Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

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

  • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    You said on this thread that you don't understand why some people cannot entertain that Jack killed Liz.

    You're employing the same rigid approach but merely to a different aspect.

    You keep appealing to this absolute: estimated TOD is useless. You're applying that across the board and that's it as far as you're concerned.

    It depends. It depends on how long between TOD and estimation, due to biology.

    Last time we had this conversation, you provided the OJ Simpson case. It turned out that the pathologists on that case clearly stated that they could not provide an accurate TOD range because they didn't have access to the body until 13 hours after the assumed TOD.

    They clearly stated that had they had access to that body much earlier, then they would have been able to estimate the TOD with a degree of confidence, a range obviously.

    In the event you can't remember, look it up. An article from the Los Angeles Times quoting the pathologists on the case.
    Yes modern day pathologist, with modern knowledge, modern skills and modern methods.
    None of which existed in 1888.
    Internal Body temperature was not taken, nor it seems was an actual temperature at all. Just subjective touch.
    In Addition, at the Time Rigor Mortis was believed to be reasonably exact, modern science shows the range is much more variable than accepted in 1888.
    I could go on.

    Having spent 35 years working in medical schools and research institutions I am constantly amazed that people do not realise how methods have evolved.

    One cannot take the TODs given in 1888 with any degree of reliability.
    That some of them appear reasonably correct, Nichols, Stride and Eddowes, is i submit mainly due to the police was not present on the last beat.

    It's not a coincidence that the two cases where TOD is disputed, Chapman and Kelly, are the two without input from police beat officers.


    Steve
    Last edited by Elamarna; 09-03-2023, 08:41 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

      The problem is that PC Smith did not mention a bag, and so you'd have to say that the parcel didn't come out of a bag. Given PC Smith's measurements, was the parcel big enough to be a bag?
      Hi FM,

      Long ago, in a thread far far away.......start again. In a different thread I suggested that Parcelman was carrying pamphlets for the socialist club, or the printer. That proposal was not well received. The other proposal that is not well received is that Goldstein was seen by two women, Mrs Artisan observing him headed towards Commercial Road, and Mortimer seeing him coming from the direction of Commercial Road. Goldstein was the treasurer of the club, so perhaps he met Stride when she sought a cleaning job? Was he the man with her, and he has been observed by Smith with the pamphlets. He then ducks into the club to deliver the pamphlets (and pick up his bag) while she waited in the yard? He returns, kills her and is seen headed to the Spectacle Cafe to establish an alibi (because he was seen by BSMan?, or not), and seen again returning from the Cafe, briefly glancing in the yard to seen if his handiwork has been discovered. It's a shame we don't know what he looked like.

      Just some wild speculation, different from the traditional theories constantly repeated in the gazillion Stride threads. Seems to work with or without Schwartz.

      Cheers, George
      Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

      ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

        You said on this thread that you don't understand why some people cannot entertain that Jack killed Liz.

        You're employing the same rigid approach but merely to a different aspect.

        You keep appealing to this absolute: estimated TOD is useless. You're applying that across the board and that's it as far as you're concerned.

        It depends. It depends on how long between TOD and estimation, due to biology.

        Last time we had this conversation, you provided the OJ Simpson case. It turned out that the pathologists on that case clearly stated that they could not provide an accurate TOD range because they didn't have access to the body until 13 hours after the assumed TOD.

        They clearly stated that had they had access to that body much earlier, then they would have been able to estimate the TOD with a degree of confidence, a range obviously.

        In the event you can't remember, look it up. An article from the Los Angeles Times quoting the pathologists on the case.
        I recall the OJ point which was an error on my part listed in haste. It changes nothing though.

        Not one of the numerous quotes posted saying that the methods of estimating ToD were unreliable said “unless the body was examined closer to the ToD.” Multiple factors existed, some of which weren’t known to doctors in 1888. ToD was unreliable. This isn’t my opinion. It’s a fact. Yet you still dispute it. Steve has 35 years experience and yet you claim to know more.

        The most laughable thing in the entire case bar none is the suggestion that John Richardson sat with a steaming, mutilated corpse a foot from his left boot and didn’t see it behind a door that you could ride a motorbike under.

        Apart from perhaps the suggestion that he wasn’t there and just for a laugh decided to place himself at the scene of a knife murder knife in hand.

        Or that someone was blundering around in the yard of number 29 totally impervious to the presence of the corpse.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

          Having spent 35 years working in medical schools and research institutions I am constantly amazed that people do not realise how methods have evolved.

          Steve
          Hi Steve,

          On the other side of the coin, modern research has shown that witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, particularly when the witnesses' story evolves over time.

          Just a friendly reminder chaps, there is a current Richardson thread for the discussion of matters relating to the Chapman murder.

          Cheers, George
          Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

          All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

          ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            Hi Steve,

            On the other side of the coin, modern research has shown that witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, particularly when the witnesses' story evolves over time.

            Just a friendly reminder chaps, there is a current Richardson thread for the discussion of matters relating to the Chapman murder.

            Cheers, George
            Agreed 100% George, witness accounts can be very unreliable, it depends to a great extent on when the statement is made.

            Steve

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              Trevor.

              Would you please take the time to refresh yourself about the case before making inaccurate claims.

              Yes, Schwartz gave a statement to police at Leman-street police station.

              Swanson tells us in his 19th Oct. report that Schwartz "stated", then provides the story he gave to police.
              We've been talking about it all day yesterday.
              No officer of Swanson's standing is going to include a newspaper account in his report to his superiors, he is referencing police statements on file with the department.
              But he could have given his account verbally, and then declined to make a written statement, The police cannot compel a witness to make or sign a written statement. see this happen on a daily basis at police stations.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                I reckon that a lot of the time we get lost in the details of 'witnesses', in a Victorian era prone to sensationalism, some of them will have been in it for celebrity or to earn a few bob (desperate times necessitate desperate measures); and of course some of them will have been close to mark, but some of those will have given a fair description of that which they saw but it's not valuable (e.g. Elizabeth Long describing a couple when Annie was murdered long before that event). And then of course we have press repetition of second hand stories. It should be remembered that the press were businesses and the exact details didn't matter so much, it was a case of get a story out and sell newspapers. It doesn't hold the same value as the medical evidence, given their job was simply to record that which they observed.

                As an example of sensationalism, when was the last time you walked down the street and thought: "he has strange eyes" or "he has a strange walk"? It's ridiculous, 'just doesn't happen, they were imagining some sort of strangeness in appearance because they didn't know what we know, which is that serial killers look just like the rest of us.

                As a result, the really important information such as medical observation and record, and statements by police witnesses, the people paid to pay attention; are often lost in a deluge of information.

                Strip away all of the flight of fancy and the rest of it and the result is that nobody saw a woman with a flower after PC Smith. That must count for something. I'd say Liz was in that yard with Parcel Man more or less as soon as PC Smith turned the corner.
                Which would explain why Fanny does not see them when going to her door "immediately" on hearing Smith's footsteps. It's interesting that Fanny is quoted as saying:

                There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates.

                What about leave the gates? I think she was being coy about what she had seen until she got into conversation with a man who was actually a journalist.

                It's probably worth remembering that the poor in East London were unlikely to buy newspapers unless having a regular wage. Many couldn't read, many had bigger things on their plate than the news, many will have spent any spare pennies on booze.

                It follows again, it could well be an indication that Parcel Man wasn't your regular Whitechapel punter spending his spare money on booze.

                During the Victorian era, coffee shops supplied 'free' newspapers as a way of attracting custom, and so Leon Goldstein, with his social activities; was able to acquire newspapers no problem and for no fee.

                The problem is that PC Smith did not mention a bag, and so you'd have to say that the parcel didn't come out of a bag. Given PC Smith's measurements, was the parcel big enough to be a bag?
                If Parcelman is the villain - Goldstein or otherwise - the question is; what's he doing so exposed on the street, with intended victim? Perhaps he had already been in the yard, talking to Stride, but was 'encouraged' to leave by another member - possibly Eagle, on his return. So, when Smith sees him, the parcel has been removed from the bag, which is sitting on the ground in the passageway.

                Foreword by 'NotBlamedForNothing', page 1.
                Thanks for that
                Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  But he could have given his account verbally, and then declined to make a written statement, The police cannot compel a witness to make or sign a written statement. see this happen on a daily basis at police stations.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Ah, Jesus Trevor, if a witness declines to make a written statement the police cannot use his information.
                  And, Swanson didn't work from Leman-street, he was at Central Office.
                  Neither did he take witness statements, that was Abberline's job.
                  Schwartz's statement would have to be written down for Swanson to have even known about it.

                  Warren said, every piece of paperwork concerned with these crimes must pass over his desk.
                  On his 19th Oct. report, close to three weeks after Schwartz told his story, Swanson is consulting files to make his report.
                  Don't tell me his report is from memory, a summary of the murders, as was requested by the Home Office must be accurate - he is consulting files, and you know it.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    No problem, Jon. I just thought that if an ex-cop was suggesting that a police interview did not necessarily imply the giving of a statement, he probably knows what he is talking about.
                    There is some controversy over Schwartz's statement, and you are aware Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. The mystery is, why?
                    One reason that I favor is, that his statement was not forwarded to the coroner because the police were still investigating it.

                    Swanson writes:
                    "On the evening of the 30th the man Schwartz gave the description of the man he had seen ten minutes later than the PC, and it was circulated by wire, & by authority of Commissioner it was also given to the press."
                    This line confirms the newspaper account that he went to Leman-street on Sunday afternoon.

                    Swanson continues...
                    "If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows...etc...etc.

                    I think the context of that line has been misunderstood, Swanson is saying the investigation is still ongoing, because the police report of their investigation into his story has not been completed yet. It would have helped if he had included a second "if", but it is common enough in conversation to use only one "if" and omit the second.

                    What he meant was:
                    "If Schwartz is to be believed, and if the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows...", which means they are investigating his story and, at the time of writing this, we are still waiting for the police report to see if it confirms his story.

                    This, I believe, is the reason Schwartz was not called to the inquest, his statement taken by Abberline, was still under investigation when the inquest was underway.

                    Abberline wrote:
                    "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely, at the time he made the statement, as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say"

                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                      One cannot take the TODs given in 1888 with any degree of reliability.
                      This was discussed on the John Richardson thread, ad nauseam, Steve.

                      Dr Phillips left us three very important pieces of information which when put together suggest an entirely different scenario to the one you have in mind.

                      Anyway, we went round the houses with this for what must have been 50 pages.

                      I suggest that anyone wanting to continue that discussion should post on the John Richardson thread.

                      Cheers.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        There is some controversy over Schwartz's statement, and you are aware Schwartz did not appear at the inquest. The mystery is, why?
                        One reason that I favor is, that his statement was not forwarded to the coroner because the police were still investigating it.

                        Swanson writes:
                        "On the evening of the 30th the man Schwartz gave the description of the man he had seen ten minutes later than the PC, and it was circulated by wire, & by authority of Commissioner it was also given to the press."
                        This line confirms the newspaper account that he went to Leman-street on Sunday afternoon.

                        Swanson continues...
                        "If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows...etc...etc.

                        I think the context of that line has been misunderstood, Swanson is saying the investigation is still ongoing, because the police report of their investigation into his story has not been completed yet. It would have helped if he had included a second "if", but it is common enough in conversation to use only one "if" and omit the second.

                        What he meant was:
                        "If Schwartz is to be believed, and if the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows...", which means they are investigating his story and, at the time of writing this, we are still waiting for the police report to see if it confirms his story.

                        This, I believe, is the reason Schwartz was not called to the inquest, his statement taken by Abberline, was still under investigation when the inquest was underway.
                        I've seen this theory of yours before, Wick, and it seems to have some merit. But what were the rules? If a witness's statement was still under investigation, would the police still be obliged to forward the statement to the coroner, regardless?

                        I have to ask you though, why not just take the path of least resistance with this? "If Schwartz is to be believed...", then why mention it? That would seem to be the obvious question, and here is the answer. There were some doubts regarding Schwartz, even though his story was generally accepted.

                        The ambiguity of Swanson's words, reminds me of this horribly ambiguous sentence. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted. Which man?

                        As for Schwartz's non-attendance at the inquest, what do you make of the coroner's summing-up statement?...

                        The CORONER, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.

                        Why would the inquest have to be adjourned again, to possibly ascertain something new? Are the police looking for Schwarz, but can't find him?

                        Abberline wrote:
                        "I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely, at the time he made the statement, as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say"
                        It bothers me that Abberline seems to have tried to influence Schwartz's perception of who 'Lipski' was aimed at. Shouldn't his own conjectures have no impact on a witness statement?
                        Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                          Hi FM,

                          Long ago, in a thread far far away.......start again. In a different thread I suggested that Parcelman was carrying pamphlets for the socialist club, or the printer. That proposal was not well received. The other proposal that is not well received is that Goldstein was seen by two women, Mrs Artisan observing him headed towards Commercial Road, and Mortimer seeing him coming from the direction of Commercial Road. Goldstein was the treasurer of the club, so perhaps he met Stride when she sought a cleaning job? Was he the man with her, and he has been observed by Smith with the pamphlets. He then ducks into the club to deliver the pamphlets (and pick up his bag) while she waited in the yard? He returns, kills her and is seen headed to the Spectacle Cafe to establish an alibi (because he was seen by BSMan?, or not), and seen again returning from the Cafe, briefly glancing in the yard to seen if his handiwork has been discovered. It's a shame we don't know what he looked like.

                          Just some wild speculation, different from the traditional theories constantly repeated in the gazillion Stride threads. Seems to work with or without Schwartz.

                          Cheers, George
                          Hi George,

                          I reckon anything involving in Parcel Man is going to be unpopular, simply because he's not a popular person of interest in the Liz case.

                          It's not a bad suggestion at all, George, there are a lot worse.

                          If we're honest, I think it is very difficult to explain how Parcel Man becomes Leon Goldstein with his black, shiny bag.

                          Cheers.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Ah, Jesus Trevor, if a witness declines to make a written statement the police cannot use his information.
                            And, Swanson didn't work from Leman-street, he was at Central Office.
                            Neither did he take witness statements, that was Abberline's job.
                            Schwartz's statement would have to be written down for Swanson to have even known about it.

                            Warren said, every piece of paperwork concerned with these crimes must pass over his desk.
                            On his 19th Oct. report, close to three weeks after Schwartz told his story, Swanson is consulting files to make his report.
                            Don't tell me his report is from memory, a summary of the murders, as was requested by the Home Office must be accurate - he is consulting files, and you know it.
                            You are quite wrong in your assumptions

                            There is nothing to suggest that the police cannot use the information provided to them whether it be from an informant or a witness if either chooses to not make or sign a statement.

                            There is nothing wrong in a witness being interviewed and the police taking down what he said in the form of a witness statement or in note form, but the witness doesn't have to sign it. so if that happened there would be an unsigned statement in existence. or the notes of the interview in existence.

                            Either could explain why he was not called at the inquest

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Hi FM,

                              Long ago, in a thread far far away.......start again. In a different thread I suggested that Parcelman was carrying pamphlets for the socialist club, or the printer. That proposal was not well received. The other proposal that is not well received is that Goldstein was seen by two women, Mrs Artisan observing him headed towards Commercial Road, and Mortimer seeing him coming from the direction of Commercial Road. Goldstein was the treasurer of the club, so perhaps he met Stride when she sought a cleaning job? Was he the man with her, and he has been observed by Smith with the pamphlets. He then ducks into the club to deliver the pamphlets (and pick up his bag) while she waited in the yard? He returns, kills her and is seen headed to the Spectacle Cafe to establish an alibi (because he was seen by BSMan?, or not), and seen again returning from the Cafe, briefly glancing in the yard to seen if his handiwork has been discovered. It's a shame we don't know what he looked like.

                              Just some wild speculation, different from the traditional theories constantly repeated in the gazillion Stride threads. Seems to work with or without Schwartz.

                              Cheers, George
                              George,
                              regarding Goldstein being the treasurer of the club - are you sure? I may be forgetting something, but check this post...
                              Discussion of the numerous "witnesses" who gave their testimony either to the press or the police during the murder spree.
                              Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                George,
                                regarding Goldstein being the treasurer of the club - are you sure? I may be forgetting something, but check this post...
                                https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...fects#post4945
                                Hi Andrew,

                                I was fairly confident, but I've just scanned your thread "A closer look at Leon Goldstein" and found that in that thread I suggested he was Treasurer, and later that he was Vice Chairman, so I now wondering if my memory is playing tricks on me, and concede that I am indeed not sure.

                                I also noticed that in your above named thread we discussed the Goldstein/Parcelman possibility quite comprehensively.

                                Cheers, George
                                Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                                All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                                ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X