Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[Bridewell]

You don't see a similarity between Schwartz's description of BSM and the man described by Lawende then, Michael?

P.s. Apologies for late reply.

[Michael W Richards]

You don't see a similarity between Schwartz's description of BSM and the man described by Lawende then, Michael?

P.s. Apologies for late reply.

I do see the areas where the description may well have fit many men in that area at the time, at night, on the streets, in a pub. What I don't see as reasonable is any variance at all with a wardrobe that was in place 45 minutes earlier. I don't personally see as probable that there were hat changes, scarf additions, nor do I see any reason to imagine facial hair coming or going.

I believe that if one man murdered both Liz and Kate then he was dressed in the same clothes for both....for one, because there is no reason to suspect that he had even one drop on them from killing Liz. Since apparently he wasn't seen there, then, what would be the impetus for changing anything? Disguise? Why? No need for a change of blood stained clothing. No need for disguise...then why?

If it was one man then he left one site and made his way to the second dressed the same, that's my take.

All the best.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

No one from the club was on trial for Stride's murder. In fact, no one was on trial so Schwartz's testimony would have no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

It is extremely unlikely that her death could have been accidental any more than it could have been suicide. And Schwartz never saw anybody being murdered. Therefore, his appearance at the inquest was not crucial. The jury was going to come back with the old person or persons unknown regardless of whether or not he testified.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

No one from the club was on trial for Stride's murder. In fact, no one was on trial so Schwartz's testimony would have no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

It is extremely unlikely that her death could have been accidental any more than it could have been suicide. And Schwartz never saw anybody being murdered. Therefore, his appearance at the inquest was not crucial. The jury was going to come back with the old person or persons unknown regardless of whether or not he testified.

c.d.

The above is simply your opinion cd, and in cases, immediately refutable. For one, IF Schwartz's tale was fully believed it would have HAD TO BE at the very least recorded in the formal Inquest into the cause of her death. A physical assault on the deceased within a minute of the earliest estimated fatal cut time could not be ignored when determining cause of death,...if believed. There would be little need for any other evidence in fact, it would seem almost certain that a "Willful Murder" took place.

I want you to review the evidence presented at the Inquest cd,...I know you've done it lots of times, but this time note who is there and who is absent. James Browns evidence is the accepted 12:45 story, despite the fact its almost certain that he saw the young couple. Mary Malcolm captivated the jury for hours...even though the police already knew who the deceased was, and wasn't. Issac K is absent....because his story immediately after the murder doesn't agree with Louis, or Morris, or Joseph's tales. Fanny is absent. Even though her statement suggests that "off and on", she was at her door facing the street from 12:30 until 1am, the critical time period here...and she saw or heard no Louis arriving at 1. She saw a deserted street, and no Liz, just the "young couple". But she didn't appear at the Inquest.

In summary, it is completely baffling that they chose to omit some critical witness testimony and include some obviously erroneous testimony at this Inquest, impossible to explain based on the known data. This Inquest, run by the authorities, was conducted oddly.

Cheers

[c.d.]

But this was not a murder trial, Michael. The B.S. man was not on trial. No one was on trial. I know that you are completely wedded to your Schwartz was lying/conspiracy theory but a very simple and reasonable explanation is that the police concluded that he was not really sure of what he saw and therefore his testimony was not crucial.

Do you really think that the inquest would conclude that Stride was out walking and simply had the misfortune to fall on a knife that was somehow situated cutting edge up or that it was a suicide?

We simply don't know why Schwartz did not appear therefore it is NOT a given that it was because the police discredited his story.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

I want you to review the evidence presented at the Inquest cd,...I know you've done it lots of times, but this time note who is there and who is absent. James Browns evidence is the accepted 12:45 story, despite the fact its almost certain that he saw the young couple. Mary Malcolm captivated the jury for hours...even though the police already knew who the deceased was, and wasn't. Issac K is absent....because his story immediately after the murder doesn't agree with Louis, or Morris, or Joseph's tales. Fanny is absent. Even though her statement suggests that "off and on", she was at her door facing the street from 12:30 until 1am, the critical time period here...and she saw or heard no Louis arriving at 1. She saw a deserted street, and no Liz, just the "young couple". But she didn't appear at the Inquest.

The best that can be determined from what you write above is that there was a difference of opinion between what the Coroner choose to believe, and what the police choose to believe.

Perhaps, our problem is due in part to the fact we "assume" the Coroner's Office and the Police are supposed to be in agreement - maybe we assume too much?

[c.d.]

And if in fact the police did conclude that Schwartz had lied to them, what did they do about it.? Did they simply say " hey that son of a bitch Schwartz lied to us in a murder investigation. How about that. Let's go get a pint." It would appear to be relatively easy to make the connection to the club and conclude the club was involved as well. Since they apparently hated the club and what it stood for they now would have a green light to go after them. Yet, we have no evidence that anything like this took place.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

And if in fact the police did conclude that Schwartz had lied to them, what did they do about it.? Did they simply say " hey that son of a bitch Schwartz lied to us in a murder investigation. How about that. Let's go get a pint." It would appear to be relatively easy to make the connection to the club and conclude the club was involved as well. Since they apparently hated the club and what it stood for they now would have a green light to go after them. Yet, we have no evidence that anything like this took place.

c.d.

Who is to say that the police weren't manipulating this witness and the story from the very first cd? Did they want a gentile killer suggested instead of assumptions that one of the club members, almost exclusively immigrant Jews.... just like the ones a senior police official stated were suspected in the previous murders, were responsible. Remember those riots that were feared when the GSG was discovered...what do you think would have happened to the club and anyone obviously Jewish on the streets if the Police made statements that alluded to suspected club guilt, and a therefore an "Immigrant Jewish" Ripper? They could barely contain the minority uprising the previous Fall, how could they deal with a mainstream uprising against ethnic groups?

All Ive been saying without equivocation is that the Inquest was a sham, and that Israels story would have great bearing on the question of how she came to her death....the answer to which was the primary goal of the Inquest. He, or his tale, didn't answer anything at the Inquest that was held. Both were absent.

Cheers cd

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Try to square Schwartz's story with Wynne Baxter's 1.00 am mutilandum interruptus version of events, and, once you've realised they are wholly incompatible, you will have discerned the reason why Schwartz did not appear at Stride's inquest.

It ain't rocket science.

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

Hi All,

Try to square Schwartz's story with Wynne Baxter's 1.00 am mutilandum interruptus version of events, and, once you've realised they are wholly incompatible, you will have discerned the reason why Schwartz did not appear at Stride's inquest.

It ain't rocket science.

Regards,

Simon

Nice to see you Simon, I visit far less frequently so its nice to see you when Im out and about. On the above, and this nasty business called an Inquest for Liz Strides murder, could you see an argument that proposes that Mary Malcom was inserted into what might have originally been a time slot left open for Israel? The fact they spend so much time with her while already knowing that she was incorrect or lying, is a baffling feature here.

I think they pulled Israel as a candidate and used a distraction to direct attention from that fact.

Cheers my friend, from me and my beagle/dachshund Zoey.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

You're very sharp.

Oh yes. There is more to the Mary Malcolm story than meets the eye.

Baxter and Joe send wags to Zoe.

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Hi All,

Try to square Schwartz's story with Wynne Baxter's 1.00 am mutilandum interruptus version of events, and, once you've realised they are wholly incompatible, you will have discerned the reason why Schwartz did not appear at Stride's inquest.

It ain't rocket science.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

I hate to display my ignorance so openly but could you clarify just a bit? Are you suggesting that Baxter is somehow involved in some sort of cover up?

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi c.d.,

Yes.

Regards,

Simon

[NotBlamedForNothing]

"The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for enquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted".

Surely the statement which is "not wholly accepted" is that of the man in custody who has not been charged "but is held for inquiries to be made". Had he admitted guilt he would have been charged. Clearly he did not do so and gave an account claiming his innocence. Had this been verified he would have been immediately released - yet he wasn't. I contend that it was his statement which was "not wholly accepted" and the investigation of which necessitated his continued detention.

I agree.

But the Star report the following day (2 October) does seem to suggest Schwartz's story was doubted by the police:
In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found,
the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on
that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

On the other hand of course we have Swanson on 19 October saying:
If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement
casts no doubt upon it ...

Swanson's remark though, does not address the subsequent investigation that must have followed his statement.
He appears to be saying the statement itself is satisfactory, but takes it no further.

Then there is this sentence..

"The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it."
The Echo, 1 Oct. 1888.
(my bold)

This didn't appear to be Schwartz's interpretation so, who are they talking about?

Let's try to answer Wickerman's question.

If "the person who witnessed this" believed the quarrelling man and woman to be married, then what cues could this witness have been picking up on, in coming to that conclusion? Were references to their relationship overheard? Was it an argument over infidelity? Whatever the case, it seems we are dealing with someone who understands English. Although, I guess the quarrellers could have been speaking Swedish ...

Consider the Echo report (above). Which woman was seen thrown to the ground? How did the witness, who supposedly "took no notice" of the throwing down of the woman by the man she was quarrelling with, know that this was the subsequently murdered woman?

In relation to the Star, Oct 2 report (see middle quote above), there seems to be an important clue in relation to the second arrest. Regarding the first ...

They arrested one man on the description thus obtained ...

That is, obtained from Schwartz. This can be inferred from the Star of Oct 1 (first quote above):

The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes.

Regarding the second arrest ...

... and a second on that furnished from another source ...

That is, a description obtained from someone other than Schwartz ('the Hungarian'). Which is interesting in its own right, because Schwartz said that there was no one else in the street at the time (other than the three people he described).

Putting all this together, we have:

* A probable English speaking witness, who ...

* Seems to have ended up seeing the victim, in the yard, and ...

* A reference to a witness who's description of a man led to the second related arrest

Without drawing any firm conclusions, who is a good fit for the criteria? Well, ...

Fanny Mortimer was English speaking.

Fanny Mortimer went to the yard and observed the victim.

Fanny Mortimer was conceivably in a position to witness the assault described by Schwartz.

It would be more than fair to point out that Mortimer did not mention an assault, to the press. Yet if she is not the answer to Jon's question, then who is?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This didn't appear to be Schwartz's interpretation so, who are they talking about?

Well Jon, #89 has been up for about 5 days, with no replies. So I guess your question is answered.