Suspect Witnesses?

[The Rookie Detective]

I'm a little confused - did Schwartz not understand what he saw, because interpreting what he saw required a good command of English, or did he just witness "a little street hassle", that could be understood by any witness of any background?

Did the witness(es) to the following report understand what they seeing?

The police have been told that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the woman murdered in Berner-street to the ground. Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

Could it be that those who saw it thought it was a man and wife quarrelling, because it was a husband and wife quarrelling? If yes, who was the man, and who was the wife?

Schwartz and his wife.


THAT'S why Schwartz went to the police.

He was essentially BS man and he knew he had been witnesed to throw his wife down onto the ground.

So he goes to the police and essentially invents BS man the drunken gentile, to try and cover that it was HE that threw his wife down on the floor.

And if that's the case, then maybe Stride and her killer were also witnesses to that assault.

Could there be a scenario whereby Stride goes over to the yard to check on the wife?

Thet is thevl catalyst for Stride going into the yard; to help Schwartz's wife who has just been assaulted by her husband.

Of course, perhaps Stride got involved and was then murdered?

Schwartz (who is BS man) runs off and the wife goes back into the club.

Or the wife could be "Yaffa"

I reckon Schwarz and his wife were both club members

Lots to hypothesise here, haha!

[New Waterloo]

Valid points c.d.

Just trying to sort of put myself into the mindset of these people and walking through it in my head.

BS man looked as if he had been drinking and yes he could have an unusual way of walking but there is a good chance at that time of night that he may have had a drink. I think if BS man was associated with the club he would have spoken with Stride for longer but seems to resort to grabbing her very quickly after arriving at the gate. Also I am inclined to think that if a member of the club he would have subconsciously positioned himself between Stride and the open yard and after shouting or speaking with her pushed her away. Sort of defensively positioning himself to prevent her entering. Saying something like clear off. That doesn't appear to be what Schwartz suggests.

The witness says words to the effect of her being pulled into the street so yes I agree more with your first point that he wanted to take her somewhere which if he was a drunken man looking for a quick bit of action probably meant anywhere a bit more out of the way. Certainly not a club yard with singing and people coming and going. That was my thinking on whether he managed to pursued Stride to go as far as the corner of Fairclough with him (seen by Brown) and then she manages to give him the slip. Saying loud enough for Brown to hear 'Not Tonight'. (or similar)

Or if it was her man Kidney dragged off to some doss house somewhere I guess.

Music and singing and a chance of some happiness draws her back to the club.

NW

[c.d.]

He was essentially BS man and he knew he had been witnesed to throw his wife down onto the ground.

So he goes to the police and essentially invents BS man the drunken gentile, to try and cover that it was HE that threw his wife down on the floor.

And would the police or actually anybody else give a rat's behind because a husband threw his wife to the ground? Hardly a hanging offense.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I can see the headlines now -- Wife Thrown to the Ground by Husband!!: Police Appalled, Vow Crackdown on Misogyny in Whitechapel!!

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

He was essentially BS man and he knew he had been witnesed to throw his wife down onto the ground.

So he goes to the police and essentially invents BS man the drunken gentile, to try and cover that it was HE that threw his wife down on the floor.

And would the police or actually anybody else give a rat's behind because a husband threw his wife to the ground? Hardly a hanging offense.

c.d.

Yes, but if that assault happened to occur in the same location that a woman was later murdered, then yes.

So what im suggesting is that there WAS an assault, but that assault was Schwartz on his wife, who were both club members.

Schwartz was BS man.

Stride then goes over to the yard to assist, but is subsequently murdered by persons unknown.

So Stride isn't the woman assaulted.

She just interferes with a domestic that takes place between Schwartz and his wife just outside the club.

So Schwartz is compelled to go to the police and make up a story about another man he sees attack Stride.

And because Schwartz and his wife (who was the real woman assaulted outside the club) are club members, Schwartz's wife is told to keep quiet.

And the reason why Schwartz looks theatrical, is because he deliberately enhances his stereotypical Jewish look so that he isn't recognised as the man who was the man seen assaulting his own wife.

And the reason Abberline believes him, is because Schwartz isn't lying about an assault having taken place, but rather WHO was assaulted and WHO the assailant was.

The fact that Stride is then murdered after she goes into the yard to help the wife, could be the real reason why she ended up in the yard in the first place.

Wrong place, wrong time


Just a thought

[c.d.]

Just a thought

And a damn fine one at that. All that is lacking is evidence.

c.d.

[FrankO]

Prior to that tho , the man was witnessed trying to drag Stride into the street , which implies that he was trying to take her somewhere does it not ?

It also could have been someone associated with the Club who believed she might be soliciting and took offense that it was on club property.

c.d.

It may have been already suggested over the years, but what if this somebody was Morris Eagle, returning from taking home his girlfriend? Discovering the dead woman in the yard was the woman he'd tried to send away only some 20 minutes earlier, he might have thought it wise to not tell anybody about this even though he knew had been seen by Schwartz. Just a thought.

[FrankO]

And considering Brown never saw or heard the assault circa 12.45am on his way to the Chandler Shop, and the couple on the corner didn't see or hear anything circa 12.50am when Brown saw them on the corner, then it seems to suggest that the assault must have taken place before the couple arrived on the corner of Fairclough St and before Brown got to the Chandlers Shop.

What if Schwartz's account took place whilst Brown was in the shop, RD? At least 3-4 minutes would have been enough for it to begin & end. Just (another) thought.

[c.d.]

he might have thought it wise to not tell anybody about this even though he knew had been seen by Schwartz. Just a thought.

Agreed.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

What if Schwartz's account took place whilst Brown was in the shop, RD? At least 3-4 minutes would have been enough for it to begin & end. Just (another) thought.

I had considered that, but when Brown left the Chandler's shop less than 5 minutes later (he said 4 minutes) there was a couple he walked past and saw standing bear the board school in Fairclough St, who don't appear to have been there when Brown was on his way to the Chandler's shop 4 minutes earlier.

That means that the couple he saw arrived in Fairclough Street when Brown was in the shop.

And yet this couple (if they're the same couple that spoke to Mortimer) after the murder, didn't see or hear the assault that Schwartz claimed happened.

On that basis, I find it unlikely that the assault occurred after Brown.

In fact there's only a maximum of a 5 minute window between Eagle walking into the yard at 12.40am and Brown walking west across the bottom of the junction with Fairclough and Berner St to then walk into the Chandler's shop at 12.45am.

The Schwartz incident couldn't have occurred at 12.45am, or once Brown, the couple on the corner, and Mortimer are all within audio or visual proximity of where and when the assault took place.

The only time that the Schwartz incident could have happened realistically, is 12.41am-12.44am, meaning that both Brown and Eagle had just missed the assault.

But of course, if the assault never happened, then nothing happened between 12.40am when Eagle walked into the yard, to the point when Mortimer was at her door and saw Goldstein walk south past the club and around the corner of the board school, which was at a time when Mortimer was at her door.

We know that Mortimer didn't see Eagle or Lave, so she wasn't at her door until after 12.40am.

With the Schwartz story omitted, the street was quiet until the body was found around 1am.

That validates Mortimer's "most of the time" standing at her door. I.e from 12.42am to 12.59am.

That's 17 minutes out of 30

"Most of the time"

We also can be sure that the couple on the corner who Brown saw were STILL there after Stride was found, because Mortimer states herself that the couple told her they were there both BEFORE AND AFTER the murder.

So once the couple seen by Brown arrive at that corner just before Brown leaves the shop at 12.50am, they STAY there and are present after the body is found just 10 minutes later

It means that Brown misidentifed Stride as standing in Fariclough Street.

Otherwise we have 2 couples standing in the same place

So when Mortimer gets to her door a few minutes after Eagle walks into the yard, Morimer also stays there and her vigil proves that the killer didn't walk IN OR OUT of the yard after 12.42am.

Mortimer never sees the couple before the murder because they came from Fariclough Street; ergo from the same direction that Brown had walked from his house.

And Mortimer doesn't notice Brown because he walks along the bottom of the street and doesn't go anywhere near the yard.

So to summarise, the only time that the Schwartz assault could have taken place was 12.41am - 12.44am

But I personally think Schwartz lied and that there was no assault.

BUT crucially, and here's the crux of it...


The murder occurred at THE SAME TIME that Schwartz lied about what he saw.

But why?

Well, the killer didn't leave the yard once Mortimer was at her door.

Schwartz tells us that a drunken gentile assaulted Stride.


But he can't say he witnessed the murder.


So what's he playing at?

Well, firstly he's deflecting from the idea that a Jew could have been the killer, because his story clearly depicts a drunk gentile shouting an anti-semitic slur.

Secondly, by stating that he sees an assault and not a murder, he is delaying the kill time and implying that the woman was still alive at 12.45am when she was assaulted.

And thirdly, he is using BS Man as a bridge between Eagle and Lave having gone into the yard, and the assault occurring around 5 minutes AFTER Eagle had already gone inside the club.

It also seems to me that Parcelman is unlikely to have been the killer, because he must have been aware that he had been spotted by Pc Smith.

So Schwartz becomes a crucial part in deflecting from a Jewish club member having been the killer.

Stride was killed between 12.40am - 12.45am, meaning that Mortimer, Brown, and the couple on the corner aren't relevant in terms of the killer being around.

He was already gone before then

But there's another tantalising idea that I had...

What if Parcel man never existed.

And what if Pc Smith was actually in Berner Street 5 minutes later than he said he was.

It was claimed in the press thet Mortimer heard the measured heavy trap of footsteps pass her door, just before she came to her door.

Could that make Pc Smith the killer?

Stride the informant and a dodgy copper?

Pc Smith was late when he got back to the top of Berner Street afte the body had been found; as though he was virtually the last one to arrive and find out.

Could Mortimer have heard the killer cop just moments after he walked away from cutting Strides throat?

PC Smith is technically the last person to see Stride alive.

I wonder.


Lots to ponder

[Herlock Sholmes]

Schwartz walked along Berner Street a few yards behind BS man. BS man halted and began an altercation with a woman who he had met at the gateway. Schwartz crossed the street to avoid the conflict. He looked across the road and saw a second man lighting his pipe (who had more than likely just arrived at that sport possibly from Fairclough Street. BS man shouts out Lipski. Schwartz leaves along Fairclough Street, as does Pipeman.

Then either a) BS man left followed by her killer arriving, or b) BS man killed her.

Thats what probably happened. It’s very simple.

The only realistic alternative is that the same series of events occurred but they occurred around 30 minutes or so earlier and were entirely unconnected to the murder of Liz Stride.

No one lied. No one pretended to be anyone else. There was no cabal of club-based Illuminati plotters seeking to bring on the Second Coming by murdering prostitutes. No one killed Stride in a coach in Aldgate and then drove to Berner Street to dump the body near the club to discredit Jews.

We are not in an Agatha Christie novel.

[c.d.]

So what's he playing at?

Well, firstly he's deflecting from the idea that a Jew could have been the killer, because his story clearly depicts a drunk gentile shouting an anti-semitic slur.

Secondly, by stating that he sees an assault and not a murder, he is delaying the kill time and implying that the woman was still alive at 12.45am when she was assaulted.

Well, another explanation for him saying what he said he saw could be (and yes, it is a radical suggestion) that is what he actually witnessed. Of course not nearly as intriguing as the above but can't be ruled out.

c.d.

[c.d.]

We are not in an Agatha Christie novel.

With all due respect to Agatha I don't think even her imagination could conjure up some of the scenarios that have been put forth on here.

c.d.

[Fiver]

We are not in an Agatha Christie novel.

With all due respect to Agatha I don't think even her imagination could conjure up some of the scenarios that have been put forth on here.

c.d.

A fair amount of people try to treat the case as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit, we have a clear list of suspects. In the Ripper case, we don't even have a clear list of victims. In a whodunnit, times, especially times of death, are accurate unless deception is involved. In the Ripper case, times are vague, unsynchronized estimates. In a whodunnit, witness contradictions are a clue. In real life, they usually occur due to human perception being fallible. In a whodunnit, anything odd found at or near the scene of the crime is a clue or a red herring. In real life, it may just be a random bit of rubbish.

Trying to solve the Ripper case is like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when we don't have a picture on the box. And we don't have all the pieces. And there are pieces of other puzzles in the box. And in some cases, we only have descriptions of pieces that are now missing. And some of those descriptions contradict each other. Rearranging the known puzzle pieces or discovery of new pieces could give us a better view of the puzzle, but they're unlikely to recreate the whole picture.

[The Rookie Detective]

I do actually have a potential new candidate for BS Man; someone who hasn't been mentioned before (I think?) and who may have had a reason to be hanging around near a Jewish club.

It's work in progress, but watch this space