Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

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

  • #91
    I believe the problem that many of you are having accepting the quoted timings Ive posted is that you have not calculated how long things likely took to accomplish. If Louis said he arrived at 1, then checked the body, then went inside to check on his wife, then summoned people to assist him in the passageway, then sent Issac, then Eagle leaves, Issac goes one way, Eagle another, Issac is returning to the club and sees Eagle and Lamb and joins them as the head to the gates...roughly how long would all that take? 10 minutes, minimum? That would mean that Lamb is actually arriving at 1:10, not near 1 as he said which would mean he is off by at least 10 minutes, it would mean that Issac K was 30 minutes off on his time, Spooner is off by 35 minutes, Heschberg is off by 25 minutes and Johnson is arriving at the gates at the same time as Lamb.

    This is because why again? Louis says he arrived at 1? So all those people are wrong by a substantial amount of time, and only Diemshitz is correct.?

    Its clear, hopefully, to anyone who has read all the statements that someone had to be wrong on the times given. That most of you choose to think the only person that had the right time is the man who is most responsible for the clubs continuing operation is to say the least, surprising. Considering we have both Lave and Eagle stating they were in the same place at the same time and neither seeing the other, and that Eagle couldnt be sure the body was there at that time or not, which he says was 12:40, and that the neighbours and the police felt that "low men" attended that club, and that the very same person you choose to trust is arrested less than 6 months later for assaulting police with a club in that same yard, its quite remarkable to me that you would decide that Louis was the ONLY man who knew the correct time. Im also surprised that people still use Israel Schwartz and his story. When there are several people in the area at that time....Fanny, the young couple, James Brown, supposedly Lave, and not one of them sees or hears anyone that Israel said was there, and that Fanny who could hear bootsteps from inside her house but yet didnt not hear "Lipski" being yelled across the street, or anyone struggling with anyone else..like Liz and this BSM fellow....and to top it off he's not involved in the Inquest.

    I wont try to dissuade anyone any further to accept what I believe is clearly indicated by the cumulative witness evidence in this case. Its finally clear to me, people will accept what people will accept, no point in trying to change that. I suppose for students who are new to this Ive at least left a contrasting opinion that they can accept or not.



    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • #92
      No, the reason that we don’t accept your quoted times is because we all understand the obvious. That times cannot be relied upon as exact. Even if a Doctor with an expensive watch quoted a time I wouldn’t take it as exact. I’d still insist on a margin for error. How much more so for people without watches. People getting the occasional glimpse of a clock or who here bells from a clock tower. Even Lamb didn’t own a watch and he was a Constable on a beat!

      You’ve been trying for years to do that Michael and it simply never occurs to you that no one accepts your version because you’re wrong. You think that everyone else is wrong and only you see the truth. And you keep doing the same things to bolster your opinion.

      Diemschitz for example. Why are you unwilling to consider that the clock that he saw might have been fast? So that when he saw it saying 1.00 the clock that Lamb took his time by might have said 12.55. Why can’t you understand or accept that timings require a margin for error? Do you really believe that Victorian clocks were perfect? Do you really believe that Victorians were somehow better at judging and estimating periods of time than we are? Jeff has show via research that Victorian timepieces were often wildly wrong. It’s simply a fact but it’s one that you see as inconvenient so you stubbornly refuse to consider it.

      Lamb for instance: “About 1 o’clock, as near as I can tell,

      Could any sentence be less certain? And this is quoted in the majority of reports. And yet you completely disregard this because it doesn’t suit you.

      I posted the reports of what Lave said and it’s bordering on gobbledegook and yet you still keep quoting him. And you still haven’t been able to explain the one I highlighted which doesn’t make an ounce of sense. But Lave is fine in your book.

      Eagle and Gilleman back up Diemschitz 100%. And the police could have visited Eagle’s girlfriends family for further confirmation. They would also have interviewed everyone in the club and clearly concluded that Kosebrodski and Heschberg’s estimates were just too ‘out there’ to be correct. So they supported Diemschitz because there was no credible evidence against him.

      Read Frank’s timeline, then Jeff’s and George’s if we come across them. Between the three of them you have what happened. Enough with the pointless nitpicking.
      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-25-2023, 03:36 PM.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

      Comment


      • #93
        As I said, people will believe what they believe. Surely that should end your ridiculous insistence that you are right and I am wrong. Its the same evidence for both of us. I dont see the evidence as being"obviously" the way you suggest at all. Period. Maybe because I also dont ever refer to Jack the Ripper as being a killer of at least 5 women during that time in London, I see 12-13 Unsolved murders of women in a police file that many have suggested contains 5 Ripper victims, Im less prone to just accepting what others believe. People accept what they accept.

        Oh, one last point on your drivel above, in point of fact I use Lave to point out that a club member was either fabricating a story or playing dumb. I dont think he is any more reliable than Eagle, Louis or Mrs D. I just get a little miffed when you consistently post information that is categorically incorrect. Now its been corrected. Carry on.
        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 08-25-2023, 03:53 PM.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • #94
          Just came across a statement I had forgotten, though I do now recall reading it before. Its interesting, from Scotland Yard Investigates by the esteemed Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow.

          "According to Schwartz, this man attempted to pull Stride onto the street before turning her around and shoving her to the ground.[67] As Schwartz had observed this assault, Stride's assailant shouted the word "Lipski" either to Schwartz himself or to a second man who had exited the club amidst this altercation and lit a pipe​". I had forgotten that Pipeman is said to have come from the club. Goldstein was also a member. I dont recall if anyone has found that Schwartz belonged to it as well, but I do recall that he and Woolf Wess were known to each other previously. Might explain why Wess was his translator. As he apparently was with Goldstein that Tuesday night when he came in.

          It would seem that although Pipeman may not have fit the conventional appearance of a Jewish man, his exit from the club might suggest that this BSM fellow thought he was. Which could be some evidence of antisemitism. Was Israels account suggesting that BSM was a gentile and that he was antisemitic? Interesting if true, because that would indicate that Israels story provided an off premises gentile as her likely killer...(last man supposedly seen with Liz before her death).... who is also antisemitic. I guess the Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing in this case.
          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 08-25-2023, 06:09 PM.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • #95
            I’ve never said that JTR was the killer of at least 5 women. Couldn’t you at least try to make one post that doesn’t include an invention Michael? All that I’ve ever said is that in my opinion he killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Stride is a possibility. So is Tabram. So is Mackenzie. No one can know conclusively. This position is a more likely to be correct one than one claiming for example that Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were killed by 2 different men (which is your position)

            Saying that your “less prone to accepting what others believe” is a claim that we hear regularly. It usually comes from people who are keen to portray themselves as out-of-the-box, original thinkers. And they are usually people who have bizarre theories to push that they are annoyed that no one else supports.

            Nice piece of twisting by the way. You’ve consistently used Lave as someone supporting an earlier discovery time but now you’ve been cornered by the posting of the quotes attributed to him you have to try and excuse your reliance on the poorest witnesses. And noticeably you haven’t risen to the challenge of explaining that quote from Lave. Lave is clearly an unreliable witness.

            I’m happy with Frank’s timeline (found by George)
            1. Wess & company leave
            2. Letchford arrives
            3. Lave goes outside (and remains there for 5 to 10 minutes)
            4. Eagle returns to the club
            5. Stride & companion arrive close to the club
            6. Smith arrives and sees Stride & companion opposite the club
            7. Stride, now alone, is standing at the entrance of the yard when Schwartz sees an altercation between Stride and a man who had been walking ahead of him
            8. couple arrives at the corner of the board school
            9. Brown passes and sees the couple
            10. Mortimer comes to her door
            11. Leon Goldstein passes the club
            12. Mortimer goes back inside
            13. Louis Diemshutz arrives in the yard and discovers Stride
            14. Diemshutz & Kozebrodski run south searching for a policeman
            15. Eagle runs north in search of a PC, later joined by Kozebrodski
            16. Eagle & Kozebrodski find Lamb & Ayliff (PC 426 H)
            17. Edward Spooner arrives at the scene together with Diemshutz
            18. Mortimer enters the yard (she sees Spooner touch Stride’s face – Evening News, 1 October)
            19. P.C. Lamb arrives, followed by PC 426 H
            20. P.C. 426 is sent for Blackwell, Eagle for Inspector Pinhorn
            21. Lamb blows his whistle
            22. P.C. Albert Collins arrives as a result of the whistle (Smith sees 2 constables on his arrival and PC 426 isn’t at the scene then)
            23. P.C. Smith arrives at the scene
            24. PC 426 H arrives at Dr. Blackwell’s residence
            25. Eagle arrives at Leman Street police station
            26. As Edward Johnson, Blackwell’s assistant, arrives with PC 426, Smith leaves to get the ambulance
            27. Lamb closes the gates
            28. Dr. Blackwell arrives at the scene
            29. Inspector Pinhorn arrives
            30. Dr. Phillips arrives
            31. Inspector Reid arrives at the scene

            Approximate times can be added of course. I know it might be a little too plot-free and it doesn’t particularly help with Isenschmidt but hey ho. At least it makes sense.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              Just came across a statement I had forgotten, though I do now recall reading it before. Its interesting, from Scotland Yard Investigates by the esteemed Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow.

              "According to Schwartz, this man attempted to pull Stride onto the street before turning her around and shoving her to the ground.[67] As Schwartz had observed this assault, Stride's assailant shouted the word "Lipski" either to Schwartz himself or to a second man who had exited the club amidst this altercation and lit a pipe​". I had forgotten that Pipeman is said to have come from the club. Goldstein was also a member. I dont recall if anyone has found that Schwartz belonged to it as well, but I do recall that he and Woolf Wess were known to each other previously. Might explain why Wess was his translator. As he apparently was with Goldstein that Tuesday night when he came in.

              It would seem that although Pipeman may not have fit the conventional appearance of a Jewish man, his exit from the club might suggest that this BSM fellow thought he was. Which could be some evidence of antisemitism. Was Israels account suggesting that BSM was a gentile and that he was antisemitic? Interesting if true, because that would indicate that Israels story provided an off premises gentile as her likely killer...(last man supposedly seen with Liz before her death).... who is also antisemitic. I guess the Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing in this case.
              Is this the only report that has Pipeman coming out of the club?

              The Star on Oct 1st said:

              “..but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off,”

              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

              Comment


              • #97
                Glad it makes sense to you. I thought the need for insults was past, I have no interest in accepting what you believe and I see by the above that youve constructed a self serving argument to counter what you claim is a self serving argument by me. I only used the statements that are on record, and the times given by those witnesses. You say that most of them are wrong excluding Louis, and somehow youve concluded that the "important accounts" agree with him.

                Your argument suggests many witnesses are all wrong by 15-35 minutes. Its the only way your self serving argument can work, isnt it? I have used historically accurate, quoted statements and suggested a storyline from those that can explain why so many people said Louis was already there at 12:40ish. Your storyline tosses out many of those statements because you believe their all wrong. So which of us is actually following the data? And who is trying to manipulate it? I will say one thing..the storyline above line #14 suggests Issac Kozebrodksi and Diemshitz leave together, when you know full well that Issac K himself said something completely different. Oh right, using his own words gets in the way of your fictional reconstruction. Poor Issac that he is deemed so untrustworthy by someone so dependable as yourself.
                You keep on this Isenschmidt thing like you have something on me......I have only ever said he is a good candidate for Annies murder.

                Anyway, there is nothing you can say that will extend you credibility that I already know you dont have, so why not address what I posted in post#94? Sorry, its only verbatim quotes and I didnt edit them to produce some argument for what happened.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Is this the only report that has Pipeman coming out of the club?

                  The Star on Oct 1st said:

                  “..but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off,”
                  I suppose Stewart and Don found another source, but of course you'll suggest that they were wrong too. You nitpick with the wrong people Herly. I would trust their research over anything you will ever say on this topic.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    I suppose Stewart and Don found another source, but of course you'll suggest that they were wrong too. You nitpick with the wrong people Herly. I would trust their research over anything you will ever say on this topic.
                    One can't just suppose they found another source Michael, that is incredibly poor methodology.

                    Do they reference a source other than the Police report or the Star report?

                    Those are the only reports I know of that mention the account of Schwart that are contemporary.

                    So it seems that either they found a third source that is not referenced or indeed mentioned by any other researchers or they made a mistake.

                    We should not just presume that because the authors are held in high regard that they could not have made a mistake.

                    This is one of the serious flaws with this subject, old information is treated as gospel because of the authors reputation, or sometimes despite of it.
                    Such is often repeated over and over and never checked.

                    Now if did indeed find a third source, such would no doubt clear up several of the discrepancies between the two known accounts; or maybe throw up even more issues.
                    The fact is that no such third account appears to have ever been mentioned by anyone.

                    The probability therefore must be very strongly that the quote you produced is flawed.

                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                      One can't just suppose they found another source Michael, that is incredibly poor methodology.

                      Do they reference a source other than the Police report or the Star report?

                      Those are the only reports I know of that mention the account of Schwart that are contemporary.

                      So it seems that either they found a third source that is not referenced or indeed mentioned by any other researchers or they made a mistake.

                      We should not just presume that because the authors are held in high regard that they could not have made a mistake.

                      This is one of the serious flaws with this subject, old information is treated as gospel because of the authors reputation, or sometimes despite of it.
                      Such is often repeated over and over and never checked.

                      Now if did indeed find a third source, such would no doubt clear up several of the discrepancies between the two known accounts; or maybe throw up even more issues.
                      The fact is that no such third account appears to have ever been mentioned by anyone.

                      The probability therefore must be very strongly that the quote you produced is flawed.

                      Steve
                      I suppose you could take it up with them Steve. Im sure they would appreciate that last line though. Interesting side point, sounds like you suggest secondary or even a third source before accepting anything, yet I believe you are helping push the case that Herly is, using singular non-corroberated times. Whats the word for that again? Oh yeah, hypocrite.
                      Last edited by Michael W Richards; 08-25-2023, 07:07 PM.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Is this the only report that has Pipeman coming out of the club?

                        The Star on Oct 1st said:

                        “..but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off,”
                        Here's what Swanson's report says about Schwartz' statement: "on turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road, & had 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. He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, 'Lipski'".

                        So Pipeman was on the opposite side of the road from the Socialists Club. If Pipeman left a club, then it must have been a different club.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          I suppose you could take it up with them Steve. Im sure they would appreciate that last line though. Interesting side point, sounds like you suggest secondary or even a third source before accepting anything, yet I believe you are helping push the case that Herly is, using singular non-corroberated times. Whats the word for that again? Oh yeah, hypocrite.
                          I think that Steve is saying that there are two known sources, and they don't say that Pipeman left the Socialists' club, so there would have to be a 3rd source for there to even be one source that says that.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            Just came across a statement I had forgotten, though I do now recall reading it before. Its interesting, from Scotland Yard Investigates by the esteemed Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow.

                            "According to Schwartz, this man attempted to pull Stride onto the street before turning her around and shoving her to the ground.[67] As Schwartz had observed this assault, Stride's assailant shouted the word "Lipski" either to Schwartz himself or to a second man who had exited the club amidst this altercation and lit a pipe​". I had forgotten that Pipeman is said to have come from the club. Goldstein was also a member. I dont recall if anyone has found that Schwartz belonged to it as well, but I do recall that he and Woolf Wess were known to each other previously. Might explain why Wess was his translator. As he apparently was with Goldstein that Tuesday night when he came in.

                            It would seem that although Pipeman may not have fit the conventional appearance of a Jewish man, his exit from the club might suggest that this BSM fellow thought he was. Which could be some evidence of antisemitism. Was Israels account suggesting that BSM was a gentile and that he was antisemitic? Interesting if true, because that would indicate that Israels story provided an off premises gentile as her likely killer...(last man supposedly seen with Liz before her death).... who is also antisemitic. I guess the Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing in this case.
                            Michael, I have an issue, attempting to check on the quote you provide, I can't seem to locate it in my kindle copy.


                            Could you provide the chapter it's in please, in case I am missing it.

                            It appears to have been removed from the kindle edition.

                            I can however find the following statements

                            "A SECOND MAN CAME OUT of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off,"

                            "The man tried to pull the woman into the street, turned her round and threw her down on the footway. She screamed three times but not very loudly. Schwartz, presumably to avoid getting too close to the confrontation, crossed the street and saw a second man lighting a pipe."

                            "then the second man had come out of ‘the doorway of the public-house a few doors off’


                            Steve



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

                              Here's what Swanson's report says about Schwartz' statement: "on turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road, & had 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. He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, 'Lipski'".

                              So Pipeman was on the opposite side of the road from the Socialists Club. If Pipeman left a club, then it must have been a different club.
                              The quote I posted from reputable sources says that Pipeman came from the club,..but as you wish.... the post above isnt clear on where Pipeman is or was. It is not clear whether BSM continued crossing the street after pulling her in that direction then tossing Liz down, nor is it clear where Israel says the man on the "opposite side of the road" was. If Israel sees BSM and Liz outside the gates, then BSM tries to drag her into the street, then he is trying to pull her away from the gates and across the road, yes? Instead he throws her down on the pavement. Does he continue in that same direction, to cross the street? We dont know. But If so, then the man on the "opposite side of the road" is now the Pipeman outside the club, and since Israel apparently doesnt wish to interact with BSM, and BSM is still headed across the road, what side of the road would Israel move to to avoid him? The same side BSM is headed towards?...or the gate and club side, where "the man on the opposite side of the road" ..outside the club, is smoking a cigar. This has both Israel and Pipeman in the same direction from where BSM is. Hence the confusion as to whom "Lipski" was addressed.

                              I dont pretend to have the answers and the direction that BSM takes after tossing Liz down isnt clearly articulated, but that might explain the statement attributed to a book by 2 of the most respected researchers in all of Ripperology. Accept that or not, its not my statement I quoted, so go ask the sources about it.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                I suppose you could take it up with them Steve. Im sure they would appreciate that last line though. Interesting side point, sounds like you suggest secondary or even a third source before accepting anything, yet I believe you are helping push the case that Herly is, using singular non-corroberated times. Whats the word for that again? Oh yeah, hypocrite.
                                No, I am clearly saying there are TWO known versions of the Schwartz account.
                                Neither of which say the man came from the club.

                                Indeed, I cannot find the quote you give in the kindle version of that book.

                                If you have read any of my work or listen to my podcasts, on this site you would know I do not support single uncorrobrated times.

                                Steve

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X