Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

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

  • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    Some questions...

    Why is Schwartz account a solitary affair and why don't we know who he was? (a ghost, just like Hutchinson was in the MJK case)
    I know who he was

    Why did Packer change his story after a convicted criminal blackmailer interviewed him?
    He believed the publicity would increase his sales

    Why did Joseph Lave spend the entire time-frame in which Stride could have been murdered, getting fresh air and standing around in the dark and yet see nobody?
    He was only getting fresh air until he lit his pipe. Jokes aside, it's interesting that Lave spoke to the press about a period that ended up being so important. As a non-member and temporarily staying at #40, he was possibly seen as expendable by certain members.

    Why was Goldstein seen walking in such a hurry close to the time of the murder?
    He realized he'd forgotten his ten inches of cold steel. Jokes aside, when Fanny Mortimer made that reference, I think she was hinting that she'd seen him earlier on, and not just before she locked up for the night.

    Why were items found in each of the victim's hands, and were they placed there by the killer?
    If someone(s) had something to gain by planting stuff is her hand(s), then who would that be? I can't join the dots with this one.

    Why did some of the residents of Berner Street and members of the club say they saw and heard nothing and yet other transient witnesses state seeing various different men talking to Stride?
    We can trust PC Smith's sighting. Not the others.
    Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Im always impressed by the lengths people will go to rather than admit that they misinterpreted or misquoted something.

      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      I've come to the conclusion you do not read posts that reply to you.
      I've read every press article on here where Kozebrodski's name is mentioned, but you don't seem to have made the effort.


      Since most of the responses are ill mannered and incorrectly interpreted, I choose to skip by some, yes. Ive read the press on Kozebrodski as well Jon, funny you would think your response is based on some superior knowledge.

      In the Evening News, 1 Oct. just to quote one example:

      "Isaac M. Kozebrodsky. Kozebrodsky was born in Warsaw, and can only speak English very imperfectly. His information, which we are obliged to give very shortly, is this: "I came into the club about which you are asking me at half-past twelve o'clock. Shortly after I came in Diemschitz asked me to come out into the yard, as he saw there was something unusual had taken place there. So I came out with him, and he then pointed out to me a stream of blood, which was running down the gutter in the direction of the gate, and flowed from the gate to the back-door. The blood in the gutter extended to between six and seven yards. I immediately went for a policeman, and ran in the direction of Grove-street, but could not find one."


      The daily News, Oct 1st:"I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers. The officers did not touch the body, but sent for a doctor. A doctor came, and an inspector arrived just afterwards. While the doctor was examining the body, I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand and some sweets in her left. I saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom".[1]

      Since the quote I used is a direct quote from Issac himself and has none of the background info by the reporter, I choose to use only his own words. Although in your post it clearly says "I" when Issac is speaking.In the quote I provided it says without doubt that "I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemshitz." The fact that you continue to argue a point when sufficient evidence has been presented that you are continuing to misrepresent what Issac himself said isnt helpful to anyone.

      I've also posted what Diemshutz says in the Evening News, more to the point where he says "we" in reference to Kozebrodski, that "we" went for a policeman. He corroborates Kozebrodski, known by his mates as Isaacs.

      So now when we see "Issac[s] it automatically means Kozebrodski, despite the fact that you already have a statement for Issac Kozebroski himself stating he went "out at the request of Diemshitz or so other member", he not once says "with Louis" in any quote, anywhere.

      Diemshutz.
      One of the members named Isaacs came out with me. We struck a match, and then a horrible sight came before our eyes: we saw a stream of blood flowing right down to the door of the club. We sent for the police without delay, but it was some time before an officer arrived; in fact we had some difficulty in finding one. A man called Eagle, also a member of the club, went out to find a policeman; and going in a different direction to what we did, found a couple in Commercial-road.

      I posted what Eagle said he saw, and the quote above does not say that Louis says he went out with Issac Kozebrodksi, he says Issac[s], which you dismiss and instead suggest he meant Issac Kozebrodski. Not only that... he says he "went out with one of the members named Issac[s]" then mentions seeing the dead woman, which clearly means he went out of the club with Issac[s], not the passageway, and "we sent for help", which substantiates what Issac K said himself. Do you have specific knowledge that there was no member or person in attendance that had the name Issacs? No, of course not. Do you have evidence that Eagle was mistaken when he says he saw Jacobs and "another member" going for help? No. Do you have evidence that Issac couldnt tell whether he was alone or with someone at any given time? No. The reality is that Issac went out alone just as he said he did, that Eagle went out alone like he says he did, and if you continue to believe Diemshitz despite all the reasons suggesting that his statement is not wholly truthful, he went out of the club with someone named Issac[s]. Since Eagle said someone named Jacobs went out with someone for help, and there are only 3 search parties...Issac K, Eagle and Dimeshitz and someone, I suggested there may have been someone there named Issac Jacobs, or Jacob Issacs. Since Louis said Issac[s], it may have been the latter. We dont know who Issac[s] is, we just know that it could not have been Issac Kozebrodski, since Issac K says he went alone.

      I think the "we sent for police" is a spelling mistake for "we went for police", but the end result is the same.
      There is only two directions, down Berner, then east on Fairclough towards Grove.
      Or up Berner and into Commercial Rd.
      Diemshutz & Kozebrodski went towards Grove, and Eagle went up into Commercial Rd.


      You think...thats what we are to use as evidence of something? You think Issac[s] meant Kozebrodski, despite knowing that is not what Issac Kozebrodski himself says, you think "we sent" is "we went" because you want to create the illusion that Issac K suggests he went out with someone, and then you have the gall to add this.....

      All witnesses are supposed to say "I", this is just your lack of knowledge about legal matters.
      Any lawyer or journalist wants to know what "you" did, what "you" saw, or what "you" heard.
      If you ever find yourself in court, don't ever say "we", you'll be abruptly cautioned, you have to say "I did", "I saw", "I heard", regardless how many people are with you.


      Do you know whether I have a law degree or not before you condescendingly advise me on legalities? Do you know that "I" and "We" in English are singular and plural respectively?
      What you do is "think" that you know what was really said instead of simply quoting what was said. I can help you there, Issac Kozebrodski said in his own words that "I went out at the request of Diemshitz or some other member," and Louis said in his own words that "one of the members named Issac[s]" went out to see the dead woman with him.

      Hope that clears things up for you.
      Last edited by Michael W Richards; 09-12-2023, 12:47 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        We can trust PC Smith's sighting. Not the others.
        Finally. Someone who gets it.

        Comment


        • I'm going off debate a bit with this comment but apologies. I am just so frustrated at the complications and confusion surrounding this murder. It should be the easiest to resolve after all JTR/the murderer was there. In plain sight. He must have been. Someone has seen him. He is not magic. He is of flesh and blood. The suggestion of a mistaken location seems more and more likely. The Press street artists seem to get the gates all out of perspective. There is no mud in the yard, and then there is mud piled up the sides of the yard. Blood flows down the yard not congealing in the mud. "Something is rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark" as they say. Still frustrated. NW

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            There cannot have been both a real and misconstrued chase at ~12:45, along a street which is compatible with both stories. The odds are about the same as an innocent witness tracing a path through the neighbourhood and ending up a stone's throw from the address of another man who minutes apart traced exactly the same path. Spooner's location from ~12:30 would therefore suggest there was no chase at all. As for the chase going down Berner or west on Fairclough, how does that gel with your Batty St theory?
            Here is why I don't think it conflicts.
            In Red we see the conventional theory - Schwartz fleeing east along Fairclough, but Spooner (Green) should have seen him.
            In Green, Spooner on the corner beside the Beehive pub.
            In Blue, my hypothesis, Schwartz came out of Batty, crossed diagonally, and south towards the railway arches.



            One possibility, Spooner being with his sweetheart, as with many men, they miss anything and everything going on around them when they are engrossed with a woman.

            I'm not married to this Batty Street scuffle theory, I just think it answers a few questions, and is worthy of consideration.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by New Waterloo View Post
              I'm going off debate a bit with this comment but apologies. I am just so frustrated at the complications and confusion surrounding this murder. It should be the easiest to resolve after all JTR/the murderer was there. In plain sight. He must have been. Someone has seen him. He is not magic. He is of flesh and blood. The suggestion of a mistaken location seems more and more likely. The Press street artists seem to get the gates all out of perspective. There is no mud in the yard, and then there is mud piled up the sides of the yard. Blood flows down the yard not congealing in the mud. "Something is rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark" as they say. Still frustrated. NW
              If the killer is in the passageway or yard between 12:30 and 1, only club people could see him, and if he goes into the club after killing Liz no-one would see him but club people.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post


                They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.
                Star, 2 Oct. 1888.

                Re: Star, 2 Oct. 1888:

                I am wondering if "from another source" was a "medical establishment"

                The Star October 12 1888

                "A Suspicious Infirmary Patient.

                A report was current late last night that the police suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East-end infirmary. He has been admitted since the commission of the last murder. Owing to his suspicious behavior their attention was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries, and he is kept under surveillance".


                Sheffield Evening Telegraph October 12 1888

                "... The police now have under close observation in connection with the Whitechapel murder a man now inmate of the East End infirmary who was admitted since the murder under suspicious circumstances".

                Hampshire Advertiser October 13 1888

                "A report was current late last night that the police have good reasons to suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East End Infirmary. He was admitted since the commission of the last murder, and owing to his suspicious behaviour and other circumstances the attention of the authorities was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries relative to his actions before being admitted to the infirmary, and he is kept under constant and close surveillance".

                Daily News October 18 1888

                "From more than one source the police authorities have, it is said, received information tending to show that the East-end murderer is a foreigner who was known as having lived within a radius of a few hundred yards from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy. The very place where he lodges is asserted to be within official cognizance. If the man be the real culprit, he lived some time ago with a woman, by whom he has been accused. Her statements are, it is stated, now being inquired into. In the meantime the suspected assassin is "shadowed." Incriminating evidence of a certain character has already been obtained, and, should implicit credence be placed upon the story of the woman already referred to, whose name will not transpire under any circumstances until after his guilt is prima facie established, a confession of the crimes may, it is said, be looked for at any moment. The accused is himself aware, it is believed, of the suspicions entertained against him. With regard to the statements current as to finding a blood-stained shirt at a lodging-house in Whitechapel, it appears the story is founded on some matters which occurred more than a fortnight ago".

                Echo October 20 1888

                "There is a clue upon which the authorities have been zealously working for some time. This is in Whitechapel, not far from the scene of the Berner-street tragedy, and the man is indeed, himself aware that he is being watched; so much so, that, as far as observation has gone at present, he has scarcely ventured out of the doors."

                Aftonbladet (Sweden) October 26 1888

                “The murderer of Whitechapel has as yet managed to avoid detection. It is said that the prime suspect is now a foreigner who was living not far from Berner St when the murders took place. He has been reported to the police by a woman who he has been living with and is at present under close surveillance”.

                See also the press reports attached in post 739

                Karsten.​

                Comment


                • Okay "a woman, by whom he has been accused...who he has been living with" may have been the another source, knowing that he was admitted...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by S.Brett View Post
                    Okay "a woman, by whom he has been accused...who he has been living with" may have been the another source, knowing that he was admitted...
                    Ok, thankyou for those, I notice most extracts are dated in the 2nd & 3rd week of Oct., however the police seem to be aware of this "other source" on the 1st or 2nd day.
                    Do you have anything that bridges the gap?
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Ok, thankyou for those, I notice most extracts are dated in the 2nd & 3rd week of Oct., however the police seem to be aware of this "other source" on the 1st or 2nd day.
                      Do you have anything that bridges the gap?
                      I will take a look, Jon... a notebook filled with chaos...

                      Here my train of thought so you know where I am:

                      Would it be possible that this "infirmary" (in the reports) was Andersonīs asylum?

                      Anderson:

                      "I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him".

                      "Pipeman" ("Kosminski") a City Police suspect (see the PC near Mitre Square) was sent to an identification (Seaside Home, maybe Morley House) and could not become a MET Police suspect because Schwartz "refused to give evidence" (in October 1888)

                      Cox, City Police:

                      "We had many people (i.a. "Pipeman") under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail ("Pipemanīs"). Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes".

                      Anderson:

                      "The last and most horrible of that maniacs crimes was committed in a house in Miller's Court on the 9th of November. And the circumstances of that crime disposed of all the theories of the amateur Sherlock Holmeses of that date".

                      It may have been that the City Police were responsible for "Pipeman" after the Double Event and "responsible" for the last crime in Millerīs Court. If so, we donīt know the circumstances... but certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives... after the body of Mary Kelly was found...

                      (Circumstances? "He was a quiet and harmless individual in the ordinary way, but when the paroxysms came upon him his ferocity knew no bounds", Anderson. There also also press reports in December 1888/ January 1889/ August 1889 referring to certain "letters", certain investigations?, Cox)

                      Swanson:

                      "On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night..." This could mean he did not live with his brother after the Double Event, he returned to his brotherīs house in Whitechapel after the Millerīs Court murder. He was a patient in an "infirmary" & did not live with his brother in the meantime (October/ November 1888).

                      Mary Berkin (granddaughter of Swanson)

                      "From what I heard I gathered that Grandfather had been in charge of the case, knew who was the perpetrator but couldn't bring him to justice without the co- operation of one who might have had knowledge of the suspect's movements. That someone was a fellow Jew who declined on religious grounds. The 'proof ' was that the crimes ceased when the suspect was sent away from London".

                      If there really was a PC near Mitre Square who had seen a man of Jewish appearance Schwartz "might have had knowledge of the suspect's movements", ... that suspect went from Berner Street to Mitre Square... apparently...

                      Karsten.


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        Since the quote I used is a direct quote from Issac himself..
                        Unless they use quotation marks, which they don't, you can't say with any certainty if they are the actual words of Kozebrodski.

                        Although in your post it clearly says "I" when Issac is speaking.In the quote I provided it says without doubt that "I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemshitz."
                        We both know Diemshutz asked him to go with him, all the press accounts confirm that. So of course he went at the request of Diemshutz, it still does not mean he went by himself.

                        So now when we see "Issac[s] it automatically means Kozebrodski,..
                        Well, what do you think?
                        A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, - Irish Times.


                        ...despite the fact that you already have a statement for Issac Kozebroski himself stating he went "out at the request of Diemshitz or so other member", he not once says "with Louis" in any quote, anywhere.
                        Obviously not, there could be 10 Louis's in the club, there's only one Diemshutz - the Steward.

                        I posted what Eagle said he saw, and the quote above does not say that Louis says he went out with Issac Kozebrodksi, he says Issac[s], which you dismiss and instead suggest he meant Issac Kozebrodski. Not only that... he says he "went out with one of the members named Issac[s]" then mentions seeing the dead woman, which clearly means he went out of the club with Issac[s], not the passageway, and "we sent for help", which substantiates what Issac K said himself. Do you have specific knowledge that there was no member or person in attendance that had the name Issacs? No, of course not.
                        Has it sunk in yet who "Isaacs" was?
                        Are we over that hurdle now?

                        Do you have evidence that Eagle was mistaken when he says he saw Jacobs and "another member" going for help?
                        Jacobs doesn't exist!
                        There was only one question from the coroner, so only one reply from Eagle:
                        "I cannot say. I ran towards the Commercial-road, Dienishitz, the club steward, and another member going in the opposite direction down Fairclough- street."
                        Daily Telegraph.

                        Every other journalist present at the inquest got it right, only the Times journalist wrote Jacobs instead of Diemshutz.

                        ... and if you continue to believe Diemshitz despite all the reasons suggesting that his statement is not wholly truthful, he went out of the club with someone named Issac[s].
                        "Not wholly truthful"?
                        So you don't like what another witness says, so you label him a liar too.

                        ... there are only 3 search parties...Issac K, Eagle and Dimeshitz and someone,
                        Two search parties.
                        Diemshutz with Kozebrodski, who returns with Spooner, except Kozebrodski continues past the club, up Berner to find Eagle in Commercial Rd.
                        Eagle left the yard by himself, after Diem & Koz already went up Fairclough.

                        I suggested there may have been someone there named Issac Jacobs, or Jacob Issacs.
                        Which is the root of your problem, Jacobs doesn't exist, he is a typographical error.

                        Since Louis said Issac[s], it may have been the latter. We dont know who Issac[s] is, we just know that it could not have been Issac Kozebrodski, since Issac K says he went alone.
                        Totally stunning!
                        It's right there in black & white for everyone to read who Isaacs was - you just refuse to accept it.

                        You think...thats what we are to use as evidence of something? You think Issac[s] meant Kozebrodski, despite knowing that is not what Issac Kozebrodski himself says, you think "we sent" is "we went" because you want to create the illusion that Issac K suggests he went out with someone, and then you have the gall to add this.....
                        You need to remember the "we", it makes no sense for Diem & Koz to have sent others for police if you are arguing Koz was sent by Diem.
                        The "we" means both Diem & Koz told others to go for police, one of which was likely Eagle.


                        Do you know whether I have a law degree or not before you condescendingly advise me on legalities?
                        Yes, I know, trust me, I know you have no law degree.

                        Do you know that "I" and "We" in English are singular and plural respectively?​
                        What are you trying to say?
                        In a courtroom you will be told to say "I", whether any journalist is going to be so particular we can't say, it's anybody's guess.
                        The point you are trying to avoid is to recognise the witness is only describing his role in the escapade, regardless how many were with him.
                        "I", as first-person singular, is always the correct response when someone asks what you did.

                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • 1. Issac's quote, copied as recorded:"I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers. The officers did not touch the body, but sent for a doctor. A doctor came, and an inspector arrived just afterwards. While the doctor was examining the body, I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand and some sweets in her left. I saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom".[

                          Notice that is Issac's, not Issac[s].
                          2. "I went at the request of Diemshitz..." means I, singular, went. He follows that with other singular comments.
                          3. Did Diemshitz say Issacs means Issac Kozebrodksi, did anyone say that? You assumed as much, like many others do.. in your defence. Louis says Issac[s] went out to see the dead woman with him, he didnt say Issac K went for help with him as well. Read your own quote.
                          4. Yeah, I can see how Jacobs and Diemshitz are interchangeable names.
                          5. He says he arrived "precisely at 1", and Ive posted many times that he wasnt seen arriving at or near 1, and Lamb couldnt have heard form Eagle about the murder just before 1 if she wasnt discovered until 1. Have you, and Herlock even done a time reconstruction for Louis arriving at 1 and what transpires after? If you had you wouldnt keep posting the bs you do. He didnt arrive at 1. Period. Not wholly believable, as I said.
                          6.3 Search Parties. Issac Kozebrodski, Eagle and Louis with Issac[s]. I keep telling you both...Issac Kozebrodksi says himself he went alone, and met Eagle on his way back. What is wrong with you? Just being obstinate or a learning disability? Stop posting Louis and Issac K went out together....it is PROVABLY WRONG. Hard to imagine having to correct even a child this much.

                          I cant be bothered correcting all your incorrect comments, suffice to say that the evidence and the statements say one thing and your claims that this is wrong or that was wrong to bolster some insane translation of facts to fluff you are intent on pushing.

                          For the record....Issac Kozebrodski is quoted as saying he was sent out by Louis or some member, at no time does he or Louis say that they went together, Eagle went out alone, and Louis went out with "another member" referred to as Issac[s]. And none of this happened after 1am.

                          You shouldnt be posting with people who can read, its just embarrassing for you when you cant even understand the most basic phrasing.
                          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 09-12-2023, 08:25 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            1. Issac's quote, copied as recorded:"I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers. The officers did not touch the body, but sent for a doctor. A doctor came, and an inspector arrived just afterwards. While the doctor was examining the body, I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand and some sweets in her left. I saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom".[​..
                            Good grief Michael, you can be hard work at times...
                            I don't see a l o n e anywhere, in fact none of the quotes you post, that you claim are the verbatim words of Kozebrodski read, "alone".
                            Yet you insist on pure wishful thinking that he claimed to go alone.
                            Perhaps you would do better to follow your own advise and stick to claiming what you read as opposed to creating fictional scenario's.
                            So long as Diemshutz says he was with Isaac Kozebrodski in the yard, and that "we" went for a policeman, along Fairclough, as far as Grove. That will be good enough for anyone fluent in English.

                            Notice that is Issac's, not Issac[s].
                            Isaac Kozebrodski, known as Isaacs......consider that a slam dunk!

                            2. "I went at the request of Diemshitz..." means I, singular, went. He follows that with other singular comments.
                            "I" does not mean "alone", where did you learn your English?

                            3. Did Diemshitz say Issacs means Issac Kozebrodksi, did anyone say that?
                            You just accused Diemshutz of not telling the truth in a previous post, now you want him to say Isaacs means Isaac - make your mind up.
                            You just cherry-pick what you want to believe.

                            You assumed as much, like many others do.. in your defence. Louis says Issac[s] went out to see the dead woman with him, he didnt say Issac K went for help with him as well. Read your own quote.
                            It's not an assumption when it is in writing, it doesn't matter who wrote it. You just choose to not accept it because it doesn't fit your argument.

                            4. Yeah, I can see how Jacobs and Diemshitz are interchangeable names.
                            No, what you choose to believe is that Eagle turned to the Times reporter and said "Jacobs and another man", then to the Telegraph reporter he says "Diemshutz and another man".
                            Does anyone mention a "Jacobs" involved in anything that night? - No!

                            5. He says he arrived "precisely at 1", and Ive posted many times that he wasnt seen arriving at or near 1, and Lamb couldnt have heard form Eagle about the murder just before 1 if she wasnt discovered until 1. Have you, and Herlock even done a time reconstruction for Louis arriving at 1 and what transpires after? If you had you wouldnt keep posting the bs you do. He didnt arrive at 1. Period. Not wholly believable, as I said.
                            Not concerned about that.

                            6.3 Search Parties. Issac Kozebrodski, Eagle and Louis with Issac[s]. I keep telling you both...Issac Kozebrodksi says himself he went alone, and met Eagle on his way back. What is wrong with you? Just being obstinate or a learning disability? Stop posting Louis and Issac K went out together....it is PROVABLY WRONG. Hard to imagine having to correct even a child this much.
                            Show me. I see no claim that he went "alone", it's just you making it up again.
                            Isn't this case curious enough without you inventing your own background story?

                            For the record....Issac Kozebrodski is quoted as saying he was sent out by Louis or some member, at no time does he or Louis say that they went together,..
                            "We" generally means "together" when you speak of being with another person.
                            You've already seen where Diemshutz came out of the club with Isaac Kozebrodski, "we" did this and "we" did that, more importantly together they went for a policeman and Diemshutz says "we had difficulty finding one".
                            Thats "we", so the challenge for you is to match the "we" with even one "alone", just one. Find me one quote or even a paraphrase attributed to Isaac/Isaacs or Kozebrodski where he says "I went alone".
                            It's what they call - 'put up or shut up', time Michael.

                            Eagle went out alone, and Louis went out with "another member" referred to as Issac[s]. And none of this happened after 1am.
                            Eagle was alone until Isaac K. caught up to him.

                            You shouldnt be posting with people who can read, its just embarrassing for you when you cant even understand the most basic phrasing.
                            Most everyone I post with can read, but there's one poster who tests everybody's patience here at one time or another.

                            Come on Michael - put up or shut up - are you game?

                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Just a thought. I think we are spending lots of time and energy looking at what happened after Stride was discovered. Perhaps we should go back say an hour or so and work forward with the evidence. We have plenty. Just to see whether there is a build up so to speak of events. I think there remains real evidence of at least some involvement that night of Michael Kidney. According to evidence he is annoyed at Strides actions. Entering his room without permission. He appears controlling with some of his behaviors (padlock, saying that they didn't row before splitting) He even mentions at the inquest that he had seen 'letters' relating to someone who was in contact with Stride. She certainly tidies herself up before going out. Kidney is a drunk. It is easy to ignore the drunk. Common sense tells us JTR or the murderer is cunning, clever and sober. There is a press report somewhere of a drunk spouting off in a pub nearby an hour or so before the murder, could this be Kidney. I will try and find it. Kidney may or may not be the murderer but I think he plays a part. It is interesting that he goes to Strides lodgings on the Sunday. How does he discover that Stride is the victim so early after events. In fact thinking about it how on earth did anyone find out who she was so quickly. Yes bit of a mix up with exact ID but Kidney seemed to know it was her very quickly. I will try and work a timeline out. Just rambling. very late/early.

                              Comment


                              • If Kidney was in any way responsible for the assault witnessed in Berner St. he was risking his own life by turning up as a witness at the inquest.
                                Any other witness could have recognised him and he could hang for murder.
                                I would think that is an inexplicable risk to take, when, if really guilty, he could just disappear.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X