Did jack kill liz stride?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Michael

You're right - there's certainly something iffy about this aspect of her evidence - if she knew this was LD's cart, then presumably this was a common occurence - begging the question why did she make all the song and dance about it, (Including specifically mentioning it to hubby)?

If, on the other hand, she didn't know, then why the certainty this was LD homeward bound?

As you suggest though, and as an alternative, if she was a busybody attending the murder scene....

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Thank-you for taking the trouble to reply Michael. Her evidence is certainly speculative in places, but she's not reporting what others have seen and heard. She's recounting her own experience and then speculating upon it.

"HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others."

She speculates that the boots were those of a policeman and that the cart she heard was that of Diemshitz.

Speculative but not hearsay.

Hi Bridewell,

Not to be picky, but when Fanny suggests that the cart and horse was Louis's it would have only been the result of her having heard that from someone. She would have had no idea whose cart and horse went by until she was informed about it.

Cheers Bridewell

[Bridewell]

In one of her statements Fanny Mortimer assumes that the cart and horse she heard was that of Louis Diemshitz as it arrived....however, she would have had no idea whom that cart and horse belonged to since she didnt see it at all,... she obviously discovered that Mr Diemshitz claimed to be arriving at that time and incorporated that detail into her own later recollections.

Fanny is relevant by what she sees, or doesnt see.... not by what she hears. She hears the bootsteps she believes sound like the measured steps of police boots, and she hears the cart and horse. But in truth we do not know who was in those boots or whose cart and horse either arrived, or left.

Fanny proves her worth by her spotting of Goldstein at 12:55...once he admits to being there,... she has proven that for at least some of the time between 12:50 and 1am, when she claims to have been at her door continuously, that she was indeed at her door...and could see in front of the gates.

But when she intimates that she heard Louis's cart and horse, thats not her own recollection of what she in fact saw....its hearsay. She didnt see anything on those occasions.

Cheers

Thank-you for taking the trouble to reply Michael. Her evidence is certainly speculative in places, but she's not reporting what others have seen and heard. She's recounting her own experience and then speculating upon it.

"HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others."

She speculates that the boots were those of a policeman and that the cart she heard was that of Diemshitz.

Speculative but not hearsay.

[Fleetwood Mac]

In one of her statements Fanny Mortimer assumes that the cart and horse she heard was that of Louis Diemshitz as it arrived....however, she would have had no idea whom that cart and horse belonged to since she didnt see it at all,... she obviously discovered that Mr Diemshitz claimed to be arriving at that time and incorporated that detail into her own later recollections.

Fanny is relevant by what she sees, or doesnt see.... not by what she hears. She hears the bootsteps she believes sound like the measured steps of police boots, and she hears the cart and horse. But in truth we do not know who was in those boots or whose cart and horse either arrived, or left.

Fanny proves her worth by her spotting of Goldstein at 12:55...once he admits to being there,... she has proven that for at least some of the time between 12:50 and 1am, when she claims to have been at her door continuously, that she was indeed at her door...and could see in front of the gates.

But when she intimates that she heard Louis's cart and horse, thats not her own recollection of what she in fact saw....its hearsay. She didnt see anything on those occasions.

Cheers

Nothing wrong with arguing that someone's mind led them astray, Mick, and two and two became five, providing there's some consistency; such as, applying the same logic to the importance of Cadosche's testimony.

In truth, some people are observant by nature and others aren't. Some people have an eye for detail and others are empty headed; some people are busybodies and others couldn't care less what you do providing you don't get in their face and as such don't take notice of a great deal.

This is why George Hutchinson's testimony is entirely plausible and Long's testimony could quite easily be a figment of her imagination.

Some of these people will have been closer to the mark than that which is imagined, and those who seem spot on at first light may not be, but much of what we think boils down to our own personality - the observant among us will find the idea that someone could be so observant not so hard to believe.

You can argue for an imagined connection until the cows come home, but she didn't say she saw a cart and in this country a lot of people like to gossip behind the curtains, so to take notice of what is going on in the street isn't out of the ordinary here.

[Michael W Richards]

Which witness to the Stride murder gives hearsay evidence?

In one of her statements Fanny Mortimer assumes that the cart and horse she heard was that of Louis Diemshitz as it arrived....however, she would have had no idea whom that cart and horse belonged to since she didnt see it at all,... she obviously discovered that Mr Diemshitz claimed to be arriving at that time and incorporated that detail into her own later recollections.

Fanny is relevant by what she sees, or doesnt see.... not by what she hears. She hears the bootsteps she believes sound like the measured steps of police boots, and she hears the cart and horse. But in truth we do not know who was in those boots or whose cart and horse either arrived, or left.

Fanny proves her worth by her spotting of Goldstein at 12:55...once he admits to being there,... she has proven that for at least some of the time between 12:50 and 1am, when she claims to have been at her door continuously, that she was indeed at her door...and could see in front of the gates.

But when she intimates that she heard Louis's cart and horse, thats not her own recollection of what she in fact saw....its hearsay. She didnt see anything on those occasions.

Cheers

[The Good Michael]

Unless you argue that the ground floor is the one on the ground and the first floor above it is the first floor?

No. It shouldn't work like that because it would be the only item that I can think of where the 1st is really the 2nd.

Mike

[Bridewell]

.....as a possible Ripper murder though, its virtually unsolvable. You have to believe the hearsay,

Which witness to the Stride murder gives hearsay evidence?

[Bridewell]

In which case, how have you ruled out Jack as her killer? With not one witness you are prepared to believe, you can have no possible clue why this woman was targeted, who was or wasn't there with her, what they may have witnessed, and when her killer safely fled the scene.

Great. You have managed to toss out all the evidence as unreliable, unworkable or downright suspicious, and given yourself nothing but a blank sheet to work with. Good luck with that then.

Love,

Caz
X

Ooh, you are awful!

[Bridewell]

The ground floor is the first floor. That is the only thing that makes sense.

Mike

Unless you argue that the ground floor is the one on the ground and the first floor above it is the first floor?

[Michael W Richards]

In response to the quotes below Caz;

"Good to see you believe 'they investigated' the accounts of both Schwartz and Hutchinson. Yet you maintain that Schwartz was simply dropped without further ado because his credibility became an issue? It just doesn't seem likely to me. If they had found any serious problems with Schwartz's account, they'd sure as hell have wanted to know why he had put someone of BS Man's description at the scene shortly before the murder, which conveniently explained his own buggering off incontinently. Otherwise they'd have kept their eyes peeled for BS Man in case Schwartz really had seen the murderer."

I offered a very reasonable possibility earlier that Israel saw what he claimed he saw but in the passageway, not on the street...which doesnt eliminate BSM as a suspect at all, it just makes Schwartz a questionable witness because the actual occurrence is moved a few yards away from the club in his statement. BSM could well have been real, he may well have killed Liz Stride, but Israel is not the witness on record for 12:45 at the Inquest...so....he either was deemed untrustworthy, inaccurate or a liar I would imagine.


"The only reason they'd have lost all interest in Schwartz is if it emerged that he had been mistaken about the time (eg was he an hour out either way?), and possibly even the place, and had therefore witnessed something that had nothing to do with the murder in Dutfield's Yard."

And thats the only possible reason...even though I just gave you one again above..... There are lots of possibilities, none of which warrant a Secret Witness assumption. Take off the blinders Caz, we'll try not to distract you from your goal here.

"I don't want to speak for Tom here, and I don't support or reject his robbery theory, but I doubt Jack the Robber/Ripper would have cared if his victims had the takings from a dozen customers on them, or only the drippings from their noses. He may only have been interested in forcing the women to turn out their pockets as a distraction, so he could strike while their hands were occupied and disguise his real purpose. Might explain the cachous at any rate."

There are, again, lots of possibilities on the issue of the cashous, and there is no evidence that any Canonical was robbed other than Annie Chapman. Unless you count the apron piece,....or the organs.

"Er, quite good actually. Leon Goldstein told me himself. "

I believe youve been straightened out on the assumptive error above.


Prudent students - I like that.

"That makes you an imprudent and impudent student for assuming Schwartz was full of it, without having any evidence, and coming up with unsubstantiated stories involving club members conspiring together, committing perjury and all sorts."

You have 3 club witnesses who tell stories that no-one...(not even each other in one case), corroborates, 1 alleged "passer-by" that tells a story that no-one corroborates, and yet a witness was near her door facing the street from 12:30 until 1am, the last 10 minutes continuously,... nor was a sound or altercation seen by a young couple in the area and another "passer-by". There are 3 witnesses however that within 1 hour of the murder stated they were alerted to the body by Louis around 12:40...a time which is then corroborated by Spooner with his estimates.

You can choose to ignore all the statements that contradict your position Caz, that doesnt make them vanish.


"But didn't Mortimer say she heard Diemschitz's pony and cart pass by approximately 4 minutes after she went inside, and remarked upon the fact to her old man?"

No, she definitely did not say that. She said she heard a cart and pony arrive....after she had gone back into the house from her doorstep....at 1am. She didnt see or heard Louis arriving...didnt he say he arrived at 1am? And that he was sure? Hmm.


"That makes two people who confirm his stated arrival time near enough, while it chucks your twenty minutes earlier theory in the bin. Mortimer was inside when she heard the pony and cart, so she would definitely have heard it if it had arrived that much earlier. Why would she lie and drag her husband into the lie? And how could Diemschitz have expected to get away with lying, when the cart was noisy enough for the neighbours to hear?"

2 people? Louis and a witness you mean? See above.

Fanny didnt see anything involving a cart and horse, she heard them and assumed she heard them arriving. That could be incorrect. And it doesnt have to be Louis, only he says he arrived at 1.

"In which case, how have you ruled out Jack as her killer? With not one witness you are prepared to believe, you can have no possible clue why this woman was targeted, who was or wasn't there with her, what they may have witnessed, and when her killer safely fled the scene."

I ruled out Jack the Ripper as Liz Strides killer eons ago, just sticking around these threads to remind some of the newer posters that there are very valid reasons to disconnect this murder from a Canonical Group... within the known evidence, ....like, no ripping, for a start.

"Great. You have managed to toss out all the evidence as unreliable, unworkable or downright suspicious, and given yourself nothing but a blank sheet to work with. Good luck with that then. "


Ill tell you what I have Caz, I know that you could use a reminder on what is actual evidence in this case and what is assumed or bestowed upon it, from folks like you. You have a woman who was sober and dressed nicely being found with a single cut to her throat, and evidence of her scarf being grabbed, lying dead just inside the gates of a Anarchists club populated by Jewish Immigrants, about an hour and a half after a rather large meeting Saturday night broke up. She was laying "as if gently lain down", and her skirt and jacket seemed to be untouched. She bled to death from a cut that severed one artery.

Approx 30 people were still at the club, upstairs, from 12:30 until 1am...we are told, and at least 1 was in the kitchen, with the kitchen door to the passage ajar. Cottages were across from the scene, some occupied with tenants that were awake, and one staff member of the Arbeter Fraint was in the printing office.

No-one heard or saw anything of the woman from 12:35am, (PC Smith....she was on the street near the gates).... until the steward claimed to have found her lying inside the passageway at 1am. A witness claims Sunday night to have seen the deceased in an altercation with a Broad Shouldered Man just outside the gates at 12:45am, and mentions a second man across the street in a doorway. No-one else, including a witness on the street and at her door off and on through that time...corroborated by her describing someone who verified that he was passing the gates at 12:55am, saw or heard any altercation, saw any BSM, or any man smoking a pipe. This witness is not presented at the Inquest into the death, not is his story entered as evidence in that proceeding.

A club speakers statement suggests that the street was empty in front of the gates at 12:40am, and that there could have been a body against the wall inside the gates as he entered the passage to get to the side door, but he didnt see one, even though he led himself to that side door by the wall the body she almost touched. Another member stated that he also was at the gates at 12:40am, yet neither saw each other or anyone else. Some club witnesses and one witness who met with some club members seeking help on the streets believed they were made aware of the woman lying there before 12:45am, one witness is Isaac Kozebrodski, an apprentice of Louis's, who arrives back at the club at 12:30am. He contradicts Louis with his statement on the night of the murder, as do the other witnesses. His story isnt presented at the Inquest, and Louis seems to assert that Issac went with him after 1am. Isaac stated he left alone at Louis's insistence.

The first doctor summoned to the scene pronounced the fatal cut was made within 20-30 minutes before his arrival at 1:16am, the second physician on the scene allowed for a time approximately 15 minutes earlier.


There ya go. No ripping....the bad company are just in one mans statement, and he isnt Inquest material.....and there are contradictory accounts by members and unverified ones.

As a standalone murder it doesnt seem to daunting to try and solve.....as a possible Ripper murder though, its virtually unsolvable. You have to believe the hearsay, omit any contradictions and plow ahead with a the Ripper theory despite the physical evidence.

I know youll choose your way from here wisely.

Cheers

[caz]

Leon Goldstein was a member of the club.

Ah, sorry Tom - and Michael. I didn't realise that.

What's the American expression? My bad?

Now that has got to be far worse English than calling one floor above the ground floor the 'first' floor.

Love,

Caz
X

[Cogidubnus]

But did they put Schwartz up to giving a false story to take the onus off them? That's 100% pure speculation until a clear connection between Schwartz and one of the head men of the Berner Street club is found. It's an idea I always have in the back of my mind when considering Schwartz, but I'd need a lot more than speculation to call him a liar, particularly when we have both Goldstein and Mortimer describing how dead the street was at that time whch indicates to me that Schwartz was either very lucky in his guesses (unlike Packer) or was telling the truth as he knew it.

Absolutely Tom...in my honest and very humble opinion, spot on!

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Er, quite good actually. Leon Goldstein told me himself.

Leon Goldstein was a member of the club. In fact, when Fanny Mortimer told of her sighting, she said she believed the man she saw was a member of the club. So yes, Wess and co. would have been very concerned about the affair. There's no questioning that. But did they put Schwartz up to giving a false story to take the onus off them? That's 100% pure speculation until a clear connection between Schwartz and one of the head men of the Berner Street club is found. It's an idea I always have in the back of my mind when considering Schwartz, but I'd need a lot more than speculation to call him a liar, particularly when we have both Goldstein and Mortimer describing how dead the street was at that time whch indicates to me that Schwartz was either very lucky in his guesses (unlike Packer) or was telling the truth as he knew it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DRoy]

On top of that, how many witnesses even think about what the time is when they are actually witnessing something - especially if the significance of it doesn't hit them until hours later? Schwartz didn't know at the time that a murder was about to be committed, so it could have been many hours before he finally had to think back and calculate roughly what the time must have been when he saw Stride being manhandled.

Not many witnesses had the luxury of looking at a clock or hearing one chime just as they noticed whatever it was that would only later strike them as potentially important. Nor would they necessarily have made a mental note of the time anyway.

Good points Caz. I don't recall Schwartz commenting on how he fixed the time but I'm sure Tom could confirm whether he did say or not.

What I'm wondering now is when Schwartz first learned of the murder? Also, considering he ran from the scene of an attack (whether Stride or not) he didn't run in to a policeman along the way nor does it appear he tried to find one. Depending on whether he believed Pipeman was chasing him with a knife or not, plus just witnessing an attack, you'd assume he'd try to find a policeman (whether he could communicate properly or not).

Just a couple randon thoughts your post made me think about Caz.

Cheers
DRoy

[caz]

Despite the many vacuous assurances that the complete absence of Israel Schwartz's story at the Inquest really means that he was probably upgraded to Double Secret Witness since he was so valuable, it would be wise to remember that Lawende had some details withheld because they were deemed vital to ongoing investigations, he was sequestered, and he was paid. But he was present, and his story was entered into the Inquest records. Swansons mention of Schwartz is just like Abberlines support of Hutchinson, and they investigated his story too. But like George, Israel only "matters" in memos.

Good to see you believe 'they investigated' the accounts of both Schwartz and Hutchinson. Yet you maintain that Schwartz was simply dropped without further ado because his credibility became an issue? It just doesn't seem likely to me. If they had found any serious problems with Schwartz's account, they'd sure as hell have wanted to know why he had put someone of BS Man's description at the scene shortly before the murder, which conveniently explained his own buggering off incontinently. Otherwise they'd have kept their eyes peeled for BS Man in case Schwartz really had seen the murderer.

The only reason they'd have lost all interest in Schwartz is if it emerged that he had been mistaken about the time (eg was he an hour out either way?), and possibly even the place, and had therefore witnessed something that had nothing to do with the murder in Dutfield's Yard.

There is no evidence that either Liz Stride, Catherine Eddowes, Mary Jane Kelly or Polly Nichols was robbed, nor is there any reason to assume both Polly and Annie would have been probable choices for robbery on the nights they died....neither had even as little a one nights doss on them. Liz, although she does not have her 6d that she left the lodging house with, does have 2 things that she didnt have at that time. The seemingly fascinating cashous and the flower arrangement.

Robbers I would imagine would hope to acquire money when they rob someone, perhaps if we knew they had some money on them the theory would hold more water.

I don't want to speak for Tom here, and I don't support or reject his robbery theory, but I doubt Jack the Robber/Ripper would have cared if his victims had the takings from a dozen customers on them, or only the drippings from their noses. He may only have been interested in forcing the women to turn out their pockets as a distraction, so he could strike while their hands were occupied and disguise his real purpose. Might explain the cachous at any rate.

As for Schwartz, ask yourself...

...What are the chances that on a semi deserted street right outside a Jewish Mens Club, after a large meeting, at 12:45am, that we would find a local Jewish man that had never had anything to do with the club or that didnt attend the meeting?

Er, quite good actually. Leon Goldstein told me himself.

Instead of assuming something occurred without having any evidence with which to substantiate the claim, prudent students will recognize that unsubstantiated stories or officially omitted stories are not the ones to bank on.

Prudent students - I like that.

That makes you an imprudent and impudent student for assuming Schwartz was full of it, without having any evidence, and coming up with unsubstantiated stories involving club members conspiring together, committing perjury and all sorts.

No-one sees Louis arrive at 1am, as he stated absolutely,.... despite the fact that Fanny Mortimer, the witness whose timing is verified by her sighting of Leon Goldstein at around 12:55/56, said she was at her door until 1am.

But didn't Mortimer say she heard Diemschitz's pony and cart pass by approximately 4 minutes after she went inside, and remarked upon the fact to her old man? That makes two people who confirm his stated arrival time near enough, while it chucks your twenty minutes earlier theory in the bin. Mortimer was inside when she heard the pony and cart, so she would definitely have heard it if it had arrived that much earlier. Why would she lie and drag her husband into the lie? And how could Diemschitz have expected to get away with lying, when the cart was noisy enough for the neighbours to hear?

There is no witness that proves by their statement or remarks that they saw Liz Stride alive after 12:35am.

In which case, how have you ruled out Jack as her killer? With not one witness you are prepared to believe, you can have no possible clue why this woman was targeted, who was or wasn't there with her, what they may have witnessed, and when her killer safely fled the scene.

Great. You have managed to toss out all the evidence as unreliable, unworkable or downright suspicious, and given yourself nothing but a blank sheet to work with. Good luck with that then.

Love,

Caz
X