Where is Liz Stride?

[The Good Michael]

Mike,



That makes no sense at all. I think you'd be the only person claiming Schwartz wouldn't have provided any value at the inquest if his story were true.

I commented on this back in post 213.

Yes you did comment. I was agreeing with Michael here. Now you've commented twice. And you've made no sense either time.

Mike

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Simon!

I am aware of the address and location on a map. Looking to verify as best as possible the time it would take to traverse the distance. I have not had the good fortune of visiting London, yet.

[Observer]

Observer,

I was still using my phone, but well worth it. Takes some time but getting a good conversation out of it makes it all worth it!

I'd agree D. Although all I can say is you must have good eyesight positng those lengthy messages from a phone!

There are many newspaper reports within the same day and on the same page that conflict if you can believe it.

This is the problem D. To tell you the truth I don't put much trust in any of the Newspaper reports other than those which report the inquests. You have already highlighted the problem. The press reports invariably contradict each other. Some reports are just plain fabrication. One of the reports I read regarding Mortimer states that Mortimer had told one reporter that she noticed that Stride had a bunch of grapes in one hand, and a packet of cachous in the other.

As I mentioned previously, I interpret Mortimer's comment "passing" means passing her and her house. I don't know how Eagle could have passed if he was approaching (aka walking towards Mortimer). If I were in her spot then this is how I would describe it

.

The above highlights another problem when dealing with press repots, interpretation. To me passing through the street merely means one who is moving along any section of the street, in effect anyone who is not static.

We don't know what happened to Parcel Man but if they were having a good time listening to music then why would she leave him to hang out with BS Man? For all we know Liz and Parcel Man went into the yard to hide from the copper

When I think of it, it was Packer who stated they were listening to the music, and to quote Packer on this we-site doesn't go down very well! The fact remains that Smith walked past Stride and parcel man, so they must have been static at the time.

I really don't know why I champion Schwartz's cause because it puts a spanner in the works of my own pet theory as to who murdered Stride. I believe parcel man killed Stride. As you appreciate there's no way parcel man, and BS man (if he existed) are one and the same man. If Schwartz was telling the truth, Liz Stride must have parted company with parcel man, and then encounted BS man. The thing is, as I have already discussed with you, I believe Schwartz's story has that ring of truth to it.

Hang on, you are saying that people in the club didn't hear Liz getting killed but you think Mortimer should have? I said she had good hearing but she isn't Superman.

No I'm not saying that. What I was saying was that if Mortimer had sttod at ther door the length of time she indicated, she would have seen Liz Stride at some point. The fact that she din't see Stride indicates to me that she was at her door for very little time indeed, consequntly it's entirely feasible that she could have been indoors during the time in which BS man is purported to have assaulted Stride.

To be honest, there are some days like today where I lost track if time simply because of the amazing weather we had. Every minute at work felt like 5 minutes yet there are days where 5 feel like 1 minute. And we have clocks everywhere. Which one to believe in though? I always follow the work clock outside my bosses office which is about 5 minutes later than the others. Personal experience yes but if I had to testify to something, how did I pick my time and or what and where was the last clock I looked at? I'd sure hate to be a witness to something as crazy as the Ripper and expect to be exact.

Precisely, that's why the newspaper reports should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Do you know there are posters here in Casebook who's theories rely heavily on newspaer accounts? More fool them.

I'm not sold on any particular theory but you've got me on my toes to try and prove Schwartz wrong!
Great chats by the way Observer!
Cheers Bud,
DRoy

No problem DRoy. By the way, I don't believe anyone will ever identify Jack.

Regards

Observer

[Michael W Richards]

Yes you did comment. I was agreeing with Michael here. Now you've commented twice. And you've made no sense either time.

Mike

No matter how much we may butt heads on some issues Mike, I do prefer it when we can find common ground.

Cheers

[Simon Wood]

Hi Digalittledeeperwatson,

It was approximately 170 yards from 100 Commercial Road to Dutfields Yard.

Time yourself walking this distance as quickly as you think appropriate.

That's how long it might have taken Dr. Blackwell.

Regards,

Simon

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Thanks Simon. Helpful as always. My current map has no legend and I am confined to my phone.

[DRoy]

Observer,

Although all I can say is you must have good eyesight positng those lengthy messages from a phone

Blind as a bat actually but committed!

This is the problem D. To tell you the truth I don't put much trust in any of the Newspaper reports other than those which report the inquests.

Agreed. Report the inquests? I thought the witnesses that testified at the inquests were useless and provided no value which is why Schwartz didn't testify? So why even bother reading about them in the papers?

The thing is, as I have already discussed with you, I believe Schwartz's story has that ring of truth to it.

I would agree that the story sounds true. But...all we have is a summary.

How would the interview go down? Would Schwartz tell the entire story to the interpreter who would then tell the policeman or would they wait for the policeman to ask questions one at a time? What was left out of Swanson's summary? Did he change some of the wordings and order so in his opinion it made more sense? This is why I believe there could be 'misinterpretation'.

The fact that she din't see Stride indicates to me that she was at her door for very little time indeed, consequntly it's entirely feasible that she could have been indoors during the time in which BS man is purported to have assaulted Stride.

Another option is Stride could have been in the yard the entire time which is why nobody saw her (except of course Schwartz). Mortimer has no reason to exaggerate or lie and she said she was outside almost the entire time (please don't say she was trying to involve herself purposely). That does not mean she was in her house most of the time.

It is possible she was in her house when the Schwartz situation happened. Absolutely. But that would mean she should have seen at least one of them before the Schwartz situation walking up the street or after the situation walking away. She should have heard something as well.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Another option is Stride could have been in the yard the entire time which is why nobody saw her (except of course Schwartz). Mortimer has no reason to exaggerate or lie and she said she was outside almost the entire time (please don't say she was trying to involve herself purposely). That does not mean she was in her house most of the time.

It is possible she was in her house when the Schwartz situation happened. Absolutely. But that would mean she should have seen at least one of them before the Schwartz situation walking up the street or after the situation walking away. She should have heard something as well.

Cheers
DRoy

I think the above makes some sense DRoy, but I would add that Fanny isnt the only witness who could have seen Schwartz or Pipeman. Spooner was at the Beehive at that time on Fairclough, as was Mr Brown on Fairclough. Neither of them saw anyone running into Fairclough from Berner Street at around 12:46.

The only problem with the sightings that night is that there are not enough of them to conclude that any kind of event actually occurred in front of those gates. Only a single witnesses says he saw something there...and no-one saw him there.

Cheers

[DRoy]

Michael,

Agreed. I think you know what my opinion is on Schwartz.

[Wickerman]

... Only a single witnesses says he saw something there...and no-one saw him there.

And that apparent fact is used as leverage.

No-one confirmed Cadosche leaving for work when he did, no-one saw Mrs Long witness who she claims to have seen. Not everyone accepts the loiterer as Hutchinson, so he could be another one who saw something but no-one saw him. Then there's Cox, the police could not confirm her story, and no-one saw her either.

[The Good Michael]

And that apparent fact is used as leverage.

No-one confirmed Cadosche leaving for work when he did, no-one saw Mrs Long witness who she claims to have seen. Not everyone accepts the loiterer as Hutchinson, so he could be another one who saw something but no-one saw him. Then there's Cox, the police could not confirm her story, and no-one saw her either.

For that matter no one saw PC Harvey look into the square, and no one saw Bowyer NOT go into Kelly's room and mutilate her. So...everything has room for error. Your point Jon, if I'm not mistaken. That means we have to look at what seems logical and what was generally believed by the police who were our eyes and ears in the investigation. Yet many people dismiss anything and everything that doesn't fit their theory.

Mike

[DVV]

Problem is that the police seem to have different ears and theories as well. What did they "generally" believe, please ?

[lynn cates]

convenient

Hello Jon.

"No-one confirmed Cadosche leaving for work when he did, no-one saw Mrs Long witness who she claims to have seen. Not everyone accepts the loiterer as Hutchinson, so he could be another one who saw something but no-one saw him. Then there's Cox, the police could not confirm her story, and no-one saw her either."

Quite. But I wonder if any of these stories were as "convenient" for the narrator as Schwartz's was for the club?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

The last few posts raise a most important point.....when faced with witnesses who provide what appear to be crucial statements without substantiation by other witnesses, its difficult to know whom to believe. That being said there are circumstantial elements which may help sort out whats what.....like in the case of Israel.

IF a link with a senior man at the club could be proven then there is the possibility that the story was tailored to protect a friend. Since they are both Immigrant Jews, and Anderson seemed to believe that the local jewish population would keep silent to protect another jew...( an anti-Semitic remark in my opinion), that may play into the statement as well.

But Lynn summarized my position on this statement pretty well....his story is way too convenient for the club...it takes the victim out on the street where she likely meets her killer, he is likely gentile, and all the other key club witnesses have to say is that they saw nothing. Eagle and Lave I mean. Louis of course would also have to be considered part of this "conspiracy"...yes, I said it .....and we do have statements that directly contradict his...from men not responsible for the clubs welfare.

Best regards

[DRoy]

For that matter no one saw PC Harvey look into the square, and no one saw Bowyer NOT go into Kelly's room and mutilate her. So...everything has room for error. Your point Jon, if I'm not mistaken. That means we have to look at what seems logical and what was generally believed by the police who were our eyes and ears in the investigation. Yet many people dismiss anything and everything that doesn't fit their theory.

Mike,

Good points and agree with you. However, as Dave has pointed out the police didn't all agree with each other. Plus, the police who were our eyes and ears believed most witnesses immediately but after looking at their story a little closer their opinion changed. Packer, Pole (things that sound dirty but aren't!) etc, including perhaps even Schwartz.

Cheers
DRoy