Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or, that Schwartz, after being scared by the shout of ‘Lipski’ and after realising that he could be identified and therefore someone might want to silence him, simply became scared and decided that he didn’t want to give evidence at the Inquest. So he laid low until it was over?

Or, that Fanny might have been at the rear part of the house when the yell occurred. Or that her husband might have been talking at the time? Why would one shout particularly stand out anyway? Didn’t someone say that the club got a bit rowdy? Shouts would have been par for the course.

Or, if the Jewish Schwartz passing couldn’t have been a ‘coincidence’ (however unremarkable a coincidence in a area with a high Jewish population) then I assume that the passing of the Jewish Goldstein must also have been part of the plot?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No problem. I should add that I have very different interpretation of that Daily/Evening News report.



The picture I have of the Stride murder and related events, goes well beyond the question as to it being another Ripper murder.

What is your picture of the murders?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Or, that Schwartz, after being scared by the shout of ‘Lipski’ and after realising that he could be identified and therefore someone might want to silence him, simply became scared and decided that he didn’t want to give evidence at the Inquest.

Yet he was happy to talk to The Star man, and supposedly on Backchurch Lane.
At least, that's what I've read.

So he laid low until it was over?

He was never heard from again, so that probably can't be determined.

Or, that Fanny might have been at the rear part of the house when the yell occurred. Or that her husband might have been talking at the time? Why would one shout particularly stand out anyway? Didn’t someone say that the club got a bit rowdy? Shouts would have been par for the course.

Would Schwartz' story be more credible, if someone actually did hear something suspicious, rather than no one hearing (or seeing) anything of that nature?

I heard some muffled screams.
I heard a man shout something, but assumed it was someone from the club, so took no notice.
I heard the sound of a man running, but by the time I looked out my front window, he had gone by.

Or, if the Jewish Schwartz passing couldn’t have been a ‘coincidence’ (however unremarkable a coincidence in a area with a high Jewish population) then I assume that the passing of the Jewish Goldstein must also have been part of the plot?

Wrong place at the wrong time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yet he was happy to talk to The Star man, and supposedly on Backchurch Lane.
At least, that's what I've read.

Maybe it was only after thinking on the matter he started to fear for his safety? Maybe his wife said “what if they come looking for you?” I’m not saying that this is what happened just that it’s a possible explanation. Maybe others have other suggestions? Is it likely though that in the time that Schwartz talked to the police (resulting in them arresting and talking to one man on the strength of what he’d told them) and the Inquest on the next day they decided he was a useless witness? Does that make sense?

He was never heard from again, so that probably can't be determined.

Did anyone look for him after the Inquest was over?

Would Schwartz' story be more credible, if someone actually did hear something suspicious, rather than no one hearing (or seeing) anything of that nature?

I heard some muffled screams.
I heard a man shout something, but assumed it was someone from the club, so took no notice.
I heard the sound of a man running, but by the time I looked out my front window, he had gone by.

Why didn’t they get someone to say just that if there was a plot?

Wrong place at the wrong time.

But Schwartz was part of a plot?

Cant see a plot anywhere in this.

[Michael W Richards]

Or, that Schwartz, after being scared by the shout of ‘Lipski’ and after realising that he could be identified and therefore someone might want to silence him, simply became scared and decided that he didn’t want to give evidence at the Inquest. So he laid low until it was over?

Or, that Fanny might have been at the rear part of the house when the yell occurred. Or that her husband might have been talking at the time? Why would one shout particularly stand out anyway? Didn’t someone say that the club got a bit rowdy? Shouts would have been par for the course.

Or, if the Jewish Schwartz passing couldn’t have been a ‘coincidence’ (however unremarkable a coincidence in a area with a high Jewish population) then I assume that the passing of the Jewish Goldstein must also have been part of the plot?

Herlock, I guess its always just a matter of within the realm of possibilities and what I consider more trustworthy, probabilities.

Funny you didnt make excuses for Fanny hearing solitary boots on cobbles. Schwartz would have to ignore a summons to do what you suggest, and his story would be recorded regardless. It isnt. You obviously didnt pay attention to the details of his story and the probabilities.

[caz]

Except that "nearly the whole time" suggests your exception was the rule, and your rule was the exception. Poor Bill.

As for watching nothing in particular, I don't think she was on her doorstep to watch, rather she was there to listen.
In the post by Frank that you describe as brilliant, Fanny is quoted as saying...

There was music and dancing going on there at the very time that that poor creature was being murdered at their very door, as one may say.

That's another reason to suppose she kept the door open - to let the sound in.

If she was outside, listening to the music from her doorstep for more than a minute or two, is there any reason why she would not have pulled the front door to, to keep the draught and the music from disturbing her old man?

"Close the door behind you, woman. I don't want to hear that ruddy din while I'm freezing me nuts off in here, thanks very much."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I guess its always just a matter of within the realm of possibilities and what I consider more trustworthy, probabilities.

Funny you didnt make excuses for Fanny hearing solitary boots on cobbles. Schwartz would have to ignore a summons to do what you suggest, and his story would be recorded regardless. It isnt. You obviously didnt pay attention to the details of his story and the probabilities.

There are no probabilities which favour your theory. Not a single one.

So what your suggesting is that the police first believed Schwartz to be such an important witness that they sought out and arrested a man on the strength of what he’d said and then decided he was worthy of complete dismissal. All in the space of 24 hours? How can that be a probability or even a possibility? They arrest someone, decide that he wasn’t the man then decide not to bother to continue looking but to ignore Schwartz completely? Really?

....

How are excuses for Fanny required? Some things we hear some things we miss. She may have been at the rear of the house when the shout of ‘Lipski’ occurred? It’s not difficult Michael. We don’t have to imagine any kind of weirdness as there’s usually a very simply explanation for most things. It’s only if we need things to fit a scenario when the sinister is required.

....

You have witnesses that you rely on who were very obviously mistaken on times.

Eagle - according to him Gilleman mentions the body being found at 12.55 and Eagle said that he saw the body at 1.00. Do we really need to quibble about a matter of 10 mins? Especially when he had absolutely no reason to log the time when Gilleman entered.

Kozebrodski - Uses an approximation. And is another witness who has absolutely no reason to log the time.

Hoschberg - Says “about 12.45 I should think.” Could he sound less confident of the actual time? Plus he heard a policeman’s whistle before he got to the body which we know that he couldn’t have heard at 12.45. Easily dismissed.

Spooner - The easiest of all to dismiss. He said that he’d reached the yard at 12.35. But he’d stood outside the Beehive from 12.30 until one and for 25 of those he was talking to a woman. So that 12.55 at least. He then said that he arrived 5 minutes before Lamb. So 12.35 is completely refuted by the two other parameters that he mentions. Spooner shouldn’t be mentioned in terms of an earlier time. He was wrong.

And so are these 4 props trustworthy? Eagle (12.55) Kozebroski (about 12.40) Hoschberg (about 12.45 but the policeman’s whistle shows him to have been wrong) Spooner ( 12.35 or 12.55 or 1.00 or just after)

Nowhere near trustworthy.

So we have Schwartz non-appearance at the Inquest, 4 very obviously and mistaken witnesses and Fanny Mortimer who, with one breath says she was on her doorstep virtually the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00 and with another breath says that she was only there for 10 minutes or so. And who contradicts a Constable on his beat by 10 minutes.

Eliminate the conspiracy theory thinking and what’s left? Diemschutz discovering at 1.00ish the body of a woman who may or may not have been a victim of Jack The Ripper.

[Michael W Richards]

All of what you wrote is argumentative and without any merit in known evidence,... you imagine people being incorrect in their times while in fact 4 witnesses state the same times and events within 5 minutes of each other, you imagine sounds that should be heard or must have been missed, you imagine Schwartz having importance to this investigation when clearly he was not considered important by the people running the Inquest, you imagine Eagle being accurate when he and Lave state that they were in the same place at the same time and didnt see each other let alone any of the people 4 witnesses said were there at that time, you think quibbling over 10 minutes isnt a problem, but having 4 people state that Louis was incorrect by 20 minutes isnt.

Ive seen your useless, meaningless complaints about people who use the evidence rather than imaging like you that something that isnt within known evidence is actually likely.

The facts dispute you Herlock, not me. 4 people said 12:40-12:45 by the body, Fanny didnt see anyone arrive at or just before 1, and all the witnesses you like have zero corroberation or are unimportant in the question of How Liz Dies.

Your tone seems to insinuate you have some upper hand...but its just by virtue of a boundless imagination.

[Michael W Richards]

And a victim unripped isnt a Ripper victim in anyones books.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All of what you wrote is argumentative and without any merit in known evidence,...

Argumentative? From the man who insulted everyone that disagrees with him and who believes that other posters aren’t on his level! If you were able to cope with people disagreeing with your conclusions without throwing a tantrum Michael reasonable discussion could be had. But of course there can’t be a possibility of you being wrong can there?

you imagine people being incorrect in their times while in fact 4 witnesses state the same times and events within 5 minutes of each other,

No, I accept the possibly/probability of them being wrong. Whereas you appear to struggle with the fact that most people at that time and in that area wouldn’t have owned watches or clocks. Or that witnesses would have had absolutely no reason to have logged a time of something occurring. Even when they use words like ‘about’ you still believe them accurate.

By the way, they weren’t all within 5 minutes of each other as you well know. Eagle said that he saw the body at 1.00. Spooner said he saw the men running after he’d been talking for 25 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00 and that he arrived 5 minutes before Lamb. So they are not only wrong but they are wrong at different times.

you imagine sounds that should be heard or must have been missed,

No Michael, that’s you. You are the one saying that if Mortimer heard the footsteps then she would have heard “Lipski.” Which is nonsense of course as she might easily have been at the rear of the house at the time.

you imagine Schwartz having importance to this investigation when clearly he was not considered important by the people running the Inquest,

And yet the police arrested someone on the strength of what he’d said and the Inquest began the next day. Hero to zero in 24 hours. Must be a record?

you imagine Eagle being accurate when he and Lave state that they were in the same place at the same time and didnt see each other

Strange that you never bring up this discrepancy as proof of conspiracy?

"So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions

No sign of an early murder or an early Diemschutz there?

And as for him and Eagles being there at the same time? Again you’re pointlessly nitpicking over 5 minutes or so with men who probably didn’t own watches. Take the conspiracy goggles off for once Michael.

let alone any of the people 4 witnesses said were there at that time,

Different times actually.

you think quibbling over 10 minutes isnt a problem, but having 4 people state that Louis was incorrect by 20 minutes isnt.

Different times. Simple errors.

Ive seen your useless, meaningless complaints about people who use the evidence rather than imaging like you that something that isnt within known evidence is actually likely.

could you point out a few examples of this Michael. I’d be very grateful. Unless of course you simply mean my refusal to enter the world of infantile conspiracist fantasy that infects this subject.

The facts dispute you Herlock, not me. 4 people said 12:40-12:45 by the body,

Again, no they didn’t. You’re altering facts to fit your scenario.

Fanny didnt see anyone arrive at or just before 1,

A woman who you pointedly and conveniently ignore in the EN report.

and all the witnesses you like have zero corroberation

And yet you prop your scenario on 4 of them? And is it about ‘liking’ witnesses. I think that this is the root of the issue here. It’s like trying to win a competition for you.

or are unimportant in the question of How Liz Dies.

Your tone seems to insinuate you have some upper hand

Are you really this self-unaware Michael? All that I and others have done is to present a different opinion to you and yet you’ve thrown two massive tantrums. The first of which you felt the need to come on and apologise for (remember?) then you’ve done nothing but arrogantly claim that posters that disagree with you aren’t on the same level as you. There were no insults or angry words on this thread Michael until you threw your dummy out of the pram.

...but its just by virtue of a boundless imagination.

I’ll leave the ‘imagination’ to the conspiracy theorists. I don’t mind admitting that I could be wrong. Don’t think I’ve seen you doing that? You’re way too certain of things that occurred 132 years ago concerning fallible humans reported by fallible humans.

If you have such little respect for other posters it really shouldn’t bother you if they disagree with you but it does appear to anger you. You seem to think that you’re taking the logical approach but you’re not. Your making assumptions based on things that were very likely to have been simple errors. And by the way, you never provided that list of experts that agreed with your theory. An oversight I’m sure.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And a victim unripped isnt a Ripper victim in anyones books.

Unless the killer was interrupted of course. And please, please, please, please Michael don’t trot out that tiresome nonsense about ‘evidence of interruption’ because it’s dead in the water. It was never a valid question and no vaguely serious person would bring it up.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

And a victim unripped isnt a Ripper victim in anyones books.

I think there's a fair few books that suggest otherwise.

Incidentally, there's a new one out soon, by some Swedish journalist. Available in the new year from all good book retailers!

[c.d.]

And a victim unripped isnt a Ripper victim in anyones books.

If that is the criterion that you insist on using then in accordance with the laws of logic Stride absolutely could not have been a Ripper victim. But that begs the question why do you insist on using that criterion? To me, it seems extremely simplistic and smacks of very shoddy detective work. Shouldn't the next question be could there be anything which prevented mutilation and then try to determine what that could have been and then decide how plausible that reason is?

You are certainly free to use any criterion that you want but insisting that that criterion be met before Stride can be considered a Ripper victim seems to be very agenda driven.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think there's a fair few books that suggest otherwise.

Incidentally, there's a new one out soon, by some Swedish journalist. Available in the new year from all good book retailers!

And I’d also mention those other ‘fringe theorists’ Philip Sugden and Paul Begg.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think there's a fair few books that suggest otherwise.

Incidentally, there's a new one out soon, by some Swedish journalist. Available in the new year from all good book retailers!

Who also believes that Richardson, Cadosch and Long were all mistaken or lying and yet resists the temptation of weaving a conspiracy around it.