Suspect Witnesses?

[Wickerman]

. . .

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?

Hi Chris.
Well, Packer identified the body, and also the flower on the woman who was with a man standing at his window (about 11:45 pm).
The press version states: "the white flower which the woman wore, and which showed out distinctly against the dark material of her jacket".
White petals were found scattered in the yard.
Packer said the white flower was distinct against Stride's black jacket - Brown said there was nothing distinct that stood out in the darkness.

Packer says Stride and her man crossed the road to stand opposite his shop (No. 44) for a while, then came back to the club-side of the street at about 12:10-15 am. He says "because the pubs had just closed", perhaps the Nelson on the corner had just closed?
After this he closed his shutters, that was the last he saw of them.

Roughly 15-20 mins later, PC Smith saw Stride with a man carrying a newspaper parcel, they were standing opposite the club.

About 12:40-45 am. James brown saw a couple on the corner, he could not see a flower on the woman, or a parcel in the mans hands.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Right, it was only when the woman said that that Brown turned to look. Not what tonight?

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.

Yes, it's tight.

The question is, did Brown see Stride?

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

Good question.

When Brown [saw] 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?

Where does that leave those who suppose the BS man was not the killer?

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

Yes. He was almost certain he had seen Stride. Perhaps that means those who disagree are almost certainly wrong.

[Wickerman]

. . .

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.

Rather than Eagle be BS-man, I notice the description of the man seen by Marshall seems a lot like BS-man.
(though, the description is still pretty generic)

Marshall suspect - a black cut-away coat and dark trousers, Middle-aged, a round cap, with a small peak. About 5ft. 6in. Rather stout, Decently dressed, more the appearance of a clerk.

Schwartz suspect - a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

Marshall also seemed certain Stride was the woman, but they were walking away from the direction of the club.
This was about 11:45 pm, they could have circled around the block, along Boyd, up Backchurch Lane, then east along Fairclough.
Or perhaps Stride dumped him and picked up someone else, and walked towards Berner St. along Fairclough.
About 11:45 pm Packer did see Stride with a man, he said they came from the Backchurch Lane end, he must have meant Fairclough, as Berner St. does not end at Backchurch Lane, Fairclough does.


Marshall may have seen BS-man with Stride about an hour before he attacked her - why?
Because he saw her in the gateway with someone else?

[FISHY1118]

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?

So why the story about schwartz and his wife ? Im not following.

[GBinOz]

Rather than Eagle be BS-man, I notice the description of the man seen by Marshall seems a lot like BS-man.
(though, the description is still pretty generic)

Marshall suspect - a black cut-away coat and dark trousers, Middle-aged, a round cap, with a small peak. About 5ft. 6in. Rather stout, Decently dressed, more the appearance of a clerk.

Schwartz suspect - a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

Marshall also seemed certain Stride was the woman, but they were walking away from the direction of the club.
This was about 11:45 pm, they could have circled around the block, along Boyd, up Backchurch Lane, then east along Fairclough.
Or perhaps Stride dumped him and picked up someone else, and walked towards Berner St. along Fairclough.
About 11:45 pm Packer did see Stride with a man, he said they came from the Backchurch Lane end, he must have meant Fairclough, as Berner St. does not end at Backchurch Lane, Fairclough does.


Marshall may have seen BS-man with Stride about an hour before he attacked her - why?
Because he saw her in the gateway with someone else?

Hi Jon,

The couple that Marshall saw might have circled around the block, along Boyd, up Backchurch Lane, then east along Fairclough as you speculate, but I wonder why they would have done so. They may equally have been headed for the George IV pub for a quick drink before closing.

I am inclined to think that the man seen with Stride by Best and Gardner was the same man seen with her by Packer and Smith. IMO Marshall and Brown were not looking at Stride. Both those witnesses were in dark locations, neither saw a flower, Marshall saw a cap rather than a hat, and Brown didn't know the nature of the headwear at all. Best described a Billycock hat (like a bowler), Packer said "soft felt hat , kind of (?) hat (variously transcribed as yankee , quaker or hunter )", and Smith described a hard felt deerstalker (could this be Packer's "hunter"?). Marshall described the man he saw as "mild speaking". Packer's description was "rather quick in speaking , rough voice".

It seems to me that Stride and her gentleman friend left the Bricklayers due to unwanted attention. There were plenty of pubs in the area, including the George IV, that they could have visited and subsequently approached Packer's shop from the south. The puzzlement is that neither Best nor Gardner nor Packer mention the man carrying a parcel. In Packer's case it may have been obscured behind his window counter. My conjecture is that that the parcel was publishing material for Arbeter Fraint, and that Parcelman left Stride in the gateway while he delivered the material, but stopped in the Loo on the way. When he came out of the Loo Stride was lying on the ground with her throat cut, perhaps with her killer standing over her (hence Echo story of a chase).

So, that's my current thinking based entirely on speculation and conjecture.

Cheers, George

[New Waterloo]

Hi Jon,

The couple that Marshall saw might have circled around the block, along Boyd, up Backchurch Lane, then east along Fairclough as you speculate, but I wonder why they would have done so. They may equally have been headed for the George IV pub for a quick drink before closing.

I am inclined to think that the man seen with Stride by Best and Gardner was the same man seen with her by Packer and Smith. IMO Marshall and Brown were not looking at Stride. Both those witnesses were in dark locations, neither saw a flower, Marshall saw a cap rather than a hat, and Brown didn't know the nature of the headwear at all. Best described a Billycock hat (like a bowler), Packer said "soft felt hat , kind of (?) hat (variously transcribed as yankee , quaker or hunter )", and Smith described a hard felt deerstalker (could this be Packer's "hunter"?). Marshall described the man he saw as "mild speaking". Packer's description was "rather quick in speaking , rough voice".

It seems to me that Stride and her gentleman friend left the Bricklayers due to unwanted attention. There were plenty of pubs in the area, including the George IV, that they could have visited and subsequently approached Packer's shop from the south. The puzzlement is that neither Best nor Gardner nor Packer mention the man carrying a parcel. In Packer's case it may have been obscured behind his window counter. My conjecture is that that the parcel was publishing material for Arbeter Fraint, and that Parcelman left Stride in the gateway while he delivered the material, but stopped in the Loo on the way. When he came out of the Loo Stride was lying on the ground with her throat cut, perhaps with her killer standing over her (hence Echo story of a chase).

So, that's my current thinking based entirely on speculation and conjecture.

Cheers, George

Hi GBinOz

Excellent post which made me dig a bit.

Quote in People Newspaper 7th October 1888 reporting on Inquest;

Spooner;

'I live at 26 Fairclough street, and I am a horse keeper at Messrs. Meredith's. On Sunday morning, between half past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive public house at the corner of Christian street and Fairclough street, along with a young woman. We had been in a beershop at the corner of Settle street, Commercial road, and remained till closing time'.

When Stride and her gentleman friend left the Bricklayers on Settle Street they would walk past the pub at the corner of Settle Street and Commercial Road. If it was raining when they left the Bricklayers they could quite easily have popped into the very same pub that Spooner and his girlfriend were in until closing time. I believe this pub was the Gloster Arms.

Of course they may not. But it seems likely to me. What it means I dont know. Not sure about timings either but perhaps significant

Strange how Spooner seems to feature in a lot of this saga.

NW

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Chris.
Well, Packer identified the body, and also the flower on the woman who was with a man standing at his window (about 11:45 pm).
The press version states: "the white flower which the woman wore, and which showed out distinctly against the dark material of her jacket".
White petals were found scattered in the yard.
Packer said the white flower was distinct against Stride's black jacket - Brown said there was nothing distinct that stood out in the darkness.

Packer says Stride and her man crossed the road to stand opposite his shop (No. 44) for a while, then came back to the club-side of the street at about 12:10-15 am. He says "because the pubs had just closed", perhaps the Nelson on the corner had just closed?
After this he closed his shutters, that was the last he saw of them.

Roughly 15-20 mins later, PC Smith saw Stride with a man carrying a newspaper parcel, they were standing opposite the club.

About 12:40-45 am. James brown saw a couple on the corner, he could not see a flower on the woman, or a parcel in the mans hands.

Packer has been largely dismissed as a fabricator and for good reason.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

The couple that Marshall saw might have circled around the block, along Boyd, up Backchurch Lane, then east along Fairclough as you speculate, but I wonder why they would have done so. They may equally have been headed for the George IV pub for a quick drink before closing.

More a case of thinking out loud, speculating how Stride might have already been with BS-man, but separated from him, only to bump into him later at Dutfields Yard.
If the man Marshall saw was BS-man, then this is the only confirmation of the presence of a character described by Schwartz. But, the description though similar is generic, it could fit hundreds of men.

I am inclined to think that the man seen with Stride by Best and Gardner was the same man seen with her by Packer and Smith.

Yes, a view I adopted myself for the longest time.

IMO Marshall and Brown were not looking at Stride. Both those witnesses were in dark locations, neither saw a flower, Marshall saw a cap rather than a hat, and Brown didn't know the nature of the headwear at all.

Agreed about Brown, not sure about Marshall.

Best described a Billycock hat (like a bowler), Packer said "soft felt hat , kind of (?) hat (variously transcribed as yankee , quaker or hunter )", and Smith described a hard felt deerstalker (could this be Packer's "hunter"?).

Actually we have two different hats described by Packer, both appear in the same article, in the London Evening News, dated 4th Oct. 1888.

The man was middle aged, perhaps 35 years; about five feet seven inches in height; was stout, square built; wore a wideawake hat and dark clothes; had the appearance of a clerk; had a rough voice and a quick, sharp way of talking.

The man was about thirty to thirty five years of age, medium height, and with rather a dark complexion. He wore a black coat and a black, soft felt hat. He looked to me like a clerk or something of that sort.

Marshall described the man he saw as "mild speaking". Packer's description was "rather quick in speaking , rough voice".

Perhaps, this was more due to this stranger talking soft to Stride, but to a street vendor his tone changes?

It seems to me that Stride and her gentleman friend left the Bricklayers due to unwanted attention. There were plenty of pubs in the area, including the George IV, that they could have visited and subsequently approached Packer's shop from the south. The puzzlement is that neither Best nor Gardner nor Packer mention the man carrying a parcel.

The parcel would be the grapes, wrapped in folded newspaper.
Street vendors used newspaper to wrap goods in, even back in the 60's & 70's when I was growing up.
I guess members who did not grow up in a market town might not be aware how vendors use old newspapers, folded into pouches to carry fruit or berries, grapes, etc.

At no point in this story are we introduced to any printed paperwork concerning the printing office, the idea is a complete invention.

[Wickerman]

Packer has been largely dismissed as a fabricator and for good reason.

You may have a bias against Packer, but what you write above is not strictly true.
To fabricate, suggests intent. Swanson did not say Packer fabricated his evidence.
Making different statements is not necessarily intentional.

Quote:
"Packer who is an elderly man, has unfortunately made different statements so that apart from the hour at which he saw the woman (and she was seen afterwards by the P.C. and Schwartz, as stated) any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence."
Insp. Swanson.

Swanson's main concern was not so much the differences in attire, this happens frequently enough among witnesses.
Neither would it be Packer first saying he saw no-one suspicious, only to change it to him serving a couple at his window.
What could be thought as 'suspicious' by him serving a man & woman - neither were acting suspiciously.

Swanson will know from experience that the probabilities Stride was seen with two different men, both carrying a parcel, at the same location, barely 15 minutes apart, is highly improbable.
It is far more likely they are the same person, regardless of any differences described by witnesses. The package of grapes wrapped in newspaper, and a parcel wrapped in newspaper, more likely describe the same article - therefore, the same person.

Swanson would prefer to have Packer say he remembered the time, but as it turns out, he was not sure.
Swanson will have known Stride was at the Bricklayers Arms around 11:00 pm, so Packer couldn't be serving her grapes at that time.
It becomes clear for us, and likely Swanson too, that Packer must have served them around 11:45 pm, and then shut up his shop around 12:30 am.
This is the story Packer told the Evening News on 4th Oct., its just a shame he gave two conflicting times to police.

There's no cause to accuse Packer of fabrication here.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So why the story about schwartz and his wife ? Im not following.

This is from the Star report:

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.

Taken literally, his wife is moving out. It's not a situation of her moving lodgings for both of them. She is moving, he is staying. Having been absent from their existing lodgings for many hours, he claims to have gone down Berner St to see if she had completed the expected move (presumably the move wasn't 'in the bag' when he left).

Here's the problem. Schwartz gave his address to the police as 22 Ellen St, not an address in Berner St. As Wickerman has pointed out, the Backchurch Lane referred to by the Star is compatible with an Ellen St address. However, it is not compatible with a Berner St address, as these are not connected thoroughfares. For a Berner St address, one would say for example, 40 Berner St, Commercial Rd. This means his wife's moving must be from 22 Ellen St, not too it. So, where is she going? Well, it would seem that if the move is not from Berner St to Ellen, and Schwartz is on Berner St of his own admission in the middle of the night 'investigating' his wife's move, that she is moving too Berner St. So, what number Berner St is this young Jewish immigrant woman moving to?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is from the Star report:

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.

Taken literally, his wife is moving out. It's not a situation of her moving lodgings for both of them. She is moving, he is staying. Having been absent from their existing lodgings for many hours, he claims to have gone down Berner St to see if she had completed the expected move (presumably the move wasn't 'in the bag' when he left).

I don’t think that we can assume that she was leaving and he wasn’t, although I accept that this is how it reads if taken literally. It could have been the case that Schwartz had to be out all day (perhaps work that he couldn’t afford to turn down?) leaving his wife to supervise the move, possibly helped by family or friends? Maybe there was some element of doubt about the move regarding the people who had been living at the address they were supposed to be moving to? What if it Schwartz wasn’t certain that they would vacate the premises in time for him and his family to move in?

[GBinOz]

The parcel would be the grapes, wrapped in folded newspaper.
Street vendors used newspaper to wrap goods in, even back in the 60's & 70's when I was growing up.
I guess members who did not grow up in a market town might not be aware how vendors use old newspapers, folded into pouches to carry fruit or berries, grapes, etc.

At no point in this story are we introduced to any printed paperwork concerning the printing office, the idea is a complete invention.

Hi Jon,

I grew up in the 50's and 60's in an outer Sydney suburb so am familiar with the use of newspaper for wrapping of fruit and berries. What gives me some hesitation is the size of the package in relation to a half a pound of grapes. Printed paperwork would more appropriately fit that size, but I did qualify my comment by saying it was conjecture.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I grew up in the 50's and 60's in an outer Sydney suburb so am familiar with the use of newspaper for wrapping of fruit and berries. What gives me some hesitation is the size of the package in relation to a half a pound of grapes. Printed paperwork would more appropriately fit that size, but I did qualify my comment by saying it was conjecture.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

Yes, but PC Smith didn't measure the parcel, he eye-balled it as they stood, or walked passed him. We can be sure of all things happening that night, estimating the size of a package, from memory, someone was carrying was not foremost in his mind. So I wouldn't pay any attention to the size, only the fact the man carried a parcel that matters. And how many men carry parcels anyway, let alone at the same place, about the same time, and with the same woman.

Most reports do give the parcel as 18 inch long, but then again most press coverage came from a news agency, where multiple papers buy the same story. The Standard is one example where the length was 8 inch, x 6 inch x 8 inch, which might be accurate, or simply misprint.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi George.

Yes, but PC Smith didn't measure the parcel, he eye-balled it as they stood, or walked passed him. We can be sure of all things happening that night, estimating the size of a package, from memory, someone was carrying was not foremost in his mind. So I wouldn't pay any attention to the size, only the fact the man carried a parcel that matters. And how many men carry parcels anyway, let alone at the same place, about the same time, and with the same woman.

So, human memory is fallible. Who knew?

Most reports do give the parcel as 18 inch long, but then again most press coverage came from a news agency, where multiple papers buy the same story. The Standard is one example where the length was 8 inch, x 6 inch x 8 inch, which might be accurate, or simply misprint.

When in doubt, refer to the coroner's summing up.

At 12:30 p.m. the constable on the beat (William Smith) saw the deceased in Berner-street standing on the pavement a few yards from Commercial-street, and he observed she was wearing a flower in her dress. A quarter of an hour afterwards James Brown, of Fairclough-street, passed the deceased close to the Board school. A man was at her side leaning against the wall, and the deceased was heard to say, "Not to-night, but some other night." Now, if this evidence was to be relied on, it would appear that the deceased was in the company of a man for upwards of an hour immediately before her death, and that within a quarter of an hour of her being found a corpse she was refusing her companion something in the immediate neighbourhood of where she met her death. But was this the deceased? And even if it were, was it one and the same man who was seen in her company on three different occasions?

With regard to the identity of the woman, Marshall had the opportunity of watching her for ten minutes while standing talking in the street at a short distance from him, and she afterwards passed close to him. The constable feels certain that the woman he observed was the deceased, and when he afterwards was called to the scene of the crime he at once recognized her and made a statement; while Brown was almost certain that the deceased was the woman to whom his attention was attracted. It might be thought that the frequency of the occurrence of men and women being seen together under similar circumstances might have led to mistaken identity; but the police stated, and several of the witnesses corroborated the statement, that although many couples are to be seen at night in the Commercial-road, it was exceptional to meet them in Berner-street.

With regard to the man seen, there were many points of similarity, but some of dissimilarity, in the descriptions of the three witnesses; but these discrepancies did not conclusively prove that there was more than one man in the company of the deceased, for every day's experience showed how facts were differently observed and differently described by honest and intelligent witnesses. Brown, who saw least in consequence of the darkness of the spot at which the two were standing, agreed with Smith that his clothes were dark and that his height was about 5ft. 7in., but he appeared to him to be wearing an overcoat nearly down to his heels; while the description of Marshall accorded with that of Smith in every respect but two. They agreed that he was respectably dressed in a black cut away coat and dark trousers, and that he was of middle age and without whiskers. On the other hand, they differed with regard to what he was wearing on his head. Smith stated he wore a hard felt deer stalker of dark colour; Marshall that he was wearing a round cap with a small peak, like a sailor's. They also differed as to whether he had anything in his hand. Marshall stated that he observed nothing. Smith was very precise, and stated that he was carrying a parcel, done up in a newspaper, about 18in. in length and 6in. to 8in. in width. These differences suggested either that the woman was, during the evening, in the company of more than one man - a not very improbable supposition - or that the witnesses had been mistaken in detail. If they were correct in assuming that the man seen in the company of deceased by the three was one and the same person it followed that he must have spent much time and trouble to induce her to place herself in his diabolical clutches.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don’t think that we can assume that she was leaving and he wasn’t, although I accept that this is how it reads if taken literally. It could have been the case that Schwartz had to be out all day (perhaps work that he couldn’t afford to turn down?) leaving his wife to supervise the move, possibly helped by family or friends? Maybe there was some element of doubt about the move regarding the people who had been living at the address they were supposed to be moving to? What if it Schwartz wasn’t certain that they would vacate the premises in time for him and his family to move in?

Those are possibilities, and I expect most members will gravitate in that direction, but as you accept, a literal reading suggests she is moving out. The report could hypothetically state he had gone to work and left her with the responsibility of moving, but it only says he had gone out for the day, and while gone she was expecting to move. Likewise, it could state that Schwartz went down Berner St to see if his wife had completed their move, but what it actually says is that Schwartz was checking on his wife's move. So, it seems she is moving out, and he is away from the existing lodgings while this occurs. Apparently, the marriage is failing, and it also begs the question as to why Schwartz is checking on his wife's move by going to her new lodgings, rather than just going home to 22 Ellen St to see if she is still there.

An interesting point about this is the role of the interpreter. We may imagine that the Star interview followed the same basic format as the police interview conducted by Abberline. However, look at what the report actually says:

He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.

The police interview worked like this:

Abberline (question) --> Interpreter (translation) --> Schwartz (answer) --> Interpreter (translation) --> Abberline

The press 'interview' seems to have been more like this:

Interpreter (tells the story) --> Star man

Who knows what extra context this interpreter may have provided, that Schwartz may or may not have appreciated.

Now if Schwartz did indeed check on his wife's move, and that move was into Berner St, there must be a good chance that she obtained temporary accommodation at the club, similarly to Joseph Lave. This could have a dramatic effect on what, when, and between who, we suppose occurred at the gateway, and therefore on Schwartz's purpose in going to the police.