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

[lynn cates]

What a find.

Hello Same. Thanks.

Found it?

Cheers.
LC

[Semper_Eadem]

Hello Same. Thanks.

Found it?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I guess it depends on what kind of flower it was on whether she could of found it or bought it.

Really the reason for my theory is that Liz fell off the wagon is that I've had alcoholics in my family and I could just see Liz all to easily falling off the wagon and ending up either one of Jack's victims or Kidney's to be fair. I think Kidney reached the end of his tether with Liz and had a mini breakdown. Actually I could see why Kidney might of locked her up too. That's what makes me think she might of been an alcoholic. Although I could be barking up the wrong tree too.

Geo~

[caz]

This is just an exercise , some might believe BSman is more likely to be her killer than the suggestion she was attacked twice within 15 minutes. Whether a possible second assault was 'Jack' or not also remains debatable.
Then again, Kidney could have appeared on the scene after BSman left.

The trouble is, any argument that has BSman walking away leaving Stride alive requires unsubstantiated leaps of faith in the existence of another suspect.

.

Hi Jon,

Any argument involving Stride's killer requires unsubstantiated leaps of faith. There are too many unknowns to reach any firm conclusions based on the few facts of the case.

What about all the unsubstantiated leaps of faith in the existence of a suspect other than the ripper for her murder? Assuming the police were not such complete idiots that they cleared Kidney without any basis for doing so, who else do we have any business to suspect, and what evidence is there that Stride said or did anything that would have motivated some unknown, very possibly mythical individual to take a knife to her throat and risk the gallows?

I would not be happy hanging the man who was seen pulling Stride about, on the basis that he probably went on to slit her throat. Ask Sally Anne Bowman's ex boyfriend, who had a long argument with her in his parked car, just before driving off and leaving Sally to be brutally knifed to death by Mark Dixie, who had been watching and waiting for his chance. Before DNA testing, the ex boyfriend would have copped it for sure. He was the prime suspect before his DNA cleared him.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

report

Hello Same. Thanks.

Very well. Do we have any reports that Liz was drunk that night? Staggering, etc?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Mike,

You wrote regarding Schwartz:

Or disbelieved...or discovered to be a plant by the Club itself. Who believed the tale is really irrelevant in the larger scheme, there seems to be no effect on the
Stride investigation nor does it have any value in, again, the larger scheme of things.

But who believes Schwartz today and who doesn't is very relevant, because without him you leave yourself with no BS man; no manhandling of Stride before she was murdered; a vaguer timeline for her arrival at the club and subsequent murder; nobody who saw her killer; and, as a result, even fewer objections to the ripper doing his swift, silent thing, but having to split before he could do more than slit her throat.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

Any argument involving Stride's killer requires unsubstantiated leaps of faith. There are too many unknowns to reach any firm conclusions based on the few facts of the case.

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

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,


But who believes Schwartz today and who doesn't is very relevant, because without him you leave yourself with no BS man; no manhandling of Stride before she was murdered; a vaguer timeline for her arrival at the club and subsequent murder; nobody who saw her killer; and, as a result, even fewer objections to the ripper doing his swift, silent thing, but having to split before he could do more than slit her throat.

Love,

Caz
X

Since no-one else saw any BSman, or Liz in front of the gates around 12:45...in fact since no-one seems to have seen Liz at all after PC Smith leaves, there is little reason to believe his story. Add to that he did not give his statement at the Inquest, ....why would I disbelieve all the other witnesses that make statements concerning the quiet nature of the street at that time and the absence of Liz Stride from view?

I think the other thread I started does overlap here, because in that it seems apparent that no-one seems to know where Liz Stride was at 12:40...only that she wasnt in the street, she wasnt in the passageway, and she wasnt in the yard....according to club witnesses.

Add Fannys quiet street comments...and you have a vacuum at 12:45..not an assault and 2 men lurking about.

Cheers Caz

[DRoy]

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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