Stride..a victim?

[Michael W Richards]

I dont dispute much of the above, but what can be made of these facts is another thing. People expressing belief isnt evidence, its people expressing belief. Abberline bought Hutchinson too, all part of his wishful thinking campaign I suppose. The facts are that Israel was not involved in any way with the Inquest into Strides death, and with the content of his statement, the only conceivable reason for his not being involved is that they did not have faith in his statement. It was not deemed worthy, yet by its content and description, it should have been THE most important statement of this investigation.

There is no way around this Herlock, he wasnt there because his story wasnt backed by the police.

As for Fanny, all she really adds is an off and on view of the street from 12:35 until 1am. During which time she saw only Goldstein, the young couple she saw earlier. She later spoke with the young couple, and they saw nothing either. So what really does her statement add to the question of How Liz Stride Died? Nothing really. She is only valuable for what she didnt see...Israel, BSM, Liz on the street after 1am, Eagle returning, Lave by the gates, Louis arriving at "precisely" 1. And before hearing that Louis might have been off when he said that, its his word, not mine. He insisted it was 1 on the dot.

The only way you folks can argue the facts is by disputing the majority of corroborated accounts, questioning their accuracy and/or supporting accounts which have no validation in any other witness evidence.

And Im the one accused of "conspiring" ideas.

[c.d.]

The facts are that Israel was not involved in any way with the Inquest into Strides death, and with the content of his statement, the only conceivable reason for his not being involved is that they did not have faith in his statement.

That is a classic Argument from Ignorance. All that you are saying is that you can not come up with another reason.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I dont dispute much of the above, but what can be made of these facts is another thing. People expressing belief isnt evidence, its people expressing belief. Abberline bought Hutchinson too, all part of his wishful thinking campaign I suppose. The facts are that Israel was not involved in any way with the Inquest into Strides death, and with the content of his statement, the only conceivable reason for his not being involved is that they did not have faith in his statement. It was not deemed worthy, yet by its content and description, it should have been THE most important statement of this investigation.

There is no way around this Herlock, he wasnt there because his story wasnt backed by the police.

I have to say that I’m staggered. Then again I should be used to it by now. The FACTS are that the police were still talking about Schwartz as a valued witness long after the Inquest at levels from Abberline through to Warren with information going to Matthews. How the hell can you keep ignoring these FACTS simply to perpetuate a theory. We have to look for another reason for Schwartz non-attendance because the FACTS tell us in black and white that it wasn’t because they dismissed Schwartz. That idea is no longer remotely tenable in the real world.

As for Fanny, all she really adds is an off and on view of the street from 12:35 until 1am. During which time she saw only Goldstein, the young couple she saw earlier. She later spoke with the young couple, and they saw nothing either. So what really does her statement add to the question of How Liz Stride Died? Nothing really. She is only valuable for what she didnt see...Israel, BSM, Liz on the street after 1am, Eagle returning, Lave by the gates, Louis arriving at "precisely" 1. And before hearing that Louis might have been off when he said that, its his word, not mine. He insisted it was 1 on the dot.

What did Catherine Lane and Elizabeth Tanner add to the ‘how’ and ‘when’ Stride died and yet they appeared?

The only way you folks can argue the facts is by disputing the majority of corroborated accounts, questioning their accuracy and/or supporting accounts which have no validation in any other witness evidence.

From the man who is now disputing Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren. Sheesh

And Im the one accused of "conspiring" ideas.

The theory has crumbled with minimum effort. It’s a typical conspiracy theory. Prod it and it falls. Your witnesses are next to useless (though it’s noticeable that you won’t discuss them individually because you know how weak they are). Your idea about Schwartz is categorically disproven in black and white. Give it up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The facts are that Israel was not involved in any way with the Inquest into Strides death, and with the content of his statement, the only conceivable reason for his not being involved is that they did not have faith in his statement.

That is a classic Argument from Ignorance. All that you are saying is that you can not come up with another reason.

c.d.

Thats exactly what he’s doing c.d. And ignoring Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren who all show in black and white that the police were still very much interested in Schwartz evidence into November.

It’s a case of blindfolds on and fingers in the ears I’m afraid.

[Michael W Richards]

Thats exactly what he’s doing c.d. And ignoring Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren who all show in black and white that the police were still very much interested in Schwartz evidence into November.

It’s a case of blindfolds on and fingers in the ears I’m afraid.

Opinions. Thats all that list seems to have had. No evidence Schwartz was believed..no recognition of his statement in any shape or form for the formal Inquest, no confirmation of his story checking out after thorough investigation. Men who though it was an ascertained fact the killer was an immigrant Jew, one who thought the police had no idea who the killer was, a man who wondered in a memo whether Millen might have had something to do with these.... and/or the Balfour plot, one who thought it was someone who dies in Colney Hatch named Kosminski.

Opinions. They only carry the weight you bestow upon them.

Ive always found it interesting how many folks disregard evidence in favour of theories. As Ive said, despite all your mudslinging Ive only made suggestions based on physical or circumstantial evidence for the crime. Not on "opinions". You suggest phantoms and ghouls, non ripping Rippers, mass confusion about a time of day, mysterious unseen appearances and exits. You question the woman who had a direct view for those last 10 minutes before 1, and sporadically before then from 12:35 on. Based on what? Your presumption she wouldn't have a clock in her own house? She gave times, presumably she didnt pick them out of thin air. So go the club members quoted, they gave times..after being inside the club.

And they all disagree with what Louis, Morris, Lave and Schwartz say. 4 men with stories that no secondary source validates.

To summarize, the evidence in overwhelming majority suggests that the woman was discovered around 12:40, and 12:45,... that Louis was there when others gathered at that time, that search parties were sent out before 1am that were not Eagle or Louis, and that no-one entered or left that gate from around 12:50 until just after 1am. The street was empty save for the young couple seen by 2 witnesses. 1 person walked past the gates at around 12:55 and was seen by the eyewitness.

That is precisely why I suggest the majority of accounts are the ones to base any foundation upon, and that the killer almost certainly was on those grounds and out of street view when Liz arrives in the passageway.

[Wickerman]

Thats exactly what he’s doing c.d. And ignoring Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren who all show in black and white that the police were still very much interested in Schwartz evidence into November.

It’s a case of blindfolds on and fingers in the ears I’m afraid.

This is such a complicated exchange, it really needs us to set aside all the surviving letters from Swanson, Warren, Anderson & Lushington. All these memo's & letters are to be found towards the end of chapter 7 in the 'Ultimate' by Evans & Skinner.
I've been through them, and when I place them sequentially it appears Swanson's Oct. 19th report is what kicks it off.

Using the page numbers from the original Ultimate edition 2000, Swanson's report on the Stride murder begins at the bottom of pg. 121. Here Swanson records a statement by Schwartz where he mentions the shout of "Lipski".

We then switch to pg. 133 where Warren is responding to a letter from Lushington?, dated 13th Oct., a request for info. on the murders from Matthews. In this reply Warren says he is enclosing Swanson's Oct. 19th report on the murders, which he commissioned via Anderson from Swanson.
This reply is dated 24th Oct.

Then, we look at pg. 132 for the letter dated 29th Oct. which is not signed, but is a reply to the Commissioner (Warren) and acknowledges his letter dated 24th Oct. (the previous letter c/w Swanson's report).
In this reply we read mention of a statement made by Schwartz,..and the mention of "Lipski".

On pg 131 there is a brief reply to the above by Lushington, where the heading reads:
I enclose also Newspaper Extracts &c.
as to inquests G.L. 25 Oct. 1888.

The above reply by Lushington is the first mention of 'inquests' along side the statement by Schwartz, mentioning "Lipski".

It appears a copy of the '29th Oct.' letter was sent to Abberline, because a reply to the questions raised in that letter are addressed by Abberline on pg 126/7. This reply by Abberline is dated 1st Nov.

On pg 127 we find a reply by Anderson to the Home Office, referencing Abberline's letter (previous), where Anderson concludes (from Lushington's letter), that the statement given by Schwartz, was done so at the inquest.
Anderson's reply is dated 5th Nov.

There is a reply from Warren (dated 6th Nov.) to the letter dated 29th Oct., on pgs 135/6, where Warren refers again to the statement by Schwartz, and mention of "Lipski", but mistakenly attributed to the inquest.

It looks like the story began with Swanson making the report, but it may have been Lushington who incorrectly believed Schwartz gave his details at the inquest.

[Michael W Richards]

Discussing someones opinion of belief in a statement and then assuming these notes are validation of Schwartz's actual attendance and involvement in the Inquest, instead of his mysterious absenteeism from the Inquest, is a lark. When Abberline said in 1903 that he thought Chapman was Jack, does that close the case? Nope. An opinion is just that, its not evidence of anything but a personal hunch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Discussing someones opinion of belief in a statement and then assuming these notes are validation of Schwartz's actual attendance and involvement in the Inquest, instead of his mysterious absenteeism from the Inquest, is a lark. When Abberline said in 1903 that he thought Chapman was Jack, does that close the case? Nope. An opinion is just that, its not evidence of anything but a personal hunch.

Ive never suggested that Schwartz actually attended the Inquest. There’s no evidence suggesting he did as Wick posted elsewhere. What I’m disputing is your repeating that the police had dismissed his evidence and that this was the reason for his non-appearance at the Inquest. Please desist from erecting straw men if you can’t dispute the facts.

The EVIDENCE which we have in black and white tells us that even in November Schwartz was still being regarded by the police as a valuable witness.

And so Michael what you and NBFN must be suggesting is that 1) Schwartz gives his evidence. 2) The police dismiss it from day one as the inquest began the next day. And 3) After the Inquest, they then began to believe him.

This is what you and NBFN have be supporting. There’s no other explanation for your stance.

Schwartz didn’t attend the Inquest for some other reason than the police having lost interest in him which is patent nonsense that’s dismissed by the EVIDENCE of Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren and the police below them following their orders. We need to look for another explanation which, in all likelihood at this late date, won’t be forthcoming.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Ive never suggested that Schwartz actually attended the Inquest. There’s no evidence suggesting he did as Wick posted elsewhere. What I’m disputing is your repeating that the police had dismissed his evidence and that this was the reason for his non-appearance at the Inquest. Please desist from erecting straw men if you can’t dispute the facts.

The EVIDENCE which we have in black and white tells us that even in November Schwartz was still being regarded by the police as a valuable witness.

And so Michael what you and NBFN must be suggesting is that 1) Schwartz gives his evidence. 2) The police dismiss it from day one as the inquest began the next day. And 3) After the Inquest, they then began to believe him.

This is what you and NBFN have be supporting. There’s no other explanation for your stance.

Schwartz didn’t attend the Inquest for some other reason than the police having lost interest in him which is patent nonsense that’s dismissed by the EVIDENCE of Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren and the police below them following their orders. We need to look for another explanation which, in all likelihood at this late date, won’t be forthcoming.

Let's see if this is actually my 'stance', by quoting what I have said on the matter.

This was in regard to the apparent rift and between Leman street and senior investigators, with a possible explanation for Schwartz' and Mortimer's inquest non-attendance...

It was due to the rift between the Leman street police, and senior investigators.
The later had faith in Schwartz. Apparently the Leman street police thought otherwise. The Star:

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.

The later did not have faith in Packer. Apparently the Leman street police thought otherwise. Evening News, Oct 20:

The police called on Mr. Packer, of 44, Berner-street, yesterday morning. Mr. Packer, when asked his opinion as to where the murderer lodged - for he had seen him several times before the fatal night - remarked, "In the next street." It is considered he is not far wrong in his conjecture; but the police do not deem it prudent to say what steps are being taken in the matter.

Presumably there were differing opinions on Fanny Mortimer, also. Possibly due to a potential clash with the testimony of Schwartz.
Baxter decided to leave them all out to keep the peace, and avoid adverse political outcomes.

Just to make it clear, in this thread I have also said...

In contrast to Leman street, the senior investigators never stopped believing in Schwartz, but also never succeeded in identifying the Ripper/murderers.
That is why all the years spent scouring the post-1888 words of the senior investigators has only resulted in weak candidates being proposed.

So what explains the misrepresentation of my position?
HS has recently learned that the Leman street police had serious doubts about Schwartz' story, and had decided not to pursue further investigation based on it, without 'additional facts'. Having had faith in Israel Schwartz for many years, this has been a huge blow to the system, and HS is still reeling from it. I think that explains some of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And so we have a newspaper saying that the Leman Street police had doubts about Schwartz evidence? So this is treated as fact? Ok.

We have Inspector Abberline, November 1st (a whole month after the commencement of the Inquest) talking about what the police had thought and done in regard to Schwartz testimony. There’s mention of them searching for a Lipski. There’s no mention of course of Abberline (a detective on the ground) showing any doubts on Schwartz validity. The important point of course is the time. Stride is murdered on September 30th. Schwartz comes forward on the evening of the 30th. The Inquest begins the very next day. And so for you to be correct in that Schwartz wasn’t called to attend the Inquest because the police had dismissed his evidence then the police did house to house searches, searched the area for someone called Lipski then apparently arrested/questioned one man on the strength of what Schwartz told them.

And they did all of this then completely dismissed Schwartz as irrelevant all in the space of what could have been little more than 12 hours? And then you have Warren down to Abberline (the on the ground link to the police investigation) still talking about Schwartz in November.

How can this be considered remotely believable?

.......

. Having had faith in Israel Schwartz for many years, this has been a huge blow to the system, and HS is still reeling from it. I think that explains some of it

The only thing that I’m reeling from is the total disregard for reason that is repeatedly being shown here. The levels of twisting that some will resort to to propagate a baseless theory simply to boost their own ego’s. I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject like some self proclaimed geniuses here but I’ve been interested in this case for around 35, with a gap of around 8 years up until I joined Casebook, and I don’t know if I’ve seen more blatant disregard for facts or reason as I’ve seen on here by those propagating their own agendas. I have none. Stride might have been killed by the ripper or she might not. If someone can prove with evidence that she was killed by an Illuminati hitman attending a serial killer convention in Stepney then ill listen. It doesn’t affect my interest in the case one iota. But what does, is the constant ego driven descent into conspiracist thinking. Having a ‘theory’ just for the sake of having one. It’s like a white noise of self obsessed drivel.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And so we have a newspaper saying that the Leman Street police had doubts about Schwartz evidence? So this is treated as fact? Ok.

What was Schwartz' excuse for temporarily being in Berner street, that night? Was it this...?

The Star: It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

If the Star is to be believed on that, then why not this...?

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.

If your only opposition is conspiracy theorists with unknown agendas (which ironically sounds conspiratorial), why would you need to cherry-pick?

You might have also noted at some point, that doubt about Schwartz appears to be present in Swanson's report...

If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered...

Belief in Schwartz would amount to an opinion - nothing firm in that. Imagine if he Swanson had said...

If constable Smith is to be believed, and the police report of his report casts no doubt upon it, ...

He didn't, and that's because Smith is implicitly trusted, whereas belief in Schwartz requires a favourable police report, and a dollop of faith.

We have Inspector Abberline, November 1st (a whole month after the commencement of the Inquest) talking about what the police had thought and done in regard to Schwartz testimony. There’s mention of them searching for a Lipski. There’s no mention of course of Abberline (a detective on the ground) showing any doubts on Schwartz validity. The important point of course is the time. Stride is murdered on September 30th. Schwartz comes forward on the evening of the 30th. The Inquest begins the very next day. And so for you to be correct in that Schwartz wasn’t called to attend the Inquest because the police had dismissed his evidence then the police did house to house searches, searched the area for someone called Lipski then apparently arrested/questioned one man on the strength of what Schwartz told them.

Can you quote me suggesting what you say in the bold text?

And they did all of this then completely dismissed Schwartz as irrelevant all in the space of what could have been little more than 12 hours? And then you have Warren down to Abberline (the on the ground link to the police investigation) still talking about Schwartz in November.

How can this be considered remotely believable?

You love this word 'dismissed'. However, this is not a game of cricket, and things are often more subtle than the false believed/dismissed dichotomy you think within.

The clue you are missing is in the Star report - they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.
The reason Leman street needs additional facts to make sense of the same information, is that they have received a similar but conflicting report...

The Star: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

I'm hardly the first to notice this anomaly, either. For example

The only thing that I’m reeling from is the total disregard for reason that is repeatedly being shown here. The levels of twisting that some will resort to to propagate a baseless theory simply to boost their own ego’s. I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject like some self proclaimed geniuses here but I’ve been interested in this case for around 35, with a gap of around 8 years up until I joined Casebook, and I don’t know if I’ve seen more blatant disregard for facts or reason as I’ve seen on here by those propagating their own agendas. I have none.

Why do you keep mentioning that you have no agenda? Is it because you do have one?

Stride might have been killed by the ripper or she might not. If someone can prove with evidence that she was killed by an Illuminati hitman attending a serial killer convention in Stepney then ill listen. It doesn’t affect my interest in the case one iota. But what does, is the constant ego driven descent into conspiracist thinking. Having a ‘theory’ just for the sake of having one. It’s like a white noise of self obsessed drivel.

Yet that self obsessed drivel seems to keep you very occupied. Why is that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
And so we have a newspaper saying that the Leman Street police had doubts about Schwartz evidence? So this is treated as fact? Ok.
What was Schwartz' excuse for temporarily being in Berner street, that night? Was it this...?

The Star: It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

If the Star is to be believed on that, then why not this...?

Your obfuscating. The fact that Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren all speak of Schwartz being considered an important witness outweighs a quote from newspaper with no source quoted. This could simply have been the opinion of a Constable or a Sergeant that the Press spoke to over a pint.

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.

If your only opposition is conspiracy theorists with unknown agendas (which ironically sounds conspiratorial), why would you need to cherry-pick?

I leave that to conspiracists. Like the repeated use of Mortimer saying that she was on her doorstep for most of the half an hour rather than the report where she spends around 10 minutes. That kind of cherrypicking.

You might have also noted at some point, that doubt about Schwartz appears to be present in Swanson's report...

If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw and described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered...

This statement exhibits no doubts. How are you reading ‘doubt’ in this? It even says “his statement casts no doubt upon it.”

Belief in Schwartz would amount to an opinion - nothing firm in that. Imagine if he Swanson had said...

If constable Smith is to be believed, and the police report of his report casts no doubt upon it, ...

It would mean that he had no doubt about Smith. If you ditched the wordplay you’d avoid problems.

He didn't, and that's because Smith is implicitly trusted, whereas belief in Schwartz requires a favourable police report, and a dollop of faith.

Or the evidence of the words of Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren. Information that was present to Henry Matthews.

We have Inspector Abberline, November 1st (a whole month after the commencement of the Inquest) talking about what the police had thought and done in regard to Schwartz testimony. There’s mention of them searching for a Lipski. There’s no mention of course of Abberline (a detective on the ground) showing any doubts on Schwartz validity. The important point of course is the time. Stride is murdered on September 30th. Schwartz comes forward on the evening of the 30th. The Inquest begins the very next day. And so for you to be correct in that Schwartz wasn’t called to attend the Inquest because the police had dismissed his evidence then the police did house to house searches, searched the area for someone called Lipski then apparently arrested/questioned one man on the strength of what Schwartz told them.
Can you quote me suggesting what you say in the bold text?

Im not going to go trawling through the whole thread but what else have you been saying (along with Michael) about the reason for Schwartz non-attendance? You’re trying to do it in this post. Are you now saying that Schwartz wasn’t left out of the Inquest because the police had lost faith in him?

And they did all of this then completely dismissed Schwartz as irrelevant all in the space of what could have been little more than 12 hours? And then you have Warren down to Abberline (the on the ground link to the police investigation) still talking about Schwartz in November.

How can this be considered remotely believable?
You love this word 'dismissed'. However, this is not a game of cricket, and things are often more subtle than the false believed/dismissed dichotomy you think within.

No, this is black and white. If the police lost faith in Schwartz resulting in him not being called to the Inquest then this lack of confidence obviously had to have occurred some time before the Inquest. Schwartz gave his statement on the Evening of the day of the murder. We don’t know the exact time of course but if it was 7.00 and the I quest began at say 9.00 then we have 14 hours (just an estimation of course) So how could that lack of confidence have arisen (given the investigation, the arrest etc) in such a space of time? A statement about a possible ripper sighting, dismissed almost immediately, and than considered important later on. Why are you arguing against this? Can anything be more obvious?

The clue you are missing is in the Star report - they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.
The reason Leman street needs additional facts to make sense of the same information, is that they have received a similar but conflicting report...

The Star: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

I'm hardly the first to notice this anomaly, either. For example

So not only Schwartz saw this incident. But, according to Michael he was making it up to facilitate a cover up?

The only thing that I’m reeling from is the total disregard for reason that is repeatedly being shown here. The levels of twisting that some will resort to to propagate a baseless theory simply to boost their own ego’s. I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject like some self proclaimed geniuses here but I’ve been interested in this case for around 35, with a gap of around 8 years up until I joined Casebook, and I don’t know if I’ve seen more blatant disregard for facts or reason as I’ve seen on here by those propagating their own agendas. I have none.
Why do you keep mentioning that you have no agenda? Is it because you do have one?

Because Michael keeps accusing me (or anyone disagreeing with him) of having one. And that’s from someone on a mission to prove an imaginary plot.

Stride might have been killed by the ripper or she might not. If someone can prove with evidence that she was killed by an Illuminati hitman attending a serial killer convention in Stepney then ill listen. It doesn’t affect my interest in the case one iota. But what does, is the constant ego driven descent into conspiracist thinking. Having a ‘theory’ just for the sake of having one. It’s like a white noise of self obsessed drivel.
Yet that self obsessed drivel seems to keep you very occupied. Why is that?

Because I think it’s important to remain grounded. And this whole debate has shown some unpleasant ‘defend a theory at all costs’ tendencies. It’s also about not claiming to be on some kind of higher level than other posters and the ability to take being disagreed with or corrected. And before you comment I’ve been corrected on numerous occasions. By Wickerman by Sam Flynn by Caz by Joshua Rogan by Jeff Hamm to name but 5. Have I thrown a tantrum when they have done it? No I haven’t. Some of the stuff on these two threads beggars belief.

Two examples. Eagle added to list of 4 witnesses who allegedly prove that the body was discovered earlier and yet Eagle said that he first saw the body at 1.00.

Then Spooner being added to this list of pillars of conspiracy. He gives us 3 pieces of information. I dismiss 1 but Michael dismissed 2.

a) He said that he got to the yard at 12.35 - which was apparently an estimation based on pub closing times.

in the same breath he says that

b) He was standing outside of a pub from 12.30 until 1.00!

I love these reliable witnesses don’t you?

And then...also in the same breath he says..

c) That he arrived 5 minutes before Lamb.

So one guess says 12.35 but the other two are in line with him arriving just after one (coordinated by Lamb’s arrival time)

Which does Michael reject?

You guessed it

Thats what I mean about defending at all costs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point that I forgot to mention.

In the Chapman murder there were 3 witnesses (Richardson, Cadosch and Long) who contradicted Phillips TOD. All three were called to give evidence at the Inquest. So why weren’t contradicting witnesses Hoschberg and Kozebrodski called?

If it’s believed that the police had lost faith in Schwartz how much faith did they place in those to pillars of conspiracy?

[Michael W Richards]

Ive never suggested that Schwartz actually attended the Inquest. There’s no evidence suggesting he did as Wick posted elsewhere. What I’m disputing is your repeating that the police had dismissed his evidence and that this was the reason for his non-appearance at the Inquest. Please desist from erecting straw men if you can’t dispute the facts.

The EVIDENCE which we have in black and white tells us that even in November Schwartz was still being regarded by the police as a valuable witness.

Bullshit. We have some meaningless opinions from investigators that his story was of interest to them, Schwartz not being called to give evidence or referenced to in any way at the Inquest is only explained by a lack of trust by the people holding the Inquest. You espouse that he was valuable, yet acknowledge there is no official validation for him. Your ignorance about facts and opinions is striking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bullshit. We have some meaningless opinions from investigators that his story was of interest to them, Schwartz not being called to give evidence or referenced to in any way at the Inquest is only explained by a lack of trust by the people holding the Inquest. You espouse that he was valuable, yet acknowledge there is no official validation for him. Your ignorance about facts and opinions is striking.

Yeah....more drivel.

Schwartz gives his statement to the police on the evening of the day of Stride’s murder.

The Inquest begins the very next morning.

The police search for a man called Lipski.

They arrest/question one man on the strength of Schwartz testimony.

So according to you the police, within what might have been as little as 12 hours or so, interview Schwartz, search for a Lipski then arrest and question a man and then completely dismiss a witness who might have seen Stride with her killer. And then they decide that he is a valuable witness after all.

Only a conspiracy theorist could believe such an obvious fantasy. It’s a sad reflection on the subject. And I know that it’s the norm for conspiracy theorists to assume that everyone in authority is ‘in on it’ but really? You dismiss Abberline, Swanson etc purely to keep your theory afloat. Pathetic.

.....

And why weren’t those to pillars of accuracy Hoschberg and Kozebrodski called to give evidence? Richardson, Long and Cadosch disagree with Phillips TOD and were called to Chapman’s Inquest and yet two witnesses who ‘agree’ on an earlier discovery of the body (the only two by the way) weren’t called....why? I’d say because the police, unlike you, require more than two blokes guessing the time wrong.

.......

And as you like your newspaper reports what about the other people that apparently saw the scuffle outside the club but thought it was a quarrelling couple? Let me guess.....we can ignore that one.