Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

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

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    To be fair Herlock, what would be the answers if these questions were applied to Marshall and Brown?

    Cheers, George
    I don’t know if you read David Orsam’s article on this subject but he went through this. We know that witnesses appeared at inquests who couldn’t have helped toward the goals (you rightly mention two) but as we don’t what criteria the coroner employed for taking their testimony we can’t explain why many were or weren’t called to inquests and this includes Schwartz. If I remember correctly I think that some people just turned up and offered their testimony so perhaps coroners liked to get background info. I recall DO saying the inquests occasionally speculated on an actual ToD but that wasn’t was required of an inquest. All that was required was a date so if a doctor could only approximate a ToD which was near midnight then a witness who saw the victim alive at 12.10 for example would be important.

    Couldn't we say ‘well, Fanny Mortimer wasn’t called. She couldn’t have been trustworthy?’

    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

    Comment


    • No one related to printing is connected to this case in any way. Totally unimportant nobodies.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

        I think Schwartz was telling the truth BUT may have been wrong about what he thought he saw. A false truth, meaning his intention was honest and he did see certain events unfold, but maybe his interpretation of what transpired may have been perceived incorrectly.

        Of course, if Schwartz made it all up, then why would he do that?
        Do you not think it just a little bit convenient that a man we are told knows no English, hears the man with the woman shout one word - Lipski - a word he understands? Why that word and that word only? An antisemite might have spat out an entire sentence, like; F**k off you Jewish c**t

        If he lied, then BS man and Pipeman don't exist anyway.
        Were they ever located or did either come forward voluntarily? If not, why believe in their existence?
        Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          I don’t know if you read David Orsam’s article on this subject but he went through this. We know that witnesses appeared at inquests who couldn’t have helped toward the goals (you rightly mention two) but as we don’t what criteria the coroner employed for taking their testimony we can’t explain why many were or weren’t called to inquests and this includes Schwartz. If I remember correctly I think that some people just turned up and offered their testimony so perhaps coroners liked to get background info. I recall DO saying the inquests occasionally speculated on an actual ToD but that wasn’t was required of an inquest. All that was required was a date so if a doctor could only approximate a ToD which was near midnight then a witness who saw the victim alive at 12.10 for example would be important.

          Couldn't we say ‘well, Fanny Mortimer wasn’t called. She couldn’t have been trustworthy?’
          Fanny Mortimer never claimed to see Liz Stride with anyone, in fact she never claimed to see Liz Stride..despite being at her door off and on from 12:30 until 1am. Israel Schwartz not only claimed to see Liz Stride on the street, but he also claims that 2 other people were suddenly there as well. People nobody, the young couple or Fanny, ever saw. He also claimed to see Liz Stride being assaulted within a few minutes of her fatal cut. Anyone who claims this would not be pertinent to the question of HOW she died for the Inquest, be it misadventure, accidental injury, suicide, or wilful murder for example, is not being rational.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Why are you obsessed with the amount of posts I’ve made. Your silly comment about most of them being proved wrong is just….wrong….from someone who makes a speciality of being embarrassingly wrong.

            Have you produced the name of one of the hidden droves that agree with your silly theory yet?

            Hmmmmm, nah, didn’t think so.
            Just to point out how little youve contributed to the understanding of the data despite having what is likely the most posts of any member. And so you dont misunderstand every point made, fantasies are when things are imagined and cannot be proven to be real or factual. Real is what time Issac K gives for the discovery, real is what Heschberg claimed, real is what Lamb stated. Real is Fanny giving an account of what she saw. Fantasy is when you believe in someone or something that there is no proof for....like Israel Schwartz actually being there, or Pipeman, or BSM.

            Your welcome.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              Just to point out how little youve contributed to the understanding of the data despite having what is likely the most posts of any member. And so you dont misunderstand every point made, fantasies are when things are imagined and cannot be proven to be real or factual. Real is what time Issac K gives for the discovery, real is what Heschberg claimed, real is what Lamb stated. Real is Fanny giving an account of what she saw. Fantasy is when you believe in someone or something that there is no proof for....like Israel Schwartz actually being there, or Pipeman, or BSM.

              No, your use of Lamb isn’t honest. You select one quote and ignore 5. Bias.

              Your welcome.
              Firstly, Fisherman has made more posts than I have.

              Secondly, it’s simply your own opinion of my posts based on the fact that I disagree with you and you just can’t take that.

              Thirdly, you mention fantasies? You appear to have forgotten to post the names of those that agree with your plot theory.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                If what Schwartz saw took place, as he says on the footway, then no, he didn't see the murder.
                There's about 9-10 feet difference from the Schwartz assault to the Diemshutz discovery.
                Unless the difference between passageway and footway was lost in translation.

                Try this very literal interpretation...

                ... on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

                Schwartz is at the gateway. Not yards up the street. The man and woman are at the gateway, and Schwartz is right alongside them when the man speaks to the woman.

                The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway​ ...

                The man threw her down where she was found dead. Not out on the footway. Rather, in the passageway and facing the club wall. She never moves from the spot she is thrown down to.

                ... & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

                No one heard what Schwartz heard, because he was very, very close to the victim. The sounds she made were ... well let's just say she squealed a bit. This is the moment she is cut. As The Star said of his story:

                It is, in fact, to the effect that he saw the whole thing.

                No exaggeration. Continuing ...

                On crossing to the opposite side of the street, ...

                ​He crosses Berner street, seemingly from the gateway. There is no obvious logic in him crossing at that point. On the contrary, why doesn't he continue walking down on the same side?

                ... he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

                An odd detail to remember for a man who has just witnessed a murder.

                The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski'​ ...

                Hard to tell who the man was calling at, as Schwartz and the man with the pipe are quite close together. The call also has more of a feel of being a man's name, as opposed to being used as a racial slur.

                ... & then Schwartz walked away ...

                Perhaps he had stopped for another look?

                ... but finding that he was followed by the second man ...

                Having been so close to the murder, it's as though the man with pipe is heeding the call of the first man, and suspects Schwartz of having been involved in foul play.

                ... he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

                The railway arch represents safety, and for a very good reason - he lives near that railway arch.​​
                Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  I say, keep it simple. Wess leaves the material to be picked up that night, by someone trustworthy. Presumably a club member, but not one who attends that night's event (otherwise he could just hand the material to them, in the club). Leaving the material in the printing office means the recipient can avoid getting caught up in the singing and dancing inside the club.
                  I'm fine with that, but after the pick up he goes and stands in the street with Stride to be seen by Smith? Why does Stride then go and stand in the gateway?

                  Cheers, George
                  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 NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    Do you not think it just a little bit convenient that a man we are told knows no English, hears the man with the woman shout one word - Lipski - a word he understands? Why that word and that word only? An antisemite might have spat out an entire sentence, like; F**k off you Jewish c**t



                    Were they ever located or did either come forward voluntarily? If not, why believe in their existence?
                    My guess would be that if in fact it was Lipski that was shouted that it was directed right at Schwartz accompanied by a menacing gesture.

                    As for B.S. man and Pipe Man not being found or coming forward, it would have been very difficult in 1888 to track someone down with no name or known residence with a relatively small police force. And would they really want to come forward voluntarily and admit they were at the scene of a murder during the Ripper scare?

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=NotBlamedForNothing;n818047]

                      Double post.
                      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


                      • So would it be likely; and gain this depends entirely if Schwartz is telling the truth/accurate with his observations, if after Stride was thrown down onto the footway and was alleged to have shouted "Lipski!" that in the time it took for Schwartz to "Run" off; potentially followed by Pipeman, that BS man simply dragged/pulled her 10 feet from her landing position on the footway and then moved her back into the darkness of inside the gateway and THEN cut her throat?

                        From BS man shouting "Lipski" and Schwartz exiting the scene, BS man would would needed only a few seconds to drag Stride into the darkness and cut her throat AFTER moving her.

                        How long would it take to drag/pull a relatively small woman already laying on the floor a matter of 10 feet and then cutting her throat in the manner the killer did?


                        Hello RD,

                        You have to wonder why the B.S. man would have done this after being seen by two witnesses who may be on their way to fetch the nearest P.C. when at that point he would only have been guilty of throwing a woman to the ground as opposed to murder.

                        And if Liz was conscious when being dragged and fighting for her life, how did the cachous remained unspilled when just wrapped in tissue?

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                          I'm fine with that, but after the pick up he goes and stands in the street with Stride to be seen by Smith?
                          Yes, why expose himself like that? My current hypothesis is that Eagle returned to the club, found the pair in the passageway, and kindly asked them to get the hell out. Wess stated that the only time he had seen a man and woman in the gateway, he went and closed the gates on them. So, the pair were temporarily out on the street, are seen by Smith, but quickly return to the passageway and are missed being seen by Fanny Mortimer.

                          Why does Stride then go and stand in the gateway?
                          The 'Schwartz incident' has already occurred. It consisted of Eagle's actions and Joseph Lave getting some fresh air.
                          Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                            My guess would be that if in fact it was Lipski that was shouted that it was directed right at Schwartz accompanied by a menacing gesture.
                            ​So why did Schwartz walk away, and Pipeman start running? Should it not be the other way around?

                            As for B.S. man and Pipe Man not being found or coming forward, it would have been very difficult in 1888 to track someone down with no name or known residence with a relatively small police force. And would they really want to come forward voluntarily and admit they were at the scene of a murder during the Ripper scare?

                            c.d.
                            According to the Star, the police did not release "the Hungarians" name and address, yet they managed to find him, regardless.
                            Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Firstly, Fisherman has made more posts than I have.

                              Secondly, it’s simply your own opinion of my posts based on the fact that I disagree with you and you just can’t take that.

                              Thirdly, you mention fantasies? You appear to have forgotten to post the names of those that agree with your plot theory.
                              I suppose Im not surprised Fish has more posts. Its not just me that disagrees with most of what you post, you might want to revisit some of those so you dont keep making the same mistakes over and over. And your sense of entitlement to have names of who I converse with is misplaced.

                              Ive posted names, times and statements that are on record and have second hand verification, youve posted insults and your backing of accounts that have no second hand verification at all.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                I'm fine with that, but after the pick up he goes and stands in the street with Stride to be seen by Smith? Why does Stride then go and stand in the gateway?

                                Cheers, George
                                I believe you know the answer George, because her plans for the night concern that club or one of its meeting attendees. She is there because she made plans to be there. Why? My guess is work, or a date.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X