Suspect Witnesses?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

When I used the word depart I meant depart the scene of the conflict and continue on his way into the club. Of course I am, and was, fully aware of Eagle's activities both in the club and after the discovery of the body. Then there is this curious exchange at the inquest:
[Coroner] Did you see anyone about in Berner-street? - I dare say I did, but I do not remember them.
[Coroner] Did you observe any one in the yard? - I do not remember that I did.
[Coroner] If there had been a man and woman there you would have remembered the circumstance? - Yes; I am sure of that.

He thinks he saw people in the street but does not remember them. He does not remember seeing anyone in the yard but was sure that he would remember if he did??

Okay, I thought you were implying that Eagle had something to do with the apparent pursuit described by Schwartz. So then, who did this involve? Who follows Schwartz given that he supposedly steered clear of the incident? How do we make cause align with effect?

I agree that Eagle's testimony suggests he may have seen Stride on the street. In contrast, you want him to be one who man-handles Stride and then lies by omission about the presence of Goldstein in the yard. Previously you said:

Parcelman didn't have to be "lurking in the darkness". IMO it would be more likely that he was using the Loo in the yard while Stride waited for him, thus allowing the Schwartz incident to be enacted without interference by Parcelman.

So, what is Goldstein doing in your scenario, if not "lurking in the darkness"?

If he did enter the club around 12:40 he should have either seen Stride and Parcelman in the street or Stride standing in the gateway, unless she was already dead. I expect that you may suggest that maybe Stride and Parcelman were the couple that Brown saw, but Smith didn't report a ground length overcoat, unless it was folded and wrapped in newspaper. Neither Best nor Gardner reported a long overcoat, wrapped or otherwise.

Merging Overcoat Man with Parcelman would help to reduce the number of 'moving parts'. It is not necessarily the case, of course. However, I believe eyewitness testimony experts would laugh at the suggestion that a description of a man with a knee length coat could not possibly be a match for a description including an ankle length coat - at night-time or midday. As for the parcel, that may have lived in the coat or been hidden from Brown's view as the man leant against the wall.

Brown testified that he saw the couple on his way back from the chandler's shop. So if Eagle was BSman, the Schwartz incident could have taken place while Brown was in the chandler's shop and before the couple arrived at the corner. So was Stride killed by Pipeman, Goldstein, Eagle or Parcelman (or someone else). IMO, more likely one of the first two, based entirely on supposition and speculation.

Having just said that Smith's man could not be Brown's man, because the second has a longer coat, you implicitly dismiss Brown's identification of Stride at the mortuary, as almost certainly being the woman he saw at the corner. So, Brown had a keen eye for coat lengths, but not faces?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What exactly did this "violence" consist of? Going strictly by Schwartz's story, had she found a nearby PC and had him arrested what do you think the consequences would have been? My guess would be a lecture and don't do it again or maybe a small fine. Not major consequences for such "violence." Or are we assigning a degree of "violence" not based solely on Schwartz's story but more on her subsequent death?

Okay, let's go with this scenario. Our girl Liz is a tough little thing, and she gets up and "dusts herself off", while BS Man wanders off mouthing expletives under his breath. So, what happens between then and the arrival of Diemschitz? Please account for all relevant witnesses.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi c.d.,

Absolutely agree. I think that this is why Stride's protestation was not very loud.

Cheers, George

Stride's protestation? How do know these weren't cries of anguish? You're making an assumption. Abberline accepted the word 'screams' - so should we.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Makes sense, Schwartz was trying to pull stride into the street, if she refused then her natural movement would be in the opposite direction .

Freudian slip. Compared to the BS character, it's more likely that Schwartz was involved in an altercation with his wife, who was looking to move out of house. Schwartz admitted that to the Star reporter. We even have a report that the altercation was perceived to have been between a man and his wife.

[GBinOz]

Stride's protestation? How do know these weren't cries of anguish? You're making an assumption. Abberline accepted the word 'screams' - so should we.

Low volume (not heard by anyone) protestations or admonishments do not indicate fear or anguish.Abberline wasn't there. Schwartz was there.

[GBinOz]

Okay, I thought you were implying that Eagle had something to do with the apparent pursuit described by Schwartz. So then, who did this involve? Who follows Schwartz given that he supposedly steered clear of the incident? How do we make cause align with effect?

My speculation is that Pipeman's "pursuit of Schwartz was perfunctory and far shorter than imaginged by a fleeing Schwartz.

I agree that Eagle's testimony suggests he may have seen Stride on the street. In contrast, you want him to be one who man-handles Stride and then lies by omission about the presence of Goldstein in the yard. Previously you said:
So, what is Goldstein doing in your scenario, if not "lurking in the darkness"?

I don't "want" Eagle to be BSMan. I just suggesting the possibility based on his being there around that time. I suggest that if Eagle missed someone "lurking in the darkness" it could have been Goldstein.

Merging Overcoat Man with Parcelman would help to reduce the number of 'moving parts'. It is not necessarily the case, of course. However, I believe eyewitness testimony experts would laugh at the suggestion that a description of a man with a knee length coat could not possibly be a match for a description including an ankle length coat - at night-time or midday. As for the parcel, that may have lived in the coat or been hidden from Brown's view as the man leant against the wall.

So Smith saw a man with a parcel but no long overcoat.

Having just said that Smith's man could not be Brown's man, because the second has a longer coat, you implicitly dismiss Brown's identification of Stride at the mortuary, as almost certainly being the woman he saw at the corner. So, Brown had a keen eye for coat lengths, but not faces?

[Coroner] Did you see enough to make you certain that the deceased was the woman? - I am almost certain.
[Coroner] Did you notice any flower in her dress? - No.

[Coroner] Had he a hat or a cap on? - I cannot say.

Brown didn't see the flower, and couldn't say whether or not the man was wearing a hat or cap. Not a keen eye IMO.

[FISHY1118]

Freudian slip. Compared to the BS character, it's more likely that Schwartz was involved in an altercation with his wife, who was looking to move out of house. Schwartz admitted that to the Star reporter. We even have a report that the altercation was perceived to have been between a man and his wife.

Schwartz was not involved in Strides attack, he only witnessed it .

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Low volume (not heard by anyone) protestations or admonishments do not indicate fear or anguish.Abberline wasn't there. Schwartz was there.

It makes no sense to dismiss Abberline in favour of Schwartz when most of what we know of Schwartz comes indirectly or directly from Abberline. Screams, even not very loud ones, cannot possibly be described as low volume protestations or admonishments.

[GBinOz]

It makes no sense to dismiss Abberline in favour of Schwartz when most of what we know of Schwartz comes indirectly or directly from Abberline. Screams, even not very loud ones, cannot possibly be described as low volume protestations or admonishments.

Schwartz was telling his story to a translator and the translator to Abberline. We don't know how much was lost in translation, but "not very loud" is probably less debatable than "screams". The truth is that no one in the club or in the street heard screams of anguish.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

My speculation is that Pipeman's "pursuit of Schwartz was perfunctory and far shorter than imaginged by a fleeing Schwartz.

So Pipeman ran in Schwartz's direction for some indeterminate distance. Why would he do that, having seen BS Man (possibly Eagle in your scenario) manhandling Stride?

What does Parcelman do when finished in the loo? Presumably he finds Stride bleeding to death. Okay, then what?

I don't "want" Eagle to be BSMan. I just suggesting the possibility based on his being there around that time. I suggest that if Eagle missed someone "lurking in the darkness" it could have been Goldstein.

Had the police suspected Eagle of being the BS man, they could have confronted Schwartz with him. That seemingly didn't occur. Now if Eagle is not BS, then presumably Stride has not yet arrived at the gates, nor is she at the board school corner. That means Goldstein's return trip to the cafe must 'wait', as must Schwartz's investigation of his wife's possible move. However, Brown's outward journey must still have him reach the shop without seeing Schwartz and Pipeman.

So Smith saw a man with a parcel but no long overcoat.

It depends on what is meant by 'saw'. The image on his retina and what he recalled seeing when questioned by the coroner 5½ days later, are two different things.

[Coroner] Did you see enough to make you certain that the deceased was the woman? - I am almost certain.
[Coroner] Did you notice any flower in her dress? - No.

[Coroner] Had he a hat or a cap on? - I cannot say.

Brown didn't see the flower, and couldn't say whether or not the man was wearing a hat or cap. Not a keen eye IMO.

What flower? Don't you suppose this was the young couple?

Brown (Times): I could not say what kind of cap he had on. The place where they were standing was rather dark. I saw nothing light in colour about either of them.

I think Brown did rather well, considering the circumstances. Would you be convinced if Brown had expressed total rather than near certainty?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz was not involved in Strides attack, he only witnessed it .

I didn't say Schwartz was involved in Stride's attack.

Dr. Blackwell: I removed the cachous from the left hand, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and fourth finger, and had become almost hidden. That accounted for its not having been seen by several of those around.

How could this be possible if Stride was thrown to the footway outside the gates?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Schwartz was telling his story to a translator and the translator to Abberline. We don't know how much was lost in translation, but "not very loud" is probably less debatable than "screams". The truth is that no one in the club or in the street heard screams of anguish.

There are three issues with this:

* "Lost in translation" ignores that Abberline accepted that translation, and it was he who was in the room with Schwartz and translator. He could have asked for clarification if he required it, but seemingly didn't

* The "not very loudly" qualification only makes sense if what is being described would otherwise be understood as being loud. "She admonished him three times" would not require that sort of qualification.

* Those who suppose that a young couple were at the board school corner at the time must explain why they didn't hear this event while 20 yards away.

The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' ...

Apparently, Pipeman heard this from the Nelson corner, but a young couple did not hear it from the board school corner.

[The Rookie Detective]

So Pipeman ran in Schwartz's direction for some indeterminate distance. Why would he do that, having seen BS Man (possibly Eagle in your scenario) manhandling Stride?

What does Parcelman do when finished in the loo? Presumably he finds Stride bleeding to death. Okay, then what?



Had the police suspected Eagle of being the BS man, they could have confronted Schwartz with him. That seemingly didn't occur. Now if Eagle is not BS, then presumably Stride has not yet arrived at the gates, nor is she at the board school corner. That means Goldstein's return trip to the cafe must 'wait', as must Schwartz's investigation of his wife's possible move. However, Brown's outward journey must still have him reach the shop without seeing Schwartz and Pipeman.



It depends on what is meant by 'saw'. The image on his retina and what he recalled seeing when questioned by the coroner 5½ days later, are two different things.



What flower? Don't you suppose this was the young couple?

Brown (Times): I could not say what kind of cap he had on. The place where they were standing was rather dark. I saw nothing light in colour about either of them.

I think Brown did rather well, considering the circumstances. Would you be convinced if Brown had expressed total rather than near certainty?

It seems to me that Brown's attention was drawn to the couple standing in Fairclough St, at the point when he heard the woman say " no, not tonight, some other night"

It's important to note that Brown had already walked past the couple and he looked back at them (as opposed to observing them before he approached them)

The idea that Brown's focus was drawn over/back to the couple, would indicate that Brown had sensed some hostility in the general tone of what was being said, and the body language of the couple.

And considering a murder was then committed just 20 yards away within around 10 minutes of Brown seeing the couple, then this may be of significance.


If Brown did indeed see Stride in that corner, then it means that she would have then needed to walk from Fairclough and around the corner to the yard where she would then be murdered.

This is problematic based on Goldstein's route and timing, as well as Mortimer's statement.

The question is, did Brown see Stride?

Because if he didn't, then where was Stride at this point?

When Brown the couple in Fairclough, then IF the woman wasn't Stride, then the only place that Stride could have been at the point, was either in the yard, or in the club.

If she was in the yard, then was she already dead by the time that Brown came out of the Chandlers shop?


Brown's sighting seems to be the crucial piece to decipher.

[GBinOz]

So Pipeman ran in Schwartz's direction for some indeterminate distance. Why would he do that, having seen BS Man (possibly Eagle in your scenario) manhandling Stride?
Because after he emerges from the doorway in response to the ruckus at the yard he sees a man standing over a woman shouting at another man who is leaving the scene. He briefly goes towards the later before realising that he doesn't actually know what happened.

What does Parcelman do when finished in the loo? Presumably he finds Stride bleeding to death. Okay, then what?
If he catches the killer in the act he chases him, hence the Echo story. If she is bleeding out when he returns he leaves because he doesn't want to explain his involvement to his wife.


Had the police suspected Eagle of being the BS man, they could have confronted Schwartz with him. That seemingly didn't occur. Now if Eagle is not BS, then presumably Stride has not yet arrived at the gates, nor is she at the board school corner. That means Goldstein's return trip to the cafe must 'wait', as must Schwartz's investigation of his wife's possible move. However, Brown's outward journey must still have him reach the shop without seeing Schwartz and Pipeman.
They would also have to have confronted Lave and everyone in the club. If Eagle is not BSMan then either Stride is dead and he walks past her body or she is still in the street with Parcelman - one of the people he may have seen but didn't remember. IMO she wasn't at the corner with Overcoat Man.


What flower? Don't you suppose this was the young couple?
I suppose it wasn't Stride in response to your supposition that Brown correctly identified Stride.

Brown (Times): I could not say what kind of cap he had on. The place where they were standing was rather dark. I saw nothing light in colour about either of them.

I think Brown did rather well, considering the circumstances. Would you be convinced if Brown had expressed total rather than near certainty?

No one can be convinced about anything in this case, but IMO Brown was mistaken. You certainly do raise a lot of questions and objections to what has been stated to be pure speculation and conjecture. I don't know what happened. No one does. We're all just speculating on possibilities with no recourse to probabilities and little availability to actual evidence.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Because if he didn't, then where was Stride at this point?

When Brown the couple in Fairclough, then IF the woman wasn't Stride, then the only place that Stride could have been at the point, was either in the yard, or in the club.

If she was in the yard, then was she already dead by the time that Brown came out of the Chandlers shop?


Brown's sighting seems to be the crucial piece to decipher.

Hi RD,

Brown testified that he was in the chandler's shop for three to four minutes. The whole Schwartz scenario could have played out in this time, with the couple he saw at the corner arriving just before he left the shop.

Cheers, George