A closer look at Leon Goldstein

[Lewis C]

Thanks. By moving the location of the public-house, I believe the police and press reports become aligned with respect to the initial location of the second man. That is half the reason I like the idea. So now we have one man coming out of a passageway, and another pushing someone into one. It's as though the men's M.O. was to corner people in dark spots, and demand they hand over money and possessions. By the way, was Stride found to be missing an earring?

A problem with ignoring the press report is that we then have no way of knowing why Schwartz was on Berner St at the time he gave. Nor we can we speculate about his dress or behaviour ...

This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

What this actually means, has of course been debated for many years. Does 'appearance' refer to his dress sense, or his manner? Much exaggerated movement and gestures, perhaps? The other interesting thing is that Schwartz is generally understood to be a poor immigrant - essentially destitute - with few possessions that his wife moved during his long absence that presumably began the morning before the murder. So, what's this about the foreigner being well dressed? Who does this poor guy think he is? Leon Goldstein?

Regarding Schwartz's perception of the relationship between the two men, in the police report he does not appear to know. So, what was Anderson on about when he referred to "the alleged accomplice"? Did Schwartz later make it clear that he thought the two men were working together? It seems to me that Anderson either misunderstood Schwartz's police report, or he knew something that we don't.

I don't know anything about whether Stride was missing an earring.

If the sentence about Schwartz' dress and appearance can be believed, to me it reads that his appearance is about how he was dressed, but I can see how someone else might think that it was more about his manner.

Point well taken about Anderson referring to an alleged accomplice. I think most likely Anderson either misunderstood or misremembered the police report, but I'm open to the possibility that he knew something that we don't. BTW, Anderson made another statement about Schwartz that is at odds with other info that we have. Anderson said that Schwartz testified at the inquest. (See Paul Begg's Jack the Ripper The Facts, p. 155.)

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There are some good arguments here. My main objection is that I don't believe anything that the press report says unless it is confirmed by police sources. However, much of what you argue here doesn't depend on believing the press report. I do think that it's likely that Schwartz was headed toward his lodgings anyway, just because that makes sense.

My take on Schwartz' statement about the possibility of the 2 men working together is that he was just saying that he didn't know.

Thanks. By moving the location of the public-house, I believe the police and press reports become aligned with respect to the initial location of the second man. That is half the reason I like the idea. So now we have one man coming out of a passageway, and another pushing someone into one. It's as though the men's M.O. was to corner people in dark spots, and demand they hand over money and possessions. By the way, was Stride found to be missing an earring?

A problem with ignoring the press report is that we then have no way of knowing why Schwartz was on Berner St at the time he gave. Nor we can we speculate about his dress or behaviour ...

This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

What this actually means, has of course been debated for many years. Does 'appearance' refer to his dress sense, or his manner? Much exaggerated movement and gestures, perhaps? The other interesting thing is that Schwartz is generally understood to be a poor immigrant - essentially destitute - with few possessions that his wife moved during his long absence that presumably began the morning before the murder. So, what's this about the foreigner being well dressed? Who does this poor guy think he is? Leon Goldstein?

Regarding Schwartz's perception of the relationship between the two men, in the police report he does not appear to know. So, what was Anderson on about when he referred to "the alleged accomplice"? Did Schwartz later make it clear that he thought the two men were working together? It seems to me that Anderson either misunderstood Schwartz's police report, or he knew something that we don't.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The logical conclusion is that it was the same man. The murderer and Liz in a very dark spot for a reason. That's not by accident. That's not a casual street assault.

That very dark spot means it was premeditated. A place away from prying eyes.

No later than 1am, blood is pooling near the side door of the club. The claimed timing of the street assault seems about the right timing for the murder. Either the casual street assault never occurred, or it occurred well before a quarter to one. Which one is it? I would suggest the missing sixpence might hold an important clue.

[Lewis C]

This is from a report by Abberline, dated November 1:

There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe. Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.

My contention is that Goldstein was a well-dressed man (relatively speaking), walking into the Tiger Bay area around midnight, and Pipeman is after him for his money and/or possessions. Why else would he run in his direction? Also, why else would Schwartz leave himself isolated by running to that railway arch, unless he lived near it? The press report gets closer to the truth ...

He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.



I have heard this theory several times, and I have to say that it doesn't work for me at all. The best way to make sure Schwartz was out of the picture, would have been to just let him keep walking away. Pursuing him is only going to draw attention to himself and increase the chance of Schwartz calling a policeman to the scene. If he did not want BS and Stride to notice his presence, why would he light a pipe, walk straight past them*, and following the press report "shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman"?

I don't think enough is made of Schwartz's perception that the two men seem to possibly be together or known each other. I think this is ignored, because of a desire to cast either the first or second man as the murderer. Linking the two men complicates things. As I've suggested, the two men were muggers and thieves and the incident had nothing to do with the murder.

* As I argued in #208, the public house referred to in the press report was the Red Lion on Batty St. People suppose it to have been the Nelson, but the man could not have emerged from that doorway ...



The man emerged from the entry/exit to Hampshire Court. This was "the doorway of the public-house a few doors off ..." from Schwartz. The press report speaks relative to Schwartz's location, whereas the "the opposite side of the street" in the police report, always refers to the board school side - it is relative to the location of the assault. People have this exactly backwards.

There are some good arguments here. My main objection is that I don't believe anything that the press report says unless it is confirmed by police sources. However, much of what you argue here doesn't depend on believing the press report. I do think that it's likely that Schwartz was headed toward his lodgings anyway, just because that makes sense.

My take on Schwartz' statement about the possibility of the 2 men working together is that he was just saying that he didn't know.

[Fleetwood Mac]

She was either assaulted (by BS man) and multiple witnesses saw the initial attack and her being pulled into the darkness of the yard (but not seeing her throat then be cut) OR...
She was assaulted by a gang who left, and then BEFORE she had a chance to leave or get help, she had her throat cut by another man who looked like he was going to help her. OR
She wasn't assaulted and the entire story was concocted as a theatrical distraction by members of the club, in order to move focus away from the fact that men from the club/a local gang were responsible for the murder.


RD

The logical conclusion is that it was the same man. The murderer and Liz in a very dark spot for a reason. That's not by accident. That's not a casual street assault.

That very dark spot means it was premeditated. A place away from prying eyes.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There were multiple witnesses who saw the assault on Stride, but only Schwartz came forward.

Did you read the Abberline quote in #215. Why would Schwartz not mention these other witnesses?

A "domestic" outside the club, may have been perceived as just that and seen as commonplace and not suspicious.

The "sweetheart" couple on the corner were only around 20 yards away and must have seen, or at leas HEARD the assault... but they chose to ignore it and claim they saw nothing..because the assault happened outside the club and who would speak up against those anarchists...

Why would reporting a commonplace domestic outside the club be seen as speaking up against those anarchists?

Joseph Lave is also lingering around in the yard somewhere because he gives at least 3 different time frame accounts of how long he was outside. A visiting Russian having come to the area via America...and seeking refuge in the club...a man on the run if ever I heard one.

To what end did Lave supposedly give these multiple accounts?

In reality, it's often the case that witnesses claim they saw nothing; because they would be scared of the repercussions, especially the local residents who would have more to fear considering the proximity to the club itself.

So, could Fanny Mortimer have been coy about all she had seen? Does that explain the apparent discrepancies in her accounts?

One of the biggest questions that need answering is this.. What was Stride doing standing outside the club? Why there?

Based on her attire it would appear she was NOT soliciting.

Hard to say why Stride was on Berner St at all that night. If William Marshall did see Stride, and we know PC Smith did, then it seems she went there to chat to men on the street! Perhaps it was a form of speed dating.

And here's ANOTHER KEY QUESTION...


IF Stride was indeed assaulted and thrown to the ground AND the man who assaulted her WASN'T her killer...then WHY did she remain standing by the gateway outside the club AFTER she was assaulted?
Unless she was waiting for someone in the club, then WHY would she stay there AFTER she had just been assaulted?

Who is to say she did remain there? The only reason that is an issue is because, if a 12:45ish assault without murder is assumed, she must then wait around for Jack to come along. However, by moving the assault (possibly a robbery) well back in time, the need to have Stride (conveniently) wait at the gates is removed.

She was either assaulted (by BS man) and multiple witnesses saw the initial attack and her being pulled into the darkness of the yard (but not seeing her throat then be cut) OR...
She was assaulted by a gang who left, and then BEFORE she had a chance to leave or get help, she had her throat cut by another man who looked like he was going to help her. OR
She wasn't assaulted and the entire story was concocted as a theatrical distraction by members of the club, in order to move focus away from the fact that men from the club/a local gang were responsible for the murder.

I don't think it was any of those.

[The Rookie Detective]

The Star, Oct 1: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarreling, and no notice was taken of it.

Those who saw it?

There were multiple witnesses who saw the assault on Stride, but only Schwartz came forward.

A "domestic" outside the club, may have been perceived as just that and seen as commonplace and not suspicious.

The "sweetheart" couple on the corner were only around 20 yards away and must have seen, or at leas HEARD the assault... but they chose to ignore it and claim they saw nothing..because the assault happened outside the club and who would speak up against those anarchists...

Joseph Lave is also lingering around in the yard somewhere because he gives at least 3 different time frame accounts of how long he was outside. A visiting Russian having come to the area via America...and seeking refuge in the club...a man on the run if ever I heard one.

In reality, it's often the case that witnesses claim they saw nothing; because they would be scared of the repercussions, especially the local residents who would have more to fear considering the proximity to the club itself.

Let's not forget that the club itself represented all that would be considered extreme at the time. While there was a mix of socialists and anarchists, the overall feeling of the club was that they were very much anti-establishment. The local Jews didn't like or want them. The Orthodox Jew didn't like or want them and the Police considered the club a hot spot for anti-social behaviour.

The idea that the killer may have chosen the club as a murder location is also particularly clever; because by killing Stride (a non-Jew) outside a key hub for some of the most radical political left-wing Jews, Russian, Polish and Germans, is also EITHER a political statement OR a perfect ruse to distract from the main reason to kill Stride.

It's all very "Smoke and Mirrors"

One of the biggest questions that need answering is this.. What was Stride doing standing outside the club? Why there?

Based on her attire it would appear she was NOT soliciting.

And here's ANOTHER KEY QUESTION...


IF Stride was indeed assaulted and thrown to the ground AND the man who assaulted her WASN'T her killer...then WHY did she remain standing by the gateway outside the club AFTER she was assaulted?
Unless she was waiting for someone in the club, then WHY would she stay there AFTER she had just been assaulted?

She was either assaulted (by BS man) and multiple witnesses saw the initial attack and her being pulled into the darkness of the yard (but not seeing her throat then be cut) OR...
She was assaulted by a gang who left, and then BEFORE she had a chance to leave or get help, she had her throat cut by another man who looked like he was going to help her. OR
She wasn't assaulted and the entire story was concocted as a theatrical distraction by members of the club, in order to move focus away from the fact that men from the club/a local gang were responsible for the murder.


RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Could Mortimer have missed it?

Unlike the reasons for missing it that I gave in #211, there is another possibility - she didn't. There is a report in a couple of papers that I can't explain away - it's like an itch I can't scratch.

The Star, Oct 1: The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Those who saw it?

To know that the woman thrown to the ground was also the murdered woman, would require the witness to have been near the gates when it occurred, and later in the yard to observe the victim. Fanny Mortimer was at least one of those things and could have been both.

It's interesting that Mortimer's press reports give no clue that she had witnessed such an event in the half hour or so leading up to the discovery. As previously suggested, that could be because the incident did not occur in the 12:30-1:00 period, but prior that.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't think that Schwartz said that Pipeman ran toward him, just that he followed. So one possibility is that Pipeman not only was shouted at but also saw the man that shouted at him throw a woman on the ground, and just thought it best to move away from that person. Or maybe Pipeman wanted to go in that direction anyway.

This is from a report by Abberline, dated November 1:

There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe. Schwartz being a foreigner and unable to speak English became alarmed and ran away. The man whom he saw lighting his pipe also ran in the same direction as himself, but whether this man was running after him or not he could not tell, he might have been alarmed the same as himself and ran away.

My contention is that Goldstein was a well-dressed man (relatively speaking), walking into the Tiger Bay area around midnight, and Pipeman is after him for his money and/or possessions. Why else would he run in his direction? Also, why else would Schwartz leave himself isolated by running to that railway arch, unless he lived near it? The press report gets closer to the truth ...

He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.

Another possibility is that Pipeman was the killer, and may have wanted to make sure that Schwartz was completely out of the picture before he proceeded. Or maybe he wanted to move far enough away that BS Man and/or Stride wouldn't be aware of his presence, but stayed close enough that he could monitor the situation and approach Stride if she was still around after BS Man left.

I have heard this theory several times, and I have to say that it doesn't work for me at all. The best way to make sure Schwartz was out of the picture, would have been to just let him keep walking away. Pursuing him is only going to draw attention to himself and increase the chance of Schwartz calling a policeman to the scene. If he did not want BS and Stride to notice his presence, why would he light a pipe, walk straight past them*, and following the press report "shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman"?

I don't think enough is made of Schwartz's perception that the two men seem to possibly be together or known each other. I think this is ignored, because of a desire to cast either the first or second man as the murderer. Linking the two men complicates things. As I've suggested, the two men were muggers and thieves and the incident had nothing to do with the murder.

* As I argued in #208, the public house referred to in the press report was the Red Lion on Batty St. People suppose it to have been the Nelson, but the man could not have emerged from that doorway ...

There was a beer house at 46 Berner St. on the corner on the same side as the club, it was closed at this time.

The man emerged from the entry/exit to Hampshire Court. This was "the doorway of the public-house a few doors off ..." from Schwartz. The press report speaks relative to Schwartz's location, whereas the "the opposite side of the street" in the police report, always refers to the board school side - it is relative to the location of the assault. People have this exactly backwards.

[Lewis C]

Continuing from #208, Pipeman would be at 23, the BS man is between 40 & 42, and Schwartz is stepping onto Fairclough St at the board school corner.

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

According to Abberline, Schwartz had a strong Jewish appearance. What is perplexing for many, including Abberline it seems, is why the first man would call out 'Lipski' to the second man, rather than directing it at Schwartz. However, from the triangular formation of the men at the moment Schwartz steps off the curb, it could have been fairly obvious to Schwartz, who it was intended for.

Even more perplexing is why the second man the appears to follow Schwartz - possibly with an aggressive manner and holding a knife - eventually running in his direction. Surely that single word from a man roughing-up a woman wasn't enough to make the man flee in fear. A man that timid would not be out on the streets alone after dark.

I don't think that Schwartz said that Pipeman ran toward him, just that he followed. So one possibility is that Pipeman not only was shouted at but also saw the man that shouted at him throw a woman on the ground, and just thought it best to move away from that person. Or maybe Pipeman wanted to go in that direction anyway.

Another possibility is that Pipeman was the killer, and may have wanted to make sure that Schwartz was completely out of the picture before he proceeded. Or maybe he wanted to move far enough away that BS Man and/or Stride wouldn't be aware of his presence, but stayed close enough that he could monitor the situation and approach Stride if she was still around after BS Man left.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Some rather excellent and intriguing points.

Thanks for the compliment, RD, but I have to say I only half agree with your post.

One thing about the Stride murder which seems very apparent; is the sheer amount of "noise" created by multiple witnesses.

I don't mean literal noise, I'm referring to a common ploy that is often implemented by multiple witnesses who have something to hide; or are shielding a particular person of interest for whatever reason.
"Noise" is deliberately created by multiple witnesses, in an attempt to distract and confuse the investigation.
This comes in the form of contrasting witness statements and testimony that contradict and contrast each other, to the point where alleged incidents and timings break the fundamental rules of Science and Math, ergo, by having the same person at multiple locations at the same time.

An example of this in the Stride case; is the assault that Schwartz claimed to have seen, combined with the witness Lave who changes the duration of the time he's outside in the yard, combined with Packer who saw nobody, but then sold grapes to the alleged attacker, combined with the sweetheart couple on the corner who saw and heard nothing the entire time, combined with Mortimer who saw Goldstein walk towards the club...but then possibly again walking back up the street possibly from the club...etc...etc...

All of this is just noise, orchestrated to saturate the case with a wealth of inaccuracies and false witnesses.

Regarding Joseph Lave, you seem to be suggesting that he deliberately gave different stories to different reporters, but who is to say that he didn't repeat essentially the same story, using whatever command of English that he had, but was interpreted differently by various journalists? Think about the chalked message on Goulston St, consisting of "three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand". No two people seemed to have read the same thing, but that is not a reflection on the man who held the chalk.

You are very critical of Packer, and perhaps that criticism is justified, but what about this?...

Diemschitz to the press: In one hand she had some grapes and in the other some sweets.
Diemschitz to the coroner: I did not notice in what position her hands were.

The grape story begins with Diemschitz and Kozebrodski, not Packer.

The best approach is to look for the witness who is most reliable in terms of their statistical likelihood to be honest and correct.

Ordinarily, you'd probably bet on the police to be the most reliable. However, in this particular case, that is not always the best approach either. It stands to reason that some of the officers were corrupt and in the pockets of the local criminal gangs.

There were undoubtedly a very small number of officers who were paid to look the other way. I'm not suggesting that PC Smith was on of those policemen who were on the payroll of the criminal gangs, but there were some who absolutely were.

I would like to see some sort of evidence to back up these claims.

That said, in this particular murder, I would start with PC Smith's witness statement as being the most reliable and then work from there.

Okay, so what do you make of Parcelman? What was he doing with that parcel, why was he talking to Stride, and where did he go?

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Al. Thanks for the challenging questions.

There are two witnesses I have a problem with. The first is Schwartz. While I find every element of his story questionable, I cannot quite shake him off. The second is Mortimer. She is seemingly vindicated as a witness by her sighting of Goldstein, but she didn't seem to rate a mention by the police, and of course she was not called to the inquest. What explains this incongruity? Well, suppose Fanny's statement referred to seeing the man with the black bag at about midnight, whereas Goldstein's statement referred to transiting Berner St at about 1am, with otherwise compatible details. Who would the police believe, in that situation, and who's statement would the police have reason to doubt? Perhaps the police believed Goldstein, having volunteered himself at Leman St station.

Regarding what seen by 'Goldstein' vs 'Schwartz', that depends on a few things. Did Schwartz exaggerate what he had seen? Do we have any physical evidence for Stride having been thrown to the ground? Compare that to the press report ...

The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter ...

Do you see it?

Mortimer: He looked up at the club and then went round the corner by the Board School.
Star: ... he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb ...

It's the same story, just told from different points of view.

So, what other reasons are there for Fanny missing it? One would be her location relative to the gateway - see #203. Another would be that the timing of the incident was such that something resembling screams was lost in the din coming from the club. The same goes for the call of 'Lipski', which might otherwise have been a dangerous thing to do, right outside the club. Yet another would be that 'Schwartz' does not perceive himself being followed by Pipeman, until having turned into Fairclough St - out of sight of Fanny, and assuming a much earlier time, Spooner is not there to see the pursuit either.

Also worth considering is the unexplained gap between Marshall's witnessing - or if you're unconvinced of that, the Best and Gardener story - and the sighting of Stride with companion, by Smith. Taking Mortimer's witnessing of Goldstein back an hour, and calling Goldstein 'Schwartz', at least reduces that gap and brings Stride to the necessary location. Having Stride waiting at the gates for the club event to complete at midnight, is at least vaguely plausible, and more so than at 12:45.

Regarding Goldstein going to the police - once as Schwartz and then as Goldstein - that cannot be what occurred unless the taking of a huge risk is assumed. Otherwise, Goldstein can only have gone once, with someone else going the other time. Which was the 'other' time, probably has something to do with this ...

Star, Oct 2: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

Only late that evening does a man accompany Wess to Leman St station, giving the name Leon Goldstein. As Wess commented to the journalist, Goldstein required persuading to go to the station to clear himself of suspicion, which on the face of it is peculiar. Consequently, I'd say 'Schwartz' was Goldstein, and 'Goldstein' was someone else. Who else, I have no idea, but perhaps a brother.

So, what's it all about? The easy answer would be the Walter Dew story and Fanny Mortimer's comments to the Evening News reporter, who may not have identified himself as such ...

I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.
...
He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

A couple of points on those comments. Why might have he been coming from the club? Why the uncertainty? For the same reason that she may have missed the BS-man pushing Stride into the passageway - her point of view of the yard was less than ideal. Point two is the man's direction out of the yard. With a young couple now at the board school corner, how else could the murderer have exited the yard without being seen? Except that, perhaps he was.

If you're not keen on the Walter Dew / Evening News story, and I know many are not, but find the idea of Schwartz being Goldstein an interesting notion, I will see if I can find another way for it to make sense.

Some rather excellent and intriguing points.

One thing about the Stride murder which seems very apparent; is the sheer amount of "noise" created by multiple witnesses.

I don't mean literal noise, I'm referring to a common ploy that is often implemented by multiple witnesses who have something to hide; or are shielding a particular person of interest for whatever reason.
"Noise" is deliberately created by multiple witnesses, in an attempt to distract and confuse the investigation.
This comes in the form of contrasting witness statements and testimony that contradict and contrast each other, to the point where alleged incidents and timings break the fundamental rules of Science and Math, ergo, by having the same person at multiple locations at the same time.

An example of this in the Stride case; is the assault that Schwartz claimed to have seen, combined with the witness Lave who changes the duration of the time he's outside in the yard, combined with Packer who saw nobody, but then sold grapes to the alleged attacker, combined with the sweetheart couple on the corner who saw and heard nothing the entire time, combined with Mortimer who saw Goldstein walk towards the club...but then possibly again walking back up the street possibly from the club...etc...etc...

All of this is just noise, orchestrated to saturate the case with a wealth of inaccuracies and false witnesses.


The best approach is to look for the witness who is most reliable in terms of their statistical likelihood to be honest and correct.

Ordinarily, you'd probably bet on the police to be the most reliable. However, in this particular case, that is not always the best approach either. It stands to reason that some of the officers were corrupt and in the pockets of the local criminal gangs.

There were undoubtedly a very small number of officers who were paid to look the other way. I'm not suggesting that PC Smith was on of those policemen who were on the payroll of the criminal gangs, but there were some who absolutely were.


That said, in this particular murder, I would start with PC Smith's witness statement as being the most reliable and then work from there.

The truth is that with so many witnesses from the club, or connected to the club and local community, it's hard to rule out an ulterior motive.

Seeing as a woman was attacked and murdered in the yard of a club in which a group of men; who essentially weren't wanted in their own community for their perceived radical and anarchist beliefs, it's also an attack on the club itself.

And not forgetting of course the convicted criminal Charles Le Grand, who got to Packer, causing everything that came out of Packer's mouth, to be the words of Le Grand himself.


There's just so much inconsistency that it can't all be truthful.


RD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

So, Goldstein and Schwartz are one and the same. Folks were pretty liberal back then about what name they used, so fair enough. How do you reconcile 'Goldstein' seeing something in the gateway with 'Schwartz' seeing an entire incident? Could Mortimer have missed it? If it never happened, why does Goldstein reappear as Schwartz with his story? Why does Goldstein go to the police, but also goes as Schwartz? That's risky isn't it? What do you suppose that's all about then?

Hi Al. Thanks for the challenging questions.

There are two witnesses I have a problem with. The first is Schwartz. While I find every element of his story questionable, I cannot quite shake him off. The second is Mortimer. She is seemingly vindicated as a witness by her sighting of Goldstein, but she didn't seem to rate a mention by the police, and of course she was not called to the inquest. What explains this incongruity? Well, suppose Fanny's statement referred to seeing the man with the black bag at about midnight, whereas Goldstein's statement referred to transiting Berner St at about 1am, with otherwise compatible details. Who would the police believe, in that situation, and who's statement would the police have reason to doubt? Perhaps the police believed Goldstein, having volunteered himself at Leman St station.

Regarding what seen by 'Goldstein' vs 'Schwartz', that depends on a few things. Did Schwartz exaggerate what he had seen? Do we have any physical evidence for Stride having been thrown to the ground? Compare that to the press report ...

The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter ...

Do you see it?

Mortimer: He looked up at the club and then went round the corner by the Board School.
Star: ... he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb ...

It's the same story, just told from different points of view.

So, what other reasons are there for Fanny missing it? One would be her location relative to the gateway - see #203. Another would be that the timing of the incident was such that something resembling screams was lost in the din coming from the club. The same goes for the call of 'Lipski', which might otherwise have been a dangerous thing to do, right outside the club. Yet another would be that 'Schwartz' does not perceive himself being followed by Pipeman, until having turned into Fairclough St - out of sight of Fanny, and assuming a much earlier time, Spooner is not there to see the pursuit either.

Also worth considering is the unexplained gap between Marshall's witnessing - or if you're unconvinced of that, the Best and Gardener story - and the sighting of Stride with companion, by Smith. Taking Mortimer's witnessing of Goldstein back an hour, and calling Goldstein 'Schwartz', at least reduces that gap and brings Stride to the necessary location. Having Stride waiting at the gates for the club event to complete at midnight, is at least vaguely plausible, and more so than at 12:45.

Regarding Goldstein going to the police - once as Schwartz and then as Goldstein - that cannot be what occurred unless the taking of a huge risk is assumed. Otherwise, Goldstein can only have gone once, with someone else going the other time. Which was the 'other' time, probably has something to do with this ...

Star, Oct 2: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

Only late that evening does a man accompany Wess to Leman St station, giving the name Leon Goldstein. As Wess commented to the journalist, Goldstein required persuading to go to the station to clear himself of suspicion, which on the face of it is peculiar. Consequently, I'd say 'Schwartz' was Goldstein, and 'Goldstein' was someone else. Who else, I have no idea, but perhaps a brother.

So, what's it all about? The easy answer would be the Walter Dew story and Fanny Mortimer's comments to the Evening News reporter, who may not have identified himself as such ...

I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.
...
He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

A couple of points on those comments. Why might have he been coming from the club? Why the uncertainty? For the same reason that she may have missed the BS-man pushing Stride into the passageway - her point of view of the yard was less than ideal. Point two is the man's direction out of the yard. With a young couple now at the board school corner, how else could the murderer have exited the yard without being seen? Except that, perhaps he was.

If you're not keen on the Walter Dew / Evening News story, and I know many are not, but find the idea of Schwartz being Goldstein an interesting notion, I will see if I can find another way for it to make sense.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Both Schwartz and Goldstein presented well. They both took the same path into, along, and out of Berner St. Both paused at the gates to look at something. Now, who do you see when you take a closer look at Israel Schwartz?[/QUOTE]

Hi Andrew,

So, Goldstein and Schwartz are one and the same. Folks were pretty liberal back then about what name they used, so fair enough. How do you reconcile 'Goldstein' seeing something in the gateway with 'Schwartz' seeing an entire incident? Could Mortimer have missed it? If it never happened, why does Goldstein reappear as Schwartz with his story? Why does Goldstein go to the police, but also goes as Schwartz? That's risky isn't it? What do you suppose that's all about then?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Continuing from #208, Pipeman would be at 23, the BS man is between 40 & 42, and Schwartz is stepping onto Fairclough St at the board school corner.

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.

According to Abberline, Schwartz had a strong Jewish appearance. What is perplexing for many, including Abberline it seems, is why the first man would call out 'Lipski' to the second man, rather than directing it at Schwartz. However, from the triangular formation of the men at the moment Schwartz steps off the curb, it could have been fairly obvious to Schwartz, who it was intended for.

Even more perplexing is why the second man the appears to follow Schwartz - possibly with an aggressive manner and holding a knife - eventually running in his direction. Surely that single word from a man roughing-up a woman wasn't enough to make the man flee in fear. A man that timid would not be out on the streets alone after dark.

There is another huge problem with this story. As has been discussed recently, it is very difficult to understand how the incident could have occurred unseen and unheard, and it just does not easily fit into timelines that commence around 12:30. So if it really happened, when did it happen? According to Wess, around 100 persons were present in the club that night, most of them leaving when the discussion ended at about midnight. Was there enough noise before midnight for those not very loud screams to be masked by the noise emanating from the club? Had Stride been waiting at the gates for the club event to finish, would it have been more likely for her to be waiting at around the time the event finished, or half an hour later?

As for the men described by Schwartz, what explains their behaviour? Why is one man giving Stride a very hard time, while the other man - possibly known to the first - is seemingly pursuing Schwartz? Well, what did Stride and Schwartz have in common?

Charles Preston at the inquest:

Was she dressed to go out? - Yes, and she asked me for a loan of a clothes brush just before going out.

What was she wearing? - She had on the jacket I have seen at the mortuary. She had no flower in her dress. She had a coloured striped silk handkerchief round her neck - the same one that I saw on the body.

Catherine Lane: I know deceased has sixpence when she left the lodgings. She showed me the sixpence, and said, that the deputy gave it to her.

The sixpence was not found on her body.

Assuming the truth of Schwartz's story - and he was certainly convincing to Abberline - my hypothesis is that BS-man and Pipeman were muggers and thieves. These were two men trawling the streets looking for easy targets. So, if Stride was looking like she might be carrying money, and/or some sort of valuable possessions, how did Israel Schwartz look? Apart from looking Jewish, we only have this ...

The Star: This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.

Who else might have been a target for the street thieves that night? How about this man?...

Mortimer: It was just 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. He looked up at the club and then went round the corner by the Board School.

That shiny black bag must have looked inviting. Remember, Mortimer said that Goldstein was the only man she had seen pass through the street previously - not the only man at any time. She could have previously seen Goldstein at any time, including before 12:30. There is no reason to suppose that Fanny was not at her doorstep for periods earlier than the times she gave in her press report. Consider also Fanny's comment about Goldstein looking up at the club, before proceeding around the board school corner. What was he looking at? Now consider Schwartz ...

... on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having 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.

Both Schwartz and Goldstein presented well. They both took the same path into, along, and out of Berner St. Both paused at the gates to look at something. Now, who do you see when you take a closer look at Israel Schwartz?