Where is Liz Stride?

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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/v...stian_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.

.

[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]

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.

.

[Wickerman]

Why? Really? You know the answer to that question. Any young men's club with socialist tenets and anarchist leanings will be uncomfortable with police asking questions and looking around, just like any young man approached by a policeman on the street automatically worries about possibly having done something wrong. It's basic psychology.

Mike

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.

.

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael.

"They were only concerned that there were police in an anarchist club."

Well, there were a few other concerns. According to the Arbeter Fraint article, one police officer tried to buy cigars of the members--which would have been an illegal sale under the circumstances. They gave him two freebies.

See, policemen. I rest my case.

Mike

[lynn cates]

Have a cigar?

Hello Michael.

"They were only concerned that there were police in an anarchist club."

Well, there were a few other concerns. According to the Arbeter Fraint article, one police officer tried to buy cigars of the members--which would have been an illegal sale under the circumstances. They gave him two freebies.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Why? Really? You know the answer to that question. Any young men's club with socialist tenets and anarchist leanings will be uncomfortable with police asking questions and looking around, just like any young man approached by a policeman on the street automatically worries about possibly having done something wrong. It's basic psychology.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Delete.

[The Good Michael]

Had there been any undue concern the members would never have spoke so openly to the press, which only invites more curiosity if anything.
No, they were not concerned, at least not sufficiently to create a false witness with an equally false story.

.

I agree. They were concerned that the police were there. They endeavored to get the police out from the club as soon as possible so they told them what they knew because they were not implicated in the murder. They were only concerned that there were police in an anarchist club.

Mike