If Schwartz Lied ...

[Christian]

Except for you of course.

I’m getting me popcorn h

[Fiver]

He had all day to come up with his story Harry, so dont give him too much leeway. And of course....his story is not relevant to the Inquest at all..in any shape or fashion. Which, by the content, it would have to have been if believed. But,... all you "open minded" Schwartzites onward....

I don't know if Schwartz was lying, but he does not seem to have been a member of the club, so why would he lie to protect them? For that matter, nothing in Schwartz' statement protects the club.

[JeffHamm]

I don't know if Schwartz was lying, but he does not seem to have been a member of the club, so why would he lie to protect them? For that matter, nothing in Schwartz' statement protects the club.

Not only does Schwartz's statement to the police not protect the club, if anything, it puts the club members at more risk. Schwartz, we must remember, told the police he believed B.S. shouted Lipski at Pipeman, and that Pipeman was associated with B.S. Therefore, Schwartz is effectively telling the police "At least one Jewish person (pipeman) appears to be involved", and given this is right outside a club frequented by Jewish men, that has a very good chance of putting the club members under scrutiny. This is hardly the work of the club trying to deflect the investigation away from the club. Schwartz, whether believed or not, told a story that increases the club's risk, therefore, Schwartz is not trying to protect the club. His very words refute that notion.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Even if the incident witnessed by Schwartz was the onset of the fatal assault his evidence won't be relevant to an inquest hearing. The issues germane to an inquest:

Who has died? When did she die? Where did she die? How did she die?

His evidence would be of value to one side or the other if there was a trial but has no value to the purpose of an inquest as he can't answer any of those questions.

Well, not really. Schwartz's testimony could be viewed as very important with regards to narrowing down the time of her death. It also provides information about the events leading up to her death. Schwartz's testimony would be very important to the inquest. Given the police were still investigating leads that stem from his police statement, it's clear the police had not dismissed his input. Therefore, the most likely situation is that Schwartz's lack of appearance at the inquest has something to do with Schwartz (ie. a) he didn't get the summons b) he didn't understand the summons c) he ignored the summons for some reason (work, illness, fear, ... etc) d) he misunderstood the summons and got the time/place wrong - those are 4 broad ideas that I just came up with off the top of my head, I'm sure one could think of others). Obviously, because we don't know why Schwartz was not there all of those are just unproven hypotheses and I'm not saying any particular one should be favoured over another, or even that the true reason is included in that list. However, the police behaviour at the time, and bits within police messages to HO, etc, all indicate that Schwartz was considered a witness whose statement was worth pursuing.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

Well, not really. Schwartz's testimony could be viewed as very important with regards to narrowing down the time of her death.

Potentially, Jeff, but not necessarily. Don't forget that Brown said that he spotted Liz with a man by the board school at approximately the same time. If, say, it was determined - or at least believed - that Brown's sighting occurred after Schwartz's, then Israel's evidence wouldn't add much, if anything, of value to the inquest. And given the languages complications involved, could easily have been omitted. It would still remain very relevant to the police investigations though.

[JeffHamm]

Potentially, Jeff, but not necessarily. Don't forget that Brown said that he spotted Liz with a man by the board school at approximately the same time. If, say, it was determined - or at least believed - that Brown's sighting occurred after Schwartz's, then Israel's evidence wouldn't add much, if anything, of value to the inquest. And given the languages complications involved, could easily have been omitted. It would still remain very relevant to the police investigations though.

Sure, but in order to determine if something like you suggest above might have occurred, Schwartz needed to be there giving testimony and answering questions, etc. His sighting that he describes in his police statement is clearly of import to the goals of the inquest. Sure, under questioning and what not he may have created confusion, or have been shown to be unsure of what he saw or when, etc, but again, that's the point of the inquest.

What I'm getting at is that Schwartz's police statement would make him very much of interest to hear from with regards to the goals of the inquest. Therefore, I'm pretty sure he was wanted there, and his not appearing suggests the answer for his absence lies on his end of the equation.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know if Schwartz was lying, but he does not seem to have been a member of the club, so why would he lie to protect them? For that matter, nothing in Schwartz' statement protects the club.

You’re right of course Fiver that this proposed conspiracy didn’t help the club in anyway. Just because BS Man was on the pavement it didn’t preclude the possibility that he might have been a club member. You asked why they didn’t simply put her body on Diemschutz cart and move it? It’s a question I’ve also asked. They would even have had to have moved her far. Diemschutz would have had to have driven away anyway to stable his horse.

It’s not only a case of ‘why didn’t they just move the body’ though. A child could improve this plan. So..

1. Why didn’t they simply move wrap the body and move it elsewhere?
2. Why didn’t they ensure that the members all knew the ‘script?’ There were only a few of them after all and they were together in one place. Close the gates and explain the plan to all.
3. Why not get a false witness that can actually speak the language of the people he’s supposed to be lying to?
4. Why not take the very obvious opportunities of taking advantage of a ‘tame’ witness (especially an English-speaking one) Say that BS Man told him to ‘get lost’ with a Scottish accent for example - instantly he’s not a club member.

We can all see that not only is the reason for the plan a weak one but it’s also a plan that doesn’t achieve its objectives. There could be no excuse for missing the very obvious and very simple ways of making it effective.

We all know that this plan never happened of course.

[Michael W Richards]

The general idea here is far from fanciful and well within the bounds of the known evidence. Im suggesting that Louis arrived earlier than he said, he and Eagle lied about the actual facts of their arrivals. Why? Because they were esssentially the senior representatives of the club on scene at that time and a woman had been found gravely injured on their property. They discusssed how to handle this. Why? Beacuse they knew the police would just love to have an excuse to shut them down, and both these men made money from the club. Simple. Works with the majority of matching times by witnesses, works with the police and medical statements, and is easily understandable under the circumstances.

Their story would have been fine if everyone was aboard, but it seems only Louis and Eagle and Lave gave stories that dont work with the majority of the witness activities and timings. The men not included in the discussions between the club steward, the club speaker, and a resident of the cottages in the passageway gave dramatically different timings, but all said Louis was there at the time. A full 20 minutes or slightly less before he says he arrived.

Later a man who we can say either has, or will have, a direct relationship with the club and Wess, comes in to give a story that says..I saw the woman attacked on the street by a antisemetic gentile. Just before she was killed by the evidence. That makes her murderer a antisemite, it puts the initial assault all the way into the street, and suggests that someone from outside the club kills her. If anyone doesnt see the potential for misdirection of blame here you arent looking closely.

"Another murder has been committed" they yelled. Another? You mean like the unsolved mutilations a month earlier? How does Liz Strides murder evidence immediately suggest a serial mutilator? I guess "Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" (no reason).

Thats the crux of what Ive been saying repeatedly, but it gets misrepresented as some brooding conspiracy plot by the nasty old socialists. This situation I believe has far more to do with personal economics than political dogma, but people can and do misrepresent something to bolster their own theories on the subject. People do that when considering the Schwartz evidence. They misrepresent what his absence from all the Inquest records indicates and suggest that perhaps his story was used and relevant to its proceedings anyway. Nonsense. It is what it is.

Peoples self interests often take priority when they are threatened to be taken away, Louis and Morris did not want to see their money dry up from the club, and I suspect Lave may have been concerned that if the cops shut the place down, the cottagers might be evicted. Economics. self Interest. Simple easy to understand motives.

Almost as simple is the conclusion that Liz Stride was not killed by someone who stalked working street women with insane desires to mutilate them.

[Michael W Richards]

At least I have accurately imparted my perspective, I urge all newcomers to make sure that when you see others arguing over a statement made that the person attributing the remarks in their rebuttal accurately represent the initial argument made.

[Abby Normal]

If club members were worried that a murder on their property would give the authorities a reason to close their club, then the problem is where the murder occurred, not when it occurred. Lying about when the body was found does nothing to solve that problem. None of the club members had any reason to lie about when the body was found.

The problem is where the body was found. If the club members wanted to hide that, they would have pitched the body in the back of the cart, covered it so it wouldn't be seen, and moved it to somewhere that wasn't on the property of the club. Meanwhile, everyone aggrees they saw nothing, none of them raises an alarm, and none of them would run for the police. But the club members did nothing to hide where the body was found.

bingo fiver.

i pretty much said the same thing in a previous post. the club conspiracy theory is a quacker.

IF there was some kind of club conspiracy (and there wasnt) but if there was, their first inclination would be to get rid of the body(they even had a cart!) and keep their mouths shut and play dumb. not leave the body there and come up with some convoluted plan which they would all have to remember and talk to police about! lol

the club conspiracy idea is nonsense on the face of it.

[Michael W Richards]

Thats the kind of post I as referring to. The idea that people would make sure to protect their jobs is even simpler and more sensible than some posters here.

Oh...and it uses known data, physical evidence and the majority of the witness accounts. But...of course....basic common sense around here can be fleeting...or absent.

Its a mythical ghoul hunt after all.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't know if Schwartz was lying, but he does not seem to have been a member of the club, so why would he lie to protect them? For that matter, nothing in Schwartz' statement protects the club.

Schwartz says he was checking at 12:45 to see if his wife had finished moving from the home that morning to the new one in Brick Lane. What address did he have that morning? How long had he been gone? Being an immigrant, what meager possessions would she have had to move?

An immigrant Jew outside a Immigrant Jewish club at 12:45...after a meeting ended at 11:30, where the subject of the speech was "Why should Jews be Socialists", without anyone else being around, very likely attended that meeting and stuck around. His wife would have had a suitcase or trunk, and maybe a stick of furniture, and he was gone 12 hours...according to his story. Could she move a very few things in 12 hours...of course.

Back to the main issue...where was he moving from? I submit it may be from one of the cottages in the passageway

Its proven in later years that Wess and Schwartz are friends, and he is a member at that same club. In realize its convenient to imagine that the relationship to Wess and the club only happened after the murder, but thats just subjective imagination.

[Losmandris]

The general idea here is far from fanciful and well within the bounds of the known evidence. Im suggesting that Louis arrived earlier than he said, he and Eagle lied about the actual facts of their arrivals. Why? Because they were esssentially the senior representatives of the club on scene at that time and a woman had been found gravely injured on their property. They discusssed how to handle this. Why? Beacuse they knew the police would just love to have an excuse to shut them down, and both these men made money from the club. Simple. Works with the majority of matching times by witnesses, works with the police and medical statements, and is easily understandable under the circumstances.

Their story would have been fine if everyone was aboard, but it seems only Louis and Eagle and Lave gave stories that dont work with the majority of the witness activities and timings. The men not included in the discussions between the club steward, the club speaker, and a resident of the cottages in the passageway gave dramatically different timings, but all said Louis was there at the time. A full 20 minutes or slightly less before he says he arrived.

Later a man who we can say either has, or will have, a direct relationship with the club and Wess, comes in to give a story that says..I saw the woman attacked on the street by a antisemetic gentile. Just before she was killed by the evidence. That makes her murderer a antisemite, it puts the initial assault all the way into the street, and suggests that someone from outside the club kills her. If anyone doesnt see the potential for misdirection of blame here you arent looking closely.

"Another murder has been committed" they yelled. Another? You mean like the unsolved mutilations a month earlier? How does Liz Strides murder evidence immediately suggest a serial mutilator? I guess "Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" (no reason).

Thats the crux of what Ive been saying repeatedly, but it gets misrepresented as some brooding conspiracy plot by the nasty old socialists. This situation I believe has far more to do with personal economics than political dogma, but people can and do misrepresent something to bolster their own theories on the subject. People do that when considering the Schwartz evidence. They misrepresent what his absence from all the Inquest records indicates and suggest that perhaps his story was used and relevant to its proceedings anyway. Nonsense. It is what it is.

Peoples self interests often take priority when they are threatened to be taken away, Louis and Morris did not want to see their money dry up from the club, and I suspect Lave may have been concerned that if the cops shut the place down, the cottagers might be evicted. Economics. self Interest. Simple easy to understand motives.

Almost as simple is the conclusion that Liz Stride was not killed by someone who stalked working street women with insane desires to mutilate them.

I don't get it? But the body was still found at the club? Why would the club be shut down? Even if at some point the police arrested someone who was a member of the club for the murder, would they then shut the club down? I would not imagine they would unless........ she was murdered 'as part of club business'? Killed at the behest of the club? What? It just does not make any sense at all I am afraid.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't get it? But the body was still found at the club? Why would the club be shut down? Even if at some point the police arrested someone who was a member of the club for the murder, would they then shut the club down? I would not imagine they would unless........ she was murdered 'as part of club business'? Killed at the behest of the club? What? It just does not make any sense at all I am afraid.

ahem...If the police concluded based on the club members stories that the killer likely came from the club than the street...their reputation at that time would warrant cclosure of the club. The police called the members anarchists, the neighbours called them low men,...before Stride, so if police suspect a club person killed Stride, then not only might they be guilty of her murder but previous ones also. Because the police foolishly linked murders to an unknown man without any evidence... and physical evidence and circumstantial that belies that idea.

Im not sure how people cant understand that a biker club would be concerned for their continuing operations if someone was found dead on their property. This is an equivalent.

I could see confusion on this if you didnt know that the club was already a sore spot to local police, but if you didnt already know that, then maybe posting anything about it at this time would be premature. Get familiar with the police and anarchists. Remember...Anarchists are the equivalent of Terrorists in todays lingo.

If a Terrorist club, or one suspected of being, reports finding a dead person on their property, who do you imagine the police would hold responsible? Thats also why Schwartz is used later.

[Losmandris]

ahem...If the police concluded based on the club members stories that the killer likely came from the club than the street...their reputation at that time would warrant cclosure of the club. The police called the members anarchists, the neighbours called them low men,...before Stride, so if police suspect a club person killed Stride, then not only might they be guilty of her murder but previous ones also. Because the police foolishly linked murders to an unknown man without any evidence... and physical evidence and circumstantial that belies that idea.

Im not sure how people cant understand that a biker club would be concerned for their continuing operations if someone was found dead on their property. This is an equivalent.

I could see confusion on this if you didnt know that the club was already a sore spot to local police, but if you didnt already know that, then maybe posting anything about it at this time would be premature. Get familiar with the police and anarchists. Remember...Anarchists are the equivalent of Terrorists in todays lingo.

If a Terrorist club, or one suspected of being, reports finding a dead person on their property, who do you imagine the police would hold responsible? Thats also why Schwartz is used later.

So why wasn't the club closed down then after the murder. Surely it would have been just the excuse the police were looking for?