Suspect Witnesses?

[The Rookie Detective]

Have you considered script writing as a side hustle, R.D.? I meant that as a compliment. Your imagined scenarios are very entertaining.

c.d.

I've actually written several pantomimes, haha!

[Pcdunn]

Have you considered script writing as a side hustle, R.D.? I meant that as a compliment. Your imagined scenarios are very entertaining.

c.d.

Yes, they're plotted like "Ripper Street" episodes.

[Lewis C]

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?

If BS man didn't kill Stride, that doesn't necessarily mean that she returned to standing in the gateway and waited there until she went into the yard with the killer.

[Lewis C]

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

But you did state that BS man killed Stride as if you weren't speculating by saying that. We don't know if he killed her, and one is theorizing whether one believes BS man killed her or not.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

No. You're trying to conflate the issue with the prisoner, whose statement was initially not wholly believed, as noted in the Oct 1 edition, with that of the Hungarian, who we get an update on in the Oct 2 edition. It's now clear that doubts have fallen on the Hungarian's story. If doubts remained over the prisoner, he would remain a prisoner and further action would be taken, but he is now (as of Oct 2 evening), no longer a person of interest.

If the doubts only concerned the prisoner, then why do read of the Leman St police doubting the truth of the story, immediately followed by this: "They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source..." Why would they be arresting a man on a description obtained from a prisoner, if they doubted his story? Doesn't make sense. The arrest noted was due to the description obtained from the Hungarian (Schwartz), and no further arrests will occur based on his information, owing to said doubts. Unless that is, additional facts can be obtained.

Thoughtful readers will ponder what those additional facts may consist of, and who the provider of these facts might potentially be. It seems to me that the phrase "additional facts" is implicitly referring to hard facts, not opinions such as who did someone call out to across a dark street. In other words, this is not a matter of what happened on the street, so those facts are not meant to come from the first or second man. Then, who?

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.

I think you do understand the point, Michael, and I doubt you're the only one, although you're the only person willing to comment on the matter, so far. This was your initial comment:

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.

So, the belief that they and not she is moving, requires a non-literal interpretation of the report.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Timeline suggestion

12.31 - PC. Smith passes south on Berner Street seeing a women that he believed was Stride talking to Parcelman on the opposite side of the street.

Smith: It takes me from 25 minutes to half an hour to go round my beat.

Put together, that would mean Smith arrives at the yard in the range 12:56 to 1:01.

1.05:30 - PC. Smith arrives

What evidence do you have that Smith was 4½ to 9½ minutes outside of regulation?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How are you defining "pulls", Herlock? Gently guiding her by the arm and suggesting she go with him? Why in the world would she voluntarily go back into the yard with a man who just threw her to the ground and apparently threatened Schwartz? Would she really be that naive thinking good, now we can have a private conversation and discuss this rationally?

And if he forcefully pulls her against her will do you not think she would try to resist as hard as she could knowing what was most likely in store for her? If that was the case, how does she hold on to the cachous and why are her clothes not ripped or torn or show any sign of a struggle?

c.d.

This is common-sense stuff, but the never-ending attempts at building a coherent Berner St timeline would suggest that when it comes to the 'Schwartz incident', there is not enough time for common-sense to prevail.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If BS man didn't kill Stride, that doesn't necessarily mean that she returned to standing in the gateway and waited there until she went into the yard with the killer.

Then let's hear an alternate scenario.