Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[Michael W Richards]

Then I possibly misunderstood you Michael. I thought that you were saying that 3 witnesses said that they were told of the presence of the body at 12.40.

Im not trying to re-open a can of worms here, but Issac K, Gillen, Heschberg and Spooners time estimates all happen around 12:40.

[c.d.]

The mere fact that people are so unaccepting of an idea that anarchists might lie about something in order to protect themselves from suspicion and any income they derive from the operation is no less astounding to me now than the first time I discovered such reluctance.

Hello Michael,

Yes, people do lie to protect themselves. It is not uncommon. But you have turned it into an if A then B argument meaning that all that has to be shown is that the club had a motive and therefore it absolutely follows that they were involved in a conspiracy or coverup. It just doesn't work that way. If it did then a prosecuting attorney in court would simply establish that the defendant had a motive and then say the the prosecution rests.

It is not that posters don't accept your idea it is the fact that it lacks evidence to support it. The key word in your argument is "might."

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. .

The mere fact that people are so unaccepting of an idea that anarchists might lie about something in order to protect themselves from suspicion and any income they derive from the operation is no less astounding to me now than the first time I discovered such reluctance

I've never said that your suggestion couldn't be correct Michael. The most important point that I've tried to make is about your stating your theory as if it's a proven fact.

...

Also, as I suggested in a earlier post, if the members where trying to distance themselves (and the club) from the murder by lying why didn't they just distance the body from the club by dumping it elsewhere on Diemschutz cart? Even by getting Schwartz to lie this didn't negate the possibility that the killer came from inside the club or at least was a member (only that he didn't go back inside - and why would he?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

. saying 12.40?
Something which is directly refuted by no less than 4 witnesses, 3 plus Issac K. And only Morris and Louis were employees at the club, again, thought to be and referred to by locals and authorities as an anarchists club.

Then I possibly misunderstood you Michael. I thought that you were saying that 3 witnesses said that they were told of the presence of the body at 12.40.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, he said he passed the club that night. Fanny saw him, she said what time it was..since she had been in and out and had clock access, and was at her door for 10 straight minutes, probably not so farfetched an approximation. Though I know you dont like filling in blanks with the bleeding obvious.

Where does it say that she had clock access?

She didn't, as far as I'm aware, say that she was in and out.

And, if Smith was correct in his timing (which is not only plausible but likely) then she'd gone back inside by 12.45. So she might actually have seen Goldstein before 12.45.

[Michael W Richards]

But Goldstein never gave a specific time that he'd passed the club did he?

No, he said he passed the club that night. Fanny saw him, she said what time it was..since she had been in and out and had clock access, and was at her door for 10 straight minutes, probably not so farfetched an approximation. Though I know you dont like filling in blanks with the bleeding obvious.

[Michael W Richards]

But Eagle and Diemschutz both said that they saw the body at 1.00. I can only see Kozebrodski saying 12.40?

Something which is directly refuted by no less than 4 witnesses, 3 plus Issac K. And only Morris and Louis were employees at the club, again, thought to be and referred to by locals and authorities as an anarchists club.

The mere fact that people are so unaccepting of an idea that anarchists might lie about something in order to protect themselves from suspicion and any income they derive from the operation is no less astounding to me now than the first time I discovered such reluctance.

Even if none of these club members actually killed Liz, the club still did have to take the responsibility for the murder on their grounds with the authorities. That they wouldnt frame their story to be favourable to the club and to protect it is the astonishing claim here. Not that anarchists wouldnt lie to establishment authorities. Thats clearly a falsehood. That Issac K disagrees with Louis for example is likely due to Issac not being privy to what Louis was going to say, not that he was incorrect with his recollections. He directly refutes Louis, although we can assume they are friendly. So, why else would that happen?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Morris and Louis

But Eagle and Diemschutz both said that they saw the body at 1.00. I can only see Kozebrodski saying 12.40?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
When I say Fanny was at her door, just as she said, the last 10 minutes of the hour I use Goldsteins sighting to corroberate it.

But Goldstein never gave a specific time that he'd passed the club did he?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. the physical evidence leave no doubt that the murderer was not intent on mutilation.

This is quite simply untrue. The killer could have been interrupted. This is a fact.

[Michael W Richards]

I know that Kozebrodski is 1 but who are the other 2?

Morris and Louis

[Michael W Richards]

That is such a lame question Michael.
The fact you have never heard of a christian name used as a nickname only shows you have not done your research.
The fault lies with you Michael, not the press story.

Are you too young to have heard of the actress Megs Jenkins?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megs_Jenkins

Her name was Muguette, but she was known as "Megs" to her friends.
No different than Isaac K. being known as "Isaacs".

I think the point being made was that this nickname is mentioned by whom...?? Validated by who else? He was commonly referred to as that...says who? I have heard of such things, like Wills for William, and have evidence for them being referred to as such. Though to suggest what you did so snidely is a surprise. And you have to support your position that Issac was indeed called Issac[s] is...? Hearsay. Your comments about research only reveals your elitist views of yourself, which for the record, arent flattering. Since I consistently use evidence to support my claims, and other folks imagine interruptions to support theirs, I hardly think Im the one not using available research data.

I suppose if Louis said he was a giraffe people some would believe him, its funny just by saying something youd assume it to be true. No filters? No corroboration? No understanding of how human nature works? Just take a guys word for something.

When I say Fanny was at her door, just as she said, the last 10 minutes of the hour I use Goldsteins sighting to corroberate it. See how that works Wick...validation for something? Instead of simply believing your opinion is above anothers validated accounts.

[Wickerman]

Why would Issac K be commonly called Issac[s]?

That is such a lame question Michael.
The fact you have never heard of a christian name used as a nickname only shows you have not done your research.
The fault lies with you Michael, not the press story.

Are you too young to have heard of the actress Megs Jenkins?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megs_Jenkins

Her name was Muguette, but she was known as "Megs" to her friends.
No different than Isaac K. being known as "Isaacs".

[Michael W Richards]

On the point of Issac Kozebrodski and your comparative, a more appropriate one would be calling the person Bakkers. Plural. Like Issac[s]. Isnt it more probable that when he said Issacs it referred to a surname? As to whether Issac was "in on it", I dont see why he would be. He is sent out by someone just after being aware of the body, and anything Eagle and Louis might discuss is about the club and its reputation and possible consequences of reporting the murder on their property. Eagle and Louis are paid to attend the club, each in his own fashion. Its economic issues as well as being dangerous to the clubs continuance.

What you object to i9s my interpretation of the known circumstantial evidence, the physical evidence leave no doubt that the murderer was not intent on mutilation. Ive suggested that Israel is a red herring, and Louis, Lave and Eagle likely concocted the timings. Which perhaps necessitated allowing the perception that the Issac[s] Louis went out with was actually Issac K..a long standing presumption, nothing more. Issac K says differently, and as I said, he wasnt privy to the machinations of the story to present.

Louis arrived at a time when Fanny was indoors, around 12:39ish, I dont suspect him so I imagine its at that time that he sees the woman and calls for help from inside. They gather quickly around the woman, Heschberg, Gillen, Issac K...and 2 jews go running for help. Issac K is told to go, and Louis and Eagle and the remaining members huddle around with morbid curiousity. The 2 jews who went for help return now with Spooner, and they all gathers around while some poke and prod a bit. Louis and Eagle leave after 1 for help.

That all fits with the majority of the witness accounts.

[FrankO]

Yes, the reports reflect what is said by Diemshutz,…

There’s a statement in the IPN by Diemshutz that, obviously, reflect what is said by Diemshitz, but this isn’t necessarily true of the ‘overviews’ carried by both newspapers (and others, like the Morning Advertiser of 1 October). In fact, it seems likely to me that they spoke to more than just one person to get the whole overview.

Why would Issac K be commonly called Issac[s]?

Why couldn’t he be commonly known as Isaacs? Why should it be odd, or even impossible? I have a friend, whose surname is Bakker, but he has been called Baak by many since we were 13-14 years old (and we’re 55 now).

You attempted to establish things that are based on no foundation in known evidence.

Firstly, I attempted to establish nothing, simply because there’s very little to establish in this whole case. I was just curious if I could manage to get a decent sequence of comings & goings written down in the hope of getting an even more decent list with the help of other posters.
Furthermore, the list I’ve made is based on foundation in the known evidence, as what’s written in both newspapers is known evidence.

Like the man running with Louis was someone from the club commonly called Issac[s]. Thats hearsay...anyone corroborate that?

If that’s hearsay, then there’s a lot more hearsay going around, like Mortimer being at her doorstep between 12:30 and 12:45, and Kozebrodski being called into the yard at 12:40 as a result of the discovery of the body, and Kozebrodski going in search for a PC alone and at the insistence of Diemshutz or some other member…

Issak K not only says he went alone, …

Didn’t Robert Paul also say he went in search of a policeman alone, when we know that he didn’t? If we’re supposed to believe/stick to everything we read, then I’m sure we’ll be getting nowhere with so many holes & contradictions. Then we could also create a story in which Spooner actually arrived after PC Lamb (when we know he didn’t), as, in going from the pub where he stood to the yard, he saw Mr. Harris coming out of his house in Tiger Bay, having heard the police whistle.

Issac K had been back to the club since 12:30.

One out of 4 newspapers stated that he had arrived at the club at 12:30, while the 3 other state 6:30 in the evening.

Actually its possible Issac K went by himself as he says he did, and that Spooner met 2 Jews of which neither is Diemshitz or Kozebrodski running for help at around 12:40-12:42, its possible that there was no sighting of Liz Stride being assaulted at around 12:45 since she was already cut and bleeding out, its possible that the fact that 4 witnesses gave the exact times and events were telling the truth.

Kozebrodski said 12:40; Spooner suggests 2 different times, i.e. 12:55 AND 12:35 (but not 12:40); like Spooner, Diemshutz didn’t say either that he arrived in the yard at 12:40 and Eagle says he arrived back at the club at 12:40, but saw no one, and no one claims to have seen him at that hour. What’s also odd is that Diemshutz told the newspapers right from the start that he’d discovered the body around 1 am. Is Kozebrodski supposed to have been left out of the group who wanted to hide the fact that the body was found some 20 minutes earlier?

In fact its possible that three men who were principals at the club, paid by the club for services or staying on the premises, lied about the time the body was discovered and the time lapse between that and when they actually personally sought help. Its possible they lied to avoid investigators suspecting someone from the club...which is the obvious conclusion based on an otherwise empty street.

Why doesnt Issac K say he went out with Louis, why does he say he went alone 20 minutes earlier than Louis says he went with Issac[s]? Why doesnt Spooner identify Louis as one of the men he met..they were both at the Inquest. Because Spooner met "2 jews" around 12:40, and Issac went out at 12:40 alone, and Louis didnt do diddly himself until after 1. Why does Eagle say "he couldnt be sure" a dying was there when he arrives back at 12:40? Because there actually was one there at that time but his bud Louis gave a different story which he feels he has to try and support. He doesnt see Lave either...even though Lave says he was standing right at the gates at that time.

Their Stories have holes, and they can be directly refuted by other independent witnesses whose stories do match each others.

I the see the holes and inconsistencies, too, Michael, but what you make of them just goes a little too far for me.