The Stride Murder

[Michael W Richards]

A reasonable interpretation. (Oh, my God, did I just actually say that?). But yes, it is reasonable.

In fact, there is no witness who can validate that he was there at all. Just his word.

As you have been told so many times before, it only means that his witness statement is uncorroborated. It may be true or it may be false. Uncorroborated does not imply false.

c.d.

Frankly Im as shocked as you are. And on the second point, I surprisingly agree with you. But when juxtaposed with corroborative accounts concerning the same location and event, I personally would accept Spooners/Kozebrodski's/Heschbergs/Lambs timing which are all within a few minutes of each others. And Fanny can contribute her part from 12:50 until she goes indoors, at around 1. I know she was there, she is the only person that saw Goldstein at around 12:55 apparently.....validated by his own statement Tuesday night.

I have multiple sources for what I suggest, conversely you have Israels word. Also, we know for a fact that my sources were actually there.

[Michael W Richards]

The questions are, does the statement by Schwartz have any bearing on the identity of the victim? - No.
Does his statement clarify how the victim died? - No.
Does his statement change where death took place? - No.

Im sure your not naive enough to imagine that these points could stand scrutiny Wick.

1. If he saw what he says he saw he could identify the victim. Not by name, but by overall appearance. On that point, do you recall reading anywhere that Israel was asked to make a formal identification of the victim as being the one he claimed to see assaulted?

2. If he saw what he says he saw, the odds of her being "wilfully murdered" are much greater. The alleged attack coincides almost exactly with the earliest cut time estimate.

"The most formal document produced by a coroner following the legal examination of the cause of death was the inquest itself. This was a parchment document with a brief statement of the verdict of the inquest on one side. This might include verdicts such as chance medley or felo de se (accidental death in self defence or suicide), or it could include any number of more obviously descriptive causes of death such as manslaughter, drowning, fever, etc. The name of the victim will also normally appear here, and the parish in which they died."

It seems that Israels statement of the victim being assaulted almost at the time she is fatally cut would be relevant to the Inquest mandate, huh? Is it really your contention that his evidence would not have had a direct bearing on the verdict?

3. No one witness is charged with making that determination, where she is found the evidence suggests is where she was cut.

I think its very naive to believe that a witnessed assault on a soon to be victim would be irrelevant to the Inquest mandate. But you are not alone in that naive belief, are you? Just so you dont go thinking that when people agree with you you are by definition correct, although some seem to think that the only real facts are the ones that the most people believe. Like its factual by consensus.

[The Rookie Detective]

Is there a chance that IF Schwartz's statement is true, the reason why Stride screamed "3 times, but not very loudly" was because she had caucous in her mouth and it was the intermittent sound of her trying not to choke that sounded like 3 screams?

What would cause the suppression of a constant loud scream which could raise an alarm for help and alter it to sound like 3 smaller ineffective screams?

Did BS man slice her throat as he threw her to the ground, all in one motion? And therefore, she attempted to scream but she couldn't physically get out the sound of a typical scream because she was struggling with her throat having been cut?

Sometimes what we think we see isn't actually what's occurred.

Could Schwartz have seen the actual murder?



RD

[Elamarna]

Is there a chance that IF Schwartz's statement is true, the reason why Stride screamed "3 times, but not very loudly" was because she had caucous in her mouth and it was the intermittent sound of her trying not to choke that sounded like 3 screams?

What would cause the suppression of a constant loud scream which could raise an alarm for help and alter it to sound like 3 smaller ineffective screams?

Did BS man slice her throat as he threw her to the ground, all in one motion? And therefore, she attempted to scream but she couldn't physically get out the sound of a typical scream because she was struggling with her throat having been cut?

Sometimes what we think we see isn't actually what's occurred.

Could Schwartz have seen the actual murder?



RD

In a word, YES

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im sure your not naive enough to imagine that these points could stand scrutiny Wick.

1. If he saw what he says he saw he could identify the victim. Not by name, but by overall appearance. On that point, do you recall reading anywhere that Israel was asked to make a formal identification of the victim as being the one he claimed to see assaulted?

An inquest witness had to be able to recognise and identify the witness by name. Not just by saying ‘yes, that was the woman I saw.’ He had to have been able to have said “the women is called Elizabeth Stride and I know this because…”

2. If he saw what he says he saw, the odds of her being "wilfully murdered" are much greater. The alleged attack coincides almost exactly with the earliest cut time estimate.

"The most formal document produced by a coroner following the legal examination of the cause of death was the inquest itself. This was a parchment document with a brief statement of the verdict of the inquest on one side. This might include verdicts such as chance medley or felo de se (accidental death in self defence or suicide), or it could include any number of more obviously descriptive causes of death such as manslaughter, drowning, fever, etc. The name of the victim will also normally appear here, and the parish in which they died."

It seems that Israels statement of the victim being assaulted almost at the time she is fatally cut would be relevant to the Inquest mandate, huh? Is it really your contention that his evidence would not have had a direct bearing on the verdict?

Utterly irrelevant. Just because you want this nonsense to be true doesn’t make it true. Schwartz couldn’t contribute to cause of death.

3. No one witness is charged with making that determination, where she is found the evidence suggests is where she was cut.

I think its very naive to believe that a witnessed assault on a soon to be victim would be irrelevant to the Inquest mandate. But you are not alone in that naive belief, are you? Just so you dont go thinking that when people agree with you you are by definition correct, although some seem to think that the only real facts are the ones that the most people believe. Like its factual by consensus.

An inquest only had to establish the day that she was killed. Not the actual time of death though some inquests talked about it. It was not part of the mandate.

It’s staggering that after all that’s been written on this subject there are still a few that are in complete denial. Try reading instead of assuming something that you think ‘sounds right.’

[Michael W Richards]

Your post, as usual, is incorrect and abrasive. Your counter points make no sense. The Inquest sought to identify the victim, Schwartz would have been asked to confirm if the woman seen in the morgue...(which he was never asked to see), was the same woman he says was being assaulted. He would not have had to personally know the victim, others were called that did in fact know her to do that. Your "utterly irrelevant remark" is posted immediately after having been shown that Accidental Death in Self Defense is a possible verdict and very relevant, and would have to be ruled out. An witnessed assault on the victim suggests that whatever happened it could have resulted in an Accidental injury. German to the proceedings. If you have any problems understanding things you should ask rather than insult. Where she is killed is also germane. Not just on what day. Dolt.

[Michael W Richards]

Perhaps the one who should read up on the cases is the one who has made over 16000 posts and had to have the majority of them shown to be inaccurate or a misrepresentation of fact by proviso of actual evidence. Maybe be more clever on your posts and less clever about a nomme de plume.

[Michael W Richards]

What actual evidence is there that Israel Schwartz was outside the gates of the club at 12:45am the night in question and saw Liz Stride, and 2 other men?

NONE.

And Herlock thinks that anyone who believes he wasnt there is missing the real evidence.

[c.d.]

Could Schwartz have seen the actual murder?

It's possible but in order to determine whether he saw an actual murder or simply a street hassle I have to believe he would have been asked the following:

1. Was the woman standing or laying on the ground when you left?

2. Did she seem to be in any distress?

3. Did you see a knife in the hand of the B.S. man?

4. Did you see any blood or the woman holding her hand to her throat?

5. Did you see any other physical assault other than what you described?

Since Swanson allowed for the possibility of another killer besides B.S. man in his report, it is a reasonable assumption that Schwartz answered standing to question no. 1 and no to all the others.

Plus, Stride was not found where Schwartz said he saw her last.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your post, as usual, is incorrect and abrasive. Your counter points make no sense. The Inquest sought to identify the victim, Schwartz would have been asked to confirm if the woman seen in the morgue...(which he was never asked to see), was the same woman he says was being assaulted. He would not have had to personally know the victim, others were called that did in fact know her to do that. Your "utterly irrelevant remark" is posted immediately after having been shown that Accidental Death in Self Defense is a possible verdict and very relevant, and would have to be ruled out. An witnessed assault on the victim suggests that whatever happened it could have resulted in an Accidental injury. German to the proceedings. If you have any problems understanding things you should ask rather than insult. Where she is killed is also germane. Not just on what day. Dolt.

I don’t know how you manage to be so wrong so often. It’s quite an achievement. The purpose of an inquest was to identify the victim by name.

Stop talking nonsense and provide evidence to the contrary. Not just your wrong opinion btw.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps the one who should read up on the cases is the one who has made over 16000 posts and had to have the majority of them shown to be inaccurate or a misrepresentation of fact by proviso of actual evidence. Maybe be more clever on your posts and less clever about a nomme de plume.

Why are you obsessed with the amount of posts I’ve made. Your silly comment about most of them being proved wrong is just….wrong….from someone who makes a speciality of being embarrassingly wrong.

Have you produced the name of one of the hidden droves that agree with your silly theory yet?

Hmmmmm, nah, didn’t think so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What actual evidence is there that Israel Schwartz was outside the gates of the club at 12:45am the night in question and saw Liz Stride, and 2 other men?

NONE.

And Herlock thinks that anyone who believes he wasnt there is missing the real evidence.

20 years and still no one buys your fantasies. Give it up Michael. You’ll feel better.

[c.d.]

Whether or not Schwartz should have been called to give testimony at the Inquest is pretty much a moot point and pretty much a waste of time to discuss (as we have seen ad nauseum). No one, I repeat no one, knows why he was not there. So any reason or argument offered does not constitute a fact just a belief. Why is that so damn hard to fathom?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whether or not Schwartz should have been called to give testimony at the Inquest is pretty much a moot point and pretty much a waste of time to discuss (as we have seen ad nauseum). No one, I repeat no one, knows why he was not there. So any reason or argument offered does not constitute a fact just a belief. Why is that so damn hard to fathom?

c.d.

Exactly. It’s just those that are determined to eliminate Schwartz are desperate to cling to any kind of fantasy that they think shows that he was untrustworthy. Complete ignoring the fact that Abberline clearly trusted him of course.

[c.d.]

Is there a chance that IF Schwartz's statement is true, the reason why Stride screamed "3 times, but not very loudly" was because she had caucous in her mouth and it was the intermittent sound of her trying not to choke that sounded like 3 screams?

What would cause the suppression of a constant loud scream which could raise an alarm for help and alter it to sound like 3 smaller ineffective screams?

Did BS man slice her throat as he threw her to the ground, all in one motion? And therefore, she attempted to scream but she couldn't physically get out the sound of a typical scream because she was struggling with her throat having been cut?

Sometimes what we think we see isn't actually what's occurred.

Could Schwartz have seen the actual murder?



RD

My guess (and it is simply that) is that Stride was screaming out of surprise or maybe pain from being thrown down rather than it being a cry for help. I think the three small screams was a translation error.

c.d.