Where is Liz Stride?

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Touché. Can you please provide your opinion to what Michael has posted? How do the witness statements add up especially when considering Schwartz's statement and how Abberline and Swanson felt about it.

Thanks
DRoy

DRoy.

You brought up some of my concerns in your first post (#2), I do agree with Michael in some respects, he raises good questions.
If PC Smith is the only reliable witness we are no nearer a solution, in fact to ignore the rest will open the floodgates to wild conjecture.

We already ignore Packer, yet the man he saw is the nearest description we have of Pipeman outside of Schwartz. Its not confirmation by any means yet maybe we sometimes intentionally set the accuracy bar too high so as to confidently dismiss that which we do not agree with.

Mortimer? - I can't imagine a woman standing in the street from 12:30-1:00 am and seeing nothing, not even club members coming and going, and especially not seeing PC Smith.

The Stride case is so frustrating.

.

[lynn cates]

accuracy

Hello Jon.

"maybe we sometimes intentionally set the accuracy bar too high so as to confidently dismiss that which we do not agree with."

Couldn't the accuracy bar be set high for, well, accuracy?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"maybe we sometimes intentionally set the accuracy bar too high so as to confidently dismiss that which we do not agree with."

Couldn't the accuracy bar be set high for, well, accuracy?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

I'm sure you're as aware as anyone how inaccurate descriptions given by witnesses can be, even when describing the same person.

Occasionally an argument here will dismiss a description which differs slightly from another as being 'obviously' a different person. Studies show this high standard of accepted correlation is not consistent with reality.
Pages 5, 6, 7, etc. on this pdf give an idea what I mean...

http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=christian_meissner

Months ago on one of those Hutchinson arguments I mentioned that witnesses often use their own height & age as a standard in estimating the height & age of a suspect. This is confirmed in this pdf, but it is really an obvious natural inclination for witnesses to fall back on.

The age, height, build of a suspect seen at night by two separate individuals may differ due to lighting, distance and angle of view.
Even the type of hat can be misidentified due to the same limitations. I'm thinking here of the three men seen with Stride (by Best, Smith, Marshall), they very well may have been the same man.

I don't think it fair to expect precise descriptions from witnesses who had no idea they would be expected to remember a person in detail who they only saw in passing. No-one stares at every person they pass in the street, or who passes them. We (some of us) set the standard too high in my estimation.

.

[DRoy]

Jon,

Well said. I again agree that Michael has asked some good questions that i'd appreciate hearing from some of the best.

Also correct that we may be going in to a high state of conjecture. However, it needed to be asked. We don't have to solve it but its there.

And without sounding like a suck-up, your comments on witnesses and the bar we hold for them may be too high is also correct. But what did the witnesses actually say? They said they nothing! Most witnesses see something don't they?

Smith can't be wrong. He saw Liz. Does anyone dispute that? Assuming 'no', who else saw Liz? Apparently only Schwartz. Yet apparently nobody saw or heard the scuffle. Does that mean its wrong though?

Let's ask a simple question and everyone answer honestly...if you had a witness that said they saw the victim getting into a scuffle with a man 15 minutes before she's found dead (Schwartz) and a witness that said nothing happened (Mortimer), which one has value? I know which one I'd choose and I'd bet most would also choose Schwartz. But what if he didn't witness it and Mortimer is right? How would we ever know?

Simple solution? Schwartz was believed because 'he saw something' and Mortimer isn't as important because 'she didn't see something'.

Could it be? If so, like you said Jon, there will be a lot of conjecture.

Cheers
DRoy

[Jon Guy]

Hi DRoy

Let's ask a simple question and everyone answer honestly...if you had a witness that said they saw the victim getting into a scuffle with a man 15 minutes before she's found dead (Schwartz) and a witness that said nothing happened (Mortimer), which one has value?

Both.

Both witnesses support each other.

The Schwartz/ BS man incident took place just inside the gates, where the body was found.
Mrs Mortimer could not see inside the gates from her doorway.

[lynn cates]

example

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"I'm sure you're as aware as anyone how inaccurate descriptions given by witnesses can be, even when describing the same person."

My friend, you preach to the choir. Inspector Mallon had four (count them, four) colour descriptions of the getaway car at Phoenix Park. ALL of them were wrong.

Notwithstanding, the more accuracy, the better.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

in passing

Hello Roy, Jon. Very well, but surely she should have seen BS man and Schwartz as they passed?

But she also missed PC Smith. Is she accurate?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Very well, but surely she should have seen BS man and Schwartz as they passed?

Maybe, if she had stood at her doorway for the whole time, but she hadn`t.

But she also missed PC Smith.

Again, she wasn`t at her door the whole time but didn`t she think she heard the footsteps of a policeman pass her door?

[DRoy]

Jon Guy,

If Mortimer could hear steps, wouldn't she also hear Liz screaming three times even if it wasn't very loud?

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

standing

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Maybe, if she had stood at her doorway for the whole time, but she hadn't."

Part of my point.

"Didn't she think she heard the footsteps of a policeman pass her door?"

Indeed. What time did she indicate for this?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Sorry for that previous response, I misread a news article.

It seems we are in agreement with respect to the club's perception of their non-involvement in the murder.
The investigation on the premises was concluded long before Schwartz came forward late Sunday afternoon, so no reason for a conspiracy involving deception.

.

Hi Wickerman

Bear also in mind that it was reported that certain members of the club were charging sixpence a shot showing members of the public the spot where Liz Stride was found. Hardly the sort of behavior to adopt should the club wish to disassociate itself from involvment in the murder.

[The Good Michael]

Bear also in mind that it was reported that certain members of the club were charging sixpence a shot showing members of the public the spot where Liz Stride was found. Hardly the sort of behavior to adopt should the club wish to disassociate itself from involvment in the murder.

Reverse psychology?

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Hi DRoy,

If you check your post above, the concerns you have are all related to how these witnesses fit in with Israel Schwartz's story. If Israel was actually a club attendee that night, which makes more sense than the story he provides,... and perhaps a member...being a local Immigrant Jew himself.....then the explanation as to why he does not appear in any transcript recordings during the Stride Inquest may be that his story was considered tainted if they discovered a connection between him and the club.

Someone apparently has discovered that Schwartz and William "Wolff" Wess were acquainted a few years before this event...if so, isnt it likely that Mr Theatrically dressed Schwartz might aid his pal by coming forward with a story that in essence, absolves the club and its attendees of any sort of guilt in the murder of Liz Stride. If Schwartz did see what he says he saw then BS man is almost certainly the killer. And he was from off premises. It also paints a gentile picture of the killer...something again in their favor. Its far too convenient for me.

If youre really interested in how the witnesses and timings line up then I suggest you remove the Schwartz incident completely, as at the Inquest, and see what comes up.

Eagle and Lave both are club affiliates, Wess is also, Diemshutz is as well. Check their statements after removing the scuffle in front of the gates at around 12:45 and what do you see? I see club members trying very hard to deflect suspicion from themselves.

All the best DRoy

Ive said this before but I will repeat: Why would the club members come up with such a convoluted "witness" and story in Scwartz when they had a real witness in Diemschitz? He could have just said he saw a man with a bloody knife run away yelling dam Jews as he entered the yard.

Also, do we really beleive a new immigrant jew with a a family is really going to risk everything to lie and obstruct a murder case in a newly foriegn country to him(let alone the moral implications)????? I think not.

[lynn cates]

what he said

Hello Abby.

Dimshits might have been used had they thought him convincing.

"do we really believe a new immigrant Jew with a a family is really going to risk everything to lie and obstruct a murder case in a newly foreign country to him"

Well, not if he spoke English and were aware of what the translator was saying. But for all we know, Israel may have been giving his Aunt Rebekah's recipe for knishes whilst the translator did the BS.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Reverse psychology?

Mike

You mean they were going to charge two bob, but decided on a tanner to illustrate that not all Jews are tight as a fishes behind?

Regards

Observer