Schwartz and Brown

[harry]

I would say that if we accept that there was no attack by BS,that that person has been misrepresented as having wilful intentions,and that he left on Stride falling to the ground,then someone other than BS entered the yard with Stride..There were two disimiler encounters,the one inside the yard having all the signs of a person determined to kill,with a preplanned method of doing so. That person was mentally and physically prepared,and gave the victim no warning or chance to defend herself.Quite the opposite to BS.Two different intentions,two different methods,two different persons,two different results,and as evidenced, two persons present.?
One has to understand that in a sense Schwartz did not give evidence.What we know is that his information was given for him through another person.How accurate the translation,no one will ever know,but from experience in dealing in such situations,i would say be careful in accepting that it is word perfect and that none of the statement was the invention of the translator.

[lynn cates]

assailant

Hello Mike. The burning question is, from whence comes Liz's assailant? Is he BO/BS man?

I presume he is jealous of Liz's date?

The best.
LC

Hello Mike. Thanks very much for that.

It has been pointed out that Liz's candidacy is less poor if Schwartz is mistaken. Any thoughts?

The best.
LC

Im not sure that I would agree with the logic applied there Lynn....if he was mistaken or intentionally lied, we have no need for confusion as to why Liz was holding something that would not characteristically be held during or just after an altercation that results in her falling. But I dont see that translating to a "Ripperless" murder.

That Schwartz is believed or not wouldnt lead to a conclusion that we can eliminate Jack as her killer.. ...her single wound and the circumstances in which she dies do a fine job of that on their own.

But Browns story is much more in keeping with the cachous in Liz's hand, .....that tete a tete seems friendly. But it doesnt seem that he was her "date", she begs off for anything that night with him, and says "another night". So she in all likelihood leaves the company of that man shortly after that meeting.

Thats when I believe she walks into the yard...by herself, to wait for someone inside. She may even have seen him arrive at the gates at about 20 to 1.

Check Fanny Mortimers statements, and youll see that she is off and on at her door with a view of the front of the gates from just after 12:30 when she hears bootsteps until she watches Goldstein walks past the gates around 12:56...at a time when Liz may well be dying inside the yard already,... she hears Diemshutz arrive, ...what she doesnt hear is any voices from the street, she hears no "Lipski", she hears no woman yell, she hears nor sees Israel, Pipeman, BSM or Liz Stride. Yet her street door was likely open that entire half hour.

Add that to Israels no show on Inquest records.

What we have is Israel telling Israels story that includes a soon to be murdered women being "attacked" just before her murder..... feet and minutes from that point. And what we also have is ZERO evidence from anyone else that ANY of his story actually took place.

Granted, Fanny has no corroboration either...but she doesnt claim to see a murder victim being attacked just before being murdered either. And she isnt a JEw nor a member of that Club....Israel may well be, based on the weakness of his reason for even being near the club at that time.

He gives the club a suspect to flog that is A) not on or from their property, B) likely not Jewish based on his supposed taunt to Israel, and C) is attacking Liz within a minute of her earliest cut time.

Very fortunate for the club Israel saw all this....particularly since no-one else saw or heard anything.

Best regards Lynn

[lynn cates]

Liz's candidacy

Hello Mike. Thanks very much for that.

It has been pointed out that Liz's candidacy is less poor if Schwartz is mistaken. Any thoughts?

The best.
LC

Hello. I have searched the threads diligently and cannot find a comparison of the testimonies of Schwartz and Brown regarding the Liz Stride event. I am perhaps overlooking the forest for the trees.

Since both these men's purported sightings are roughly cotemporal (12:45), are they:

1. Describing different aspects of the same event?

1A. Is broad shouldered man (BS man) the same as brushed off man (BO man)?

2. Different events with different men?

Finally, which piece of testimony is more reliable? Schwartz was not fluent in English nor was he called to the coroner's inquest. Brown was "almost sure" he had seen Liz. (Begg, Fido, and Skinner suggest he may have been a block or two over and witnessed a different event altogether.)

Help!

Cheers.
LC

It seems like years since we had any posts that actually address the above questions which started the thread.

1. As we can tell by their statements, the activities and the men themselves seen by both the witnesses do not match. And at the same time of evening. They are therefore highly unlikely to have been the same actual couple.

1A. I dont recall seeing "BO" man mentioned, but my guess would be yes.

2. The stories themselves suggest that is the case.

And the REAL question, which is reliable? Browns wasnt translated....we understand Schwartz's was offered by a translator, Brown was not a member of the International Club.......we dont know about Israel, Browns story has Liz in a state where cachous wouldnt be out of place in her hand or being taken from her pocket,.... Israel's story does suggest that cachous would be out of place in her hand, .... but the real kicker is in the stories themselves, which in one case has Liz at possible risk of imminent harm, and in one case seemingly not so.

Since the cachous were in her hand, and they do not fit an altercation that Israel suggests happens within a minute or two of the time she may have been cut. And since Israel is absent from all recorded transcriptions of the Inquest, we dont have his initial statement as a record, and he only appears in further correspondence in relation to the "Lipski" remark and its possible antisemitism....(something clearly of importance to the officers who suggest that Jack was a Jew) ...and since there is absolutely no record known that has Israel Schwartz considered to be at least of equal value as far as a witness to Joseph Lawende,.... meaning he wasnt sequestered, or paid, and he didnt have police announce at the Inquest that parts of his statement were suppressed for investigative purposes....I would extend James Brown the belief at this point and not Israel Schwartz for seeing Liz and a man at 12:45am the night she is murdered.

Now the presence of cashous isnt an issue anymore.

Best regards all.

[Tom_Wescott]

The Shoulder Bruising

As I have already said, though - it is a reasonable suggestion to make that they came about during the altercation with BS man.

I agree, it is certainly a reasonable suggestion to say that the pari mortem bruises came about with BS Man. They had to have occurred just prior, during, or immediately after her death. It is unfortunate that Swanson, in his summary, does not provide more minute details regarding what Schwartz saw; such as what part of Stride's body BS Man grabbed to pull her from the gateway and then to push her down. I believe most of us imagine him pulling her by an arm and then turning her around and giving her an open-handed shove. This, of course, would not leave any of the bruises described by the doctors. However, the report given by the Star reporter who interviewed Schwartz does specifically say that BS Man grabbed her by her shoulders. I'm fully aware of how contentious the Star report is, but consider this detail. The reporter would not have been aware of the bruises, so why would he have conjured up this awkward image of a man grabbing a woman by her shoulders? We know this reporter actually spoke with Schwartz and that most of his story correlates with the 'official' version, so it's reasonable to suggest this detail was also accurate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Furthermore, if you read my posts, you will see that I write that I see the possibility of BS man having cried "Lizzie" as an interesting one, whereas I full well know that Schwartz said that he called out "Lipski".

The idea that BS Man yelled 'Lizzie' is an old chestnut that goes back many years. However, Stride does not appear to have gone by that name and according to Abberline, who questioned Schwartz thoroughly on this very point, Schwartz was adamant he heard 'Lipski'. So for our purposes, it would be pointless to argue that BS Man said anything other than 'Lipski'.

I am not saying that you may not throw forward any suggestion you like. I am, though, saying that Schwartz´s testimony is very adamant on BS man having tried to pull Liz out into the street - thus AWAY from the yard and not into it.

Well, this is what Swanson said Abberline said that Schwartz said. But yes, I agree with you. We know that BS Man succeeded in pulling Stride out as far as the pavement, or else Schwartz could not have gotten such a close look at her. But presumably, before they reached the street, Stride resisted and was pushed to the ground. It's not impossible she came off balance and fell.

This may be right and it may be wrong. But the better guess will always be that the former applies - given that it was what Schwartz said.

Agreed. Same applies to his hearing 'Lipski'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Roy Corduroy writes:

""threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not loudly."
Nothing about this indicates whether she knew the man or not."

With respect, Roy, I think the wording "Nothing about this PROVES whether she knew the man or not" would be a better one. The throwing down, the screaming three times - none of these parametres lend themselves to any interpretation of aquaintance or non-aquaintance in the least, but the fact that she did not scream very loud stands out very much. I have argued - and still stand by - that since Schwartz actually noted this thing, he would have thought it deviation from what he would have expected. The inference is that she cried out in a voice that was so low that it did not seem to tally with what was happening to her.
I think a fair suggestion may be that Schwartz was of the opinion that if he had been subjected to what Stride was subjected to, he would have cried out a lot louder.
All of this is of course merely a suggestion - but if it is anything to go by, we may couple it with our knowledge that people who know each other well prefer to keep their quarrels private and their voices low when there are other people about.
No proof in any way, thus - but that is not to agree with you that the indication may not be there. On the contrary, it may well be. And copuled with our knowledge about the cachous, Strides entering the yard and the reoccuring emergence of men who answered to the same description, more or less, a picture emerges.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

To begin with, from Stride´s inquest:

The Foreman: "Did you notice any marks or bruises about the shoulders?"
Blackwell: "They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure, but subsequently they became very evident. They were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion. Each shoulder was about equally marked."
A Juror: "How recently might the marks have been caused?"
Blackwell: "That is rather difficult to say."

As I have already said, though - it is a reasonable suggestion to make that they came about during the altercation with BS man.

As for the rest of your post, it makes eminent sense. It IS quite possible that there was no real violence inflicted on Stride, and that BS man never had such a thing on his mind. As you know, my proposition is that concern and discontention with Stride soliciting would have been the sentiments that guided BS man´s actions - thus the effort to bring her away with him, something that Stride resisted.

I think that throwing somebody to the ground does not have to involve any lifting at all - indeed, lifting a full-grown adult is normally something that takes a good deal of strength, and since this man, judging by his height, was no giant, and since he seemed to be something like a clerk (if he is identical to Marshall´s man, and I work from that presumption), we may have to settle for something else!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
Phillips stated that he(Philips)made a written record at the Post Mortem,and Blackwell did the dissecting.It was testimony by Phillips at the inquest,that no recent external injuries were visible.Blackwell concurred with what Phillips said.I would presume that both docters had,before dissecting began,examined the body for recent external markings,and found none.
I would have thought that to be thrown ,one would have to be lifted off their feet ,and if thrown violently,some damage would be done.So you can,by your own remarks,see why I object to that kind of testimony.Certainly Schwartz saw something.He saw a woman fall,but did he see the way she fell,or the position she landed,or even,in detail,why she fell.Was the word threw,something suggested to him?It is only that word that suggests violence on the part of BS.The rest can be explained as of an innocent nature,some minor disagreement perhaps,that could have been initiated by Stride?.
Was He pulling her or was she pulling him?With things happening so quickly,how long did it take to register with Schwartz that something out of the ordinary was taking place.How much of the initial action did he miss.?These are legitimate questions that cannot be answered,but they should be bourne in mind.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening,

"threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not loudly."

Nothing about this indicates whether she knew the man or not.

Roy

[lynn cates]

experiment

Hello Ben and Roy. Here's an experiment you might try. Sneak up on a friend and place your hand on her shoulder. What's the result? Maybe a start and a squeak.

Now try the same but with something sharp, and with point against flesh.

See the difference?

The best.
LC

I happen to agree with Fisherman that there are different vocalizations made dependent on the state of surprise, shock or fear.

Its the reason most of the "oh-murder" cries in the area went unheeded by locals in bed, .....the tonality, emphasis and volume are the essential differentiators. And they depend on the factors I first mentioned.

The only vocalizations Liz made have made might be "oomph"....as she hit the bricks with her butt. She doesnt call for help or loudly protest in anyones version of events, and we have more trustworthy testimony by neighbors for that sort of issue.

Best regards chaps.

[Ben]

No worries, Roy!

Thought I was the lone voice (screamed to a situation-specific mew) on that one.

[Roy Corduroy]

...the idea that the female victims of physical assault should moderate the volume of their screams to ensure that they are attacker-specific is just nonsensical.

Thank you, Ben.

Roy