Who has the goods?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Your diagram got me thinking. The traditional interruption theory has the horse shying at the entrance to the yard and Jack hiding behind the gate. But looking at Diemshitz testimony at the inquest he says:

Daily Telegraph 1 Oct:
A Juror: Could you in going up the yard have passed the body without touching it? - Oh, yes.
[Coroner] Any person going up the centre of the yard might have passed without noticing it? - I, perhaps, should not have noticed it if my pony had not shied. I had passed it when I got down from my barrow.

[Coroner] When you entered the yard, if any person had run out you would have seen them in the dark? - Oh, yes, it was light enough for that. It was dark in the gateway, but not so dark further in the yard.

The Times 2 Oct:
The Foreman. - Was there sufficient room for you to pass the body when you went into the yard?
Witness. - Yes; and I did so. When my pony shied I was passing the body, and was right by when I got down.

So from his testimony it is seen that the horse has passed the body and the cart has drawn level with the body before the horse shies, so Jack is further into the yard rather than hiding behind the gate. Is there enough darkness for Jack to get around the horse without entering the not so dark further in the yard. He needs to get to the other side of the horse in order to escape, without upsetting the horse again and attracting Louis's attention. I'm wondering if there is sufficient gateway darkness left before the doorway to acheive his escape?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Personally, I don't think Jack could have been in the yard when Diemshutz arrived. Even if he was beside the gate in the darkest area, etc, I can't see how he could be missed as the cart goes past him. Being prone, as Stride was, is different from crouching, and I would think it very improbable for him to "ninga hide" his way out. And if he moved into the yard, I think he would have silhouetted against the lighter area. Rather, in my opinion, if Jack was Stride's murderer, then something prompted his leaving before Diemshutz comes on the scene; it might have been nothing more than a noise from the club, or even a sudden break in the noise making him think he's been heard, or something just wasn't right. Who knows, it could have been something as mundane as the ground was too muddy for his liking. Again, while we will never know what prompted Jack to leave, I think it too improbable for him to be able to avoid detection once the pony and cart enter through the gates. The pony may have shied because it smelt the blood once it passed the body as we know it was flowing up towards the door way. But, that doesn't remove all "interruption" possibilities, we just don't know what the interrupter was, though there are plenty of reasonable possibilities. Of course, I could be wrong, and maybe it was JtR that made the horse shy, but personally I find that rather difficult to believe.

Of course, if Jack's not her killer, then he would have no reason to stick around once he's killed her, also suggesting her killer was long gone by the time Diemshutz arrives.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can’t recall where I read it but didn’t Diemschutz wife mention somewhere that the side door was open? If that was the case then mightn’t that have been the interruption (if an interruption occurred?) Couldn’t someone have simply opened the side door to go to the outside loo interrupting the killer just had he’d cut her throat so he left just before Diemschutz arrived? If the killer didn’t look toward the gate then he wouldn’t have seen the killer and he might not have seen the body against the wall in the dark.

[rjpalmer]

I can never read these threads without recalling AP Wolf’s theory—one of the most imaginative theories ever suggested—that a careless Diemshutz simply ran over Liz Stride with his pony cart, and her throat was accidentally slashed by the harness. There was no murder—it was actually a case of vehicular manslaughter.

AP’s faith in the Victorian medicos must be very low indeed. Still, it must be the ultimate example of “thinking outside the box.”

[Darryl Kenyon]

I can’t recall where I read it but didn’t Diemschutz wife mention somewhere that the side door was open? If that was the case then mightn’t that have been the interruption (if an interruption occurred?) Couldn’t someone have simply opened the side door to go to the outside loo interrupting the killer just had he’d cut her throat so he left just before Diemschutz arrived? If the killer didn’t look toward the gate then he wouldn’t have seen the killer and he might not have seen the body against the wall in the dark.

I agree Herlock, It is quite possible Diemschultz interrupted the killer, maybe Goldstein or as you say someone just opening the side door, or a light etc.
I think that in one of the murders of Sutcliffe's a car light interrupted him he hid then came back to the body to try and find the five pound note he had given his poor victim.
JTR possibly hid for a few seconds from someone opening the side door hoping to go back to mutilate poor Liz and then Diemschultz comes along

Regards Darryl

[drstrange169]

Wasn't it A.P.'s theory that her throat was cut by a shoe scrapper by the side door? Or was that Lyn?

[caz]

Hi Herlock,

I can assure you that I am not even privy to content of the conspiracy to which you refer. I did wonder whether the Schwartz story may have been concocted (you may call that a conspiracy) to avoid a repeat of the anti-simitic riots over the Leather Apron story, which was also anticipated by Warren in Goulston St, but it appears that IF the police located and questioned Pipeman then the story must have some validity.

Hi George,

A better reason for doubting Schwartz's story was 'concocted', to deflect suspicion away from the club and a Jewish killer, is the small matter that his initial story did no such thing. Unfortunately, Michael Richards has repeated his own factually incorrect take on this so many times that I'm not surprised it has been swallowed whole by some of his readers.

Schwartz thought Pipeman was an accomplice of Stride's assailant, who was addressed by him as "Lipski".

In short, Schwartz described a Jewish twosome, one possibly named Lipski, who were involved in an assault on the deceased woman, right by the club's entrance.

It took Abberline to interpret the story as one anti-Semitic assailant, seen by two innocent witnesses including Schwartz, at whom "Lipski" was aimed as an insult, due to his strong Jewish appearance.

Schwartz may as well have claimed to hear: "Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance", and let Abberline translate this correctly as: "Send reinforcements, we're going to advance".

I reckon Fanny Mortimer heard PC Smith when he said he was there, then came to her door for what she estimated to be about ten minutes, but actually went back in too early to see Stride [we know she didn't see Stride] or the incident witnessed by Schwartz and Pipeman.

My belief is that Mortimer probably came to her door again around 12.55, intending to lock up for the night, and that's when she saw Goldstein pass by. About four minutes after retiring she heard Louis's pony and cart returning home, mentioning the fact to her husband, then went back outside on hearing the commotion when the gruesome discovery was made.

I genuinely cannot see the mystery with any of this. No smart phones; no accurate way to give precise times; no cause to know what time it is when there is nothing to see or hear; and only any need after something of significance has happened to think back to what the time may have been. And if people could judge intervals of time, such as how many minutes they spent doing this, that and the other, whether or not anything unusual was going on, we wouldn't need clocks in the first place.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I agree Herlock, It is quite possible Diemschultz interrupted the killer, maybe Goldstein or as you say someone just opening the side door, or a light etc.
I think that in one of the murders of Sutcliffe's a car light interrupted him he hid then came back to the body to try and find the five pound note he had given his poor victim.
JTR possibly hid for a few seconds from someone opening the side door hoping to go back to mutilate poor Liz and then Diemschultz comes along

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

That's certainly a possibility. Whoever killed Stride would have had limited time in that yard before someone either left via that side door to go home or use the lavatory, or Louis D arrived home with his pony and cart.

In the case of Sally Anne Bowman, who was brutally murdered and mutilated in 2005, her killer, Mark Dixie, hid in the darkness when she screamed, waiting to see if this had alerted any of the nearby residents. When he was satisfied that nobody was coming, he returned to the dying young woman to rape and mutilate her and take various trophies away with him.

Had anyone opened their front door, or driven along the street, while Dixie was hiding there, he'd have had to leave the business unfinished in order to get away before the discovery was made.

Interestingly, in Dixie's case, he had attacked another woman earlier that night, but she was more fortunate. A taxi had passed the spot and Dixie had left the scene to look for a second victim.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Its interesting to watch the banter and the insults fly when someone suggests something outside their own belief system, and its equally interesting that a belief would be preferable to the actual historical truth. The uncovering of truth is what I like to discuss....and in truth not one witness that stated a discovery time of around 12:40 or 12:45 was ever discredited or confronted about their story and the variances to what Louis claims. Other than Spooner being told his timing was wrong. Issac K gave his statement to the press around 1 hour after this happened and he said he was called to the yard about 10 minutes after returning to the club at half past. Issac also said that he was shortly thereafter sent out alone to look for help by Louis himself or "some other member". Both of those statements are in direct conflict with Louis's owm statements. And yet you choose to accept 1 uncorroborated account over 4 people validating each others stories without prior conspiring. Eagle says he came into the passageway at around 12:40. He "couldnt be sure" whether Liz was lying there. And he saw no-one. Even though 4 people and Lave say they were there at that same time.

If youd rather have faith vs fact Ive no issues. You can believe whatever you choose. Hell, someone here even believes almost everyone that was killed near London during those few years, regardless of methodologies, was killed by the same one man. I dont lose sleep when people demonstrate a resistance to evaluating their belief systems for their potential viability, i just would like for once to determine clear fact from beliefs.

There is no evidence as to what happened to the cart, horse and "goods". Nor when anything happened to them. The evidence presented by Louis is directly contradicted in timing by no less than 5 witnesses, including Fanny Mortimer.. who did not see any cart and horse arrive at 1am. While she stood at her door. Which we can validate with her claimed sighting of Leon Goldstein. The is no secondary source for what Eagle claims he saw and did.....despite the fact that Lave is apparently there too...and there is absolutely no secondary source to what Israel Schwartz claims he saw and did, and in fact many directly contradictory statements based on its timing.

There are statements that have support by independent secondary verifications, and there are those that have none. Israel, Lave, Eagle and Mrs D fall into the second group. However 3 members and 2 independent sources validate each others independent accounts by virtue of the matched events and approximate timings.

So the people stories who have no stake in what happens to the club if the police suspected the killer was from among the men still in attendance all seem to agree on basic details and timings, and the people who would lose jobs and money if that happened have no-one to verify any part of their stories. And in fact they contain things like being in the same place at the same time as others and not seeing each other.

Its really simple if you just follow the evidence. Louis didnt arrive at "precisely" 1 at all, he arrived earlier, he didnt later leave for help with Issac K because Issac K says he was sent out by Louis or another member around 12:40, Lamb hears of this before 1am, and Morris Eagle avoided being caught lying later by suggesting he "couldnt be sure" Liz wasnt lying there when he came in through the gates around 12:40.

You see just because you "believe" differently, the records of the specific statements differ with your findings. Historically, logically and reasonably. Liz was dying while the staff discussed the ramifications of this discovery. The discovery was closer to 12:30 than it was to 1am.

So why was Louis not discredited or confronted about his 1am claim for the discovery?

Surely, if the majority of the witness statements reliably and accurately put the discovery closer to 12.30 than to 1am, as you believe, one would think this would have been reasonably clear to those closest to the investigation at the time.

But apparently, they accepted that Louis saw the clock showing 1am, just before he arrived back in the yard, and a minute or two before he had satisfied himself that the object he found lying there was a woman but, happily for him, not his wife.

Were the police too stupid or too blind to see that Louis must be lying about this, Michael? Or were they living through a period of history when any ordinary citizen estimating the time, or an interval of time - when asked to do so in hindsight - could all too easily be out by your precious quarter of an hour if they had no pressing reason to have kept an eye on the nearest available clock every two minutes? How many of the ordinary witnesses in the Stride case would have needed to know the exact time, late on that Saturday night and into the early hours of the Sunday morning? Allowances were made for all those who could only state an approximate time, because they were simply unable to give a definite one - which presumably explains why they saw no need to haul Louis in and give him the third degree about his own movements that night.

Lastly, for the umpteenth time, Louis's discovery time is only contradicted by Fanny Mortimer because of your silly obsession with people being able to pinpoint their own movements, and anything they saw or heard, almost to the second. She did not see a pony and cart arrive at 1am, nor at any time between 12.30 and 1, so she must have been indoors whenever you believe Louis arrived back. But she was locking up for the night when she saw Goldstein pass by, and shortly after retiring for the night she claimed to hear Louis's pony and cart arriving. Unless she was lying or mistaken about the order of these two events, the noise was made by the pony and cart at the right time for Louis to have told the truth. Nobody would have expected any two witnesses to an event in 1888 to give the exact same time for it, but a couple of minutes either way would have been entirely natural, and easily close enough to establish that Fanny's account, far from directly contradicting Louis in that particular detail, supported it.

[Fiver]

Its interesting to watch the banter and the insults fly when someone suggests something outside their own belief system, and its equally interesting that a belief would be preferable to the actual historical truth.

This is one of the most ironic things I've seen on this site.

Nobody is criticizing you theory based on their "belief system". The criticism come because your theory frequently contradicts both logic and the actual facts.

Nobody at the club had any reason to lie about when Stride's body was found. If they had a problem, it was where the body was found, and they did nothing to change that.

[JeffHamm]

Hi caz,

... But she was locking up for the night when she (Fanny Mortimer) saw Goldstein pass by, and shortly after retiring for the night she claimed to hear Louis's pony and cart arriving. Unless she was lying or mistaken about the order of these two events, the noise was made by the pony and cart at the right time for Louis to have told the truth. ...

And interestingly, she does not see Stride when Goldstein passes by, nor does she see anyone else "fleeing" the area (though she does say Goldstein was walking quickly).

So, either Stride is already dead in the alley, and her murderer has left the area, or Goldstein is ....

- Jeff

hmmm, random thought popped in my head just now.

What if, rather than Deimshutz being the "interruption", it was Goldstein passing by? Combined with the possibility he also hears Fanny Mortimer at the door, JtR could have left simply due to the amount of traffic in the area. Goldstein, being in a rush, doesn't look towards the club but his footsteps would be louder than typical (allowing for an alert JtR to hear them). Mortimer opens her door, sees Goldstein, then closes and locks up. JtR exits the area, and a few minutes later, JtR long gone, Deimshutz and his pony arrive.

That places the murder around 12:56. And if Schwartz's incident is at 12:45, that leaves 11 minutes, either for B.S. and Stride to "reconcile but then escalate" or for B.S. to leave the area and someone else (JtR?) to arrive and kill her.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

A better reason for doubting Schwartz's story was 'concocted', to deflect suspicion away from the club and a Jewish killer, is the small matter that his initial story did no such thing. Unfortunately, Michael Richards has repeated his own factually incorrect take on this so many times that I'm not surprised it has been swallowed whole by some of his readers.
I am in no way a swallower of Michael Richards take, although I do not dismiss his posts out of hand.

Schwartz thought Pipeman was an accomplice of Stride's assailant, who was addressed by him as "Lipski".
Reading the account I am sure that the address of "Lipski" was directed at the man on the opposite side of the street, that man being Schwartz, not Pipeman.

In short, Schwartz described a Jewish twosome, one possibly named Lipski, who were involved in an assault on the deceased woman, right by the club's entrance.
I cannot agree. Schwartz was describing a Gentile throwing a word "Lipski" at a Jew, with that word being interpreted as an insult or as perhaps as the jewish word for "Nosy".

It took Abberline to interpret the story as one anti-Semitic assailant, seen by two innocent witnesses including Schwartz, at whom "Lipski" was aimed as an insult, due to his strong Jewish appearance.
I agree with Abberline.

I reckon Fanny Mortimer heard PC Smith when he said he was there, then came to her door for what she estimated to be about ten minutes, but actually went back in too early to see Stride [we know she didn't see Stride] or the incident witnessed by Schwartz and Pipeman.
Mortimer came to her door just to late to see Sride who had gone into the yard, and left just too early to witness the Schwartz incident, if it occured.

My belief is that Mortimer probably came to her door again around 12.55, intending to lock up for the night, and that's when she saw Goldstein pass by. About four minutes after retiring she heard Louis's pony and cart returning home, mentioning the fact to her husband, then went back outside on hearing the commotion when the gruesome discovery was made.
If Mortimer's times are calibated with her hearing Smith's footsteps at about 12:37, then her 10 minutes at the door plus 4 minutes after that hearing Diemshitz equate to Diemshitz turning into the yard just after 12:50. You put too much stock in Mortimer's clock times rather than her time intervals.

I genuinely cannot see the mystery with any of this. No smart phones; no accurate way to give precise times; no cause to know what time it is when there is nothing to see or hear; and only any need after something of significance has happened to think back to what the time may have been. And if people could judge intervals of time, such as how many minutes they spent doing this, that and the other, whether or not anything unusual was going on, we wouldn't need clocks in the first place.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I am the first to dismiss minute-accurate clock times derived from estimates of times from a long ago unsynchronised clock observation. My preference is for police times, as that is their profession. I would also offer an objection to your assumption that opinions that confer with the opinions of other posters are "repeated his own factually incorrect take". I do not know Michael Richards or his theories but if my own deductions happen to parallel some (not all) of his conclusions then I would say that I would be entitled to presume that it is an impertinance on the part of others to assume that I am slavishly adhering to the opinion of another.

Caz, it is my hope that you do not view my comments as an attack on you. I agree with many of your posts and disagree with other of your posts, the same as with the more controversial posters. I feel a degree of frustration when I present a thought out opinion which is then denigrated as a repeat of a "factually incorrect take" of which I am unaware, because it does not conform with the view of the poster.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi George,

Hi Caz,

I am the first to dismiss minute-accurate clock times derived from estimates of times from a long ago unsynchronised clock observation. My preference is for police times, as that is their profession. I would also offer an objection to your assumption that opinions that confer with the opinions of other posters are "repeated his own factually incorrect take". I do not know Michael Richards or his theories but if my own deductions happen to parallel some (not all) of his conclusions then I would say that I would be entitled to presume that it is an impertinance on the part of others to assume that I am slavishly adhering to the opinion of another.

Caz, it is my hope that you do not view my comments as an attack on you. I agree with many of your posts and disagree with other of your posts, the same as with the more controversial posters. I feel a degree of frustration when I present a thought out opinion which is then denigrated as a repeat of a "factually incorrect take" of which I am unaware, because it does not conform with the view of the poster.

Cheers, George

I realize you were responding to caz, but I thought I would mention something with regards to Schwartz's initial statement to the police. Schwartz, when he first spoke to the police, had indicated that he believed Broad Shoulder's yelled "Lipski" to Pipeman. In effect, Schwartz thought B.S. was calling to his accomplice to alert him to Schwartz's presence. In effect, Schwartz's original telling implicates at least one Jewish offender, as in his version Lipski appears to be Pipeman's name.

Abberline, however, was aware that Lipski was used as an antisemitic insult, and apparently Schwartz was visibly identifiable as Jewish, and therefore he questioned Schwartz as to how sure he was that Lipski was indeed directed at Pipeman to determine how sure Schwartz was on that point. However, it turned out Schwartz was not positive, and in the end, appears to admit it could have directed at himself.

But, despite Abberline's suspicions being possibly confirmed due to Schwartz's wavering on that point, the police did still do a search of the area for any families with the name Lipski, because that was what Schwartz originally said. So, even though they had their own interpretation, they still covered all the bases. To me, that's a pretty good indication the police were not slack, nor suffering from tunnel vision (at least not at that point). There is also at least one letter from Home Office (I think), where the letter writer asks about Lipski families in the area based upon Schwartz's statement and wants to know how that search is coming along. It is there that Abberline outlines the fact that Lipski was also used as an insult, etc.

Like you, I suspect Abberline's interpretation to be the most probable one, and that Schwartz, seeing Pipeman start moving in his direction after B.S. yelled out, simply misinterpreted B.S. and Pipeman's intentions, although he got the observable facts correct. So while we may all agree, Lipski probably was indeed shouted at Schwartz, when we consider Schwartz's intentions when he spoke to Abberline in the first place, it's not what we believe that matters, or even what the truth of the interactions were, but what matters is what Schwartz believed to be the case when he first told his tale. And it appears he originally believed that Pipeman was the target of the call, and so believed Pipeman's name was Lipski, making at least one of the offenders Jewish.

Yes, I agree, Schwartz appears to have got it wrong. If you do come across Michael's theory, though, that distinction is very important because what Schwartz's story was when he went to the police basically was that there were two offenders and at least one of the offender's was Jewish. (Abberline's interpretation, of course, suggests B.S. was a Gentile, and doesn't require the involvement of Pipeman as an accomplice).

Anyway, it was just part of your responses suggested you may not be aware that indeed, Schwartz originally did suggest Lipski was shouted as a call to Pipeman. The version we now all tend to go with is, in fact, Abberline's reinterpetation of Schwartz's original statement, which Schwartz did not deny was possible - but it's not what he originally said.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Anyway, it was just part of your responses suggested you may not be aware that indeed, Schwartz originally did suggest Lipski was shouted as a call to Pipeman. The version we now all tend to go with is, in fact, Abberline's reinterpetation of Schwartz's original statement, which Schwartz did not deny was possible - but it's not what he originally said.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I was puzzled by Schwartz's original statement. According to that statement, BSM's remark was delivered to the "man on the opposite side of the street", which was Schwartz, but did he mean Pipeman???. Schwartz didn't actually say where Pipeman was in the street. What didn't make sense was that if Schwartz thought Pipeman may be an accomplice, why did he run away towards the accomplice. The Star interview offered some clarification. He said there that he was stepping OFF the kerb when Pipeman appeared from the doorway of the Nelson. The only kerb he could have been stepping off was the northern kerb in Fairclough St. That would be rather late in the incident timeline for BSM to be calling out Lipski. One would think that it would have been earlier, but if not, at that stage both Schwartz and Pipeman were about the same distance from BSM so, in the dark, how could Schwartz know to whom the remark was directed.

My view is that Abberline's interpretation was what Schwartz meant to say but which became muddled in the translation. Maybe he noticed the inconsistancies and asked further questions.
I hope that I eventually find out the content of this supposedly terrible theory held by Michael as it is not the first time that it has been implied that I am mindlessly following some conspiracy theory.

However, I would like to apologise to Caz as having re-read my previous late night post I have to admit to it being grumpy and unduly critical. Humble apologies Caz.

I also need to correct a statement from that earlier post:
If Mortimer's times are calibated with her hearing Smith's footsteps at about 12:37, then her 10 minutes at the door plus 4 minutes after that hearing Diemshitz equate to Diemshitz turning into the yard just after 12:50. You put too much stock in Mortimer's clock times rather than her time intervals.

12:37 should have been 12:33 and 12:50 should have been 12:45.

Cheers, George

[Joshua Rogan]

I was puzzled by Schwartz's original statement. According to that statement, BSM's remark was delivered to the "man on the opposite side of the street", which was Schwartz, but did he mean Pipeman???.
Schwartz didn't actually say where Pipeman was in the street.

It seems clear that Schwartz was referring to Pipeman in the report you quote above, as it goes on to say (on the next page) that "The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz"

[GBinOz]

It seems clear that Schwartz was referring to Pipeman in the report you quote above, as it goes on to say (on the next page) that "The Police apparently do not suspect the 2nd man whom Schwartz saw on the other side of the street & who followed Schwartz"

Hi Joshua,

That makes it clear that there was a second man, and his following Schwartz would have suggested as an accomplice to Schwartz, but would BSM be waiting to shout Lipski until Schwartz was starting to cross Fairclough St, which is when Pipeman first appeared?

Cheers, George