Schwartz v. Lawende

[NotBlamedForNothing]

They are in the passageway....a drunk thugs thinks she is there for soliciting...he suggests they go into the yard, she tells him to bugger off she is not working that night...he gets surly, pokes her in her chest hard, with her back to the wall inside the gates, she feels a bit intimidated, goes to head out onto the street again, he grabs her scarf from behind, twists to tighten it, and with his other hand pulls her back into that dark spot, and while choking her, he slips his hand into his pocket, pulls out a knife and slides it across her throat...letting go of the scarf at the same time.

Why doesn't he just find another prostitute? They're everywhere.

I think Liz may have been killed because she didnt handle brushing off a drunk in a way that didnt piss him off. But there are a few ways this could have happened....what I just wrote is one, another is that she is killed by someone from the club because they thought she was spying on them for the police, another is that she had a meeting set up...a date, or a cleaning job inside the club, and that some drunk onsite didnt know that and was trying to make her get lost...maybe someone who didnt like the fact that she would work for Jews punishes her. Maybe she "hippy-lipped" off to the wrong guy. Maybe Kidney has her killed because she left him that week so she could have a relationship with a local jew, and he couldnt handle that. He does say with the ability to place police at certain locations he thought he could catch the man....was he meaning known Jewish gathering places? Was he inadvertently revealing his own prejudices? Was he the real BSM?

Killing Stride because she wouldn't get lost would be an extreme reaction. As for Kidney, he might have committed a crime of passion had he caught her with another man or had good evidence that she had one, but not just because she left him that week. It wasn't the first time she had done that.

So many routes, and the only 1 I see that leads nowhere is that this was a murder done by the same serial mutilator who killed Annie.

Even disregarding Mitre Square, I struggle with the idea of a drunk killing Stride in near darkness, unheard by anyone nearby.

[Michael W Richards]

Interesting that the hand on her shoulder pushes her back into the passage, which is suggestive. Why did the man want to quarrel in the darkness, and about what?

They are in the passageway....a drunk thugs thinks she is there for soliciting...he suggests they go into the yard, she tells him to bugger off she is not working that night...he gets surly, pokes her in her chest hard, with her back to the wall inside the gates, she feels a bit intimidated, goes to head out onto the street again, he grabs her scarf from behind, twists to tighten it, and with his other hand pulls her back into that dark spot, and while choking her, he slips his hand into his pocket, pulls out a knife and slides it across her throat...letting go of the scarf at the same time.

I think Liz may have been killed because she didnt handle brushing off a drunk in a way that didnt piss him off. But there are a few ways this could have happened....what I just wrote is one, another is that she is killed by someone from the club because they thought she was spying on them for the police, another is that she had a meeting set up...a date, or a cleaning job inside the club, and that some drunk onsite didnt know that and was trying to make her get lost...maybe someone who didnt like the fact that she would work for Jews punishes her. Maybe she "hippy-lipped" off to the wrong guy. Maybe Kidney has her killed because she left him that week so she could have a relationship with a local jew, and he couldnt handle that. He does say with the ability to place police at certain locations he thought he could catch the man....was he meaning known Jewish gathering places? Was he inadvertently revealing his own prejudices? Was he the real BSM?

So many routes, and the only 1 I see that leads nowhere is that this was a murder done by the same serial mutilator who killed Annie.

[Michael W Richards]

Baxter didn't call Fanny Mortimer, either. What can we conclude from that?

Fanny didnt see Liz alive at all that last half hour, and that is likely why she is not "invited" to the Inquest. She really serves as a corroborative baseline to all the other witnesses regarding the activities, or lack thereof, on the street during that time... and luckily we have secondary verification for her being at her door to the street at least some of that half hour. Goldsteins statement via translator on Tuesday night does that. We know she was there at least some of that half hour....its important to remember that when guessing about when she went in and when she came out. Assuming she spent most of the remaining time inside runs contrary to her claim she was at her door "nearly the whole time". So although we dont know specific times when she was in or out....(presuming that she is inside when Israels event allegedly occurs doesnt make it so), we can say based on Goldstein that in at least in 1 element of her story she was where she said she was at the time she said she was there. Thats helping establish some credibility, for me anyway.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

She was also not seen by Eagle when he went up the yard a few mins earlier .

Are you sure about that?

Eagle: In the club we had a rare good time. We were singing songs and all that sort of thing.

All that sort of thing is really just a euphemism for drinking.

The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter...

By his own timing, Eagle returned to the club between the times given by Smith and Schwartz. I'm tempted to say, "it's not rocket science".

Interesting that the hand on her shoulder pushes her back into the passage, which is suggestive. Why did the man want to quarrel in the darkness, and about what?

[Darryl Kenyon]

The time window that concerns the police investigation begins from the time of the discovery, or when PC Lamb ordered the gates closed.
The overall attendance that night is irrelevant, press reports concerning those detained by police numbered between 20-30. These are the ones who's activity must be corroborated or thoroughly investigated. This is where the police will take note of instances where 'A' was with, or seen by 'B', in order to confirm 'B's story, and likewise for all the members.
Any member who's story cannot be corroborated will be the subject of special interest.
The stories given by all the members would be the subject of meticulous scrutiny, so any casual suggestion by modern theorists concerning the involvement of a club member should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Wick , Sorry, but it is not a casual suggestion. Liz's body was found in the pitch black side yard of a club where you would have to pass her body to go in and out of the said club.
That doesn't mean she was murdered by someone who was in the club that night of course but it has to be a possibility.
Yes the police did detain 20/30 members but they were the ones who were still there . Jack surely would have scarpered as is proved with the murder of Kate.
If we follow the medical evidence it , to me looks very likely that Liz was killed suddenly and swiftly. She was also not seen by Eagle when he went up the yard a few mins earlier . So those two combined suggests to me that the time Liz was in Dutfield's was no more than a minute or two before she was murdered.
Her legs were pointing to the gateway, and her scarf was pulled very tight with the cachous in her hand, plus she was definitely killed on the spot
Those pointers certainly leaves the option that someone in the yard came up behind her and killed poor Liz so fleetingly that it was over in seconds . Or perhaps Liz stood in the gateway , stopped someone passing and when she turned around to lead him into the yard as above happened , only this time Jack pulled her around so Liz's legs faced the gateway.
I very much doubt anyone spotted that night with , or around Liz [ if it was indeed Liz they saw ], was her killer.

Regards Darryl

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The time window that concerns the police investigation begins from the time of the discovery, or when PC Lamb ordered the gates closed.
The overall attendance that night is irrelevant, press reports concerning those detained by police numbered between 20-30. These are the ones who's activity must be corroborated or thoroughly investigated. This is where the police will take note of instances where 'A' was with, or seen by 'B', in order to confirm 'B's story, and likewise for all the members.
Any member who's story cannot be corroborated will be the subject of special interest.
The stories given by all the members would be the subject of meticulous scrutiny, so any casual suggestion by modern theorists concerning the involvement of a club member should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Detective-inspector Edmund Reid: The door of the loft was found locked on the inside, and it was forced. The loft was searched, but no trace of the murderer could be found.

Presumably the dude who locked the loft door was never the subject of special interest, because he was never identified.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

But even if we all agree that Schwartz should have been the most important witness in this case or even the most important witness in the entire history of witnesses it still doesn't tell us why he did not appear at the inquest.

c.d.

The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.

Would it be reasonable to suppose that the reason Schwartz never attended the inquest - as opposed to never being called - was because he went missing? Why else would the chance of something further being ascertained require the inquest to once again be adjourned? Had Israel Schwartz not been who he said he was, him going missing is to be expected.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Baxter didn't call Fanny Mortimer, either. What can we conclude from that?

Strictly speaking, we can't conclude anything, just as we can't conclude anything from you answering the question with a question.

[Wickerman]

The bold sentences are not equivalent. Finding 'you' is dependent on going to the game, which in turn is dependent on going to Toronto, whereas if the police report on Schwartz is still pending (as you suppose), then belief in Schwartz is only dependent on the content of that report, and nothing else. To put it more technically, finding you at the ball game involves a conditional dependency, whereas belief in Schwartz only depends on the report. Compiling that report depends on things like finding and interviewing certain people, but Swanson is speaking from the point of view of readers of his report - people at the Home Office, for example, and not those doing the police work. Had the police report still been pending, Swanson need only have written ...

If the police report of Schwartz's statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows that if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw is the more probable of the two to be the murderer.

Speaking of those doing the police work ...

... 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.

Doubts about Schwartz long predate Swanson's report, and these are the doubts he was hinting at, in my view.

The problem with what you are trying to explain is, that you create conflict. Your interpretation (the conventional one) argues against the press report, which is the source of all our concern. Also, if you are correct about Swanson's meaning, then Schwartz would have been at the inquest.

Both scenario's demonstrate your view to be wrong.
My view places all opinions in agreement, and justifies the non-appearance of Schwartz.
How can it be otherwise?

[Wickerman]

The part I highlighted above Wick is a misinterpretation, the very fact that the manner of her death was a primary question at the Inquest would necessitate the inclusion of a validated story of an violent altercation between victim and aggressor just before the estimated cut time....

One of the common 'lost causes' in various discussions about the Stride murder, is the view that Schwartz's statement had to be of primary importance - yet he was not called to give evidence.
The proverbial 'rug' is pulled out from under your argument before you start. which means, it makes no difference what you as an interested citizen 'thinks', the facts of the case argue otherwise.
Schwartz's testimony was not required.

It would focus the findings towards a Wilful Murder verdict. ...

The Jury did reach their verdict without the contribution from Schwartz.

...Her Id is also an issue to resolve, so explain Mary Malcolms inclusion to me,...considering that Liz had been identified already....

Actually, no she had not. If you read the introductory sentence in the Casebook press report - her identity had not been confirmed at the time the inquest opened.

[Wickerman]

Wick do we know how many of those left knew each other ? What we do know is that Wess said that there up to 80 members of the club and up to a 100 members in the lecture room . The point you are trying to make is that A would know when B was leaving etc so it would be hard for Jack to be someone from the club that night . We simply do not know who knew who ....

The time window that concerns the police investigation begins from the time of the discovery, or when PC Lamb ordered the gates closed.
The overall attendance that night is irrelevant, press reports concerning those detained by police numbered between 20-30. These are the ones who's activity must be corroborated or thoroughly investigated. This is where the police will take note of instances where 'A' was with, or seen by 'B', in order to confirm 'B's story, and likewise for all the members.
Any member who's story cannot be corroborated will be the subject of special interest.
The stories given by all the members would be the subject of meticulous scrutiny, so any casual suggestion by modern theorists concerning the involvement of a club member should be taken with a pinch of salt.

[c.d.]

I don't necessarily agree with Andrew on this, but to be fair, Schwartz said that he saw the murder victim be assaulted at about the time that she was murdered, while Fanny saw a man walk past who had been identified, so those are 2 rather different cases.

But even if we all agree that Schwartz should have been the most important witness in this case or even the most important witness in the entire history of witnesses it still doesn't tell us why he did not appear at the inquest.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

Baxter didn't call Fanny Mortimer, either. What can we conclude from that?

I don't necessarily agree with Andrew on this, but to be fair, Schwartz said that he saw the murder victim be assaulted at about the time that she was murdered, while Fanny saw a man walk past who had been identified, so those are 2 rather different cases.

[c.d.]

Baxter didn't call Fanny Mortimer, either. What can we conclude from that?

I am anticipating The No True Scotsman Fallacy as a response.

c.d.

[Fiver]

What are the chances that Baxter believed Schwartz's story, but decided not to call him?

Baxter didn't call Fanny Mortimer, either. What can we conclude from that?