Suspect Witnesses?

[New Waterloo]

The couple referred to in this post was said to be young, whereas James Brown was almost certain the woman he saw was the woman he was later shown at the mortuary, who was neither young nor alive. Other than that problematic issue, the notion of the board school couple being the young couple who spoke to Fanny Mortimer, results in another serious issue.

During his summing up, Coroner Baxter said:

A quarter of an hour afterwards James Brown, of Fairclough-street, passed the deceased close to the Board school. A man was at her side leaning against the wall, and the deceased was heard to say, "Not to-night, but some other night." Now, if this evidence was to be relied on, it would appear that the deceased was in the company of a man for upwards of an hour immediately before her death, and that within a quarter of an hour of her being found a corpse she was refusing her companion something in the immediate neighbourhood of where she met her death. But was this the deceased?

The Coroners statement here is difficult to understand. When he says 'if this evidence is to be relied on' he suggest it somehow proves that Stride was in the company of a man for some considerable amount of time. Does the Coroner mean that she has been with him a long time without being killed?

Why would the coroner be speculating on the identity of the woman seen by Brown, as late as October 23, when the police would have spoken to the couple weeks before, thus determining their identity? Compared to Brown, this couple were situated much closer to the murder for much longer, were outside for all the relevant period, rather than inside for most of it, and possibly remained at the scene after the alarm was raised, for a significant period. Why would the coroner not summon one or both of this couple, instead of or in addition to Brown? By stating they were at the board school corner leading up to the murder, they would have removed the need to speculate on the woman's identity.

Even after failing to summon this couple, Inspector Reid had the opportunity during Brown's testimony, to explain to the coroner that both the man and woman Brown referred to had been identified. Reid did not take that opportunity.

It seems we must suppose that although the couple had been very close to the murder in both time and space, hung around long enough to speak to Fanny Mortimer, and received anonymous mention in the press, the police were never able to identify them.

I think the Coroner is questioning who this couple is, is because it doesn't quite fit. So he is saying 'was this the deceased' to help explain why the murderer hangs around with someone so long before being given the cold shoulder by Stride and then kills her shortly afterwards. It does highlight an important point though. Which is this;

If it was indeed Stride, then she has at that very point in time whilst by the Board School, stated that she does not want to engage in any (probably sexual) activity with him and therefore is very unlikely to have entered the yard with him where she was murdered. Its confusing the coroner. The man with Stride seen by Brown has been rebuffed at that point in time and unlikely to then be able to entice her into the yard. She is a woman who has lived in that area with all its drunks and problems and would have been quite able to send him on his way whilst in an open street.

The question which should have been asked is who is the new man with Stride who has replaced Parcel/shortcoat man.

Hope that makes some sense.

NW

[NotBlamedForNothing]

”My beat was past Berner- street, and would take me twenty-five minutes or half an hour to go round.”

So, add the 2 minutes' walk from Commercial Rd to the yard, and we have a total of 27 minutes. Right on the money.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As you know, we are discussing times suggested by yourself, not me. I'm commenting on your suggestions and pointing out the some of the logical absurdities they result in.



This means you are starting with a conclusion in mind, rather than reaching one after considering all available evidence. A common mistake.

You are the one who keeps trying to narrow down the duration of Smith’s beat to 25 minutes when he himself said that his beat took 25-30 minutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, add the 2 minutes' walk from Commercial Rd to the yard, and we have a total of 27 minutes. Right on the money.

I don’t know what you are trying to say. Smith arrived after Lamb and Lamb arrived after Diemschitz had found the body. If Smith first passed at 12.35 (which was one of the times that he estimated) and his beat took him 30 minutes (which was one of the times that he estimated) then he would have got to the yard around 1.05.

Again Andrew….where is the problem?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As previously noted, your initial response to this was to agree that a literal reading does indeed have his wife moving out on her own. Evidently you soon after realised that agreeing with me on that point was a terrible mistake.

No. I stated from the off that it means what it said. That Mrs Schwartz was doing the move while Isreal was out. We can deduce nothing from that. It never stops you though.


Spelling this out, you would be saying that for Schwartz to remain living in Ellen St after his wife moved out, it is not odd that he is looking for evidence of his wife's move while on Berner St after midnight, and just happens to see a woman assaulted at a gateway to a passage that leads to temporary or longer-term accommodation, used mainly by young Jewish immigrants.

I don’t think that it’s even remotely odd. He was looking to see if the move had gone ahead at that time because that was the time that he returned and he couldn’t have checked if the move had taken place if he hadn’t been there.

People see incidents in the street all the time. There’s nothing remotely suspicious about this.

By the way, what might have prompted her move - domestic violence perhaps?

Maybe she had discovered that her husband was a vampire…or that the ghost of Sir Francis Drake had told her to leave…or she was having an affair with Montague John Druitt…or there was a leyline running through the Ellen Street home….or….

they just moved house for some unknown but prosaic reason like millions of people do.

I've already stated that my best guess is that Brown's man was the murderer and if true was probably the Ripper.

As for Schwartz, I think Wess knew that something had occurred and exploited it. This placed Schwartz at risk, so he went to the police to tell them his side of the story.

Schwartz wasn’t involved in anything. Don’t you tire of these fantasies?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, I'm not qualified but you are?

All we know for sure was that Stride's left side was heavily muddied. Therefore, I suppose the blood is not going to flow quickly and will take quite a while to start pooling at a significant distance from the body. I'm not imagining streams or puddles of water for which we have no evidence.

You have no basis in evidence for that.

In an important sense, the slow pooling of blood is good news, as it means the Deimschitz interruption theory is out, thus cutting down the number of possible scenarios we have to consider.

And not a single person at the time stood up and doubted the possibility of interruption. So without seeing the crime scene you feel that you can secondly guess those that did?

[Paddy Goose]

... my best guess is that Brown's man was the murderer and if true was probably the Ripper.

This is okay with me because it is as good a guess as any. Good on you.

What you said next though, confuses the heck out of me.

As for Schwartz, I think Wess knew that something had occurred and exploited it. This placed Schwartz at risk, so he went to the police to tell them his side of the story.

It confuses me firstly because we have no idea if Wess and Schwartz ever met each other.

Starting with this -What do you think Wess knew?

[FrankO]

The couple referred to in this post was said to be young, whereas James Brown was almost certain the woman he saw was the woman he was later shown at the mortuary, who was neither young nor alive.

Okay, Andrew, so what is it that you want to say? That there were 2 couples who had been standing at the corner of the board school? One, not seen by Brown, that was standing there for about 20 minutes until the commotion started and one, seen by Brown, that was standing there some 15 to 20 minutes before Brown heard screams of "Police" and "Murder"?

Furthermore, Brown indeed admitted that he wasn't certain the woman he saw was Stride and that's logical because he also admitted the spot where they stood was quite dark. And, of course, we shouldn't forget how unreliable witness descriptions generally are or how difficult it is, as a witness, to be sure of (aspects of) a person you saw.

All of this, however, has absolutely no bearing on the scenario I offered: that the Schwartz incident could well have happened during the 3 or 4 minutes that Brown was in the chandler shop & before the couple arrived at the corner of the board school.

Why would the coroner be speculating on the identity of the woman seen by Brown, as late as October 23, when the police would have spoken to the couple weeks before, thus determining their identity?

Two things:
1) we don't know whether the police spoke to the couple; it seems they didn't, even though that might seem odd to us now
2) aparently, the coroner wasn't sure about her identity and so, he speculated; and perhaps he speculated precisely because the police hadn't spoken to the couple and because Brown had admitted that he wasn't absolutely sure about it.

Compared to Brown, this couple were situated much closer to the murder for much longer, were outside for all the relevant period, rather than inside for most of it, and possibly remained at the scene after the alarm was raised, for a significant period. Why would the coroner not summon one or both of this couple, instead of or in addition to Brown?

That is a question we, unfortunately, don't have the answer to.

Even after failing to summon this couple, Inspector Reid had the opportunity during Brown's testimony, to explain to the coroner that both the man and woman Brown referred to had been identified. Reid did not take that opportunity.

Neither the woman nor the man that Brown saw had been identfied.

It seems we must suppose that although the couple had been very close to the murder in both time and space, hung around long enough to speak to Fanny Mortimer, and received anonymous mention in the press, the police were never able to identify them.

That indeed seems to be the case.