6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[Observer]

Hi Droy

Schwartz did.

Regards

Observer

[DRoy]

I don't think I discredit Mortimer, I'm not calling her a liar, neither am I suggesting she was proved to be liar by police. Mortimer was simply not present for the whole 30 minutes, but she does hint at that.
She is not saying there was nobody in the street for the whole time, she is only saying she did not see anything of value.

It seems to me that what you are asking us to do is to accept that no-one was in the street between 12:30-1:00 because Mortimer saw no-one due to her only being at her doorstep for some of the time.

Jon,

Thanks for the clarification and opinions about Mortimer.

Yes Jon, besides Goldstein who passed through the street, Mortimer said she didn't see anyone else. In fact, none of the witnesses saw anyone in the street.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Once again witnesses are being discredited for not seeing something. But is that fair? It is a small detail that he could have easily missed. Does Schwartz say anything about a flower? Nope.

Mortimer missed so much? Like what? As I said before, if she was off a couple minutes then she would have missed Eagle. Lave was in the yard so he could easily be missed. Even Lave couldn't see in the yard so why should Mortimer be able to?

Cheers
DRoy

I don't think I discredit Mortimer, I'm not calling her a liar, neither am I suggesting she was proved to be liar by police. Mortimer was simply not present for the whole 30 minutes, but she does hint at that.
She is not saying there was nobody in the street for the whole time, she is only saying she did not see anything of value.

It seems to me that what you are asking us to do is to accept that no-one was in the street between 12:30-1:00 because Mortimer saw no-one due to her only being at her doorstep for some of the time.

.

[DRoy]

I discount Brown because he did not see that woman wearing a flower. Stride had the flower at 11:00 while at the Bricklayer's Arms.

Mortimer missed so much, its easy to just accept she was not at her door long enough or frequently enough to see all the goings on in that short half hour.

Jon,

Once again witnesses are being discredited for not seeing something. But is that fair? It is a small detail that he could have easily missed. Does Schwartz say anything about a flower? Nope.

Mortimer missed so much? Like what? As I said before, if she was off a couple minutes then she would have missed Eagle. Lave was in the yard so he could easily be missed. Even Lave couldn't see in the yard so why should Mortimer be able to?

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

the epistemology of not knowing

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Well put--consistent with soliciting. But hard to get to a stronger conclusion.

It is still much argued concerning hats, flowers, etc.

My point is, some/all may be Liz. Don't know. And perhaps one bloke, perhaps more. Don't know. Perhaps Israel lying, perhaps not. Don't know.

Perhaps one hand in Whitechapel--or not. Don't know.

But my opinions are, well, as they are.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Indeed, many details. But the flower seems a sine qua non.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn.

So for the sake of argument, both Best (at 11:00pm) and Smith (at 12:30pm) saw her wearing a flower.

One man (by Best), wore a billycock hat, the other (by Smith), wore a deerstalker, yet both styles are described as a 'hard felt hat'.
To add to the confusion, both men wore a cutaway coat, which is a diagonally cut 3/4 length coat. However, this coat is also described as an overcoat by some witnesses. Fortunately, James Brown described the coat of his suspect as reaching nearly to his ankles, clearly not a 3/4 length cutaway style.

The cutaway coat was both common and popular so Stride could conceivably have been with four different men in the space of 2 hrs (Those described by Best, Brown, Marshall & Smith).

I don't see the presence of a flower being too critical as it was said to have been worn on her right breast. Both Brown & Marshall could have only seen Stride from her left side with the flower out of view, and in the dark not noticeable.

The length of coat in the 'Brown' description rules his sighting out for me, as well as the fact another couple was known to have been at that location about the same time.

So the question is, whether the other three men were separate individuals, or actually varying descriptions of the same man.
The only noticeable difference being the three men had three different hats, a billycock (Best), a Deerstalker (Smith), and a peaked cap (Marshall).

Some might say this is consistent with Stride soliciting that night.

.

[lynn cates]

Where have all the flowers gone?

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Indeed, many details. But the flower seems a sine qua non.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Abby,



Okay so far



still agree!



You were doing so well!



If the event happened at all, and if it did, you're also assuming the time is correct.



Imagine being convicted based on a hat you wore. Scary! Sorry, I can't accept that as a reasonable conclusion.



Huh? Eddowes most likely was but how did Liz get thrown into the mix? The hat?

Cheers
DRoy

Yes Droy. It's the hat.

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

Hello Jon.

"I discount Brown because he did not see that woman wearing a flower."

Fair enough. But then, again, neither did Marshall.

Cheers.
LC

Yes, and it could be that the woman Brown saw was standing at the wrong angle, but then the man had a long overcoat whereas Marshall's suspect wore the same short cutaway coat as that worn by the man Smith saw, and whom Best saw.
We have to take a handful of details into account, not just the one.

.

[lynn cates]

Marshall

Hello Jon.

"I discount Brown because he did not see that woman wearing a flower."

Fair enough. But then, again, neither did Marshall.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello Roy.

"Imagine being convicted based on a hat you wore. Scary! Sorry, I can't accept that as a reasonable conclusion."

This time, it is I who must agree with you.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Fair enough. But what made you accept it as is in the first place? Why accept it and discount Brown? Is it because we've been led to believe or is it a personal thing? Why discount Mortimer and James just out of curiosity?

Cheers
Droy

Hi DRoy.

I discount Brown because he did not see that woman wearing a flower. Stride had the flower at 11:00 while at the Bricklayer's Arms.
None of the men subsequently seen with Stride wore a long overcoat, so it is difficult to identify that man with either of those seen by Best, Smith or Marshall.
Lastly, we know a courting couple was seen at the corner of Fairclough St. by the Board School about the same time.
This is who I think Brown saw.

Mortimer missed so much, its easy to just accept she was not at her door long enough or frequently enough to see all the goings on in that short half hour.
Mrs Mortimer is no Hilda Ogden!


.

[Michael W Richards]

As a general rule of thumb I believe witnesses can be broken down into 2 main categories....is their story validated by other witnesses, and would they have any reason to falsify any elements of their story. Many of the most contentious witnesses in these investigations have no other corroborating story that validates their claims...Pearly Poll, Charles Cross, Mrs Long, Cadosche, Richardson, Mathew Packer, Louis Diemshutz, Morris Eagle, Israel Schwartz, and of course George Hutchinson in the Kelly murder are a few of the main ones.

So their stories cannot be corroberated. Do any of these witnesses potentially have any reason to falsify any elements of their claims? Well, Cross could have killed Polly, he was alone with the body by his own admission.....Packer was delivered by 2 private detectives perhaps seeking reward monies,... Diemshutz and Eagle are high profile members at the club, one a speaker one a steward, so they stood to lose jobs and money if the blame for the murder was assumed a club member,....Israel Schwartz's absence from any documents covering the Inquest of Liz Stride, and the absence of any explanation as to why he might have been sequestered or had evidence withheld...as Lawendes Inquest clearly indicated, indicates his relevance to the question of what happened to Liz Stride is nil, and we know that George Hutchinson fabricated at least some of his story and that he was later that week, and never again, unused by the police for any further suspect searches. As for Mrs Long and Mr Cadosche...I think the evidence leans in the statement with the closest proximity to the murder site at approximately the time of the murder.

Point being....at 40 Berner Street we are provided with evidence that the street in front of the gates was essentially deserted at 12:40, suddenly re-populated by 3 people at 12:45, then devoid of anyone at 12:50 until 1am. Is that really a viable premise...people popping in and out of sight, people just missing being seen by someone else, actions and noises involving 3 people that are seen and heard by no witness other than the one giving the story....(through a translator...and that fact may hold a key for this riddle), ....or, is it more probable that when people are not seen or heard by others at the location that they are off the street, out of sight? Doesnt that mean that Liz Stride, without Israel Schwartz's story, could have been in the passageway as early as 12:40? Except for the 2 witnesses, Eagle and Lave, neither of whom saw anything, including each other....both there at 12:40 apparently.

Cheers

[DRoy]

Abby,

Liz Stride is seen by several witnesses over the course of an hour or so in the company of a man in a peaked cap.
(most reasonable )Conclusion: Liz Stride was in the company of a man (the same man) over the course of an hour or so.

Okay so far

Women actively engaged in prostitution usually do not spend an hour or so in the company of a potential client prior to the act (sex) taking place.
Conclusion: Liz Stride was not actively engaged in the act of prostitution with the man in the peaked cap.

still agree!

Witness Israel Schwartz saw Liz Stride attacked in the street by the man(broad shouldered man) in the peaked cap.
Conclusion: Liz Stride was attacked by the man in the peaked cap she had spent an hour so with

You were doing so well!

Liz Stride was found murdered approx 15 minutes and several yards away from where the previous attack occurred.
Conclusion: The man seen attacking Stride 15 minutes earlier was her killer

If the event happened at all, and if it did, you're also assuming the time is correct.

Approx an hour later witness Joseph Lawende sees Catherine Eddowes talking outside Mitre square with a man described as wearing a peaked cap and her body is found shortly thereafter dead and mutilated.
Conclusion: Catherine Eddowes and Liz Stride were both killed by the same man who was wearing a peaked cap.

Imagine being convicted based on a hat you wore. Scary! Sorry, I can't accept that as a reasonable conclusion.

Catherine Eddowes was killed in a manner consistant with the MO of a serial killer later to be known as Jack the Ripper.
Conclusion: Liz Stride and Catherine Eddowes were both killed by Jack the Ripper who was wearing a peaked cap that night.

Huh? Eddowes most likely was but how did Liz get thrown into the mix? The hat?

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Caz,

If anyone here believes that Mortimer was in a position to see any comings and goings, hear any noises, right from 12.30 to 1am without any breaks, yet saw and heard nothing untoward (and therefore Schwartz is a lying toad who also saw nothing), when is Stride supposed to have arrived at the yard, and was her killer on the premises all the time? Or were they both wearing cloaks of invisibility?

As has been admitted a million times over in a bunch of different threads and posts, time is most likely wrong when people give it. Even a clock at the end of the road (Diemchutz) isn't necessarily correct. So lets give or take a few minutes for every witness. Mortimer could have gone outside at 12:35 instead of 12:30. Since Smith said he saw Liz at 12:35, it could very well have been 12:34 with Mortimer coming out of her house one minute later.

I don't know about you but I don't check my watch every time something happens in my life so I could document the exact time it happened. Plus who says my watch wouldn't be off a couple minutes from the true time or the next person's watch?

You want me to accept Smith couldn't be wrong about the time, Mortimer was wrong but Schwartz in the middle of running from Pipeman checked his watch and his watch is exactly correct with the actual time? Come on Caz!

Cheers
DRoy