Schwartz and Brown

[Fisherman]

Ben again:

"You're trying to make sense of Schwartz's observations as outlined in Swanson's report, and since taking her into the streets and then suddenly "turning her around" and throwing her in the opposite direction doesn't seem very plausible, it becomes reasonable to interpret the evidence in order to make sense of it, which is why I suggest that BS always intended to pull her in the direction of the yard."

That suggestion, Ben, remains a less credible one however we look upon it. My effort to make sense of Schwartz in this instance does not deviate from what he actually said in any way. He never said to what extent she was spun round, and he emphatically never said that BS man threw her in the opposite direction of the street.
Your suggestion, though, is diametrically opposed to the evidence, and as such I donīt award it much credibility.


"The point is that he didn't know if she could only cry out in a low voice, just as he didn't know (and couldn't possibly know) that Stride was deliberately lowering her screams in order that they corresponded precisely to the perceived gravity of the situation. The concept of appropriate screaming volume is one I can't get my head around. Sorry."

All you need to realize, Ben, is that when somebody hears somebody scream and makes the remark that it happened in a not very loud voice, then that conception is normally NOT guided by a belief that the screaming person could probably not scream any higher.
If somebody hits somebody else with the fist on the nose, and a bystander afterwards remarks that the hitting party did not hit very hard, then we may deduct that this conclusion was probably not due to the bystander making the guess that some sort of physical impediment hindered the guy who hit to hit harder. That is not to say that this could not have been the true reason - it could have been - but it is to say that we generally make the assumption that the people we see around us are able to hit normally hard and scream normally high. When somebody underachieve on these points, we make the guess that they have pulled their punches - physically or verbally.
In short - no, it is not by far likely that Schwartz thought that Stride could not cry out loud. It is far likelier that he was of the meaning that she had probably lowered her voice.

"I think you'll find that stoutish, shortish, dark clothes and peaked cap is a pretty generic description, especially near the docks."

Absolutely - which is why the common denominator "respectable" becomes so interesting.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"You make a good point with regards to the client/lover scenario."

Thanks, c.d. I think it is a very good point, actually ... but then again, that came not as any news to you, did it?

"the leap then is to say that he went on to kill her"

That is quite a leap, admittedly. But objectively, c.d - we DO have a man of the same shape and clothing appearing in her company throughout the last two hours of her life, and we do have a man that seems to tally very well with that self same description in an altercation with her fifteen minutes and two metres from where she was found dead. That means that the suggestion that he killed her becomes a suggestion that simply MUST be made. He was the last person seen with her, and he seemingly inflicted violence on her at that stage. Those are almighty pointers to guilt on his behalf.

"we also have what would appear to be a similar situation with Tabram and Pearly Poll combining business and pleasure"

There is many a difference too, c.d: The Tabram circus was a small pubcrawling party where it would seem that Martha and Poll were intent on getting BOTH booze and money for sex outof the sailors they befriended.
In Lizīcase, we are told that both parts seemed perfectly sober, and they did not seem to be partying at all.

"With regards to Lizzie, it is not just the word itself. It would seem reasonable that if Schwartz was so frightened that he ran off that the BS man was facing him AND Schwartz could read the expression on his face. Otherwise we have to believe that the BS man was multi-tasking, facing one way and trying to intimidate Schwartz while imploring Lizzie."

I am in no way opposed to the proposition that he yelled "Lipski", c.d. I just find the other possibility interesting.
I think it can also be argued that Schwartz would NOT have met the eyes of BS man if he was scared of him. Then, if BS yelled "Lizzie", that may have made Schwartz look up and face BS man. If so, it would not be strange if BS man looked back on Schwartz - but the second before, as he cried out, that gaze may have been fixed on Liz!
At any rate, we know that this issue has raised many questions over the years, and no conclusive proof can be offered in any direction. But I will add that this consternation may well owe to one of the factors not being what the witness originally thought it was...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"to answer your question, if we eliminated the Schwartz story, the case for Jack would be greatly strengthened"

In a fashion, I agree. If we did not have Schwartz, we wuld not be able to tie the 5 ft 5, sturdy, respectable looking man to the last minutes of Strides life.

But would that actually strengthen Jackīs candidacy? Would that not be dependant upon the evidence in the yard, that would not change a bit if Schwartz disappeared?

Is it not truer to say that a Schwartzless story would decrease the credibility of an aquaintance scenario - but not move the Jack-possibility in either direction?

An academical question, perhaps.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dixon9 writes:

"off on a bit of a tangent but it is to do with Brown's sighting of a couple near the board school.I believe it was probably the 'sweet hearts' Mrs Mortimer also saw that morning."

My meaning too, Dixon. Seems the better bet.

the best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fish,

Liz's date was fortunate that he had his trusty knife with him. I wonder if he had a pre-date checklist: clean underwear? check; breath freshener? check; money? check; knife (in case of jealousy)?, check.

c.d.

P.S. Sorry for being smart ass but that was just too good to pass up. Now I know it was not uncommon to carry a knife... but on a date?....hmmm.

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"Sorry for being smart ass but that was just too good to pass up. Now I know it was not uncommon to carry a knife... but on a date?....hmmm."

Well, c.d, I think we need to ask ourselves WHY people carried knives at all. And there are two suggestions that spring to mind:

1. Practical purposes - cutting the odd piece of leather from your boot, you know.
2.Self-defence - if somebody should pop up and tell you that your money would be better off in their pockets than in yours.

...and I fail to see why one would conclude that none of these needs would arise on an East-end date in 1888.

I keep a knife in the pocket of my jacket at all times, c.d - a Swiss army knife, to be more exact. It has been there for as many years as I have owned my jacket, and before that it lay in the pocket of my old jacket. I never take it out, since I never know when it will come in handy. The last time I used it was months ago.

the best,
Fisherman

[dixon9]

Fish

do you know the 'sweethearts' names?
cheers

Dixon9
still learning

[c.d.]

"Is that a knife in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?"

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Dixon9 asks:

"do you know the 'sweethearts' names?"

No, Dixon - and nobody does. Dave Yost makes a fair case for the woman of the couple being Charles Letchfords sister Florence (who was 28 at the time), but the name of her fiancée is something I have never seen proposed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

C.d:

""Is that a knife in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?"

Haha! Nice one c.d - but MY knife lies in the inner pocket of my jacket, and rests against my chest. No manhood reaches THAT far, I suspect!

The best!
Fisherman

[dixon9]

thanks fish,just thought i might have overlooked it.

dixon9
still learning

[lynn cates]

varia

Hello CD.

"You're not trying to lead me into a trap here are you Lynn? Why do I keep thinking that I am going to hear somebody yell "Checkmate" before long?"

Not a bit of it. I think we all checkmated ourselves when we got started with this. (I knew a chap one who married a girl from Prague. He was REALLY Czech mated.)

Perhaps we really should start that "Saving Liz Stride" thread.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

humour

Hello Fish.

"Haha! Nice one c.d - but MY knife lies in the inner pocket of my jacket, and rests against my chest. No manhood reaches THAT far, I suspect!"

I can hear CD saying, "I ask you to speak for yourself, Fisherman."

The best.
LC

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

My effort to make sense of Schwartz in this instance does not deviate from what he actually said in any way.

Doesn't it?

Are you sure?

I thought you had BS saying "Lizzie" despite Schwartz's claim that he said "Lipski"? In which case, you'd be deviating from what he actually said "in some way", which is something I shouldn't be doing, according to you. Apologies if I've confused you with some other theorist. The street was in the opposite direction to the "footway", which means that if he first dragged her into the street, he'd need to throw her in the opposite direction from the street in order for her to end up on the footway. That doesn't make sense, which is why I've suggested that he always intended to take her in the direction of the yard.

You don't think the "Lipksi" remark makes sense, so you've interpreted Schwartz's account to arrive at a different conclusion, and I've used a similar degree of interpretation to make sense of the throwing/footway evidence. There is, fundamentally, no difference in our approach to the evidence. You just prefer your interpretation for some reason, and I still don't begrudge you that. I prefer mine.

All you need to realize, Ben, is that when somebody hears somebody scream and makes the remark that it happened in a not very loud voice, then that conception is normally NOT guided by a belief that the screaming person could probably not scream any higher.

Yes, but nor is it governed by an assumption that normal, functioning human beings are accustomed to doctoring the volume of their fear-enduced screams to ensure that they accord with the level of anxiety they feel. Appropriate screaming volume is a concept that must remain alien to me, I'm afraid, and the same can be said of appropriate punching ferocity, as per your analogy. If I observed that someone punched another bloke, "but not hard", I would have no way of knowing if the "puncher" in question had a weak punch, or if he was deliberately punching below his weight, so to speak. Would I really be in a position to assess his punching prowess without having met him? "Gosh, he really sissied out there on the punching stakes. Yes, I bet if he really gave it some proper welly, he'd knock the other fella out cold. Nope, I'm forced to assume that he delivered a case-specific punch that corresponded exactly to the severity of the situation".

Come on.

In short - no, it is not by far likely that Schwartz thought that Stride could not cry out loud. It is far likelier that he was of the meaning that she had probably lowered her voice.

Well you go ahead and think that, if that reflects your feelings on the subject. I feel tremendously comfortable finding your objections unconvincing, and remain of the opinion that your views on what is "far likelier" are unwarranted. But how nice that we can discuss this on a friendly basis.

[harry]

I do have good grounds for believing what I state.It is not pure speculation but based on medical opinion at the time,that the victim had suffered no recent external injuries,except some small bruising around the shoulders,which ,in the opinion of the docters,had been caused while attacked inside the yard.Now if Stride had been thrown to the ground by BS,the ground being of stone or concrete,I would speculate,and have good grounds for doing so,that she would have received some grazing or bruising that would have been visible to the doctors who later examined her body.There was none.
So lets have a look again at what Schwartz is alledged to have said."He threw her to the ground'.Well we see in wrestling and some other sports that it is possible to lift a person off their feet and throw them,so accepting your proposal that I should believe ,without question,what the witness Schwartz said,then that is what BS did. He threw Stride,on to stone or concrete, and it left no mark of injury or contact.You want me to believe that?I would sooner believe that the evidence of Schwartz cannot be taken for it's accuracy.That whatever happened ouside the yard was of a minor nature,and that her fall was by other than a violent assault.