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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 prisoner gave a version of events which differed, however slightly perhaps, with Schwartz’s story then of course some doubt would have arisen. But the police go on treating Schwartz as a reliable witness into November. Clearly the police had come to accept Schwartz version of events.

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.

So you think that if the police had doubts about that witnesses version of events they should have just ignored him and moved on? Or would it have been entirely reasonable for them to have investigated his statement further. Which might have involved questioning an additional witness. Then, if that witness didn’t clear matters up the police would have been left at a dead end.

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?

It means ‘unless someone comes forward who either saw or heard something.’ No one did of course.

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:



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

Why is it that you can’t just say…”this is what I think was going on”? Wouldn’t it be easier if you just explained yourself? You can’t be suggesting that Schwartz was remaining in Berner Street while his wife was leaving him to live in Backchurch Lane so I’m beat if I know what you’re suggesting. Reading in between the lines is always risky Andrew, I prefer to read the lines themselves.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.



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

I’m not going back over your tireless nitpicking over a couple of minutes here and there Andrew. Smith arrived back in Berner Street after the body had been found at 1.00 and after Lamb had arrived on the scene. So take your pick. Diemschitz finds the body, goes on his run with Koz and then returns with Eagle then going for a PC, finding Lamb and returning to the yard. Pick a number. I don’t really care but we know that whatever time Lamb arrived Smith arrived after him.

So…maybe 12.33 + regulation 30 mins = approx 1.03. Maybe Smith got held up? Maybe he stopped for a sneaky pint?

[Herlock Sholmes]

BSMan pulls Stride into the yard to continue their discussion out of the sight of prying eyes. In a short time he loses his temper, pulls a knife and kills her, immediately fleeing the scene.

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.

Apologies for missing your post c.d.

Fair points but I’d suggest that women like Stride might have been, sadly, more ‘tolerant’ of rough treatment that women of different walks of life or of modern day women. It’s also possible that the actual incident wasn’t as serious as the non-English speaking Schwartz thought at the time. Maybe just a bit of drunken ‘horseplay’ then after Schwartz and Pipeman had moved on they stepped into the yard and Stride did or said something that angered him enough to kill her. Or maybe after they left, BS man left too and a minute or two later her killer arrived.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Common sense should always triumph over conspiracist stuff.

[c.d.]

Wouldn't any doubts expressed by those at Leman Street have been passed along to Abberline? Was he so inept that he would have completely disregarded them or is it more likely that he questioned Schwartz in depth with respect to them in order to get clarification?

c.d.

[New Waterloo]

I think we need to look at what we have. It could be suggested that the man seen by Best and his friend in the Bricklayers Arms is Parcelman. If (and I know some doubt this but I think its a reasonable suggestion as the pub was pretty close (the other side of Commercial Road) then Stride has had a pretty good evening with her 'date' because it does seem to be just that a date.

That would mean she was in his company some time. At least an hour and a half. My suggestion is that if Parcelman went into the yard for some reason and she waits at the gate way. To be honest he could just be having a look at the layout and he's just lucky that the comings and goings have died down. Remember he's standing with Stride watching the gateway when PC Smith sees him

The along comes BS man putting his foot in things. Parcelman decides to stay in the yard out of sight.

Its a little confusing what Schwartz actually sees. Is BS man trying to pull her away from the club (which is what I believe) or push her in. If BS man was Kidney he would be saying don't go in there come with me, if it was a half drunken punter he would be saying the same.

But Stride likes Parcel man, why wouldn't she, I believe she was corresponding with some man the other side of London (will look at that) perhaps it was him.

Anyway she goes into the yard after getting rid of BS man and Parcelman kills her as soon as it is quiet enough and people have momentarily gone away.

He always intended to kill her but he waited for his opportunity (which was very short) to carry it out in the yard of the Jewish Club for maximum effect.

NW

[c.d.]

As for the whole moving business yes, the wording is a little murky but I take it that they (not her) planned to move on a certain day but that the move was conditional for that particular day. Possibly they expected a friend or friends to help. Before phones Schwartz would not be able to confirm that the move had taken place and thus had to see for himself.

As for his wife leaving him and moving to a separate place would this have been a spur of the moment decision and she was simply waiting for an opportunity when he would be out? Or had she threatened to move out on her own? Moves take time and planning.

I see absolutely nothing suspicious here unless you are looking (and hoping) to find something suspicious.

c.d.