Does The Star Article Show That Schwartz Was Discredited?

[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.

[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.]

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.

[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.]

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]

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.

[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]

In what way 'erroneous'?

It would be a perverse jury indeed which returned a verdict of 'natural causes' on a death resulting from a cut throat. Stride died because her throat was cut. Schwartz's evidence is of value in identifying (from description) her assailant but, as previously stated, that is not the purpose of an inquest.

Stride died because a wound in her throat bled her dry while the club members scurried about, and there is nothing concrete within the evidence that is presented to suggest how that happened, or by whom. To wit....the wound could have been caused accidentally...something that would have appeared less likely if Israels story made it into the Inquest. Which it very obviously, didn't.

Even if the wound was made by someone holding a knife, that still doesn't mean that the cut was intentional...she could have been threatened with a knife to her throat and then slipped inadvertently pressing into that blade. Personally, I believe that the evidence suggests she was killed by someone in that passageway and therefore in some capacity associated with the club or that nights meeting in particular, but I don't pretend that the evidence presented at the inquest answers that question definitively.

I do know however that using the evidence that is presented that non-one within the presented witness group saw Liz on the street, or alive, after 12:35am. Ergo, my interpretation of the event.... Someone who was already on club property at 12:35, inside that passageway, killed her. Obviously that would point to someone from that club on that night.

Cheers

[Bridewell]

The point is erroneous, because the Inquest was also to determine whether or not Liz died by natural causes or by "wilfull murder by person or persons unknown", in which case Israel's story would have been critical. Its far more likely she wasn't cut accidentally or by a self inflicted wound if we see her accosted just before that cut.

In what way 'erroneous'?

It would be a perverse jury indeed which returned a verdict of 'natural causes' on a death resulting from a cut throat. Stride died because her throat was cut. Schwartz's evidence is of value in identifying (from description) her assailant but, as previously stated, that is not the purpose of an inquest.

[Vincenzo]

It would have had to have been one hell of an accident for Liz to somehow slice open her own neck, while lying on the ground, bad enough to cause death.

[GUT]

A boot scraper was not a blade. If you fell on it you might get a nasty bruise.

We had one similar to this, set in our house wall.

https://www.google.com/search?q=19th+century+boot+scraper&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCNiV9c3wtcYCFYoQkgodAQwH7Q&biw=1154&bih=931

I think the Doctors would have taken any bloodstained boot scraper into account, but they were not sharp enough to cut skin.

We had a similar one on the back step, I had the "pleasure" of falling on it once, scrapes and bruises not real cuts.

[Wickerman]

A boot scraper was not a blade. If you fell on it you might get a nasty bruise.

We had one similar to this, set in our house wall.

https://www.google.com/search?q=19th+century+boot+scraper&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCNiV9c3wtcYCFYoQkgodAQwH7Q&biw=1154&bih=931

I think the Doctors would have taken any bloodstained boot scraper into account, but they were not sharp enough to cut skin.

[Michael W Richards]

Wouldn't the doctors who were at the inquest had been able to testify that Liz Stride had been murdered without Schwartz' testimony? It would be easy to tell that the wound was not self inflicted since no weapon was found at the scene and I assume that it would be rather easy to tell that it was not an accident if there was no feature in the surroundings which would have created such a wound.

AP Wolf suggested a few years ago that a boot scraper, the type that would have been present in any venue with cattle, might have caused a knife like wound. The situation here is that with Israel Schwartz, we have a struggle that involves the deceased.....a few feet from and within minutes of her fatal injury. From that a conclusion of wilful murder might be plausible. Without Israel for all we know there was some kind of accident that actually caused the cut, without Israel, Liz isn't seen alive by anyone after 12:35, so there is a distinct possibility that she spent her last few minutes inside the gate, out of sight. We cant know how that injury occurred based on that, and since we have witnesses with a great deal riding on any perception of guilt, we have few witnesses to trust.

Best regards

[Vincenzo]

Wouldn't the doctors who were at the inquest had been able to testify that Liz Stride had been murdered without Schwartz' testimony? It would be easy to tell that the wound was not self inflicted since no weapon was found at the scene and I assume that it would be rather easy to tell that it was not an accident if there was no feature in the surroundings which would have created such a wound.

[Michael W Richards]

"Schwartz would be a crucial witness at trial in establishing the identity of the killer but that is not the purpose of an inquest."

I agree with Bridewell's point. This was not a trial. Schwartz's testimony was not crucial as far as putting a rope around the neck of a guilty man nor was it crucial in exonerating an innocent man. No one was on trial for murder. It seems extremely unlikely that a verdict of accidental death or suicide would be returned. With or without Schwartz's testimony the result would still be death by person or persons unknown.

The simplest explanation for his absence is that he was simply not sure of what he saw coupled with all the problems inherent in translating. That would only seem to muddy the water for the jurors and ultimately have no bearing on their verdict.

c.d.

The point is erroneous, because the Inquest was also to determine whether or not Liz died by natural causes or by "wilfull murder by person or persons unknown", in which case Israel's story would have been critical. Its far more likely she wasn't cut accidentally or by a self inflicted wound if we see her accosted just before that cut.