Where is Liz Stride?

[Jon Guy]

The piece of velvet fascinates me actually But something she obviously is holding onto for some reason.

Perhaps, she was planning to make that cleaning apron out of it, Mike ?

[Michael W Richards]

Some good points DRoy..... I am reminded that Goldstein is also a member....and he has with him a black bag full of empty cigarette cartons as he passes by the open gates....and there are cigarette makers awake at that time in the cottages. And that Goldstein glances in towards the club as he passes...at around 12:55 or 12:56...a time at which Liz Stride is likely cut already or being so. Which would mean her murderer is in the passageway with her....and Fanny is at her door until 1am...so, he doesnt leave via the gates before 1am.

I believe its possible that his translator, or Leon himself, removes what likely was the case when the story is provided, that he was bringing the cartons to the cigarette makers and that when Leon looked in the passageway he saw members gathered and quickly shooing him off. Fanny stated that he walked past hurriedly.

These of course are speculative remarks...but Id like to think they are logically contrived.

Cheers

[DRoy]

Ah,..David, but thats not to say that there is no merit to the idea that translations, either intentionally given or due to mistranslations, could change the story just enough to make it something quite different. I think I should mention that I did propose this idea for Israel Schwartz, I am not convinced the story is an outright lie myself. I think Israel attended that meeting or stopped by after it broke up, and whatever he saw happened as he was leaving. And, IF that minor tussle was seen as he left via the side door...then Liz would be roughly in the spot she was killed a few minutes later. No need to wonder why she went into the passageway after that scuffle on the street...she was already in it. No need to wonder why Fanny never sees Liz in front of the gates on the street....after 12:35.

If she was already in it....it would make sense if it was because she was with a member or waiting for one.

Best regards David, all.

Agreed Michael. Also consider that Goldstein was paranoid enough that he thought it best he better let the police know it was him that Mortimer saw shortly before Stride was found. Did he mention seeing anyone or hearing anything? No, but maybe because it was after the apparent assault. Point is he still showed up to try to prove himself innocent.

Did Pipeman or BSM do the same? Unless they were partners, they both would be suspects. But only one of them. If it was Pipeman who killed Liz, why wouldn't BSM come forward? Sure he pushed her to the ground but he didn't kill her. He would have been a valuable witness though. What if it was BSM who killed her, why didn't Pipeman come forward? He didn't do anything wrong. Why would Goldstein who did nothing but walk by feel the need to go to the police when Mortimer gave such a small description of him? Why didn't Pipeman or BSM come forth in the same fashion? Maybe because it had nothing to do with Liz a/o it didn't happen the way Schwartz said it did? His story did change of course in The Star but was that badly translated or did his story evolve like Packer's or was it embellished by the reporter, etc?

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

c.d.

The Coroner decided who would testify not the police. That's why I mention Baxter's thoroughness. How difficult would it be for the police to find their own interpreter within 25 days to verify Schwartz's story? It wouldn't have been difficult at all.

No, they also wouldn't have held Schwartz back because he was jewish or because Lipski was perhaps called out. They wouldn't have had to beat it out of him, as you said he volunteered the info in the first place. I believe he was trying to be helpful but something fell apart with his story.

I can't see any reason for him not to testify based on who else did testify and their reasons for being included in the first place.

Cheers
DRoy

[DVV]

Ah,..David, but thats not to say that there is no merit to the idea that translations, either intentionally given or due to mistranslations, could change the story just enough to make it something quite different.
Best regards David, all.

Hi Michael

Certainly. Problem is that I don't remember what was exactly said.
I have sometimes thought of that post, but since I can't recall in which thread it was, I really have no idea how to find it again.

Amitiés mon cher

[Wickerman]

I just want to clarify my statement that the police might have been sympathetic to Schwartz's concern about retribution and therefore didn't force him to testify. I only throw that out there as a possibility. But if it were the case, it would only have been because they already had a statement from him and that they didn't think that his testimony at the inquest would help shed light on what really happened.

That being the case, then why do you think his police statement was not read to the court by proxy? It is the jury who are required to hear all the evidence, not only the Judge.

[c.d.]

I just want to clarify my statement that the police might have been sympathetic to Schwartz's concern about retribution and therefore didn't force him to testify. I only throw that out there as a possibility. But if it were the case, it would only have been because they already had a statement from him and that they didn't think that his testimony at the inquest would help shed light on what really happened. If they thought his testimony would crack the case wide open, then no amount of sympathy would dissuade them from getting him to testify.

Also, Schwartz came forth voluntarily and the police needed the public's help in getting information. Disrespecting and brow beating a voluntary witness and a Jew to boot probably would not have been good public relations.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, that's true.
But that Hungarian poster fled quicker than Pipeman.

Ah,..David, but thats not to say that there is no merit to the idea that translations, either intentionally given or due to mistranslations, could change the story just enough to make it something quite different. I think I should mention that I did propose this idea for Israel Schwartz, I am not convinced the story is an outright lie myself. I think Israel attended that meeting or stopped by after it broke up, and whatever he saw happened as he was leaving. And, IF that minor tussle was seen as he left via the side door...then Liz would be roughly in the spot she was killed a few minutes later. No need to wonder why she went into the passageway after that scuffle on the street...she was already in it. No need to wonder why Fanny never sees Liz in front of the gates on the street....after 12:35.

If she was already in it....it would make sense if it was because she was with a member or waiting for one.

Best regards David, all.

[DVV]

Yes, that's true.
But that Hungarian poster fled quicker than Pipeman.

[c.d.]

DRoy,

I'm saying that the police already had a statement from him and that because he might not have been sure of what he saw and coupled with the fact that he didn't speak English and that they were hearing through an interpreter, they might have concluded that this is as good as it is going to get. I don't know why they didn't get a second interpreter. Possibly the interpreter said that he was confident in his interpretation but that Schwartz himself wasn't clear in what he way saying. It is also possible that when the police started talking about an inquest that Schwartz started backing off on his story and that it was clear he was scared of retribution. If that was the case why introduce a witness at the inquest who was going to be all over the place with his story? Schwartz was also Jewish. Could the police have some concerns about the BS man shouting Lipski similar to them erasing the graffiti?

I don't know what you mean "instead of maybe catching Jack." Did you want the police to beat the story out of Schwartz?

c.d.

[Phil H]

I seem to recall - maybe from the earlier boards -a discussion about Schwartz's evidence, where a poster who knew Hungarian made some interesting and specific suggestions about how words might have been misunderstood by the translator.

Any other long-standing member recall that thread. I think it might have had to do with the word for pipe....?

Phil

[DRoy]

c.d.

They believed Stride to be a victim of 'The Ripper' yet you're saying they were going to be sympathetic to Schwartz because he may have been scared? You're saying it may have been difficult to get info from him so they just chalked it up to confusion instead of maybe catching 'Jack'?

Please c.d, your original post was much better. As I said earlier and Digital has now just reiterated, the police in a follow-up interview could have caught the mistakes of the first interview.

Cheers
DRoy

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

A thought

Maybe the bobbies got their own translator and Schwartz's story was a bit different.

[c.d.]

Hello DRoy,

The point I was making was there there doesn't have to be anything sinister attached to the fact that Schwartz didn't testify at the inquest. It's possible that when he gave his original statement to the police through an interpreter that trying to get his story straight was like pulling teeth. The police might have concluded that he wasn't lying but they were not really sure as to what actually took place. In that instance, would there be any real point in duplicating that confusion at the inquest? Another possibility is that he was really scared by the whole Lipski thing and feared retribution. The police might have been sympathetic to him.

All we know is that he didn't testify so we cannot conclude one way or another as to what that means.

c.d.

[DRoy]

c.d.

Yes, all possible but probable...I would say no. The inquest was almost a month long and 5 different sessions. I'm confused by the argument by some to suggest he is on of the most important witnesses yet they then downplay his significance when it comes to the inquest. Doesn't make any sense. Also doesn't make sense he's not mentioned as a major witness by any top officials in their later writings.

The inquest is supposed to determine the medical cause and circumstances of a death. Surely Schwartz would have been able to assist in this. The assault is a circumstance of her death. BSM could have thrown her to the ground, caused any or all the bruising that the doctors would have been commenting on at the inquest all which would lead to how she was killed. Ask yourself, why have over 20 witnesses testify if the doctors themselves would be able to determine it was her throat cut that was the cause of death? What if the doctors came back with an opinion her death was caused by a shove on her shoulders? Why have all the other witnesses say that they have no idea how she died but they had either seen her before or after death? Baxter was thorough and would have had Schwartz there if his story checked out.

Perhaps he was off on his time or the interpreter messed it up. Like you said, this assault could have happened. But as per the original post in this thread, it seems odd nobody saw Liz (if you take out Schwartz) and nobody who didn't see Liz also don't see Schwartz, Pipeman or BSM.

In a balance of probabilities what is more reasonable...there was something wrong with Schwarz's statement or that all the witnesses that did testify were blind and deaf?

Cheers
DRoy