Was Stride Really a JtR Victim?

[lynn cates]

honourable mention

Hello Roy. Thanks.

OK, but to be fair, how much does, say, Mrs. Long or Charles Lechmere get mentioned later?

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Hello Roy. Thanks.

Well, for what tiny bit it's worth, I think the lads at Leman began to see the convenience of Schwartz's story. They then saw no reason to pursue it.

Swanson saw no reason to disbelieve it and so figured it into the equation. But the subsequent memos did not revisit it. But that is not strange, as investigations are fluid things, with shifting priorities.

Lynn,

Thank you for your thoughts.

I agree that there would have been priority shifts but what seems crazy to me is that Schwartz is completely out of the picture. Gone and not mentioned. That's why I believe his original statement was somehow proven to be of little worth.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

fluid

Hello Roy. Thanks.

Well, for what tiny bit it's worth, I think the lads at Leman began to see the convenience of Schwartz's story. They then saw no reason to pursue it.

Swanson saw no reason to disbelieve it and so figured it into the equation. But the subsequent memos did not revisit it. But that is not strange, as investigations are fluid things, with shifting priorities.

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Lynn,

Oops! Yes that too makes sense. I can see a bit of my post making sense as well. Can I ask what you think?

[lynn cates]

"m J K"

Hello Roy. Thanks.

I should have been more clear. I was referring to "MJK."

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Hello Roy. Thanks.

Perhaps they were focusing on the next investigation?

I agree that the Leman lads lost interest. Wish I knew why they thought as they did.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,

Yes that is possible and a good assumption. Since Lawende was then and still considered a great witness then Schwartz's value could have lessened. Since everyone also assumed Liz was killed by Jack, they could very well have concentrated more so on Eddowes' murder and reliable witness.

Cheers
DRoy

[c.d.]

What I said was no "direct" connection. Schwartz never said he saw someone being murdered. He identified the woman who would become the victim and he talked about two men who he never claimed were connected to each other. He only made a statement of activity he witnessed. There is nothing in his statement that shows real knowledge of what happened. If he was involved in some cover up (which he wasn't), the information would have been certainly more damning to the man (men) he discussed.

Mike

Good Michael,

Damn.You are on fire today, my friend. Exactly. Schwartz never saw anybody murdered and only stated what he saw. We are the ones drawing conclusions. Liz was very much alive and kicking when he left the scene.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

next

Hello Roy. Thanks.

Perhaps they were focusing on the next investigation?

I agree that the Leman lads lost interest. Wish I knew why they thought as they did.

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Thomas]

Then *poof* he's gone.

Theatrical appearance and all.

[DRoy]

Lynn,

Yes to be more precise. Then *poof* he's gone. You'd think that he would be mentioned at some point if they valued his statement as much as has been suggested.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

longer

Hello Roy.

"he isn't referenced as an important person by anyone after only a short couple weeks after the murder."

Three weeks, perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

I feel rather sorry for Israel Schwartz.

Something happened on Berner Street - a woman was murdered. Schwartz claims to have seen something. Nobody else admits to having seen anything at all. Why assume that Schwartz is the one telling lies? (Apologies if I've misunderstood your point).

Bridewell,

I don't think Schwartz lied. I think Michael has some good points and ideas about the club but i'm not convinced yet. My opinion is that Schwartz saw an assult (maybe on Stride, maybe on someone else) but that his original statement was misinterpreted or mistranslated. Hence not testifying at the inquest and seemingly disappearing shortly after as he isn't referenced as an important person by anyone after only a short couple weeks after the murder.

Cheers
DRoy

[Phil H]

Not at all.

We all make mistakes, I know I do.

But Casebook has a wealth of resources, including pictorial ones and dissertations by experts. I find them extremely useful but my advice is always get as close to the original source as one can.

Phil

[ukranianphil]

Sorry if i came across as being hard, its just that i have been given false info in the past. Many thanks for the photographs.
hope i did not offend you?

[Phil H]

please give references to where you get your information from, as i am not going go take your word. For example the weight of the doors, and the hand on the chest being a friendly greeting?

With respect, I am not here to act as your research assistant.

I suggest you look up the threads on Dutfields Yard in particular the one started when the 1909 photo was found.

Because I am a good guy, I attach some pics I had stored, for your information.the second pic shows a period when the gates had been replaced by iron gates, but will I hope give you a sense of scale. The bottom pic is William Stewart's model and shows the wicket gate inset into one of the two larger gates.

Whether you take my word for anything is, of course, up to you.

Phil