If Schwartz Lied ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
To deny his unimportance anyway..and espouse he was believed, is like the self serving "interruption although not indicated in any evidence" kind of argument

Which is probably the most embarrassing, ill-founded piece of thinking in the history of Ripperology.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Thats a clear representation of what I mentioned earlier....mis-quoting or misreprenting

And the post containing the above quote is a clear example if you trying to wriggle out of what you said. Just as you refuse to answer a straight question by changing the subject. Obvious to all of course.

[Fiver]

As for the actual time of awareness of the murder, at what time did the Arbeter Fraint, published later that month, state it occurred? The paper printed onsite, with pre release knowledge of content by Wess and Im sure Louis? The time the club states it happened. Not the steward, not the speaker, but the paper in the yard reporting on the event?

That time was.....?

That was already answered by Josh Rogan in post #104 - "At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body."

So according to the Arbeter Fraint, the "actual time of awareness of the murder" was "At about one o’clock". The Arbeter Fraint is yet another account that does not fit your theory.

[Michael W Richards]

Repeating the same flawed arguments a thousand times won't remove the flaws.

Stride didn't die from being shoved around by BS man, whether Schwartz invented the story or not. The cause of death was a single wound to the throat, inflicted while there was nobody but her killer to witness it.

The fact she is being assaulted minutes before her actual throat cut almost ensures it was Willful Murder...which isnt established formally until the Inquest adjourns. Which is what I reminded Fiver about.

[Michael W Richards]

I quoted you exactly, so please to not accuse me of misquoting you. You said "The manner of death could be accidental, willfully committed, a result of suicide..there are variables." Your second sentence "The HOW is the only question here, and Israel would have impacted what they perceived." changes nothing about what I said.

People do not cut a six inch long incision in their own neck by accident. Nothing that Israel Schwartz said could have impacted that self-evident fact.

Suicides don't magically make the knife disappear afterwards. Nothing that Israel Schwartz said could have impacted that self-evident fact.

Liz Stide was clearly murdered. Nothing that Israel Schwartz said could have impacted that self-evident fact.

The HOW was never in question. What Israel Schwartz said supported that self-evident fact, but it was a self-evident fact even if Schwartz had never shared his account with anyone.

The real unknown was WHO. The question is whether Liz Stride was killed by the Ripper, who was interrupted before he could mutilate and pose the body, or if she was killed by someone else. Schwartz' account does not prove or disprove either scenario. On the other hand, if Schwartz was lying, that also does not prove or disprove if if she was killed by the Ripper or by some other killer.

Well, since youre the obvious expert...why have the Inquest at all then?

[Michael W Richards]

That was already answered by Josh Rogan in post #104 - "At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body."

So according to the Arbeter Fraint, the "actual time of awareness of the murder" was "At about one o’clock". The Arbeter Fraint is yet another account that does not fit your theory.

In the Arbeter Fraint published after the murder it states...at about a quarter to 1 .

"The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one." You published the damn link yourself...so Why do I have to keep correcting people?

[Michael W Richards]

And the post containing the above quote is a clear example if you trying to wriggle out of what you said. Just as you refuse to answer a straight question by changing the subject. Obvious to all of course.

Again, because you folks cant seem to read posts, I referred to the Inquest mandate....you know, the Inquest that Fiver doesnt need because he can see obviously that she was killed intentionally. Like the facts you dont need because they dont fit with your discreditted witness and your not in evidence interruptus killerama.

[Fiver]

In the Arbeter Fraint published after the murder it states...at about a quarter to 1 .

"The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one." You published the damn link yourself...so Why do I have to keep correcting people?

In post #223, you asked "As for the actual time of awareness of the murder, at what time did the Arbeter Fraint, published later that month, state it occurred?"

I replied by noting that according to the Arbeter Fraint, the "actual time of awareness of the murder" was "At about one o’clock". The Arbeter Fraint does say "The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one", but that does not contradict me in any way. The "actual time of awareness of the murder" is a different event than the commission of the murder. According to the the Arbeter Fraint, the murder was committed "about a quarter to one" and the murder was discovered "At about one o’clock". The Arbeter Fraint is yet another account that does not fit your theory.

[Fiver]

Again, because you folks cant seem to read posts, I referred to the Inquest mandate....you know, the Inquest that Fiver doesnt need because he can see obviously that she was killed intentionally.

I can tell that Liz Stride was killed intentionally because I read the Inquest.

[Varqm]

Look at Mathew Packer as an example for Schwartz,both had two conflicting statements.At first he saw a couple,no one,then changed his mind days later,that he saw Stride, then re-interviewed by police,believed by the police and the press all through October,but by November officially discarded.The police could not make up their mind.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hate it when people state opinions as facts. It’s one of my pet hates so I’m very cautious about stating something as a fact.

Israel Schwartz was not excluded from the Inquest because the police didn’t believe him. This is an evidence-based fact. His non-appearance was due to another (unknown) reason. The Star statement is utterly irrelevant. If that caused the Police to dismiss him they wouldn’t have gone on to search for Lipski or to take a man in for questioning or to continue to speak of Schwartz as a witness a month and more after the article. How much clearer can it be?

[caz]

The fact she is being assaulted minutes before her actual throat cut almost ensures it was Willful Murder...which isnt established formally until the Inquest adjourns. Which is what I reminded Fiver about.

Absolute rubbish.

The throat cut alone points to wilful murder - by person or persons unknown. Schwartz could not have helped to 'establish' anything of the kind from what he claimed to witness at 12.45. They may as well have asked the cat.

I'm surprised you call it a 'fact' that Stride was assaulted in the same half hour that some unknown person wilfully murdered her. I thought your opinion was that nothing of the kind happened and Schwartz invented it. Either way he couldn't have established WHO died, HOW that person died or WHEN - or even WHERE, for that matter.

If Schwartz couldn't even be sure what he had seen or heard, we really are in chocolate teapot territory.

If you need his absence to mean that his account was not considered credible, as opposed to being considered irrelevant or even misleading, then you need to explain WHY his account would not have been considered credible. WHAT would have indicated that the incident he witnessed could not have happened? The authorities accepted that the murder was discovered at 1am, so why would they conclude that Stride could NOT have been seen assaulted at 12.45, just as Schwartz claimed?

I think you'd better think it out again.

Or is that too Jewish for you?

[caz]

In the Arbeter Fraint published after the murder it states...at about a quarter to 1 .

"The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one." You published the damn link yourself...so Why do I have to keep correcting people?

I think you just shot yourself in the foot there. This simply means the first murder was presumed to have occurred at 'about' a quarter to one, taking into account the assault witnessed by Schwartz at that time, when he left the woman alive. The murder wasn't discovered until Louis D returned to the yard at about one.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the words 'occurred' and 'discovered'.

[caz]

In post #223, you asked "As for the actual time of awareness of the murder, at what time did the Arbeter Fraint, published later that month, state it occurred?"

I replied by noting that according to the Arbeter Fraint, the "actual time of awareness of the murder" was "At about one o’clock". The Arbeter Fraint does say "The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one", but that does not contradict me in any way. The "actual time of awareness of the murder" is a different event than the commission of the murder. According to the the Arbeter Fraint, the murder was committed "about a quarter to one" and the murder was discovered "At about one o’clock". The Arbeter Fraint is yet another account that does not fit your theory.

Sorry, Fiver, I posted before reading your post. Great minds eh?

[caz]

In the Arbeter Fraint published after the murder it states...at about a quarter to 1 .

"The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one." You published the damn link yourself...so Why do I have to keep correcting people?

This is actually quite funny, because you seem to think that the good people at the Arbeter Fraint were admitting to inside knowledge of when the murder was actually committed - 'about a quarter to one' - which would have implied that Louis D and others had fannied about until one o'clock to raise the alarm.