Suspect Witnesses?

[c.d.]

After picking herself up off the ground, she went somewhere else and met with her killer, and they went into the yard together.

An interesting idea, Lewis and it would make sense if she wanted to distance herself from a possible return of the B.S. man. But I can't see it working out timewise. Even if she remained near the club, the entrance of her killer onto the scene is pretty tight timewise. So I can't see how your suggestion could work giving the extra time it would have taken.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I don't see the Leman police having doubt about Schwartz' story as very significant. To have doubt is to be uncertain. If they thought Schwartz' story was true, but weren't sure, then they could be said to have had doubt about it. If they thought it was mostly true, but questioned a couple of details, then they could be said to have had doubt.

And I mean why would they, or even Abberline and Swanson, not have some doubt when Schwartz did not understand English and couldn't have understood what he saw in the brief time he was there. Doubt in this case would seem normal. But it seems they got past any doubt they might have had initially.

c.d.

[Doctored Whatsit]

And I mean why would they, or even Abberline and Swanson, not have some doubt when Schwartz did not understand English and couldn't have understood what he saw in the brief time he was there. Doubt in this case would seem normal. But it seems they got past any doubt they might have had initially.

c.d.

Yes, I agree. It is easy to imagine that the police accepted that he saw what he said he saw, but that his lack of English meant that he wasn't fully able to understand the exact significance of what was happening. He may not have understood what was being said, but his physical descriptions were still relevant.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

This is how the report begins, in the Star Oct 2:

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.

At that point, no one else has been referred to except the Hungarian. The doubts refer to him. It is unambiguous.

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.

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.

The arrests are owing to Schwartz's statement, and neither of them are owing to another arrest, especially of a man whose story is not wholly believed! No, they did not ignore the prisoner, why on earth would I suggest that? He was questioned, but now that doubts have fallen on Schwartz, he has been cleared. We can assume that the shifting of doubt from prisoner to Schwartz was not just a matter of one man's word against another. Something much more significant must have occurred.

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

There was no one else to be seen on the street, according to Schwartz. Why would the police suppose someone else might come along, if they have absolute faith in Schwartz, as you suppose?

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.

Nice try, but I've already posted on this, and the last time was in reply to yourself ...

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’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?

Note the double-standard here. Maybe Smith went beyond regulation and didn't mention it to the coroner. On the other hand, pointing out that several convenient minutes has been tacked on to Smith's beat, amounts to "tireless nitpicking". So, this unexplained delay in Smith reaching the yard is both significant, and trivial.

The truth is that you have no evidence for Smith being significantly outside regulation, but you're going to assume he was regardless. The reason being that you need those extra minutes, and we all know why.

[GBinOz]

An interesting idea, Lewis and it would make sense if she wanted to distance herself from a possible return of the B.S. man. But I can't see it working out timewise. Even if she remained near the club, the entrance of her killer onto the scene is pretty tight timewise. So I can't see how your suggestion could work giving the extra time it would have taken.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

Schwartz couldn't say how far Pipeman followed him. If the warning shouted by Pipeman was at BSMan rather than to BSMan, he could have become Stride's "rescuer" very quickly.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Note the double-standard here. Maybe Smith went beyond regulation and didn't mention it to the coroner. On the other hand, pointing out that several convenient minutes has been tacked on to Smith's beat, amounts to "tireless nitpicking". So, this unexplained delay in Smith reaching the yard is both significant, and trivial.

The truth is that you have no evidence for Smith being significantly outside regulation, but you're going to assume he was regardless. The reason being that you need those extra minutes, and we all know why.

I’ll respond to your longer post tomorrow but would you, just for once, spit it out. Stop hinting, stop with the nudge, nudge stuff. Why do I need extra minutes?

That Smith arrived back in Berner Street after Lamb is an established fact. The fact that Lamb arrived in Berner Street after Diemschitz found the body at around 1.00 (meaning that he got there at approximately 1.05) is also established.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

As the doubts do not seem to have existed from the time Schwartz first made his Leman St statement, but only after relevant investigations had begun, I presume you mean why didn't Abberline question Schwartz again? Well, perhaps he did, and perhaps this occurred during the inquest, possibly leading to a belief that Schwartz had attended the inquest.

As for what might have been the result of a follow-up questioning, we perhaps have a clue:

Swanson: If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it, it follows if they are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw & described is the more probable of the two to be the murderer, for a quarter of an hour afterwards the body is found murdered.

If the police report of his statement casts no doubt on Schwartz, surely belief in Schwartz would go without saying. Apparently not.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Her moving out is not suspicious. You're implying that I've said something that I have not.

The report states that the move was from Berner St to Backchurch Lane (probably meaning Ellen St). Schwartz gave his address as Ellen St, to the police. The wording of the report is not "a little murky". It says that she is moving in his absence. If Schwartz is living at Ellen St on Sunday evening, she has left him, and the only other address mentioned is on Berner St, then it's reasonable to suppose that she might have moved to Berner St, not the other way around.

Now if the police found out about this, having read the Star report, would doubt fall on "the Hungarian"? Yes, it would. According to the Star, his name and address were withheld, and that seems to be true. Yet the Star man managed to "run him to earth". The police seemingly had reason for giving the Star man the relevant tip. They possibly even supplied the interpreter who was conveniently at hand. Evidently, they wanted to see if Schwartz would tell the same story twice and possibly provide any extra important detail.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I would add that as for his wife leaving him, even if she hated his guts, how feasible would it be for a young woman with a small child, an immigrant new to the country who most likely did not speak English to move out on her own and find a respectable and safe place in Whitechapel?

c.d.

Temporary accommodation down the back of 40 Berner St. It's just around the corner from Ellen St. Plenty of young immigrants there.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Totally agree c.d. I just don’t see any reason for suspicion and I do wish that Andrew would stop us having to indulge in a guessing game by simply stating in plain English what he suspects might have been going on.

Isn't it odd that the first man "tried to pull the woman into the street". What for, if he intends to kill her in the passageway? Other than the notion of Eagle being BS Man, who rejects her presence, this attempted pulling into the street has never been explained. Apparently, he wanted to get her away from that location. This is not Elizabeth Stride being pulled and thrown around - there is no physical evidence for that.

We also have to consider why Wess, in referring to the man pursued as the apparent murderer, seemingly through Schwartz under a hansom cab. I think Wess knew that Schwartz had roughed up his wife and was effectively able to bribe him into telling a half true story that put the focus on a man on the street, not the yard.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I wonder whether the second man arrested on information "from another source" could have been Michael Kidney, and his alibi was checked out, and found satisfactory.

The doubt that has fallen on Schwartz seems unrelated to either of the arrests owing to his statement. Yet for some reason further arrests will not be occurring without the supply of additional facts. The question this begs is how the police will obtain additional facts without making arrests? Seems like a Catch-22. My contention is that these facts have nothing to do with interpretations as to what occurred on the street.

[c.d.]

Her moving out is not suspicious. You're implying that I've said something that I have not.

Well that is certainly what I took away from it. If that is not correct then my apologies. I certainly was not trying to put words in your mouth. But I can't understand why you keep alluding to it.

c.d.

[c.d.]

There was no one else to be seen on the street, according to Schwartz. Why would the police suppose someone else might come along, if they have absolute faith in Schwartz, as you suppose?

I can only guess but my guess would be because Schwartz never said he saw Stride being murdered and so the police could not be certain that he simply might have witnessed a little street hassle and therefore B.S. man was not her killer.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

After picking herself up off the ground, she went somewhere else and met with her killer, and they went into the yard together.

When she goes somewhere else, the 10-minute doorstep vigil must start. There is not enough remaining time for these things to occur consecutively.

The other issue is that by supposing she goes somewhere else, after standing in the gateway, Stride's gateway vigil is left unexplained. Not only that but the BS man's motivation for acting violently to her, is also left unexplained.