Suspect Witnesses?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Excellent post.

Thanks. I should add that ...

The young woman who spoke to Fanny was Spooner's lady friend.

... this could explain what became of the lady friend after Spooner ran around to the yard. She made her own way to the yard (i.e. walked) and got talking to Fanny Mortimer just outside the gates, while Edward observed & guarded the body. Fanny got a bit confused about what pub and corner the young couple had been standing at - she thought they meant the Nelson, but it was of course, the Beehive.

How about this?...

Schwartz was Bs Man.

Schwartz himself was drunk and had been chucked out by his wife earlier that day. The whole bizarre story about him checking to see if his wife had moved, is indicative of stalkative behaviour by a man who has been recently separated from his wife.
Schwartz then sees Stride, and assaults her, but this is witnessed by Pipeman.
Schwartz then runs off south and is pursued briefly by Pipeman.

This has got me thinking.

If Mrs Schwartz had chucked him out, he would temporarily have no fixed address. However, as you know, Swanson's report states Schwartz's address as being 22 Ellen St. I presume that to mean he was lodging at that address when he visited Leman St police station.

What if instead of the wife chucking Israel out, it was actually her leaving him for whatever reason, although we might entertain the notion of domestic abuse being the culprit. Had that been the case, where might a young Jewish immigrant woman living in that area go, for temporary accommodation? Consider the following snippet from the Star account.

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.

Let's see how things look when we switch the location of the lodgings ...

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

Did his wife leave him, and found temporary accommodation at 40 Berner St?

[c.d.]

I am not a betting man but I'm expecting to see a Schwartz was really Stride scenario appearing soon. I mean mock if you want but it would explain why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest and why he was unable to be located.

Some serious mental gymnastics going on here of late.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

If Wess had been so hopelessly confused as to suppose that the police search after 1pm was the murderer being pursued at about 12:45, then Philip Krantz had days to correct him, . . .

Don't forget, Wess left the club around 12:15, so whatever happened that he was being interviewed about, was to him hear-say.
Wess did not know the time, whether 12:45 or 1:00, he is just relating what other people told him.

The article does identify the source as 'members of the public who prefer to think the man being chased was the murderer'.

Whoever saw the incident, only saw one man return, they didn't see who set out.

. . yet the Friday, Oct 5 edition of The Worker's Friend states:

The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.

The report does not justify the time, no reason is given as the paper reports what every other paper says, that the body was first discovered by Deimschutz around 1:00 am.
Therefore, they reasonably conclude the murder happened about 12:45, or just before Deimschutz arrived, it doesn't confirm the Wess interview.

Does it not seem to be the case that it was not Wess who was confused, but rather the anonymous members of the public he alludes to ...

... the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street ...

Spooner and lady friend were on Fairclough St at that time, and his testimony does not suggest confusion about what he witnessed.

What Spooner witnessed in Fairclough St. is confirmed by James Brown, who had been out to get supper at 12:45, and that "quarter of an hour later", he heard men running shouting "murder" and "police", heading towards Grove St., the running men passed Spooner.
Both Brown and Spooner corroborate each other.

The murder happened after 12:45, but before 1:00 am - and we have always known this.

[Wickerman]

Get with the times, Wick. The Sweetheart couple went indoors a half hour earlier and were on the other end of Berner Street to begin with. . .

Anyone can do a search on "sweetheart" in the Press Reports section, and not one report tells us the sweetheart couple went indoors.
Is this more of your speculations Tom?
Do you have a press report that is not listed in the Casebook Press Reports section?

I retired that story in 2018.

YOU retired the story? - and you are . .?

Only those with a vested interest to keep BS Man in frame should have cause to continue to promote this lie. And I KNOW that's not you. . .

I knew you were likely to get one thing right in this post, and there it is. I have no bias in favor of BSman, but I don't see the connection between Schwartz and the sweetheart couple, or should I say, couples?

Any dating pair were, in colloquial terms, a sweetheart couple, and on the morning of the 30th Sept. there were two dating couples in Berner St.

Couple #1
"From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart. "We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."
Echo, 1st Oct. 1888.

Couple #2.
"When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises."
This is the couple seen by Brown at 12:45, . . . .

. . . and by Mortimer before 1:00 am.
"A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."
Daily News, 1st Oct. 1888.

Which couple is it you suggest went indoors, and when did they do this?

Stride's face was rather unique and James Brown believed it was her he saw. The coroner believed him. And he saw a man in a long dark overcoat in roughly the same spot Schwartz had been a few minutes earlier.

What does being "almost certain" mean? - Brown's words.
Not certain, then?

And, he didn't see the flower, which is a critical point of identification mentioned by other witnesses.
Gardiner saw Stride wearing the flower around 11:00 pm, when she was at the Bricklayers Arms.
Both Packer & PC Smith saw Stride wearing the flower at 12:30 am., at this time Stride was standing in front of and opposite the club.
Stride was nowhere near the corner of the street.

Mary Malcolm was certain the dead woman was her sister, more certain than Brown, yet clearly mistaken, just like Brown.

[The Rookie Detective]

Thanks. I should add that ...



... this could explain what became of the lady friend after Spooner ran around to the yard. She made her own way to the yard (i.e. walked) and got talking to Fanny Mortimer just outside the gates, while Edward observed & guarded the body. Fanny got a bit confused about what pub and corner the young couple had been standing at - she thought they meant the Nelson, but it was of course, the Beehive.



This has got me thinking.

If Mrs Schwartz had chucked him out, he would temporarily have no fixed address. However, as you know, Swanson's report states Schwartz's address as being 22 Ellen St. I presume that to mean he was lodging at that address when he visited Leman St police station.

What if instead of the wife chucking Israel out, it was actually her leaving him for whatever reason, although we might entertain the notion of domestic abuse being the culprit. Had that been the case, where might a young Jewish immigrant woman living in that area go, for temporary accommodation? Consider the following snippet from the Star account.

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.

Let's see how things look when we switch the location of the lodgings ...

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

Did his wife leave him, and found temporary accommodation at 40 Berner St?

Now we're talking.


Getting warmer methinks


Great post!

[Tom_Wescott]

Anyone can do a search on "sweetheart" in the Press Reports section, and not one report tells us the sweetheart couple went indoors.
Is this more of your speculations Tom?
Do you have a press report that is not listed in the Casebook Press Reports section?





YOU retired the story? - and you are . .?




I knew you were likely to get one thing right in this post, and there it is. I have no bias in favor of BSman, but I don't see the connection between Schwartz and the sweetheart couple, or should I say, couples?

Any dating pair were, in colloquial terms, a sweetheart couple, and on the morning of the 30th Sept. there were two dating couples in Berner St.

Couple #1
"From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart. "We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."
Echo, 1st Oct. 1888.

Couple #2.
"When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises."
This is the couple seen by Brown at 12:45, . . . .

. . . and by Mortimer before 1:00 am.
"A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."
Daily News, 1st Oct. 1888.

Which couple is it you suggest went indoors, and when did they do this?



What does being "almost certain" mean? - Brown's words.
Not certain, then?

And, he didn't see the flower, which is a critical point of identification mentioned by other witnesses.
Gardiner saw Stride wearing the flower around 11:00 pm, when she was at the Bricklayers Arms.
Both Packer & PC Smith saw Stride wearing the flower at 12:30 am., at this time Stride was standing in front of and opposite the club.
Stride was nowhere near the corner of the street.

Mary Malcolm was certain the dead woman was her sister, more certain than Brown, yet clearly mistaken, just like Brown.

Wick, you know as well as I do that is all in reference to the same couple. Two are hearsay, one is straight from the young woman's mouth. Incidentally, I believe this young woman was Charles Letchford's sister. It makes it all quite clear that there was no sweetheart on the street at 12:45 to 12:51. Had there been we're likely to have seen mention of them in Swanson's report as they would have reflected directly on Schwartz's statement. I say 'likely' because such accuracy is not 'certain' with these men. But the press would have been on top of any couple who had been standing near Dutfield's Yard around 1a.m. At the time the body was discovered there was, briefly, a belief that the murder had occurred closer to midnight.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

For a long time, I have believed in this board school couple being not Stride and OM - instead being the couple whose female member apparently spoke to the press. I now see that is not possible. That couple, had they existed, would have become crucial to the investigation, owing to their proximity to the murder in time and place. Yet, we never hear from them again.

This is what I now believe ...

The young woman who spoke to Fanny was Spooner's lady friend. . .

Mortimer said "they" spoke to her, both the man and the woman.

"A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."

We know Spooner and his girl were not standing on the corner by the Board School at any time, they had been stood on the corner of Fairclough and Christian streets, so Mortimer cannot have spoken to either of them.

The couple seen by Brown was Stride and Overcoat Man.

Yet, Stride & Overcoat-man were not anywhere near that corner.

The "walking couple" in the Echo report departed at ~12:30.

That is the first 'sweetheart' couple not seen by Mortimer, Mortimer saw the second 'sweetheart' couple.

That post should have been noted by Schwartz believer's - there is no way a couple could have been at the board school corner for some 20 minutes leading up to the murder and not see or hear anything of what Schwartz described. So, Brown must have been correct that it was Liz at that location, which would seem to suggest that she had picked herself up after being thrown on the footway, and went across the street to talk to OM. Thus, BS Man was not the murderer.

That 'post' was noticed by many who have used it to show the deficiency of Schwartz's story.

Mortimer, for all her own deficiencies, is the link between the 'sweetheart' couple on the corner, and Stride laying in the yard.
Whereas Schwartz's account does not fit the known movements in Berner St.

Over in Batty street, there is a similar yard on the south-side of a pub, I think it's the Red Lion.
Possibly then, Schwartz, not being able to read English, did not know which street he walked down.
As he staggered passed the Red Lion yard he noticed a man assault a woman, and feeling vulnerable took off to run away down Batty, and across Fairclough, then down Brunswich, and on south towards the railway arches.
You cannot run down Berner St. towards the arches, as Berner st. dead-ends at Ellen St.

Possibly, Schwartz was walking down through Batty St. and saw a woman assaulted in the entrance to a yard.
Later that day, Schwartz hears of a woman being murdered in a yard in Berner St., and he wonders if this is what he saw.
Schwartz talking with the interpreter, between them they wrongly conclude this must have been the assault he witnessed. Which is why they go to police to say he saw the assault in Berner St. Schwartz made a mistake.

This could be the simple solution to the never-ending debate of events in Berner St., Schwartz simply was not there, he had been in Batty St.

Here we have the Red line showing the conventional direction taken by Schwartz walking south down Berner St.
As he passed Dutfields Yard (Blue Box), he crossed the road, but continued south, or possibly turning east on Fairclough.

Then we have the Green line showing the alternate route taken by Schwartz, he crossed the road as he saw the assault in the Red Lion yard (Blue Box), and ran south towards the Railway Arches.



We should notice that in the police report by Swanson, no details are provided to indicate which street Schwartz was passing through.
Swanson does write that Schwartz entered Berner St., only because that is where Schwartz believed he was.
Yet, there is no mention of the Club, nor the name of the yard, not even the pub on the corner. He could literally have been in any street that has a pub/club, and an adjoining yard.
It just so happens the very next street to Berner, that is Batty St. has the same set up, on the same side of the street.

The singular detail that can place events in Berner St. is found in the press version, that being the pub on the corner, perhaps added by the journalist, and may also be where the knife came from?

[Tom_Wescott]

A lot of goal post moving going on here. There was one (not two, or three) sweetheart couple, and they were long gone by 1a.m.. Those early Mortimer reports make it quite clear the belief was that the murder occurred much earlier than it did, explaining the statement that the couple must have been in the area at the time the murder was committed. We soon learned that was not the case. This is why they appear nowhere as witnesses. James Brown DOES appear as a witness because he was on the scene c. 12:50 a.m. and identified the woman in the mortuary (Stride) as the woman he'd seen. Spooner's girl is never mentioned as appearing in Berner Street at any time and Spooner never stated he was standing on the Berner Street corner at any time. That is a strawman hypothesis.

It is an inescapable fact that when we remove speculation and wishful thinking, the best evidence (and no, it's not great, and nowhere close to complete) puts Stride last with Overcoat Man, minutes after BS Man and Schwartz have fled. In this regard, Schwartz's evidence is primarily relevant for the additional details he provides about a man who MIGHT be Overcoat Man (Pipeman). Had James Brown gotten a better view of the man he'd seen, it would be he and not Schwartz promoted as chief witness. But he only saw a coat, so was of no probative value. It is for this reason Swanson props up Schwartz as a key witnesses to Home Office in his Oct. 19th report.

We're only debating this because the wildly influential centenary books got it wrong and did not have access to the newspaper databases we have today.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lewis C]

All these 'explanations' ignore the blood evidence.

I believe that what you're getting at here is that the blood evidence gives us a time window for when the murder had to have occurred. Is that correct? If so, what is this time window?

[Lewis C]

For a long time, I have believed in this board school couple being not Stride and OM - instead being the couple whose female member apparently spoke to the press. I now see that is not possible. That couple, had they existed, would have become crucial to the investigation, owing to their proximity to the murder in time and place. Yet, we never hear from them again.

This is what I now believe ...

The young woman who spoke to Fanny was Spooner's lady friend.

The couple seen by Brown was Stride and Overcoat Man.

The "walking couple" in the Echo report departed at ~12:30.

There was no other couple.

That post should have been noted by Schwartz believer's - there is no way a couple could have been at the board school corner for some 20 minutes leading up to the murder and not see or hear anything of what Schwartz described. So, Brown must have been correct that it was Liz at that location, which would seem to suggest that she had picked herself up after being thrown on the footway, and went across the street to talk to OM. Thus, BS Man was not the murderer.

You've been disagreeing with me about the possibility of both Schwartz and Brown being reliable, but here you have Liz picking herself up after the Schwartz incident and going where Brown saw her.

While I'm not as adamant about this point as you are, I will agree that it's unlikely that the couple was at the corner for 20 minutes leading up to the murder. Brown saw them on his way home from the shop, but not on his way over. I doubt that Brown arrived at the shop prior to 12:40.

[Tom_Wescott]

You've been disagreeing with me about the possibility of both Schwartz and Brown being reliable, but here you have Liz picking herself up after the Schwartz incident and going where Brown saw her.

While I'm not as adamant about this point as you are, I will agree that it's unlikely that the couple was at the corner for 20 minutes leading up to the murder. Brown saw them on his way home from the shop, but not on his way over. I doubt that Brown arrived at the shop prior to 12:40.

In the event someone (not you, Lewis) is fudging with Brown's timing, Brown's statement would have been corroborated with the chandler as to when Brown was there and for how long. Had there been a contradiction, it would have been put to Brown at the inquest either by Baxter or one of the inspectors in attendance.

Brown says he left his home about 12:45 a.m., went directly to the chandler shop on the corner of Fairclough and Berner, spent about 3 to 4 minutes inside, and left, crossing across the road towards the board school and passing the couple. Assuming his timing is accurate - which we have to do even though it probably isn't - this puts him walking past the couple at about 12:51 or 12:52 a.m. The murder would have happened somewhere between this time and her discovery at 1 a.m. Because her carotid was only partially severed, it would have taken minutes for her to bleed to death.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

A lot of goal post moving going on here. There was one (not two, or three) sweetheart couple, and they were long gone by 1a.m.. Those early Mortimer reports make it quite clear the belief was that the murder occurred much earlier than it did, explaining the statement that the couple must have been in the area at the time the murder was committed. . .

When anyone refuses to accept the evidence as written, then any subsequent conclusions cannot be worth the paper they are written on.

The first 'sweetheart' couple is stated to have come and gone between 12:00-12:30 am, and never claimed to be anywhere near the intersection of Berner & Fairclough - there is no cause to dispute that.

The second 'sweetheart' couple was seen at the Berner & Fairclough corner, when the murder was discovered, and for the previous 20 minutes.

Both couples were clearly independent sightings, at different locations, at different times.
The distinction could not be clearer.

This is why they appear nowhere as witnesses. . .

Neither appear as witnesses because, obviously, the first couple leaving the street at 12:30 am, saw nothing, and the second couple may not have lived in the street. So were not discovered in the house-to-house search.
The possibility also exists that this second couple had not noticed anyone coming or going from the street

James Brown DOES appear as a witness because he was on the scene c. 12:50 a.m. and identified the woman in the mortuary (Stride) as the woman he'd seen. . .

Brown lived in the house-to-house sweep zone, its that simple.
He claims to have recognised the body, but the Coroner had doubts, asking Brown - "are you sure it was not her dress you recognised?"

It is an inescapable fact that when we remove speculation and wishful thinking, the best evidence (and no, it's not great, and nowhere close to complete) puts Stride last with Overcoat Man, minutes after BS Man and Schwartz have fled. In this regard, Schwartz's evidence is primarily relevant for the additional details he provides about a man who MIGHT be Overcoat Man (Pipeman). Had James Brown gotten a better view of the man he'd seen, it would be he and not Schwartz promoted as chief witness. But he only saw a coat, so was of no probative value. . .

Except, there is nothing whatsoever, about the couple seen by Brown that requires us to believe his female with 'no-flower', was Stride, who did wear the flower.
His belief that the body was the woman he saw is not reliable, others making the same claim have been proven wrong.
Which means, your conclusion is not inescapable.

It is for this reason Swanson props up Schwartz as a key witnesses to Home Office in his Oct. 19th report.

I don't think he does, when the sentence begins with "if Schwartz is to be believed" . . that does not have a ring of confidence.
Swanson goes on to indicate the police report is not yet complete. Which suggests the police are still investigating Schwartz's story.
This is why Schwartz was not called to the inquest.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Now we're talking.


Getting warmer methinks


Great post!

It's interesting when we consider the report that refers to a quarrel that was ignored as it was perceived to be between a man and his wife. Perhaps there is more to this than we suppose. Had Schwartz found his wife at #40, he may have tried to drag her home.

The man 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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Don't forget, Wess left the club around 12:15, so whatever happened that he was being interviewed about, was to him hear-say.
Wess did not know the time, whether 12:45 or 1:00, he is just relating what other people told him.

People like Krantz, Diemschitz and Eagle. I wouldn't call that hear-say. These are first-party accounts of the police search, and not one of these men said anything about 12:45 - they all mentioned 1am. The notion that Wess would then start talking about a murderer being chased at 12:45, which just happened to coincide with Schwartz's story, is fanciful.

The article does identify the source as 'members of the public who prefer to think the man being chased was the murderer'.

Whoever saw the incident, only saw one man return, they didn't see who set out.

The members of the public are not identified, because the story is concocted.

What do mean, only one man returned? Spooner ran around to the club with the two members he had stopped for information, and Mr Harris was right at their tale. That's 4 men. This is nothing like the story of a man pursued escaping.

The report does not justify the time, no reason is given as the paper reports what every other paper says, that the body was first discovered by Deimschutz around 1:00 am.
Therefore, they reasonably conclude the murder happened about 12:45, or just before Deimschutz arrived, it doesn't confirm the Wess interview.

Did any other paper make the same 'reasonable' conclusion?

What Spooner witnessed in Fairclough St. is confirmed by James Brown, who had been out to get supper at 12:45, and that "quarter of an hour later", he heard men running shouting "murder" and "police", heading towards Grove St., the running men passed Spooner.
Both Brown and Spooner corroborate each other.

Yes, the men passed Spooner and very soon after doubled-back. No one escaped.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What does being "almost certain" mean? - Brown's words.
Not certain, then?

It means close to 100% certain.

And, he didn't see the flower, which is a critical point of identification mentioned by other witnesses.

As you know, the man's arm was against the wall, and he was close to her. The flower could easily have been obscured.

Gardiner saw Stride wearing the flower around 11:00 pm, when she was at the Bricklayers Arms.

J. Best: I have been to the mortuary, and am almost certain the woman there is the one we saw at the Bricklayers' Arms.

Not certain, then?