Where is Liz Stride?

[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

[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"?

.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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,

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]

Surely Schwartz apparently seeing Liz being assulted about 15 minutes before her death would be important enough to determine the cause of death. Otherwise why not just have doctors attend, they would be the ones deciding the cause of death anyway. Saying Schwartz didn't need to be at the inquest is just silly if his story were truly accepted.

It was an official process. Have you actually read these inquests? There's a bit of pomposity from the coroner at times and nothing else of any importance. The broad question of murder or suicide is easily answered without Schwartz' testimony. If you think the inquest is some sort of investigation of any depth, you are sorely mistaken. Read the inquests here and tell me what nuggets of brilliance came out of them that would be different from a written statement. After that, you can call me silly, Mr. Logic.

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

I have to address a few comments made in my absence;

1. There is no reason within the known evidence to support that Broadshouldered Man left the scene at all for one, and there is no reason to surmise that anyone came on the scene after BSM may have left. As has been said, the reasonable assumption concerning the alleged assault in Israel Schwartz's statement is that if it is a legitimate account, then BSM is more than likely the killer.

2. Jon's point that the people seen by the Three Wise Men outside Mitre Square may not have been Kate and her killer is a good one....the timing from that sighting to the killers departure is so short that one needs to question whether he could have accomplished all he did with Kate in that amount of time, in addition to getting her to the murder site.

3. Observers point that Fanny Mortimers statement has been proven faulty is inaccurate and misleading. The reason she likely didnt appear at the Inquest is because her evidence isnt necessary unless it corroborates or discounts another statement, and with Israels statement also absent, her story could only offer an empty street prior to the murder. Hardly worth putting someone on the stand who says "I saw nothing but someone passing by the club around 12:56", unless of course it deals with other evidence for that same time.

4.Observers comment that both Brown and Schwartz could be truthful seems to ignore the fact that only 1 of those stories was presented at the Inquest, and that Brown likely didnt see Liz Stride anyway based on his own story. He also didnt see or hear the supposed altercation that would have spilled into the street he was on at the time.

5. To clarify some timings....Lave said he was in the passageway and at the gates from 12:30 until 12:40...yet he didnt see what PC Smith saw at 12:35, nor did he see Morris Eagle return to the club at 12:40. Eagle didnt Lave either. Brown saw his couple at 12:45, the same time Schwartz claims he saw and heard the altercation in front of the club. Brown did not see any color on the woman...Liz dies with white and red flowers on her breast. Fanny Mortimer, who claims to have been at her door, off and on, from 12:30 until 12:50...when she spends the last 10 minutes of the hour at her door continuously...doesnt see or hear Lave, or Eagle, or Schwartz, or BSM, or Pipeman, and in that last 10 minutes at her door until 1am, she doesnt see Louis Diemshutz arriving. Spooner says he saw 2 men running into the street around 12:40am, and thats when he went with them to the passageway. His story conflicts directly only with Louis's.

6. Leon Goldstein did have potential value to the proceedings, if there could have been a link established between him and the black bag of empty cigarette cartons and the cigarette makers living in the passageway cottages who were awake at the time. I believe a decent amount of tobacco related business may have taken place in those cottages.

7. In a traditional Inquest held to determine the cause of death the most important witnesses would be the people that discover the murder, the people closest to the victim, and the people closest to the murder site near the time of the murder. In the case of Liz Stride, the people most responsible for the site on which the murder occurred are first to speak....confirmed by the fact that the first witness runs the paper onsite and is influential in the clubs operations, but in terms of his relevance to the proceedings, he says he left the scene 15 minutes or more before Liz is even attacked.

I would really prefer to have the arguments based on some reality so we can see if this exercise has any real value, I mean every aspect of this murder has been looked at multiple times over the years. What I hope can come from another go round is a realization by some that many of the accepted stories here are without any substantiation.

The real story created by the cumulative accounts isnt realistic, and doesnt work. Too many people miss supposed events happening. What it is though is a very neatly timed exit and entrance history for the club members, the people closest to the victim when she is killed, and the only people who had anything to lose by having the guilt placed on them.

Best regards,
Mike

[DRoy]

Mike,

Surely Schwartz apparently seeing Liz being assulted about 15 minutes before her death would be important enough to determine the cause of death. Otherwise why not just have doctors attend, they would be the ones deciding the cause of death anyway. Saying Schwartz didn't need to be at the inquest is just silly if his story were truly accepted.

Cheers
DRoy

[The Good Michael]

Why would Schwartz's story be of little value if it were true? He would have been the last person to see her alive after her being assulted and only minutes before her body was found!

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

[DRoy]

Mortimer seems to have had nothing of value to say. It was probably because, when compared to other testimony, she came off as clueless. She could have been an attention seeker.

Compared to other testimony she came off as clueless? Who's testimony would that be? Can't be Schwartz, he didn't testify. Nothing she says is discounted by anyone's testimony.

Whatever reason, this cannot apply to Schwartz. Schwartz probably didn't testify because he had given all the information he could and logistics with translation and the time it would take to translate back and forth would have made the process unwieldy and would have provided little value. It seems as if all the testimony from all cases provided little value as they were only coroner inquests and gave no new information as far as I can tell

Schwartz didn't testify. If you can show a reason why he didn't other than his story somehow becoming no longer of value then i'll believe it. Suggesting that he didn't testify because the pain it would have been using a translator is not going to change my mind. Why would Schwartz's story be of little value if it were true? He would have been the last person to see her alive after her being assulted and only minutes before her body was found!

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Ehhh??? If the witnesses timings were open to speculation how in the hell do you know Brown saw Stride at the same time as Schwartz! Come on man get a grip. By your reasoning Brown could have been mistaken regarding the hour he saw Stride, as could Schwartz. So how can you rule out Schwartz's account on the grounds that Brown acclaimed to have spotted Stride at the same minute as Schwartz?

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.

No she did not see members of the club, you're wrong, the only person she saw was Goldstein, passing through the street She did not say that she saw Eagle and Lave. And if she had been on the street at 12:35 she would have seen both Lave and Eagle. I'd be surprised if Mortimer was at her door earlier than 12:50, the footsteps she heard were in all likelyhood those of Eagle returning to the club. And you've yet to point me in the right direction to the press report that mentions Mortimer hearing the cart of Deimschutz returning to the club. One thing is certain she wasn't at her door during the period in which Scwartz saw Stride being assaulted by BS man.

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."

What would she testify to? Come off it, she went into ther yard and veiwed Stride's body, Spooner was called to the inquest for precisely the same reason. Not all witnesses were called to inquest. Ok, if something happened to Schwartz's story what do you think happened for the police not to call him to inquest? Nobody could contradict his story, certainly not Mortimer, and it remained on the police files.

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

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.

Cheers
DRoy