Where is Liz Stride?

[lynn cates]

more B S please

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"So the cover story - assuming there was one - was totally ineffective?"

Umm, the club was searched that very night. So also the members. IS was later.

"he could just have been the only witness to something which actually happened, deeply unfashionable though that view now seems to be."

Not with me. BS simplifies my life.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

But the coppers went over them with a fine toothed comb. Clearly, they were under suspicion.

So the cover story - assuming there was one - was totally ineffective? I don't see any evidence of a cover-up by members of the IWMEC and, as it was ineffective, I don't see the point of any such cover-up either. I would counter that, if (big if) Schwartz was lying, he was far more likely to have been doing so on his own account rather than for someone else. His story provides him with an innocent explanation (had anyone seen and recognised him) for running away from Dutfields Yard. - or he could just have been the only witness to something which actually happened, deeply unfashionable though that view now seems to be.

[Bridewell]

Quite. But I wonder if any of these stories were as "convenient" for the narrator as Schwartz's was for the club?

Cheers.
LC

Convenient for Schwartz himself too perhaps - the only man we know (from his own account) to have run away from the scene of one of the Whitechapel Murders, and at around the time that the murder took place.

[lynn cates]

lost in translation

Hello Roy.

"He'd have to be a brave person walking into a police station with a false story and be able to either be schooled or confident in the questions that would have been asked or he'd have to be a fast thinker."

Or had an imaginative translator who could transform Aunt Becky's knish recipe into an assault, replete with a racist Gentile bully?

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

I wonder what Schwartz did after running away from pipeman. As has been pointed out, he ran past his home. Did he just walk back and go home? Would he have heard the news of the murder that night (early morning)? Did he assume when he read the morning papers that the person he saw being assulted was the person that was eventually murdered and if so why & how?

The problem I have with the theory that Schwartz lied to protect the club is that the story would have had to be concocted quickly and the witness (Schwartz) would have to come across as believable and able to answer any question that would be thrown at him. Such an important witness would have been questioned quite extensively. He'd have to be a brave person walking into a police station with a false story and be able to either be schooled or confident in the questions that would have been asked or he'd have to be a fast thinker. Reminds me of The Commode Story from Reservoir Dogs.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

background

Hello Jon. thanks.

But surely these lads who were used to Russian anti-semitism and pogroms would be feeling the heat--real or imagined?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

But the coppers went over them with a fine toothed comb. Clearly, they were under suspicion.

But that is normal procedure, the police left them alone after everyone had accounted for themselves. This still does not justify someone creating a false incident on the spur of the moment.
If Diemshitz was not concerned, and Eagle, Lave, a handful of members who thought nothing of talking to the press about it on the Sunday, who is supposed to have been concerned?

[lynn cates]

thought they did

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Yes but your point assumes the Club 'needed' a cover story, I don't see why they would."

Not necessarily. It shows they THOUGHT they needed such.

"A murder in the communal yard is not the same as if a murder took place inside the club."

But the coppers went over them with a fine toothed comb. Clearly, they were under suspicion.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"No-one confirmed Cadosche leaving for work when he did, no-one saw Mrs Long witness who she claims to have seen. Not everyone accepts the loiterer as Hutchinson, so he could be another one who saw something but no-one saw him. Then there's Cox, the police could not confirm her story, and no-one saw her either."

Quite. But I wonder if any of these stories were as "convenient" for the narrator as Schwartz's was for the club?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Yes but your point assumes the Club 'needed' a cover story, I don't see why they would. A murder in the communal yard is not the same as if a murder took place inside the club.

I just take the whole premise as flawed.

[DRoy]

For that matter no one saw PC Harvey look into the square, and no one saw Bowyer NOT go into Kelly's room and mutilate her. So...everything has room for error. Your point Jon, if I'm not mistaken. That means we have to look at what seems logical and what was generally believed by the police who were our eyes and ears in the investigation. Yet many people dismiss anything and everything that doesn't fit their theory.

Mike,

Good points and agree with you. However, as Dave has pointed out the police didn't all agree with each other. Plus, the police who were our eyes and ears believed most witnesses immediately but after looking at their story a little closer their opinion changed. Packer, Pole (things that sound dirty but aren't!) etc, including perhaps even Schwartz.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

The last few posts raise a most important point.....when faced with witnesses who provide what appear to be crucial statements without substantiation by other witnesses, its difficult to know whom to believe. That being said there are circumstantial elements which may help sort out whats what.....like in the case of Israel.

IF a link with a senior man at the club could be proven then there is the possibility that the story was tailored to protect a friend. Since they are both Immigrant Jews, and Anderson seemed to believe that the local jewish population would keep silent to protect another jew...( an anti-Semitic remark in my opinion), that may play into the statement as well.

But Lynn summarized my position on this statement pretty well....his story is way too convenient for the club...it takes the victim out on the street where she likely meets her killer, he is likely gentile, and all the other key club witnesses have to say is that they saw nothing. Eagle and Lave I mean. Louis of course would also have to be considered part of this "conspiracy"...yes, I said it .....and we do have statements that directly contradict his...from men not responsible for the clubs welfare.

Best regards

[lynn cates]

convenient

Hello Jon.

"No-one confirmed Cadosche leaving for work when he did, no-one saw Mrs Long witness who she claims to have seen. Not everyone accepts the loiterer as Hutchinson, so he could be another one who saw something but no-one saw him. Then there's Cox, the police could not confirm her story, and no-one saw her either."

Quite. But I wonder if any of these stories were as "convenient" for the narrator as Schwartz's was for the club?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Problem is that the police seem to have different ears and theories as well. What did they "generally" believe, please ?

[The Good Michael]

And that apparent fact is used as leverage.

No-one confirmed Cadosche leaving for work when he did, no-one saw Mrs Long witness who she claims to have seen. Not everyone accepts the loiterer as Hutchinson, so he could be another one who saw something but no-one saw him. Then there's Cox, the police could not confirm her story, and no-one saw her either.

For that matter no one saw PC Harvey look into the square, and no one saw Bowyer NOT go into Kelly's room and mutilate her. So...everything has room for error. Your point Jon, if I'm not mistaken. That means we have to look at what seems logical and what was generally believed by the police who were our eyes and ears in the investigation. Yet many people dismiss anything and everything that doesn't fit their theory.

Mike

[Wickerman]

... Only a single witnesses says he saw something there...and no-one saw him there.

And that apparent fact is used as leverage.

No-one confirmed Cadosche leaving for work when he did, no-one saw Mrs Long witness who she claims to have seen. Not everyone accepts the loiterer as Hutchinson, so he could be another one who saw something but no-one saw him. Then there's Cox, the police could not confirm her story, and no-one saw her either.