Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For what reason do we include Stride?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    I believe since its been established that Schwartz knew Wess, you could have your motive right there..helping a friend. IF Israel was there at all that night, it was far more likely he was attending the meeting then hanging around with the others, than he just happened by at such a fortuitous moment.
    Established? Could you provide the details? You've been asked earlier to provide the details but it appears you've not done so. Apologies if you have provided the information in question

    Comment


    • Timing

      Timing is the most compelling evidence Stride was a JtR victim.

      If you time a brisk walk from the site of Stride's murder just before she was found dead towards the city center you will be within visual looking distance of one Catherine Eddowes coming out of the drunk tank.

      We know roughly what time Stride was murdered.
      We know how long it takes to walk to an area around Mitre Square.
      We know what time Eddowes came out of the drunk tank.

      It is a mathematically sound convergence.

      JtR leaving the site of Stride's murder, bumped into Eddowes. Simple as that. He didn't finish his signature with Stride and did it with Eddowes. Makes sense in criminal psychology.

      So any alternative hypothesis, that they are not connected, has to write off that possible convergence as just a mere coincidence.

      Are sleuths allowed to believe in coincidences?

      Maybe the odd one. However if one's overarching theory needs lots of them, then the probability it is right, is extremely low.
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
        Perhaps if the context was changed.
        If we were to ask a group of East End prostitutes if they had ever been assaulted twice in fifteen minutes, do you think they all would say never?

        Twice in two unrelated attacks? (Which these surely must have been if BS Man was not her killer).
        Regards, Bridewell.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
          "Does it? In 30 years police service I never dealt with or heard of a person being subject to two separate and unrelated assaults in such a narrow time period. The likelihood, therefore, remains within the realm of the extremely improbable IMHO."

          Hello Bridewell,

          But Swanson, a veteran detective who would have been quite familiar with the ways of Whitechapel at the time, allows for the possibility of a second attacker in his report. It seems a reasonable assumption therefore that he was not speaking in an all things are possible sort of way but rather expressing the idea that it was within the realm of probability to some extent and needed to be considered.

          c.d.
          Swanson was quite right to consider anything that was within the bounds of possibility as this was. Doesn't make it probable though.
          Regards, Bridewell.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            The story Israel gave placed Liz Stride in the hands of a surly man, likely gentile, and being manhandled,...off the property. The inference there would be of course that this gentile thug then took Liz into the alley and killed her. That is, in essence, an exoneration of the anarchist Jewish men still in the club at the time.

            I think the nature of the club, the reputation of it, and the fact that some of these very same members attack police with clubs the next spring, should influence ones thinking on just how benign these men were. Before Liz was killed the police thought of this place as an anarchists club. The natural thing would be to suspect their involvement when she is found dead on their property. Israel changed that.

            I find it interesting that on the night that anti-Jewish sentiment was found written in chalk near Jewish dwellings that a woman is killed on property thought to be run by anarchist Jewish immigrants. The very target of the police suspicions to that date for the preceding murders...according to Anderson.
            Hard for me to believe,if caught(Schwartz) lying,then it was much worse,layng down a suspicion on them (IWEC) for doing so.If they did not do it just tell what they knew,I think this is what happened.Unless one of their associate was responsible for the murder then it was worth it.

            They were already subjected to Reid: "persons who had come into the yard and the members of the club were interrogated, their names and addresses taken, their pockets searched by the police, and their clothes and hands examined by the doctors.The people were twenty-eight in number. Each was dealt with separately, and they properly accounted for themselves."

            So I do not see the point of sending Schwartz later on to lie.

            ----
            Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
            M. Pacana

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
              Hard for me to believe,if caught(Schwartz) lying,then it was much worse,layng down a suspicion on them (IWEC) for doing so.If they did not do it just tell what they knew,I think this is what happened.Unless one of their associate was responsible for the murder then it was worth it.

              They were already subjected to Reid: "persons who had come into the yard and the members of the club were interrogated, their names and addresses taken, their pockets searched by the police, and their clothes and hands examined by the doctors.The people were twenty-eight in number. Each was dealt with separately, and they properly accounted for themselves."

              So I do not see the point of sending Schwartz later on to lie.

              ----
              Exactly varq.
              Not only that schwartz is new to the country. Is he going to lie for a club, in a major murder investigation, to the police, endangering himself and his family to legal issues, imprisonment, suspicion,which to him was probably still a foreign country.

              Not a chance.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • "Not only that schwartz is new to the country. Is he going to lie for a club, in a major murder investigation, to the police, endangering himself and his family to legal issues, imprisonment, suspicion,which to him was probably still a foreign country."

                I agree completely. Not only would Schwartz be putting himself into a potentially very bad situation if it were discovered that he lied but the club itself as well. Why not simply cooperate with the police fully as it appears they did?

                c.d.

                Comment


                • Schwartz was taken seriously throughout what remains of the case files and contemporary records. Even did an investigation into the anti-Semitic remark about Lipski. Investigators obviously thought it was a lead.
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    Exactly varq.
                    Not only that schwartz is new to the country. Is he going to lie for a club, in a major murder investigation, to the police, endangering himself and his family to legal issues, imprisonment, suspicion,which to him was probably still a foreign country.

                    Not a chance.
                    Yeah that too.There was no point.

                    On a side note:

                    The police did, Reid:"police have made a house-to-house inquiry in the immediate neighbourhood, with the result that we have been able to produce the witnesses who have appeared before the Court",yet they did not find Fanny Mortimer and Charles Letchford and his sister.Nobody was asked when they last checked a timepiece,everybody was estimating the time.Eagle did not.Brown was in the chandler shop yet nobody was asked there.At least Smith had a regular beat.Creating a timeline is hard,it's a mess.

                    On October 23 Baxter ignored the three above.And Schwartz (possibly maybe the Lipski would have inflamed things.) who was mentioned in the The Star October 1, 1888.I think he would have been in the inquest if credible,just omit the Lipski incident like Schwartz did in the Star report.Baxter,in summary, went for Smith/Eagle/Brown as the last person(s) who passed Berner St.before the murder discovery.Leaning towards Schwartz not credible enough.

                    ---
                    Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                    M. Pacana

                    Comment


                    • If Schwartz testimony was oppressed because Lipski could inflame or it would alert the suspect why then there was no gag order,why talk to the Star.It does not make sense.

                      --
                      Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                      M. Pacana

                      Comment


                      • I posted this on another thread, hope it is relevant regarding Schwartz testimony - Wynne Baxter gave a very detailed summing up on the last day of the inquest.
                        The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.
                        Note something further being ascertained. So if Schwartz had gone missing or was difficult to find Wynne Baxter would certainly have adjourned the inquest again. Not only that but he goes into detail of the sightings of Marshall, Pc Smith and most tellingly James Brown. He then sums up whether they all saw the victim with the murderer or not,the time differences, and the differences in their descriptions, without debunking any of them. This is important with Brown because he allegedly saw Stride at the same time as Schwartz. Surely this would cast doubt on Brown seeing the victim but nowhere does he say or even hint at it. IE There is some evidence which is still being investigated which may suggest that the victim was seen in the company of another man the same time as the witness James Brown was alleged to have seen her. This would protect Schwartz whilst at the same time opening up the possibility that Brown was mistaken. Maybe just maybe the veracity of Schwartz was being investigated during the adjournment. But by the 23rd [Swanson's report is the 19th] he was considered to be too unreliable to take the stand, so the summing up went ahead.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                          Schwartz was taken seriously throughout what remains of the case files and contemporary records. Even did an investigation into the anti-Semitic remark about Lipski. Investigators obviously thought it was a lead.
                          They weren't going to dismiss Schwartz's account off-hand when he allegedly saw the victim being assaulted minutes before the murder. It's not like they had any stronger leads to go on.

                          Problem is, this alleged attack was not witnessed or corroborated by anyone else. Not even Fanny Mortimer next door heard a thing. None of the physical evidence supports Schwartz's account. A woman is slain next to a judeo-socialist club, a Jewish witness sees the victim being manhandled and pulled away from the yard, the suspect shouts an antisemitic slur, further distancing him from the IWEC. Very convenient. However, Stride was murdered inside the yard, and appears to have been taken unawares by her killer.
                          Last edited by Harry D; 09-25-2018, 03:45 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                            Problem is, this alleged attack was not witnessed or corroborated by anyone else.
                            Which is good because only Schwartz, BS Man and female were about.

                            Not even Fanny Mortimer next door heard a thing.
                            She wasn`t at her door the whole time.

                            None of the physical evidence supports Schwartz's account.
                            Most of the physical evidence supports what Schwartz claims to have seen.
                            Which bits don`t ?

                            A woman is slain next to a judeo-socialist club, a Jewish witness sees the victim being manhandled and pulled away from the yard,
                            Well... the police statement has her thrown to the pavement, and the newspaper account has her being pushed back into the alley

                            the suspect shouts an antisemitic slur, further distancing him from the IWEC. Very convenient.
                            Or the slur was aimed at the very Jewish looking Schwartz

                            However, Stride was murdered inside the yard,
                            Yes, looks like she was standing in the gateway and was pushed back into the passageway.

                            and appears to have been taken unawares by her killer.
                            Yes, the actual throat cut could have taken her by surprise

                            Comment


                            • Given the heightened suspicion of Jews in the area, it would not surprise me if Schwartz was a stooge who fabricated an attack on Stride to deflect suspicion from the IWEC.

                              Like I said, for a woman that was being roughed up and thrown to the floor, she had no abrasions or bruises to her hands or legs, her clothes were undisturbed, and she was still clenching her cachous when the killer struck. I guess Stride made up with her assailant and went into the unlit yard to meet her doom.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                                Like I said, for a woman that was being roughed up and thrown to the floor, she had no abrasions or bruises to her hands or legs, her clothes were undisturbed,
                                Yet, she was thrown or pushed to the floor at least once, and someone had pulled tightly on her neck scarf.

                                and she was still clenching her cachous when the killer struck. I guess Stride made up with her assailant and went into the unlit yard to meet her doom.
                                Whatever the actual circumstances of her death, she was holding the cachous when her throat was cut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X