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

[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.

[lynn cates]

Where have all the flowers gone?

Hello Jon. Thanks.

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

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]

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

[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

[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 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

[Observer]

Hi Droy

Schwartz did.

Regards

Observer

[DRoy]

Observer,

Every witness said they didn't see anyone pass through the street but Schwartz sees BS Man, Liz, Pipeman, plus himself. Dead street, busy street, dead street. Okay if you say so.

Cheers
DRoy

[Observer]

Hi DRoy

With respect you're wrong

Mortimer, Evening News 1st October 1888

" It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School."

And I' very surprised that the police did not call Mortimer to inquest reargding her observance of Goldstein. After all, she could have corroborated his story, and confirm that he had no contact with Stiride as he passed down the street.

Regards

Observer

Observer

[DRoy]

Observer,

I've responded in the other Liz thread. Discussing the same thing in two different threads is getting confusing for me!

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Hi DRoy

With respect you're wrong

Mortimer, Evening News 1st October 1888

" It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School."

And I' very surprised that the police did not call Mortimer to inquest reargding her observance of Goldstein. After all, she could have corroborated his story, and confirm that he had no contact with Stiride as he passed down the street.

Regards

Observer

Observer

The essence of Fanny Mortimers statement indicates that although she was at her door off and on from 12:30 until 12:50, when she was there continuously until 1am, the only person she saw in any close proximity to the gates was Goldstein at 12:56. Goldstein stated Tuesday night that he passed the gates at 12:55-56 via an Interpreter...hence...there is no need to present either witness at the Inquest. The time and story by both can be deemed valid.

The police do not have the obligation to provide 2 witnesses for the same time period if they match, if they do not, then they may put both statements on the record. Or not. That might explain why we only have Mr Browns sighting of 12:45 on Inquest records, although if they believed Brown did see Liz Stride ,then they must also have thought she received the flower arrangement after Browns sighting, or he missed seeing it. Neither seems realistic to me.

Cheers Observer

[Wickerman]

Probably just a poor choice of wording (above), but I believe the police do not choose which witnesses appear at the inquest, this is the Coroner's decision.
The police merely provide the Coroner with all their witness statements, which he reads and chooses which witnesses are likely to provide him with all the information he requires.

.

[Cogidubnus]

I believe that the initial decision about who's evidence to accept is that of the Coroner's Officer, today generally a serving police officer, but in those days frequently not...the final decision is clearly that of the Crowner but the initial list would be prepared by the officer.

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Sorry Dave, I hope you didn't think I was talking about 'today'. I see what I wrote could have been taken in the present tense, but I assure you I am deeply entrenched in Victoriana
(Sideburns and all)