Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

[Hunter]

Precisely. His (Swanson's) obvious talents were wasted behind a desk.

Wasted behind a desk?

[lynn cates]

reports

Hello Cris. Thanks.

Yes, reading all those bloody reports.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

1. Well, there was no attempt to hide the fact that Schwartz had connections to others at the club. Nothing I've read denies the possibility. And of course, it is likely that young newcomers to London with common interests would seek each other out. It's what foreigners do everywhere/ Your harping on his being an immigrant Jew means nothing.

2. As for the inquest: There is no record that the coroner did not read Schwartz' statement.

Mike

The fact that you acknowledge there were likely ties between Israel and the club and still deny that that fact would hold any bearing on the potential for his story to favour the club members is, at best, a shortsighted view...one which I doubt the investigators would have shared.

To that last point, we have transcripts from the Stride Inquest...and there is no mention whatsoever about Israel, his story, or any alledged assault. You may note that the time Brown saw his young couple IS in the transcripts, and it is also for 12:45. Israel isn't even mentioned as a contrary witness for the time period.

Mentioning that Abberline wrote supportive words or that Swanson did means nothing in the course of this matter,...Abberline also stood by a witness that ends up discredited.

Their opinions are starkly contrasted by the lack of any visible signs that the opinions were validated by actions taken by the police.

It is clear to anyone without biases in these matters that his story was just that, a story, and that it was almost certainly intended to benefit the people that he knew at the club....a gentile assailant, off site.

Cheers

[Batman]

To that last point, we have transcripts from the Stride Inquest...and there is no mention whatsoever about Israel, his story, or any alledged assault.

There are a number of witnesses left out including Israel. It is likely that following the GSG Warren didn't want any anti-semitic connection with the case going public for fear of more riots (see Pizer).

They also tried to supress Lewande's description but the fact is that the journalists at the time got to the sources quickly and published.

Also the police reports, home office all support the case for Schwartz being considered a viable witness.

[Michael W Richards]

Again with the bruises....I gave a while back a perfectly reasonable explanation for the bruising..her having her back against the wall and her assailant poking her in the upper chest. A I said, IF Israel modified his story to protect the club, then he still may have seen Liz Stride assaulted inside the gates while he left via the side door. At the same time he says he saw the event.In basically the same format. He comes out with the assailants back to him, Liz against the wall. The assailant shoos him off, he leaves by going around the man and exiting via the gates.

With this scenario, it explains;

A) Why Liz is found on that spot inside the gates.
B) The bruises.
C) Liz still holding cashous...the intimidation escalated quickly to assault
D) How Fanny missed seeing Israel...she was only at her door continuously from around 12:50 until 1am
E) What time Liz was cut....at around 12:46, which then matches 3 witnesses who swore they saw the dying woman at approx. 12:45 and the medical opinion on cut time. Issac K also claimed Louis sent him out for help at that time....which would verify that Louis arrived earlier than he said, and would then marry with the fact that Fanny did not see or hear any Louis cart or horse approach the club between 12:50 and 1am.
F) Where Liz went after PC Smith saw her...into the passageway.
G) It would explain why Israels story wasn't presented or recorded at the Inquest...he skewed the true details to protect the club from suspicion.

IF the above scenario is accurate, then I would guess that its probable Liz Stride was mistaken for a spy on the club by a security person hired for that nights meeting, and when she went to get away from him he grabbed her scarf, pulled her back off balance, and twisted the scarf, causing her body to twist slightly, and he slid a knife under her throat as she fell. Again, matching the medical opinion that "she may have been cut while falling".

We know unfortunates were hired to spy on certain parties, we know Liz had a police connection previously in her love life, we know that she is not dressed up with mints and a flower for no reason, and that her soliciting outside a club that had 70% of its occupants leave an hour earlier is likely nonsense. We know she had been, for some time, working among the Jews. We know that she cleaned for her living. We know a large meeting leaves a great big mess for people to clean up.

Liz Stride was there either to clean up after the meeting or to meet someone for a romantic reason...she did indicate when leaving her belongings with someone that she did not know when she would return, she might have planned to clean all night...or have an all night date. Someone mistook her reason for being there, and when she did not co-operate by giving her reason, someone lost their cool and acted aggressive impulsively.

One cut, and no touching of her body after that.

That club was thought by police to house Anarchists..not just Socialists...and anarchists do many illegal activities. Its very reasonable to assume that they were indeed being watched.

Time to stop pretending a single cut constitutes a "ripping", and that a simple one-slice murder of a woman out at night was anything more than that.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

There are a number of witnesses left out including Israel. It is likely that following the GSG Warren didn't want any anti-semitic connection with the case going public for fear of more riots (see Pizer).

They also tried to supress Lewande's description but the fact is that the journalists at the time got to the sources quickly and published.

Also the police reports, home office all support the case for Schwartz being considered a viable witness.

Lawendes suppression was publicly announced. At the Inquest. Again, words mean nothing, actions substantiate the words. Actions are absent with respect to these so called "support" statements.

The point about Israels absence Batman is that if they believed him then he would automatically be the single most important witness of that murder, so how do you explain a witness of that importance being totally ignored at the Inquest?

There is only one reasonable explanation...although reason has seldom been used in mainstream Ripperology....how else could anyone explain the inclusion of a single wound victim in a "slasher and ripper" series.

Reason doesn't allow that kind of nonsense conclusion...but, many believe just that anyway.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Some keen observations there, Batman !!
Nice one.

Another quote says she was being pulled into the street Jon...hardly a smoking gun point.

The contradiction may also be indicative of poorly structured lies.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Hello Cris. Thanks.

Yes, reading all those bloody reports.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

I think the Yorkshire Police could have learned a few things if they had read the original Ripper case first.
They should have had someone in Swanson's position.

[The Good Michael]

The fact that you acknowledge there were likely ties between Israel and the club and still deny that that fact would hold any bearing on the potential for his story to favour the club members is, at best, a shortsighted view...one which I doubt the investigators would have shared.


It is clear to anyone without biases in these matters that his story was just that, a story, and that it was almost certainly intended to benefit the people that he knew at the club....a gentile assailant, off site.

I believe you might be the most delusional person on these boards. Look at what you wrote and constantly write, and tell us again about bias. Seriously, you are nuts.


Mike

[Hunter]

Yes, reading all those bloody reports.

Maybe. At least he had them.

[Batman]

Lawendes suppression was publicly announced. At the Inquest.
The point about Israels absence Batman is that if they believed him then he would automatically be the single most important witness of that murder, so how do you explain a witness of that importance being totally ignored at the Inquest?

The simplist answer I could give is that since Schwartz didn't speak english his being there wasn't necessary and likely there was pressure to keep the matter private. The reason why it can't be the case that the police deemed Schwartz unreliable is because the same police are writing to the home office (Anderson) talking about evidence been given by Schwartz at the Stride case inquest. Anderson also supplied it to Warren who also mentions Schwartz and the inquest. It is illogical to believe they would leave him out of the inquest for being unreliable and then talk to each other like he is reliable.

After Pizer and the lynch mobs out for Jews there was excellent reason to keep back a testimony with Lipski in it. Lewende was a jew but his account is of a 'sailour' type. Even then they probably didn't want this getting out and having a jewish witiness like Lewende isn't helping. In fact they stopped him giving evidence half-way through the inquest when they realized this.

Warren had removed the GSG because he was worried the city would riot against the Jews.

Then there is the additional simple explanation that they didn't want to let JtR know how well he had been identified by these witnesses.

In fact, take your pick, but what you can't say is that the police didn't trust Schwartz's account, only that it didn't appear in the published inquest.

[The Good Michael]

The simplist answer I could give is that since Schwartz didn't speak english his being there wasn't necessary and likely there was pressure to keep the matter private.

Of course this is the answer, but there is more. Why risk Schwartz' safety by having the poor man appear at a possibly hostile inquest to admit that he did nothing when a woman was assaulted? After the fear and animosity of immigrant Jews was heightened by a double murder, connected realistically or otherwise to these people, why would anyone wish to place a non-English speaker on the stand who could quite likely be reviled and scapegoated when any further questioning would not change the verdict of the likely cause of death being murder? The purpose of an inquest was to get at the likely cause of something. As we see in all the inquest testimony from these cases, there isn't very much uncovered, and there is no need to ask many questions. People give statements and a verdict is reached. The questions follow a specific, prepared pattern.

Mike

[lynn cates]

forte

Hello Jon, Cris. Thanks.

Of course, the point is that some are better behind a desk, other persons' forte is to keep the nose to the ground.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dangerous men

Hello Michael.

"Why risk Schwartz' safety by having the poor man appear at a possibly hostile inquest to admit that he did nothing when a woman was assaulted?"

How could he--especially as he may have had TWO men to contend with? And the "second" one was carrying a pipe with magic powers--you light it and it converts to a knife.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello Michael.

"Why risk Schwartz' safety by having the poor man appear at a possibly hostile inquest to admit that he did nothing when a woman was assaulted?"

How could he--especially as he may have had TWO men to contend with? And the "second" one was carrying a pipe with magic powers--you light it and it converts to a knife.

Cheers.
LC

Those magical powers belong to the journalist not Schwartz. Knives sells stories. Pipes don't. Jack the Piper doesn't have the same ring to it.

"LIPSKI RIPPER!", now there is a headline to give Warren sleepless nights if it ever appeared.