Where is Liz Stride?

[DRoy]

Mike,

I didn't call you silly, saying Schwartz had little value to add to the inquest is. I know the purpose of the inquest. Did any of the witnesses besides the doctors contribute in any way in determining the cause of death? Not one of them, yet there they were. I don't understand your arguement. Every witness would have spoken and given statements to the police yet they still testified.

Cheers
DRoy

[The Good Michael]

Mike,

Did any of the witnesses besides the doctors contribute in any way in determining the cause of death? Not one of them,

I rest my case.

Mike

[DRoy]

Mike,

Your case is that the inquests are pointless and only useless testimony is given because those who have valuable things to say need not attend? Okay, you win. Great case!

Cheers
DRoy

[Observer]

Observer,

I don't know if Brown saw Schwartz at the same time or not. This entire argument is stupid. You forget the reason of me even bringing Brown's timing up. I was trying to show you couldn't take their times so literal because if you did then either Brown or Schwartz must have been wrong. That's it. No conspiracy, not having my cake and eating it too.

Again with respect D, that is not the case. I think you'll find if you go back in this thread, or the 6d did Liz Stride spend it on a fish supper thread, you'll see that you included Brown's sighting of Stride as a reason why we should discount Schwartz, that is, due to the fact that they both claimed to have seen her at 12:45.

Her quote is "Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about except at the club" (London Evening News October 1). Like i've said before, nobody passed through the street except Goldstein. As per October 1 The Evening News: "...And so it happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband."

I think you'll find that the reference to anybody moving about is down to the fact that the club was in use, people were singing and dancing. However you dress it up, it does not equate to Mortimer having seen Lave and Eagle. Mortimer stated that she saw only one man that night Goldstein.

And again with respect, you stated that not one witness saw anybody pass down the street. Also I've read the Evening News account of her story and no where does it mention that fact that she heard Deimshcutz's pony and trap. Could you cut and paste this section please?

Yes, what would she testify to? She saw the body, she saw Goldstein, saw nothing else.

So you agree she did not see Lave or Eagle.

You're making it sound like Goldstein is important for some reason. When he read Mortimer's account in the papers, he went to the police to say it was him that passed through the street with the bag. The police accepted his story and that was it.

Not at all, I was merely putting forth a reason why Mortimer should possibly attend the inquest.

I already gave many possible scenarios why Schwartz didn't testify. If you are asking my personal opinion, I think it likely there was miscommunication when he gave his statement and a follow-up interview confirmed it. His story no longer held the clout it once did. I'm not however sold on Schwartz or those from the club all lying.

That's fair enough D, you're entitled to your opinion. The thing is, I believe Schartz's story has a certain truth to it. Could the Lipski incident have been a figment of his imagination? Could pipe man standing at five feet eleven be a blatant lie?

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Because the testimony was already given. These coroner inquests were for determining probable cause of death, not to find the culprits. As such, they seem to have been a regurgitation of statements in a simple, Q and A format. I suspect that anyone with a good excuse not to be there didn't have to work hard to get a dismissal. There's too much reading into all these inquests.

Mike

This is true Good Mick. Certain commentators balk at the speed at which the Mary Kelly inquest took place, lamenting lost evidence. The truth is it achieved what it set out to do achieve, as you say to determine probable cause of death.

Regards

Observer

[DRoy]

Again with respect D, that is not the case. I think you'll find if you go back in this thread, or the 6d did Liz Stride spend it on a fish supper thread, you'll see that you included Brown's sighting of Stride as a reason why we should discount Schwartz, that is, due to the fact that they both claimed to have seen her at 12:45.

Observer,

With all due respect, although I may not have said it in the best way to get my point across, I know what I was trying to say. If Smith saw Liz at 12:35 and both Brown and Schwartz saw Liz near 12:45 on different streets then we have her running around all over the place. That wouldn't make sense mor match any witness statement.

I think you'll find that the reference to anybody moving about is down to the fact that the club was in use, people were singing and dancing. However you dress it up, it does not equate to Mortimer having seen Lave and Eagle. Mortimer stated that she saw only one man that night Goldstein.

That's your opinion, not how I read it at all. And no, she doesn't say the only person she saw was Goldstein, she said she only saw one man pass through the street as you bolded in your post.

And again with respect, you stated that not one witness saw anybody pass down the street. Also I've read the Evening News account of her story and no where does it mention that fact that she heard Deimshcutz's pony and trap. Could you cut and paste this section please?

Lave didn't see anyone, Eagle didn't see anyone, Mortimer didn't see anyone besides Goldstein, etc. The news report I told you about is on this site. I unfortunately am only using my phone to type this so it's difficult to copy and paste the article. It is there though.

So you agree she did not see Lave or Eagle.

No I don't agree. She didn't name them but she said she saw club members. Since those two said they were in the yard we can assume Mortimer saw them.

Not at all, I was merely putting forth a reason why Mortimer should possibly attend the inquest.

To say an innocent man passed through the street carrying a bag but he had nothing at all to do with anything? Okay, sounds like a waste of time to me though.

That's fair enough D, you're entitled to your opinion. The thing is, I believe Schartz's story has a certain truth to it. Could the Lipski incident have been a figment of his imagination? Could pipe man standing at five feet eleven be a blatant lie?

Thanks Observer for understanding it is an opinion only. It does in my opinion also match the evidence. As I said, at this point I don't think Schwartz is a liar, I think it was a misunderstanding through misinterpretation.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

This is true Good Mick. Certain commentators balk at the speed at which the Mary Kelly inquest took place, lamenting lost evidence. The truth is it achieved what it set out to do achieve, as you say to determine probable cause of death.

Observer,

Over 20 witnesses testified at the inquest which lasted five sessions and almost a month long. They provided, according to Mike, no value. The one person who apparently had value doesn't need to testify because he already gave a statement. You're telling me instead of having Schwartz testify and maybe an officer and a couple doctors they instead went with almost a month long inquest and over twenty witnesses because like the Kelly inquest they already established the cause of death and wanted to hurry it along?

Wow.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

This is true Good Mick. Certain commentators balk at the speed at which the Mary Kelly inquest took place, lamenting lost evidence. The truth is it achieved what it set out to do achieve, as you say to determine probable cause of death.

Regards

Observer

Hello Gentlemen.

Shouldn't we add, "where", "when" & "by what means"?

.

[Observer]

Ok D, I think we'll have to leave it there, It's obvious we'll never agree. Just had a look and the Evening News 1st Oct though ,here on this site, and it does not mention Mortimer having heard the pony and trap.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Wickerman

Yes where, when, and by what means comes into it also

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Observer,

Over 20 witnesses testified at the inquest which lasted five sessions and almost a month long. They provided, according to Mike, no value. The one person who apparently had value doesn't need to testify because he already gave a statement. You're telling me instead of having Schwartz testify and maybe an officer and a couple doctors they instead went with almost a month long inquest and over twenty witnesses because like the Kelly inquest they already established the cause of death and wanted to hurry it along?

Wow.

Cheers
DRoy

Hi D

Just saw this, and to be truthfull I don't know what you're getting at here. My reference to the Kelly inquest was as a stand alone observation.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

That's your opinion, not how I read it at all. And no, she doesn't say the only person she saw was Goldstein, she said she only saw one man pass through the street as you bolded in your post.

One very last thing D. You imply that Mortimer saw Eagle. Eagle returned to the club in his words about twenty to one. You aslo believe Mortimer stood at her door from approx 12:35 If this is the case then Mortimer would have seen Eagle return to the club, that is, pass through the street. But this can't be she only saw one man Goldstein pass through the srteet

Regards

Observer

[DRoy]

Hi D

Just saw this, and to be truthfull I don't know what you're getting at here. My reference to the Kelly inquest was as a stand alone observation.

Regards

Observer

Observer,

You used it as a reason to not include witnesses. I don't think that was why Schwartz didn't testify for the reasons noted.

Cheers
DRoy

[Observer]

Did I ? That's news too me. What about my other post D?

Regards

Observer

[DRoy]

Observer,

Nobody passed through the street, not nobody crossed it or stood on it. She specifically commented on those from the club and she specifically said mobody passed through the street. They're her words, not mine. Interpret it as you may.

Cheers
DRoy