Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

[Wickerman]

whats the deal with the red & white flowers pinned to liz stride? Are they connected with the cachous? LC cachous are well known after smoking mints, and they were every popular as such back in the day. I'm trying to understand why liz had flowers pinned to her and was given candy, it looks as if she's being dressed for the slaughter. Pin a flower on her breast give her some candy...it's part of the ripper's fantasy seeing liz pleased to be treated like a princess obvlivous that she's about to die. Was the ripper someone younger who liked the older well worn looking prostitutes?

We only assume Stride was alone in Dutfields Yard.
Schwartz did not see anyone else, but his attention was focused on BS-man, and the subsequent altercation.
It isn't out of the question to think that Stride was with another man, and that they were both standing in the shadows listening to music.

BS-man staggers past the entry and her 'client' steps back into the shadows.
Schwartz walks past and only see's BS-man & Stride, but it was only a quick glance and he turned to run away.
I'm thinking she was with someone, which is why she had the flower, and the cachous, they were given to her.

PC Smith saw her standing opposite the yard at 12:35 talking with a man. What happened to him?

[Wickerman]

I wonder why Schwartz was never called to identify Michael Kidney? Even as a precaution.

It might not have been necessary.
Consider, if BS-man was Michael Kidney, and he knew he had been seen by a passing Jew (Schwartz), and some other man coming up from the corner (Pipeman), would you show up as a witness to be potentially exposed in front of the police, press & public?

[lynn cates]

varia

Hello Batman. Thanks

"In March 1865 she is was busted by police as a prostitute."

My, only 23 years? Case closed.

"That is what hands are mostly for."

So you do not deny teleology? Good.

"If you have ever stood anywhere with a bag of sweets in hand, there is your solution. In fact standing there might look pretty attractive to punters who might like to kiss also."

This is in jest, of course?

"In my world, plastered with mud doesn't mean gently lain down. It means caked in it. You get caked in mud when your trashing around in it or skidding through it or being dragged through it. The slight amount of mud is where less harsh contact occurred."

Don't know about your world, but in reality, she looked as if lain gently down but the side making contact with ground (left) was wet and muddy.

"Sorry but you want us . . ."

Us? You were elected spokesman then?

". . . to believe that Schwartz coincidentally guessed a frontal assault and that coincidentally the autopsy revealed bruising at the front. . ."

Front? Over egging the pudding?

". . . and shoulders. Also that Schwartz coincidentally described the man as having a peak cap. . ."

Oh, pity sake. That's as rare as a toff who wears a topper. Not rare at all.

". . . the same as Lewende later who saw Eddowes with someone."

Vide supra.

"Also coindcidentally hearing the man shouting Lispki and then later Warren rubs anti-semetic writing above a piece of apron from a victim."

Antis-Semitic? I thought that nonsense was laid to rest?

"Plus coincidentally... the Ripper just happens to strike within minutes of that murder."

Or Mr. Brown. Gee, what a coincidence.

"Schwartz's account is overwhelmingly that of Stride being murdered by JtR in the context above."

JTR? Where did THAT rot come from? I thought it was BSM?

"All one needs to do is accept what Scwartz says and it all fits smoothly into place. . . "

Accepting an extremely loose interpretation of "smooth."

Why not plow through some of the many Liz threads? Real eye opener.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

volte face

Hello Rocky. Thanks.


" . . . it looks as if she's being dressed for the slaughter."

Now you're getting smart.

"Pin a flower on her breast give her some candy...it's part of the ripper's fantasy. . ."

Ripper? Oh, well, great while it lasted.

Cheers.
LC

[harry]

Why is it necessary for Stride to have been standing at the gate prior to the altercation with BS.She could have been walking past, and only stopped on the approach of BS.Did she speak first? What of the argument Schwartz heard as he was going a way.Surely she would have been screaming not arguing, if she was in danger.

[Rosella]

The story of Schwartz hearing a quarrel or argument after he had walked/run away comes from an interview in the Star on Oct 1st, though, doesn't it? In his initial police statement on the 30th September he doesn't mention anything other than he crossed the road and was followed by pipe-man.

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks

"In March 1865 she is was busted by police as a prostitute."

My, only 23 years? Case closed.

You asked for evidence. There you have it. You want me to believe a former prostitutee is just hanging around Whitechapel but isn't one? Show me where we have evidence she isn't and I have some that she has.

"That is what hands are mostly for."
So you do not deny teleology? Good.

I deny teleology outright, so please don't put words in my mouth. As an evolutionary biologist teleology is absolutely subjective pseudoscientific rubbish. I accept adaptation as any normal rational biologist would, and not this idea of "purpose to an end" which went out the door in the 19 th century.

"Don't know about your world, but in reality, she looked as if lain gently down but the side making contact with ground (left) was wet and muddy. "

That is not what the coroner said. Go back a page and read again what "PLASTERED IN MUD" means (from the autopsy report itself). You claimed there is no evidence of her being on the ground in mud or rain (see yourself 2 pages back). The evidence at the time refutes you sir.

. . . to believe that Schwartz coincidentally guessed a frontal assault and that coincidentally the autopsy revealed bruising at the front. . ."

Front? Over egging the pudding?

Like previously, not a shred of evidence to the contrary. Just subjective "thingies" like egg and pudding.

". . . and shoulders. Also that Schwartz coincidentally described the man as having a peak cap. . ."
Oh, pity sake. That's as rare as a toff who wears a topper. Not rare at all.

Errr... nope. Not all JtR descriptions have a peak cap. He could have guessed all sorts of hats (as per the other JtR descriptions) but didn't. Deerstalker isn't a peak cap is it?

". . . the same as Lewende later who saw Eddowes with someone."

Vide supra.

Yeah, seeing above is ... err... nope. Its not common for JtR descriptions.

"Also coindcidentally hearing the man shouting Lispki and then later Warren rubs anti-semetic writing above a piece of apron from a victim."

Antis-Semitic? I thought that nonsense was laid to rest?

So you can have a jewish suspect fit in nicely? I deal in reality. The PC said he didnt see the apron or graffiti. Schwartz said the attacker used anti-semetic language. You say "forget it all, Scwartz made it up". Nope. You end up with Scwartz having psychic powers that way and are one chicken short of vodoo with a werewolf added for good measure.

"Plus coincidentally... the Ripper just happens to strike within minutes of that murder."

Or Mr. Brown. Gee, what a coincidence.

You are asking people here to play multiple coincidences to believe in the alternative. Why not add a few fairies too for good measure?"

Here is the solution without having to jump through loops... Schwartz told the truth.

Not that hard to believe...... unless you really want to hold a Polish Jew responsible. Know what I mean?

Salute
Batman

[lynn cates]

discrepancies

Hello Harry.

"Did she speak first?"

Not according to Schwartz.

"What of the argument Schwartz heard as he was going away?"

What indeed? Certainly escalated in a few (30?) seconds.

"Surely she would have been screaming not arguing, if she was in danger."

Indeed. The story is FULL of discrepancies--once one is clever enough to investigate it. And that is PRECISELY why, in my opinion, the Leman lads didn't buy it.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

logic

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"Show me where we have evidence she isn't and I have some that she has."

But the onus is on the positive assertor. That is the rule of logic.

"I deny teleology outright, so please don't put words in my mouth. As an evolutionary biologist teleology is absolutely subjective pseudoscientific rubbish. I accept adaptation as any normal rational biologist would, and not this idea of "purpose to an end" which went out the door in the 19 th century."

Very well. Then it is NONSENSE to speak of hands "being for" something. Without teleological claims, they just ARE.

It was the police who talked of being lain gently down. And, yes, she was muddied on her LEFT side.

"Deerstalker isn't a peak cap is it?"

Yes, it is. It has TWO peaks, fore and aft.

"So you can have a Jewish suspect fit in nicely?"

Jewish suspect? You are in jest?"

"I deal in reality."

Good. Hope you will start soon.

"The PC said he didn't see the apron or graffiti."

How did we get here?

"Schwartz said the attacker used anti-semitic language."

And many other things Schwartz said. They were nonsense too.

"You say "forget it all, Schwartz made it up". Nope."

Believe what you like. It might keep you out of trouble.

". . . one chicken short of voodoo with a werewolf added for good measure."

Not at all, I reject all that along with the worse nonsense of Jack the Ripper.

"Here is the solution without having to jump through loops... Schwartz told the truth."

Perhaps. But IF he did, we can dismiss that nonsense about Jack the Ripper and Liz Stride once and for all time.

"Not that hard to believe...... unless you really want to hold a Polish Jew responsible. Know what I mean?"

Polish Jew? Haven't the foggiest idea what you mean about me and a Polish Jew--neither, I suspect, do you.

Now, see me in the office Monday morning about your grade in my logic class. Meanwhile, I am remanding you to my friend, the comp teacher. (heh-heh)

Joking aside, if you have something new to offer, by all means. But this is my last reply to old material.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You said there was no dirt on her that indicated she had been in a scuffle but was gently laid down. That's a positive claim. Evidence of absence (like no gun powder residue on the hands of a suspect). Yet the coroner's inquest detailed that the jacket had mud on both sides, with one side not just plastered in mud but well plastered in mud. So your original claim that there is an absense of evidence for a scuffle in the wet/dirty ground, is falsified by the presense of evidence to the contrary. Also she didn't have to go far from where Schwartz reported seeing the assault. She was literally inches from the side entrance to the club where her body was found.

I don't think you quite get why teleology is rejected in science. I said, "That is what hands are mostly for. Holding things". Teleology means that there is a purpose. There is no purpose mentioned in my statement on hands. The adaptation has a function. That function of the hands are to hold things. Adaptations really do have functions. Eyes for seeing. Paws for walking. They just don't have a purpose because natural selection doesn't operate that way with 'foresight' or some teleological end goal.

Now the hat thingy... You basically want us to accept that Schwartz guessed a peak cap in making up his story and just happened to guess that type of hat Lewende claims to have seen. This is your view right? That it is a coincidence?

It was Swanson (Inspector Donald Swanson's report to the Home Office, 19 October 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C, quoted in Begg, p. 193) who said Lewende description was a near match for Schwartz's.

Is this the coincidence you want us to believe?

Beers
Batman

[c.d.]

If the police didn't have Schwartz identify Kidney, I have to believe it would have been for one of two reasons. Either they were incredibly incompetent or Kidney had an alibi which they checked and verified.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

alternate

Hello Batman. Thanks.

If you are hell bent on Schwartz, very well, go ahead. But try this:

1. BSM was a drunken lout.

2. He was known to Liz and knew her.

3. He recognised Liz and asked what she was doing.

4. She replied flippantly.

5. He tried to pull her into the street, his hand slipped, she fell.

6. She fell on her left side somehow.

7. He yelled "Lizzie"--not Lipski.

8. She recovered and went into the yard to argue.

9. He went to the privy, perhaps remarking she'd better be gone.

10. She wasn't and answered in unfriendly terms when he returned.

11. Turns away for a cachou.

12. He grabs her scarf and cuts her throat.

13. He lays her down on the same side she earlier fell.

Of course, this precludes the ripper rot some believe in.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

If the police believed Schwartz to be lying, don't you think that they would have come to the same conclusion that you have, i.e., that Schwartz was lying on behalf of the club?

I also think that Schwartz, as a Jewish immigrant with a wife and child, would have been quite easy for the police to intimidate with talk about the consequences of lying in a murder investigation. From there it would be quite easy for the police to offer him a deal. Rat out the club members and we will let you go. Yet there is no evidence that anything like this took place.

c.d.

[c.d.]

The "Lizzie" argument never seemed to make much sense to me. It seems very likely that "Lipski" was uttered directly at Schwartz with an accompanying look and a gesture to go along with it.

The other day I was crossing the street with the walk sign on and a car just missed me. I yelled "hey ***hole directly at him and extended my middle finger for emphasis. Isn't that the norm in that situation?

c.d.

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

If you are hell bent on Schwartz, very well, go ahead. But try this:

Well either he is psychic, has polished his crystal ball or just happened to guess several facts. Look at his powers...

1 - Peak cap (also seen by Lewande).
2 - Front/shoulder attack. The doctor performing the autopsy didn't know about Scwartz but has stated he has witnessed bruising in these areas.
3 - Is given an anti-semetic slur LIPSKI just hours before the GSG anti-semetic writing is found with Eddowes bloody apron.
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.
4 - He claims to have seen all of this on the same night JtR attacks.
5 - ... only minutes before the JtR attack on Eddowes.

Even if your version is correct, that person is JtR. However in your version we have to accept that Schwartz is a lying hungarian jew who managed to just guess all this stuff without any error.

How do you explain that basically Schwartz got nothing wrong? That his guess is consistant with your version in terms of the available evidence?