Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

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

  • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

    My only point in my previous comment was that it cannot be accurately said that Schwartz is the only person who claimed to see Stride alive at this time, because Brown claimed this too. Whether or not one is of the opinion that Brown was right (or Schwartz for that matter) is another matter. But do note that the quote from Mortimer is 2nd hand info; she's relaying her recollection of her conversation with the couple. Using her statement also requires that we assume that Mortimer knew when Stride was murdered.
    To the question of Mortimer seeing the couple from her doorstep, the EN interview seems to be relevant.

    Evening News, Oct 1:

    "Was the street quiet at the time?"

    "Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club."


    She is saying there were people on the street, but they were very few in number. If those she refers to did not include the couple, then presumably she saw multiple men. In that case, what to make of this?...

    It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.
    Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Trump is a vegetable.
      Vegetables, are good for something...
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        Schwartz believers cannot call on the support of Scotland Yard, for their belief in the story, and at the same time find it necessary to significantly modify the story, or in this case, ignore its implications. If people change the story to make it sound more realistic, then the police report becomes just another interpretation, and so the police's attitude to Schwartz is therefore of little or no relevance.
        Not sure what you mean, doesn't Scotland Yard say they have doubts?
        Don't they say they need more info?
        Adding info isn't changing the story, there is no detail in the statement Swanson summarizes.
        Naturally they will have doubts if he gave them no details, yet gave the press elaborate details.
        Where did all that come from?
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

          Schwartz believers cannot call on the support of Scotland Yard, for their belief in the story, and at the same time find it necessary to significantly modify the story, or in this case, ignore its implications. If people change the story to make it sound more realistic, then the police report becomes just another interpretation, and so the police's attitude to Schwartz is therefore of little or no relevance.
          Oh good let's just ignore it then .

          Seems to be the go on here, everyones theory has the elimination of someone or something to make it work huh.?

          I'll be sure to use the same logic from now on when discussing witness testimony.

          Schwartz testimony can't be eliminated that easily im afraid.

          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Trump is a vegetable.
            Ok seeing how you ignored my request not to discuss politics when I ask ( politely I might add ) so be it .

            One doesn't need to be Einstein to see who the vegetable really is.
            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              Vegetables, are good for something...
              I said, watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical
              A liberal, oh fanatical, criminal
              Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're acceptable
              Respectable, oh presentable, a vegetable!
              Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                Not sure what you mean, doesn't Scotland Yard say they have doubts?
                Don't they say they need more info?
                Adding info isn't changing the story, there is no detail in the statement Swanson summarizes.
                Naturally they will have doubts if he gave them no details, yet gave the press elaborate details.
                Where did all that come from?
                I thought it was Leman St with the doubts, Swanson hinting at those doubts, and Scotland Yard supportive of Schwartz's statement.
                Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  Oh good let's just ignore it then .

                  Seems to be the go on here, everyones theory has the elimination of someone or something to make it work huh.?

                  I'll be sure to use the same logic from now on when discussing witness testimony.

                  Schwartz testimony can't be eliminated that easily im afraid.
                  In the closer look at Eagle and Lave thread that I started, Schwartz is not just ignored. On the contrary, that was an attempt to give names to Schwartz's first and second man. However, that thread was largely ignored. It seems people would prefer these characters to remain anonymous.
                  Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Something that should be kept in mind regarding Schwartz, is this bit from the Star's report ...

                    Information which may be important was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police. It is, in fact, to the effect that he saw the whole thing.

                    It would seem that a professional interpreter was not used by the police, or the Star - they relied on a friend of Schwartz, and someone who was "on hand", respectively. Abberline's impression of Schwartz could only be as good as was the interpreting. What agenda, if any, did this/these interpreters have?

                    There is also the question of the language used. Pick up on an old thread, starting here ...
                    https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/elizabeth-stride/8315-which-schwartz-interpretation-is-acurate?p=405820#post405820​
                    Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 09-16-2023, 01:18 AM.
                    Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      I thought it was Leman St with the doubts, Swanson hinting at those doubts, and Scotland Yard supportive of Schwartz's statement.
                      Good one - Supertramp, reminds me of my misspent youth...

                      Anyway, yes Leman-St was the HQ of H Div, where S.Y. had an office, or desk.
                      The Yards true view of Schwartz may be a bit more complicated, I see Swanson's view as T.B.D. (to be determined), one thing we should know, Leman Street will not hold a view that conflicts with the Yard.

                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        In the closer look at Eagle and Lave thread that I started, Schwartz is not just ignored. On the contrary, that was an attempt to give names to Schwartz's first and second man. However, that thread was largely ignored. It seems people would prefer these characters to remain anonymous.
                        You must have seen several posts that offer up conflicting press versions of an interview with Lave, check them out yourself.
                        You picked one as your example, but how do you know it was the correct one?
                        this is the trouble with Lave, we do not know when he went out of the club, or for how long he was out. So his statement has no use.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                          ...

                          It would seem that a professional interpreter was not used by the police, or the Star - they relied on a friend of Schwartz, and someone who was "on hand", respectively. Abberline's impression of Schwartz could only be as good as was the interpreting. What agenda, if any, did this/these interpreters have?
                          In giving a statement anyone who claims to be able to translate will be acceptable. We can't say he was professional, it could have been a relative who speaks both languages. The police accept statements are given in good faith.
                          It's in court where it matters, the prosecution will hire their own professional interpreter. It will be one who normally works with the police for credibility reasons.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            We still see it being assumed by some that - discrepancy = lies. And we see it far too often. It’s almost second nature in some quarters. As Wick says, people make mistakes; especially in unusual and stressful circumstances. We also have language interpretations to consider plus the vagaries of various Press reports. This isn’t a spy thriller. It’s a simple case of murder where we don’t know the perpetrator. As I’ve said before, how often do we see a murder in the street and then find out there was some kind of conspiracy going on with a planted witness? What really is the likelihood? About as likely as someone asking Donald Trump onto their quiz team I’d say.
                            A lot of people treat the case as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit you are given all the clues and can solve the case if you are clever enough. Barring deliberate deception, all information is accurate. This includes times, especially times of death. There is a direct link between the killer and the victims. There is a clear list of suspects. Alibis are either rock solid or further deceptions by the killer. Anything found is a clue or deliberate red herring.

                            None of this is true in a real case. We don't even have a clear list of victims, let alone a clear list of suspects. Human perception and memory are fallible. Eyewitnesses can contradict each other and not be lying. Objects found may just be random objects that have nothing to do with the case. Alibis are often soft and generally can't be proven or disproven this long after the events. Times given are usually estimates by people who didn't own a pocket watch. Estimated times of death are little more than guesswork, based on variables we are still trying to understand in the 21st century.​​
                            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Ok, but Brown did not say the woman had a flower on her jacket, so apart from him 'felling sure' what other justification is there for assuming he saw Stride?
                              I just think he saw someone else, and as the press interviewed this 'sweetheart' couple, their presence confirmed by Mortimer, then it seems assured to me Brown was just mistaken.
                              As an aside, you'll notice he heard the cries of "murder" about 15 minutes later (later than 12;45, so nearer 1:00am), as Diemschutz & Kozebrodski run for help.
                              Hi Jon,

                              From the Inquest: Brown:

                              When I heard screams I opened my window, but could not see anybody. The cries were of moving people going in the direction of Grove-street. Shortly afterwards I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian- street, and a man called him to Berner-street.

                              Who was the man that called Collins to Berner St? It can't have been Diemshitz as he was by then at the yard. It can't have been Koze as he was by then with Eagle on Commercial Rd. IMO it was Jacobs.

                              Koze (AKA Issacs) left the yard first, headed for Fairclough, but turned up Batty towards the Commercial Rd where he found Eagle, and then Lamb. Eagle left next headed for Commercial Road. Diemshitz and Jacobs left shortly after, and were the two "jews" seen running down Fairclough towards Grove. On their return they encounter Spooner, and Diemshitz returns with him leaving Jacobs to continue the search in that area, and Jacobs finds Collins. This hypothesis does not rely on misprint or mistaken identity, which I don't find tenable. While I appreciate your point of view, I must in this case respectfully disagree.

                              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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Didn’t realise you had such a high regard for Trump’s intelligence.
                                Hi Herlock,

                                Isn't that an oxymoron? Kindly note this as a day when we are both in full agreement.

                                Sorry Fishy.

                                Cheers, George
                                Last edited by GBinOz; 09-16-2023, 04:57 AM.
                                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