Where is Liz Stride?

[c.d.]

Hello DRoy,

You are right that Schwartz wasn't at the inquest but we can only speculate why he didn't appear. There could have been a simple reason, one without any negative implications. He might have been ill or perhaps a translator was not available. He might have convinced the police that he feared retribution. Because he didn't speak English and because the police already had his statement, the police might have felt that his testimony at the inquest would only have muddied the waters and thus there was no need for him to appear.

c.d.

[DRoy]

I have been re-reading a lot of the posts on this thread. Why are we arguing that Schwartz was either lying or telling the truth? Why are those the only two options? All Schwartz tells us is that he saw a man push a woman to the ground. He didn't see what preceded the incident or what followed it. He didn't speak English so he had no idea of what was being said between the two and his story comes down to us through an interpreter. To me, Schwartz testified to what he thought he saw. No more no less. Rather than accuse him of lying or being 100% accurate, why not just take his story with a grain (and maybe a large grain) of salt?

c.d.

c.d.

I think you'd find there is only one poster saying he's lying and is suggesting so because he believes the club may be involved. He has presented a theory that is possible but has little support since most of us have been following the story as has been laid out for us. By providing us with a different perspective and idea, he has at least given us something new to consider and investigate.

That being said, there are some like myself that believe it is just as possible that there was something lost in translation or he was proven mistaken. You are correct that it is presummed Schwartz only saw an assult, not a murder, therefore he wasn't that great a witness. No way. He would have been at the inquest if his story was proven correct.

To be fair to Michael since I did such a crude summary of his theory, he has provided many different ideas regarding Schwartz, not just calling him a liar. I suggest reading the other two last threads on Stride as well since there is much more on this topic throughout.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Rather than accuse him of lying or being 100% accurate, why not just take his story with a grain (and maybe a large grain) of salt?

c.d.

Likely because there is nothing to replace it. Ignoring his claim leaves a large hole in the sequence of events that night. Once the plug is in the dam most people are reluctant to remove it. Whether its a plug of indisputable quality matters little, its a plug.

[c.d.]

To say Liz didn't need money is like saying someone lost in the desert doesn't need water because they have some in their canteen.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I have been re-reading a lot of the posts on this thread. Why are we arguing that Schwartz was either lying or telling the truth? Why are those the only two options? All Schwartz tells us is that he saw a man push a woman to the ground. He didn't see what preceded the incident or what followed it. He didn't speak English so he had no idea of what was being said between the two and his story comes down to us through an interpreter. To me, Schwartz testified to what he thought he saw. No more no less. Rather than accuse him of lying or being 100% accurate, why not just take his story with a grain (and maybe a large grain) of salt?

c.d.

[Cogidubnus]

Philosophy on a Saturday Night!

No reason to assume she needed money? She might have had enough to furnish her wants for a day or two or possibly a week or so. Beyond that I am guessing that she needed money. That would be like me quitting my job when I get my paycheck because I now have money. The problem is that that money runs out very quickly.

So she was facing the problems every one of us faces (and most of us are stupid enough, most of the time, not to realise are the "essence", as Poirot puts it)...the necessity to keep producing money week after week, year after year...

Jesus, if we thought about it, aged sixteen, seventeen, eighteen or whatever, we'd be daunted...some of us accomodate this horror by long-term planning, some by living day to day and sod the consequences, others drop out...but for many of us it's the underlying fear which underpins everything we do...

I suspect in the East End of 1888 the life was far far tougher than most of us could handle, but the choices were fewer and simpler...choices were restricted and life was always "day to day" - So sure she had tomorrow to think about...but I think she'd leave that until tomorrow....and next week to next week...tonight was what it was all about...and tonight was special...tonight she wore a flower...

All the best

Dave

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

You can phrase it any way you want to as long as you have her speaking to the man who killed her be it Jack or otherwise. What transpired then is anybody's guess. She wouldn't have to be actively soliciting to take advantage of a generous offer. Women have been known to change their minds on occasion.

No reason to assume she needed money? She might have had enough to furnish her wants for a day or two or possibly a week or so. Beyond that I am guessing that she needed money. That would be like me quitting my job when I get my paycheck because I now have money. The problem is that that money runs out very quickly.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Preparing for a date and being on a date are two different things. Things happen and people don't show up. Dates can also go badly and end in arguments. We simply don't know what Liz's reaction would have been had she been approached by a potential customer at the end of the evening.

c.d.

I would prefer cd that the above was phrased "had she been approached by someone who mistook her for a working woman that night." "A potential customer" implies she would recognize someone approaching her as an opportunity to make money by providing sex, when in Liz Strides case, we have no evidence at all that she had been recently soliciting nor do we have any reason to assume she needed money.

She evidently had been at work among the Jews recently for income, and she left the lodging house with enough money to buy her a bed for a night. She was also sober, ...and when you consider that a woman seen soliciting might be doing so to enable her to buy some booze...like in the case of Polly her last night...you might conclude that even if Liz had spent her 6d on something other than a bed, she could still have resorted to solicitation for money for booze.

But there was none in her system....which leads one to conclude at the very least that she didnt solicit that night to buy booze.

So what about her doss? She was found without it, and the extra 2d that would have been left over. Ive said this many times, I dont know if it could be determined...but Ill bet the cost of a flower for her jacket and some cashous might have been around 6d at that time.

Cheers cd

[c.d.]

Preparing for a date and being on a date are two different things. Things happen and people don't show up. Dates can also go badly and end in arguments. We simply don't know what Liz's reaction would have been had she been approached by a potential customer at the end of the evening.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

Baxter

Hello Mike. Thanks.

"I know some discussion has suggested that Liz did pay her 4d before leaving the lodging house. . ."

I thought Baxter had nixed that?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

The piece of velvet fascinates me actually...here is a woman who it seems knew Liz Stride primarily just in passing, as a co-tenant if you will. And Liz entrusts her with what is likely a prize of some sort to her...maybe its to patch a spot on her coat at a later time. But something she obviously is holding onto for some reason.

Hi Mike

If it was a sizeable piece of plain velvet she'd been given or earned, (end of a bolt?), or even a reasonably sized piece of figured velvet, it'd be of GREAT value to her...for example, at the very least, she could make some very saleable garments from it...but possibly she had some far more precious and personal future use in line for it...Huge speculation, but women weren't married in white back then...

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

'Like Stride, I would not have carried them with me on a Saturday night out."

Especially, if I'd planned no imminent return.

If she had paid doss for the night (or planned to) why not leave your belongings in the doss house?

Cheers.
LC

There is a statement by the landlady that makes it clear that tenants could leave their valuables with her if their stay was to be sporadic, or I suppose even if they went out for a night.

The piece of velvet fascinates me actually...here is a woman who it seems knew Liz Stride primarily just in passing, as a co-tenant if you will. And Liz entrusts her with what is likely a prize of some sort to her...maybe its to patch a spot on her coat at a later time. But something she obviously is holding onto for some reason.

So why not leave it with the landlady you had a pint with after work?

I know some discussion has suggested that Liz did pay her 4d before leaving the lodging house but there is no evidence Ive ever heard of that makes that a viable position.

Cheers Lynn

[lynn cates]

belongings

Hello Jon. Thanks.

'Like Stride, I would not have carried them with me on a Saturday night out."

Especially, if I'd planned no imminent return.

If she had paid doss for the night (or planned to) why not leave your belongings in the doss house?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Indeed. And that would have been appropriate given an anticipated return (of course, it would require spacious pockets--a la Kate).

Come on, Lynn, a bible and a substanial piece of velvet?
Like Stride, I would not have carried them with me on a Saturday night out.

And if she were to have paid doss (better: had paid it) why not leave them behind?

I don`t follow you?
She didn`t pay her doss, and she did leave the velvet with her mate at her digs?
The Bible, I believe she left with the lady who lived next to Kidney after she had retrieved it from him.

[lynn cates]

alternates

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"She could have taken them out with her that night I suppose."

Indeed. And that would have been appropriate given an anticipated return (of course, it would require spacious pockets--a la Kate). And if she were to have paid doss (better: had paid it) why not leave them behind?

Cheers.
LC