When was Elizabeth Stride actually killed?

[lynn cates]

three

Hello Mike. There is one thing about the story that makes it almost believable--the three screams. Why three?

But other than that . . .

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

NOBODY, and I repeat NOBODY KNOWS why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. Speculate all you want but that is all it is SPECULATION. It cannot be used to support an argument.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Mike. There is one thing about the story that makes it almost believable--the three screams. Why three?

But other than that . . .

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Per Tom W., Liz had one bad leg. Could the screams actually have been cries of pain related to her leg?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

three

Hello CD. Thanks.

Could be. But a sharp sudden pain ought to elicit a loud cry, I should think.

My point was that, in a lie, one scream would have been part of a natural subterfuge. Why complicate your lie? Three makes one wonder.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

Well I was just thinking out loud. If I had to guess, I think something got lost in the translation as a scream, by definition, is loud.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

word

Hello CD. Thanks.

Perhaps some notion related to moan, gasp or squeal--although the last is usually loud.

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Hello Michael,

NOBODY, and I repeat NOBODY KNOWS why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. Speculate all you want but that is all it is SPECULATION. It cannot be used to support an argument.

c.d.

c.d,

True we don't know why he didn't testify at the inquest. However, the fact remains he didn't.

I thought Mr. Malone's article on Schwartz was amazing but even he presented his argument without 'knowing'. Isn't speculating part of the fun? Isn't that why you gave a possible solution to Liz's screams in your next post?

Michael is speculating after providing a fact so I don't see what you mean it can't be used to support an argument?

Cheers
DRoy

[c.d.]

Hello DRoy,

There is certainly nothing wrong with speculating and then going on to provide facts to support your argument. That is something that we all do. But Michael takes it a step further despite being told over and over again that we simply don't know. He refuses to admit that there can be a number of simple explanations for Schwartz's non-appearance that have nothing to do with the veracity of his story. But again, Michael attempts to create an if A then B argument. In other words, prove that Schwartz didn't testify and if so then no other conclusion can be reached other than the police did not believe his story. I admit that it is somewhat suspicious but to go from A to B is a leap of faith and far from overwhelming evidence that excludes any other explanation as he would have us believe.

Just my take on it.

c.d.

P.S. Sorry Michael if that seems personal, I am simply responding to your argument. No disrespect intended.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello DRoy,

There is certainly nothing wrong with speculating and then going on to provide facts to support your argument. That is something that we all do. But Michael takes it a step further despite being told over and over again that we simply don't know. He refuses to admit that there can be a number of simple explanations for Schwartz's non-appearance that have nothing to do with the veracity of his story. But again, Michael attempts to create an if A then B argument. In other words, prove that Schwartz didn't testify and if so then no other conclusion can be reached other than the police did not believe his story. I admit that it is somewhat suspicious but to go from A to B is a leap of faith and far from overwhelming evidence that excludes any other explanation as he would have us believe.

Just my take on it.

c.d.

P.S. Sorry Michael if that seems personal, I am simply responding to your argument. No disrespect intended.

Your opinion is your own cd, you are entitled to whatever rational explanation you might concoct for the absence. My focus has always been on the fact that the absence cannot be reconciled with the importance of the statement if true, and that the absence is apparently a fact.

Israel didn't appear. He doesn't appear on the records, nor does any notation that just his statement was submitted. Could that possibly occur if Israel Schwartz had the full support of the police in that he witnessed what he said he did, where and when he says it happened? A Witness who claims to have seen the victim assaulted within 1 minute of the earliest estimated cut time near the spot where it happens?

Not likely. Time would be better spent on this cd if people stopped clinging to a belief that despite the clear absence Israel is the man of record for what happened to Liz at around 12:45 anyway.

He wasn't, according to the Inquest,...someone else who claimed to have seen Liz was. And he saw a young couple with a lady without any color on her jacket. A young couple was also seen within that last half hour by Fanny.

All Ive said is that there must be a reason for Israels absence, and logically, that reason is clear. What they doubted, or what they questioned, or why they didn't present his story is unknown, just that they didn't.

I think "what apparently is" trumps "what is within the realm of possible answers", as in the case of the theory that Liz's lack of mutilations are the result of an interruption. Well,.... None is present in the evidence, given by anyone on that street or in the club. So why do I keep reading people writing about one as if its a given? Because there is a desire to preserve the possibility that her killer might have mutilated her like he did the predecessors?

A simpler way to see this......If you want to know whether Jack killed Liz, start by counting the throat cuts.

Cheers

[Hunter]

Israel didn't appear. He doesn't appear on the records, nor does any notation that just his statement was submitted. Could that possibly occur if Israel Schwartz had the full support of the police in that he witnessed what he said he did, where and when he says it happened?

Yes, it could.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, it could.

Exactly. Totally agree.

Swanson's home Office report is unlikely to have been made if Swanson doubted Schwartz. There would have been a longer statement that has clearly been lost or gone missing. Probably destroyed.

But it gets us nowhere to suggest what he witnessed either didn't happen or he deliberately deceived. (Although I accept the translations could have been miss leading)

Its always struck me that Schwartz is a more probable witness in Swanson's Marginalia than Lawenda, lets face it Lawenda was clear he would recognise the man again and if Schwartz story is true he's the person of all the witnesses who had the best view of the suspect when he turned and shouted 'Lipski'

Yours Jeff

[Bridewell]

Haha.

But it also only takes a second to get caught red handed.

A horribly appropriate turn of phrase. If the killer was holding a knife and was skilled in its use did he actually need to worry about being seen? As long as he wasn't recognised or overpowered he could chance his arm. If Schwartz saw what he claimed to have seen, that may have been what took place.

[Bridewell]

Hello Mike. There is one thing about the story that makes it almost believable--the three screams. Why three?

Cheers.
LC

It is rather odd, but there's always the possibility of mistranslation or misunderstanding to deal with. Perhaps she only screamed once:-

"She screamed three times, but not very loud"

or

"She screamed, 'Three times!', but not very loud"?

Not a serious suggestion, more an example of what can go wrong.

[pinkmoon]

A horribly appropriate turn of phrase. If the killer was holding a knife and was skilled in its use did he actually need to worry about being seen? As long as he wasn't recognised or overpowered he could chance his arm. If Schwartz saw what he claimed to have seen, that may have been what took place.

A local person would have to worry about been recognized not someone who was visiting the area just to carry out these murders.

[Michael W Richards]

Exactly. Totally agree.

Swanson's home Office report is unlikely to have been made if Swanson doubted Schwartz. There would have been a longer statement that has clearly been lost or gone missing. Probably destroyed.

But it gets us nowhere to suggest what he witnessed either didn't happen or he deliberately deceived. (Although I accept the translations could have been miss leading)

Its always struck me that Schwartz is a more probable witness in Swanson's Marginalia than Lawenda, lets face it Lawenda was clear he would recognise the man again and if Schwartz story is true he's the person of all the witnesses who had the best view of the suspect when he turned and shouted 'Lipski'

Yours Jeff

And yet there is ample evidence that Lawende was introduced in the Inquest, that he had his story submitted with some details intentionally supressed due to the ongoing investigation of the statement, that he was sequestered, and that none of that is also indicated in any records concerning Israel Schwartz.

This was of course a city run show, but logic and the absence of conclusive contrary evidence dictates that the Met would have at least similar protocols. That someone claims to support a witness in a private letter or personal memo is one thing, but without substantive proof that the support is there, its really meaningless. Abberline supported Hutchinson in just the same way.

The facts are, as we know them, without defaulting to the skeptism voiced by yourself and Hunter, that James Brown was considered to have either a more compelling, more accurate or more honest sighting at 12:45. He is on record for the 12:45 time spot. And Israels story, BSM, Pipeman, screams, "Lipski", the incontinent fleeing....all of it..., is completely absent from any known records that exist today....including the well covered Inquest documents themselves.

The root of the problem in dealing with these issues is when posters ignore the well known plainly seen facts and instead use their "hunches" about what someone said, or what someone might have done, or that the "actual" verification of their own theories must have been destroyed or lost.

Having hunches is fine, as long as they are submitted as such, and not as some compelling contradictory evidence.

Cheers