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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[Observer]

The thing is DRoy, Mortimer can be proven to have been mistaken. Going on what she said she could not have stood at the door to her house for the length of time she stated. There were no witnesses who were in Berner Street at 12:45 a.m. to contradict Schwartz, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

Regards

Observer

[DRoy]

Abby,

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?? Such as witnesses like Packer and Violenia??

I agree. But when two witness statements appear to conflict then something isn't right.

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 didn't say he made it up. I said he could have, said he could have been mistaken, could have had the time wrong, could have been misinterpreted, etc.

Unless of course that Scwartz is inconvenient to your theory.

I don't have a theory or a suspect. I'm trying to establish why one witness is ignored while another is completely believed.

Cheers
DRoy

[Abby Normal]

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?? Such as witnesses like Packer and Violenia??

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?

cmon people this isn't rocket science.

Unless of course that Scwartz is inconvenient to your theory.

[caz]

Well there we are, Mike. I suppose it's an improvement on having Schwartz make the story up from whole cloth, not knowing if there was anyone who could have been watching that very spot at the right time and knew that nothing of the kind had taken place.

But really, isn't what you are now proposing just another complete and utter guess that has zero merit within the physical evidence? You claim to disapprove of the practice when you believe others are guilty of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi DRoy,

Yes I've been following that thread.

I do find it odd that Mike is insistent on using the evidence that Stride was not mutilated to conclude that her killer never had any interest in that department, yet he is keen to dump the evidence that she was seen by two men being pulled about by BS man shortly before the murder.

If the guesswork goes that Schwartz lied and made the whole thing up to deflect suspicion away from the club, then why could he not have lied about parts of the story, changing the details to protect the club? Why could he not have seen a Jewish man chatting up Stride in a friendly manner inside the yard, just out of sight of the street, and been persuaded to turn this into the aggressive Gentile on the pavement with her, who shouts "Lipski!", plus a fictitious Pipeman to help explain why he fled incontinently instead of assisting the woman? If a reluctant Schwartz went on to become the Seaside Home witness, might this not make more sense of his apparent moment of recognition when faced with the clearly Jewish suspect, and provide an obvious reason for him backing out of the identification?

I don't believe any of this for a moment, but you see what can happen when you start accusing a witness of lying to protect someone, or some group, with not a shred of evidence that he wasn't just saying what he thought he saw?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Well, the man does provide us with an offsite encounter with a likely gentile, or two, but my suspicions are that the altercation as described could have occurred within the passageway at 40 Berner, and Israel may have seen what he says he saw, roughly, but on club property.

Cheers,

Mike

[caz]

Caz,

The post Michael is talking about is in my opinion a little easier to follow regarding times, witnesses and all stuff Schwartz. We even have the seven dwarfs making an appearance!

Cheers
DRoy

Hi DRoy,

Yes I've been following that thread.

I do find it odd that Mike is insistent on using the evidence that Stride was not mutilated to conclude that her killer never had any interest in that department, yet he is keen to dump the evidence that she was seen by two men being pulled about by BS man shortly before the murder.

If the guesswork goes that Schwartz lied and made the whole thing up to deflect suspicion away from the club, then why could he not have lied about parts of the story, changing the details to protect the club? Why could he not have seen a Jewish man chatting up Stride in a friendly manner inside the yard, just out of sight of the street, and been persuaded to turn this into the aggressive Gentile on the pavement with her, who shouts "Lipski!", plus a fictitious Pipeman to help explain why he fled incontinently instead of assisting the woman? If a reluctant Schwartz went on to become the Seaside Home witness, might this not make more sense of his apparent moment of recognition when faced with the clearly Jewish suspect, and provide an obvious reason for him backing out of the identification?

I don't believe any of this for a moment, but you see what can happen when you start accusing a witness of lying to protect someone, or some group, with not a shred of evidence that he wasn't just saying what he thought he saw?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

That applies to Ripper assumptions as well. Its a guess....and one without any merit within the physical evidence. Thats why its probable we dont have a Ripper here Caz...but an unknown killer, who just kills.

Cheers

Hi Mike,

Er yes, that's why I emphasised the word any - ie any arguments, assumptions, guesswork - however you choose to word it. There are too many unknowns, too many variables, to arrive safely at any hard and fast conclusions, which is why many people prefer not to speculate at all.

Others, myself included, take the unknowns into account by looking at all the possibilities and judging which would best explain this murder, but appreciate they will probably never be proved right or wrong.

The one thing you can't do is to pretend the unknown factors don't exist, think you can form a complete picture using just the knowns (eg no mutilations) then proceed straight to a conclusion that Stride's killer never mutilated anyone.

You have to factor in all the stuff you don't know, such as how long the killer (ripper, Kidney or A.N.Other) could have safely stayed at the scene after that single cut without being seen or heard; accept that you don't know; and then you can form a personal opinion - but still no firm conclusion - based on the fact that there are alternative ways of filling in the gaps in your knowledge.

Love,

Caz
X