Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Entirely agree with C.D. and Observer.What seems to have been forgotten is that Schwartz speaks of words being spoken before the scuffle.Who spoke is not mentioned, but it could have been Stride,and the shove by BS a rejection of whatever she said.
    As to Pipeman leaving,is that correct?Schwartz statement suggests he(Pipeman)followed for only a short distance,so his whereabouts later is not known.
    Could Pipeman have been the same person that Brown saw?.I believe so,and in that case would Stride reject him if he went to her aid after Schwartz and BS departed,and he(pipeman) returned?Conjecture clearly,but fits as neatly as any other theory.
    Hi Harry,
    I don't have a problem with considering the possibility of B.S. moving on and someone else killing her. I'm just having a hard time with the specific line of reasoning that is based on her holding the cachous. Her murder appears to have involved her being put to the ground where her throat was cut, so who ever killed her still ends up with her holding them. I don't understand how it clears B.S. because someone does get her to the ground, kills her, and she holds them. Why can't this be B.S.? What makes him unable to be the one to do this as the argument seems to be it is impossible. If it's impossible then nobody could have killed her yet someone does. Therefore it's not impossible, so I don't see why the cachous rule out B.S. they don't prove it had to be him either, I'm just not sure why it can't be him based on them?

    Jeff

    Comment


    • #32
      Hi all,

      I think Liz was waiting for a date, flower and cachous and all. She had the breath fresheners in her hand and waited for his arrival when BS man who may have been an aquaintance of hers accosted her and got told to go away. Then a row ensued and may have escalated to BS man killing stride on impulse.

      She probably was not soliciting because standing on a spot and advertisting yourself had been made illegal just a few years prior, if I'm not mistaken. Prostitutes on the street had to keep walking around (hence the streetwalker moniker) to avoid getting in trouble with the police.

      Schwartz saw the row between BS man and Liz, probably slowed down or stood there for a bit too long, got called Lipski and then crossed the street, saw Pipeman, got excited and frightened and ran away.

      In this version of the line of events, BS man was her killer but probably not the killer of the other victims in my opinion.

      My tuppence.

      Gre,

      Boris
      ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        Hi Harry,
        I don't have a problem with considering the possibility of B.S. moving on and someone else killing her. I'm just having a hard time with the specific line of reasoning that is based on her holding the cachous. Her murder appears to have involved her being put to the ground where her throat was cut, so who ever killed her still ends up with her holding them. I don't understand how it clears B.S. because someone does get her to the ground, kills her, and she holds them. Why can't this be B.S.? What makes him unable to be the one to do this as the argument seems to be it is impossible. If it's impossible then nobody could have killed her yet someone does. Therefore it's not impossible, so I don't see why the cachous rule out B.S. they don't prove it had to be him either, I'm just not sure why it can't be him based on them?

        Jeff
        hi Jeff

        you wont (or cant) get a good explanation for this because there is none. its the same point and questions ive asked the cashoo crowd over the years without answer. someone violently murdered her and she still is holding the cashoo. so she simply held onto them through the attack, or as i mentioned in the previous post, possibly(though unlikely) took them out after her throat was cut.

        re your suggestion the killer put them in her hand after he killed her. ive thought of this before and never really considered it, but the more i pondered it when you mentioned it i came up with a possible explanation. perhaps they where bought for her by her killer as part of the ruse of making her feel at ease, perhaps along with the flower, in hopes she would eventually go with him to a secluded spot. she wont do it so he kills her in a fit of anger, and puts them in her hand like...here take your cashoo that i bought for you (but didnt get the response from you that i wanted). its purely a psychological response by the killer. or maybe some other weird reason only making sense to the twisted mind of a serial killer. istill think it highly unlikely but possible i guess.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          hi Jeff

          you wont (or cant) get a good explanation for this because there is none. its the same point and questions ive asked the cashoo crowd over the years without answer. someone violently murdered her and she still is holding the cashoo. so she simply held onto them through the attack, or as i mentioned in the previous post, possibly(though unlikely) took them out after her throat was cut.

          re your suggestion the killer put them in her hand after he killed her. ive thought of this before and never really considered it, but the more i pondered it when you mentioned it i came up with a possible explanation. perhaps they where bought for her by her killer as part of the ruse of making her feel at ease, perhaps along with the flower, in hopes she would eventually go with him to a secluded spot. she wont do it so he kills her in a fit of anger, and puts them in her hand like...here take your cashoo that i bought for you (but didnt get the response from you that i wanted). its purely a psychological response by the killer. or maybe some other weird reason only making sense to the twisted mind of a serial killer. istill think it highly unlikely but possible i guess.
          Hi Abby Normal,

          Yah, I don't really subscribe to the "killer placing them" idea either, though I can't prove it didn't happen obviously. It would be odd behaviour, taking extra time after killing her, which serial killers are known to do, but we see no other examples of that in the JtR killings. He does possibily engage in some posing of the victims bodies, Kelly's hand being placed into her opened gut cavity for example, but there doesn't appear to be any other examples of him placing things in or on the victims (any items they may have been carrying have been described as possibily arranged, but again, they are separate from the body in their placement).

          The cachous argument, to me, is a bit like Schrodinger's cat in that if she's attacked she either holds or drops the cachous. As long as we don't observe the attack we can accept that she may have held them, but once a physical interaction with her is observed, we conclude she couldn't have that time so there must still be an unobserved attack which allows for the possibility of her holding them. But this just kicks the cachous can down the road to the next supposed unobserved attack. It seems to me that had that 2nd attack also been reported as observed then we would then conclude "She couldn't have held them that time either because when she was put to the ground to have her throat cut her instincts would have been to drop them" and so we would have to propose there was a 3rd, unobserved attack in which she did hold them, and so on.

          Because of what appears to be an infinite regress being created, I don't see the cachous as automatically eliminating B.S. since, in the end, she held them through at least one attack, why not the one we have reported? I accept it doesn't prove B.S. was the one who killed her, of course, but that's not what I'm focusing on. I'm just focused on the very specific argument that the cachous are sufficient in and of themselves to rule him out, and I don't see how that works because it seems to lead to an infinite loop - that nobody could have attacked her because if she was attacked she would have dropped the cachous. That's fine, provided one then argues they were placed in her hand, but once one does that, why can't B.S. be the placer?

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            Hi Abby Normal,

            Yah, I don't really subscribe to the "killer placing them" idea either, though I can't prove it didn't happen obviously. It would be odd behaviour, taking extra time after killing her, which serial killers are known to do, but we see no other examples of that in the JtR killings. He does possibily engage in some posing of the victims bodies, Kelly's hand being placed into her opened gut cavity for example, but there doesn't appear to be any other examples of him placing things in or on the victims (any items they may have been carrying have been described as possibily arranged, but again, they are separate from the body in their placement).

            The cachous argument, to me, is a bit like Schrodinger's cat in that if she's attacked she either holds or drops the cachous. As long as we don't observe the attack we can accept that she may have held them, but once a physical interaction with her is observed, we conclude she couldn't have that time so there must still be an unobserved attack which allows for the possibility of her holding them. But this just kicks the cachous can down the road to the next supposed unobserved attack. It seems to me that had that 2nd attack also been reported as observed then we would then conclude "She couldn't have held them that time either because when she was put to the ground to have her throat cut her instincts would have been to drop them" and so we would have to propose there was a 3rd, unobserved attack in which she did hold them, and so on.

            Because of what appears to be an infinite regress being created, I don't see the cachous as automatically eliminating B.S. since, in the end, she held them through at least one attack, why not the one we have reported? I accept it doesn't prove B.S. was the one who killed her, of course, but that's not what I'm focusing on. I'm just focused on the very specific argument that the cachous are sufficient in and of themselves to rule him out, and I don't see how that works because it seems to lead to an infinite loop - that nobody could have attacked her because if she was attacked she would have dropped the cachous. That's fine, provided one then argues they were placed in her hand, but once one does that, why can't B.S. be the placer?

            - Jeff
            hi jeff
            yup. very astute of you as usual. were back to BS man any way you look at it. the cashoo is a red herring. forget about it. and phantom stride killers, club conspiracy theories and Fanny mortimers lol

            Comment


            • #36
              Hello Jeff,

              Why are you insisting that Stride was thrown to the ground by her killer and then killed? Why could she not have been killed while standing and then lowered to the ground? If her killer is cradling her body he very well could have been supporting her arms and hands. And a muscle spasm in death would explain her holding them.

              This is a completely different scenario from the BS man.

              And for the record, I have never argued that the cachous eliminated the BS man as her killer. I have only said that in my opinion they are simply another red flag among many but a significant flag.

              c.d.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                hi jeff
                yup. very astute of you as usual. were back to BS man any way you look at it. the cashoo is a red herring. forget about it. and phantom stride killers, club conspiracy theories and Fanny mortimers lol
                Hi Abby Normal,

                Yah, I don't buy the club conspiracy either. I do wish we had more information about Schwartz, and knew why he doesn't appear at the inquest, based upon the police actions at the time (as evidence in the internal communications between the police and home office), it's clear they took his report as a serious lead, both as he stated it (they were looking for Lipski's in the area) and as they interpreted it (meaning, that Lipski was probably shouted at Schwartz, not at Pipeman as Schwartz thought). I do recall mention that someone (Paul Begg I think?) may have found some indication that Pipeman had been identified and cleared of involvement, but I haven't read or seen the specifics on that so don't know on what basis that claim is made? Certainly, if Pipeman had been identified and interviewed it would have provided the police with another account of the events in question. Sadly for us, if that did happen, the information has been lost so we don't know if it supports or contradicts Schwartz's telling.

                Anyway, if anyone is aware of the "possible identification of Pipeman", it would be great if that could be shared here. I'll see if I can track it down on the site as well, and if I find it, I'll provide a link to the relevant thread.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • #38
                  The question isn't really whether she could have held on to the cachous after being thrown to the ground, pushing herself back up and fighting off the BS man (if that is in fact what happened). The question is whether holding on to them would be the norm and what we would expect or is it an anomaly? It all comes down to probability.

                  c.d.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                    Hello Jeff,

                    Why are you insisting that Stride was thrown to the ground by her killer and then killed? Why could she not have been killed while standing and then lowered to the ground? If her killer is cradling her body he very well could have been supporting her arms and hands. And a muscle spasm in death would explain her holding them.

                    This is a completely different scenario from the BS man.

                    And for the record, I have never argued that the cachous eliminated the BS man as her killer. I have only said that in my opinion they are simply another red flag among many but a significant flag.

                    c.d.
                    Hi c.d.,

                    As I recall, there's no blood down the front of her clothes to indicate she was killed while standing up, but rather there is a large pool of clotted blood reported as being at her neck on the ground, which points to her being on the ground when her throat was cut. That indicates she was put to ground before being killed, and if she was slowly put to the ground that seems to make the cachous more problematic, so given she's holding them it seems she has to be put to ground quickly.

                    Anyway, no matter what, holding the cachous through any type of attack seems improbable, and yet, there we have it, she was holding them, improbable or not. As such, I don't see it raising a red flag for B.S that is "more red" than it will be for any attack on her. That's my problem with putting forth the cachous as a strong argument against B.S., it seems it becomes a strong argument for the next assailant as well even though we don't observe that assault. Strange things do happen sometimes, and I think the cachous might just be an example of that.

                    I've suggested in the past the idea that she might have had them tucked under the cuff of her sleeve, and they came out into her hand only when she was put to the ground, but that's never been viewed by others very favorably. The idea came to me because my grandmother used to tuck tissues there because the cuff's of her shirts were tight enough to do that. But of course, we don't know if Stride did that, but it would reduce the oddity of the whole thing. So does her killer placing them in her hand, but that seems "in character" for a serial killer, but not "in character" for JtR, which doesn't sit well with me.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      Hi c.d.,

                      As I recall, there's no blood down the front of her clothes to indicate she was killed while standing up, but rather there is a large pool of clotted blood reported as being at her neck on the ground, which points to her being on the ground when her throat was cut. That indicates she was put to ground before being killed, and if she was slowly put to the ground that seems to make the cachous more problematic, so given she's holding them it seems she has to be put to ground quickly.

                      Anyway, no matter what, holding the cachous through any type of attack seems improbable, and yet, there we have it, she was holding them, improbable or not. As such, I don't see it raising a red flag for B.S that is "more red" than it will be for any attack on her. That's my problem with putting forth the cachous as a strong argument against B.S., it seems it becomes a strong argument for the next assailant as well even though we don't observe that assault. Strange things do happen sometimes, and I think the cachous might just be an example of that.

                      I've suggested in the past the idea that she might have had them tucked under the cuff of her sleeve, and they came out into her hand only when she was put to the ground, but that's never been viewed by others very favorably. The idea came to me because my grandmother used to tuck tissues there because the cuff's of her shirts were tight enough to do that. But of course, we don't know if Stride did that, but it would reduce the oddity of the whole thing. So does her killer placing them in her hand, but that seems "in character" for a serial killer, but not "in character" for JtR, which doesn't sit well with me.

                      - Jeff
                      hi jeff
                      your cuff idea made me think of something else. what if they were some how stuck (like sticky) or lodged in her hand? i know probably not likely but it is another explanation.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        hi jeff
                        your cuff idea made me think of something else. what if they were some how stuck (like sticky) or lodged in her hand? i know probably not likely but it is another explanation.
                        Hi Abby Normal,

                        I think that less likely, as they were not described as stuck to her when they were removed, etc. Rather, that the package was described as "lodged" I think the word was. So, either she was holding through the attack despite that seeming unlikely to us, or they were put there after the fact, or they got there accidently (i.e. slipped out of her cuff when she hit the ground). We can't know for sure, all we know is that they were found there, and she was attacked and killed in that location. While I think the evidence points towards her being killed while on the ground, others consider the possibility she was standing when she was killed/had her throat cut - but personally I think continuing to hold them under those circumstances even less likely. Again, while I agree their position is a mystery, I'm not sure it is one that becomes any less of a mystery by suggesting B.S. leaves and unknown assailant enters the scene. I don't see how "unknown assailant and 2nd confrontation" solves the mystery, it just allows the assault to be one for which we have no description.

                        Furthermore, as Schwartz's description of events to the police is not one we have further information about, we can't be entirely sure of the accuracy of it even if we go with the idea he saw a real event. And the event he describes doesn't include seeing a knife, so it remains possible that B.S. and Stride have a continued confrontation that later escalates into a more violent one - so a sort of 2nd attack but by B.S. That might change our view of the relationship between Stride and B.S., and would point to a known associate of hers, possibly eliminating her as a JtR victim. I'm neither convinced she was nor convinced she wasn't, so I'm happy to consider scenarios that end in either outcome myself.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by harry View Post
                          What seems to have been forgotten is that Schwartz speaks of words being spoken before the scuffle.Who spoke is not mentioned, but it could have been Stride,and the shove by BS a rejection of whatever she said.
                          Small point perhaps, Harry, but it is mentioned who spoke (first).

                          Swanson's report reads: "12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. [Here there is a marginal note. 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'.] Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other."

                          "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                          Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Well not exactly Frank.Although Schwartz does say that,could it have been in exchange for something Stride said? It is very hard to remember an incident in detail,and what happened appears to have caught Schwartz by surprise,and to have panicked him (Schwartz)to a point of wanting to get away as quickly as possible.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              ive talked to cops i know, and the chances of a victim being assaulted and then shortly after murdered by a different person totally unconnected is extremely rare as to be discounted. i beleive weve had some former police on here that have said the same thing.
                              also, it would make the timing extremely tight.
                              Hi Abby,

                              But this was Whitechapel in 1888, and women out alone at night, seen associating with men, or perceived to be soliciting, as Stride may well have been perceived, were particularly vulnerable to being accosted, insulted, assaulted and generally abused. The extremely rare factor was the active serial killer in the area that very night, who targeted women like Stride for much more than a spot of common assault. This killer could have been following her, or watching her from a distance, and homed in shortly after seeing her being abused, in which case it would have been no coincidence, but more a case of cause and effect. I doubt Stride was unaccustomed to being on the receiving end of a bit of rough treatment on a Saturday night, but she wouldn't have been expecting an opportunist serial predator to be waiting in the wings. The added advantage for Jack would have been that the police would be looking for Stride's abuser, thanks to Schwartz witnessing this, but running off and missing the main event.

                              I know I bang on about the murder of Sally Anne Bowman in Croydon in 2005, but here was an example of a victim having a ding-dong with her ex boyfriend, and then being murdered seconds after he drove off, by a complete stranger - the murderer and serial rapist, Mark Dixie - who had been watching and just waiting for his opportunity to pounce, before Sally Anne could reach her front door. It's hardly rare to see couples arguing after a night out, and her ex was naturally the first to be suspected of her murder. Dixie could have taken advantage of this if the ex had not been cleared by the DNA evidence.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              Last edited by caz; 02-25-2021, 04:11 PM.
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                                Hello Abby,

                                I wouldn't describe myself as adamant but here is my thinking:

                                I think you are hung up on the word "assault." There are assaults and then there are assaults. Schwartz only saw a woman being pushed nothing more. As soon as someone connects what Schwartz describes with Stride's actual death the tendency is to say aha! this had to have been a brutal assault but that is not what Schwartz saw.

                                With regard to the odds of two assaults in a short period of time, I think you are ignoring the circumstances under which those assaults took place. If Stride had been standing in front of a church at noon on Sunday in the midst of a group of people then I would say yes that is quite remarkable. But the fact is you have a lone woman out on the street by herself late at night in a rough neighborhood right after the pubs had closed and there were likely a lot of drunken men on the street.

                                With regard to the BS man being her killer I see a number of red flags:

                                No one heard any argument despite testimony from club members saying they were virtually certain that they would have heard it through the open windows despite the singing in the club.

                                There were no marks on Stride's face to indicate that she had been slapped around and no cuts to her body other than the throat. Her clothes are not torn which you would expect had there been a struggle. So we have to assume that an extremely angry BS man suddenly went from 0 to 60 and cut her throat.

                                You then have to wonder why the BS man would have gone on to kill Stride after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man. A reasonable assumption would have been that Schwartz was on his way to find the nearest PC. If the BS man had left the scene after Schwartz ran off without killing Stride he only would have been guilty of pushing a woman. If he kills her there are now two witnesses that can describe him. But if you say he was in a rage and didn't care see above. There is nothing to indicate that rage in his actions.

                                And of course there are the cachous which I won't go into. I know you don't accept that but as I so often urged you grab one of your friends and have them try to push you away. Notice their hands. I am willing to bet they are flat and not in a fist. I don't see how they survived a struggle. To me it indicates that she took them out after the BS man left.

                                To me, this all indicates a little street hassle and not a murder.

                                I know you won't agree with any of the above and that is fine. That is what these boards are for.
                                Nice post, c.d.

                                Perhaps Stride's killer offers her cachous and sympathy, for the abuse she has just received from BS man. A kindly gesture, giving her a false sense of security?

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X