The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[Sam Flynn]

Im not sure you've accurately interpreted what I said Sam, I never suggested a "conspiracy", just that staff members lied to protect themselves.

For their deception to work, their separate accounts would have to tally with one another, which implies collusion. That's a conspiracy as far as I can tell.

And acceptance of a serial mutilators guilt based on a murder devoid of such actions may seem straightforward to you

More straightforward than the cover-up scenario. At least there is firm evidence that the Ripper (or "a" Ripper) was operating in Whitechapel that night. And, just to be clear, I don't think that an interrupted Ripper killed Elizabeth Stride.

[c.d.]

There was no evidence of a struggle, no defensive injuries, and no one heard anything. It would suggest that Stride was blitzed by her killer while her guard was down. As she was still clutching the cachous when she was found, this means two things: that Stride was killed suddenly with little time to react, and two that she did not anticipate an attack coming. Two points that would seem to rule out the man who moments earlier had assaulted her (allegedly).

Hello Harry,

I agree completely. That would seem to leave us with two possibilities. One that Schwartz made up the story and the other being a second killer. This is where we disagree. You favor the former while I think Jack came along later and killed her.

c.d.

[c.d.]

To say it wasn't Jack because he didn't mutilate seems extremely simplistic in my opinion as though there were no other factors involved. If he is caught he is most likely hanged. That always has to be in the back of his head.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

For their deception to work, their separate accounts would have to tally with one another, which implies collusion. That's a conspiracy as far as I can tell.



More straightforward than the cover-up scenario. At least there is firm evidence that the Ripper (or "a" Ripper) was operating in Whitechapel that night. And, just to be clear, I don't think that an interrupted Ripper killed Elizabeth Stride.

Eagle says he saw nothing at 12:40...when Lave says he was still standing there,...but he also says he "couldn't be sure a body was there" at that time, Lave says he saw nothing, when Eagle is returning at 12:40 through the gates he is standing at, and Louis says he arrives at "precisely" 1..when Fanny is at her door and doesn't see that. Seems that none tally, but all leave an impression that nothing was seen or found until after 1. No need for prior consultations. Unfortunately for them 4 other witnesses did see something at that 12:40-12:45, and it wasn't Israel, it was people around dying woman in the passageway, with Louis already there.

Someone ripped Kate in the city, yes, that's the ONLY murder in the city that was ever alleged to be connected to Jack the Ripper, and the reason for a presumed "Double Event"are the erroneous assumptions that also linked Stride with that killer, based on nothing more than the timing.

[Michael W Richards]

To say it wasn't Jack because he didn't mutilate seems extremely simplistic in my opinion as though there were no other factors involved. If he is caught he is most likely hanged. That always has to be in the back of his head.

c.d.

cd, If you imagine in his short run that Jack the Ripper was someone not obsessed with pm mutilations, then you are in the wrong place to discuss that belief.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Harry,

I agree completely. That would seem to leave us with two possibilities. One that Schwartz made up the story and the other being a second killer. This is where we disagree. You favor the former while I think Jack came along later and killed her.

c.d.

"Came along later"?. The cut could have been made as early as 12:46 by the professional estimates, so someone just sliding in between a supposed BSM attack and her cut is ...well...nonsense. He is by far the most probable suspect for her murder based on the story, but as his story is discarded before the Inquest, he is yet another red herring. Just like the "grapes for the lady" gentleman.

[c.d.]

cd, If you imagine in his short run that Jack the Ripper was someone not obsessed with pm mutilations, then you are in the wrong place to discuss that belief.

Michael, if you think that Jack the Ripper had absolutely no fear of being caught and hanged then you are definitely in the minority on these boards. Just because he may have wanted to mutilate doesn't necessarily mean he had no fear for his own safety.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"Came along later"?. The cut could have been made as early as 12:46 by the professional estimates, so someone just sliding in between a supposed BSM attack and her cut is ...well...nonsense. He is by far the most probable suspect for her murder based on the story, but as his story is discarded before the Inquest, he is yet another red herring. Just like the "grapes for the lady" gentleman.

Well Swanson didn't think it was "nonsense" and allowed for that possibility in his report.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Liz Stride is waiting to meet someone in or from the club and decides to freshen her mouth a bit, or she is there to enter the club as a hired cleaner,.."at work among the Jews", .. and she is approached by a surly man trying to negotiate a quickie. She tells him to F off. He pokes her in the chest with menace. She then turns to head out the gates to wait on the street in front of the passageway, and the surly man grabs her scarf, twists it and pulls back, she is off balance and while bent and twisted and choking, the surly man slides a knife across her throat and lets go of the scarf. She falls, her legs drawn into her body..and she bleeds out.

That's a 2 second scenario that was suggested by the examining doctor. And it fits the physical evidence to a T.

But she didn't drop the cachous, which upon being grabbed, choked, throat cut, and dropped. See, the cachous are a problem for any such attack.

Also, cutting her throat while still standing should have left more blood on her clothes, and that sort of angle would be really hard to produce such a deep cut. There would also be expected to be some blood spatter on the wall higher up, and none was found. I'm pretty sure she was on the ground when her throat was cut based upon the evidence. But that's a minor detail in some ways, but it brings back in the cachous problem, which, as far as I see it, is a problem for any scenerio that fits the evidence - which suggests it may just be something that is odd in this case - she held them, we don't know why.

And of course, we don't have any evidence for surly-man, and the scenerio you describe is just a variation on what Schwartz described - brief encounter, where someone attacks her, gets her to the ground, and at some point cuts her throat. There's no evidence that Stride was waiting to meet someone in particular either.

That being said, while one could quibble about whether she was on the ground or not at the time her throat was cut, I really don't see the above as describing anything much different from what Schwartz reported other than a few minor details. BS certainly seemed to be surly after all.

When she is found is the only question here, because Israel Schwartz, someone who has been established by a valued researcher here as at the very least an acquaintance of Woolf Wess's, does not factor at all into the equation. According to the authorities trying to establish Liz Strides cause of death.

So 12:45 has Brown seeing the young couple that Fanny saw and later spoke with. So there is nothing to contradict the 4 witnesses that stated they were already alerted about the dying woman at around 12:40-12:45. Nothing but Morris, Joe and Louis. The first 2 stated they were at the gates at around 12:40, and Louis says he didn't arrive until "precisely" 1am. No-one saw anyone else, and no-one saw Louis arrive at 1am. We have an eye witness with a clear view from 12:50 until 1am, and she didn't see anyone. 1 of the 4 people who claim to be there at around 12:45 stated that Louis sent him out for help at that time.

You see what happens when you set the misguided belief in Schwartz aside, a much more precise picture emerges. The men who worked for or lived at the club lied. The men in attendance there, who had nothing to do with any killing, had no reason to. A man who saw some members going for help didn't need to either. The man who kills Liz,....in my opinion a hired thug that was engaged when they thought William Morris would be the speaker that night, a planned event that was threatened with violence due to the polarizing nature of Morris's politics, ...was likely taken into the club, his knife thrown into the soapy sink water, or maybe placed somewhere near the stage...and he was presented as a member in attendance when they were questioned. Why would they protect him? Why would they lie? Because their club was considered a haven for low men and anarchists, many of the Socialist activists were, and it would be closed in a heart beat if the police thought one of them committed the murder. Socialists across the UK would be subjected to animosity and violence in retaliation. It would cause riots. And loss of any income for some staffers.

It's not a misguided to believe in Schwartz (that's a pejorative description), rather, we have testimony from someone as part of the evidence set. That evidence needs to be evaluated for its reliability, accuracy, and implications. We can't go back and verify it, or gather more from him, so one is stuck with having to do that analysis based upon what we have. Not surprisingly, some feel his evidence is worth considering, some, like yourself, draw a different view. Neither is misguided, despite the constricting conclusions. You've built a theory on the assumption you made that decision correctly, and if you haven't, everything that follows based upon that conclusion will be wrong because it's built upon an error. If your assumption is correct, then your building on safer ground. Problem is, whether or not Schwartz's testimony is important/accurate, etc is unknown. Stride's case as a JtR victim is also unknown, there's reasons to conclude she was and reasons to conclude she wasn't.

With an obvious threat to their wallets, their safety, their club and their cause it shouldn't surprise anyone that they would present stories that did their best to deflect that suspicion...….with a little intro music, Here's Israel Schwartz. That very vehicle to safety.

Im always surprised when considering how few people are willing to accept the logical here...in favor of a mutilator who does mutilate due to a supposed interruption that is not present in any known evidence.

I've read your "club coverup" idea, where Schwartz is recruited to give false testimony to direct attention away from the Jews. The problem is that Schwartz's testimony, as he gave it, implicated a Jewish co-offender (pipe man). His testimony contradicts the whole premise of what the club cover up goal was. And to me, that's enough to conclude the club cover up idea just doesn't go anywhere.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

It's not a misguided to believe in Schwartz (that's a pejorative description), rather, we have testimony from someone as part of the evidence set. That evidence needs to be evaluated for its reliability, accuracy, and implications. We can't go back and verify it, or gather more from him, so one is stuck with having to do that analysis based upon what we have. Not surprisingly, some feel his evidence is worth considering, some, like yourself, draw a different view. Neither is misguided, despite the constricting conclusions. You've built a theory on the assumption you made that decision correctly, and if you haven't, everything that follows based upon that conclusion will be wrong because it's built upon an error. If your assumption is correct, then your building on safer ground. Problem is, whether or not Schwartz's testimony is important/accurate, etc is unknown. Stride's case as a JtR victim is also unknown, there's reasons to conclude she was and reasons to conclude she wasn't.

Good Lord! That is one of the best posts of all time. If only every poster thought so logically and clearly and were able to set aside personal theories and agendas.

Damn good post.

c.d.

[Harry D]

Hello Harry,

I agree completely. That would seem to leave us with two possibilities. One that Schwartz made up the story and the other being a second killer. This is where we disagree. You favor the former while I think Jack came along later and killed her.

c.d.

Hey, CD. Do I believe that moments after being roughed up by someone, Stride willingly retreated to a dark alleyway with another man? No, I can't buy into that.

[Michael W Richards]

But she didn't drop the cachous, which upon being grabbed, choked, throat cut, and dropped. See, the cachous are a problem for any such attack.

Also, cutting her throat while still standing should have left more blood on her clothes, and that sort of angle would be really hard to produce such a deep cut. There would also be expected to be some blood spatter on the wall higher up, and none was found. I'm pretty sure she was on the ground when her throat was cut based upon the evidence. But that's a minor detail in some ways, but it brings back in the cachous problem, which, as far as I see it, is a problem for any scenerio that fits the evidence - which suggests it may just be something that is odd in this case - she held them, we don't know why.

And of course, we don't have any evidence for surly-man, and the scenerio you describe is just a variation on what Schwartz described - brief encounter, where someone attacks her, gets her to the ground, and at some point cuts her throat. There's no evidence that Stride was waiting to meet someone in particular either.

That being said, while one could quibble about whether she was on the ground or not at the time her throat was cut, I really don't see the above as describing anything much different from what Schwartz reported other than a few minor details. BS certainly seemed to be surly after all.



It's not a misguided to believe in Schwartz (that's a pejorative description), rather, we have testimony from someone as part of the evidence set. That evidence needs to be evaluated for its reliability, accuracy, and implications. We can't go back and verify it, or gather more from him, so one is stuck with having to do that analysis based upon what we have. Not surprisingly, some feel his evidence is worth considering, some, like yourself, draw a different view. Neither is misguided, despite the constricting conclusions. You've built a theory on the assumption you made that decision correctly, and if you haven't, everything that follows based upon that conclusion will be wrong because it's built upon an error. If your assumption is correct, then your building on safer ground. Problem is, whether or not Schwartz's testimony is important/accurate, etc is unknown. Stride's case as a JtR victim is also unknown, there's reasons to conclude she was and reasons to conclude she wasn't.



I've read your "club coverup" idea, where Schwartz is recruited to give false testimony to direct attention away from the Jews. The problem is that Schwartz's testimony, as he gave it, implicated a Jewish co-offender (pipe man). His testimony contradicts the whole premise of what the club cover up goal was. And to me, that's enough to conclude the club cover up idea just doesn't go anywhere.

- Jeff

The clenched cachous almost certainly represent the suddenness of the attack Jeff, and the brevity of the attack. "She may have been cut while falling" is a stated opinion of the medical expert who examined her. The reason for Liz Stride being there has been guessed at for all these years, when the most relevant data is right there in the records. She had on her "good evening wear", courtesy of a friend at her lodgings, she asked to borrow a lint brush before going out that night, she is wearing a flower arrangement on her jacket, and she dies holding mints used to freshen the mouth. She is there for personal reasons, or to clean "among the Jews" after a large meeting. Those are the only reasonable interpretations.

Lets categorize this accurately, shall we? Israel Schwartz is on record having made a statement Sunday night via an interpreter. His statement isn't "testimony", its just a statement. Like Packers. And Edward Spooner. Not all statements make to the presentation of evidence to determine the cause of death in a formal proceeding. At which point they become "evidence". There is absolutely no evidence in existence that suggests Israel Schwartz's statement was entered into that "evidence" in any form, and there is no report that indicates he was present during the proceedings, nor that anything he said was being withheld by the police. As was the case with Lawende.

As to the nature of the alleged call of Lipski, it has no other valid connotation other than an insult or threat. At that time in that place it was well published that anti-Semitism was rampant due to the overcrowding and huge amount of immigrant Jews, and that Lipski was being used insultingly. There is nothing to suggest a Jewish co-offender in that event, in the form of pipeman or anyone else.

[JeffHamm]

The clenched cachous almost certainly represent the suddenness of the attack Jeff, and the brevity of the attack. "She may have been cut while falling" is a stated opinion of the medical expert who examined her. The reason for Liz Stride being there has been guessed at for all these years, when the most relevant data is right there in the records. She had on her "good evening wear", courtesy of a friend at her lodgings, she asked to borrow a lint brush before going out that night, she is wearing a flower arrangement on her jacket, and she dies holding mints used to freshen the mouth. She is there for personal reasons, or to clean "among the Jews" after a large meeting. Those are the only reasonable interpretations.

No they are not. She may have also decided to earn some money by prostitution, and knew she had a better chance of doing so if she made herself more presentable. We don't know where the flower came from, but could easily have been given to her from a punter. And so forth. There are many, many, reasonable possibiliities. Picking one from the deck doesn't make that the only card possible.

Lets categorize this accurately, shall we? Israel Schwartz is on record having made a statement Sunday night via an interpreter. His statement isn't "testimony", its just a statement.

A statement that official records shows created quite a bit of buzz and talk between the police and Home Office that they considered his statement well worth following up. There's even one statement that implies he was expected to have presented at the inquest, although there are other interpretations.

Like Packers. And Edward Spooner. Not all statements make to the presentation of evidence to determine the cause of death in a formal proceeding. At which point they become "evidence".

In the legal sense, yes, in an historical sense, they are evidence. Qualified by context, sure, but they are still all we have to work with. Hence the differing conclusions drawn, but also hence, none are misguided.

There is absolutely no evidence in existence that suggests Israel Schwartz's statement was entered into that "evidence" in any form, and there is no report that indicates he was present during the proceedings, nor that anything he said was being withheld by the police. As was the case with Lawende.

That's not in dispute though.

As to the nature of the alleged call of Lipski, it has no other valid connotation other than an insult or threat. At that time in that place it was well published that anti-Semitism was rampant due to the overcrowding and huge amount of immigrant Jews, and that Lipski was being used insultingly. There is nothing to suggest a Jewish co-offender in that event, in the form of pipeman or anyone else.

That's Anderson's correction of what Schwartz originally gave as his statement. You're overlooking the fact that Schwartz's original statement was that Lipski was directed at Pipeman, and he also originally stated Pipeman was apparently in league with Broad Shoulders. If you're going to try and deflect attention away from the Jews, you don't get your star player implicate a Jew. That, right there, shows that Schwartz was not set up to deflect attention away from the Jews. It doesn't work because it was Anderson who realized that Schwartz was mistaken - a plan to deflect attention away doesn't start off by directing attention towards, the plan of the confederate is reflected in what he originally stated. Doesn't even matter if he was later not considered reliable, his original presentation is exactly opposite to what the club coverup is based upon. That's why the club cover up gains no traction with me.

That doesn't mean, however, I think Schwartz is gospel either. Just because he's not part of an elaborate plan to direct attention away from the Jews by implicating a Jew, doesn't mean he's automatically reliable either.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

The clenched cachous almost certainly represent the suddenness of the attack Jeff, and the brevity of the attack. "She may have been cut while falling" is a stated opinion of the medical expert who examined her. The reason for Liz Stride being there has been guessed at for all these years, when the most relevant data is right there in the records. She had on her "good evening wear", courtesy of a friend at her lodgings, she asked to borrow a lint brush before going out that night, she is wearing a flower arrangement on her jacket, and she dies holding mints used to freshen the mouth. She is there for personal reasons, or to clean "among the Jews" after a large meeting. Those are the only reasonable interpretations.

Lets categorize this accurately, shall we? Israel Schwartz is on record having made a statement Sunday night via an interpreter. His statement isn't "testimony", its just a statement. Like Packers. And Edward Spooner. Not all statements make to the presentation of evidence to determine the cause of death in a formal proceeding. At which point they become "evidence". There is absolutely no evidence in existence that suggests Israel Schwartz's statement was entered into that "evidence" in any form, and there is no report that indicates he was present during the proceedings, nor that anything he said was being withheld by the police. As was the case with Lawende.

As to the nature of the alleged call of Lipski, it has no other valid connotation other than an insult or threat. At that time in that place it was well published that anti-Semitism was rampant due to the overcrowding and huge amount of immigrant Jews, and that Lipski was being used insultingly. There is nothing to suggest a Jewish co-offender in that event, in the form of pipeman or anyone else.

Amen, Mr Richards. For once we're on the same page.

[Michael W Richards]

Amen, Mr Richards. For once we're on the same page.

Im pleased to share that space with you Harry.