Did jack kill liz stride?

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm posting it to those who argued, earlier on this thread, for Schwartz being a liar, especially to the individual poster who used the time discrepancy in support of that argument.



Diemshitz noted the time by a clock on Commercial Street and thereafter made an estimate based upon that clock which may or may not have been accurate. That is the point I was making. As for Schwartz, the same clock may have been visible to him but there is, so far as I am aware, no evidence that he looked at it, or that he had any reason to do so.

He was confident about his timing, had passed the same clock, and I believe people than as now would be predisposed to check the time when able, particularly when walking on foot...after all, one must be looking somewhere. He and Diemshitz passed the same clock is all I'm saying.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

He was confident about his timing.

Was he? How do we know that this was the case?

had passed the same clock, and I believe people than as now would be predisposed to check the time when able, particularly when walking on foot...after all, one must be looking somewhere.

But not necessarily at a clock.

He and Diemshitz passed the same clock is all I'm saying.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

They both passed the same clock, but there is no evidence that both of them looked at it. You speculate that he is likely to have done so, (and he may have done) but he doesn't - unlike Diemshitz - specifically state that he did so. I see nothing in his account to indicate that his 12.45am time was anything more than an estimate.

[lynn cates]

Texan

Hello Tom. The story is told locally of a Texan who went to London and ordered biscuits and gravy for breakfast. Not a pretty sight.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

haggis

Hello (again) Tom.

"I mean real sausage that's been cooked."

Like haggis? And it's technically pudding.

"When done right its amazing."

I'll say. Come see me on Burns night.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

B S M

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Either way, there seems to be a disconnect from the assault by BS-man.
She likely did not have them in her hand when BS-man pushed her down."

Quite.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

P M

Hello Colin.

"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."

Well, you might if NOT for the presence of Pipe Man.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Colin.

"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."

Well, you might if NOT for the presence of Pipe Man.

Cheers.
LC

What about Le Grand, Lynn?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Despite the many vacuous assurances that the complete absence of Israel Schwartz's story at the Inquest really means that he was probably upgraded to Double Secret Witness since he was so valuable, it would be wise to remember that Lawende had some details withheld because they were deemed vital to ongoing investigations, he was sequestered, and he was paid. But he was present, and his story was entered into the Inquest records. Swansons mention of Schwartz is just like Abberlines support of Hutchinson, and they investigated his story too. But like George, Israel only "matters" in memos.

There is no evidence that either Liz Stride, Catherine Eddowes, Mary Jane Kelly or Polly Nichols was robbed, nor is there any reason to assume both Polly and Annie would have been probable choices for robbery on the nights they died....neither had even as little a one nights doss on them. Liz, although she does not have her 6d that she left the lodging house with, does have 2 things that she didnt have at that time. The seemingly fascinating cashous and the flower arrangement.

Robbers I would imagine would hope to acquire money when they rob someone, perhaps if we knew they had some money on them the theory would hold more water.

As it is it is an idea as unproven as Eagles statement, Schwartz's statement, and Louis Diemshitz statement.

As for Schwartz, ask yourself;

1. Is it plausible that he would be going to his old address to see if his wife had completed what was most probably the movement of some clothing....at 12:45am...when he had left her around noon to do it by herself? Would it take almost 13 hours for her to move some suitcases, and maybe a stick of furniture...they are after all poor immigrants.

2. What are the chances that on a semi deserted street right outside a Jewish Mens Club, after a large meeting, at 12:45am, that we would find a local Jewish man that had never had anything to do with the club or that didnt attend the meeting?

3. Where did Israel Schwartz's wife move from that day?

4. Surely he heard of the murder before Sunday night, why didnt he come in with someone to translate earlier that day?

5. Who translated for him at the police station?

6. His story contains 2 people that may have been working together, and Mary Kellys doesnt... on the surface of the information available. If Israel was so strongly believed then why didnt they offer the Accomplice Pardon after he gave his story?

7. If Israel Schwartz' story was so highly regarded as to make it into Swansons notes on the 19th, then what is the explanation for the continued lack of any notation or recognition of his story on the Inquests' final day...the 23rd?

Instead of assuming something occurred without having any evidence with which to substantiate the claim, prudent students will recognize that unsubstantiated stories or officially omitted stories are not the ones to bank on.

No-one saw Eagle, he didnt see Lave. Both at the gates at 12:40 supposedly. No corroboration. No-one saw or heard Liz Stride, BSM, Pipeman or Israel, despite the fact we have a street witness at her door off and on during that time, and 2 witness around the corner who would have seen Schwartz fleeing. No-one sees Louis arrive at 1am, as he stated absolutely,.... despite the fact that Fanny Mortimer, the witness whose timing is verified by her sighting of Leon Goldstein at around 12:55/56, said she was at her door until 1am.

3 witnesses, 2 of them club members, within 1 hour of the single cut, said they had been summoned to the passageway at around 12:40...Isaac K noted his arrival back at the club as 12:30, and "about 10 minutes later", he was summoned. Spooners story if timed out puts him in the passageway before 12:45...which means he spotted the 2 men on the street from the club before that time. Issac says Louis sent him alone soon after arriving by the body, the press says Louis said he and Isaac[s] went together. One member says he was aware of the goings on around 12:40-12:45.

All we really know for sure is that Liz was seen by PC Smith at 12:35am, assuming that any single witness account above was 100 % accurate and trustworthy.....despite the lack of any substantive proof,....is contrary to process of any sound Investigation of the facts.

There is no witness that proves by their statement or remarks that they saw Liz Stride alive after 12:35am.

Best regards

[Tom_Wescott]

Despite the many vacuous assurances that the complete absence of Israel Schwartz's story at the Inquest really means that he was probably upgraded to Double Secret Witness since he was so valuable, it would be wise to remember that Lawende had some details withheld because they were deemed vital to ongoing investigations, he was sequestered, and he was paid. But he was present, and his story was entered into the Inquest records. Swansons mention of Schwartz is just like Abberlines support of Hutchinson, and they investigated his story too. But like George, Israel only "matters" in memos.

This rather proves my case, Michael. Thanks for bringing it up. Lawende's description was indeed withheld at the inquest, with full support of the coroner. But the Met and City Police are different organizations, and these were different cases. The Met police had a bevy of witnesses to present at Stride's inquest, including a police officer. The City Police, by contrast, had nothing of merit outside of Lawende, therefore they had to have him give evidence so the public knew they too had a witness. His presence was necessary, Schwartz's was not. And as you pointed out, Lawende was sequestered. Therefore I don't see how you can see the same argument being made for the OTHER prime witness (Schwartz) vacuous.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

This rather proves my case, Michael. Thanks for bringing it up. Lawende's description was indeed withheld at the inquest, with full support of the coroner. But the Met and City Police are different organizations, and these were different cases. The Met police had a bevy of witnesses to present at Stride's inquest, including a police officer. The City Police, by contrast, had nothing of merit outside of Lawende, therefore they had to have him give evidence so the public knew they too had a witness. His presence was necessary, Schwartz's was not. And as you pointed out, Lawende was sequestered. Therefore I don't see how you can see the same argument being made for the OTHER prime witness (Schwartz) vacuous.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

As usual Tom, I dont see how you come to your conclusions, but suffice to say that there may well have been Policy differences in the way an Inquest was handled between the City and the Met as per witnesses, but the fact remains that Lawende was categorized as an important witness publicly, not in a private memo, and we can state unequivocally that he was present at the Inquest and his story was entered as evidence for the coroner and jury to assess. That cannot be said for Israel. We can say though that the City and Met both believed they were working on connected cases, so they were not considered "stand-alones". Therefore any evidence concerning a suspect in one case by default becomes important to the other case.

The 3 witnesses in the city case seem to be the last people to see Kate Eddowes, if indeed they did see her, so youre right, they were critical. However, the witness in the Stride case that by his story makes him the last person to see Liz Stride alive is also just as critical. As is Shabby Genteel, BSM, Sailor man and Blotchy Face.

We can see that a few of these "last sightings' are suspect.....Shabby Genteel is only valid if Cadosche didnt hear the attack of Annie start, BSM is only valid if Schwartz told the truth, Sailor Man is only valid if it was indeed Kate he was with at the time, and Blotchy Face is only valid if you believe there is no evidence to demonstrate that Mary left her room again after the singing stopped and the lights went out.

See anything in the above? Israel Schwartz is the only "last" witness that is valid only if believed. And he is the only witness that didnt appear at the related Inquest. Mrs Long appeared. Lawende appeared, and Mary Ann Cox appeared respectively.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

excuse

Hello Tom. Thanks.

Well, whoever was there (if anyone) provided a good reason for Schwartz to run away. Of course, if it was just Schwartz and BSM, he might be asked why he did not stop and help Liz.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

What I want to know is why Americans call scones a biscuit?

We don't. Scones and biscuits are similar, but biscuits are just a quick bread made with baking powder and used typically for breakfast. Scones are usually sweetened and can be made with fruit and are eaten somewhat as a muffin. The baking process is the same. Sometimes scones are cooked on a stove top while biscuits are always baked...at least where I'm from.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

We don't. Scones and biscuits are similar, but biscuits are just a quick bread made with baking powder and used typically for breakfast. Scones are usually sweetened and can be made with fruit and are eaten somewhat as a muffin. The baking process is the same. Sometimes scones are cooked on a stove top while biscuits are always baked...at least where I'm from.

Mike

Yep, same here. Scones are more fancy food though. I wonder what kind of breakfast food McDonalds serves in England?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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.

[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.