Stride..a victim?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The facts are that Israel was not involved in any way with the Inquest into Strides death, and with the content of his statement, the only conceivable reason for his not being involved is that they did not have faith in his statement.

That is a classic Argument from Ignorance. All that you are saying is that you can not come up with another reason.

c.d.

Thats exactly what he’s doing c.d. And ignoring Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren who all show in black and white that the police were still very much interested in Schwartz evidence into November.

It’s a case of blindfolds on and fingers in the ears I’m afraid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I dont dispute much of the above, but what can be made of these facts is another thing. People expressing belief isnt evidence, its people expressing belief. Abberline bought Hutchinson too, all part of his wishful thinking campaign I suppose. The facts are that Israel was not involved in any way with the Inquest into Strides death, and with the content of his statement, the only conceivable reason for his not being involved is that they did not have faith in his statement. It was not deemed worthy, yet by its content and description, it should have been THE most important statement of this investigation.

There is no way around this Herlock, he wasnt there because his story wasnt backed by the police.

I have to say that I’m staggered. Then again I should be used to it by now. The FACTS are that the police were still talking about Schwartz as a valued witness long after the Inquest at levels from Abberline through to Warren with information going to Matthews. How the hell can you keep ignoring these FACTS simply to perpetuate a theory. We have to look for another reason for Schwartz non-attendance because the FACTS tell us in black and white that it wasn’t because they dismissed Schwartz. That idea is no longer remotely tenable in the real world.

As for Fanny, all she really adds is an off and on view of the street from 12:35 until 1am. During which time she saw only Goldstein, the young couple she saw earlier. She later spoke with the young couple, and they saw nothing either. So what really does her statement add to the question of How Liz Stride Died? Nothing really. She is only valuable for what she didnt see...Israel, BSM, Liz on the street after 1am, Eagle returning, Lave by the gates, Louis arriving at "precisely" 1. And before hearing that Louis might have been off when he said that, its his word, not mine. He insisted it was 1 on the dot.

What did Catherine Lane and Elizabeth Tanner add to the ‘how’ and ‘when’ Stride died and yet they appeared?

The only way you folks can argue the facts is by disputing the majority of corroborated accounts, questioning their accuracy and/or supporting accounts which have no validation in any other witness evidence.

From the man who is now disputing Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren. Sheesh

And Im the one accused of "conspiring" ideas.

The theory has crumbled with minimum effort. It’s a typical conspiracy theory. Prod it and it falls. Your witnesses are next to useless (though it’s noticeable that you won’t discuss them individually because you know how weak they are). Your idea about Schwartz is categorically disproven in black and white. Give it up.

[c.d.]

The facts are that Israel was not involved in any way with the Inquest into Strides death, and with the content of his statement, the only conceivable reason for his not being involved is that they did not have faith in his statement.

That is a classic Argument from Ignorance. All that you are saying is that you can not come up with another reason.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I dont dispute much of the above, but what can be made of these facts is another thing. People expressing belief isnt evidence, its people expressing belief. Abberline bought Hutchinson too, all part of his wishful thinking campaign I suppose. The facts are that Israel was not involved in any way with the Inquest into Strides death, and with the content of his statement, the only conceivable reason for his not being involved is that they did not have faith in his statement. It was not deemed worthy, yet by its content and description, it should have been THE most important statement of this investigation.

There is no way around this Herlock, he wasnt there because his story wasnt backed by the police.

As for Fanny, all she really adds is an off and on view of the street from 12:35 until 1am. During which time she saw only Goldstein, the young couple she saw earlier. She later spoke with the young couple, and they saw nothing either. So what really does her statement add to the question of How Liz Stride Died? Nothing really. She is only valuable for what she didnt see...Israel, BSM, Liz on the street after 1am, Eagle returning, Lave by the gates, Louis arriving at "precisely" 1. And before hearing that Louis might have been off when he said that, its his word, not mine. He insisted it was 1 on the dot.

The only way you folks can argue the facts is by disputing the majority of corroborated accounts, questioning their accuracy and/or supporting accounts which have no validation in any other witness evidence.

And Im the one accused of "conspiring" ideas.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The discussion about Schwartz is unaffected by later statements in the Police Gazette about the extent his story was believed by the person quoted. We can see easily when there were witnesses to handle with care due to their statements, like Lawende and his sighting of who he believes was Kate and Sailor Man. Granted, different jurisdictions, but Lawende, whose statement doesnt contain any of the immediacy of Schwartz's or an assault on the soon to be victim, is sequestered and instructed to withhold some details pending further investigations. He is an active participant in Kates Inquest, and duly noted.

Israel Schwartz, the last sighting of Liz on paper...just like Lawendes sighting of Kate,... is completely absent in any surviving record the Strides Inquest. No in camera, no written submission, no notice he or his story was being withheld, ergo... he is not a part of Strides Inquest.

Which is astounding if he is believed to be the last person to see her alive, and see her assaulted no less.

Anyone using Schwartz in any investigation into this murder should be cautious about using him as anymore than a footnote. Like Packer.

And yet we have Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren all giving credence to what he’d said. Why should we ignore what the police actually said at the time. And not only what they said but what they were telling the Home Secretary. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that they had dismissed Stride. They were apparently looking for a ‘Lipski’ on the strength of what he’d told them. So unless it’s being suggested that a wide ranging campaign of rather pointless misinformation was being perpetrated by the police (which incidentally would entail the police [including Warren] publicising a Jewish name when on the same night Warren had had the graffito scrubbed out in fear of anti-semitic riots) I can’t see how the suggestion of a dismissal of Schwartz holds water.

Did they need Schwartz to establish a TOD? Smith was confident that he’d seen Stride at 12.30. Blackwell gave a TOD of around 12.55. When Schwartz walked away Stride was still alive so he could add to any close assessment of her TOD. So was he really needed? If he had expressed concern for his or even his family’s safety the Coroner might have taken this into consideration. Then there was the need for an interpreter. Maybe one wasn’t available until too late or that the Coroner was reluctant to pay for one?

Might we not ask why Fanny Mortimer wasn’t called? She could have contributed more than some of the witnesses that were actually called.

[Michael W Richards]

The discussion about Schwartz is unaffected by later statements in the Police Gazette about the extent his story was believed by the person quoted. We can see easily when there were witnesses to handle with care due to their statements, like Lawende and his sighting of who he believes was Kate and Sailor Man. Granted, different jurisdictions, but Lawende, whose statement doesnt contain any of the immediacy of Schwartz's or an assault on the soon to be victim, is sequestered and instructed to withhold some details pending further investigations. He is an active participant in Kates Inquest, and duly noted.

Israel Schwartz, the last sighting of Liz on paper...just like Lawendes sighting of Kate,... is completely absent in any surviving record the Strides Inquest. No in camera, no written submission, no notice he or his story was being withheld, ergo... he is not a part of Strides Inquest.

Which is astounding if he is believed to be the last person to see her alive, and see her assaulted no less.

Anyone using Schwartz in any investigation into this murder should be cautious about using him as anymore than a footnote. Like Packer.

[caz]

What if BS Man left after realising that he was getting nowhere with Stride and the killer stepped in to offer ‘consolation?’ Maybe Pipeman was actually the killer? Maybe this partially explains the risky location with the killer thinking that the situation with Stride and BS Man was an opportunity too good to pass up and maybe Liz told him that she used that spot regularly and she ‘knew’ that customers always left by the front door?

Hi Herlock,

The strength of your suggestion lies in the fact that BS Man would be the obvious person of interest for the police to concentrate on, and the killer [either Pipeman, or someone else moving in when Stride was alone again, collecting herself] would realise this and be able to take full advantage.

Moreover, a similar situation presented itself to Mark Dixie in 2005, when he murdered Sally Anne Bowman in South Croydon. He waited and watched from the shadows while she had an argument with her ex boyfriend in his car, and when he drove off Dixie pounced as Sally walked towards her house. If it hadn't been for DNA evidence, which cleared her boyfriend, he'd have been the only suspect. Dixie was identified the following year, when he was arrested after a pub brawl and had to give a DNA sample.

Sally was also the second woman Dixie targeted that night. He was interrupted at the first location [noooo, surely not??] by a passing taxi, which spooked him and allowed the woman to survive the attempted assault and describe her frightening ordeal. Frustrated, and high on drugs, Dixie immediately went off in search of another victim, and when he spotted poor Sally and her ex having the ding-dong, he waited and took full advantage, using horrific violence during the murder.

If Dixie had stabbed that first woman to death before running off, she couldn't have reported the incident, and I don't know if the taxi driver was ever found or saw anything of what happened as he drove past. Sally was raped when she was already dead or dying, but there would have been no evidence of an interruption in the earlier victim's case if he had left her dead but didn't dare hang around to rape her.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

And so, as per post #1011, I think that we can now pretty safely dismiss the suggestion that the police had lost faith in Schwartz as a witness as a reason for his non-attendance at the Inquest. So this leaves us with 4 witnesses. One of whom said that he saw the body at 1.00 so he can be dismissed as we can’t seriously quibble about 5 minutes or so. One of them gives two times in the same statement (both guesses) but then more tellingly a time that’s linked to the arrival of a Police Officer. So he can certainly be dismissed. The final 2 both use words like ‘about’ which show that they hadn’t checked a clock when they first heard about the murder (and why would they have?)

Schwartz obviously can’t be dismissed as a liar. I’m not saying that it’s impossible that he could have lied or exaggerated in some way just that we can’t prove or assume it.

Of the four witnesses 2 can very easily be struck off the list while the remaining 2 were simply indulging in guesswork.

And Fanny Mortimer gives 2 versions of what she did that night. One has her on her doorstep for nearly the whole time between 12.30 and 1.00 while the other has her spending no more than 10 minutes of 30. She puts herself on her doorstep from around 12.45 until 12.55 but she’s contradicting a Constable on his beat who’d just passed a clock. And so if the Constable was correct she was back inside when Schwartz passed.

So I think we can very safely sum up by saying.....no mystery here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So what works if Israel was correct about witnessing an assault on the to be murdered woman, and the approximate time of that witnessing?
What is the most plausible scenario for Stride and the b-s man, after he throws her to the pavement?

What if BS Man left after realising that he was getting nowhere with Stride and the killer stepped in to offer ‘consolation?’ Maybe Pipeman was actually the killer? Maybe this partially explains the risky location with the killer thinking that the situation with Stride and BS Man was an opportunity too good to pass up and maybe Liz told him that she used that spot regularly and she ‘knew’ that customers always left by the front door?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What made you change your mind?



Until when? He could not have calculated that the man on the cart would go inside without spotting the body and stopping beside it.
When that did occur, he would have been left trapped at the back of the yard, if indeed he had chosen to hide, rather than climb.

I haven’t changed my mind as it wasn’t fixed in the first place. All I’m saying is that either the killer left via the gate or that he somehow escaped from the back of the yard.

On your second point I agree. He couldn’t have known of course and he wouldn’t have had much time to make calculations and deductions. As he heard the cart which seemed to him to have been slowing down he ducked into the shadows hoping that the cart went past the yard but when it turned into the gate he was trapped of course. He watches Diemschutz and also looks around to see if he can see any way to escape but, when he sees Diemschutz go inside, he thinks “this is my chance” and he goes for the gate.

Its certainly a risky choice of location.

.....

Alternatively, as I’ve said in an earlier post, could the open door (as mentioned by Mr Diemschutz) have been what disturbed the killer? Causing him to flee before Diemschutz arrived?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Although I think you're right, the evidence leaves room for the notion that they had been there already when Smith came down Berner Street and that he only looked at or noticed them when he went back up. Maybe they had just come from a shady recess offered by the board school.

Times of 6 October:
"When you saw them talking, which way did you go? - Straight up Berner-street into the Commercial-road."


They could also have come from Sander Street or the yard 4 houses north of Hamshire Court or the court right next to the Mission Hall (if they weresn't closed yards/courts, of course).

If any of these possibilities occur after a solicitation, he would have given her money, and they would have departed.

If they enter Berner street from further north than Hampshire Court, they have effectively followed Smith down Berner street.

Whatever the case, it seems unlikely that the parcel wrapped in newspaper is a stack of Arbeter Fraint copies.
What possibilities does that leave? A nearly half yard wide packet of grapes, or something more sinister...

We can only guess, there's no way of knowing or even intuiting their motives and intentions.

Regarding parcel man, have a guess what I guess...

That doesn't seem to be possible, as the Batty Street end of Hamshire Court seems to be closed, or at least it is on the map we're both looking at.

The Pall Mall Gazette article, would seem to suggest that these courts were thoroughfares.

Several references to Hampshire Court in The Batty Street Lodger thread.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There is evidence of a potential interruption with the pony and cart's arrival; Louis D's realisation that he nearly ran over Stride's dead or dying body; and the fact that the discovery must have been made within a few minutes of her throat being cut, which could easily have been done just as, or just after the killer heard the pony and cart approaching along Berner Street. In fact, if it was the sound itself that made the killer panic and make the fatal cut, that would deal neatly with the coincidental timing issue. No coincidence, just cause and effect. In this extremely plausible scenario, it wouldn't matter if he had planned to mutilate her or not. He'd still have needed to leave the body quick smart and make sure he couldn't be seen there until he could exit the yard safely.

The irony is that this scenario would have been even more likely if Louis had arrived around 12.40, five minutes or so after PC Smith had seen Stride alive, talking to a man who could well have been her killer. Once the copper had moved on, the killer may have thought he had a decent window to do the deed, but didn't allow for a pony and cart coming along when it did.

But it also works if the clock showed 1am when Louis passed it on his way to the yard, and was correct. The killer could have been in the yard with Stride, not ready or willing to launch an attack there. He could have been working on her, trying to persuade her to leave with him for a less risky location. Before he could get anywhere, the sound of the pony and cart would have ruined his plans, and he cut her throat in panic or frustration.

Love,

Caz
X

So what works if Israel was correct about witnessing an assault on the to be murdered woman, and the approximate time of that witnessing?
What is the most plausible scenario for Stride and the b-s man, after he throws her to the pavement?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why would you assume that the killer would make those kind of calculations on the spur of the moment? He hears the cart, ducks into the shadows then sees the cart pull into the yard. What else could he have done?

Good find Azarna

So it looks like it’s not impossible that the killer might have escaped from Dutfield’s Yard without using the gate. I wonder how this possibility will be explained away?

What made you change your mind?

If he’d seen other carts maybe he hid behind one?

Until when? He could not have calculated that the man on the cart would go inside without spotting the body and stopping beside it.
When that did occur, he would have been left trapped at the back of the yard, if indeed he had chosen to hide, rather than climb.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just be discussing Schwartz and his non-appearance ar the Inquest with a friend. I asked his opinion on the suggestion that the police either didn’t take him seriously or had somehow lost faith in his value as a witness. His response interested me so I’ll post the gist of what he said.

.....

I don’t know why Schwartz wasn’t called but it can’t possibly be because the police had lost faith in him. In Swanson’s 19th October report to the Home Office there’s not a hint of disbelief about Schwartz. In actual fact Home Office officials, who had read Swanson’s report, said in late October that his statement “seems to furnish a clue.”

In response to a question about Schwartz from the Home Secretary Robert Anderson wrote to Charles Warren on November 5th saying:

'I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Department [i.e. the C.I.D.] based on the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name Lipski which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berner Street on the night of the murder was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself"

Warren repeated this on November 6th in his response to the Home Secretary.

While Anderson did use the words ‘alleges’ and ‘supposed’ he would surely have informed Warren that they had dismissed Schwartz evidence before Warren replied to the Home Secretary? Instead, based on a report from Abberline on November 1st, he told Warren that it was believed that the man seen assaulting Stride has shouted ‘Lipski’ at Schwartz so it’s not tenable to say that the police had lost faith in Schwartz.

It’s also noteworthy to remember that the police had been searching for a man called Lipski all through November as referenced in Abberline’s 1st November report. As with Swanson’s report there’s no hint that Abberline doubted Schwartz.

So we have all of the top men: Warren, Anderson, Swanson and Abberline all writing as if Schwartz evidence was true.

Maybe the fact that Schwartz required an interpreter may have affected the decision on whether to call him at the Inquest or not. Ido t know the position on interpreters at Inquests but it may have been that the Coroner was expected to have paid for his services. Perhaps he didn’t want to spend the money? Also an Inquest isn’t a murder investigation. It’s to find out how and when the victim died. If the police had suspect then of course Schwartz would have to be called as the jury would have had to have decided whether to send the suspect for trial. But that apart, what could Schwartz have added about Stride’s death? He hadn’t seen her being killed and he couldn’t identify the man that he saw assaulting her. It’s true that the same could have been said for other witnesses but the fact that the Coroner might have been unenthusiastic about paying for an interpreter might have tipped the balance.

What if Schwartz had been contacted by the Coroner to appear but he’d told him that he was too afraid for his safety to appear and asked to be excused? The Coroner might have felt that there was no need for him to appear. The police already had his statement. It was for the Police to investigate his evidence not the Coroner or the Coroner’s jury.

Im speculating but it certainly seems dangerous to conclude that he didn’t appear because or the Police or the Coroner didn’t believe him.

.....

There certainly appears to be no basis at all for suggesting that the Police had lost faith in Schwartz. The evidence of the top police at the time totally point away from this so I think that we need another explanation. I think my friends suggestion is reasonable and logical and maybe the one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And we can't know what might constitute the "interruption".

Was it only at the point where Diemschultz actually came in to the yard? Perhaps unlikely as the murder had the least chance to hide or run at this point, though this is also the actual point at which the murderer was actually at risk of being caught in the act.

Or when the murderer heard the pony cart slow and begin to turn, and realized it was coming in the yard? My favourite "candidate" as at this point the murderer would have realized he was just about to be caught, so would have had to take action quickly, and had a moment to do so.

Or when the murderer first heard the pony cart coming down the road? Would he have been so jumpy as to have dropped Liz and hid or legged it as soon as he heard an approaching cart, even though there was probably more chance it was just passing traffic? Considering he is committing a murder in a yard right next to a noisy club, I don't picture him as being this nervy.

Or maybe something else disturbed him, such as a movement from the club, or a sound? Just before Deimschultz turned up.

Or even something like he realized he had got blood on himself during the throat cutting, and he panicked and legged it at this point... or a host of other possible "interruptions".

I’d go for that as my likeliest time too Azarna. Perhaps he heard the cart and thought to himself “it sounds like he might be slowing down,” so he ducked into the shadows and waits to see if the cart passes by?

In post #1007 Ive also suggested the side door opening as a possible source of interruption with the killer exiting before Diemschutz arrived.