Who has the goods?

[Michael W Richards]

"There are two wooden gates at the entrance to the yard?-Yes, sir; they open into the street. The first passage into the club leads into a room, and the door opens out of this passage."

Its referring to access, not the way the gates swing - giving direct access to the street.
Other accounts tell that the gates open back, meaning back to the wall. Gates were not allowed to swing across the sidewalk/footpath as that obstructs the right of way.
In many reports we read the gates were often left open, especially when Diemschitz was out on his cart.

When I read the swing out post I had the same reaction Wick. In fact the fact that Strides feet are inside the passage and still inches from the open gate is the verification that the gates swung inward and out from the centre.

[Michael W Richards]

I really don't know what you were trying to say here, Michael.

The point is surely why Schwartz would have said anything about initially thinking Pipeman was an accomplice called Lipski, if you believe his remit was to give the police 'another' murder by a lone maniac, who was neither Jewish nor associated with the club?? Why introduce the idea of an accomplice to begin with, and then make it ambiguous as to whom the name Lipski may have been addressed?

The interpretation Abberline [the 'authorities'] arrived at may or may not have been the correct one. I don't give a rat's arse either way. But it wasn't Schwartz's when he made his statement.

How hard can this be to grasp?

Its as easy as grasping that who cares about how he presented it through his interpreter the effect on the police was as I described. By making his statement in the way he did they interpreted this as antisemitism....is that incomprehensible to you?

[Wickerman]

When I read the swing out post I had the same reaction Wick. In fact the fact that Strides feet are inside the passage and still inches from the open gate is the verification that the gates swung inward and out from the centre.

Yes, the entrance was 9 ft +/- wide, so each gate would be 4.5ft, Strides feet were just inches from the open gate, in fact the Times reported:
"...her feet being about a couple of yards from the street".
So, that's about 6ft, meaning her feet would be about 18 inch from the open gate, though I don't think anyone actually measured it.

[Varqm]

personally I've always assumed they opened inwards, as outwards seems to me very unusual in a well-regulated city - gates opening outwards would obstruct the passage along the buildings.

The pertinent testimony seems to be the following:



While this could be understood to mean they physically swing into the street, I suggest it means - as it does in the description about the door - that passing through the open gates, one enters the street. The gates themselves would be opened by pushing them inwards, towards the yard.

This is also the case in the illustration in the Illustrated Police News October 6th drawing, entitled The Fifth victim of the Whitechapel Fiend (bottom left on the page)

Also the inquest testimony of PC Lamb states "The feet of the deceased extended just to the swing of the gate, so that the barrier could be closed without disturbing the body"

It's relevant, as you mention, when thinking about which direction the murderer could have fled - if the gates opened inwards, as I'm sure they did, theoretically he could have hid pressed up between the wall and the gate.

It's also relevant to note Lamb's comment, as it perhaps implies that the murderer opened the gates himself, pushing Stride's legs aside perhaps. At least, as NBFN remarked some time ago, it does not look like a coincidence that the gate swings exactly clear of her legs.

First of all either way the gates open I do not believe JTR was stuck inside the yard or the gates when Diemschutz\pony went inside the yard as in my first post about what spooked the ripper. I am aware of the Lamb testimony. It is still unclear to me were the gates was at 1:00 AM.. Or it could swing both ways as Wess was clear.

[Varqm]

"There are two wooden gates at the entrance to the yard?-Yes, sir; they open into the street. The first passage into the club leads into a room, and the door opens out of this passage."

Its referring to access, not the way the gates swing - giving direct access to the street.
Other accounts tell that the gates open back, meaning back to the wall. Gates were not allowed to swing across the sidewalk/footpath as that obstructs the right of way.
In many reports we read the gates were often left open, especially when Diemschitz was out on his cart.

It's pretty straightforward what Wess is saying it opens into the street.
What particular law in 1888 that said you could not make a gate open into the street.

[Wickerman]

It's pretty straightforward what Wess is saying it opens into the street.
What particular law in 1888 that said you could not make a gate open into the street.

Are you not in the UK then?

A front door is said to "open to the street", it's a phrase you have to know to understand the meaning.
'Open to the street' does not mean a door or gate swings out.
Here's a suggestion, phone any Real Estate Agent and ask them what is meant by a door or gate that "opens to the street".

[Varqm]

I see what you are saying. But when the coroner said, "There are two wooden gates at the entrance to the yard? " ( - Yes, sir; they open into the street ) , it already implied the gate touches or goes to the street and so Wess was just repeating what the Coroner said?

But this could be the law, Turnpike Roads Act 1822 s. 125.
But maybe not.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

East London Observer, Oct 6th, 1888

"Lewis Dienischitz [Diemschutz], who is the steward of the club, found the body, and this is his version of the discovery: "On Saturday," he says, "I left home about half-past eleven in the morning and returned home exactly at one a.m. Sunday morning. I noticed the time at a tobacco shop in the Commercial-road. I was driving a pony harnessed to a costermonger's barrow. I do not keep the pony in the yard of the club, but in George-yard, Cable-street. I drove the barrow home in order to leave my goods there."

I realize to many this is a small point and perhaps not as potentially revealing as I believe it may be, but to me it seems odd that neither Louis or someone else never mentions those goods again. Nor does anyone mention the cart and horse...who took it to George Yard, who unloaded the goods, did police find the unloaded goods in the yard somewhere, was the pony stabled there that night? Did he unload the cart in the morning?

Another small yet possibly revealing point is; what did the goods consist of? From the Irish Times:

Lewis, who is now found to have been on the spot rather than Koster, is the steward at the Socialist Club at No. 40, and in addition he travels in some drapery goods, the purchase of which, according to his friends necessitated his attending last night's market. He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1, and to have proceeded up the entry which, though not narrow, is a very dark one, for the purpose of putting up his pony and trap.

According to this report, Diemschitz did not attend the market as a retailer, but as a purchaser of goods, and these were drapery goods. As one might suppose if this were true, this was not said to have consumed all the afternoon, evening, and well into the night, but only part of the night. So why did Diemschitz claim to have left home at about 11:30am?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps he was at a committee meeting of the Illuminati. I’m led to believe that these could go on well into the night once the beer started to flow and evil plots were discussed.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Whatever the case, it seems that if he did go out late in the morning, it was not for the purpose of going to the market. Perhaps he was just hanging out with some buddies. No idea who, but all this does remind me of someone...

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

Buying some sheets and towels or curtains - whatever it was - should not have taken long. Nor should it have taken Mrs Schwartz all day and well into the night to move their belongings. So a few interesting parallels to think about.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whatever the case, it seems that if he did go out late in the morning, it was not for the purpose of going to the market. Perhaps he was just hanging out with some buddies. No idea who, but all this does remind me of someone...

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

Buying some sheets and towels or curtains - whatever it was - should not have taken long. Nor should it have taken Mrs Schwartz all day and well into the night to move their belongings. So a few interesting parallels to think about.

You can’t resist it. Every single aspect of the case you invest with some element of mystery. Someone is always lying. Why??

Diemschutz went to the market. Returned with goods. We can’t know how long anything would have taken or if he went for a drink or three with mates. Likewise we can’t know what Schwartz situation was in regard to his house moving and his marriage.

Neither Diemschutz or Schwartz are suspicious.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You can’t resist it. Every single aspect of the case you invest with some element of mystery. Someone is always lying. Why??

In this case, it's you.

Diemschutz went to the market. Returned with goods. We can’t know how long anything would have taken or if he went for a drink or three with mates.

We know how long he claimed to take - 11:30am to 01:00am. His mates seemed to think he had left rather later than that - in the evening apparently - and returned at about a quarter to one. It's no wonder he had to sharpen that up to exactly 1am.

Likewise we can’t know what Schwartz situation was in regard to his house moving and his marriage.

Especially when what we have is ambiguous and contradictory.

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane.

"It seems that he had gone out for the day..." - It seems? Had he gone out for the day, yes or no? Apparently the reporter couldn't quite tell or get a straight answer.

"...his wife had expected to move, during his absence..." - So not a definite move that day, even though he gives the street name of the new lodgings. Sounds like a great excuse to check if his wife had met the expectation, when he finally gets home at a quarter to one the next morning.
Why didn't he stay around long enough to help his wife move their lodgings, and then go out? Did the wife have one or more children to look after, during his absence?

"...from their lodgings in Berner-street..." - No one can find a Schwartz living on Berner street at that time.

"...to others in Backchurch-lane"- What happened to Ellen street? No one can find a Schwartz living on Ellen street or Backchurch Lane, at that time. What a surprise!

He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

Fortunately, she was there. At least, that is where the story seems to end, so that must have been the case. Imagine how terrifying it would have been for him to have to go back to Berner street, with that menacing pipe smoker still roaming the streets.

Neither Diemschutz or Schwartz are suspicious.

INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder.

The Star was an evening paper, so at some point between late Sunday afternoon, and in time for the Monday edition, the Star interview occurred. So Schwartz enters history at say, 5pm Sunday, and exits history at say 11am Monday. An 18 hour period, and then he's off - his job complete - never to be heard from again. Fascinating.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. We know how long he claimed to take - 11:30am to 01:00am. His mates seemed to think he had left rather later than that - in the evening apparently - and returned at about a quarter to one. It's no wonder he had to sharpen that up to exactly 1am.

You’re making a leap. All that his friends said in that report is that he’d attended the market. The reporter then says:

“He seems to have returned home about a quarter to 1.”

We can’t know how he arrived at the 12.45 time but we can’t conclude that he should have arrived earlier than 1.00. And whatever he did during the day in terms of buying/selling or any other actions we just can’t put a duration on it so that we can say “why did it take him so long?”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Especially when what we have is ambiguous and contradictory.

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane.

"It seems that he had gone out for the day..." - It seems? Had he gone out for the day, yes or no? Apparently the reporter couldn't quite tell or get a straight answer.

Simple wording. When you’re explaining what someone did it’s quite normal it use “it seems like he ….” It’s similar to saying “Apparently he……” We have to remember that he was speaking through an interpreter. Can we be certain the the interpreter spoke fluent Hungarian too or wasn’t it his first language and so spoke it imperfectly?

"...his wife had expected to move, during his absence..." - So not a definite move that day, even though he gives the street name of the new lodgings. Sounds like a great excuse to check if his wife had met the expectation, when he finally gets home at a quarter to one the next morning.

Maybe the move should have taken place on a previous day but the occupier hadn’t moved out in time so it had been cancelled? So on the day of the murder he was saying that he expected to the move to happen but he was thinking “as long as x has finally moved out?”

Why didn't he stay around long enough to help his wife move their lodgings, and then go out? Did the wife have one or more children to look after, during his absence?

Maybe he had to do something work-related. Times were tough, people couldn’t afford to turn down chances of earning.

"...from their lodgings in Berner-street..." - No one can find a Schwartz living on Berner street at that time.

Maybe they had just been staying with friends temporarily so their name didn’t appear on any record?

"...to others in Backchurch-lane"- What happened to Ellen street? No one can find a Schwartz living on Ellen street or Backchurch Lane, at that time. What a surprise!

No one can ‘find’ Mary Kelly but we know that the person that died in Miller’s Court was a real one. Maybe Schwartz didn’t want his real name in the papers so he gave a false name?

He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

Fortunately, she was there. At least, that is where the story seems to end, so that must have been the case. Imagine how terrifying it would have been for him to have to go back to Berner street, with that menacing pipe smoker still roaming the streets.

Again, much is made of a word used by a journalist. Do we really think that this was the exact word that he tried to get across? I find that pretty difficult to believe.


.

None of this is evidence of lying except for the name which could point to Schwartz giving a false name. But is it possible that the ‘house’ was moving into might just have been a room in a house possibly owned by an acquaintance? If Schwartz did work in the entertainment business I’m guessing that the work situation would have been pretty precarious, so might this explain him and his wife moving from room to room. Maybe they kept getting chucked out for non-payment? And so if this was the kind of existence that he had is it unlikely that his name didn’t appear on any records? Was everything always above board in Whitechapel 1888? Could using other names be something that he did regularly to avoid debtors?

Im not claiming the above as fact by the way. I’m just suggesting it as a possible explanation for our inability to find Schwartz in the records.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Herlock,

The view Diemshitz had of the tobacconist clock would certainly have been at an angle and at a distance of considerably more than a couple of feet - half the building width + half the width of Berner Street, at a minimum, in a dark street on a bumpy cart after a long day. So he could have been mistaken. Why would he lie? There was an air of extreme tension against the jews following the Leather Apron headlines with attacks having been made on jewish merchants. Warren removed the GSG on the fear of anti-semitic violence. I think that the members of the IWEC would have understandably had concerns about the reaction of the public to another victim being found next to a jewish club. But Schwartz narrating a story implicating gentile suspects and his being chased from the scene may have been considered as a blame shifter, but ran the risk of witnesses not corroborating his story. For his story to work Stride must have crossed to the yard immediately after Smith passed and just before Mortimer came to her door. If she stayed there for 10 minutes she would have gone inside just before Schwartz went by at about 12:45. Remember, Schwartz had come from Commercial Road and may have just passed the tobacconist clock. But if this scenario is accepted, she also said she heard the pony cart about 4 minutes later, making that about 12:48.

Consider the scenario George describes:

Schwartz ~12.45
Diemschitz ~12:48

Now consider the blood flow evidence:

Diemschitz: One of the members who is known as Isaacs went out with me. We struck a match and saw blood running from the gate all the way down to the side door of the club.

Minsky: ... states that at the time when the alarm was raised, just after one o'clock, there were some 20 or 30 members in the club room upstairs. ... The first thing he noticed was the pool of blood by the kitchen door, and then glancing up the yard to the spot where Mr. Diemschitz was holding a lighted match in his hand, he noticed the body of a woman ...

Mrs D: I at once recognised it as the body of a woman, while, to add to my horror, I saw a stream of blood trickling down the yard, and terminating in the pool I had first noticed.

That's a good 5 minutes of blood flow, I should think. So...

Murder: ~12:43

Yet that places the murder before the Schwartz incident, in this scenario.
Increasing the 10 minute stay, will cause a clash. Increasing the 4 minutes will avoid that, but keeps the Goldstein sighting prior to 12:45. In Swanson's report, this is stated as occurring at about 1am. Did Mortimer and Goldstein both get the time wrong, by about the same amount, and the same sign (+)? Well...

FM: It was just after one o'clock when I went out...

...apparently not. So either the 10 minutes was more like 20 minutes, and the Schwartz incident either didn't occur at all, or occurred in full view of Fanny, or what Schwartz witnessed was really occurring in a post-murder world, that he tried his best to pretend was in a pre-murder world. If the former, why would the 20 minutes have been truncated?