Schwartz and Brown

[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

[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

[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

[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

[perrymason]

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.

[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

[perrymason]

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]

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

[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]

enter man #2

Hello 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."

Good. I like this. Now, HOW shall we suppose man #2 entered and why?

1. Could be as a savior/comforter. "I see what that brute did. Are you alright?" Then perhaps he escorts her to the kitchen door to collect her date?

2. He could be waiting up the yard, beyond the kitchen door. Liz enters the yard and begins to pace. As she heads towards the gates, man #2 springs, etc.

3. He could be her date, and she has been waiting to meet him.

One of these?

The best.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn, Harry, Perry, et al,

The Stride case is a prime example of how many people can look at the same information and reach remarkably different conclusions. I personally don't think the evidence is as convoluted and confusing as we make it out to be. I think WE are the ones who make it confusing! But as regards Schwartz, we are severly handicapped not having his actual police statement. But even if we did, there would still be the issue that it was delivered to Abberline by way of a translator, potentially muddying the information. And of course since the statement was prepared by Abberline, we'd find his own biases and interpretations present. For instance, it's unlikely Schwartz ever used the term 'broad-shouldered'. This was a term preferred by Abberline himself and pops up in other statements taken by him to indicate someone who is stout but not rotund. And behind all this is the fact that the best Schwartz could give would be his interpretation of what he saw, and what he thought it meant. Had no one died that night, he would have kept thinking he witnessed a domestic dispute. Upon learning of the murder, he no doubt rethought what he saw and sought other interpretations, and this is what he delivered to Abberline. Who knows what little details were lost in this rethinking process. Or what details were exaggerated in his mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Hi Lynn, Harry, Perry, et al,

The Stride case is a prime example of how many people can look at the same information and reach remarkably different conclusions. I personally don't think the evidence is as convoluted and confusing as we make it out to be. I think WE are the ones who make it confusing! But as regards Schwartz, we are severly handicapped not having his actual police statement. But even if we did, there would still be the issue that it was delivered to Abberline by way of a translator, potentially muddying the information. And of course since the statement was prepared by Abberline, we'd find his own biases and interpretations present. For instance, it's unlikely Schwartz ever used the term 'broad-shouldered'. This was a term preferred by Abberline himself and pops up in other statements taken by him to indicate someone who is stout but not rotund. And behind all this is the fact that the best Schwartz could give would be his interpretation of what he saw, and what he thought it meant. Had no one died that night, he would have kept thinking he witnessed a domestic dispute. Upon learning of the murder, he no doubt rethought what he saw and sought other interpretations, and this is what he delivered to Abberline. Who knows what little details were lost in this rethinking process. Or what details were exaggerated in his mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thats a well thought out and reasonable post Tom. I find it very interesting that the 2 witness accounts that Abberline sticks his neck out in support of are not presented at any Inquest, and one of them he clearly distances himself from within days.

Thats not to say he was easily mislead, perhaps that he more than any single officer drafted to the Ripper cases wanted some clues that might solve these cases. So he supports one that has a victim being assaulted just before her murder in the street in plain view of witnesses, and one that constructs a suspect that must have been embellished at the very least, he could not have seen the detail he stated he saw that night.

2 controversial accounts, and both supported by Fred.

Odd.

Best regards Tom

[lynn cates]

ditto

Hello Tom and Mike. Ditto for me.

Perhaps he was having a drug induced vision. (Sorry, I just watched the Depp movie. What rubbish!)

The best chaps.
LC

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

What is the basis for your conclusion that Abberline supported Schwartz's statement?

I don't fault Abberline for his initial belief in Hutchinson's story. He came in of his own volition. I am assuming that he did not appear to be drunk or mentally unbalanced or immediately start talking about a reward. If Hutchinson's story was true, it could have been a major break in the case. I think Abberline took the best course of action -- accept the story at face value (for the time being) and see if Hutchinson could point out the man. It is easy to look back now and say that he should have been a little more skeptical but given the circumstance I am willing to cut old Fred some slack.

c.d.

[harry]

Lynn,
There were reportedly two more males present in the immediate vicinity at the time,and there was,although I am not too taken with the idea,time enough for others to appear.Pipeman certainly seems in position to witness her fall,so I would suggest a compassionate approach the more likely.
Regards.