Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help On Some Details

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Hutch sees kelly and aman enter the court and takes up his vigil about 3:15. Lewis arrives and passes into millers court shortly after 3:30. Both fixed there times by clocks.
    Lewis couple couldnt have been kelly and aman.
    That really should be the end of it.
    Give or take an hour
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
      Okay so why doesn't she say further on down the street as i was walking along, or in front of me and they turned into the court.
      Darryl, we're dealing with paraphrase. Not one of those records, either the court document or various press versions, actually quote her words explicitly.
      We don't know what she said, verbatim.

      If the couple did go into the court it would be of the upmost importance. Yet the point/question does not seem to be pursued.
      Regards Darryl
      Thats our problem, this part of her testimony was of no importance. The coroner did not question her on it, and none of the press covered it in sufficient detail.
      Lewis may not have thought it was important either, she didn't mention this couple in her initial police statement to Abberline.

      Even the Daily Telegraph, who provided the most by way of questions from the coroner only started to give them when she reached hearing that cry of murder.
      The first question we have was from the Echo concerning what the loiterer looked like.

      We are trying to piece together her testimony from sources who showed little interest in recording her actual words, and no interest in any of the coroners questions.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        You would expect his police statement to be the more accurate. Police officers are trained to extract much information and to clarify important points when taking witness statements. Abberline was an experienced officer.
        Yes, perhaps. I choose to treat those two statements as equal. Not play one off against the other.
        What is missing is Abberline's interrogation report, that is where all the detail would be found.

        If the matter went to court newspaper reports would not form part of the prosecution case.
        Agreed. And in his police statement he said they went into Dorset street "and I followed them". So thats what he did.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seanr View Post
          Yes, quite consistent with both stories. But not consistent with Sarah Lewis' statement describing this same moment.
          Like I said, we only have paraphrase to work with from Lewis.
          Trying to criticise her individual words, when they may not be her actual words is pointless.
          All we need to do is understand her overall story.
          - That she saw a man loitering opposite Millers Court.
          - That there was a man & woman in Dorset street, the woman was hatless, the worse for drink, and they both passed up the court.

          As this is the same story, at the same time, at the same place, as told by Hutchinson is all we need to concern ourselves with.
          Last edited by Wickerman; 01-06-2019, 07:51 AM.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
            Hutch sees kelly and aman enter the court and takes up his vigil about 3:15. Lewis arrives and passes into millers court shortly after 3:30. Both fixed there times by clocks.
            Lewis couple couldnt have been kelly and aman.
            That really should be the end of it.
            Is that daylight saving time?

            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
              Yes, perhaps. I choose to treat those two statements as equal. Not play one off against the other.
              What is missing is Abberline's interrogation report, that is where all the detail would be found.

              I have never heard of an interrogation report do you have any reference to one.

              Agreed. And in his police statement he said they went into Dorset street "and I followed them". So thats what he did.
              So why is that being questioned ? There is nothing on record anywhere to suggest Abberline did not believe him.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                Thanks same here sunny.
                Ill just add before dropping it is that i actually meant abberlines statement about the peaked cap.lawende and schwartz arent mentioned by him but there peaked cap man suspect certainly is. Amd blotchy is mentioned as a valid suspect later by i beleive dew? Or swanson. Cant remember.
                Amyway my point being is hutch should be by far the best witness, no question, and the fact that him and his suspect disapear entirely as valid, speaks volumes about his credibility imho.
                Toodles.

                Sorry to continue on lol but just wondering- do you not think Abberline supercedes his peaked cap comment by stating the only witnesses to see the killer saw his back. As we know Lawende and Scwartz both saw men believed to be the killer and saw their face. So ergo their witness statements are not what Abberline is referring to. He is really only referring to Mrs Long. Maybe because Lawende and Schwartz descriptions don't match that of George Chapman at all well.


                Yeah I think it was Dew who said that Blotchy was the main suspect for him. His writings seem quite good and his memory also not bad but he does refer to Blotchy as having a beard yet Mrs Cox said he was clean shaven. A small error but significant. He also believed Hutchinson had the wrong night but then who did Sarah Lewis see if not Hutch? Interestingly I am sure Dew would have remembered Hutchinson being discredited but there is no mention. Rather he still believes Hutchinson's story. Just that he had the wrong night. That is an important point. He still believed the story.
                Last edited by Sunny Delight; 01-06-2019, 11:00 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                  Hello Michael,

                  I think it is quite unfair of you not to share your evidence with the rest of us seeing as how you know for a FACT that this was the case.

                  c.d.
                  cd, dont be obstuse. In any document, press, police, private observation, there is no record of Israel Schwartz'z statement in any format being made available at the Inquest into Liz Strides death. Theres your fact.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                    If the police dismissed Schwartz, why is Donald Swanson still discussing him as a valid witness in a report dated October 19th?
                    Maybe it was his belief. No-one was searching for either BSM or Pipeman at that time.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      Like I said, we only have paraphrase to work with from Lewis.
                      Trying to criticise her individual words, when they may not be her actual words is pointless.
                      All we need to do is understand her overall story.
                      - That she saw a man loitering opposite Millers Court.
                      - That there was a man & woman in Dorset street, the woman was hatless, the worse for drink, and they both passed up the court.

                      As this is the same story, at the same time, at the same place, as told by Hutchinson is all we need to concern ourselves with.
                      Only difference is that Hutchinson told his story 4 days later.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        So why is that being questioned ? There is nothing on record anywhere to suggest Abberline did not believe him.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        No, just that there is some to suggest that his "belief", once again, amounted to nothing in terms of usable evidence. In 2 or 3 days after his statements Hutch is reported to be discredited, and Israels statement doesnt even warrant a passing mention in the formal hearing as to how Liz died.

                        Abberline had a past with this particular neighbourhood...he is not just some hotshot Scotland Yard man assigned to these cases, he made his name there. They gave him a party and a cane when he was promoted. He, above any investigator, had a personal issue with these cases being unsolved. The fact that he endorses people who are later proven to have no valuable insights to share is just indicative of his frustration and the things he would want to believe.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                          cd, dont be obstuse. In any document, press, police, private observation, there is no record of Israel Schwartz'z statement in any format being made available at the Inquest into Liz Strides death. Theres your fact.
                          Hello Michael,

                          The point I was making was that apparently you and you alone of all the posters on Casebook know WHY Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest. I was asking you to share your information or to admit that you are simply speculating.

                          c.d.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            No, just that there is some to suggest that his "belief", once again, amounted to nothing in terms of usable evidence. In 2 or 3 days after his statements Hutch is reported to be discredited, and Israels statement doesnt even warrant a passing mention in the formal hearing as to how Liz died.
                            The question of evidence is somewhat irrelevant because none of the witness testimony was ever fully tested in any of the victims inquests. But I would have expected the police to have had the ability to asses and evaluate each statement on its merits, and to have perhaps re interview those persons whose gave statements which conflicted with others.

                            You have to bear in mind an inquest is only to determine a cause of death.

                            As far as Stride is concerned researchers are reading to much into this issue of the assault on Stride shortly before her murder suggesting it was her subsequent killer. There is more than one explantion which could resolce the issue

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              I have never heard of an interrogation report do you have any reference to one.
                              When an important witness, or suspect is interrogated. Does the officer write down what the person being questioned said?
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                Only difference is that Hutchinson told his story 4 days later.
                                Why do you keep repeating that?
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X