Did jack kill liz stride?

[Michael W Richards]

I don't think Michael addressed my point that if the police thought for one moment that Schwartz hadn't seen a man assaulting the murdered woman, and had therefore made the whole thing up, down to the cry of "Lipski!", surely to goodness that would have made him more likely to become the focus of some serious police questions.

It's similar - dare I say it - to the Hutch saga, where this witness is meant to have invented the last man seen with Kelly, then been allowed to slip right off the radar when his account was no longer considered credible.

Once would be careless, but twice?

Love,

Caz
X

I thought that I had addressed it Caz, ...but first though Id like to reply to the post that suggested Swanson mentioning his support of Israel in a memo indicates police belief in his story.....I suppose like Abberlines support of Hutchinson initially, ...but where the rubber meets the road as to whom is believed by the authorities to have told the truth and have relevance to the issue of who killed Liz Stride, the man who alleged that he saw the victim within very few minutes of her murder in the company of someone off site being assaulted is overly conspicuous in his absence,...and again, the absence of even a minute fragment of his story being introduced as evidence.

To say he was believed when we have access to the records of the public airing of the accumulated data of the police investigation into the murder of Liz Stride that do not include him seems, well, odd to me. Its clear that at the Inquest, James Brown is the man on record for the time of 12:45.

Caz, I never said that they believed he had not sen what he described, I have said that it appears that they did not wholly believe the story provided...possibly due to a discovered link to the club, which despite assurances earlier that it wouldnt matter much, would put a sound reason on the table for looking very closely at his story. Maybe they discovered that the reason he cited for being there was bogus...which it reads like.....maybe they found out he had more than a passing interest in the club as a regular patron, maybe they discovered that the place he says he moved from that day was one of the cottages in the passageway....do you know where he was living when he woke up Saturday morning? I dont...I believe no=one has found him on any census data just prior to this incident.

Ive said that if Israel Schwartz did see Liz Stride being assaulted by a Broadshouldered Gentile man, it may not have taken place where he said he saw it. If he was leaving the club from the side door you have a scenario where he is coming up behind a BSM who is accosting a woman with her back to the wall, just inside the gates. He is snarled off by BSM and flees around the couple to his new home. Someone talks to him that day and asks that he say he saw this happen outside the gates, for the sake of the club and his fellow immigrants at the club. Or the translator, unbeknown to Schwartz, changes those details when providing his interpretation. Again, for the sake of the club.

It would explain why Schwartz was deemed to be not being of value in the real search for answers, it would explain why no-one other than Israel sees Liz outside the gates after 12:35..it would explain why Israels story has no corroboration from others that were on the street around the time, the young couple, Brown..at the end of the street, Fanny..at her door off and on but from 12:50 until 1am steadily....Eagle at 12:40, Lave at 12:40. it would explain why none of the senior members stories have corroboration including Louis's, and it would explain why some members and one outsider place themselves at the body before 12:45......

All that is required to kill Liz is a pissed off violent man, and all that is required to believe in doctored stories is that the senior members would alter details of their story to project the best possible image for the club.

They would need to smooth this over even if a member wasnt to blame, there may well have been gentiles there that night.

Lets not forget who these men were before this night and after this night.....immigrants perceived by the authorities as anarchists who often had low men in the yard after 1am on meeting nights....and men who attacked the police with clubs in the spring of 89.

Best regards

[Tom_Wescott]

The cachous solution

It would truly help to know what she actually held in her hand. If she has the pastille cachous, this gets really interesting quick.

All we know is that were estimated 6 or 7 pieces of cachous wrapped in tissue paper lodged between her thumb and forefinger. They would have been small pieces.

I apologize if I seem like a broken record to some, but I'll briefly post again my solution to the cachous conundrum.

Nichols and Chapman had their rings removed prior to death. Eddowes had a thimble next to her hand. Stride had cachous in her hand. What this says to me is that they were robbed prior to being murdered. If nothing else points to Stride being a Ripper victim, this certainly does. It explains these strange items in or near the victims hands, the missing rings, and the lack of any screaming or struggling. After all, you don't fight an armed man who tells you he won't hurt you if you stay silent. You do as he says. These women were robbed and manhandled regularly.

Anyway, money for these women was change. They didn't know from paper bills. When asked to hand over their money or valuables they'd reach into their pockets. Change is at the bottom, paper and larger items (cachous packet and thimble) would lodge in your hand as you reached for the change, hence the fact that not only was the cachous in her hand, it was lodged right where it should be in this scenario, between thumb and forefinger.

Now guess what happened while their hands were occupied.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Just a little thingy here, C.D. - they COULD be breath mints, but they could equally be sweetmeats. And they were actually described as sweetmeats at the time, but never as breath mints.

No matter what they tasted of, though, they would not have been priceless. I agree with you there. But they may have been an unusual item for Stride to posess nevertheless.

The best,
Fisherman

Cachous are sweetmeats are breathmints. There was nothing unusual about them and they weren't that expensive. Good to remember that Stride was not as destitute as Nichols or Chapman.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[sleekviper]

It would truly help to know what she actually held in her hand. If she has the pastille cachous, this gets really interesting quick.

[Wickerman]

Wait, as C.D. has stated, the BS dude encounter does not equal the death of Stride. She is not in the yard for the Schwartz encounter, so placing cachous in her hand at that point doesn't make sense. Either the cachous come into play later, or Schwartz is not telling the truth. Well, unless someone wants to say that she is not going to release the cachous no matter what for some reason since she has to go into the yard from where the story of Schwartz has concluded.

Yes, the presence of the cachous in her hand speaks to a change in circumstances for Stride following her encounter with BS-man.
Did someone else give them to her?

[c.d.]

Hello Viper,

Looks like our posts just crossed.

c.d.

[c.d.]

With regard to the cachous, I am speaking solely to Liz and the B.S. man and her being thrown to the ground and her attempts to get up. So talking about clutching them in death is irrelevant to my point.

Now try this experiment (which I just did). Throw yourself on to your bed. I broke my fall with my palms out flat. I didn't even have to think about it. It was just a natural reaction.

Now lay on the ground on your back or side and try to get up. I rolled on to my hands again with the palms flat out. It was a natural reaction.

So as precious to her as the cachous might be, I just can't see her thinking oh I have to protect the cachous at all costs even if I break my wrists.

Now throw in her being dragged by her scarf and again this isn't her scarf being used to aid in killing her. So we don't have to consider her hand clenching in death. It is simply the B.S. man using it to drag her. It might not have been that tight. I think the natural reaction is to get your hand between your neck and the scarf. This requires opening your hand.

Even without the scarf, if the B.S. man was trying to drag her to her death don't you think she would have struggled and tried to free herself? Again, I think her hand would be open trying to get leverage.

Now it is possible that the cachous survived all of this but I think it much more likely that she didn't have the cachous out when assaulted by the B.S. man. I think they came later which tells me Liz felt at ease and that the B.S. man had left the scene. My opinion only.

c.d.

[sleekviper]

Wait, as C.D. has stated, the BS dude encounter does not equal the death of Stride. She is not in the yard for the Schwartz encounter, so placing cachous in her hand at that point doesn't make sense. Either the cachous come into play later, or Schwartz is not telling the truth. Well, unless someone wants to say that she is not going to release the cachous no matter what for some reason since she has to go into the yard from where the story of Schwartz has concluded.

[Wickerman]

The police had their own interpreters, that is to say, 'police approved' interpreters. Regardless of who Schwartz brought with him to make a statement, if Schwartz was interviewed later by Abberline the police would assign one of their own interpreters to sit in on the interview.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

What is the reason he wasn't there?

Did Swanson believe what he wrote in his report and not based on what he was told (old news about Schwartz)? How can we be sure since there is nothing written about Schwartz afterwards? Is there new info that's surfaced?

Cheers
DRoy

Hi DRoy. Schwartz was kept 'under wraps', so to speak, as he was considered a prime witness. He was asked not to speak to the press and the police were not to make him known to the press. I believe this was for free of chasing off the Ripper, who they wanted to relax. That's probably why Lawende was not to give the suspect's description at the Eddowes inquest. The police would have gained Baxter's approval of this and thus no Schwartz at the inquest. Since Schwartz's testimony was not necessary to determine time or method of death, it wouldn't have been a big deal. This is the most likely explanation.

Another possible explanation is that Schwartz had not yet been cleared as a suspect by that date. There is the possibility of another witness to those events, but it's only a possibility.

As for Swanson merely reporting 'old info' at the time of his report on Oct. 19th, that is rendered moot by the correspondence about Schwartz that his report generated and in which Abberline participated. Had Schwartz been discredited by this late date, somehow escaping Swanson's attention, then Abberline (who would most certainly have known) would have said so at this time.

An interpreter in court would not have been a problem.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi CD

I think precious may be exactly the word we need.
Don`t forget Eliza Cooper and Annie Chapman came to blows over a small piece of soap.

I don't think this was a case of a conscious reaction to hold onto a valuable item. The grasping of the hands is often an unconscious reaction, or spasm, at the point of death. Whatever was in her hands at the time was irrelevant, she would still grasp it tight.
That said, this packet of cachous was only held between her thumb and forefinger, perhaps the spasm relaxed, or possibly, there was no spasm at all. Which then negates any suggestion that Stride considered those cachous as 'precious'.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Tom,

What is the reason he wasn't there?

Did Swanson believe what he wrote in his report and not based on what he was told (old news about Schwartz)? How can we be sure since there is nothing written about Schwartz afterwards? Is there new info that's surfaced?

Cheers
DRoy

I'd like to know to. I have seen several people here hint at reasons.

Personally, I think it might have to do with logistics possible re a translator?
Or religious reasons, or he simply did not show up? Just thinking out loud here but if anyone has any informed opinion I would like to hear it too.

[Fisherman]

Hello Ben,

When did cachous become so damn expensive and precious? They're breath mints for crying out loud not diamonds.

c.d.

Just a little thingy here, C.D. - they COULD be breath mints, but they could equally be sweetmeats. And they were actually described as sweetmeats at the time, but never as breath mints.

No matter what they tasted of, though, they would not have been priceless. I agree with you there. But they may have been an unusual item for Stride to posess nevertheless.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

I don't think C.D. is missing anything. Swanson's Oct. 19th report was written well after the inquest and makes it very clear where Schwartz stood in the scope of things. The reason for his not being at the inquest is not because the police didn't believe him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

What is the reason he wasn't there?

Did Swanson believe what he wrote in his report and not based on what he was told (old news about Schwartz)? How can we be sure since there is nothing written about Schwartz afterwards? Is there new info that's surfaced?

Cheers
DRoy

[The Good Michael]

I think precious may be exactly the word we need.
Don`t forget Eliza Cooper and Annie Chapman came to blows over a small piece of soap.

And one has only to look at the possessions these women carried on themselves to see that anything they had was of value to them.

Mike