The Stride Murder

[GBinOz]

Hi Wickerman. Yes fully accept what you are saying about evidence of dragging. I am sorry to keep going on. Will stop this idea after this.

am not saying she was dragged I am saying it has to be considered because of the statement made by Police Surgeon Phillips who says "examining her jacket I found that although there was a slight amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud" and also he states "Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side". This is evidence of a movement between the area plastered (jacket) and matted (hair).

He makes a comparison with the right hand side of the jacket where there is a slight amount of mud which does indicate contact with the right side of her jacket and the left side which is well plastered indicating a different type of contact. From this we could say that she has had contact with a muddy surface on both sides but different types of contact or perhaps quantity of mud.

When he talks of her face and hair he makes a similar comparison saying there was mud on face and left side of head but emphasizes matted on hair and left side. If he didn't think it was significant he would just say mud on face hair and jacket.

This evidence from Phillips seems to suggest (even if we accept no dragging) of a different type of contact with the floor on the left side. There is no confusion as to the word plastered. It is heavily spread, or thickly spread.

I have no evidence that she was dragged but Phillips does produce evidence that mud was plastered on the left side of her jacket and matted left side of hair. perhaps he struggled whilst laying on left side. still alive long enough to push her hair into the mud and spread it onto her jacket.

Perhaps when she was pulled down in the yard by the murderer she was pulled down landing on her left side.

Also that side of the yard couldn't have been thick with mud on the floor because the blood was apparently flowing quite well down that side. (mystery)

Hi New Waterloo,

If Schartz is to be believed, there was an incident that could be described as an attack, with Stride being thrown to the ground, or perhaps as a domestic dispute where perhaps BSMan released his grip on Stride and she fell to the ground. Either way, this seems to me to be the occasion where she acquired the mud on her dress and face. Lamb testified that her clothing was not dishevelled, and it appeared that she had been lowered to the ground. I would suggest that after the initial incident she arose and was persuaded, by someone, to proceed towards the clubhouse, and was then seized and murdered. Two separate incidents. The blood flowed towards the street, as would have any mud after the rain.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

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.

Be that as it may, your comment that ''Schwartz story stinks'' was reckless .

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

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

Sorry Fishy.

Cheers, George

No problem George ,i can easily see why certain positions are taken as far as the subject matter goes, i dont have a problem with that .

What strikes me as astonishing is the lack of any comment regarding noticable, obvious, problematic descriptions of a certain other politican . But hey time will tell all ,im sure of that .

[GBinOz]

No problem George ,i can easily see why certain positions are taken as far as the subject matter goes, i dont have a problem with that .

What strikes me as astonishing is the lack of any comment regarding noticable, obvious, problematic descriptions of a certain other politican . But hey time will tell all ,im sure of that .

Time usually reveals all Fishy. But I haven't heard any other President claim that George Washington first took the airfields, or that stealth fighters were invisible, or that the drinking of disinfectant may be the solution for the Covid virus, amongst other little gems of wisdom.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Time usually reveals all Fishy. But I haven't heard any other President claim that George Washington first took the airfields, or that stealth fighters were invisible, or that the drinking of disinfectant may be the solution for the Covid virus, amongst other little gems of wisdom.

Cheers, George

Fair point George . As im sure youd also get a laugh at the ''Dumbest Political Quotes of all Time '' [ Google it just for kicks] im not so sure the above are much different when stacked up against these gems. People say the strangest things .

But i suggested in an earlier post, perhaps best that any further discussion be directed to the Pub Talk section . Which i hope to comment on the subject in the new year

[FISHY1118]

55
of 91 Dan Quayle on Latin America



''I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people.''

—Dan Quayle




27
of 91


Donald Rumsfled on the Unknown



''We know there are known knowns: there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns: that is to say we know there are things we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.''

—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Defense Department briefing, Feb. 12, 2002




07
of 91


Barack Obama on Visiting 57 States


''I've now been in 57 states — I think one left to go.''

—Barack Obama, at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon, May 9, 2008



I love these 3


Fascinating list , ok thats enough from me .

[Herlock Sholmes]

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’s very gratifying in a way to see clear examples like this post of what I’ve said numerous times. Some people complain about my occasional tendency toward sarcasm or mockery as if it’s somehow nasty. And yet they themselves feel it ok to slip in real personal insults as if they’re exempt.

Calling me ‘a vegetable’ is hardly ‘nice’ is it? And from someone as blameless as you.

And btw, calling Trump a vegetable in a passing comment isn’t anymore ‘discussing politics’ than me calling the alleged Berner Street plotters The Keystone Cops would be a discussion of silent film comedy.

[FISHY1118]

It’s very gratifying in a way to see clear examples like this post of what I’ve said numerous times. Some people complain about my occasional tendency toward sarcasm or mockery as if it’s somehow nasty. And yet they themselves feel it ok to slip in real personal insults as if they’re exempt.

Calling me ‘a vegetable’ is hardly ‘nice’ is it? And from someone as blameless as you.

Ok, i have say there a bit of confusion here, and sorry but i wasnt calling you a vegetable at all ,i was referencing biden ,that was my intention as per the dicussion .

Again sorry if you thought i meant you .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

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

Sorry Fishy.

Cheers, George

Agreed George. Although Trump would probably think that is was a type of stupid cow.

[Elamarna]

As Abberline seems to have second-guessed Schwartz on who 'Lipski' was called to, perhaps we should be asking a similar question of him?

From the very start, people have found it necessary to modify Schwartz's story to make sense of it. An obvious red flag.

We disagree, you have decided it's fake, because for you it doesn't feel right to you.
I see every type of reason given to reject it; none of which to me appear to be solid to me.
You clearly disagree

So we will have to agree to disagree.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

No problem George ,i can easily see why certain positions are taken as far as the subject matter goes, i dont have a problem with that .

What strikes me as astonishing is the lack of any comment regarding noticable, obvious, problematic descriptions of a certain other politican . But hey time will tell all ,im sure of that .

If I call a certain politician stupid you think that, for balance, I should mention examples of stupidity in other presidents? And if I mentioned the examples you quoted would someone else pop up and say “hold on, that’s no fair, why haven’t you quoted that thing that Hoover said, and that thing that Ford said?”

I made a passing comment about Trump’s stupidity. It wasn’t a ‘political discussion’ or an attempt to begin one and yet you felt the need to leap to his defence. You’re the one keeping this going Fishy. Not me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, i have say there a bit of confusion here, and sorry but i wasnt calling you a vegetable at all ,i was referencing biden ,that was my intention as per the dicussion .

Again sorry if you thought i meant you .

Ok. Let’s drop the Trump stuff.

[FISHY1118]

If I call a certain politician stupid you think that, for balance, I should mention examples of stupidity in other presidents? And if I mentioned the examples you quoted would someone else pop up and say “hold on, that’s no fair, why haven’t you quoted that thing that Hoover said, and that thing that Ford said?”

I made a passing comment about Trump’s stupidity. It wasn’t a ‘political discussion’ or an attempt to begin one and yet you felt the need to leap to his defence. You’re the one keeping this going Fishy. Not me.

Ok Whatever ,i just thought if the discussion was to continue it shouldnt be on the Stride thread thats all .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that we should get real. People don’t just randomly place themselves at the scene of a murder where their actions can’t be confirmed or rejected by anyone else. How could Schwartz have known that a Mrs Nosey wasn’t looking out of her window with the gates in view who could come forward and say that the incident never happened? Or even that some busybody didn’t read The Star and come forward to say that they knew Schwartz and that he was elsewhere at the time? It makes zero sense so, in the absence of proof, we have to consider more sensible, believable explanations.

1. That the incident was of a very short duration and didn’t involve any great noise and so for a period of a minute or so there was no one else in the street apart from Schwartz, BS man Pipeman and Stride.

2. That Schwartz was mistaken in his time and the incident occurred before Smith passed at 12.30/12.35. Yes, this would mean that BS man wasn’t the killer but having a bigger gap of time between a 12.45 incident and the body being found at 1.00 makes the suggestion less unlikely imo.

3. That Schwartz saw the incident elsewhere (Wick’s suggestion) in a different gateway. As Wick pointed out, it was dark after all. I’ll throw in another possibility - how do we know that Schwartz hadn’t had a few beers? No one spoke to him at the time to make a judgment on his sobriety but it was late at night after all so it’s can’t be impossible, or even unlikely, that he’d been drinking and he’d have sobered up by the time that he went to the police station. It’s just a suggestion but not a far-fetched one imo.

I’ll add my hypothetical scenario to the mix again:

Stride is out with a man and she doesn’t want him to know about her other life (as a prostitute) They move to the gateway either because her man wanted to use the club’s outside toilet or he has to go and speak to someone inside the club (for whatever reason) While he’s inside BS man shows up drunk; he’s a former client. He tries to get Liz to go with him but a scuffle ensues. Liz doesn’t call out loudly because, a) she knows that the guy isn’t dangerous (just an annoying drunk) and b) she doesn’t want to draw attention to her past connection to this man. She just wants him to leave her alone and go before her man returns.

Stride’s man exits the toilet/club, sees the struggle and calls out to BS man in the gateway. As he’s coming from the club BS man assumes that he’s a member and therefore Jewish so he calls him Lipski. Schwartz who is across the street and slightly passed the gates doesn’t see this other man and naturally assumes that the ‘Lipski’ is directed at him. He just wants to get out of there so he doesn’t look back and never sees Stride’s man. Pipeman scarpers to as he doesn’t want to get involved either.

BS man decides to give up, not fancying a beating from Stride’s man, but before he goes he says something that leaves Stride’s man with no doubt that she is, or has been, a prostitute. They stand in the passage and Stride comes clean. The guy has a temper and is furious. He grabs her and cuts her throat and leaves.

[Wickerman]

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

Jacobs doesn't exist
lol

You only need to go back to that one question from the coroner, there was only one reply by Eagle.
He can't say "Jacobs" to the Times reporter, but say "Diemshutz" to every other reporter in the room.
Of course it's a misprint.


George, if you truly want to believe in Jacobs, you must demonstrate exactly how that exchange between the coroner & Eagle happend, for one reporter to hear Jacobs, yet all the rest heard Diemshutz?
Please...explain this.