Suspect Witnesses?

[c.d.]

Yes, we are in agreement about BS not being the killer. However, I'm still trying to get a handle on how the BS incident was real, but he was not the murderer scenario is supposed to play out. Do you have a proposal for how Stride manages to stay at the gateway, unwitnessed, effectively waiting for her killer to come along?

I will take a shot at it but I admit up front that I have not yet thought it through and that it is pure speculation at this point.

She is a bit unsettled by the B.S man incident but still she'll be damned if he is going to run her off. So, she watches him walk away moving back into the passageway where she can keep watch but remain unseen. She remains there for a minute or two. Now I will say I don't know if this would even be physically possible. Would she have that line of sight from there? Her plan is to watch and if she sees he is coming back she plans to run to the door of the club and scream for help. But he does not return and fairly confident he has gone off for good she returns to her previous position at the gateway.

It's the best I can do at the moment.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Here my proposal, B.S man killed Stride and Schwartz witnesses the assault on her by him . Anything else is made up speculation and evidence tampering. End of.

Oh, if only it were that easy.

Except that Schwartz never said he saw Stride being murdered. And according to him she was still alive when he left the scene. So now it appears that you too have entered into the area of speculation and evidence tampering.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Strictly speaking or not, when he turned back to the club, he first tried the front door, which was some 12 meters from where Mortimer stood and in Berner Street, and then he entered the yard. Didn’t Mortimer say “and I did not observe anyone enter the gates”?

The timing suggestion I gave for Smith in #568 has him on the street at similar time to Eagle's arrival. So, we may only be dealing with a minute or two away from her door, in this period.

Actually, Lave did say that he go beyond the gateway.

Daily News & Evening Standard of 1 October:
“I passed out into the street, but did not see anything unusual. The district appeared to me to be quiet.”

Evening News of 1 October:
“At half-past twelve I had come out into the street to get a breath of fresh air. There was nothing unusual in the street.”

Irish Times & Morning Advertiser of 1 October:
“went down into the court about twenty minutes before the body was discovered, and walked about in the open air, and for five minutes or more he strolled into the street, which was very quiet at the time…”

Mortimer appears not to have seen Eagle enter the gates, if we assume that her not seeing anyone enter refers to the entire half hour, which I will concede it probably does. Now if Lave does go onto the street and we are entitled to ask why Mortimer does not see him, are we not obliged to ask why Lave doesn't see Stride and Parcelman? According to Smith, they were standing directly across from the Mortimer residence (as you mentioned). How could he have missed them, or thought them unworthy of comment? Something is not right here. Perhaps the couple's location was not quite as Smith recalled.

As shown above, I don't know all this as they're neither relevant nor facts, so my argument still stands in that if Mortimer, as she said, “was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock”, then it’s, at least, odd that she didn’t mention seeing Eagle, Lave and Stride & Parcelman. So, it’s clearly arguable that the ‘half-hour-proposition’ is preferable to the ‘10-minute one’. If that’s not clear to you, then I cannot help you.

You seem to have missed my point. It's not that the nearly all of that half hour is preferable to 10-minutes in terms of total time. The issue is that it's precisely because the quote is vague that it affords flexibility of interpretation. A fixed 10-minute period does not. Not only that but the single fixed period doesn't even make sense. If it starts immediately after Smith passes, the time is not a few minutes to 1 when it ends. I'm in agreement with #582.

I have no idea who that is the biggest problem for, Andrew. The way I see it, is that she should have seen the couple if she was actually at her door nearly the whole time between half past twelve and one o’clock. They were standing more or less directly opposite Mortimer’s door, on the pavement on the other side of the street. As to the ‘10-minute story’, it’s not a fact that it must have been policeman’s tramp that she heard – after all, she didn’t say that she saw a policeman pass; and, furthermore, the same goes for the ‘immediately’ you mention. If it really was immediately, she would have seen Smith some yards to her left up Berner Street and it seems unlikely that the couple on the opposite side of the street had just vanished at that point. After all, they were standing there talking when Smith passed.

Okay, so you're not happy with the 10-minute report, either. In my opinion, Mortimer would have been familiar with the sound of the plod, but let's consider two possibilities - the footsteps were of Smith or Eagle. If Eagle, then the report's shortly before 12:45 timing is close to the 12:40 timing given by Eagle. So, the 10 minutes starts then, and continues through until nearly 12:55. No sign of Schwartz and co. If Smith, then we might start a little earlier, but we are still making it to at least 12:50 with no sign of Schwartz and co. Perhaps they came along when, as the 10-minute report states, "she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor". Strange that she managed to hear those passing footsteps, but none of the events described by Schwartz, don't you think?

Well, I’m not one of those posters. But if another man did come along, I think it's most likely that he did so almost directly after Mr BS left and the Schwartz account was over, which could have happened in a minute or so.

Presumably this man did not pass Letchford's sister. Perhaps he came from the board school corner?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It’s not a critical point by any means. It’s an insignificance which you are constantly trying to load with meaning. She was moving whilst he was elsewhere doing who knows what. Why should that have made the police suspicious?

I'll spell it out in simple terms.

* Abberline stated that there were no other men in the street, other than those described by Schwartz

* We have no good or even poor evidence that either the first or second man was ever identified

* The newspaper that spoke to Schwartz stated a day later that serious doubts had been raised about the truth of Schwartz's story


We are left with the question as to who or what could have caused those doubts. Not BS Man - he was never identified. Not Pipeman - ditto. This question doesn't cease to exist just because it rubs people up the wrong way.

What we can choose to notice in the Star report, is evidence that Schwartz's wife is moving out. She, not they are moving. That is what it says. The report also mentions a move from Berner St to Backchurch Lane. We can reasonably suppose that Backchurch Lane refers to the address Schwartz gave to the police - 22 Ellen St. That is his address when he goes to Leman St police station on Sunday evening. When we drop the naivety, we can start to see what has occurred. Schwartz is out on the street for many, many hours, while his wife moves to an address somewhere on Berner St. Somewhere.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I wonder whether "most of the time" was not one continuous period, but was a longish but interrupted spell with two or three shorter periods of a few minutes indoors for some household matters. She could then have missed brief events.

A common-sense suggestion.

[FISHY1118]

Oh, if only it were that easy.

Except that Schwartz never said he saw Stride being murdered. And according to him she was still alive when he left the scene. So now it appears that you too have entered into the area of speculation and evidence tampering.

c.d.

Never have i ever said Schwartz witnesses strides murder. Only the assault. Your getting off track.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I will take a shot at it but I admit up front that I have not yet thought it through and that it is pure speculation at this point.

She is a bit unsettled by the B.S man incident but still she'll be damned if he is going to run her off. So, she watches him walk away moving back into the passageway where she can keep watch but remain unseen. She remains there for a minute or two. Now I will say I don't know if this would even be physically possible. Would she have that line of sight from there? Her plan is to watch and if she sees he is coming back she plans to run to the door of the club and scream for help. But he does not return and fairly confident he has gone off for good she returns to her previous position at the gateway.

It's the best I can do at the moment.

c.d.

The most obvious question as I see it, is why she is determined to stay at that location. What does it afford her?

Presumably the man who comes along after BS is not the man seen by James Brown. Thus, there is another couple about 20 yards away, when he arrives. There seems little scope for defiant protest, let alone not very loud screams, so how does he persuade her to go into the yard with him?

Regarding her line of sight, perhaps some of the (copyright) images created by Jeff Leahy will help.

Correction: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...198#post498198

[New Waterloo]

First of all what an excellent piece by Rookie. To be honest I find the timing stuff really difficult to follow. That's me and not a criticism of anyone. Perhaps I could make a suggestion and Rookie or others could see whether it could fit in. Just an idea as to what happens to BS man and Parcel man.

Here it is.

Stride is standing with Parcel man and seen by PC Smith. Parcel man goes into the yard for whatever reason and leaves Stride by the gate (grapes would have been bought before this if we believe Packer)

Schwartz turns into Berner Street, see's BS man some distance ahead. BS man is a bit drunk and fancies his chances with Stride and say something like come with me, don't bother about hanging around here. Then there is some pushing and pulling she protests, BS man shouts but she gives in for a minute wanders off with BS Man and stand on the corner talking as Brown leaves the shop and sees them. Interestingly Brown particularly hears 'not tonight' or something like that which possibly suggests that they haven't been together very long

So Stride doesn't want to go with or do anything with this BS man. He clears off walking well anywhere but probably East along Fairclough out of sight Stride who has had quite a nice evening so far, taken to the pub, bought grapes, listened to music coming from the club goes back and walks in the yard to be with her preferred man and has her throat cut because Parcel man is JTR.

Not sure that works with Schwartz being followed maybe he was followed by Pipe man or just thought he was being followed or maybe BS man just went towards him a bit before trying to cozy up to a reluctant Stride

I admit its tight with Browns timings. I suppose it depends on how long he is in the shop. Dont know

NW

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll spell it out in simple terms.

* Abberline stated that there were no other men in the street, other than those described by Schwartz

* We have no good or even poor evidence that either the first or second man was ever identified

* The newspaper that spoke to Schwartz stated a day later that serious doubts had been raised about the truth of Schwartz's story


We are left with the question as to who or what could have caused those doubts. Not BS Man - he was never identified. Not Pipeman - ditto. This question doesn't cease to exist just because it rubs people up the wrong way.

What we can choose to notice in the Star report, is evidence that Schwartz's wife is moving out. She, not they are moving. That is what it says. The report also mentions a move from Berner St to Backchurch Lane. We can reasonably suppose that Backchurch Lane refers to the address Schwartz gave to the police - 22 Ellen St. That is his address when he goes to Leman St police station on Sunday evening. When we drop the naivety, we can start to see what has occurred. Schwartz is out on the street for many, many hours, while his wife moves to an address somewhere on Berner St. Somewhere.

The problem is that you view everything from a starting point of ”everyone is up to something.” The reality is that the police had no doubts about Schwartz. You appear obsessed over The Star’s 2nd October article:


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. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.


This I would suggest follows on from their article from the previous day:


The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man’s statement is not wholly accepted.


The ‘doubts’ arose from the evidence of the man that was arrested and not from Schwartz himself. And do we have any evidence that the police actually did believe Schwartz story? Yes, and it’s infinitely stronger than some vaguely worded newspaper report. Going up the chain of command we have Abberline himself from November 1st:

I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman. I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say.

Anderson to the Home Office, November 5th:

With ref. to yr letter &c. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Eliz. Stride’s case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner St. on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that since the Lipski case, it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews. With regard to the latter portion of yr letter I have to state that [copy passage in the report as written in blue]

And then Warren, November 6th:

With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride’s case is that the name “Lipski”, which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berners [sic] Street on the night of the murder,…


Could it be any clearer?

…..

I really can’t understand the point that you are trying to make (I should say ‘create’) in regard to Schwartz address. I’ve read it numerous times and I still don’t get where you’re coming from. What are you seeing in this innocuous, obvious situation as being suspicious. Please Andrew, just state in plain English why you see this as suspicious.


The Star, October 1st:

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.

So, Schwartz is out and his wife is moving their belongings from Berner Street to Backchurch Lane while he’s out.