Did jack kill liz stride?

[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

[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]

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

[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

[Hunter]

[It was reported in the Star.

[DRoy]

[It was reported in the Star.

Hunter,

Thanks for that. Do you recall the date?

Cheers
DRoy

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[The Good Michael]

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

Mike

[caz]

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.

Good to see you believe 'they investigated' the accounts of both Schwartz and Hutchinson. Yet you maintain that Schwartz was simply dropped without further ado because his credibility became an issue? It just doesn't seem likely to me. If they had found any serious problems with Schwartz's account, they'd sure as hell have wanted to know why he had put someone of BS Man's description at the scene shortly before the murder, which conveniently explained his own buggering off incontinently. Otherwise they'd have kept their eyes peeled for BS Man in case Schwartz really had seen the murderer.

The only reason they'd have lost all interest in Schwartz is if it emerged that he had been mistaken about the time (eg was he an hour out either way?), and possibly even the place, and had therefore witnessed something that had nothing to do with the murder in Dutfield's Yard.

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.

I don't want to speak for Tom here, and I don't support or reject his robbery theory, but I doubt Jack the Robber/Ripper would have cared if his victims had the takings from a dozen customers on them, or only the drippings from their noses. He may only have been interested in forcing the women to turn out their pockets as a distraction, so he could strike while their hands were occupied and disguise his real purpose. Might explain the cachous at any rate.

As for Schwartz, ask yourself...

...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?

Er, quite good actually. Leon Goldstein told me himself.

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.

Prudent students - I like that.

That makes you an imprudent and impudent student for assuming Schwartz was full of it, without having any evidence, and coming up with unsubstantiated stories involving club members conspiring together, committing perjury and all sorts.

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.

But didn't Mortimer say she heard Diemschitz's pony and cart pass by approximately 4 minutes after she went inside, and remarked upon the fact to her old man? That makes two people who confirm his stated arrival time near enough, while it chucks your twenty minutes earlier theory in the bin. Mortimer was inside when she heard the pony and cart, so she would definitely have heard it if it had arrived that much earlier. Why would she lie and drag her husband into the lie? And how could Diemschitz have expected to get away with lying, when the cart was noisy enough for the neighbours to hear?

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

In which case, how have you ruled out Jack as her killer? With not one witness you are prepared to believe, you can have no possible clue why this woman was targeted, who was or wasn't there with her, what they may have witnessed, and when her killer safely fled the scene.

Great. You have managed to toss out all the evidence as unreliable, unworkable or downright suspicious, and given yourself nothing but a blank sheet to work with. Good luck with that then.

Love,

Caz
X

[DRoy]

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.

Good points Caz. I don't recall Schwartz commenting on how he fixed the time but I'm sure Tom could confirm whether he did say or not.

What I'm wondering now is when Schwartz first learned of the murder? Also, considering he ran from the scene of an attack (whether Stride or not) he didn't run in to a policeman along the way nor does it appear he tried to find one. Depending on whether he believed Pipeman was chasing him with a knife or not, plus just witnessing an attack, you'd assume he'd try to find a policeman (whether he could communicate properly or not).

Just a couple randon thoughts your post made me think about Caz.

Cheers
DRoy