When was Elizabeth Stride actually killed?

[c.d.]

"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."


Hello Michael,

Having said that, are we to assume that you KNOW FOR A FACT why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest? If so, please tell us.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

"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."


Hello Michael,

Having said that, are we to assume that you KNOW FOR A FACT why Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest? If so, please tell us.

c.d.

As I have been saying cd, it is a fact that his name and/or his story are absent in any and all recorded transcript data from the Stride Inquest. Undeniably so.

Do I pretend to know why that is? No. Do I pretend to know why senior officers refer to him and his story in favorable terms in their internal correspondences? No. Is it feasible that this story was so vital to the larger investigation into all the Whitechapel murders that all mention of it was supressed with or without the knowledge of the coroner? Well, I haven't seen any evidence yet that would corroborate that supposition, so I would have to say no to that as well. Is it possible that his story didn't seem relevant to them? I can only conclude that a story such as his would have to be considered as very important when asking questions about the womans death. So no, again.

Its deductive, I freely admit it. But based on the above it seems to be a reasonable position.....to me anyway.

Back to my point, its not really helping any educational cause to imagine that despite what Ive just said, some favorable mentions in some inner correspondence means that he must have been supressed.

Which, as we all know, some of Lawendes story was. Again to my point....if we have some much information on how Lawende was handled as a vital and protected witness, why is there not a scintilla of evidence that anything of the like was done with Israel?

Cheers cd

[Hunter]

Because Baxter wasn't Langham and the Met officials - including Baxter - were already under intense scrutiny. The City officials had escaped such wrath for obvious reasons. Totally different priorities and methods to deal with them.

[Michael W Richards]

Because Baxter wasn't Langham and the Met officials - including Baxter - were already under intense scrutiny. The City officials had escaped such wrath for obvious reasons. Totally different priorities and methods to deal with them.

Your excuses for why there is no evidence of any kind that confirm Israel Schwartz in the Inquest data are interesting, but not evidence of anything actually. Since the records seem to confirm that his story was not provided to the Coroner for the Inquest, since there is no record of him attending the Inquest, since there is no evidence that his story was relevant to the perceived goal of that Inquest.....that being to determine the cause of death, something a witnessed assault on the victim minutes before and feet from the actual murder would certainly be germane to,...I feel pretty ok with my conclusions in this matter.

When coupled with his story itself, something for which there is zero corroboration in any other witness account, it seems to me that it would be wise to discount Mr Schwartz as a possible source of factual data related to the question of who killed Liz Stride.

This murder was not seen as a standalone murder making any suspect sighting a possible multiple murder investigation breakthrough, you've neglected the gravity and unusual need for some transparency in the investigative process here....there would have been great PR value for the local constabularies and politicians if they had been able to produce some tangible fruits from their investigations.

As it is, all we have mostly speculation....in modern discussions, leaning towards making judgements on who we can believe despite the known data. Schwartz is very much like Hutchinson, in that they both claimed to be important witnesses to a suspect with the victim, and neither turned out to be of value.

If we just follow the remaining evidence, its best to formulate a theory that doesn't involve what Israel claimed.

Cheers