Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"How do you explain that basically Schwartz got nothing wrong?"

Simple. It was the same as the oracles, because, you see, they never really said anything.

Cheers.
LC

Yeah he did say things of importance. Read them again.

1 - Peak cap (also seen by Lewande). <-- So you believe lucky guess right?

2 - Front/shoulder attack. The doctor performing the autopsy didn't know about Schwartz but has stated he has witnessed bruising in these areas. <-- Another lucky guess?

3 - Is given an anti-semetic slur LIPSKI just hours before the GSG anti-semetic writing is found with Eddowes bloody apron. <--- Coincidence right?

4 - States the woman was thrown to the ground on a rainy wet day. The coroner inquest states one side of her jacket was plastered in mud. <-- Which is more imformative than your gently laid down hypothesis and falsified by Schwartz and the autopsy report.

4 - He claims to have seen all of this on the same night JtR attacks. <- Okay, could be a coincidence... but....

5 - ... only minutes before the JtR attack on Eddowes. <---- so forget that being a coincidence lol.

You can't explain away Schwartz and that he got nothing wrong despite being more accurate than you in terms of the coroners findings. Even with all the details you had, you needed liz to be gently laid down, which isn't what Schwartz saw and not what the coroner reported.

As for Liz threads. Have read many and have a gang on books on the topic. Stride is still canonical IMO and I see very little support for her not being except for maybe Fido and his Cohen hypothesis but Robert House is the Kozminski expert and House even accepts Stride was killed by JtR.

[lynn cates]

Auf Wiedersehen

Hello Batman. Thanks.

One LAST time:

1. Peaked cap? Plenty of those. Perhaps he was also wearing a shirt and trousers? Prescient?

2. Yes, her shoulders were bruised. But:

A. Neither doctor could not confirm it was related to attack.
B. Such bruises could not result from a mere push.
C. He tried to pull her into the street. That seems to indicate pulling the hand/s.

3. the upper echelon investigators, whom you are so fond of adducing, were divided. Some thought it indicated a Jewish attacker. Some thought it was the other person's name.

4. Gently laid down was the copper's language. IF one is lain down in mud OF COURSE it will be wet and muddy. What are you on about?

5. And only minutes after the Brown attack. Treble event?

Now, with all due respect, this is ALL you get. You need to:

1. Read previous Stride threads.

2. Read the reports.

3. Research the case.

4. Mature a good deal.

Until then, NO MORE POSTS.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Schwartz is truthful or accept multiple coincidences of low probability each.

Let's see how many coincidences you need to play here. Parsimony isn't on your side, sir and saying read other threads doesn't explain it away given the volume of posts that agree with stride being canonical.... nor the volume of coincidences you need.

1. Peaked cap? Plenty of those. Perhaps he was also wearing a shirt and trousers? Prescient?

That's 1 coincidence card you are playing. I don't need a coincidence to explain this. Schwartz saw the person Lewende saw. 1 coincidence for you. 0 for me.

2. Yes, her shoulders were bruised. But:

A. Neither doctor could not confirm it was related to attack.
B. Such bruises could not result from a mere push.
C. He tried to pull her into the street. That seems to indicate pulling the hand/s.

The brusing is over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone AND in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration

So I take it you are playing another coincidence card here despite the bruising being frontal and not rear?

as for B and C, let's see if you are accurately describing what he claims with your 'mere push'.

Swanson says ...as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, BUT he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times,

To throw someone is not a mere push. So I don't get how on earth you are coming up with this. Are you inventing the mere push idea or is it in the report somewhere? I think the former given what I have read from you so far.

Secondly if you want to throw someone down you use their weight by first pulling them so they lean back and then you thrust them down using their own weight and yours.

Anyway this is another coincidence card you are playing. 2 coincidences for you. 0 for me.

3. the upper echelon investigators, whom you are so fond of adducing, were divided. Some thought it indicated a Jewish attacker. Some thought it was the other person's name.

Alternative explanations when faced with the obvious, that Lipski was shouted to scare Schwartz off (and it worked!) just don't resolve here... especially given an hour or so later GSG appears with anti-semetic writing next to the bloody apron. You need a coincidence here to explain this don't you?

That's 3 coincidences versus 0.

4. Gently laid down was the copper's language. IF one is lain down in mud OF COURSE it will be wet and muddy. What are you on about?

There is no uniformity in mud desposits around her jacket for your gently laid down hypothesis. That hypothesis is throughly falsified by the evidence. One side is PLASTERED in mud. The other isn't. That not a regular mud distribition from lying down. That's falling on your side and or being dragged through mud (explaining why the scarf knot was so tight while your view has the killer's pulling motion do the tightening, Schwartz's account with Liz down would explain it was her body weight tightening it on his grip).

So this isn't a coincidence. It's a falsification of your interpretation.

5. And only minutes after the Brown attack. Treble event?

Completely different MO and context even if it was only 3 miles away. Not even remotely the same except for use of a knife. Let's measure the differences.
A. The husband killed his wife and then went to the police about his domestic dispute.
B. Stab and cut wounds to her throat. Not a slashing.
The only way you can connect this to the other two is change MO and pretend the husband is lying.

Anyway your overall suggestion is that yes these murders are ALL coincidental.

4 coincidences for you, 0 for me.

Now, with all due respect, this is ALL you get. You need to:

1. Read previous Stride threads.

2. Read the reports.

3. Research the case.

4. Mature a good deal.

Until then, NO MORE POSTS.

Cheers.
LC

4 coincidences for you, 0 for me.

Stride right arm is over her belly. Legs drawn up. <-- Another coincidence too?

That would make it 5 coincidences for you, 0 for me.

Does Dr. Philips who worked on Chapman and Kelly agree with you too or did he believe it to be JtR?

Let's face it. To reject Scwartz means to accept multiple chance, accidental luck, flukes on the part of Schwartz and others. To accept him means being more parsimonous and therefore on the side of Occam's razor which is a scientific tool.

[RockySullivan]

J. Best, 82, Lower Chapman-street, said: I was in the Bricklayers' Arms, Settles-street, about two hundred yards from the scene of the murder on Saturday night, shortly before eleven, and saw a man and a woman in the doorway. They had been served in the public house, and went out when me and my friends came in. It was raining very fast, and they did not appear willing to go out. He was hugging her and kissing her, and as he seemed a respectably dressed man, we were rather astonished at the way he was going on with the woman, who was poorly dressed. We "chipped" him, but he paid no attention. As he stood in the doorway he always threw sidelong glances into the bar, but would look nobody in the face. I said to him "Why don't you bring the woman in and treat her?" but he made no answer. If he had been a straight fellow he would have told us to mind our own business, or he would have gone away. I was so certain that there was something up that I would have charged him if I could have seen a policeman. When the man could not stand the chaffing any longer he and the woman went off like a shot soon after eleven. I have been to the mortuary, and am almost certain the woman there is the one we saw at the Bricklayers' Arms. She is the same slight woman, and seems the same height. The face looks the same, but a little paler, and the bridge of the nose does not look so prominent.

THE MAN

The man was about 5ft. 5in. in height. He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat. He had rather weak eyes. I mean he had sore eyes without any eyelashes. I should know the man again amongst a hundred. He had a thick black moustache and no beard. He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie. I said to the woman, "that's Leather Apron getting round you." The man was no foreigner; he was an Englishman right enough.[1]

.....


No eyelashes? These guys claims to have called the man with stride leather apron....this was before 11. What's up with the no eyelashes?

[RockySullivan]

From the Evening News article:

Gardner corroborated all that Best said respecting the conduct of the man and the woman at the Bricklayers' Arms, adding "before I got into the mortuary to-day (Sunday), I told you the woman had a flower in her jacket, and that she had a short jacket. Well, I have been to the mortuary and there she was with the dahlias on her right side of her jacket.

I COULD SWEAR

She is the woman I saw at the Brickayers' Arms and she has the same smile on her face now that she had then.[1]


The corroborating witness....the smile comment seems very strange...

[The Good Michael]

Alternative explanations when faced with the obvious, that Lipski was shouted to scare Schwartz off (and it worked!) just don't resolve here... especially given an hour or so later GSG appears with anti-semetic writing next to the bloody apron.

The GSG probably had nothing to do with Schwartz. It certainly isn't anti-semitic in it's wording either. Not in it's literal meaning anyway. It was erased because it was pro-Jewish at the exact moment in time when Jews were being associated with the murders. That made it a necessity to be gotten rid of.

Mike

[Batman]

The GSG probably had nothing to do with Schwartz. It certainly isn't anti-semitic in it's wording either. Not in it's literal meaning anyway. It was erased because it was pro-Jewish at the exact moment in time when Jews were being associated with the murders. That made it a necessity to be gotten rid of.

Mike

Sir Charles Warren, was afraid of another resurgence of the anti Semitism in the wake of "Leather Apron" and ordered that the message be erased at 5.30am. To say otherwise means warren who was there completely got the situation backwards as well as the others.

[Rosella]

According to the Evening News the man seen earlier with Stride in The Bricklayers Arms had weak sandy eyelashes.

[lynn cates]

sense

Hello Michael. I say, you make more sense in half a dozen terse sentences than some can make in a page. But then you know the difference in Ockham's Razor and the Principle of Parsimony.

Hope you like the sound of a stamping foot and a shrill voice.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Sir Charles Warren, was afraid of another resurgence of the anti Semitism in the wake of "Leather Apron" and ordered that the message be erased at 5.30am. To say otherwise means warren who was there completely got the situation backwards as well as the others.

that's exactly what I said. A pro-Jewish statement could cause anti-semitic backlash. Warren was concerned. What part didn't you understand?

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Hope you like the sound of a stamping foot and a shrill voice.

Please don't say that. I was married once.

Mike

[lynn cates]

empathy

Hello Michael. Thanks.

I know what you mean. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

that's exactly what I said. A pro-Jewish statement could cause anti-semitic backlash. Warren was concerned. What part didn't you understand?

Mike

I don't understand the sexism statements above.

There is nothing about Warren removing a pro-jewish statemen That's historical revision.

Let's see what superintendent Arnold has to say...
I beg to report that on the morning of the 30th Sept. last, my attention was called to some writing on the wall of the entrance to some dwellings at No. 108 Goulston Street, Whitechapel which consisted of the following words: "The Juews are not [the word 'not' being deleted] the men that will not be blamed for nothing", and knowing in consequence of suspicion having fallen upon a Jew named 'John Pizer' alias 'Leather Apron' having committed a murder in Hanbury Street a short time previously, a strong feeling existed against the Jews generally, and as the Building upon which the writing was found was situated in the midst of a locality inhabited principally by that Sect, I was apprehensive that if the writing were left it would be the means of causing a riot and therefore considered it desirable that it should be removed having in view the fact that it was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by persons passing in & out of the Building."

[The Good Michael]

I don't understand the sexism statements above.

There is nothing about Warren removing a pro-jewish statemen That's historical revision.

Let's see what superintendent Arnold has to say...
I beg to report that on the morning of the 30th Sept. last, my attention was called to some writing on the wall of the entrance to some dwellings at No. 108 Goulston Street, Whitechapel which consisted of the following words: "The Juews are not [the word 'not' being deleted] the men that will not be blamed for nothing", and knowing in consequence of suspicion having fallen upon a Jew named 'John Pizer' alias 'Leather Apron' having committed a murder in Hanbury Street a short time previously, a strong feeling existed against the Jews generally, and as the Building upon which the writing was found was situated in the midst of a locality inhabited principally by that Sect, I was apprehensive that if the writing were left it would be the means of causing a riot and therefore considered it desirable that it should be removed having in view the fact that it was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by persons passing in & out of the Building."

Historical revision? What are you going on about? Do you mean 'revisionism'? If so, where does it say in what you posted, that the graffiti was an anti-semitic message? The only thing that could cause a riot would be a message that was some sort of Pro-Jewish message. This could cause anti-semitic behavior, but the message itself was not anti-semitic. And what did you mean by 'sexism'?

Mike

[Batman]

I don't fathom why you think the only thing that could cause a riot would be a message that was some sort of Pro-Jewish message given that there was rioting only weeks before because the leather apron Jewish suspect was implicated in Chapman murder all because a leather apron was found in a yard! Let alone graffiti.