Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

[Observer]

la la Land

These conspiracy theories...
surely if Schwartz made it up he would have said he saw a knife being used on Stride - as it is his wishy washy story left considerable uncertainty as to what he had seen.
There isn't the slightest shred of evidence to suggest any link between Schwartz and the club so any such speculation is in my opinion just fantasy...
...and there would have been rather more than one potential translator in the district (this is rather like the suggestion that if anyone used a cab then they must have links to Le Grand).

Too True Lechmere.

I'll tell you what. Lets take a leaf out of those conspiracy theorists fun book, and posit a fantasy ourselves.

I'll kick it off.

I seriously believe that the killer of Liz Stride positioned her body as found. I believe Jack had an obsession with the womb, (taking Kate Eddowes, and Annie Chapman's womb's of course) and he placed Liz Stride in a foetal position. I'm surprised the police of the time didn't pick up on this.

Observer

[Michael W Richards]

How's about establishing some of those 'what ifs' before leaping to any conclusions Michael?

The story that is the truth of this matter Jon has to address many known bits of evidence and tie them into one cohesive tale. I suggested some "what ifs" and used them to see if they address some of the knowns. In the case I suggested, they would.

Anyone who believes Israel Schwartz was actually going to see if his wife had moved at 12:30pm, at 12:45am, believes that an Immigrant Jew just outside an Immigrant Jew club after a large meeting at 12:45am would have no ties with said club, believes that Israel Schwartz appeared as a validated witness at the Inquest, and believes that a simple proposal of a plot-line is tantamount to one of a full blown theory,....would likely find themselves instead supporting an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated story, 2 assaults on the victim within 5 minutes resulting in her being thrown down or dropped, and a Ripper who doesnt rip..but only sometimes.

It appears that Fantasy Jon, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Israel did not appear at the Inquest. His statement was not even referred to in it. We have zero evidence, aside from some comments, that his story was truthful, an accurate representation of fact, and valuable as evidence in this investigation.

Yet some insist on basing their whole opinion on this matter on his story, without a single shred of evidence that can be used in support.

Now thats fantasizing.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Too True Lechmere.

I'll tell you what. Lets take a leaf out of those conspiracy theorists fun book, .....and posit a fantasy ourselves.....

Observer

How would that be any different than any other post youve made?

Ripp-less Rippers, charwoman by day-hooker by night, believable unsubstantiated and uncorroborated stories....there are plenty of myths and fantasies you and others espouse. Yet you deplore reading alternate ideas from others.

I believe your problem with accepting ideas that dont support you own fantasies has more to do with you than the investigation of the murder.

You mud slingers...thinking that you do so from on high.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

You are correct in stating that Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest. But since we don't know why, any conclusion we might draw is pure speculation. It might have been that he told the police he was having a secret affair with Queen Victoria and they were afraid that might come out at the inquest. The point is that since we simply don't know you can pretty much come up with any reason you can think of but we have no way of knowing if it is correct.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

You are correct in stating that Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest. But since we don't know why, any conclusion we might draw is pure speculation. It might have been that he told the police he was having a secret affair with Queen Victoria and they were afraid that might come out at the inquest. The point is that since we simply don't know you can pretty much come up with any reason you can think of but we have no way of knowing if it is correct.

c.d.

I never said I was making conclusions cd, which you would have known if you or any of the other contrary posters had actually been reading my posts. I said that my suggestion could answer some basic questions about Israels non existence as a witness.

Your fantasy has 2 attacks within 5 minutes, a Ripper that doesnt rip, and a simple witness statement as a baseline of fact.

Perhaps you and the others should review the obvious rules when living in glass houses.

Cheers cd

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Where do you get 5 minutes from?

The "fantasy" you mention was listed by Swanson as something that could have taken place so hardly a fantasy.

As for glass houses, it is a discussion with various points of view not a contest to be won or lost.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

A funny thing happened on the way to inquest.

Hello CD.

"It might have been that he told the police he was having a secret affair with Queen Victoria and they were afraid that might come out at the inquest."

Or he might have been on his way to inquest, but was interrupted. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Anyone who believes Israel Schwartz was actually going to see if his wife had moved at 12:30pm, at 12:45am, believes that an Immigrant Jew just outside an Immigrant Jew club after a large meeting at 12:45am would have no ties with said club, believes that Israel Schwartz appeared as a validated witness at the Inquest, and believes that a simple proposal of a plot-line is tantamount to one of a full blown theory,....would likely find themselves instead supporting an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated story, 2 assaults on the victim within 5 minutes resulting in her being thrown down or dropped, and a Ripper who doesnt rip..but only sometimes.

Apparently Michael, your "anyone" includes Chief Insp. Swanson, who (we are led to believe) apparently found no issue with the statement given by Schwartz.
Plus, the very fact that Swanson was prepared to accept the possibility of two attacks, and the intrusion of another unknown person.
I'm not sure casting Swanson as a Fantasist will gain much support.

Whatever led Swanson to make such allowances has not come down to us, so it is perhaps wise not to judge his opinions on what 'we' know, rather, let us assume his opinions were based on what 'he' knew.

[c.d.]

Hello CD.

"It might have been that he told the police he was having a secret affair with Queen Victoria and they were afraid that might come out at the inquest."

Or he might have been on his way to inquest, but was interrupted. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

No way. We all know interruptions NEVER happen.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

doubts

Hello Jon.

"Chief Insp. Swanson, who (we are led to believe) apparently found no issue with the statement given by Schwartz"

Umm, better: he observed that the previous report, in itself, cast no doubt on it.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Jon.

"Chief Insp. Swanson, who (we are led to believe) apparently found no issue with the statement given by Schwartz"

Umm, better: he observed that the previous report, in itself, cast no doubt on it.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Well if he disagreed with the previous report, don't you think he would say so?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

not stellar

Hello CD. Thanks.

It's not necessarily that he doubted the report, but look at what Abberline went through with Schwartz. Israel could not even say at whom "Lipski" was shouted.

Not the most stellar witness of all time--and light years (pardon a second astronomical reference) away from Hutch's "precision," real or concocted.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

I agree, Lynn but Schwartz is the only witness we have. Even if he was a piss poor witness, it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that he was lying.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

salty reply

Hello CD. Thanks.

Absolutely. But, at the end of the day, I would emulate the Leman lads and take his story cum grano salis.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

The fact that Swanson states, as Lynn said, that the statement was "believed" has absolutely no value to the investigation without any substantive evidence that the statement was used by the police to track the killer, that the story has corroboration, that the witness was used to help with the investigation by identifying possible suspect matches, .....anyone can write anything they want on memo paper, actions are what count in this instance.

The fact that Swanson mentions Schwartz is valueless in this debate. Because,......clearly.....Israel DID NOT appear at the Inquest into the murder.

Cheers