Suspect Witnesses?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

One aspect of Schwartz's account that intrigues me is the "Lipski" reference. As Schwartz had only recently arrived in the UK, it is extremely unlikely that he would have known of the Lipski murder and that "Lipski" itself was used as a slur against Jews. Accordingly, when he mentions it, two things seem possible. Either the story was true, as he was unlikely to have known about the Lipski slur, or he was fed the story as his "script" by those who wanted the lie to be told as some sort of protection. If he was given a "script" to learn, he seems strangely to have got it wrong, because he believed that the shout of "Lipski" was directed not at himself but at Pipeman in the police version. The Star version, among its other deviations, has Pipeman calling it to B S man. I think that the Abberline version is the more likely.

Accepting this false dichotomy for the sake of argument, why would it be strange for Schwartz to make mistakes in reciting a script? You didn't explain why Schwartz would be expected to get it right, both times. You say that had there been a script, Schwartz ought to have said Lipski was directed at him, not Pipeman. Not sure how you can claim to know the content of a hypothetical script. In the press version, you claim that Pipeman is calling 'Lipski' to BS and imply that this was a mistake by the Star man, not Schwartz. The problem is that the press version says that what was called was perceived to be a warning, for the benefit of BS. So, in the police version, why can't BS's call of 'Lipski' to Pipeman also be warning, which prompts Pipeman to pursue Schwartz? So, Schwartz was at least consistent about the meaning of the call.

It seems to me that the real possibility of the two men being together and known to each other, is something that members are loathe to contemplate. This needs to be about the murder, not some unrelated event that Woolf Wess can later exploit, in his efforts to protect the club.

There seems to be a suggestion on this thread that Mr and Mrs Schwartz were not living together. This is never stated or even hinted at in the known evidence. His wife was said to be moving from "their lodgings in Berner Street to others in Backchurch Lane." Swanson quotes Schwartz's new address as "Ellen Street, Backchurch Lane" and not still at Berner Street without his wife, and The Star reporter also traced him to Backchurch Lane. There is no evidence suggesting a domestic split.

Indeed, there is evidence.

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.

While he is absent, she is moving. There is nothing here to suggest that this is a combined move, except for what is projected onto it.

An important detail is that this move is said to be expected - meaning that when Schwartz returns, he expects his wife will be gone, but that is not a certainty. If this were about the couple moving together, an unresolved move would surely have Schwartz participating in getting it resolved, not leaving it to his wife while he goes out for the day (and half the night). This will result in complaints that Schwartz might have gone to work. Again, that is not what the report says - it is just what some of us want it to say.

When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

What some of us want this to mean is ...

When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had completed their move.

Once again, that is projection. Schwartz was on Berner St in the early hours of the morning, checking to see if his wife had moved address. The next day, the Star reports ...

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.

Join the dots.

[Wickerman]

Claiming Schwartz simply followed a north/south direction when walking home, I think that is getting into silly thinking....

How can it be silly thinking when the streets are laid out in block fashion, and north to south?
It didn't matter which of those streets he turned down, they all ran in the same direction.
Our problem is, we don't know where he was going, or where he came from.

Schwartz obviously had to have known the area to be walking through. You often quote the Press but on this occasion when they tell us Schwartz lived on Berner Street, you dismiss this as it doesnt fit your narrative.

I pointed out, the only address we have is the one in Ellen St. - neither the police nor the press give an address in Berner St.
And, judging by his actions, he made no attempt to access an address in Berner St.
Therefore, it is quite reasonable to question the statement by the press that he had an address in Berner St.

He wasn't walking around aimlessly and indeed his interpreter was a member of the IWC when he went to the Police.

Where did you get that from?
Who told you the interpreter was a club member?

So that says to me he was likely involved with the local Eastern European Community and maybe even knew a few people from the club. He knew where he was and what he saw.

You have made an incorrect statement, and in consequence a few false assumptions.
See how easy it is to go off on a tangent and arrive at erroneous conclusions?

Why did Schwartz not go immediately to the Police? We dont know. Lying drunk with a hangover somewhere. No I think that is unlikely. More likely is the fact that he didn't hear about the murder until sometime the next day, wasnt sure who to tell and eventually got a friend or acquaintance to accompany him to the Police Station..

Yes, possibly, there are a few potential reasons.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Excellent post.


There are a few discrepancies that need to be addressed.



Firstly, it would interesting to know which way the door opened and what side it was hinged.



Mrs Diemschitz could allegedly see the body from the doorway at which she stands when her husband lights a match.

So unless she physically steps into the yard, the door opened either in or outwards, but hinged on the side requiring a left hand to open from the outside upon entering (or a right hand if exiting into the yard)

If the door then opens outwards, then the light from the kitchen spilled out in the direction of the gateway.

This means that the light from the kitchen didn't reach as as far as the gateway, as otherwise, why would Diemschitz need a match in the first place?

There must have been a dark spot between the yard door and the gateway.

And if the door was "half open" then surely it would be a risk for the killer as someone walking out of the kitchen and into the yard, would then walk out directly facing towards the murder site.
It would however mean that the killer could immediately see anyone coming out of the door.

That would in turn have an impact on which way the killer would likely have faced; ergo, towards the door with his back to the gateway.

That is of course risky, because if the light from the kitchen did spill out into the yard, then would the killer been observable to anyone passing by the gateway if the light source was directly the other side of the killsite? (from the perspective of someone looking into the gateway from the street)


But if the door opened inwards, then the light from the kitchen would spill out towards the far end of the yard, as the physicality of the door being hinged on the right side (from the kitchen perspective) and opening inwards towards the kitchen, would mean that the light would flood out from the kitchen towards the west and therefore away from the murder site.

This would also give the killer an extra second to escape if someone pulled the door towards them from the inside and then stepped out into the yard, as the light source would increase toward the west and immediately alert the killer.

Knowing the precise schematics of the building is crucial in this instance.

As you probably know, there was passageway that ran the length of the building, from the front door to the yard. As well as the side door, I believe there was also a back door, which Wess used when he visited the Arbeter Fraint offices to drop off literature, before leaving the club for home.

Behind the side door, across the internal passage, was a staircase that led upstairs. I would suppose that had the door opened inwards, it would block movement both along the passage and up and down the staircase. Therefore, it opened outward. That alone is interesting.

Coroner: What did you do with the pony in the meantime?
Diemschitz: I left it in the yard by itself, just outside the club door.

As to what side the hinges were on, and therefore which way the door swung - hard to say. Presumably the door enabled people coming from the street to go directly up the staircase, as was the case with Morris Eagle. Therefore, it would make sense for the door to be hinged on the left, for someone entering from outside. That means the light from the gas jets in the kitchen was streaming toward the street, but the angle was not acute enough to light the location were the body was found.

The other discrepancy of course relates to the pool of blood that Mrs Diemschitz observed when standing at the doorway and looking out towards the killsite to them observe her husband light a match.

The blood ran from East to West from Stride's neck down towards the side door, where is accumulated in a pool of blood.

But was there any blood between Stride and the gateway itself?

The topography today clearly shows a definite gradient that runs from North to South, I.e. if you walked down the street today from the Commercial Road, you'd be walking slightly downhill towards the south.

And so, why was there no blood that ran from Strides neck and then accumulate on the south side of the yard?

That would surely confirm that the cobbles im the yard physically prevented her blood from running the natural North to South gradient, and instead ran East to West and towards the yard door instead.


Lots more to decipher here.

Might help ...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...745#post498745

[Wickerman]

As you probably know, there was passageway that ran the length of the building, from the front door to the yard. As well as the side door, I believe there was also a back door, which Wess used when he visited the Arbeter Fraint offices to drop off literature, before leaving the club for home.

Behind the side door, across the internal passage, was a staircase that led upstairs. I would suppose that had the door opened inwards, it would block movement both along the passage and up and down the staircase. Therefore, it opened outward. That alone is interesting.

We have a newspaper sketch of the club and the building attached at the rear.




This plan view of Dutfields Yard dated 1890.



I just query your claim of a rear door at the back of the club.
The club is actually a residential house that faces onto Berner St.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I just query your claim of a rear door at the back of the club.
The club is actually a residential house that faces onto Berner St.

Thanks for the pictures.

I'm really not sure about there being a back door.

Wess: The passage leads from the front room to the yard.

Why would the passage end in a blank wall? It just makes sense to me that there would be a door at each end of the passage.

When Wess went out the back, he makes an interesting observation.

(DN) The editor was in the printing office, reading.

(DT) There was also a light in the printing-office, the editor being in his room reading.

So that was the situation at about 12:15 - Krantz was alone in the printing office. By the time of the discover, Krantz has the company of Yaffa. By which door did Yaffa reach the printing office, if any? Had it been the side door, Yaffa is seemingly out in the yard before 12:40. This is reminiscent of Lave, but if Yaffa is female, obviously this is someone else.

[The Rookie Detective]

Thanks for the pictures.

I'm really not sure about there being a back door.

Wess: The passage leads from the front room to the yard.

Why would the passage end in a blank wall? It just makes sense to me that there would be a door at each end of the passage.

When Wess went out the back, he makes an interesting observation.

(DN) The editor was in the printing office, reading.

(DT) There was also a light in the printing-office, the editor being in his room reading.

So that was the situation at about 12:15 - Krantz was alone in the printing office. By the time of the discover, Krantz has the company of Yaffa. By which door did Yaffa reach the printing office, if any? Had it been the side door, Yaffa is seemingly out in the yard before 12:40. This is reminiscent of Lave, but if Yaffa is female, obviously this is someone else.

Its difficult to know with Yaffa


As a maiden name, it's certainly female

But as a surname it can be either.


Because of the usual primary reference to surnames, I would presume that Yaffa was a man (who had a feminine surname)

However, it could also have geographical connotations.

Yaffa literally means "beautiful" in Yiddish

But it's also the name of a port city in Israel.