The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wyatt Earp]

So, despite resisting BS man's attempts to drag her into the street-and as a consequence, being spun around and thrown to the ground-Stride quickly relaxes, regains her composure, and calmly takes out the cachous? Not only that, but she then agrees to walk down a pitch black dark passage with the same man? Somehow, I don't think so!

John, if Stride knew her assailant—and again, I think that would help to explain what happened here—then, yes, I think she could have been willing to look past their initial disagreement (“Bill’s just drunk”) and go into the yard with him. If she had done business with him before, she would have had a comfort level with him.

And what about BS man. One minute he's trying to drag Stride into the street and, when she resists, he throws her to the ground in front of two witnesses

Why are you ignoring the possibility that he hadn’t yet noticed Schwartz, and why are you ignoring the possibility that Pipeman was a friend or accomplice of his?

the next, he's controlled enough to calm Stride down, and then manages to successfully charms her into entering a pitch black dark passage with him.

He offers her a hefty payment, and perhaps also the cachous. She knows him, attributes the manhandling to his drunkenness, and just decides to get it over with and get this guy out of her hair. What’s the big deal?

Maybe, he sweetened the deal by offering her a couple of tickets to the opera as well! Anyway, not only that, this same bungling fool then rapidly overpowers Stride, without warning, and successfully slits her throat, whilst avoiding arterial spray. And he does all of this without attracting the attention of Mrs D, who's sat a few feet away, in the kitchen with the window open. Or Morris Eagle, whose convinced he would have heard any cries for help. Somehow I don't think so!

It’s not unusual for serial killers to commit their crimes when they’re drunk, John. You might say “Somehow I don’t think so!” but I would reply by saying, “Somehow you better think again.”

[John G]

John, if Stride knew her assailant—and again, I think that would help to explain what happened here—then, yes, I think she could have been willing to look past their initial disagreement (“Bill’s just drunk”) and go into the yard with him. If she had done business with him before, she would have had a comfort level with him.



Why are you ignoring the possibility that he hadn’t yet noticed Schwartz, and why are you ignoring the possibility that Pipeman was a friend or accomplice of his?


He offers her a hefty payment, and perhaps also the cachous. She knows him, attributes the manhandling to his drunkenness, and just decides to get it over with and get this guy out of her hair. What’s the big deal?

It’s not unusual for serial killers to commit their crimes when they’re drunk, John. You might say “Somehow I don’t think so!” but I would reply by saying, “Somehow you better think again.”

Yes, but whoever killed Stride was not some drunken fool. He was calm and controlled enough to persuade Stride to enter a pitch black dark passage with him, where he rapidly overpowered her, without attracting the attention of a single witness, including Mrs D, who was sat in the kitchen, just feet away, with the window open. He was also alert and lucid enough to kill Stride in a forensically aware way, i.e. he avoided arterial spray.

Regarding "hefty payment." So now JtR is Astrachan man! Regarding JtR having an accomplice, where's the evidence for this?

Regarding Stride knowing her assailant, why is this not just a domestic incident, then?

Regarding BS man not noticing Schwartz, even Robert Napper wasn't hopelessly disorganized enough to attack his victims in front of witnesses and he was paranoid schizophrenic!

Regarding Stride "just wanting to get it over with". So why did she previously resist his attempts to pull her into the street? Why did she cry out? Why did BS man attempt to pull Stride into the street, if his ultimate strategy was to persuade her to go into the dark passage with him?

[Wickerman]

Yeah he was. The investigators name was White.

White only interviewed him.

[Batman]

He is killing people in the streets with houses and windows able to look down on the spot and subsequently hired out to onlookers who wanted to view where the person died.

[Batman]

White only interviewed him.

White is as solid an investigator as any of the lead investigators.

[John G]

He is killing people in the streets with houses and windows able to look down on the spot and subsequently hired out to onlookers who wanted to view where the person died.

He's killing victims when there are few possible witnesses about, in areas that are dark, or even pitch black dark. Unfortunately, as this was Victorian England he didn't have the option of luring victims into his camper van! The fact that he wasn't caught, or seen whilst in the commission of any of his crimes, is testament to this successful strategy.

[lynn cates]

acute

Hello John.

"So, despite resisting BS man's attempts to drag her into the street-and as a consequence, being spun around and thrown to the ground-Stride quickly relaxes, regains her composure, and calmly takes out the cachous? Not only that, but she then agrees to walk down a pitch black dark passage with the same man whose just assaulted her and whom she was valiantly resisting? Somehow, I don't think so!

And what about BS man. One minute he's trying to drag Stride into the street and, when she resists, he spins her around and throws her to the ground in front of two witnesses; the next, he's controlled enough to quickly calm her down, and then manages to successfully charm her into entering a pitch black dark passage with him? Maybe he sweetened the deal by offering her a couple of tickets to the opera as well as the cachous! Anyway, not only that, this same bungling fool then rapidly overpowers Stride, without warning, and successfully slits her throat, whilst avoiding arterial spray. And he does all of this without attracting the attention of Mrs D, who's sat a few feet away, in the kitchen with the window open. Or Morris Eagle, whose convinced he would have heard any cries for help. Somehow I don't think so!

Oh, and what of Schwartz? He charges off as far as the railway arches and, in doing so, he runs past his own house! Somehow I don't think so. And what of James Brown whose evidence directly contradicts Schwartz's? And what of the lack of press interest, apart from the sensationalist Star? Who in any event stated that Schwartz's story was "not wholly accepted". And the following day pointed out that "The Leman Street Police have reason to doubt the Story." I bet they did!"

You are as acute as ever, mon ami!

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Actually he did. Was even stupid enough to give people his real name. See the lake incident.

Hello John.

"So, despite resisting BS man's attempts to drag her into the street-and as a consequence, being spun around and thrown to the ground-Stride quickly relaxes, regains her composure, and calmly takes out the cachous? Not only that, but she then agrees to walk down a pitch black dark passage with the same man whose just assaulted her and whom she was valiantly resisting? Somehow, I don't think so!

And what about BS man. One minute he's trying to drag Stride into the street and, when she resists, he spins her around and throws her to the ground in front of two witnesses; the next, he's controlled enough to quickly calm her down, and then manages to successfully charm her into entering a pitch black dark passage with him? Maybe he sweetened the deal by offering her a couple of tickets to the opera as well as the cachous! Anyway, not only that, this same bungling fool then rapidly overpowers Stride, without warning, and successfully slits her throat, whilst avoiding arterial spray. And he does all of this without attracting the attention of Mrs D, who's sat a few feet away, in the kitchen with the window open. Or Morris Eagle, whose convinced he would have heard any cries for help. Somehow I don't think so!

Oh, and what of Schwartz? He charges off as far as the railway arches and, in doing so, he runs past his own house! Somehow I don't think so. And what of James Brown whose evidence directly contradicts Schwartz's? And what of the lack of press interest, apart from the sensationalist Star? Who in any event stated that Schwartz's story was "not wholly accepted". And the following day pointed out that "The Leman Street Police have reason to doubt the Story." I bet they did!"

You are as acute as ever, mon ami!

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn, much appreciated. There are clearly numerous reasons to distrust Schwartz's evidence and virtually nothing to commend him as a witnesses, apart from the initial interest from a desperate police force. Mind you, once a more reliable witnesses, Lawende, came along, Schwartz was clearly quickly dropped. Despite the fact that Lawende didn't seem to pay any attention to his suspect!

And, as I've noted, isn't it amazing how eager Schwartz was to come forward as a witness? After all, as an immigrant from Hungary, where he may well have been persecuted by the authorities, he had every reason to distrust the police, especially as he couldn't speak English. What a contrast with Lawende, who didn't come forward at all, but was only identified as a consequence of police inquiries; or Levy, who was even reluctant to speak to the press: not that that presented any difficulties for public-spirited Schwartz!

[Wickerman]

White is as solid an investigator as any of the lead investigators.

White was a Police Sergeant, not a Detective Sergeant.
He interviewed Packer, and went to the mortuary, and determined who the two private detectives were.
What I am saying has nothing to do with this. Packer himself changed his own story, and he changed the times within each version.

None of this had anything to do with Sgt. White's role on 4th Oct.

Packer scuttled his own credibility, with no help from anyone else.

[Batman]

He's killing victims when there are few possible witnesses about, in areas that are dark, or even pitch black dark. Unfortunately, as this was Victorian England he didn't have the option of luring victims into his camper van! The fact that he wasn't caught, or seen whilst in the commission of any of his crimes, is testament to this successful strategy.

All its a testament too is random luck. Remember the policeman's beam on Mitre Square? Chapman's fence crash. JtR even boxed himself in with MJK. Schwartz testimony doesn't stick out as strange at all.

[Batman]

White was a Police Sergeant, not a Detective Sergeant.
He interviewed Packer, and went to the mortuary, and determined who the two private detectives were.
What I am saying has nothing to do with this. Packer himself changed his own story, and he changed the times within each version.

None of this had anything to do with Sgt. White's role on 4th Oct.

Packer scuttled his own credibility, with no help from anyone else.

Plenty of examples of stories changing and witnesses retained.

Here is a page on him -> http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Stephen_White

The fact is there was an investigation that required police to meet this man twice at the least.

The idea that Schwartz wasn't investigated falls apart in light of their ability to root out faux witnesses in the Stride investigation.

Oh yeah and Schwartz's wife has to be in on it too. Plus how do you lie about moving your home???

[John G]

All its a testament too is random luck. Remember the policeman's beam on Mitre Square? Chapman's fence crash. JtR even boxed himself in with MJK. Schwartz testimony doesn't stick out as strange at all.

It isn't luck that he was forensically aware enough to avoid arterial spray. It wasn't luck that resulted in his victims bring taken by suprise, prevented from crying out, resisting or escaping. It wasn't luck that enabled him to mutilate his victims, speedily and efficiently, in poor lighting conditions. It wasn't luck that he didn't attack his victims in front of witnesses.

As for Kelly, she was killed indoors, which is the hallmark of an organised killer.

Schwartz's statement runs contrary to the evidence and is contradicted by the testimony of other witnesses and by himself.

[Batman]

It isn't luck that he was forensically aware enough to avoid arterial spray. It wasn't luck that resulted in his victims bring taken by suprise, prevented from crying out, resisting or escaping. It wasn't luck that enabled him to mutilate his victims, speedily and efficiently, in poor lighting conditions. It wasn't luck that he didn't attack his victims in front of witnesses.

As for Kelly, she was killed indoors, which is the hallmark of an organised killer.

Schwartz's statement runs contrary to the evidence and is contradicted by the testimony of other witnesses and by himself.

Of course its not luck that he had breakfast or a shave that morning.

I doubt he planned going to Kelly's room any more than he planned to kill a few feet away from a police torch beam in Mitre Square.

[Wickerman]

Plenty of examples of stories changing and witnesses retained.

Here is a page on him -> http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Stephen_White

The fact is there was an investigation that required police to meet this man twice at the least.

Swanson gave no other reason to his superiors than Packer had changed his story. If there was anything else it was not deemed important enough to mention, so why not just accept the matter ended there?

The idea that Schwartz wasn't investigated falls apart in light of their ability to root out faux witnesses in the Stride investigation.

Oh yeah and Schwartz's wife has to be in on it too. Plus how do you lie about moving your home???

I'm sure his story was investigated, but I am just as perplexed as some others with the turn of events.
The opinions given, both official (Anderson & Swanson) & unofficial (Star & Echo), point in different directions.

I am inclined to suspect that Swanson's report was not up to date when he appears to give credence to Schwartz.
Swanson was after all fulfilling a request first made in early September, to get reports put together ASAP. The fact he only referred to Schwartz's initial police statement, dated 30th Sept, may indicate the paperwork from subsequent investigations of the story were not consulted, for whatever reason.

[c.d.]

And, as I've noted, isn't it amazing how eager Schwartz was to come forward as a witness? After all, as an immigrant from Hungary, where he may well have been persecuted by the authorities, he had every reason to distrust the police, especially as he couldn't speak English. What a contrast with Lawende, who didn't come forward at all, but was only identified as a consequence of police inquiries; or Levy, who was even reluctant to speak to the press: not that that presented any difficulties for public-spirited Schwartz!

Club Members: "Hey Schwartz, you're new to this country and you have a wife and small child. Do you think you could lie for us in a murder investigation?

Schwartz: "Sure, no problem. What do you want me to say?

Now if the police had suspicions that Schwartz out and out lied to them and they now had an opportunity to really go after those rotten bastard anarchists, Schwartz, as an immigrant with a wife and young child, would be a prime candidate for intimidation. Yet we have no indication that anything like that happened.

c.d.