12:45 am

[John G]

Frankly I don't see how you can deny a logical scenario John, but lets address your response. For one.....Lave and Eagle claimed to be about in the exact same place at the same time by their stories...yet neither man saw each other. No-one saw Eagle return, so we have only his word on the time. 3 Club members did in fact contradict Eagle, Lave and Diemshitz's times with the stories they told to reporters and police that night.

No-one came in via the gates between 12:50 and 1am, as per Fanny and her vigil during that time. She also neither saw or heard Eagle, Louis, Israel, BSman or Pipeman, only the young couple also seen by Brown. She said the streets were "deserted".

IF the club was thought to have been the source of the killer, the club would have closed..Louis and Mrs D would be out of work, Eagle would have no club to speak at the following Saturday, and likely the Diemshitz's, Wess and the Arbeter Fraint would have had to find other quarters. With Israels statement, it essentially ensures that wouldn't happen, and it casts suspicion off the clubs grounds out onto the street to a likely gentile killer. Extremely fortunate for the club that statement.

If you equate the Club with a modern anarchists club...like an outlaw bikers club for example, if a murder occurred on their property under the same climate as the Stride murder did...during a period of unsolved local murders...then the bikers would do what they needed to do cast suspicion off their attending members, or risk arrest and the clubs closure.

People lie all the time to protect themselves, why does this seem so incredible to so many here?

Eagle and Lave only estimated the times and, in any event, gave different times for leaving the club.

Goldstein passed Berner Street shortly before 1:00am and a few minutes later Mrs Mortimer heard Louis D's pony and cart therefore, by implication, Louis must have arrived at around 1:00am, just as he said he did.

At least one of the witnesses who apparently contradicted Eagle could speak virtually no English, therefore his events is questionable. Moreover, there is no evidence that any of the witnesses who apparently contradicted Eagle and Louis at any point consulted a watch.

And what of Edward Spooner? He stated that PC Lamb arrived about 5 minutes after himself. Now as PC Lamb said that Dr Blackwell arrived 10-12 minutes after his arrival that means Lamb arrived at about 1:05 and Spooner 1:00am, further confirming Louis' evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

To cd...this eternal argument you have with me making suggestions about Israel needs to end, because the burden of proof that his story was meaningful rest on your shoulders, not mine. He didn't appear at the Inquest, there is no record history was even submitted in written form, there is no record that his story was being withheld or that he was sequestered...as is clearly pointed out during the questioning of Lawende.

Sorry, Michael but the burden of proof clearly rests on you since you are the one making the assertion that he lied. That is the way it works.

You demand evidence for any position you do not agree with yet you have no problem with asserting a club conspiracy with no evidence to support it. His failure to appear at the inquest is proof of nothing because WE DON"T KNOW why he did not appear. Just because the club might have had a reason to conspire does not necessarily mean that they did.

But this constant argument is indeed tiring. So I will make a deal with you. Feel free to assert that Schwartz lied and was part of a conspiracy but please don't tack on phrases like "it is almost certain that he lied." Then I won't have to reply. Deal?

c.d.

It would seem that my objections to using Israels statement as a basis for theorizing are slightly misunderstood...yes, I believe he lied, but the real point I am trying to make here is that his story cannot be considered as relevant to this investigation due to the fact that the investigative authorities did not include it with the Inquest data, in any form. therefore, they decided it was not germane to the issue of how she died.

When you have a statement that a victim is seen assaulted by someone mere minutes before the estimated time of death, it is inconceivable, that if believed, it would not be absolutely relevant to the question the Inquest sought to answer and included in the presented data. It wasn't.

Why they didn't use him I speculate about....logically I might add...that they didn't use him is historical fact.

[Joshua Rogan]

The fact that its well recorded that Lipski was being used as a slur towards Jews at that time, it would seem Swanson needed to get out more.

Swanson may have been somewhat deskbound, but his inference is perfectly understandable if the attacker was calling out a warning to a companion, rather than an insult to Schwartz. Which is what his report implies.

Brown saw the young couple seen by Fanny. They were the ONLY people seen on that street by non-club witnesses after 12:35.

I believe the only person Fanny actually said she saw on the street was the man with a black bag, Leon Goldstein, and I suspect that she got the info about the couple from the couple themselves after they came to the yard. Her statement (in the Evening News 1st Oct) of "A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound." sounds very much like this from the same issue; "When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises".
I do think it's possible that this is the same couple seen by Brown, although he was "almost certain" that the woman was Stride. That's almost as certain as you seem that he was wrong.

And all the club staff witnesses....Eagle, Lave, Wess, Louis...have nothing but their own stories to use for corroboration. Louis could easily have arrived around 12:45, which would be corroborated by 3 plus witnesses, and then sent for help 15 minutes later, which would make the rest of the authority stories fit.

Almost none of the stories have direct corroboration, club-related or not. Nobody saw Brown, or Marshall, and nobody at all mentions seeing Fanny. Does this mean they were covering something up?
The really strange thing is that your theory of an over-enthusiastic hired bouncer merdering Stride doesn't even demand a conspiracy. Far more likely that such a killer would simply slope off into the night and leave the body to be found by the next person to enter the yard.

The thing most everyone forgets is that Louis says he left with Issac[s] after 1am, Isaac K says he was SENT..alone..by Louis before 1am. Issac says this without equivocation.

Why isn't this sending of Issacs alone mentioned by anyone but himself?

Perhaps because Isaacs doesn't actually say he was sent out alone?

[Harry D]

First of all, the police had to dig him out, he didn't come forward on his own.

Did they?

Secondly, this is a foreigner in a strange land, new to the country, can't even speak the language, and he's going to lie to police in a major murder case? Putting himself and his family's wellbeing in jepordy? Don't think so.

Oh, he was trying to protect his "family", alright!

Schwartz is the only person who potentially witnessed a Ripper attack in progress. He identified the victim as Stride but his story is uncorroborated by anyone else, in fact there are witnesses who should've heard such an incident and didn't. The scene Schwartz describes also conflicts with the evidence (BS was dragging Stride away from the club, but she was found inside the gates, and she was still clutching her cachous when she was killed). Looks like Schwartz was literally and metaphorically trying to distance Stride's killer from the club.

[c.d.]

"Secondly, this is a foreigner in a strange land, new to the country, can't even speak the language, and he's going to lie to police in a major murder case? Putting himself and his family's wellbeing in jepordy? Don't think so."

Exactly. And he never said that he saw Stride being killed only that he saw a woman being pushed.

And again, if the evidence that he lied is so clear why didn't the police go after the club on those grounds? Get that story in the papers so that public opinion turns against them and you have grounds for shutting them down.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

To cd...this eternal argument you have with me making suggestions about Israel needs to end, because the burden of proof that his story was meaningful rest on your shoulders, not mine. He didn't appear at the Inquest, there is no record history was even submitted in written form, there is no record that his story was being withheld or that he was sequestered...as is clearly pointed out during the questioning of Lawende.

Sorry, Michael but the burden of proof clearly rests on you since you are the one making the assertion that he lied. That is the way it works.

You demand evidence for any position you do not agree with yet you have no problem with asserting a club conspiracy with no evidence to support it. His failure to appear at the inquest is proof of nothing because WE DON"T KNOW why he did not appear. Just because the club might have had a reason to conspire does not necessarily mean that they did.

But this constant argument is indeed tiring. So I will make a deal with you. Feel free to assert that Schwartz lied and was part of a conspiracy but please don't tack on phrases like "it is almost certain that he lied." Then I won't have to reply. Deal?

c.d.

Exactly. There really is no reason to believe he lied. Except of course you have a pre conceived theory.

First of all, the police had to dig him out, he didn't come forward on his own.

Secondly, this is a foreigner in a strange land, new to the country, can't even speak the language, and he's going to lie to police in a major murder case? Putting himself and his family's wellbeing in jepordy? Don't think so.

[c.d.]

To cd...this eternal argument you have with me making suggestions about Israel needs to end, because the burden of proof that his story was meaningful rest on your shoulders, not mine. He didn't appear at the Inquest, there is no record history was even submitted in written form, there is no record that his story was being withheld or that he was sequestered...as is clearly pointed out during the questioning of Lawende.

Sorry, Michael but the burden of proof clearly rests on you since you are the one making the assertion that he lied. That is the way it works.

You demand evidence for any position you do not agree with yet you have no problem with asserting a club conspiracy with no evidence to support it. His failure to appear at the inquest is proof of nothing because WE DON"T KNOW why he did not appear. Just because the club might have had a reason to conspire does not necessarily mean that they did.

But this constant argument is indeed tiring. So I will make a deal with you. Feel free to assert that Schwartz lied and was part of a conspiracy but please don't tack on phrases like "it is almost certain that he lied." Then I won't have to reply. Deal?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

And Swanson's report actually says "the use of Lipski increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew". So the entire exercise was apparently a dismal failure.

The fact that its well recorded that Lipski was being used as a slur towards Jews at that time, it would seem Swanson needed to get out more.

Brown saw the young couple seen by Fanny. They were the ONLY people seen on that street by non-club witnesses after 12:35.

And all the club staff witnesses....Eagle, Lave, Wess, Louis...have nothing but their own stories to use for corroboration. Louis could easily have arrived around 12:45, which would be corroborated by 3 plus witnesses, and then sent for help 15 minutes later, which would make the rest of the authority stories fit.

The thing most everyone forgets is that Louis says he left with Issac[s] after 1am, Isaac K says he was SENT..alone..by Louis before 1am. Issac says this without equivocation.

Why isn't this sending of Issacs alone mentioned by anyone but himself?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Abby

One reason could be that if he did see something, it involved someone he knew, and who knew him.

Steve

Like has been suggested about Lawende Steve.

[Michael W Richards]

I just don't see any evidence of a club cover up-quite the reverse in fact. For instance, Lave and Eagle didn't have to reveal they had exited the club for a period before returning, and by doing so effectively presenting themselves as potential suspects. Of course, you could argue that club members may have contradicted them, but that's hardly consistent with a cover up. And if Schwartz was involved, why did he give a time of 12:45? Which, incidentally, was within just 5 minutes of the time Eagle estimated he returned after taking home his young lady. I mean, a sighting time close to 1:00 am would have been much more significant, i.e. because there then could be little doubt, on the basis of his evidence, that BS man was the murderer.

Frankly I don't see how you can deny a logical scenario John, but lets address your response. For one.....Lave and Eagle claimed to be about in the exact same place at the same time by their stories...yet neither man saw each other. No-one saw Eagle return, so we have only his word on the time. 3 Club members did in fact contradict Eagle, Lave and Diemshitz's times with the stories they told to reporters and police that night.

No-one came in via the gates between 12:50 and 1am, as per Fanny and her vigil during that time. She also neither saw or heard Eagle, Louis, Israel, BSman or Pipeman, only the young couple also seen by Brown. She said the streets were "deserted".

IF the club was thought to have been the source of the killer, the club would have closed..Louis and Mrs D would be out of work, Eagle would have no club to speak at the following Saturday, and likely the Diemshitz's, Wess and the Arbeter Fraint would have had to find other quarters. With Israels statement, it essentially ensures that wouldn't happen, and it casts suspicion off the clubs grounds out onto the street to a likely gentile killer. Extremely fortunate for the club that statement.

If you equate the Club with a modern anarchists club...like an outlaw bikers club for example, if a murder occurred on their property under the same climate as the Stride murder did...during a period of unsolved local murders...then the bikers would do what they needed to do cast suspicion off their attending members, or risk arrest and the clubs closure.

People lie all the time to protect themselves, why does this seem so incredible to so many here?

[John G]

I would think John that Israel fabricating as a favour to his friend Woolf Wess is a better explanation than "I cant imagine why".

To cd...this eternal argument you have with me making suggestions about Israel needs to end, because the burden of proof that his story was meaningful rest on your shoulders, not mine. He didn't appear at the Inquest, there is no record history was even submitted in written form, there is no record that his story was being withheld or that he was sequestered...as is clearly pointed out during the questioning of Lawende.

The lack of any evidence that his story was any factor in assessing Elizabeths death is clear,....the desire to make it so anyway isn't as transparent to me.

I suppose its akin to suggesting the killing was interrupted despite any evidence for that either.

I just don't see any evidence of a club cover up-quite the reverse in fact. For instance, Lave and Eagle didn't have to reveal they had exited the club for a period before returning, and by doing so effectively presenting themselves as potential suspects. Of course, you could argue that club members may have contradicted them, but that's hardly consistent with a cover up. And if Schwartz was involved, why did he give a time of 12:45? Which, incidentally, was within just 5 minutes of the time Eagle estimated he returned after taking home his young lady. I mean, a sighting time close to 1:00 am would have been much more significant, i.e. because there then could be little doubt, on the basis of his evidence, that BS man was the murderer.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm fairly convinced Schwartz lied, although I don't believe there was a club conspiracy. I think he acted independently.

I would think John that Israel fabricating as a favour to his friend Woolf Wess is a better explanation than "I cant imagine why".

To cd...this eternal argument you have with me making suggestions about Israel needs to end, because the burden of proof that his story was meaningful rest on your shoulders, not mine. He didn't appear at the Inquest, there is no record history was even submitted in written form, there is no record that his story was being withheld or that he was sequestered...as is clearly pointed out during the questioning of Lawende.

The lack of any evidence that his story was any factor in assessing Elizabeths death is clear,....the desire to make it so anyway isn't as transparent to me.

I suppose its akin to suggesting the killing was interrupted despite any evidence for that either.

[Joshua Rogan]

It doesn't matter who the slur was directed at, the use of "Lipski" alone implied that Liz's attacker was an antisemite. That Swanson still believed the killer was Jewish based on this evidence is neither here nor there. If anything, it typifies the prejudice regarding the killer's ethnicity.

But it was only Abberline who suggested it was used as an insult, Schwartz never even thought it was directed at himself. He was either unable to say, or the attacker shouted it to Pipeman (which is why Swanson drew the conclusion he did) or according to the Star it was Pipeman who shouted it to the attacker. If Israel wanted to incriminate a gentile all he had to do was to agree with Abberline, or say as much in the first place.
The fact that the police might have been prejudiced would make it even more important to state clearly who was shouting what and at who. But Schwartz fails to do this.

[Elamarna]

Hi John
Why would he lie?

Hi Abby

One reason could be that if he did see something, it involved someone he knew, and who knew him.

Steve

[Harry D]

If Schwartz was trying to suggest the attacker he saw was a gentile, then he did a particularly poor job of it. Abberline said "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say". Hardly the sort of definitive statement designed to deflect suspicion away from Jews. And Swanson's report actually says "the use of Lipski increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew". So the entire exercise was apparently a dismal failure.

It doesn't matter who the slur was directed at, the use of "Lipski" alone implied that Liz's attacker was an antisemite. That Swanson still believed the killer was Jewish based on this evidence is neither here nor there. If anything, it typifies the prejudice regarding the killer's ethnicity.