accuracy, or otherwise of that clock and of the subsequent calculation. All timings have to be seen as approximate. I realise that this is not liked by those who wish to draw hard and fast conclusions based on an assumption of accuracy in such timings. The fact remains that no such assumption can be justified.

If more evidence is needed of the approximate nature of the times given by various witnesses, we need do no more than note how often the minutes of such times are divisible by five, It's not coincidental.

Really good post, Colin.

On top of that, how many witnesses even think about what the time is when they are actually witnessing something - especially if the significance of it doesn't hit them until hours later? Schwartz didn't know at the time that a murder was about to be committed, so it could have been many hours before he finally had to think back and calculate roughly what the time must have been when he saw Stride being manhandled.

Not many witnesses had the luxury of looking at a clock or hearing one chime just as they noticed whatever it was that would only later strike them as potentially important. Nor would they necessarily have made a mental note of the time anyway.

Love,

Caz
X

[DRoy]

Look here, son. Don't talk to me about guessing. If I say there's a report stating an arrest was made based on Schwartz's evidence, then there is. If I'm guessing about it I'll say so. You can go to 'press reports' and search by the word 'hungarian' if you want to know more.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

Whoa, that isn't what I meant! You said "My guess is men were arrested for other reasons, matched Schwartz's description, and he was called in to look at them." That is the guess I was referring to and since they are your words I'm assuming you meant just that.

Cheers
DRoy

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

Good guess but it is just a guess Tom. Saying there is a report about an arrest of a 30 year old man with broad shoulders, brown hair and a moustache isn't too convincing that it was because of Schwartz's description of BSM. Like you said, people were being arrested for all sorts of reasons. Reports were being made in the papers daily about arrests and their descriptions were all over the place. Perhaps the report you are referencing is just coincidence?

Cheers
DRoy

Look here, son. Don't talk to me about guessing. If I say there's a report stating an arrest was made based on Schwartz's evidence, then there is. If I'm guessing about it I'll say so. You can go to 'press reports' and search by the word 'hungarian' if you want to know more.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Bridewell,

He could have very easily recognized his error on his own.

He may have known the most but he didn't know it first hand. He was given the information so he knew what he was told. Such as Schwartz attending the inquest.

Cheers
DRoy

Swanson didn't say Schwartz was at the inquest. Anderson said that. And yes, it was a mistake on Anderson's part.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DRoy]

[It was reported in the Star.

Hunter,

Thanks for that. Do you recall the date?

Cheers
DRoy

[Hunter]

[It was reported in the Star.

[DRoy]

Hi DRoy. How did the police arrest anybody? My guess is men were arrested for other reasons, matched Schwartz's description, and he was called in to look at them. Many such ID parades would have been held without the knowledge of press. Only some of them leaked through and are known to us today. But there is at least one report of a man being arrested on Schwartz's description.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

Good guess but it is just a guess Tom. Saying there is a report about an arrest of a 30 year old man with broad shoulders, brown hair and a moustache isn't too convincing that it was because of Schwartz's description of BSM. Like you said, people were being arrested for all sorts of reasons. Reports were being made in the papers daily about arrests and their descriptions were all over the place. Perhaps the report you are referencing is just coincidence?

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Swanson knew more about the Whitechapel Murders than anyone and, in the absence of Anderson (who was out of the country until the Double Event), remained the de facto head of the enquiry. Who was in a position to tell him that he was in error?

Bridewell,

He could have very easily recognized his error on his own.

He may have known the most but he didn't know it first hand. He was given the information so he knew what he was told. Such as Schwartz attending the inquest.

Cheers
DRoy

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi DRoy. How did the police arrest anybody? My guess is men were arrested for other reasons, matched Schwartz's description, and he was called in to look at them. Many such ID parades would have been held without the knowledge of press. Only some of them leaked through and are known to us today. But there is at least one report of a man being arrested on Schwartz's description.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DRoy]

He was not used as a witness to our knowledge. Based on a report, Schwartz may have been named as a suspect by Pipeman. Probably for this reason, there was some early doubt on the part of the police as to Schwartz's statement, but they resolved this by Oct. 19th. Around the time of the inquest the police were arresting men based on Schwartz's statement, so they were taking it very seriously. If, as you say, Schwartz was not at the inquest because the police didn't think him important, then why were they arresting men based on his evidence?

Your post about someone telling Swanson he 'boo-booed' by mentioning Schwartz in his report is not something that happened at all. The subsequent back-and-forth survives and no one tells Swanson anything of the kind. Quite the opposite.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

How were police arresting people based on Schwartz's description? The description from Schwartz was "30, 5ft 5in, complexion fair, dark hair, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket, trousers black, cap with a peak". In other words anybody that was a man of normal height with brown hair and a small moustache would fit that description. It would be pretty difficult to not fit that physical description! (Unless of course you were a 6'7" giant but I won't go there)

Swanson was forwarding on the information that he was given, that is all. Whether someone told him that Schwartz didn't actually testify or he found out himself, i'm not sure that it matters as it seems he eventually dropped Schwartz as a special witness. He wasn't used to identify anyone that I'm aware of nor do I believe his description was detailed enough to have any value anyway.

Cheers
DRoy

[Jon Guy]

Nah, this is just another case of you taking cheap shots.

I thought Jon Guy's observation was spot on.

Thanks Ben.
I didn`t realise this was a contentious subject, so here`s Liza, in her own words:

I knew the deceased, and had a quarrel with her on the Tuesday before she was murdered. The quarrel arose in this way: On the previous Saturday she brought Mr. Stanley into the house where I lodged in Dorset-street, and coming into the kitchen asked the people to give her some soap. They told her to ask "Liza" - meaning me. She came to me, and I opened the locker and gave her some. She gave it to Stanley, who went outside and washed himself in the lavatory. When she came back I asked for the soap, but she did not return it. She said, "I will see you by and bye." Mr. Stanley gave her two shillings, and paid for her bed for two nights. I saw no more of her that night. On the following Tuesday I saw her in the kitchen of the lodging-house. I said, "Perhaps you will return my soap." She threw a halfpenny on the table, and said, "Go and get a halfpennyworth of soap." We got quarrelling over this piece of soap, and we went out to the Ringers Public-house and continued the quarrel. She slapped my face, and said, "Think yourself lucky I don't do more." I struck her in the left eye, I believe, and then in the chest. I afterwards saw that the blow I gave her had marked her face.

Of course, I should have used the incident of Charles Preston refusing Stride the use of his clothes brush as she prepared to go out, as an example of "preciousness of belongings" amongst the common loding house dwellers.

[Ben]

This is just another case of someone only seeing what they want to see, and ignore the rest.

Nah, this is just another case of you taking cheap shots.

I thought Jon Guy's observation was spot on.