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

[DRoy]

Observer,

How can it be proven Mortimer was mistaken? Why couldn't she have stood at her door as she said?

No witnesses to contradict Schwartz? How about Mortimer and James Brown. Brown said he saw Liz standing by the boarding school at 12:45 which is the same time Schwartz said the attack occurred. Brown at least testified at the inquest when Schwartz didn't. Discount Mortimer and discount Brown to make room for Schwartz?

Cheers
DRoy

[Abby Normal]

Observer,

How can it be proven Mortimer was mistaken? Why couldn't she have stood at her door as she said?

No witnesses to contradict Schwartz? How about Mortimer and James Brown. Brown said he saw Liz standing by the boarding school at 12:45 which is the same time Schwartz said the attack occurred. Brown at least testified at the inquest when Schwartz didn't. Discount Mortimer and discount Brown to make room for Schwartz?

Cheers
DRoy

Hi DRoy
I see what your saying but I guess it basically comes down to what you find most likely occurred. IMHO Taking in all the circumstances that night It seems far more likely that Mortimer was not at her door the entire time and simply missed the BS man incident than Scwartz was mistaken, lied etc.

Fair enough?

[DRoy]

Abby,

I see what your saying but I guess it basically comes down to what you find most likely occurred. IMHO Taking in all the circumstances that night It seems far more likely that Mortimer was not at her door the entire time and simply missed the BS man incident than Scwartz was mistaken, lied etc.

Fair enough?

Absolutely fair!

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume witnesses are telling the truth unless there is any other evidence that comes up that they may be untruthful or inaccurate??

I'll wait in anticipation for such a logical level-headed thought the next time a Hutchinson thread sprouts wings

And I dont get the whole Mortimer VS Scwartz argument. he saw something-she didn't. Big deal. Whats more reasonable-to guess hes making the whole thing up or that she simply missed it?

I could be wrong about this, but I still associate the "Schwartz lying" argument with the "anti-Packer, pro-Legrand, be wary of Wess, defend-the-club" conspiracy.
Regardless how any of us feel about Schwartz, and I personally find no reason to doubt him, until we have a consensus on why he did not appear at the Inquest, there will always be a degree of scepticism about his story.

.

[DRoy]

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

[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?

If it's true that she would have seen the murderer, if he had come out of the yard onto Berner St, say, between 12.50 and 1am, but then went inside just before Diemschutz arrived, I do think it's a plausible theory that the murderer heard the pony and cart while he was hiding in the darkness listening out for anyone coming, as Stride lay expiring nearby. He couldn't emerge until he knew where the cart was going, and in the event it came right into the yard, so he had to wait for Diemschutz to investigate the body and disappear inside the club before he could flee unseen.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

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.


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.


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


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

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.

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.


Thats how I see it anyway.

[Michael W Richards]

It does seem somewhat incredulous that a reminder is needed about the nature of the club the murder occurred at, the reputation of the club with local authorities and neighbors, and the fact that a few of its key witnesses get arrested the following year for assaulting Policemen at the club. Coupled with the antisemitic environment that the club was situated in....its hardly foolish speculation that they needed desperately to avoid any suspicion of complicity in this murder. Folks back then, just like some folks today, believe that this woman was killed by a mad killer on the loose named Jack, at the time she was killed the senior man for the investigations,... who was in Paris at the time,... was being provided with intelligence suggesting an Immigrant Jew as the culprit....they were almost exclusively Immigrant Jews at this club, for god sakes.

The most accountable members of the club that night are the ones we hear from at the Inquest, and they had the most to lose...but many regular members were interviewed the night of the murder, some who were probably more scared than concerned about the clubs welfare in all this. And their stories dont match the Accountables. In fact non-members, people in the area, dont corroborate what was said.

And then you have the man most responsible for directing the gaze from the club at Berner Street to the Gentiles on the road, offsite....again, men unseen by anyone else in the area,...who claims that he happened to be there because he was checking to see if his wife had moved their suitcases to their new residence......over the previous 12 hours.

Think she might have been done with that move long before then maybe? Think a Jewish Immigrant standing outside a Jewish Immigrants club the night of a large meeting of Jewish Immigrants might have attended that meeting?

I do too.

Cheers

[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

[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

[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

[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!


.

[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

[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

[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.

.