Where is Liz Stride?

[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.

[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.]

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.

[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.]

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.]

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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

A thought

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

[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

[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

[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.