If Schwartz Lied ...

[Fiver]

The fact she is being assaulted minutes before her actual throat cut almost ensures it was Willful Murder...

Did anyone besides Schwartz claim Liz Stride was assaulted in the street? Have you changed positions and now think Israel Schwartz was telling the truth? It would fit the theory that Liz Stride was not killed by the Ripper a lot better if Schwartz was telling the truth rather than if he was lying.

And the things that ensure it was Willful Murder are the cut throat and no weapon being found. The assault, if it happened, provides a much smaller influence on the decision - most victims of assault are not killed.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Only the group on this thread would use 2 different times and declare them both accurate.

[Michael W Richards]

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

I thought you said you already knew that she didnt cut her own throat before the Inquest. So you ruled out Accidental Death and Suicide before the Inquest began..bravo.

Read about the people that cut their own throats during that time?

[Michael W Richards]

Did anyone besides Schwartz claim Liz Stride was assaulted in the street? Have you changed positions and now think Israel Schwartz was telling the truth? It would fit the theory that Liz Stride was not killed by the Ripper a lot better if Schwartz was telling the truth rather than if he was lying.

And the things that ensure it was Willful Murder are the cut throat and no weapon being found. The assault, if it happened, provides a much smaller influence on the decision - most victims of assault are not killed.

Liz Stride wasnt ripped, I dont need a fibbing Theatrical Jew to validate that finding. No rip, no ripper. Unless you want to insert one anyway...that line forms to the left.

[Michael W Richards]

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?

He wasnt a part of any Inquest. So, Why do you imagine that is based on the contents of his story? Dont be either an intentional ass or naive, neither are flattering.

Oh right..Im arguing with a guy who says interruptions leave no traces.

[Michael W Richards]

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?

No it doesnt caz. That cut could have been the result of many things that are not murder. Geeez...amatuers. This gets more asinine as it goes on..and .I cant help any of the immediate group with what is already there. You obviously do not, or choose not, to let what is be what is. So make it a fanciful fictional tale...whatever...just get out of my face and post s*** thats requiring corrections. Be accurate, then we can talk.

[Fiver]

Only the group on this thread would use 2 different times and declare them both accurate.

The time of the commission of the murder and the time of the discovery of the murder are always different times unless a third party witnesses the murder. How can you not understand the difference between the two events?

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]

I thought you said you already knew that she didnt cut her own throat before the Inquest. So you ruled out Accidental Death and Suicide before the Inquest began..bravo.

I never said that - perhaps you should read what I actually said. Considering your complete misunderstanding of what I actually said about the wound to Stride's neck and your apparent repeated failure to understand that the act of committing a murder and the act of discovering the victim's body are separate events, I am beginning to wonder whether or not English is your first language.

[Fiver]

That cut could have been the result of many things that are not murder.

Feel to free to show how someone can accidentally inflict a "a clean cut incision six inches in length" to their own throat.

Feel to free to show how someone can cut their own throat and make the the knife magically disappear afterwards.

[Fiver]

Liz Stride wasnt ripped, I dont need a fibbing Theatrical Jew to validate that finding. No rip, no ripper. Unless you want to insert one anyway...that line forms to the left.

The Stride Inquest does not agree with you.

"In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful."

[Herlock Sholmes]

He wasnt a part of any Inquest. So, Why do you imagine that is based on the contents of his story? Dont be either an intentional ass or naive, neither are flattering.

Oh right..Im arguing with a guy who says interruptions leave no traces.

If someone stops before they do something how the hell can there be evidence of his intention!!

Unless he’d left his serial killer guide book lying around and he just turned to the page that said “Now mutilate the corpse.”

Its like debating with a toddler. Pleeeeeeeeese grow up Michael.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Feel to free to show how someone can accidentally inflict a "a clean cut incision six inches in length" to their own throat.

Feel to free to show how someone can cut their own throat and make the the knife magically disappear afterwards.

Have you checked her history in Sweden Fiver? Maybe she worked in the circus as a sword swallower. She cuts her own throat and then swallows the knife.

Its more believable that Michael’s theory after all.

[Fiver]

Have you checked her history in Sweden Fiver? Maybe she worked in the circus as a sword swallower. She cuts her own throat and then swallows the knife.

Its more believable that Michael's theory after all.

What's baffling to me is why he clings to elements of it. He appears to believe that Elizabeth Stride was not killed by the Ripper. That, on it's own, is not an unreasonable theory. But his whole Jewish socialist conspiracy does nothing to support the theory that Stride was not killed by the Ripper. It's worse with his view of Israel Schwartz' statement. If what Schwartz said was true, it makes it more likely that Stride was not killed by the Ripper. (Especially if, as I think you theorized, BS man said "Lizzie", not "Lipsky".) If Schwartz was lying, it does nothing to prove that Stride was not killed by the Ripper.

So why does he cling so strongly to subpoints that, at best, do nothing to support his main point?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What's baffling to me is why he clings to elements of it. He appears to believe that Elizabeth Stride was not killed by the Ripper. That, on it's own, is not an unreasonable theory. But his whole Jewish socialist conspiracy does nothing to support the theory that Stride was not killed by the Ripper. It's worse with his view of Israel Schwartz' statement. If what Schwartz said was true, it makes it more likely that Stride was not killed by the Ripper. (Especially if, as I think you theorized, BS man said "Lizzie", not "Lipsky".) If Schwartz was lying, it does nothing to prove that Stride was not killed by the Ripper.

So why does he cling so strongly to subpoints that, at best, do nothing to support his main point?

I can’t recall the exact details but Michael believes that Issenschmidt killed 2 (I believe) of the victims but he couldn’t have killed Stride and Eddowes so he needs a ‘get out’ clause. Hence his desperation to show that Stride wasn’t a victim. As you rightly say Fiver Stride might not have been a victim. Doubt has always existed but we have no way of being certain either way. What never ceases to amaze me though is Michael’s bizarre suggestion that we should assume that the killer had no intention of mutilation because there’s no ‘evidence’ of an intention to mutilate. I’ve tried to explain what everyone else can see and understand but he simply keeps repeating it. If the killer intended to mutilate but was disturbed just as he’d cut her throat what evidence of the intention to mutilate would we expect to have seen. The obvious answer is nothing. I can see this; you can see this; everyone can see this....except for Michael. He won’t explain his thinking behind this nonsense he just keeps repeating it. Like he won’t answer why he ignores the fact that Spooner said that he arrived at the yard 5 minutes before Lamb. He just keeps parroting 12.35. It’s desperately embarrassing stuff. And he accuses everyone else of stupidity and dishonesty when he’s peddling and theory that he’s nursed for 10 years and not a single person agrees with him.

[caz]

Liz Stride wasnt ripped, I dont need a fibbing Theatrical Jew to validate that finding. No rip, no ripper. Unless you want to insert one anyway...that line forms to the left.

So they could have moved the body away from the club's premises in the 15-20 minutes you think they were engaged in damage control.

Or even better, they could have got a knife and ripped her up a bit, if they were intent on preventing this natural conclusion: 'No rip, no ripper = Jewish anarchist'.