The Cachous

[Batman]

... But NinjaMan can because....

Special powers?

[John G]

If Stride was killed by Marshall's suspect, and the man seen by PC Smith, that means the killer must have been in Stride's company for over an hour. During this time he had clearly exercised a high degree of patience and control. In fact, according to Marshall's evidence he even appeared charming. He also had a long time to consider an ideal murder site, and to work out an ideal strategy.

If the killer was BS man, this raises a number of questions: why did he suddenly loose control and attack Stride in front of two witnesses? Why did he make such a clumsy initial attempt to overpower Stride, allowing her to cry out three times? Why did he consider Berner Street, which he initially tried to pull Stride towards, to be such an ideal location for a murder. I mean, unlike Mitre Square, it was largely residential, and it was better lit. And there was also a substantial risk he would be interrupted: by Fanny Mortimer, for example. I doubt that even she would fail to notice someone being eviscerated in front of her! And then there are the people exiting the club, I.e Lave, Eagle. And, of course, PC Smith. In fact, he probably couldn't have chosen such a worse time- in front of witnesses-and location.

[Harry D]

It was a terrible plot then because the use of Lipski confounded everyone for weeks until they concluded it was an insult directed at Schwartz.

Also did it deflect? They did house searches in the Jewish parts too following the double event.

The problem with a conspiracy is everyone keeping their mouths shut. Which rarely happens. It just sounds like a terrible plan plus how do you explain the whole moving house and wife thing. To fake all that and murder requires some planning... Including getting JtR to hit in Mitre Square in under an hour later!!

Not to mention the GSG coincidence...

Sorry too much for me to swallow. I'll stick with the more traditional meals.

You misunderstand. I still think Stride was a Ripper victim, but I doubt that BS Man ever existed.

[John G]

Really so the witness accounts above couldn't be trusted because they deviated? That's another false assumption.

Oh great, so looks as though George Hutchinson was telling the truth after all!

[Batman]

As I said before my post was lost in the server switcheroo, I think we have good reason to question Schwartz's reliability. None of the evidence or eyewitnesses corroborate his version of events. Furthermore, I find it awfully convenient that the only word BS Man utters to him is a perceived antisemitic insult, which would distance the suspect from the social club and work into Lynn's theory that Schwartz fabricated the whole thing to deflect suspicion away from the IWMEC.

It was a terrible plot then because the use of Lipski confounded everyone for weeks until they concluded it was an insult directed at Schwartz.

Also did it deflect? They did house searches in the Jewish parts too following the double event.

The problem with a conspiracy is everyone keeping their mouths shut. Which rarely happens. It just sounds like a terrible plan plus how do you explain the whole moving house and wife thing. To fake all that and murder requires some planning... Including getting JtR to hit in Mitre Square in under an hour later!!

Not to mention the GSG coincidence...

Sorry too much for me to swallow. I'll stick with the more traditional meals.

[Batman]

can't have it booth ways

Its a false claim to say that because a witness statement can deviate from another's that one or both are lying. This is because they can agree on other elements that are trur. So it is quite normal to assume that people who are telling the truth can have the freedom of not being perfectly accurate hence your quantum level comparison is erroneous. It can apply across the board and rule everyone a liar if used this way. Hence the eating slices of ones own cake problem.

[Batman]

Really so the witness accounts above couldn't be trusted because they deviated? That's another false assumption.

[Harry D]

As I said before my post was lost in the server switcheroo, I think we have good reason to question Schwartz's reliability. None of the evidence or eyewitnesses corroborate his version of events. Furthermore, I find it awfully convenient that the only word BS Man utters to him is a perceived antisemitic insult, which would distance the suspect from the social club and work into Lynn's theory that Schwartz fabricated the whole thing to deflect suspicion away from the IWMEC.

[John G]

I

Also there seems to be a misconception that what Schwartz recounted was exactly what happened. Yet there is simply no evidence that there needs to be a 1:1 correlation for this to be true. By example we have whole catalogues of witnesses who having seen the same thing describe variations between them because it is their perceptions from memory. So to try to analyze Schwartz statement to the quantum level and then saying it doesn't match the forensics and therefore he is lying is based on this false premise of exactness without allowing for variation to begin with.

But this means that Schwartz's account has no evidential value at all. I mean, we could just distort and interpret what he said in order to support our preferred scenario.

Okay, I'll go first. I interpret Schwartz's account in this way: what he actually saw was a man in a gorilla suit attacking Stride with a banana.

Anyway, it's also interesting that you're now saying that Schwartz's story can't be relied on.

[Batman]

Also there seems to be a misconception that what Schwartz recounted was exactly what happened. Yet there is simply no evidence that there needs to be a 1:1 correlation for this to be true. By example we have whole catalogues of witnesses who having seen the same thing describe variations between them because it is their perceptions from memory. So to try to analyze Schwartz statement to the quantum level and then saying it doesn't match the forensics and therefore he is lying is based on this false premise of exactness without allowing for variation to begin with.

[Abby Normal]

Hello John.

"But this makes no sense. Schwartz said he heard Stride "scream". And a definition of a scream is a loud, piercing sound. That's what a "scream" is."

Yes. I recall an article by Tom Wescott that made this argument.

A scream is a scream is a scream.

Cheers.
LC

yes, and no.

I ran, but not too fast
I jumped, but not very high
I pulled, but not very hard
I whispered but not too softly
I was bad, but not very bad


There are levels to anything.

not loud, loud, very loud, louder , loudest. etc.

also, he didn't speak English so something could have been lost a bit in translation.

nother red herring Im afraid.

[lynn cates]

tandem

Hello Abby. Thanks.

Yes, indeed. Not to mention BSM and PM creeping up on her. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hello All. Oops! My mistake. Rare depiction (vide infra) of Liz being assaulted by BSM and the first of three screams.

Cheers.
LC

Haha. That's funny!


And I cant hear a thing! so its possible! ; )

[lynn cates]

Munch good it may do.

Hello All. Oops! My mistake. Rare depiction (vide infra) of Liz being assaulted by BSM and the first of three screams.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

scream

Hello John.

"But this makes no sense. Schwartz said he heard Stride "scream". And a definition of a scream is a loud, piercing sound. That's what a "scream" is."

Yes. I recall an article by Tom Wescott that made this argument.

A scream is a scream is a scream.

Cheers.
LC