Did jack kill liz stride?

[Michael W Richards]

...and the reason for this was?????????

c.d.

You have a choice cd;

A) He was a double secret spy who was kept from the Inquest records completely, as they were actively using his information to track down the men he says he saw...presumably not the ones that were found, interviewed and released.

One would think some sort of verification of this(his being withheld) would exist within someones records. Have you come across it?

B) It was decided that he or his story, in any form, could not be presented at the Inquest to the coroner.

One would think that is almost unimaginable, if the story was believed. His remarks place the victim in the hands of an assailant a few feet from where she dies and within a minute or so of the single cut. Its only reasonable to assume that story would be their best lead in this case....if believed.

Ill let you see if you can dig up that Secret Witness rerference cd and get back to me.

Cheers

[c.d.]

...and the reason for this was?????????

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Or we could simply say nobody knows why he didn't appear.

c.d.

Its not simply a no-show cd....there is no indication in the Inquest records that anyone named Israel Schwartz was a witness in the Stride murder investigation. No BSM story entered....no witness supressed, no records of that anyway....no BSM and Pipeman at 12:45, and no fleeing Izzy.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

The horse is flogged to within an inch of it's life, the good ole boys from the RSPCA are out in force, and prosecutions are already in the post. It matters not whether there are trees in Fairclough Street, affecting peripheral vision. The point is (for the third time) it would have been nigh on impossible for Spooner to have seen the fleeing Schwartz considering the locale of both parties.

My goal by the way is not irritation. You see there is so much silly talk around these parts of conspiring anarchists, Fenians under every bed, and a virtual menagerie of various animals, the latest being an "appearing" elephant, you know, I thought that I'd follow the old adage, "If you can't bet them join them". So there you have it.

Regards

Observer

Predictably the victim rather than the victimizer... as always.

The street you took the shot of would have been almost devoid of the features that now populate it, leaving very little blocking the peripheral vision...assuming they were staring at each other parallel to the street Izzy says he ran down. Which is but one of the ways they could have been looking.So even though they (Spooner and date) see the men from the Berner Street club from that same vantage point. ...your contention is that its highly unlikely they were looking in that direction or could see someone run through. At this point you need to remember Izzy is being chased....2 men run through.

Your citing carte blanch every possible storyline that gets suggested for some of the Canonical murders isnt required Observer, no one has suggested Fenians or elephants for this murder...yet.

The mere fact that you believe its beyond possibility that the anarchist Immigrant Jew members and its staff would have had some panic and perhaps some discussions when it became clear someone killed a woman in their passageway, says to me that you must be in this to irritate. Anyone on the planet can see the predicament they were in....(anyone who has studied theses case even in a preliminary fashion can see that an Immigrant Jew was at that time considered to be responsible for the murders that created Jack in the first place),.... and the fact we have the star Immigrant Jew witness absent from the Inquest and conflicts with the critical times given by Louis and Morris, both key figures there, ...conflicts with members and with Spooner.....

But hey...why waste time with the minutia eh? Jacky did it....just decided to slice once and leave this time, he slipped in when Fanny was indoors, and after Izzy sees the scuffle, he slices and dashes. But why wouldnt he mutilate if he kills again? Well thats easy...he didnt care much about mutilating...or....he was scared by a door slamming..or he saw Louis approach and bolted, .......even though Louis nor Fanny, at her door at 1am, saw Jacky....and Fanny just missed seeing a huge cart and horse tromp down the street a few doors down I guess. (Funny that Liz Stride lay on her side untouched. Skirt just revealing the tops of her boots. No indication anything else was planned or initiated by her killer).. But Izzy was the start witness...they just kept his statement and him hidden...(even though it had already been all over the press before the Inquest began). Spooner and the other members whose remarks place them in the passageway before 12:45 were all incorrect...(even though they gave them within an hour of the discovery, and the three gave almost identical times). Louis went for help with Isaac[s] after 1am,..(even though Isaac says Louis sent him alone just after 12:40).

You should try dealing with arguments like those., like yours.....makes dealing with wild animals seem like a cake walk.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Or we could simply say nobody knows why he didn't appear.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Hunter;283782]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.


Notations that something was believed and actions related to that belief are indeed different things, specifically in the context of my reference Hunter, no? The City Police allowed a witness to be introduced at the Inquest and to provide only a part of his statement because they were in the process of following up leads related to some of the content. The witness was named, present and spoke at the Inquest. Now that the context is clear surely you see the 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.


You know I take a great deal of criticism for being a poster who has not assigned kills to anyone. Ive named no suspect, Ive presented no formal thesis on what my own investigation, decades of it by the way, have revealed. Ive made suggestions about what may have transpired and dealt directly with posts that are made out to be facts when they are little more than guesswork. Like a Canonical Group.

As to the differences in the way Inquests were handled maybe you should do some more investigation, because it would be highly irregular and perhaps unprecedented to not have a Star witnesses statement entered into evidence in some form, during a hearing of the investigation the statement relates to.

So..chill. A retired London policeman and occasional poster here with decades of service and a particularly keen knowledge of these cases could not explain how Schwartz would be completely absent from the records if the belief was so strong in his statement.

Its the way that you just brush aside the absence that confounds me,....when it clearly contradicts the support you so often quote.

Cheers

[Observer]

You cant see the trees for the trees

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

Hi Michael

The horse is flogged to within an inch of it's life, the good ole boys from the RSPCA are out in force, and prosecutions are already in the post. It matters not whether there are trees in Fairclough Street, affecting peripheral vision. The point is (for the third time) it would have been nigh on impossible for Spooner to have seen the fleeing Schwartz considering the locale of both parties.

My goal by the way is not irritation. You see there is so much silly talk around these parts of conspiring anarchists, Fenians under every bed, and a virtual menagerie of various animals, the latest being an "appearing" elephant, you know, I thought that I'd follow the old adage, "If you can't bet them join them". So there you have it.

Regards

Observer

[lynn cates]

approach

Hello CD.

"He had the thrill of the kill with Liz."

Oy.

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

Now you're talking. And you tell me MUCH about your approach.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Let them eat cake.

Hello Cris. Thanks. Yes, I'm aware of all that.

Either the press report was:

1. wrong

or

2. right.

If wrong, it was:

1.1. garbled but contained a fundamentum in re

or

1.2. made of whole cloth

I reject 1.2. out of respect for newspapers.

If 1.1. I need to ascertain what part was true.

If right, then I need to figure the discrepancy.

One solution, apparent from Swanson's report is that:

1. Abberline questioned Schwartz.

2. He did not get a straight answer on an item or two.

3. Swanson saw nothing in the original report to impugn Schwartz.

So, given the wording of "The Star" article, the coppers at Leman st arrested one or two people--matching Israel's description of the characters--but released them. The story Schwartz gave did not jibe with theirs and so the police wanted clarification (for example, WHOM uttered "Lipski" and for whom was it intended?).

But that had NOTHING to do with the report.

If correct, I have my cake and eat it.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

I wouldn't rule out Schwartz's account on the basis that no one else saw the attack - this is perfectly possible - nor on the account that he attacked someone in the street - he wouldn't have been the last serial killer to have done so. Nor would I suggest that the attack couldn't have happened because Stride ended up in a dark corner with him (Schwartz didn't suggest that the attacker was Stride's killer).

The problem with the account is the lack of marks on Stride's body consistent with being pushed to the ground. I haven't seen an adequate explanation for this to date.

What I would be confident in asserting is this: assuming Schwartz's account is accurate, BS man did not kill Stride.

[sleekviper]

It is my birthday, so have a little alcohol in me.The single slice. Well, to begin with, if I wish to drive from point A, to point B, I will avoid using roads with construction, heavy traffic, or anything that might cause delays if at all possible. That also means that if these routes are clear, I would not know since I have taken care to avoid them if possible. Stride is standing at the gate on what should be an active road; a road that someone wishing to kill someone pretty much where they stand, should avoid for roads less traveled. Even if someone finds themselves on a road that they thought should be active, she is still killed at an active location. It would appear, to me at least, that someone decided to kill on an active road, at a active location, with little or no fear of what that possible trap might entail. The road is empty, that is odd. The road should be active, so something is wrong, and if it were me, I would look for a trigger. Whether it is law enforcement, neighborhood patrol mobs, something has changed, and I would think that whatever it is, could mean some trigger is going to set a plan inaction. At this point, the list of potential killers has just dropped once again since someone that views this possible trap is likely to avoid it, and not take the bait. It does not point to BS Bully, but his actions would point to a thought that if this was a trap, it takes more than acting stupid to trigger a response. Stride fails to scream, my first thought would be her scream is a trigger, but time must play a role. There would not be time to wonder how or why they picked this road, how many roads are set up if this is a trap, I will just do what I came to do, and spend far less time to do it. So a killer is thinking, reacting to a sudden change. Just me, but I think that the road played a good deal in the reasoning behind a single slice to Stride. Hope that makes sense, if not, sorry, too many shots.

[Cogidubnus]

Quite

Dave

[robhouse]

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.

Or he could have been scared off if someone caught him in the act of attacking the woman, and thinking maybe the man would alert the police or come back with "help"... wait, didn't this... Schwartz.. eh, forget it.

RH

[Cogidubnus]

Hello cd

Pure sexy genius.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ditto...wholeheartedly

All the best

Dave

[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