Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

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

  • From who or where did the foreman get the notion of Stride being thrown to the ground?

    An excellent question.

    c.d.

    ​​

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      If you follow the testimony you will see that it was Dr. Blackwell who suggested she went down as the result of an assault.

      One juror asked:
      "Can you say whether the throat was cut before or after the deceased fell to the ground?"

      Blackwell - "I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground".

      So the next question came from the Foreman of the Jury
      "Do you not think that the woman would have dropped the packet of cachous altogether if she had been thrown to the ground before the injuries were inflicted?"

      There you have it.
      Nothing to do with Schwartz.
      A reasonable interpretation. Those who suppose the BS-man is the killer must have a good answer to the foreman's question. Those who don't might want to consider the killer's wonderfully good fortune in having the BS-man story distract from the truth of the matter. There is only a short period of time remaining for another man to come on the scene. That is because by the time of the discovery, there is already a long stream of blood.
      Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        The newspaper descriptions are not clear, all we can say is something wrapped in newspaper.
        Would a parcel of literature fit the bill?

        Wess at the Inquest: Before leaving I went into the yard, and thence to the printing-office, in order to leave some literature there

        Wess said he left about 12:15, but that was an estimate calculated from when he arrived at his home. With an error in his estimating, and a time difference in his reference clock, could this literature have been deliverd by Parcelman?
        Last edited by GBinOz; 09-05-2023, 07:26 AM.
        It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

        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

          Would a parcel of literature fit the bill?

          Wess at the Inquest: Before leaving I went into the yard, and thence to the printing-office, in order to leave some literature there

          Wess said he left about 12:15, but that was an estimate calculated from when he arrived at his home. With an error in his estimating, and a time difference in his reference clock, could this literature have been deliverd by Parcelman?
          Or picked up? Why not suppose that the reason for Wess leaving literature in the printing office, before heading home, was for someone to pick up and then distribute? Now what club member do we know of who was out on the streets that night?

          Hello, Leon. Mind if I call you Jack?
          Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            Or picked up? Why not suppose that the reason for Wess leaving literature in the printing office, before heading home, was for someone to pick up and then distribute? Now what club member do we know of who was out on the streets that night?


            All of them



            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.
              What are your thoughts on the argument for Schwartz's non-attendance at the inquest, made here...

              Also, this comment...

              The police would have been in violation of the law if they withheld Schwartz's testimony from the coroner.
              Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                Or picked up? Why not suppose that the reason for Wess leaving literature in the printing office, before heading home, was for someone to pick up and then distribute? Now what club member do we know of who was out on the streets that night?

                Hello, Leon. Mind if I call you Jack?
                Neither actually.
                We only have to ask Phil Krantz who was in the printing office from 9:00 until after the murder - no-one came or went to the printing office.
                So, that theory doesn't fly gentlemen.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  What are your thoughts on the argument for Schwartz's non-attendance at the inquest, made here...

                  Also, this comment...

                  The police would have been in violation of the law if they withheld Schwartz's testimony from the coroner.
                  The above statement is not true actually, there was no law governing the cooperation between the coroner's office and Scotland Yard.
                  I'll look at the link when I get a chance, breakfast time here
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    Neither actually.
                    We only have to ask Phil Krantz who was in the printing office from 9:00 until after the murder - no-one came or went to the printing office.
                    So, that theory doesn't fly gentlemen.
                    From The Times:

                    Philip Krantz, who claimed to affirm, said, - I live at 40, Berner-street, and am the editor of a Hebrew paper called the Workers' Friend. I work in the room at the back of the printing office on the ground floor, and the entrance is from the yard. I was in the back room from 9 o'clock on Saturday night until one of the members of the club came and told me there was a woman lying in the yard.

                    He says nothing about anyone coming into - or not coming into - that room or the printing office, prior to being alerted to the woman lying in the yard. The room he refers to being in would be the editor's office.

                    The Arbeter Fraint: [Dimshits] struck a match, but that was insufficient and he wasn’t able to get a [good] flame, he was nevertheless able by the light of the first match to see that the object was a woman. From excitement he jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm. Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard.
                    There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.
                    Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • It would seem that the notion of Stride being thrown to the ground could only have come from Schwartz directly or indirectly. So it would seem that either he did appear or his statement was submitted or a distillation of his statement was entered into the record by the police maybe not referring to him by name.

                      c.d.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                        It would seem that the notion of Stride being thrown to the ground could only have come from Schwartz directly or indirectly. So it would seem that either he did appear or his statement was submitted or a distillation of his statement was entered into the record by the police maybe not referring to him by name.

                        c.d.
                        Dr Blackwells suggests that Liz had been cut "while falling". Could easily be construed as "thrown down". Nice that you folks seem to give Israel such undeserved credibility, undeserved in the sense that there is not one other witness who stated they saw or heard anything or anyone Israel says he saw while there. In fact, there is no witness who can validate that he was there at all. Just his word.

                        Blackwells remarks could easily be construed as thrown to the ground, since "while falling" was due to her interaction with an unknown party. She didnt fall on her own, in other words.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          Dr Blackwells suggests that Liz had been cut "while falling". Could easily be construed as "thrown down". Nice that you folks seem to give Israel such undeserved credibility, undeserved in the sense that there is not one other witness who stated they saw or heard anything or anyone Israel says he saw while there. In fact, there is no witness who can validate that he was there at all. Just his word.

                          Blackwells remarks could easily be construed as thrown to the ground, since "while falling" was due to her interaction with an unknown party. She didnt fall on her own, in other words.
                          A reasonable interpretation. (Oh, my God, did I just actually say that?). But yes, it is reasonable.

                          In fact, there is no witness who can validate that he was there at all. Just his word.

                          As you have been told so many times before, it only means that his witness statement is uncorroborated. It may be true or it may be false. Uncorroborated does not imply false.

                          c.d.

                          Comment


                          • The coroner's office is an older institution that the police force. In cases of unnatural deaths the coroner is expected to hold an inquest, before the police force existed the coroners had their own investigators, such as they were.
                            The local coroner must be informed of unnatural deaths, no one person is responsible to inform the coroner, but the normal sequence of events will end up with either a senior local policeman, or the attending physician.
                            Where the local police enter the equation is under their responsibility of service to the community, and their investigative responsibilities. No ordinary citizen has the authority of investigation, therefore it falls to the police to question anyone who has knowledge of the affair.

                            This is the pertinent piece of the question.
                            Most witness statements are of little to no consequence, how they may or may not be relevant is the responsibility of the police to decide. If there are a hundred statements taken there may only be 20 or so that have a bearing on the death of the person. And this is important - the police have a broad investigation to conduct of which only a small part may concern the death of one citizen, the rest of the witness statements may provide information of a different nature, not directly concerning the death under evaluation.

                            The police then decide which statements are relevant, they pass all of them to the coroners officer who will further whittle them down to which ones will directly help the coroner in his duty to decide:
                            1 - the identity of the body.
                            2 - By what means they died.
                            3 - When & where death took place.
                            etc. the coroners Act spells the duties out. It is not required that the coroner investigates the murder, it is his duty to establish IF the death was indeed caused by murder, or suicide, or by natural causes.

                            The coroner does not make these decisions by himself, it is his responsibilty to provide all necessary sources to enable a jury to make these decisions.

                            If one witness statement requires investigation the police may inform the coroner that they are still working on one statement. It is up to the coroner to decide whether to adjourn the inquest, but he is required by law to hold the inquest within a stated time.

                            The questions are, does the statement by Schwartz have any bearing on the identity of the victim? - No.
                            Does his statement clarify how the victim died? - No.
                            Does his statement change where death took place? - No.

                            So, although the statement by Schwartz may help the police identify the murderer, nothing in the statement helps the coroner fulfill his duties under the coroners act.

                            There is a piece in the press that tells us after the Kelly murder, the subsequent door-to-door investigation over that weekend resulted in over 2000 statements being taken.
                            How many witnesses were called to the inquest? - only 12.
                            The coroner would pen a sharp letter to the Home Office if his officer had over 2000 unvetted witness statements dumped on his desk by Scotland Yard.

                            The bottom line is then, the police were expected to filter out those relevant statements from the irrelevant ones.
                            Irrelevant, meaning as to the identity of the victim, and the location and cause of death, etc.



                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              The questions are, does the statement by Schwartz have any bearing on the identity of the victim? - No.
                              Does his statement clarify how the victim died? - No.
                              Does his statement change where death took place? - No.

                              ts from the irrelevant ones.
                              Irrelevant, meaning as to the identity of the victim, and the location and cause of death, etc.


                              I wonder how many times this has to be repeated Wick?
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                From The Times:

                                Philip Krantz, who claimed to affirm, said, - I live at 40, Berner-street, and am the editor of a Hebrew paper called the Workers' Friend. I work in the room at the back of the printing office on the ground floor, and the entrance is from the yard. I was in the back room from 9 o'clock on Saturday night until one of the members of the club came and told me there was a woman lying in the yard.

                                He says nothing about anyone coming into - or not coming into - that room or the printing office, prior to being alerted to the woman lying in the yard. The room he refers to being in would be the editor's office.
                                But he says right there in black & white, the only person to come to the printing office was one who announced there was a woman in the yard.


                                The Arbeter Fraint: [Dimshits] struck a match, but that was insufficient and he wasn’t able to get a [good] flame, he was nevertheless able by the light of the first match to see that the object was a woman. From excitement he jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm. Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard.
                                There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.
                                Yes, so there you have the name of the member who came to tell Krantz about the body.

                                No-one delivering or picking up papers before the murder. Like I said that theory does not fly.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X